Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Again I will respond by leaving out entirely the personal attacks and personal comments about my writing style. No one is forcing you to reply to me and in fact you said you would not be but then did.

nagirrac wrote: »

Apologies about the blog link if you had difficulties opening some of the sub links.

As I said some of the sub links did not even point to the things they claimed they did. So really all I can do is work with what you present me directly, such as the blog link opinion piece above.

However the lack of substantiation in the sub links is not the only issue I raised. There are much much more things I raised which you have simply skipped over.

For example in one case we are simply told the child was "Questioned Thoroughly". The fact we have no access to what the questions were, let alone the answers, means the writer of this blog merely is preaching to the already faithful. We are simply asked to take it on faith the child was questioned at all, let alone thoroughly or with a useful methodology. And in fact one of the people in that link who presented his top 20 cases that evidence reincarnation did not even question one of the children at all. But people known to that child, over a decade later, in a culture who already believe in reincarnation. It is a mockery of confirmation bias and poor methodology that he, and by proxy you, are presenting as compelling and intellectually stimulating evidence.

As I pointed out: Children, when questioned by someone with an agenda, can very easily be led to the answers that person wants to hear. And the person with the agenda does not even have to be aware they are doing this. We have seen this all too often in cases such as child abuse where false positives were found by people simply asking the wrong questions.

So if you or anyone in a blog wants to tell me an allegedly reincarnated child was questioned then I want to know what questions, what answers, and under what conditions. Without that you may as well be claiming that the person they were reincarnated from showed up in spirit form, wearing a tiara, and munching on a lettuce leaf, and told you personally it is all true.... for all the good this "evidence" does me.

nagirrac wrote: »

Whether there is or is not something called reincarnation is not the larger question here

No. But you brought it up, not me. This is a thread about the existence of god. Reincarnation is, to my mind, entirely off topic and a thread derail. I just went with it in the hope that you were not derailing the thread but were in fact intending to illuminate your link and reason for bringing it up in the first place.

But I am seeing no evidence for reincarnation, much less from you. All I am seeing is people convinced that some children have knowledge the origin of which currently eludes them. And their lack of ability to find that origin compels them to make the COMPLETE non sequitur claim that this evidences that dead people somehow spiritually transfer into living people in the form of memories, personality or more.

If you find this intellectually stimulating then so be it, but I see nothing more here than yet more evidence that humans.... when confronted with open questions that highlight their own ignorance or lack of answers.... have a penchant for simply making stuff up because claiming to have ANY answer.... no matter how baseless and unsubstantiated..... is more emotionally comforting than having no answer at all. That perennial human fear of the phrase "I do not know".

For anyone interested in the general scientific consensus of Ian Stevenson's work on reincarnation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson#Reception

http://www.skepdic.com/stevenson.html

nagirrac wrote: »

Since when did The Skeptics Dictionary become "general scientific consensus"? A scientific consensus can only be reached scientifically by conducting a survey of scientists who have reviewed Stevenson's work carefully and thoroughly. Michael Shermer as spokesman for scientific consensus, really? He has a few credibility issues of his own these days if PZ Myers blog is to be taken seriously.

Wikipedia is soundly trashed by pseudoskeptics as a source when they don't agree with what's written. I agree, wiki is terribly suspect to biased input. Wiki can't be trusted, but of course it can be when it supports your view. Confirmation bias?

You will have to do better morbert

Actualy I won't have to do better. You imply the wikipedia article and the sceptics article do not accurately describe the scientific community's opinion of the research, but you don't offer any evidence to the contrary, bar some dubious ad hominem remarks.

To be clear: Are you claiming the Wikipedia segment (which cites heavily) is an inaccurate assessment of the consensus of the scientific community? I.e. Regardless of your opinion of his research, do you believe his research has been peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community as providing compelling evidence for reincarnation?

nagirrac wrote: »

Who are the scientists cited in the wiki segment morbert?

