Proof of Life After Death!!

[kerikiwi]

To be frank, that has not been my motive in reading such books for many, many years. Granted, I have been open to the idea that such evidence would be there, but I have not expected it, and I have not read the books with that hope.

But I do not think it is a valid argument to say 'I will not read the books because there is no credible evidence'
One can hardly make that judgement without reading the books

 

[Garrette]

But I do not think it is a valid argument to say 'I will not read the books because there is no credible evidence'
One can hardly make that judgement without reading the books

Is that an absolute?

Suppose Arthur Conan Doyle's great granddaughter claims to have fairies in her garden, and the proof is in her book of photos. Need I really read the book before I can utter "Pshaw?"

 

[ynot]

But I do not think it is a valid argument to say 'I will not read the books because there is no credible evidence'
One can hardly make that judgement without reading the books

I don't say that and I have read some of the books, but have never found any credible evidence offered in them. Have you ever read a book that provided any credible evidence supporting a paranormal belief/claim? If you've heard and watched the recordings and tapes I don't think reading the books will provide much if anything more in the way of possible credible evidence. Why would their writings be more credible than their actions?

If I read ExMinister correctly I don't think the suggestion to read the books was to find possible credible evidence but more to find out how the minds of believers tick so you can then hopefully speak to them more in their own language. Thing is believers aren't usually the ones that write the books so you're only gaining a possible insight into the minds of the paranormal claimers. In my opinion reading and responding to what believers write on forums such as this gives a far better insight in to the way their minds work (or don’t ).

 

[ynot]

Is that an absolute?

Suppose Arthur Conan Doyle's great granddaughter claims to have fairies in her garden, and the proof is in her book of photos. Need I really read the book before I can utter "Pshaw?"

And if you've already seen the photos on the internet why do you need to see them again in a book?

 

[ynot]

Pretend for a minute I'm Robin. I used to be very similar, in fact extremely like Robin. someone a few posts back asked Robin why the spirits can't or don't just communicate with us directly. This is intended to be a rational question that will make Robin think. But it won't.

If I'm Robin, I'm going to do an eye roll to that. Poor skeptics, they just don't get SO much. Should I explain? Should I talk about how lots of people can play the piano but not everyone will be a Beethoven (Sylvia likes that one)? Should I (sigh) remind everyone AGAIN that even so, they DO try to communicate with the rest of us through dreams and signs? Do I discuss the prevailing belief among the JEs and van praagbs etc that we are here to test ourselves and the spirits are limited in what they can tell us - sort of like not being able to help us cheat on a test? Maybe I'm not even sure, as Robin, whether I believe all that, but maybe it seems logical enough and now that I'm really sold on JE, I tend to.

Or do I just let the question pass.

But as I let it pass, do you see how it has not had the intended effect on me?

If you have learned to see the world as I do, whether or not you believe it, this won't happen.

So rational questioning won’t have the “intended effect” but seeing the world as believers do will? How exactly does that work? Is there a believer-sensitive way of asking – “Why the spirits can't or don't just communicate with us directly?” Or should such rational questions never be asked at all? Should we just encourage them to describe and explain their beliefs in the hope that the might somehow see their own silliness?

Seems you’re not just suggesting we shouldn’t ask rational questions but also that we shouldn’t question irrational beliefs and claims. In other words we should just believe and have faith as they do. Wonder how that would have the “intended effect”.

 

[ExMinister]

ExMinister gave a very good answer with which I agree, but I am not advocating that you, personally read any such book. My point is that reading them can help with at least two things, depending on your objective when engaging with believers:

1. Understand better what approaches are more or less likely to have an effect on the believer, as ExMinister has said.

2. Prepare you to better respond to the believers' claims when they mention such books.

Reading those books is neither necessary nor sufficient when confronting paranormal beliefs. That does not mean, however, that it is without value.

This is what I was attempting to say, especially #1.

So rational questioning won’t have the “intended effect” but seeing the world as believers do will? How exactly does that work? Is there a believer-sensitive way of asking – “Why the spirits can't or don't just communicate with us directly?” Or should such rational questions never be asked at all? Should we just encourage them to describe and explain their beliefs in the hope that the might somehow see their own silliness?

Seems you’re not just suggesting we shouldn’t ask rational questions but also that we shouldn’t question irrational beliefs and claims. In other words we should just believe and have faith as they do. Wonder how that would have the “intended effect”.

I'm all about rational questions. I am ex-all-about-rational-minister, but easier to just shorten it down to exM. I'm all about questioning irrational beliefs and claims too. So basically everything you said in that last paragraph is not true.

