Why do people think being an athiest means you also don't believe in an afterlife?

[Th1onein]

Nevermind, I KNOW why. But are there any athiests out there who believe in an afterlife? Any that don't? And why, for both?

Discuss.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Buddhists are atheists, but believe in reincarnation.

[YankeyMCC]

88. Not all

sorry to quibble but not all Buddhists are atheist, and not all believe in reincarnation as most westerners define it anyway. And among the schools that do hold to the idea of reincarnation most include deities of a sort that would likely exclude them from the label of atheist by the general understanding of what atheist means.

The idea of rebirth is more common but typically it isn't what most people in the west think of when they think of reincarnation.


Full disclosure: I happen to consider myself both Buddhist (Zen) and atheist.

[HeresyLives]

2. I dunno. We know there are more dimensions

than the one we currently live in.

[jgraz]

3. "atheist" has a pretty broad definition.

But I find it hard to fit belief in a magical afterlife into any definition I subscribe to.

[DesertFlower]

4. i'm an atheist and i believe in an

afterlife and reincarnation.

[aquart]

5. Never understood how the immortality of god guarantees immortality of man.

Seems unrelated to me.

[darkstar3]

6. Well, you have to admit,

it does kind of make sense. Belief in an afterlife is overwhelming linked to forms of religious belief, so you could see where people would make the assumption.

I don't "believe" in an afterlife. I put that in quotes because I have no clue what an afterlife would be like or if one could even possibly exist, but I'd really like for there to be one. I've always liked the idea of reincarnation, and I've always wished the Minbari Religion were actually true, but it's all just wishful thinking on my part. Wishful thinking rooted in the fact that I do not wish to lose my loved ones when we all inevitably leave this world.

[BlueJazz]

7. I believe when the Journey ends...it Ends. But it's wonderful getting there.

:)

[KaoriMitsubishi]

8. There is no god, there is no "I".

Do your level best.

[DeSwiss]

16. There is only.....

ALL THAT IS.

[Ian David]

9. I believe we get to spend Eternity torturing fundies. n/t

[DesertFlower]

12. maybe they'll be torturing us. nt

[bigjohn16]

10. I've never met an atheist who believes in an afterlife.

I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in an afterlife because there's no science that I've seen that shows that when our brain dies something magical happens.

Edit:
Now that I think about it I don't know if I've ever asked another atheist about it. I just assumed.

[Th1onein]

22. I am an athiest who believes in an afterlife.

I don't think that you have to believe in a god, in order to believe in an afterlife.

[bigjohn16]

27. What do you base your belief on? Faith? Science? nt

[Th1onein]

32. Science.

I have no faith.

[Book Lover]

34. If that's the case, care to explain your assertion? (nm)

[Th1onein]

37. It would really take a long, long time, here, to do that.

And I don't have the patience. Or the time, right now. Don't get me wrong. I don't think that we have "proof" either way, but I think that there is enough evidence to point us in the right direction.

[bigjohn16]

39. What evidence?

You don't have the patience? Why start the thread if you don't want to discuss the topic?

[Th1onein]

43. I want to hear what other people think.

I already know what I think. Simple enough for ya?

[Book Lover]

40. Boy, that's a lame cop-out

Not even a 300-word abstract? Pish.

[Th1onein]

42. Hey, excuse me, but it's a fucking holiday for me, too.

I don't celebrate Christmas, but can you CONCEIVE that perhaps I have plans this holiday that don't INCLUDE writing a long fucking diatribe about why I believe there's an afterlife? Geez, this forum really is getting some shitty people on it.

Go look it up yourself. You've got a computer.

[Book Lover]

44. Well, good morning dearie

Thanks so much for the reply. So glad you could take time from you busy schedule to type foul language at me.

[Th1onein]

45. I'm sorry. But there are peer reviewed journals that actually

cover this topic, to some degree. There is no PROOF, but it doesn't take much work to simply go to Google and look up the journals, to find that there is evidence of consciousness existing outside of the body. It irks me that people can take the time to challenge something, but do none of the research required of a good challenge. They're like, hey, prove it to me. When, if they were really all that interested, they would have done a little work on it themselves. And if they weren't, they shouldn't be wasting time demanding the information from someone else.

[Silent3]

47. If there really was substantive "evidence of consciousness existing outside of the body"...

...appearing in "peer reviewed journals", really convincing evidence that is, that should have become an enormous news story by now. My guess is that you're overly impressed by something I wouldn't find impressive at all.

If I Google "afterlife scientific evidence" I find a crap load of stuff, none of which strikes me off hand as particularly convincing or impressive. How many hours of digging do you think I should be obligated to perform to back up YOUR claims that you're too lazy to back up yourself?

If you want someone to be persuaded by what you claim, you need to point out specifically what you think is convincing, and to explain why you think it's convincing.

[Th1onein]

49. If you knew anything about the scientific research world, you'd know better.

I'm talking about mainstream scientific research. They poo poo this kind of research and perpetuate the myth that this research is not done empirically, and not peer reviewed. Nothing could be further from the truth; and in fact, often, there are more rigorous controls used in this type of research, for that very reason. You can't just google "afterlife scientific evidence." You have to find a journal, look through it, look at the articles, look at the citations, and journey from there. That's what I did, years ago, and I managed to educated myself a bit on this topic.

I'm not trying to persuade ANYONE on this topic. I'm not making ANY claims. I'm perfectly confident in what I believe and why I believe it. I'm not here to convince you. I'm looking to see what other people think on the topic. That's why I started this thread.

[Silent3]

51. So you're just going to abandon any effort at providing evidence...

...for your viewpoint, other than vaguely waving your hands and saying "It's out there. Go find it yourself."?

I'm not trying to persuade ANYONE on this topic. I'm not making ANY claims. I'm perfectly confident in what I believe and why I believe it. I'm not here to convince you. I'm looking to see what other people think on the topic. That's why I started this thread.

There's a pathetic disclaimer.

If I start a thread asking, "Does garlic really keep vampires away?", I can absolve myself of all questions about whether vampires are even real, which is pretty important to whether my question about garlic even has any meaning, just by saying that I'm sure vampires exist and I'm not trying to convince anyone, and still expect people to take my vampire question seriously?

[Th1onein]

53. Why don't YOU provide evidence that there's not an afterlife?

Instead of asking me to do all your work for you, why don't you do some work on the topic, if you want to argue about it, instead of telling me what you think about it? I think that's just as valid as your asking me to provide evidence for you.

I came on here asking people if they believed in god AND an afterlife, and asking them to discuss the reasons for their beliefs. I happen to believe that there is no god, but that there is an afterlife. I want to hear what other people think.

Sounds like some people just want to fucking argue. First you ask for peer reviewed journals, and when I assert that there are peer reviewed journals in this field, you aren't even curious to look up one journal or one study. Not one.

Here is an example of you providing something to think about that's along the terms of why I posted this topic in the first place:


I don't make much distinction between consciousness and self.
There's consciousness as a generalized thing, the quality or state of being mentally alive and self aware, and then there's a consciousness, and that's pretty much the same as the self as far as I'm concerned.

