Near death experience - did he really mean that?

In discussing these matters with my son in law who is an ardent athiest, he has stated to the effect of: I would love to believe that I would get to live forever with my loved ones and it's ok if people find some solace in such irrational beliefs but I choose to be a true stoic and give up such childish beliefs. I find plenty of awe and wonder in the natural world as it is without having to impose such patently false notions.  He also loves it when children have such wonderful fantaises that make them so happy. I also notice a conspicuous unwillingness for him to even consider any evidence to the contrary and a sense of loss and resignation that seems ot accompany his position.

Have you ever challenged him to make good on his claimed determination to strictly follow scientific reason and logic, and consider some (in fact a large body of) suggested evidence? You could point out that closed-minded rejection of data without examination and without furnishing conclusive ironclad arguments for rejection is hardly a truly scientific position and indicates that he is really a member of a faith-bound religion. You even might point out William James's "black swan argument" that it is obvious that all it takes is one "black swan case" (i.e. one case of unexplainable paranormal afterlife evidence, out of many evidential cases) to prove that black swans exist (that valid undeniable cases of the evidence favoring survival do in fact exist).

And you also could point out that his ardent rejection of the existence of God is not logically connected to the existence of the afterlife. It could conceivably be the case that there is an afterlife (as attested to by a boatload of evidence that he has closed-mindedly rejected), while there being no God of any description including the Judeo-Christian.

This person has apparently taken in the nihilist materialist point of view whole hog and with him it is a matter of faith in the religion of scientism. One can't logically argue with matters of religious faith, but the logical argument try could possible get through if there is at least some doubt in the nihilistic system. The inner psychological reasons for adopting this faith is a matter for another discussion.

Who are the “they’s”? I always had a hard time believing in “cigarette man” (x-files)

I don't personally think there's a massive conspiracy but there are definitely people who want us to reject the possibility of Psi and Survival for varied reasons...and I do think some of those reasons are tied to either a callous disregard for suffering or a hunger for top-down control. In both cases it requires us to think of our fellow humans as something less than they are...or at least could be.

“There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.”
  - C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory.

And you also could point out that his ardent rejection of the existence of God is not logically connected to the existence of the afterlife. It could conceivably be the case that there is an afterlife (as attested to by a boatload of evidence that he has closed-mindedly rejected), while there being no God of any description including the Judeo-Christian.

This is a peculiarity which often strikes me, so many times we will hear someone state that they cannot accept some psi or 'paranormal' phenomenon because they are an atheist. I suspect it might be that the meaning of the words is not considered seriously enough.

I don't personally think there's a massive conspiracy but there are definitely people who want us to reject the possibility of Psi and Survival for varied reasons...and I do think some of those reasons are tied to either a callous disregard for suffering or a hunger for top-down control. In both cases it requires us to think of our fellow humans as something less than they are...or at least could be.

“There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.”
  - C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory.

So do you think these people are organized in any way (probably not as you don’t believe in a conspiracy) and do you think they have any apriori knowledge about Psi and Survival not commonly known?

Apologies for selectively quoting a tiny fragment of your interesting post.

The 'nothing before he was born' is, I would say, an assumption, a proposition to form a basis for an argument certainly. But is it supported by evidence? Evidence is always the sticking point I think.

Of course I accept that he likely has no recall of anything. But in everyday life there are many things of which we have no recall, but we can be certain that they took place - at least as certain as we can be of anything. In my interpretation, his position is a simple act of faith, a chosen belief.

Still, the more important question is, does it cause harm? Probably it doesn't, it might even be helpful. At any rate, I don't think we can or should expect a single orthodox view, it is valuable to have differing opinions.

Of course you are right - it is an assumption. The point is that materialism itself is an assumption. Furthermore, it is an assumption which carries undue weight because of the narrative we are all fed that materialism and science are somehow synonymous. I do think that atheists, in particular, take that narrative to be axiomatic; it is self-evident. If something is self-evident then it does not require further evidence.

