a warning for the skeptics

[brett]

self explanatory - as always make your own decisions ;

[Nostradamus]

Wacky.

For those who don't want to waste their time the speaker sits in a chair and claims 7 points. Forget the points because:

Points 1 and 2 are the same. He claims scientific evidence revealing the afterlife and gives none.
Point 3 is unsubstantiated.
Point 4 requires proving a negative. Logical fallacy.
Point 5 is begging the question. Logical fallacy.
Point 6 is an unfounded statement. Notice how he gives up on claims of evidence at point 3.
Point 7 is another unfounded claim. Again, he starts with claims of evidence which are not stated and now he drifts off into unfounded claims.

So basically the video is a guy claiming that there is an afterlife and he skips from claims of evidence to claims without evidence. I'm sure there are billions of other people that can attest to their own notions of an afterlife although details of the light, dark, planetoids, who's there to greet you differ.

[ProfWag]

Thanks ND for saving my time.

[brett]

[ProfWag]

[brett]

ah but our 2 resident skeptics have missed the point - the million dollars challenge is irrelevant - the point of the video is that those who are so skeptical OF an afterlife may well find themselves in not a very nice situation when they do pass over - now gents ( prof and Nostradamus ) - the question for you is this , accepted you are of the opinion that there IS no afterlife ( as you have no proof there is not any more that i have proof there is ) WHAT IF you are wrong and there IS some form of continuance ?? - and what if the simple act of AT LEAST having an understanding of what MAY happen to you can save it happening to you ??

you see the great thing about those of us who DO accept that there IS some form of continuance is this , if there IS , we have it covered , and if there is nothing ( as you seem to think ) - then whats to worry about ?? as it will be like going to sleep - but no waking up in the morning with rampant arthritis ,back ache or what ever ills you -we just wont know any thing - because there will be nothing to know ,( including of course that we where wrong about the whole afterlife thing ) - what i would class as a "win win " situation

OK you may say but you spent your whole life believing a fallacy - again whats to worry ?? - so i believed a fallacy - but i wont know i believed a fallacy will i ?? - because there is nothing - hence i will never know that - not an elegant way of putting it maybe - but you get my drift -( and of course there is the small side issue of IF there IS some form of continuance that YOU have beleived in the fallicy of there NOT being all your lives - which you will THEN have to deal with )

so come on guys indulge me for a mo and just consider the REAL premise of victors argument ( not being distracted by the million dollars etc )

or are you afraid to actually do so ?? , and i don't mean that in any derogatory way

[ProfWag]

Okay Brett, I'll bite. In your post, the mention of "God" was interestingly missing, however, you allude to saying there is a God since you say you would "have it covered." Though quite possible, I have yet to see anyone suggest that there could be an afterlife but absent of a God. If that's the case, then we both have that covered regardless of religious beliefs. True? So, it appears that you are asking about there being a God in the afterlife and why I, as an atheist, shouldn't belive in God "just in case." If I'm not reading between the lines with your statement appropriately, please let me know.
So, assuming that the above is accurate, then I offer the following. I consider myself a morally good person. Sure, I have my faults, but I honestly try to treat people I meet with respect and honor until they show me they don't deserve respect. I help people when I can and feel that generally, I am not a hinderance to society. From what I have seen, I am no different than those who assemble in a tax-free building every Sunday and praise some "perfect," higher being. So, if that God exists and he won't let me through the Pearly Gates because I was a morally good person but I just didn't believe in him, so be it. Of course, there would also be about 4 billion people over the next few years who don't believe in the same God as those who do attend an organized relgion who also wouldn't get in. (I'm referring to Christianity since those who are Christian believe that Jews, Muslims, Buddists, etc. can't make it there and the reverse is true of those religions.)
When I was doing my time in Iraq a few years back, one of my duties was to coordinate those who have died with getting their families notified and their bodies back to the US. I saw a lot of needless death, all because of a difference of opinion of religion. If there is an all-knowing God who has the power to do anything he wishes, as they say, and this God allowed all that needless death, then I'm not sure I would want to be associated with that God. (It was during this time that I changed my belief from agnostic to atheist.)
If someone believes in God "just in case," then is that a true believer? Wouldn't God be able to see right through that?
Thinking for a second outside the box, if ghosts exist and there is no God, then that could potentially make sense to me to have a spirit lurking the halls of old houses or wherever (though my critical thinking doesn't believe that is the case, though anything is possible). But if there is a God, would he allow his deceased to just hang around for a while? Shouldn't He be able to make a quick decision as to whether or not that person deserved a place in the clouds?

[brett]

[ProfWag]

As I mentioned in my post Brett, I really have never heard of anyone talk about an afterlife without a God, so that concept is kind of new to me and there isn't anything to get all mad at me for. If there is an afterlife and no God, then what the hell does it matter how we act while in our living, physical form? I guess if it's in that video, then I'll have to watch it after my football game is over, but don't expect a lot from me as I don't believe Vic is sincere with his beliefs.

