Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is rationality all being an atheist

sp0902
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2010 7:55:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
THIS TOPIC IS MOSTLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE FROM INDIA AND WHO CLAIM TO BE RATIONALISTS. I AM AN AGNOSTIC AND ALSO RATIONALIST BUT ABIT DIFFEREN

Is rationalism just about joining an organization and showing your manhood, heroism, adventurous attitude and excitement by just pointing fingers aganist religion? Aren't there many other things other than religion which are irrational? Examples are:

1.) There are theories in science, most of them by Newton and Einstein which have are not proven and have been accepted as postulates.
a.) Examples are 1.) uniform circular motion 2.) elastic force 3.) kinetic friction 4.) Postulate of special relativity (by Einstein) 5.) Universal gravitational law [F= G*(m1*m2)/R^2] By Newton.
b.) These theories are not proven but have been patented and accepted by scientists with great respect. If this is so then what is the difference between these postulates and religion because if you do not protest against them then you have no right to protest against religion also.
c.) On the contrary, theories like rebirth etc. do have many empirical evidences which is more than the evidence of these postulates but still have not been accepted in scientific field.

2.) Many government rules have been laid down without giving any reason. For e.g. a import duty on one substance should be 35% but why not 30% or 40% hs not been told.

3.) There are many other irrational behavior of people other than being superstitious. For e.g. in south India, that chief minister showed extra courage and irrationality by trying to be extra fast and ordering the pilot to fly in bad weather which led to the chopper crash and his and other remaining occupant's death. More irrationality was that many people from that state committed suicide on hearing that news which made me hold my belly rather than my eyes. ROFL! HAHAHA!

4.) Many court cases have been decided due to media pressure and suspects were convicted largely due to just circumstantial evidence (which would be enough even to prove rebirth as rebirth has more than circumstantial evidences) especially in India whose sites I can refer. Isn't this irrational?

a.) The biggest irrationalism is that government which you are living in and supporting is democratic for an undeveloped nation and this is the biggest irrationalism. (If you are from an undeveloped country which is under democracy.
i.) If you did not support democracy then you would have said something about it in these posts and descriptions or message? Dictatorship is the best government especially for an undeveloped nation.
ii.) Population increase is another irrational behavior and to not control it by coercive measures by enacting a law is even more irrational. Why did you not show hyper attitude in these areas apart from showing your manhood on superstitious beliefs?

5.) Lastly, if you are rational and I offer you a million rupees to throw your parents out of your house, would you do it?

To conclude, I have a blog in http://www.indianrationalistschallenge.com... and http://www.thoughts.com... many of the data here is as similar to the data in this website. I asked a guy who claims to be a rationalist and he replied back and I counter-replied back.
1.) Who amongst us has won the debate and for what reasons.
2.) Is this guy truly a rationalist as he claims?
3.) Any other detail which you like to give e.g. about his or my nature?

PLS REPLY ASAP AND FOR SURE IF YOU CAN! Remaining is upto you to reply or not to reply and in both cases I hope for you that all the best happens for your future!

However, you should reply if you claim to be a true rationalist and that too to each and every point of this message else you will just prove to be a foolish coward like that guy Ahmed Sharif of FB.

Thanks.

END.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2010 8:02:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/7/2010 7:55:31 AM, sp0902 wrote:.
c.) On the contrary, theories like rebirth etc. do have many empirical evidences which is more than the evidence of these postulates but still have not been accepted in scientific field.

perhaps you could provide a link to some of this evidence?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
sp0902
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2010 8:34:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/7/2010 8:02:14 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/7/2010 7:55:31 AM, sp0902 wrote:.
c.) On the contrary, theories like rebirth etc. do have many empirical evidences which is more than the evidence of these postulates but still have not been accepted in scientific field.

perhaps you could provide a link to some of this evidence?

If you Google it then you would find very much of it. However, I would provide you but can you goto those sites and decide that who has won the debate in return for this?

After that I would surely provide you with those links.

