Dr. Jeffrey Long’s, God and the Afterlife, Science & Spirituality Have Collided |327|

It's morning in Australia and I've just read through the forum discussion regarding Jeff Long's interview which I listened to a couple of days ago. Thank you for the spirited and intelligent forum discussion, it is fascinating to read and I am impressed by the quality of discussion. I am agnostic about survival but really want to believe as my wife died of cancer and I would love to know we could be reunited. Skeptiko and the forum discussions give me real hope. Thanks to Alex for such a great show and the forum.

Sorry for your loss Doug. I have lost numerous family members to cancer myself, including my father when I was very young. It's a ruthless disease. I too am still questioning survival, but the more I research about near death experiences, the more it seems evident to be likely.
 
I respect you Steve. And like you, I have my own criteria. One of the things that I don't like is seeing someone address a group of users that are honestly trying to engage him and say something along the lines of "I'm a professional and require real evidence"... What exactly were the other users trying to share with him (for several pages) if its not evidence?

IDK, maybe I'm simply not able to appreciate the condescendence that is so prevalent in millenial dialect and feel no remorse when responding with my own.
Remember, it can take a while (I'm not sure I'm totally there yet!) to get to grips with what qualifies as evidence on this forum, especially given the apparent vitriol directed at science in general. It can be very confusing and he isn't the first (and may to be the last) medical practitioner to be bullied from the site.
 
Supposed medical practitioner.

I don't [think] there's much vitriol directed at science on this site.

edit: I'd even say proponents have a more genuine interest in science than pseudoskeptics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Remember, it can take a while (I'm not sure I'm totally there yet!) to get to grips with what qualifies as evidence on this forum, especially given the apparent vitriol directed at science in general. It can be very confusing and he isn't the first (and may to be the last) medical practitioner to be bullied from the site.

Fair point on the first. I don't agree with the title of Alex's book and think that having a section named like that may give the impression of rejection to science as a whole. I quote papers often, and recognize their usefulnes.

I don't agree on the second, he wasn't bullied, being a dick will get you a cold shoulder quickly. If anything, he was the one bullying people flashing a purported diploma and posting a series of mesmerizing and extraneous posts about born again Christians against people that are either not Christian or, even those that are, have the capacity to see beyond the cartoonish black and white God/Satan argument that he used.
 
Remember, it can take a while (I'm not sure I'm totally there yet!) to get to grips with what qualifies as evidence on this forum, especially given the apparent vitriol directed at science in general. It can be very confusing and he isn't the first (and may to be the last) medical practitioner to be bullied from the site.

perhaps... but from my perspective, he didn't seem very open to learning... and mainly seemed to confront those who believe these phenomena indicate there is an afterlife (one which is rather like this life, but much nicer).
 
Fair point on the first. I don't agree with the title of Alex's book and think that having a section named like that may give the impression of rejection to science as a whole. I quote papers often, and recognize their usefulnes.

I don't always agree with the title Alex chose either but IIIRC he did let Sheldrake criticize the title in the very intro of that book.

Can you see "skeptics" like Shermer or Coyne ever doing that?
 
Sorry for your loss Doug. I have lost numerous family members to cancer myself, including my father when I was very young. It's a ruthless disease. I too am still questioning survival, but the more I research about near death experiences, the more it seems evident to be likely.
Thanks Lincoln, It is a ruthless disease and seems to often strike the young, my wife was 54 but had no risk factors. Sorry for your losses too and I hope I too will be convinced we survive and this veil of tears is only a prelude to something better ahead.
 
Small Dog was in a tradition of posters who feign objectivity and a desire to learn, only to deal in materialism 101. He regurgitated every half-baked skeptic retort, and dreamt up a few of his own. Michael Shermer says he doesn't require an apprentice.
agreed.
 
If you have a degree prove it otherwise zzzzz. And even if you do have a degree that not give you all knowning knowledge
 
I don't always agree with the title Alex chose either but IIIRC he did let Sheldrake criticize the title in the very intro of that book.
Yeah, I just don't like having an entire subforum with that name, it gives easy targets to the woo woo crowd. I didn't criticize the content of the book at all, just noted that the title is a magnet for misinterpretation.

Can you see "skeptics" like Shermer or Coyne ever doing that?

Nope.
 
Remember, it can take a while (I'm not sure I'm totally there yet!) to get to grips with what qualifies as evidence on this forum, especially given the apparent vitriol directed at science in general. It can be very confusing and he isn't the first (and may to be the last) medical practitioner to be bullied from the site.

