I assume that you would accept, that YOU have your own standard, for what you consider valid evidence. — universeness

Yes, I do. I haven't read the information @Wayfarer references. As I said, I'm skeptical, but I can't reject the evidence without looking at it. I must admit reincarnation is not something I have a lot of interest in. You, unless I misunderstood your post, also haven't looked at the evidence. Previously, you wrote:

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. You won't be surprised to read that I wear that badge with pride. — universeness

If that were true, you wouldn't reject the evidence Wayfarer describes out of hand without looking at it.

I have looked at some the evidence, in that I have read some of the case stories but not the number of cases that Wayfarer seems to have looked at.
I have also watched a couple of documentaries about past life experiences. One based on an Indian child and one based in a child from America. I found them no more convincing that those who claim to have personally experienced alien abduction, encounters with the divine, encounters with the paranormal, homeopathic claims, faith healing claims etc, etc.
I remember the Indian boy had been born with some deformed fingers, and the person who he had claimed to be in a past life, had been assaulted and some fingers were chopped off. :lol:
I know Stevenson's data has such cases of scars/deformities in this life, due to trauma faced in a previous life. :roll:
As I said out of 2.2 billion children, why so few reports and why do neuroscientists seem uninterested in pursuing this issue, if Stevenson et al, has such compelling evidence?
After all, the neuroscientist that proves reincarnation is real, will become as famous as Einstein!
Some folks have taken up where Stevenson left off, but not many scientific, peer reviewed papers on the topic have been published recently, as far as I know.

It seems you have studied the evidence Stevenson produced more than I. — universeness

Which I presume is 'not at all'.

Again: the reason I brought up Stevenson's research was in respect of the claim that there is 'no public evidence' concerning past-life beliefs. All I have read about him (apart from online) is a documentary account of Stevenson's life and research by a journalist who travelled with him, Old Souls, by Tom Schroder, and one of Stevenson's books, which I borrowed from the library. He presents a lot of documentary evidence in that book - each case was thoroughly investigated, with questionnaires, document searches, witness with interviews, and so on. Believe it, don't believe, it doesn't bother me, but you can't say 'there's no published evidence'. That is the only point I'm making.

:clap: :100: Keep up the good work, my friend, calling out bullsh*t passing itself off as public (non-anecdotal) evidence and/or conceptually self-consistent reasons.

Indeed, no better antidote to bullshit than ignorance, eh?

Accepting that you do not / cannot know, Wayf, is "the antidote" to not knowing that you do not / cannot know (re: "bullsh*t")

You're welcome. :smirk:

Believe it, don't believe, it doesn't bother me, but you can't say 'there's no published evidence'. That is the only point I'm making. — Wayfarer

People like @180 Proof and @universeness are just here to disrupt other people's discussions. They have nothing substantive to add and refuse to play fair by, as in this case, rejecting evidence without looking at it.

Stevenson is a hot-button issue. Shouldn't have brought it up, and won't do so again on this forum, as so many people find it upsetting.

Stevenson is a hot-button issue. Shouldn't have brought it up, and won't do so again on this forum, as so many people find it upsetting. — Wayfarer

I respect your position and your desire to keep the discussion fruitful.

On the other hand, I don't really care if they're upset. Their lack of intellectual integrity really pisses me off. Even that wouldn't bother me if they would just stay off threads where they can't even buy into the basic parameters of the discussion. Not every discussion about religious issues has to be about whether or not God exists or whether or not there is evidence God exists.

On the other hand, I don't really care if they're upset. Their lack of intellectual integrity really pisses me off. Even that wouldn't bother me if they would just stay off threads where they can't even buy into the basic parameters of the discussion. Not every discussion about religious issues has to be about whether or not God exists or whether or not there is evidence God exists. — T Clark

Thanks!

Thanks! — Raef Kandil

No need to thank me. It's just part of my job, my duty, my privilege, my calling as the Voice of the Spirit of Philosophy here on the forum.

Where have I ever explicitly or implicitly expressed being "upset" about any topic on TPF?

More specifically, T Clark, where have I either objected to the concept of "reincarnation" or documented anecdotes of "past lives" (some of which I'd read years ago) on the basis of conflating the topic with "whether or not God exists"?

Cite examples of both or either .

