@InesQor:

You serious? ? DeepSight showed up around here? I owe him 4 big stout be dat! Sadly that is not what he really likes ([size=4pt]i understand he prefers to be in bed till like 6pm daily: what he does there, I do not know but I hear he usually has company[/size]).

Please whats the link to the thread he posted on?

viaro:

From the quote it can be clearly seen that Carl Sagan only opined that there are three claims in parapsychology that deserve serious study and of the 3 claims the 3 claim is that that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.

Lol, toneyb, I don't know waht you're on about here - but please compare both quotes and see the highlighted. What is it you're trying to point out here, please?

What i am trying to point out is that Carl Sagan never made any remark close to what you are trying to have us believe.

Now, if you have a real objection, perhaps it is in this part of the highlighted which you had excerpted from my previous reply:

      It is noteworthy that Sagan himself remarked that where such things
      are CHECKED, they tended to have proven to be ACCURATE.

This is completely FALSE. Carl Sagan never made any such remark from your statement. He ONLY cited the 3rd claim of parapsychology and the 3rd claim is as follows:

"young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation"

Checking and turning out to be accurate was part of the 3rd claim which Carl Sagan said should be properly studied. He did NOT remark that he checked or others checked and found it to be accurate he was merely stating the claims.

So, how is that different from what I have posted from your own reply, and then included the part of the excerpt from where I had quoted that same pointed? What really are you so painfully trying to distinguish and delineate as different in all three statements/quotes, toneyb??

They are VERY different re-read it again and see for yourself.

Well, here again is the quote from Wikipedia -
If I should take your objection in another angle by allowing the possibility that Sagan disclaimed any such things, I would ask simply: is it possible for you to show me where Sagan disproved (or proved as false) the "claims" in studies he was referring to?

I did not say that he disproved or proved any thing, all I am saying is that you are wrongly trying to ascribe to him statement/remarks he NEVER made.

toneyb:

The same old sophism again. . You label your objections as objections and label the very well detailed objections from skeptic.com as excuse. How clever . I dig your style Mr Viaro.

No, I did not label mine as "objections", but said instead - "I've addressed your objections and pointed you to resources". The "detailed objections" you claim from skeptic.com are quite an excuse - and I've shown how and why - and it would be great to see you respond to them instead of being evasive.

Relax and don't get all worked up over statements you actually made. Here is what you said.

Where did Carl Sagan acknowledge that his research was accurate?

Okay, first - I was not getting worked up. I am open to see what your point was, and I think in my penultimate reply, I have commented and waited for you to share your misgivings. Howsoever, I did not assert anywhere that Carl Sagan had become a "believer" in reincarnation - I also made that point clear, no?

False. The skeptic's website showed why the believe that Stevenson's research was scientific untenable. Here is an example:

What Stevenson was looking for were stories that could not easily be explained by hypotheses other than the survival of personality. He knew that stories of previous lives could get contaminated in a variety of ways. They might be due to cryptomnesia. The source might have been a movie, a book, a play, a radio program, an overheard story or conversation. He thought that the best evidence for reincarnation would be those cases where someone wrote down the instances where a child gives evidence of a PLE and then later the written account is verified. For example, a father writes down his three-year-old son's statements that he was Joey the blacksmith in Portsmouth and was stabbed by pirates in the neck on a wharf in Hong Kong. Later, it is discovered that there was a Joey who was a blacksmith in Portsmouth who was killed by pirates in Hong Kong. Adding poignancy to this account would be the discovery of some sort of birthmark on the neck of the child. One problem with such a method is that the verification process may not occur for a decade. But even if it takes place within a few months of the written record being made, we must take it on faith that the father is being honest. We have no way of knowing whether the father (or an uncle) in a semi-drunken state read an account of Joey's death to his son and told him that that mark on your neck is the mark of Joey. We have no way of knowing that the father is being completely honest with us. In other words, we have to assume a story is uncontaminated in order to declare the case "solved" (as Stevenson calls those cases "when evidence of a person that corresponds to the experient's statements concerning a past life is found" [Mills and Lynn: 290]).

