₦airaland Forum

Purist:
Quite revealing indeed. As someone said on youtube. . . "this explains the multiple personality disorder that God has in the bible. He acts like different people, because he was different people."

Perfect summary.

KunleOshob:
The highlighted above derives from the theory of evolution which is still an unproven myth. Science is just finally discovering what has been in the bible for eons that there were other species of humans that our ancestors could interbreed with.

Some scientist have made that claim very long time ago, some of them believe that humans have mated with the neanderthals long time ago. You clearly seem to be burying your head in the sand here because the study does not come any where close to what is written in the bible at all. It is not even clear if the discovery is a giant or not.

justcool:
Some people claim that the energy in the universe was created by the big bang! Nothing could be more unscientific!! Because science has observed that Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it only changes forms. And since science is confined only to the physical; it logically follows that in the physical world energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus the source of the energy in the physical world was not created in the physical world; therefore there must be another dimension from where this energy comes i.e. where this energy is created.

This is not what science says, it says that energy can neither be created or destroyed in a closed system, i don't know if the universe is an open or closed system.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed! This is obviously very true as science have observed. But keep in mind that we are dealing with the physical laws, since science only deals with the physical. And the Big bang is a physical event! Thus putting 1 and 2 together you arrive at the Truth that whatever created the physical world or matter that made up the physical world, is not physical since physically energy cannot be created and destroyed. Nor is it the big bang which is only a physical thing and hence, according to the first law of thermodynamics, cannot create energy. Is this not a proof that another dimension exist? A dimension which is non-physical and which science cannot explain? Thus we have to look for the origin of matter in a dimension not physical because in the physical dimension matter cannot be created or destroyed. Big bang is only a state in the existence of matter, which is nothing but condensed energy, and which perpetually goes through different stages or states- the four states of matter. I can elaborate on this if anybody wants me to.

How did you come to the conclusion that what ever created the universe is not physical? How do you know that its only one non physical entity that created the universe? Why can't it be 2 or more entities?

Thus everybody instinctively knows that everything that exists in nature has a beginning and a creator. Even the whole physical world has a beginning and a creator. It is left for the observer (the free thinker) to decide on what the beginning or the creator is. One is not confined to believe that this creator is the Christian God or the Muslim Allah. But to argue that the universe has no creator is totally counterintuitive, unnatural for a human being, unscientific, and to my perception, unintelligent.

The big bang states that at a certain time the universe started to expand from a singularity which is something and not nothing. Also, a rigorous definition of "begins to exist" that completely encompasses everything included in the phrase "Everything that begins to exist" would be helpful. Changing from one form or state to another is not the same as "beginning to exist". A reasonable question is ,Can you give me an example of something that begins to exist? It turns out that pretty much any example of things the theist claims begins to exist are assembled out of pre-existing materials e.g the house I live in, the automobile I drive, the children I spawned, etc

justcool:
Dear Deepsight! How body?
I see threads after threads where you have exchanges with the alleged atheists who claim that there is no creator. I read these threads with a smiles and bewilderment: Smiling at the funny arguments that there is no creator, yet bewildered in the fact that you continue to engage in such arguments when it’s very clear that science cannot disprove the existence of a creator; arguing with somebody who claims that science or freethinking leads to atheism is a waste of time. I stay away from such treads because I don’t want to be drawn into calling somebody insane. Anybody who tries to use science to prove that the universe has no creator or that there is no God is simply not a scientist for science is confined to the physical world, which is only a work of the creator and in which the creator does not reside. Any body who is an atheist simply chose to be; he cannot claim that his unbelief is the inevitable product of logical thinking or science.

This is a fallacious argument and it begs the question, you are only arguing from ignorance since you clearly do not fully know and also do not have any evidence to show that there is a creator and that creator lives outside the universe.

So, as we all know we exist in the universe, can you tell me where god exist? Heaven? Paradise? The spiritual realm? OK.

The specific answer actually doesn't matter. Let's call the place/realm in which god exists "A".

Who made "A"?

God couldn't have made. If he did, where did he exist before he made it? That just pushes the question further back and we end up with the same problem, asking the same question.

If "A" is eternal, then it is something that precedes god or is equal to him when it comes to the divine trait of being eternal. And that contradicts the nature of god.

And if you say god is not in a place, then god isn't anywhere, which means he doesn't exist. Even the bible begins with the statement that in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth.

Good videos, most especially the first one.

Moonstone:
There is no contradiction there. God banished Satan from Heaven into Hell. Now God does not want anyone to end up in hell. It is repeated time after time in the Bible that He is saddened when human beings are not righteous. It is not His intention but the Devil has come to steal, kill and destroy. Think about it in terms Spider man against Venom and Sandman, I'm sure that will simplify things for you. Spider man was the good one and Venom and Sandman just wanted power. That was what Satan wanted. 

Satan is generally evil and hell-fire is a place where he has been sent to suffer for the rest of eternity. It is only right that those that Satan has brought over to his side, should end up with him in hell. He needs more company down there, which is why he keeps bringing doubts into our faith.

God does not trust Satan. He is only condemning all the rebellious people to hell fire and since Satan is a fallen angel (greater than man), he would automatically take charge.

I completely agree with mazaje, what country/king would put their greatest enemy (the rebel leader) in total charge of the prison camps teeming with the political dissidents? In the Old Testament there is no mention of Satan ever being evil or doing evil deeds himself. Satan is one of gods chief angels (kind of like his enforcer). At worst he's shown to be a henchman who does all of gods dirtywork. You see this is because the Jews had a very different idea of god at that point. The god of the old Jews was viewed as being a sort of personification of the universe. He represented everything and had aspects of everything, thus god was capable of being loving and kind, but he was also a vengeful prick at the same time. This is why you get lines in the old testament where god claims to be both light and dark, where he claims to have created evil and be vengeful, and so on. Because he is all of these things, that was the point.

