Afterlife Thoughts!

[Paladin]

I am almost sold on no afterlife, but, there is one thing that keeps me from being 100% sold.

I have read on death for over 45 years as well as NDE's, and there are the stories of people dying that see someone else in the family or friends that have also died about the same time, so no one else knew of the death till the NDE'r told them of the death..

This cannot possibly be explained by lack of oxygen to the brain...

 

Peace

Paladin!

[Asimov]

I am almost sold on no afterlife, but, there is one thing that keeps me from being 100% sold.

I have read on death for over 45 years as well as NDE's, and there are the stories of people dying that see someone else in the family or friends that have also died about the same time, so no one else knew of the death till the NDE'r told them of the death..

This cannot possibly be explained by lack of oxygen to the brain...

 

Peace

Paladin!

 

Why does an argument from incredulity keep you from being 100% sold?

 

I'm wondering if this is a case of selective evidence, because it could be that many people who experienced these and saw loved ones didn't just see the ones that have died, but saw people that are still living as well.

 

So it could be that they didn't know that person was dead, they just had an NDE and saw that person amongst a bunch of other relatives and when they learned of that persons death suddenly it's amazing prophecy.

 

Without context it's difficult to comment much on your statement.

[BuddyFerris]

Paladin,

Precisely sufficient evidence will be discounted by those who so choose, perhaps, with no more reason than that it is contrary to their personal philosophy. It might equally well be accepted by one who was less firmly ensconced in popular set of doubts. I wonder, since there is probably reasonable argument for the two opposite points of view, it there might not be a truth that doesn't quite agree with either perspective. Thoughts?

Buddy

[hereticzero]

Near death experiences (NDE) can be argued that it was a dream realm they entered and not death since they obviously survived long enough to explain their NDE. How much of what they saw was not influenced by their own imagination? I could not tell and I had one many years ago that involved a person looking like Jesus explaining to me he was not Jesus but that everyone who came that way thought he was. I do not believe in the honesty of NDE because there is no way to determine by test if one is true.

[Deva]

I wonder, since there is probably reasonable argument for the two opposite points of view, it there might not be a truth that doesn't quite agree with either perspective. Thoughts?

Buddy

 

What truth would that be, Buddy? The truth in the Bible?

[BuddyFerris]

Near death experiences (NDE) can be argued that it was a dream realm they entered and not death since they obviously survived long enough to explain their NDE. How much of what they saw was not influenced by their own imagination? I could not tell and I had one many years ago that involved a person looking like Jesus explaining to me he was not Jesus but that everyone who came that way thought he was. I do not believe in the honesty of NDE because there is no way to determine by test if one is true.

I'm no expert on NDE unless you consider my being 61 adequately near death to qualify me as one. Without doing any research, I recall accounts of NDE involving out of body observation and retelling of events impossible for the unconscious/dead body to have observed. I suppose those accounts might be verified by attending physicians, etc. Even with a significant body of authentication material though, some will discount the event because it contradicts their personal world/life view. "No matter what it was, it wasn't that." ... and so on.

 

OK, so perhaps they were dead and the doctors certify the absence of brain activity; then somehow, they've returned (from where?) to reanimate their lifeless body. What are the possibilities there?

Buddy

[Kuroikaze]

NDE's are a subjective experience, and there are other possible explanations than life after death.

 

Take this for instance. Perhaps you have 1,000 people who have NDE's and in 990 nothing in their experience matches reality at all. People dismiss these and dreams or tricks of the mind so they are not reported and quickly forgotten.

 

The other 10 do have something in their experience that matches reality, I.E. they claim to see a medical procedure done on them, or see a recently dead person who they didn't know was dead, so on and so forth. Are they having "real" experiences or was it just the result of chance that their experience seemed similar to something in the real world.

 

It seems to me that this is the most likely explanation for NDE's. Could I be wrong? Yes, if those other 990 cases don't exist then my explanation is flawed, and yet if they do exist we will never hear from them, because the people in question don't think they are NDE's.

 

However, I find it a more reasonable explanation because if fits the facts I DO have available. All the evidence supports the notion that my ability to think, reason, and have emotions are all rooted in my brain, and once it ceases to function so do I.

 

If I'm wrong then....woo hoo!!!! I get a life after death. In any case nothing I could do would have any effect on the answer to this question so the best thing to do is simply not worry about it and get on with life right now. I'm not sure the life after death question is important enough to spend much time worrying about.

