Evidence Of Life After Death

[zzz 0]

Okay, so you believe that the soul is non physical and hangs out in another dimension. So, how does having a soul then explain how she was able to hear and see things in this dimension when she was "dead?" That was my point. In order for near death experiences to be evidence for a soul, it would have to imply that a soul is a physical thing that comes out of the body and stands around listening and observing before it goes back into the body when we are resuscitated.If the soul is rather an intangible thing that exists in another heavenly dimension, then it would not know about what was happening in the operating room.

I believe souls exists nonphysically within the human body while alive and when dead can hang around the physical dimension or go into different dimensions.

[mrdannyg 274]

No, there is no problem. - I don't believe in a judging god so I don't have to worry about what god thinks. - Of course you can. That is the point of having beliefs. They can never be proven wrong unless you actually experience something different. You are "pretty certain" there is no life after death, but you can't possible know for sure without actually experiencing non-existance. Therefore, it is simply a more pessimistic belief than believing you live on forever."All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it." - Albert Einstein

that's not a belief system, its a specific belief.my belief system is that i choose to put more stock into things that can be scientifically 'proven,' rather than from other sources. this translates into the specific belief that non-existance after death is far more likely than some magical soul ascension.it is not optimistic or pessimistic because the two outcomes are not equally likely.the Einstein quote is horribly out of context, and meaningless in how you're presenting it. you can stop now.

[zzz 0]

that's not a belief system, its a specific belief.my belief system is that i choose to put more stock into things that can be scientifically 'proven,' rather than from other sources. this translates into the specific belief that non-existance after death is far more likely than some magical soul ascension.it is not optimistic or pessimistic because the two outcomes are not equally likely.the Einstein quote is horribly out of context, and meaningless in how you're presenting it. you can stop now.

Many scientists who study the nde thing in depth find that more likely than not there is life after physical death.Sorry, but no. How do scientists know stuff? That's right, through experiment. Sounds an awful lot like experience now doesnt it?

[mrdannyg 274]

Many scientists who study the nde thing in depth find that more likely than not there is life after physical death.Sorry, but no. How do scientists know stuff? That's right, through experiment. Sounds an awful lot like experience now doesnt it?

1 - really? i'd like to see a single reputable study that believes a person can be permanently, physically dead, and still continue to function.2 - yes, science experimentation involves 'experiencing,' since that's how they observe their experiments. it is both the first and last step. it is also completely unrelated to all the middle steps, therefore it is meaningless and out of context.

[zzz 0]

1 - really? i'd like to see a single reputable study that believes a person can be permanently, physically dead, and still continue to function.2 - yes, science experimentation involves 'experiencing,' since that's how they observe their experiments. it is both the first and last step. it is also completely unrelated to all the middle steps, therefore it is meaningless and out of context.

Lets pretend everyone knew for absolute certainty that there was no life after death. It would still be smarter to ignore the facts and make believe there was eternal life. The person who ignored the facts and did this would be a happier person then the other who sticked to the facts. Therefore, the fact ignorer is smarter because he is happier.

[WrongWay 0]

Therefore, the fact ignorer is smarter because he is happier.

Bull!!!! Not getting my butt kicked in logical arguments makes me happy. Therefore, I'm happier because I'm on the winning side of arguments. You're unhappier because you have to resort to logical fallacy to defend your undefendable position.Is it better to be warm and happy in a pile of shite, or is it better to realize you're in a pile of shite and go looking for a better place where you can be even more happy.I'd rather not be in a pile of shite, thank you very much. If you are happy sitting in a pile of shite, then shouldn't you just keep your mouth shut instead of telling everyone how happy you are living in shite?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I believe souls exists nonphysically within the human body while alive and when dead can hang around the physical dimension or go into different dimensions.

