What was the good reason? — Andrew4Handel

I predicted such a dumbfounded response, so I went back and edited my reply:

I literally gave the good reason in the first sentence: there isn't a shred of credible evidence in its favour. And our subsequent discussion hasn't changed that one bit. Testimony of extraordinary events is not credible evidence, and if you have the required critical thinking skills, then you should already know why that is without me having to explain it.

There are many different types of pre-life, after death, near death accounts etc I wouldn't lump them altogether. Near death experiences tend to be taken seriously but theorists tend to try and explain in terms of types of neural/biochemical activity. — Andrew4Handel

What is that supposed to be? Are you just nitpicking at my use of the phrase "take seriously", taking it out of context and applying your own meaning? Because that's how it looks. In future, if you're not sure, just ask for a clarification. Your ability to remain on point and to accurately interpret and represent what I've said leaves much to be desired. I've really had to put my foot down and browbeat you into trying again and again until you gradually get closer to what I'm getting at. You're hard work.

What I meant by "take seriously", is something more than, "That sounds utterly implausible, fantastical, and extraordinary, and nothing in my own experience, or science, or logic, backs it up as something for which there is anything approaching sufficient credible evidence. But I suppose one can presume that it's a logical possibility, provided the lack of any knowledge of a contradiction".

Otherwise we'd have to take seriously all manner of ridiculous claims, as though they're all on par. No, I'll take them seriously in a different sense. I'll take them seriously in the sense that you seriously need to pull your socks up if that's what you think is an acceptable epistemological standard.

You initially said

Yes, because there isn't a shred of credible evidence in its favour. Only fools take seriously such presumed possibilities
— S

You started your "debate" being completely dismissive with no good reason. — Andrew4Handel

You genuinely believe that I did that with no good reason? I literally gave the good reason in the first sentence: there isn't a shred of credible evidence in its favour. And our subsequent discussion hasn't changed that one bit. Testimony of extraordinary events is not credible evidence, and if you have the required critical thinking skills, then you should already know why that is without me having to explain it.

Initially, you claimed you needed credible evidence and then used scientific evidence as a source of credible evidence and personal testimony as made up stuff. — Andrew4Handel

No. I'm going to say this one last time. Do not attempt to paraphrase what I've said, because you are proving too incompetent to do so accurately.

I wasn't using certain in that sense of the word. I meant it in the sense of some but not all.

Personal testimony can be fallible but that does not make it all false, logically. We rely on successful inter human communication to get through life. — Andrew4Handel

No one has claimed that it's all false. Why are you addressing claims that no one here has made?

There's a basic and well-known standard for this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It makes a lot of sense, and is a must-have for any epistemological standard worth it's salt. The claim that you've lived past lives should not be treated as on par with the claim that you had cereal for breakfast this morning, and the reasons why they shouldn't be treated as such should be obvious. If you do not see the reasons as obvious, then what does that say about your critical thinking skills? Just think of the logical consequences.

Keith Ansell-pearson - Philosophy and the adventure of the Virtual — emancipate

I'll pass.

Why do you need "scientific" evidence to prove the earth is not flat? If you travel around the globe on a boat you will find it is not flat. Why does evidence have to be classed as "Scientific"? — Andrew4Handel

Do not ask me loaded questions which do not accurately represent any claim that I have made. If you're too incompetent to accurately represent what I've said in your own words, then stick to mine.

You are wasting both of our time by doing this.

Readable contemporary philosophy from the continental side? Good luck with that.

And where exactly does he state in the book that all that really is important is human happiness? What page number?

Then don't ask it. — Wayfarer

Rhetorical question.

It’s not spin. — Wayfarer

It certainly looks like spin to me.

