Proof of Life After Death!!

[ynot]

I am confident now there is life after death.

That must be very comforting for you. Shame your confidence only comes from reinforced belief and not from any evidence and knowledge.

But, for years, I really wasn't sure...at all!

That must have been very discomforting for you. But at least you were OPEN enough to at least consider you might be wrong.

However, I remained OPEN to the possibility.

To be truly OPEN you also need to be equally OPEN to the possibility that there is no life after death. Clearly you are not.

I wanted proof and I got it.

Sorry but you only got what your confirmation bias wanted, and that’s not proof.

But you won't "get it" if you are 100% closed to it.

And that’s why you will never “get it” that it’s most likely there is no life after death.

P.S. Foolmewunz was not merely helpfully trying to "point out" something for you to remember to consider.

He was trying to call me a liar.
Plain and simple.

I can’t speak for Foolmewunz. But I think you’re more likely to be deluded than lying. In other words you’re lying to yourself.

P.P.S. I do realize none of my stories are remotely convincing...to YOU.

We have found at least one thing we can ALL agree on.

But, some may think they are convincing.

Some think Sylvia Browne and other frauds are convincing. What people think doesn’t change reality.

Which I believe, is one reason Foolmewunz desperately tried to negate their possible effect...by implying I am a liar and therefore my stories are not to be believed.

Your own posts do you more discredit than anything any other forum member has written.

 

[pakeha]

...Your own posts do you more discredit than anything any other forum member has written. ...

This.
Why return here to post up such abuse, Robin1?

 

[Elind]

Robin1 has a lot in common with DOC. Start with what one wants to believe and then attach anything that seems to be validation, ether anecdotal or written by someone else, like ancient biblical texts.

 

[ynot]

Robin1 has a lot in common with DOC. Start with what one wants to believe and then attach anything that seems to be validation, ether anecdotal or written by someone else, like ancient biblical texts.

It’s a common trait of all paranormal believers. Some just have it worse than others.

 

[desertgal]

That thought has often occurred to me. The mediums never pass a message on like ''You were a real pain in the bum and I'm glad I'm dead so I won't have to see your face again''

Yeah. It's never, "Hey, Johnny? Spirit Oscar Madison here. See that guy in the red shirt, second row, 11:00 o'clock? That's my cuz, Felix Unger. Tell him he still owes me $500 and he can pay my wife."

Nope. It's always just, "Someone in the audience bought a water heater last week,and has the thigh sweats for Valerie Harper, so play 100 stupid questions to figure out which one. Even though I could tell you, I ain't gonna."

Why, Robin1? There's life after death, right? JE can talk to the spirit world, right? He's had plenty of time and practice to nail it down. Why does he suck so badly at it, then?

Why aren't spirits more specific, Robin1? You must know. For that matter, why doesn't JE just ask, "What's your name, anonymous spirit, and what's the name of the person in the audience that you want to talk to?" Like your dad...when he was whispering about the fridge, he couldn't just whisper your name, too?

Wby is Sylvia Browne a fraud and not JE? Why does JE endorse Sylvia Browne, then, if she's a fraud and he's genuine?

If only you would answer these, or any, practical questions. Chip, chip, chip.

I'm betting you can't, because there is no life after death, and JE is a complete fraud. You will now ignore my post because you don't want to face the truth.

 

[Slowvehicle]

If my stories indeed prove nothing, why was Foolmewunz's only (implied) response to the latest...that I MUST be lying?

Here's why...too many convincing stories and they couldn't all be coincidence, or memory fail, or insert your preferred fail-safe, etc.

And no way, no how, there is life after death so it must be:


1st story explained by skeptic's fail-safe = coincidence

2nd story explained by skeptic's fail-safe = memory fail

3rd story explained by skeptic's fail-safe = hot reading...even if the method was unable to be determined.
Just ask James Randi about that one...please see and read entire (to be fair to all parties involved) thread ..."John Edward-Psychic or What?"

4th story explained by skeptic's fail-safe..heck, she's gotta be lying.

And so on and so on....

But yes, all of the above and more DOES need to be considered... Agreed.

But , and a very big BUT, the possibility of life after death needs to be considered as well...add it to the mix then evaluate it ALL.

You will NEVER be able to accurately evaluate possible evidence of life after death if you go in 100% confident there is no life after death.

