Isn't eternal life just as bad as eternal death?

RexHamilton

IM0 wrote: »

youre not getting this are you

You're the one not getting it!! If it was 50/50 that we'd get murdered on the way home then half of us would get murdered on the way home every night. It's not 50/50 because we're not getting murdered every night. This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Everything in life is 50/50, even things that are mathematically not 50/50???

Duggy747

seb65 wrote: »

Wrong. People who were clinically dead and whose brains have shown no levels of functioning experienced subjective realities.

When the brain ceases to function then that's it, you're officially dead and not coming back.

Clinically dead is when the heart stops but the brain is still going, albeit on limited oxygen.

IM0

RexHamilton wrote: »

You're the one not getting it!! If it was 50/50 that we'd get murdered on the way home then half of us would get murdered on the way home every night. It's not 50/50 because we're not getting murdered every night. This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Everything in life is 50/50, even things that are mathematically not 50/50???

oh I get it, it just I dont agree with how stats run our lives. no such thing as 'safer' its right up there with the god arguement. well it can be stastically proven but stats are massively massively limited. I would argue stats are the new god

Aglomerado

IM0 wrote: »

oh I get it, it just I dont agree with how stats run our lives. no such thing as 'safer' its right up there with the god arguement. well it can be stastically proven but stats are massively massively limited. I would argue stats are the new god

Do you work for the CSO?

RexHamilton

IM0 wrote: »

oh I get it, it just I dont agree with how stats run our lives. no such thing as 'safer' its right up there with the god arguement. well it can be stastically proven but stats are massively massively limited, but I would argur stats are the new god

Stats don't run my life. In fact, you're the one making up ridiculous stats. To say that it's 50/50 that I will get murdered tonight is fundementally incorrect.

And there's no such thing as safer??

Ok, You cross O'Connell Bridge 1000 times and I'll cross O'Connell Bridge 1000 times. You do it with your eyes closed and ear plugs in, in the middle of the bridge. I'll do it at the junction, with my eyes open waiting for the green man. Now of course, you could get over and back 1000 times and not get hit and I could cross at the green man and a driver breaks the red light and knocks me down. But are you claiming that my way would not be any safer than yours?

westcoast66

Eternal Life/Immortality - lets think about the reality of that.

In 50 years time most of your friends/family are dead.
In 100 years time, ALL of your friends/family are dead.
In 1000 years time, most of your culture is gone.
In 100,000 years time, humans have evolved and you don't really understand them anymore.
In 1M years time, humans are extinct and you are the only one left.
In 1BN years time, the Earth is gone and you are just floating aimlessly in space.
In 100BN years time, the universe is approaching heat death and you are still alive.
In TN years time, the universe is cold and silent but you are still alive.
and this goes on for eternity......

Not so nice, is it?

IM0

RexHamilton wrote: »

Stats don't run my life

eh they do whether directly or indirectly they do and also whether you like it or not

Shenshen

IM0 wrote: »

eh they do whether directly or indirectly they do and also whether you like it or not

There's a 50/50 chance they don't, apparently.

RexHamilton

IM0 wrote: »

eh they do whether directly or indirectly they do and also whether you like it or not

Good man.

Now are we going to O'Connell street? We should have a wager on it. I'll lay 2/1 that you're way is safer. If everything is 50/50, then that's a really good bet for you. How much should we bet on it?

Daveysil15

westcoast66 wrote: »

Eternal Life/Immortality - lets think about the reality of that.

In 50 years time most of your friends/family are dead.
In 100 years time, ALL of your friends/family are dead.
In 1000 years time, most of your culture is gone.
In 100,000 years time, humans have evolved and you don't really understand them anymore.
In 1M years time, humans are extinct and you are the only one left.
In 1BN years time, the Earth is gone and you are just floating aimlessly in space.
In 100BN years time, the universe is approaching heat death and you are still alive.
In TN years time, the universe is cold and silent but you are still alive.
and this goes on for eternity......

Not so nice, is it?

Yeah it would get pretty boring after a while. It must be how God feels.