But what happens when there are too many of these spirits in our dimension hanging around? What happens if they get angry or mischievous and start pulling pranks on us or frightening us or trying to attack us?Who are you going to go to when this starts to happen? Who are you going to contact when the souls become too dangerous to deal with on your own. In other words:WHO YOU GUNNA CALL?(note: the punch line is implied)

[mrdannyg 274]

Lets pretend everyone knew for absolute certainty that there was no life after death. It would still be smarter to ignore the facts and make believe there was eternal life. The person who ignored the facts and did this would be a happier person then the other who sticked to the facts. Therefore, the fact ignorer is smarter because he is happier.

well, you've done a good job making your point clear.i disagree, since i don't believe that true ignorance exists, therefore ignorance is not bliss. however, if one could truly be ignorant of the possibility that they were wrong, their perceived happiness would be higher if they held on to their belief in eternal life, given your situation. their 'actual' happiness (yes, i'm making up terms) would be lower, since they would have less knowledge, but since they'd be completely unaware, this would not affect their effective happiness level.since you are discussing this, you are not ignorant of the fact you might be wrong, so your actual argument cannot be applied. however in the perfect situation you described, it does hold true.

[crowTrobot 2]

Lets pretend everyone knew for absolute certainty that there was no life after death. It would still be smarter to ignore the facts and make believe there was eternal life. The person who ignored the facts and did this would be a happier person then the other who sticked to the facts. Therefore, the fact ignorer is smarter because he is happier.

that may be true for you, but it's a baseless assumption on your part that it would be true for anyone else. most atheists are quite happy and content. i certainly am much happier now than when i believed in an afterlife.most atheists are incapable of brainwashing themselves to ignore facts anyway, so it's a moot point.

[zzz 0]

Bull!!!! Not getting my butt kicked in logical arguments makes me happy. Therefore, I'm happier because I'm on the winning side of arguments. You're unhappier because you have to resort to logical fallacy to defend your undefendable position.Is it better to be warm and happy in a pile of shite, or is it better to realize you're in a pile of shite and go looking for a better place where you can be even more happy.I'd rather not be in a pile of shite, thank you very much. If you are happy sitting in a pile of shite, then shouldn't you just keep your mouth shut instead of telling everyone how happy you are living in shite?

You are the one ignoring the evidence because it is not scientific enough for you.

But what happens when there are too many of these spirits in our dimension hanging around? What happens if they get angry or mischievous and start pulling pranks on us or frightening us or trying to attack us?Who are you going to go to when this starts to happen? Who are you going to contact when the souls become too dangerous to deal with on your own. In other words:WHO YOU GUNNA CALL?(note: the punch line is implied)

Like Socrates, I don't know anything. My beliefs and christian beliefs are more positive then yours yet you seem to think you are smarter than us.

well, you've done a good job making your point clear.i disagree, since i don't believe that true ignorance exists, therefore ignorance is not bliss. however, if one could truly be ignorant of the possibility that they were wrong, their perceived happiness would be higher if they held on to their belief in eternal life, given your situation. their 'actual' happiness (yes, i'm making up terms) would be lower, since they would have less knowledge, but since they'd be completely unaware, this would not affect their effective happiness level.since you are discussing this, you are not ignorant of the fact you might be wrong, so your actual argument cannot be applied. however in the perfect situation you described, it does hold true.

Based on millions of peoples experiences, it is much more likely that there is life after death. However, you choose to ignore this evidence because you claim other peoples experiences aren't real enough.

[mrdannyg 274]

Based on millions of peoples experiences, it is much more likely that there is life after death. However, you choose to ignore this evidence because you claim other peoples experiences aren't real enough.

not sure what you're saying here. Millions of people claim to have experienced life after death? And ummm, they've told us about it?fwiw though, other people's experiences are not real enough, since I have no basis for judging the relevance. I can only judge based on my own experiences and what i consider likely, based on causality and scientific evidence.judging based on other people's experience seems extremely problematic. i could tell you that i was eaten by an ice cream cone last night, and you'd have no reason to disbelieve it, other than it seems unlikely.

[zzz 0]

that may be true for you, but it's a baseless assumption on your part that it would be true for anyone else. most atheists are quite happy and content. i certainly am much happier now than when i believed in an afterlife.most atheists are incapable of brainwashing themselves to ignore facts anyway, so it's a moot point.

You may be a really happy person, but you would be even happier if you believed in an afterlife of endless choices. You are ignoring the fact that millions of peoples reality is they have experienced consciousness without a physical body. Who are you to say their realities aren't real?

[zzz 0]

not sure what you're saying here. Millions of people claim to have experienced life after death? And ummm, they've told us about it?fwiw though, other people's experiences are not real enough, since I have no basis for judging the relevance. I can only judge based on my own experiences and what i consider likely, based on causality and scientific evidence.judging based on other people's experience seems extremely problematic. i could tell you that i was eaten by an ice cream cone last night, and you'd have no reason to disbelieve it, other than it seems unlikely.

