Proof of Life After Death!!

[pakeha]

...

There is an inevitable situation where the chances for right or wrong are exactly 50%. Let's say you get to the conclusion of strongly denying the idea of an after life. What if you are wrong? What if you are right?

Let's say I get to the conclusion of strongly admitting the reality of an after life. What if I am right? What if I am wrong?

We both won't know until 'the time' comes, right?

We cannot both be right or wrong. Or... could we?

That is the main dilemma... How could we be both right or wrong? Is that possible...

I might dare to say, it is possible. Of course this requires a total coordination between right and left brains. If there would be such a realm where we could find either life after death or plain annihilation, we both could be right, but it would depend on an internal element of self, not related to reason, but to something else, similar to emotion, intuition or hiding sense as the subconscious mind, capable of causing the satisfaction for both!

Consider the lack of proof makes us both believers. You might believe there is nothing I might believe there is something.

Maybe the simple act of believing is the element in case. We would be granted our intimate beliefs.... Or not!

Who knows? I think it is our responsibility to find the answer for ourselves, without any external intervention of books, ideas, opinions, facts, proofs, arguments, philosophies, guilds, religions, clubs or forums....

Pascal's Wager^WP, anyone?

"...I think it is our responsibility to find the answer for ourselves, without any external intervention of books, ideas, opinions, facts, proofs, arguments, philosophies, guilds, religions, clubs or forums."

An excellent recipe for maintaining belief systems from one's past. Not so good for maintaining a healthy skepticism, though.

 

[chillzero]

Hey Pixie!
I did not change my mind. Mod . didn't want me to leave because I Add a little, little balance to a totally radical forum!
So like I am so much wanted I will enjoy "ranting" as much as possible...
When you say 'skeptic', what kind of breed are you pointing at?
The Bouncers, denial fans, supra-sapiens, ultra- arrogant, or all-teachers?

Can you point to a single post ever , where a skeptic has shown a change of mind?
I would be less skeptic about skeptics if you can...

You have had a few examples already, but I would like to add to them by pointing out that I came here planning to beat the MDC. I no longer believe in life after death. Though I would alter that belief in the face of evidence.

I think also that you are confusing 'skeptical' with 'cynical'. There is quite a difference.

 

[Pixel42]

Perhaps MikeAparicio could return the favour and provide us with some examples of non-sceptics who changed their minds when shown compelling evidence that their beliefs were false.

 

[Kid Eager]

Pascal's Wager^WP, anyone?

"...I think it is our responsibility to find the answer for ourselves, without any external intervention of books, ideas, opinions, facts, proofs, arguments, philosophies, guilds, religions, clubs or forums."

An excellent recipe for maintaining belief systems from one's past. Not so good for maintaining a healthy skepticism, though.

Agree -sounds like a recipe for self-satisfaction through ignorance, leading yet another Dunning-Kruger event...

 

[tsig]

IT is good I found you here, Pixel Lady!

You might be a notable exception to the skeptic rule of excruciating proof demands!

I really would like to discuss the topic here as I find it beyond skeptic domain.

My posts above, claimed the impossible to prove existence of remote galaxies and stars. Astronomers can readily prove the stars were there by the time their light was emitted, thousands of years ago, but they could only theorize their possible existence today.
It is one of the things beyond skeptic reach. Should skeptics deny the existence of remote galaxies because it cannot be sustained with factual evidence?

Being that far, it would require to travel at light speed for such time length, what is impossible today, so we can conclude this condition makes skeptic denial or approval beyond point. Right or wrong?

Then there is the matter of life and death and spirituality.
We can only assume there is a "beyond realm" but no body can prove it is a false or true assumption, precisely because it is beyond proof.
Nevertheless, this non provable condition does not establish a clear notion it does not exist. Neither thing can be proved.

I wonder if you are able to "tweak" your skeptical foundation enough as to switch points of view, which seems a very difficult task for skeptic minds.

There is an inevitable situation where the chances for right or wrong are exactly 50%. Let's say you get to the conclusion of strongly denying the idea of an after life. What if you are wrong? What if you are right?

Let's say I get to the conclusion of strongly admitting the reality of an after life. What if I am right? What if I am wrong?