[PiracyOfTheHead]

Paladin,

Precisely sufficient evidence will be discounted by those who so choose, perhaps, with no more reason than that it is contrary to their personal philosophy. It might equally well be accepted by one who was less firmly ensconced in popular set of doubts. I wonder, since there is probably reasonable argument for the two opposite points of view, it there might not be a truth that doesn't quite agree with either perspective. Thoughts?

Buddy

 

 

I see this as well, it seems like there is no allowance for intuition and knowing your own self coming from certain people, I cant really blame them as there is so much BS in the world and many here are extremely cautious about such things, they have to be, its absolutely understandable.

 

I think we need to give ourselves and eachother a little more credit when it comes to these types of experiences though.

 

I also see how one who has never experienced certain phenomena would have no way of comprehending the experience, you just cant read your way into an NDE in books, if it happens to you, it changes everything.

[florduh]

As I have said, I have had spooky experiences myself. I want them to be real because that would mean I will survive the death of the body.

 

However, rational explanations are there for the taking, and I must accept the only information that can pass as proof of how a phenomenon occurs in the human brain. Every spooky event has been accounted for in the lab, and sadly I conclude my fantasies about a soul and an afterlife are just that, fantasies. As a mentalist and dabbler in psychic entertainment I am more aware than most as to how the mind can trick itself. There is a good living to be made for both the outright fraud and the sincere, self-deluded psychic. I could never do that to anyone without telling them it's a trick of mental manipulation.

 

If there was any real evidence to support my spooky experiences, I would jump at the chance to be immortal. The scientists, researchers and magicians have replicated every one, so I would need evidence of equal weight to entertain the idea of psychic/spiritual phenomena. I'm eager to see some. Like "Spooky" Mulder, I want to believe.

[Paladin]

I haven't had the time to find some stories to illustrate what exactly I am speaking of, but when I get some extra time I will find them.

But if I remember correctly, for example: John dies and when he is revived he says he saw cousin Dave that lived in a another state/country etc, and was confused on why he was there, then upon checking, they find out Dave had indeed died about the same time as John, and no one knew he had died and there was no way John could have knew this...

But again I will find some of these stories a little later.

 

I love this forum because I know that I am among folk that understand me to a point, as many of us came from similar backgrounds, and still fight memories, thoughts, and even people who love us when it comes to Christianity.

 

I have walked away from Christianity with no regrets as I find their ideas laughable, even though I have close loved ones that still try and bring me back, my son and mother mainly.

 

The fear of death is not a problem for me, wrath from an loser god does not worry me, as a matter of of fact if there is no afterlife, that means that none of us ever have to worry about suffering ever again, and that would be a big relief!!!!!

 

I wonder though that even if there is no "god" if that necessarily equates to no afterlife? as Quantum Mechanics and other ideas in Physics shows that just because we can't see things does not mean that they do not exists !!

 

Yes, I agree that many stories of NDE's make you laugh as they are quite ludicrous, but, there are other stories that do need some thought before being thrown out as made up stories..And this is one type that makes me go,,,,hmmmmm

 

So I am here not to debate or anything of the sort, I am just putting my thoughts out to you and see what you think, as I really don't know!

 

Thanks so much

Peace

Paladin!

[mwc]

I haven't had the time to find some stories to illustrate what exactly I am speaking of, but when I get some extra time I will find them.

But if I remember correctly, for example: John dies and when he is revived he says he saw cousin Dave that lived in a another state/country etc, and was confused on why he was there, then upon checking, they find out Dave had indeed died about the same time as John, and no one knew he had died and there was no way John could have knew this...

But again I will find some of these stories a little later.

This is called...coincidence. Dig some more and try to see if "John" knew absolutely, positively, nothing of "Dave's" status in any way, shape or form prior to his own incident. Meaning was he aware that Dave had a cold or some other health issue no matter how small? Was Dave on his mind for any reason, even non-health related, at all? Were there other reasons John might think of Dave as his synapses fired? These reasons matter and are totally unknown. Since John then assumes he was "dead" (what defines death exactly...the synapses were still intact so the brain still was able to function even if not in the most optimal fashion but once the connections are severed that will be it for John as far as current science goes) he will assume he is in some other place (a heaven or hell...whatever he believes in...so a "spirit" realm or afterlife). Since he also saw "Dave" there then Dave must also be in the same state (a "spirit" state) even though Dave is entirely a product of his own mind. John recovers, remembers the event enough to ask about Dave. Dave is dead and this "verifies" the afterlife and his experience. No one can check with Dave to see if he hooked up with John in any afterlife since he is obviously dead. Had John saw his dead grandparents or other previously deceased loved ones then the experience would have been considered less extraordinary but the coincidence results in a confirmation bias making it stand out. Just like when kids see cartoon characters in the afterlife it sends the bias the other direction and is rarely reported (of course Jessica Rabbit would be a nice greeter in the afterlife).