The word satan  in Hebrew means "to oppose". In certain greek translations of the old hebrew writings they translated it to mean 'diabolic' but I'm not sure why, exactly. But the word satan was also used as a noun to refer to someone who was an accuser or an adversary. This isn't meant to necessarily reflect an evil person, just someone who is on the other side. For example in a debate you would refer to the other side as your 'satan'. This actually occurs several times in the OT. In Samuel 29:4 the phillistines are distrustful of david, fearing that he would be a satan to them. And in samuel 19:22 Shime-i apologixes to king david, who rejects the apology, saying that they should not be a satan to each other.

Historians think that the idea of hell comes from an Indo-European invasion that occurred around 2000BC which displaced the Kurgan peoples. The Kurgans were hindus (sort of) but when they settled in europe their religious beliefs began to change. The ones who settled in western Europe eventually became the celts and it's believed that druidism and wicca come from them and their beliefs. The ones who settled in the middle east changed as well and eventually developed the concept of salvation and damnation after death. They believed there was a place called the "Bridge of the Petitioner" which you would pass over and be judged by the god, rashu. Those who failed would be tossed off the bridge into damnation. It should be mentioned that hell, damnation, and eternal life are not concepts that exist in the OT.

As for satan, around 650-500 BC the jewish peoples became friends with the persians. The persians at that time followed zoroastrianism, which is the oldest known religion and probably the most influential to other cultures. The religion only enters historical record for the first time around this point, but it existed as far back as around 2000 BC to the knowledge of historians. Anyway back on track, the zoroastrian religion is based on a dualistic approach to the universe, there is a main god who is a being pure good and kindness named Ahura Mazda, he basically had all of the qualities that christians claim god has, except with a better back story and cooler name. His opposite was his twin brother Angra Manyu (Or sometimes called Ahriman). He of course was the creator of all that was evil and a general uncool dude. The Zoroastrians believed that the two gods would fight until the god of evil was eventually defeated at which point there would be a Final Judgement. And yes, the NT writers basically just copy-pasted the Zoroastrian version of the end times into their holy text.

Because the jews and persians were friends the zoroastrian religion began to influence their own. This is where you get the NT portayal of god as being an entity of pure good and loving and blah, blah, blah. But that then meant that he needed an evil opposite. So it became satan since he was probably the best target since his name means 'adversary'. What they never considered was a motivation for satan being evil. Seriously, they never give him one, he just becomes stupidly evil for no reason they ever bother to explain and all of that 'Gods Chief Angel" stuff just gets swept under the rug. The bible mentions satan being cast down from heaven, but it's only mentioned to happen at the end times. The idea of satan rebelling against god because he was jealous of humans when god created them in the beginning comes from paradise Lost, but has no biblical backing at all.

And this is just the early stuff about satan. Like I said, the concept has changed a lot over time.


That aside, the hell mythology evolved over time, because there is nothing like hell in the OT, the Jews do not believe in hell and nothing like hell exist in the OT, the hebrew words translated as hell means death or a dumping ground in Jerusalem back in the days.

alexleo:
God did not create 'devil', What He created was an angel called Lucifer who was in charge of the host of heavenly choir. He was given so much power and glory more than other angels. At a point he lost focus on God who is the centre of everything in heaven and started looking at himself, then pride entered into him and he started planing of over throwing God. A war ensued between him and some angels who decided to support him against God. At  the end, of course they were defeated and sent down. It was after this incident that he became known as devil.

Where in the bible can any of what you have written above be found? Where in the bible was it written that Lucifer is satan who was in charge of the heavenly choir? Where in the bible does it say that satan was given so much power more than all the other angels and he rebelled and it later resulted into a war in heaven between God and satan? Please I will like you to show me where all of these are written in the bible

One thing about God is that he never forces anyone not to sin against him. He has already made the consequences of sin known and left the choice for man to make. The issue of where one will spend eternity is not God that decides.

Going by the bible, your assertion is false because there are some parts of the bible that teach predetermination, like when Paul says that some were chosen by God even before they were born and some were created to be destroyed.

Rom 8:30  And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Rom 9:10  And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
Rom 9:11  though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls--
Rom 9:12  she was told, "The older will serve the younger."
Rom 9:13  As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Rom 9:14  What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
Rom 9:15  For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
Rom 9:16  So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Rom 9:17  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Rom 9:19  You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Rom 9:21  Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Rom 9:22  What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23  in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

It is man's choice that determines where he ends.

If the bible verses above are true then your assertion here is also false.

As for God, his ways are clear and there is no unrighteousness in him.

When then was he repenting for the wrong or unrighteous acts he committed in the bible?

God is a spirit, angels are spirit, devil and his demons are spirit.

And your evidence for this very blind assertion is what?

When people die, their spirit comes out of the body and heads to eternity. The spirit does not die like the flesh. The spirit lives forever

Your evidence for this very blind assertion is what? Do you have any objective or empirical evidence to show that there is any part of human consciousness that survives bodily death?

Thats why it is important you prepare your spirit where to spend eternity. The real you is your spirit man and not this flesh.

You are yet to provide any evidence for any of your assertion. Why should I believe that you are not lying?

God is a spirit like I said and those of us who serve him, serve him in spirit and in truth. we communicate with him in spirit when we pray.

Really?

Image123:
@OP
'knowledge of good and evil' is equal to conscience is equal to still small voice. qed.

On OP, because conscience abi morality is relative, but God's Word/standard is the same, unchanging.
Hope to revisit this, in the weekend

False, if you read the bible you will see that the god of the bible, his laws and standards were always changing.

atropin:
where there is no law there is no sin, 10 commandment is given 2 xtain 2 check themselve daily n 2 be obeyed

The 10 commandments was not given to christians but to the jews.

Jenwitemi:
Even if the stone is produced and you saw the handwriting of the hebrew god, would that answer the question at hand. I don't think it would. Myriads of new questions that need answers would immediately surface.

My own question is this, since the 10 commandments were directed at the jews of those times, why should other folks of the world follow them? As a matter of fact, why should any other folks accept the hebrew god as their god to begin with?

The first 6 of the 10 commandments are of no use to most people alive today. By the way thgere are 2 different 10 commandments in the bible. One is to be found in Exodus 20:2–17 and the other is found in Deuteronomy 5:6–21. The 10  commandments arte cultural laws written by ancient men to keep each other in line and create a form of cultural and moral  identity for themselves.