Mark Tapley

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The current status is that some form of God might exist because it hasn't been proven otherwise. Certainly no one can say, without proof of evidence that no form of God exists because they just don't know.

I don't know either but I admit that fact.

Of all the unlikely things that might exist , God seems to be one of the most unlikely.

DarkDusk

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Of all the unlikely things that might exist , God seems to be one of the most unlikely.

I still can't get over how people believe something that was written by a big bunch of nutcases.

seb65

DarkDusk wrote: »

I still can't get over how people believe something that was written by a big bunch of nutcases.

What does believing in an existence after this one have to do with religion?

seb65

westcoast66 wrote: »

Eternal Life/Immortality - lets think about the reality of that.

In 50 years time most of your friends/family are dead.
In 100 years time, ALL of your friends/family are dead.
In 1000 years time, most of your culture is gone.
In 100,000 years time, humans have evolved and you don't really understand them anymore.
In 1M years time, humans are extinct and you are the only one left.
In 1BN years time, the Earth is gone and you are just floating aimlessly in space.
In 100BN years time, the universe is approaching heat death and you are still alive.
In TN years time, the universe is cold and silent but you are still alive.
and this goes on for eternity......

Not so nice, is it?

Your argument is incorrect. If we go on after death, so will our loved ones and we won't be alone. Time is a human construct and it's relative to our own perception. When we are young it drags on and as we get older it seems to go by faster.

Mark Tapley

seb65 wrote: »

Your argument is incorrect. If we go on after death, so will our loved ones and we won't be alone. Time is a human construct and it's relative to our own perception. When we are young it drags on and as we get older it seems to go by faster.

Westcoast is talking about eternal life I think not life after death.

FamousSeamus

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Of all the unlikely things that might exist , God seems to be one of the most unlikely.

Didn't Dawkins say that he believes God doesn't exist but can't say he knows he doesn't exist just like religious people say they believe god exists but can't know God exists!! In short noone really knows, and when we finally find out were dead so too late to do anything about it!! That's why we shouldn't worry so much, there's a 50/50 chance we're wrong:D

Mark Tapley

FamousSeamus wrote: »

Didn't Dawkins say that he believes God doesn't exist but can't say he knows he doesn't exist just like religious people say they believe god exists but can't know God exists!! In short noone really knows, and when we finally find out were dead so too late to do anything about it!! That's why we shouldn't worry so much, there's a 50/50 chance we're wrong:D

I said I think it is unlikely that there is a God. There is a 100% chance that that is my opinion .

Jimmy 5F

FamousSeamus wrote: »

Didn't Dawkins say that he believes God doesn't exist but can't say he knows he doesn't exist just like religious people say they believe god exists but can't know God exists!! In short noone really knows, and when we finally find out were dead so too late to do anything about it!! That's why we shouldn't worry so much, there's a 50/50 chance we're wrong:D

You should teach probability theory, you make it sound so simple.

Hitchens

Does a child exist before it is conceived?

Pretzill

There seems to be cross threads here re: eternal life and life after death. Living eternally is not realistic unless you're an elf and life after death is a misnomer - life is living - death is no longer living - the body dies this is proven every other theory is just a theory. Some believe in spirit/soul/a metaphysical part of ourselves goes on but there is no proof - as a species we haven't been around for all that long but I would suggest that if there was a firm way of prooving life after death we'd have done it by now.

Daveysil15

Could God make a slice of toast so hot, that not even he could handle it?

Mark Tapley

Pretzill wrote: »

There seems to be cross threads here re: eternal life and life after death. Living eternally is not realistic unless you're an elf and life after death is a misnomer - life is living - death is no longer living - the body dies this is proven every other theory is just a theory. Some believe in spirit/soul/a metaphysical part of ourselves goes on but there is no proof - as a species we haven't been around for all that long but I would suggest that if there was a firm way of prooving life after death we'd have done it by now.

I thought the thread was about the possible repercussions of eternal life/ life after death not the plausibility of it. A thought experiment.

