It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Noticed a flaw i didnt cover. Although i do like to view to memories of someone as a sort of copy or part of them, which ive hear elsewhere before, but you failed to, in your rejection of someone seeing someone as in an afterlife, take into account a persons personal view and flawed memories do not perfectly represent them to begin with thus your own memories are a dishonor by your view as they can be somewhat fantacy in their own way. Yes it is better to think of someones life rather than death but if you dont beleive in an afterlife who are you insulting? Who would take offense? Its only particularly insulting if it highly violates their own beleifs thus offending their family or friends possibly although this complicated so there is no single one way to look at or deal with a person being gone.
I am an animal. I will die like they do. And if they have an afterlife then I probably do too. If they don't then I probably don't either.
Someone told me the fear of death stems from the fear of life. I'm not exactly sure what it means, but I wanted to share.
From Kevin Brockmeier, one of this generation's most inventive young writers, comes a striking new novel about death, life, and the mysterious place in between. The City is inhabited by those who have departed Earth but are still remembered by the living. They will reside in this afterlife until they are completely forgotten. But the City is shrinking, and the residents clearing out. Some of the holdouts, like Luka Sims, who produces the City’s only newspaper, are wondering what exactly is going on. Others, like Coleman Kinzler, believe it is the beginning of the end. Meanwhile, Laura Byrd is trapped in an Antarctic research station, her supplies are running low, her radio finds only static, and the power is failing. With little choice, Laura sets out across the ice to look for help, but time is running out. Kevin Brockmeier alternates these two storylines to create a lyrical and haunting story about love, loss and the power of memory.
But whether or not we have what we term a "soul" that exists past death is far from being a resovled question.
And I doubt we ever will be able to know with any certainty.
It's really quite simple, if "spirit" exists, it's obviously something quiet different than what we see in our material existence.
So using materialistic principles to confirm or deny such a thing is silly, at best.
So one must use spiritual or non-material principles? Speaking of silly.
It’s really not that simple. If it is indeed something, it must in some way be detectable.
If it isn’t then it isn’t obvious, nor a thing, nor simple. If it doesn’t possess enough materiality to affect nor be affected by material things, then it is nothing.
Isn’t that more simple?
I didn't say that now did I?
Nice strawman though.
You seem to have forgotten that I said, quite plainly, that I wasn't even sure if such a thing as a soul exists.
Yes, actually it is.
Why should it be in some way detectable?
Some god or higher power commands it to be so?
Bob from down the street does?
"Lack of proof is not proof of lack."
To think otherwise is to commit the logical fallacy of "Argumentum ad Ignoratum".
Or do you think science has completely left the rules of logic behind?
If that is the case I would love to hear your reasoning.
Oh, and what Aural said.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: PhotonEffect
I’ve had a life-changing waking life. What I think about in hibernation has little to no effect on my waking life. In fact, it is the other way around— I’ve had a dream changing life.
What I said was that neurobiology has an affect on these experiences, i.e. that . Is this out of the question for you? Is this invalid?
It is the interpretation of these experiences that is influenced by the culture and religion. Interpretations of near death experiences does not equal proof of the afterlife.
Then you've shown my point. Dreams, lucid or not, generally have zero lasting effect on our normal lives. Most people forget their dream entirely after just 10mins of being awake. So if you want to explain away the NDE as nothing more than a dream, shouldn't it then beg the question of why so many people are remembering them so vividly? Why do these "dreams" have such a profound effect on their lives (e.g erasing all fears of death)? How does a dying brain (perhaps approaching the threshold of brain damage) recall these "dreams" so clearly?
Of course it's plausible, Les Mis. I'm not trying to be unreasonable here. But you're not standing behind what you actually said in your OP, in particular the first 3 paragraphs. You came no where near offering a plausible explanation in the vein of "neurobiology could explain the meeting of loved ones, memories flashing before the eyes, white lights, out of body experiences etc as the dying of neuronal connections." That would have been the honest thing to say. But unfortunately yours came off as more of an agenda driven diatribe.
Ipse dixit, Latin for "He, himself, said it," is a term used to identify and describe a sort of arbitrary dogmatic statement which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid.
The fallacy of defending a proposition by baldly asserting that it is "just how it is" distorts the argument by opting out of it entirely: the claimant declares an issue to be intrinsic, and not changeable.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: PhotonEffect
If you are asking for my opinion on the matter, I would argue it is a matter of trauma. Traumatic experiences, for instance nearly dying, can have profound and lasting effects on people’s lives.
The delusions could be brought on by the dying or reviving of the brain, just as they could be brought on by narcotics, sleep deprivation, injury, illness etc.
If you haven’t yet realized, the thread is not about explaining NDEs. Tell me what is dishonest about this. I quote:
We do know without fail what happens to us after death—we decompose. Tell me, what is “agenda-driven” about presenting facts? Show me how I am being unreasonable. Show me where evidence proves the contrary. I'm sure if we shared the same opinion, there would be no mention of "agenda" would there?
I ask again- if a perfectly healthy brain will not typically recall a dream after just minutes having one under normal conditions, how does a brain under severe distress recall one so vividly? Especially when other memory loss has occurred due to the trauma...
Your repeated use of "delusion" in the context of these experiences is misguided. A delusion is associated with mental illness, or a brain disorder.
An NDE is a very real phenomenon, even if they are just vivid "dreams". You seems to be caught up with some of the interpretations of these "dreams" as religious type events, which I would say is your own problem. Regardless of your (anti) religious beliefs, it does not negate the fact that these folks experienced something. They are not delusional about having had the experience, so your classification as such is incorrect. But I think I understand your angle here, and why you would use the term in that way.
Instead you open that paragraph with a biased generalization of the entire phenomenon- classifying them as nothing more than religiously based tales. That's why I said:
“You seem to have taken the liberty of speaking in absolute truths on a subject matter that, frankly, you can't know much about.” -PhotonEffect
You've taken a completely real, however incompletely understood, phenomenon and twisted it into a religious experience. NDEs are not religious experiences, they are only interpreted that way in some cases. This has very much do to with a lack of adequate vocabulary to explain what happened, so the natural tendency will be to relate it to their cultural bias. What's so wrong about that? How does this invalidate the experience in anyway?
Curiously, you've only singled out the religiously flavored experiences and have completely ignored all the other ones. You demean the phenomenon - referring to them as religiously biased tales, delusions and dreams, perhaps in an attempt to render them meaningless or fake. You have not given this the objective approach that it deserves. Simply, your post is an attack against a belief system. And THAT is your agenda.
It's a shame, really. You are a very talented writer and I was hoping to see something from you that was a little less biased on a subject that I find very interesting. This is the thread that could've been...