JeSoul:
. . . though sometimes it is not always black and white on what is right or wrong. God's laws are written on our hearts, and the way I see it, it also doesn't hurt to have them also written on paper or should I saw stone.

Where is the said stone? I will love to see god's hand writing.

Moonstone:
It does costs something to be atheist. . . for example, what happens when you die and find out there is really a Heaven and Hell system in the afterlife? If truly there is nothing like that, then being a theist won't stop you from accomplishing happiness in that realm but being atheist would hurt your chances of being in heaven. What then?

Pascal's wager is what they call this, I personally will be OK with the choice I have made, But what if you die and find out that the god of the muslims is the real god? There is no evidence at all to show that human consciousness survives bodily death. We have some crazy people putting forth crazy theories but non of them has been able to show anything concrete or meaningful at all.

The reason why I asked the question about the crimes is that most religions set guidelines such as don't steal or don't kill or love your neighbour. So does being an atheist liberate you from those constrictions?

You don't need religion to tell you this at all, and there is no evidence at all to show that religious societies are more moral than non religious or secular societies. Morality comes from learning and experience not from gods, religion itself is a culture created by human beings.

Lastly, about the name of Jesus, it has been documented that if you truly believe in the name, it can work miracles.

Is this is true then there should be evidence to show that those that call upon the name of jesus receive better protection, or healing from sickness than those that don't. So far no such evidence exist in any part of the world. There should be evidence to show that those that call upon the name of jesus in terms of trouble are better protected than those that don't.

Interesting topic, I have studied the evolution of human morality and I can categorically say that humans learn morality, they learn what is good and what is bad from experience and they often experiment. No God wrote any commandments to any group of human beings on any stone tablet. Where exactly is the stone tablet? Some one like me will like to see such a God's hand writing at least.

Now to the topic, theist like to claim that morality is innate in humans, because god gave us morality an atheist like me will say that why then do so many people do morally bad things? The theist will then say because we are sinners and we need god to tell us what's right.

So which one is it? Is morality innate in us, or do we need God to tell us what's right? And if only what God says is right, then where do the other moral (but wrong) values come from? Remember that in history, plenty of terrible things were considered perfectly morally acceptable, including
- Killing children or stoning them to death (Sparta, Old Testament), Killing of twins in some parts of Nigeria for example.
- Beating your wife
- Slavery
- Genocide
-Killing others because they worship other Gods
-Racism and segregation
- Killing and eating your enemies(Parts of Australia)

Where did those values come from? Where they innate? If so they must have been given by God, right? And if they are not from God, it must mean they came from somewhere else. What is that? And why can't ALL moral values come about in the same way? Why does morality differ from culture to culture? Why is morality not objective?

Ok here's another one. If moral values are innate, and moral values are from God, why do so many things in the bible inspire our revulsion or repulsion? A short list would be
- Giving the death penalty to kids for disrespecting their parents
- Forcing a raped woman to marry her rapist (Moses' law)
- Sleeping with your dad because no other men were around (Lot and his daughters)
- Having thousands of wives and concubines (Solomon)
- Offering your daughters for mass rape (Lot and his daughters)
- Slavery (throughout the bible)
- Mass murder and genocide or killing people because they worshiped other Gods(throughout the bible)
If our internal moral system finds acts in the Bible (the supposed word of God) repulsive, where does that internal moral system come from? Obviously not God, or we'd agree with the bible. Why do many Christians pick and chose what is morally acceptable and what is not even from the bible? Any body that follows the old testament laws and moral standard will be put in prison, why is that so if such laws were form God?

toba:
^ who do we have here, santa claus lol.

Hope u ve been cool

I have been doing good thank you. How have you been doing as well?

MyJoe and Thehomer.

Purist:
P.S. I saw the thread where toneyb declared he'd be leaving Nairaland due to personal reasons, perhaps, he perceived his posts were having negative effects on fragile minds here. I don't think that would be solid enough a reason to quit, if that's actually why @toneyb.

This is my last post here, I am leaving because I found out that my post here were having some negative impact on some reader here, I will not go into details because its personal. I completely appreciate that some religious people are far too wrapped up in their own beliefs to ever even begin to question them and I don't think any amount of reasoning is ever really likely to help in such circumstances. All religious beliefs are nothing but cultural ways of living developed by various men for various reasons at different times.

I first came here to see if they were some atheist amongst Nigerian and see if my hypothesis about people's beliefs are true, which unsurprisingly turned out to be true. Most religions are misleading because they begin or start by castigating others. This is obviously harmful in every other aspect of anyone's life, considering religious people treat others according to unsubstantiated beliefs they have been inculcated with as a result of society and culture.

Religions purport to be in possession of the absolute truth and morality and that belief is dangerous.
This precludes any possibility of attaining more knowledge or being flexible. In the case of morality, this is highly dangerous; if you're in possession of absolute truth and adhere to absolute morality, everyone who's in disagreement with you is either ignorant or evil. This to me is just plain wrong and silly. Cheers.

OK Viaro you win . Am out of here for good. Its really nice knowing you  all these while and I mean it. I have learned a lot from you and enjoyed our interactions, banters and insults . 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 on hdhdhdhdhdhdhdhd (Let me know if you have the email address cos I will take it out once you get it) Best wishes from this end. Thanks.

nuclearboy:
I see. I get your point yet cannot but smile remembering when you said we (religionists) like to play the victim.

It might have been funny (knowing Jagunlabi, it probably would have ended up being so) at our expense but had the shoe been on the other foot, I wonder if you'd have felt the same.

Enjoy easter Bro. Meanwhile, not believing in anything, what do you do at xmas, easter etc? We all know these things have "funny" origins but try to have some fun. What do you do - look for a xtian or two, string them up and burn at a stake or what?  

Roger that brother, No need to worry because my stay here on NL religion section is already at its end. As you have stated I have truly changed, I have noticed it myself. My purpose of coming here like most atheist here have said is just to let Nigerians(Who happen to be the most religious people I know) know that it is VERY OK and normal to be an atheist and that atheist are not the embodiment of lost, greed, pure evil and other vices that they have been made to believe all their lives in most cases. I will come around once in a while but will not be posting much any more. This topic was supposed to be my last laugh before I leave, but unfortunately non of my peeps even bothered to give me my last laugh .

