Doubtful about my non-belief

TippFan77

I had been for many years a non-believer in life after death, but after I took up a challenge to have a clear-headed look at the evidence presented in favour of "survival", I have to say I'm no longer sure that life ends with the death of the physical body, brain etc.

I'm definitely leaning towards accepting that we do survive in some way, and I don't just mean in the memory of loved ones, or in some "collective unconscious" or as flowers or weeds, etc, but as actual beings with full consciousness.

I don't go for that hell, heaven stuff and I'm not into religion. I haven't been converted by someone handing out tracts.

It's not any one of the pieces of evidence that has convinced me, but a combination of the many areas of evidence...eg, the rigorously tested mediums, especially those availing of "direct voice"the NDEs were the subjects had been declared "brain dead" undering their experience, the cross correspondence tests.

It's easy to make any consideration of this subject look silly and laughable, but when you really consider the evidence closely and with prejudice, you may be surprised at your reaction. I was utterly entrenched in my own rejection of any belief in a any form of survival of death.

An intriguing website dealing with evidence for life after death is the one managed by a retired Australian lawyer who set out to see how strong case could be made for survival if one adhered to evidence only and excludeed personal belief and religious teachings.

Worth a look.

www.victorzammit.com

Sarky

Did you meet or talk to someone who, uh, survived death?

AhSureTisGrand

Lawyers are very good at arguing for a particular side, but perhaps not so good at choosing the right side

Edit: having had a peek around his site, he doesn't seem to be very good at arguing things either

TwoShedsJackson

That website is straight out of 1998 anyway. A quick look over the front page shows nothing that doesn't belong on any other crackpot webpage.

e.g.

The Miami materialist James Randy clock began in April

I'm sure James Randi must be wondering what got in his water :pac:

SCIENTISTS WHO INVESTIGATED THE AFTERLIFE AND/OR the PARANORMAL:
Here are more brilliant scientists and investigators who used their brilliant scientific knowledge to confirm there is an afterlife - and/or the paranormal. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sir William Barrett, Dr Peter Bender, Dr Robert Crookal, ... Dr Carl Wickland, Dr Carla Wills-Brandon, Professor Fred Alan Wolf, Drs Julie & Boccozzi Beichell (left),
Dr Victor Zammit..

I like the way he sneaks his own name in on the list of 'brilliant scientists and investigators'.

Is there a genius closed minded skeptic from Florida or New York, a genius materialist, a genius reductionist scientist willing to take up my challenge to duplicate for $500,000 what Michelle Whitedove has done to win Lifetime TV's award for BEST PSYCHIC IN AMERICA?

Yes that's quite some award :rolleyes:

BRILLIANT EVIDENCE OF MATERIALIZATIONS OF DAVID THOMPSON: We investigated materialization medium David Thompson weekly for 15 months. But the most spectacular evidence for the afterlife was when my wife Wendy's father materialized announcing his name. He was in the 'flesh'. He was speaking as when a loved one talks to you. It was his voice. It was his mannerism. No one in the experiment knew of Wendy's (pictured) maiden name. No one knew about the intimate circumstances raised by Wendy's father about their early life; no one knew about very special relationship she had with her brother. There was physical contact when her father kissed Wendy on the forehead. Further, Wendy's father materialised a piece of paper with his signature on it - which perfectly matched his signature on existing documents. Absolutely, that kind of evidence would have sent an accused to the gallows in a courtroom situation. Of course, the spiritually blind, deaf and dumb - and other dummies, would not understand the hugely great value of this magnificent materialization evidence.

Total lack of actual evidence.

I could go on, but then I'd have to trawl further through that embarrassingly atrocious website.

mikemac

A good lawyer spends years training their craft to convince people and get their view across.

Sure even OJ Simpson got off :rolleyes:

You're clearly checking different sources and that's good but the lawyer might be persuading you as realy, he'd be a pretty useless lawyer if had no skills in persuasion.

Dave!

OP why don't you choose the single best case that shows that life after death is real, present the evidence (supported by independent, verified sources, not just credulously ripped from some crackpot website), and we'll discuss it.

My money's on either (a) in most cases we can't track the genesis of the story, or we have to take someone's word on it, or (b) there'll be a sober, materialist explanation for it.