Of course, we both know you can't truthfully answer, T Ckark. Your ad hominems expose your own "lack intellectual integrity".

Stevenson is a hot-button issue. — Wayfarer

His "work" wouldn't be if it was, for example, sufficiently peer-reviewed and replicated much more widely as @universeness et al points out. Controversial, even extraordinary, theoretical claims have been rejected both by the public and the scientific community – e.g. General Relativity, Evolution – until sufficient, public testing (i.e. experimental evidence) had been accumulated (and a generation or so of initial skeptics had passed from the scene). After hundreds, maybe a thousand, generations of philosophers and then scientists, considering claims of "past lives" etc, Stevenson's compilation is the latest to have had no impact on either brain sciences (re: neurological mechanisms of memory-formation, storage & recall) & physics (re: conservation laws) or philosophies of mind (re: refutation of physicalism, phenomenology, intentionality ...) Why is this? Given the potential scientific and philosophical significance of demonstrable "past lives", how is this near-ubiquitous neglect still possible, Wayfarer?

IMO, it's fatuous (à la 'flat earther') denialism to blame this on something like a deliberate worldwide conspiracy by a scientistic cabal of "antireligious-biased, positivistic, materialists" ... which you & T Clark seem to tell yourselves has duped universeness, @Banno, me & countless others into not buying what Stevenson, you, et al are peddling. All fools are entitled to believe whatever they need to believe but fools are not entitled to other fools not daring to question, even ridicule, "beliefs" which warrant questions or ridicule. After all, some fools seek to know – and live as much as possible by knowing alone – and not 'to merely believe' (i.e. not to mystify, stupify or delude themselves).

Once again, sir, you're welcome. :victory: :cool:

Stevenson's compilation is the latest to have had no impact...why is this? — 180 Proof

Mainly because of the strong cultural bias against the subject he's exploring. It's not a conspiracy by any cabal, but belief in reincarnation is, as I've pointed out many times already, a cultural taboo. That's why when this particular exchange winds down to its inevitable end, I won't re-open this particular can of worms.

universeness et al points out. — 180 Proof

He acknowledges he's read nothing about it. He's simply categorising it with ufo's, astrology, and whatever else as a matter of course.

:ok: :smirk:

Which I presume is 'not at all'. — Wayfarer

You presume incorrectly, but that is quite common between posters on TPF.
If you read my last response to TClark, (if you haven't already,) then you will get a measure of what I have read and watched, related to Stevenson's work. Perhaps then, you will make fewer presumptions and simply ask more questions of the person you are exchanging with, if you want to try to gain a measure of how much they know about a particular fringe topic, such as reincarnation.

All I have read about him (apart from online) is a documentary account of Stevenson's life and research by a journalist who travelled with him, Old Souls, by Tom Schroder, and one of Stevenson's books, which I borrowed from the library. — Wayfarer

So your own knowledge of the subject is not much more than mine!

He presents a lot of documentary evidence in that book - each case was thoroughly investigated, with questionnaires, document searches, witness with interviews, and so on. — Wayfarer

Indeed, no better antidote to bullshit than ignorance, eh? — Wayfarer

No need to start to scratch, what/whose ignorance are you referring to?

People like 180 Proof and @universeness are just here to disrupt other people's discussions. They have nothing substantive to add and refuse to play fair by, as in this case, rejecting evidence without looking at it. — T Clark

:lol: Again TC, you accuse others of what YOU are soooooooo guilty of yourself. Your problem continues to be, your inability to see your own shortfalls. Which is why you make such a desperate effort to overblow your own significance, by constantly blowing your own trumpet. I have looked at some of the evidence, you suggest I have not looked at. I have not read the complete works of Stevenson and neither have you or wayfarer, but I have read 3 of his 'most convincing' case studies, and I have watched two documentaries, as I already posted to you.
A full analysis of those cases, would I assume, be unwelcome here, as there would be much to say.
If you or @Wayfarer want a separate thread on Stevenson's work then start one, instead of bleating on about what you presume others don't know.

Stevenson is a hot-button issue. Shouldn't have brought it up, and won't do so again on this forum, as so many people find it upsetting. — Wayfarer

Oh come on! Are we now suggesting some topics are 'too hot (or we are too scared) to handle,' :roll:
Reincarnation is certainly not deserving of such a status! It's about as hot as bull shit that's been lying in the snow for hours.