IM0

Mark Tapley wrote: »

I thought the thread was about the possible repercussions of eternal life/ life after death not the plausibility of it. A thought experiment.

it is, hes the one not getting it

seb65

Pretzill wrote: »

There seems to be cross threads here re: eternal life and life after death. Living eternally is not realistic unless you're an elf and life after death is a misnomer - life is living - death is no longer living - the body dies this is proven every other theory is just a theory. Some believe in spirit/soul/a metaphysical part of ourselves goes on but there is no proof - as a species we haven't been around for all that long but I would suggest that if there was a firm way of prooving life after death we'd have done it by now.

Like we've cured cancer and AIDS and figured out how to teleport already?

IM0

seb65 wrote: »

Like we've cured cancer and AIDS and figured out how to teleport already?

well teleportation only works in theory, it will never work in practical terms physics has shown

DarkDusk

Hitchens wrote: »

Does a child exist before it is conceived?

Japanese think they do, they have an age system that starts from when the baby was conceived.

UCDVet

Eternal life would only seem eternal if you have an infinite capacity to remember. Since people don't, we could spend an eternity without ever getting bored.

DarkDusk

seb65 wrote: »

What does believing in an existence after this one have to do with religion?

Sorry, that was related to god, not related to life after death.

IM0

UCDVet wrote: »

Eternal life would only seem eternal if you have an infinite capacity to remember. Since people don't, we could spend an eternity without ever getting bored.

haha! so it would be just like a goldfish! - nice save

ToddyDoody

You ask quite a philosophical question there op. Short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but. There a song by Queen on the subject which may help.

smcgiff

IM0 wrote: »

haha! so it would be just like a goldfish! - nice save

Hurray for Dementia!

Pretzill

IM0 wrote: »

it is, hes the one not getting it

The thread op used the word 'if' so it's plausible to give an opinion on that - it's not about getting it...or your idea on how an opinion should be expressed. btw it's she, sir.

RexHamilton

Just to bring back up the earlier point, because it's quite ridiculous and I want clarification...

FamousSeamus and IMO, are you both saying that if we don't no for certain if something exists or not then the chances of it existing are 50/50?

The Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot. Both have apparantly been seen but there is no definitive proof they exist. Would you say it's 50/50 that they exist? I'd imagine it's overwhelming odds on that neither exist. Now they are creatures that people claim to have seen, but still, there is no evidence to suggest that either actually do exist.

Now, when dealing with an afterlife, there is even less evidence to suggest there is any form of life after death, but because no one has died and come back to life to let us know either way, we cannot prove there is no afterlife (even though the burden of proof would surely be on the opposite side of the argument) you suggest that there is exactly the same chance that there is an afterlife and that there isn't.

Mind boggling.

Mark Tapley

Pretzill wrote: »

The thread op used the word 'if' so it's plausible to give an opinion on that - it's not about getting it...or your idea on how an opinion should be expressed. btw it's she, sir.

Madam that sentence is incomprehensible .

Pretzill

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Madam that sentence is incomprehensible .

I suggest that's probably your reading of it and of 50% of the other posts dealing with the plausibilty of eternal life not just my own - (also not a monty python fan)

shadowcomplex

mangochavez wrote: »

What if there was an afterlife somewhere... maybe it was a peaceful place full of light and joy but... then what?

Would we live and grow old like now or... would we be young and healthy forever without any problems? It sounds great at first but... try to imagine living like that for a million, billion, trillion...

trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion years.

And then after that... living the same number of years after that... forever.

I like life and I don't want to die because I fear it but... I think when I experience something I want an ending even though I am irrational and sometimes want to keep living.

So if there is an afterlife how will life be different than now?

Plus we probably wouldn't get an 8 hour kip every night either

Pretzill

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Plus we probably wouldn't get an 8 hour kip every night either

Eternally awake? Now that sounds awful. No lie ins - nah you'd have to find some sleep after zipping around the universe for trillions of years trying to find the true existence of batman, santa and work out the 50/50 odds of everything. Eternal life could be exhausting.

smcgiff

Just read the last couple of pages and feel my IQ has dropped (and it probably wasn't that high to begin with).

