The Proof of What Happens To Us After Death and the Subsequent denial of it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: qiwi676

So saying there is no soul because we have not found a soul being a third person, is the same as saying with certainty that there is no other universe because we haven't found one... How could you know? This is not proof, nor fact.

Not the same at all. We have a finite area in which we can look—the body. Logically, the body is the "domain of discourse". It is finite, meaning we can exhaust all efforts to search it. We have, and we do, every time we perform a surgery, dissections, or any number of invasive and non-invasive techniques. Do we keep doing laps until we find you're hoping to find? You're feeling around in the dark for something you think might be there, even though you don't know what it is.

Not only that but with the universe we actually have one that we can look at to make the assessment there are prob more.

Whith the soul, we have never found even one shred of evidence that can't be explained by delusions. By that logic superman, batman and Santa are real because you can't disprove they are not (except there is a pretty clear paper trail on where it came from, exactly like with spiritualism) .


You do know that almost every bit of the 3rd eye, adrenal gland stuff can all be traced back to one fraud who wrote self help books right? All the "crystals are magic" y"you just gotta uncalsify your adrenal glad" garbage comes from one book in the 60s or 70s. There are no anchient texts or shoulin monasteries that put spiritualism out there. It's from for profit self help authors taking advantage of drugged up hippies.

originally posted by: qiwi676

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: qiwi676

So saying there is no soul because we have not found a soul being a third person, is the same as saying with certainty that there is no other universe because we haven't found one... How could you know? This is not proof, nor fact.

Not the same at all. We have a finite area in which we can look—the body. Logically, the body is the "domain of discourse". It is finite, meaning we can exhaust all efforts to search it. We have, and we do, every time we perform a surgery, dissections, or any number of invasive and non-invasive techniques. Do we keep doing laps until we find you're hoping to find? You're feeling around in the dark for something you think might be there, even though you don't know what it is.

Exactly. The soul has not been defined as a finite object, so therefore we don't know what we are looking for. This is not proof the soul does not exist. Just that it cannot be found by dissecting the body...

Sorry for quoting the entire thing. The windows phone is annoying to type on forums with.

There isn't one REAL shred of evidence there such thing as a soul at all.......

originally posted by: Entreri06

There isn't one REAL shred of evidence there such thing as a soul at all.......

Who died and make you King of REAL

👣

a reply to: Entreri06
You can prove that batman and superman were works of fiction. Their author is well documented and widely known. As far I know, the soul cannot be traced back to any one person, although it could be. But my point to you is that I can prove that superman is fiction. That is different than not being able to prove her does not exist. There is no positive proof of anything regarding the soul. The only proof we have is that we can't find anything regarding the soul. There is a difference.
As far as spirituality dating back to the 60's... What's the name of this "fraud?" And I would venture to say the idea of shamanism dates back much further than the 60's so....
When cultures put coins in the eyes of their dead for their should to travel wherever, so that was as recent as the 60's?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I really thought your break down was well done. Went step by step and showed how the soul is such an imaginary concept that none of them can even imagain what it is, looks like, or how it would function. The only thing they could compare it to is their actual body, which they have spent the whole time trying to explain how it is completely seperate and the basically the anti of the only thing they can point to describe it!

Well done you should save that post....

At least that was my take on it :p

originally posted by: qiwi676
a reply to: Entreri06
You can prove that batman and superman were works of fiction. Their author is well documented and widely known. As far I know, the soul cannot be traced back to any one person, although it could be. But my point to you is that I can prove that superman is fiction. That is different than not being able to prove her does not exist. There is no positive proof of anything regarding the soul. The only proof we have is that we can't find anything regarding the soul. There is a difference.
As far as spirituality dating back to the 60's... What's the name of this "fraud?" And I would venture to say the idea of shamanism dates back much further than the 60's so....
When cultures put coins in the eyes of their dead for their should to travel wherever, so that was as recent as the 60's?