Thanks , pls reply ASAP and for SURE!
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2010 4:24:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
James Randi would like to know about it. Hell he still offers a reward if you can prove it. Until you get the Randi seal of approval, keep on scamming. ^^
sp0902
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 1:24:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/7/2010 4:24:18 PM, Puck wrote:
James Randi would like to know about it. Hell he still offers a reward if you can prove it. Until you get the Randi seal of approval, keep on scamming. ^^

Pls do not debate off-topic. I asked you that whether rationalism is all about just pointing fingers against superstitious beliefs relating to religion or broader than that? I did not even speak about Randi and whether I can prove the rebirth or not.

For winning that reward, as you said it, Randi's acceptance has also to be there which is entirely upto him. So, there is no use even if I goto him and give him hundreds of evidences, he is still going to reject it.

Pls reply If you cn but if you do reply then pls debate to the topic and not off-topic.

However you decide, I just hope for the best for your future,

Thanks and bye.
sp0902
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 1:27:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/7/2010 4:25:15 PM, Puck wrote:
Also Indian rationalists tend to be a whole lot of fun to watch. :)

Though this is also off-topic, I just wana know that how it is fun to see them.

Reply if you can. Thanks.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 5:08:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/8/2010 1:24:06 AM, sp0902 wrote:
At 4/7/2010 4:24:18 PM, Puck wrote:
James Randi would like to know about it. Hell he still offers a reward if you can prove it. Until you get the Randi seal of approval, keep on scamming. ^^

Pls do not debate off-topic. I asked you that whether rationalism is all about just pointing fingers against superstitious beliefs relating to religion or broader than that? I did not even speak about Randi and whether I can prove the rebirth or not.

No, you made a claim about a supposed truth about reality, of which is questionable. Randi, whether you support his work or not, will not just 'dismiss' your claim out of hand if you provide evidence. Evidence/proof is *exactly* what he asks for.

For winning that reward, as you said it, Randi's acceptance has also to be there which is entirely upto him. So, there is no use even if I goto him and give him hundreds of evidences, he is still going to reject it.

Up to him yes, in the manner that it from him. Up to others to provide the required level of proof. Hiding behind 'well it's not worth it he will just be biased' is a poor claim, if you know anything at all about what he does. :)
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 5:13:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/8/2010 1:27:14 AM, sp0902 wrote:
At 4/7/2010 4:25:15 PM, Puck wrote:
Also Indian rationalists tend to be a whole lot of fun to watch. :)

Though this is also off-topic, I just wana know that how it is fun to see them.

Reply if you can. Thanks.

The entire point of the Indian Rationalists movement is to specifically debunk Indian *cultural* superstitions (not others including your examples - how does one demonstrate against the act of suicidal pilot flying anyway? :P). As such they focus exactly on that, demonstrating to public audiences, and in many cases, actively challenging Indian mystics who lay claim to some supernatural feat of a particular sort.

As for entertaining, they tend to make such demonstrations so. It is science and stage after all and for much same reason Derren Brown is interesting.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 5:54:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
However you decide, I just hope for the best for your future,

liar.

You've already proved yourself to be a complete @hole... why would you hope the best for everyone's futures?:

3.) There are many other irrational behavior of people other than being superstitious. For e.g. in south India, that chief minister showed extra courage and irrationality by trying to be extra fast and ordering the pilot to fly in bad weather which led to the chopper crash and his and other remaining occupant's death. More irrationality was that many people from that state committed suicide on hearing that news which made me hold my belly rather than my eyes. ROFL! HAHAHA!

hahaha! you're a >rick!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2010 9:37:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
1.) There are theories in science, most of them by Newton and Einstein which have are not proven and have been accepted as postulates.

Science uses empirical evidence to demonstrate ideas are true to the best of our knowledge, this is called a technical truth. Science doesn't deal with absolute truths.

a.) Examples are 1.) uniform circular motion 2.) elastic force 3.) kinetic friction 4.) Postulate of special relativity (by Einstein) 5.) Universal gravitational law [F= G*(m1*m2)/R^2] By Newton.

I have no idea what your motivation for the above list is.

Uniform circular motion is a hypothetical scenario that simplifies a lot of computations. Nothing to prove there.

Are you claim that elastic force and kinetic friction don't exist?

We have a lot of experimental data indicating special relativity is correct, so what is the point here?

Newton's universal gravitation law has been replaced with general relaitvity, so not sure what the point is here either.

b.) These theories are not proven but have been patented and accepted by scientists with great respect. If this is so then what is the difference between these postulates and religion because if you do not protest against them then you have no right to protest against religion also.