TippFan77

TippFan77 wrote: »

It's not any one of the pieces of evidence that has convinced me, but a combination of the many areas of evidence...eg, the rigorously tested mediums, especially those availing of "direct voice"

Could you provide some examples of these?

Cause the only rigorously tested ones I've seen have been unable to demonstrate any ability when the possibilities of cheating and psychological effects are eliminated.

I can't really imagine there's that much evidence

Beruthiel

Sarky wrote: »

Did you meet or talk to someone who, uh, survived death?

That survived should look more like this: "survived"

Tippfan, you haven't actually presented us with any actual, scientifically accepted and proven evidence.

What I am reading from your comments though, is a desperate need to believe there might be something else.
What has happened to you recently that has you feeling this way?

Beruthiel

Beruthiel wrote: »

What I am reading from your comments though, is a desperate need to believe there might be something else.
What has happened to you recently that has you feeling this way?

I'd be all over it if I were reading the same, but OP sounds hazy enough to me - "i'm no longer sure" and "i'm leaning towards"

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

That website is straight out of 1998 anyway.

That website hasn't convinced me that there is life after death, but it has convinced me that time travel is possible.

robindch

TippFan77 wrote: »

www.victorzammit.com [...] Worth a look.

Briefly. And from a great distance.

Somebody should be up in court for that page layout.

Zillah

TippFan77 wrote: »

the rigorously tested mediums

In my experience, any rigorously tested medium falls flat on their face. Could you point to any of these trials?

the NDEs were the subjects had been declared "brain dead" undering their experience

The flickerings of a dying brain. And I don't think a person comes back from being brain dead, perhaps you mean their heart stopped?

the cross correspondence tests

I've never heard of these before, but from a little research my first thought is this: If I took 12,000 pages of data over 30 years and couldn't find patterns amongst them, I would be very surprised. It also seems that this Victor Zammit is the main advocate of these documents. Surely if they were as conclusive as he claims they would get more attention? They wrote on subjects which the mediums were not experts in? That's hardly conclusive. Why didn't he lock a ten digit code in a box under guard at the society and convey that to a medium?

I really think you need to turn your sceptoscope up a bit.

eoin5

Have you considered cryostasis?

smokingman

eoin5 wrote: »

Have you considered cryostasis?

I was going to suggest investing in my monorail project....you even go into a tunnel and there's proof that people have seen a bright light at the end of it

CerebralCortex

eoin5 wrote: »

Have you considered cryostasis?

A survey of anti-cryonics research. There are actually very few good objections to cryonics. I assume that's what you mean by cryostasis?

eoin5

CerebralCortex wrote: »

A survey of anti-cryonics research. There are actually very few good objections to cryonics. I assume that's what you mean by cryostasis?

Yep, think I picked that up from a film or something

strobe

A quick bit of googling shows Victor Zammit saying in several interviews and on blogs (such as this one http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2009/08/interview-with-victor-zammit.html ) that the most convincing and hardest to refute piece of evidence (see question 4) he has come across is the 'materializations' of a guy called David Thompson.

For anyone that doesn't know what a materialization is, and what David Thompson does, basically he sits in a chair in the middle of a room with other people that want to be 'contacted from the other side'. He secures himself to the chair with restraints that he himself provides. Then he has the curtains drawn and the lights turned out so the room is pitch dark. Then, while he is secured to the chair in the pitch dark (so you know it isn't him doing it) he summons dead people into existence, where they take on an actual physical shape made out of ectoplasm, the ghost then touches people on the forehead or shake their hands, or causes a loud bang in the middle of the room or identifies itself as being an old man who's name begins with a C...no wait a G, definitely a G...yes, yes B, that's what I meant... this is Grandpa Billy here...

Now call me a 'closed-minded skeptic dummy' as Zammit puts it on his site several times but... if that is the best and most irrefutable single piece of objective evidence he has come across, I am not entirely 100% convinced.

ShooterSF

TippFan77 wrote: »

It's easy to make any consideration of this subject look silly and laughable,

Don't just write off that statement. It's always a good warning to be very skeptical about the subject. People don't ridicule an idea like psychics because it wouldn't be cool for them to exist. They ridicule it because the evidence for it is ridiculous.

but when you really consider the evidence closely and with prejudice, you may be surprised at your reaction.