Actually it can be traced back to cultures if not a single person. Modern spiritualism can be traced back to a hand full of people. The concept of hell as a fiery burning place where all the sinners go can be traced back to a time and place....... Almost every supernatural type claim can and by real life archeologists and historians. People just refuse to believe it and wrap them selves up in whatever religion suits them. Early Christians believed that any soul you had stayed in your body after death. Where it would await the second comming and rise again all zombie style and "paradise" (heaven as a place where we all do after death) was the earth after Jesus killed all the other religions off in Armageddon. The concept of heaven and everything that you consider a "soul" is a FAR more modern creation with a paper trail the same as Mormonism.

a reply to: Entreri06

Sure i'll try to project out of body to find you and and describe your house. where do you live? give me your name, country you live in, and address. You won't.

Can you find where I live and describe my house? You can drive here if you want. And no i'm not going to just give you my information over the internet.

a reply to: Entreri06
Well that's all pretty interesting. (the party about early c Christians). Sincerely, I didn't know that.
Anyway, I think it should be noted that I am not religious and do not believe in any religion.
You are tying the "soul" to a certain religious belief. (this is understandable since the majority of people referring to the soul are referring to something religious). I am simply referring to the scientific idea of proving the soul does not exist. You can't. I know it's a crap answer to something, but that is my original argument; that you cannot prove it does not exist. My argument is not for or against the existence of the soul.
So. What I consider a soul is irrelevant.


I actually don't believe in the "soul" fyi. I'm just here to create more debate!

So then, evolution or nature has come up with a damaged product, that being the human mind. What need was there, if all there is is biology, for that organ called imagination, that only seems to lead to sickness by fancying other worlds or states of happiness or creating new desires, and never dwelling in the here and now?

There is no need, in darwinian evolution, for such an organ. Is there even a certain spot in the brain that's responsible for imagination? I suggest science develops a way to take it out or disable it, because there's only trouble coming out of it. The problem is, you can't disable that without disabling the person, which means imagination is central and vital to a human being.

My argument here is: if all we are is biology and we're the fruit of darwinian evolution, then there's no point for such things as imagination, desire for happiness and other things we don't have, etc? These things must have another root than biology. If we were all biology, we would be not more than amoebas chasing our immediate needs for food and mating. And even that is a wonder - nature by itself can't come up with the complex order that's life.

a reply to: cipango
Firstly, I want to apologize for any bad grammar and punctuation. It is late, and I'm swipe texting on my phone lol.


This is a very interesting point. Although,I would say imagination is an important party of our Darwinian traits. Or brains evolved instead of our muscles (which is backwards of our Neanderthal relatives). Our imagination is what gives us innovation to creates. Creations by humans just further plants or dominance in the animal kingdom. First it was for survival, then it became making survival easier and enjoyable.

I do agree with your sentiment in a different way though, instead of imagination, lets use philosophy. Philosophy and "deep thought" are completely unnecessary traits for evolution. So why did we developer them?

Still, a very interesting question you posed.

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: booyakasha
a reply to: Entreri06

actually there is a lot of evidence that the souls survives death. You just have to search for it. One of the biggest things the powers that be don't want you to know is the power of your own mind and the nature of reality.

Consciousness form physicality, not the other way around. Your thoughts, and feelings influence physical matter. This is one of the most empowering things to learn in the universe.

It is just as impossible to prove life doesn't exist after death as it is to prove it does. I've had countless OBE's, have seen ghosts, had countless nonphysical phenomena happen to me. Prove to me that what I am experiencing never happened. You can't.

I challenge anyone who doesn't believe in life after death, to practice astral projection until you can do it at will. Explore that density of reality and try to get a good grasp on how it works. Then explain to me what is happening. Otherwise you just sound like ignorant, misguided, uninformed, angry children mad at your own confusion.

No there isn't evidence for an afterlife..... What evidence? Testimonials , don't equal evidence.....

Even if out of body stuff is possible (and if it were you would have people investing millions to profit off it) why would it survive death? Why would it survive when the thing causing conciousness is gone?


Dude if the only way your theory is true is if the entire worlds governments are in a vast conspiracy to hide it.. Then your theory has problems and maybe your the one who sounds like an "ignorant, misguided child"!