If you do, your fail-safes will automatically kick in, and prevent you from ever reaching an accurate conclusion.

You keep saying "life after death", as if "being not-dead after dying" made some sort of sense.

If you mean to be arguing that "death" is a different thing than the cessation of biological activity in the body, you have an uphill road to hoe. If there are "souls", why is brain damage (aphasia, dementia, etc.) even a thing? If the mind is not just a function of the brain, why do cingulotomy/lobotomy have such profound effects?

If the "soul" survives the expiration of the body, why are "communications" from the "dead" so banal, so mundane, so impotent...and so indistinguishable from the effects of cold reading?

It is not that my "fail-safes" kick in to reinforce my "prejudice: that "being dead" isn't really "dead" (just "mostly dead"); it is that all the "evidence" offered to demonstrate the post-death survival of the personality are inadequate per se.

But feel free to keep stacking up your teacups. You are still several anecdotes short of Scheherzade...

 

[Slowvehicle]

Here's Foolmewunz's comment to consider again...he seems pretty sure to me that I MUST be lying.

And yet, Foolmewunz raises a central issue--why is it that your anecdotes appear to morph in response to objection? You are convinced there is one,and only one conclusion to be drawn from what you report as your experiences. Many others here are of different opinions.

 

[DoomMetal]

Folks if you do some background research into Robin1 I am afraid he is indeed an internet troll. Now I know the word "troll" has been abused in some cases these days over the internet and we see that term being mentioned a lot. But Robin1 is the real definition of a troll. He is just on forums to wind people up and has no interest in listening to anyone else's point of view.

If you Google search his name, he has trolled other skeptic blogs and forums telling people about his personal experience with John Edward and how it has proven the afterlife. Of course his evidence does not go beyond his single "personal experience". There is no tape recording or anything to verify what he says or to analyse this "reading" with Edward.

I don't want to be rude about Robin, but if you look at his blog posts on the website he cited in one of his early posts this guy is an old man, he's suffered a loss and he is willing to believe. I get that, most of us want to believe in the afterlife especially if we get old. But the guy is a troll mouthing off on many forums and blogs telling people life after death has been proven from his silly reading and when people disagree him he gets abusive. This thread has over 2,000 replies and that is exactly what he feeds off. If he is generally so convinced about his experience with Edward then why does he spend his time arguing with skeptics over it?

 

[Garrette]

Can't say I fully agree, DM. First, Robin is a she, not a he. You are correct about her experience and the non-existence of her proof as well as the sites she visits and her imperviousness to logic, but I still think her intent is genuine. Plus, most of us post for a variety of reasons, only one of which is to persuade Robin.

 

[John Jones]

Actually I DID refer to this anecdote in the past...you should pay more attention next time.

Seems to me, all my HONEST anecdotes (and I DO have more) are chipping away at your non-belief.

That must be hard for you.

I can see why you, in desperation, and denial, would revert to a fail-safe such as...she's lying...must be....'cause otherwise there really IS life after death!!

Naaaah, she's lying.

I wonder how many other people are feeling their skeptic's armor is chipping away.

[...]

I don't wonder, and I don't see evidence of any skeptic armor chipping away. Have you got any such evidence to present?

 

[tsig]

I am confident now there is life after death.

But, for years, I really wasn't sure...at all!

However, I remained OPEN to the possibility.

I wanted proof and I got it. But you won't "get it" if you are 100% closed to it.

P.S. Foolmewunz was not merely helpfully trying to "point out" something for you to remember to consider.

He was trying to call me a liar.

Plain and simple.

P.P.S. I do realize none of my stories are remotely convincing...to YOU.

But, some may think they are convincing.

Which I believe, is one reason Foolmewunz desperately tried to negate their possible effect...by implying I am a liar and therefore my stories are not to be believed.

I just want the facts.

Why should anyone believe your stories when you admit you didn't go searching for the facts but confirmation of your beliefs?

 

[desertgal]

He is just on forums to wind people up and has no interest in listening to anyone else's point of view.

We're aware of that.

If you Google search his name, he has trolled other skeptic blogs and forums telling people about his personal experience with John Edward and how it has proven the afterlife. Of course his evidence does not go beyond his single "personal experience". There is no tape recording or anything to verify what he says or to analyse this "reading" with Edward.

