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

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you look in your pocket and there is no money there, it is then proven there is no money there.

True ... there is never any money in my pocket
But that is money ... pieces of metal with designs and words printed upon them

However we are talking about ideas of the souls existence or not which has never been disproven nor has the existence of a higher intelligent being that Created souls etc

Epicurus said wisely: 'Do not fear death. If life is all sensation and perception, death is the absence of it. Nothing of life is in death. Therefore death is nothing.'

Food for thought. Even if the greatest adventure awaits us after life in death, we have no way of imagining it or describing it. So don't let it bother you.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I know there's an afterlife.

this one time I died and went to heaven in the hospital...

I opened my eyes and saw magnificent fires. People were screaming and being torn into shreds.

It was glorious!!!!
JK

No, I'm sorry you need to prove that it can be proven before bashing on those intelligent enough to realize that we either aren't meant to know or are unable to.

peace

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In short, you are entirely materialist and that explanation simply falls on its face as it fails to explain some phenomena which always are ignored or denied because they fall outside of your box that you like to keep so neatly precise and confining.

You broadcast an outmoded scientific view, one which explains why science with a big "S" still fails to recognize, let alone unlock, some of the biggest--and the biggy that you attempt to demolish--questions that we have about what some of us have personal experiences about. The short response to your argument is that science based on materialism is dying and consciousness is leaping to the fore. Some folks call it spirit--ain't that a hoot for you old-fashioned folks?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: artistpoet

Nor has science proven that the soul does not exist

If you look in your pocket and there is no money there, it is then proven there is no money there.

This type of argument is flawed.

The facts that are absent and able to prove the existence of the soul, is NOT an absence of facts... we just don't know what they are yet. We have not identified what a soul looks like, but our lack of understanding it doesn't mean it does not exist.

Before there were major advances in science, the wind couldn't be explained. People knew it was there, there were ways to observe it, but never directly because you couldn't see it. Eventually, we discovered ways to prove that there was a thing called air, and that it moved for various reasons.

If you look in your pocket for money, it's because you know what money looks like and can identify it from other things in your pocket, or from your leg, or your pocket itself. So... if you can identify what it looks like, or what it means when it's there, than you can also identify it when it isn't as well.

Consciousness and a soul aren't any different IMO.

~Namaste

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

We know exactly what occurs after death, simply by referring to the study of taphonomy, or by witnessing a loved one die, or anything die for that matter.

Nice attempt to explain, but this just outright denies the principle of "duality". We know exactly what the human sole is by studying the mechanism of the brain -- Not. Nope.

Life is more than chemical reactions and death is more than putrefaction. To be sure, next time you stub your toe or in some pain, alleviate that pain by telling yourself it is all just "chemical reaction". It doesn't help that pain go away, because there is more to it than just chemicals at play.

There are a lot of mysteries to life -- what is time and space -- why do we exist -- why do we die -- what happens after you die. We can break these things down into more unexplained components and think we have some solution, but all of life is really just a mystery.

It is easy to become inured to these facts, but the truth is we have no idea about anything. So I would not become cynical and say that we therefore have nothing, and there are no mysteries, and only what is obvious can possibly be true.

But I appreciate the OP post.

Your still trying to convince yourself there is no spirit life ..

Enjoy the dirt

how is there spirit life?i lost my dad 14 years ago,i also was at deaths door myself,why is life after death proven?

there is no proof i see of any life after death,mean if it was true then everyone would be seeing something.

your lights go out i would love to believe that its not it but the evidence to me says other wise.

a reply to: sparky31

Does life cease to exist when someone dies? Or does life go on? Billions of people have died, yet we are still here. I think you yourself are proof that there is life after death, you're living it right now.

a reply to: Aliensun

In short, you are entirely materialist and that explanation simply falls on its face as it fails to explain some phenomena which always are ignored or denied because they fall outside of your box that you like to keep so neatly precise and confining.

You broadcast an outmoded scientific view, one which explains why science with a big "S" still fails to recognize, let alone unlock, some of the biggest--and the biggy that you attempt to demolish--questions that we have about what some of us have personal experiences about. The short response to your argument is that science based on materialism is dying and consciousness is leaping to the fore. Some folks call it spirit--ain't that a hoot for you old-fashioned folks?

Your fallacy is called Ergo decedo. Your argument doesn’t address of any criticisms—absolutely none of them. In other words, flat on their face.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

This type of argument is flawed.

The facts that are absent and able to prove the existence of the soul, is NOT an absence of facts... we just don't know what they are yet. We have not identified what a soul looks like, but our lack of understanding it doesn't mean it does not exist.

It’s not the facts that are absent, for they are easily viewed. What is absent is the sheer unwillingness to look at and accept them.

If you look in your pocket for money, it's because you know what money looks like and can identify it from other things in your pocket, or from your leg, or your pocket itself. So... if you can identify what it looks like, or what it means when it's there, than you can also identify it when it isn't as well.