Garrette pretty much had it right up there in that quote.

As i said, it provides a good background to identify which questions to ask.

 

[ynot]

This is what I was attempting to say, especially #1.



I'm all about rational questions. I am ex-all-about-rational-minister, but easier to just shorten it down to exM. I'm all about questioning irrational beliefs and claims too. So basically everything you said in that last paragraph is not true.

Garrette pretty much had it right up there in that quote.

As i said, it provides a good background to identify which questions to ask.

You say you’re all about rational questions and questioning irrational beliefs and claims but you also say such questions aren’t going to have the desired effect on believers so we need to understand things from their perspective better so we don’t waste or time asking such questions. Seems a bit contradictory to me.

It's one thing to say "Understand better what approaches are more or less likely to have an effect on the believer” and another thing to explain exactly what those approaches actually are in practice. It’s like a politician campaigning on the need to create more jobs but never explaining exactly how the new jobs will actually be created. So can you give an actual example of a "which question to ask"?

I think most “seasoned” sceptics know pretty well how believers see the world and they know equally pretty well that when they ask them a rational question they aren’t going to get a rational answer (if any answer at all). Highlighting that paranormal believers don’t, can’t and won’t give a rational answer is pretty much the purpose for asking the rational question.

 

[Garrette]

With respect, ynot. I think you are picking nits with the quality of wording as opposed to the intended message. ExMinister's message was clear to me in the post that started this; the subsequent posts have made it even more clear that you two are more in agreement than not.

 

[Doppelgangerv314]

For all those seeking the "Truth " about life after death as well as the possibility of communicating with those who have crossed over please read about my experience with psychic medium John Edward. You must ALSO read all the comments to get more details and the full picture. Just google "Proof of life after death Yorktown" or here is the direct link:
yorktown-somers.patch.com/blog.../proof-of-life-after-death

The phrase "life after death" is contradictory. Death is the absence of life, and therefore "life after death" is like saying, "life without life"

 

[ExMinister]

If I have given the impression that I am opposed to the use of rational questioning or questioning irrational beliefs, then I have completely misrepresented what I intended to say. I am referring to a specific type of question only.

BTW the majority of questions asked in this thread by thoughtful skeptics were good questions, some excellent. I mean no disrespect to the many talented skeptics who have been contributing to this thread. This is just a minor something that has jumped out at me here and there along the way as a former believer.

Let me come at it from a different angle. If you have a friend who has become a believer in The Secret and a fan of Rhonda Byrne and she has just told you she is going to stop chemo and visualize wellness, you might use a combination of education plus rational questioning to try to shake some sense into her.

The point I am making is that you will be much more effective if you have actually read The Secret.

Watching that episode of Penn and teller is not enough. If you say, as I have seen some skeptics say here, "If the Secret works, why isn't (famous hot actor) in my bedroom?" you will have just revealed that you don't even understand the basics of how The Secret actually works. Maybe you thought that was a clever rational question. But it wasn't. That is the kind of question I'm referring to.

Your friend may tune out anything further you have to say because she suspects you don't actually understand The Secret, and for all she knows, maybe if you'd just read the book and try it for yourself, you'd be a believer too. I think this is a significant enough roadblock, from personal experience, that it's what actually inspired my original post.

My point is, to be more effective at knowing which questions to ask, it helps to have enough background knowledge not to ask the hot actor type of question.

That's all. It's the hot actor type of question that i have been trying to address here, not all rational questioning or questioning in general.

Now, your friend may instead decide to explain why what you said is simplistic and silly, thus opening up a dialogue where you can talk about what you DO know - energy, studies on the lack of impact of attitude or prayer, etc. And maybe it turns out in the end that the information you provide is sufficient, which is why I completely agree that reading isn't essential.

But doing the reading is so easy, if mind numbingly tedious. it's a way to establish rapport and i think believers are surprised when a skeptic understands something as deeply as they do and STILL remains a skeptic. I was. And I think that surprise can translate into an even more effective skeptic.

 

[deaman]

The phrase "life after death" is contradictory. Death is the absence of life, and therefore "life after death" is like saying, "life without life"

Maybe , what people are trying to express is consciousness after mortal death.

Is there a continuation of consciousness after your own personal, mortal death?

Of course, consciousnesss continues in everyone who is still alive. But, the dead? It just doesn't seem so, from my perspective.

I do keep an open mind that there are many things I do not know.

