Kevin Bargeron wrote:
I suppose that depends on your definition of evidence. Numerous books discuss peoples experiences with out of body, after death, ore near death experiences.  Also people have been known to be declared dead by doctors and 'regain' life afterwards. 

Also, there are numerous paranormal investigators who will tell you that the dead communicate with the living somewhat frequently.

I perrsonally believe that we go on living in a different state of being when we die, but still are the same person as we are now.  This statement totally over simplifies my beliefs, but I don't think its important to go into such detals here.

Subjective self-reports of returning from being dead are interesting, but not probative evidence, to those of us among the living.  We have only the "returnee's" word.  Ditto reports of those who claim to communicate with the dead.  We only see the claimant, not the supposedly dead person. As for those declared clinically dead who later recover, they recover to this life, not an afterlife.  It's not evidence that they "were" someplace, other than where we all may seem to go when our brains are deprived of oxygen.

SayCheeZ! wrote:
One night I was with this hot chick.... I mean really hot.... really, really, really hot!!!   In any case, we... umm.... uhhh.... 'got busy'.  It was great!  I mean, really, really, really great!  I thought that I had died and gone to heaven!

Today, I'm here.

So there is life after death! (On the other hand... is this really life?)

Agreed, life without really, really, really hot chicks is hardly living at all.

SayCheeZ! wrote:
One night I was with this hot chick.... I mean really hot.... really, really, really hot!!!   In any case, we... umm.... uhhh.... 'got busy'.  It was great!  I mean, really, really, really great!  I thought that I had died and gone to heaven!

Today, I'm here.

So there is life after death! (On the other hand... is this really life?)

what is that; heaven on the two minute plan?

You did enjoy heaven for more than two minutes; else it must have been the lights from the Motel 6 sign.

Pat Thielen wrote:
This is just another one of those topics debating things that can't be proven or disproven with science. Be warned.

 

Many of us have beliefs about an afterlife, one way or the other.  Let's see what those beliefs are and how they were arrived at.

TIM RICKS PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
I have proof ...

That there is an afterlife?  Or that there is not?

William Coleman wrote:
We have only the "returnee's" word.

It's also interesting that people who black out from other forms of hypoxia (pulling too many Gs in a rocket, huffing nitrous oxide, extreme altitude sickness) report nearly identical symptoms to many "returnees"   I don't doubt the sincerity of all the "returnees" but I think we're dealing with a phenomenon that is fairly easy to explain.

William Coleman wrote:
Ditto reports of those who claim to communicate with the dead.

Just because huge numbers of spirit mediums have been revealed to be charlatans, doesn't mean they all are. However, the burden of proving communications with the dead should rest on the claimant.

There's a million dollar prize for the first person who can adequately prove spiritual communication, by the way. Check out: The Randi Foundation Million Dollar Prize -- strangely, many professional "communicators with the dead" have declined to attempt to win the prize. I wonder why?

mjr.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

William Coleman wrote:
We have only the "returnee's" word.

It's also interesting that people who black out from other forms of hypoxia (pulling too many Gs in a rocket, huffing nitrous oxide, extreme altitude sickness) report nearly identical symptoms to many "returnees"   I don't doubt the sincerity of all the "returnees" but I think we're dealing with a phenomenon that is fairly easy to explain.


Just because huge numbers of spirit mediums have been revealed to be charlatans, doesn't mean they all are. However, the burden of proving communications with the dead should rest on the claimant.

There's a million dollar prize for the first person who can adequately prove spiritual communication, by the way. Check out: The Randi Foundation Million Dollar Prize -- strangely, many professional "communicators with the dead" have declined to attempt to win the prize. I wonder why?

mjr.

For a cool million, I'd kill my own damn self and come back, if I thought I had a shot at the coming back part.

UnoMundo Photography wrote:
Dont you guys believe the movies?  The lights are so wonderful.
Someone looking like Morgan Freeman or George Burns send you back!

If I came back and said it was like Chinatown would you believe?

So lights it is!  Funny how people's memories get amazingly close to the last movie that shows a 'returned' person

Have you smelled Chinatown on a hot summer night?  The afterlife would need industrial-strength Glade.

UnoMundo Photography wrote:
If I came back and said it was like Chinatown would you believe?

I'd believe!  After all, have you ever tried the Peking Duck at Sam Woo?

                                               ...It's to die for!

SayCheeZ! wrote:

I'd believe!  After all, have you ever tried the Peking Duck at Sam Woo?

                                               ...It's to die for!

Yes, and I have seen Sam Woo's health inspection records.
Pray for an afterlife!