He was generally ignored and often maligned. Reincarnation is a cultural taboo in Western culture, as a matter of fact. It goes against the grain. The main point I’m making is simply that this body of work does exist, and it is, as Stevenson suggests, suggestive of the possibility. — Wayfarer

What is your intent behind mentioning these irrelevancies, though? That's a rhetorical question, because I don't trust your ability to answer that question. They are irrelevancies because it's possible that he could be completely wrong and rightly discredited in spite of also being ignored and often maligned. My answer to that question which you can't be trusted to answer is that you are fallaciously appealing to our emotions in the hope of swaying our opinion in his favour and against the wider scientific community. In short, it is indeed spin. That's an apt name for it.

I got one of his books out of the library once, and read some of it.

One of the things he said in the article I linked was ‘the will not to believe is as strong as the will to believe.’ — Wayfarer

That's certainly not what I meant by due diligence.

which would be....? — Wayfarer

Which would be, for example, your choice of phrasing. You spin it as though he is a victim of a scientific community that is unfairly set against him, ignores his good work, and maligns his good character.

That sounds a lot like spin. The language is loaded, and, coming from an outside perspective, it looks really fishy. Again, are we, as an audience to what you're saying, supposed to uncritically lap this up? Because it has the opposite effect on me. For me, it sends up red flags. It makes me question whether it was not in fact the case that he has been rightly discredited, and you just do not like that. It looks like you're trying hard to sell him to us, but I have strong doubts about the quality of the product that you're trying to sell us. My concern is that this product is a cheap knockoff, and that the feedback which you're telling us to not take all too seriously is in fact a damning indictment, and something to be taken very seriously.

its not uncommon on a online forum for people to dislike each others opinions. Thanks for sharing.
He even says alot of this stuff in his videos on youtube. — christian2017

I said that I doubted your paraphrasing, not that I dislike your opinion, and I wasn't suggesting that you're completely off track. It is an issue of accuracy. If you can quote him saying that "happiness is all that really matters", then that would reduce my doubt about the accuracy of your paraphrasing. What I suspect is that he would've said something more sophisticated than that, based on what I have read so far, but it's possible I'm wrong.

Again, you still haven't provided any quotes from the book. Why? I think that that's pretty damn important in a discussion like this.

Values have everything to do with it. The idea your beliefs have nothing to do with your values is simply derisible.

Science does not prove the earth is not flat, evidence does. You do not need science to validate claims. How often in a conversation do you demand people validate a claim with science. Never?

People cannot prove the claims they make about the contents of their experience nor can science.

You have made such a simplistic and facile notion of evidence that only trivial claims could past muster.

It is clear that your notion of evidence is maximally bias and prejudice. — Andrew4Handel

I reject more or less everything you just angrily spurted at me and stand by my prior claims. There is a wealth of scientific evidence that has been amassed to make the claim that Earth is not flat credible, and my values and desires would not change that situation in any way. The very idea that it would is ludicrous.

"Generally ignored or maligned" - or rightly discredited? To me, that rings of confirmation bias from you. I don't trust your spin, and I don't think anyone else should, either. We'd have to look into it ourselves, because you can't be trusted. You clearly have a stake in this, you're emotionally invested.

There is evidence of children recalling previous lives. See this article. — Wayfarer

Summarise the important parts of the article. Why should it be believed that they're "recalling" previous lives rather than making them up?

Oh, okay, I see you've given a lengthy post instead of a summation. First there was far too little information presented, now there's far too much.

The main researcher was a Professor Ian Stevenson — Wayfarer

Have you done your due diligence on this guy, though? I doubt it.

My understanding from the book is that the percentage of neanderthal dna is far too low to rule out genocide. — praxis

Yes, I recall that he doesn't rule it out. It is very much still on the table.

I'm not going to be proposing any world wide religion or belief system because I strongly disagree with the idea. If all that really matters is happiness, then we'd almost certainly have to scrap the idea of a world wide religion, as millions - perhaps billions - of people would be against the idea, and it would be detrimental to their happiness.

I doubt your paraphrasing of the book, but I haven't read that far.

Don't you think you're jumping the gun? You haven't explained why he supposedly states that, nor have you quoted from the book. And you seem unjustifiably biased that if there is to be a new fiction, it should take the form of a world wide religion. He already gave the example of legal fictions, like Peugot. You've given the example of money. And if there were to be a new world wide religion, in what sense would it even count as a religion?

