Making a case for "Life After Death" -- but false claims won't make it real

In CSM online version, 12/10/09  --- http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20091209/cm_csm/ydsouza

my letter to editor/CSM
Concerning Dinesh D'Souza, "Life After Death: The Evidence."  [His words are in italics]

First, you print an "opinion" piece by him, but it is more like a testimonial for his latest book. Opinion too? Yes, but really.... it is more of a ‘buy my book, make me rich” piece.

Second, he, like ALL religionists, twists facts, or uses only the part that might support his opinion, rather than using everything available to reach a valid conclusion.

So that I am not accused of taking comments ‘out of context’, below are excerpts and my comment.

He takes facts from several sources and mixes them together, then draws a conclusion. But since he didn’t keep the facts straight, the conclusion is false:
Alarmed by the obvious implication of near-death experiences, atheists have been laboring assiduously to explain them away. Today, the best atheist explanation is that near-death experiences are the result of a dying brain. When the brain irreversibly breaks down, psychologist Susan Blackmore contends, it generates special effects that closely track the near-death experience.
There are several problems with this theory but one fatal one is that many survivors of clinical death are now going to work, looking after their families, and functioning just fine. So much for an "irreversible" breakdown.

NO ONE claims that near-death experiences are the result of “irreversible” breakdown. Here he OUT RIGHT LIES. The actual claim is that it results from oxygen levels being so low that people are close to, or in the process of, passing out. Just as several things can cause “tunnel vision”, low oxygen being a major cause, so too can it cause “a white light” as the eyes shut down, or the brain shuts down. “Irreversible” is just that - death of at least part of the brain; any later recovery of the person is because other parts of the brain can take over some functions, as shown BY SCIENCE.

He further states:
I don't claim to prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt, but I do claim to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Well, at least the statement is rational, though I doubt he really means it. And he has NO evidence, but merely claims to have it.

He further states:
"Is it good for me to believe?"  [His quotes, not mine]

For me, the clear answer is yes. If there is no life after death, we are like passengers on the Titanic: We can rearrange the deck chairs and turn up the music, but we are ultimately doomed. By contrast, if there is life after death, we can face death with serenity, viewing it is a gateway to another life. Also we have reason to hope that good will eventually be rewarded and evil held accountable. Moreover, recognizing that our terrestrial existence is part of a larger drama, we can forge a sense of lasting purpose in our lives. So not only is belief in an afterlife reasonable; it is also good for us.

He is making the case for “hey, what could it hurt?” or “let’s CLAIM to believe just to be on the safe side”. In other words, he ADVOCATES HYPOCRISY. He is clearly saying that you should attend church, and tell all your friends, and AT LEAST GIVE LIP SERVICE to “I Believe”, because IF there is an afterlife WITH GOD then you will be safe.

But that assumes that “God” would not know what is really in your heart - that you are doing it “just in case”. IF there is a god, and your bible tells you that making false claims is wrong, don't you think that you would be sent to ‘hell’ by your ‘god’ for false testimony? Face it, to claim all is OK is hypocrisy. (I had a co-worker claim to be a good Catholic, but daily he threatened to kill me, and said he would sleep fine afterwards. He even wanted me to attend his church so I could 'meet a nice girl'; I pointed out the hypocrisy - he said it was not, but soon after started down the hate road. Yea - typical christian.)

And he also try’s to put in some science by claiming that “Heaven” could be another dimension. Again, hypocrisy; Nothing in the bible, written by MEN with the “direction of God”, brings up alternate dimensions or anything even close to the concept. Here D'Souza is trying to trick non-believers and followers of science into “belief” by a ridiculous claim with no substance behind it.

His comment:
One of the direct implications of the Big Bang is that not only did the physical universe have a beginning, but space and time also had a beginning. Space and time are properties of our universe. This means that in realms beyond our universe, if such realms exist, there might be no space and no time. Suddenly the Christian idea of eternity is rendered intelligible.

Again, selecting various facts out of context to support an invalid conclusion. Science states that other dimensions will almost certainly (we have not been there so there is no proof) have different qualities, including the passage of time. Perhaps a what would feel like a week to us there could be 1,000 years here (much like the Einstein equation shows that moving fast will make your timeframe be different from a person on Earth), but to claim that might be ‘heaven’, in fact he practically outright states so, is again just stupid.

To cut this short -- if you think “God” wants a bunch of hypocrites who give lip service to “believing”, go with his “proof”. But don’t expect “God” to forgive you. If you want to go with the REAL EVIDENCE, then do like I do: accept that THIS is all there is, and look for your “rewards” here in this 'plain of existence', do good, follow the “Golden Rule”, and refuse false claims.

Global Warming - Debate, not Politics

Posted on Global Warming FACEBOOK page (12/06/09)
Many doubt that GW is happening at all -- even with pictures of glaciers melting that are over 10,000, even millions, of years old. So for them - there is no stupidity quotient that can measure your brain function.

BUT - what is the main cause? Is man 95%, or 5%, of the problem? There are too many 'scientists' being paid to fit data to political agendas. Liberals want to paint man as the main cause, conservatives don't.

Other groups want to jump to action now, even though there is no solid evidence showing where to even start, beyond lowering emissions in general will help.

Face it - the whole thing can be looked at as a job creation exercise. Make jobs studying; jobs controlling pollution, etc.

So let's get some jobs done by scientists to provide real FACTS -
what are temp controlling gases and OTHER factors in GW?
what sources generate them, and at what amount per year / decade?
what part is man-made?
what part of animal"
what part is 'natural' (volcano, water, frozen methane underwater)?
what can be done about EACH SOURCE, even if totally natural?
what JOB can be created to fight each source?

"Conservatives" need to get behind the job aspect. They are always screaming about "private sector jobs", so they SHOULD be BEHIND all the debates, and pushing for answers so they can create jobs.

Of course, who would be the ultimate employer? YOU!! Because even though you will pay for a filter, or bottled water, etc, NONE of you want to pay for the air you BREATHE. Governments will be forced to TAX the COMPANIES that create (NOT barter like coal pollution) the problems, then dole out the money to companies that clean it up.

Maybe someone will find a good analogy  -- how about garbage pickup? You pay a company directly, or through local taxes, to clean up the things produced by another company that you purchased.

Now you need to PAY TAXES TO BREATHE, and to not get FLOODED OUT on the coastal plains areas, to have DRINKING WATER in interior parts of the country (snow-melt provides a lot to the rivers), and much, much more.

But to claim it is not happening at all -- your education system failed you. Ask for a refund because your IQ is still that of a 5 year old.