Paul Edwards is a moral philosopher. C.T. Chari is a parapsychologist, the field that pseudoskeptics refer to as pseudoscience. Leonard Angel is a philosopher of religion. Champe Ranson on whose testimony Edwards based his book (testimony never publically published, only given verbally to Paul Edwards) was a disgruntled former employee of Stevenson's.

Stevenson was the chair of the department of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine for 10 years and a professor of psychiatry for over 30 years. Surely his peers are those that worked in the same field as him? Both the Journal of the American Medical Association and the Journal of Nervous and Mental disease commented very favorably on his work (read the first paragraph of the wiki section). His peer Harold Lief referred to him as a methodical investigator, and this is someone writing contemporary with Stevenson and not someone writing 20 years later based on anecdotal testimony of one disgruntled individual.

Yes, you must do better mobert. Who are more credible, scientists working in the same field (psychiatry), or philosophers who don't like the idea of reincarnation? Liking an idea or not liking it are irrelevant to science.

You keep saying I have to do better. It's quite confusing.

For example, you tell me to read the first paragraph of the wiki section which mentions early interest in his work. Yet you say nothing about the second paragraph, which starts with the following sentence.

Despite this early interest, most scientists ignored Stevenson's work. According to his New York Times obituary, his detractors saw him as "earnest, dogged but ultimately misguided, led astray by gullibility, wishful thinking and a tendency to see science where others saw superstition."

Do you, or do you not, believe this is an accurate description of the scientific community's reaction to his work.

nagirrac wrote: »

No, for the same reasons you should reject it. Who are the detractors? I have read the New York Times Obituary and the only name mentioned was Leonard Angel writing in the Skeptical Inquirer, who literally word for word repeated what is written in Paul Edwards book (as is done in the other Skeptics Dictionary article you posted). All based on the testimony of a disgruntled former employee.

On one side you have the Journal of the American Medical Association and the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease who would have had his work carefully peer reviewed before publishing it, let alone commenting positively on it, and on the other side you have an attack on Stevenson's scientific methodology based on the testimony of a disgruntled former employee. I will leave it up to you which you choose to find more credible.

The acceptance of scientific research is measured by impact, which is determined by the number of citations papers receive. A high impact reflects the effect research has had on a field. Ian Stevenson's work on reincarnation has had little to no impact on psychiatry or related fields. You can argue that this is the fault of the scientific community, but the fact remains that psychiatry, biology, psychology, neurology Etc. have not integrated reincarnation into their body of knowledge.

nagirrac wrote: »

Humans do not accept "I do not know" as an answer.

No they do not. I wholly agree with you. But my point was different to that. The reaction to not accepting it seems to fall into two main camps.

Those that are terrified of it to the point that they are happier to simply make stuff up than not know.... and those that say "I do not know.... so lets see if we can find out". My respect lies 100% with the latter group and not at all with the former.

There are things I too do not like not knowing but at no point have I ever felt remotely compelled to make things up out of nowhere to plug those gaps in my knowledge.

Alas with your reincarnation links that seems to be EXACTLY what those you would laud praise on are engaged in. They consider a problem such as "Child X is in possession of knowledge Y..... how is this to be explained" and they simply make stuff up to explain it. In doing so they actually present a restatement of the problem AS evidence for their conclusion to it which would be comical if it were not tragic.

nagirrac wrote: »

Reincarnation is absolutely relevant to the question of God and frankly I am surprised at your claim it is off topic.

In your opinion it is. But it does not have to be. Which is why I wanted you to link them, not me. There could be, for all we know, entirely natural mechanisms by which things like reincarnation.... were there a single reason to think the phenomenon itself exists..... could occur. There is, for example, a thread on another forum I read discussing the whole concept of an "after life" without any notions of god or theism or the supernatural.

The two subjects are therefore not linked by default just because people who believe one commonly believe the other. The link has to come from you and I was merely pointing out it has not yet happened.

nagirrac wrote: »

Evidence for this is claimed in scientific studies of NDEs, OBEs and reincarnation.