You are one of the peeps here that have earned my highest respect, am not saying it to flatter you at all, I am saying it because it is true. As for easter and X mas I follow what ever it is that is hot and kicking . Cheers.

viaro:
From the quote it can be clearly seen that Carl Sagan only opined that there are three claims in parapsychology that deserve serious study and of the 3 claims the 3 claim is that that 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.

Lol, toneyb, I don't know waht you're on about here - but please compare both quotes and see the highlighted. What is it you're trying to point out here, please?

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:

      It is noteworthy that Sagan himself remarked that where such things
      are CHECKED, they tended to have proven to be ACCURATE.

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 -
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?

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.

viaro:
I've addressed your objections and pointed you to resources. You, on the other hand, are NOT facing the points I made but just trying ever so hard to ignore them by posting excuses from skeptic.com.

The same old sophism again. . You label your objections as objections and label the very well detailed objections from skeptic.com as excuse. How clever . I dig your style Mr Viaro.

I've outlined what I posted on Carl Sagan's supposed statement - and I don't see how your assertion is saying what I posted. I would appreciate a lil honesty from you, please.

Relax and don't get all worked up over statements you actually made. Here is what you said.

viaro:
Would you be saying that your so-called "accusations" have anything to do with objectivitity if scientists like Carl Sagan acknowledge that Stevenson's research was "accurate"? Was Carl Sagan a "believer" in reincarnation or psychokinesis? And what do you have to say about scientists who acknowledge that "Stevenson rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research"?!?

Where did Carl Sagan acknowledge that his research was accurate?

Now, as regards the other scientists who dismiss Stevenson's research as untenably scientific, I have also shown why they dismiss it - showing this from several sources. Apart from the fact that they were not willing to consider the research on Stevenson's invitation to his critics to do so, it should strike the objective reader that the other scientists are simply IGNORING his researches or otherwise just criticising them without their own study on such phenomena.

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]).

   In a fairly typical case, a boy in Beirut spoke of being a 25-year-old mechanic, thrown to his death from a speeding car on a beach road. According to multiple witnesses, the boy provided the name of the driver, the exact location of the crash, the names of the mechanic's sisters and parents and cousins, and the people he hunted with -- all of which turned out to match the life of a man who had died several years before the boy was born, and who had no apparent connection to the boy's family.*

As Mills and Lyons note: "Merely because a particular case does not seem to be explicable in terms of social construction, it does not follow that the PLE reported is a genuine residue of a past life" (302).

I have requested that you show me how you would have proceeded to study such phenomena and the methodology you would have chosen for your study - beyond the usual dismissal that is characteristic of pseudo-skepticism that appears in your comments. I also responded to your comments on the paper I posted - and you have just said nothing of substance other than your continued dismissal. Why are you playing your hide-and-seek games, toneyb?

I would start first by NOT using data I get from sources I my self agree were dishonest

PS. I'm still interested in your answer to this observation:The reason why I was hoping you would calmly point out some substance in response is because I'm beginning to observe that you're towing the line of pseudo-skeptics who read their own conclusive biases into a report that is NOT saying what they want the public to believe. This is what is going on at skeptic.com - and I want to be sure you're not trying hard to dribble around issues like they do. Thanks in advance.
Did I say so? Do you mind reading precisely what I said and sticking to just that? And please, don't run away from the request I posted there - please address it.

Please restate the observations so that I can drop my opinion.

I posted his methodology from the same site - please show me how his methodoly that appears at the same site "violated" said methodoly, thanks.

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.

Please sir, READ WHAT I SAID and stop this dubious claim of yours!
I could make this simpler: they posted his methodology - which they could not show how it violated the methodology that they would have simply followed in such a research. You initially stated that they did not tacitly acknowledge his "claims" - I never said they did, for crying out loud. But I did say that they post his methodology, no? If they did, that was what I had meant by "tacitly acknowledging" his methodology. That may not score well with you - but you could do better by showing how his methodology on the merit of his methodoly violated the said protocol, thanks.

Read the statement above as example of how he violated the said methodology.

I would like you to show me what was wrong with the data itself, not the person himself.

. What kind of equivocation is this Viaro? . The man got data(information in this case) from an interpreter whom he himself acknowledges is dishonest and went ahead and used the said data(information). How you fail to see something wrong with the process is truly beyond me.

viaro:
I did NOT state that Car Sagan "agreed" with any claims about reincarnation - infact, I well anticipated this unnecessary jargon from you and questioned what Sagan might have meant by such observations ascribed to him. It is noteworthy that Sagan himself remarked that where such things are CHECKED, they tended to have proven to be ACCURATE. Please tell me why such a scientist would first acknowledge that checking such are "accurate" and then recommend that such studies need to be carried out instead of being abandoned or ignored?

Carl Sagan made NO such remark.

From your quote.

But in 1996, no less a luminary than astronomer Carl Sagan, a founding member of a group that set out to debunk unscientific claims, wrote in his book, "The Demon-Haunted World": "There are three claims in the [parapsychology] field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study," the third of which was "that 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."

From the quote it can be clearly seen that Carl Sagan only opined that there are three claims in parapsychology that deserve serious study and of the 3 claims the 3 claim is that that 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.

This is ONLY a claim, The claim says that young children sometimes report details of previous life and according to the claim it turns out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.

The submissions were all part of the claims that Carl Sagan says deserves study. Nothing there suggest Sagan said anything like "where such things are CHECKED, they tended to have proven to be ACCURATE." as your wronglg stated.

nuclearboy:
@Toneyb:

I understand, bro and I believe you also get my point. The fact these things have not been found doesn't mean they never existed which was your unapologetic "judgement". Thats why I spoke of those scrolls - imagine someone saying they existed 48 hours before they were found - he'd have been ridiculed plus even the discovery would have become another issue for debate, being supposedly timely for his purposes. We don't know all things and I am really glad to have met people like you (of recent you are changing), MyJoe and the "superb" ganja-man Krayola especially who show us a fairness often that one cannot but admire. You "knowing this" suprised me.