While it might be a subtle distinction, I had the impression that for a Buddhist the self wasn't exactly extinguished upon death, but dissolved, merged with a greater whole. "Like a rain drop falling into the ocean", is how I believe I remember someone explaining the concept to me.

[darkstar3]

54. Because it is impossible to provide "evidence" for a negative.

But then, you already knew that.

This whole idea of "well prove me wrong," is based in abject stubbornness. There is no reason, no evidence, to believe in an afterlife. If there were, NDEs, out of body experiences, and non-localized souls known as "ghosts" wouldn't be relegated to the fringe of science fiction. Instead, there would have been a huge news cycle surrounding the discovery of the soul, churches would be packed with new members terrified that they've been wrong all along, and products would have sprung up all over the place actually allowing you to "see" ghosts.

But that's all beside the point. If you want anyone on this board to believe you when you say there are peer-reviewed journals documenting this phenomenon, then you need to post a link. It takes two seconds of your time, since you've apparently already read it and know where it is or how to find it, and it actually gives you a level of credibility that you are currently lacking.

[Th1onein]

56. Read this very closely, okay? Because this is the THIRD TIME I've had to say this.

I posted here, not to prove a point; not to give information; not to convince anyone of anything. I posted here, my questions, because I wanted other people's points of view about a topic I'm interested in. This is NOT about peer reviewed journals, or whether they exist or not. This is NOT about peer reviewed articles in those journals. This is not about whether you or I believe in God, or not. This is about what your's, and others', thoughts are on whether there is an afterlife or not. It's about learning about other paradigms of looking at reality.

As for your assertion that the fact that NDEs, out of body experiences, etc. are relegated to the fringes of science, so what? People used to believe all kinds of things and relegate others to the fringes of science, only to find out that they were wrong. In fact, there's been a guy in the news recently, who was once thought to be a nut, and was relegated to the fringe, and who's found a new way to look at cancer. But, yes. that IS all besides the point. It was NOT the reason that I posted my questions (not assertions, you notice that?).

For instance, I watched a program on the afterlife, where Deepak Chopra (sp?) explained the self as an ever changing phenomena, like the crests of waves that you see in the ocean, being part of the whole, but the next time you see that crest it has changed. That seemed to me to have a lot in common with Bohm's idea of an implicate order.

I'm not looking for credibility because I'm not asserting anything to be true. I'm looking for others' ideas on this topic, because I want to see if there are other paradigms that include something of the sort that Bohm and Chopra are talking about.

NOW, do you see?

[darkstar3]

60. This entire post circles around a single falsehood,

namely that you are not trying to assert anything as true. But you did try to assert in an earlier post that peer-reviewed journals exist regarding human consciousness outside the human body. You have made an assertion, and you have been asked repeatedly to back that assertion, and you have continually attempted to find ways NOT to provide that evidence.

Say whatever you want about your original intent in posting this OP, this subthread had a different intent, which was to put forward the idea that the concept of an afterlife is scientifically supported. So either provide the scientific evidence, or abandon the subthread.

[Th1onein]

62. None are so blind as those who will not see.

Read the original post. And, by the way, there are others on this thread who have said the exact same thing that I've said: that they believe in an afterlife, but don't believe in God--who've not been challenged to prove it. This is so silly. Some people just want to argue, I guess.

Go for it. I'm done with this idiocy.

[darkstar3]

68. You were the only one asked for proof,

because you were the only one who asserted anything provable about an afterlife, namely that science backs up the idea. Now you're trying to make it look like people are picking on you so you can run away and hide without providing any proof of that scientific evidence.

I still can't understand why you won't provide a link. The information you read obviously convinced you that there is an afterlife and that science confirms it, yet you won't share it with the rest of us. Why?

[Th1onein]

71. You are talking about a plethora of research, spanning many years.

Go do your own work.

I'm not responding to you anymore. This is silly shit.

[Silent3]

59. darkstar3 already did a good job of addressing the "prove me wrong" canard

As soon as the silliness of that was out of the way, I can see you fell back to, "well, I'm not trying to prove anything!".

To borrow an analogy I just used in another thread, if I started a thread asking people what they thought were the best methods for protecting their campsites from Sasquatch attacks, it would be a perfectly valid response for people to chime in on that thread and ask, "What Sasquatch attacks? Why worry about Sasquatch attacks when we don't even know they exist?"

No matter how much I were to protest that I'm not trying to prove the existence of Sasquatch, I would have opened myself up to such questions by making the existence of Sasquatch a premise of the discussion. I wouldn't have to formally state "I, Silent3, do hereby officially claim that Sasquatch is real" before I validly open myself up to questions about the reality of Sasquatch. Denying that I wasn't making such a claim and wasn't trying to convince anyone of the existence of Sasquatch would rightly be denounced as nothing but an evasion.

[Th1onein]

63. Did you READ the origninal post?

Hmmm. I guess not.

As I said in a previous post, there are others here who made the same assertions I made. Funny you didn't challenge them to prove it. I guess I shouldn't have taken the bait, huh?

[Silent3]

81. Yes, I did read the OP. I also read the subsequent discussion.

Along the way, bigjohn16 asked you, "What do you base your belief on? Faith? Science?", in reference to your stated belief in an afterlife.

You very bluntly answered, "Science. I have no faith".

That, whether you want to call it such or not, is a claim on your part that science supports belief in an afterlife. A claim made in a tersely smug fashion, made in a way that not merely invites challenge, but practically begs for it.

What follows is pure cowardly evasion. How you don't have the time or patience to back up your bold words. The old "prove me wrong" canard. The attempt to foist your burden of proof off on others, who are supposed to, apparently, research your assertions for you.

As for why I haven't asked others the same questions, perhaps if I find anything else in the rest of the thread that inspires a similar response I'll do so later. Perhaps my challenge to you covers the same ground well enough. In either event, asking why I don't ask others the question you're ducking and dodging is nothing more than more ducking and dodging.

[rd_kent]

66. The fact that there is no evidence of an afterlife IS the evidence that there is no afterlife.

you cannot prove a negative. The one making the claim that something DOES exist has the burden to prove the claim. In this case, thats YOU!

[Th1onein]

73. Read the posts.

Someone said that they had never met anyone who didn't believe in God, but that believed in an afterlife. I replied that I believed in the afterlife, but didn't believe in God. He asked if I based my belief on faith, or on science. I said science.

I'm not here to do your work for you. If you want the answers to your questions, do your own research. If, on the other hand, you don't want answers, and you just want to argue, I'm not going to bother with you anymore.

Either way, I'm not going to bother with you anymore.

[rd_kent]

75. "He asked if I based my belief on faith, or on science. I said science." So, where can I find it?

What science? Where is it located? I have searched for it but high and low, but to no avail.

You debated with another poster and you made the same claim, to go find it for himself. He also replied that he was also unable to find it.


Considering that you stated you base your belief in an afterlife on science, it would be reasonable to assume that you could show us this science you base your belief on.

I'm not here to do your work for you. If you want the answers to your questions, do your own research. If, on the other hand, you don't want answers, and you just want to argue, I'm not going to bother with you anymore.

