The Afterlife! Is it Possible?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_marg

Post by _marg »

Quantumwave wrote:
This seems to be a good example of many NDE accounts...the tunnel, light, feelings of intense love and such.

Three things in the description I found interesting are the door, the vivid colors and the extreme reluctance to come back. The door, which she said she "knew" if she passed through, she could not return is an event some of the accounts I have read also experienced. It was not always a door, but something symbolic of "passing" through or over. To me, this is not something one would come up with if they were simply hallucinating. The vivid, or vibrant colors is charactristic of many of the reports. This could be drug-induced, but her memory was so clear, it all but eliminates the possibility she was drug-induced. The extreme reluctance to come back due to the intense feeling of love is another characteristic of many NDE reports. This is interesting since other than NDE reports of afterlife conditions include this same concept of intense love.




You don't give much if any of a critical analysis. What background does this woman have? How many NDE stories has she previously heard.

When she says something happened how does she know? For example she says her heart stopped. How does she know? She says she was carried towards a real place, heaven. Huh? How does she know it was a "real" place. How does she know it was heaven or what a heaven is supposed to look like? How does she know that if she had some experiences and memories that these didn't occur while semi conscious? I only listened to about 2 minutes, paused the tape, went to play it again and it wouldn't ..so at that point I quit. It was so unscientific, that I lost interest.

by the way. Q.W. in a previous post you write: "Does Bell's theorem have anything to do with the afterlife? Maybe, maybe not. What it does is provide scientific evidence that there is a lot more to reality than we perceive with our five senses."


I would agree there is more to reality than what we are able to perceive. But to continue from that assumption and conclude one can scientifically speculate (that there is a connection using current scientific knowledge) an afterlife is nonsense, unfounded, pure speculation, not the least bit scientific..and is simply wishful thinking. it is piggy backing onto science to make one's belief appear respectable. Believe whatever you wish Q.W., whatever makes you happy or is satisfying but do not attempt to hijack science in order to bolster your beliefs and have people take them seriously.

Can you please explain to me what you mean by "scientific evidence"? How does it differ from non-scientific evidence? Can you also explain the relevance, the direct causal link between Bell's theorem and it being evidence for an afterlife?
_Quantumwave
_Emeritus
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:35 pm

Post by _Quantumwave »

marg wrote:
Quantumwave wrote:
This seems to be a good example of many NDE accounts...the tunnel, light, feelings of intense love and such.

Three things in the description I found interesting are the door, the vivid colors and the extreme reluctance to come back. The door, which she said she "knew" if she passed through, she could not return is an event some of the accounts I have read also experienced. It was not always a door, but something symbolic of "passing" through or over. To me, this is not something one would come up with if they were simply hallucinating. The vivid, or vibrant colors is charactristic of many of the reports. This could be drug-induced, but her memory was so clear, it all but eliminates the possibility she was drug-induced. The extreme reluctance to come back due to the intense feeling of love is another characteristic of many NDE reports. This is interesting since other than NDE reports of afterlife conditions include this same concept of intense love.




You don't give much if any of a critical analysis. What background does this woman have? How many NDE stories has she previously heard.

When she says something happened how does she know? For example she says her heart stopped. How does she know? She says she was carried towards a real place, heaven. Huh? How does she know it was a "real" place. How does she know it was heaven or what a heaven is supposed to look like? How does she know that if she had some experiences and memories that these didn't occur while semi conscious? I only listened to about 2 minutes, paused the tape, went to play it again and it wouldn't ..so at that point I quit. It was so unscientific, that I lost interest.

by the way. Q.W. in a previous post you write: "Does Bell's theorem have anything to do with the afterlife? Maybe, maybe not. What it does is provide scientific evidence that there is a lot more to reality than we perceive with our five senses."


I would agree there is more to reality than what we are able to perceive. But to continue from that assumption and conclude one can scientifically speculate (that there is a connection using current scientific knowledge) an afterlife is nonsense, unfounded, pure speculation, not the least bit scientific..and is simply wishful thinking. it is piggy backing onto science to make one's belief appear respectable. Believe whatever you wish Q.W., whatever makes you happy or is satisfying but do not attempt to hijack science in order to bolster your beliefs and have people take them seriously.

