In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 6:40:20 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:


By religious people like you, it is assumed to be a spirit,
of course. A lot of people are victims of wishful thinking.

Just like atheists are.

Only the hard atheists which claim there cannot be any suprebe being in
existence. You cannot accuse the soft atheists for this, they merely
claim we don't know if there is a supreme being or not.

You're describing agnostics, not atheists.

I'm mostly describing myself here. I consider myself an agnostic, but you
have called me an atheist several times. Which means that in your
vocabulary, someone who claims we don't know if there is a supreme being
or not is an atheist.



The only measurement of a human body losing weight you can point tois
one single measurement made by one individual in isolation. Even you
admit that it is a very meager set of empirical data. More empirical
data is needed before any reasonably reliable conclusion can be
made, either way.

You keep trying to dismiss the data. Why? Does it make you
uncomfortable?


I mean, who would wish lack of knowledge? Some religious people of
course, but not others.

No one wishes that, but some do unconsciously.

You also assume that those meager data (one measurement by one
signle
person, which has never been replicated by anyone else) are trustworthy.
Any sane person would instead want confirmation by other intependent
measurers before finding it worthwhile to even start speculating what it
is. Girst it must determined whether it is, or not.

You keep applying strict scientific procedures as an argument, but you
seem to keep forgetting that I have stated that the PROBABILITY that
spirits exist (and therefore God exists) must make atheists question
their position. Although there are no additional experiments that
confirm MacDougall's data, there are also no experiments that refute it.

And you strongly exaggrregate this probability, calling it "almost
certain", "99%", "99.9%" or whatever.

That's what a scientific analysis concludes. Haven't you investigated that?
Why not? Is it because you can continue to think wishfully?


I have now found, and read, the Wikipedia article about this experiment,
which can be found he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment

And I have to conclude that you're a fraud, a chead, and a liar. SInce
you call yourself a Christian, let me remind you of the 8th commandment:

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"

If you're not a hypocrite, you should take this seriously.

So how did you lie? Well, you admitted that the data from MacDouball is
meager, and has not been replicated. But you have falsely claimed that
there is no data suggesting that the human body does not lose mass at
death. And then you have, several times, asked "isn't one measurement
more statistically significant than no measurements?". And you've been
babbling about 99% confidence leve, "almost certain", and other nonsense.

Well, guess what? There **are** measurements failing to show that the
human body loses weight at the moment of death. To be more precise, these
measurements were performed my MacDougall himself !!!

MacDougall measured the weight of six different people while they were
dying. In five of these six cases he failed to find any weight loss at
the moment of dearth. In only one of these six cases did he find a weight
loss at the moment of death.

MacDougall himself stated that the experiment would have to be repeated
many times before any conclusions could be made. But it has not been
repeated by anyone else, so therefore we cannot conclude that the human
body loses weight at the moment of death. In the available data, it did
not lose weitgh at the moment of death in 5 cases out of 6.

You write "That's what a scientific analysis concludes. Haven't you
investigated that?" about your claimed 99% confidence level. Now, please
share your scientific "analyssis" which concludes, with 99% confidence
level, that the human body loses weight at the moment of death when in 5
of the 6 available cases it does **not**. Describe your method in enough
detail so it can be repeated by anyone who wishes to do so. Your
description should include:

1. Initial assumptions.
2. The method you have chosen.
3. The initial data.
4. Your calculations.
5. Your result.
6. Your conclusion, including the motivation for your conclusion.

I'm awaiting your description. If it doesn't arrive, I see that as a
confirmation that you indeed are a fraud, a cheat, a liar and a con
artist.