I do want answers and want to discuss this science you are talking about, but I am unable to find it. Why is it such a big deal to show it to me, or anyone else, that wants to see it?

[Th1onein]

77. Answer honestly:

Is there some reason you are unable to do this research for yourself, or are you arguing for the sake of argument?

[rd_kent]

83. Answer honestly:

Is there some reason you are unable to show me this science or are you arguing for the sake of argument?



Really dude. I looked, but I am unable to find anything scientifically related that points to scientific evidence of an afterlife.
It makes me even more skeptical that you refuse to tell anyone where they might find this science so that they may review it and discuss it. If you wont show me or anyone else where we can find it, then there is nothing left to discuss.

[darkstar3]

84. ^^^Saw that comin'...n/t

[Th1onein]

85. You didn't answer at all. Why is this?

Can you not answer the question, or are you incapable, or unwilling, to answer it honestly? Which is it?

HAVE you looked? Ian Stevenson's work is something you should have run across with a simple google search on reincarnation. In fact, IF you had bothered to search on google, you would only have had to type in that one word: reincarnation, and you would have been able to link to the Wikipedia site that lists him, and others, and their work on just this one topic. Why would you not do that? And, why, having not done that, would you continue to pepper me with bullshit questions intimating that I won't tell you about the research because there isn't any? Hmmm?

You're really close to being put on ignore.

[rd_kent]

87. No, YOU are the one that is not answering.

You are being obtuse about your whole conversation. YOU are the one that claimed science confirms an afterlife. YOU are the one that will not link to where others can review this science.

Go ahead, put me on ignore. I will still respond to anyone's, including yours, posts that claim something to be true when they fail to provide evidence of the claim.

[Th1onein]

91. You think that Ian Stevenson's body of work provides no evidence for an afterlife?

Hmmm? Because Carl Sagan, if he were alive, would disagree with you. Why do you ignore the post I made regarding your "research"? Why do you try to convince me that you can't actually find anything on this subject, when if you simple did a google search on reincarnation, you would pull up a Wiki article on Stevenson's research? Hmmm?

You are not being honest, my friend.

I told you how to do a google search. You know how to spell Stevenson's name. Can you not manage this task on your own? From that google search, you can find the books that Stevenson published, one which was reviewed in The Journal of Scientific Exploration. He's even published an article in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease on this topic.

I've given you information enough to find an entire body of work of a very respected scientist. Are you still claiming you can't find anything? Or is your case NOW that you want a link?

Like I said, you're not being honest here.

[iris27]

92. Good grief, was it so hard to provide a name?

It only took you 14 replies...that must have used up a lot more "time and patience" than simply saying "Look into Stevenson's work on reincarnation" in response to the very first query.

I'm willing to bet rd_kent googled variations on "afterlife studies", "science of afterlife", etc...because that's what I did with my searches before concluding (as he had) that you were being deliberately evasive. You didn't specify what flavor of afterlife you thought science supported, so it didn't occur to me to search "reincarnation". No dishonesty involved.

It's not laziness or belligerence when someone simply asks, "You've seen studies? Who did them? What were they about?"

Now if you'll excuse me I am off to read about Stevenson's reincarnation explorations and Sagan's views about them...

[Th1onein]

95. I provided a name a post ago. But for some reason, it was ignored.

I'm not being deliberately evasive. I just don't do other people's work for them. I've noticed that rightwingers often disagree with someone and then demand that that person provide evidence to refute them. If you disagree with someone, then you are responsible for doing the work. I posted because I wanted to hear other people's views on god and an afterlife, not because I wanted to prove anything.

I said that time and time again. In my original post, there was no statement of what I believed, either pro or con, on the subject. It was only when someone expressed surprise to meet someone who didn't believe in god, but believed in an afterlife, that I stated what my beliefs were. He then asked me whether they were based on faith or science. And, although I stated that they were based on science, I posted to him in response to his post requesting that "evidence," again, why I was posting in the first place. The subject of the original post was why do you believe in an afterlife if you don't believe in god, or why do you believe in god if you don't believe in an afterlife, and any combination thereof. I'm not here to convince people that there is or isn't an afterlife. Doing research for someone on that very question negates the reason for my original post.

And, by the way, I really don't think it's a stretch to search "reincarnation" on Google, to find research on whether or not there is an afterlife. Especially so since I gave the poster specific instructions on how to do it.

[iris27]

96. Giving us the starting point isn't "doing someone's work for them".

It's simple courtesy. And sorry, I counted wrong...13 posts...I was trying to count back from post 85 not 91. I just think it would've been a lot simpler to say "look up stevenson and reincarnation" from the get-go" instead of all this "I'm not here to convince anyone, this isn't why I started the OP, I don't have the time and patience to do your work for you" back-and forth.

And you hadn't said a word about reincarnation until you also mentioned Stevenson's name, so no, it honestly didn't occur to me and probably didn't to others that this was the form of afterlife you were talking about.

[Th1onein]

98. I guess the "call" of the original post doesn't matter, either?

Especially when I reiterated it time and time again. And, yet, here we are stuck in the pros and cons of whether their is an afterlife, when the topic was the relationship of a belief in god to a belief in an afterlife.

The topic of reincarnation as being a form of an afterlife is ALL OVER this thread and you couldn't figure out that you might want to look that up?

[rd_kent]

93. So here's what I found.

Stevenson's work tended to polarize opinion, and while his supporters saw him as a misunderstood genius, others thought him gullible and superstitious,<1> with his conclusions gaining little or no support within the scientific community.<3> In 1977 the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (JNMD) devoted most of one issue to his work, containing both criticism and praise.<3><5> Critics of Stevenson's work have questioned his research methods and conclusions, and it has been described as pseudoscience.<6><7> Some in the scientific community have, however, stated that his work was conducted with appropriate scientific rigor, even though they did not necessarily support his conclusions

This is the important part.......even though they did not necessarily support his conclusions

and

there is a body of research in psychology and sociology on the prevalence, causes and consequences of human belief in reincarnation. This work has identified a possible link between psychological trauma and a belief in reincarnation. Critics are skeptical of the material published by reincarnation researchers, stating that it provides no objective proof for reincarnation, and that claims of past lives may originate from selective thinking, confabulation, and the psychological phenomenon of false memories. In particular, the use of hypnosis to recover memories of past lives has received much criticism.

Carl Sagan was not convinced....Carl Sagan, a scientist and founding member of CSICOP, a group that set out to investigate paranormal and fringe-science claims from a scientific point-of-view,<7> wrote The Demon-Haunted World in which he suggested that cases of children remembering details of "prior lives" was one of three paranormal phenomena deserving serious study, although he described the experimental support as "dubious". let me repeat what Sagan said he described the experimental support as "dubious"

and in his obituary In Stevenson's obituary in the New York Times Margalit Fox wrote:<1>"Spurned by most academic scientists, Dr. Stevenson was to his supporters a misunderstood genius, bravely pushing the boundaries of science. To his detractors, he was earnest, dogged but ultimately misguided, led astray by gullibility, wishful thinking and a tendency to see science where others saw superstition.”

and then the crown jewel....One objection to reincarnation is that there is no evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and travel to another body,<28> and researchers such as Stevenson recognize this limitation



So, Stevenson tried and, IMO, failed to provide any evidence that could be duplicated or tested, and therefore his work is rejected by much of the scientific community.

