If all religion is false then why is....

[(Q)]

Ok, here's the evidence:
- The Journal
- The hypnosis tape
- Polygraph test

Polygraph tests are not evidence.

Then he took a polygraph to confirm that he had no knowledge of the painter or the journal or anything, etc...

Polygraph tests are not evidence.

Surely this consitutes as some type of evidence...if it doesn't then what does? What will constitute as evidence of the afterlife? Nothing for you atheists....

Anyone can make up stories and fool a polygraph. I would like you to present THE evidence of an afterlife, not someones anecdotal story and some hogwash about polygraphs.

 

[Fire]

Without of course knowing anything about this particular case, I have to ask, how easy would it be to fabricate evidence of such a thing?

Since hypnosis and polygraph tests are inconclusive... from a skeptical point of view we would have to assume that he was not 'under' hypnosis, and that the polygraph test merely concluded that he was a good liar... it leaves the possability that this guy simply educated himself on someone in the past then spoke about it whilst pretending to be under the spell of hypnosis.

Not saying it worked out in that particular way, but there are surely a variety of more likely explanations other than him coming to knowledge that was not gained in his brains lifetime. I mean, it's not like people can't be conned by supernatural lovers. With a little bit of planning, it would be easy to come up with a convincing story of the supernatural.

 

[SkinWalker]

The only thing a polygraph demonstrates (assuming the administrator was experienced) is that the person believes what was being told. If the polygraph were administered during hypnosis, the results are invalid, since hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness -one that is already questionable and varies from person to person. At the very least, the person being "hypnotized" allowed him/herself to be in a highly suggestive state.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Does anyone else realise that Vital is doing exactly what he accuses us of doing? I.E. assuming his own conclusions as 100% true and accepting absolutely no arguments against it, no matter how weighty or logical.

Vital one is using the following "proofs" of the existence of god -

Proof from numbers:
(1) Millions and millions of people believe in God.
(2) They can't all be wrong, can they?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

with a little helping of -

Argument from Offense:
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist makes counterarguments.]
(3) You know what? I am offended (well I gather as much when he goes 'you fools')
(4) Therefore, God exists.

Vital, your premise is unsound and illogical; tried, tested and failed.

 

[spidergoat]

What will constitute as evidence of the afterlife? Nothing for you atheists....

Nothing like a personal testimony. A person's personal observations are not reliable evidence. People can be delusional, they can have hallucinations, mass hysteria, insanity, optical illusions, and don't even get me started on the pineal gland as it relates to DMT and NDE's.

 

[VitalOne]

Nothing like a personal testimony. A person's personal observations are not reliable evidence. People can be delusional, they can have hallucinations, mass hysteria, insanity, optical illusions, and don't even get me started on the pineal gland as it relates to DMT and NDE's.

its not just personal testimony...its the fact that the information revealed under hypnosis matches the reality of the painter who existed...

its like I said you atheists request evidence but refuse to accept any evidence, almost as if you've already made up your mind to disbelieve, no different from theists....What type of evidence do you want? What would be concrete, real evidence that would prove that there was an afterlife? I'm sure you can't answer this question because you've already made up your mind to not believe in afterlife

 

[Fire]

its not just personal testimony...its the fact that the information revealed under hypnosis matches the reality of the painter who existed...

its like I said you atheists request evidence but refuse to accept any evidence, almost as if you've already made up your mind to disbelieve, no different from theists....What type of evidence do you want? What would be concrete, real evidence that would prove that there was an afterlife? I'm sure you can't answer this question because you've already made up your mind to not believe in afterlife

It's far more probable that it was a set up. Just like 'evidence' of aliens visiting Earth is most likely a setup. Hypnosis and lie detector tests are not realiable methods for presenting a fact. It just leaves us with the more likely chance that he set the whole thing up. It would be easy to look into the life of someone in the recent past, go under 'hypnosis', tell them what you learned, they go looking for evidence to see if you're right, and what d'ya know - they find it.

Memories are formed after birth, not before it. This is just plain common sense.

Do you believe any of the mountains of 'evidence' that aliens are visiting Earth? If you are a rational person, you should be strongly skeptical and employ occams razor to extravagant claims based on ambiguous 'evidence'.

