Post by kapitanprien on Nov 30, 2010 11:11:27 GMT -5
I've copied this from my site as I think it would be good to have here:
“At every turn somebody is trying to make you feel weird and strange for the way that you do things or view things.”
“The key is to know your own truth. Stand your ground. You’re not the weird one — they are. If you’ve proven some things for yourself, then there’s nothing to feel weird about. If asked, and if you feel comfortable, explain the way you see it — if they choose to reject it, so be it. That’s their choice. At least you tried. Maybe eventually they’ll catch up sometime down the line. In the meantime, you planted a seed. But definitely don’t feel weird for it.” (http://in2worlds.net/sicknessits-all-in-the-head)
in2worlds.net/on-skeptics-new-article-july-30-2010
“The bottom line is that there isn’t a skeptic out there who can disprove the idea of a soul, or reincarnation. (as well as many other “woo-woo” subjects. I use reincarnation here as one example because that just happened to be an article I randomly clicked on at that one debunking site) so you can’t disprove it, and no amount of straw mans thrown in the middle of a write up to veer a reader’s mind off course is going to accomplish that. You can disagree with the idea and have all your own reasons for it…but you can’t definitively prove it wrong.
“And then I want to throw in a word about Religious Zealots vs. Skepticism Gone Awry, which are actually two sides of the same coin. The mindset of a skeptical zealot is no different from the mindset of a religious zealot. At first glance they seem diametrically opposed – one doesn’t believe in anything that the other does – but they’re actually “opposames,” as David Icke terms it. The former’s mind is already made up, closed off to the idea of hearing or reading any evidence that would contradict their programming towards the idea of a strictly physical, five sense reality where everything is exactly as academia tells us it is. The latter’s mind is also already made up, closed off to the idea of hearing or reading any evidence that would contradict their programming towards the idea of whatever particular religious beliefs they hold. Both sides have an obvious “NEED!” for their beliefs, which explains their refusal to consider any information that might contradict those beliefs. And neither one can be reasoned with or responds in a rational way. Hence, opposames.”
2. “Because I can’t explain something and don’t want to believe in it means I’ll ignore it and just dismiss the entire thing.” Self explanatory. For me, so long as I’ve seen personal proof for the existence of something woo-woo then I’m perfectly comfortable not knowing how or why it works or exists, and just accept that it does. But this is a no-no apparently for many die hard skeptics. If they can’t understand something or don’t want to deal with it (maybe because it scares them on some level), then it gets swept under the rug. And the weirder and more unnerving and unexplainable that something is, the faster it gets swept away and dismissed.
The reason for this mindset is because skeptics are determined to believe that the world is a purely physical, five sense, rational place where humans know and understand everything and everything is under complete control. For many die hard skeptics, acknowledging even one small bit of woo-woo is a slippery slope towards having to acknowledge the wider prevalence of woo-woo, which they don’t want to do. It’s all or nothing, black and white for them. So they don’t acknowledge anything out of the ordinary, period. Solves that slippery slope problem right there. I used to date a die hard skeptic, who was also an atheist, so I know how it can be. This “logic” is a bit laughable when you think about it because by that rationale it means you should go around negating and disbelieving in any and all phenomenon in this world – both non-physical AND physical – so long as you haven’t yet learned what it is and how it works and if it could somehow become a slippery slope on the way to anywhere.
3. When is an ongoing pattern/recurrence no longer “just coincidence”? Skeptics love to dismiss woo-woo subjects such as synchronicity, number sightings and the like as being “just a coincidence.” Many things probably are just a coincidence, but when something happens enough times in enough unusual ways, then at what point is it no longer just a coincidence? For a Skeptic Gone Awry the answer is…..never. It will always be just a coincidence, no matter how frequent or how “out there” and unbelievable/unexplainable the occurrences are. Because once again to even acknowledge one occurrence of woo-woo is opening a door to a slippery slope of having to acknowledge others….and we know where that can lead.
With number sightings in particular I can understand why skeptics might dismiss the majority of people’s occurrences, especially when they’re pretty mundane. If you’d told me about number sightings back in the mid-90s, before they were happening to me, I would have shrugged off the idea too. But when the occurrences are complicated in their set up, becoming downright far fetched, while increasing in frequency (to where it’s almost becoming a distraction….) then it’s time to stop and take a closer look. Ultimately the only way to know for sure whether something is just coincidental, or a legitimately weird happening is to start a log and begin keeping track, while gathering photographic and physical proof wherever possible. And that’s exactly what I did. Everybody’s free to come to their own conclusion about what I’ve noted in my number sightings log, but my conclusion is that something very unusual was/is going on there, and in my opinion I was able to prove that. What it is, or how it all works remains to be seen, but once again, just because you can’t definitively explain how something works…..doesn’t mean something isn’t happening.
There has to be a reasonableness when it comes to trying to determine whether something is just coincidence. When something is happening frequently, and defying statistical probability/odds, and is extremely unusual in its nature to the point of becoming downright far fetched, then the idea of coincidence ceases to apply. And if, despite the facts and statistical probability/odds and frequency of occurrence, etc. a skeptic still steadfastly clings to the idea of coincidence then they’ve become unreasonable/irrational, plain and simple. In those cases, any number of things could be going on to explain their skepticism gone awry, and I get into that at the end of this piece.
7. “Because something isn’t happening to me or my friends means it’s not happening to anybody else.” This one was on display earlier in Christine’s email and it’s one of the most laughable logical fallacies that a supposedly intelligent and rational person could commit. To automatically dismiss something that happens to others merely because you yourself haven’t experienced it only shows the nature of one’s own narrow mind and limited life experiences. If we were to continue with this rationale it means we need to dismiss anything that anybody ever tells us providing we haven’t personally seen/experienced it for ourselves. It’s pretty extreme, but that’s what the rationale is behind this mindset.