So, what now? A brief Wikipedia lesson shows me nothing more than I already knew. Am I missing something? I am no scientist, but when a majority of actual scientists reject another scientists work as false, dubious or gullible, then I have to accept the majority consensus.

Is there some more evidence you would like me to review?

[iris27]

94. THAT'S where I'd heard Stevenson's name before!

Gah, couldn't remember. But it was when reading "The Demon-Haunted World"...basically Sagan's opinion was that this (children remembering past lives) was a phenomena worth looking into, but that we needed to be a LOT more scientifically rigorous about it than past researchers had been, and that we especially needed to steer clear of the use of hypnosis given its probability of creating false memories.

[Th1onein]

99. Yes. That's why Stevenson didn't use hypnosis in his work.

eom

[Th1onein]

97. Stevenson provided evidence.

You very much misunderstand how the scientific research world works if you think that criticism negates evidence. Many reviewers of Stevenson's work admit that his research met rigorous scientific standards. But you, in all of your wisdom, seriously think that a Wiki article is going to convince ANYONE that his work has no value?

And your "crown jewel":

"One objection to reincarnation is that there is no evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and travel to another body,<28> and researchers such as Stevenson recognize this limitation" Wow! Following this logic, if we don't know how or why something happens, then it must not happen! That must mean, then, that this planet doesn't exist, the universe doesn't exist, etc., etc.

But I guess Wikipedia knows better, huh? And Carl Sagan said that there is nothing else that could explain the cases detailed in Stevenson's first book, "Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation," except reincarnation. Of course, you might not find that particular quote in your little Wiki article there.

You might want to watch this--it's a YouTube clip of Dr. Robert Almeder of Georgia State University discussing Stevenson's work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZhMDU9GcVg

And, by the way, if you'd read anything more than that Wiki page, you'd know that Stevenson didn't use hypnosis in his work.

[rd_kent]

100. See, what you fail to understand

is that I never claimed that an afterlife existed, you did. After much prodding, you finally provided a name which I looked up in Wikipedia, to satisfy my curiosity. What I found was that Stevenson did some research into this and most of his colleagues rejected his findings.

You continue to berate me for not researching a subject that I made no claim was true. In an effort to understand what you are talking about, I did a brief search and found what I feel is dubious at best and not worthy of any more of my time.

What more do you want me to do for you, the guy who made the claim in the first place? I'll tell you what I am going to do, nothing! If you have more evidence you feel can support your claim, then I suggest you submit it here for review by myself and others in this forum so we can discuss it. I am not going to research anything more on the subject as I feel I have found enough to satisfy what I thought to be true.

So please, in the interest of science, provide some evidence to back up your claim or don't, I don't care. But if you do not and continue to make claims, expect to be ridiculed for it.

[Th1onein]

101. Most of his collegues rejected his findings? Huh?

Oh no, my friend. That is not true. Where do you derive that conclusion? Certainly not from your Wiki page.

You read a freaking Wiki page and you've done research! Oh my God. No one ever told me all I had to do was look up a Wiki page and that would give me all the information I needed on any subject! Gosh, and here I've been doing it wrong all these years.

I bet you're really tired from all that research, huh?

[rd_kent]

102. Dude, why the fuck are you so obtuse?

I already said I only read a wiki page and it was enough to convince me that I did not need to go any further. I also said that it is YOUR FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY to provide evidence for your claim.

One thing has remained constant throughout this whole discussion: YOUR UNWILLINGNESS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM!!!!!


Put up or shut up.

[Th1onein]

103. Okay, now, let me get this straight.....

I provide you with the name of a scientist whose body of work and adherence to the scientific method is extremely respected, and whose work provides evidence for the existence of an afterlife.

YOU provide me with the Wiki page and seem to think that the information (which, by the way, you can't seem to get a complete grip on, in the first place) refutes all the evidence provided by Stevenson's body of work.

But I'm not willing to provide you with evidence to back up my claim?

Hmmmm. I provide you evidence, and you refute it with a Wiki page.

You're not batting a real good average here, friend. But you HAVE managed to do what you probably set out to do in the first place: hijack the thread. Congrats on that.

[rd_kent]

104. You provided one name of a guy who is HARDLY respected and has had his work rejected by his peers.

ONE GUY.....thats it.. ONE GUY...whose research is DUBIOUS AT BEST. SO now, you can either provide more evidence to back up your claim or we can argue about whether Stevensons work is valid or not.

As was posted earlier, since his work is NOT respected throughout scientific circles, it seems to me to be safe to say that his work is NOT evidence to back up your claim. If it were, then MORE scientists would be supporting it AND working on it too. Where are all of the scientists that support him and also claim his work is valid? Where? Why are not more scientists working on the same thing?


The answers to these questions seem obvious to me.

ANd how have I hijacked the thread? we are still talking about the subject in your OP.......

[Th1onein]

105. You expect to read a Wiki page and ascertain how much respect the scientist's work gets?

You derive THAT from a Wiki page? Huh?

Look, it's pretty obvious that you have no idea how to do any sort of research, online or otherwise. You don't even know how to judge the source of criticism. You don't take a Wiki page and assume that everything on it is correct. You ALSO don't take a Wiki page and read these words: "Critics of Stevenson's work have questioned his research methods and conclusions, and it has been described as pseudoscience.<6><7> Some in the scientific community have, however, stated that his work was conducted with appropriate scientific rigor, even though they did not necessarily support his conclusions." and get out of it that his work was absolutely worthless and provided no evidence whatsoever for his subject matter. Science is a process that includes criticism. But if every scientist whose work was criticized were to believe that their work was worthless, not much science would ever get done.

In fact, one of the tenets of intellectual honesty is that you give credence to your critics' points of view, and Stevenson did that and did it well.

It looks like you want me to sit here and dig up everything for you. I'm not going to do that. YOU refute the claims of an afterlife. The process of refutation doesn't include taking a page from Wiki and selecting a couple of sentences that DON'T mean what you say that they mean, and coming up with the idea that the scientist's work is absolutely worthless. There ARE some valid explanations for Stevenson's outcomes, other than reincarnation, and I would have had much more respect for your arguments if you had bothered to broach them, but alas, you chose to attack the man's reputation, which even the many who don't agree with him regarding his conclusions, admit is sterling, when it comes to scientific rigor.

I really don't have time for this anymore. Good luck to you on your search.

[rd_kent]

106. "It looks like you want me to sit here and dig up everything for you." YES, I DO! Its YOUR claim!

YOU MADE IT! YOU PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE!

I cannot for the life of me understand how you expect me or anyone else to research YOUR CLAIM!


When you learn about backing up your claim with provable evidence, then you might understand why Stevenson was not taken seriously.

[Th1onein]

107. You just don't get it, do you?

I gave you some research. Some pretty good research, and from a guy with a pretty good reputation. You used a fucking Wiki page to attack his reputation. That doesn't fly. You missed the hoop; fumbled the ball. Now, it's your turn to serve, whether you like it or not.

