Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Fallible · **#961** by **Fallible** » Apr 25, 2014 12:20 pm

That's entirely your problem.

John Platko · **#962** by **John Platko** » Apr 25, 2014 12:21 pm

Paul wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Paul wrote:

You're still evading the original request. I can only take it you are unable to back up the assertion that you made (well infact I'm fairly certain you can't, but I can't be arsed to go and look again)
When I did my cursory check earlier it looks like there was only one person making repeated references to 'scientific evidence', and that person was you.

Any more comments like the above will be taken as trolling.

I'm simply pointing out requests I get for scientific evidence of supernatural events as they come in so I can demonstrate that indeed atheists make such requests. I don't see why that isn't sufficient to prove my point. And it has now been well established that I am not the only person making repeated references to scientific evidence.

And you cannot provide the evidence so you admitting therefore this whole notion of supernaturalism is what it is just a word with no use or meaning. That is why any further discussion in null and void.

Scot, perhaps you didn't get the memo, but the to and fro between me and John Plakto is about his assertion, some pages back, that "atheists persist in asking for 'scientific evidence' of the supernatural". As far as I can tell, apart from him, you are the only other person in the thread who has mentioned 'scientific evidence', and that was after his dumb unevidenced assertion.

He thinks you have undermined my position and appears to be feeling quite chuffed about it.

So 'an atheist' has asked for 'scientific evidence' - that's still not 'atheists persist' in the way it was asserted

As far as I am concerned there is only 'evidence', and any evidence presented for anything supernatural has always failed to actually stand up to scrutiny and reasoning.

Whatever - he has no evidence, just pathetic word games and evasion.

THAT's what you choose to hang your hat on! :lol:

Animavore · **#963** by **Animavore** » Apr 25, 2014 12:22 pm

I suggested a way we can test for reincarnation earlier in the thread.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/relig ... l#p1984966

Laurens · **#964** by **Laurens** » Apr 25, 2014 12:27 pm

The most "compelling evidence" I've seen is generally imaginative children being suggested to by their credulous parents. The child agrees to these suggestions and thus their child that was once just pretending to fly an airplane, is now the reborn soul of a WW2 fighter pilot.

John Platko · **#965** by **John Platko** » Apr 25, 2014 12:30 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Regina wrote:
BlackBart wrote:

Does John have evidence that the causality is supernatural?

Of course not. This flaw in his thinking has been pointed out right at the beginning: if the supernatural interacts with the natural world, and is inextricably part of it which can be demonstrated wonderfully with this whole reincarnation business, then it is subject to scientific exploration. His central premise has never taken off.

That's just wrong. The supernatural could interact with the natural world in a causal way that is not repeatable and therefore will not yield to scientific exploration. Or the supernatural could interact with the natural world in an acausal way- and how is science going to deal with that.

Once again John at is getting very tiresome, you are making blind assertions without any evidence. Science does not have to deal with it unless you can produce the evidence. You are making the claim prove it.

What is getting very tiresome is people asking for scientific evidence (or the equivalent ) for supernatural phenomenon.

Why do you persist in this manner after it has been repeatedly pointed out that scientific evidence is not appropriate for investigating the supernatural. On the other hand the dough ball method seems fine.

For example, If God exists and if God occasionally heals someone at Lourdes at some low unpredictable rate how will science detect that supernatural event. And if reincarnation actually happens but memory distortion across the life-death-life interfaces prevents reliable scientific investigation then we may have to rely on doughballs.

Another assertion John! Please save us all the crap. Where is your evidence? You have none and cannot produce it therefore everything you are asserting falls down around you.

That was not an assertion, it was more like two questions with bad punctuation- sorry.

Like I said in my former life I had many conversations with Einstein and according to your measure I don't have to prove anything. What do you think of that? I suppose even a talk with some carpenter called jesus could also be on the cards. Do you see where we are going John? The way is long and also can be very wide but I don't have to prove anything.

I'm not really following you here. Are you proposing some kind of thought experiment?

Cito di Pense · **#966** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 25, 2014 12:31 pm

John Platko wrote:Much evidence has been provided for seemingly supernatural events like reincarnation.

Oh, since you're such an expert, I guess you'd know what the evidence is:

John Platko wrote:Cut me some slack, I'm a Christian, this reincarnation stuff is new to me.