Lol just lol

Actually yes, conscious recollection from a human point of view is just about the only evidence we can use to grasp at at the after life. Are you looking for a machine to tell you it exists? We don't have the technology to communicate with spirits yet, but there are scientists who claim that they are on the brink of this technology and are working on perfecting it, so it can be proven in the future. You might have to wait for that day for actual PROOF.

However I'm not saying testimonials are PROOF. But you can not deny that it is evidence. Granted some people make it up completely. But there are many modern examples of children remembering a lot detail about their past lives. Plus you have ancient testimonials from almost every culture that claim there is an after life and reincarnation.

And what I'm saying is you have it backwards. Consciousness creates physical reality. Not the other way around. This is why psychic phenomena is possible. This is why consciousness has been proven to affect random number generators. There are many experiments that prove that consciousness affects our physical reality. The double slit experiment for example.

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” – Max Planck, Nobel Prize winning originator of quantum theory, as quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)

www.collective-evolution.com...

originally posted by: booyakasha
a reply to: Entreri06

Sure i'll try to project out of body to find you and and describe your house. where do you live? give me your name, country you live in, and address. You won't.

Can you find where I live and describe my house? You can drive here if you want. And no i'm not going to just give you my information over the internet.

Joshua cox 703 Bennett cir byhalia MS 38611


Can't squeeze blood from a turnip!!! LOL

You said astral projection... That would be INSIDE, not out side... And I didn't claim to be able to astral project at will..

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: booyakasha
a reply to: Entreri06

Sure i'll try to project out of body to find you and and describe your house. where do you live? give me your name, country you live in, and address. You won't.

Can you find where I live and describe my house? You can drive here if you want. And no i'm not going to just give you my information over the internet.

Joshua cox 703 Bennett cir byhalia MS 38611

whooooooaaaa! May I mail you a postcard?

... Hey, just typed that in (out of curiosity, not creeper stalkerism). You are only 42 miles from me. Ha! Cool.

originally posted by: LesMis
I know you're not evil, bb. It is only what I imagine when I read your words.

LOL! Then you should probably stop reading my posts!

I read through your entire argument a few times, and appreciate your very thorough effort. I started writing responses to each section, but after a certain point it became obvious that the proof you are satisfied with is what seems rational to you, but just not convincing to me.

As I have tried endlessly, and others in the past and even in the last few pages have said, there is no rock solid proof that you are just the body, and that when you die that is it forever. Yes, I know we mainly have the word of others or our own experiences to base this on.

To this end, I have argued that in reality everything you experience is psychic (perceptual) in nature. This is obvious but you refuse to accept its significance. From there, you have to create arguments that you are the body to prove it. If we were all simply the body, why would we have to argue about it? We wouldn't. But obviously very large numbers of people disagree with this presumption, and even my simple statement about your experience is always psychic in nature, should make you a bit suspicious of your evidence to the contrary.

Self-evident truth always sets rationalism on its ear - at least that has been the case for me, and I have a scientific background.

The evidence list you created brings up the same issue - of course, science can only measure the physical, so what do you expect the results of your survey to be? In summary, it amounts to something like this caricature:

"Yep, we cannot get an x-ray of you, Mr. Spirit, so you can't exist! You can go now. Next! Miss Spirit over here! You are sure cute! Oh dear, no x-ray came out. Sorry, but you can't exist either!"

I have never experienced an instance where any scientific proof outweighed the force of knowing something directly for myself. For instances, I have experienced interactions with beings not physically embodied. This is completely obvious to me that it happened, but can it be measured scientifically? Of course not, so I never brought it up, until you asked just now. You will discount it anyway - but my point is, that my conviction of its truth is stronger than all your long lists of so-called empirical evidence.

Keep in mind of course, your argument is that nothing exists beyond the body, and given you discount all but physical measurements, it is a closed-argument that insures your logic will win.

... your charge "but because you only assume one is the body as a priori knowledge", is without merit. How many times have you asserted this without reason? I've lost count.