We have evidence of the theories above, we don't have the same of religion.

c.) On the contrary, theories like rebirth etc. do have many empirical evidences which is more than the evidence of these postulates but still have not been accepted in scientific field.

By all means, share that empirical evidence. I have not seen it.

2.) Many government rules have been laid down without giving any reason. For e.g. a import duty on one substance should be 35% but why not 30% or 40% hs not been told.

Sometimes these numbers are arbitrary. Sometime they are based on some vague economic principles like supply and demand or some theory of compititon. But in any case, this has nothing to do with science.

3.) There are many other irrational behavior of people other than being superstitious.

Well of course, people are irrational in many ways.

4.) Many court cases have been decided due to media pressure and suspects were convicted largely due to just circumstantial evidence (which would be enough even to prove rebirth as rebirth has more than circumstantial evidences) especially in India whose sites I can refer. Isn't this irrational?

Yes, but what is your point? I think a rationalist would say it would be beter if the above situation were not true and instead the people had acted rationally. It seems you are trying to argue against rationalism by siding with it...

5.) Lastly, if you are rational and I offer you a million rupees to throw your parents out of your house, would you do it?

No, because rationally I see more value in both my family and acting morally than I do in money.
sp0902
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 3:10:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/9/2010 9:37:25 AM, Floid wrote:

Wooow! At last, I have found someone who really debates seriously. So, to reply to your post, it may take a while as I must also give serious replies, and till I reply, meanwhile you can visit my blog at http://www.thoughts.com... and decide that who has won this debate as I have debated with a guy who claims to be a rationalist. Pls do enter your comments there. Pls do enter your comments in that site.

Thanks. I hope that you would do.
sp0902
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 12:38:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/7/2010 8:02:14 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/7/2010 7:55:31 AM, sp0902 wrote:.
c.) On the contrary, theories like rebirth etc. do have many empirical evidences which is more than the evidence of these postulates but still have not been accepted in scientific field.

perhaps you could provide a link to some of this evidence?

You did not goto http://www.thoughts.com... and posted comments there. However, still I would give you the links which you asked for. Here they are which may gave rise to a theory that rebirth does exist:
1.) http://www.getting-positive-karma-now.com...
2.) http://en.wikipedia.org...
3.) http://utube.smashits.com...
4.) http://magazine.gritfx.com...
5.) http://www.fox8.com...
6.) http://www.hknet.org.nz...
7.) http://www.scimednet.org...
8.) http://www.jaicobooks.com...
9.) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
10.) http://www.indianexpress.com...

So, here are the links which you asked for. There are many of them so 10 links are here only and if you google or search them in yahoo then you would find thousands or lacs of them. After all, there are thousands of these cases.

However, it is up to you to reply or not to reply back to this message or go or not to go to those sites. Whatever you decide, I just hope for the best for your future.

Anyways, it would be good that if you reply if you think that you can debate otherwise there is no point that you are in this site. I am saying this because you did not comment on my blog which was also a debate so I suspected that you would not reply to this message also. Remaining is up to you.
Bye.
sp0902
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 12:43:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No, you made a claim about a supposed truth about reality, of which is questionable. Randi, whether you support his work or not, will not just 'dismiss' your claim out of hand if you provide evidence. Evidence/proof is *exactly* what he asks for.

How can you be so sure? Many have already done it and so did the guy in http://www.thoughts.com... who refused to reply back even though I gave him all the evidence needed.

Up to him yes, in the manner that it from him. Up to others to provide the required level of proof. Hiding behind 'well it's not worth it he will just be biased' is a poor claim, if you know anything at all about what he does. :)

The only way is that the judge should be someone who is disinterested, for example, the local jurisdiction authority.
sp0902
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 12:52:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The entire point of the Indian Rationalists movement is to specifically debunk Indian *cultural* superstitions (not others including your examples - how does one demonstrate against the act of suicidal pilot flying anyway? :P). As such they focus exactly on that, demonstrating to public audiences, and in many cases, actively challenging Indian mystics who lay claim to some supernatural feat of a particular sort.

As for entertaining, they tend to make such demonstrations so. It is science and stage after all and for much same reason Derren Brown is interesting.

