Goodness atheists and religious people

[Martin]

Firstly - my experience does have something to do with what you are saying Martin because it is a response to what you are saying. Secondly - I have given you links of where the study has taken place.

If I say, there are no pictures of trees on the moon, and you say I believe that I have experienced trees on the moon, then that is not a response to what I was saying.  It is a response to something I might have said, perhaps something you thought I said, perhaps soething you wish I had said (because then you'd have a reasoned argument).

The links you give are to studies that weren't subject to proper scientific scrutiny, the results were not published in science journals, not subject to peer review by other scientists, and not repeated by other scientists.

The scole experiment is a case which supprts what I am saying. Night vision equipment was not allowed,  a fact that should set alarm bells ringing for anyone taking an objective view.  Yes, of course there could have been objects floating around the room, but since the proper scientific scrutiny was denied, we can't count this as scientifically controlled evidence.

- because of 'secondly' the only way it seems in which you are likely to believe what I am trying to show you is a fact (the afterlife existing therefore existence of the soul being) is for you to go and get your own 'verification'. If you are unable to bring yourself to do this then there is nothing more I can do to assist.

there is nothing more that you can do because the evidence doesn't exist! 

I fully accept, and have accepted throughout this thread, that the non-existence of evidence doesn't mean that something can't possibly exist,

well that is a start.

I have been consistent in what I am saying throughout. I haven't started to say anything different from what I have been saying all along.

there is evidence - books and links to findings -  but you don't seem to want to look at it. If you were interested then you would at least go and visit a Spiritualist church and find out more info for yourself. Spiritualism is a Science; is a Philosophy; and is a Religion Science and Spiritualism[/.....
....Creations like the Daleks could very well exist - it is not an impossibility you know (though I hope they don't come to Earth - then again though ....  ).

None of it is scientifically verified - that's the problem.  On a similar basis, someone might claim that there is 'evidence' that Daleks exist out in space.  Hundreds of Dr Who episodes contain images of them, who knows, maybe one or two were actually filming real Daleks.  But you can't say, if you have videotape with pictures of Daleks on it, that it constitutes real evidence of Daleks' existence, because the proper controls to verify that these were real Daleks were not in place when it was shot. The pictures might be of something shot as fiction, or they might be real Daleks, intent on invading earth, there is nothing to distinguish them. If we investigated, we'd find that some videotapes of Daleks originate from recordings of actors and blokes inside Dalek outfits proving them to be fiction.  And yes, there are probably some videotapes of Daleks that we couldn't prove were fiction, becuase there is no longer enough evidence to show where they came from. But that wouldn't make them fact, nor would it make them real evidence for the existence of real Daleks, and a reasonable person would assume that in all likelihod they were also fiction.

[Jan]

Martin - Moon trees? Now that is almost as interesting as the tea pot analogy. You remember that one don't you? I do

http://www.space.com/8714-cosmic-teapot-visible-summer-sky.html   

As for trees on the moon ... http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/13aug_moontrees/

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/moon_tree.html

Have you actually bothered to read the links I have shared? I don't believe you have. There is little evidence you have. Have you actually been to a Spiritualist Church yet for yourself? I don't believe you have as yet.

[Martin]

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.

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:

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.

[Jan]

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

[Martin]

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

It's not you who is on trial, but your position, the opinion you and others claim as fact. That's what scientific scrutiny is.

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.

Oh I do show a healthy scepticism about spirits, because I have good reason to do so!  But my posts on this thread are not scepticism.  On this thread I am making a statement of fact and challenging you to disprove it.   All it would take to do so is to produce one piece of properly controlled evidence, something published in a scientific journal, repeatable and verifiable, I am not contesting that something called a soul might exist. I'm stating as a matter of fact, that there is no scientifically controlled evidence which supports its existence. 

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

The very nature of scientific evidence is that it is not possible to do this.  And the fact that you are asking for it shows that you haven't been reading what I'm saying (either that or you are again trying to sidetrack the issue away from your lack of evidence).  You are the one demonstrating your closed-mindedness.  I am simply demonstrating my good reasoning.