According to various resources including Wilkepedia, yes. But don't worry, they are probably all lying...

[mrdannyg 274]

Who are you to say their realities aren't real?

the scientists who are able to show that these people's perceived realities were caused by unusual circumstances (i don't pretend to understand neuroscience) and did not actually occur according to these people's perceptions.you could argue that these are only perceptions as well, but these are scientifically and causality-based, so that'd be a tough one to make use of.

You may be a really happy person, but you would be even happier if you believed in an afterlife of endless choices.

I'd also be happier if I believed that broccoli tasted like ice cream.

According to various resources including Wilkepedia, yes.

links? (sorry if i missed them the first time)

[zzz 0]

the scientists who are able to show that these people's perceived realities were caused by unusual circumstances (i don't pretend to understand neuroscience) and did not actually occur according to these people's perceptions.you could argue that these are only perceptions as well, but these are scientifically and causality-based, so that'd be a tough one to make use of.I'd also be happier if I believed that broccoli tasted like ice cream.links? (sorry if i missed them the first time)

Bottom line. Most all scientists researching NDEs in depth have concluded that it is more likely a real phenomenon not caused by the brain.

the scientists who are able to show that these people's perceived realities were caused by unusual circumstances (i don't pretend to understand neuroscience) and did not actually occur according to these people's perceptions.you could argue that these are only perceptions as well, but these are scientifically and causality-based, so that'd be a tough one to make use of.I'd also be happier if I believed that broccoli tasted like ice cream.links? (sorry if i missed them the first time)

Websites with an obvious bias and Wilkepedia type in near death experience.

[mrdannyg 274]

Bottom line. Most all scientists researching NDEs in depth have concluded that it is more likely a real phenomenon not caused by the brain.Websites with an obvious bias and Wilkepedia type in near death experience.

1 - what constitues an NDE then? i'm aware that people can almost die, but not. i'm not aware of people actually permanently dying, then living again.2 - its not biased websites, its neuroscience. people's brains can be manipulated such that a person perceives something that does not actually occur. for all they know, it was real, and it will be their reality unless they are convinced otherwise. they would have no reason to doubt that their reality is correct. and yet, it may not actually have occured.it seems to be your opinion that their reality under these circumstances are just as valid as the people who manipulated them, or understand how they were manipulated them.

[zzz 0]

1 - what constitues an NDE then? i'm aware that people can almost die, but not. i'm not aware of people actually permanently dying, then living again.2 - its not biased websites, its neuroscience. people's brains can be manipulated such that a person perceives something that does not actually occur. for all they know, it was real, and it will be their reality unless they are convinced otherwise. they would have no reason to doubt that their reality is correct. and yet, it may not actually have occured.it seems to be your opinion that their reality under these circumstances are just as valid as the people who manipulated them, or understand how they were manipulated them.

According to Wikipedia (online encyclopedia) - A near-death experience (NDE) is an experience reported by a person who has died Clinical death and been revived (usually by medical means). Recent scientific studies have validated the NDE as not only a legitimate experience, but a verification of the long-held belief in an afterlife. The experience is extremely common, especially since the development of cardiac resuscitation techniques. According to a Gallup poll approximately eight million Americans claim to have had a near-death experience (Mauro, 1992). The experience often includes an out-of-body experience.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

That Wikipedia article is a mess. Link us these "recent scientific studies," then we'll talk.

[mrdannyg 274]

According to Wikipedia (online encyclopedia) - A near-death experience (NDE) is an experience reported by a person who has died Clinical death and been revived (usually by medical means). Recent scientific studies have validated the NDE as not only a legitimate experience, but a verification of the long-held belief in an afterlife. The experience is extremely common, especially since the development of cardiac resuscitation techniques. According to a Gallup poll approximately eight million Americans claim to have had a near-death experience (Mauro, 1992). The experience often includes an out-of-body experience.

these people are only 'clincally' dead. this is simply a term. they are not actually permanently dead. hence near-death. i believe it just means their brain has stopped functioning for a determined amount of time.although i'm no expert, i'm pretty sure neuroscience has proven that a brain, under those circumstances, could create false memories and/or a false reality that the person would have no reason to believe did not actually take place. caused by lack of oxygen, extreme stress, etc. this is a false reality. it did not actually take place, but the person perceived it as such.so your options are:1 - accept the opinions of neuroscientists that the brain can and does have those effects, and the experiences of these people are simply caused by their brain's reaction to lack of oxygen, etc.2 - believe that the experiences of these people are actually taking place, the neuroscientists are simply rationalizing what takes place, and that this person's 'soul' is experiencing things despite a lack of a working physical body.do you agree with (most) of the above, and would choose #2?

