SCEPCOP Forum

He says on the infidels forum that their is NO EVIDENCE FOR A EXTERNAL MIND/SOUL. He then says their is variable repeatable evidence that the mind is a process of the brain. I said to him that the evidence from brain damage, drugs that effect the mind, lomotomies, alzheimers, dementia and fmri studies are open to interpretation. Even though the production is the simpliest theory that could account for these observations, it may not be true. The opposing theory that i among others have put forth is that the brain is a advanced receiver and filter of consciousness. This theory is consistent with the overwhelming scientific evidence for life after death and psi. Of course he goes ignoring this evidence, with escapes such as.

- Demeaning words such as calling all of my links supportive of psi and life after death as "cranky"
- Claiming that i don't read the links i post on the forum, which i have read them so that is an out and out lie.
- Saying that their is no theory for life after and psi, clearly ignorant of the fact their has been theories put forth.


And here is a very comical statement from him

"You can believe anything you want especially if it helps you get over your fear of death. But, if you sacrifice facts and evidence for comfortable faith then you have no claims to truth... You should admit as much and dedicate your time to understanding your faith rather than justifying it through false means".

Good one lol yes i admit i have had a fear of death, but of course we can't rule out the issue of rather their is life after death or not, by simply saying what that is a fear mechanism build in all humans [among all other species]. That it clouds my judgement and that i must be wrong because of that fact. I also mentioned that another member named Ashurbanipal on the forum has posted evidence from near death experiences and the Benjamin Libet experiments. What did he say?.

"He is posting speculation, feelings, intuitions, philosophical musings but not detail.... besides it is irrelevant anyway since there is no evidence for the existence of the soul... science fiction authors are able to provide lots of details too".


Adamwho mentions

You don't seem to understand, although it has been spelled out to you time and time again:

It doesn't matter what anybody believes (no matter how prominent), what matters is evidence. There is no evidence for you position and mountains of evidence against it.

My response to him was

That is the point i have trying to get to you, i have presented tons and tons of evidence from well respected scientists your excuses are

1. The evidence is too old
2. Cranky sites
3. Has no clue what he is talking about

I ain't saying to accept the work done on epileptics that give evidence for dualism, or Sir John Eccles, as is well known, some physical evidence that does suggest mental causation. Libet et al. suggest parallel tracking of phenomenal experience, brain events and volitional acts (Libet et al., xxi), and Velmans provides a convenient summary of evidence of mental causation from both physical and clinical sources. To weigh and consider, the same with the evidence for the cross correspondences, poltergeist phenomena, apparitions, premonitions, psi phenomena etc. May i ask you something have you ever been suspicious of some of the evidence you see of mind being an emergent property of the brain? If you haven't been the least bit suspicious then obviously you accept everything you see and hear. For me i am truly suspicious of some of the evidence for survival and psi but overall it appears to be mostly genuine.

Anyways if you like to read all of the exchanges we have had with this topic entitled " Poll for mind-body dualism {souls, spirits, or whatever you call them].

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=271494&page=5

I wouldn't waste too much time in debates like that. They don't go anywhere, and the skeptic just denies and denies. Tell him he has a "faith based denial" of evidence.

The thing is, if you push it to the end, you can reach a point where you have evidence and questions that he CAN'T answer, while you can answer all of his questions and arguments. At that point, all he can do is deny or become silent. Such victorious are costly in time and energy though.

Why don't you show him the post by Eteponge about "Skeptics not knowing the elementary basics about apparitions"? Here is the link to it:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=117

Copy and paste the content of the post if you have to, since he may not follow the link. It contains points he can't possibly refute, only deny. Then, when he starts denying all the arguments presented in that post, call him on it and tell him that he is doing a "faith based denial" of what doesn't fit with his a priori beliefs. At that point, he will probably start insulting you with ad homineum attacks since he is left with no more good arguments.

That is the pattern these debates usually follow, if you do them right and strategically. If you follow the pattern I outlined above, you can nail him in a corner, but it will be costly in terms of time and energy.

I agree i have to post this one because it tells you how insulting skeptics can be [the closed mind type of ones]

I say,

Here you are putting up a strawman!, their is far more reason to think that the mind is separate from the brain the other things you mentioned are not self evident whatsoever. Peer review has weaknesses that you fail to grasp, such as the fact that the peer reviewers themselves choose what goes into the peer review process and what doesn't.

Adamwho says,

After telling you over and over....

There is no evidence (verifiable, testable, repeatable) that the mind in independent from the brain... the people you are citing for evidence are either, liars, ignorant, or stupid... I think you are just ignorant... which is a compliment because I still have hope for you. [He still has hope for me woohoo lol]

Considering your strawman accusation... it is nice that you are using philosophical terminology again... I thought I lost you to pre-enlightenment mysticism.... but anyway your accusation is so much hot air because you are misusing the term... I am not claiming that you holding an easy to refute position that you do not hold as a way to discredit your argument!! You actuall hold a really stupid position that is easily refuted with any freshman psychology book. It is like arguing with a child who claims that 1+1=3 but doesn't even understand arithmetic. [Putdown saying that i am dumb!]

I don't need to refute anything you say... I am the one supporting scientific consensus... you are the one supporting the crank ideas of psychics and the soul; the burden of proof has been in your court for a 150+ years! You are the one (or your ilk) that has to over turn a mountain of scientific evidence, not me... one might be tempted to say "put up or shut up" but the truth is, I want you to keep on your nonsense so that i can write scathing commentary for lurkers to read.... it is theaputic for me and educational for them. Only I wish you would be more creative.... I would also like you to reassure me that you are not a mental patient, it is a waste of time to argue in such a case (Note: I am not and never have been) {My goodness so now i am a mental patient]