What is Digg?200 Comments
- gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+95This is just one of many glitches that will be solved by the next version of the matrix.
- coolian, on 10/12/2007, -9/+93It's a bird!! It's a plane!!! It's *****!!!!!
- aOenEz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+60Pics or it didn't happen. :)
But seriously though, this sounds like some grade-A *****. - thesauce, on 10/12/2007, -3/+42The picture of that kid creeps me out more than the article.
- bunni, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33It's like i'm in line at the supermarket.
- meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31I think it's trustworthy; I mean they DID prove that the house didn't just have just one toilet, it had THREE!!!!11!!!
- Jwoey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29you dont have to put a comma after a lone adjective.
e: i dont know why i pointed that out.. nevermind - mtvkilledusall, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33My wife and I once went over to friends house for a barbeque and there were other people there. A kid came up to us (about 6 or 7) and began telling us how his real name was richard something and he was really an old man, he told us how he fought in a specific area in WW2 and about how he lived in NY when he was a boy. The kid, I think, was too young to make all this up or remember it from a tv show.
It was really creepy.
I don't think this is *****, but to each his own, I guess. - gumby05, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Either way, that's one creepy looking kid.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Does the Sun know what a paragraph is?
Hey Sun:
A series of sentences which are about one aspect of a topic.
Let's never put sentences together again, as it increase reading ablility for those with an 80 or lower IQ. - numb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16It reminded me of the novel "Diary" by Chuck Palahniuk (the guy that wrote Fight Club.) As a kid, the main character, Misty, paints all these detailed pictures of an island town. She can picture every detail of the place. She marries a guy she meets in college and they move back to his hometown, and it just happens to be the same place she's been painting since she was a kid. Also a creepy story. I wouldn't be too surprised if that's where the author of the article got the idea for this story.
- Boulevard, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20For the dumb sh*ts talking about the Sun, the article is about a documentary made by the BBC, so I guess the BBC made the ***** up for the Sun Online website. *rolls eyes* RTFA.
- Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17yeah and that has to be true too cause kids never talk bs
- signal15, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15From Wikipedia's entry for the movie Whisky Galore!:
"The cast included Basil Radford (as the Home Guard captain), Joan Greenwood, James Robertson Justice, Gordon Jackson and John Gregson. It was shot on the island of Barra. "
Maybe he saw the movie or a documentary about the movie. "James Robertson" sounds suspiciously like "Shane Robertson". - uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15How do you know reincarnation is impossible? Do you know something the rest of us don't? If so, please share, I'm quite curious.
Not saying I definitely believe in it, but up to this day, I have seen nothing that disproves it. - MrCoffee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I thought this was interesting..
"One day his nursery teacher told me a film company were looking for people who believed they had lived before.". Wow. That's pretty convenient. - nullchris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Your statement is only true if you add, "YET" to it.
- BigHeadOne, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Yeah, sure.
Thats where the supernatural bs lies. In the realm of 'IT CANT BE KNOWN'. As science advances, the boogeymen and god have fewer places to hide, much to the chagrin of charlatans who make a living off it. - threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16I'll go for the third:
A made up story.. - AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"not everything can be explained by science."
Science can be defined as follows:
A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data.
-- Wictionary
So what you're saying basically amounts to "not everything can be explained with rational thought," and I'm afraid that I'm inclined to disagree. Or rather, I'd say that anything that *can* be explained, can be explained by rational thought. However, there are some things that may never be explained, and may in fact be unexplainable. Should we then resort to faith, gut feelings, guesswork, etc? Or should we do the rational thing and say "we can't explain that (yet)"? - diggenerate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12pretty convincing story considering it's in the Sun website
/sarcasm - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12the Su...oh, nevermind.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@geoffrobinson:
"A belief that science is the sole basis for truth, etc. cannot be proven by a science experiment. Hence, such a belief is untrue."
Straw man. The scientific method has proven singularly effective at constructive predictive models of universal phenomena, aka reality. Science empirically works, no belief is necessary - in fact, that is one lay definition of reality - that which, when you cease to believe it, continues to exist. "Sole basis for truth" is a meaningless bit of rhetoric, since by "truth" you don't mean reality, you mean that which you believe.
"That is science-ism (if I may coin a phrase), not science."
Given your next sentence, it is clear that you understand little about science, so your unoriginal characterization is less than authoritative.
"And if science keeps leaving less room for God, is that why all the atheists are fleeing to the multiverse hypothesis after seeing that the laws of physics are incredibly fine-tuned?"
A) "science leaving less room for God" is another way of saying that, the more phenomena we understand using the scientific method, the more natural explanations we find for phenomena that were previously attributed to "the will of God" - e.g., everything from volcanoes to disease. Thank you for making your own counter-argument. Apparently you feel the need to blame someone for the fact that we now attribute a cough to the cold virus rather than demonic possession. I feel your pain - take two acetaminophen (the product of practitioners of that demon science) and call me in the morning (using the devil's device, the telephone). Please, however, do not read this using the computer or the Internet, both creations of atheistic science.
