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

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.

Oh gee, another internet philosopher.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You bring up a good point but seem to completely overlook the significance.

All bodies decay at basically the same rate shortly after death. A babies body wich is new fresh and young and has not gone through natural degredation of aging decays ay the same rate as say a 100 year old man.

Why is that, the only possible theory really is upon death something so important to holding our body together without decay is gone.

Whatever that part of us is can be thought of as a soul. If our bodies can't survive without our soul why do we assume the body is all we are. We also know that energy is never destroyed only changes form.

What gets released from our body may be so different as to be similar to a butterfly coming out of a coccoon.

We do not know, and cannot know, a lot of things with current science. Assuming things and stating those assumptions as fact accomplishes nothing.

So anything you can't see in your pocket doesn't exist? Just how big are your pockets?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

a reply to: TownCryer

You have empty pockets and automatically there must be an immeasurable and invisible ghost in there?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think there was indeed nothing of our real self before we were born. There just were two separate beings that carried DNA and both of them gave us a part of themselves to make a new being. In case of humans that DNA is manipulated long ago by extraterrestrials. Our consciousness (our soul) is too advanced and cannot come from this earth. Our soul is a kind of self replicating quantum computer build in in our DNA.
And I think humans now are making the same inventions our creators invented more than 12.600 years ago.

read www.evawaseerst.be... only red dots

a reply to: bb23108

You are still trying to deflect from what I said earlier to you, by making these tangential comments. I understand why, since there is no argument to the obvious fact that we only ever experience anything and anyone as a psychic (perceptual) phenomenon. On that basis, we can begin to understand what transcends the apparently "material" world.

We've gone over this ad nauseum, you must admit. Unfortunately you do not accept arguments and can only repeat yourself.

Your arguments always assume that we are the body - and that the world is "a set of objects out there" - as a priori knowledge. And from there, you develop all the rest of your arguments.

I don't do a priori.

What I keep asking is that you examine this presumption based on this simple fact that we never experience anything outside of perception, that our only experience of the body and the world is psychic.

This is the only a priori knowledge that is certain about our relationship to the body and the world. Show me how this is not true. You only assume you are the body as a priori first and then you develop all your "proofs". This is the fundamental error in the philosophy of materialism - it all rests on that assumption.

You keep repeating that it is a presumption, but have failed again, and again, and again, to explain why. I've pleaded my case to you with argument, with evidence, with reason, yet you will disrespect my efforts and repeat the same thing, "it is a presumption" with no reasoned rebuttal, no argument, evidence or reason in return, except that "materialism is bad", "it's the source of all division", "I've had experiences which tell me I am right", "it is self-evident" etc. Beware your hypocrisy when speaking about my deflection. I suspect the reason why you will not defend your point with reason and evidence is because you cannot. Making your writing bold does not conceal the fact you have no argument for your claims.

I'm not going to show you how it is untrue because I've done so plenty of times already. Anyone can read through our previous conversations to see this. Your "a priori" certainty is vacuous, and it is entirely suspect that you cannot defend it. It's empty of reason, empty of evidence, and explains nothing, except your penchant for repeating the mantras of the Vedas and some weird form of Hinduism. If you don't want to speak about these issues from a philosophical standpoint, there's an entire religion and theology forum that you can use at your leisure.

But regarding your latest tangent, what I said was "they do understand something about being beyond the sheer physical meat body". This is obviously referring to the "material" body. You read too much into that "meat" descriptor - again it is your poor attempt to deflect from my previous response to you.

When people are conscious and even if completely sick from whatever is killing their physical body, they don't have any trouble relating to it as just that - a physical body made of flesh, bones, etc. Any preciousness about it often is forgotten. Obviously, it is not the body that is to be dwelled on at this time, so I wouldn't be calling it your "meat" body.

You have nothing else to dwell on save for your preconceived notions. Of course you cannot dwell on the meat, because you cannot understand it.

And if they are able to, they are very happy to feel what is beyond their physical body, and they then relax further into the process of letting it go at the appropriate time. I am old enough to have relatives and friends who are physically dying, and bring whatever I think will help them to understand and go through this process. There are many great materials available for this transition.