 

mwc

[chefranden]

OK, so perhaps they were dead and the doctors certify the absence of brain activity; then somehow, they've returned (from where?) to reanimate their lifeless body. What are the possibilities there?

Buddy

 

Perhaps? No they were not dead, even if the doctors certified the absence of brain activity. Believe it or not, doctors can make mistakes. These people have not returned from anywhere, just like they did not come from somewhere when they were conceived. They just were not dead yet.

 

Confirmation Bias

[Vigile]

OK, so perhaps they were dead and the doctors certify the absence of brain activity; then somehow, they've returned (from where?) to reanimate their lifeless body. What are the possibilities there?

Buddy

 

Perhaps? No they were not dead, even if the doctors certified the absence of brain activity. Believe it or not, doctors can make mistakes. These people have not returned from anywhere, just like they did not come from somewhere when they were conceived. They just were not dead yet.

 

Confirmation Bias

 

Or to add to that, they weren't dead long enough to destroy the delicate structures of the brain that are needed for consciousness. Like an engine running out of gas, the engine is not destroyed, it just needs more gas. Unlike an engine though, the brain deteriorates after a few minutes without oxygen.

 

It's not that difficult to figure out Buddy.

[florduh]

Near death is not death. A doctor can't bring back anyone who is truly dead. That's kind of the definition of dead.

[Guest Net Eng]

Near death is not death. A doctor can't bring back anyone who is truly dead. That's kind of the definition of dead.

 

 

Or to quote Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein "Dead is Dead!"

[BuddyFerris]

Thus my point. In our responses to the suggestion of NDE/life's loose tie to the body, etc., some of us seem opposed philosophically and construct answers on that basis, presuming on the existence of evidence which they don't have but are 'sure it must exist'. Another among us who is perhaps less insecure is willing to consider evidence as it might become available, leaving room for temporarily unanswered questions.

 

Many of the difficult things in life involve changing your mind or at least admitting the limits of what we do know. Those things of which we are most sure are often disassembled by the passing of years. NDE lacks a body of scientific evidence to conclude one way or another at any level of detail beyond the fact that people die and live again per current legal and medical definitions and ability. Although many express emphatically one position or another, I suspect none of us knows what it means other than that such things happen.

 

As it became clear that such things do happen, the proponents of religion and life after death claim it supports their position. Those whose emotional security rests comfortably on their being no God or life after death are sure such things are being 'subjectively' evaluated, fabricated, etc.

 

Back to the question, then. Whether there is or is not a God in the matter, how tightly coupled are the body and the life that inhabits it? I wonder if in fact they might be able to move apart and come back together. Are there possibilities? Something beyond the simple picture the fundamentalists give us; something illuminating above the bland greyness of 'dead is dead.'

 

I can't help but be curious what the possibilities might include.

 

Buddy

[Antlerman]

Many of the difficult things in life involve changing your mind or at least admitting the limits of what we do know.

Oh, so you do understand our openness to admitting we don't have the answers wrapped up all tidy in a theology, and the reason why we quit being Christian as a result of "not knowing". So I guess you are commending us then on our independence of thought? Cool.

 

Precisely sufficient evidence will be discounted by those who so choose, perhaps, with no more reason than that it is contrary to their personal philosophy.

You must be referring to the conservative Christian "scientists" and "scholars" of the Discovery Institute and the Answers in Genesis gang. That's one huge reason why I lost respect for them too. They weren't open to trying to fit their understanding into discovered facts.

 

Of course you are talking about NDE's. Even if you were to allow for a wide margin of unknowns about the phenomena, it doesn't follow that this would support the myth in the NT. That's definitely wishful thinking, to say the least. At best one could say, we don't yet understand. Not that it indicates that myths about life after death have a reality that looks like our inherited theologies of Catholic priests, and their subsequent children the Protestants (and their deformed offspring, the fundamentalist).

 

BTW, I've had an NDE.

 

 

 

Nice to see you again Buddy.

[BuddyFerris]

...

 

Of course you are talking about NDE's. Even if you were to allow for a wide margin of unknowns about the phenomena, it doesn't follow that this would support the myth in the NT. That's definitely wishful thinking, to say the least. At best one could say, we don't yet understand. Not that it indicates that myths about life after death have a reality that looks like our inherited theologies of Catholic priests, and their subsequent children the Protestants (and their deformed offspring, the fundamentalist).