9. Appeal to authority. A common manipulative tactic that’s used to steer people away from certain lines of thought. One popular way that’s employed when it comes to debunking conspiracies and woo-woo in particular is to cite so-called authority, academia, science and such as “the voice of reason” who obviously “know best.” Because we all know that authority, academia, science and the like are never wrong and know everything. They’re infallible after all, and everything that could ever be learned or known is already known, right now as I type this.
This is obviously ludicrous. If science and academia knew everything already and were never wrong then there would never be scientific progress or scientific revolutions for that matter, which there obviously have been. But unfortunately this simpleton thinking actually does work on a lot of people, such is their ingrained lifetime of programming to trust in authority and the supposed wise leaders of academia. And “stuff” knows this, which is why it resorts to this tactic. Now, it doesn’t mean I’m saying that nobody in science and academia knows anything about anything. It just means be alert to this as a manipulative tactic that is used, and which attempts to steer people in certain directions within certain situations. It happens. A lot. So be mindful of it.
Appendix – Skepdic.com sample article
The following is an article from the infamous skeptical website called Skepdic.com I first came across Skepdic back in late 2004, when writing my Biorhythms piece. (In fact it was Skepdic that I was referring to in that one biorhythms excerpt that appears earlier in this piece.) But I hadn’t been back there since. However after writing this article I googled it to see if it was still out there, found that it was, clicked over, then selected “supernatural” from the category list on the left, then scanned down the list of subjects and chose reincarnation. I selected that one since it’s a large topic, and I was curious how he would dissect something as big as that. I was soon struck by how awful the write up was. Very badly argued and put together. If you’re going to be the representative of skeptics you have to do better than whatever he’s done, that’s all I can say. ;D Now, I don’t normally name/quote and target sources out there in Internet Land when they haven’t targeted me first, so I hesitated about whether or not to do this. It’s not my idea of a good time to start a “flame war” with another website. I’ve managed to exist on the internet over the last four years hanging out in my corner going relatively unnoticed, which is good. So I realize I’m opening myself up to who knows what in doing this. (oooooh! Controversy!!! weeeeeee!) However Skepdic has put his stuff out there challenging all sorts of woo-woo subjects, so in a way you could say it’s asking for a rebuttal of some sort. The whole goal of his website is to be one big challenge, after all. He takes personal feedback and commentary, of which he says he may post on the site, but he also mentions being very back logged on emails, so it’s no guarantee that one’s comments will be posted and heard. For that reason I figured, well, why not, I could post my rebuttal on my site. Then it’s guaranteed to be out there, even if only ten people read it.
And contrary to how my rebuttal may sound, I’m actually not invested in the idea of reincarnation, so it’s not coming from a place of being defensive. Again, I just picked that subject rather willy nilly. I could just as easily have selected a different category and sub topic. My research and life experience over the past decade has caused me to not fully believe in anything going on in this reality anymore. I just don’t fully trust any of it, for good reason, as people who’ve read my material will understand and be familiar with. And that would include reincarnation. I just love a good argument and picking things apart if they’re blatantly fallacious, but even more so if the author thinks they’re being so clever and intelligent. So in a way you could call it playing the Devil’s Advocate, for kicks. So, look at this rebuttal in that light. It’s not meant as some all out flame war, just a devil’s advocate rebuttal, using that write up as a good example of fallacious thinking and bad logic that one often – and ironically – finds with the supposed rational and intelligent skeptical community.
With that in mind, here is the article, with my commentary interspersed in brackets…..
“Reincarnation is the belief that when one dies, one’s body decomposes but something of oneself is reborn in another body. It is the belief that one has lived before and will live again in another body after death.”
[So far so good. These two opening sentences merely explain what reincarnation is typically understood to mean.]
“The bodies one passes in and out of need not be human. One may have been a Doberman in a past life, and one may be a mite or a carrot in a future life.”
[Now we encounter the first problems. First off, not every believer of reincarnation believes this is the way things work. I myself don’t, and neither do other people I know who believe in reincarnation. But the author is presenting things as if this is an across-the-board belief shared by every proponent of reincarnation, not bothering to differentiate or clarify. This lack of differentiation/clarification seems to be done very intentionally in order to bias the reader, as the snarky choices of “mite” and “carrot” reveal. Using biased word choices means a skeptic’s argument is weak, and they’re having to resort to whatever manipulations they can grab onto to steer the reader. When your argument is solid and you actually have proof for your claims, and/or can definitively disprove your opponent, then you don’t need to resort to that.]
“Some tribes avoid eating certain animals because they believe that the souls of their ancestors dwell in those animals. A man could even become his own daughter by dying before she is born and then entering her body at birth.
[No real complaints here, as it’s more explaining what reincarnation is typically understood to be. However I do detect more snarky manipulation with the mention of how a man can become his own daughter. ]
“The belief in past lives used to be mainly a belief found in Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, but now is a central tenet of much woo-woo like dianetics and channeling.”
[Yes, because reincarnation is a central tenet of the umbrella of New Age in general (which borrows heavily from all religions) of which dianetics, ie, Scientology, and channeling fall under.]
“In those ancient Eastern religions, reincarnation was not considered a good thing, but a bad thing. To achieve the state of ultimate bliss (nirvana) is to escape from the wheel of rebirth. In most, if not all, ancient religions with a belief in reincarnation, the soul entering a body is seen as a metaphysical demotion, a sullying and impure rite of passage.”
[Nothing really to critique here as the author is back to merely explaining things. There is the insertion of “woo-woo” to describe Dianetics and channeling, but even I use that term humorously, and even I think the alternative history beliefs of Scientology are woo-woo, and I also shake my head at so much of what passes for channeling out there. So, I can’t complain. ;D]
“In New Age religions, however, being born again seems to be a kind of perverse goal. Prepare yourself in this life for who or what you want to come back as in the next life.”
[Any sources that could be cited or quoted here to back up what the author is saying? I haven’t studied up in-depth on every aspect of New Age myself, but in the material I have come across so far I can’t say that I’ve ever seen what the author is claiming here, about reincarnation being some perverse goal of the New Age. I wouldn’t be surprised if some group(s) somewhere think this, but does it mean it’s a goal for all New Age practioners? No. That’s a generalization. Therefore cited sources – and more importantly, differentiation/clarification – would be helpful.]