John Platko wrote:I'm no expert on reincarnation

Animavore · **#967** by **Animavore** » Apr 25, 2014 12:34 pm

I once heard of a spooky tale of the young girl in the backseat of the family car who, as the parents drove over a bridge by the lake in Drogheda, pointed to it and said, 'That's where I died.'
The parents checked and, sure enough, a guy drowned in that lake once.

Woo-ooo.

Bloody ghost stories is all they are. Including the Dali Lama's tale. Oh look! He picked up the same cane! Woo-ooo. Woo-ooooooo.

Sendraks · **#968** by **Sendraks** » Apr 25, 2014 12:35 pm

John Platko wrote:
Much evidence has been provided for seemingly supernatural events like reincarnation. Further discussion will only drive home the point that those who do not accept the evidence have no rational grounds for doing so.

Well as all the evidence is anecdotal and untestable, it doesn't demonstrate that the supernatural actually exists, only that credulous folk throughout history have chosen to believe in it.

John Platko · **#969** by **John Platko** » Apr 25, 2014 12:42 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:Hey John admit all your assertions amount to:

Just so we're all on the same page. I have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that scientific evidence and the scientific method has no business poking it's nose around supernatural events and such.

Also proven beyond all reasonable doubt is that there is evidence for reincarnation.

The question that remains is: why do some persist in not accepting this evidence? That is, what are their grounds for rejecting evidence of reincarnation? (Note: I'll add, it has also been demonstrated that appeals to "common sense" are null and void in this circumstance.)

My hunch is that those who reject the evidence for reincarnation only have their "bullshit detector" to fall back on. But what exactly is a "bullshit detector". Is this really just an appeal to some disguised deity? Is this an actual organ of the body? If so, please show it. What scientific evidence is there for a "bullshit detector"? What data does a "bullshit detector" operator on?

I fear where the discussion will lead but we must push on.

Animavore · **#970** by **Animavore** » Apr 25, 2014 12:48 pm

No evidence has been provided for reincarnation. You've told us a story, that is all.

Agrippina · **#971** by **Agrippina** » Apr 25, 2014 12:48 pm

John Platko said:

Also proven beyond all reasonable doubt is that there is evidence for reincarnation.

Please show me that evidence.

John Platko · **#972** by **John Platko** » Apr 25, 2014 12:49 pm

BlackBart wrote:
John Platko wrote:
BlackBart wrote:
John Platko wrote:

Well, for example, sometimes the Doughball method is used to determine if someone is the reincarnation of someone else.

http://www.esoterism.ro/english/tibetan ... nation.php

How would you go about determining whether or not to accept the evidence that comes out of the doughball?

Fucking hell, John, seriously?! That's what's known as a lottery!

ohhh, perhaps you missed a previous thread where I explained in great detail the value of pseudo random function generators and their relationship to the supernatural.

Oh, so suddenly the supernatural has an effect on something does it? Ten minutes you were claiming it didn't affect the natural world.

You have a misunderstanding. The supernatural may effect the natural world! All that has been established is that the supernatural can not effect the natural world in a way that scientific methods can explore it. Putting it another way, the supernatural must effect the natural world in ways that evade scientific methods. If the scientific method can explain what is thought to be supernatural then obviously that was a misclassification error and it is natural.

It's related to the supernatural phenomenon of synchronicity and the whole area of acausal events. Great scientific minds tried to apply the tools of science to it, Einstein, Pauli, Jung, etc. etc. they couldn't make a dent in it. It's pretty hard to figure out how to approach events that are connected by meaning instead of cause and effect. I'm no reincarnation expert but I'm guessing the doughballs work on the principle of synchronicity.

"Guessing". Well that about sums it up.

As Albert Einstein may have put it, "Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous. -” so I'm thinking God is in the doughballs.

Whoaaa, where did God come from John? I thought we were talking about reincarnation? Which is it?

It's hard to talk about reincarnation without bringing in the supernatural.

John Platko · **#973** by **John Platko** » Apr 25, 2014 12:51 pm

BlackBart wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Regina wrote:
BlackBart wrote:

Does John have evidence that the causality is supernatural?