The other, I assume, was Linda, right? We could have a whole other discussion about why she went but I'd remind you that she was given numerous chances and she even had proponents saying that, for all her annoying ways, she often added relevant data. My own view was that she was a deliberate spoiler. I'd also remind you that sceptics on this forum are not bullied in anything like the manner that "woo believers" are torn apart on materialist/atheist boards and blogs though that in no way justifies any nastiness here.

You maintain the usual sceptical stereotype of the anti-science proponent but you know, after being here for years, that science is debated at length here with some very science-savvy people. EthanT, KeithA, Sciborg, David Bailey, to name but a few. I think we all appreciate science but are justifiably disappointed when scientists become blinkered by ideology. To keep harping on about how proponents are closet Christians (as per your little gem about capitalising the g in God) is pure misrepresentation.

As for Small Dog, while he reminded me of Linda in some ways he was entirely more volatile and quick to attack. Like Linda, he pushed his medical credentials to the forefront of his arguments as though to say, "I'm the expert here, you need to take notice". He had no problem with belittling forum members or other doctors/scientists/writers who did not share his scepticism. If proponents are to be accused of bullying, let's not pretend that SD was the cowering kitten.

All he [Long] has established - like all NDE research before him - is that people feel all kind of shit when they are close to death, some of which cannot be explained by the traditional near-physiological concepts. That's it. God and afterlife? Probably worthy for Sunday Bible class, but not for the podcast claiming to follow the data.

However, as I said, this is a private site with private views and agenda, and therefore I am wrong when I question "groundbreaking conclusions" of the study conducted by the person for whom the host has sympathy. Fuck it, I am taking all this way too seriously. The view here is one-sided, and the outcomes of the interviews are determined before the start. No argument against the survivalism is good enough, and because very little is known about consciousness one can come up with any ideas about it, never mind how wild and far fetched. Once again, nothing wrong with it. Unless you pretend to be a researcher looking for the truth.

It's simply not possible to have an argument here, let alone win is, is it?

Yeah, that's what all doctors are, patronising jerks. No compassionate type among them, except for those who study NDE and come to survivalist conclusion, is that it?

There are other examples but you get the gist.
 
Wow, a Like, Malf! Ok, ok - I owe you that beer. ;)

By the way and FYI, I arrive in Kiwiland on 19th. October. RIght now I'm living among the boxes.
 
Wow, a Like, Malf! Ok, ok - I owe you that beer. ;)

By the way and FYI, I arrive in Kiwiland on 19th. October. RIght now I'm living among the boxes.
I'm in a good mood :) Mrs malf and I celebrating 20 years of marriage... had a fun weekend.

Kia ora and welcome to NZ. If you're ever heading north pm me and you can come and help yourself to some avocados. Chur bro!
 
I'm in a good mood :) Mrs malf and I celebrating 20 years of marriage... had a fun weekend.

Kia ora and welcome to NZ. If you're ever heading north pm me and you can come and help yourself to some avocados. Chur bro!

Congratulations on 20 years and thanks in advance for the avo's.
 
As for Small Dog, while he reminded me of Linda in some ways he was entirely more volatile and quick to attack.

What if you were posting on a sceptic forum, with the majority of your posts being opposed, sometimes aggressively, don't you think you might be tempted into reacting somewhat aggressively on occasion. I don't see Small Dog as being particularly prickly on this forum.

I think you/we should look more honestly at our own bias's. That's where I think we'll find the problem. If that's what this actually is?

I could find examples of proponents being very aggressive, but that's not really the point. I welcome such spirited displays on both sides, as long as it is not the default personality of any poster.

Ask yourselves, will the forum be less or more without Small Dog?
Without skeptics this forum would have nothing to say, still we love to kick them out. I guess we won?
 
Ask yourselves, will the forum be less or more without Small Dog?
Without skeptics this forum would have nothing to say, still we love to kick them out. I guess we won?

Oh - I was not suggesting that Small Dog should have been banned. I don't think he should have left and I also don't think Alex should have been so quick to remove his membership. After all, I've taken leave of this forum in a huff before and have never had my membership revoked so, after a cooling-off period, I've come back to join the discussions. There are clearly some occasions when a ban has to be considered but I don't think Small Dog had yet justified that, even though I found some of his comments arrogant and provocative.
 
What if you were posting on a sceptic forum, with the majority of your posts being opposed, sometimes aggressively, don't you think you might be tempted into reacting somewhat aggressively on occasion.

Just to tackle this one: I wouldn't last 10 minutes on one of those forums - I'm almost too thin skinned for this one!
 
Back
Top