It was bound to happen a member on James Randi's forum found a site that i have linked too on here called Skepcop. This site is created by Winston Wu who debunks the skeptics. Here are some of the comments made by some of the members of the forum.
Richard R says
No, not worth a looksee at all. This is Winston Wu's drivel. I wrote about Winston Wu - note how he shows up in the comments (May 20), and note how he offers nothing of value and doesn't respond to anyone's criticisms.
Really? says him apparently and this rebuttal of Winston's Wu's debunking of skeptical arguments.
Here's just some of the rebuttal and my response to them
He mentions that Winston Wu is committing an appeal to authority when he mentions an psychiatrist view on the afterlife, he says that a psychiatrist isn't qualified to speak about matters on the afterlife. This is where he is wrong, because apparently this psychiatrist is getting consistent results from many witnesses who had past lives.
Basically this rebuttal creates several fallacies, without acknowledges that no fallacies were committed. Instead of addressing why their is so much anecdotal evidence he instead invents fallacies that are not made in Winston Wu's article debunking skeptic arguments.
Also i like to point out a good post by Michael Prescott on Anecdotes, clearing pointing out that some evidence for psi and life after death is anecdotal however a lot of the evidence for psi and life after death is not anecdotal.
Also it clearly is a double standard by skeptics to say that that believers use anecdotal accounts while skeptics rely on scientific observations. Why? because their are clear examples of many skeptics indeed using anecdotal accounts without any physical evidence, that they say counts as evidence against the paranormal.
Let me get at what i am saying here, that this rebuttal misses out on the fact that in many phenomena such as past lives, apparitions etc. A lot of those cases have colloboration of multiple eye witnesses with verified information coming through. To those cases yes you can say that their was fraud etc. However it's a double standard to say that anecdotal testimony is worthless when their is colloboration of multiple eye witnesses combined with physical evidence[ information being obtained from outside physical reality.
Go here to check it out for yourself