Emm that's what happens when you consider evidence closely and with prejudice.

TippFan77

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

That website is straight out of 1998 anyway. A quick look over the front page shows nothing that doesn't belong on any other crackpot webpage.

e.g.

I'm sure James Randi must be wondering what got in his water :pac:



I like the way he sneaks his own name in on the list of 'brilliant scientists and investigators'.


Atrocious? Actually the evidence has never been refuted. Nobody has taken up the big reward for a rebuttal. Direct voice mediumship is very strong evidence for life after death, provided of course that this is closely supervised, the voices taprecorded, the medium utterly prevented from doing anything underhanded or engaging accomplices etc.

If you're sya that Leslie Flint for example somehow fabricated the evidence, then how did he do it??

Re "lack of real evidence"...what would be "real evidence" of life after death that would satisy someone who is utterly biased against accepting any evidence whatsoever confirming the reality of life after death?

TippFan77

ShooterSF wrote: »

Don't just write off that statement. It's always a good warning to be very skeptical about the subject. People don't ridicule an idea like psychics because it wouldn't be cool for them to exist. They ridicule it because the evidence for it is ridiculous.




Emm that's what happens when you consider evidence closely and with prejudice.

The evidence for many things has been dismissed as ridiculous down through the centuries...ridiculous to people who couldn't grasp or comprehend what they were dealing with.

TippFan77

King Mob wrote: »

Could you provide some examples of these?

Cause the only rigorously tested ones I've seen have been unable to demonstrate any ability when the possibilities of cheating and psychological effects are eliminated.

Leslie Flint...to repeat myself. No possibility of fraud or trickery. I presume you are aware of him and the many rigorous tests to which was subjected?

TippFan77

strobe wrote: »

A quick bit of googling shows Victor Zammit saying in several interviews and on blogs (such as this one http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2009/08/interview-with-victor-zammit.html ) that the most convincing and hardest to refute piece of evidence (see question 4) he has come across is the 'materializations' of a guy called David Thompson.

For anyone that doesn't know what a materialization is, and what David Thompson does, basically he sits in a chair in the middle of a room with other people that want to be 'contacted from the other side'. He secures himself to the chair with restraints that he himself provides. Then he has the curtains drawn and the lights turned out so the room is pitch dark. Then, while he is secured to the chair in the pitch dark (so you know it isn't him doing it) he summons dead people into existence, where they take on an actual physical shape made out of ectoplasm, the ghost then touches people on the forehead or shake their hands, or causes a loud bang in the middle of the room or identifies itself as being an old man who's name begins with a C...no wait a G, definitely a G...yes, yes B, that's what I meant... this is Grandpa Billy here...

Now call me a 'closed-minded skeptic dummy' as Zammit puts it on his site several times but... if that is the best and most irrefutable single piece of objective evidence he has come across, I am not entirely 100% convinced.

That was something Mr. Zammit personally witnessed, quite apart from the twenty two areas of evidence he presents as part of his case for the afterlife.

I'm not trying to convert anyone to what I strongly suspect is true, just sharing this suspicion, but I find the evidence is weighted very much in favour of life after death.

I mentioned Victor Zammit's site only because it brings together some of the strong pieces of evidence and his offer of a substantial reward to anyone on earth who can refute the evidence he has collated has to date not been taken up.

If James Randi or anyone else does actually refute the evidence, or indeed any one of the twenty-two areas of evidence he presents, then I'll admit to being to a complete idiot and feel deserving of ridicule.

ShooterSF

TippFan77 wrote: »

Leslie Flint...to repeat myself. No possibility of fraud or trickery. I presume you are aware of him and the many rigorous tests to which was subjected?

Some people yes. The Catholic church are a good example but I'm all for evidence. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I will become suspicious at the slightest likening to scam tricks.
For example if Derren Brown never told people he had no special powers I would find it hard to prove that he doesn't except that he uses similar actions to people that do scams well.
Looking at this Flint chap as another example my first question is why does he have to perform in total darkness? Or did I read that wrong? It's hard to think the supernatural is limited by light you would agree no? So as a skeptic my first concern is that the most obvious reason is it hides the trick. Is that not a normal reaction? Also if he channeled spirits did he ever have one speak fluent in a foreign tongue that he could not and if so how many? How rare were the languages?