“Belief in past lives also opens the door for New Age therapies such as past life regression therapy, which seeks the causes of today’s psychological problems in the experiences of previous lives.
L. Ron Hubbard, author of Dianetics and the founder of Scientology, introduced his own version of reincarnation into his new religion. According to Hubbard, past lives need auditing to get at the root of one’s “troubles.” He also claims that “Dianetics gave impetus to Bridey Murphy” and that some scientologists have been dogs and other animals in previous lives (“A Note on Past Lives” in The Rediscovery of the Human Soul). According to Hubbard, “It has only been in Scientology that the mechanics of death have been thoroughly understood.” What happens in death is this: the Thetan (spirit) finds itself without a body (which has died) and then it goes looking for a new body. Thetans “will hang around people. They will see a woman who is pregnant and follow her down the street.” Then, the Thetan will slip into the newborn “usually…two or three minutes after the delivery of a child from the mother. A Thetan usually picks it up about the time the baby takes its first gasp.” How Hubbard knows this is never revealed.”
[On the one hand I can understand what the author is doing here – He’s continuing in his quest to explain not only what reincarnation is, but what some of the proponents of reincarnation believe about the subject. However……This excerpt is strongly related to a “straw man.” It’s side tracking too much onto what Dianetics/Scientology believes about the subject, and for a specific, manipulative reason…..because the historical beliefs of Scientology is REALLY out there, even for people who are into the weird and the woo-woo. L. Ron’s material is therefore an easy target to go after. Or rather, side track onto, in order to make the subject of reincarnation as a whole look ludicrous. Put the focus on L. Ron’s beliefs………..but meanwhile, don’t focus too much on your every day Buddhist, middle ground “New Ager,” etc. who may have more sensible ideas about the subject.]
“Channeling, like past life regression, is distinct from reincarnation, even though it is based on the same essential concept: death does not put an end to the entirety of one’s being.”
[The author even admits that channeling is “distinct from reincarnation”…..so if it’s “distinct” from reincarnation, which is supposed to be the article’s focus, then why side track onto it? Again, we’re looking at something related to a straw man. More off topic diversion.]
“In classical reincarnation, something of the consciousness of the deceased somehow enters a new body but as that body grows only one unified consciousness persists through time.”
“Channeling might be called temporary intermittent past life invasion because there is a coming and going of the past life entity, which always remains distinct from the present self-conscious being. For example, JZ Knight claims that in 1977 the spirit of a Cro-Magnon warrior who once lived in Atlantis took over her body in order to pass on bits of wisdom he’d picked up over the centuries.”
[JZ Knight may have channeled some past life entity over 30 years ago, but is this the normal mode of operations in channeling? You know, since we’re going to be side tracking onto the subject of channeling and all? No. I don’t doubt there must be some channeling out there besides JZ’s that also involves a “past life entity” however, it’s in my own personal research experience that most channeled entities are claiming to be alien intelligences, or higher evolved entities of some sort, or just general human souls and spirits. But not entities specifically from the past, per se.]
“Knight seems to be carrying on the work of Jane Roberts and Robert Butts, who in 1972 hit the market with Seth Speaks. Knight, Roberts, and Butts are indebted to Edgar Cayce, who claimed to be in touch with many of his past lives.”
[What does the channeler JZ Knight carrying on the work of Jane Roberts and Robert Butts have anything to do with disproving whether reincarnation is a valid belief system? How has that sentence advanced the skeptical argument against reincarnation? Ah but see, the author goes on to explain that all three people are indebted to Edgar Cayce….who discussed past lives. Suddenly it’s all clear now……right??
This is more off topic diversion.]
“One would think that channeling might muck things up a bit.”
[Channeling could indeed muck things up a bit……if channeling was exclusively linked to reincarnation in the first place, which it isn’t. Two separate subjects being linked together, and using one to bring down the other.]
“After all, if various spirits from the past can enter any body at any time without destroying the present person, it is possible that when one remembers a past life it is actually someone else’s life one is remembering.”
[If that was how channeling actually worked to begin with. Which it doesn’t. Channeling isn’t about entities (be it from the past, future, or any period or location) entering into “any” body at “any time.” Trance channeling – which is what JZ Knight and Jane Roberts were doing, since he wants to use them as examples – involves the designated host going into a trance state, and then willingly allowing the entity(ies) to take over their body. Not just some entity jumping into “ANY” body at “ANY” time. With that in mind it negates whatever point the author thought they were making here. And I don’t say this to defend the material of JZ Knight (or Jane Roberts). I myself am not a fan of JZ Knight’s material and don’t partake in her stuff. I’m merely correcting the misinformation and fallacies on display here, not defending the channelers themselves.]
“From a philosophical point of view, reincarnation poses some interesting problems. What is it that is reincarnated? Presumably, it is the soul that is reincarnated, but what is the soul? A disembodied consciousness?”
[Those are indeed interesting philosophical questions….but they are born out of previous incorrect information and fallacies, hence the reference to “disembodied consciousness.” Reincarnation doesn’t actually pose any problems…..if one were to stick to the subject at hand, instead of sidetracking onto channeling. It’s a very straightforward concept. It’s the idea that there is a soul, and that soul lives on after death, coming back into another body. The end. Nothing complicated or problematic about it.]
“Reincarnation does seem to offer an explanation for some strange phenomena such as the ability of some people to regress to a past life under hypnosis. Also, we might explain child prodigies by claiming that unlike most cases of reincarnation where the soul has to more or less start from scratch, the child prodigy somehow gets a soul with great carryover from a previous life, giving it a decided advantage over the rest of us.”
[That’s good that the author is willing to get into that. So, no complaints here.]
“Reincarnation could explain why bad things happen to good people and why good things happen to bad people: they are being rewarded or punished for actions in past lives (karma).”
