Materialist's Claim Their Is No Evidence For Life After Death

This is an claim, that has been going on for a long time now. I really don't know, how they can claim that. Because if they really look into, parapsychology and psychical research they would find evidence.

A skeptic named Derek Colandun he hosts a podcast called Skepticality

I recently had an exchange with him

Ah,

Well I would if someone gave me some proof... I'm not against the idea, in fact... I'd LOVE it if it were true. But, I just can't live my life against logic.

Although, I have no problem with people who DO believe in the idea of them having a soul, even a form of 'god'. I just hate when people use it as a basis to force others to act certain ways, or to justify ANY action they perform. That is how we end with crazy violence and wars.

In fact, when I went to college I was only one semester from a degree in theology. I didn't MEAN to do that, just all my extra electives and such ended up that way. My counselor really tried to have me stay for ONE more semester to get the second major. I REALLY was just done with school at that point, so I skipped it. I've always been VERY interested in how people can believe illogical things which make them feel as if they can cause harm or redicule on others with zero proof. Just more of a sick, twisted, interest I have always had since I was about 11. I blame it on my father, who might be more atheist than Richard Dawkins. I thnk he got that way cause his mother forced him to go to some uber-Catholic school his entire childhood.

But, it is funny that on a message board about people being 'Infidels' you felt the need to bring up that you aren't one!

Derek C.


Well, I was a skeptic before too this has not taken away any logical thinking. What has made me believe is the awesome research done in parapsychology and psychical research that got me thinking on my toes. I see much purpose in life. I had many experiences with the paranormal that i couldn't explain as anything physical no matter how hard i wanted to explain them that way.

The Skeptics

The skeptics claim that if their really was evidence for life after death their would be billions of dollars being spent. Lol, yeah this skeptic obviously doesn't know much about this. If he did he would know that evidence such as the cross correspondences would dismiss a miss opportunity for mainstream scientists.

Another Skeptic Saying That The Concept Of An Afterlife IS a Impossibility

This is from a user named Exbeliever from infidels.org forum

The notion of an enduring self is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Human beings just cannot come to grips with the fact that like all other living organisms.... they too are expendible and will be extinguished and replaced with more living organisms who will also be extinguished in the cycle of life and death.
Really? the evidence points strongly towards an enduring self for all living organisms.


He goes on and says this


If one were offered a billion dollars one could not prove verifiably that the consciousness of a person survives their bodily death.

Such a thing will never be proved because it's an impossibility.

My response

You see that, is the problem we survivalist's are faced with. That many skeptics, are certain the concept of an afterlife is an impossibility. No matter how strong the evidence to support it is.

Skeptics duped by Fraudulent Skeptics

There is a big problem in the skeptical community. There is rampant obscuration of the truth by prominent skeptics who have misled masses of people. Skeptics often say that believers in the paranormal have been fooled by charlatans but it is the skeptics who have been fooled by prominent members of their community who seem to be more interested in winning the debate than in illuminating the truth.

Don't believe me?

Have a look at these links (excerpts below).

Richard Dawkins refuses to consider peer reviewed scientific studies in a debunking documentary.
http://dailygrail.com/node/5817

James Randi who claims mediums routinely use cold reading to fool people fails to demonstrate it that can be done:
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/ar...keen/randi.htm

Randi FAQ makes incorrect claims about parapsychology
http://www.randi.org/jr/faq.html

Randi forced to retract false statements about paranormal research:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...Randi_dogs.htm

Michael Prescott discusses rampant innacuracy in a chapter of a book by Randi.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...cott_Randi.htm

I am trying to collect more evidence of this rampant disregard for the truth by prominent skeptics and would appreciate it if others would post any other examples they may be aware of.

Here are more details:

http://dailygrail.com/node/5817
Quote:
Richard seemed uneasy and said, "I don’t want to discuss evidence". "Why not?" I asked. "There isn’t time. It’s too complicated. And that’s not what this programme is about." The camera stopped.

The Director, Russell Barnes, confirmed that he too was not interested in evidence. The film he was making was another Dawkins polemic.

I said to Russell, "If you’re treating telepathy as an irrational belief, surely evidence about whether it exists or not is essential for the discussion. If telepathy occurs, it’s not irrational to believe in it. I thought that’s what we were going to talk about. I made it clear from the outset that I wasn’t interested in taking part in another low grade debunking exercise."


