Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A person can theorize from now on about what happens after death, but it is meaningless because whatever is thought happens will not be known. Apparently some are able to gain strength by believing in a life after death. The religious beliefs of my parents taught the way we behave on earth determines our fate after death. I suppose something is needed to keep people from running amok.
I had a NDE once. It was very vivid and entertaining, but it didn't prove life after death any more than my dream of flying proved people can fly.
Who is really afraid of dying? Why are any afraid? Has anyone dead told them of the experience? Dying is part of life just as is birth. We all do the same 3 things...birth, life and death. No one can avoid any. The only party exempt from the life aspect is an aborted fetus.
Burial? What a waste of $$$ and real estate. Burn me, put me in a 5 gallon bucket, fill it with concrete and drop it over the side of a boat into the ocean.
Being a philosophy forum I feel I have to correct you on your philosophy 101 error here. Though it is confusing to have to do this given it was already corrected by the user you just quoted. That is: Burden of proof.
It is the person who is claiming there is an after life that has 100% of the onus of evidence in this regard. No one has to "say for sure there is no afterlife" at all. We simply have to point out that your claim there IS one is simply unsubstantiated at this time. You have not moved to offer a modicum of argument, evidence, data or reason that gives any credence or merit to the claim such an after life exists. At all.
Wow, you sure get into the subject in depth. I made no error because not everything can be proved.
Quote:
Exactly. I think you have made the users point for them here. You feel more comfortable thinking there is an afterlife. Therefore your anxiety is reduced or negated. Therefore, as the user said, much of the belief in the after life IS rooted in anxiety.
Your error here is like if I said "The reason you take that vaccination is so you never get Chicken Pox" and you reply with "Nonsense I have never HAD chicken pox, so it was a waste of time ever giving me that vaccination". Which sort of makes the point for me.
It's more than just a belief... it is something called faith.
Quote:
This is the kind of rhetoric that raises the suspicions of the skeptic in relation to the discourse on after lives. You couch your evidence in the future in order to negate any requirement to offer any now. You are essentially just fear mongering with "I have no evidence now.... but _wait and see_" and the ominous overtones that suggests. But essentially despite those over tones, you end up saying nothing at all but using a lot of words to say it.
As mentioned above, evidence cannot be provided for everything but it doesn't mean it does not exist.
Quote:
I do not find it depressing at all. However even if I did, that would be less than relevant. What is true is dictated by nothing but what is true. How pleasing or depressing we find something is NOT relevant to whether it is true or not and is really just an irrelevant muddying of the waters. A red herring.
How could you not find it depressing?
Quote:
That, I fear, is just an ad hominem attempt on your part. I call it nonsense because it is, not because of any world view you imagine me coming to the table with. I evaluate exactly what people like him are saying, and on what basis, and I explain exactly why it is nonsense.
Oh, I see. So, according to you, all these people in the link below are talking "nonsense."
And I repeat: What field they are in is irrelevant. It does not suddenly make their claims any more credible than the exact same claims from people not in that field. You have essentially moved from ad hominem to reverse ad hominem. Or, as people like to call it "argumentum ab auctoritate" or argument from authority.
If you find yourself adding, or removing, credence to a claim based on WHO is claiming it, rather than based on WHY, then you have taken the wrong path and I advise retracing your steps and trying again.
Note, for example, how I asked you what he has been saying that you found credible, and you simply did not answer. You merely name drop his career path and leave it at that. And that is highly telling.
You are taking the long way of saying that you won't accept any experiences that point to an afterlife.
Quote:
Once again this is a bad attempt at shifting the burden of proof. Since you are the one making claims about an after life, it is you that has to tell me what he has said that lends credence to those claims. By all means quote something he has said that does this.
Someone claiming there is an afterlife is just as valid as someone claiming there isn't.
However if you really need help with this then yes, I can adumbrate for you some of his claims that simply were not credible and in fact outright errors.
Quote:
His entire account... all of it..... is based on repeated assertions that his experiences occurred while his cerebral cortex was shut down and not active. In his words “stunned to complete inactivity.†The evidence he provides for this claim is not only inadequate but suggests he actually does not understand the relevant brain biology.
He asserts that the cessation of cortical activity was “clear from the severity and duration of my meningitis, and from the global cortical involvement documented by CT scans and neurological examinations.â€
His exact words. And they are simply wrong. "CT scans and neurological examinations" do not determine neuronal inactivity, either in the cortex or anywhere else. And he does not mention actual functional data that might have actually proven his case. fMRI, PET, or EEG. Nothing. He does not even seem to know that only this sort of evidence could support his case.
