Atheism and the Afterlife

stesaurus

I had an experience once before. I woke up during the night and I could feel another presence in the room with me. I knew the person so wasn't too scared even though I had just been at their funeral that day. As my eyes cleared I saw that person standing at the end of the room. I was speechless.
Turns out it was a pile of clothes. The mind is an amazing thing but untrustworthy at best. You should always question yourself and what your mind tells you, especially when dealing with fanciful notions of NDE or any other flapdoodle not grounded in facts.
I was 9 at the time OP, what's your excuse?

Mark Tapley

Swanner wrote: »

I say there's evidence to suggest either of us could be correct and i'm open to that possibility.

You say, Nonsense. That you are correct and I am wrong.

I believe in that instance, the burden of proof is on you - No ?

No . To be honest you really lost me with "intelligent design". I think it is a mistake to indulge this credulous nonsense. You posit a ridiculous theory and expect me to disprove it. An intangible thing that you just believe without rhyme or reason.
Other posters are more polite or diplomatic than I am so I will leave you to it.

The Bishop Basher

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Every once in a while on a quite regular basis I find myself transported to far off worlds, some familiar some strange where I talk and interact with all manner of people, some I know, some are strangers, some I know to be long dead and gone. It's all utterly believable and I experience it as real - then my alarm goes off and I get up and go to work!:mad:

The mind is a strange and scarcely understood thing - but one thing we know for damn sure is that it's at best a fantasist and at worst a bare faced liar! Just because you experience something (much less so hear that someone else claims to have experienced something) doesn't mean jack shít.
Your mind is so easily distorted and manipulated by hormones , drugs etc. that you just can't rely on anything it says, especially in times of stress......such as almost dying!

I'm well aware of this and have agreed with this point many times on here. However I don't believe it's a reason to discount all experience. After all, you know, after the event, that what you experienced was dream. Is waking the reality or was the dream the reality ? You pick the being awake part as the reality as would most. You accept that as your reality and you accept the dream as fantasy. You are more then capable of distinguishing between the 2.

robdonn

Swanner wrote: »

Why would I though ? Because you state it as fact ?

Fine then show me the definitive proof that no afterlife exists.

If I say i have an open mind with regard to an afterlife and you state categorically that i'm wrong, surely then the burden of proof lies with you to provide definitive evidence to back up that statement ?

I'm not looking to play games here. We both know that an afterlife to date cannot be proven nor disproven.

You have your opinion and that's fine. I respect both your opinion and your right to hold it. But in the absence of definitive proof one way or the other it is, was and will remain just that. An opinion.

That is an odd way to look at things. Yes, you are stating your opinion, but you are stating your opinion about a factual element of reality. Like with most things in the universe it either exists or it doesn't. Not being able to disprove something gives absolutely no value towards the thing actually existing. As others have pointed out, you have turned the "I just believe god exists" argument into "I just believe X exists".

Essentially what you are purporting to exist is magic. The only evidence you have for it is personal experience, both yours and those of many others, but personal experience is worth diddly squat. The existence of scientific studies does not count as evidence as all they study are people's experiences and while some of the accounts by people can be eerily accurate they can also be explained by lies, guesses and modified memories e.g. Forgetting that you heard a doctor talk about the family in the next room and just remembering that the family was in the next room.

Now by all means, you're free to believe what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, but it just seems that whatever logic you may apply to the question of the existence of god, and presumably fairies and leprechauns, you don't seem to be applying it here.

The Bishop Basher

s.welstead wrote: »

I had an experience once before. I woke up during the night and I could feel another presence in the room with me. I knew the person so wasn't too scared even though I had just been at their funeral that day. As my eyes cleared I saw that person standing at the end of the room. I was speechless.
Turns out it was a pile of clothes. The mind is an amazing thing but untrustworthy at best. You should always question yourself and what your mind tells you, especially when dealing with fanciful notions of NDE or any other flapdoodle not grounded in facts.
I was 9 at the time OP, what's your excuse?

Again, see above. You can distinguish between the fantasy and the reality. Maybe not at the time, but afterward.

The Bishop Basher

Mark Tapley wrote: »

No . To be honest you really lost me with "intelligent design". I think it is a mistake to indulge this credulous nonsense. You posit a ridiculous theory and expect me to disprove it. An intangible thing that you just believe without rhyme or reason.
Other posters are more polite or diplomatic than I am so I will leave you to it.

I have no expectation of you or anyone else. You are as free to leave the discussion as you were to join it. And that's all it is, a discussion. I don't understand some of the views here, others i completely get. You clearly hold strong opposing views and struggle with how I can hold mine.

That's fine. We're all different.

Thanks for your input.