TippFan77

TippFan77 wrote: »

Leslie Flint...to repeat myself. No possibility of fraud or trickery. I presume you are aware of him and the many rigorous tests to which was subjected?

No I'm not, please detail the tests and how they specifically eliminated the those possibilities?

TippFan77

Beruthiel wrote: »

That survived should look more like this: "survived"

Tippfan, you haven't actually presented us with any actual, scientifically accepted and proven evidence.

What I am reading from your comments though, is a desperate need to believe there might be something else.
What has happened to you recently that has you feeling this way?

Not a desparate need, just an acceptance, and a reluctant one at that, of the evidence for life after death. I'm not going to make a big case here, but do have a look at the site I mentioned.

One medium alone actually convinces me that we do survive in some form. That's Leslie Flint. Check up on his story and you'll see why. Voices of the "dead" continued to be heard at his seances AND TAPE-RECORDED even when he gagged and bound (hands and feet) and had water placed in his mouth to rule out trickery or ventriloquism. Relatives of the people whose voices were clearly heard and recorded confirmed the voices were those of the people they claimed to be.

OK, you'll probably demand to know if I was there to see any of this. I wasn't, but then I wasn't personally present at many other events either, but I accept the evidence of people who had impeccable credentials and who, in any event, couldn't have faked so many of the communications (and two or three way conversations between the voices and living relatives present) recorded.

I am not desparate to believe in life after death, but I suppose being human I am as prone as anyone to being annoyed with comments from people who clearly have not studied the subject, let alone studied it with an open mind.

What do you mean by "accepted and proven" evidence? accepted by whom?

Evidence has in the past been rejected when it didn't fit into certain pet theories and beliefs, whether religious "scientific", and later accepted.

MagicMarker

TippFan77 wrote: »

Voices of the "dead" continued to be heard at his seances AND TAPE-RECORDED even when he gagged and bound (hands and feet) and had water placed in his mouth to rule out trickery or ventriloquism.

Can you link me to video of this man talking with a gag and water in his mouth?

Oh wait, let me guess, only audio was recorded?

TippFan77

ShooterSF wrote: »

Some people yes. The Catholic church are a good example but I'm all for evidence. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I will become suspicious at the slightest likening to scam tricks.
For example if Derren Brown never told people he had no special powers I would find it hard to prove that he doesn't except that he uses similar actions to people that do scams well.
Looking at this Flint chap as another example my first question is why does he have to perform in total darkness? Or did I read that wrong? It's hard to think the supernatural is limited by light you would agree no? So as a skeptic my first concern is that the most obvious reason is it hides the trick. Is that not a normal reaction? Also if he channeled spirits did he ever have one speak fluent in a foreign tongue that he could not and if so how many? How rare were the languages?

He didn't "channel" the voices, and this is the thing that really fascinates me. The voices were heard independently of him, even when those anti-fraud measures, if I might call them that, were put into place. An infra-red device was attached to his threat to detect any action of his vocal chords and this showed up nothing. So where did the voices come from?

To be honest, to perpetrate a fraud on that scale over several years and manage to delude all the witnesseses including scientists is actually more difficult to believe than in the strong possibility of life after death.

And Flint is just one person who has provided such evidence.

TippFan77

TippFan77 wrote: »

One medium alone actually convinces me that we do survive in some form. That's Leslie Flint. Check up on his story and you'll see why. Voices of the "dead" continued to be heard at his seances AND TAPE-RECORDED even when he gagged and bound (hands and feet) and had water placed in his mouth to rule out trickery or ventriloquism. Relatives of the people whose voices were clearly heard and recorded confirmed the voices were those of the people they claimed to be.

And when they did all this they kept him in absolutely full view to insure that he didn't use simple magician tricks to slip the bonds, right?

TippFan77

MagicMarker wrote: »

Can you link me to video of this man talking with a gag and water in his mouth?

Oh wait, let me guess, only audio was recorded?