As with your other posts you would have to present such evidence rather than vaguely assert its existence as if the mere mentioning of it is enough to make it exist. I certainly have not seen and scientific studies supporting any of the common notions of NDE as being anything other than an experience people had while not quite dead.

Rather I have consistently seen negative results in such studies I actually have taken the time to read. When for example people put unmissable attractive object in places that could only be seen by people who find themselves in the "traditional" locations normally reported in such cases.... such as floating above the operating table..... not a _single case has come back_ of someone claiming such experience of having seen those objects.

Were even ONE case to come back of someone following the claim "I was floating above my body and looking down at myself and the operating team" with a statement like "and did you know there was a very large unmissable flashing digital read out on top of that cupboard over there with the number "5599" on it..... I would instantly sit up and take notice.

The complete lack of such anecdote coming back from people in those rooms however is telling. So by all means present me these scientific studies you keep referring vaguely to. Preferably actual links rather than biased blogs that only vaguely refer to the existence of such studies in much the same way as you.

nagirrac wrote: »

You keep asking for evidence to support my claim, and when I provide it you ignore it.

An entirely disingenuous lie. For example I took nearly THREE DAYS OF MY TIME in reading and considering the blog link you provided and then I spent MANY paragraphs of my time summarising my impression of that link and the reasons why I reached those conclusions.

So in your dismissal of the time spent and the vast length of my replies to your links..... the only person doing the ignoring here is you. Why should I even bother to give you my assessment of your links if all you do when I do so is claim I ignored your links???? SOME decorum here please son.

nagirrac wrote: »

So, once again, I would be interested in your opinion on the following case.

nagirrac wrote: »

What is your opinion on the case I have now posted twice for you to consider? If you have no interest in reviewing it that's fine, we don't need to waste any more time on the topic.

Despite being accused of ignoring your evidence having actually spent three days reading it and many words replying to it, I am surprised to find I actually did also take the time to consider your link.

Actually your link does not work and for a long time I could not use it. However Chrome later offered me access to a "cached copy" and I have been reading that for some time.

This "case" exhibits much of the same issues I highlighted in your last link. Namely an almost methodological vaugeness in the exact places where it matters. We are asked to take too much on faith. At the opening for example it claims:

"the new personality that emerged spoke a language (Bengali) that the subject could not speak or understand in hernormal state. (She spoke Marathi and had some knowledge of Hindi, Sanskrit, and English.) A careful investigation of the subject‘s background and early life disclosed no opportunities for her to have learned to speak Bengali before the case developed."

What were the aspects of this "careful investigation" exactly? How did they ascertain this "fact"? The subject in this case was in her 30s which is a lot of time to cover in proving such a claim. The subject clearly has a split personality disorder, with separate personalities and even memories.

Who knows what that personality did over the years, were it went, what it learned and more. The paper very clearly states that the emergent personality suppresses the original so it is massively difficult to work out merely by asking the subject what they did, or did not, do over the years.

They also make the massively dangerous assumption that the extra personality came into existence at the time it was identified. Anyone even remotely interested or knowledgeable in this subject will know that symptoms and minor events and other personality events can all occur unnoticed long before the event or events that lead to an actual diagnosis.

The subject also had a life long interest in Bengal. So it is hardly surprising than an emerging split personality might have an interest in the language Bengali is it? She also had a father heavily interested in Bengal, its people, and their language. So who knows what she might have picked up from him at an early age. Children are sponges and much memories we think we have lost are actually still knocking around the noggin somewhere.

The paper claims her new language was "fluent" but I see nothing in the paper suggesting how this was ascertained scientifically. They just say they received oral anecdotal verification which they simply took as true.

Where is the hard data of linguistic tests to which she was put in order to verify the claim her language was fluent. Or did the writers of the paper simply listen to her babble and decide it sounded fluent to THEM? It says in the paper "We emphasize the word “fluently” because Sharada’s command of Bengali, according to our informants, deserves this adjective." which suggests they are taking subjective opinion on this rather than verifying it with anything approximating a standard linguistic test available in any linguistic centre of learning.