Mark Tapley

Swanner wrote: »

I have no expectation of you or anyone else. You are as free to leave the discussion as you were to join it. And that's all it is, a discussion. I don't understand some of the views here, others i completely get. You clearly hold strong opposing views and struggle with how I can hold mine.

That's fine. We're all different.

Thanks for your input.

Quote you-
I believe in that instance, the burden of proof is on you - No ?

So to prove you wrong I have to prove the force isn't with you?

You come up with some hokey theory that allows you to delude yourself into thinking that you will exist forever and think it is worthy of debate.

Stealthfins

Looks like there's a few new kid's on the block here.

I miss the old you're deluded,delusional Shi T,creating division,ignorance and I'm more clever than you....
Keep up the good work guy's ðŸ˜႒

The Bishop Basher

Mark Tapley wrote: »

You come up with some hokey theory that allows you to delude yourself into thinking that you will exist forever and think it is worthy of debate.

It's hokey to you. That's fine. I can understand why you think it's hokey.

Lot's of things seem hokey to me too. I don't categorically discount them on that basis though. I will happily discount them when presented with definitive proof that they're hokey, but never because "I think it's hokey"..

As to whether it's worthy of debate or not, well, you're here debating of your own free will so...

The Bishop Basher

Stealthfins wrote: »

Looks like there's a few new kid's on the block here.

I miss the old you're deluded,delusional Shi T,creating division,ignorance and I'm more clever than you....
Keep up the good work guy's ðŸ˜႒

I could start a thread "there's no such thing as an atheist" if you want

But i don't believe that to be the case and i'm not here to stir ****...

I just enjoy bouncing these ideas around and getting other perspectives...

That's all..

kylith

Swanner wrote: »

That's my point though. You've mentioned a couple of realistic and valid explanations which have to be thoroughly investigated.

The difference is that I don't discount the idea that it could actually be a consciousness beyond death because as long as there is evidence in both directions and as long as it has not been definitively proven one way or the other, I cannot be in a position to state anything as fact.

I have my opinion and i can try and defend it with the evidence we do have but at the end of the day you'll have just as much evidence to dispute my claim so I just accept that reality that none of us can actually know for sure.

Sure, there could be an afterlife. It could also be that it's the powering down of the computer programme that runs you because we're all just simulations in an experiment. Frankly there's as much evidence for one as for the other.

The evidence that we DO have, the scientific evidence, points to there not being an afterlife. So until someone comes up with better evidence than 'this guy was in a car crash, right? And he swears that he saw a white light and his dead granny was there, and why would he lie?', which is what the majority of the evidence FOR an afterlife boils down to, I'm going to go with the scientific reasoning.

The burden of proof places the onus to prove a claim on the person making a claim. You cannot prove a negative: it can't be proven that unicorns don't exist so the onus is on people claiming that unicorns exist to prove that they do. The same with the afterlife: no one can prove that there isn't an afterlife, but they have come up with verifiable mundane reasons for explaining NDEs. As yet there hasn't been the first bit of evidence for an afterlife that isn't opinion, conjecture, or anecdote.

Mark Tapley

Swanner wrote: »

It's hokey to you. That's fine. I can understand why you think it's hokey.

Lot's of things seem hokey to me too. I don't categorically discount them on that basis though. I will happily discount them when presented with definitive proof that they're hokey, but never because "I think it's hokey"..

As to whether it's worthy of debate or not, well, you're here debating of your own free will so...

A licence to believe any mickey mouse crap. You must have definitive proof that there is no god then.

kylith

Swanner wrote: »

It's hokey to you. That's fine. I can understand why you think it's hokey.

Lot's of things seem hokey to me too. I don't categorically discount them on that basis though. I will happily discount them when presented with definitive proof that they're hokey, but never because "I think it's hokey"..

As to whether it's worthy of debate or not, well, you're here debating of your own free will so...

What about 'there isn't a shred of evidence to say it's not hokey'? Otherwise you're left not discounting fairies, Bigfoot, crystal healing, or a gremlin called Malcolm who causes mouth ulcers.

Akrasia

Swanner wrote: »

Do you mean the original question ? Are they compatible ?

If so...

When I held that view I had not got to the point i'm at today. I had no belief in any god. None whatsoever. I believed that when we die, we rot. End of.

I was 100% atheist yet I was more then comfortable with the idea that an energy within me could continue on after death.

It would be fair to say that it all sits a lot easier with me now that I can accept something "other" whatever that is, but i don't believe the 2 are mutually exclusive.

Energy continues, consciousness ends.

Huntergonzo

Akrasia wrote: »

Energy continues, consciousness ends.

Consciousness does indeed end........especially after a couple of bottles of wine at Christmas :-)

robdonn

kylith wrote: »

Sure, there could be an afterlife. It could also be that it's the powering down of the computer programme that runs you because we're all just simulations in an experiment. Frankly there's as much evidence for one as for the other.