He acknowledges he's read nothing about it. He's simply categorising it with ufo's, astrology, and whatever else as a matter of course. — Wayfarer

Again you misrepresent me, which is becoming rather tiresome. I have acknowledged no such thing, and since you have indicated you own limited knowledge of Stevenson's work. We are not so far apart in our general knowledge of his work. Have you also 'watched a documentary,' and 'read a book,' on UFO evidence, Evidence of near death experiences, Alien abductions, evidence of the paranormal, evidence that christianity is fact, etc, etc?
Do you find that the evidence presented in some such books, is as good as Stevenson's? Or is his evidence so compelling that the world of REAL science, needs to make MAJOR efforts to confirm or debunk it completely?

On the other hand, I don't really care if they're upset. Their lack of intellectual integrity really pisses me off. Even that wouldn't bother me if they would just stay off threads where they can't even buy into the basic parameters of the discussion. Not every discussion about religious issues has to be about whether or not God exists or whether or not there is evidence God exists. — T Clark

Do you think 'we' care if we upset you? Your curmudgeon approach to others really pisses me off, as does your continuing delusion, regarding your self-bloated status on this site.

Here is yet another tedious example of your attempts to excuse and over compensate for your personal conceit/shortfalls:

No need to thank me. It's just part of my job, my duty, my privilege, my calling as the Voice of the Spirit of Philosophy here on the forum. — T Clark

Thank goodness there are more than one or two voices of reason here, who are not as easily duped by authentic looking shinies, that are in reality, just painted and burnished plastic, made to look all shiny and golden.

A thread about religion and faith has veered off into a thread about evidence and lack of evidence.

. I am anti-religion and a true believer in God. Maybe you think these things don't mix, but they do. — Raef Kandil

I don't believe so also because I'm the exact same. Religions often require/subscribe to a belief in God, but a belief in a God doesn't mean you follow any specific religion. It can be a personal relationship/understandings of the concept

="Raef Kandil;d14151"]Religion is an act of fear. Faith is act of liberation. Prophets are not following dogmas. They are essentially defying all the society rules to favour their truthfulness to the experience they are having.

Again I agree. It's very refreshing to encounter a philosopher that concords with what I believe.

All I am saying is: religion and faith are totally different things. And faith could be related to something different than God all together: like the existence of aliens or animal and environment issues. — Raef Kandil

I agree again. Faith applies to belief. And beliefs are not necessarily religious. Well done on your articulation of such. Bravo.

Your ad hominems expose your own "lack intellectual integrity". — 180 Proof

I don't think what I wrote was an ad hominem argument. I always get confused and people misuse the term all the time. I wasn't making an argument at all. I was pointing out your and @universeness's habitual disruptive misbehavior.

Your curmudgeon approach to others — universeness

It's an odd thing for you to call me a "curmudgeon." First, I don't think being one is necessarily bad. Every forum should have a few. And then, of course is the whole pot/kettle/black thing. One of the things I like about you is your feisty, argumentative attitude. You're as much a curmudgeon as I am.

I just wish you'd stop disrupting threads with irrelevant comments.

You're as much a curmudgeon as I am. — T Clark

Some truth in that, but I am nowhere near as gnarly or arrogant as you, as your comment below demonstrates:

I just wish you'd stop disrupting threads with irrelevant comments. — T Clark

You offer your mere opinion, as if there was some kind of authority, with academic prowess and status behind it. Something that would compel people to listen to your spurious judgements, when the truth is, you have no such status, so it's YOU who are stirring things in this thread not I or @180 Proof
Our viewpoints are every bit as valid as yours. You just like to hoist your own petard at times and 'puff' yourself in an unwarranted manner.

Some truth in that, but I am nowhere near as gnarly or arrogant as you — universeness

You are just as arrogant as I am and significantly more gnarly.

You offer your mere opinion, as if there was some kind of authority — universeness

As I noted, I am the official Voice of the Spirit of Philosophy here on the forum. Only one other member has been graced with such a lofty office. That's @Noble Dust, who is the Mayor of the Shoutbox.

:roll: :kiss:

wrong thread whoops