[brett]

[ProfWag]

From my management background perspective, having a continuance without a leader would result in mass chaos with spooky people running around all over the place! Okay, just kidding. In all seriousness however, I thought about this possibility of no god but an afterlife, and I concluded that I still don't believe in an afterlife at all. I think Vic has taken the stance that ghosts can be explained by these people who didn't make it to the light, rather than more logical and more "earthly" explanations.
Why are we humans better than every other animal on the planet? If our souls live on, then so should the souls of every other living creature that ever lived. And if we have brains that help us reason, but the animals don't, then wouldn't the lost souls of these animals be roaming around for eternity? And if people see ghostly humans, should they not then be able to see the ghosts of all of these other creatures even more often? Yet, seldom do we hear of ghosts manifested as anything other than deceased humans. Again, and this, I would think, we could all agree on. Humans are animals. We are no better than chimps, horses, dogs, alligators, or fish. Based on Vic’s comments (see below), these other animals will never “make it to the light” since they can’t do those 3 things Vic says you need to do.
I'm watching Vic now, so let me submit the following comments concerning his video: (quotes are his comments to show what he says, not exact as I was not transcribing, word for word.)
Fact 1 was "science does not support those who argue against the afterlife." They don't? I've never read a peer reviewed journal article that even suggests there is an afterlife.
Fact 2: Science support those who argue for the existence of the afterlife.“ “if this then that.” Fact 2 is, well, pointless if Fact #1 would be a valid statement.
Fact 3: “The evidence for the afterlife is scientific and is repeatable.. No, it’s not and has not. Again, not one scientific, peer reviewed journal article supports his statement. Looking at his website, he refers to Dr. Schwartz’ experiments as scientific evidence and has been repeatable. Unfortunately, his experiments have fallen short of scientific credibility which is why he’s going to try again in 2011.
Fact 4: “Nobody (genuses, philosophers, etc.) has been able to show why the afterlife is not valid.” No, they haven’t. They also have not shown why psychics, Bigfoot, or aliens are not valid either. If Fact #3 was true as he says, then there would be no Fact #4 which is important to remember and understand why Vic’s statements are not credible and are misleading.
Fact #5: “Without exception, we will be crossing over.” If he means “dies,” then yes, I agree with it. However, he’s not referring to death as he goes on to say regardless of our religious beliefs, there is an afterlife. No, his statement has not been proven. If he means our souls go somewhere else, then no, he has no evidence for that as I referred to after Facts 1, 3, and 4.
Fact #6: “When we cross over, we will be met by a loved one or a friend who will help you cross over. It’s a wonderful place, a beautiful place, this realm of the light.” This he has obviously pulled out from deep within his ass. I think I now know why Scepcop has irritable bowels. I’ll bet Vic does also. How does he know this? What empirical, scientific evidence does he have for this? I’ll answer for you. None.
Fact #7: “Not everyone who crosses over will make it to the realm of the light.” Even more preposterous of a statement than Fact 6 as he has no scientific evidence for this.
He does on to tell us that if we want to go to the realm of the light, while on earth we must 1)“keep an open mind.” (read “believe in Victor Zammit”) 2)“We must help those who come our way.” (good suggestion) 3) While here, read about the afterlife (read “buy my books”.)

Brett, after reviewing this video with an open mind, and after skimming his website for his 23 proofs , his comments are unfounded, fact-less, based on personal opinion, refers to invalid experiments and are totally unscientific. I can’t subscribe to virtually any word he says (except helping people who come our way.) If one has a personal belief that there is no God but an afterlife, then Vic’s your man to have in your corner. I will not say for certain that there is no afterlife as (as you have said) neither one of us can prove it one way or the other, but it doesn’t make logical sense to me. And finally, please, don’t refer me to another of Victor Zammit’s comments, either on video or in words unless it is supported by solid, scientific evidence.

[brett]

ok prof - well thanks for giving it a fair go , i did not expect you to change your mind overnight - and actually would have thought less of you if you had

guess we will agree to disagree once again , but i do enjoy our discussions - as you post more than the one line comments much beloved of some skeptics

you will do for me

and yea OK no more of Vic's videos

[ProfWag]

Thanks. I try not to be a pseudo-skeptic, especially when I have the time...
And yes, you're fun to discuss things with. That's why I'm here. It upsets me to no end when someone posts something that is illogical to me, and when I counter, they run and hide (see Scepcop and our 9/11 discussions...but I'm not bitter... )
I will add this Brett, if ghosts exist, then his theory could potentially be more solid. What I don't understand from him, however, is what drew him to the conclusion that some make it and some don't and what 3 things we must do to make sure we make it to the light? I would love to see his research that brought him to that conclusion. It may be hidden away in his website somewhere, but I have my hands full with conspiracy theories...