Evidence Of Life After Death

[WrongWay 0]

umm ok, but what OTHER scientists have said it? nice find. you're unlazier than me.

Here is the problem with how humans think by default.... Our normal mode of operation is to make a decision based on emption, then go look for evidence that supports our emotion based belief.This is how we work.This is also how we get racism, sexism, mythology, superstition, demagaugery, religion (oh, wait, I already said mythology and superstituion) scape goating, sterio-typing.....So, ZZZ believes in an afterlife based on emotional desire and 1 scrap of data is sufficient to prove it to him. Great, if you don't mind others deciding that you are the root of all evil in the world and deciding you need to stop existing, and they don't mind using 1 scrap of data to justify their position.Or, we can recognize and accept that human thought processes are flawed and attempt to overcome those flaws with scieince... A method of finding truth that seeks to eliminate human flaw from the search (something Van Lommel fails to do in his highy subjective study).

[zzz 0]

Here are some....http://www.chemie.uni-hamburg.de/igtw/Gesu...ess_corresp.pdf"Pim van Lommel and colleaguesask, how could a clear consciousnessoutside the body be experienced at themoment that the brain no longerfunctions during a period of clinicaldeath with flat electroencephalography?Evidently, they assume that the brainmay not function at this time. Thisassumption, however, is erroneous.Normal electroencephalography techniquescan detect electrical activity inonly one half of the area of cerebralcortex. Possible activity in the other halfand deeper structures cannot beobserved.Electroencephalography is not areliable indicator of brain death.""The most fascinating part of vanLommel and colleagues’ study, which isnoted by the researchers, although itsubsequently attracts little attention, isthe association of these events withspiritual beliefs""A clue about the origin of suchexperiences may come from neuroimagingstudies of brain activationduring REM sleep. By use ofpositron emission tomography,Maquet and colleagues4 noted asignificant negative correlation betweenregional cerebral blood flow (rCBF)and REM sleep in a large area of thedorsolateral prefrontal cortex and theparietal cortex, and a significantpositive correlation between rCBFand REM sleep in limbic-systemstructures implicated in the formationand consolidation of memories."

June of 2001 by Reuters Limited. ...During the initial study, Parnia said, 63 heart attack patients who were deemed clinically dead but were later revived were interviewed within a week of their experiences.Of those, 56 said they had no recollection of the time they were unconscious and seven reported having memories. Of those, four were labeled NDEs in that they reported lucid memories of thinking, reasoning, moving about and communicating with others after doctors determined their brains were not functioning.Among other things, the patients reported remembering feelings of peace, joy and harmony. For some, time sped up, senses heightened and they lost awareness of their bodies. The patients also reported seeing a bright light, entering another realm and communicating with dead relatives. One, who called himself a lapsed Catholic and Pagan, reported a close encounter with a mystical being.Near-death experiences have been reported for centuries but in Parnia's study none of the patients were found to have received low oxygen levels, which some skeptics believe may contribute to the phenomenon. Skeptics have also suggested that patients' memories occurred in the moments they were leaving or returning to consciousness. But Parnia said when a brain is traumatized by a seizure or car wreck a patient generally does not remember moments just before or after losing consciousness. Rather, there is usually a memory lapse of hours or days. "With cardiac arrest, the insult to the brain is so severe it stops the brain completely. Therefore, I would expect profound memory loss before and after the incident," he added.

[WrongWay 0]

"With cardiac arrest, the insult to the brain is so severe it stops the brain completely. Therefore, I would expect profound memory loss before and after the incident," he added.

