Stats: 3,192,046 members, 7,946,566 topics. Date: Wednesday, 11 September 2024 at 09:00 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Are Teleportation, Psychokinesis, Etc Ontologically Possible, Spiritually / Not? (5585 Views)
6 Signs That You Are Being Attacked Spiritually / Is Oral And Anal Sex Spiritually Hygienic In Christian Marriages??? / How To Conquer Barrenness/ Poverty Spiritually & Physically (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Are Teleportation, Psychokinesis, Etc Ontologically Possible, Spiritually / Not? by nuclearboy(m): 6:05pm On Apr 05, 2010 |
@InesQor: You serious? ? DeepSight showed up around here? ![]() Please whats the link to the thread he posted on? |
Re: Are Teleportation, Psychokinesis, Etc Ontologically Possible, Spiritually / Not? by toneyb: 6:10pm On Apr 05, 2010 |
viaro: 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: 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 - 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. |
Re: Are Teleportation, Psychokinesis, Etc Ontologically Possible, Spiritually / Not? by viaro: 6:21pm On Apr 05, 2010 |
toneyb: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. 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]). 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 dishonestWe 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?[/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. 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. |
Re: Are Teleportation, Psychokinesis, Etc Ontologically Possible, Spiritually / Not? by viaro: 6:32pm On Apr 05, 2010 |
toneyb: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.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. |
Re: Are Teleportation, Psychokinesis, Etc Ontologically Possible, Spiritually / Not? by toneyb: 6:36pm On Apr 05, 2010 |
OK Viaro you win ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Are Teleportation, Psychokinesis, Etc Ontologically Possible, Spiritually / Not? by viaro: 6:47pm On Apr 05, 2010 |
toneyb:@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 onVery best wishes, pal. I've got the e-addy, pls delete pronto! <Many thanks again. |
Re: Are Teleportation, Psychokinesis, Etc Ontologically Possible, Spiritually / Not? by nuclearboy(m): 7:34pm On Apr 05, 2010 |
@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 You need deliverance O ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Are Teleportation, Psychokinesis, Etc Ontologically Possible, Spiritually / Not? by viaro: 8:16pm On Apr 05, 2010 |
^^ 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. ![]() |
Re: Are Teleportation, Psychokinesis, Etc Ontologically Possible, Spiritually / Not? by InesQor(m): 10:33am On Oct 12, 2013 |
Man, this section misses good quality posters such as viaro (Christian), ilosiwaju (agnostic) and toneyb (atheist). |
Re: Are Teleportation, Psychokinesis, Etc Ontologically Possible, Spiritually / Not? by plaetton: 2:05pm On Oct 12, 2013 |
Both of these concepts have been scientifically demonstrated in recent times. |
Re: Are Teleportation, Psychokinesis, Etc Ontologically Possible, Spiritually / Not? by NairalandSARS: 5:24pm On Jul 25, 2017 |
InesQor: @bolded, Really? I thought Jesus was omniscient or nigh-omniscient? |
Re: Are Teleportation, Psychokinesis, Etc Ontologically Possible, Spiritually / Not? by MONEYJOEE: 5:33pm On Jul 25, 2017 |
toneyb: He made this post 2010. And 7 years later, the situation is still the same, probably worse. Credulous people everywhere. |
Re: Are Teleportation, Psychokinesis, Etc Ontologically Possible, Spiritually / Not? by Nobody: 7:40pm On Jul 26, 2017 |
NairalandSARS:Hi, u tried to PM me. Sorry I can't access that email. |
Re: Are Teleportation, Psychokinesis, Etc Ontologically Possible, Spiritually / Not? by OpenYourEyes1: 4:52pm On Nov 29, 2018 |
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. |
Re: Are Teleportation, Psychokinesis, Etc Ontologically Possible, Spiritually / Not? by OpenYourEyes1: 6:26pm On Nov 29, 2018 |
OpenYourEyes1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T1PbYNTDrI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwUSZbVu6wc |
God Vs Religion / Atheists are zombies / A Question For All Atheists On Nairaland
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 97 |