Of course not. This flaw in his thinking has been pointed out right at the beginning: if the supernatural interacts with the natural world, and is inextricably part of it which can be demonstrated wonderfully with this whole reincarnation business, then it is subject to scientific exploration. His central premise has never taken off.

That's just wrong. The supernatural could interact with the natural world in a causal way that is not repeatable and therefore will not yield to scientific exploration. Or the supernatural could interact with the natural world in an acausal way- and how is science going to deal with that.

Well, if this effects of this 'supernatural thingy' are totally random, there's no reason to conclude there's a supernatural thingy in the first place.

There's no reason to assume they are totally random.

For example, If God exists and if God occasionally heals someone at Lourdes at some low unpredictable rate how will science detect that supernatural event. And if reincarnation actually happens but memory distortion across the life-death-life interfaces prevents reliable scientific investigation then we may have to rely on doughballs.

Again, if this God is indistinguishable from background noise there's no reason to conclude he's there in the first place.

And God? Again? Wasn't it you who was bleating about keeping on topic earlier?

I think we're still on topic. Sometimes an example from a related field can help clear up misunderstandings.

John Platko · **#974** by **John Platko** » Apr 25, 2014 12:53 pm

ElDiablo wrote:Summary of John's position on the supernatural:
The supernatural doesn't exist.
The supernatural exists.
The supernatural cannot be detected by natural means.
The supernatural cannot be tested with the natural tools.
The supernatural affects the natural world.
The supernatural's effects can be detected in the natural world.
Anything that is detected by natural tools is not supernatural.
Doughballs can be used as a supernatural tool.
Natural tools (the eyes) can observe doughballs used by a supernatural agent.
If natural tools detect a supernatural event, then it is not really supernatural.
Repeat from top....

Sendraks · **#975** by **Sendraks** » Apr 25, 2014 12:55 pm

John Platko wrote:
Just so we're all on the same page. I have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that scientific evidence and the scientific method has no business poking it's nose around supernatural events and such.

You've not proven that John, it was an already well established fact that once scientific method is applied to claims of the supernatural the tendancy is for science to demonstrate that either the claims are a) false or b) in no way conclusive for demonstrating the existence of a supernatural force at work.

The reason people claim that "scientific evidence and the scientific method has no business poking it's nose around supernatural events" is because what science finds is consistent with reality, which conflicts with their beliefs.

John Platko wrote:
Also proven beyond all reasonable doubt is that there is evidence for reincarnation.

You've proven that there is evidence that people believe in reincarnation. Not that reincarnation has ever actually occurred.

John Platko wrote:
The question that remains is: why do some persist in not accepting this evidence?

No one is rejecting the evidence that people believe in reincarnation.

John Platko wrote:
My hunch is that those who reject the evidence for reincarnation only have their "bullshit detector" to fall back on.

Your hunch is wrong.

John Platko · **#976** by **John Platko** » Apr 25, 2014 12:58 pm

Agrippina wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
John Platko wrote:

How can evidence not be evidence?

If it isn't accepted. We'll always have Paris. Cry me a river.

I'm struggling to wrap my mind around what you say here.

Perhaps an example would help. On what grounds would you not accept the evidence that was used to determine that the 14th Lama was the reincarnated 13th Lama? Please give all non scientific evidence that you use in your determination not to accept that evidence.

You see the problem is that whatever evidence we asked for, would be able to be tested empirically. I could ask a person claiming reincarnation to recount, in detail a specific event in the life of the person they claim to be that only that person would know. For instance, if someone had claimed to be the reincarnation of my grandfather, my dad could've asked them to describe in graphic detail what events led up to his death, which was exceptional. Only my grandfather would've known the interaction with his wife and family shortly before his death, from his perspective. They could recount the part my dad played in the event, which he would then be able to verify. See it's all empirical, it's not a matter of being "non-scientific."

It's not enough to imagine that you can do an experiment to prove the nature of the supernatural, you have to do it to prove you can do it. Get back to me after your peer reviewed law of reincarnation is accepted.

You're claiming that miracles are non-scientific, the conversion of wine into blood is non-scientific. They're not. A claimed miracle can be tested, as can the conversion of wine into blood by medical means. Thus your claims of non-scientific evidence just don't measure up.

The problem is not testing that the wine is wine. The problem is explaining how the water got to be wine.