We both won't know until 'the time' comes, right?

We cannot both be right or wrong. Or... could we?

That is the main dilemma... How could we be both right or wrong? Is that possible...

I might dare to say, it is possible. Of course this requires a total coordination between right and left brains. If there would be such a realm where we could find either life after death or plain annihilation, we both could be right, but it would depend on an internal element of self, not related to reason, but to something else, similar to emotion, intuition or hiding sense as the subconscious mind, capable of causing the satisfaction for both!

Consider the lack of proof makes us both believers. You might believe there is nothing I might believe there is something.

Maybe the simple act of believing is the element in case. We would be granted our intimate beliefs.... Or not!

Who knows? I think it is our responsibility to find the answer for ourselves, without any external intervention of books, ideas, opinions, facts, proofs, arguments, philosophies, guilds, religions, clubs or forums....

I did, there's nothing there.

 

[Resume]

Who knows? I think it is our responsibility to find the answer for ourselves, without any external intervention of books, ideas, opinions, facts, proofs, arguments, philosophies, guilds, religions, clubs or forums....

So whatever credulous notion that enters your head? How is that an answer?

 

[pakeha]

Agree -sounds like a recipe for self-satisfaction through ignorance, leading yet another Dunning-Kruger event...

Why did I read that as 'Danny Krueger event'?
Is it a sign?

 

[meg]

..
Who knows? I think it is our responsibility to find the answer for ourselves, without any external intervention of books, ideas, opinions, facts, proofs, arguments, philosophies, guilds, religions, clubs or forums....

If you diligently and responsibly eliminate all the ideas, books, philosophies, religions, etc about spirits and the afterlife that were forced on you as a child, before you learned how to question what you were told or think critically about an idea, you will find that you have no reason to hold onto those beliefs now. They suddenly fall into the same category as Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.

 

[Femke]

Can you point to a single post ever , where a skeptic has shown a change of mind?
I would be less skeptic about skeptics if you can...

MikeAparicio,
I find this part of skepticism so important that I devoted my sig to it. When presented with convincing evidence I am only too happy to change my mind.

 

[Biscuit]

Perhaps MikeAparicio could return the favour and provide us with some examples of non-sceptics who changed their minds when shown compelling evidence that their beliefs were false.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. I came here as a "truther" and I learned. I was talking with Xterra yesterday and mentioned one might be able to go back and find early posts of mine supporting the 9/11 conspiracies.

So I was a non-skeptic but when I changed my mind I guess I became a skeptic? Who knows but I definitely stopped "believing" in things and started wanting to "understand" them. I was never one for religion or ghosts or an after life so perhaps I don't count.

 

[Pixel42]

So I was a non-skeptic but when I changed my mind I guess I became a skeptic?

Anyone who looks at the evidence and adjusts their beliefs accordingly is a sceptic.

I admit I've set Mike an impossible task here (sorry Mike) but I was trying to make exactly that point. Dozens of people have taken the JREF challenge, absolutely convinced that they could pass it easily, failed abysmally, and refused to even consider modifying their beliefs accordingly. Many believers have come to this forum convinced that the particular type of woo in which they have emotionally invested is genuine and that they have the evidence to prove it, and ended up running away in a huff calling us close minded after refusing to even consider the evidence and arguments that prove them wrong. But just occasionally - very very occasionally - there is one who is prepared to listen to and evaluate the evidence and arguments that are offered fairly, and modify their views accordingly. And just by being willing to do so they demonstrate that they are, indeed, a sceptic, and so don't fit the criteria I gave Mike.

 

[Biscuit]

Anyone who looks at the evidence and adjusts their beliefs accordingly is a sceptic.

I admit I've set Mike an impossible task here (sorry Mike) but I was trying to make exactly that point. Dozens of people have taken the JREF challenge, absolutely convinced that they could pass it easily, failed abysmally, and refused to even consider modifying their beliefs accordingly. Many believers have come to this forum convinced that the particular type of woo in which they have emotionally invested is genuine and that they have the evidence to prove it, and ended up running away in a huff calling us close minded after refusing to even consider the evidence and arguments that prove them wrong. But just occasionally - very very occasionally - there is one who is prepared to listen to and evaluate the evidence and arguments that are offered fairly, and modify their views accordingly. And just by being willing to do so they demonstrate that they are, indeed, a sceptic, and so don't fit the criteria I gave Mike.