Can you please explain to me what you mean by "scientific evidence"? How does it differ from non-scientific evidence? Can you also explain the relevance, the direct causal link between Bell's theorem and it being evidence for an afterlife?


Hey Marg,

What I said was

This seems to be a good example of many NDE accounts...the tunnel, light, feelings of intense love and such.


This is another of (as I keep saying, read my lips) millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of testimonies that strongly imply an afterlife. Either ALL of these people are lying, or deceived, or the afterlife is a reality.

You state:

How many NDE stories has she previously heard.


So you either think she lied, or was influenced by past stories into dilusional thinking.

I really don't care what you believe, Marg, but I can assure you that my conclusions are NOT based on wishful thinking.
_marg

Post by _marg »

Quantumwave wrote: Hey Marg,

What I said was

"This seems to be a good example of many NDE accounts...the tunnel, light, feelings of intense love and such."
This is another of (as I keep saying, read my lips) millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of testimonies that strongly imply an afterlife. Either ALL of these people are lying, or deceived, or the afterlife is a reality.


Actually initially that's not what you said, I believe you said millions perhaps billions. For the record there are currently approx. 6 billion people living. I'm not denying people who have experienced near death share similar experiences. It's the interpretation or the leap to the conclusion that these experiences are evidence for an afterlife that I don't accept. by the way, you are grossly exaggerating when you say there are millions of people, perhaps 100's of millions of people experiencing near death experiences of tunnels, light, feeling of intense love. I suspect that just as you employ science erroneously to help sell your belief in an afterlife to others, you also grossly exaggerate evidence.

You state:

How many NDE stories has she previously heard.


So you either think she lied, or was influenced by past stories into dilusional thinking.


Well I'd question this particular person first before I accept their word. I didn't listen to the whole tape but when she says she was carried towards a real place, heaven...I most definitely would want to question how she determined...she went to a real place.

I really don't care what you believe, Marg, but I can assure you that my conclusions are NOT based on wishful thinking.


If that is true regarding wishful thinking..how about you address my questions?

"Can you please explain to me what you mean by "scientific evidence"? How does it differ from non-scientific evidence? Can you also explain the relevance, the direct causal link between Bell's theorem and it being evidence for an afterlife
_Quantumwave
_Emeritus
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:35 pm

Post by _Quantumwave »

Marg, all you are doing is looking for debate for the sake of debate. You distorted my statement, and I really don't want to get into the usual debate about "what I said, no what you said", this becomes very unproductive. But since you have made such a blatant distortion, I really need to point it out.

You stated:

by the way, you are grossly exaggerating when you say there are millions of people, perhaps 100's of millions of people experiencing near death experiences of tunnels, light, feeling of intense love.


I never said that and you know it. What I said was:

This is another of (as I keep saying, read my lips) millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of testimonies that strongly imply an afterlife.


There are many, many more testimonies other than just NDE testimonies. You either intentionally distort statements to make your point or you don't pay attention to detail.

You keep asking what scientific evidence is, or more specific, what I mean by "scientific evidence". I'm sure you are looking for more grist for your debate, but, obviously, I believe Bell's theorem to be scientific evidence, since it is backed by a mathematical proof (as you already know). That is a prime example of what I mean is "scientific evidence"
_marg

Post by _marg »

Q.W.
Marg, all you are doing is looking for debate for the sake of debate. You distorted my statement, and I really don't want to get into the usual debate about "what I said, no what you said", this becomes very unproductive. But since you have made such a blatant distortion, I really need to point it out.

You stated: “by the way, you are grossly exaggerating when you say there are millions of people, perhaps 100's of millions of people experiencing near death experiences of tunnels, light, feeling of intense love.

I never said that and you know it. What I said was:

"This is another of (as I keep saying, read my lips) millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of testimonies that strongly imply an afterlife."

There are many, many more testimonies other than just NDE testimonies. You either intentionally distort statements to make your point or you don't pay attention to detail.


Well then let’s take a look at what you have been saying. In the thread titled “Holy Ghost “after referring people to V. Zammit’s website which is a lawyer’s presentation for an afterlife Gramps criticized it and said he wasn’t buying what you were selling.

