It’s been investigated for many, many years and nothing has been found yet. Tons of evidence on one side of the debate, and anecdotes, bad science and cites about the number who believe on the other.
Please provide a double-blind peer-reviewed study that supports the position of the OP.
NO anecdotes, anonymous or otherwise.
NO proposed studies that sound promising.
NO essays about beliefs.
NO stats about popular opinion.
NO woo reviewer talking about a woo book.
JUST a direct link to a double-blind peer-reviewed study.
What you ask has been provided many, many times. Yes, there are many good science studies that show consciousness lives after the death of the brain and body.
Why do you think the research continues, but I don’t believe anything would be acceptable to you save what you already believe.
I say again: what people believe doesn’t matter only what is true matters. The only way to find truth is to study ALL sides of a debate with equal effort. You have refused many times to even read the material.
When people really understand what finding truth means then they will gain the wisdom to look for it instead of repeating the same old nonsence of “nothing has been found yet,”
You’re being incredibly arrogant saying Einstein is part fool and by extension, any scientist who perceives things like Einstein does. You’re saying, one way or another, in this thread that anybody who disagrees with you in matters like this in any way, no matter how qualified or intelligent, are fools and spout out garbage. Un-be-fuckin’-believable! One guy sitting in front of a computer screen telling the world what the absolute truth is. A mindset like that is as closed tight as a nun’s twat.
you like to make up rules like "you have to prove it but I don’t have to disprove it…bullshit. “absence of proof is not proof of absence” is a valid proposition. Right now we have string theory/quantum loop theory which cant’s be proven one way or the other. Imagine showing Newton Uncertainity principle or telling him you stop light in its tracks or spooky effect at a distance. He’d probably say you had a better chance of proving God than you would have of proving that “garbage”. You say if you can’t prove it, it ain’t real. You will never know it’s not true until its proven one way or another. Right now there is an absence of proof, that doesn’t make it “garbage”. Your mindset has been nipping at the heels of new discoveries and progress since time immemorial.
Atheism is a religion ( a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith). It is the religion of non-religion. You have a bible that you consider to be the sacred truth “On the Origin of Species”. Amazing Randi is your patron saint. Micheal Shermer, Richard Dawkins, et al, are the gurus, sages and saints and you are a disciple.
Watch the movie. Near the beginning there is an atheist carry a sign on the sidewalk decrying religion and he is spouting the same kind of fundamentalist rhetoric as a christian fundamentalist with the same kind of self-righteous, assumptive arrogance as the enemy. But like all true fundamentalist, regardless of style, has an overwhelming need for cognive closure, a deep seated need of certainty and justification. This manifests in what is called a psychological scotoma (blind spot).
You are what Marcello Truzzi, co-founder of CSICOP, calls a pseudoskeptic. You come into situations not to investigate with open mind like what Marcello calls a “agnostic skeptic”, but rather, you come in with preconceived notions and with the intent to debunk, not investigate; you have an agenda not to investigate with an open mind, but to debunk. You’re mind is closed tighter than a nun’s twat. You position yourself so that you don’t say anything until somebody else does and then you say, “prove it’s true.” If they say prove that it isn’t true." you immediately resort to pseudoskeptic tactics by saying, “Well, you can’t do that. You can’t ask me to disprove it, that’s not a valid arguement” To that I say, “garbage”.
You remind me of a Fundamentalist Preacher. All you’ve got to do is interchange words and phrases and, bingo! You got it. Marcello Truzzi, co-founder of CIOPS
Pseudoskepticism
The term pseudoskepticism was popularized and characterized by Marcello Truzzi in response to skeptics who, in his opinion, made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.[9]
While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar which he founded:
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
– Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987
Since you’ve shown repeatedly that you cannot tell the difference between a double-blind peer reviewed study and an opinion piece, you are specifically excluded from my request.
Can someone else please provide what I have requested-and the statements “It’s out there if you look for it” and “It’s already been provided many, many times” don’t count-a direct link to the study is what is required.
Thank you.
Actually, none of the things to which you have linked are scientific studies. They are odd collections of anecdotes concluding with conjectures issued by people, (occasonally medical doctors with no scientific training), who wanted to believe something specific happened without actually having evidence that what they wanted to perceive actually happened.