Yes, it may be. By the way, let me correct you that what I wanted to say about that chopper crash of that chief minister was an ACCIDENT and many people from his state committed suicide on HEARING THE NEWS DUE TO GRIEF!!

Pls goto this site and it will clear everything with regard to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Pls reply you can.
Anyways, I hope for the best for your future. Bye.
sp0902
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 1:00:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
liar.

You've already proved yourself to be a complete @hole... why would you hope the best for everyone's futures?:

I do not know that on what bases did you consider me as an a**hole. Even if I am, how can it mean that I cannot hope for the best for everyone's future? I am hoping so because if the world is best then only we can help each other.

3.) There are many other irrational behavior of people other than being superstitious. For e.g. in south India, that chief minister showed extra courage and irrationality by trying to be extra fast and ordering the pilot to fly in bad weather which led to the chopper crash and his and other remaining occupant's death. More irrationality was that many people from that state committed suicide on hearing that news which made me hold my belly rather than my eyes. ROFL! HAHAHA!

hahaha! you're a >rick!

What do you mean by rick and why?
Reply if you can. As I said earlier, I hope for the best for your future. Bye.
sp0902
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 2:13:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Science uses empirical evidence to demonstrate ideas are true to the best of our knowledge, this is called a technical truth. Science doesn't deal with absolute truths.

1.) Not at all, many scientific theories are proved derivatively also. For example, Force which is F = m*a is derived from Momentum formula p=m*v by integrating it and Momentum is derived from differentiating Force formula. Anyways, in future if I need empirical proof of any scientific theory then would you give me for e.g. links etc.?

I have no idea what your motivation for the above list is.


My motivation is that if science also contains postulates which have been accepted in scientific field without proof, then religious leaders may also claim that there theories are also postulates which have to be accepted whether proved or not. Why these rationalists do not protest against these theories of science which are postulates? The answer for this question is also my motive which I want to know.

Uniform circular motion is a hypothetical scenario that simplifies a lot of computations. Nothing to prove there.


If it not proved, how can we take it as a bases for forming other formulas and results as they also will become baseless? If there is any empirical evidence then pls do give me the links.

Are you claim that elastic force and kinetic friction don't exist?


If they do exist then pl s give me links. If I get them, then I would not challenge them. However, do they exist everywhere i.e. in atmosphere and in vacuum?

We have a lot of experimental data indicating special relativity is correct, so what is the point here?


The only point from my side is that why is it being called a 'postulate' if it is proved? Postulate as we all know means that something which is self-evident. As I said before, if there is evidence, then pls do give me the link and I would not challenge them anymore.

Newton's universal gravitation law has been replaced with general relaitvity, so not sure what the point is here either.


My point, as I said earlier, is that why it is being edited in science books with respect if it is unproved? Why this has not been replaced in books also and why was it accepted in the first place in science field if it was unproved?
If general relativity has replaced it and has been proved, then pls do give me links as I said earlier and pls explain it to me in detail as much s you can.

We have evidence of the theories above, we don't have the same of religion.


There is lot of empirical and observation evidence of rebirth etc. which I will give you. Pls do give me links of all axioms in science which have some proof.

By all means, share that empirical evidence. I have not seen it.


To another user in this very same post, I have given him links. I am pasting them here also:
1.) http://www.getting-positive-karma-now.com...
2.) http://en.wikipedia.org...
3.) http://utube.smashits.com...
4.) http://magazine.gritfx.com...
5.) http://www.fox8.com...
6.) http://www.hknet.org.nz...
7.) http://www.scimednet.org...
8.) http://www.jaicobooks.com...
9.) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
10.) http://www.indianexpress.com...

So, here are the links which you asked for. There are many of them so 10 links are here only and if you google or search them in yahoo then you would find thousands or lacs of them. After all, there are thousands of these cases.

Sometimes these numbers are arbitrary. Sometime they are based on some vague economic principles like supply and demand or some theory of compititon. But in any case, this has nothing to do with science.