[Slight issue with this – I myself don’t believe that bad things happening to good people and vice versa always has to do with the idea of “karma” (in fact, I’ve challenged some common beliefs concerning karma in past write ups on my site, but won’t side track onto it here) and I don’t feel that “karma” as it’s typically understood is a “reward and punishment system.” Many, if not most, believers of karma do believe this though, which is where the author got that from, so I can’t blame him for saying that.]
“One could explain déjà vu experiences by claiming that they are memories of past lives.”
[One could, and I recognize what the author is talking about with this, however that’s not necessarily what déjà vu is. Most déjà vus that I’ve heard about in my research (or experienced for myself) seem to involve a person just going about their day-to-day life, then suddenly being hit with the feeling that they’ve done this before, and are repeating themselves in some way. The feeling that “This has already happened.” What the author is describing is a person visiting a place they’ve never been and feeling like they’ve been there before, maybe even recognizing landmarks, and knowing their way around even though it’s supposed to be the first time the person has ever been there. That’s not déjà vu in the traditional sense. That could be described as a soul memory of some sort. Two different concepts, being mixed up together.]
“Dreams could be interpreted as a kind of soul travel and soul memory.”
[They could….but that’s certainly not the only aspect of dreams. Not sure why this was thrown in there. This is the point in the article where things start getting really sloppy and rushed, in my opinion, jumping all over the place.]
“However, past life regression and déjà vu experiences are best explained as the recalling of events from this life, not some past life.”
[How would a “past life” regression be best explained as the recalling of events from this life? The very nature of it being “past life” means it’s from…….the past. Read or listen to any past life regression session and you’ll find people vividly describing a life….from the past, with everything that goes with it from historical happenings, clothes styles and general culture, daily lifestyle happenings, slang/vernacular, and so on. And as already noted, the correct interpretation of déjà vus – not soul memories, which the author was mistakenly describing – does involve events in the present life. So, there’s actually no argument there.]
“Dreams and child prodigies are best explained in terms of brain structures and genetically inheritable traits and processes.”
[Again, who said that all dreams have to do with soul travel and past lives? The author did. Nobody else did. Most dreams are the brain’s way of processing all those events and issues that make up our everyday lives. All sorts of various things can happen to a person while they’re sleeping, maybe even including past life connections, but that’s not the only purpose of dreams. So this is a fallacious point.]
“And since bad things also happen to bad people and good things also happen to good people, the most reasonable belief is that there is no design to the distribution of good and bad happening to people.”
[Arguing against the idea of karma does not disprove the idea of reincarnation. They’re intertwined, yet separate, subjects. Karma, according to those who believe in the traditional definition of it, manifests not just from things we may have done in past lives, but also from things we’re doing in our current life. And reincarnation is the recycling of a soul back into a body, which may or may not have to do with karma. A person could have squeaky clean karma but feel like they’re not done experiencing physicality, or that there’s still a job they have to do. And then supposedly there are those souls who are reincarnating because they have karma to clear up. Different possibilities for two intertwined, yet separate, subjects.]
“Stories, especially stories from children, that claim knowledge of a past life, abound. One collector of such stories was the psychiatrist Ian Stevenson, who made a weak case that the stories offered scientific evidence for reincarnation.”
[Ian Stevenson made a weak case? Okay, then what was it? I’ve never heard of Ian Stevenson, but I’m not just going to take the author’s word for it that he made a weak case and then move on, like, “Oh, okay, I believe you, I don’t need to do my own research and think for myself.” And neither will any halfway intelligent reader. The subject of children’s past life recall is one of the most compelling cases for reincarnation out there, because very young children haven’t yet been subjected to the programming or media influences that adults have. I’m not saying it definitively proves anything, but it certainly shows that something anomalous is amiss when children start telling people about a life in another body, in another place, and maybe even speaking in another language, or in an accent not of their region, having knowledge that they shouldn’t yet have, with no explainable source for it. And especially when the information they’re providing can be verified. (it could also be a case of entity attachments, but wait, that’s woo-woo too, right? ;D ) It’s probably because the argument is so compelling that the author skips right over this, in my opinion. He makes mention of it to say that he at least addressed it…..but he doesn’t take any serious consideration of it, and in fact goes out of his way to marginalize it. “Nothing to see here folks, move it along!”]
“Finally, since there is no way to tell the difference between a baby with a soul that will go to heaven or hell, a baby with a soul that has been around before in other bodies, and a baby with no soul at all, it follows that the idea of a soul adds nothing to our concept of a human being.”
[This sentence is yet another that I found myself having to re-read multiple times to figure out what his point was and where he was trying to go, since he’s jumping around and his ideas are not segueing up. Is he arguing against the idea of a soul, or against the idea of reincarnation? It’s a little confusing. If he wanted to argue against the idea of a soul then the article should have been set up differently, and been more organized and focused, first outlining why he can prove there’s no soul and then therefore, why he can prove there’s no such thing as reincarnation. And actually I would argue that the idea of a soul does add something to our concept of a human being. Many people when trying to describe the attributes of somebody who is behaving in sociopathic/psychopathic ways for instance will use such phrases as “The lights are on but nobody’s home…” “deadened eyes” or “They’re not all there…” or the blatant “They’re soulless” or “they’re not human.” They’re empty…missing something…something that would make them more “human”….and that something is understood to connect to what? A soul. Some sort of spark that others have, but which they’re lacking.]
“Applying Occam’s razor, both the idea of reincarnation and the idea of an immortal soul that will go to heaven or hell are equally unnecessary.”
[And….that’s the author’s grand conclusion? That’s the best they could do? It was as if by the end of the piece the author wasn’t even trying anymore, just rushing to get to the end. As mentioned earlier, this debunking piece just goes around and around in circles, but ultimately concludes and proves nothing at all. Reincarnation may be false, but this write up is not able to prove that in any intelligent way. One would have to do quite a bit better than this article if they were going to tackle the subject. And just as important, skeptics need to make sure that they’ve done the research and know what they’re talking about before they set out to write an article that debunks a subject. They should do their homework first. The author of this article did not seem to fully understand what deja vu is, how channeling works, or even what the nature of dreams are.]