[crowTrobot 2]

According to various resources including Wilkepedia, yes. But don't worry, they are probably all lying...

ok this is getting beyond rediculous.here are the facts of your 1992 poll -1. it was initiated and interpreted by george gallup jr. himself, who as well as being a pollster IS A RELIGIOUS WRITER WHO BELIEVES IN THE SOUL, AND CO-WROTE AT LEAST ONE BOOK ON THE SUBJECT OF NDE's. your poll was NOT taken or interpreted by a neutral source. 2. the poll only specified that 5% of subjects responded with a positive. the 8 million or 13 million or whatever figures your pro-soul sources are citing are NOTHING BUT BIASED UNSCIENTIFIC EXTRAPOLATIONS. in other words, they are mispreprenting the poll to meet their agenda (propaganda).3. wikipedia is NOT a reliable source for anything. it is a good place to get information with which you can start further research, but since anyone can enter facts everything in there necessarily needs to be double-checked before you can draw any conclusions from it. the "8 million" entry is in wikipedia either because someone unknowingly copied misinformation from a biased website, or someone with a bias put it in there.

[zzz 0]

these people are only 'clincally' dead. this is simply a term. they are not actually permanently dead. hence near-death. i believe it just means their brain has stopped functioning for a determined amount of time.although i'm no expert, i'm pretty sure neuroscience has proven that a brain, under those circumstances, could create false memories and/or a false reality that the person would have no reason to believe did not actually take place. caused by lack of oxygen, extreme stress, etc. this is a false reality. it did not actually take place, but the person perceived it as such.so your options are:1 - accept the opinions of neuroscientists that the brain can and does have those effects, and the experiences of these people are simply caused by their brain's reaction to lack of oxygen, etc.2 - believe that the experiences of these people are actually taking place, the neuroscientists are simply rationalizing what takes place, and that this person's 'soul' is experiencing things despite a lack of a working physical body.do you agree with (most) of the above, and would choose #2?

Not true. There are many documented instances like the OP one where it has been shown it wasn't a false reality because of the things she saw and heard and reported accurately on when she was physically incapable of anything.

ok this is getting beyond rediculous.here are the facts of your 1992 poll -1. it was initiated and interpreted by george gallup jr. himself, who as well as being a pollster IS A RELIGIOUS WRITER WHO BELIEVES IN THE SOUL, AND CO-WROTE AT LEAST ONE BOOK ON THE SUBJECT OF NDE's. your poll was NOT taken or interpreted by a neutral source. 2. the poll only specified that 5% of subjects responded with a positive. the 8 million or 13 million or whatever figures your pro-soul sources are citing are NOTHING BUT BIASED UNSCIENTIFIC EXTRAPOLATIONS. in other words, they are mispreprenting the poll to meet their agenda (propaganda).3. wikipedia is NOT a reliable source for anything. it is a good place to get information with which you can start further research, but since anyone can enter facts everything in there necessarily needs to be double-checked before you can draw any conclusions from it. the "8 million" entry is in wikipedia either because someone unknowingly copied misinformation from a biased website, or someone with a bias put it in there.

lol. Yeah, the encyclopedia is not factual...

[Flack_attack 0]

Hey zzz, Bokonist much?

[mrdannyg 274]

Not true. There are many documented instances like the OP one where it has been shown it wasn't a false reality because of the things she saw and heard and reported accurately on when she was physically incapable of anything.

alright, take out the word 'false' and put in 'perceived' - same question.

[zzz 0]

alright, take out the word 'false' and put in 'perceived' - same question.

Her 'perceived' reality matched the 'perceived' realities of the people in the operating room.

Hey zzz, Bokonist much?

No. The facts are on my side.

[crowTrobot 2]

lol. Yeah, the encyclopedia is not factual...

yeah, and you're not gullible.