Actually, we have evidence of computer programmes existing. :P

The Bishop Basher

kylith wrote: »

I'm going to go with the scientific reasoning.

And I wouldn't expect any atheist that relies solely on scientific reason to be open to what i'm suggesting. I get that and I have no problem with it. We probably just have to agree to disagree as we're approaching it from such different perspectives with little room for compromise..

But atheists don't have to rely solely on scientific reason. They just have to lack a belief in a god. That leaves the door open for a much wider divergence of opinion within atheism and that's where I was coming from.

So while it may be absolutely contrary to your "beliefs", surely it's conceivable that other atheists may sit comfortably with the idea.

That was what i wanted to figure out.

kylith wrote: »

The burden of proof places the onus to prove a claim on the person making a claim.

I got the impression Mark Tapley was stating the non existence of an afterlife as fact. If I got that wrong, my bad.

In all other circumstances i obviously accept the burden of proof.

looksee

I just enjoy bouncing these ideas around and getting other perspectives...

But the rest of us don't- and can't - have any perspectives on your personal opinion that while there is no god there is - something.

You think (am I right?) that there will be some sort of an afterlife, on the basis that you have experienced great peace or contentment or something slightly otherworldly in a forest or countryside. Other than that the 'something' might just as well be described as god, possibly not with the baggage of a religion, but god nontheless.

I can accept that being atheist and believing in an afterlife are not absolutely exclusive of each other, but since atheists tend to not believe in anything for which there is no evidence, it seems unlikely that there are too many that think that way. I would tend to believe that NDEs can be caused by physical reactions in the brain. The commonest versions of this are probably 'deja vu', and the sense when you wake that you have had a long and complicated dream, but brain scans would show that the dream lasted only a very short time. There is also that really weird sensation that just as you are falling asleep a very convincing voice says your name quite loudly and clearly. The first time I heard this as a child I was convinced god had spoken to me. He didn't say anything else though so it seemed a bit pointless.

If it gives you peace and contentment to anticipate an afterlife, then go for it. Why look for anyone else to validate your belief (that's what is called religion), and there is always the risk that they will persuade you against it, which would be a pity if you get reassurance from it.

The Bishop Basher

kylith wrote: »

What about 'there isn't a shred of evidence to say it's not hokey'? Otherwise you're left not discounting fairies, Bigfoot, crystal healing, or a gremlin called Malcolm who causes mouth ulcers.

If there's evidence to suggest something is a possibility then it shouldn't ever be discounted.

If there is zero evidence something is a possibility, despite the fact that it is actually possible, it should in that case be discounted.

kylith

Swanner wrote: »

If there's evidence to suggest something is a possibility then it shouldn't ever be discounted.

If there is zero evidence something is a possibility, despite the fact that it is actually possible, it should in that case be discounted.

So what's your evidence then? Because at the moment your evidence appears to be 'no one has 100% proved it's not real'. No one has 100% disproved Malcolm the ulcer gremlin either, would it be reasonable to assume that he shouldn't be discounted?

The Bishop Basher

looksee wrote: »

But the rest of us don't- and can't - have any perspectives on your personal opinion that while there is no god there is - something.

But you can have a perspective on the situation i described and that's all I was asking for.

looksee wrote: »

If it gives you peace and contentment to anticipate an afterlife, then go for it. Why look for anyone else to validate your belief (that's what is called religion), and there is always the risk that they will persuade you against it, which would be a pity if you get reassurance from it.

You get me wrong. I'm not looking for validation. Believe me. The position I adopt today has come from many years of experience, learning, questioning and at times work. As I said I don't claim to have any answers however i'm extremely comfortable in my own "beliefs" and with that have found I can be a lot more comfortable with the "beliefs" of others no matter how contrary they are to my own or how little I understand them.

But that shouldn't and won't preclude me from continuing to question my own convictions and a huge part of that is seeking out the perspective of others to gain balance.

I think it's shame to be honest that reaching out in such a manner gets labeled as seeking validation although i know you didn't mean it maliciously.

Anyway, on that note i appreciate the input from everyone and i kinda have the answer so happy to leave it there.

Cheers all..

The Bishop Basher

kylith wrote: »

So what's your evidence then? Because at the moment your evidence appears to be 'no one has 100% proved it's not real'. No one has 100% disproved Malcolm the ulcer gremlin either, would it be reasonable to assume that he shouldn't be discounted?

I'm going to finish up here but as i mentioned above, until proven otherwise, I believe NDE's could be evidence for a continuation of consciousness.

And that's not an unreasonable position..

There is however, currently, zero evidence for Malcolm the Ulcer Gremlin.