The fact that one cannot provide scientific evidence to disprove the existence of something, has never been under dispute by me.  I cannot produce a properly controlled experiment to show that hippogryphs, yettis, invisible dragons or whatever, do not exist, though to prove that they do, all I would have to do is to produce one.   
 

[Jan]

It's not you who is on trial, but your position, the opinion you and others claim as fact. That's what scientific scrutiny is.

What - do you not think that me and 'others' would have actually bothered to look into this further? I think I have mentioned before that my educational background is in science - meaning that I am not one who would readily believe anything unless I had proof. The proof I have had (over and over) is personal proof - though I have given you a list of professional scientists who have done the scrutiny bit and if you have read the links properly you will know of their findings.

Oh I do show a healthy scepticism about spirits, because I have good reason to do so!  But my posts on this thread are not scepticism.  On this thread I am making a statement of fact and challenging you to disprove it.
  All it would take to do so is to produce one piece of properly controlled evidence, something published in a scientific journal, repeatable and verifiable, I am not contesting that something called a soul might exist. I'm stating as a matter of fact, that there is no scientifically controlled evidence which supports its existence. 

THE EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF SURVIVAL AFTER DEATH

We have had the experimental proof of survival after death ever since Sir William Crookes published the results of his experiments in the leading scientific journal of his day - The Quarterly Journal of Science - in 1874. These were repeatable experiments under laboratory conditions. International teams of scientists then repeated the experiments and obtained the same results. People who had once lived on earth came back and proved to these scientific teams that they had conquered death and were still very much alive. This is what Professor Charles Richet, the French Nobel Laureate for medical science, said about the experiments:

    "There is ample proof that experimental materialisations should take definite rank as a scientific fact."

The purpose of this pamphlet is only to bring to peoples' attention these exciting discoveries in subatomic physics. My job is easy, all I have to do is point to the books that have been published, but suppressed. The main reason why this incredible scientific discovery did not cause a revolution at the beginning of this century is because these experiments lacked the backing of any detailed mathematical theory. This is what Sir Oliver Lodge said in 1929:

    "We have to be guided by the facts; and if the facts seem incredible as the they do - we have first of all to assure ourselves that they are facts, and then conclude that there is a department of knowledge to which we have as yet not got the key."

At the end of the century we now have the key, the missing mathematical theory to back up these revolutionary, scientific experiments.

source www.cfpf.org.uk

References

Lodge, Sir Oliver "Phantom Walls" 1929 (Hodder & Stoughton)

Medhurst, Dr. R.G. "Crookes and the Spirit World" 1972 (Souvenir)

Crookes, Sir William "Experimental Investigation of a New Force" Article in "Quarterly Journal of Science" July 1, 1871 (Early experiments)

Richet, Professor Charles "Thirty Years of Psychical Research" 1923 (W. Collins & Sons). The French scientific team.

von Schrenck Notzing, Baron "Phenomena of Materialisations" 1923 (Kegan Paul. Trench. Trubner). The German scientific team.

Hamilton, Dr. T. Glen "Intention and Survival" 1942. (Regency Press) The Canadian scientific team.

Warrick, F. W. "Experiments in Psychics" 1939 (Rider & Co. London)

This was published to do with NDE entitled Scientific Evidence for Survival Of consciousness after death

http://www.near-death.com/

It stands to reason that the survival of consciousness after physical death would mean soul survival too wouldn't it?
There has been plenty of evidence collected regarding NDE over the years (and NDE is just one phenomenon pointing to this conclusion)

The very nature of scientific evidence is that it is not possible to do this.  And the fact that you are asking for it shows that you haven't been reading what I'm saying (either that or you are again trying to sidetrack the issue away from your lack of evidence).  You are the one demonstrating your closed-mindedness.  I am simply demonstrating my good reasoning.

Good reasoning?     Actually Martin - I was trying to make a point - and not to sidetrack away because of lack of evidence - not when there is so much evidence out there. What exactly am I being 'closed minded' about in your opinion?

The fact that one cannot provide scientific evidence to disprove the existence of something, has never been under dispute by me.  I cannot produce a properly controlled experiment to show that hippogryphs, yettis, invisible dragons or whatever, do not exist, though to prove that they do, all I would have to do is to produce one.

well if a dragon (or any other 'exotic' creature) is invisible (to our perceptions) you would need something (perhaps technology) to help others to see it or perceive it in some way. Again - just because we cannot perceive something with our limited 5 senses it doesn't mean it is not there or cannot exist. That is more to do with unseen creatures though.