Its the difference between understanding the possibility that some "paranormal" could be real and exaggerating that possibility so that it is larger than all other options.

 

[xterra]

I have said it before and I'll say it again. I came here as a "truther" and I learned. I was talking with Xterra yesterday and mentioned one might be able to go back and find early posts of mine supporting the 9/11 conspiracies.

Unfortunately, earlier today when I searched for all Biscuit's posts, only the most recent 275 (!) of them appeared. If there is a way to access earlier ones, someone please tell me. (Biscuit, I guess this means you will have to find another method of showing that you were a "truther" when you joined the forum.)

As for being skeptical or not, as other people have said about themselves, I would be very pleased to see telepathy, for instance, convincingly demonstrated.

ETA Pixel42's description of DowerDon's self-test provides a good example of how someone can convince himself that it's not that dowsing doesn't exist, it's something negatively influencing the attempt.

xterra

 

[MikeAparicio]

Post edited for a clarification below.
Forgive me but I was starting to rant again, as it is easy to loose patience here! lol!

 

[Pixel42]

I find the assertion: "Skeptics find it very difficult to see things from the counterpart point of view"

If you mean you are asserting that then you need to support that assertion with evidence. Most sceptics actually started off with the contrary (I assume that's the word you meant to type) point of view, so we only need to cast our minds back to how we used to think to understand where those we disagree with are coming from.

You cannot see the weakness in your arguments.

You haven't shown them to me.

But I will say it once more: You are positively rejecting what is beyond proof.

No, I am assuming the null hypothesis is correct until and unless evidence is produced to disprove it.

A very limiting state of mind.

I suggest you take a look around you at the discoveries and inventions that this approach to the world has produced and reconsider that assertion.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

But I will say it once more: You are positively rejecting what is beyond proof.
!

Show me the evidence that there is life after death that is not only convincing but proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I will say NOTHING until you have laid out your entire case, and I would request that everyone else do the same. If everyone else here can keep their lids shut, you won't be criticised until you have stated "That is my case and all my evidence."

Show me everything you have, and when you've shown it all, I will see for myself what it looks like.

 

[Agatha]

MikeAparicio, nobody forces you to post here. If you wish to become unregistered, PM a moderator or an admin and request it. Complaining that you can't cancel your "subscription" whilst still logging in and posting is ridiculous. You don't need to cancel your "subscription", just don't visit the website if you don't want to.

Scepticism is not about believing things without evidence, or dismissing things which do have evidence. That you suggest sceptics should not reject that which is "beyond proof" begs the question of whether anything which exists can be beyond proof, and shows a poor understanding of what it means to think critically.

 

[MikeAparicio]

A few responses:

I can't parse the sentence, so I've no idea if it's right or wrong.

Pixel:

I am thinking.... I was going to rant but gime a minute....

OK! I was reading all other posts following mine, including yours Pixel.

When I say skeptics find impossible to look from an outer point of view, the PROOF to what I say is in those posts.

First: When I speak about the IMPOSSIBILITY of confirming a far galaxy or star exists, Pixel responds telling me "I am wrong because it can be done by observing "near" galaxies !!!!!!!" I am talking of FAR galaxies, Pixel!

Pixel also tells me, astronomers can "predict" by observing galaxies... "to work out how galaxies evolve. Based on that understanding a sceptic would take as their working assumption that it is indeed still there".... !!!!

Assumption!!!!!! Is an assumption a proof? I am surprised! (You see? When it is convenient for a skeptic, the "assuming" is viable!) Oh!

All critic posters towards me also fail to see my point: There are subjects or themes BEYOND skeptic reach.
When the subject cannot be reached with "proof" then it is OK to assume.....
Skeptics should honestly admit their territory is EXCLUSIVELY on subjects that can be proved because they constantly demand proof! How could you ask for a proof of something that cannot be proved?

Pixel42 continues:

Quote: (My phrase)
Being that far, it would require to travel at light speed for such time length, what is impossible today, so we can conclude this condition makes skeptic denial or approval beyond point. Right or wrong?
I can't parse the sentence, so I've no idea if it's right or wrong.