One is reasonable. One is not.

Anyway thanks for your input and i'm going to bow out now and leave anyone that want to have the last word to have it..

Cheers all..

kylith

Swanner wrote: »

I'm going to finish up here but as i mentioned above, until proven otherwise, I believe NDE's could be evidence for a continuation of consciousness.

And that's not an unreasonable position..

There is however, currently, zero evidence for Malcolm the Ulcer Gremlin.

One is reasonable. One is not.

Anyway thanks for your input and i'm going to bow out now and leave anyone that want to have the last word to have it..

Cheers all..

No, but I totally feel Malcolm is real. And my mate totally said that he saw him one time. And no one's got no proof that he doesn't exist.

Anyway, thanks for proving my point. Your reason for believing in an afterlife is that it can't be entirely disproven. You haven't offered one iota of actual evidence for why it would be reasonable to assume it exists. If that makes you happy, knock yourself out, but it's not a logical belief.

TheChizler

Swanner wrote: »

I'm going to finish up here but as i mentioned above, until proven otherwise, I believe NDE's could be evidence for a continuation of consciousness.

And that's not an unreasonable position..

There is however, currently, zero evidence for Malcolm the Ulcer Gremlin.

Sure there is, I get mouth ulcers the whole time without any medical explanation, until proven otherwise, I believe they could be evidence of Malcolm.

robdonn

I understand that you're bowing out of the conversation, I'm just going to throw this out there.

Swanner wrote: »

I'm going to finish up here but as i mentioned above, until proven otherwise, I believe NDE's could be evidence for a continuation of consciousness.

And that's not an unreasonable position..

There is however, currently, zero evidence for Malcolm the Ulcer Gremlin.

One is reasonable. One is not.

Anyway thanks for your input and i'm going to bow out now and leave anyone that want to have the last word to have it..

Cheers all..

The problem is that while NDE's could be evidence of an afterlife of some sort, there is no indication that it is. NDE's more strongly conform to known phenomena about the brain and human behaviour than anything supernatural.

But all the best to you Swanner.

endacl

TheChizler wrote: »

Sure there is, I get mouth ulcers the whole time without any medical explanation, until proven otherwise, I believe they could be evidence of Malcolm.

That Malcolm. Little prick.

sbsquarepants

Swanner wrote: »

It's hokey to you. That's fine. I can understand why you think it's hokey.

Lot's of things seem hokey to me too. I don't categorically discount them on that basis though. I will happily discount them when presented with definitive proof that they're hokey, but never because "I think it's hokey"..

As to whether it's worthy of debate or not, well, you're here debating of your own free will so...

You're coming at it back to front. There will never be evidence that there is no afterlife, not ever, it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. You can only prove that things do exist and in the absence of proof for a things existence you can say that you think it doesn't exist - you could always be wrong and the proof just hasn't been found yet.
If you say "I don't believe in giraffes" I can prove you are wrong.
If you say "I believe there are 8 legged flying giraffes" I can not prove you wrong.
At best all I can say is "I don't believe there are, can you show me why you believe that" and make a judgment on the quality of your evidence

Hotblack Desiato

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You're coming at it back to front. There will never be evidence that there is no afterlife, not ever, it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist.

But what if someone died, found there was no afterlife, came back and told us?

Canadel

seamus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But what if someone died, found there was no afterlife, came back and told us?

Plenty of people have. They almost universally describe the experience like dreamless sleep. That is, nothing.

A completely unscientific link:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/332k1c/serious_redditors_who_have_been_clinically_dead/

sbsquarepants

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But what if someone died, found there was no afterlife, came back and told us?

How would they know?
If you go out looking for gold and don't find any, that is hardly proof that gold doesn't exist.

seamus

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How would they know?
If you go out looking for gold and don't find any, that is hardly proof that gold doesn't exist.

I know it's all a bit tongue in cheek, but this is less complex then searching for gold.
If you posit that there is a room behind a door, but you can't be certain because the door is closed, then simply opening the door and walking in and back out should be sufficient to tell you whether or not there is indeed a room there.

robdonn

seamus wrote: »

I know it's all a bit tongue in cheek, but this is less complex then searching for gold.
If you posit that there is a room behind a door, but you can't be certain because the door is closed, then simply opening the door and walking in and back out should be sufficient to tell you whether or not there is indeed a room there.

Walk into the room, lose measurable brain functionality within a few seconds, then walk back out. :P

Samaris

I don't think it's incompatible. We just don't know.

Humans tend to forget dreams quickly too, because it would be dangerous to "store" dreams in the same place as we mentally store real memories - it could lead to awful confusion. Given humans aren't -meant- to die and come back, we can't actually prove that we don't forget anything after either.