Amazing to think that the question in the OP was

who is the better person: the atheist who does good deeds just so or the religious person who only does good to win favour with GOD ...?

and we have got onto the existence of the soul (or unusual creatures even) from that!

[Martin]

What - do you not think that me and 'others' would have actually bothered to look into this further?

Actually I had believed you would, but the junk you have presented as evidence makes it clear that you have not.

William Crookes 1832 - 1919
Professor Charles Richet 1850 -1935

I won't go on - we've been here before.  Your scientists come from an era before scientific rigour had properly developed.  You use them because good examples from modern science are not there.


Near death experiences offer an insight into the reactions and experiences of a human mind, as the brain comes close to death.  There is no scientific evidence from these for the existence of a soul.  Only an after death experience could do that.

well if a dragon (or any other 'exotic' creature) is invisible (to our perceptions) you would need something (perhaps technology) to help others to see it or perceive it in some way. Again - just because we cannot perceive something with our limited 5 senses it doesn't mean it is not there or cannot exist. That is more to do with unseen creatures though.

Again and again you misrepresent my point.  I am NOT SAYING THAT DRAGONS CANNOT EXIST, I am saying that there is no properly controlled evidence to say that they do.  You are plainly doing this deliberately. If you had a reasoned argument then you'd use it. You haven't, you don't want to admit as much, so you misrepresent the argument that's being presented.

[Jan]

[Martin]

But Martin - just because these scientists are from days gone by it doesn't mean that their work is of no value or merit.

If it can't be repeated today under controlled conditions then, it DOES mean that it is of no value or merit.  The fact that scientific method and review wasn't as developed in those days, meant that many spurious claims were made.  The filter, to work out what to discard, is to test the method today with critical thinking and the techniques at our disposal. 

When held up to such scrutiny, their claims and conclusions don't stand up.

I call what you post 'junk' because it is stuff that is thrown away when you examine it with a properly critical eye.   

I think it is you who is frightened.  Frightened that your lifestyle, your friendships, your community will falter if you admit the truth about the fiction on which it is based.  In some ways I understand that and I'm not really bothered whether you carry on in your fantasy.  If it helps you, go ahead.

The problem is that, if you're going to do that, you will come up against the truth, time and again.  If you seek to defend a lie, then you will lose the argument.  You will find yourself writing things that you know in your heart of hearts are untrue.  You'll find yourself cornered, time and again, when the lack of rigour in the articles you use is exposed.  And then you'll find yourself hitting out with those little snide comments which add nothing to the argument, but are designed to deflect the argument elsewhere, to turn the spotlight away from the flaws and fraud associated with the claims you make.

This is my last post on this thread.  I have wasted enough time here and I expect others have given up reading it.  You will claim that, because I have stopped reading the articles you've posted, that I'm closed-minded.  So be it.  I read a fair few and found their flaws immediately, flaws that should have been obvious to you. That much tells me that it is you who is closed-minded, accepting only one side of the argument without critical analysis. 

[Jan]

If it can't be repeated today under controlled conditions then, it DOES mean that it is of no value or merit. 

That isn't entirely accurate though Martin is it. Within science there are theories. For example - the big bang theory being how many of the scientific community believes the universe started. It is not proven - just a theory - yet still it is probably the best we can go off for now. There are other theories of how the universe came into being. Darwens theory of evolution - is still part of science - but it is still called a theory. I believe our physical bodies evolved from those of animals because it does seem to make sense. If I was given an alternative explanation and that made more sense, then I would take that on board rather than believing it cannot be true because I had already subscribed to the first theory.

There are lots of things that are difficult to repeat exactly under controlled conditions, purely by their nature - but that doesn't mean they have no value or merit. Science in itself is progressive. It is just our way of trying to make sense of the world around us. Our understanding can and does change over time.

When held up to such scrutiny, their claims and conclusions don't stand up.

But they do Martin. Go and see for yourself.