In fact they gloss over things that go against their agenda here. They mention but only in the vaugest of senses that some people noted imperfections in her language. They also gloss over with the vaugest of mentions that in one of their "tapes" the interviewer had to engage in a lot of urging and "repetition" in order to be understood. Her written language was also described by someone as "child like" but again no attempt seems to have been made to actually subject her to any kind of standardised linguistic test. Which as a scientist myself would have been literally the first thing I would have sought.

Hardly sounds "fluent" to me but even on the linguistic forums on boards people can enter into long debates over what "fluent" even means when it comes to language. They mention some tapes and transcripts. Were are they? From the Wikipedia article on Xenoglossy I see the case of Uttara Huddar was also mentioned there. That wiki link also mentions what I highlighted above that "Stevenson had recordings analysed by Bengali speakers, who disagreed among themselves about the subject's fluency."

The paper also acknowledged something I strongly suspected even before I read the acknowledgement. The languages are very similar.

"The “distance” between Marathi and Bengali is similar to, but perhaps rather less than, that between French and Italian or that between Swedish and German."


Worse the wiki article states: " It cannot be ruled out that the subject may have learned Bengali earlier in life: both she and her father had a long-standing interest in Bengal, her home city had 1% native Bengali speakers, she had read Bengali novels in translation, and she herself had taken lessons in reading Bengali." which seems to exactly contradict the claim in your link that "A careful investigation of the subject‘s background and early life disclosed no opportunities for her to have learned to speak Bengali before the case developed".

I lost count of how many times they said "We interviewed". As before.... under what conditions please? What questions? What responses? There is nothing there at all but this is important data for someone to peer review a paper.

They interviewed "a number of other persons who qualified as firsthand infor mants". Who? "Qualified" by what standards exactly? What was asked of them? What responses? Under what conditions?

A very large, if not the majority, of the paper in no way supports reincarnation and can be considered just "filler". Such as the paragraph about how the new personality lost knowledge of modern day utensils and objects like fountain pens. Whole swaths of the text, like this, are simply irrelevant to the claim being made on the papers basis.

So in summary: What I am seeing here is all the same methodlogical flaws I highlighted in your last link. By what I doubt is coincidence every single thing I would look for as a peer reviewer has been systematically left out of this paper. Including most importantly the actual questions and responses and conditions under which the alleged "interviews" took place.... and a standard formalised curriculum assessment of the verbal and written language of the subject.

My conclusion:: We have here without a doubt an unusual and interesting mental study of a patient with split personality disorder. We have open questions as to how and when she obtained certain skills and information, but as I stated in earlier posts open questions are not evidence for the conclusions you WANT to reach. They are just open questions.

The _standard_ of those open questions is however very low as the methodology for assessing the extend of her knowledge and actual linguistic skills was poor at best. Which is a shame because it should have been one of the easiest things to formalize. Instead we are offered a continuum of anecdotal opinion on her linguistic skills which range from "child like" and "imperfect" to "fluent" and it is clear the authors of the paper have biased the weight of their interest towards the latter end of the spectrum and glossed quickly over the former.

As evidence or even suggestion that the spirit or life force or skills or memories of a long dead woman have somehow transferred themselves into this woman however.... I quite literally see nothing at all. But by all means hand hold me in the direction of whatever you feel I have missed in my four (re)readings of this paper.

I trust / hope that THIS time my long time invested in reading the paper and long follow up time responding to it will not be brushed under the carpet followed by yet another accusation that I have been ignoring what you offered. I hope it is clear to all, not just you, that I have done the exact polar opposite of ignoring anything you have presented but have in fact engaged with it at quite some length and that any accusation otherwise has been as disingenuous as it has been false.

nagirrac wrote: »

Other than as a handy first line resource I am not a big fan of wiki

Nor am I directly, but I am a big fan of it as a reference method. So I go to the wiki articles, find what I want, and then follow the references from there. The problem I have here is that I have two claims, entirely unverifiable by me, but exactly contradicting.