But you can't do that, can you? It's obvious you can't because you can't past a Wiki page, with your research and you have to led THERE by me.

Like I said, I'm done with you. I don't have time to mess with this silly shit. Good luck.

And now, my friend, you are ignore.

[rd_kent]

108. Finally! Thank you!

Now I won't be bothered with your insane baseless posts.....

[Th1onein]

86. Ignored is replying to your posts, I believe.

eom

[darkstar3]

55. So you're saying there's a conspiracy to hide this information? n/t

[Th1onein]

57. No. Not at all.

But people who "color outside the lines" in the scientific world are not readily welcomed by the institutions and the people in power in those institutions. It's not a conspiracy; it's just the way things work.

[darkstar3]

61. Having worked at one of those institutions for years,

I call bullshit. All the researchers ever did at our school was "color outside the lines." It's their freakin' job, because they are there to find new solutions to complex problems.

You're still playing with the idea of a conspiracy theory. You think that those "in power" are somehow attempting to hide an incredible scientific truth. Well I've got news for you: The only reason why any researchers are NOT welcome at these institutions is if they cannot provide results for their studies and therefore lose their funding.

Of course you could always prove what I said here wrong, if you would just provide some evidence of those peer-reviewed journals you talked about...

[Th1onein]

65. Having worked in this field for over fourteen years, I think you're wrong.

And, no, I don't go in for conspiracy theories. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It's just how the system works.

In fact, there was a study just a couple of months ago, where they showed that research that is "outside the lines" doesn't get funded very often--that it's better to stay in the "safe" zone of what everyone else was studying.

As for a peer reviewed journal, how about The Noetic Journal?

But, once again, we're getting off topic. That's how you like it, though, isn't it?

[darkstar3]

69. Funding is entirely different from welcome.

Remember that funding often comes from outside sources, and the bottom line on funding is whether or not the research being pursued will somehow benefit the entity putting up the funds. "Welcome" at the institution is generally based on whether or not you actually provide results for your various endeavors. If you've been working in this field for fourteen years and you've been trying to find funding for a study like this, then I submit that your sales pitch needs work, and you need to dig deeper for a funding source. ANY study can get funded if you sell it the right way to the right benefactor.

Now, where's the link for the study you referenced in your second paragraph?

As for the Noetic Journal, if you think that qualifies as "peer-reviewed", then I'm beginning to understand why you think there is scientific evidence for things like an afterlife. The "peers" referenced in this journal are all heavily biased scientists (and I use that term loosely) who can't get their attempts at confirming their dreams published elsewhere. Reading entries from this journal is like going back a few thousand years and reading diaries by biologists who weren't allowed (for religious reasons) to cut open the human body. What some of these so-called scientists wrote about the location of various organs and their size and function was absolutely insane, and that was because it was all based entirely on speculation. It was armchair science of the worst kind, and the entries in the Noetic Journal are no different.

And this isn't off topic. You just wish it were. The topic for our entire conversation here has been simple: I want you to substantiate your claims, and you won't do it.

[Th1onein]

70. So, no journals, but the preferred journals have any veracity, right?

You're proving my point. They can't get their research published elsewhere because their research, however rigorous, is not allowed in the other journals.

You didn't START this thread, so how can you say what the topic is? The topic is right there, obvious for all to see. Says nothing about what I think; just asks what others think and why.

Have you ever read one entry in the journal? I bet you haven't. But you presume to know what's under it's cover. What a joke.

Don't bother posting to me anymore. I'm done with this silly shit.

[darkstar3]

82. The presumption here is yours.

You presume that I haven't read anything from your precious journal.

You presume to know the reason why this research is not included in other journals.

You presume that by starting a thread you have some right to prevent minor changes in topics of conversation between posters.

You presume that by attacking me and other doubting posters that you will somehow be absolved of your responsibility to substantiate your claims of evidence.

[Silent3]

111. Wow. For someone who doesn't want to waste his/her time...

...you certainly wasted a lot of time before begrudgingly parting with the name "Stevenson", and before letting on that people needed to search specifically "reincarnation", not just "afterlife" to readily find that name.

As for "how the system works", most rejected research is rejected because it isn't worth accepting.

Yes, sometimes a good new idea faces a lot of resistance. It takes time and hard work for that idea to gain acceptance. That doesn't make the converse true. however, that running into resistance means you've found a good idea. If you operate based on that illogical converse, you give up a good bullshit filter and end up believing a lot of bunk on the off chance of occasionally being ahead of the curve here and there.

One thing that's true in science is that thirty or more years, enough time for much of one generation of scientists to be replaced with a lot of fresh new faces, is enough time for a good idea with solid evidence behind it to break down institutional resistance and prejudice. It looks like Stevenson began his work in 1977 (EDIT: reading further, I see that Stevenson began to look into the subject of reincarnation as early as the 1950s), and if he and his supporters couldn't make headway in all of that much time, and escape fringe publications like the "Noetic Journal" to find greater acceptance in more established, and more rigorous, publications, that's a good sign the critics who either doubt his methodology, or who give his methodology a pass but still doubt his conclusions, are in the right.

How much funding would Stevenson have needed solidify his research? It's not like we're talking about the kind of science that requires building particle colliders or launching space probes. Isn't this work mostly a matter of interviewing people and correlating data gleaned from such interviews? Maybe doing a bit of research into a person's family and personal relationships, their education, to see if knowledge supposedly acquired in a previous life might have been obtained via more prosaic means? Seems like all you'd need is a little office space, an assistant or two, maybe a travel budget and funds for computer resources and research materials.

I'll admit I'm just speculating here, and will gladly listen to why I might be wrong about the money this kind of research would take. In the meantime, I have a hard time seeing how this would get very expensive until you got to the point that you'd fairly firmly established that the phenomenon is real (whether you call it reincarnation, or merely "survival of the personality"), and then were delving into biological and medical research to try to uncover a mechanism to support the phenomenon.

Even if organizations like the NSF or major universities weren't eager to fund this research, I'm sure that a lot of ardent believers and wealthy patrons eager to find hope for an afterlife would.

[Book Lover]

48. Lady, I didn't start this thread, you did

But believe me, I'm done here. Goodnight.

[Th1onein]

50. Heh. Thank you.

No apology necessary.

[bigjohn16]

35. What science?

Do you have a link or even better is there some peer reviewed research for this science of the afterlife?

[Th1onein]

38. I've answered your questions, above.

In my answer to a previous poster.

[tinrobot]

11. Every atom in your body was once part of something else...

The food you ate today was once part of a living plant or animal, now those atoms are part of you. There's a good statistical chance you have a molecule of water in your body that was once inside a dinosaur.

Going further, atoms that have flowed through your body are already part of something else. When you die, your remaining atoms will decompose, be taken up by plants, and those atoms will become part of other creatures as the cycle continues.

If that's not a form of life after death, not sure what is... and it has nothing to do with religion or god.

[rrneck]

14. reminds me of a passage from Hamlet...

HAMLET
A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a
king, and cat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.

KING CLAUDIUS
What dost you mean by this?

HAMLET
Nothing but to show you how a king may go a
progress through the guts of a beggar.