 

BTW, I've had an NDE.

 

 

 

Nice to see you again Buddy.

 

Nice to hear from you as well, pal. I've no personal experience of my own, and I wasn't referring particularly to the biblical descriptions. Just curious about the possibilities that we might consider regarding the degree of coupling between the body and the life that motivates it.

Tell us about your NDE.

Buddy

[Guest Cracker]

Just another item to add to the conflusion.

I first read about this some years ago and while the research isn't (yet) applicable to human beings, it does go to show that our concept of what constitutes "death" may be evolving.

[BuddyFerris]

Just another item to add to the conflusion.

I first read about this some years ago and while the research isn't (yet) applicable to human beings, it does go to show that our concept of what constitutes "death" may be evolving.

It raises interesting questions, certainly. 'Suspended' is a fascinating concept to consider, perhaps like a computer program suspended at a particular point to be resumed after a period of time. Can't say that I would mind being 'suspended' until after the market recovers. I think that was the subject line of a science fiction story I read years ago.

 

So if the biological processes are 'radically decreased' as the article reports, I wonder what that does to the neurological processes. Also slowed down? Is mental activity coupled to those processes, as we presume? Probably, from what little I understand of the subject.

 

Is death, then, perhaps less precisely a 'point in time' event than we presume in law and medicine? Too many accounts argue for some ambiguity or looser coupling than we might philosophically prefer.

 

Buddy

[Antlerman]

Just curious about the possibilities that we might consider regarding the degree of coupling between the body and the life that motivates it.

My personal views are that there would be nothing of your personal consciousness, that is any active cognition that you reflect off of that defines your individuality by, which would survive death. That sort of "floating program" is tied to your life experiences and perceptions and is quite fickle to say the least. Just ask my friend who had a section of his brain removed following an accident, if you can find "him" in there anywhere.

 

Is there anything of "us" that survives, well sure but nothing that could any longer be identified as "us". The reuse of our atoms elsewhere doesn't really constitute a survival of us beyond death. That our active brain program we arbitrarily identify as "me" survives in some fashion, i.e., the continuance of our participation in life through others lives, and others through theirs, etc is the closest I could see to the "me" surviving. It was "me" in my freedom of choice and unique contributions, but "me" as I know me... I won't be there to think about it. That's tied to the brain.

 

To consider that I will survive to continue this sort of self-reflection would seem to have to presume its preexistence before my body, and hence its continuance after, as opposed to its emergence from within the body and its disappearance following its demise. The other possibility is to see "souls" as coming into existence in the universe regularly, like new stars being born inside the great swirls of cosmic hatcheries; in the soul's case the human brain would be a similar spawning ground of "souls". But that would also have to allow for the the soul blinking out of existence like the stars in the heavens.

 

In any case, there's nothing in the observable universe that indicates permanence, so the underlying indication of "life beyond death" is one that is tainted by our mythology as seems to suggest it when its mentioned. If you wish to look at it as something observable by science, then you have to remove it from all myth and look at it like this, on a natural level. In other words, when I hear someone question "life after death", I hear an idea tainted by our mythologies, one of some mythical "eternal existence".

 

Tell us about your NDE.

Buddy

Here and the following posts.

[Vigile]

Thus my point. In our responses to the suggestion of NDE/life's loose tie to the body, etc., some of us seem opposed philosophically and construct answers on that basis, presuming on the existence of evidence which they don't have but are 'sure it must exist'. Another among us who is perhaps less insecure is willing to consider evidence as it might become available, leaving room for temporarily unanswered questions.

 

Many of the difficult things in life involve changing your mind or at least admitting the limits of what we do know. Those things of which we are most sure are often disassembled by the passing of years. NDE lacks a body of scientific evidence to conclude one way or another at any level of detail beyond the fact that people die and live again per current legal and medical definitions and ability. Although many express emphatically one position or another, I suspect none of us knows what it means other than that such things happen.

 

As it became clear that such things do happen, the proponents of religion and life after death claim it supports their position. Those whose emotional security rests comfortably on their being no God or life after death are sure such things are being 'subjectively' evaluated, fabricated, etc.

 

Back to the question, then. Whether there is or is not a God in the matter, how tightly coupled are the body and the life that inhabits it? I wonder if in fact they might be able to move apart and come back together. Are there possibilities? Something beyond the simple picture the fundamentalists give us; something illuminating above the bland greyness of 'dead is dead.'

 

I can't help but be curious what the possibilities might include.

 

Buddy

 

Oh great, so now we have Buddy Ferris back on here making snide comments and assumptions about the emotional insecurities of atheists.