The reference therefore is not Wiki per se, but a book called "Unlearned Language: New Studies in Xenoglossy".

On the one hand we have your paper claiming that this woman was verified... my methods and means entirely unmentioned.... to have never studied Bengali in her life.

On the other hand I have another wiki reference to a book that says she studied it in early life. Worse: As you pointed out yourself, the contradictory claims are coming from the SAME PERSON.

Two equally unsubstantiated contradictory claims and as such impossible for me to use to lend credibility to the claim that Reincarnation exists. But what I do know is that the claim to have been able to verify that a 30 year old woman _could never have learned a language in her whole life_ is a fantastical one and as such I am forced to ask "By what method was this ascertained", and you have avoided that question JUST as roundly as the original paper did.

And as I pointed out this is one of the areas where your "paper" was systematically vague. In fact every point in the paper where I found myself saying "In order to lend credence to what was just written I need to know X".... X was EXACTLY what the paper left out.

Such as, as I said, the methods by which her proficiency in the language was tested and verified. Or the questions, answers and conditions under which the various "interviews" vaguely reffered to were conducted.

The only thing this "paper" evidences for me is how bad some scientists are at writing up scientific papers.

Once again in summary, if you want this paper taken seriously then:

1) If you want to claim interviews were conducted then we need to know what questions, what answers and under what conditions.

2) If you want to claim a subject is "fluent" in a language then I need a working definition of "fluent" and the means by which the fluency was ascertained.

3) If you want to claim a 30 year old subject could never have done X in her life, then I want to know how this "fact" was ascertained.

These are the three points on which the whole agenda of the paper, and your linking to it, is based and they are woefully and almost systematically poorly substantiated.

nagirrac wrote: »

However, I stand by my assertion that you are ignoring the evidence.

You can stand by a false assertion all you like. But until the three points above are addressed then I am ignoring nothing, but explaining systematically and precisely exactly why your linked paper in no way supports the assertions you want to make off the back of it.

If you have a better link, or better evidence, then I remain as ever your servant. But I have the linking feeling that this mess of methodological flaws was actually you leading with your best foil.

nagirrac wrote: »

The question is how did they acquire memories of lifetimes in different locations, in different eras, and in different cultures.

You are repeating yourself, and repeating things we already agree on. In a case where a child has knowledge that surprises us then yes, the question IS how they obtained that knowledge.

The problem for me, as I have said in a number of posts now, is that people trying to sell the reincarnation hypothesis are using those questions AS evidence for their conclusion.

I have no use for, nor more time for, arguments that are even remotely of the form "Subject X knows Y, I do not know how Subject X knows Y, therefore reincarnation".

Yet that is precisely the standard of "evidence" being offered in your blog link, and your most recent "paper" link.

You try to limit this to only "two possibilities". But you are limiting with an agenda. I do not see the limitations being limited to just those two explanations. If you want to thus limit yourself then so be it, but I do not agree with your parameters.

nagirrac wrote: »

But as someone who had spent 8 years studying and practicing psychoanalysis, this is what Stevenson did and would have been expert in and know the pitfalls.

Argument from authority, and a bad one too. Alas it is simply a fact that individual scientists, no matter how "expert" they or others feel they are in their fields, are just as subject to pitfalls as any one else. I have, for example, highlighted three massive errors in the methodology of the paper you linked to for example. Three points that for me SHOULD have been obvious to him but clearly were not.

That is the whole point of peer review. We NEVER assume that anyone is immune to pitfalls or poor methodology. Ben Goldacre for example laments at great length in his writing at how we seem to be very good indeed at churning our "pHd scientists" who have no idea whatsoever how to conduct, let alone write up, trials or studies.

nagirrac wrote: »

Nobody is questioning his research in that area now as shoddy, but somehow he developed shoddiness in his later work.