Fortunately it is the case that we survive death - I would think it would be much more upsetting to many if they were just bid farewell - and if they asked you, would you tell them with your most convincing logic, that when you are dead that's it? What would you say if they actually got into a debate with you about it? "But LesMis, I was just starting to see a tunnel and a light at the end; but I am not wanting to go yet."

What do you do for them?

Nonsense, bb. I hope I never die in your company.

originally posted by: seeking77
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You bring up a good point but seem to completely overlook the significance.

All bodies decay at basically the same rate shortly after death. A babies body wich is new fresh and young and has not gone through natural degredation of aging decays ay the same rate as say a 100 year old man.

Why is that, the only possible theory really is upon death something so important to holding our body together without decay is gone.

Whatever that part of us is can be thought of as a soul. If our bodies can't survive without our soul why do we assume the body is all we are. We also know that energy is never destroyed only changes form.

What gets released from our body may be so different as to be similar to a butterfly coming out of a coccoon.

We do not know, and cannot know, a lot of things with current science. Assuming things and stating those assumptions as fact accomplishes nothing.

Your brain sends out a signal (cell by cell organ by organ) telling each cell to die. It's one of the major hurtles in medical science. There are dr.s figuring out how to stop the signal from being sent as we speak. It has nothing to do with a soul and is a fairly well understood phenomenon. There is no reason to assume consciousness survives the death of your brain. If you damage the brain your consciousness is damaged, as is obvious from head injuries....


Nice try but TOTALLY an explained phenomenon , not some mystical process that eludes to an after life. Through the wormhole with Morgan freeman had a good show on the way your body dies. You should you tube it.

originally posted by: zandra
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think there was indeed nothing of our real self before we were born. There just were two separate beings that carried DNA and both of them gave us a part of themselves to make a new being. In case of humans that DNA is manipulated long ago by extraterrestrials. Our consciousness (our soul) is too advanced and cannot come from this earth. Our soul is a kind of self replicating quantum computer build in in our DNA.
And I think humans now are making the same inventions our creators invented more than 12.600 years ago.

read www.evawaseerst.be... only red dots

The brain MIGHT be a quantum computer.....there is zero evidence eluding to a soul or afterlife. If you had a soul wouldn't people maintain that soul after massive brain damage? Instead of our consciousness being SOOOOOO EASILY manipulated by pharmaceuticals or damage?



The real question is why would we survive our bodies death? Cause it sounds good? Nothing else survives death.

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.

a reply to: LesMis
By the way, I bolded my third attempt to have this conversation with you because you only made some snide tangential comments about how evil, insensitive, etc., my posts are.

My apologies to everyone else for my bolding of my core question of LesMis, but given it was my third attempt, I felt compelled to.

And apparently it worked, LesMis, because at least this time you responded. And since you have not actually denied that anything you have ever experienced is psychic (perceptual) in nature, I will go through your opening post and note where you constantly rely on the presumption that you are only the physical body - and do so only as a priori knowledge.

Again, my argument is that the only valid a priori knowledge in this context is, that all of our experiences of anything or anyone always occur in awareness and therefore are psychic or perceptual in nature.

Given this, the error of scientific-materialists is that they then assume they are the body, and that all perceived objects are simply separate, objective, and of a physical materialistic nature. This presumption is certainly NOT directly supported by the self-evidence that all of our experiences are psychic (perceptual) in nature.

From your op:

originally posted by: LesMis
To assert that we cannot know what occurs to a person after death relies on an initial assumption, another case of petitio principii, a circular attempt at reasoning, namely, that the person who apparently does not nor cannot know what happens to himself after death isn't even a person at all, but something like a disembodied soul or intellect, and not anything that results in a corpse.

Obviously we all know that the body dies upon physical death. This is not the argument, but because you only assume one is the body as a priori knowledge, you can then make the rest of your argument here - that anyone assuming otherwise, is now claiming that no personal being exists. You immediately rule out any possibility of the personality/being having any substance beyond the flesh and bones.