Says a cardiologist, not a neurologist.Let's recount. You start with a single anicdote. Which we say is not evidence. We point out drugs and lots of other situations that cause similar issues. I point out that NDE is linked ot age... You call me a liar.I show you studies showing the link to age. You say the study is invalid because it is too small.You realize this "too small" study actually has a conclusion which supports your case. Suddenly, poof, no longer too small.We start pointing out flaws in the study and newer studies that contradict this one. We show study after study that links NDE to REM intrusion and show that REM intrusion is also age linked. All of which explains the findings of Van Lommel study as being non-afterlife based.You ignore all those other studies and our interpritations of them, focusing on this one. You say Van Lommel is more trustable than our interpritations of the other studies because he is a scientist and we are not.You challenge us to find scientists that refute this one study that you cling to.... So, I find scientists that refute it.Now, you place your interpritation of the Van Lommel study above the scientists that have refuted it.Again, the human brain is flawed. It makes a decision emotionally (which you freely admiit is how you came to belief in afterlife) and once it accepts that belief, it clings to scraps of data that support the belief that it really-really wants to hold.This is flawed thinking. It leads to silly superstition and mythology. It leads to racism, sexism, etc.It is bad!!!!!!!!!!!!We must recognize this flaw, and through conscious effort, overcome it. We must reject ideas that "feel" right and believe only that which there is sufficient evidence to support belief in.

[zzz 0]

Says a cardiologist, not a neurologist.Let's recount. You start with a single anicdote. Which we say is not evidence. We point out drugs and lots of other situations that cause similar issues. I point out that NDE is linked ot age... You call me a liar. I show you studies showing the link to age. You say the study is invalid because it is too small.You realize this "too small" study actually has a conclusion which supports your case. Suddenly, poof, no longer too small.We start pointing out flaws in the study and newer studies that contradict this one. We show study after study that links NDE to REM intrusion and show that REM intrusion is also age linked. All of which explains the findings of Van Lommel study as being non-afterlife based.You ignore all those other studies and our interpritations of them, focusing on this one. You say Van Lommel is more trustable than our interpritations of the other studies because he is a scientist and we are not.You challenge us to find scientists that refute this one study that you cling to.... So, I find scientists that refute it.Now, you place your interpritation of the Van Lommel study above the scientists that have refuted it.Again, the human brain is flawed. It makes a decision emotionally (which you freely admiit is how you came to belief in afterlife ) and once it accepts that belief, it clings to scraps of data that support the belief that it really-really wants to hold.This is flawed thinking. It leads to silly superstition and mythology. It leads to racism, sexism, etc.It is bad!!!!!!!!!!!!We must recognize this flaw, and through conscious effort, overcome it. We must reject ideas that "feel" right and believe only that which there is sufficient evidence to support belief in.

No i didn't.I don't believe I said that. The main reason I believe in the afterlife is because of the mountains of circumstantial evidence, as well as the scientific evidence. I believe in my last post I showed how the your scientists claims you showed are not very credible.

[WrongWay 0]

The main reason I believe in the afterlife is because of the mountains of circumstantial evidence, as well as the scientific evidence.

I asked if there was ever a time in your life that you did not beleive in an afterlife. Your response:"Yes. I was scared shitless. With my current beliefs I'm no longer scared and I am a much happier person. You really believe(all else being equal) you are just as happy or happier with an extremely pessimistic view on the unknown of what happens after physical death?"Sounds like admitting it is emotion based to me.Or how about this quote:"Considering yours and mine afterlife beliefs objectively, I am a happier person then you or WrongWay. You believe life will end without total proof. I believe I will be happy forever without total proof. Only an idiot would choose your belief."Again, you use happiness as justification... An emotion based decision.Need more:"Even without this evidence it would be smarter to "illogically" believe in a more optimistic view on death because optimism is the what makes people happy."Oh, this is a GOOODDDDD quote:"As seen by mine and your arguements, truth is subjective. Who says it's false? Science? lol. Science isn't the answer to everything."So, science isn't everything until you find a single flawed study that supports your opinion. Then that 1 scientific study instantly becomes everything.Shall I find the quote where you call me a liar for saying NDE is age linked? Shall I find the post where I link to the Van Lommel study as proof that NDE is age linked, but you dismiss the study as way too small?

I believe in my last post I showed how the your scientists claims you showed are not very credible.