“At every turn somebody is trying to make you feel weird and strange for the way that you do things or view things.”
“The key is to know your own truth. Stand your ground. You’re not the weird one — they are. If you’ve proven some things for yourself, then there’s nothing to feel weird about. If asked, and if you feel comfortable, explain the way you see it — if they choose to reject it, so be it. That’s their choice. At least you tried. Maybe eventually they’ll catch up sometime down the line. In the meantime, you planted a seed. But definitely don’t feel weird for it.” (http://in2worlds.net/sicknessits-all-in-the-head)
in2worlds.net/on-skeptics-new-article-july-30-2010
“The bottom line is that there isn’t a skeptic out there who can disprove the idea of a soul, or reincarnation. (as well as many other “woo-woo” subjects. I use reincarnation here as one example because that just happened to be an article I randomly clicked on at that one debunking site) so you can’t disprove it, and no amount of straw mans thrown in the middle of a write up to veer a reader’s mind off course is going to accomplish that. You can disagree with the idea and have all your own reasons for it…but you can’t definitively prove it wrong.
“And then I want to throw in a word about Religious Zealots vs. Skepticism Gone Awry, which are actually two sides of the same coin. The mindset of a skeptical zealot is no different from the mindset of a religious zealot. At first glance they seem diametrically opposed – one doesn’t believe in anything that the other does – but they’re actually “opposames,” as David Icke terms it. The former’s mind is already made up, closed off to the idea of hearing or reading any evidence that would contradict their programming towards the idea of a strictly physical, five sense reality where everything is exactly as academia tells us it is. The latter’s mind is also already made up, closed off to the idea of hearing or reading any evidence that would contradict their programming towards the idea of whatever particular religious beliefs they hold. Both sides have an obvious “NEED!” for their beliefs, which explains their refusal to consider any information that might contradict those beliefs. And neither one can be reasoned with or responds in a rational way. Hence, opposames.”
2. “Because I can’t explain something and don’t want to believe in it means I’ll ignore it and just dismiss the entire thing.” Self explanatory. For me, so long as I’ve seen personal proof for the existence of something woo-woo then I’m perfectly comfortable not knowing how or why it works or exists, and just accept that it does. But this is a no-no apparently for many die hard skeptics. If they can’t understand something or don’t want to deal with it (maybe because it scares them on some level), then it gets swept under the rug. And the weirder and more unnerving and unexplainable that something is, the faster it gets swept away and dismissed.
The reason for this mindset is because skeptics are determined to believe that the world is a purely physical, five sense, rational place where humans know and understand everything and everything is under complete control. For many die hard skeptics, acknowledging even one small bit of woo-woo is a slippery slope towards having to acknowledge the wider prevalence of woo-woo, which they don’t want to do. It’s all or nothing, black and white for them. So they don’t acknowledge anything out of the ordinary, period. Solves that slippery slope problem right there. I used to date a die hard skeptic, who was also an atheist, so I know how it can be. This “logic” is a bit laughable when you think about it because by that rationale it means you should go around negating and disbelieving in any and all phenomenon in this world – both non-physical AND physical – so long as you haven’t yet learned what it is and how it works and if it could somehow become a slippery slope on the way to anywhere.
3. When is an ongoing pattern/recurrence no longer “just coincidence”? Skeptics love to dismiss woo-woo subjects such as synchronicity, number sightings and the like as being “just a coincidence.” Many things probably are just a coincidence, but when something happens enough times in enough unusual ways, then at what point is it no longer just a coincidence? For a Skeptic Gone Awry the answer is…..never. It will always be just a coincidence, no matter how frequent or how “out there” and unbelievable/unexplainable the occurrences are. Because once again to even acknowledge one occurrence of woo-woo is opening a door to a slippery slope of having to acknowledge others….and we know where that can lead.
With number sightings in particular I can understand why skeptics might dismiss the majority of people’s occurrences, especially when they’re pretty mundane. If you’d told me about number sightings back in the mid-90s, before they were happening to me, I would have shrugged off the idea too. But when the occurrences are complicated in their set up, becoming downright far fetched, while increasing in frequency (to where it’s almost becoming a distraction….) then it’s time to stop and take a closer look. Ultimately the only way to know for sure whether something is just coincidental, or a legitimately weird happening is to start a log and begin keeping track, while gathering photographic and physical proof wherever possible. And that’s exactly what I did. Everybody’s free to come to their own conclusion about what I’ve noted in my number sightings log, but my conclusion is that something very unusual was/is going on there, and in my opinion I was able to prove that. What it is, or how it all works remains to be seen, but once again, just because you can’t definitively explain how something works…..doesn’t mean something isn’t happening.
There has to be a reasonableness when it comes to trying to determine whether something is just coincidence. When something is happening frequently, and defying statistical probability/odds, and is extremely unusual in its nature to the point of becoming downright far fetched, then the idea of coincidence ceases to apply. And if, despite the facts and statistical probability/odds and frequency of occurrence, etc. a skeptic still steadfastly clings to the idea of coincidence then they’ve become unreasonable/irrational, plain and simple. In those cases, any number of things could be going on to explain their skepticism gone awry, and I get into that at the end of this piece.
7. “Because something isn’t happening to me or my friends means it’s not happening to anybody else.” This one was on display earlier in Christine’s email and it’s one of the most laughable logical fallacies that a supposedly intelligent and rational person could commit. To automatically dismiss something that happens to others merely because you yourself haven’t experienced it only shows the nature of one’s own narrow mind and limited life experiences. If we were to continue with this rationale it means we need to dismiss anything that anybody ever tells us providing we haven’t personally seen/experienced it for ourselves. It’s pretty extreme, but that’s what the rationale is behind this mindset.
9. Appeal to authority. A common manipulative tactic that’s used to steer people away from certain lines of thought. One popular way that’s employed when it comes to debunking conspiracies and woo-woo in particular is to cite so-called authority, academia, science and such as “the voice of reason” who obviously “know best.” Because we all know that authority, academia, science and the like are never wrong and know everything.