 

[VitalOne]

It's far more probable that it was a set up. Just like 'evidence' of aliens visiting Earth is most likely a setup. Hypnosis and lie detector tests are not realiable methods for presenting a fact. It just leaves us with the more likely chance that he set the whole thing up. It would be easy to look into the life of someone in the recent past, go under 'hypnosis', tell them what you learned, they go looking for evidence to see if you're right, and what d'ya know - they find it.

Memories are formed after birth, not before it. This is just plain common sense.

Do you believe any of the mountains of 'evidence' that aliens are visiting Earth? If you are a rational person, you should be strongly skeptical and employ occams razor to extravagant claims based on ambiguous 'evidence'.

Thanks for confirming what I just said...you request evidence but you won't accept any evidence...again what evidence do you people want? Its almost as if you've already made up your mind to disbelieve, no different from theists.

Also about the memory thing:
SB 11.22.39: When the living entity passes from the present body to the next body, which is created by his own karma, he becomes absorbed in the pleasurable and painful sensations of the new body and completely forgets the experience of the previous body. This total forgetfulness of one's previous material identity, which comes about for one reason or another, is called death.

 

[Fire]

You really don't get the point do you? It is ambiguous evidence which clearly does not match the extravagant nature of the claims. So long as the most probable interpretation of 'evidence' is a set up/hoax, then it will be discredited by default.

If you are asking what evidence I would require for supersitious bollocks, then I would ask that you come forward with something that can not be easily interpreted as a hoax and a con.

Also about the memory thing:
SB 11.22.39: When the living entity passes from the present body to the next body, which is created by his own karma, he becomes absorbed in the pleasurable and painful sensations of the new body and completely forgets the experience of the previous body. This total forgetfulness of one's previous material identity, which comes about for one reason or another, is called death.

This is not evidence. It's supernaturalist bollocks based on superstition.

 

[VitalOne]

You really don't get the point do you? It is ambiguous evidence which clearly does not match the extravagant nature of the claims. So long as the most probable interpretation of 'evidence' is a set up/hoax, then it will be discredited by default.

If you are asking what evidence I would require for supersitious bollocks, then I would ask that you come forward with something that can not be easily interpreted as a hoax and a con.



This is not evidence. It's supernaturalist bollocks based on superstition.

Again...forget about everything else...what evidence would you require? What would be credible, concrete evidence for an afterlife?

 

[Godless]

Again...forget about everything else...what evidence would you require? What would be credible, concrete evidence for an afterlife?

There's no way to produce this kind of evidence, though the claim is made by theist, they should be the ones providing the scientific emperical evidence. However how can one prove BS?

Lie detector tests, just cause some one hallusinated a "past life?" non of this subjective crap could be credible or substantited as emperical evidence, there's no way one can prove that such an absurdity as "lifeafterdeath" exists!

We only can tell ya what we have observed, no one including your messiah has returned from death! Well perhaps Jesus is back, but he happens to be locked away in some insane assylum!

 

[VitalOne]

There's no way to produce this kind of evidence, though the claim is made by theist, they should be the ones providing the scientific emperical evidence. However how can one prove BS?

Lie detector tests, just cause some one hallusinated a "past life?" non of this subjective crap could be credible or substantited as emperical evidence, there's no way one can prove that such an absurdity as "lifeafterdeath" exists!

We only can tell ya what we have observed, no one including your messiah has returned from death! Well perhaps Jesus is back, but he happens to be locked away in some insane assylum!

right...so let me get this straight...once again atheists continously ask for evidence but never accept any evidence....

what type of evidence would be credible to prove any afterlife?

you're saying no evidence can be gathered...therefore you've already made up your mind to disbelieve, NO DIFFERENT THAN THEISTS

 

[heliocentric]

I think there is a common thread throughout all religions based on holistic/profound experiences. I do see real validity in these experiences, although i dont see the validity in the post process of justifying them.

 

[heliocentric]

Nothing like a personal testimony. A person's personal observations are not reliable evidence. People can be delusional, they can have hallucinations, mass hysteria, insanity, optical illusions, and don't even get me started on the pineal gland as it relates to DMT and NDE's.

People can also have externally real experiences that simply lie outside of our framework of understanding, i think thats always worth remembering too, along with the other possiblities of hallucination/fraud/mistaken perception etc.
A great example of a latter verified 'impossible' experience would be the discovery of sprites by high altitude piolets.