Your intellect is such (in my estimation) that it just seemed so low of you to judge that way knowing what I believe you do.

On a serious note brother, Please don't take some of my banters here seriously and I mean it. I did not expect any Christian in the house to respond to this topic at all and I truly mean it, I posted it only because I saw Jagunlabi, Mudley313, Mazaje and Zodiac on line yesterday and I decided that we should have some fun, I just wanted people like Jagunlabi to come and make me laugh with their short comments. But to my disappointment non of them responded to the topic. I made this topic only because Jagunlabi especially was on line and I wanted him to drop his usual comments because I noticed he likes these type of topics. No need to bother about my banters, this topic was mostly for the atheist here to share a laugh.

viaro:
If you're not going to start singing your own pseudo-skepticism, you ought to have seen that those "accusing" Ian Stevenson are the usual players who are more interested in singing to their choir - the pseudo-skeptics. It was for this reason that I pointed out that such "accusations" are empty and based on lazy-armchair criticism rather than objective appraisal of his researches.

The accusations are not empty, The were explained in details on the skeptic website abu as usual you did not even bother to address any of the issues raised.

Would you be saying that your so-called "accusations" have anything to do with objectivitity if scientists like Carl Sagan acknowledge that Stevenson's research was "accurate"? Was Carl Sagan a "believer" in reincarnation or psychokinesis? And what do you have to say about scientists who acknowledge that "Stevenson rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research"?!?

Where did Carl Sagan acknowledge that Stevenson's research was "accurate" Please show me in case i missed it. Where did Carl Sagan give credence to any Paranormal claims, All he said was that the Claims should be very well studied. What about other scientist that said that Stevenson did not follow rigorous scientific methods?

You see, when objectivity gives way to empty ad hominem fallacies, the pseduo-skepticism you're playing out here is just that: "pseudo-skepticism" . Nothing more. If you have any substance, I would like to see you denounce other scientists (like Carl Sagan) who are NOT "believers" in the psychokinesis. Other do the same about scientists who have acknowledge that Stevenson rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research. It is more helpful to see you do this than pandering to the pseudo-skepticism of skeptic.com.

Where did Carl Sagan say that Stevenson's methods are scientific accurate or give credence to psychokinesis?

Stevenson himself did not go about claiming this and that about his methodoly were - I left you links to show that the claim that Stevenson published in "peer-reviewed scientific journals" and that he "rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research" came from OTHER SCIENTISTS! You're acting like you're in such a hurry to dismiss Stevenson only on the pseudo-skeptical dodgy dismissal of folks at skeptic.com! Please check out what other scientists and skeptics have said about Stevenson's methodoly - I left you quite a few; and if you want more, I could post them in abundance!

The skeptic.com say that those words came from Stevenson himself and they gave instances where he violated the said methodology he claimed to follow.

By publishing his methodoly, they "tacitly acknowledged Stevenson's scientific protocol in his research" (I did not say that skeptic.com tacitly acknowledged his "claims" - two different things, dude. I also pointed out that while skeptic.com dismissed his research, the dismissal was pseudo-skeptical and baseless. I don't see how they showed anywhere that his research was NOT published in any peer-reviewed science journal; but for the most part, other scientists acknowledge Stevenson's work as based on rigorous scientific method, no?
Of course we know the pseudo-skepticism of skeptic.com.

They did not acknowledge his scientific protocols at all, they gave that reference to show that he himself does not even abide by what he claims to be his protocols and methodology.

That was why I pointed out the other scientists who acknowedged the fact that Stevenson's research followed rigorous scientific methods - and they are not a few; nor are they "believers" (I don't know if you find Carl Sagan a "believer" in such things), and they are not empty dismissers like the guys at skeptic.com. Perhaps next time you want to pay attention to a simple request of checking things objectively rather than running to those lazy guys who never go out to conduct their own research in such things.

Where exactly did Carl Sagan say that Stevenson followed rigorous scientific methods?

Exactly - the pseduo-science of skeptic.com helps you miss the weightier matters. The fact was not that anything was wrong with the data - for the data itself was not affected by the personality of the person who was involved in the research. Please show me more substance instead of thise ad hominem fallacy that skeptic.com is known for, then we can talk. We know many of these pseudo-skeptic guys at skeptic.com who are very dishonest indeed; but as far as the subject is concerned, I'm asking for objectivity. Look at the data itself and critic them. Thanks.
Oh dude, please stop making empty pseudo-science carping. The sources said "peer-reviewed scientific journals", not 'fringe peer-reviewed journals' - at least, be honest to yourself for once.

Stevenson went to use data after he himself agreed that the translator was dishonest. So much for the fact that nothing was wrong with the data

2. Regardless what skeptic.com might have argued in manner of dismissing Steven's research, the quote above acknowledges that "three scientific commentators have stated that Stevenson rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research" - should that also not be weighty enough to see that skeptic.com is operating under the illusion of their own pseudo-skepticism?!?

OK lets see how true the comment in bold is. From the same source(skeptic.com)

He was fond of cases that seemed to beg for a paranormal explanation. For example, one case involved an Idaho girl who at age 2 would point to photographs of her sister, dead from a car accident three years before she was born, and say "that was me." The believer thinks the two-year-old meant: "I was my sister in a previous life." The skeptic thinks she meant: "That's a picture of me." The skeptic see the two-year-old as making a mistake. The believer sees her as trying to communicate a message about reincarnation.

Stevenson wrote of another little girl from Indiana who, when she talked about her previous life, made frequent references to the time "when I was a boy" and "when I was called John." He thinks she's talking about a past life. The skeptic thinks she's talking about this life and has some mistaken ideas about gender.

There are several problems with Stevenson's method. He often worked with translators in countries about which he knew very little. Questioning anybody is tricky, but questioning children is especially tricky. "Interviewer bias is the central driving force in the creation of suggestive interviews" (Bruck, Ceci, and Helmsbrooke 1998; quoted in Mills and Lyon: 303). Questioning children and adults via a translator introduces another element of uncertainty regarding the bias of the questioning technique. Most of the interviews took place in countries where reincarnation is an accepted belief. So, the translator would be "typically imbued with the cultural expectations that past-life recall is a valid phenomenon" (Mills and Lynn: 303). Stevenson, being non-fluent in the language and the culture, was in no position to assess the reliability of the questioning by the translator.