They’re infallible after all, and everything that could ever be learned or known is already known, right now as I type this.This is obviously ludicrous. If science and academia knew everything already and were never wrong then there would never be scientific progress or scientific revolutions for that matter, which there obviously have been. But unfortunately this simpleton thinking actually does work on a lot of people, such is their ingrained lifetime of programming to trust in authority and the supposed wise leaders of academia. And “stuff” knows this, which is why it resorts to this tactic. Now, it doesn’t mean I’m saying that nobody in science and academia knows anything about anything. It just means be alert to this as a manipulative tactic that is used, and which attempts to steer people in certain directions within certain situations. It happens. A lot. So be mindful of it.
Appendix – Skepdic.com sample article
The following is an article from the infamous skeptical website called Skepdic.com I first came across Skepdic back in late 2004, when writing my Biorhythms piece. (In fact it was Skepdic that I was referring to in that one biorhythms excerpt that appears earlier in this piece.) But I hadn’t been back there since. However after writing this article I googled it to see if it was still out there, found that it was, clicked over, then selected “supernatural” from the category list on the left, then scanned down the list of subjects and chose reincarnation. I selected that one since it’s a large topic, and I was curious how he would dissect something as big as that. I was soon struck by how awful the write up was. Very badly argued and put together. If you’re going to be the representative of skeptics you have to do better than whatever he’s done, that’s all I can say. ;D Now, I don’t normally name/quote and target sources out there in Internet Land when they haven’t targeted me first, so I hesitated about whether or not to do this. It’s not my idea of a good time to start a “flame war” with another website. I’ve managed to exist on the internet over the last four years hanging out in my corner going relatively unnoticed, which is good. So I realize I’m opening myself up to who knows what in doing this. (oooooh! Controversy!!! weeeeeee!) However Skepdic has put his stuff out there challenging all sorts of woo-woo subjects, so in a way you could say it’s asking for a rebuttal of some sort. The whole goal of his website is to be one big challenge, after all. He takes personal feedback and commentary, of which he says he may post on the site, but he also mentions being very back logged on emails, so it’s no guarantee that one’s comments will be posted and heard. For that reason I figured, well, why not, I could post my rebuttal on my site. Then it’s guaranteed to be out there, even if only ten people read it.
And contrary to how my rebuttal may sound, I’m actually not invested in the idea of reincarnation, so it’s not coming from a place of being defensive. Again, I just picked that subject rather willy nilly. I could just as easily have selected a different category and sub topic. My research and life experience over the past decade has caused me to not fully believe in anything going on in this reality anymore. I just don’t fully trust any of it, for good reason, as people who’ve read my material will understand and be familiar with. And that would include reincarnation. I just love a good argument and picking things apart if they’re blatantly fallacious, but even more so if the author thinks they’re being so clever and intelligent. So in a way you could call it playing the Devil’s Advocate, for kicks.
So, look at this rebuttal in that light. It’s not meant as some all out flame war, just a devil’s advocate rebuttal, using that write up as a good example of fallacious thinking and bad logic that one often – and ironically – finds with the supposed rational and intelligent skeptical community.With that in mind, here is the article, with my commentary interspersed in brackets…..
“Reincarnation is the belief that when one dies, one’s body decomposes but something of oneself is reborn in another body. It is the belief that one has lived before and will live again in another body after death.”
[So far so good. These two opening sentences merely explain what reincarnation is typically understood to mean.]
“The bodies one passes in and out of need not be human. One may have been a Doberman in a past life, and one may be a mite or a carrot in a future life.”
[Now we encounter the first problems.
First off, not every believer of reincarnation believes this is the way things work. I myself don’t, and neither do other people I know who believe in reincarnation. But the author is presenting things as if this is an across-the-board belief shared by every proponent of reincarnation, not bothering to differentiate or clarify. This lack of differentiation/clarification seems to be done very intentionally in order to bias the reader, as the snarky choices of “mite” and “carrot” reveal. Using biased word choices means a skeptic’s argument is weak, and they’re having to resort to whatever manipulations they can grab onto to steer the reader. When your argument is solid and you actually have proof for your claims, and/or can definitively disprove your opponent, then you don’t need to resort to that.]“Some tribes avoid eating certain animals because they believe that the souls of their ancestors dwell in those animals. A man could even become his own daughter by dying before she is born and then entering her body at birth.
[No real complaints here, as it’s more explaining what reincarnation is typically understood to be. However I do detect more snarky manipulation with the mention of how a man can become his own daughter.
]“The belief in past lives used to be mainly a belief found in Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, but now is a central tenet of much woo-woo like dianetics and channeling.”
[Yes, because reincarnation is a central tenet of the umbrella of New Age in general (which borrows heavily from all religions) of which dianetics, ie, Scientology, and channeling fall under.]
“In those ancient Eastern religions, reincarnation was not considered a good thing, but a bad thing. To achieve the state of ultimate bliss (nirvana) is to escape from the wheel of rebirth. In most, if not all, ancient religions with a belief in reincarnation, the soul entering a body is seen as a metaphysical demotion, a sullying and impure rite of passage.”
[Nothing really to critique here as the author is back to merely explaining things. There is the insertion of “woo-woo” to describe Dianetics and channeling, but even I use that term humorously, and even I think the alternative history beliefs of Scientology are woo-woo, and I also shake my head at so much of what passes for channeling out there. So, I can’t complain. ;D]
“In New Age religions, however, being born again seems to be a kind of perverse goal. Prepare yourself in this life for who or what you want to come back as in the next life.”
[Any sources that could be cited or quoted here to back up what the author is saying? I haven’t studied up in-depth on every aspect of New Age myself, but in the material I have come across so far I can’t say that I’ve ever seen what the author is claiming here, about reincarnation being some perverse goal of the New Age. I wouldn’t be surprised if some group(s) somewhere think this, but does it mean it’s a goal for all New Age practioners? No. That’s a generalization. Therefore cited sources – and more importantly, differentiation/clarification – would be helpful.]
