Death Is Not Final

[Deva]

I have not watched it yet, but just posting it for others who might be interested:

 

[TrueFreedom]

Thanks, Deva.  This looks interesting.

[Sexton Blake]

The video uses NDE's which have long since been explained away and even produced by starving the brain of oxygen.

 

It is just ego and ignorance that make anyone think they are important enough to their imaginary friends to exist after what makes them what they are now has rotted away. Take a hammer to your computer monitor and see if it has any life after death, once it's works no longer works.

 

As to the bible, notably the OT which is the basis of the world's three main faiths:

 

Genesis 3:22. Adam and Eve should not have access to the tree of life and so become immortal like “us”.

1Timothy 6:13-16. Only god is immortal.

Ezekiel 18:4 Souls can die.

John 11:11-14 Death is like a sleep.

Psalm 146:6 and Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10  The dead do not think, don’t know anything and do not have emotions.

Ecclersiastes 3: 19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

Ecclesiastes 12:7  When death occurs the body goes back to dust and the breath of life goes back to god.

Job 7:9,10 14:12  The dead cannot come back.

 

As to God (whatever his name), if he can make a zillion new people with a wave of his hand, why is he going to resurrect billions of dead people and wait on them hand and foot forever?

[Deva]

Why does the possibility of life after death need to be tied to the question of the existence of God or Gods?  

[florduh]

That was an excellent debate. As with most people, I do wish that death was not the end of my consciousness. However, after watching this exchange I continue to hold out little hope for that. Much like the Creationists, the life after death proponents have a good story but are up against mountains of evidence to the contrary. Moody, in particular, reminded me of a Christian apologist by essentially arguing that scientific evidence is irrelevant to what he, by necessity, defines as a philosophical question. In other words, you have to have faith.

[par4dcourse]

Why does the possibility of life after death need to be tied to the question of the existence of God or Gods?

 

I would think that since death is final, it would take a being with goddish power to change it.

[Deva]

 

Why does the possibility of life after death need to be tied to the question of the existence of God or Gods?

I would think that since death is final, it would take a being with goddish power to change it.

 

It seems to me that you are making an unwarranted assumption, then reasoning from that assumption according to your religious background.  But, thanks for giving me your view.

 

I see no reason why a continued existence after death could not be a property of nature.  Here now, why not again? 

[Deva]

That was an excellent debate. As with most people, I do wish that death was not the end of my consciousness. However, after watching this exchange I continue to hold out little hope for that. Much like the Creationists, the life after death proponents have a good story but are up against mountains of evidence to the contrary. Moody, in particular, reminded me of a Christian apologist by essentially arguing that scientific evidence is irrelevant to what he, by necessity, defines as a philosophical question. In other words, you have to have faith.

 

I haven't watched all the debate yet, so will have to get back to you. But you pretty much know where I stand on this question, and I do think there is evidence, but not scientific evidence.

[florduh]

I do think there is evidence, but not scientific evidence.

 

That's pretty much the argument. The problem I have with it is that in order to make a positive conclusion from the non-scientific indicators, the scientific evidence that is actually contrary to the notion must be ignored. Believers choose to ignore that evidence while non-believers accept it. As I noted, it's no different than arguing for or against the existence of God. Anything claimed to be outside the reach of the natural sciences must be taken on faith.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Why does the possibility of life after death need to be tied to the question of the existence of God or Gods?  

 

Without trying to claim that it needs to be tied to the question of the existence of god or gods, my answer is that culturally, the god claim has developed as a sort of solution to human fear of death.

 

The xian deal is basically "believe in salvation through belief in jesus and you will get (a warm and fluffy) life after death, or don't, and burn forever".  That has been the traditional norm in those cultures where xianity flourished.  Since the enlightenment an alternative "when you're dead, you're dead" approach has been developed, under which there is no need for a god.

[Guest afireinside]

There are some pretty spooky and fearful NDE's from within the Christian community that are often cited and publicised in relation to experiences of Heaven and Hell, a friend of mine is adamant he went to Hell on a drug induced hallucination and went on to become a serious Christian after that.

 

I have read a lot of accounts of NDE's mostly researched and documented by Moody where many people have had non-religious NDE's and some have claimed to have been to Heaven and met Jesus/God/angels who were not even Christians. There is this inconsistency among reports which while having a lot of similar attributes don't always(and actually seldom do)resemble a Christian idea of the afterlife.

