= new reply since forum marked as read
Certainly, there's no burden of proof on you at all.
is more of the philosophical kind ("Pyrrhonian"
than just scientific skepticism. I consider scientific theories just points of view, not something to believe in (unless wanting to experiment what happens by believing in some theory by some degree).
As for biomatter, after it stops moving AFAIK it usually gets recycled into soil pretty much which is nice from the point of view of a gardener. Worm shit crumbs we like best for our plants. But usually does not equal allways and without exception. There can be all kinds of exceptions, "known unknowns" and also "unknown unknowns", and e.g. bodies of "saints" that don't corrupt us usual may be one known unknown. I'm also open to the idea that "vital" information is preserved at the level of e.g. electromagnetic fields or sumfink like that and can reform as more ordinary biomatter not just in the spatiotemporal dimensions and interwals we are most used to, but also other ways (e.g. quantum teleportation where original gets destroyed). Don't really know, but if someone claims to know for sure that it can't happen, I become very skeptical and vocally agnostic. Also I can't say for sure that those who choose to freeze their brains can't be resurrected with some future technological miracle. Dunno. Etc. etc. etc.
So I can think of many possibilities with various degrees of plausibility (leaving those to subjective level), as mr. Dawkings blurts "brain - that's all there is". Which is not acceptable even from the point of view of scientifice skepticism, not to mention philosophical skepticism. I'm the skeptic here and Dawkins the dogmatic believer.
"brain and that's all there is" extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. 
Yes, there there are correlations between various mental states and measurable brain activity. A resent study showed that psychadelic drugs producing altered states of mind that are sometimes given also religious interpretations in fact shut down activity in brain areas linked with poorly defined "consciousness" (I would guess what is actually meant is the faculty of linguistic/conseptual interpretation that creates narrative over sensual events or "inner dialogue" but can't say for sure). The study was quoted IIRC in the DU science group.
Pam Reynolds case:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
More:
http://members.multimania.nl/titusrivas/nobrainactive.html
You could have found these as well as I :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation_research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience
And as for telepathy Sheldrake has been already mentioned.
And also non-rotting "saints".
...so it's a good thing there already exists some extraordinary evidence to support it.
Dealing with both the Pam Reynolds case as well as NDE's in general, we have no reason to assume the experiences that Pam Reynolds had took place during her time of brain inactivity. We already know biologically what is happening to people who experience NDE's, and I'd wager the same took place here. It is also possible that her brain activity wasn't as fully stopped as they believed, and that a very low level of activity remained during the surgery. As for her experiences, she already had an idea of what was going to occur during the surgery, and she may have even seen some of the tools that were used prior to the surgery. Her brain could have reconstructed the rest.
Reincarnation does have some interesting evidence, but it's not very solid and much further study would be required before it would constitute proof.
Incorruptible corpses are explained through a variety of means. A site that gives a quick run down is this: http://listverse.com/2011/04/19/10-mysteries-and-their-most-logical-explanation/
As you said, we've talked about Sheldrake previously, and even though you deny it, his methodology IS very poor from a scientific perspective. He often fails to allow for controls, does little or nothing to eliminate observational bias, and his collection of data regarding psychic dogs is largely gathered from surveys filled out by the general public with absolutely no controls whatsoever, and thus must be completely discarded. He also now seems unwilling to open his research up to the peer review process, instead choosing to publish his work to the general public, which is an awful indicator of major woo. Maybe this will change with time, but right now he's going in the wrong direction with his work, becoming more secluded from the rest of the scientific community.
you ask for evidence (which, judging from your response you were allready familiar with) only to explain it away in defence of your own bias. And that's OK and not worth going into debate, as all the evidence (including and especially neurology) points that we humans do cherrypick evidence and valuate its plausibility according to our preconceptions.
My situation is somewhat different in regards of evaluating e.g. Sheldrake's evidence, since I'm over the debate of possibility and plausibility of telepathy (and some related phenomena) through personal experience, which I see no point of denying myself and doubting it just reasonably, at the same time accepting that from other points of view how I experience this world would be just "anecdotal evidence" not worth of a second thought. So my interest in Sheldrake's studies, quantum mind hypothesis etc. has been the question 'what can science tell me more about how I experience this world, to relate with with various other narratives and traditions and can science open up new avenues of experiencing and building more coherent and inclusive world views?'.
From my point of view the part of the scientific community that you refer to is free to believe as they believe, as are religionists etc. But I cannot consider them respectable authorities of any kind in relation to how I experience. They can try to seclude Sheldrake et alii, and like you try claim that all anecdotal evidence, me included, "must be completely discarded", and show contempt for class betrayal of "publishing for the general public", they can censure and suffocate discussion and play their petty games of petty politics, but so what? That priestly class of scientific community you refer to does not accomplish anything worth my respect, it just seclude itself from the general public and community of men and other sentient beings into ivory tower of defense mechanisms. And when they talk down to me from the ivory tower from the presumed position of authority, they deserve no respect from me. I respect the people, members of scientific community included, who talk with me, not down to me. And maybe you are not very different in that respect.