Alright, but how about these rules for example, in my nation India, there is democracy, and an under-developed nation shod have dictatorship for fast and sure development. To not to control population increase of citizens by coercive means like enacting laws and vasectomy which is fast and sure, but other long methods like persuasion etc. which is not e sure to be effective is also irrational. Is this not? Many accounts transactions in questions are irrational. For e.g. Goods purchased by X.We have to assume that X purchased it on credit which has not been specified. Already we have to learn hundred things and this is another. Is this also not irrational that they should specify it instead of telling us to assume it as it can mean anything?
This debate is not just about science vs religion but also that why don't these rationalists show their protests in other fields also.

Well of course, people are irrational in many ways.


Then why these rationalists and skeptic's associations protest against these behaviors also?

Yes, but what is your point? I think a rationalist would say it would be beter if the above situation were not true and instead the people had acted rationally. It seems you are trying to argue against rationalism by siding with it...


My point is, as I already said, that why these people who are member of rationalist and skeptic associations go and protest against these irrational behavior also?
I do not know that what skeptics and rationalists do in your country but in my nation i.e. India they and especially these south Indians can just show their manhood, adventurous attitude and heroism towards religious beliefs only other than these court cases where suspects where convicted largely due to circumstantial evidence only. I have seen them coming on TV hundreds of times and protesting against these religious beliefs but I never saw them protesting against these odd and prejudiced court decisions on any TV channel or in any newspaper article.
Neither did they protest against the irrational attitude of the south Indian chief minister who tried to be extra-courageous and which resulted in his death in the chopper crash and me irrationality was hat the people from that state committed suicide due to grief. More information about this is available in the site http://en.wikipedia.org... which was never protested by the rationalists in any TV program in India.
I have never seen these rationalists coming on TV and speaking against these prejudiced court decisions or writing an article against the judges who were emotionally influenced by the media. WHY DID THEY NOT SPEAK AGAINST THESE COURT DECISIONS?
I did not understand that whom am I siding with and why. I am not in favor of these court decisions and I strongly oppose them as I believe that judiciary should do it's job with sincerity and convict a suspect only after it gets full evidence against him or her.

No, because rationally I see more value in both my family and acting morally than I do in money.


I cannot understand that rationalism and how is it greater than money. Elaborate it in tail if you like.

I hope that you would reply back to me and I would be glad that if you reply back to me as guys like you are hard to find who debate very seriously. So, pls reply back ASAP and for SURE if you can.

You did not posted comment on the site http://www.thoughts.com... where I debated with another guy who claimed to be a rationalist and I asked him about his courage in other fields also. I doubt that you would reply back if you did not posted a comment there in my blog.
It is up to you to post a comment there or not but it will be good if you do so as you debate very seriously and with sincerity.

If however, you cannot reply back to me for whatever reasons, then I can only hope for the best for your future and say b
sp0902
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 2:19:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
One more point, I may not be able to reply your answer or maybe altogether as I may be buzy for a month or so. However, you can also reply in installments i.e. by parts and I would not reply back unless you have replied to all my questions.

After all, I assume that you also may be buzy and you may not be able to reply back to such a looooooong message or post.

Remaining is up to you. If you cannot reply back for some reasons, then I can just hope for best for your future and say bye to you.

Thanks it will be good if your reply, whether you reply back in parts and installments.

Bye.
Tlhedglin
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 6:05:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/7/2010 7:55:31 AM, sp0902 wrote:
Is rationalism just about joining an organization and showing your manhood, heroism, adventurous attitude and excitement by just pointing fingers aganist religion?

Is religion just about joining an organization and showing your piety, righteousness, and correctness by condemning all other religions for being false? No? Well, then, sounds like you are simply making a generalization based on an overused stereotype.

Aren't there many other things other than religion which are irrational?

Yes, religion is simply the elephant in the room, obvious and hard to ignore. However, the topic is somewhat misleading too, as some atheist do not base their beliefs on rationality. There are a few that base it on emotional responses and arguments from personal incredulity. Just as some deist base their beliefs on axiomatic principles that are rational, but only if you believe the premise is self-evident, otherwise it appears to be presupposition.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 6:23:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
///5.) Lastly, if you are rational and I offer you a million rupees to throw your parents out of your house, would you do it?///

I don't see any real reason not to if you are capable of lifting your parents. I think they would even agree because I'd be earning a basically free ~20,000 USD.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 7:07:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 12:38:24 PM, sp0902 wrote:
At 4/7/2010 8:02:14 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/7/2010 7:55:31 AM, sp0902 wrote:.
c.) On the contrary, theories like rebirth etc. do have many empirical evidences which is more than the evidence of these postulates but still have not been accepted in scientific field.

perhaps you could provide a link to some of this evidence?