Everything we don't know is 50/50 ? Anyone that mentions a cat and a box is really asking for it !

Prodigious

seb65 wrote: »

Like we've cured cancer and AIDS and figured out how to teleport already?

It is very likely that a cure exists for both.

nozzferrahhtoo

mangochavez wrote: »

So if there is an afterlife how will life be different than now?

Thankfully I see no reason to think there is one at all. There simply is no evidence, argument, data or reasoning on offer to think there is one. So I do not.

I think the idea of an afterlife cheapens the value of life here. What is the point of life here if there is an eternal afterlife? Rarity is what defines the worth of many things. Gold is not just precious because it is a bit pretty. It is precious because it is very rare.

Similarly the rarity and uniqueness of life, the fact I am a one off, and our existence before we are gone and never to be repeated is mercilessly brief, all lend life value.

Take the Myths surrounding the Christ where we are told god "gave" us his only son and that Jesus sacrificed himself for us.

Think about it. What was sacrificed? The Nazerene is said to be living a life of eternal bliss and dominion with his pa-pa. That does not sound like he sacrificed anything but in fact traded up.

It is an insult to anyone who actually did give their one and only life... with no promise of another one... in the name of some person, place or ideal. People who actually did genuinely make a sacrifice. The fact they do NOT have an eternal life ahead of them adds value to their actions.

This god did not "give" us a son but in fact "lent" us one therefore. For an insignificant time and even if this "son" did die ever then this supposed all powerful being has the ability to mediate his grief by returning life to that son in an instant.

Contrast this to the agony of parents on this planet who when they lose a child it really is lost forever. There is good reason why people often declare that there is no pain greater than to outlive your own children.

Even the tortures said to have been visited on this character are like a holiday compared to some of the horrors our species have invented to visit on each other in our halls of torture.

The rarity and transience of life gives it its value, it does not erode it. The idea of an eternal after life fills me with horror and it is with some relief I get to acknowledge the simple fact that no one any where, much less on this forum, has the single shred of the first iota of arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to lend the idea even a modicum of credence.

The late Christopher Hitchens once described it by saying that death is like being told you have to leave a really good party soon, and that the party will continue on without you. While an unpleasant thought this may be, it is no where near as unpleasant as the thought that someone at the party will tap you on the shoulder, tell you that you will NEVER be leaving ever, and while you stay the host positively _insists_ you have a good time.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You can't say with confidence that some form of God does or does not exist.

No but we can say with total confidence that there is not a shred of reason to think it does.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Hmm nope, I'm pretty sure it would be awesome to live forever, explore the expanding universe and watch civilizations rise and fall.

It would be awesome. For awhile. Eternity is a long time though. I imagine it would get boring pretty quickly.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No one can say for certain that some form of higher power doesn't exist, no one. Because the truth is we just don't know.

I agree. We just do not "know". The problem I would have however is with any attempt some might make to take this fact and act like this means there is some kind of equivalence between the two positions on the matter. As if it is therefore somehow 50:50.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence indeed but it is a very powerful indicator of the fact that any imagined equivalence between the two positions is a false one.

If I tell you that the next time you leave your home a pink Volkswagen with purple pokka dots is going to materialize about your head and fall upon you and kill you... you simply have no way to disprove this claim in advance.

Does that mean it is 50:50 that I am correct in my assertion? Clearly not. The fact is that you recognize there simply is no reason to take my claim seriously _at all_. The claim is devoid of even the smallest modicum of anything to lend it credence.

While you would therefore be quite right to say "We can not yet disprove your claim and therefore we just do not _know_".... saying it is an empty pointing out of the obvious that invents a false equivalence between the positions of taking me seriously or not.

So while your sentence is technically correct it is an empty statement that brushes over the real facts of the matter at hand. Some sentences are so pedantically correct that their appeal to pedantry really is the only value they contain.

shadowcomplex

It could work out if god induced some sort of amnesia every few 1000 years or so

On a serious note

people here saying it would be torture to live forever are basicing it on very simple terms and on the only life we know- this one. Of course that would be torture.