Again an appeal to authority. Just because someone works well in area X does not mean they will work as well in area Y. Especially since methodologies do not always carry between areas.

A good example is Lynn margulis known for the theory of symbiogenesis. She worked VERY hard at substantiating her views of that theory and her science turned out to be good and sound and is now widely accepted.

She however also espoused some total nonsense. It would be a complete non point to say "But she was so right about symbiogenesis and her once contraversial theory is now accepted.... so should we not also lend credence to her other claims?"

No. We should not. The claims are to be considered on their own merits alone and NEVER the past merits of the person MAKING the claims.

So I am entirely unimpressed by your attempts to lend credibility to one claim by a speaker by referencing the utility of OTHER claims by the same speaker.

nagirrac wrote: »

There is zero conflict between the paper I posted and the book on xenoglossy by Stevenson. You would know this if you had read both sources, rather than relying on a few phrases in wiki from who knows what author. The book, which I have read, and the paper are perfectly consistent.

Once again I am being told by one source she never studied it and another source that she did. Neither source is more, or less, verifiable to me. However you are deflecting from my ACTUAL issue with the claim by discussing this relatively minor side issue.

The ACTUAL issue which you are deflecting from is that claiming to have verified a 30 year old woman never did X in her life is even in a NORMAL case a fantastical claim.

But this is not a normal case. We have a woman here who suffers from split personality disorder and each personality has no memory of what the other did, or did not, do. As such verifying what she might have wandered off and studied or learned is exceptionally harder.

So that said: instantly as someone trained and knowledgeable in how to peer review Science Papers my first reaction to their assertion she never studied the language or had exposure enough to learn it is to say "That is an interesting assertion, by what methodology did they establish this as fact?".

And as I said the paper is methodologically silent on that answer. And that is no small omission. It is core, central and key. I am not just hammering the point to be awkward, stubborn or obtuse. The claim is central to their entire hypothesis and they entirely leave out how they verified the claim. This is as tragic as it is embarrassing. They basically want to make the core argument that supports their theory to be something we simply take on faith. Not happening. No way. No how. No thanks.

nagirrac wrote: »

This claim is simply not supported by the evidence from the paper and book

Yes. It is. The paper glosses over it, but does give quick but buried mention to how different people judged her language to be childlike, and she required much repetition of questions before she could answer them. Hardly sounds "fluent" to me.... but as I said the paper very deliberately left out what definition of "Fluent" they were even subscribing to too. Convenient.

I invite you once again to spend some time in the linguistic forums and ask people there what "fluent" means. There is a vast range of answers you will get. Some people will define "fluent" as a mother tongue like mastery of a language. Other people will define it as having enough of a grasp of a language to get by in the situations you actually are exposed to. And everything in between.

So once again, given the core claim of the paper is based mainly around this woman's linguistic skills you would think they would be clear what they mean by "Fluent" and you would think they would verify that fluency in a standardized way such as a linguistic assessment as available in any linguistic center of learning. I, for example, live in Germany where I can at any time walk into a linguistic center of learning and have my language level assessed on a fixed scale in a national standardized and formalised way. I in fact did this one day and the certificate I received is currently on the desk where I now type.

Instead the writers of this "paper" simply have taken peoples subjective word for it and weighted their interest in that word towards the people who assessed her language highly and brushed quickly over mentions of those who did not.

Anecdotal subjective testimony of linguistic abilities is of no interest to me here. Sit the woman down in front of a standard and formal linguistic test and document the results EXACTLY. Then you will have a paper worth reading that is not an embarrassment to those who wrote it.

nagirrac wrote: »

your post is basically the same old tired accusation that Stevenson used flawed methodology

Then have a lie down because your boredom or fatigue does not improve the methodology displayed in a paper, nor my assessment of it.

I am versed in the methods of science and of peer review and if I see poor methodology in a paper I will not only point it out, but explain at length (as I have done with selfless investment of my time) why I find it flawed and how it can be improved upon next time. That is how peer review works.