Yes, we do call that person by name and refer to them as their body while their body lives, but this does not mean that is all they are. I relate with others via our feeling-energy too, but such energy is not directly measurable by science, and yet it is obvious to us.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
In order to believe one cannot know what occurs after death, he must already assume himself something other than that which dies, for if he were to conclude according to the evidence that he is that which dies, he would already know.

Again, you are assuming a priori knowledge that you are the body, and that when it dies so do you. This is circular reasoning because you have no such direct experience that you are the body. Your only experience is always in the context of awareness/perception.

So then it is argued that such awareness is an emergent property of the body. Well, this has not even come close to being demonstrated - it is just a convenient way to dismiss what we inherently know - that we are self-aware consciousness.

So your argument is based on a false notion that you can only assume in a wrongful / a priori manner.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
As imagined by him, this disembodied soul can only learn of its fate after death, once the body has left and the soul has a chance to look around while unfettered to confirm what indeed does happen, and which religion was right all along. The logic that leads one to the quite common, but ridiculous argument, that one must wait until after death to perform these observations, however, is not logic at all. In fact, it defies all logic.

No, this is incorrect. There are mountains of testimonials all over the world in the form of personal, religious, spiritual, transcendental, and even hardcore scientific evidence, of phenomena that are not able to be explained by science. Even just the obviousness of awareness cannot be explained by science, so they discard it as an irrelevant emergent property of the body.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
As we know, because an argument is fallacious does not mean it is wrong, but by virtue of evidence and reason, it is.

Evidence has been brought to you many times, including quantified results in the field of parapsychology, reincarnation, etc., but because they upset yours, and most scientific-materialists' entire world view, you and they just scoff at them. It is actually a form of social egoity that is an automatic knee-jerk reaction with them. One could also say it is a close-mindedness based in fear of the unknown.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Of course, no such entity or substance or little being living in our heads has ever been found, and given the finite area in which to look, absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case. Not only that but every picture, doctors examination, or glance in the mirror, every x-ray, surgery, and MRI performed on a person, proves the exact opposite.

I certainly never said that some entity or ghostly substance is who we are. So right, no such physical "picture" or measurement is going to be found of some "little being living in our heads".

And yet, we never experience a single thing outside of awareness. So because awareness cannot be measured, you say that you perceive things without awareness?

The only a priori knowledge that actually holds up here is that we only ever experience in the context of awareness - which science has at least admitted exists, but can only make the a priori assumption that it is an emergent property of the body.

Why can't they prove this? When the body dies, and the five senses have shut down, etc., is not proof that awareness is dead. To dub it an "emergent property" is clever but certainly not convincing. Let's see those cells combine and show us some awareness! It is certainly something we can feel about one another, even if it is not scientifically measurable.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
.. the illogical and contradictory assumption that are required to make the invalid claim that the person is something other than the person we bury, is done so in the unwarranted and empirically irresponsible denial of the basic facts of reality.

Of course, you should say "the basic facts of reality as defined within the limits of scientific-materialism." - then maybe you could move on.

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. ... we can supply this proof until it buries them.

These accounts only prove what happens to the body, not the whole being itself.

It is because you have not explored any real depths of consciousness beyond the apparently "physical" world and your own conceptual mentality, with profound feeling-energy and attention, that you can only cling to your limited notions and make claims that you are only the body, and that when you are dead, you are gone forever.

Sorry, my friend, you are not getting off that easily!

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope....Luckily for us, however, this argument can be discarded as easily as it is promoted, not only because it is fallacious, but also because it is empirically wrong.


....The logic that leads one to the quite common, but ridiculous argument, that one must wait until after death to perform these observations, however, is not logic at all. In fact, it defies all logic.

As we know, because an argument is fallacious does not mean it is wrong, but by virtue of evidence and reason, it is.

Of course, no such entity or substance or little being living in our heads has ever been found, and given the finite area in which to look, absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case.

O boy... did you just in 2 sentences contradict yourself?! Evidence is not something you can have partially, either you have it or not, and in this case there is NO evidence whatsoever.