The reason I have asserted this is because it is obviously true. You cannot know for certain that you are just the physical body. Yes you can assume that based on your list - but the self-evidence of what I have experienced far outweighs your logic - at least for me. And again, your logic is a closed one.

LesMis, all such logic is not going to utterly convince anyone who has directly experienced something to the contrary. You do understand this, right? Doesn't that say something about the integrity of the being in terms of understanding what may also constitute real knowledge? Real knowledge is not necessarily just the product of mental logistics - as you are demonstrating here!

“Experiences occur in awareness, and are therefor psychic or perceptual in nature.” You throw these vague terms around quite a bit. I obviously struggle with what you’re trying to put forward, since you can only speak about it and never demonstrate it.

Being aware is self-evident. How much better than that, can it be demonstrated?

What is amazing to me is that scientists dismiss awareness, and yet here they are being aware and speaking about the insignificance of awareness! It's not as though they have ever experienced anything other than a psychic event themselves, but somehow they can still objectify it, to make it controllable and even insignificant since it just will not fit in their current materialistic framework! Damn Consciousness!

Further, as you’ve admitted before, you don’t mean what the words mean, and you’ve developed your own meanings, which I will grant you. In perception; In awareness; almost as if they were containers in which to put something you call experiences. Since you are unable to provide the location or a description of this boundary where inside and outside of awareness meet, even though you’ve stated explicitly it is self-evident, it should be regarded as simple assumption.

Yes, awareness and consciousness are not just the mere waking state. Consciousness (Awareness) is unqualified Conscious Light-Energy - perfect energy, perfectly alive. Really, how else can you account for the constant expansion of the universe - not to mention its sheer size? You think all THAT can be reduced down to physical elements? And this is not even bringing up all the worlds beyond the gross physical!

The model that there is only Consciousness (Light) and everything is a modification of that one Reality, accounts for all arguments I have ever heard of. The achilles heel of scientific-materialism is obviously this matter of consciousness.

But if we look even closer, you are merely raising a tautology. “That all of our experiences of anything or anyone always occur in awareness” is the exact same as saying we experience what we experience, or we are aware of what we are aware of. The question you cannot provide an answer for is who and what is experiencing what they are experiencing, or are aware of what they are aware of. Of course, the answer, given all of the empirical evidence, and confirmed by common sense, and true every single time you touch a key with your finger, with your heart, with your breath, despite your assertions otherwise, is the body.

Are the terms consciousness or awareness nominalized adjectives, which are simply adjectives made to sound like nouns for linguistic convenience? Yes. In other words, perhaps unknowingly to you, these terms are describing something other than a thing or place called “consciousness” or “awareness”, and are signifying the very thing that can be described as conscious or aware. And the nominalized verb “perception”, is not a a place where things can go in and out of, but is an action performed by the very thing that can perceive. That thing is the body, the only thing that can be aware, can perceive, can experience, can be conscious, in every single case of every single human being. What’s ironic in my eyes and is found in nearly everyone in this thread, is this very faith in grammar, is not in your perception and not in your awareness.

Yes, our old consideration - is awareness process or being? It only appears to you when you break out your perceptions, that a separate body is experiencing objective phenomena. But in reality, it is a psychic event that awareness is the witness of and the body-mind only experiences in terms of perception/sensations.

So after all is said and done, you can make all the arguments you want, but they do not actually prove that you are only the body. You may decide that you are, based on your logic, but only self-evident truth is completely convincing in these matters - at least for me.

originally posted by: booyakasha

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: booyakasha
a reply to: Entreri06

actually there is a lot of evidence that the souls survives death. You just have to search for it. One of the biggest things the powers that be don't want you to know is the power of your own mind and the nature of reality.

Consciousness form physicality, not the other way around. Your thoughts, and feelings influence physical matter. This is one of the most empowering things to learn in the universe.

It is just as impossible to prove life doesn't exist after death as it is to prove it does. I've had countless OBE's, have seen ghosts, had countless nonphysical phenomena happen to me. Prove to me that what I am experiencing never happened. You can't.