Okay, I'm personally more leaning towards the "dreamless sleep" too, but hey, it's not impossible.

robdonn

Samaris wrote: »

I don't think it's incompatible. We just don't know.

Humans tend to forget dreams quickly too, because it would be dangerous to "store" dreams in the same place as we mentally store real memories - it could lead to awful confusion. Given humans aren't -meant- to die and come back, we can't actually prove that we don't forget anything after either.

Okay, I'm personally more leaning towards the "dreamless sleep" too, but hey, it's not impossible.

It could be argued also that since the afterlife experience, by necessity, does not involve the body left behind or it's brain, then any experiences would not be recorded by the brain. So when someone comes back the memories may simply not download back into the brain correctly.

fisgon

Swanner wrote: »

My bad..

No one can prove I have any intuition but i know I do because I experience it regularly as do many many others.

I probably should have avoided the term soul as it has such religious connotations but I have experienced, and tuned into during meditation, an inner essence or calm that extends further then the physical body.
.

"An inner essence or calm" is not a soul, it is exactly as you described, a feeling, a sensation. And we all have feelings and sensations, all of the time. It does not mean we have a soul.

And the mind plays tricks on us all of the time, our perception is not to be trusted. Just because you imagine that this sensation "extends further than the physical body" (whatever that means in practice), it doesn't mean that it does, unless there is some way you can prove this.

I also meditate, and can achieve a sense of calm and relaxation, but there is no soul there. It is simply, as I said, a sensation. It can easily be explained (as can Near Death Experiences) by physical processes in the body, the interplay of hormones and chemicals when the body reaches a certain state.

You haven't given any evidence for the existence of your soul yet, beyond a certain "feeling" or "experience". But human beings have been going on their feelings and experiences since time began. The Romans "felt" and "experienced" that their gods were real, members of Isis "feel" that they are doing the right thing, American creationists "feel" that god is calling them to destroy the fact of evolution. People who believe in angels "feel" the angels' presences.

In philosophy materialists would say - Mind is Brain. YOu can say the same about Soul - Soul is Brain. If you experience something as a soul it is simply your brain reaching a certain state that fools you into thinking there is something un-physical there. There is not, there are just synapses and hormones and neurons. Physical processes.

Hotblack Desiato

seamus wrote: »

Plenty of people have. They almost universally describe the experience like dreamless sleep. That is, nothing.

Ahh, but they weren't really dead...

Samaris

robdonn wrote: »

It could be argued also that since the afterlife experience, by necessity, does not involve the body left behind or it's brain, then any experiences would not be recorded by the brain. So when someone comes back the memories may simply not download back into the brain correctly.

Ah, yes, also a good point. Actually, a better point, since memories are formed by electrical impulses in the brain. The more you think on a certain thing, the more times the electrical impulse travels along the same path (in a simplified version at least), and the more "ingrained" it becomes. So yeah, with no brain involved, nothing to cause electrical impulses.

More likely the visions people have come back from the dead with is something like the brain sparking up again and sending random messages through the mind which gets made into a coherent "vision" by the unconscious, I suppose.

seamus

Samaris wrote: »

More likely the visions people have come back from the dead with is something like the brain sparking up again and sending random messages through the mind which gets made into a coherent "vision" by the unconscious, I suppose.

Pretty much.

You know when you're asleep and dreaming and then something external to you makes a noise (like a bell) and that becomes part of the dream?

Or you're in the half-awake, half-asleep state where someone is standing beside you, talking to you and you see something else entirely until you wake up completely?

Yeah, the brain does a lot of crazy crap when it's not all there. In dying or semi-conscious mode it's not even asleep, it's kind of "crashed" like a computer so it won't have shut down various senses like it does when you're asleep. So parts of the brain will still be processing external stimuli which the "crashed" brain is attempting to make sense of and so creates visions and "out of body" experiences to try and build the stimuli it's receiving into some form of coherent reality.

I fainted once. I never completely lost consciousness throughout, I just kind of fell asleep. There was a strong jolt and a loud bang (as I fell back against the wall), followed by crying and shouting and someone shaking me and calling my name. In the ten seconds I was out, my brain convinced itself I'd been in a car accident. I can still recall what I saw in that "accident". I needed another five second after coming to, to realise that hadn't in fact happened and to remember where I actually was.

sbsquarepants

seamus wrote: »

If you posit that there is a room behind a door, but you can't be certain because the door is closed, then simply opening the door and walking in and back out should be sufficient to tell you whether or not there is indeed a room there.

Could be just an extremely big room, so big that you couldn't see the walls. It could be expertly painted to look like the outdoors. It could just be too dark to see. There are any number of reasons why opening a door wouldn't be sufficient to know what was beyond it.