I call what you post 'junk' because it is stuff that is thrown away when you examine it with a properly critical eye.   

I suggest it is more down to you not wanting to look properly through fear rather than examining with a critical eye.

I think it is you who is frightened.  Frightened that your lifestyle, your friendships, your community will falter if you admit the truth about the fiction on which it is based.

My 'lifestyle' ??? My 'friendships' ??? what do you know of these??? Absolutely nothing at all. Your judgements are based on false assumptions Martin - yet again. My friendships are with many people of different views and background - not all spiritualists. Some are Christian, Wiccan, some Atheists, at least one Buddhist and a Muslim ... and my lifestyle well its fairly mundane really but no less more valid than anyone elses lifestyle.

 

In some ways I understand that and I'm not really bothered whether you carry on in your fantasy.  If it helps you, go ahead.

lol - It is hardly a fantasy Martin. It is quite real.

The problem is that, if you're going to do that, you will come up against the truth, time and again.  If you seek to defend a lie, then you will lose the argument.  You will find yourself writing things that you know in your heart of hearts are untrue. 

but Martin I could not do that. I could not write about something like this which I know in my heart of hearts to be untrue. This to me represents truth. I might not have all the pieces yet - but then again the scientists looking into why neutrinos seem to travel faster than light, they don't seem to have all the pieces either do they.

You'll find yourself cornered, time and again, when the lack of rigour in the articles you use is exposed.  And then you'll find yourself hitting out with those little snide comments which add nothing to the argument, but are designed to deflect the argument elsewhere, to turn the spotlight away from the flaws and fraud associated with the claims you make.

I haven't been 'cornered' Martin - this is just a discussion. Just one little forum in ciberspace where people can share information - agree or disagree ... or alternatively try their best to smack each other in the head with a bunch of words which really represent their limited minds or ego's - lol -  It is just a forum    - If you have found valid flawes in any of the links then you should be able to discuss them rationally or even send an email to the person who wrote the info (shouldn't be too difficult to find an email to contact them)

This is my last post on this thread. 

Good! I can understand you might need a bit of a rest - spurting out all that negativity. At least you got it off your chest (for now). The funny things you fire back at me to try and ridicule me actually turn out to be quite real when I look them up - and I have to have a little chuckle at this - eg Giant teapot in space ... moontrees etc. Come on Martin - you have to laugh it is quite funny really.
 
For me though it was beginning to get very tiresome (again) going round in circles (again) and I have really got to get ready to meet some zombies and a corpse bride tonight.

No hard feelings though eh 

[Jan]

Just to add this link - for those who are genuinely interested of course 

http://www.windbridge.org/publications.htm

About The Windbridge Institute

The Windbridge Institute for Applied Research in Human Potential is concerned with asking, "What can we do with the potential that exists within our bodies, minds, and spirits?" Can we heal each other? Ourselves? Can we affect events and physical reality with our thoughts? Can we know things before they happen? Are we connected to each other? To the planet? Can we communicate with our loved ones who have passed?

Who We Are

Windbridge is an independent research organization consisting of a community of scientists with varied backgrounds, specialties, and interests.

Members of our international Scientific Advisory Board review research questions and protocols and provide feedback and suggestions based on their expertise. In addition, members of our Advisory Committee provide strategic and technical advice regarding the direction, scope, and progress of Windbridge.

For more information about specific studies, please see our Current Research page. And to meet our international team of researchers, visit our Investigators page. 

What We Do

The Windbridge Institute investigates the capabilities of our bodies, minds, and spirits and attempts to determine how the resulting information can best serve all living things.

The Institute is concerned with bringing the information gained during research directly to the public in a timely fashion. We achieve this goal by:

o Providing periodic updates about the status of the research in our Members' e-newsletter, social media, and public email list updates.

o Sponsoring an online community where Members can communicate with Investigators, Advisors, Windbridge Certified Research Mediums, and with other Members about how conclusions drawn from the research can best serve all living things.

o Publishing our results in peer-reviewed journals and on our web site.

o Publicizing the results of studies regardless of whether they are positive (e.g., the data demonstrate the existence of a phenomenon) or negative (e.g., the study was unable to demonstrate the presence of a phenomenon).
source www.windbridge.org/about.htm