Let me rephrase it: If a galaxy is so far it takes thousands of years reaching the observer, in order to observe it would be needed to travel (to get near the galaxy), but this traveling is impossible because of the enormous distance, so it becomes impossible to confirm its existence or nonexistence. Because of such fact, the existence of a galaxy or far star is beyond skeptic domain. (Proof (true proof) cannot be obtained)

Then Pixel continues:"
"Everything we know about how the brain works strongly suggests that it generates consciousness, and that therefore consciousness does not survive the death of the brain.

Now it seems the "proof" are "suggestions" or speculations that the brain "generates consciousness".... Oh! Now "suggestions" are proofs. OK I'll make a note to use suggestions quite often!

Actually the confusion between "awareness" and consciousness becomes patent in the "suggestion". Both the Nature of Consciousness and it's possibilities beyond death are out of bounds for a skeptic mind too. There cannot be proof to affirm or deny. Without proof a skeptic cannot work, as he constantly demands proof. Again clearly out of bounds.

Finally Pxels posts:

Quote: My Post:
If there would be such a realm where we could find either life after death or plain annihilation, we both could be right, but it would depend on an internal element of self, not related to reason, but to something else, similar to emotion, intuition or hiding sense as the subconscious mind, capable of causing the satisfaction for both!

Consider the lack of proof makes us both believers. You might believe there is nothing I might believe there is something.

Maybe the simple act of believing is the element in case. We would be granted our intimate beliefs.... Or not!

Who knows?
"Maybe unicorns exist on Pluto. Who knows?"

I was precisely SUGESTING how it would be possible for both demi-truths to coexist.
Pixel finds it "funny" It really is funny but the fun is the sarcasm actually projects the impossibility for a skeptic mind to consider plausibility.

Yes it is funny indeed!

 

[MikeAparicio]

MikeAparicio, nobody forces you to post here. If you wish to become unregistered, PM a moderator or an admin and request it. Complaining that you can't cancel your "subscription" whilst still logging in and posting is ridiculous. You don't need to cancel your "subscription", just don't visit the website if you don't want to.

Scepticism is not about believing things without evidence, or dismissing things which do have evidence. That you suggest sceptics should not reject that which is "beyond proof" begs the question of whether anything which exists can be beyond proof, and shows a poor understanding of what it means to think critically.

Thanks Agatha!

I see you skeptics want to keep the site only for yourselves!
So it really becomes so boring when skeptics present easy topics, within the "provable realm".

Sure "critical" thinking is a way of thinking but not the only one!
You need "non critical thinkers" here to give you some "food" to crack down unto!

And I am right: Skeptics cannot and should not enter an argument when something cannot be proved or disproved. It is beyond skepticism!

Skeptics cannot talk about possibilities, or worse impossibilities. It has been hard for you to understand my example on the galaxy distances and the slowness of light travel.

You seem to ignore many inventions and scientific discoveries came out of refusing to accept what has been "proved" to exhaustion.

Physics and Quantum mechanics is a field where things constantly get disproved and proved oppositely. If physicists would be true skeptics there would be NO Quantum Mech.
Even Einstein skeptically rejected the "spooky thing" as he called it!
And Heisemberg sounds like a lunatic with his uncertainty principle!

The "uncertain" is forbidden land for skeptics!

I guess Randi could have the idea some non-skeptic might get in here, invading the "sacred" sanctorum of pure, unblemished, critically stiff thinking.

Maybe he has fun with it!

 

[MikeAparicio]

Show me the evidence that there is life after death that is not only convincing but proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I will say NOTHING until you have laid out your entire case, and I would request that everyone else do the same. If everyone else here can keep their lids shut, you won't be criticised until you have stated "That is my case and all my evidence."

Show me everything you have, and when you've shown it all, I will see for myself what it looks like.

Case? The case is simple:

Skeptics cannot deal with uncertainty! And the world is full of it, so you sacrifice most of the world in the name of "certain" things, those that can be proved or disproved.

That is my case. The whole Randi forum is the proof!

P.S. Read my signature it explains "my case"!