 

[Fire]

right...so let me get this straight...once again atheists continously ask for evidence but never accept any evidence....

what type of evidence would be credible to prove any afterlife?

you're saying no evidence can be gathered...therefore you've already made up your mind to disbelieve, NO DIFFERENT THAN THEISTS

Once again (sigh), we need evidence that can not be easily explained as a hoax. Once we have evidence that makes an experience or existence of an afterlife the MOST PROBABLE theory behind the evidence, then we can talk. But of course you won't find any evidence like this, because it is rather obvious by way of empiracle evidence that we are alive only as long as our brain is alive.

There is no amount of personal testimony or evidence that is easily faked that will prove alien Earth visitation, the Loch Ness monster or an afterlife.

 

[VitalOne]

Once again (sigh), we need evidence that can not be easily explained as a hoax. Once we have evidence that makes an experience or existence of an afterlife the MOST PROBABLE theory behind the evidence, then we can talk. But of course you won't find any evidence like this, because it is rather obvious by way of empiracle evidence that we are alive only as long as our brain is alive.

There is no amount of personal testimony or evidence that is easily faked that will prove alien Earth visitation, the Loch Ness monster or an afterlife.

True, I agree, mostly. Personal testimony is useless in science. But if someone had concrete evidence of alien life or the Loch Ness monster, like say a DNA sample of an alien, or an element that didn't exist on Earth, surely that would constitute as real, concrete evidence. Same for the Loch Ness monster.

So what would be concrete evidence for an afterlife, soul, God, prayer, etc...what type of experiment could be conducted.....what type of real evidence could be gathered?

 

[Fire]

True, I agree, mostly. Personal testimony is useless in science. But if someone had concrete evidence of alien life or the Loch Ness monster, like say a DNA sample of an alien, or an element that didn't exist on Earth, surely that would constitute as real, concrete evidence. Same for the Loch Ness monster.

But that is only possible if aliens really are visiting Earth, or IF there is actually a Loch Ness monster. If they aren't, then gathering such evidence is impossible.

So what would be concrete evidence for an afterlife, soul, God, prayer, etc...what type of experiment could be conducted.....what type of real evidence could be gathered?

Again... assuming that there is an afterlife, a soul, god. You can only gather evidence by observing something that exists, and despite the volume of believers in these things, they have produced nothing - they effectively do not exist. Prayer has already been proven useless however by many experiments. Pray to a ball point pen one day and 'god' the next, and so on... you will have the same effect.

 

[VitalOne]

But that is only possible if aliens really are visiting Earth, or IF there is actually a Loch Ness monster. If they aren't, then gathering such evidence is impossible.

Yeah, but I'm saying that would constitute as real evidence that they really existed. Its not a question of if they exist or not, its what would constitute as real concrete evidence that they did exist.

Again... assuming that there is an afterlife, a soul, god. You can only gather evidence by observing something that exists, and despite the volume of believers in these things, they have produced nothing - they effectively do not exist. Prayer has already been proven useless however by many experiments. Pray to a ball point pen one day and 'god' the next, and so on... you will have the same effect.

Actually, if there was no such thing as faith, then there would be such thing as a placebo effect.

Also, this isn't a quesiton of whether its true or not, this is question of what evidence would verify that they it was true.

You atheists refuse to even accept any evidence in anyway, yet you continously ask for evidence...the irony

 

[Fire]

Actually, if there was no such thing as faith, then there would be such thing as a placebo effect.

I accept that 'faith' (or delusion) exists.

Also, this isn't a quesiton of whether its true or not, this is question of what evidence would verify that they it was true.

How can you come up with an experiment for something that you can't observe?

You atheists refuse to even accept any evidence in anyway, yet you continously ask for evidence...the irony

Still waiting for you to come forward with evidence that doesn't have 'hoax' as the leading theory behind it...

 

[VitalOne]

How can you come up with an experiment for something that you can't observe?

So if no evidence can be gathered then atheists can never again say they don't believe because there is no evidence.

Still waiting for you to come forward with evidence that doesn't have 'hoax' as the leading theory behind it...

But you just said that no evidence can be gathered...who can come forth with anything besides personal testimony, lie detector tests, etc....

You're only verifying what I just said about atheists how they've already made up their mind to disbelieve...making them non-different from theists who have made up their mind to believe...