His belief in reincarnation overshadows his research since he begins with the assumption that the reincarnation hypothesis is the best possible explanation for the subject or phenomena he is studying.

More than this, perhaps my singular most serious problem with these pseudo-skeptic folks is the fact that NONE OF THEM ever makes any attempt to examine the research facts for themselves in an objective manner! It is one thing for someone to critique a research, quite another thing for someone to 'criticise' another research without doing the research yourself!! This is fact that has been observed by others -

They have examined his research in an objective manner and found it to be questionable and lacking on so many fronts. Here in the one I posted earlier.

He was fond of cases that seemed to beg for a paranormal explanation. For example, one case involved an Idaho girl who at age 2 would point to photographs of her sister, dead from a car accident three years before she was born, and say "that was me." The believer thinks the two-year-old meant: "I was my sister in a previous life." The skeptic thinks she meant: "That's a picture of me." The skeptic see the two-year-old as making a mistake. The believer sees her as trying to communicate a message about reincarnation.

Mary Roach went on location with one of Stevenson's fellow PLE story collectors and came back asking: "is he investigating reincarnation, or merely hunting for evidence in its favor? How can he remain unbiased?" (2005: p. 48).)

His confirmation bias can clearly be seen in this case.

Despite the fact that Stevenson's critics were NOT WILLING to objectively consider the scientific research of what they criticised, it is noteworthy to read, however, that ~

[list]But in 1996, no less a luminary than astronomer Carl Sagan, a founding member of a group that set out to debunk unscientific claims, wrote in his book, "The Demon-Haunted World": "There are three claims in the [parapsychology] field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study," the third of which was "that 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."[/list]

Carl Sagan did NOT say that he agree with reincarnation or any of the claims about it, He only stated that he believes that the CLAIMS such as young children reporting of previous life which upon checking turn out to be accurate deserve serious study. NOTHING there suggest that he agrees with reincarnation at all. He just believes that such claims deserve to be well studied.

But it is not only Carl Sagan that agrees on the accuracy of Stevenson's research. The Wikipedia article comments that Arthur C. Clark "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". In addition,  Robert Almeder (himself a philosopher of science) endorsed Stevenson's research and concluded that "the evidence he assembled argues strongly in favor of reincarnation, to the point of it being irrational to disbelieve that some people reincarnate" (Wikipedia).

. Where did Carl Sagan say that he agrees with the accuracy of Stevenson's research? As to the other guy, my comment on it is that every fringe group have some form of support from people in the main stream so what else is new there?

In all of this, the bottomline is that any number of "skeptics" who assume that Ian Stevenson's work were not scientific ought to think carefully about their pseudo-skepticism. I wonder how a work that failed to pass as a scientific research would then get published in a peer-reviewed science journal. Not to mention that those who are deeply skeptical of the paranormal would agree profoundly that Stevenson's work was both "accurate" and that he had "rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research".

A fringe scientific journal peer reviewed by other fringe scientist. Like I said every organization has fringe groups and Stevenson's gropu happens to be one. From the skeptic.com website.

It would be pointless to go through each of the 2,500 anecdotes collected and try to debunk, say, the top 100. Little would be gained by such an exercise. (For an example of a debunking of the case Stevenson thought was the best in his Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, see Leonard Angel's deconstruction of the case of Imad Elawar.) We can admit before the investigation begins that reincarnation is possible, even if we have no idea how it might occur. But even the best story could be contaminated and Stevenson's methods of collecting and validating data leave much to be desired. For example, Imad Elawar claimed that he was Mahmoud Bouhamzy, a truck driver who died of tuberculosis 25 years earlier and who had a wife called Jamilah.

   The best past-life candidate Stevenson found [for Imad Elawar] was not named Mahmoud Bouhamzy, did not have a wife named Jamilah, and did not die as a result of an accident at all, let alone one that followed a quarrel with the driver. Yet Stevenson does not give sufficient information for the reader to know what exactly the parents or the boy himself said that entitled Stevenson to discount the original claims as interpreted by the parents and instead present the very different claims given in the tabulation [he produced]. (Angel 1994)

Stevenson came up with a list of 57 items that he said were produced by the parents or the child prior to his attempted verification.

   But the form in which they were originally recorded is not given. Inspection of the items of the tabulation makes clear the need for a record of just what the parents said, how Stevenson recorded their data prior to verification, and how it was or was not subsequently reorganized for presentation in tabular form. (Angel 1994)

Stevenson's method is reminiscent of the kind of subjective validation process that goes on during cold readings. For example,

   Under Stevenson's "Comments" we find "Mahmoud Bouhamzy was an uncle of Ibrahim Bouhamzy." (Ibrahim Bouhamzy is the apparent past-life of the boy, according to Stevenson.) Thus it is taken as verified that a name the boy mentioned corresponded to a real person in the past-life's family, as though it is clear that the boy had been mentioning a name by way of referring to that uncle.

   , the boy referred to a full well and an empty well at the home of the past-life. This is taken as confirmed by the fact that there were two vats used for storing grape juice. "During the rainy season one of these vats became filled with water, but the other, shallower vat did not, because the water evaporated from it. Thus one would be empty while the other was full". Does a five-year-old Druse village boy not know the difference between a vat and a well? (Angel 1994)

Stevenson himself admitted that he hadn't provided compelling evidence for reincarnation. What might be of some value, however, is to examine his data for recurrent features.

To this end, I'm really not impressed one tiny bit about the empty dismissal of Stevenson's work by the guys at skeptic.com - they are often polarised to the point of their own extremism that they never take to time to see the fallacy of their own pseduo-skepticism.

We know why: they are never interested in objectively examining research that they criticise on empty grounds.