I challenge anyone who doesn't believe in life after death, to practice astral projection until you can do it at will. Explore that density of reality and try to get a good grasp on how it works. Then explain to me what is happening. Otherwise you just sound like ignorant, misguided, uninformed, angry children mad at your own confusion.

No there isn't evidence for an afterlife..... What evidence? Testimonials , don't equal evidence.....

Even if out of body stuff is possible (and if it were you would have people investing millions to profit off it) why would it survive death? Why would it survive when the thing causing conciousness is gone?


Dude if the only way your theory is true is if the entire worlds governments are in a vast conspiracy to hide it.. Then your theory has problems and maybe your the one who sounds like an "ignorant, misguided child"!


Lol just lol

Actually yes, conscious recollection from a human point of view is just about the only evidence we can use to grasp at at the after life. Are you looking for a machine to tell you it exists? We don't have the technology to communicate with spirits yet, but there are scientists who claim that they are on the brink of this technology and are working on perfecting it, so it can be proven in the future. You might have to wait for that day for actual PROOF.

However I'm not saying testimonials are PROOF. But you can not deny that it is evidence. Granted some people make it up completely. But there are many modern examples of children remembering a lot detail about their past lives. Plus you have ancient testimonials from almost every culture that claim there is an after life and reincarnation.

And what I'm saying is you have it backwards. Consciousness creates physical reality. Not the other way around. This is why psychic phenomena is possible. This is why consciousness has been proven to affect random number generators. There are many experiments that prove that consciousness affects our physical reality. The double slit experiment for example.

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” – Max Planck, Nobel Prize winning originator of quantum theory, as quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)

www.collective-evolution.com...

Name one example of conciousness creation matter?

There isn't. I got all into every mystical, religious, spiritual thing I could devour! Looking for just one truely unexplainable phenomenon. Anything that hinted the supernatural was real. I'm a big fantasy and sci fi fan. But tried to be sceptical, just to not be a sheep. Looked into anchient aliens, OOParts, religion, psycic stuff, you name it.... But you know what I've found to be legitimate peaks at some thing humanity (not tech) centered supernaturalness. That's the double slit and the remote viewing you mentioned. Neither of which at all eludes to a soul that lives on after death.

In my humble opinion NDEs have been debunked. Pilots experience them at high G forces and you can beam alpha waves into your brain and force a Devine experience that works on nearly every one and does work for every religion. We might find out that our brains are quantum computers and we can access DNA memory or some craziness I guess, but that doesn't elude to a bodiless soul.

originally posted by: qiwi676

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: booyakasha
a reply to: Entreri06

Sure i'll try to project out of body to find you and and describe your house. where do you live? give me your name, country you live in, and address. You won't.

Can you find where I live and describe my house? You can drive here if you want. And no i'm not going to just give you my information over the internet.

Joshua cox 703 Bennett cir byhalia MS 38611

whooooooaaaa! May I mail you a postcard?

... Hey, just typed that in (out of curiosity, not creeper stalkerism). You are only 42 miles from me. Ha! Cool.

Lol

originally posted by: cipango
So then, evolution or nature has come up with a damaged product, that being the human mind. What need was there, if all there is is biology, for that organ called imagination, that only seems to lead to sickness by fancying other worlds or states of happiness or creating new desires, and never dwelling in the here and now?

There is no need, in darwinian evolution, for such an organ. Is there even a certain spot in the brain that's responsible for imagination? I suggest science develops a way to take it out or disable it, because there's only trouble coming out of it. The problem is, you can't disable that without disabling the person, which means imagination is central and vital to a human being.

My argument here is: if all we are is biology and we're the fruit of darwinian evolution, then there's no point for such things as imagination, desire for happiness and other things we don't have, etc? These things must have another root than biology. If we were all biology, we would be not more than amoebas chasing our immediate needs for food and mating. And even that is a wonder - nature by itself can't come up with the complex order that's life.