You did not goto http://www.thoughts.com... and posted comments there. However, still I would give you the links which you asked for. Here they are which may gave rise to a theory that rebirth does exist:
1.) http://www.getting-positive-karma-now.com...
2.) http://en.wikipedia.org...
3.) http://utube.smashits.com...
4.) http://magazine.gritfx.com...
5.) http://www.fox8.com...
6.) http://www.hknet.org.nz...
7.) http://www.scimednet.org...
8.) http://www.jaicobooks.com...
9.) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
10.) http://www.indianexpress.com...

And you wonder why people won't take you serious. The call was for evidence. Not websites that talk about it with no backing of their claims at all.

1. No evidence: "We instinctively know that the essential part of the person has departed leaving behind the body which is no longer viable for supporting the consciousness, the 'I' factor. The unspoken understanding is that the 'person' who left has gone somewhere"

2. No evidence. "Reincarnation research is a branch of parapsychology" "interviewing children who claimed to remember a past life" "hypnosis" - A basic understanding of any of those two things will show how utterly unreliable they are.

3. Bunch of vids. Chose the first. Same story as 4 and 5.

4. Debunked here: http://skeptico.blogs.com...

5. Same story as 4.

6. Is a collection of articles on a "reincarnation expert" who "employing rigorous scientific methods to investigate reincarnation claims since 1974" without a single reference to a single study he has done, research, the methods used, the results, the peer reviews ... and so on.

7. Main referenced researcher (Ian Stevenson) was a ... Jungian theorist *sighs* and believed reincarnation caused diseases. From himself "the evidence is not flawless and it certainly does not compel such a belief. Even the best of it is open to alternative interpretations, and one can only censure those who say there is no evidence whatever."

8. A PDF. "So from now on we can say with certainty that reincarnation
really exists. Even Jesus1 and all the early Christians believed in it. Today we no longer need to believe in it, since reincarnation has been scientifically proven, just as the law of gravity was proven some time ago." It is simply a collection of anectodal stories, unreferenced.

9. Short review of a book for purchasing purposes.

10. Another unreferenced story.

==

There was a man, he saw a unicorn.
There was another story of 3 children, who claim to have seen a unicorn.
Many people don't believe in unicorns, however there is a compelling tale of a woman in Germany, who adamantly claims she sees a unicorn in a nearby forest.

Your evidence amounts to much the same. Having a nationally endorsed religion supporting it, doesn't change that at all.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 7:15:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So what sort of evidence is sufficient to prove reincarnation? Is it just an unfalsifiable claim?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 7:15:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 12:43:53 PM, sp0902 wrote:
No, you made a claim about a supposed truth about reality, of which is questionable. Randi, whether you support his work or not, will not just 'dismiss' your claim out of hand if you provide evidence. Evidence/proof is *exactly* what he asks for.

How can you be so sure? Many have already done it and so did the guy in http://www.thoughts.com... who refused to reply back even though I gave him all the evidence needed.

I am supposed to defend a person I don't know nor care about. We are talking about James Randi, not some person somewhere else. He specifically set up an institution to examine claims such as what you make, not some internet discussion that occurs someplace, somewhere. Granted, you will need a plane ticket. ^^

Up to him yes, in the manner that it from him. Up to others to provide the required level of proof. Hiding behind 'well it's not worth it he will just be biased' is a poor claim, if you know anything at all about what he does. :)

The only way is that the judge should be someone who is disinterested, for example, the local jurisdiction authority.

He does not do the testing himself. It's for his interest that he pursues and challenges claims - not many other people care to listen or examine silly belief claims.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 7:21:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 7:15:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
So what sort of evidence is sufficient to prove reincarnation? Is it just an unfalsifiable claim?

