1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.

what are 3 strongest evidence that make you believe after life does exist?

Discussion in 'Afterlife Evidence' started by dogtree, Jul 21, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ravensgate

    ravensgate Regular Contributor

    This is how I see it, Sarah... Most self-proclaimed skeptics are not true skeptics, and they do not fully comprehend the definition of "skeptic". A true skeptic is someone who questions, and that includes questioning his/her own beliefs and assumptions; they don't fear discarding their old ideas and consider alternatives. Most, like the new member, are pseudo-skeptics, people who stick to the established dogma and will refute any and all possibilities/evidence, etc. that do not support their limited views. In the majority of cases their dogged determination to refute is based on fear. Have you noticed how most will not question the status quo?

    One of their tricks is to raise the bar; for example, if you provide them with the proof they demand, they will ask for another proof; you give them that, and they raise the bar – again. It is a futile effort and one would probably get better results debating with a canary, lol
    Another common behavior they engage in is in ridiculing, denying and deliberately distorting facts in order to protect their dogmatic views.
    When they feel cornered, they usually resort to ad hominem attacks. At one time, Wikepedia (not the best source of info by any means) had a term for these people’s condition; they called it “pathological skepticism”; eventually the pseudoskeptics removed it (threatened? Too close to the truth, perhaps? You decide).

    They only see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and categorically reject any evidence that does not fit their views; they are notorious “cherry pickers”. Someone (I forget who it was) once said that pseudo-skeptics love to say “There is no evidence for the existence/validity of ------“ , no matter how much evidence you provide them with; according to this person (ugh, wish I could remember who it was!) they say so because that statement is like a religion to them, it's not an objective statement.
    So, although I welcome healthy skeptics – and after all I consider myself a healthy skeptic – I have no time for pseudo-skeptics because when all is said and done, they are rather obtuse and no healthy, meaningful debate is possible with them.
    :D
     
  2. mac

    mac Staff Member

    OK - Roberta asked for pm or emailed responses but you chose to do it publicly.

    I disagree. I feel you'd love everyone to gang-up on WLIP. You don't have to engage with this member but you choose to continue to do so and then complain because she/he fights their corner. I don't agree with her/him but I don't understand why you want someone banned just because you disagree with one another.

    Perhaps you'll accept only those who don't stir the pot, make waves? It's a sad day that some members on this website can't live and let live. :rolleyes:
     
  3. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Dear beloved Ravensgate and Mac, I can answer you both at once ;-). Skepticism clearly is a good thing, especially when dealing with extraordinary claims. I tend to be skeptical myself in doing this research because there are a lot of silly claims out there. And I don't want to hear just someone else's opinions - I want to figure out the truth.

    But debunkers and deniers are a different breed from skeptics altogether. Debunkers and deniers tend to be people with a strong interest in making the afterlife and the greater reality just go away, whether that interest is professional or personal. They might be trying to protect their mainstream scientific careers, or they might just be cranky folks who want death to be the end for them. Either way, they generally adopt the same tactics:

    1) They choose what they think is a key aspect of some phenomenon and try to reproduce it under laboratory conditions, thereby in their minds proving that no supernatural explanation is necessary. In doing this, of course, they entirely ignore whole swathes of other aspects of these phenomena which could not be so easily explained in the laboratory! But since they can (for example) produce spots of lights and tunnel vision by whirling people in centrifuges, the whole well-documented phenomenon of NDEs is thereby "debunked" in their view. Someone conceivably could have opened the film-box which was on the table at Scole only while the session was underway, so all the extraordinary photographic evidence which instantly appeared there must be ignored.

    2) They claim that scientific hypotheses are the definitive last word on something. As any good scientific researcher knows, all scientific claims remain hypotheses! If that were not the case, then how could basic scientific advancements ever occur?

    3) They deny that some well-documented event actually happened. If you cannot find a way to debunk it, then you simply say that it has been debunked and move on.