   In a fairly typical case, a boy in Beirut spoke of being a 25-year-old mechanic, thrown to his death from a speeding car on a beach road. According to multiple witnesses, the boy provided the name of the driver, the exact location of the crash, the names of the mechanic's sisters and parents and cousins, and the people he hunted with -- all of which turned out to match the life of a man who had died several years before the boy was born, and who had no apparent connection to the boy's family.*

As Mills and Lyons note: "Merely because a particular case does not seem to be explicable in terms of social construction, it does not follow that the PLE reported is a genuine residue of a past life" (302).

Please show me the data analysis they critiqued - that has been the one thing I have been requesting from you, toneyb. I read several entries at skeptic.com on Stevenson, but did not find any critique based on any ANALYSIS of DATA. Could you show me any, and how that analysis is tenably scientific?

I would start first by NOT using data I get from sources I my self agree were dishonest

We all know that - you're stating what you would not use, which is NOT what I asked you. I asked you this: "show me how you would have proceeded to study such phenomena and the methodology you would have chosen for your study". That's what I would like to read, thanks.

Please restate the observations so that I can drop my opinion.

That's okay, here again:[list]

viaro: What I mean is this: Sumitra was NOT the subject of a "murder investigation", nor would she be the principal or ancillary subject or object of a "motive". Are you sure you read the report at all?  

Okay, just in case I might've missed it, please show me how or where the research was pointing to Sumitra being involved in a murder investigation and motive that should warrant a fraud on those accounts to be addressed as such.

[/list]
There - I would like to see your objective response and answer to my request. Please show me.

They gave a clear example of how he acknowledged that his source of collecting data was dishonest and then went ahead to use the data he got from the same dishonest source.

What exactly was wrong with the DATA? Is the research based on the source or on the data?

The reason I ask this is because of this: the acknowledge that Stevenson published his researches in a peer-reviewed science journal (again, please simply don't try making any pretences about this, for it does not say 'fringe science journal' - let's be honest, thanks). Now, what I need to get from you is this: are researches published in peer-reviewed science journals based on "sources" or on "data"? Did the journal accept his research bacause it was based on analysis of the person or rather on analysis of the DATA?

Read the statement above as example of how he violated the said methodology.

Please show me - I'm not really finding substance in your rejoinders and beginning to wonder whether you're deliberately being evasive. If the latter is the case, please let me know - I've got other things or ways to pass my leisure.

. What kind of equivocation is this Viaro? . The man got data(information in this case) from an interpreter whom he himself acknowledges is dishonest and went ahead and used the said data(information). How you fail to see something wrong with the process is truly beyond me.

I'm more particular about the data, not the person through whom it was obtained. I know a lot of atheist 'scientists' who are themselves dishonest in their professional work as scientists - but I'm not looking at ad hominems, which is why I don't base my comments on this paper on the persons but rather on the data.

So, please tell me: what in the data itself was wrong? Please point out the data itself as the foundation of your objections. Thanks.

toneyb:

What i am trying to point out is that Carl Sagan never made any remark close to what you are trying to have us believe.

Okay, I think I've explained this point that it is now getting redundant. I would like to see/read your comments with substance on issues, not on persons. Can we move on then?

Checking and turning out to be accurate was part of the 3rd claim which Carl Sagan said should be properly studied. He did NOT remark that he checked or others checked and found it to be accurate he was merely stating the claims.

For clarity, did I state that "he checked" - that is, that Carl Sagan himself checked?? Please quote me, and I'm willing to stand corrected.

