Some Important Facts for the Religious (and Everybody Else)

[KWED]

University of Virginia - Study of Reincarnation - Division of Perceptual Studies

Edit to add: Google search results for "scientific proof of reincarnation"

There is no "scientific proof" of reincarnation. There are only anecdotal claims.

 

[KWED]

Here's another fact. Cosmologists estimate that our current knowledge of the cosmos stands at about 13%. Leaving 87% currently unknown to us.

And how do you know that estimate is in any way accurate?
For one who is constantly challenging people's claims to and use of knowledge and evidence, you seem rather eager to accept it.
Why the inconsistency?

 

[KWED]

Psychology Today - Evaluating the Evidence for Reincarnation

Key points:

• There are many cases of young children who report very specific details of an apparent past life, which are later verified.
• Some claim that children's reports of past lives could be the result of fraud, imagination, or embellishment.
• One striking case of past-life recall is Ryan Hammons, who made 55 very specific statements about a previous life that were verified.

Research in this area was pioneered by Dr. Ian Stevenson, a psychiatrist at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, who spent much of his career collecting and examining such cases. Typically, between the age of 2 and 4 (with a mean age of 35 months) such children start talking about their previous life, often speaking about the events that led up to their death, and sometimes using the present tense as if their previous life was still continuing. In some cases, Stevenson was able to identify the person the child claimed to be and to verify the information by speaking to relatives of the deceased (1).

Since Stevenson’s death, other researchers have followed his lead. Now around 2500 reports of children’s past-life memories have been studied (2).

All in all, this evidence makes me feel that I have no choice but to accept that reincarnation is real. As a scientist, I feel obliged to revise my views in the face of evidence.

Steve Taylor Ph.D.

(1) Stevenson, I,. (1980). Twenty Cases Suggestive Of Reincarnation. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press

(2) 'Fifty Years of Research.' Fifty Years of Research - Division of Perceptual Studies

None of that is "scientific evidence". It's merely the argument from personal incredulity.

One of the most famous, accepted, flagship cases for PLE turned out be be fraud.

Stevenson seemed far to eager to accept people's accounts as the best possible explanation.

 

[KWED]

You are free to have your views and opinions
Just as religious people are free to believe what they do.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts" - JP Moynahan

 

[KWED]

The strange about socalled facts is, they change when science discover new knowledge about the topic. So facts aren't that reliable either.

Religious belief are based on faith and belief in a teaching. But that does not make it less valuable for those who believe in it.

In the same time, some people do not believe in faith, and that is perefctly ok too.

Science doesn't deal in "fact", but in "best explanation is light of available evidence". However, some explanations are so well supported that they are synonymous with "fact", and if they turned out to be wrong, then a lot of technical stuff must be working by magical coincidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

This entire post represents an erroneous 'arguing from ignorance' and a very poor understanding of basic science.

Here's another fact. Cosmologists estimate that our current knowledge of the cosmos stands at about 13%. Leaving 87% currently unknown to us. That percentage is so high that what we think we know, now, could easily be completely overturned as we come to know more (if we come to know more).

And also this; most of existence is apparently comprised of "dark matter/energy" and we have no idea at all what they are. We don't even know they exist except that we think they must exist, mathmetically, to account for what we think we do know about the universe (that whopping 13%).

Fundamentally false. The estimate that ~87% of our universe is made up of dark matter and energy is not remotely related to an estimate of our scientific knowledge of our universe. Even the dark matter and energy of our universe is not completely unknown to science. We do know somethings about the nature of this ~87% of our universe. I can discuss the growing body of knowledge concerning dark energy and dark matter if this is of interest to you.

Here's another fact for you. We currently have no idea where or how life began, or how common it is in the universe. We have some theories, but they conflict, and are completely unproven.

Again fundamentally false, and reflects a lack of knowledge of science. Yes, we do not know how common life is in the universe, but again 'arguing from ignorance' does not reflect what we know and do not know about the science of abiogenesis.

Problem, your using a layman/religious agenda use of proof, which has no meaning in science. Science does not prove anything. Proof is the method of math theorems and logic.

We do have an increasing body of knowledge concerning abiogenesis, and like above I can go into our present knowledge of abiogenesis in detail. I have a standing google search on peer reviewed research on abiogenesis and at least four research articles are posted every week..

Fact: We do not have any 'objective verifiable knowledge' concerning the religious claims of the religions of the world.

 

[shunyadragon]

And what evidence you have that those are the facts? The problem here is that none of those can be proven correct. They are only common beliefs.

First: you are egregiously misusing the word of proof based on a religious agenda, and a lack of knowledge of science.

Yes the original post did not use the word 'fact in proper context, but considering most of what was proposed reflecting the current knowledge of science it is right on.

Current extent of our knowledge fact: We do not have any 'objective verifiable knowledge' concerning the religious claims of the religions of the world. You are basically nisusing the word 'belief' in the English language. Scientific knowledge is not based on belief. Your use reflects a religious agenda.

 

[PureX]

And how do you know that estimate is in any way accurate?
For one who is constantly challenging people's claims to and use of knowledge and evidence, you seem rather eager to accept it.
Why the inconsistency?

For someone who worships everything any scientist says, why the sudden skepticism?

I figure the cosmologists ought to be able to estimate what they know and don't know. I heard it from Niel DeGrasse Tyson. Why should I doubt him? He is also the one that pointed out that we have no idea where or how life began, or how common it is.