For one you have the whole whole fraudian we do everything even imagination to better get sex, which passes on genetics and the extras could all be "mutations" off that. Evolution is a done deal, proven fact. You could have some vague quantumness pushing life to progress I guess. But that wouldn't lead to you personally surviving death as a soul. IMHO that would more elude to a quantum hive mind we peeled off and returned to. If you really step back from it all and say "what really makes sense if you drop all the sentimentality"?


It isn't that humanity is speacial compared to other animals on the base level...or that we have a speacial place in the universe. It's that we are lucky to be here on the peele of a spec in an infinity that wants to kill us.

originally posted by: qiwi676
a reply to: Entreri06
Well that's all pretty interesting. (the party about early c Christians). Sincerely, I didn't know that.
Anyway, I think it should be noted that I am not religious and do not believe in any religion.
You are tying the "soul" to a certain religious belief. (this is understandable since the majority of people referring to the soul are referring to something religious). I am simply referring to the scientific idea of proving the soul does not exist. You can't. I know it's a crap answer to something, but that is my original argument; that you cannot prove it does not exist. My argument is not for or against the existence of the soul.
So. What I consider a soul is irrelevant.


I actually don't believe in the "soul" fyi. I'm just here to create more debate!

Nah just lumping it in as well. I always do think the way almost everyone mixes spiritualism, mysticism and religion into a crazy coctail of faith is intresting. If ones true, then the others are not. You don't get to pick and choose what you do and don't like.... Well personally you can :p but don't expect me to buy it !! :p

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Not at one point in that long, convoluted, contrived, neverending bit of rambling did you manage to make anything that even remotely resembled an intelligent point. We are all dumber for having read this, and may god have mercy on your soul.

(not being rude, it's a play on a billy madison qoute )

Wow! I just caught up with this thread and am amazed at some of the bs you are posting. A lot of this must have been while others were away too, given how much you said without too much retort about some of your mistaken presumptions.

originally posted by: Entreri06
You do know that almost every bit of the 3rd eye, adrenal gland stuff can all be traced back to one fraud who wrote self help books right? All the "crystals are magic" y"you just gotta uncalsify your adrenal glad" garbage comes from one book in the 60s or 70s. There are no anchient texts or shoulin monasteries that put spiritualism out there. It's from for profit self help authors taking advantage of drugged up hippies.

Where in the world did you come to believe the third eye was created in the 60s? What mysticism did you say you read?

At a very minimum, at least check Wiki before spouting off these kinds of terribly uninformed misconceptions - it may help you to decide not to.

originally posted by: Entreri06
The concept of heaven and everything that you consider a "soul" is a FAR more modern creation with a paper trail the same as Mormonism.

Good Lord. More of the same terribly uninformed misconceptions.

originally posted by: Entreri06
There isn't. I got all into every mystical, religious, spiritual thing I could devour!

What mysticism did you actually read? From just these quotes above, I can't even imagine! It sounds like you got swindled on whatever books you bought if those are your conclusions about the origins of these matters. Or else you missed something in them.

originally posted by: Entreri06
I always do think the way almost everyone mixes spiritualism, mysticism and religion into a crazy coctail of faith is intresting. If ones true, then the others are not. You don't get to pick and choose what you do and don't like.... Well personally you can :p but don't expect me to buy it !! :p

You do make a point about people revising various truths to fit their specific agenda. I see this constantly with New Age spirituality that often misses the true message of non-dualism that the adept realizers of non-dualism were always consistently making.

Many New Agers think they are enlightened because they have some kind of mental insight into the truth of non-duality; and then some even start offering weekend seminars about "how you can be enlightened too!" based on some misconception about non-dualism.

However, there are many ways that various spiritual traditions are truly the same - and this is most evident in comparative mysticism where there are many parallels between diverse traditions because they are dealing with known structures in the subtle body-mind - such as the Third Eye.

So in a very real sense, I do not buy your statement that "If ones true, then the others are not." Truth is the truth regardless of which tradition speaks of it. One can find it is consistent in various traditions certainly to one degree or another.

Anyway, please look a bit more deeply into these traditions before you go off about them as though you really are some kind of expert in them.