But the second part, that others checked could perhaps be included in the quote. The reason I say so is because in the same breath where the quote was taken from, we find this statement:

Similarly, Clarke agreed that Stevenson had produced a number of studies that were hard to explain, but also noted that a major problem for reincarnation was the lack of any known physical mechanisms that could account for personality transfer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson#cite_note-25

While the author of the article might not be saying that Sagan agreed in any way about anything, the author nevertheless seems to have given the idea that not all reviewers actually dismiss Stevenson's work - which explains why the quote above begins with "Similarly" and argues that Clarke "agreed".

toneyb: They are VERY different re-read it again and see for yourself.

Please see my explanation - I still do not see what the problem is here; and that was why I requested this of you:

If I should take your objection in another angle by allowing the possibility that Sagan disclaimed any such things, I would ask simply: is it possible for you to show me where Sagan disproved (or proved as false) the "claims" in studies he was referring to?

toneyb: I did not say that he disproved or proved any thing, all I am saying is that you are wrongly trying to ascribe to him statement/remarks he NEVER made.

Maybe in the area of interpretation - which is amenable, as long as you do try to show the diferrence on both sides. To this end, I just posted the "similarly" from Clark who "agreed" from the same paragraph of that Wiki quote.

OK Viaro you win . Am out of here for good. Its really nice knowing you  all these while and I mean it. I have learned a lot from you and enjoyed our interactions, banters and insults . I never knew that my posts here are having a lot of impact on some people that read it. Just found out some days ago so I am leaving for personal reasons. You can drop your messages on hdhdhdhdhdhdhdhd (Let me know if you have the email address cos I will take it out once you get it) Best wishes from this end. Thanks.

toneyb:

OK Viaro you win . Am out of here for good. Its really nice knowing you all these while and I mean it. I have learned a lot from you and enjoyed our interactions, banters and insults .

@toneyb, you're a very interesting guy - and I mean that as well. I deeply, deeply regret the crossed-out word up there ^^ - my fault and I acknowledge our exchanges (rubbing minds) could have been free of that, lol.

I never knew that my posts here are having a lot of impact on some people that read it. Just found out some days ago so I am leaving for personal reasons. You can drop your messages on nskjJkdnkndknkdnkd@ yahoo.com(Let me know if you have the email address cos I will take it out once you get it) Best wishes from this end. Thanks.

Very best wishes, pal. I've got the e-addy, pls delete pronto! <Many thanks again.

@toneyb:

look at the thread on placing a curse and beware lest I do same to you. How dare you leave? And just today at 1166 posts, I was wondering how far you'd last.

@Field-Marshall Cannibal Viaro:

You need deliverance O

^^ commander nuclearboy ... that thing about 'deliverance' - I have lost count of being told of my 'need' thereto.

Hehehe - but toneyb's cool. He's not gone away - just hanging around, I trust.

Man, this section misses good quality posters such as viaro (Christian), ilosiwaju (agnostic) and toneyb (atheist).

Both of these concepts have been scientifically demonstrated in recent times.

InesQor:
@Jagunlabi: Thanks for commenting!

Those miracles were not planned. If you know ANYTHING about the nature of magic, you will know that it always requires adequate preparation. Fine, many magicians travel with paraphernalia (sometimes on their person) that they use to carry out relatively small-scale tricks, but I am yet to hear of any magic trick that could

(a) Feed thousands. Yes, it is possible by an illusion to subject some few people to such sensations, or to have some people cooperating with you to make it look real. But feed thousands from 5 loaves and two fish?

(b) Turn water into wine. This is a very possible trick in which a highly concentrated concotion of wine is diluted into the drums of water, but that was not the case with Jesus. The master of the ceremony said that the wine was very rich in quality. It could not have been a sleight of hand. Besides, Jesus did not know that they would run out of wine, and that it would be the first demand on him to make a miracle.

(c) Walk on water. If not that Peter also walked on water WITHOUT any prior preparation, you could say Jesus had time to prepare some sort of semi-submersible raft that he floated upon. How do you explain Peter's step of faith and the distance he walked on the storms before he got afraid?