Those experiments were witnessed by scientists. He did not "talk" with the gag and the water etc. That's the whole point. He didn't talk at all during the seances..the voices were heard independently of him. I suggest you study his case and see what you think.

TippFan77

King Mob wrote: »

And when they did all this they kept him in absolutely full view to insure that he didn't use simple magician tricks to slip the bonds, right?

That was ruled out repeatedly. And even he was running riot around the room, managing to avoid bumping into the witnesses present, the throat microphone would have picked up any attempt to SPEAK, to whisper, let alone conduct lengthy conversations in vaeriety of unfamilar accents.

And bear in mind that those experiments were conducted by very sceptical people. You really need to do some research on this. I get the impression that some people are terrified that their personal belief in non survival of death is threatened. I can almost hear the nervous laughter!

Sorry guys, just tell me how Flint faked it and I'll buy a drink for everyone on this forum!!

Bloody Nipples

TippFan77 wrote: »

Those experiments were witnessed by scientists. He did not "talk" with the gag and the water etc. That's the whole point. He didn't talk at all during the seances..the voices were heard independently of him. I suggest you study his case and see what you think.

If scientists witnessed such an event which would definitively prove that the dead are contactable, then I'd assume they'd publish a paper on it for submission to a peer-reviewed journal.
Can you link to such a paper or, as I suspect, does such a paper not exist?

ArtSmart

Em, OP, no 'absolute' can be proven. that's why it's an absolute.
(including absolute zero, )

so it's a matter of personal choice.

Seeking absolute assurance tends to lead to cynicism or extremism or the taking up of snow-boarding.

best to go with your own instincts on this one. IMO.

MagicMarker

TippFan77 wrote: »

Those experiments were witnessed by scientists.

Which scientists?

TippFan77 wrote: »

He did not "talk" with the gag and the water etc. That's the whole point. He didn't talk at all during the seances..the voices were heard independently of him. I suggest you study his case and see what you think.

I'm convinced, there's clearly no other simple explanation at hand here!

strobe

TippFan77 wrote: »

That was something Mr. Zammit personally witnessed,

Yes, he personally witnessed a pitch dark room... What is your point?

robindch

TippFan77 wrote: »

To be honest, to perpetrate a fraud on that scale over several years and manage to delude all the witnesseses including scientists is actually more difficult to believe than in the strong possibility of life after death.

You need conjurers to unmask a conjurer.

TippFan77

TippFan77 wrote: »

That was ruled out repeatedly. And even he was running riot around the room, managing to avoid bumping into the witnesses present, the throat microphone would have picked up any attempt to SPEAK, to whisper, let alone conduct lengthy conversations in vaeriety of unfamilar accents.

And bear in mind that those experiments were conducted by very sceptical people. You really need to do some research on this. I get the impression that some people are terrified that their personal belief in non survival of death is threatened. I can almost hear the nervous laughter!

Sorry guys, just tell me how Flint faked it and I'll buy a drink for everyone on this forum!!

Now note the question was "was he kept in full view the entire time?".
You didn't answer this question.
Why?

I can take a very good guess at how he was able to manage to do what sounds like a very typical fake medium routine, but first I need important details like whether the crowd were able to see or not.

ShooterSF

OP for someone who has taken a so call clear headed approach you have skimmed over some valid points made in this thread re: Mr. Flint. Why did he have to be in the dark? Also, on further googling, why are seemingly all the people who talk independently of him regardless of their nationality speaking English?

I'm sorry if you think we're being critical here but we are because his claim is an extraordinary one and as I said before the best way for an idiot like myself to spot a conman is not to figure out how he's conning me, as good conmen can hide their tricks well, but to recognise oddities about his actions whose occurrences would make a scam easier if that was what he was doing and pitch black room and the dead speaking in his native tongue are two oddities that stand out to my clear headed approach.

Turtwig

Next Time the room is pitch black use Thermal Vision to see through the veil he's behind to verify if he's chained in the chair.;)

18AD

Even if there is life after death, what is it's relevance? How does it impact you now that you are alive? Does it actually have a bearing on how you live?

kiffer

... Medium is restrained in the chair... I assume that the chair, ropes, bonds and throat mic were supplied and fitted by a someone trust worthy?