We obviously have fundamental disagreements here (especially about the peer review process and science in general), and I think that further discussion will only lead to a build up of animosity, as both of us have made our primary points.
Thank you for the generally amiable discussion. 
We can consider our differences fundamental disagreements or complementary viewpoints. I prefer the latter. 
...can preserve a brain from rotting or restore one that has rotted. I mean, this is nonsense. If one is going to have faith in "magic" then why try and argue it scientifically? Or debate against science come to that as science can't have more power than magic? And if one is scientific, why argue with someone who believes in magic rather than science? They have, by definition, already rejected the "facts" in favor of their belief in a higher power which can ignore or overcome facts like "brains rot." Yes?
I mean the Archbishop starts off the debate with the false fact that humanity went suddenly from evil to good when Rome changed over from Pagan to Christian 
This shows that even when it comes to history, he's going to stick to what he believes to be true, not what we know to be true. Fact is, Christianity did not magically change the habits of humanity in regards to things like keeping slaves, abusing women, or killing children. All these continued on for centuries after Christianity had taken over the western world. And fact is, pre-Christian civilizations had as many moral and just and good men and women as post-Christian civilizations. If this man isn't aware of this, or has decided to ignore such facts for what his faith tells him, then all debate with him is ultimately pointless.
I didn't intend UG's description of his "calamity" (as he called it) as anything but than just one anecdotal description of an experience that he named "dying" - I chose that because it's the most "clinical" and down to earth description of such experiences that I know of. Never met the man and seems quite an asshole, but also asshole in quite entertaining way - to my tastes. I like especially the anti-guru and anti-religion attitude that UG spreaded with mighty ass-hollerism. How should UG's (and other similar) anecdotal evidence be interpreted - in terms of scientific and other explanations? Up to you, really, I have no agenda to sell this or that interpretation or explanation to believe in. Perhaps most "open-minded" approach would not to interprete at all... or as you say, consider all interpretations equal.
I can speak only for myself, and what I like about the story and the guy is that assuming (ie. just speculating) that if there was a Jeebus guy who experienced something similar, then it seems at least that unlike that Jeebus guy, UG did a lot in word and deed not to start another religion, but called his experience physical and natural - even though he trashed also science as well as everything else.
And believe it or not, I consider myself "science-minded" and not religious at all - though I don't deny the value of rituals that create social cohesion and help to keep up healthy relation between a community and ecosystem. I just don't equal science with materialistic and reductionistic presuppositions - nor the social hierarchies of academic establishments. I like to be in dialogue with various scientists and their theories including the "fringe" and wild ones, and incorporate what I gather from the dialogue to how I experience and communicate - which includes sort of "test-driving" some theories to see how (occationally) believing in them (or rather my limited comprehension of them) affects the way I experience. In this experimental dialogue I discard the approaches based on the materialistic and reductionistic presuppositions from the test-drive believing, primarily because from my point of view they are not fun and interesting enough, don't open up new spheres of experience and/or fail to explain how I'm allready experiencing. I can entertain rational doubts towards my own experiences as well as the next guy, but in the end I prefer the degree of self-confidence that says that if a theory considers my experiences impossible, fuck that theory, I falsify it. And so with good conscience I can't recommend accepting such theories - or rather their presuppositions - to others, and occationally feel the need to speak against them, especially when presented as unquestioned authoritarian truths.
Nice dodge, btw.
No one you have ever heard of now or in history may hold that god can preserve a brain from rotting, but I assure you, there are plenty of accounts of people who held that god could do that, and there are plenty NOW who hold that god can do that. Here, now and maybe even living next door to you. They believe god can do that, they believe god has done that.
So if you're going to argue here, at least be clear about what theists have believed and still often do believe. Don't make silly assertions that have no basis in fact.
You expect us to believe that no theist you've ever heard of in the here and now thinks the god they believe exists can preserve a brain or keep it from rotting? Where have you been living? Under a rock? Because I get this feeling that unless you are the only theist you've ever heard of, I could find someone you've heard of who believes god can do that.
And your assertion is even more ridiculous if we take the second half "no one in history...Nobody"! Dude, seriously? So, you're saying that no one in the whole history of humankind, not one who ever believed in a god would agree that god can stop a brain from rotting or restore it? Billions of theists over the history of mankind believed god could create the universe, perform healing miracles, bring the dead back to life...but somehow stopped short of believing that god could prevent a brain from rotting? Is that seriously what you're asserting?
If so, then you must be from an alternate universe, because not a word of that is true in this one.