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. Autolysis and putrefaction, for one, is quite immediate. We bury and cremate our dead, and we visit them from time to time. We do study these processes in great length and detail in cadaver farms, in hospitals, and we can supply this proof until it buries them.

Why hold out for a theory just in case it is true, when it isn't even possible?

We do? What do we know about death?!

Projecting that we are unique and that something else happens to us that does not happen to other living creatures... just wrong and at the best 'hopeful', very abused by major religions.

Sorry, from what we know about death and have evidence for it so far - nothing... you case to exist... nothing... nada.

The lack of science to explain all mysteries is in no way proof of preconceived notions. At this point, to assume nothing exists after death is equally proportional to the idea of a after-life experience.

a reply to: bb23108

My apologies to everyone else for my bolding of my core question of LesMis,

You have nothing to apologise for as regards myself
I like bold text and also bold ideas

So just to add to the fun

What is the pocket made of and who made the pocket

What is the body and who made it

Disregarding the interaction of the male and female ... who made Human Beings

Could it be by accident or chance
Or could it be a Higher Intelligence
Or something other

If you go with by accident or chance then the rest of what I write will not concern you

If you believe a Higher Intelligence made you, your Earth the planets and Sun and all the other stars
And gifted Beings with intelligence
It would not be intelligent to then destroy those Beings from existence

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Most of your thought is unconscious, something like 99% or something. Of course that little 1% will kick and scream, talking about how it represents the whole, while the rest of it furnishes every heartbeat, breath, and the metabolism it needs in order to do so.

Thought doesn't orchestrate any functioning of the human body. Where did you hear such rubbish?

One who looks in the mirror and says "nah, that's not me. Couldn't possibly be me. The lips are moving, but no, still not me". That belongs in comedy.

This is the limitation of logic based on yet another assumption of BASE facts. You're not looking at any mirror whatsoever. Science has already discovered the nature of how we experience our physical 'reality'. From the brain body organism. I think that was biology class.
Whatever your eye is pointing towards, you receive an infinitesimally small fraction of that information. The only thing you get to experience is the final image delivered to you from your BRAIN, which interprets the sensory data coming from your visual system. The process of which you have absolutely no control over. You want to stick with facts, let's stick with facts.
At best, you're experiencing a filtered, bio-electrical reaction within your brain, as the result of limited sensory data coming from your visual system. You have NO direct experience with anything in the physical world whatsoever outside the experience delivered to you from your brain/body organism.

You seem so eager to reduce a human being to a piece of meat, how about reducing your own experience of life down to what it REALLY is?

The reductionism of the self into something that doesn't exist as more than a word. It is frightening to me.

Curious, yet you're not frightened of your very own reductionism of your existence into nothing more than a piece of meat. I hardly see one as better than the other. Then again, I'd choose steak over nothing any day.

If you were to peel away all that you don't think you are and were to finally reveal yourself after all this talk, all this complaining and all this mere promising, what would be left? I'd love to meet it, this little "you".

If you were to KEEP all that you think you are, what would be left? You wouldn't even be a piece of meat. Scientists have a few very strong theories about what makes .000000000000001% of you're physical existence. So by all means, keep that and see what's left of you.

"You don't know", "you can't know", "you have no clue", is all you can tell me, yet

I'm not trying to turn up the heat in here, but it seems you're avoiding a lot of questions. What is this knowing you're referring to with which we say you do not have? Or link us to the documentation or the name of the scientist who has these facts.

The reason people say 'you don't know' is because you have yet to provide the KNOWING, the facts..
In other words, what is the fact of what life is or what you are?

Are you searching for the answer to that question or did you just stop once you figured out your body is just a bio-electrical organism. Something science has known for centuries.

Your postulating theories and philosophies about so-called reality, based on the well documented limitations of your outward bound sensory perceptions are interesting. But such sensory perceptions have no ability to detect the source of it's sensing nor the perceiver Of the sensing because they are only outward bound. Such enchantment with these senses, fueled by your interest and cooperation, is distracting you from your very own self. Which just so happens to be the closest you're ever going to get to the Universe itself. In fact, it's inseparable.