The endless sophism again.

viaro:
@toneyb,

Many thanks for your comments. I was quite anticipating that you would veer from the request to take an objective look at the research paper - which would mean that you do just that: take an objective look and avoid 'conclusive bias'. One very clear example of the mistake of conclusive bias that appears in your comments is the usual atheistic cliche that those who research the paranormal and anomalies must by default be "strong believer(s)" in such phenomena before they even embarked on such studies. It does not say anything about such 'skeptics' actually doing anything to embark on the study themselves - and this attitude tending to ad hominem fallacy is what weakens the position of the atheistic 'skeptic' (more properly, psuedo-skeptic).

Ian Steveson has been accused of conclusive bias by so many scientist in most of his "scientific" studies. A lot of skeptics and believers have carried out a lot of research on the paranormal and most of the time the results were inconclusive, Nothing concrete or objective has ever been found to support the existence of the paranormal. Here is a quote from Ian Stevenson himself.

"We all die of some affliction. What determines the nature of that affliction? I believe the search for the answer may lead us to think that the nature of our illnesses may derive at least in part from previous lives." --Ian Stevenson.

Even from their own webpage which you provided on Stevenson, you might have missed the very fact that the skeptic.com tacitly acknowledged Stevenson's scientific protocol in his research. They simply dismissed it on their own pseudo-skeptic excuses. Let's have a look at what skeptic.com says about Stevenson's research procedures:

[list]In the study of spontaneous paranormal phenomena we must usually interview and cross-question informants about events that have happened before we arrive on the scene. In principle, the methods are those that lawyers use in reconstructing a crime and historians use in understanding the past. Once we have the best account possible of the events in question, we consider one by one the alternative explanations and to try to eliminate them until only the single most probable one remains. Then we try with further observations to confirm or reject the initially preferred explanation. In addition, we search through series of apparently similar phenomena for recurrent features that may provide clues to causative conditions and processes of occurrence. (Stevenson 1989).[/list]

These are Stevenson's claims that was how he described his methodology, he claims to abide by these principle and methodology when conducting his work, How true it is remains questionable to many. No where did any member of the sketic.com tacitly admit to any of his claims rather they were only pointing out to the claims he made about his methodology.

But leaving the pseudo-skeptic dismissal at skeptic.com, what have other objective scienstists said Stevenson's research procedures? On this Wikipedia entry, I excerpt a few:

How clever . Take some few name that sings praises to Stevenson but cleaver discard so many other scientist that have discredited him. From the skeptic.com entry.

In 1964, Chester F. Carlson (1906-1968), attorney, inventor of xerography, and a man with a strong interest in the paranormal gave UVa a million dollars to support paranormal research.* Carlson even accompanied Stevenson on one of his field trips to Alaska, where he collected stories from the Tlingit peoples. Some of his UVa colleagues found Stevenson to be an embarrassment, but this was the university that Jefferson had founded with the promise that it would be "based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind.

More from skeptic.com

In 1961, Stevenson took his first trip to India and Sri Lanka, where he collected his first batch of original past-life stories from children.

I found that the children often talked with strong emotions about the previous lives, and they sometimes behaved as if still living in the past life. For them it seemed still present, not past. For example, a child of low-caste parents who said that he remembered the life of a Brahmin would show snobbish behavior toward his own family and might even refuse to eat their food: from his perspective it was polluted. A child remembering a previous life as a person of the opposite sex might dress for that sex and play its games. One who remembered being shot would show a fear of guns and loud noises. (Stevenson 1989).

These first impressions would have a lasting impact on Stevenson's methodology and beliefs about reincarnation. The data collected on this trip became the basis for T[i]wenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation,[/i] whose publication was delayed because his publisher backed out of the project when it was discovered that Stevenson's interpreter was accused of dishonesty. Stevenson admits the man was dishonest in some matters, but he did not think the man had deceived him. So, Stevenson did not reject the data collected with this interpreter's help. The American Society for Psychical Research published the monograph in 1966. A revised edition was published by University Press of Virginia in 1974.

What an interesting methodology.

There are few things that immediately stand out here:

1. Stevenson's work actually was published in peer-reviewed scientific journals - I think you should understand the weight of that statement, so that we don't get carried away by the ad hominem fallacies of skeptic.com.

His work are published in fringe "peer reviewed journals".

nuclearboy:
So they never existed, ehn? Just like the dead sea scrolls never existed, huh? When will you allow that sciences reality today is tomorrow's fallacy. At least, nothing like the dead sea scrolls NEVER EXISTED till they were found. And if the believers seek re-assurance for their belief, are you not so desperately doing same for your religion by coming into the Religion forum to preach your religion? Do your own, bro, and leave us deluded folks to our devices, except if you have proof they do not exist and will NEVER be discovered

Take a chill brother. The dead sea scrolls are words and writings. They are not what I was alluding to. I was referring to artifacts like the ark of covenant, Naoh' ark, The tomb of Jesus, The cross Jesus was crucified on etc. The tablet and wall Yahweh was alleged to have written on(Every believer will like to see how Yahweh's handwriting looks like no?), The are the things I was talking about not some writings.

aletheia:
As a man blinded by pride and perishing in sin, you ask your silly questions.

What ever. I am not blinded by no pride or perishing in no mythical religious construct known as sin.

1. No where in the scriptures are these artifacts said to be more important than the Word of God. It is nothing but the suppositions of your heart.

According to the bible the ark of covenant is where Yahweh himself resides in. It was so much powerful that even people that tried to save it from falling down were instantly killed by Yahweh himself. There were other places like the place of the lords presence where Yahweh resided and told all the ancient Jews to and meet him there. Just wandering why Yahweh elevated his status and stopped living inside a box and ascended into heaven. The ark of covenant where Yahweh used to reside in will be a very good artifact no?

2. Men have always had the tendency to worship artifacts rather than God, a transgression of the commandment. As the Israelites did for the bronze serpent Moses made in the wilderness, which they called Nehushtan and worshiped. (2 Kings 18:4)
3. Could it be that you desire these artifacts so that you will worship a god of your own making?