I'm sure if a heaven exists and we are meant to live on forever it will work out , he is supposed to be God after all

pickarooney

I might finally catch up on Deadwood

seb65

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Thankfully I see no reason to think there is one at all. There simply is no evidence, argument, data or reasoning on offer to think there is one. So I do not.

There are, actually, many experiences - many people have had that cannot be explained. So there is some evidence that there is a continuation. Near death experiences and after death communications for example. These cannot be explained. Though scientists have some sort of vendetta towards trying to explain them away, they have thus been unable to recreate an NDE experience through lack of oxygen or stimulating different parts of the brain. The people who have had NDE's swear that their experiences were more real than our earthly reality. They also say there is no concept of time in these instances. If there is no concept of time, this idea of eternal time does not exist. Also, there are fundamental components of NDE's regardless of age, religious beliefs, culture and geographic location.

I think that most people who have lost a child, as you say, try to live in hope that the child goes on and is happy, or at peace. It's rather cruel for you to assert that they know the child is gone forever, just gone. Their anguish, similar to anyone who has lost someone they love, is due to the fact that they are no longer present in the physical with them - among other things.

RexHamilton

seb65 wrote: »

There are, actually, many experiences - many people have had that cannot be explained. So there is some evidence that there is a continuation. Near death experiences and after death communications for example. These cannot be explained. Though scientists have some sort of vendetta towards trying to explain them away, they have thus been unable to recreate an NDE experience through lack of oxygen or stimulating different parts of the brain. The people who have had NDE's swear that their experiences were more real than our earthly reality. They also say there is no concept of time in these instances. If there is no concept of time, this idea of eternal time does not exist. Also, there are fundamental components of NDE's regardless of age, religious beliefs, culture and geographic location.

I think that most people who have lost a child, as you say, try to live in hope that the child goes on and is happy, or at peace. It's rather cruel for you to assert that they know the child is gone forever, just gone. Their anguish, similar to anyone who has lost someone they love, is due to the fact that they are no longer present in the physical with them - among other things.

Yes but Near Death Experiences are not evidence of anything. No one can prove that anyone actually experienced them, you just have to take the word of the person who experienced them. In my opinion, and it is admittedly just my opinion, a near death experience is just a dream. They are often (always?) experienced while unconscious and no matter how real they feel, the person hasnt moved from his/her hospital bed or wherever their physical body is. If I had a very vivd dream of Jesus coming and telling me I'm the second coming of Christ and claimed for all the world that it was more real than life itself, would that be evidence that I am in fact the second coming of Christ?

The fact is, near death experiences are not evidence of anything except the fact that a traumatised person had a vivid dream.

As for telling parents that their child is gone forever, if it is more comforting them to believe that their child is gone to eternal bliss, then that's great for them but wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. Why are they so upset about losing their child in the first place if the child is gone to a better place.

smcgiff

There have been tests on NDE - for example for those with an out of body experience.

Test cards have been placed above patient level and nobody that has an OOB experience has been able to identify what the messages were.

So, dreams, body's shut down response or drugs are all more plausible than an afterlife for humans... or dogs, goldfish, earthworms, bacteria etc.

nozzferrahhtoo

seb65 wrote: »

There are, actually, many experiences - many people have had that cannot be explained. So there is some evidence that there is a continuation.

I think I would disagree with that from two totally different angles.

The first being that there are actually many explanations for such things. The people who have had them however simply reject them. If you are aware of any that quite simply are devoid of any plausible explanation then by all means cite them. I think many of our species fall for the power of context however. Perfectly mundane things when they occur in a "lofty" context such as during deep meditation or while on the operating table in a hospital in the proximity to death suddenly take on the power of context and require special explanations because the context voids the mundane explanations in their imagination.

The second reason I would disagree is that our species seems too ready to accept the notion that if X is unexplained then any nonsense idea made up on the spot to explain it is suddenly elevated in credibility. In other words ANY answer is better than no answer at all and an answer that is recognized as total nonsense in one context can suddenly be considered credible in another for no other reason than there is no other answers around.