Parsimony works for me. Investigation would if it were true, corroborate evidence for the occurrence. It never does though. :P
sp0902
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 9:29:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 6:05:51 PM, Tlhedglin wrote:
Is religion just about joining an organization and showing your piety, righteousness, and correctness by condemning all other religions for being false? No? Well, then, sounds like you are simply making a generalization based on an overused stereotype.:

1.) I did not even mention about religion or that I am religious. Therefore, this question is completely baseless. So, pls do not debate or answer off-topic.
2.) Pls answer that is the rationalist association just for pointing fingers against superstitious beliefs. Do not answer off-topic as that answer is completely baseless and is of no use.
3.) I do not see that how the above question can answer my query of is rationalism all about atheism.

Yes, religion is simply the elephant in the room, obvious and hard to ignore. However, the topic is somewhat misleading too, as some atheist do not base their beliefs on rationality. There are a few that base it on emotional responses and arguments from personal incredulity. Just as some deist base their beliefs on axiomatic principles that are rational, but only if you believe the premise is self-evident, otherwise it appears to be presupposition.:

1.) Yes, many atheists are not atheist because of rationality.
2.) However, it does not mislead the topic as my point is that many people who claim to be rationalist are generally atheists. Example is that all squares are rectangles but all rectangles are not squares. Other atheists who are so not because of rationality have nothing to do with this debate and I do not see any reason that why you mentioned them here as they do not even mislead the topic and this topic and they have no direct or indirect relationship with this topic.
3.) If you have the guts then you should answer to the point as to is rationality all about being an atheist else if you do not have guts then either answer away from the topic or do not answer at all. Remaining is upto you.
4.) Postulates can never be termed as rational as they have no empirical or derivative proof. Postualtes, for your information has the meaning that which is assumed to be true without proof i.e. assumed as self-evident. Is this not same as religion? Science also has many such postulates.

Whether you reply or not, I just hope for the best for your future. Thanks. Bye.
sp0902
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 9:34:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't see any real reason not to if you are capable of lifting your parents. I think they would even agree because I'd be earning a basically free ~20,000 USD.:

I did not even understand what you said. You have answered completely off-topic.

To all the people, pls do not debate off-topic and if you want to debate then pls debate ON EVERY POINT SERIOUSLY AND WITH SINCEREITY else do not debate at all. I cannot unnecessary delay myself on baseless and off-topic debates, comments and answers.

It is very unlikely that you will reply back. So, I just hope for the best for your future and say bye to you if you do not reply back.
sp0902
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 11:42:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
And you wonder why people won't take you serious. The call was for evidence. Not websites that talk about it with no backing of their claims at all.:

The website itself is an evidence. If you cannot see the evidence due to your own mistake then it is not my fault. Anyways, you would not accept your mistake so you would not see the evidence also even though I give a conclusive one.

1. No evidence: "We instinctively know that the essential part of the person has departed leaving behind the body which is no longer viable for supporting the consciousness, the 'I' factor. The unspoken understanding is that the 'person' who left has gone somewhere":

You should have gone further link in that website, " http://www.getting-positive-karma-now.com... " where this quote is there, "Considering this sober evidence we can understand that as we age, our bodily cells are replaced regularly. Hence, we have a constantly changing body" below the title, "The changing and the unchanging". I did not even say that what you are saying is an evidence.

2. No evidence. "Reincarnation research is a branch of parapsychology" "interviewing children who claimed to remember a past life" "hypnosis" - A basic understanding of any of those two things will show how utterly unreliable they are.:

Again, it is not my fault that you do not see any evidence though it is there. You should have gone to the below section, " http://en.wikipedia.org... " in Evidence from children and not just hypnosis. The quote in that section, "existence of birth marks and deformities on children" and about other unusual behaviors has been ignored by you and not commented upon. You very selectively commented only on the weak point but not on every section mentioned there. Birth marks and deformities on children can just be co-incidence if not due to Reincarnation and believe me that such co-incdences are very rare. Can you give me one medical reason as to how can a infant have a mark on his/her body like cuts, moulds etc. or deformaties unless it is due to Reincarnation? The moulds cannot be created due to any medical trick and even if they are created by medical tricks then I guess that it could be found out due to further medical investigation. Has any skeptic association flawed any Reincarnation claim by doing this? Can you also tell me about a person/infant of east Indian race who has a mould in right thumb in the below portion as I have it in my thumb? I guess that it is VERY DIFFICULT to find such person whom you would make as my alleged reborn person if I die in future. Very rarely any person would have such and since there are thousands of Reincarnation claims with Birth marks etc. therefore they cannot be a rare co-incidence also.

