it is irrational to argue that there's no evidence for the afterlife

Imagine the first bloke that put a mobile phone in a dead persons coffin. 

I bet they thought they were onto something ground breaking. 

Dead people dont and or can't use mobiles.  

Or just no reception. 

 

 

In the OP you didn't say you were speaking for yourself so I challenged you saying it is irrational because billions of people don't think it is.

I know Trump makes people think that, but it is not true.

I didnt say it's irrational. Read again.

For sure.

An innate awareness of imminent death is a well known phenomenon.

I have witnessed this on several occasions where shortly before they die people quite unexpectedly ask to visit meaningful places, particularly places related to childhood.

The sensory transfer of this awareness to loved ones, is probably to be expected.

Ha Ha.

Dare I say, that was a seemingly straightforward comment.

Not necessarily indicated by my friend Deb's previously not so straightforward comments.

People that " know " they will die soon MUST feel that something big in life like a big party or something extraordinary is going to happen soon but after they are dead.  

Thus you want ever know. 

This i think will be a HORRIBLE  FELLING.  

I seriously got goosebumps typing that. 

People that die from illnesses at a young age , before 30. 

Seem to all be staunch as fuck.

Like Brave people.  

Buttttttt

thats because the minute number of early terminal deaths ive seen are like youtube videos. 

And they are people comfortable infront of a camera.  ( a strange thing ) but a diffrent post.  

I might take that comment back. 

( People that die before 30 are all strong people ) 

Thats a shit comment. 

Im not going to think that anymore. 

' Sticks paperclip in reset hole ' 

I feel i have not ever had one spec of control what so ever over what i dream .  

 

Never ever not a single dream in my life have i  ever felt that it was "trying to allude to something" 

Or of any importance what so ever. 

No dream have i ever drempt  has ever liked linked up with real life events. 

I feel like you guys on the other hand might be like ummm dream masters. 

Or dream wranglers if you will. 

Pull ya heads in . 

You knew in your dreams that granny was soon to die .

Get the fuck out of town i say. 

Bullshit. 

Yes, I stand corrected you said "is it" I always admit when proven wrong. 

I said for people who had extrasensory experiences it is indeed irrational. It's not the same.

It doesn't matter  from my perspective.  Billions of people believe absurd things all the time, does it make them all irrational? For instance I believe the election process in most all countries are all rigged, am I irrational?

just because smart people dont believe in the afterlife doesn't mean much. most of them are ignorant of the information in this thread. i acknowledge that it's common for skeptics to remain skeptics after learning of the evidence... but the far and away most who hear this evidence are convinced it's evidence, at the very least. i would guess most skeptics at least come around to acknowleding the evidence. read reviews online and you will see that for yourself. the skeptics who can't be convinced this stuff is even evidence, just lack critical thinking. saying it's irrational is putting it nicely. it's actually wildly idiotic to deny this evidence, and the folks who do so need to go back to elementary school for basic logic and critical thinking. skepticism on this topic is mostly about ignorance, but there's a hefty amount of stupidity too. 

this link has the good doctor addressing the stupid arguments he's heard....

i'm not trying to avoid addressing stupid arguments myself, but that should take care of a lot of it. 

Sorry about that ID. 

It just come out. Its like a spazam 

I hear you.

I don't like it buttttt.  Ill take it in. 

I don't like extra " sense " ory 

Outer bod.

Spidie tingling  senses. 

I dont like thinking you can " take stuff " from your dreams and  ( coral ated ) you know that word.

And line it up with the real life.

But as you said. Toats free  belive or not deal. 

You i belive may very well be , the smartest dumb cunt on this site. 

I don't know. 

Have a great day but. 

' Insert "Muttley"   swearing  '

Or, have you been lobotomized by Trump to think you can just contradict without proof or argument?

it looks like there's been an outbreak of atheism lately on the forum. i thought i'd bump this thread to remind atheists how stupid they are. 

Your Afterlife will be the same as your Beforelife.

I don't understand why is it irrational to argue that something which cannot be definitively proven lacks evidence that would make it proven.

The existence of an afterlife is a function of belief (often religious) but that belief is irrational as it is predicated on faith. Or better, it sets a very different threshold for "proof", one that others would not necessarily agree with so the person with belief sees things as proof while the person without that faith does not, and sees the "evidence" as not proof or non-existent.

As a person dies, the death throes in the brain can make all sorts of images. Now I know that I can tell when I had a dream -- whether it was 30 seconds long or 5 minutes long. I also have no way of knowing when during my sleep patter that dream happened.  When someone goes through an NDE any images or thoughts might easily happen in the brief seconds before the cessation of life, not after. There is no way to prove when they happened. So accepting that they happened after death and are related to existence after death has to be a function of belief, defying any actual proof. And since human brains are all strikingly similar, the nature of the images would be similar.