So no, I see nothing in the above to suggest there is ANY evidence "of continuation" here at all. Not even slightly. You would essentially be offering the lack of evidence AS evidence which is clearly a nonsense.

seb65 wrote: »

Near death experiences and after death communications for example.

I see nothing to suggest the latter has ever occured. Anywhere. Ever. Again if you feel you know something I do not then I welcome the citations.

The former however I heartily agree with. The explanation is in the name however. NEAR death experience. That is: they were not _actually_ dead. If you want to tell me that there are people who had _an_ experience while _near_ death then you will get zero argument from me.

Clearly however evidence for experience AFTER death this is not at all despite the two topics cropping up often beside one another. And, yes, they CAN be explained. The rejection of those explanations is not the same as those explanations not existing.

seb65 wrote: »

they have thus been unable to recreate an NDE experience through lack of oxygen or stimulating different parts of the brain.

Actually... depending on which aspect of NDE you are referring to here... this is entirely untrue. Many experiences associated also with NDE have very much been artificially recreated. Including the sensation of being outside or above ones own body. Perhaps you are personally not aware of such things... but that does not mean they have not been done.

seb65 wrote: »

If there is no concept of time, this idea of eternal time does not exist.

That is something of a leap given how brief their exposure to NDE actually is. Were the experience to continue at some great length their perception of the passage of time would likely be entirely different to what they describe. Most of us normal humans are already powerfully aware of the time dilation effects of dreams. We fall asleep from what the people around us assure us was only a second or two but we come out of a dream convinced we were in it for quite some time for example.

And as for the "fundamental components" of NDE I have read a few people who have taken the texts written by people describing their NDE and also by people describing certain trips on drugs... and the similarities in theme and sensation and so forth is more than striking.

seb65 wrote: »

I think that most people who have lost a child, as you say, try to live in hope that the child goes on and is happy, or at peace. It's rather cruel for you to assert that they know the child is gone forever, just gone.

I do not see it as cruel at all. It is simply what is apparently the truth. Grief is a wound that needs to be healed and dealt with. Covering it over with lies might give immediate solace but what of the long term? One recognized aspect of the grieving process in psychological literature is the concept that the sooner one deals with grief the better. The recent US tornadoes for example saw children losing parents but themselves surviving and they rushed to get child counsellors in their with boots on the ground from day 1 because every day counts.

I have witness the results of people post poning the grieving process first hand and it was never pretty. People who used faith to deal with a death who later lost that faith then had to go through the loss almost as if it was repeated all over again from square 1. Though this time they had to do it without all the tools psychologists say we require to do so.... such as fresh not yet faded memories of the departed.

Having stood over the grief racked form of someone who lost their faith and had to lose their loved one all over again as they cry in lament "I can not even remember her face any more, why can I not just see her face" you will not convince me that it would have been cruel had I been there on day 1 telling them that their loved one simply is gone and they need to face that.

I recognize and am far from unsympathetic to the appeal of the "in the moment quick fix" solution to someones pain. When someone comes out of a hospital having just lost their wife every part of you wants to say _something_ to alleviate the persons suffering in that moment. Even I have found the temptation to say "She is with god now".

But a badly dressed wound has to be re-dressed later and often with complications of infection and worse.

Mark Tapley

Pretzill wrote: »

I suggest that's probably your reading of it and of 50% of the other posts dealing with the plausibilty of eternal life not just my own - (also not a monty python fan)

Sorry if I have offended you but I really don't understand some of your posts nor the monty python reference .

seb65

RexHamilton wrote: »

Yes but Near Death Experiences are not evidence of anything. No one can prove that anyone actually experienced them, you just have to take the word of the person who experienced them. In my opinion, and it is admittedly just my opinion, a near death experience is just a dream. They are often (always?) experienced while unconscious and no matter how real they feel, the person hasnt moved from his/her hospital bed or wherever their physical body is. If I had a very vivd dream of Jesus coming and telling me I'm the second coming of Christ and claimed for all the world that it was more real than life itself, would that be evidence that I am in fact the second coming of Christ?