You responded to Gramps with: “With the millions, perhaps billions of people experiencing such events as past life memories, near death experiences, death bed visions, out of body experiences, just to name a few, it takes a very closed mind to dismiss it all with such a short examination. However, I certainly understand your postion. I have been there."

Since your comment follows directly and is in response to Gramp's criticism of V. Zammit’s website regarding an afterlife, your intended imference is obvious..that there are testimonials well over a million possibly a billion which supports a theory of an afterlife.

Let’s take another quote: “The fact is, if only one of the millions upon millions of people experiencing what they swear to as afterlife evidence is valid, then the afterlife exists.”

Well here you are flat out saying there are “million upon millions of people swearing to an afterlife”.

Another quote: “As I have stated before, if any one of the multiple-millions of testimonies is true, then the afterlife is a reality.”

Again you are implying there are “multiple millions” of testimonies to an afterlife.

Another quote: “Afterlife evidence is much more than simple speculation, which is based totally on opinion. As has been pointed out, there are millions of testimonials and scientific parallels with strong implication of the existence of the afterlife.”

Now you are combining science and testimonials ..with the word “millions”. So here the reader is given the impression that there are also millions of scientific parallels as evidence for an afterlife. Not only does this appear deliberately deceptive, but it is an example of you hijacking “science” to convince the reader that even science supports a theory of the afterlife. What exactly do you mean by “strong implication”? It’s vague enough to mean anything, isn’t it? Nothing scientific about those words. What scientific parallels supports an afterlife theory? If such a theory of an afterlife has been proposed and supported scientifically ..has it been peer reviewed and gained consensus acceptance in the scientific community? No? why not?

So in all these examples, the intended inference you want your reader to draw is obvious Q.W. You are using the words “millions”, “millions upon millions”, multiple millions, “way over a million possible a billion”, to exaggerate what the evidence is for an afterlife and thereby hopefully convince and impress a your audience that there are many millions of testimonials of people who swear to an afterlife experience. Are there really “millions upon millions" of people who swear they’ve experienced the afterlife? Because that is what you said.

If you only intended to mean there are millions of testimonials of people claiming hallucinations you certainly have not made that clear.

You keep asking what scientific evidence is, or more specific, what I mean by "scientific evidence". I'm sure you are looking for more grist for your debate, but, obviously, I believe Bell's theorem to be scientific evidence, since it is backed by a mathematical proof (as you already know). That is a prime example of what I mean is "scientific evidence"


I don’t claim to understand Quantum Mechanics or Bell’s theorem but I do know they do NOT predict in their theoretics an afterlife. So Bell’s theorem may be scientific and offer evidence which may offer predictive value but what you are doing is highjacking this science and using it by making claim it supplies evidence which supports an afterlife. That is nonsense. It is intellectually dishonest. It is deliberately deceptive and meant to bamboozle an unsuspecting gullible audience.

I’m not looking for a debate Q.W. What I am doing is challenging you to support your statements, and I’m not allowing your claim to go unchallenged that science is some way legitimately supports a theory for an afterlife. That is sheer wishful thinking on your part and others.
_Quantumwave
_Emeritus
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:35 pm

Post by _Quantumwave »

Marg:

I point out your deliberate distortion of my statement and you call me DISHONEST? REALLY?

You insist on degenerating a discussion into a grade school yard quarrel.

You stated:
So Bell’s theorem may be scientific and offer evidence which may offer predictive value but what you are doing is highjacking this science and using it by making claim it supplies evidence which supports an afterlife. That is nonsense. It is intellectually dishonest.


Here, again you have made a deliberate distortion of what I said. And you call me dishonest!!!

What I said was:

Does Bell's theorem have anything to do with the afterlife? Maybe, maybe not. What it does is provide scientific evidence that there is a lot more to reality than we perceive with our five senses.


Please note that I did NOT say "it supplies evidence which supports an afterlife".

So who is dishonest here?


marg: YOU'RE FIRED!!!!!
_marg

Post by _marg »

Q.W.
Marg:

I point out your deliberate distortion of my statement and you call me DISHONEST? REALLY?

You insist on degenerating a discussion into a grade school yard quarrel.