B) Interesting that you choose to equate "scientist" with "atheist"; while it is true, factually, that the overwhelming majority of leading cosmologists and other scientists who deal with the nature of the universe are atheists, again, you seem to weaken your own case; if you wish to equate science with atheism, then I fear the prospects for religion - which would equate to superstition in your model - are not great. As for the "multiverse hypothesis", your same empty rhetorical argument could be used to characterize "atheists rush to the germ hypothesis" or any other new hypothesis suggested to explain phenomena not covered by existing theories; that is how science advances, unlike religion, which is stuck with whatever was written in a "holy book" thousands of years ago. And, the fact that it is a hypothesis suggests that scientists - oops, atheists - are not, in fact, "fleeing to it", otherwise we'd call it a "theory"; it is a conjecture which may or may not prove useful in helping scientists develop ever-more proximate models of universal phenomena.
The test of veracity in science is simple - if it works, it works, if it don't, it is discarded and new proposals entertained. Unlike religious dogma such as yours, which simply discards inconveniently disagreeable facts.
Unless you close your eyes and pray before crossing the street, in lieu of looking both ways and listening for traffic, I would suggest that you heretically practice the scientific method in your every day life. Does your minister know about this atheistic sin? For Shame! - raindogmx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I remember an experiment I saw on a documentary about false memories where they shown some photoshopped pictures to a couple of young girls depicting them being younger at a landmark they have never visited. At first they were dubious about the photographs but later they could even "remember" being there. Memory is not as precise as we would like to think because its function is not as simple as being a "hard drive". People can "remember" things that didn't happen. What worries me is the inclination some people have to believe in this kind of stuff rightaway.
- kmedlin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9ABC News ran this story a while back: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2232830&page=1
It's not of the same child, but this is something not totally unheard of in small children.
Hopefully that'll quell the "Sun" excuse stuff out there. I remain undecided and details of the "Sun" story seem to contradict what the experts in the ABC News story suggest about the phenomenon. - IvanB, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18Could be. I wouldn't take it too seriously from thesun.co.uk. :o
- eridius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@geoffrobinson
"A belief that science is the sole basis for truth, etc. cannot be proven by a science experiment. Hence, such a belief is untrue."
Wait wait.... are you saying that inability to prove something true means it's untrue?
So, maybe you can explain to me why this only applies to science and not to religion. You can't prove God exists, so by your own logic, God doesn't.
Either that, or you're a hypocrite. - AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@geoffrobinson
"A belief that science is the sole basis for truth, etc. cannot be proven by a science experiment. Hence, such a belief is untrue."
Okay, so you're saying that making falsifiable predictions, testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the data is *not* a good basis for determining the truth? What, pray tell, do you propose, then? Just making wild-assed guess and having *faith* that what you've guessed is actually true? I'll get right on that: Everything I say is automatically true. QED.
"And if science keeps leaving less room for God, is that why all the atheists are fleeing to the multiverse hypothesis after seeing that the laws of physics are incredibly fine-tuned?"
I was under the impression that the multiverse hypothesis is being used because it makes string theory work better. It's certainly not because the universal constants are so "fine-tuned". Quite simply, if the universal constants were such that life could not exist, then there's be no one around to comment on how *poorly-tuned* the constants were. Thus it is only in a "fine-tuned" universe that life can exist to comment on how fine the tuning actually is. It's a self-fulfilling condition.
Also, you might consider that there could be universal constants which would prohibit life *as we know it* from existing, but in which some *other* type of life may arise and subsequently point out how "fine-tuned" their universe is for them, even though we would be unable to exist in it. With that in mind, our universe is actually incredibly *poorly-tuned*. For them, at least. - dmsean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Sheesh. We all now when we die or spirit returns to the "life force" of the earth. Haven't you played FF7? sheesh
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8No, mad, by his logic we didn't believe in them until then. Things don't magically come into existence just because you personally believe in them, nor does the fact that you believe authoritative in any way.
Your example is a poor one, because what it demonstrates is the open-minded willingness of scientists to be driven by the evidence. No reputable scientist today would claim that giant squid do not exist, because we have verifiable evidence of their existence. Before we had direct evidence, however, there was indirect evidence, such as markings left on the skin of whales, which suggested some sort of creature of large, squid-like nature. No similar evidence exists with regard to souls or incarnation or any of that nonsense, nor have any of a multitude of verifiable experiments conducted to explore the existence of a noncorporeal soul produced any evidence. Skepticism, an essential tool in the scientific method toolkit, works as it should. We now know there is such a thing as a giant squid. If a god were every to prove its existence, I know of no scientist worthy of the name who would deny it's existence. Until then, ain't none. - mr.hostility, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Enter creepy use of fisheye lens to be extra dramatic...