 

Some Christian believers explain this away by saying either these people weren't close enough to the point of death and hence never actually crossed the point where a soul is transferred to the afterlife or (in speculation) the Devil and Demons have deceived that person with a false experience. That is not consistent logic as it doesn't line up with anything in their Bible and more importantly they are unable to explain why Satan would create an experience that is completely positive and allows the persons soul to feel overwhelming feelings of love and peace.

 

I'm open minded about the possibility because I have not died before but there remains no consistent religious based testimonies to attribute to an afterlife NDE pattern that supports the Bibles description of an afterlife.

[Voice]

Death is to us as division by zero is to us.  Most every person asks this question at least once, woe to us who ask it every day.

[Orbit]

I think it's important to ask why we care. Is it because life after death means we were wrong about religion? To this I offer a paraphrase of a quote by Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius: If you live a just life and do not believe in the gods, when you die, the gods, being just, will not punish you. If you live a just life and do not believe in the gods and are punished when you die, the gods are not just, and were not worth worshipping.

[Orbit]

If you've got the time (over an hour) you might find this interesting

 

 

[Vigile]

I have yet to see any argument explaining the mechanism that drives consciousness after brain death.  Are there any serious scientists who even posit consciousness lies outside the brain? 

[mwc]

     My death will be final.

 

          mwc

[Deva]

I thought the debate was pretty interesting. The "pro" side recommended some interesting books, so I am always up for a good read. "Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century" and "Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey Into the Afterlife."  Dr. Eben Alexander seemed more persuasive than Raymond Moody.  The other side presented the usual arguments.

 

I understand the vast majority on ex-c are scientific materialists, but I don't believe consciousness has been fully explained.  We do not at this time have experiments that can produce the kind of results that constitute scientific proof, but I believe continuing research should be done into the nature of consciousness.

 

I can see why some people would link life after death with god, but I say it isn't necessary.

[Orbit]

Oh, and it's a science-based, not religious debate--pretty good stuff

[Guest afireinside]

Would you define psychological experiences as a science? I mean they are experienced and documented but not exactly measurable or observable. What category do they fall under?

[florduh]

Topics merged.

[mymistake]

We cannot count the number of creatures that have died.  Only science knows how to restore life and only under special circumstances.  That would be the stuff that happens in the emergency room.  But for deaths that happen outside those limits situations the result is decay and possibly serving as food for other organisms.  Apart from modern medicine, death is final.

[midniterider]

 

That was an excellent debate. As with most people, I do wish that death was not the end of my consciousness. However, after watching this exchange I continue to hold out little hope for that. Much like the Creationists, the life after death proponents have a good story but are up against mountains of evidence to the contrary. Moody, in particular, reminded me of a Christian apologist by essentially arguing that scientific evidence is irrelevant to what he, by necessity, defines as a philosophical question. In other words, you have to have faith.

 

I haven't watched all the debate yet, so will have to get back to you. But you pretty much know where I stand on this question, and I do think there is evidence, but not scientific evidence.

 

 

 

I am really Florduh's great great great grandmother reincarnated .... just not sure how to go about telling him. :-)

[midniterider]

Would you define psychological experiences as a science? I mean they are experienced and documented but not exactly measurable or observable. What category do they fall under?

 

This is where science has to make assumptions without observable evidence. Just cuz I write stuff and spew an opinion does NOT mean I am having actual thoughts. haha

[Deva]

 

Would you define psychological experiences as a science? I mean they are experienced and documented but not exactly measurable or observable. What category do they fall under?

 

This is where science has to make assumptions without observable evidence. Just cuz I write stuff and spew an opinion does NOT mean I am having actual thoughts. haha

 

 I would think that psychological experiences would fall under the broad category of psychology.  Is psychology science?

[Vigile]

Is psychology science?

 

It's soft science, which means it uses the scientific method, but that it can't measure or quantify to near the degree of accuracy that hard science can.  For instance, in physics, it's possible to measure with in the precise nth of a degree the speed or weight of something.  In psychology, it's possible only to measure something statistically with a significantly wide margin of error making the findings much more subjective by comparison.