    4) They refuse to consider bodies of evidence as a whole. When I started doing serious afterlife research, I assumed that most of the purported afterlife communications that I planned to read would be nonsense. What I was looking for was a few bits of similarities among some of them, hoping that I could use those bits to get some idea of what the afterlife was like. But in reading many hundreds of of communications from the dead received over nearly 200 years I found no outliers whatsoever and I cannot recall finding a duplication. Sure, if you look at one afterlife communication, it might have been faked. But, hundreds? and they all agree? The odds against chance for such a finding are so long as to be nearly incalculable! Personally, I find this amazing result to be my own surest evidence that all of this is real. Debunkers, however, will not consider it.

    Our friend WLIP is a classic debunker. In my experience, you cannot educate people like him. We have given him a good hearing on these forums, and if he were willing to participate at the level of honest skeptic we would be delighted to have him here. But debunkers are to truth as water is to fire, dear friends. I don't want you to have to deal with them!
     
  4. Roberta, You make an excellent point. I hadn't considered that the negativity would be distracting to others who are hurting and come here for solace. As Chuck said, banning him/her would be a public service.

    With Lovingkindness (metta),
    vic
     
  5. mac

    mac Staff Member

    "Perhaps you'll accept only those who don't stir the pot, make waves? It's a sad day that some members on this website can't live and let live."

    These were my only (rhetorical) questions. There's no live-and-let-liveness where folk are clamoring for someone to be banned.....

    Only those who let themselves be provoked will be. I'm not allowing the nonsense written by WLIP to provoke me any more than the nonsense I read from other contributors - I ignore what's not worth bothering with, respond to the stuff where there's a chance of getting a sensible point over.

    As the irascible, curmudgeonly mac has risen above the provocation others are feeling, surely the easier-going members could try too?
     
  6. You can't rely on what anyone says as evidence.

    Because of people like Peter Popoff.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y

    All the evidence for the supernatural is nothing more than anecdotal evidence or is flat out wrong.

    Not a single piece of evidence for the supernatural has ever passed a controlled scientific experiment, which would eliminate worldly causes.

    The reason why I don't believe in the supernatural, is simply because of the sentence above. Show me just ONE supernatural thing that passed a controlled scientific experiment which eliminated worldly causes. I believe in things which has evidence for them, instead of believing in something on a whim, then try to find evidence to back it up.

    There isn't even evidence that psychics/mediums score even slightly above chance. There is just absolutely nothing.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU4n-r7QA7s
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFEry80s9Po

    Don't you want to convince people like me? Show me just ONE supernatural thing that passed a controlled scientific experiment which eliminated worldly causes. In fact, I would be happy if something supernatural scores better than chance.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
  7. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Dear Whylifeispointless, we would love to have you here as an honestly skeptical member. It would be great to work at furthering our learning together! Sadly, though, as I review your posts I have to say that you do not present yourself as a skeptic at all, but rather you present yourself throughout as nothing more than a debunker and a denier. Yours is a long, sad Luddite battle against the future. I so wish it were otherwise! But you cannot become an honest skeptic again (if you ever were one) until you lose your fear of learning the truth and open your mind, even a little bit.

    In case you are unclear about the difference between honest skepticism and what you are doing, here (for the third time today) is a bit of education for you:

    Skepticism is a healthy trait for researchers, especially when dealing with extraordinary claims. I tend to be skeptical myself in doing this research because there are a lot of silly claims out there. And I don't want to hear just someone else's opinions - I want to figure out the truth.