 

[shunyadragon]

^^ @Dan From Smithville , this is what I’m talking about. I’ll say it again...the scientific literature is full of philosophical jargon, using suppositions as “probably”, “suggests”, “likely”, “possibly”, etc. (which @shunyadragon stated “does no work”
)

Yet, here it is…these ‘possibly’s have achieved the status of “fact.”

Please tell me, @Jagella…while we understand how gravity keeps the planets in their marvelous orbits…how did it originally *set* them in their established paths?

What processes could accomplish that?

For that matter…do we know how life began? Since you think it’s been established that natural processes started life, please share those facts.

Your intentional ignorance of science is only exceeded by your reliance on the knowledge of science based on ancient scripture without provenance and lacking science.

Your questions may be answered by a sincere study of science as science without the ancient religious agenda.

When you cite me do it completely and correctly.

 

[1213]

... Scientific knowledge is not based on belief. Your use reflects a religious agenda.

Sorry, I think all knowledge humans have is beliefs, people believe they have facts and they believe they have been proven. All knowledge you think you have is knowledge to you, because you believe is is correct knowledge. If you disagree, please one example of knowledge that doesn't depend on belief?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

1. The observable cosmos is 13.6 billion years old and has evolved into its present form.
2. The earth is 4.6 billion years old and along with the rest of the solar system formed under gravity from a cloud of dust and gas in space.
3. There is no evidence that any consciousness can function without a living, physical brain.
4. Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, and we split off from that ancestor six million years ago in Africa.
5. Prehistoric religion goes back at least thirty thousand years.
6. Historic religion started about five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
7. The oldest religion practiced today is Hinduism.
8. The creation stories in Genesis 1-2 are taken from Babylonian mythology.
9. No religious or spiritual healer has ever been proved to have genuine healing powers although many of them have been exposed as frauds.

There are many more such facts, but my point is that if you know what's going on, then you know better than to believe what religion claims.

All I learned is that you have false conceptions about "religion" in general and that you have a chip on your shoulder.

 

[Heyo]

That 45% sounds high, even for America, strange place though it is. I doubt there’s anywhere else in the world where evolution is disputed, including those countries where religious practice is the norm.

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

So, yes, there are other places where evolution is disputed but the US sure trails the heavily industrialized countries.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, I think all knowledge humans have is beliefs, people believe they have facts and they believe they have been proven. All knowledge you think you have is knowledge to you, because you believe is is correct knowledge.

You need to differentiate between science where our knowledge is based 'objective verifiable evidence' and facts of nature, and the ;beliefs' in the claims of religions, which are not supported by 'objective verifiable evidence such as the 'belief in God.

Again you are egregiously misusing the concept of proof and defined in the English language, based on a layman religious agenda. which does not apply to science

Please present 'objective verifiable evidence' that confirms the 'belief' in God

If you disagree, please one example of knowledge that doesn't depend on belief?

The facts that science uses based repeated research using objective verifiable evidence such as: The earth, our solar system and universe is billions of years old.

 

[Heyo]

Sorry, I think all knowledge humans have is beliefs, people believe they have facts and they believe they have been proven. All knowledge you think you have is knowledge to you, because you believe is is correct knowledge. If you disagree, please one example of knowledge that doesn't depend on belief?

One definition of knowledge (not exactly the best one) is: "justified, true belief".
I.e. it must be true (correspond with the facts), you must have good reasons to believe it and finally you must believe it.
So, by that definition, yes, all knowledge is belief.

 

[Secret Chief]

you have a ship on your shoulder.

That will surely weigh them down.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

That will surely weigh them down.

I meant to say "chip" - but ship works too. Heh.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, I think all knowledge humans have is beliefs, people believe they have facts and they believe they have been proven. All knowledge you think you have is knowledge to you, because you believe is is correct knowledge. If you disagree, please one example of knowledge that doesn't depend on belief?

For further clarification getting down to the basic foundation of science: Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.

• that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers. ...
• that this objective reality is governed by natural laws. ...
• that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.

The assumptions of science are confirmed by the validity of the predictions of every research hypothesis based on the physical 'objective verifiable evidence.' These assumptions have been tested and confirmed everyday by science for hundreds of years. No such predictive reliable method is available to verify religious beliefs as consistently predictable nor reliable. The result is many conflicting diverse beliefs by humans for different religions, divisions and sects each claiming to know or have fundamental truths that are 'subjective' and not verified by objective evidence.

Science is constantly tested and verified repeatedly religious beliefs are not.

 

[sun rise]

How would you know if "Gilgamesh" borrowed from "Abraham" or not? Consider it carefully.

I know nothing about "Abraham" except some legends. So I revised your question to be about the difference between history and legend. There is no scientific evidence that I'm aware of "Abraham". The evidence for "Gilgamesh" apparently ties back to an epic poem which may or may not be historically accurate.

But please enlighten me with the knowledge you have.

 

[KWED]

For someone who worships everything any scientist says, why the sudden skepticism?

I figure the cosmologists ought to be able to estimate what they know and don't know. I heard it from Niel DeGrasse Tyson. Why should I doubt him? He is also the one that pointed out that we have no idea where or how life began, or how common it is.

Ok, so you now defer to the authority of scientists.
Cool.

 

[KWED]

This entire post represents an erroneous 'arguing from ignorance'

What was the OP claiming to be true on the grounds that it hasn't been disproved, or vice versa?