Bifurcation, David. Tsk tsk. Bifurcation.
I see nothing wrong with personal testimony, after all, it is admissible in a court of law. I can’t conceive of a world where personal experience is so distrusted that everyone is paranoid.
When you really think about it, it is not possible to live without trusting your personal experience. The tube of toothpaste, may have poison in it, the mailman may be a serial killer. Come on, give me a break, everyone trusts their personal experience and the experience of others until the other proves them wrong. You are asking me to live in a fearful, frightening world. No thank you.
I will just go on trusting others unless they prove to not be trustworthy. Trust in myself and my experiences. Confidence in one’s self determines the life they will lead. It is a good trait unless you are a dictator and want everyone to trust only in you.
In which case, don’t count on me.
Love
Leroy
1st, the “not believing in myself” was a joke. Since you “asked” “are you God” and I don’t believe in God, so if I were God, I wouldn’t believe in myself. Thusly creating a paradox.
I’d like to see where my spear landed, 'cept for some red pen notes and a rib to DtC.
If what you consider a spear to be asking you to cite your facts, hmm, that’s really not unusual in Great Debates. You wanna claim that Past Life Regression is the most documented (documented to be false or true, documented by whom, etc are important to know in this case) then fine, but for the sake of the debate let’s see some proof either way.
Unfortunately at this point I’m forced to let sleeping dogs lie, as the rest of my family is tired of our enlivened philosophical debate, which they mistake for argument. c’est la vie.
I thought you said no insults. Guess that’s only for the spiritual people.
Love
Leroy
lekatt said:
Oh, well in that case…
Sorry, but personal testimony is one of the most unreliable pieces of evidence that exists. And thankfully, science runs by a better system than the courts.
Nobody said anything about being paranoid. But if you have reality and somebody’s “personal experience” contradicts that reality AND we have evidence that said supposed experience could be caused by perfectly rational and explainable causes, it is irrational to believe the “experience.”
Sure, in everyday things. But, of course, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Claiming my toothpaste is not poisoned is not extraordinary (unless I know there are assassins hunting me). Claiming that I lived a past life and can be regressed back to it or that I was abducted by little gray men is a rather extraordinary claim.
No, I am asking you to live in the real world. I’m sorry you turned down the offer.
[Moderator Hat: ON]
lekatt said:
It applies to everybody. However, nothing you included violates the rules of Great Debates. If you still don’t understand the rules, feel free to e-mail and ask about them.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
He’s right, David. Your calling him a hypocrite seems out of line since the error of bifurcation was yours.
Calling psychics phony, comparing psychics to the eight ball game, belittleing my posts. That’s all.
Love
Leroy
Libertarian, I almost hesitate to ask, but what the hell are you talking about?
Bifurcation = false dilemma. You presented two phenominal entities: that he is a god or a hypocrite, when in fact there are other possibilities.
lekatt said:
Yeah, and…? This is The Straight Dope. We fight ignorance here, not propagate it.
Please show where I called psychics phony. Can’t the magic eight ball be also a psychic tool or is that not accepted in the realm of this quackery?
and by the way, it’s belittling, not belittleing.
Libertarian said:
Oh, you have got to be kidding. Don’t you have something better to do than nitpick at silly things? Seriously, I never said he was EITHER God OR a hypocrite with no other possibility. Though at this point I must admit I’m leaning towards the latter – especially since he hasn’t explained himself further on that point…
You come up with a real psychic, and I’ll show you how to make a quick million and almost universal varification. Just check out this little website.
Well, obviously Randi should just accept personal testimony. I mean, that’s the way it would be in lekatt’s world…
David wrote:
David previously wrote:
I’m not sure that I’m the one who’s nitpicking here. 
Only if it already agreed with his beliefs. You’ve gotta have some standards, y’know.
According to Quackwatch.org (ooh, the quackiness)
Past-Life Therapy
“Past-life therapy” is based on the notion that psychologic disorders arise from the influence of traumas and personality traits from previous lives intruding on the subconscious. Proponents of this approach use hypnosis, meditation, or guided imagery to “regress” the patient to alleged earlier incarnations (“past lives”) that, when recalled, lead to resolution of the patient’s problems. There is, however, no scientific evidence that this theory is valid.
Experiments have shown that “past-life” reports during hypnotic trances are related to the subject’s suggestibility and proneness to fantasize. In one experiment, 35 out of 110 subjects who were asked to regress to times before their birth enacted “past lives.” In most of these cases, their past-life personalities were the same age and race as themselves. In another experiment, half of the subjects were informed by researchers that previous incarnations were often a different sex or race and had lived in exotic cultures. Those who received this advice were significantly more likely to incorporate one or more of the suggested characteristics into their past-life descriptions. In another experiment, researchers found that subjects who gave information specific enough to be checked were much more often incorrect than correct. Past-life reports obtained from hypnotically regressed subjects are fantasy constructions of imaginative persons absorbed in make-believe situations and responding to regression suggestions – and that those who believe in reincarnation are the most likely to believe that such fantasies are related to an actual past life.
If science is better than the judicial system, would you like science to “take over” the courts and mete out their own judgments.
As for personal testimony being unreliable, have you tested ALL personal testimony and found it unreliable or are you just making an assumption here. In the real world I have found some to be very reliable and others not. That is usually the way the real world works, and the courts try to sort out which is which.
If you say past lives contradict reality, then that statement implies that you know all of reality, it this true? Do you know all of our reality?
To me past lives are just ordinary things. Many children say they have lived before, but then that is personal testimony. I really can’t argue with one who doesn’t take personal experience seriously or believe anything I say. So goodby.
Love
Leroy