No, your last post, and your repeated flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop in this thread clearly shows your willingness to cling to any scrap of hope that allows you to justify your belief in something that is not supported by the preponderance of the evidence.Me, Crow, others that debunk NDE have been 100% consistant. You flip and flop into any scrap of hope that you can cling to.Humans are flawed, and your behavior is a perfect example. Make a decision emotionally then find any scrap of data that supports your emotionally based belief, ignoring the mountain of data you find uncomfortable. This thread could be a case study into how illogical human logic can be when clinging to false belief.

[mrdannyg 274]

No i didn't.I don't believe I said that. The main reason I believe in the afterlife is because of the mountains of circumstantial evidence, as well as the scientific evidence. I believe in my last post I showed how the your scientists claims you showed are not very credible.

alright, i'm going to try to ask for a clarification here and avoid sarcasm. here goes.is this the type of thing you are referring to when you discuss evidence based on personal experience:"Among other things, the patients reported remembering feelings of peace, joy and harmony. For some, time sped up, senses heightened and they lost awareness of their bodies. The patients also reported seeing a bright light, entering another realm and communicating with dead relatives. One, who called himself a lapsed Catholic and Pagan, reported a close encounter with a mystical being." (most recent article)

[zzz 0]

I asked if there was ever a time in your life that you did not beleive in an afterlife. Your response:"Yes. I was scared shitless. With my current beliefs I'm no longer scared and I am a much happier person. You really believe(all else being equal) you are just as happy or happier with an extremely pessimistic view on the unknown of what happens after physical death?"Sounds like admitting it is emotion based to me.Or how about this quote:"Considering yours and mine afterlife beliefs objectively, I am a happier person then you or WrongWay. You believe life will end without total proof. I believe I will be happy forever without total proof. Only an idiot would choose your belief."Again, you use happiness as justification... An emotion based decision.Need more:"Even without this evidence it would be smarter to "illogically" believe in a more optimistic view on death because optimism is the what makes people happy."Oh, this is a GOOODDDDD quote:"As seen by mine and your arguements, truth is subjective. Who says it's false? Science? lol. Science isn't the answer to everything."So, science isn't everything until you find a single flawed study that supports your opinion. Then that 1 scientific study instantly becomes everything.Shall I find the quote where you call me a liar for saying NDE is age linked? Shall I find the post where I link to the Van Lommel study as proof that NDE is age linked, but you dismiss the study as way too small?No, your last post, and your repeated flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop in this thread clearly shows your willingness to cling to any scrap of hope that allows you to justify your belief in something that is not supported by the preponderance of the evidence.Me, Crow, others that debunk NDE have been 100% consistant. You flip and flop into any scrap of hope that you can cling to.Humans are flawed, and your behavior is a perfect example. Make a decision emotionally then find any scrap of data that supports your emotionally based belief, ignoring the mountain of data you find uncomfortable. This thread could be a case study into how illogical human logic can be when clinging to false belief.

I believe in the afterlife because it makes me happy AND because based on the evidence i personally believe it is way more likely that there is an afterlife.Looking at the MULTIPLE scientific studies, many scientists have concluded that it is more likely there is life after death. Lommel and other scientists in support of life after death have the most informed opinions on this matter in my unqualified opinion. You may disagree, but that is just your unqualified opinion.

[WrongWay 0]

Lommel and other scientists in support of life after death have the most informed opinions on this matter in my unqualified opinion. You may disagree, but that is just your unqualified opinion.

Right, a cardiologist doing research based purely on anicdote (interview) is FAR more reliable than a pack of neurologists doing primary research using the best technology available.Your unqualified opinion is based purely on the lack of an afterlife scaring you shitless.

[zzz 0]

Right, a cardiologist doing research based purely on anicdote (interview) is FAR more reliable than a pack of neurologists doing primary research using the best technology available.Your unqualified opinion is based purely on the lack of an afterlife scaring you shitless.

When looking at all the scientific evidence from both sides, many neurologists think that it is way more likely that there is life after death. The research you brought up makes many faulty arguments which were pointed out by several cardiologists and neurologists. The arguments for no life after death have all been shot down. If you don't think so, list the arguments again and I will again repost the other scientists arguments that show how the skeptics are mis-informed. Lommel and his colleagues were the ones who did the largest known scientific study to show there is or isn't life after death. That would make them the most informed on this subject.