The fact is, near death experiences are not evidence of anything except the fact that a traumatised person had a vivid dream.

As for telling parents that their child is gone forever, if it is more comforting them to believe that their child is gone to eternal bliss, then that's great for them but wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. Why are they so upset about losing their child in the first place if the child is gone to a better place.

Except in instances where people with an NDE have seen someone in "heaven" they didn't know was dead in the first place.

As I already said, believing someone is in a better place is not the issue, the issue is not having them physically present with you.

As for the tests scientists have done - they can simulate the tunnel of light effect through lack of oxygen and the OBE effect by stimulating parts of the brain. They have not been able to simulate the two experiences together. Nor have they been able to simulate the feelings of peace, love or the meeting of loved ones, the life review, etc. In other words, they cannot simulate the rich, subjective experiences people describe.

I have no answer for why people cannot read the cards that scientists in London have placed on high levels to test OBEs. However, patients do not know these cards exist and are probably not going to look for them in an OBE, should they actually occur.

After death communications have been reported. Though, people are often hesitant to speak of them for fear of ridicule by "scientific" people who approach the possibility of continued existence with the same level of arrogance as devout religious people who definitively state there is a God... and a heaven...and a hell.

I have read numerous stories of after death communications. Both my grandmother and great-grandmother have spoken of their own experiences - both of which more substantial than a rainbow or a bird in the sky.

seb65

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not see it as cruel at all. It is simply what is apparently the truth. Grief is a wound that needs to be healed and dealt with. Covering it over with lies might give immediate solace but what of the long term? One recognized aspect of the grieving process in psychological literature is the concept that the sooner one deals with grief the better. The recent US tornadoes for example saw children losing parents but themselves surviving and they rushed to get child counsellors in their with boots on the ground from day 1 because every day counts.

Perhaps you have yet to read the new psychological literature that speaks of the need for people to have a continued - though, of course changed - relationship with deceased family members/friends. The idea that once someone dies, people must immediately grieve in an attempt to get over losing someone is ridiculous and harmful.

People never get over the loss of a relationship. They may readjust and learn to live with it, but it's not a hole that can simply be filled or patched over. Most do not want to do so either because it dishonors the relationship and their loved one.

The idea that one goes through a grieving process and is never again sad or in despair about a death is truly ignorant.

While people may feel the need to offer words of comfort and talk about God, there's really no need, no words make the griever feel better. No one thinks, well she/he's with God, sure it's all grand. Though, words of condolences and sympathy may make them feel less alone.

RexHamilton

seb65 wrote: »

Except in instances where people with an NDE have seen someone in "heaven" they didn't know was dead in the first place.

As I already said, believing someone is in a better place is not the issue, the issue is not having them physically present with you.

As for the tests scientists have done - they can simulate the tunnel of light effect through lack of oxygen and the OBE effect by stimulating parts of the brain. They have not been able to simulate the two experiences together. Nor have they been able to simulate the feelings of peace, love or the meeting of loved ones, the life review, etc. In other words, they cannot simulate the rich, subjective experiences people describe.

I have no answer for why people cannot read the cards that scientists in London have placed on high levels to test OBEs. However, patients do not know these cards exist and are probably not going to look for them in an OBE, should they actually occur.

After death communications have been reported. Though, people are often hesitant to speak of them for fear of ridicule by "scientific" people who approach the possibility of continued existence with the same level of arrogance as devout religious people who definitively state there is a God... and a heaven...and a hell.

I have read numerous stories of after death communications. Both my grandmother and great-grandmother have spoken of their own experiences - both of which more substantial than a rainbow or a bird in the sky.

Your grand mother and great-grandmother were from a simpler and more innocent time. Everyone I know from those generations has a story or an anecdote which if were would prove many things. Simple fact is, they made that leap of faith that if we don't know why something occurs, it must be caused by something supernatural. That's the same leap you're making. You're asserting that NDE's are evidence of an afterlife, when they are not. They are the experience of the individual person that experienced them. They are not evidence.

After Death communications? I really hope you're not talking about psychics and mediums. If you are I'm going to remove myself from this conversation, I reckon.