    So skepticism in science is good. But many supposed scientists now dealing with afterlife-related evidence are not operating as scientists at all, but they are operating as debunkers and deniers. And debunkers and deniers are a different breed from honest skeptics altogether. Debunkers and deniers tend to be people with a strong interest in making the afterlife and the greater reality just go away, whether that interest is professional or personal. They might be trying to protect their mainstream scientific careers, or they might just be cranky folks who want death to be the end for them. Either way, they generally adopt the same tactics:

    1) They choose what they think is a key aspect of some afterlife-related phenomenon and try to reproduce it under laboratory conditions, thereby in their minds proving that no supernatural explanation is necessary. In doing this, of course, they entirely ignore whole swathes of other aspects of these phenomena which could not be so easily explained in the laboratory! But since they can (for example) produce spots of lights and tunnel vision by whirling people in centrifuges, the whole well-documented phenomenon of NDEs is thereby "debunked" in their view. Someone conceivably could have opened the film-box which was on the table at Scole briefly while the session was underway, so all the extraordinary photographic evidence which instantly appeared there must be ignored.

    2) They claim that scientific hypotheses are the definitive last word on something. As any good professional scientist knows, all scientific claims remain hypotheses! If that were not the case, then how could basic scientific advancements ever occur?

    3) They deny that some well-documented event actually happened. If you cannot find a way to debunk it, then you simply say that it has been debunked and move on.

    4) They refuse to consider bodies of evidence as a whole. When I started doing serious afterlife research, I assumed that most of the purported afterlife communications that I planned to read would be nonsense. What I was looking for was a few bits of similarities among some of them, hoping that I could use those bits to get some idea of what the afterlife was like. But in reading many hundreds of of communications from the dead received over nearly 200 years I found no outliers whatsoever and I cannot recall finding one duplication. Sure, if you look at one afterlife communication, it might have been faked. But, hundreds? And they all agree? The odds against chance for such a finding are so long as to be nearly incalculable! Personally, I find this amazing result to be my own surest evidence that all of this is real. Debunkers, however, will not consider it.

    In my experience, working with skeptics is good and healthy and can be mutually rewarding. But nobody can work with debunkers, in this or in any other field. No matter what evidence is given to them, they just retreat to the same old ignorant tactics. They are desperate to avoid finding truth in what they do not already believe, so they are flat-out unable to learn anything.

    Fortunately for those of us who care about the truth, some of this field's most prominent researchers began their careers as honest skeptics. And science advances by deaths! As the old guard that is so heavily invested in the status quo that debunking the future seems like a rational approach begins to die off, I think you will find that a new breed of skeptical but open-minded scientist will arise. And then, dear friends and dear WLIP, the whole world is going to change ;-)!
     
  8. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Heh - you are irascible, dear beloved Mac, but you also are tough! Many others here are not so tough, especially while they are hurting. We must always think of them first ;-).

    And I'm sorry, dear friends, that I seem to have posted the same information here twice - oops! Very busy in my day-job today; just trying to keep all the balls in the air at once....
     
  9. Anecdotal evidence is still evidence. It's just different.

    Individual accounts of supernatural experiences should be viewed with some skepticism. So should eyewitness accounts of a crime. Human observation is only reliable within certain parameters.

    And Peter Popoff? Seriously?

    First off, he is a "faith healer." That is not a topic addressed by this forum (as far as I've seen.) I doubt anyone on the forums is a follower of any evangelical Christian faith healers. Just because someone believes there is an afterlife doesn't mean they believe every "supernatural" claim that's out there.

    Second, he is a known charlatan. The fact that he is a fake doesn't prove that other practitioners aren't real, any more than Marcus Welby not being a real doctor proves that medicine isn't real.

    ETA: I am not provoked! :) I just don't want passers-by to this thread to take the reference to Popoff as being in any way relevant.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
  10. ilovelearninhg

    ilovelearninhg Regular Contributor

    I've been following this thread and one thing to me is clear: WLIP's attitude is actually blocking any reception to any spiritual experience, so no wonder he is so skeptical. Once you open your mind just a little bit, that's when things can happen. It's like when someone has a problem and you offer suggestions saying try this, or try that and they keep saying, no, no, immediately rejecting it. You can offer what you know or what you believe, but if a person does not want to listen to what you have to say, what's the point? Also, even if nde's are hallucinatory, then wow, our brains are really powerful! You'd think scientists would at least want to study the nature of nde's for materialistic purposes.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page