"A meta-analysis of the database, published in 1989, examined 800 experiments by more than 60 researchers over the preceding 30 years. The effect size was found to be very small, but remarkably consistent, resulting in an overall statistical deviation of approximately 15 standard errors from a chance effect. The probability that the observed effect was actually zero (i.e., no psi) was less than one part in a trillion, verifying that human consciousness can indeed affect the behavior of a random physical system."

That's 800 experiments by more than 60 researchers over the preceding 30 years demonstrating odds of a trillion to one in favor of psychokenesis being real.

Michael Prescott discusses rampant innacuracy in just a chapter of a book by Randi.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...cott_Randi.htm

research of the skeptics on Dr. Susan Blackmore

Skeptical Investigations - Investigating the Skeptics - Anomalistics - Research of the Skeptics


George Hansen review of Professor Ray Hyman's book the elusive Agenda

Review of The Elusive Quarry by Ray Hyman


A reply to Michael Shermer '' medical evidence for nde by Dr. Pim Van Lommel

Skeptical Investigations - Investigating Skeptics - Media Skeptics - Medical Evidence for NDEs


Unscienific statement on the non -existence of telepathy refuting Michael Shermer by Dr. Petrus Pennanen

Skeptical Investigations - Investigating Skeptics - Media Skeptics - Non-existence of Telepathy

Shermer distorts the meaning of skepticism

Skeptical Investigations - Investigating Skeptics - Media Skeptics - Statements By Critics of Michael Shermer

Richard Wiseman attempts to debunk evidence on dogs by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake

Dialogues and Controversies - Controversies - Richard Wiseman - Evidence on Dogs

Respected scientists? The Natasha Demkina Case

By Mary Rose Barrington

Respected Scientists

How Martin Gardner bamboozled his readers

Michael Prescott's Blog: How Martin Gardner bamboozled his readers


A critique of Susan Blackmore's Dying Brain Hypothesis by Greg Stone

Greg Stone - A critique of Susan Blackmore and the dying brain hypothesis
Reply With Quote

Beyond Belief Conferences

I like to discuss a conference that brings together a bunch of scientists that are strongly against religion. Now I can see why in a way that is but then again trying to push a so called cult of reason on people as if you don't agree your just deluded. This hits me as ignorant and not allowing other scientists with a different view to elt their voice be heard but that ratherly happens it seems. I went to google and clicked on video their was a 2006 conference that had anthesiologist Stuart Hameroff as a guest speaker after explaining in great detail why neurocomputation can't explain consciousness. He got imploded by a bunch of scientists in the audience mostly materialists one said what he said was a bunch of nonsense.


You can watch it here

http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=stuart+hameroff&hl=en&sitesearch=#q=stuart%20hameroff&hl=en&sitesearch=&start=10

I also want to comment on a video also in 2006 which also involved the beyond belief conference. They had Physicist Neil Degrasse Tyson talking about what he calls stupid design

his evidence for this is

Earth

Earthquakes and Volcanoes level cities and villages
Tsunamis- kill 150,000
Floods/Tornadoes/Hurricanes/Lightening Strikes
Can't live on 2/3 of its surface
Freeze and starve on half of what remains
Mass extinctions- disease/climate shift/killer asteroids
90 percent of all life that ever lived is now extinct
Inner Solar system is a shooting gallery
3.5- billion years to make multi-cellular life.

Humans

Narrow view of electromagnetic spectrum
Warm-blooded must eat constantly compared to crockodiles.
Can't detect magnetic fields,ionizing radiation fields, Radon CO,CH4,CO2
Exhale most of oxygen we inhale
Vision loss with age-teeth fall out-Alzheimers-prostate cancer
Aggressive Childhood Lukemia, hemophila, sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, Parkinsons, ALS.

150,000 babies die per year in the USA from birth defects caused by humans such as alcohol, drugs etc.]


He says yes there are things that are beautiful he says but then you stop looking at things that confound that revelation. Like if i came across a frozen waterfall and struck me for all of its beauty I would then turn over the rock and try to find a millipede or somekind of deadly nute and put then in context and find out that the universe is not here for us.

You drink, eat, breath through the same hole in your body quaranting that some percentage of us will choke to death every year.

Then finally he mentions the sexual organ in men and woman he says no designer or engineer would design that ever.





The video can be found here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgSaTYLYRGI






My opinion on the first and second video

The first video obviously was sadly a failure to try to sway the neurocomputationlists over it sadly didn't work there too stuck in their materialistic worldview.

The second video no intelligent design scientist ignores what he mentions. Some of the stuff especially birth defects can be explained by humans doing the wrong things like drugs etc the designer allows us the have free will but what we do with the earth is up to us.