The artifacts are missing because they never existed. The problem is that most Christians hope for the rediscovery of these objects so those of us without faith will finally see the truth Christians even go to extra lengths just to show that their religious beliefs are not based on blind faith alone. The trouble is that when these objects are uncovered, they turn out to be frauds or misleads (Noah's ark in Anatolia, The Shroud of Turin, The tomb of Jesus, The wheels of Pharaohs soldiers that were drowned at sea etc). So many long for these objects to be found to re-enforce their own faith. Is that not why a lot of Christians go to Israel for pilgrimage? To see and re-enforce that beliefs?

The points raised from the paper is very interesting but however falls far short of what would commonly be considered science. Most scientist care less about their personal beliefs but that can not be said of Ian Stevenson who believes first and then tries to find "scientific evidence" for his beliefs. Ones personal stand on philosophy/metaphysics is irrelevant to the process of science honest scientist follow where the evidence leads them not where the philosopher leads.

Firstly this is a single data point, while oblique reference is made in the report to other cases of 'possession' it is only ever as a generality. Consequently there is no data analysis.

Second, the actual 'remembering' took place outside controlled conditions. The 'scientists' did not arrive on the scene till after the event. On the subject of leading questions and cueing they say:

We learned of 12 members of Shiva's family and circle of friends whom Sumitra recognized under conditions that we believe excluded cueing. We shall describe the circumstances of seven of Sumitra's recognitions, including one in which cueing might have played a part and six in which we think it did not.

This is followed by descriptions of second hand reports. The report is littered with similar bare assumptions, such as

third group of statements, those concerned with nicknames and private affairs not published in the newspapers, includes statements that we think [/b]contain information Sumitra could not have obtained normally.

which tend to be followed up by anecdotal evidence, in this case:

[b]We learned of 19 items that we felt justified in placing in this, the most important group.These showed that Sumitra had knowledge of: a particular yellow sari that Shiva had owned, a watch that had belonged to Shiva and the box (in the Tripathi home), [, ]

Moreover the section on the various possible answers to the mystery is bordering on ludicrous. Under the analysis of the possibility of Fraud in a passage that starts:

We think we can exclude a hoax perpetrated by Sumitra alone. A barely literate village woman in India could not have obtained detailed accurate information about another woman who lived 100 km away without assistance. If there was a hoaxing team, who composed it? Sumitra's husband, as a man, could move around more easily than Sumitra, but he was not in a position to go to places like Dibiyapur and Etawah in order to search out unpublished details about the life of Shiva.

I count 7 important assertions, one question and absolutely no evidence. Moreover the point that Sumitra was now involved in a complex murder investigation and the motive this may provide for fraud is not addressed (last I heard perjury in India carries a seven year tariff).

In their conclusion the section discussing the possibility of possession has this to say on it's inherent probability compared to other explanations:

If the other interpretations we have mentioned should be set aside as inadequately accounting for all the facts of the case, we are led to consider that a drastic change of personality occurred. When personality becomes altered unrecognizably, taking on the attributes and the knowledge a deceased personality was known to have, it may be best to speak of the change as a type of possession or reincarnation. Although we do not dogmatically assert that this is the correct interpretation of this case, we believe much of the evidence makes it the most plausible one.

This article is proposing an extremely radical belief in a personal soul that survives death. Yet it rests its case on the above analysis of possible explanations. Frankly I would seriously distrust not only this piece of "science" but any journal that willingly publishes it. No wonder at all why JSE is considered to be a fringe science journal. Like every organization fringe groups exist which to me is what the JSE is.

I have read through the "scientific journal" and found it lacking in on so many fronts,I also did a background check on the primary author of that article(Ian Stevenson) and discovered that he was a strong believer in reincarnation himself. He tried to collect "evidences" for alleged past-life experiences.

Other researchers and skeptics have identified numerous problems with his methods and data, such as biases in his questioning techniques, reliance on translators, use of anecdotal evidence, failure to verify claims, confirmation bias, etc. Much of his research involved small children, often questioned through intermediaries, and he did much of his research in countries (like India) where reincarnation is an accepted belief.

Here's an entry from the Skeptical Dictionary which includes an overview of the criticism :

http://www.skepdic.com/stevenson.html

As for the JSE here are some entries on it.

The Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE), founded in 1987, was initially established to provide a forum for three main fields that had largely been neglected by mainstream science: ufology, cryptozoology, and parapsychology.

According to its mission statement, the journal provides a forum for research on topics "outside the established disciplines of mainstream science."  However, due to its scope of examining anomalies, fringe science, protoscience, and other controversial topics, the editors of the JSE acknowledge that the periodical "publishes claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than in some mainstream disciplinary journals."

Skeptics take a somewhat dubious view of the whole enterprise:

Kendrick Frazier, Editor of Skeptical Inquirer and CSICOP fellow has criticized JSE and argues that:

  "The JSE, while presented as neutral and objective, appears to hold a hidden agenda. They seem to be interested in promoting fringe topics as real mysteries and they tend to ignore most evidence to the contrary. They publish 'scholarly' articles promoting the reality of dowsing, neo-astrology, ESP, and psychokinesis. Most of the prominent and active members are strong believers in the reality of such phenomena."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Scientific_Exploration

noetic16:
The concept of God cannot be conceived in humans limited scope of imagination.

The same god can not be conceived of but people can have a personal relationship with him allegedly. I thought there is a verse in the bible that reads: "Come let us reason together says the lord". How can you reason together with what you can not conceive?

According to the stories and hypothesis god allegedly preserved his word through "inspiration" of those that copied and compiled the biblical texts people are made to believe. But Why did god not "inspire" people to preserve god's artifacts since they are equally or more important than mere words and stories men keep telling themselves over and over and over? The real artifacts would be miraculous to behold, being prepared or inspired by god, and the message of seeing them would further Christianity immensely no? If a picture is worth a thousand words, how many words would be worth seeing the original stone tablets that were alleged to be inscribed by god himself? God deemed them important to introduce them to people in stories, but not to inspire to preserve them? The Jews with the help and full support of their all powerful god who can do all things supposedly managed to preserve their verbal histories for thousands of years, yet can't preserve the physical things?

Even timely things like contemporary paintings of Jesus, bust, empty tomb etc would be valuable. Wouldn't that be something. Why did god's message have to be completely verbal?