Correct me if I'm wrong, but mostly as atheists, we believe in nothingness after death, or at least I think I do. But then we have all of this stuff with mediums and spirits that maybe point to evidence to an afterlife. Some mediums have told people things that no one else has known, so that really makes me wonder.
I was really just wondering what everyone's opinions were on afterlife and spirits and stuff like that. Like, what exactly do you think happens after death?
I have personal evidence that I myself have experienced and verified from an independent source - several times. Any other evidence I might hear about remains other people's anecdotal evidence, and hasn't been verified by me. Therefore the jury's out at the moment on that stuff.
"Personal evidence" - 'nough said.
That, my friend, is a scientific attitude. Anything else is just "intellectualizing something away".
No, Simon. It's about honestly reporting the objective results of their tests. To require scientists to have no bias is to require them to be superhuman.
It's exactly because scientists can have biases ("I think I can explain something that's never been understood before") that we ask them to attempt to DISprove their theory rather than prove it.
That done, we have the further requirement that their results be repeatable and be subject to peer review.
All that done, being unbiased or not shouldn't figure in. The scientist whose biases intrude in his work will be unmasked in short order.
@Unseen - RE: "('I think I can explain something that's never been understood before')"
Somehow, I don't think Paynton is going to get that, because, based on knowledge I have of him, he too believes he "can explain something that's never been understood before."
I'm still waiting for him to change the world.
Likewise, Ray. I don't see any chink of light there at all.
Churches simplify Pascal's Wager to their advantage; they deny this life.
1. If a god exists, and if I follow church rules, then I will be rewarded.
2. If a god exists, and if I ignore church rules, then I will be punished.
3. If no god exists, and if I follow church rules, then I miss a lot of fun.
4. If no god exists, and if I ignore church rules, then I have a lot of fun.
One conclusion holds: church rules forbid fun.
I think Derek Acorra is a good example to why its probable that most if not all of these "mediums" are frauds.
Derek Acorah is nothing more than a shyster.
Derek Acorah is ridiculous and hilarious. That's obvious to anyone, but plenty of people lap him up.
Whether he's channeling a little Victorian girl, or an Arab prince - they all sound like a middle-aged white man from Liverpool.
Some of the things that James Randi sets out to test - can't be tested under the conditions he specifies. So his test is not really fit for purpose. However I believe it has value in weeding out charlatans, because anyone who really has certain kinds of power will know there's no point in applying.