[tinrobot]

15. Great quote.

[YankeyMCC]

89. Victor Frankentein

"I beheld the corruption of death succeed to the blooming of cheek of life"

"..the worm inherited the wonders of the eye and brain..."

[Silent3]

20. It's a least a form of recycling

I'd say any meaningful concept of an afterlife requires some continuity of self identity, however. The self that matters to me is made up of memories and personality, and while that self is supported by and sustained by a collection of molecules and chemical energy, that stuff isn't "me" any more than the vibrating air that carries a song is that song.

If I were looking for the consolation of believing in an afterlife, I wouldn't find that consolation in the physical laws of conservation of matter and energy.

Suppose I suffered a traumatic brain injury and lost all memory of my previous life. Everyone I ever knew was now a complete stranger. I couldn't remember growing up, I couldn't remember any of the plans and hopes I had for what I'd do next with my life. Perhaps I'd even have to start over again with many basic motor skills and language skills.

As far as I'm concerned, I -- the self that is important to me -- would be dead. The thought that a new person who shares enormously in the same collection of molecules and energy that used to be me, who would look like me and have the same genetic code as me, would still be alive is of no comfort to me at all.

[Odin2005]

29. That is pretty much how most Buddhists concieve of it.

To them only "consciousness" survives and is re-born. The Self, one's personality and personal identity, is extinguished upon death.

[Silent3]

30. I don't make much distinction between consciousness and self.

There's consciousness as a generalized thing, the quality or state of being mentally alive and self aware, and then there's a consciousness, and that's pretty much the same as the self as far as I'm concerned.

While it might be a subtle distinction, I had the impression that for a Buddhist the self wasn't exactly extinguished upon death, but dissolved, merged with a greater whole. "Like a rain drop falling into the ocean", is how I believe I remember someone explaining the concept to me.

[hyphenate]

13. I believe in reincarnation to some extent

But not a so-called afterlife, like a heaven or a hell so much. But I have too many eclectic "beliefs" or philosophies that often don't go together too well. I know science has condemned a lot of New Age things, but I've done tarot card readings and other such things for many years, and there is "something" there, even if I can't tell you what it is. I also don't believe we will know until science catches up with the notion that there is plenty of science which we haven't discovered yet, and that will likely be a long time from now.

[no_hypocrisy]

17. You go back to where you were before you were born.

That's what I told my dying mother when she asked me what happens to you after you die. She liked my answer.

[Meshuga]

18. That's my take too

Being dead will be like before I existed: a whole bunch of nothing.

[rug]

19. That would require a belief that the individual exists beyond the material body.

[Ready4Change]

21. To them Atheism = 'not MY religion'

They only see their own religious views, and assume atheism must be a direct negation of all their religious beliefs, since all those beliefs come from the assumption that there is a god.

Since you don't believe n god, then you can't believe in his creations, ie heaven and hell, nor can there be an afterlife, as that is something that exists through gods power.

Note: I don't share their views, but I have gathered that's how some peoples religious logic works.

[Th1onein]

23. I think you hit the nail on the head.

Thank you. If you don't believe exactly the way the theists believe, then you don't believe in anything. Theirs is a shitty attitude, for the most part.

[sakabatou]

24. I do. It's got beer volcanoes and stripper factories

[EvilAL]

25. I think that when you are dead,

you are dead. You ain't got a clue because you are dead. Memories and everything are gone. You can "live' in others memories for a while until you are just a footnote in the family tree.

[marginlized]

26. Because *Atheism = Belief in Nothing

Hence those common questions: What do you believe in? Do you believe anything? Do you believe in family? Country? etc.

As another person wrote, any after life would have to include a persistent memory of self. If it didn't, would it be your after life? Without persistent memory, the reality of an after life doesn't even matter. The Hindu and Buddhist tests for reincarnation all center on determining persistent memories.

As for a Christian conception of heaven or hell, I always wonder how fast I'd habituate, and eternity is a long time.

* to the average "believer".

[Odin2005]

28. Buddhism is technically Atheistic.

And believe in "re-birth" of consciousness (distinct from the Hindu concept of reincarnation, since Buddhists reject the notion of a self and thus a soul that survives death).

[westerebus]

33. The self.

The self desires. The self forms attachments. The concept is to over come the passions of the self through enlightenment.

There are several schools of Buddhism which accept faith as being a non issue. If you have it that's fine. If you don't that's fine.

Demonstrated in two possibilities.

First, If you can't be kind to others, at least don't harm them. The Second, Kindness is a religion few practice.

There is no requirement to have faith. Yet, you may find after re-birth, hell does exist.

It is not as simple as it appears.

[Th1onein]

74. So, the Hindus believe that the self survives and is reincarnated?

Are they technically atheistic, too?

[GliderGuider]

78. Hindus are anything but atheistic.

The Hindu pantheon contains thousands of gods. According to Wikipedia, there may be as many as 330 million gods in Hinduism. There is also one supreme god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deities

[Th1onein]

80. Interesting.

You know, I always get the Buddhists mixed up with the Hindus. I guess because both believe in reincarnation. But they are different types of reincarnation, aren't they?

[Odin2005]

123. Hinduism is Pantheistic IIRC.

Hindus (educated ones at least) consider their deities to be "avatars" of a single supernatural force that makes up the cosmos.

[Lily127]

31. Great Question

It's always bugged me that if you call yourself 'Atheist' you're scoffed at if you believe in an afterlife. I feel as if I don't know what comes after this life but whatever it might or might not be why does it have to have anything to do with God.

Thoughts I have on an afterlife are that maybe we reincarnate with no memory of our former selves which seems rather terrifying (and given we would now, already be someone else reincarnated, it shouldn't be terrifying really) or that we reincarnate with a sense of the many people we used to be, the many times that existed before us and a shared consciousness stems from that. None of this may be true but it's what comes to mind when I think about it . The idea that nothing happens after we die is also high on my list of probables. None of my beliefs, hopes or feelings have anything to do with a God. If anything, the shared consciousness of billions of people who have lived, live now and will live would make one God irrelavant.

[westerebus]

36. Welcome to DU, Lily 127. n/t

[cynatnite]

41. I've seen enough death that convinced me when we die...we're dead...end of the road. n/t

[jdp349]

46. a sincere and certain belief in the afterlife is indefensible so I do not

There is no compelling reason to suspect that after death any sort of sentient portion of my being remains in tact and lives on. One can theorize, but to believe in speculative conjectures regarding life after death founded loosely on established scientific concepts is just stupid.

[Sapphocrat]

52. Atheist-leaning agnostic who accepts there may be an afterlife. Or not.

My attitude is Fortean: I don't believe anything until it's been proven true, but I don't disbelieve anything until it's been proven false.

When I think of an afterlife that is possible, I don't think of the streets-of-gold and angels-flying-around scene (which is not at all plausible to me), or that I'll be strumming a harp on a cloud (or boiling in oil), or jumping into Whoopi Goldberg's body to make her sing "Henry the VIII" -- but rather just a continuation of what we call "life" in another, non-aware form.