 

I won't go rounds with you again Buddy as you are one of the most willfully ignorant I've yet to encounter. I will hand you a loud fuck you for making assumptions about my life and my own personal emotional securities. Read into this response what you will.

[Guest end3]

Here and the following posts.

 

I would ask you respond if you have time AM.....I read your and Kratos story. How do you reconcile this objectively? Your Mom replace a burned out 60W bulb with a 300 Watter? How, how, how? Your brained "turned off" the violence and rebooted? Damn it man.

[Antlerman]

Here and the following posts.

 

I would ask you respond if you have time AM.....I read your and Kratos story. How do you reconcile this objectively? Your Mom replace a burned out 60W bulb with a 300 Watter? How, how, how? Your brained "turned off" the violence and rebooted? Damn it man.

Reconciling this objectively has been the story of my life since it occurred. Religion didn't address it, which is why I left. It was far too anthropomorphizing and limiting. Furthermore, and more importantly, the "spirit" of this is not found in religion, as religion is more a means to self-appeasement, for itself, as opposed to path of human enlightenment and spiritual fulfillment. Here's something I wrote in another post some time back that somewhat addresses my thoughts about it today.

Where I go from this point is to the next step as I see it. I don't care for the language of "trick of the mind" because, to me, it carries a dismissive tone to it and I feel that it's something that, however it occurs, can and does provide great insight. "Trick of the mind", to me sounds like it can just be dismissed and ignored. Instead what I would say is that there is a truth in the symbolism that bears consideration. These are "manifestations from our deepest feelings taking symbolic form.

 

Think the peyote cultures of native tribes, sweat lodges, and other practices intended to bring about a hallucinatory experience (watch the movie Altered States). These are NOT

recreational

drug uses like kids on the street freaking their minds out. They are sacred experiences, because they are approached as a means to transcendent insights. They are an altered perception that casts new light on things of this world because they come from inside the mind of man.

 

These are not nonsense, and to simply dismiss them as “just a hallucination” totally misses the point of it in these cases, and with your experience and with mine. This is not some "getting high” nonsense. These are, strictly speaking, products of the mind, but they were created from the deepest parts of our psyche at a time of great crisis in our cases to provide, in the form of mythological symbolisms, the same thing that art provides for us, as

Matthew Arnold

put it, "to interpret life for us, to console us, to sustain us."

 

Mythology is a form of art and functions on the same level. I do not view anything in the universe or the human experience as supernatural. I am far away from a New Age follower. The best I could describe how I see things is from a more aesthetic philosophy, with atheistic existentialist thought. When I hear you speak of your experience, and when I hear Sojourner speak of her views of God, I see more a case of fellow humans in the same boat as all of us, using the structures of language and culture to talk to themselves to find their place in the world, as do I. This is not really mysticism, in the sense that it involves some “supernatural” force out there. It's about human perception and response to the world. It's a about the perception of beauty, and the anxiety caused when we consider the meaningless of our own existence.

 

It's a struggle to respond to life as it presents itself through our eyes as it offers life, through the lure of the beautiful in the form, and the terror at the prospect of life being pointless. We create art to hold up this ideal as a form to represent the voice of beauty experienced in the human heart. Mythology is a form of art, it's poetry, symbolic representations of beauty and consolation. Again, as Matthew Arnold put it, "the whole of the Christian doctrine is religious and efficacious only when it becomes poetry."

 

Here's a link I highly recommend you and especially Sojourner spending some time reading:

http://www.dallasinstitute.org/Programs/Pr...ext/fturner.htm

It touches into where I go in thought about the religious in the human experience. I really think it's unfortunate when people are quickly dismissive of the religious thought, because they are overlooking the value of what drives it! It's the same thing that drives all of us. Religion is simply a language to talk about it if it remains symbolic, and not an institutionalized thing that fails its original function.

 

Again, religion fails to go far enough to talk to this. At its best, it offers some language to express it, but to define its nature in supernatural or theological terms is to diminish it and make it become almost its own thing, a substitute for it. What I'm doing is trying to look at it objectively, to see the "God" behind God, so to speak. Religion is a product of that. Not the end, End.

[Guest end3]

With all due respect AM, I find irony in that you hold a moderator position here. I am not understanding....if you are unclear about you position, why you would take a position to lead people in a direction. I can understand if the job description is to comfort people that have been hurt or don't believe in Christianity, but how is it love to lead people other than to love. If I in good faith lead thirsty people to a dry well, it's still dry....and now that I think about it, that would be the fundamental flaw with this site.