atheists would you trust this man?

Question

this is my mentor and one of the most amazing men I have had the pleasure to meet
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/researchers/roy.htm
I see so often Atheists argue that there is no proof for an after life and science has more to do with its time etc
yet there are so many scientists working in this field and discovering all sorts of evidence
you like your science ... but why do some of you pass by scientists that are discovering this type of evidence ?
are you as blind as the religious that you are so quick to put down at times ?

ggrr you all with your brains lol

browse the site and some of archies articles

in regards to Randi
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

the site is huge with many links and articles
do your own work from here lol

a better link perhaps
http://www.sspr.org.uk/Aboutus.html

Answer 1

Er, I don't see any evidence there - just a man's biography. Was I too blind to see something?

I didn't see any evidence on the site either. I'd have thought if they had evidence for something supernatural, they'd have put it in the forefront, but I couldn't find any.

I don't want to jump all over you, and I know that I might be the one who's wrong here, but it looks to me as though you are imagining evidence where there isn't any. Perhaps I just didn't click on the right links there, but again, I'd have thought that if they had any evidence, they'd have put it out where it couldn't be missed.

I suspect that you meant it literally when you asked if we'd trust that man. If so, you're really missing a major point. Science isn't about credentials. I don't trust ANY scientist: I want evidence. That's how science works.

To Sutter-Cane: Arthur Clarke is an atheist, and definitely does not believe in the supernatural. You're quoting one of his works of science fiction, and the event described was to have had a perfectly natural physical explanation anyway.
================
I browsed the site, and didn't see any evidence. How about you post a link to some of it?

To be frank: I don't think there's any evidence there. I could spend all morning looking to see if there is, but I don't see why I'd do that. If there's evidence there, as you claim, you must already know where it is, so of course you should simply post it.
====================
I take your reply as admission that you don't know of any evidence.

Take an honest look at what you just did, and you'll understand exactly why honest people reject the supernatural. To summarize,
- You claimed that there is "all sorts of evidence" for an afterlife, and posted a link to a site.
- There was no such evidence on that site.
- It at least seems as though you believed that there was, but you were and still are unable to show us any.

The only reasonable conclusion is that you're simply assuming that there's evidence.

Honesty demands that you rethink your position, and at the very least, stop falsely accusing the rest of us of ignoring evidence.

Answer 2

Hey Pangel. Not quite sure if I count as an atheist, but I don't believe in a 'creator God', so for sake of this argument I'm going to assume the role of honorary non-believer, if that's OK?

I agree with "If psychical research does nothing more than continually shake complacent assumptions about fundamental questions concerning mind, consciousness, volition, that alone is a significant contribution to science."

And I would certainly listen to Archie Roy. Though I have difficulty understanding exactly 'what' might survive death that can have a 'consciousness' or 'communicate' with the living.

I guess I'm happy with my 'don't know' position. Though I would assume that, were there satisfactory evidence, it would have made the headlines by now, this being one of the 'great questions' and all. So I remain open to be persuaded. Will that do?
.

Answer 3

Pangel, I have yet to find any studies where the subject matter isn't as equally well explained by neuroscience. Everything the brain experiences physically is filtered through layers of interpretation, that's just how it works. Buddhist meditation is all about learning to recognize those layers as simply that, interpretation. Most of us don't have that training, so we do the best we can to make sense of those experiences. Along the way, many paradigms like NDE have been developed and it's quite easy for the interpretation to take those lines.

Victoria-era 'hauntings' often occurred after the installation of gas into a house. People then experienced hallucinations near the gas leaks. There was no visible cause and the ghost paradigm became prominent because it fit the observable facts -- people 'saw' strange things in certain locations.

For me, it's been a long slow conversion from a spiritual viewpoint to a physical-causality one. Spiritual explanations have important uses psychologically, but unfortunately they can also be misused. I used to read Tarot and saw it not as messages from elsewhere, but as a way of accessing different parts of my brain. It's a method of cutting through the human tendency to over-think.

I don't know what your experience is and I certainly won't say that you're wrong in any way. I would look for additional explanations, with the aim of making your practice stronger. The better we know ourselves and understand our own biases, the more accurate our intuition and interpretations become.

Answer 4

Most of the things that fall into the "supernatural" category I can pretty much say I don't believe. For that matter, I wouldn't put much stock in any of it, since all the evidence for these things is hearsay and highly unreliable.

On the other hand, I wouldn't completely rule all of it out. The idea that one person could read the mind of another, for instance, is highly unlikely but, If you could go back in time a couple hundred years, plop a radio down in front of someone from that time period and make it work its "magic," you'd be accused of witchcraft.

Until such a time (if any) I see convincing evidence, I'll continue to brush the idea off and forget about it, but I'm not about to completely discount the possibility.

Answer 5

I personally would not go near the amazing Randi. There is no way to prove anything to him. Real or unreal he would always find decide that there was fraud and proving him wrong would be just as hard as proving to Him you were the real thing.
He is ego centrec and will not accept any evidence that cannot understand. …Mawdy

Answer 6

I wish I could hear someone speak seriously on the subject of psychic abilities. This man, Mr/Dr. Roy, seems like a very sweet, intelligent and open minded guy. Lucky you for being able to learn from him! I am jealous!

Answer 7

Okay, I read some of it.

I won't be buying a used car from him.

I think the evidence is more like wanting to believe.

How many scientists are the "so many" I wonder?

Are they all represented on this site?

I'll bet the journals "Science" & "Nature" are falling over backwards to publish their work...........or are they falling over backwards laughing?

Answer 8

because of the fact they're caught believing the different imperfect adult men who declare it to be fake devoid of any genuine info. To have faith those human beings reasons THE ATHEIST DISOBEDIENCE to stand OUT! have you ever observed that for one thousand's of years there have been one thousand's of tries with the aid of atheists and students and intellectuals to disprove the Bible with actual no fulfillment in besides? The Bible has on no account been shown misguided! on no account! So, understanding that, what does it rely who God used to place the pen to paper, so as to communicate? of path they weren't appropriate each and each of the time. Gods notice notwithstanding, has been shown appropriate!

Answer 9

Unless his evidence is repeatable by other scientists, it is not compelling.

I have seen this man on TV and he is interesting, but I never got the impression he was trying to convince atheists.

Answer 10

The art of atheism is to keep open to all possibilities, although we say there's no afterlife, we didnt have enough proof of this, so we keep working, we simply say that there isn't any because that's what those few people really think. But atheists like me know that you can be sure of anything unless you have proff so while we say theres no god, theres people out there finding proof.

No one can say anything unless they have proof of it, thats why I hate REALLY religious people who say science is evil and god is great. We have overwhelming proof on what we try to prove and all you have is an outdated book.