I'm no scientist, but it seems to me that whatever arcane energy that animates us all -- which needn't come from a "god" at all -- cannot simply cease to exist; energy can only dissipate. (Exception: If we're talking about gravity and inertia, which we're not.) It's got to go somewhere.

So, I figure, when my energy finally escapes my body, it gets recycled (after all, we are made up of much the same stuff as the stars themselves). Maybe it gets absorbed back into wherever it came from (or as some Hindus would say, back into "the absolute"), to be reused another day.

Or maybe it does just disappear.

P.S. I like not knowing. Life is so much greater an adventure when you're not hobbled by black-and-white beliefs you're afraid of having challenged. Of course, my take -- and the fact that I won't be pinned down -- drives the few fundy Christians I know positively insane. Such is the joy of agnosticism!

[GliderGuider]

58. Do I believe in an afterlife? It's actually hard to say.

I am definitely an atheist, especially when it comes to personified gods like the Abrahamic versions or the Hindu pantheon. My "god"-concept is more Taoist (i.e. "all-that-is" or "ground of being"). I suppose in some sense I'm a pantheist - I feel the sacred in each thing as well as in the totality.

When it comes to an afterlife I'm definitely agnostic in the epistemological sense -- it's impossible to acquire certain knowledge of it in this reality. However, the possibility that this reality may contain unperceivable dimensions is non-zero, and if other dimensions exist (whatever that means) the possibility that some aspect of myself exists in them is likewise non-zero. Nothing precludes the possibility that the aspects of "me" that are expressed in those other dimensions are outside of the effects of linear time as we understand it. So it's at least possible that some aspect of me could be understood as living "before" or "after" my physical existence here.

But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Why would this possibility matter in any way to my life in this four-dimensional universe? Well, I've discovered that I'm a meaning-seeking creature. I find my life is richer if I believe there is a purpose to my experiences. The purpose can be in the here and now, but "purpose" is abstract enough to encompass almost anything I can imagine about myself. What I believe in the non-materialist corner of my mind is that my experiences in this life constitute a kind of "Earth School". My purpose here is to experience, to learn and to grow as a person, with the non-zero possibility that all these experiences and learning will contribute to the growth of something larger than just the "me" that sits typing these words. That could be humanity as a whole, or the noosphere, or some ineffable, multidimensional self. The nice thing is that it makes no difference if such larger expressions of "me" exist or not, because conscious learning and personal growth have enormous rewards in this life alone.

In a sense I use the possibility that I may be a part of something larger than myself as one additional motivation to persevere when the Work gets difficult. I know my time here is limited, so I'd better make the most of it.

On edit: I just saw you mentioned Bohm above. My view of the structure of reality is totally congruent with Bohm's "implicate order". The reality we experience is one expression of "Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement" as Bohm puts it.

It's a very provocative question. Thanks.

[Th1onein]

64. What do you mean by this?

"However, the possibility that this reality may contain unperceivable dimensions is non-zero, and if other dimensions exist (whatever that means) the possibility that some aspect of myself exists in them is likewise non-zero."

[GliderGuider]

67. It's a combination of string theory and Seth...

According to current string theory the universe may contain 11 dimensions. Since the universe we can perceive only consists of four dimensions, there are potentially seven we can't enter or even describe. This opens the door for a whole lot of speculation, both scientific and philosophical. I let the scientists worry about the first, and I avail myself of the latter.

Then there's Seth. In the early 1970s I was introduced to the series of books by Jane Roberts in which she channeled an entity named Seth. "Seth" laid out a reality structure that really resonated for me. Here's a quote: "The self that you know is but one fragment of your entire identity. These fragment selves are not strung together, however, like beads of a string. They are more like the various skins of an onion, or segments of an orange, all connected through one vitality and growing out into various realities while springing from the same source."

The basic idea is that the selves that we take ourselves to be, and the reality in which "we" operate, are just small fragments of a much larger, more complex, and deeply interdependent reality. Our individual personalities are simply small fragments of much larger, more complex personalities. We choose to enter and co-create this reality for the express purpose of having experiences that are absorbed by our larger personalities. Seth was the originator of the "Earth School" idea I mentioned before.

So that's a slightly cool New Age idea, which to a materialist doesn't amount to anything but a steaming heap of woo. To me on the other hand it had enormous possibilities for my own interpretation of life. And when string theory came along with speculative ideas that to some degree mirrored the structure necessary for the reality described by Seth, well, I adopted the whole ball of wax as one aspect of my personal philosophy.

I find that it drives my behaviour in very interesting ways. It supports my learning and personal growth, helps open me to new experiences, promotes compassion, forgiveness and altruism, makes me very interested in learning how to live without reactivity, and makes me eager to explore ideas and situations below their superficial appearances. Not bad for a steaming heap of woo :-)

[Th1onein]

72. What do you mean by this?

"makes me very interested in learning how to live without reactivity"

[GliderGuider]

76. Ah. That's one of the keys to the kingdom.

I find that when people do or say particular things to me, I often react with unexpected anger, fear or shame that is out of proportion to what was actually done or said. Being reactive like this is also called being triggered - another person says or does something and I experience a spontaneous, uncontrollable emotional reaction that then colours my subsequent behaviour. This usually happens when the action or words in question touches one of my primal wounds or activates my superego that then judges me harshly.

For example, I might do a household chore improperly, causing my partner to say, "How many times to I have to tell you how to do something so simple?" If I'm reactive, I could be flooded with feelings of shame and incompetence, and my inner critic (the superego) might start to beat me up mercilessly. My reactivity might cause me to defend against the criticism by attacking her and thereby escalate the situation.

Lessening my reactivity involves finding ways to bring my own emotional state back into balance. It starts with being able to recognize when other peoples' words or actions, even if they involve me, are their stuff, not mine. If I can truly see that, then I don't have such strong emotional reactions to the things other people say or do.

The technique I use is called inquiry, and it has a long tradition in various schools of inner work. When I feel a strong emotion, instead of trying to block or repress it, I accept it and inquire about it: where it came from, why it's so strong, what other times in my life I've felt this same feeling, things like that. By doing this, I might uncover a memory of a painful childhood incident that left me feeling incompetent, one that left me with a a residual feeling of shame or guilt and helped to create the inner voice that now judges me so harshly. I can then recognize that incidents that are similar to that primal one will cause similar reactions in me. By exploring that earlier situation and bringing it fully into my consciousness, I can integrate the event into my awareness, heal the wound and drain the emotional charge that's connected with it.

If I have done all that, then when my partner says "How many times to I have to tell you how to do something so simple?" I can recognize that she has touched my wound, be aware that there's nothing intrinsically shameful about doing a household task improperly, and not get all bent out of shape by the criticism. I won't worry about defending myself or attacking back because my self-image is no longer threatened by the criticism. At the same time, I can recognize that my action (the badly done chore) may have triggered a childhood wound of her own that she isn't conscious of, thereby causing her over-reaction. That awareness helps defuse my own reactivity, and also develops my sense of compassion, because it's yet another affirmation that we are all human.

I hope that helps.

[Th1onein]

79. This is very interesting. And useful.

Thank you very much.

[iris27]

90. I would like to believe in life after death, but most evidence suggests

otherwise.

