Those links I have commneted on, I have substatially read, some I have read in full, and I have commented on those links which should show you that I have read them, and investigated them when you clearly haven't investigated them yourself.

how does you giving your usual response show me that you have read them and investigated them? It doesn't.

The problem is, Jan, that it takes time to read all the stuff you post, and when, after reading the first few, I find them to be totally without substance, I am not going to continue reading and reading and reading and reading.  I've given you a far longer hearing than most objective people would, I've spent well over an hour and a half today alone, and I have still found nothing, zilch, zero in any of what I have read that in any way contradicts what I'm saying:

ah there that is it in a nutshell. Skeptics DO NOT READ any area of the afterlife evidence they do not accept in theory. I was just reading about that too

Given me a 'hearing' ??? What do you think this is - some forum variant of a court of Law?? Me on trial??

There is no properly controlled scientific evidence for the existence of a soul.

Pick your best, incontovertable example that disproves the statement above, and we can all read it in full and respond to it.  You only need one incontrovertable example, not several examples that don't fit the bill.

I have already given you more than one example many times over and you know it. They don't fit your bill because you are a closed minded skeptic Martin. I think that even if a spirit materialized in front of you and shook your hand - you would still not believe what you had seen. Despite all the areas covered which clearly point to the existence of the afterlife - it makes no difference to you.Your mind is already made up.

Now can you give me 'properly controlled scientific evidence for the non existence of a soul' - hmmmmmm