As I said, making someones linguistic ability central and core to your claim but failing in every way to assess that linguistic ability in a formal and standardised way.... is flawed methodology.

Making "interviews" part of your claim but failing to mention what was asked, what was answered, and under what conditions..... is flawed methodology.

Saying an event never happened but failing in any way to mention how that fact was ascertained.... is flawed methodology.

Declaring people who were interviewed to be "qualified as firsthand informants" but failing in anyway to mention who they were, or by what standard they were deemed to "Qualify".... is flawed methodology.

If this tires you then build a bridge. Take it up with the author(s), not with me, and ask that he and/or his cohorts improve upon these errors next time they presume to write a paper and have it taken seriously.

nagirrac wrote: »

The comparison to Lynn Margulis is particularly feeble.

I was not comparing anyone to Margulis. So what is feeble is your assessment of my intent, which is quite false and deflectionary. It was an anecdote to highlight the flaw in presenting someones past achievements as validation for any others.

The point, which the Marguilis comparison highlights well, is that one or more claims from a person being validated in no way lends credibility to any other ones they make. They should not be mentioned in the same breath at all. Each persons claims should be taken individually on their own merits and anything they did before or since no matter how useful or useless, is entirely irrelevant.

The point of mentioning Marguilis is not feeble at all but highlights very well that just because someone made massively useful and substantiated claims in the past in NO WAY validates any claims they made before, or subsequently.

nagirrac wrote: »

I would not make the claim that reincarnation is fact or that evidence for it rises to the level of a scientific theory.

That is wise. Given you have not yet presented a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that in any way lends credibility to the idea reincarnation occours, it would indeed by unwise to say it rises to the level of... well anything at all.

So far all we are being given to support the hypothesis are open and unanswered questions. "I do not know how person X knows or can do Y, therefore reincarnation" is pretty much the sum total of all we have been offered by you here.

nagirrac wrote: »

but as of now the reincarnation hypothesis is best supported by the evidence.

Is it? What evidence? I have seen none so far. As I said all you have offered is the idea that since we do not know how people know a certain fact, or have acquired a certain skill, that reincarnation is therefore the "best supported" hypothesis. Which I would think was a joke from you if you were not so earnest and serious.

But evidence I am not seeing. What have I missed? You seem to be defining "Evidence" as the practice of taking peoples word for it if they agree with you.

nagirrac wrote: »

Why do you keep repeating the same phrase "being told by one source she never studied it and another source that she did" when this is simply untrue?

I explained why. Twice. The REAL question for me is why are you hammering on this minor and near irrelevant side point when the bulk of my issue with this "paper" has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I have highlighted some MAJOR methodological flaws within the paper that you linked to which are being dodged in favor of hammering on this tiny side non-point.

nagirrac wrote: »

1. Your claim is that the paper states Uttara never studied Bengali, which is just simply false.

The paper very specifically says "A careful investigation of the subject‘s background and early life disclosed no opportunities for her to have learned to speak Bengali before the case developed."

Once again I ask: How was this fact ascertained? Especially given that the subject has a split personality disorder where the actions of one personality are not remembered by any other? It is not a difficult question at all yet despite repeated asking I am not getting an answer here.

It is a HUGE methodological flaw on behalf of the papers authors not to have explained how they ascertained this little factoid given it is core and central to their claims. And yours.

Given the similarities between the language she does know, and this one, (acknowledged in the paper itself) the gulf between learning to read and language and learning to speak it is not as wide as you wish to pretend.

nagirrac wrote: »

2. Your claim that those interviewing her to assess her linguistics skills were unnamed and ill equipped to make a fluency claim is also false.

Once again: If you are going to claim a subject is "Fluent" in a language then it is a HUGE methodological flaw not to do this formally. Anecdotal and varied opinions are useless. Especially given they are not even specifying what they even mean by "fluent" in this case. Certainly having a "childlike" understanding of a language and needing things repeated many times before you can answer them does not sound "fluent" to me.