They failed so many times ; they started complaining that the city inspectors were prejudiced against chinese people. Search the City Life for the story.

Enjoy the duck like it is your last; it may be!

Justin wrote:
I don't know if there's life after death. I do feel rather strongly that the existence of a theoretical nonphysical realm isn't going to be set forth with physical evidence.

I've had experiences, and people close to me have had experiences, that make me seriously question whether this physical dimension is all there is. I don't have a wish to be persuaded in a spiritual life, but I can't ignore those experiences. Likewise, while the experiences are intriguing, they don't constitute proof, nor would I expect anyone to believe me anyway, except for those who have had similar experiences.

Is this all there is? I have doubts, based on experiences. Is there something else? I have doubts, based on the lack of verifiable facts.

You're a brilliant guy, Justin, i.e., you think like I think.  :-)

Stephen Dawson wrote:
After life.... there is....

..... no life.

That's what I think, too.  But, despite the absence of evidence, 84% of Americans believe in a soul that survives death:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris … sp?PID=359

UnoMundo Photography wrote:
I believe you just get to be star stuff once more and enrich the cosmos like fertilizer.

That's what I think.  There's no evidence that the things that make us unique individuals, special to ourselves and others, survive death.  It's a lovely thought, but there's no evidence for it.

Stephen Dawson wrote:
Now that the Mater's coverage has concluded, I am loading up Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.

One of the scenes deals with the afterlife. Sorta like a Vegas show if I recall correctly.

"Every day is Christmas in Heaven!"

William Coleman wrote:
There's no evidence that the things that make us unique individuals, special to ourselves and others, survive death.  It's a lovely thought, but there's no evidence for it.

Absolutely. I see life as a temporary state in which we have the opportunity to enjoy the pleasure of consciousness, the price of which is being burdened with all the minutae of being sentient, including the need for proof and evidence and whatnot.

Justin wrote:
I don't know if there's life after death. I do feel rather strongly that the existence of a theoretical nonphysical realm isn't going to be set forth with physical evidence.

I've had experiences, and people close to me have had experiences, that make me seriously question whether this physical dimension is all there is. I don't have a wish to be persuaded in a spiritual life, but I can't ignore those experiences. Likewise, while the experiences are intriguing, they don't constitute proof, nor would I expect anyone to believe me anyway, except for those who have had similar experiences.

Is this all there is? I have doubts, based on experiences. Is there something else? I have doubts, based on the lack of verifiable facts.

There will always be those who will try to explain away what you've experienced and what you've concluded based on those experiences. The good news is that you've allowed yourself to keep an open mind, despite those whose minds remain rather Pavlovian. Good for you!

William Coleman wrote:
Since 100% of the evidence is, unpleasantly, that life ends at death...

But is there any evidence for an afterlife?

If 100% of the evidence says life ends at death, then how can there be any evidence that points the other way?

Dave Krueger wrote:

If 100% of the evidence says life ends at death, then how can there be any evidence that points the other way?

Well, two things:

1.  My "100%" may be deemed a slight exaggeration.  True, no one has ever produced convincing evidence of an afterlife, except in folklore.  But there are unverifiable stories of, e.g., people claiming to have died clinically who reported floating above their own bodies, then returning to their bodies and to life, and similar stories.  I haven't experienced that, so I can't evaluate it personally.  I take it that you haven't either (?).  But I charitably take those as "evidence" and as counter-examples that reduce my "100%" by a tiny amount, although the more rigorous among us would say those stories are the testimony of people suffering from brain hypoxia and not probative evidence at all.

2.  I was soliciting whatever anyone would like to propound as evidence for life after death, a little like the magician, The Amazing Randy, who, as Marcus Ranum pointed out above, has offered $1,000,000 for convincing evidence of life after death.  Neither Randy nor I have gotten any takers.

Dave Krueger wrote:

If 100% of the evidence says life ends at death, then how can there be any evidence that points the other way?

Fuzzy math.

William Coleman wrote:
Evidence for life after death

If evidence is true based on the ultimate belief aspect, then there would be no concept of death.  If hard evidence exists, then why are we going after Osama?  Or, is he just a descendent that only happens every 50 years?  How come nobody talks about when we come back, or as what and where?  I'll ask Shirley.   

Mayberry has choosen to send in Barney to investigate how Otis chose his second coming...He's someone that is living forever!

William Coleman wrote:
But is there any evidence for an afterlife?

I have to ask . . .

What would constitute acceptable evidence?  Seems to me we might think about that before we decide that it does or does not exist.

We have already discussed several candidates for "evidence" and dismissed them on one ground or another.  So what kind of evidence, if it could be shown to exist, would be accepted?