You stated:
Quote:
So Bell’s theorem may be scientific and offer evidence which may offer predictive value but what you are doing is highjacking this science and using it by making claim it supplies evidence which supports an afterlife. That is nonsense. It is intellectually dishonest.

Here, again you have made a deliberate distortion of what I said. And you call me dishonest!!!

What I said was:
Quote:
Does Bell's theorem have anything to do with the afterlife? Maybe, maybe not. What it does is provide scientific evidence that there is a lot more to reality than we perceive with our five senses.


Please note that I did NOT say "it supplies evidence which supports an afterlife".
So who is dishonest here?

marg: YOU'RE FIRED!!!!!


When I asked you to tell me what you considered was the best evidence of an afterlife, you wrote a long post filled with scientific talk all meant to lead the reader to a conclusion that science is supportive of an afterlife theory. Science says absolutely NOTHING about an afterlife and you have been disingenuously trying to imply it does.

I’ll quote some portions illustrating this.

You write: The overwhelming majority of astrophysicists have now signed up to the existence of an undefined medium, permeating all space, they call “dark matter”. The existence of dark matter a.k.a. ether or any such thing permeating all of space has not been physically detected, and therefore does not submit to the scientific method. Nonetheless, mainstream scientists are signing on, due to the undeniable evidence.


Later you write: Given the ubiquitous nature of this ethereal substance called “dark matter”, and since this substance seems to own the same general attributes of non-detectability as the ethereal substance human spirits are comprised of, it logically follows that our spirits are comprised of this “dark matter” in the same relationship our physical bodies are comprised of earthly matter, which is actually star material of our physical universe. Simply put, our spiritual bodies are related to ethereal dark matter just as our physical bodies are related to physical matter.



Read your own words Q.W. “it logically follows that our spirits are comprised of this “dark matter” in the same relationship our physical bodies are comprised of earthly matter.” You are most definitely saying that science supplies evidence which supports an afterlife.
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

An article published in The Sydney Morning Herald (Dec.8) discusses the science of neurology, or "neurotheology":

In laboratories around the world, a few specialists have had their own insights into the neurology of spiritual experiences, using precise techniques to stimulate and monitor the brain's function.

These new studies delve into questions that have long fascinated scientists, says John Watson, a neurologist at the University of Sydney.

"Neuroscientists are now doing bolder and bolder things," Watson says. "We've already seen studies into the neurology of things like love, thirst and hunger, so it wasn't a big step for them to start wondering about these religious and quasi-religious experiences."

Some people call this new field "neurotheology", a term coined by Aldous Huxley in his 1962 novel Island. Scientists often refer to it as the cognitive neuroscience of religious experience and spirituality.



In 1997, researchers from the University of California in San Diego announced there might be dedicated neural machinery in the brain's temporal lobes specifically linked with religion. Vilayanur Ramachandran and his team studied the brains of people with an unusual type of epilepsy that affects the brain's temporal lobes.

People who suffer this kind of seizure often report having intense mystical and religious experiences as part of their attacks. The researchers found that one effect of the seizures was to strengthen the involuntary response of the patient's brain to religious words.



Meanwhile, other researchers have probed the experiences of people with temporal lobe epilepsy with more interesting results. In Switzerland, for example, a neurologist, Olaf Blanke, and his colleagues found that electrically stimulating specific brain regions can trigger repeated out-of-body experiences.

Roughly one person in 10 has this kind of experience, but rigorous study was rare until a few years ago when Blanke came across a case in a 43-year-old woman he was also testing and treating for epilepsy.

On that occasion, the experience was triggered when a part of her brain near the junction point of the temporal and parietal lobes was stimulated with an electrode. Every time that part of her brain was stimulated, the woman described "floating above her own body and watching herself".


Nelson studied 55 people who had near-death experiences in a range of circumstances, including heart attacks, traffic accidents and fainting and found that about 60 per cent reported symptoms of sleep paralysis.

In a matched group of 55 healthy volunteers, only 24 per cent had those symptoms.

Nelson and his colleagues reported in April that "these findings anticipate that under circumstances of peril, a near-death experience is more likely in those with previous REM intrusion".


For the full article: http://www.smh.com.au/news/health/be-en ... ntentSwap1
Post Reply