By the way, I think I read somewhere that Dawkins (was it?) said that even if he found himself in some afterlife dimension he would refuse to believe it. Perhaps he would assume that this was a lingering hallucination produced by the dying brain which somehow stretches out a tiny moment to seem like it is happening over an extended period. Obviously we would counter that by pointing to the veridical evidence from NDEs, etc.

So do you think these people are organized in any way (probably not as you don’t believe in a conspiracy) and do you think they have any apriori knowledge about Psi and Survival not commonly known?

I would say a fair number of skeptic groups fit the idea of organized advocacy, though I think rather than any special knowledge it's more wanting to have a world that conforms to their desires - no God/Hell/Judgement, systems of control by corporations and/or governments taking direction from academics, etc.

There may be some groups that have more evidence of Psi/Survival than is made public, but without evidence one cannot just assume such things. These could be governments or corporations but possibly also religious organizations that dislike the way Survival evidence undercuts religious authority...I think evidence is lacking for such accusations though...

Have you ever challenged him to make good on his claimed determination to strictly follow scientific reason and logic, and consider some (in fact a large body of) suggested evidence? You could point out that closed-minded rejection of data without examination and without furnishing conclusive ironclad arguments for rejection is hardly a truly scientific position and indicates that he is really a member of a faith-bound religion. You even might point out William James's "black swan argument" that it is obvious that all it takes is one "black swan case" (i.e. one case of unexplainable paranormal afterlife evidence, out of many evidential cases) to prove that black swans exist (that valid undeniable cases of the evidence favoring survival do in fact exist).

And you also could point out that his ardent rejection of the existence of God is not logically connected to the existence of the afterlife. It could conceivably be the case that there is an afterlife (as attested to by a boatload of evidence that he has closed-mindedly rejected), while there being no God of any description including the Judeo-Christian.

This person has apparently taken in the nihilist materialist point of view whole hog and with him it is a matter of faith in the religion of scientism. One can't logically argue with matters of religious faith, but the logical argument try could possible get through if there is at least some doubt in the nihilistic system. The inner psychological reasons for adopting this faith is a matter for another discussion.

I'm familiar with all your points and I have mentioned some of them such as julies biechels medium research which I think is the most difficult to debunk. He agreed that if the data were properly assessed it would prove that anomalous information is somehow accessed but he wouldn't give it a fair read.  Both my son and son in law having felt betrayed by religion(they've been happly married for twelve years) and read natualistic science to each other for bedtime stories
One of their favorite activities with me is to make carcartues of new age beliefs which are actually pretty funny. I think you gotta pick your battles with family especially on thanks giving 

I'm familiar with all your points and I have mentioned some of them such as julies biechels medium research which I think is the most difficult to debunk. He agreed that if the data were properly assessed it would prove that anomalous information is somehow accessed but he wouldn't give it a fair read.  Both my son and son in law having felt betrayed by religion(they've been happly married for twelve years) and read natualistic science to each other for bedtime stories
One of their favorite activities with me is to make caricatures of new age beliefs which are actually pretty funny. I think you gotta pick your battles with family especially on thanks giving 

Yeah I generally let both my atheist and religious family members be, especially during the holidays.

Every now and then I might sneak in something how Materialism is false, but usually the conversations don't even turn in that direction since the atheists and religious don't want to offend each other anyway...

ts for rejection is hardly a truly scientific position and indicates that he is really a member of a faith-bound religion. You even might point out William James's "black swan argument" that it is obvious that all it takes is one "black swan case" (i.e. one case of unexplainable paranormal afterlife evidence, out of many evidential cases) to prove that black swans exist (that valid undeniable cases of the evidence favoring survival do in fact exist).

Wasn’t it a “white crow” or am I thinking of someone else?

Wasn’t it a “white crow” or am I thinking of someone else?

You're right - James' words apparently were "If you wish to upset the law that all crows are black, you mustn't seek to show that no crows are; it is enough if you prove one single crow to be white." Same meaning, different animal. Strange how memory works or doesn't quite work right sometime.