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, the brain does a lot of crazy crap when it's not all there. In dying or semi-conscious mode it's not even asleep, it's kind of "crashed" like a computer so it won't have shut down various senses like it does when you're asleep. So parts of the brain will still be processing external stimuli which the "crashed" brain is attempting to make sense of and so creates visions and "out of body" experiences to try and build the stimuli it's receiving into some form of coherent reality.

A fairly fascinating area of research is the nature of how exactly it is we come to "see" anything.

Google Charles Bonnet syndrome - it's where some people in the process of loosing their eyesight "see" all sorts of crazy things. Their brains while trying to make sense of the poor quality information their eyes are sending, basically fills in the holes in the info it's receiving with it's own best guess. They might be walking down the street but see a beach or a forest - it's totally false and very debilitating but they "see" it and experience it as real.

nozzferrahhtoo

Swanner wrote: »

I knew I had a soul or at least there was a part of me that was not physical and it was the thing that made me "me". I had no requirement for a God in order to believe that.

I also didn't believe that the soul could die. After all it's only energy and "energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form"

I think of it more like a candle flame to be honest. A candle flame is, to simplify it somewhat, an emergent attribute of the underlying processes at work in the candle.

When those processes stop, so too does the flame. Now many people, from children to educated adults, often do wonder or ask "Where goes the flame go". Or those with a cursory understanding of phrases like "Energy can not be created or destroyed" may think the candle flame is energy and so it must "go" somewhere or change into something.

What they do not realize is that the flame was itself that transformation of energy into one form of another. It was the observable (to us) manifestation of that process and it does not really "go" anywhere when the process stops.

I have seen nothing in our, admittedly limited, studies of human consciousness, awareness and subjectivity to expect it to be very different from the candle flame essentially. An emergent attribute of the underlying processes that, like the candle flame, simply stops when those processes stop and it does not "go" anywhere, let alone impinge on the "Energy can not be created or destroyed" laws of nature.

Swanner wrote: »

And the obvious lead on question, Can we prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife....

Much like discussions about god(s), I do not think we are in a position to "prove" this one way or another. But much like the discussions about gods, I do not think that leaves us in some 50:50 void where we do not know either way. Rather I think we can make some very strong positive statements on the matter.

For example, while we do not understand human consciousness fully at this point (by a long way), 100% of what we do understand about it links it with the brain. 0% of what we currently know suggests and divide, or possibility of a divide, between them. So that very much places claims about an after life towards one end and one end only of the probability continuum for truth value.

There simply is no reason _at all_ that I am aware of at this time to place any credibility in the idea there is an after life.

Swanner wrote: »

I completely agree that one personal account is proof of nothing but when you look at the growing numbers of NDE's, many with similar experiences, many with memory of the events we simply cannot explain and with so many high profile cases now documented, surely we have to take them seriously as part of an overall body evidence.

We do take them seriously as an overall body of evidence. We just do not take them seriously as a body of evidence suggesting there is an after life. Because no basis for doing so has been offered. It is a claim for which we currently have zero evidence.

What NDE should be taken seriously as, is evidence of something we strongly suspected already. That there is a lot more going on at the level of the brain than we currently understand. But time and time again we have been presented evidence of that. My own favorite example is that of "Blind Sight" where people with no sight of any sort, can not see an object placed before them or identify its size, type or color. But MOVE that object (in reality or on a screen) and they can see exactly what direction it went.

Swanner wrote: »

But in relation to NDE's I would agree that the mind is certainly capable of creating those experiences. As yet though, scientists remain baffled as to how it's possible while the subject is clinically dead.

I fear you may be over stating that bafflement somewhat. The people who generally seem baffled by it are the ones who do not understand what the phrase "Clinically Dead" actually means. They appear to think it means the brain is entirely dead, with no activity of any form possible, expected or occurring.

But that is not so. Closer to the truth is that it means the activity specifically being measured for is not occurring. So their error is similar to giving someone an instrument that detects the color red, they go into a room with the instrument, and declare it entirely colorless. Why? Because the instrument says no "red". But what of Yellow? Green? Purple? Blue?

But there are scientists in the world who believe not only is activity present at those times of clinical death, but that this activity magically lifts off the brain and can even operate remotely. This is the claim of "OBE".

And you have scientists like Sam Parnia, who strongly believe in an after life, attempting to verify OBE. Parnia attempted to verify OBE by doing a controlled study. The results of which I have never managed to find, possibly because it gave him no positive results so he ditched or buried it.

His approach was to do a double blind depositing of unmissable objects in places in random operating rooms where people having OBE in typical locations (above the operating table being the most common) could see them, but no one else would know they are there. But the objects would be so incongruous to the environment you simply could not miss it.