Why try to enlist an inexplicable and undefinable experience as a "proof" of something that cannot be measured or communicated at the time?

the thesis that i am arguing is that at the very least evidence for the afterlife exists. if your thesis is that the afterlife can't be proven as true, then i am open to healthy skepticism. 

as far as i see it, the skeptics on the evidence usually just ignore it. i assume they think the out of body evidence and 'the blind seeing' evidence is simply inaccurate. they have to believe that for the evidence to be untrue, but it looks like the evidence isn't simply inaccurate. this is a case of skeptics simply ignoring evidence. 

then there's just the stuff they dont give reasons for. why are people met on the other side almost always dead family members, why is communication almost always telepathic?  if this was hallucations neither of those things would be so consistent. this is plain evidence, and skeptics almost never even try to deal with it.

what if the afterlife is as these experiences indicate them to be? how stupid would a person have to be to have it plainly in front of their face, whether you want to call it evidence or not, and still pretend they had no clue as to the truth? people are experiencing elaborate afterlife stories when they die, yet skeptics pretend there's nothing that might indicate an afterlife. at best, it's skepticism for the sake of skepticism. hallucinations are a possible explanation, so they assume that's what it is, despite the philosophy and science that indicates they are mistaken. they are right that their interpretation is possible... but it's not probable, or in any case, it's not like there's nothing that might indicate an afterlife exists. 

even if it's not evidence, it's still a plain 'indicator', whatever you want to call it. it has meaning. to have to quibble if something might indicate something v if it's evidence is just stupid. it's right in front of our faces and skeptics just choose to ignore it. 

But if you are willing to concede that the anecdotal information may not be evidence (as you write, "even if it's not evidence") then you should be able to see why someone who is looking for evidence before accepting as fact would feel that that level has not been reached. There is a whole lot of "if" in your position and not everyone is willing to grant the same hypotheticals.

it lacks common sense, even if, again, i were to admit that a rational person could argue there's no evidence for the afterlife.  when i concede that it's possible to say it's not evidence, or to entertain the idea... i'm being generous. you can find a fool to think anything. i mean, i suppose if it makes the skeptics feel better, i'll grant that it's possible to do a bunch of mental gymnastics and arrive at the conclusion that there's no evidence for the afterlife. but it's all platitude. this stuff indicates something, without question. to say it indicates something but isn't evidence, is just stupid. just because it's possible to argue there's no evidence for the afterlife doesn't mean it makes sense. it's like someone arguing that our lives are hallucinations... if we accept basic logic and what our eyes tell us, then our lives are not mere hallucinations. i admit there's a degree of difference between saying our lives are hallucinations and that NDEs are hallucinations, but it's not much different. it's still a good analogy to show how 'ostrich with its head in the sand' skeptics are on this. 

I understand your position but you are speaking from within an a priori belief system, through that particular lens.

It isn't easy, but try standing outside yourself. Imagine yourself as a blank slate with no prior notions. People who are not dead tell you that when they were dead, they saw things. Now, you know that people who are dying can see things, but you have no way of proving that what anyone saw was WHILE that person was dead.  I don't see why (not "how" but "why") anyone would be convinced that the say so of people would be enough.

My sister in law became observant because when her grandparent was ill she bargained with God that if God healed the grandparent, she would be more observant. He was healed and she changed her life. Should that be considered "proof" of God's existence? Or might a reasoning person find a whole lot of other explanations? Again, I can see HOW a person might take that as proof, but I don't see WHY a person who does not believe in God would see any causal link there. It takes no particular mental gymnastics to say that human health is not fully understood and sometimes healthy people die and sick people recover.

When people have NDE's and envision family, that makes sense. In our dreams, our brain shows us things we know, possibly things we yearn for. The electrical overload of a death experience causes activity in the human brain but who is to say that any of the awareness (even if this brain activity is connected to a divine connection) happens AFTER the death? So far, there is no evidence of such. So how could someone believe it? Through faith. Why would someone without faith believe it? I don't know.

"I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first," he said.
"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,"   --Stephen Hawking

1. so do skeptics acknowledge that their position is that out of body experiences and 'blind seeing' are simply inaccurate in what these sources report? do the skeptics admit that if these were not inaccurate, there must be something to these NDEs? if people are actually seeing things out of their body and the blind are seeing, there must be something to these experiences.

2. do skeptics admit that people should be hallucinating living people and non family members? your explantion is possible, but it isn't what should be happening... there's no good reason people would just hallucinate dead family members. i dont even know how skeptics would explain why people would always hallucinate telepathic communication in their experiences. there's no plausible alternative explanations than these are real afterlife experiences. do skeptics just assume this is another inaccurate finding? or, what alternative theory would they posit? something about human nature is such that humans would only hallucinate telepathy and never what the humans do in real life, verbal communication?