1. First, this R. Dawkins when referring to the paranormal, is expressing a personal view, NOT a scientific or empirical or objective view, because he can NEVER use science to show that the paranormal and the afterlife do not exist. RD is into conjecture and speculation. He’s into subjectivity and debunking. He’s into justification for his own personal beliefs - not in search for the truth.

2. Further, because he is a self-confessed materialist atheist and has been actively anti-paranormal, it follows that he does not and cannot perceive empirical evidence for the paranormal/afterlife with true empirical equanimity. He showed he’s deeply negatively prejudiced, "and that is a huge problem for someone who keeps on reminding the viewers he is a ‘scientist’ "– rather arrogantly implying he knows more than the paranormal empirical experts and the viewer about the paranormal.

3 . There is some misguided and erroneous assumption by this R.Dawkins that just because he is qualified in science, he is also an expert in the admissibility of evidence. WRONG! Dawkins is NOT a lawyer and accordingly, he has NO expertise in the admissibility of evidence. He often states and imputes that anything to do with the paranormal/afterlife is a personal belief or ‘superstition’ and therefore we must not accept it. WRONG! He shows he does not make critical distinctions, does not discriminate between the subjective and the objective, between the admissible and inadmissible in afterlife/paranormal evidence. Skeptical materialist scientists, including Dawkins, ought to rebut the formidable hitherto unrebutted afterlife evidence of the relatively recent SCOLE REPORT – where scientists and other professionals from Europe, UK and the US, including NASA scientists agreed that the paranormal actually happened. no scientist or skeptical debunker in eight years – not even for the allurement of a huge $1,000,000 cash prize - has been able to show the world that the objective evidence presented is not valid. Over eighteen months of weekly investigations, Dawkins buries his head in the sand pretending empirical materializations are not happening because a priori he would argue illogically, irrationally and speciously that cannot be true because there is no afterlife!
Physicists and other open-minded scientists of the ‘new science’ (those who used science to accept the paranormal) – to name just a few - such as Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Josephson, Professor Jessica Utts, Professor Alan Wolf, Dr Harold Puthoff, Professor RussellTarg, Professor Dr Ernst Senkowski, Dr Amit Goswami – Professor John Bockris, Ron Pearson (UK), Professor Archie Roy, Professor Rupert Sheldrake, Dr Claude Swanson Professors of Physics – and also some of the classic scientists such as Sir Oliver Lodge, Sir William Crookes, Sir William Barrett et al- ALL conceded after investigating that the paranormal is real – and most of them also conceded that there is an afterlife.
Now this Dawkins, has NOT rebutted any of the scientific evidence of these aforementioned scientists. He knowingly and willfully omitted to rebut the evidence because no scientist can rebut objectivity and repeatability.

4. “Where a better way to start my investigation than in a New Age fair” stated Dawkins to the viewers. Any serious, professional scientist who wants to investigate the paranormal will NOT go to a psychic fair. Why did not Dawkins try to rebut Dr Dean Radin’s highly acclaimed empirically elicited paranormal results? Why did not Dawkins deal with the plethora of other empirically accepted psi results? Why did not Dawkins deal with the classic objective afterlife evidence of Sir Oliver Lodge and Sir William Crookes which hitherto has not been rebutted? Why did not Dawkins try to debate professional psi empiricists about the paranormal who have the professional empirical afterlife knowledge to effectively deal with the closed minded skeptics such as Dawkins himsel

5 . Notwithstanding the objective, empirical psi evidence by the ‘new’ scientists to-day, Dawkins and others like him who strictly adhere to orthodox science just cannot or don't want to investigate or accept any empirical paranormal activities. Why not? First, if the empirically elicited psi evidence is accepted, it will make these materialists totally irrelevant and look rather silly and totally anachronistic. Also, the whole spectrum of reductionist orthodox science would inevitably have to be reviewed – in fact, it would become redundant overnight. The existence of non-physical energy, which a number of physicists accept, explains all paranormal activities. Accordingly, the war between orthodox science and the ‘new’ science is a fierce one and even Dawkins conceded on television that orthodox scienceis rapidly losing the war.

Traditional, orthodox science has virtually come to a standstill. Dawkins himself also conceded to the viewers that there is a most serious crisis in orthodox science - that many science departments at universities in the UK (and around the world) are closing down, yet the acceptance of the paranormal is inversely increasing. This is because, I submit, people all over the world are themselves experiencing the paranormal – OBE’s and NDE’s, telepathy, EVP and ITC, communicating with crossed-over loved ones, accurate mediumship from highly gifted mediums andapparitions. Because of the internet, these critical evidentiary paranormal experiences are now being made public on an international level and cannot be censored any more. They have filtered into mainstream media and are rapidly becoming deeply entrenched in the world culture – they’ve become impossible to shift.

Accordingly, people have lost faith in orthodox science because orthodox science CANNOT explain what people are experiencing paranormally and spiritually.

The final word goes to a clairaudient medium who told me about materialist scientists anti-afterlife crusaders, “They’re disseminating darkness on a global level – and surely one day they’ll have to pay the price for that.” Yet some atheist will be ranting "Religions is the ever worse thing in human's life"


http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/dawkins77.htm

@ Emusan: We all are more or less subjective. It's an inevitable part of being human. Consider the story of the elephant and the 7 blind men. The elephant is what's subjective, the blind men are subjective. The physical world is the reality. We humans interprete it in various ways at various times. I think without knowing it scientists prove God. The idea of dark energy some atheists will uncritically accept (because energy is associated with matter) while failing to note that, dark energy is an immaterial thing, of which is said CANNOT BE EMPIRICALLY percieved. That right there, isn't science the way materialists present it.

Emusan: The final word goes to a clairaudient medium who told me about materialist scientists anti-afterlife crusaders, “They’re disseminating darkness on a global level – and surely one day they’ll have to pay the price for that.” Yet some atheist will be ranting "Religions is the ever worse thing in human's life"


http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/dawkins77.htm

They can disseminate whatever darkness however long ghey want. In fact, I can boldly predict that even if atheism overshadows religion, the way black holes suck in stars. The light shall, in time still shine out of darkness. They seem to forget that religion like atheism has common ground in thought.

Uyi Iredia: @ Emusan: We all are more or less subjective. It's an inevitable part of being human. Consider the story of the elephant and the 7 blind men. The elephant is what's subjective, the blind men are subjective. The physical world is the reality. We humans interprete it in various ways at various times. I think without knowing it scientists prove God. The idea of dark energy some atheists will uncritically accept (because energy is associated with matter) while failing to note that, dark energy is an immaterial thing, of which is said CANNOT BE EMPIRICALLY percieved. That right there, isn't science the way materialists present it.

I agree with your point.

But @bold- do atheist do realise that? Remember they always present their debate as fact and they'll never agree with PARANORMAL/AFTERLIFE.

The information you read it's from Victor J. Zammit an open-minded rationalist and freethinker. All the scientists mention in this article are all open-minded they are not christians. They called Dawkins a close-minded scientist, why? because once Dawkins accept paranormal problem starts. As stated in point 5 of this article.

My argument with atheist (like I always say) is that no scientific evidence can be used to disprove the existence of God but they can hate God or claim there's no God base on their own personal view of nature but what most of them hold onto is "scientist says".

Now some atheist are rejecting EVOLUTION because it's a "theory in crisis".