Your unqualified opinion is based purely on the lack of an afterlife scaring you shitless.

That is a lie. It is not purely based on emotion. My opinion is backed up by scientific studies. When people say they had a NDE and they back that up by pointing out things they couldn't have known unless they actually had a NDE....then......I tend to believe them.

[chrisuk_sw 0]

When people say they had a NDE and they back that up by pointing out things they couldn't have known unless they actually had a NDE....then......I tend to believe them.

When I say I have had an NDE and experienced the selfsame things that those other people did, do you not believe me? It wasn't life after death.

[zzz 0]

When I say I have had an NDE and experienced the selfsame things that those other people did, do you not believe me? It wasn't life after death.

According to the leading scientific studies, many scientists believe it shows there is life after death.

[crowTrobot 2]

According to the leading scientific studies, many scientists believe it shows there is life after death.

since your believe what makes you feel good philosophy is self-discrediting, who are you trying to convince?

[zzz 0]

since your believe what makes you feel good philosophy is self-discrediting, who are you trying to convince?

No ones opinion here is as credible than any of the scientists studying this issue in-depth. I like showing people the light, i.e. the evidence that shows it is much more likely than not that there is life after death.

[mrdannyg 274]

No ones opinion here is as credible than any of the scientists studying this issue in-depth. I like showing people the light, i.e. the evidence that shows it is much more likely than not that there is life after death.

only if people are as willing as you to ignore the mountains of evidence against it, and accept the terrible evidence in favour.you are correct thatn neither of our opinions are as credible as the scientists'. however, we are all capable of critical thought, and that is why many of us have shown the problems with nearly all of the in-favour studies. you have not done any criticism of the 'against' studies, except say that our opinions aren't as valid as scientists.the only reason to believe in it is if you truly have no ability to analyze studies critically, and you really really want to believe in it.analysis of the studies shows it is much more likely than NDE's are caused by neurological factors, and not by the specious reasons you've provided. the link between NDE's and actual life after death is not even argued by scientists. there is no way you can validly say that any of the studies show there is ANY likelihood (nevermind it being relatively likely) of actual life after death.as is often the case, you are supposing to 'show people the light' when actually keeping them in the dark.

[chrisuk_sw 0]

No ones opinion here is as credible than any of the scientists studying this issue in-depth. I like showing people the light, i.e. the evidence that shows it is much more likely than not that there is life after death.

I think my opinion is more credible than the scientists studying the issue because of my direct personal experience of a NDE.I've floated above my body. I have seen the tunnel of light. It wasn't life after death. Sorry.

[zzz 0]

only if people are as willing as you to ignore the mountains of evidence against it, and accept the terrible evidence in favour.you are correct thatn neither of our opinions are as credible as the scientists'. however, we are all capable of critical thought, and that is why many of us have shown the problems with nearly all of the in-favour studies. you have not done any criticism of the 'against' studies, except say that our opinions aren't as valid as scientists.the only reason to believe in it is if you truly have no ability to analyze studies critically, and you really really want to believe in it.analysis of the studies shows it is much more likely than NDE's are caused by neurological factors, and not by the specious reasons you've provided. the link between NDE's and actual life after death is not even argued by scientists. there is no way you can validly say that any of the studies show there is ANY likelihood (nevermind it being relatively likely) of actual life after death. as is often the case, you are supposing to 'show people the light' when actually keeping them in the dark.

No. In a previous post I showed how WrongWay's critics arguments were flawed. Feel free to show me what skeptic argument hasn't been shown to be flawed.Lol, even the scientists who are skeptics would disagree with that statement. You have no idea what you are talking about lol. So much for thinking critically and being open minded.

I think my opinion is more credible than the scientists studying the issue because of my direct personal experience of a NDE.I've floated above my body. I have seen the tunnel of light. It wasn't life after death. Sorry.