Currently, my personal opinion is that once you are dead, that is it for you as an entitiy, and personality.

 

[PiscesMercury]

I have seen human corpses at a morgue, during a school outing for biology students. Of course the corpses looked a bit like paper dolls from all the formalin in them. The medical students practiced on some of them. We also saw things like a leg sticking out of a bucket, and a brain being cut in half. Seeing the bodies depressed me a lot. I did get the impression that there is no afterlife when I saw them. I like to keep on hoping that there is some form of an afterlife, although it does seem unlikely.

 

[tsig]

I have seen human corpses at a morgue, during a school outing for biology students. Of course the corpses looked a bit like paper dolls from all the formalin in them. The medical students practiced on some of them. We also saw things like a leg sticking out of a bucket, and a brain being cut in half. Seeing the bodies depressed me a lot. I did get the impression that there is no afterlife when I saw them. I like to keep on hoping that there is some form of an afterlife, although it does seem unlikely.

What would you do in an afterlife that you can't do in this life?

 

[Monza]

Why do claim and believe you can be highly psychic and why only "at times"?

I think I can answer this. After careful analysis I have concluded that I have psychic abilities, but not all the time. It comes and goes. I did some tests by flipping a fair coin. My conclusion is that I am psychic about 50% of the time.

 

[xterra]

Watching that episode of Penn and teller is not enough. If you say, as I have seen some skeptics say here, "If the Secret works, why isn't (famous hot actor) in my bedroom?" you will have just revealed that you don't even understand the basics of how The Secret actually supposedly works. Maybe you thought that was a clever rational question. But it wasn't. That is the kind of question I'm referring to.

FTFY.

I think you made yourself perfectly clear. Thanks.

 

[tsig]

FTFY.

I think you made yourself perfectly clear. Thanks.

I think you're being a bit harsh here, exminister is trying to explain from a believers standpoint but is no longer a TB hence the ex.

 

[xterra]

If my change to her post came across as being critical of ExMinister, it was not intended that way. In fact, I thought that her original post was clearly intended to help people understand that to help show someone that they are in error, one must do so in terms the person will understand.

Saying, "What a stupid idea! Get real, learn science, etc.!" isn't going to do it. Again, I am not claiming that anyone is advocating that as an effective approach, even though we occasionally see skeptics do it. But even skeptics are human ... more or less.

 

[PiscesMercury]

I think I can answer this. After careful analysis I have concluded that I have psychic abilities, but not all the time. It comes and goes. I did some tests by flipping a fair coin. My conclusion is that I am psychic about 50% of the time.

I suppose it's a coincidence that I fully believed that Jacob guy was going to kill someone. Using your logic it must also be a coincidence that he was able to point out exactly where he buried the girl...300 km from where she went missing, near the sea. It's also a coincidence that I started thinking about the sea as I watched him. Lots of coincidences.

 

[ynot]

I suppose it's a coincidence that I fully believed that Jacob guy was going to kill someone.

Not a coincidence at all. Merely your unsupported, anecdotal claim. Why should we take such a claim seriously, let alone believe it?

Using your logic it must also be a coincidence that he was able to point out exactly where he buried the girl...300 km from where she went missing, near the sea.

Not a coincidence at all. He buried her by the sea therefore he knows exactly where to point to..

It's also a coincidence that I started thinking about the sea as I watched him.

Not a coincidence at all. Merely your unsupported, anecdotal claim. Why should we take such a claim seriously, let alone believe it?

Lots of coincidences.

Sorry but not a single coincidence in anything you say.

I like to keep on hoping that there is some form of an afterlife, although it does seem unlikely.

You seem to be claiming that you communicated with a dead person that Jacob killed but earlier admitted that seems “unlikely”. Why should we believe your claims when you have trouble believing them yourself?

 

[Garrette]

I suppose it's a coincidence that I fully believed that Jacob guy was going to kill someone. Using your logic it must also be a coincidence that he was able to point out exactly where he buried the girl...300 km from where she went missing, near the sea. It's also a coincidence that I started thinking about the sea as I watched him. Lots of coincidences.

Impossible to tell since we have only your word regarding an unevidenced story told through fallible memory and entirely absent both a specific claim and any analysis.

If you wish to convince us, do not tell us stories of what has happened. Tell us specifically what you can do, under what circumstances and with what degree of accuracy/success. Then tell us how you determined that accuracy.

This requires detail, math, and a knowledge of how the brain works along with all the things we have discussed in this thread like confirmation bias.

Just claims without all that mean nothing.