It would be a very comforting notion to think I have not merely a handful of decades left to share with my husband, but the eternity I was taught I'd have when I was growing up in a Christian home. I still find analogies that suggest an immortal soul compelling. Not surprising - realizing one's own mortality is the tradeoff for being self-aware, and attempting to deal with the discomfort that brings is likely the reason most religions were created.

However, if you spend time around anyone with damaged brain function (whether through sudden injury, major stroke, etc.), it rapidly becomes obvious that the personality we consider a person's "soul" is the result of complex biological realities. There's a reason they call Alzheimer's "the long funeral" -- many of an afflicted person's loved ones end up feeling like "Grandma Betty" really ceased to exist long before her physical death.

I still entertain fanciful notions from time to time, of things like reincarnation where groups of souls "travel" together, or of life continuing on a different dimension. But I hold no real hope in them.

[Th1onein]

113. Actually, most evidence does NOT suggest otherwise.

Like someone said in the thread, upstream, it is very difficult to prove a negative. So, no, most evidence is FOR the existence of an afterlife, not against it. That's why most skeptics can only say, no, no, no, that's not true, instead of actually providing evidence to the contrary.

One of the problems, though, with this evidence, is that it has been relegated to the realm of "metaphysics" and "parapsychology." It doesn't mean that it was not rigorously conducted. Some of it is very good work, but there is a stigma attached to this kind of research. You're somehow not a "real" scientist, and somehow you don't know anything about the scientific method, if you do research in this area. You're not even supposed to study it, if you want credibility in the mainstream scientific research world. And that's a shame. A real shame.

[rd_kent]

114. Yes, its a shame you keep trying to peddle this crap that has been rejected by the scientific

community.

[pa28]

109. Big disconnection for sure.

I'm only certain that religion for profit is false but that does not mean science understands all the mysteries of consciousness or possibilities for an afterlife.

I once knew a Salvation Army captain who was kind of a disillusioned holy man and drinking buddy. His theory was that God was energy and consciousness was energy and both were separate from one another most of the time but merged during cycles of universal expansion and contraction. Maybe he was right or maybe completely cracked but his theory gave me food for thought for a long time.

[Th1onein]

112. I don't believe in an anthropomorphized god, either.

And, the more I learn about the world, and the universe, the less I believe in God, period. In fact, at this point in my life, I consider myself an athiest. If God does exist, he ought to be on Death Row, in my opinion, so I sure as hell wouldn't waste my time worshiping such a piece of crap.

I think that all matter and energy are interchangeable. They are one thing, but in different states. As human beings, we are capable of perceiving only a few of their states, in which they are matter, and our instruments can detect some of their states while they are energy. But all is on a continuum of vibratory states. There is some research that seems to point to the idea that our brain cells are frequency detectors--that we perceive, in all of our five senses, frequencies. For instance, light has different frequencies that we perceive as color, and there are some colors that we are simply not engineered, physically, to perceive. It would not surprise me at all that there are other things, and states of existence, that we cannot perceive, either. An afterlife is one of those things.

Anyone who believes that what we can see and measure with our instruments is all that there is is either extremely arrogant, or--like an ostrich believes that if it cannot see something, it does not exist--extremely stupid.

[GliderGuider]

115. A gentle suggestion. If you consider yourself an atheist,

Please also consider learning how to spell the word. The mnemonic is, "i before e except if you're an atheist. Or weird." Atheists are touchy about that (the spelling that is, not the weird part...)

[Th1onein]

116. Bwahahaha!

You know, you're right! And I have been spelling it for years, wrong! Thank you for correcting me!

[ZombieHorde]

110. I have some Buddhist buddies who believe in literal reincarnation.

I told one of my Tibetan Buddhist friends Tibetan Buddhism makes more sense if reincarnation and the Bodhisattva vows are intentional scams created to help the aspiring Buddhist to not become so attached to enlightenment, but he did not like that idea.

Tibetan Buddhists believe Buddhas can reincarnate if they choose, hence the Dali Lama, and they believe Buddhas are the perfect teachers of the Dharma, so the Tibetan version of Mahayana Buddhism does not make any sense when taken at face value.

[Th1onein]

117. Can you elaborate on this?

I've heard that word, Dharma, but I can't remember what it means. And, what do you mean by this: "...Tibetan Buddhism makes more sense if reincarnation and the Bodhisattva vows are intentional scams created to help the aspiring Buddhist to not become so attached to enlightenment...."?

And this: "Tibetan Buddhists believe Buddhas can reincarnate if they choose, hence the Dali Lama, and they believe Buddhas are the perfect teachers of the Dharma, so the Tibetan version of Mahayana Buddhism does not make any sense when taken at face value."

I'm lost. Are the "Bodhisattva vows" vows that enlightened souls take that they will come back here to this plane of reality until everyone is enlightened and can go back to the source--Nirvana?

[ZombieHorde]

118. I will try.

What gospel is to Christianity, Dharma is to Buddhism. Dharma is Buddhist teachings.

Bodhisattva vows include the vow to not become enlightened until all beings can become enlightened. Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns vow to forgo enlightenment until everyone is enlightened or can become enlightened.

People who become fully enlightened are called Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism.

Buddhas are considered to be the perfect Buddhist teachers.

In some Buddhist sects, Buddhas no longer reincarnate, but according to Tibetan Buddhism, Buddhas can reincarnate if they choose to. Not only can Buddhas reincarnate according to Tibetan Buddhism, they can reincarnate as any living thing anywhere on the planet, and they can also choose to reincarnate as multiple beings.

Since Buddhas are the perfect teachers of Buddhism, and since they can reincarnate as multiple beings, the vow to not become a Buddha until all beings can become enlightened does not make any sense when taken literally.

According to Buddhism, the reason people are not enlightened is because they are attached to objects and concepts, such as money, love, temples, power, music, friendship, and even enlightenment.

If someone vows to not become enlightened until everyone can be enlightened, then the vow taker may become less attached to enlightenment, and therefor, more likely to become enlightened.

I also believe reincarnation is a hoax created to help the student of Buddhism to become less attached to enlightenment and their own lives.

I hope this helps to explain my post, if not, feel free to ask some more.

[Th1onein]

120. I've read about Dharma. Interesting concept.

Can you elaborate further on this:

"I also believe reincarnation is a hoax created to help the student of Buddhism to become less attached to enlightenment and their own lives."

[ZombieHorde]

121. Just my opinion...

If someone believes they will have multiple lives in which to become enlightened, he or she may experience less pressure and less attachment to the goal of enlightenment, and therefor, she or he will have an easier time attaining enlightenment.

Many many lives means many many chances to "get it right." Many chances is less stressful than only one chance.

Additionally, if someone believes they will have many many lives, he or she may become less attached to his or her own life and other people's lives.

[Odin2005]

124. That's why I prefer the Theravada form of Buddhism.

They didn't get smothered with rationalizations of saint (Bodhisattva) veneration, tantric magic, and popular superstition. Mahayana was derived from the more populistic early Buddhist schools.

[rd_kent]

119. Kick

[RagAss]

122. Eliminate the ego and you are Eternal !

Easier said than done....but true.