“Belief in past lives also opens the door for New Age therapies such as past life regression therapy, which seeks the causes of today’s psychological problems in the experiences of previous lives.
L. Ron Hubbard, author of Dianetics and the founder of Scientology, introduced his own version of reincarnation into his new religion. According to Hubbard, past lives need auditing to get at the root of one’s “troubles.” He also claims that “Dianetics gave impetus to Bridey Murphy” and that some scientologists have been dogs and other animals in previous lives (“A Note on Past Lives” in The Rediscovery of the Human Soul). According to Hubbard, “It has only been in Scientology that the mechanics of death have been thoroughly understood.” What happens in death is this: the Thetan (spirit) finds itself without a body (which has died) and then it goes looking for a new body. Thetans “will hang around people. They will see a woman who is pregnant and follow her down the street.” Then, the Thetan will slip into the newborn “usually…two or three minutes after the delivery of a child from the mother. A Thetan usually picks it up about the time the baby takes its first gasp.” How Hubbard knows this is never revealed.”
[On the one hand I can understand what the author is doing here – He’s continuing in his quest to explain not only what reincarnation is, but what some of the proponents of reincarnation believe about the subject. However……This excerpt is strongly related to a “straw man.” It’s side tracking too much onto what Dianetics/Scientology believes about the subject, and for a specific, manipulative reason…..because the historical beliefs of Scientology is REALLY out there, even for people who are into the weird and the woo-woo. L. Ron’s material is therefore an easy target to go after. Or rather, side track onto, in order to make the subject of reincarnation as a whole look ludicrous. Put the focus on L. Ron’s beliefs………..but meanwhile, don’t focus too much on your every day Buddhist, middle ground “New Ager,” etc. who may have more sensible ideas about the subject.]
“Channeling, like past life regression, is distinct from reincarnation, even though it is based on the same essential concept: death does not put an end to the entirety of one’s being.”
[The author even admits that channeling is “distinct from reincarnation”…..so if it’s “distinct” from reincarnation, which is supposed to be the article’s focus, then why side track onto it? Again, we’re looking at something related to a straw man. More off topic diversion.]
“In classical reincarnation, something of the consciousness of the deceased somehow enters a new body but as that body grows only one unified consciousness persists through time.”
“Channeling might be called temporary intermittent past life invasion because there is a coming and going of the past life entity, which always remains distinct from the present self-conscious being. For example, JZ Knight claims that in 1977 the spirit of a Cro-Magnon warrior who once lived in Atlantis took over her body in order to pass on bits of wisdom he’d picked up over the centuries.”
[JZ Knight may have channeled some past life entity over 30 years ago, but is this the normal mode of operations in channeling? You know, since we’re going to be side tracking onto the subject of channeling and all?
No. I don’t doubt there must be some channeling out there besides JZ’s that also involves a “past life entity” however, it’s in my own personal research experience that most channeled entities are claiming to be alien intelligences, or higher evolved entities of some sort, or just general human souls and spirits. But not entities specifically from the past, per se.]“Knight seems to be carrying on the work of Jane Roberts and Robert Butts, who in 1972 hit the market with Seth Speaks. Knight, Roberts, and Butts are indebted to Edgar Cayce, who claimed to be in touch with many of his past lives.”
[What does the channeler JZ Knight carrying on the work of Jane Roberts and Robert Butts have anything to do with disproving whether reincarnation is a valid belief system? How has that sentence advanced the skeptical argument against reincarnation? Ah but see, the author goes on to explain that all three people are indebted to Edgar Cayce….who discussed past lives. Suddenly it’s all clear now……right??
This is more off topic diversion.]“One would think that channeling might muck things up a bit.”
[Channeling could indeed muck things up a bit……if channeling was exclusively linked to reincarnation in the first place, which it isn’t. Two separate subjects being linked together, and using one to bring down the other.]
“After all, if various spirits from the past can enter any body at any time without destroying the present person, it is possible that when one remembers a past life it is actually someone else’s life one is remembering.”
[If that was how channeling actually worked to begin with. Which it doesn’t. Channeling isn’t about entities (be it from the past, future, or any period or location) entering into “any” body at “any time.” Trance channeling – which is what JZ Knight and Jane Roberts were doing, since he wants to use them as examples – involves the designated host going into a trance state, and then willingly allowing the entity(ies) to take over their body. Not just some entity jumping into “ANY” body at “ANY” time. With that in mind it negates whatever point the author thought they were making here. And I don’t say this to defend the material of JZ Knight (or Jane Roberts). I myself am not a fan of JZ Knight’s material and don’t partake in her stuff. I’m merely correcting the misinformation and fallacies on display here, not defending the channelers themselves.]
“From a philosophical point of view, reincarnation poses some interesting problems. What is it that is reincarnated? Presumably, it is the soul that is reincarnated, but what is the soul? A disembodied consciousness?”
[Those are indeed interesting philosophical questions….but they are born out of previous incorrect information and fallacies, hence the reference to “disembodied consciousness.” Reincarnation doesn’t actually pose any problems…..if one were to stick to the subject at hand, instead of sidetracking onto channeling. It’s a very straightforward concept. It’s the idea that there is a soul, and that soul lives on after death, coming back into another body. The end. Nothing complicated or problematic about it.]
“Reincarnation does seem to offer an explanation for some strange phenomena such as the ability of some people to regress to a past life under hypnosis. Also, we might explain child prodigies by claiming that unlike most cases of reincarnation where the soul has to more or less start from scratch, the child prodigy somehow gets a soul with great carryover from a previous life, giving it a decided advantage over the rest of us.”
[That’s good that the author is willing to get into that.
So, no complaints here.]“Reincarnation could explain why bad things happen to good people and why good things happen to bad people: they are being rewarded or punished for actions in past lives (karma).”