3. Bunch of vids. Chose the first. Same story as 4 and 5.:

Pls go through those videos first if you want to comment otherwise.

4. Debunked here: http://skeptico.blogs.com...:

1.) Nowhere in that site did they could "debunk" this quote from the website " http://magazine.gritfx.com... " that, "Subsequently, when James (the boy) was introduced to the sister of James (the pilot), he recognised her and called her by a name she had not been referred to since she was a child". How could he just GUESS the nickname of the sister of the pilot which she had not been referred to since she was a child?
2.) In the very same website which you mentioned i.e. " http://skeptico.blogs.com...; the comments posted below by Ray Cole, "I find that your main argument is a little weak; i.e., that an 18-month-old baby on a family visit to a museum is going to be able to assimilate the information and impressions necessary to concoct such a story. Most 18-month-olds are still pooping their pants, I believe. Being able to take in the information alleged in this story would be well beyond the abilities of such an infant: "drop tanks," "Iwo Jima," "Natoma,"...I don't think so" ...
& by cj "my son was very young, from the time he was old enough to talk, he talked of being in a submarine. We definitely are not a family that had any interest in submarines and didn't watch any type of TV shows depicting them. I monitored every tv program he watched. He spoke to me of drowning. This child would not have known what drowning was at 18 or 24 mo. of age"...
& by Dave "at 18 months old I doubt he could have remembered the name of an airplane let alone the diference between a bomb and a drop tank. (I'm an airplane buff and didn't know the diference until I was 6 or 8 I think)".
...& few more comments counter-debunk this claim of being debunked.

5. Same story as 4.:

And same counter-debate as 4.

6. Is a collection of articles on a "reincarnation expert" who "employing rigorous scientific methods to investigate reincarnation claims since 1974" without a single reference to a single study he has done, research, the methods used, the results, the peer reviews ... and so on.:

In that article there is a quote of, "Some children have facial features, gait or mannerisms corresponding to their claimed previous personalities; some even have birthmarks or birth defects attributed to the previous lives". This (birthmarks) cannot be a probable co-incidence and I think that it does give rise to suspicious theories that reincarnation does exist. If it was untrue then why did not any skeptic association go and flawed these birthmarks out? There is no reply for the same by any skeptic about birthmarks. One or a handful people can lie but so many people cannot lie.

7. Main referenced researcher (Ian Stevenson) was a ... Jungian theorist *sighs* and believed reincarnation caused diseases. From himself "the evidence is not flawless and it certainly does not compel such a belief. Even the best of it is open to alternative interpretations, and one can only censure those who say there is no evidence whatever.":

There is no evidence whatsoever that reincarnation does not exist either. There are many evidences which atleast give some chances of this subject being investigated further. The evidence is there again as, "to establish a correlation between birthmarks and birth defects in children and marks of violent death in a supposed previous life" as quoted in the article. Again, it is not my mistake if you cannot find out the evidences.

8. A PDF. "So from now on we can say with certainty that reincarnation
really exists. Even Jesus1 and all the early Christians believed in it. Today we no longer need to believe in it, since reincarnation has been scientifically proven, just as the law of gravity was proven some time ago." It is simply a collection of anectodal stories, unreferenced. :

If it was unreferenced, then why did not any skeptic association go and flawed it? Again, how can SO MANY people lie? If there has to be a lie, only a few or handful people can lie, but how can hundreds or maybe thousands of people can lie? What will they gain out of that? It is very improbable and difficult to imagine that so many people can lie. You have any answer to this?

9. Short review of a book for purchasing purposes.:

You only need to look at the comments there. Again my point is that how can so many people lie and it is said that it is scientifically verified. The author does not have that much amount to bribe SO MANY people to lie for his book and if he did have then he would not have been writing a book itself as investing is more than the gain or income which he will get by selling the book.

NO. 10, THE REMAINING OF YOUR COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED IN THE NEXT POST ALONGWITH THAT I HAVE ADDED A FEW OF MY OWN COMMENTS IN THAT POST FOR CONCLUSION.

CONTINUED...