It simply means you are remain open to the possibilty of either position. It isn't about belief or disbelief, it isn't a binary position.
Poll: Poll: Do you believe in an afterlife?
- Thread starter Sefirosu
- Start date
It simply means you are remain open to the possibilty of either position. It isn't about belief or disbelief, it isn't a binary position.
Associate
As much as I would like to agree, scientists are human and I would guess most would dismiss it. To have a chance it would have to be ironclad proof coming from a very well respected person published in a high quality journal and unfortunately, I don't see how anything on that topic would even make it past an editor. I suppose some one could crash a conference with it to gain initial support in the community and if it was that good it may fly, but as above, it would have to be 100%.
That said, given the topic we are discussing, if proof did surface I can't see it coming from the scientific community. If one accepts the existence of an afterlife, then it is not a big step to accept god and I would assume that if the former exists then it will be proven by Jesus returning to the earth or some other religious even. This is assuming that the two are link of course, which depends on religious views that i am slightly ignorant of.
Last edited:
I do find it interesting how people who have had near death experiences or sleep out of body experiences report certain effects, for example with sleep paralysis you feel energy vibrations and hear noises, whats odd is you feel like your heart is beating fast but physically it's not, some could see or feel a cord attached to their physical body while out and resistance when passing through walls etc, it's even stronger with anything electrical, makes you wonder why these observations match up and why the brain would create such effects if it's all just imaginary.
Last edited:
Soldato
I would echo this as well and though I do not attest to the validity of the data, you only have to look at the controversy the following link/study has caused to appreciate this:
http://www.skeptiko.com/daryl-bem-responds-to-parapsychology-debunkers/ Suffice it to say this one made it past the editor.
There might be a chance that a study funded by a wealthy donor or foundation could get the message through?
Last edited:
Soldato
The things I have seen that would completely desensitise you I would have to say NO. All though having said I would like to think there is something at the other end. But then if there is an afterlife, what if you die again in that life? Is there an after-after life??
Associate
hmm maybe
Soldato
Soldato
It is binary. If you haven't decided yet, then you haven't decided to believe in it. So technically, you don't believe in the afterlife if you're undecided.
If the question asked was "do you believe there exists an afterlife, or do you believe there's no afterlife?", then you'd be right. There would definitely be a middle ground for "undecided", because both sides are active positions of belief.
Soldato
Have you heard of the Randi Foundation? They offer rewards for any scientifically valid proof of the supernatural. As I understand it, their standards for proof are no more harsh than for any other scientific proof. If they ever paid out, you can bet your arse the scientific community would pay attention.
No it's not...because I haven't decided to believe or not to believe...I have no definitive position on it whatsover.....You are asking me to take a definitive position either way...I haven't, thus I neither believe or disbelieve...I remain....open.
Last edited:
Soldato
@ SlyReaper I would suggest you read previous posts on this forum concerning Randi for an explanation regarding the position of your claim.
However, it seems there are a number of problems in applying: the main one being outright rejection.
If the claimants have to pay their own costs and the James Randi Educational Foundation can afford to pay the successful applicant a million dollars on completion, then why is it too expensive or difficult to test them? Presumably somebody able to go without food and water for such a long time could be put in a cell with cctv without much ado etc? Randi has really left no room for doubt that he views ALL paranormal claimants as nut cases...so who ultimately is worthy enough of his precious time to warrant testing?
Ask yourself if these are the words or behavior of a man who is interested in finding the truth. Is it not more likely that Randi simply relies on the Challenge as a tool to garner publicity for himself and land paid public speaking engagements? If he is a man of "science" (and I've yet to hear how the ability to escape from a straight jacket qualifies this person as a scientist), why does he not apply the same standards and the same logic to all applicants of the Challenge? The problem here again is HYPOCRISY. It would seem that Randi focuses exclusively on more famous paranormal claimants like Browne or Geller because doing so is more likely to get him an appearance on the Larry King or some other show.
However, it seems there are a number of problems in applying: the main one being outright rejection.
If the claimants have to pay their own costs and the James Randi Educational Foundation can afford to pay the successful applicant a million dollars on completion, then why is it too expensive or difficult to test them? Presumably somebody able to go without food and water for such a long time could be put in a cell with cctv without much ado etc? Randi has really left no room for doubt that he views ALL paranormal claimants as nut cases...so who ultimately is worthy enough of his precious time to warrant testing?
Ask yourself if these are the words or behavior of a man who is interested in finding the truth. Is it not more likely that Randi simply relies on the Challenge as a tool to garner publicity for himself and land paid public speaking engagements? If he is a man of "science" (and I've yet to hear how the ability to escape from a straight jacket qualifies this person as a scientist), why does he not apply the same standards and the same logic to all applicants of the Challenge? The problem here again is HYPOCRISY. It would seem that Randi focuses exclusively on more famous paranormal claimants like Browne or Geller because doing so is more likely to get him an appearance on the Larry King or some other show.
Last edited:
Soldato
In that case, the man would have put himself in grave danger by starvation while under observation. You can't blame them for steering clear of that legal minefield. Also, you can't just lock a man up in a room without sustenance even if they consent to it.
Soldato
You ever heard of a waiver? In any event that is not to say there is any real possibility of them walking away and throwing away the key is there?
I've even come across a restauraunt in Cambridge where you have to sign a waiver before you eat their food lol (East Coast Grill in Cambridge)
Last edited:
Soldato
A waiver wouldn't matter. As a skeptic, you would have reasonable cause to believe that allowing a man to lock himself in a room without sustenance would cause that man to die. At the very least, you'd be charged with assisting suicide.
But supposing there were always people on standby to intervene if things went "too far". How far is too far? Far enough that he has lost so much weight that his life is in danger? If you intervene then, then you haven't got an answer regarding whether or not a man can live without calories. The delusional fool in question would claim that he was force fed because the Randi Foundation didn't want to pay out. If you take it further than that, you open yourself up to criminal liability.
No, they were quite right to reject that one off-hand.
Man of Honour
I'm not convinced it is either that simple or indeed that Randi would be opening himself up to legal action were he to set up the trial - I accept America may be somewhat different in regard to such matters but the principle of volenti non fit injuria (roughly translated - to a willing volunteer no harm is done) is liable to be in point here.
The conditions would have to be carefully monitored but in terms of safety you'd probably not need much more than a doctor or two to monitor the subject - at any point where it becomes clear they are no longer healthy then intervention will be justified. The chap claimed to be perfectly healthy with only water and "prana" so you test his health beforehand and then monitor it, any significant detrioration would be grounds to wave off the test and then it would be proven to any reasonable observer that the claim was untrue. I've got no doubt that some people would not be convinced but the point being that they'd not change their mind either way - however testing such things doesn't leave Randi open to claims that he's simply refusing to engage.