We're aware of that, and, incidentally, Robin1 has never denied such.

I don't want to be rude about Robin, but if you look at his blog posts on the website he cited in one of his early posts this guy is an old man…

With all due respect, evidence?

… he's suffered a loss and he is willing to believe.

Again, not something Robin1 has denied.

I get that, most of us want to believe in the afterlife especially if we get old. But the guy is a troll mouthing off on many forums and blogs telling people life after death has been proven from his silly reading and when people disagree him he gets abusive. This thread has over 2,000 replies and that is exactly what he feeds off.

Again, we're aware of this. But trolling is not against the MA, and the opportunity for skeptics to enjoy a logical debate amongst themselves at the behest of a troll is not necessarily a bad thing.

I have to agree with Garrette that Robin's belief in JE seems genuine (although there is no proof to be found here regarding Robin's real gender). He/she/it does like attempting to wind people up with mocking responses and bizarre stabs at so called humor, though.

And we like trolls for snacking between meatier discussions.

If he is generally so convinced about his experience with Edward then why does he spend his time arguing with skeptics over it?

Because he/she/it is a troll. We know it, you know it, he/she/it knows it.

But I'd like to see evidence to support your claim that he/she/it is an old man, and not the middle aged mother he/she/it claims to be.

ETA: In fact, following your suggestion indicates conclusively that Robin1 is a woman, and has spent more effort merely posting links to her blog than trolling at length.

 

[John Jones]

If my stories indeed prove nothing, why was Foolmewunz's only (implied) response to the latest...that I MUST be lying?

[...]

Non sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from the claimed facts. That's faulty logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

 

[ynot]

Folks if you do some background research into Robin1 I am afraid he is indeed an internet troll. Now I know the word "troll" has been abused in some cases these days over the internet and we see that term being mentioned a lot. But Robin1 is the real definition of a troll. He is just on forums to wind people up and has no interest in listening to anyone else's point of view.

If you Google search his name, he has trolled other skeptic blogs and forums telling people about his personal experience with John Edward and how it has proven the afterlife. Of course his evidence does not go beyond his single "personal experience". There is no tape recording or anything to verify what he says or to analyse this "reading" with Edward.

I don't want to be rude about Robin, but if you look at his blog posts on the website he cited in one of his early posts this guy is an old man, he's suffered a loss and he is willing to believe. I get that, most of us want to believe in the afterlife especially if we get old. But the guy is a troll mouthing off on many forums and blogs telling people life after death has been proven from his silly reading and when people disagree him he gets abusive. This thread has over 2,000 replies and that is exactly what he feeds off. If he is generally so convinced about his experience with Edward then why does he spend his time arguing with skeptics over it?

As I posted earlier in this thread (was removed by mods), Robin1 has entered to win a prize from JE – “Write and tell us why you deserve to win one of five available seats in this exclusive small group reading with psychic medium John Edward in New York City!”

Perhaps by championing JE’s cause she might be seen to be more deserving of the prize. I think her entry links to this thread and others. So trolling to win perhaps?

Wonder if the mods will have some reason to remove this post.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Actually I DID refer to this anecdote in the past...you should pay more attention next time.

Seems to me, all my HONEST anecdotes (and I DO have more) are chipping away at your non-belief.

That must be hard for you.

I can see why you, in desperation, and denial, would revert to a fail-safe such as...she's lying...must be....'cause otherwise there really IS life after death!!

Naaaah, she's lying.

I wonder how many other people are feeling their skeptic's armor is chipping away.

Almost makes me want to share some more HONEST anecdotes...thanx, Foolmewunz!

I'm getting a letter from the spirits.... it's an A. Anyone over in this section? Ah, I see.... Wait... that's part of it "A H" but there's something missing. I'm getting another vowel sound.... an O, maybe... this section? No? Oh, it's another A? How can that be, what does AAH mean to anyone over here, someone with a tooth in their new refrigerator?

(Translation: Robin and I got binned from a FM management thread and had a couple of bickering posts removed to AAH. Robin felt hers was so clever that she needed to repeat it here. She's also my willing zombie. I instructed her to bring it to this thread. My powers are awesome, Bwahahaha!)