You don't do discussion, so you have some nerve to lecture others in this regard or to invite them to discuss matters, giving them false hope. Discussion requires more than just talking at someone like a broken record.

Ha! That's funny, and it's even funnier that he doesn't see it.

I will continue to say it until you get it...

...or stop asserting things that defy it. — Frank Apisa

I will just continue to disregard what you mindlessly repeat, occasionally calling you out for it.

I see what your saying about presumed possibility. — christian2017

It was a point based on a distinction which, if he was more consistent and cared to apply critical thinking skills, he would agree with, but he cares more about repeating himself like someone with brain damage.

It's possible that something is impossible without being known to be so. It's possible that something has been demonstrated or established to be impossible without being known to be so. I was just making that clear with my more careful wording. We presume that something is possible unless shown otherwise. As someone who goes around ranting about agnosticism and what we do not know, you'd think he might be sympathetic to that, but as usual his giant ego prevents him from making any concession here. As usual, his line of attack is one of the weakest possible lines of attack, which is to just repeat himself and to name call.

As for the rest I guess I need to go back through and see what was said. — christian2017

You should have done that to begin with. I don't know why people bother to quote other people if they don't address anything in the quote. It was crystal clear that I was objecting to his mindless and unhelpful repetition: a problem that he is known for, and for which he is perhaps the worst offender. The first thing he said in reply to me was literally a copy and paste of what he said previously.

I have no interest in your senseless repetitions. If I were a moderator I would have been taking action against them long ago.
— S

All Frank Apisa said was that there are basically mathematical principles that no one can argue with.

If i say truth is not equal to A (hypothetical situation) then it would follow from the information given that any other variable other than A is a possibility.

"if something is not impossible then there is a chance it can happen even if it is unlikely.

This is basic math. — christian2017

There are several obvious things wrong with what you just said.

1. It made no mention of what I was objecting to in the quote, perhaps because you were oblivious to what I was objecting to, even though I spelled it out.

2. It doesn't address the problematic wording I was taking issue with.

3. You confuse mathematics and logic.

4. You miss the point.

5. You preach to the choir.

Next time think more critically instead of rashly jumping to someone's defence.

However, God and the mystical world are accessible to everyone. Anyone can think they are a master of knowledge in the realm of mysticism. It provides a sort of mastery of our understanding and of our place in the universe, without doing the heavy lifting. — schopenhauer1

No, only what seems to be little more than fiction on God and related mumbo-jumbo is accessible to everyone, the only real difference being that most people with the exception of a large number of children recognise fiction for what it is. On the contrary, there's no reasonable grounds for believing that God is accessible to anyone, for what seems to be the same reason for there being no reasonable grounds for believing that invisible faeries are accessible to anyone.

And a master of gullibility isn't someone who deserves admiration.

The OP is an attempt to give a shred of credibility in its favour. — Inyenzi

Well it fails. It might convince a few idiots, but I'm certainly not one of them.

Have a nice day.

What do you consider credible evidence? It seems you are making a value judgement by using the word credible. — Andrew4Handel

No, it's a judgement, but values have nothing to do with it. An example of credible evidence would be the science supporting the claim that Earth isn't flat. An example of incredible evidence would be some chump just pointing out that some people say some stuff about supposed extraordinary events which could easily be made up, and there being no way of knowing the claim to be true.

If people can't get to grips with a basic epistemological standard, then they're simply no good at philosophy and should find another hobby.

What about clinically dead patients who have full knowledge of what transpired during their intermission? — Shamshir

You think I'm going to just take your word for that?

There is no such thing as a "presumed possibility."

Unless a thing is established as impossible...by definition, it is possible. — Frank Apisa

Of course there is such a thing, and establishment is irrelevant except in relation to a demonstration. That doesn't determine whether or not something is impossible, it only shows it. You have no idea what you're talking about.