It doesn’t matter what’s in the pocket. Whatever is in there can be viewed and analyzed. If there is nothing in the pocket, there is nothing in the pocket.

a reply to: Axial Leader

It is easy to become inured to these facts, but the truth is we have no idea about anything. So I would not become cynical and say that we therefore have nothing, and there are no mysteries, and only what is obvious can possibly be true.

If we have no idea about anything, then surely you think have no idea what you’re talking about. It may sound silly, but one should avoid such self-defeating claims.

I find it interesting the study of the dead or Thanatology from different cultures. The medical side can be fascinating, but that stuff doesn't quite answer: why am I here? I rather delve on the psychological side of this study.

What fascinates me is the meaning each cultures attributed to life, the goal played as humans. As many believe, our destiny is to serve others (the planet and its inhabitants, maybe even the universe, but lets start with this little blue marble, we aren't so bad...ahem ahem), to make good works because that counts and is carried over with you when your gone. That we have a soul or if you prefer energy, memory, the spark, the part that doesn't die and your actions are the impression of that soul, off it goes on the river were the tally man tallies me bananas so that daylight may come and you can go home.

Why is the same conclusion drawn from so many different cultures in different parts of the world? Did we all assume the same things at the same time? Did this notion travel all around the world with time? Were we told about it?

Nice topic, Mr Man who hates people.

a reply to: Elementalist

Your still trying to convince yourself there is no spirit life ..

Enjoy the dirt

The sad part is there is infinitely more to dirt than there is to any spirit you could provide.

a reply to: bitsforbytes

Why is the same conclusion drawn from so many different cultures in different parts of the world? Did we all assume the same things at the same time? Did this notion travel all around the world with time? Were we told about it?

We are all expressive and linguistic beings. It was only a matter of time before we started revering our own grammar.

originally posted by: sparky31

there is no proof i see of any life after death,mean if it was true then everyone would be seeing something.

your lights go out i would love to believe that its not it but the evidence to me says other wise.

You are a bit cynical here. It is easy to doubt everything. You can doubt that I exist (but I do) and that ATS exists (but it does) and that one second from now you will still be alive (you will be) and that all your memories and past experience are fake (but they are not.)

One thing you should be aware of -- that you exist. You are more than a brain and a body. You can feel and experience. That at minimum should be obvious to you and something you can't dispute. And also -- you have no true and native idea of why you are here or what your purpose is. That should be obvious to you also.

So -- people have studied this particular dilemma of life -- that we are undeniably here and undeniably do not know why. And it seems reasonable to think that there may be some mechanism at play that we are blocked from knowing, but might be guessable. We can't know what is going to happen one minute from now. But we can guess. We are blocked from absolutely knowing certain things, like what is going to happen next, and whether we continue after we die, and what life is all about.

I don't know if any of what I am saying here is an answer, but it seems to me that you (and the OP) are trivializing your existence and playing some sort of mind-games with yourselves that is unnecessary and probably not pleasant for you. I would take a breath, pinch yourself, and give some credence to the idea that there may be something beyond this current existence. If for no other reason, you should cultivate this viewpoint because it will make you feel better. And -- really -- it is a very reasonable viewpoint.

If you don't think that is a reasonable viewpoint, I would like to know why you think that.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Or revering our past and the past of others.

I still don't have the satisfaction of knowing if this notion of not truly dying was made up at the same time on two different continents or if this idea was expressed to someone else and eventually spread all around the world?

Wouldn't the first thing I asked in the previous paragraph be an amazing coincidence? Is it so? If it is that is something.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: sparky31

Does life cease to exist when someone dies? Or does life go on? Billions of people have died, yet we are still here. I think you yourself are proof that there is life after death, you're living it right now.

nope when it cease to exist thats it,i know people want to believe so much but i just don,t see it,i maybe wrong but suppose i,ll find out soon enough.

think people may just be scared to accept once your lights go out then thats it,someone proves me wrong then so be it but never saw it yet.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

given the finite area in which to look, absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case.

Logic of the ancients.

Science has proven so far, that there is more to nature than just what we humans can see, hear, smell, touch and taste.

So much we still dont yet know about the universe. You are making assumptions.

quantum vacuum fluctuations are changing the way science has been seen for millenia. You must read more on the topic if you want to make such a drastic conclusion so quickly.

Your writing skills are impressive, but you're not making a strong argument!

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If the brain does work on quantum computing principles, as Penrose and others assert, by definition the computing is non-local,e.g. the brain is merely the device that does the quantum measurement, a "receiver" if you will.

Continuing, if the computing is non-local, the only thing that can be said about what happens to the "person" after the brain ceases to exists is that the "person"'s condition is indeterminate.

some refs:
-non-local quantum computing
arxiv.org...
- Sir Roger Penrose and the quantum mind
en.wikipedia.org...-25