Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I read it back when it was still under the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research but it looks like they took it down. It's probably in one of his books but unless you can find a free copy at a library, you'd probably have to go through a paywall to find it now.
How do you determine the credibility of sources? Did you see the quality of the names dropped in that website and determined that they are all non-credible?
I consider whether a group to be fair inconsequential to what they say and if it has a suitable rebuttal. If I only read what was considered to be fair I wouldn't look at the vast majority of links you provide as they go back to specific pro-psychic groups looking to make a point.
Again, remember I suggest to read all sides and then judge for yourself (but that will not be a quick thing).I consider whether a group to be fair inconsequential to what they say and if it has a suitable rebuttal. If I only read what was considered to be fair I wouldn't look at the vast majority of links you provide as they go back to specific pro-psychic groups looking to make a point.
I agree, which is why I read your link and why you'll hopefully read mine.
Oh believe me, I have already read your link many times and all anti-paranormal arguments I can find. I have been at this subject for many decades. It is not a side subject to me as it is to most people.I agree, which is why I read your link and why you'll hopefully read mine.
The URL is a big indication, such as one that is xxxx.mega50.com - the .mega50 is a major indication it's phoney. "Evidencefortheafterlife.com" screams bias, as does "skepticforum.com." The University of Arizona's page is obviously credible, but it only contains a brief bit of biographical information of the man.
Not surprising if it was taken down considering very few universities still take para-psychology seriously and have departments for it.
Depends, can you assure me that the writers weren't burning the same bush that Moses seems to have?I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but what if the Bible is actually eyewitness account (written before radio and TV were even conceived) instead of mythology? Does that change anything? (I bet you'll answer no anyways.
Er.....what? The URL has no mega50 in it but that would still be irrelevant. The 'man' is a former member of the Australian Supreme Court if that matters. He relies primarily on other sources which can be researched by the truly interested.
The burden of proof falls entirely on you for stating the claim someone who died returned to life.
When I looked up the guy and this triple blind research, what I gave were examples of the results, including one that was "whateverpagename".mega50.com. And, yes, "odd" URLs are a legitimate red flag, not just for source credibility but online safety.
It doesn't. Indiana legislators once tried to legally define pi as 3.2, which will not work. Their positions as official state representatives does not add to their credibility or the merit behind such an absurd attempt.
Just about every researcher does that. Such as, Young Earth Creationists draw from other sources, but their sources, upon investigation, are notoriously limited to other Young Earth Creationist proponents, and not from the science community as a whole. I suspect the person you mentioned (I can't recall his name, nor do I care to look back a few pages) draws very heavily from other heavily-debunked and discredited para-normal investigators.
This shows the distrust I have for the so-called skeptical groups. Everyone that agrees with them is credible and anyone that does not agree is not credible. Suspicious labeling?
As a Hoosier with a bit of pride in our home state,
True, but regardless a position of political authority doesn't make one right - case in point being Taylor Record, the state Representative who believed someone who thought a circle can be squared. With Mike Pence, we have "smoking won't kill you," "homosexuals are a sign of societal collapse," and trying to disprove evolution before Congress.
Yes, suspicious labeling. If you go back, I even stated the website "skepticforums.com screams bias," and I judged it to be inadequate to research the claims made by this person you mentioned.