So far I have heard of NO positive result. Not even one. If even _one_ person came back and said "I was floating over there.... out of my body..... and did you know there is a large LED display on that cupboard there with the number 545 on it?" or "I was floating over there and.... you are not going to believe this.... over there on that storage unit there is..... I feel weird even saying it..... an artificial bonsai tree made entirely of pink sex toys"...... I would sit up and take notice that MAYBE there is something going on here.

But no. Not. One. Positive. Result.

But anecdotes in non controlled environments abound, all based on people swearing blind that the patient has information no one believes they could or should have.

And this is the main and most common attribute of "evidence" presented for things like OBE. Or even reincarnation. The "evidence" being that in a completely non-controlled environment someone is declared to have obtained information they are also declared to be 100% precluded from.

We had one user, long since retreated from the forum, who was big into reincarnation and when asked for his BEST sample case of evidence for this he could come up with nothing but a young girl who was declared to speak a language she could never have learned..... yet the case study showed not only did she not speak it very well _at all_ (the level of a very young child in fact) but her father was in fact a research scientists studying the very people in history who spoke that language!

But put any level of decent controls in to ensure someone could not get information X while clinically dead.... and 100% of the time they do not get information X. So be wary of how much faith you put in NDE and OBE claims thrown out on anecdote or say so.

Swanner wrote: »

What's with the dismissive one liners ?

I trust you will find you are unable to level any such accusations at my posts, and I open to further questions or discussion on the matter as your responses dictate.

Swanner wrote: »

Understood and this is where NDE's come in to play for me. We have so many documented experiences of a continuation of consciousness that I don't believe we can just ignore it.

I do not think we have any such evidence of any such thing at all. In fact when "evidence" of NDE is presented, the main issue I have with a very significant proportion of it is that it is based on "This person X had Experience Y while clinically dead at time Z".

Yet in the vast vast majority of cases they have verified no such thing. They just take the patients word for it. How have they established that the experiences the patient had were not:

1) In the time leading up to Z
2) In the time following coming out of period Z
3) Related to the "Interviewer effect" after the fact.
4) Any combination of the above?

Swanner wrote: »

And as i said, i'm open to other possibilities, including yours, but in the absence of conclusive evidence either way, i trust my gut and my own experience.

The issue there then is that we do not have "conclusive" evidence of very much at all in science. And the metholodiges and definitions of science acknowledge that up front.

It is when people stray into the area of wanting to lend credence to their pet piece of woo, paranormal or supernatural, that suddenly this requirement for everything to be "conclusive" comes into play and is exaggerated.

But it is a distraction from the simple facts. And the simple facts are that A) We have currently no evidence of any type, let alone "conclusive", to suggest there is an after life. And we have plenty of evidence to the contrary, showing that consciousness originates and is inextricable from the brain.

And once one loses this need for 0 or 1, black or white, conclusively true or false, and instead operates on a truth continuum where you treat claims based on how much substantiation they themselves have... that you realize just how low down on that continuum the idea of an after life must lie.

Swanner wrote: »

The difference is that I don't discount the idea that it could actually be a consciousness beyond death because as long as there is evidence in both directions and as long as it has not been definitively proven one way or the other, I cannot be in a position to state anything as fact.

But there not evidence in both directions. You have offered zero for one direction for example.

But do not mistake acknowledging that there is no evidence for X, and even evidence for the opposite of X, as discounting the possibility. They are not the same. And I, for example, acknowledge that there is no evidence of any kind for a god and/or an after life. That does not for one moment suggest I discount the possibility of either, and I am open to the evidence for either if and when the proponents of them finally offer some up. For once.

Swanner wrote: »

If I must give an opinion i'd say i'm highly skeptical but in the absence of definitive proof either way i'll continue to maintain an open mind on the topic.

I fear there may be a difference in what we each define "open mind" to be. You _appear_ to think it means considering the proposition credible even in the absence of even a modicum of evidence for it. What "open minded" means is withholding, but being very willing to give, credibility to claims that are at this time unsubstantiated.

I repeat what I said numerous times already in this post. We are not at the zero evidence point on the after life question. The after life question has two attributes that I can see. 1) It is itself an entirely unsubstantiated claim AND 2) It also goes against the things we currently consider to be known and true.

Now if only 1) was true I would have to apply a little more stringent pedantry to the issue. But coupled with 2) as well.... the claim there is an after life is not just unsubstantiated, but less than credible.

I do not know about you but if NO evidence points one way and SOME or even LOTS of evidence points the second way.... Then I will go the first way every time until the data set changes.

Swanner wrote: »

I believe NDE's could be evidence for a continuation of consciousness.

And that's not an unreasonable position..