Are you trying to say that a neurological surgeon doesn't understand brain biology?
Quote:
Even his words are hyperbole. If the damage had been "global" as he claimed then he would be dead. Unless he is claiming he grew back an entire new cortex. And as a neuroscientist I know pointed out when writing about this man, to my knowledge, almost no one thinks that consciousness is purely a matter of cortical activity anyway.
Mark Cohen did write on this too. Since you like qualifications when you write, I can tell you he is a pioneer in the field of neuroimaging holding positions in the Departments of Psychiatry & Bio behavioral Science, Neurology, Psychology, Radio-logical Science, and Bio engineering at UCLA. He writes:
As I said, who they were before the experience, and what they became after the experience, is simply not relevant. Either there is evidence for what they are claiming, or there is not, and if there is not then yes.... I very much would claim they are "spewing nonsense" to use your words.
Remember, though, Eben's experience is not all that unique. Others (scientists, doctors, etc) have had similar NDE. Are they all "wrong?" Highly unlikely.
Hmm... I've read extensively about NDEs and find the neurological explanations to be much more plausible than the idea that these persons actually got a glimpse of an afterlife.
Are you familiar with proprioception/proprioceptive neurons? Propricoception is how we perceive the location of ourselves relative to other objects. When proprioceptive neurons are stimulated in certain ways this can create the perception of 'leaving our bodies'. Many cases include the perception of floating over ourselves, and seeing ourselves and others beneath us.
Does this mean the person actually left their body, or is it just a consequence of unusual neural activity? While we can't entirely discount the former, the latter is much more plausible.
I have also read extensively about NDEs... since the early 1980s. Your username certainly suggests you are not willing to accept anything that shows an afterlife.
And how do you explain when people can recall what was said, even in another room, while they were not only unconscious but lacked vital signs?
The veracity of these claims is highly dubious. So far it has not been duplicated in a controlled setting so that all potential confounding variables are eliminated/minimized. Consequently, claiming this is scientific evidence of an NDE/OBE or an afterlife is erroneous. It's just anecdotal; not scientific.
Oh, come on... every one of those claims are highly dubious? Out of thousands, not one can be valid? That is not being open-minded on the subject; just the opposite. IMO, there are just far too many NDEs to discount all of them as nonsense or dubious.
I wasn't claiming it was scientific evidence of an NDE/OBE, just experiences (in most cases buy reputable people) that points in that direction.
How do you suggest an NDE can be duplicated in a controlled setting? Connect sensors to someone, then kill him and see what happens?
Also, I heard so that you will not feel afraid before dying, your brain releases a ****load of serotonin, enough that it will feel stronger than ecstasy .
Really. Your first post I gave you a pass on, your theory is as good as anyone elses when there is no way to obtain corroboration of any of them. On this present point, however, fail. As in massive FAIL. People die in any and all states of grace and disgrace. We can observe these passings from this side of the mortal coil and they don't all appear to be tranked out on Ecstasy when they leave. Odd that a troll thread should have 12 or more pages to its credit. Hmmm. Going to find out whats going on around here...
IMO, there are just far too many NDEs to discount all of them as nonsense or dubious.
Oh I don't know... since when does mere quantity of something give it veracity? There are billions of us. There are mere 10's of thousands of NDE's. It's a thin line between life and death I'll agree but its a heck of a void. If you came back you did not die! No matter how close you came. You did not die. Not one of the Trillions of human beings that have ever lived. Ever. Has come back to life that we can establish in any way. Isn't that compelling evidence of death's finality? I am not comforted by the thought of being someone else. Not even if that someone else does not marry someone like my ex-wife. If they start from scratch with all new memories then the slate is as good as wiped and the life I knew, is as good as over. For good.
H
Last edited by Leisesturm; 10-28-2014 at 06:49 PM..
We have no clue we existed before present live. Then, the cycle continues forever. If my theory is correct, it is possible that our spirit existed thousands of years ago, we just don't know it.
I understand the need to explain why most people have zero recollection of previous lives and the few who do, make claims of which we are entitled to be suspicious. But if you remember nothing of a previous life, how does it matter that there was one? And how is that even comforting?
I see this as a completely pointless belief, like believing that I ate pizza five minutes ago but have no recollection of it and am still hungry. Less than pointless, really, because it's needlessly complex and a far simpler explanation is available: I did not eat pizza 5 minutes ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