Once again: Sitting a subject down under a formalized linguistic test and including the results of that as data in your paper is not a difficult thing to do. It is not just a methodological flaw but also HIGHLY suspect that the authors of the paper ditched such a move in favor of hand picking the anecdotal opinions that suited their conclusions.

nagirrac wrote: »

It is you that is attempting to deflect to a side issue, how "fluent" was Sharada.

It is not a side issue. Her linguistic abilities are central and core to their entire hypothesis. It is anything but a side issue. It is paramount and key. It is strange to me that you want to relegate it to being a "side issue" while simultaneously making claims about reincarnation off the back of it. Cake and eat it too is what you want here. You want it to be a side issue but also want us to base fantastical conclusions off it: All at the same time.

nagirrac wrote: »

You continue to ignore the actual evidence and fail to see the forest from the trees.

nagirrac wrote: »

3. On the question of evidence, you continue to ignore the actual evidence

Assessing evidence to be useless in substantiating a claim is not "ignoring" the evidence. You seem to want to misconstrue disagreement for ignoring. They are different things and my disagreeing with the conclusions of you and the authors here is the exact opposite of ignoring.

I am aware of the things you are calling "evidence" and I am explaining why they fail to meet that title. The word "ignore" appears to be a knee jerk defense mechanism you dive behind whenever I fail to agree with you.

When in fact the only one doing the ignoring is you such as here.....

nagirrac wrote: »

the researcher must be flawed, the methodology must be flawed, because it conflicts with how one see's the world.

.... I have explained at length why I find the methodology flawed and none of those reasons or evaluations are even remotely similar to what you falsely assert here above.

I have been very clear and specific about my issues with the methodology, at great length, and you simply ignore it all in favor of making up biases and agendas and personal attacks in your head to falsely assign to me, rather than actually address the valid concerns I have raised with the evidence and the methodology presented within this "paper".

nagirrac wrote: »

this case is one of many hundreds studies

Great then present the NEXT one for evaluation because I have explained exactly why THIS one has failed to support the hypothesis you make off the back of it. Perhaps the next one will be better.

Maybe filter your choice of the next one based on the knowledge that anything that essentially says "Subject knows or can do X and we do not know how or why.... therefore reincarnation" and nothing else is likely not going to cut mustard any better than THIS paper did.

And I am also still waiting for you to link this topic with the actual topic of the thread. I explained at length why the two do not go hand in hand by default. This is a thread about the existence of god and even if you did somehow manage to prove that reincarnation occours, it in no way substantiates the claim there is a god unless you ALSO display a supernatural mechanism for reincarnation which could, for all you know, be an entirely natural thing were it to actually exist.

nagirrac wrote: »

There is sufficient evidence in my opinion to support the claim that such memories of a former personality are somehow transferred across lifetimes.

Great. Then present some of that evidence. The blog link and the paper link you gave so far certainly has not been it. I look forward to the next link we can explore together.

nagirrac wrote: »

I believe we have now beaten this dead horse sufficiently, so I will leave it there and thank you for your discourse.

And thank you for another chance to lighten the mood with a test of "Nozzferrahhtoo's First rule of internet forum posting" which states that "The probability of any given user posting on a discussion increases in proportion to the number of times that user has claimed they will not be" :-)

georgesstreet wrote: »

I am all for love and tolerance. Where we differ is that I have read the Bible which clearly demonstrates that god is pretty nasty at times, so to claim that god is all about love seems, on the evidence of the Bible, to be a claim based on wishful thinking. Why anyone needs to invoke god as the source for love and tolerance has all their work ahead of them.

I think you may be confusing God's justice in action in Old Testament times ... with the current period of God's Mercy in the Church era.

God is a both a God of Justice and Love ... and everyone who asks for His mercy and love has nothing to fear from His justice.

That is the Good News of Salvation ... and what good news it is in a World dominated by bad news!!!

... another reason why the future of Christianity in Ireland is very bright indeed.