"seems to be"
"are"
I hardly chose my words that carefully.
Why would somebody jump straight in at the fantastical and supernatural when there are many far more plausible and realistic causes?
Have you watched the videos, signal?
"seems to be"
"are"
I hardly chose my words that carefully.
Why would somebody jump straight in at the fantastical and supernatural when there are many far more plausible and realistic causes?
Have you watched the videos, signal?
You jumed straight in and believe the so-called skeptics though.
Why?
Are you optimistic that a person can overcome denial (that is deeply rooted in our society) simply by participating in a discussion?
You jumed straight in and believe the so-called skeptics though.
Why?
jan.
I didn't jump straight in and believe the sceptics. I came to my own conclusion while watching the film. How can you not get that?
And signal, fair enough. But all along I have not been reincarnation-bashing, all I've been saying is the video Jan posted was very vague with no evidence and all the coincidental stuff in it can be explained very easily.
If you watch it you will see this, and you cannot question my "many far more plausible and realistic causes" without actually viewing the evidence I was shown.
Spidergoat and I have already said a number of times. I'm getting bored of this now.
I mean like some objective third party could have gathered all the details the kid remembered and then checked them against the actual place.... before he visited there.
Are you optimistic that a person can overcome denial (that is deeply rooted in our society) simply by participating in a discussion?
Sometimes it isn't denial, it is based upon research and investigation that leads many, including myself , to conclusions. Those things include discussions as well. Discussing something until you brow beat others into "believing" isn't a way to prove anything.
Spider merely stated;
Given that the child mentioned; the house, the dog, the name of the family, the fact that he used watch aeroplanes land on the beach, and the location.
How could an independent third party having gone there beforehand, have heiped to prove his account?
Also you haven't yet debunked the James Leninger account, which was, for the purpose of positive evidence, almost unbelievably, more conclusive.
jan.
I don't think that fact that people landed planes on the beach was a state secret, he could have seen it on TV. The family name could have been a common one, as well as a house having three toilets.
His most specific prediction, that someone named Shane Robertson died in a car crash, was not confirmed.
Why do some people rely on testimony when it comes to proving or disproving reincarnation?
But it doesn't.
There is general agreeement that testimony as such is not a reliable source anyway. So why focus on it, as if through it, anything could be proved or disproved?
How come you're not out on the town?