Nothing to which you have linked is “good science.” There has not been one single double blind study (or even on half-assed experiment), in any of your links. They have all been nothing more than recollections after the fact of events in which you or the writers have ignored every more plausible explanation.
Since you are under an obligation to refrain from posting claims foer scientific studies until you can find something that goes beyond collections of anecdotes, this will be your last false claim for this nonsense in this thread.
It would be well to repeat this to yourself every night before you go to bed and every morning upon awakening. Whatever YOU choose to believe really does not matter in regards to the truth, particularly since nothing you believe appeaers to be supported by any evidence.
There is a certain amount of evidence that Der Trihs, (like lekatt), actually does approach these discussions in this way. Of course, a rational poster would note that and simply disengage, refusing to be baited into fruitless exchanges with such posters.
However, you then go too far with:
This is just nonsense. There are, indeed, individual atheists who might be described in this manner, (just as one might point to Donald Wildmon, Fred Phelps, Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif, and others as corresponding theists), but the notion that atheism is a religion or that all, (or most), atheists could be described in the manner you posted is simply not true.
As to the rest: I think you have failed to note that few, if any, of your opponents have declared that you had no experience. However, you have asserted a “reality” behind that experience for which you have provided no substantiation or evidence.
Until someone actually provides scientific evidence for the cause of NDEs, I find these discussions tedious in their “is too/is not” repetition, but there is no reason to start making these threads into personal feuds. If the best they can say is “not proven” and the best you can say is “not disproven,” then there really is no serious debate. When you begin getting personal, however, you create the serious possibility that the thread will be closed.
You know there isn’t one, but do you have a study from one respected scientist that dismisses the topic as complete twaddle and worthy of no further investigation?
I don’t know what they are. Who was the scientist involved? Where in the study (was it peer reviewed?) did he declare the subject to be “complete twaddle?”
So, to recap, there was no peer review, there was no “one scientist,” and you are asking for a study that has *your *interpretation of the findings as a final comment? That seems like a pointless request.
Yes, there wasn’t one scientist, there was a panel of them, contracted by the govt. and presumably open to analysis by their peers, otherwise where would the validity be in these attempts to dismiss the ‘ufo problem’?
Now, has any govt. agency been set up to study NDE’s, and if not, why not? Isn’t this one of the great ‘unanswered questions’?
:rolleyes: Yes, demanding proof of the violation of physical laws is closed minded. I’m saying people are fools who make obviously self indulgent claims of things happening that violate known physical laws, without any evidence for it. Like an afterlife or perpetual motion.
As for Einstein, calling him wrong isn’t arrogant; he was wrong about a number of things. Not that he was a believer in mysticism anyway, as far as I can tell.
No, standard procedure. If I claim that Bush was a lizard man from the 5th dimension sent here to sabotage America, I can’t expect to be taken seriously without evidence that there IS a 5th dimension inhabited by lizards. Other people don’t have to disprove them.
What you are ignoring is that the problem of disproof is already taken care of by known physical laws; your assertions violate them. Unless you come up with evidence that such a physics-breaking phenomenon exists, there’s no reason to think that the believers ARE anything but fools. Especially since throughout all of human history, the believers in mysticism have ALWAYS been wrong. Why should I think you are the first to get it right ?
No, that would be your mindset. Someone who cares nothing for evidence but self indulgently believes what he wants to believe, ignoring all facts and logic is hostile by nature to progress.
All nonsense, as pointed out. Atheism isn’t a religion, nor are any of those people prophets or patron saints. You are projecting your own way of doing things onto others. The basis of atheism isn’t any person, but the absence of evidence for a God; the absence of evidence that one is possible; the track record of total failure on the part of the believers on being right about any of their mysticism; and the fact that God NOT existing is the logical default.
No. It’s a bunch of evidence free assertions of violations of physical law. Going by the evidence, the question “is there anything but the physical world” was answered a long time ago, and the answer is “no”.
Unless the ‘assertions’ are taken seriously in the first place, you cannot say there has been any real attempt to find ‘evidence’. Can you show me where that has been done?* Or is it merely a case of you believing who you want to believe?
I’ve already said “complete twaddle” was just my interpretation of the official outcome, which said that there was nothing within the study that warranted a threat to the US, and hence further study was unneccessary.