[Slight issue with this – I myself don’t believe that bad things happening to good people and vice versa always has to do with the idea of “karma” (in fact, I’ve challenged some common beliefs concerning karma in past write ups on my site, but won’t side track onto it here) and I don’t feel that “karma” as it’s typically understood is a “reward and punishment system.” Many, if not most, believers of karma do believe this though, which is where the author got that from, so I can’t blame him for saying that.]
“One could explain déjà vu experiences by claiming that they are memories of past lives.”
[One could, and I recognize what the author is talking about with this, however that’s not necessarily what déjà vu is. Most déjà vus that I’ve heard about in my research (or experienced for myself) seem to involve a person just going about their day-to-day life, then suddenly being hit with the feeling that they’ve done this before, and are repeating themselves in some way. The feeling that “This has already happened.” What the author is describing is a person visiting a place they’ve never been and feeling like they’ve been there before, maybe even recognizing landmarks, and knowing their way around even though it’s supposed to be the first time the person has ever been there. That’s not déjà vu in the traditional sense. That could be described as a soul memory of some sort. Two different concepts, being mixed up together.]
“Dreams could be interpreted as a kind of soul travel and soul memory.”
[They could….but that’s certainly not the only aspect of dreams. Not sure why this was thrown in there. This is the point in the article where things start getting really sloppy and rushed, in my opinion, jumping all over the place.]
“However, past life regression and déjà vu experiences are best explained as the recalling of events from this life, not some past life.”
[How would a “past life” regression be best explained as the recalling of events from this life? The very nature of it being “past life” means it’s from…….the past. Read or listen to any past life regression session and you’ll find people vividly describing a life….from the past, with everything that goes with it from historical happenings, clothes styles and general culture, daily lifestyle happenings, slang/vernacular, and so on. And as already noted, the correct interpretation of déjà vus – not soul memories, which the author was mistakenly describing – does involve events in the present life. So, there’s actually no argument there.]
“Dreams and child prodigies are best explained in terms of brain structures and genetically inheritable traits and processes.”
[Again, who said that all dreams have to do with soul travel and past lives? The author did. Nobody else did. Most dreams are the brain’s way of processing all those events and issues that make up our everyday lives. All sorts of various things can happen to a person while they’re sleeping, maybe even including past life connections, but that’s not the only purpose of dreams. So this is a fallacious point.]
“And since bad things also happen to bad people and good things also happen to good people, the most reasonable belief is that there is no design to the distribution of good and bad happening to people.”
[Arguing against the idea of karma does not disprove the idea of reincarnation. They’re intertwined, yet separate, subjects. Karma, according to those who believe in the traditional definition of it, manifests not just from things we may have done in past lives, but also from things we’re doing in our current life. And reincarnation is the recycling of a soul back into a body, which may or may not have to do with karma. A person could have squeaky clean karma but feel like they’re not done experiencing physicality, or that there’s still a job they have to do. And then supposedly there are those souls who are reincarnating because they have karma to clear up. Different possibilities for two intertwined, yet separate, subjects.]
“Stories, especially stories from children, that claim knowledge of a past life, abound. One collector of such stories was the psychiatrist Ian Stevenson, who made a weak case that the stories offered scientific evidence for reincarnation.”
[Ian Stevenson made a weak case? Okay, then what was it? I’ve never heard of Ian Stevenson, but I’m not just going to take the author’s word for it that he made a weak case and then move on, like, “Oh, okay, I believe you, I don’t need to do my own research and think for myself.” And neither will any halfway intelligent reader. The subject of children’s past life recall is one of the most compelling cases for reincarnation out there, because very young children haven’t yet been subjected to the programming or media influences that adults have. I’m not saying it definitively proves anything, but it certainly shows that something anomalous is amiss when children start telling people about a life in another body, in another place, and maybe even speaking in another language, or in an accent not of their region, having knowledge that they shouldn’t yet have, with no explainable source for it. And especially when the information they’re providing can be verified. (it could also be a case of entity attachments, but wait, that’s woo-woo too, right? ;D ) It’s probably because the argument is so compelling that the author skips right over this, in my opinion. He makes mention of it to say that he at least addressed it…..but he doesn’t take any serious consideration of it, and in fact goes out of his way to marginalize it. “Nothing to see here folks, move it along!”]
“Finally, since there is no way to tell the difference between a baby with a soul that will go to heaven or hell, a baby with a soul that has been around before in other bodies, and a baby with no soul at all, it follows that the idea of a soul adds nothing to our concept of a human being.”
[This sentence is yet another that I found myself having to re-read multiple times to figure out what his point was and where he was trying to go, since he’s jumping around and his ideas are not segueing up. Is he arguing against the idea of a soul, or against the idea of reincarnation? It’s a little confusing. If he wanted to argue against the idea of a soul then the article should have been set up differently, and been more organized and focused, first outlining why he can prove there’s no soul and then therefore, why he can prove there’s no such thing as reincarnation. And actually I would argue that the idea of a soul does add something to our concept of a human being. Many people when trying to describe the attributes of somebody who is behaving in sociopathic/psychopathic ways for instance will use such phrases as “The lights are on but nobody’s home…” “deadened eyes” or “They’re not all there…” or the blatant “They’re soulless” or “they’re not human.” They’re empty…missing something…something that would make them more “human”….and that something is understood to connect to what? A soul. Some sort of spark that others have, but which they’re lacking.]
“Applying Occam’s razor, both the idea of reincarnation and the idea of an immortal soul that will go to heaven or hell are equally unnecessary.”
[And….that’s the author’s grand conclusion? That’s the best they could do? It was as if by the end of the piece the author wasn’t even trying anymore, just rushing to get to the end. As mentioned earlier, this debunking piece just goes around and around in circles, but ultimately concludes and proves nothing at all. Reincarnation may be false, but this write up is not able to prove that in any intelligent way. One would have to do quite a bit better than this article if they were going to tackle the subject. And just as important, skeptics need to make sure that they’ve done the research and know what they’re talking about before they set out to write an article that debunks a subject. They should do their homework first. The author of this article did not seem to fully understand what deja vu is, how channeling works, or even what the nature of dreams are.]
