I hope you have something better to do this fine Saturday evening
than sit around answering this thread, Jeffro. We just went for a walk,
had a nice dinner, filled the car for less than two bucks a gallon and
returned to find three responses from you on this topic.
Huh... I made a few responses in the space of just a few minutes, but for some reason you felt the need to imply that I'd spent the whole day dwelling on your silly thread while you went about much more exciting things like... fuelling your car.
regarding the above, I reckon it all depends on what one means by
"demonstrated" and "evidence." I recall the words of Thomas Jefferson
who, after hearing an account of meteorites falling over Connecticut on
December 14, 1807, was reported to have said: "I would more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie than that stones would fall from heaven."
A 19th century politician is not an authority on meteorites.
that time, even the most learned of scholars would have laughed their
heads off at the notion that rocks could fall out of the sky, even
though there were credible witnesses who claimed otherwise. In like
manner, there are numerous witnesses from all religions and walks of
life who claim to have left their bodies, seen and conversed with God,
angels; seen visions, and we use various criteria to judge the veracity
of what they say. The more skeptical someone is in any given area,
whether it be the existence of God, the reality of revelation, life
after death, Bigfoot, the Big Bang or the theory of evolution, the more
resistance will be exerted as part of the cognitive process. And the
more invested someone is to a certain way of thinking, the less
resistance will be exerted. I've had personal friends that I've known
for years and whom I trust. And though none has ever had a near death
experience, they have had experiences that fall into the paranormal
There is evidence of meteorites. Anecdotes are not evidence, and nor is the sincerity of the claimant. It's amusing how you try to shoehorn the 'theory of evolution' into your little list of things about which to be skeptical. There is evidence for evolution (and I do hope you're not abusing the word 'theory' in some unscientific context).
The question of the paranormal is one, the question of the
theological is another. It seems to me that if one is true, so is the
other. If there are evil spirits roaming the earth, it stands to reason
that it is balanced by good.
Theological claims are a subset of paranormal claims.There is no evidence for either the subset or the superset. Even if 'spirits' did exist, that provides no basis for asserting that 'good' and 'evil' ones would necessarily be 'balanced', nor by what standard said spirits would be judged to be 'good' or 'evil'.
You attempt to explain away near
death experiences by saying they're the result of the uncontrolled
release of neurotransmitters in the brain. This has never been proven to
be the cause of near death experiences, especially when brain activity
is flat. Also, this theory cannot explain the exchange of intelligence
that takes place -- such as learning things one didn't know, but which
are true. Some people can recite conversations that were taking place in
other rooms between hospital staff or family members, or scenes they
had witnessed many miles away that they were later able to recall in
Citation needed. I am not aware of any such verified cases carried out under controlled conditions.
Atheists shut out things they can't understand, or don't want to understand. Then they resort to ad hominem attacks and ridicule in an attempt to discredit it.
You seem to be employing an invalid definition of atheist. Atheists do not believe there is evidence of a deity. That's all. There is nothing precluding any particular atheist from having a belief in any other 'paranormal' phenomena (though many atheists are also skeptical about other things for which there is no evidence).
Most skeptics examine evidence rather than resorting to ad hominem (which was itself a false ad hominem attack on your part). Skeptics are generally skeptical where there is a lack of evidence.