Mega-thread for help with rebuttals against skeptical talking points

I deleted my last post because I find myself in less agreement with the Johann Scale**. Also Johann's own position at the time was friendlier to field research than his humorous scale indicated.

But basically there will always be some correlative state, even with NDEs. That an influx of DMT is the argued for correlation is interesting in itself from a proponent perspective.

**For the record ->

The Psi Spectrum

1/2. The Ancient-Crystal-Sage: "Spoon is a vibration of energy. Commune with it."

1. The Plunger: "Oh my god, it's almost all real! The best science we have supports NDEs, psi, apparitions; the whole enchilada!"
2. The Edgewalker: "The paranormal is a wide place, but also occasionally people are stupid."
3. The Skeptical Believer: "People are mostly stupid, but we can't dismiss it all"
4. The Super-Skeptical Believer: "Raw information transfer is the only thing in parapsychology that is real."
5. The Agnostic: "On Tuesdays I'm a believer"
6. The Fence-Sitter: "I'm not decided on psi because the evidence is undecidable."
7. The Cautious Skeptic: "Psi probably does not exist."
8. The (un)Cautious Skeptic: "Psi definitely doesn't exist."
9: The Crusader: "Avant gentlemen! We shall drive back the Woo, for Science!"

10: The Auto-Masturbatory-Scion-of-Reason: "Casinos, James Randi, and this argument I pulled out of my ass invalidate psi; I piss on your evidence!"

I'm surprised nobody's made a poll using that spectrum. Out of curiosity, where would you place yourself Sci, even if you disagree with it?

I'm surprised nobody's made a poll using that spectrum. Out of curiosity, where would you place yourself Sci, even if you disagree with it?

It's just too inaccurate, why I deleted my post where I was using [it] in my argument.

After reading an old thread is posted, I was reminded of a question: Has PsienceQuest ever discussed the Phineas Gage case? Isn't that one of those 'lobotomy' cases physicalists/materialists often reference when talking about brain damage 'significantly altering a person's identity' or something? 

I've seen it very briefly discussed on Skeptiko as a case that's been interpreted in different ways.

After reading an old thread is posted, I was reminded of a question: Has PsienceQuest ever discussed the Phineas Gage case? Isn't that one of those 'lobotomy' cases physicalists/materialists often reference when talking about brain damage 'significantly altering a person's identity' or something? 

I've seen it very briefly discussed on Skeptiko as a case that's been interpreted in different ways.

It's the same as all the other cases of temporary personality alteration, it's why Irreducible Mind brings up the analogy of a salt solution.

Of more interest is when brain damage/change reveals hidden talents or spiritual insights.

Of more interest is when brain damage/change reveals hidden talents or spiritual insights.

I've often wondered if it is linear logic that prevents us from seeing our mind's full potential.  Maybe anything that interferes with linear logic can potentially open the doors to alternative insights.

I'm assuming that's referring to acquired savant syndrome?

I'm assuming that's referring to acquired savant syndrome?

That, NDEs, psychedelics boosting Psi, whether psychedelic imagery works with blood reduction to the brain..not to say I am advocating psychedelics as I've never used them myself.

See What do we know about the risks of psychedelics? & free documentary What's in My Baggie? There is an incredible danger in thinking you can just find good psychedelics via illegal markets, I can say that from personal experience as I was attacked by a friend who thought LSD could cure his depression.

Found this on a video from Russell Brand on YT discussing his beliefs on life after death. When someone mentioned Bruce Greyson, this comment was made:

His journal articles are only supported by Christian apologists and not others because he makes assumptions, has circular arguments and there are other conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence he references...He hasn't received a Nobel Prize yet because there are other interpretations of his work that are more credible..

Is there any truth to this at all? To my knowledge, I've only ever seen his books be promoted by 'Christian apologists'. Much praise for him has come from colleagues and others in the field who aren't as well known, as well as (as we now know) Sam Parnia (who isn't religious). I don't think Greyson was ever Christian himself-to my knowledge he has never expressed a religious affiliation. To my knowledge his studies ARE peer-reviewed but not necessarily by Christians. 

To my knowledge there haven't been a great deal of legitimate, decent criticisms of Greyson's work either that don't commit logical fallacies and make unsupported assertions themselves. John Cleese ain't a Christian either and he's praised and been convinced by his work.

Considering the rest of his rant was aimed at theists and Christians I'm betting he jumped to conclusions after a very quick Google search. 

Of course this pseudoskeptic did not elaborate on what he meant by 'assumptions' and 'circular arguments', and did not give any examples of these (he didn't even mention near-death experiences) but he got a few likes anyways. I question whether he actually read his 'journal articles' and just jumped to conclusions.

The best thing is to read Greyson's work for yourself.

Christian Apologetics has very little to do with NDEs or parapsychology in general.

I'd be curious to see which Christian Apologists have promoted Bruce Greyson. Please link to some sources.