TXPhotog wrote:

I have to ask . . .

What would constitute acceptable evidence?  Seems to me we might think about that before we decide that it does or does not exist.

We have already discussed several candidates for "evidence" and dismissed them on one ground or another.  So what kind of evidence, if it could be shown to exist, would be accepted?

basically someone who is Dead, would have to appear on Oprah or the 5:00pm news and tell us that there is an afterlife

Chili wrote:
well i had a near death experience once

i was having sex with this woman who i had waited 20 years to have sex with, and i remembered that 20 years earlier i had asked the 'supreme being' to let be bang her once before i died, so for the rest of that night i was convinced i was going to die in the morning ;->

but seriously

now lets look at enternity, and compare it with the existence of this universe, 4 billions years? is obviously a blink when compared to eternity, and we dont really know with any certainty how many times (if more than once) this universe has existed, (or will exist) thruout eternity

now if we arrogantly assume we possess souls that are 'immortal', then that implies our souls have always existed, and will always exist, that further implies that all beings not yet born, already also exist

so the million dollar question as i see it is:

why would we only 'live' 1-100 years in a universe that exists billions of years

so i am questioning our existence

with 2 possible conclusions (that i see at the moment)

1) we do not posses immortal souls
2) we live more than one lifetime in the span of the existence of the universe

My answer to 1) is, being a skeptic, I can only say that there is no evidence of a soul.  To me, "soul" is a cultural concept in our culture, a word without a referent.  These things come about through the human ability to abstract.  E.g., we say, "The team has great spirit!"  Next thing you know, we're concretizing the spirit.  Soon, after that, we're making burnt offerings to it, and treating it as though it has existence as an entity.  We teach that to our children, who grow up adopting the soul as part of their culture, as though it's as real as the rain.  Soon we're discussing the soul's existence, its attributes, it's connections with other spiritual concepts, etc., etc...like we're doing here.  But it's still a word for something not shown to exist, like "the tooth fairy."

My answer to 2) is that I see no reason why organisms might or might not live only a few decades - or a few minutes - in a universe that's billions of years old.  That just seems to be the way things are.  Therefor, there's no reason to think we should live more than one lifetime, any more than amoebae should.

Chili wrote:
basically someone who is Dead, would have to appear on Oprah or the 5:00pm news and tell us that there is an afterlife

Well, in all likelihood, we're not going to see evidence - but you can't validly limit acceptable evidence to only one particular format or type of event.

TXPhotog wrote:

I have to ask . . .

What would constitute acceptable evidence?  Seems to me we might think about that before we decide that it does or does not exist.

We have already discussed several candidates for "evidence" and dismissed them on one ground or another.  So what kind of evidence, if it could be shown to exist, would be accepted?

Good question.  There may not be anything that would convince a true skeptic such as me of an afterlife.  Suppose that President John Kennedy appeared in a wheat field in Kansas tomorrow morning, said he was returning from the afterlife, went on Oprah and talked about how the Pearly Gates are actually kind of silvery, had his DNA tested and showed he was related to living Kennedys, had his fingerprints tested and they showed an exact match with the former President's, etc., etc.  One still could think of other things to explain all that.  I can't think of a test that would rule out all other explanations.  Anyone?

William Coleman wrote:
My answer to 1) is, being a skeptic, I can only say that there is no evidence of a soul.  To me, "soul" is a cultural concept in our culture, a word without a referent.  These things come about through the human ability to abstract.  E.g., we say, "The team has great spirit!"  Next thing you know, we're concretizing the spirit.  Soon, after that, we're making burnt offerings to it, and treating it as though it has existence as an entity.  We teach that to our children, who grow up adopting the soul as part of their culture, as though it's as real as the rain.  Soon we're discussing the soul's existence, its attributes, it's connections with other spiritual concepts, etc., etc...like we're doing here.  But it's still a word for something not shown to exist, like "the tooth fairy."

All cultures accept things that don't "exist" via tangible evidence all the time, and deal in abstracts all the time as well, without wrapping themselves in pretzel logic trying to 'prove' or 'disprove' them (well, at least not all the time, fortunately). If we treated each of these intangibles as merely being "the tooth fairy", we'd be a far less interesting organism.

William Coleman wrote:
My answer to 2) is that I see no reason why organisms might or might not live only a few decades - or a few minutes - in a universe that's billions of years old.  That just seems to be the way things are.  Therefor, there's no reason to think we should live more than one lifetime, any more than amoebae should.

Hm. "That just seems to be the way things are"? Skeptical, but not VERY skeptical, really...