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13"But seriously though, this sounds like some grade-A *****."
It is from Rupert Murdoch's Sun. I'd look to sources like the Weekly World News for something more accurate. - eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7That was actually filmed down the street from my old apartment. They quite literally had to clean up our downtown to make it look like a ghost city.
- revolution1x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Torrent of the documentary: http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/stats.html?info_hash=b4ef644b687227e60d0cfaa2febcf8531b6b658e
- BossX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Nice, let's digg more tabloids, it's fun
- AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@avasol
"I too have memories of my past life."
No offense, but how do I know that you're not lying? Or deluded? Have you actually researched to see if the person who you think you used to be actually existed? Have you compared any of the events you "recall" to actual events? I know that if *I* thought I were remembering stuff from past lives, I'd do my best to verify it, because, if I were unable to do so, my next action might very well be to pay a visit to my friendly neighborhood psychiatrist. - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I tried to list the logical fallacies in your comment, but ran out of electrons.
- eridius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6When people are put under hypnosis they are extremely suggestible. So yes, hypnosis is real, but the "memories" retrieved during hypnosis are just as easily figments of a suggestible brain as they are real.
- oskite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yes Anliz, that's exactly what happens except for the times when so many people are stupid that the occassional civilized comment is welcome no matter the opinion of the writer.
- blastin311, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I just searched the hell out of the BBC website and came up with nothing for the title, Cameron, Barra, reincarnation, previous life, documentary, ... Sounds like hogwash to me.
- AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@paladin144
"Yet it's painfully apparent that kids are born with a "preset" personality. Some of it may be genetic, some of it nurture, but there's another portion that seems to be there from birth."
Yeah, and you already mentioned it. Genetics.
"Westerners don't like to talk about the soul, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
That doesn't mean that it *does* exist, either. There is currently no actual evidence to support the existance of things called "souls". In fact, the word itself is so ill defined that I'm not sure how anyone could even begin to test for it until someone comes up with a good, consistent definition. - mglmouser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Multiple personality disorder. It's possible his accounts of the other house and so forth be induced into one of his personality by unrelated pictures, movies or documentary he might have seen.
That and the complete utter BS that Sun publishes on a regular basis. - potterboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5http://theskepticexpress.com/the_boy_who_lived_before.php
http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/reincarnation.html
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=af9055691a3409385fc29fd4bf036c8c.1092712
http://www.pureinsight.org/pi/index.php?news=4244 - prankfurter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7454548045984685776&q=The+Boy+Who+Lived+Before
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6What you have is a set of self-reinforcing beliefs, and you choose to present them as fact - I don't doubt you believe them sincerely, but not everything one believes is so, not matter how hard one concentrates on making it so.
Many people experience voices in their head, faux memories or created memories, "feelings" of a "presence", and all sorts of other phenomena that are the result of the complex electro-chemical activities of our brains. People who don't know a lot about how the brain works choose to believe that these sensations are real, as opposed to manufactured artifices. People who are also religious choose to ascribe these sensations to supernatural forces.
Just because you are convinced you have memories of a past life does not make that true, any more than the fact that some people are convinced they were abducted by aliens/fairies/angels/demons makes that true.
People whose limbs have been amputated experience ghost sensations of touch and pain and feel the "presence" of those limbs, too - that doesn't make them any less absent.
A rational thinker would examine such "memories" as you describe and seek a rational explanation for them - and would probably find one. Just as we once ascribed lighting and thunder to the gods,but learned better. - saintdesy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If you cannot collect any data on something, there is no way to make a hypothesis or falsifiable predictions and therefore no way to include science. But just because we cannot gather data about something due to technological or physical limitations does not make something "not real".
- eridius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@garg
"Lack of evidence does not disprove something. I'm agnostic so I don't dismiss everything just because it seems different. Maybe this is the evidence people have been looking for. It's probably not but I try not to dismiss something with out research."
Lack of evidence isn't proof, no, but it is pretty a compelling implication. If reincarnation did exist, then wouldn't you expect to find more than, oh, say, ZERO evidence?
There's a famous argument that asks if you believe in the invisible pink unicorn. Sure, there's no evidence to show it exists, but you can't *disprove* it, now can you? It follows from this that belief in god (or other unprovable things like reincarnation) is just as silly as belief in the invisible pink unicorn. - FrankieB078, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7454548045984685776&q=The+Boy+Who+Lived+Before
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4A tenth of a suck? Not bad for nowadays.
- mad1stl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4thanx rationalist for the good retort. I know it wasn't a good example but i tire of hearing ppl discount something completely because it can't be verified (yet). Thumbs Up.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 199 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is