Could someone have entered to room, spoken to and touched people?
Could one or more of the people in the room been plants, who when the lights went off moved round, touched people and spoken in funny voices?

Dr. Loon

It is not for us to prove that mediums are dishonest, it is for them to prove that they are honest. - Houdini apparently.

An experiment done in the dark is an instant fail for me. That's all I need to know.

mewso

Here is a link to me singing - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO2xm8LZWVA

I sang this song while tied up and gagged in a dark room with approximately 12 million people in attendance yet they all heard me singing. This cannot be disproved.

Turtwig

mewso wrote: »

Here is a link to me singing - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ5TajZYW6Y

I sang this song while tied up and gagged in a dark room with approximately 12 million people in attendance yet they all heard me singing. This cannot be disproved.

You ****er!:mad:

Mark Hamill

Dr. Loon wrote: »

It is not for us to prove that mediums are dishonest, it is for them to prove that they are honest. - Houdini apparently.

Didn't stop him disproving them though, he was part of the Scientific America committee that offered $5000 to any spiritualist that could prove their abilities, and debunked several quite thoroughly.

mewso

Malty_T wrote: »

You ****er!:mad:

Sorry to avoid irritation I have linked to me singing a better song.

So, some guy ties himself up with restraints that he has provided himself, using instruments that he has provided himself, and he does all of this in the dark. What amazes me is that somebody could find this in any way convincing.

If he's genuine, then:

• Let an independent third party restrain him using retraints provided by that third party.
• Let another independent third party provide and set up any and all instrumentation, including any and all mircophones.
• If he needs to be in the dark, the use of infra-red or thermal cameras shouldn't affect him. These should be set up to record the entire room the event is being carried out in.
• Let any and all members of the crowd be previously unknown and random individuals selected and provided by yet another independent third party.
• Let the entire event be carried out in a random, unknown building, which Flint or any of his associates have never seen nor stepped foot in before.

If he did the above, with each step being independently verified, yet again, then I might just pause for consideration. But, until Flint does something like the above, in my eyes he's just another charlatan.

Tim Robbins

TippFan77 wrote: »

Worth a look.

www.victorzammit.com

There is a book called: 'The God Impulse: Is Religion Hardwired into the Brain?'
by Kevin Nelson which looks at the delusions people have as they die. They are essentially similar to the ones you have when you dream. The brain is capable of all sorts of things.

I go for a scientific approach before a lawyer any day.

magicbastarder

TippFan77 wrote: »

That was ruled out repeatedly.

by whom?
who or what is your source that all this was carried out completely without bias or flaw?

Dades

In case anyone's wondering - whydoc's useless post in this thread and all subsequent replies have been relocated (to the recycle bin).

the culture of deference

TippFan77 wrote: »

I had been for many years a non-believer in life after death, but after I took up a challenge to have a clear-headed look at the evidence presented in favour of "survival", I have to say I'm no longer sure that life ends with the death of the physical body, brain etc.

I'm definitely leaning towards accepting that we do survive in some way, and I don't just mean in the memory of loved ones, or in some "collective unconscious" or as flowers or weeds, etc, but as actual beings with full consciousness.

I don't go for that hell, heaven stuff and I'm not into religion. I haven't been converted by someone handing out tracts.

It's not any one of the pieces of evidence that has convinced me, but a combination of the many areas of evidence...eg, the rigorously tested mediums, especially those availing of "direct voice"the NDEs were the subjects had been declared "brain dead" undering their experience, the cross correspondence tests.

It's easy to make any consideration of this subject look silly and laughable, but when you really consider the evidence closely and with prejudice, you may be surprised at your reaction. I was utterly entrenched in my own rejection of any belief in a any form of survival of death.

An intriguing website dealing with evidence for life after death is the one managed by a retired Australian lawyer who set out to see how strong case could be made for survival if one adhered to evidence only and excludeed personal belief and religious teachings.

Worth a look.

www.victorzammit.com

Crazy nonsense

You die. Your atoms go on to be something else.

If external full consciousness existed we would not need our bodies to exist.

Here is a ? for all you fairytale believers.

What % of your personality is attached to your physical attributes