---

Now to your point about Remote Viewing. I deliberately did not list Remote Viewing because it is not peddled as a paraphysical trait that is borne out of spiritual prowess. Rather, it is classified as parascience. Personally, I think remote viewing is just a scam as well. If I know some few things about you, it is possible for me to cold read or hot read you and describe what you are wearing almost perfectly. That's simple psychology and not remote viewing.

I will give you an example of the above, and GABRY can bear me witness. We were chatting on yahoo messenger one day and she shared some pictures so I got to see her for the first time, together with 4 other Asian ladies. I knew nothing about the picture and she asked me to identify her. I did that correctly and went on to describe the traits of the other ladies, their marital status, their level of friendship with her and how often they agree or disagree, their financial status, whether they had jobs or not, what they liked to do for fun, etc. Someone who doesn't know better would think I am psychic but that's crap.

I simply used stuff like their pose in the picture, the order in which they stood, how they smiled (forcibly or naturally) and their sense of a color combination and other such stuff to describe them perfectly. She was shocked. But it's just simple deductive reasoning.

Elementary, my dear Watson, as Sherlock Holmes would say.

@bolded,
Really? I thought Jesus was omniscient or nigh-omniscient?

toneyb:
James Randi has 1million dollars(US) to give to anybody that can prove that his/her mystical capability is real.




We are in 2010 yet a large percentage of Nigerians still believe that the remains of virgins or little children can be turned into crispy cash . Some completely believe that human beings can turn into animals(owls, vultures, rats, ants) etc . Some dude was narrating a story to us about how some guys in Yenagoa (Bayelsa) turn into rats and vultures at night when embarking on their robbery mission. . I just kept quiet in other not to embarrass him. You hear stories like bullet proof juju, People disappearing and appearing in other places, turning into fish and swimming from one end of the sea to another. How do we ever develop and start building our own airplanes, submarines, super sonic fighter jets, space telescope, electron microscope, computers, cars etc when an average Nigerian truly believes in these myths and urban legends that keeps us in total darkness? .

Our Nigerian media is not helping matters at all, they give credibility to all these nonsense. You get to hear of such urban legends reported on nightly news broadcast. The Nigerian movie industry is a very BIG SHAME. It's always one mammy water story or the other. . "Blood money", "How Stella turned into a vulture". These beliefs are further entrenched with baseless and endless rumors all the time. From "Breathing tree", to "Singing chair". People go to school but are still unable to make any difference or contribute anything significant at all to the over all development of the society at large because these false beliefs we hold over shadows the laws of nature they learn in  their various schools. Nigerians(Africans) go to schools all over the world yet they are still unable to build their own technology, We attend some of the best schools in America, Europe and Asia with the people that live there, yet they are always moving ahead while we are always languishing in our continuous state of oblivion.

A white man sees something he does not really understand and tries to find natural explanations for it. The average Nigerian/African revels in the thoughts of mysterious and baseless myths and urban legends. We are always unable to do anything for ourselves because of obsolete beliefs in urban legends and myths that has become an integral part of our lives and "reality". Its almost a hopeless case.

He made this post 2010. And 7 years later, the situation is still the same, probably worse. Credulous people everywhere.

NairalandSARS:


@bolded,
Really? I thought Jesus was omniscient or nigh-omniscient?

Hi, u tried to PM me. Sorry I can't access that email.

Some pastors (I believe are genuine) do these things frequently.

We probably have the gifts which were hidden or made dormant after the fall of man.

I have seen very convincing videos of kids moving stuff with their minds. I don't know how genuine the videos are though. I will find and post them later.

OpenYourEyes1:
Some pastors (I believe are genuine) do these things frequently.

We probably have the gifts which were hidden or made dormant after the fall of man.

I have seen very convincing videos of kids moving stuff with their minds. I don't know how genuine the videos are though. I will find and post them later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T1PbYNTDrI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwUSZbVu6wc