Share as many honest (confirmation biased) anecdotes as you want, Robin. By the number of converts you've achieved so far, you'll probably top your record in no time and get up to ONE.

May I suggest you do a little homework and see what your kind of faith leads to. Take a stroll over to the MDC thread by user, Flaccon. Another psychic true believer who believes OTHER psychics are frauds, but who supports her favorite woo merchant - herself.

 

[Foolmewunz]

"The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'."

Hey! Notwithstanding your cute doggie avatar, I said that first (after several thousand other posters have said it)! It's in AAH with much of my best work.

 

[Foolmewunz]

If my stories indeed prove nothing, why was Foolmewunz's only (implied) response to the latest...that I MUST be lying?

Because, perhaps....
A) Foolmewunz does not, as you seem to want to believe, follow you around and hang on your every utterance and didn't even know that this excuse for a dialogue was going on.
B) Foolmewunz is on the other side of the world in a quite different time zone and actually SLEEPS while most of you are nattering on these forums. I always wind up catching up after bursts of mid-afternoon (USA) activity because I'm in bed by about 11 or 12(noon) your time.

Robin, I live with a woo. I'm married to her. She sets out little glasses of Strawberry Fanta (any relation to an actual strawberry is purely coincidental, but the King once put a glass of it in a ghost house so now all Thais do it) and cognac in her ghost house, along with burning joss sticks and a really good cappuccino. If it's a slow day, she says the ghosts must have been unhappy or too busy with some other problems. If it's a good day, "See??!! You don't believe but this is PROOF." Now, if the woman I sleep with and love and who birthed that gorgeous kid in my avatar can't convince me with her nonsensical evidence, why would you think that your feeble stories would have any effect, whatsoever.

You're still a lone voice in the wilderness, your delusions notwithstanding. There's nothing to refute. You made up a story or you took parts of a story and embroidered them. You've been shown to have done that very often in this thread and on your blog. You think it's an honest story. I think it's either made up or completely doctored. Who's going to prove what?

Here's why...too many convincing stories and they couldn't all be coincidence, or memory fail, or insert your preferred fail-safe, etc.

And no way, no how, there is life after death so it must be:


1st story explained by skeptic's fail-safe = coincidence

2nd story explained by skeptic's fail-safe = memory fail

3rd story explained by skeptic's fail-safe = hot reading...even if the method was unable to be determined.
Just ask James Randi about that one...please see and read entire (to be fair to all parties involved) thread ..."John Edward-Psychic or What?"

4th story explained by skeptic's fail-safe..heck, she's gotta be lying.

And so on and so on....

But yes, all of the above and more DOES need to be considered... Agreed.

You're doing really swell up to "... Agreed."

But , and a very big BUT, the possibility of life after death needs to be considered as well...add it to the mix then evaluate it ALL.

You will NEVER be able to accurately evaluate possible evidence of life after death if you go in 100% confident there is no life after death.

If you do, your fail-safes will automatically kick in, and prevent you from ever reaching an accurate conclusion.

You were doing really swell up to "... Agreed.", but then you're asking us to chuck everything we've ever learned because we can't prove a negative? You choose to believe, Robin. We choose to follow evidence. And you're right that no one has effectively proved that there's no life after death. Most of us have told you, rather often, that we would welcome proof of psychic ability, mind reading, Nessie, etc.... But the fact that I can't prove that Nessie doesn't exist does not mean that Nessie exists. I'm sure you've heard about the pink unicorn in the garage, right?

 

[abaddon]

Can't say I fully agree, DM. First, Robin is a she, not a he. You are correct about her experience and the non-existence of her proof as well as the sites she visits and her imperviousness to logic, but I still think her intent is genuine. Plus, most of us post for a variety of reasons, only one of which is to persuade Robin.

No. Robin claims to be a she. The anecdotal evidence "she" claims as hits are consistent with a JE sock.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hey! Notwithstanding your cute doggie avatar, I said that first (after several thousand other posters have said it)! It's in AAH with much of my best work.

We should start a club...why do I always do my best work on posts that get swept up in general purges?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Garrette, I had thought recently you and I were trying to wipe the slate clean and converse again.

Unfortunately, it seems you are up to your old tricks.

You fooled me once, you won't fool me again.

Interesting expression. Never heard that before. I think I'll use it for something or another.