How do you know it wasn't?Also, many people have experienced those things and also after coming back from clinical death can validate what was going on when they were clinically dead.

[mrdannyg 274]

No. In a previous post I showed how WrongWay's critics arguments were flawed. Feel free to show me what skeptic argument hasn't been shown to be flawed.Lol, even the scientists who are skeptics would disagree with that statement. You have no idea what you are talking about lol. So much for thinking critically and being open minded.

you didn't do it with any type of critical argument, and they would not, since i specifically used qualifying words like 'valid' and 'likelihood.'it seems absurd to have this argument, since most of the basis is your belief that third-party personal experience and a lack of ability to think critically is an excellent basis on which to have scientific debate. frankly, its only gone on so long because i am amazed that an adult could possibly hold and rationalize their beliefs in a scientific argument. as that seems to be the case, i can only wish you good luck in your life of willful ignorance. i'm sure you'd say the same thing to me, and ignore the ability to critically analyze a situation as a huge difference, however you'd certainly dispute that as well.

[zzz 0]

you didn't do it with any type of critical argument, and they would not, since i specifically used qualifying words like 'valid' and 'likelihood.'it seems absurd to have this argument, since most of the basis is your belief that third-party personal experience and a lack of ability to think critically is an excellent basis on which to have scientific debate. frankly, its only gone on so long because i am amazed that an adult could possibly hold and rationalize their beliefs in a scientific argument. as that seems to be the case, i can only wish you good luck in your life of willful ignorance . i'm sure you'd say the same thing to me, and ignore the ability to critically analyze a situation as a huge difference, however you'd certainly dispute that as well.

That is simply not true. Many scientists (who know more about the subject than me) critically analyzed the situation and came to the conclusion that there most likely is life after death. Some words of advice: Try having an open mind. Have a nice day!

[mrdannyg 274]

That is simply not true. Many scientists (who know more about the subject than me) critically analyzed the situation and came to the conclusion that there most likely is life after death. Some words of advice: Try having an open mind. Have a nice day!

thank you - i do appreciate your ability to argue this without resorting to flaming or other garbage.out of curiosity, when you suggest to have an open mind, what does that entail? is it the ability to accept the possibility that their mind be the existence of things beyond my perceptive and/or critical abilities?

[zzz 0]

thank you - i do appreciate your ability to argue this without resorting to flaming or other garbage.

I have only stated the truth. Sorry if the truth hurts. Have a nice day!

[WrongWay 0]

I intend this to be my last post to this thread.... We've mopped the floor with zzz repeatedly. Because the idea of there not beaing an afterlife scares him shitless, he is unable to see any evidence to the contrary.But, here goes again:http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/7/1003"Clinical observations suggest that REM state intrusion contributes to NDE. Support for the hypothesis follows five lines of evidence: REM intrusion during wakefulness is a frequent normal occurrence, REM intrusion underlies other clinical conditions, NDE elements can be explained by REM intrusion, cardiorespiratory afferents evoke REM intrusion, and persons with an NDE may have an arousal system predisposing to REM intrusion. To investigate a predisposition to REM intrusion, the life-time prevalence of REM intrusion was studied in 55 NDE subjects and compared with that in age/gender-matched control subjects. Sleep paralysis as well as sleep-related visual and auditory hallucinations were substantially more common in subjects with an NDE. These findings anticipate that under circumstances of peril, an NDE is more likely in those with previous REM intrusion. REM intrusion could promote subjective aspects of NDE and often associated syncope. Suppression of an activated locus ceruleus could be central to an arousal system predisposed to REM intrusion and NDE."This is a clinical observation study, NOT an interview (anicdote) based study.http://home.comcast.net/~neardeath/nde/001_pages/84.html"An unexpectedly high number - 22 percent - of the near-death experiencers showed a rare brain-wave pattern known as "synchronized brain activity" in the left temporal lobe. That is a simultaneous firing of neurons - sometimes described as "an electrical storm" - in that part of the brain. It is the kind of abnormal pattern seen in people who suffer epileptic seizures in the temporal lobe.""it is well known that temporal lobe epileptics also experience spiritual near-death-experience-type episodes during seizures and are profoundly affected and changed by them in the same ways near-death experiences are."The jury is still very much out on NDE. However, the proponderance of the evidence is leaning to natural, material causes.