John Platko · **#977** by **John Platko** » Apr 25, 2014 12:59 pm

Agrippina wrote:
John Platko wrote:
BlackBart wrote:
John Platko wrote:

I'm struggling to wrap my mind around what you say here.

Perhaps an example would help. On what grounds would you not accept the evidence that was used to determine that the 14th Lama was the reincarnated 13th Lama? Please give all non scientific evidence that you use in your determination not to accept that evidence.

What evidence John? Remember the flopping out on the table thing?

Well, for example, sometimes the Doughball method is used to determine if someone is the reincarnation of someone else.

http://www.esoterism.ro/english/tibetan ... nation.php

1)Doughball Divination: This method is practised mainly in the monasteries or by individual lamas when an important decisions needs to be made, such as in the search for the reincarnation of very high lamas. A number of possible answers to the enquiry, such as the names of likely candidates for a reincarnation, are written on slips of paper. These are then encased in equal sized balls of dough. Great care is taken to weigh the dough balls to ensure that they are exactly the same size. The doughballs are then placed in a bowl, which is carefully sealed and placed in front of a sacred object, such as the Jowo statue in the main temple in Lhasa, images of Dharma protectors or the funerary monuments of great lamas, requesting their inspiration in deciding the outcome. For a period of three days monks remain in the temple reciting prayers day and night. During that time no one is allowed to touch the bowl. On the fourth day, before all those present the cover of the bowl is removed. A prominent lama rolls the doughballs round in the bowl before the sacred object until one of them falls out. That is the ball containing the answer.

How would you go about determining whether or not to accept the evidence that comes out of the doughball?

That's as random as a roulette wheel.

What evidence do you base that assertion on?

John Platko · **#978** by **John Platko** » Apr 25, 2014 1:03 pm

Sendraks wrote:
John Platko wrote:
How would you go about determining whether or not to accept the evidence that comes out of the doughball?

Do a lot of tests to demonstrate whether the doughball divination had a sufficiently high incidence of providing correct answers.

How do you know it picked the actual person who was supposedly reincarnated other than by using an approved reincarnation test?

And as we've discovered in this thread, if you can use scientific methods to test reincarnation then reincarnation is a natural phenomenon not a supernatural one.

Agrippina · **#979** by **Agrippina** » Apr 25, 2014 1:04 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Autumn Clouds wrote:...
So, I've searched but found out the idea of Rebirth gets dissmised easily as "mumbo jumbo", I could see why, and try to but just can't see it. Maybe I'm still deluded after all, if you guys could help me out I'll be really greatful.

The implications of reincarnation would mean a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, which form the very most fundamental understanding of how our universe operates.

If we can't trust that most basic principle, then the only logical conclusion is that no knowledge of anything is ever possible and we might as well give up trying now and just intuit our way through the various mythical narratives of our pre-scientific ancestors.

I'd like to revisit this post.

@John Platko, care to respond?

John Platko · **#980** by **John Platko** » Apr 25, 2014 1:08 pm

Paul wrote:
ElDiablo wrote:Summary of John's position on the supernatural:
The supernatural doesn't exist.
The supernatural exists.
The supernatural cannot be detected by natural means.
The supernatural cannot be tested with the natural tools.
The supernatural affects the natural world.
The supernatural's effects can be detected in the natural world.
Anything that is detected by natural tools is not supernatural.
Doughballs can be used as a supernatural tool.
Natural tools (the eyes) can observe doughballs used by a supernatural agent.
If natural tools detect a supernatural event, then it is not really supernatural.
Repeat from top....

That about sums it up.

His sort of inconsistent, blather, dressed up in dishonest and condescending, pseudo-intellectual waffle is the very root of religions.

This sort of thing may take in the credulous and easily led, but the days of deference to pretentious, self-acclaimed, wannabe philosophers are gone. Enough people are well educated and logical enough to see right through their pathetic attempts to justify silly, inherited, ancient superstitious beliefs and their vain efforts to protect them from cold, hard reality.

I have been the model of consistency in this thread.

And as things stand. No one has been able to give any reasonable grounds for not accepting the evidence of reincarnation. To summarize clearly and accurately:

On the one side of the table we have evidence of reincarnation- dough balls and other non scientific tests.

On the other side we have people who refuse to accept that evidence and they can give no valid reason why.

Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Who is online