I would suggest otherwise. Mainly because you have given no reason how or why NDE's are evidence for that. At all. You have merely asserted it to be so. So the "reasoning" behind what you assert to be "reasonable" is opaque to me.

In fact the clue as to why they are not evidence for what you claim to be is even in the name. Specifically the N in NDE. The patient did not die. They NEARLY died. So by all means explain how evidence near to an event is indicative of what occurs after that event? I am all ears on that one!

Show me an ADE or a verified OBE, and I will start to treat the subject as having some level of credence.

human 19

Swanner wrote: »

Are they compatible ?
I also didn't believe that the soul could die. After all it's only energy and "energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form"
The Quora has tons of links for some light reading...

I think what is generally regarded as the soul is just the wonderful consciousness that we happened to have developed more than other animals.

Of course we have no simple explanation for it, but maybe it is just some tipping point that was passed when we consider the billions of connections we have in our brians that link experiences , emotions, knowledge etc. We got to a point where we were able to mentally step outside instinct and actually think. It is what makes us more than the sum of our parts

Of course, it is still very faulty when you consider all the mental problems people can have.

***

I think the word "energy" is bandied about too much. It seems to be applied in some cases to surges of mental activity to which no other known explanation can be applied.

Regarding NDEs, the well known surges in adrenalin which speed up the brain in times of stress and seem to slow down time hint at the brain trying all sorts of avenues in order to escape or survive the particular situation we find ourselves in.

I dont see any stretch in applying that to NDEs. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of OBEs which tend to favour the spiritual or religious interpretation, posibly because these are the ones that are picked up on for self-promotion or for evangelical money-making reasons.

I read a fascinating newspaper article about the opposite, where people had very negtive experiences in similar situations, which were akin to nightmares. But there is no money to be made in peddling such experiences.

Unfortunately I cant find a link any more.

Regarding the brainstem, that is the most basic level of the brain, mainly involved in regulation. Any "experiences" would be deciphered by the cortex

Hotblack Desiato

human 19 wrote: »

I think the word "energy" is bandied about too much.

It's now the favoured term of woo merchants trying to con the gullible. 'Soul' (while equally unevidenced and nonsensical) is too old-fashioned for them and is reminiscent of traditional religion, while these guys are not like that atall atall...

Huntergonzo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's now the favoured term of woo merchants trying to con the gullible. 'Soul' (while equally unevidenced and nonsensical) is too old-fashioned for them and is reminiscent of traditional religion, while these guys are not like that atall atall...

Ha that's very true, a mate of mine wanted to go see an 'energy healer' last year for some pains he was having (nothing serious) but kept on and on about this 'energy healer' that he was convinced was the real deal. I humoured him for a while before I got fed up and just told him that I thought it was complete bóllox and to go see a doctor. Think I might actually have healed him, I haven't heard him complain about these pains since.

robindch

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Think I might actually have healed him, I haven't heard him complain about these pains since.

You mus have boosted his immune system.

Huntergonzo

robindch wrote: »

You mus have boosted his immune system.

Hopefully so, a dose of common sense is never a bad thing.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

You mus have boosted his immune system.

Hold on, I'm going to do a bit of remote diagnosis...

WooOOoooOooOooOOOoooOooOoooOOO

Aummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Right. I diagnose a severe scepticism deficiency. The patient should subscribe to A&A at once. (And pay me my fee, all major cards accepted)

Bristolscale7

My favorite passage concerning the meaning of life and the finality of death comes from the Epic of Gilgamesh. For those of you unfamiliar with it, this is the poem from ancient Mesopotamia (2100 BCE or thereabouts). Gilgamesh's best friend dies prompting the hero to search for eternal life. He eventually tracks down an alewife who supposedly knows the secret. However, this is what she says:

She answered, ‘Gilgamesh, where are you hurrying to? You will never find that life for which you are looking.
When the gods created man they allotted to him death, but life they retained in their own keeping. As for you, Gilgamesh,
fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be
fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for
this too is the lot of man.'

Cabaal

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

She answered, ‘Gilgamesh, where are you hurrying to? You will never find that life for which you are looking.
When the gods created man they allotted to him death, but life they retained in their own keeping. As for you, Gilgamesh,
fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be
fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for
this too is the lot of man.'

I know farrrrr too many Catholics that need to learn to live life instead of waiting to die, they can be a very odd crowd.

They might want to take this passage as advice!

Kivaro

She answered, ‘Gilgamesh, where are you hurrying to? You will never find that life for which you are looking.
When the gods created man they allotted to him death, but life they retained in their own keeping. As for you, Gilgamesh,
fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be
fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for
this too is the lot of man.'

Wouldn't that have made a much better invented religion back in the day, but no, not only does Christianity want us in death; it wants our every moment while we are alive.