The notion of any post death existence is generally scoffed at by Western materialist types, but is it really so absurd? — Inyenzi

Yes, because there isn't a shred of credible evidence in its favour. Only fools take seriously such presumed possibilities. It falls under the same group as a million and one other such presumed possibilities. Why spend your time on this particular one, as opposed to, say, one involving spaghetti?

Then argue the other side. — tim wood

I have. It goes like this. I point out a counterexample, acknowledged by Michael and others. You then dismiss it and ramble about some phantom harm, the irrelevancy that it is illegal, mention the community for the umpteenth time, and that sort of thing. I then give one of my brutally frank, exceptionally logical, and, as ever, sharply witty criticisms. You then get upset and personally attack me, or ramble some more, or a bit of both, or you revert to silly question mode.

That is, easily solved, if we want it solved. If we don't want it solved, it's impossible. — Jake

There's that catch 22 again. :lol:

Some people have been thinking about these subjects for 50 years, while others are encountering them for the first time. — Jake

The same year, he published four groundbreaking papers during his renowned annus mirabilis (miracle year) which brought him to the notice of the academic world at the age of 26.

Einstein, that is. Just saying.

Do I get a reward for that? — Wallows

Not getting beaten with a stick.

I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, WRONG! — Jake

For the record, he said he was wrong. We can close the discussion.

Wait! Unless... he was being sarcastic? But I thought he was a serious-minded elite, above that sort of behaviour.

Reading between the lines, I think the request is for a place where he can be sarcastic and make quips, but no one else can be sarcastic and make quips at his expense. Those people are not the elite class. They should be excluded.

For example, if I call something a chair, and someone else calls it a pigeon, and someone else calls it a cyclopean calculator, then I think we're in for a troublesome conversation. — whollyrolling

Not really. So long as you're talking about the same thing, then it doesn't really matter. It only matters if you make it matter, and it just isn't worth the bother.

Wait, hold on a second here. Ive been following this thread and what you are saying makes zero sense at all, you’ve made some kind of nightmare turn in your logic that I am compelled to point out here...what kind of madman puts sugar in his milk?!
Get help. — DingoJones

Oh, right. The coffee. Sometimes I forget the coffee. And the cup! That mischievous cup. Always running away from me by staying perfectly stationary in the cupboard where I left it. And the kettle! That little rascal. He never boils himself when I tell him to. Sometimes I end up just pouring the boiling water all over the floor on my ceiling in the tower inside the galaxy of my mind.

And my pills! I knew there was something else I forgot.

I'm not sure if Socrates took joy in being the gadfly. Maybe it was some proto-Kantian duty he sought to fulfill. — Wallows

Duty to what? Or who? Anyway, I speak my mind and take joy in playing with mice. That's just the sort of gadfly I am. A catlike gadfly, I guess. A catfly? My duty is to myself, my principles, my desires, my values, and my whims. Me, me, me.

For the record, I think they are important in some cases. If a person uses the descriptor "atheist" or, let's say, "agnostic atheist"...it says to me that the person almost certain "believes" (blindly guesses) there are no gods or "believes" (blindly guesses) that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. In a discussion with someone using that descriptor, It is an aid to realize that. — Frank Apisa

It's the exact opposite of an aid. It's a problematic assumption, a hindrance.

I do not rant. — Frank Apisa

I don't think anyone else sees it that way. You come across as ranting.

I often repeat things... — Frank Apisa

That's a massive understatement.

as you do...and as many others do. — Frank Apisa

To no where near the extent that you do. You and creativesoul are by far the worst on the forum for this, and Devans99 is in the same boat, for sure.

Anything else I can help you with? — Frank Apisa

Milk, two sugars. Thanks.

In the wise words of @TimeLine: vat?

Well, you are a balloon popper and button presser, so whatever floats your boat, I suppose. — Wallows

I'm not going to deny that, but I'll say that if you allow yourself to be startled by popped balloons, and if you allow your buttons to be pressed, then that's a sign of weakness, and weakness is something which one should learn to overcome. If you become strong enough, this ceases to be a problem.

There's always a moral beneath the surface.