[chrisuk_sw 0]

How do you know it wasn't (life after death)?Also, many people have experienced those things and also after coming back from clinical death can validate what was going on when they were clinically dead.

Because I know. I can tell you what my direct experiences were in an NDE and also how they came about. It wasn't life after death.

[zzz 0]

I intend this to be my last post to this thread.... We've mopped the floor with zzz repeatedly. Because the idea of there not beaing an afterlife scares him shitless, he is unable to see any evidence to the contrary. But, here goes again:http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/7/1003"Clinical observations suggest that REM state intrusion contributes to NDE. Support for the hypothesis follows five lines of evidence: REM intrusion during wakefulness is a frequent normal occurrence, REM intrusion underlies other clinical conditions, NDE elements can be explained by REM intrusion, cardiorespiratory afferents evoke REM intrusion, and persons with an NDE may have an arousal system predisposing to REM intrusion. To investigate a predisposition to REM intrusion, the life-time prevalence of REM intrusion was studied in 55 NDE subjects and compared with that in age/gender-matched control subjects. Sleep paralysis as well as sleep-related visual and auditory hallucinations were substantially more common in subjects with an NDE. These findings anticipate that under circumstances of peril, an NDE is more likely in those with previous REM intrusion. REM intrusion could promote subjective aspects of NDE and often associated syncope. Suppression of an activated locus ceruleus could be central to an arousal system predisposed to REM intrusion and NDE."This is a clinical observation study, NOT an interview (anicdote) based study.http://home.comcast.net/~neardeath/nde/001_pages/84.html"An unexpectedly high number - 22 percent - of the near-death experiencers showed a rare brain-wave pattern known as "synchronized brain activity" in the left temporal lobe. That is a simultaneous firing of neurons - sometimes described as "an electrical storm" - in that part of the brain. It is the kind of abnormal pattern seen in people who suffer epileptic seizures in the temporal lobe.""it is well known that temporal lobe epileptics also experience spiritual near-death-experience-type episodes during seizures and are profoundly affected and changed by them in the same ways near-death experiences are."The jury is still very much out on NDE. However, the proponderance of the evidence is leaning to natural, material causes.

Yet another lie.Your evidence is laughable. It does nothing to refute the evidence shown in the Lommel study. Have a nice day!

[zzz 0]

Pim van Lommel answers the skeptics...So we have to conclude that NDE in our study was experienced during a transient functional loss of all functions of the cortex and of the brainstem. It is important to mention that there is a well documented report of a patient (Pam Reynolds) with constant registration of the EEG during cerebral surgery for an gigantic cerebral aneurysm at the base of the brain, operated with a body temperature between 10 and 15 degrees, she was put on the heart-lung machine, with VF, with all blood drained from her head, with a flat line EEG, with clicking devices in both ears, with eyes taped shut, and this patient experienced an NDE with an out-of-body experience, and all details she perceived and heard could later be verified. Have a nice day!

[chrisuk_sw 0]

Pim van Lommel answers the skeptics...So we have to conclude that NDE in our study was experienced during a transient functional loss of all functions of the cortex and of the brainstem. It is important to mention that there is a well documented report of a patient (Pam Reynolds) with constant registration of the EEG during cerebral surgery for an gigantic cerebral aneurysm at the base of the brain, operated with a body temperature between 10 and 15 degrees, she was put on the heart-lung machine, with VF, with all blood drained from her head, with a flat line EEG, with clicking devices in both ears, with eyes taped shut, and this patient experienced an NDE with an out-of-body experience, and all details she perceived and heard could later be verified. Have a nice day!

I've read Pam Reynolds account of her NDE. She experienced the same thing that I experienced, which isn't life after death.