Quote from: Astargath on May 31, 2017, 05:03:28 PM

Quote from: qwik2learn on May 31, 2017, 04:54:23 PM

Quote from: qwik2learn on May 30, 2017, 04:53:47 AM

Quote from: qwik2learn on May 25, 2017, 06:17:52 PM

Quote from: Horacewoodwood on May 22, 2017, 01:33:03 AM

Quote from: qwik2learn on May 22, 2017, 12:50:07 AM

Quote from: Horacewoodwood on May 20, 2017, 05:40:49 PM

Badecker is a religious fanatic, of course he would deny evolution. He believes himself to be some kind of renowned scientist, he reinterprets and redefines scientific laws, he believes in God but he is not religious, he is a God himself as he knows God's will, he understands how God is and he is also kind to forgive us for our blasphemy. He might also talk to God and save us from his wrath if we maybe say that he is right and the rest of the world as we know it is not. He does with science the same that he does with his religion. He claims in its name but denies it. Some might say he is full of himself but I have to disagree. He is not full of himself. He is full of shit.
Cool

It is a law of science that a simple theory is more plausible than a complicated one. Another law is that a plausible theory must adequately address the entire body of evidence. What is the plausible and simple theory/explanation for the 40 cases from AECES? Answer: Survival of the personality.
I perceive that non-survival explanations given by you are neither adequate, nor simple.

I'm sorry, but how did you link your answer with my post which was about Badecker? I need some time to read all those cases, research and give you my opinion on them, so you have no answer from me, yet you replied to my post about Badecker as if it were my opinion on that matter.

Thanks for reading the cases, they really are, in my opinion, some of the strongest proof available.
I am still waiting for a rebuttal for these cases, it must include an explanation that is simple and adequate, but to me it seems that survival is the most simple and adequate.

I am still waiting for a rebuttal of the top cases demonstrating the survival of the human personality after the demise of the physical body.

These observations strongly support the survival hypothesis. What do atheists and humanists have to say about the compelling evidence presented here?

How could a rational atheist explain this evidence?
There is not even one post of real discussion of the evidence by the pseudo-skeptics in this thread.
The 'skeptics' in this thread are embarrassing themselves when they should be examining the ideas presented above.

''some of the strongest proof available.'' Give me a fucking break, they are all bullshit. There is no real testable evidence for any of them, they rely on eye witnesses.

Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=22550

Everything is debunked there, many times. Don't post shit like this please.

Quote from: qwik2learn on May 31, 2017, 09:45:54 PM

Quote from: Astargath on May 31, 2017, 06:31:43 PM

Quote from: qwik2learn on May 31, 2017, 05:58:29 PM

Af newbie is an expert on mental health?
I am skeptical. Cool

Have you read the link or are you going to try to avoid talking about it. You asked for arguments against your shitty proof and I delivered, do you have questions or perhaps there is something there that you don't agree with?

Did not find addressed the Eisenbeiss case listed as #1 on AECES. Many of the problems are not valid and rely on misdirection. For example it is a problem if a researcher "believes in God also" but prior beliefs are not exactly relevant to evaluating the presented evidence objectively. Also there was no plausible alternative hypothesis presented. Skeptics did not meet their burden of explaining the evidence simply and plausibly.

apparently qwik2learn is not exactly too qwik2learn Grin