Double post

originally posted by: MagmaCumsLoudly
Life after death is a crutch for those without the cerebral capacity to rationalise the finality of death, thus the catatonic fear of this 'unknowable' overrides the very reason and logic their god-given brains imbue them with.

Why do you assume that everyone who understands there is more than just this apparently material world, also believe that some Creator-God made all of it?

a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

This is a beautiful story.

Second line.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You express support for the experiential as evidence.
Some folks have the ability to make contact with spirits. I have had what I consider faint (as in lesser) moments of reaching across the border. It wasn't anticipated by me. I had no faith, belief or opinion concerning the issue other than the Universe is more complex than is understandable by any being within it.
The fact is the ineffable is what we are surrounded with.
Since I have experiences that exceed the bounds of conventional wisdom (actually opinions based on factoids), I by necessity must cast a ghostly pall over those beliefs.
They are wrong.
I can not explain the purpose of this division between the realms of death and life but the demarcation is subject to trespass. The evidence exists (reincarnation, mediums, far sight, etc.) that the Universe allows for the occasional partial viewing of the spiritual plane. It is apparently difficult to make the transition and at best only a glimpse is available.

Not enough to bet on a CLEAR vision but it's like looking into a deep mountain lake on a windy day. You can tell the bottom is there but the fish are hard to define other than their occasional flash of scales reflecting light.

The elaborate constructions of what is there by fellow humans result in a mash-up that is neither plausible or provable on most holding forths. They are wonderful stories which are meant to be a balm for our scaredy cat selves and to gain control over the masses.

To get back to your question...the reason you do not have a position which supports a hereafter is that you have never perceived it. That is not our responsibility, who have had that moment of profundity thrust on them, to convince you of the fact that this is NOT all there is.
That is your sole responsibility. We are not saying you have no basis for a stance. We are saying that without full involvement concerning YOUR evolvement, you argue from a position of ignorance and you feel compelled to do so.

That is nonsense. Much like reporting UFOs (When you see one what are you supposed to say?), when confronted by the debunkers of spirit worlds, those of us who did have that moment of transition to a different consciousness, owe you no explanation. The only reason most of us do so is to enlighten you to the different reality than you've seen.
It's a PSA, that's all.
I can't show material supporting an immaterial world. There is only hearsay testimony (and TV shows which if more than entertainment) that demonstrate a continuous stream of these events. It is weird and with only faint outlines except for the most gifted who have only sensations supporting their conclusions.

If you want 'agnostic' proof you are not going to obtain it. You may through seeking 'counseling' by mages or just falling into it incidentally while striding to the mainstream world commonalities come to conclusions that l have.
I do not know what it all means but I know that I can not know what it all means.
Attempting to draw the most general of principles can work with large amounts of concurring data.
That much data runs counter to 'common knowledge' and undermines the merits of those commoners who hold to it.
That you have independence allowed by the Universe in certain matters. That allowing others to curtail this ability to use knowledge is cutting off your rational self.
The naysayers will tell you that you are wrong, that you could not possibly have experienced (Name something).
They will defend that ignorant feeling with blind faith and will endlessly attempt to dissuade you from recognizing and being recognized as a valid reference. Somehow they win a hubris prize and march smartly about displaying their ribbons to the crowd of approving fellow skeptics.

This is the same process the Elite use to manipulate you. So, STOP! You do not have to permit this.

The Universe allows for nearly infinite variety within it's allowances. Parts of it are truly unknown to us, yet seem to have enormous effects upon us. Why set the limit at these gross levels for indicating a 'presence' of odd events which lead to some acceptance of spiritualism.
I can tell you with certainty that their is a spiritual component to the Universe. Why? Is this deliberate? Is there a god? Do the yogis know?
I don't know. I do not concur with anyone who says they can tell me how it ALL works. I do allow myself to be guided by better facts (as best as I can discern them to be) from the vale of dumb concepts that I dwell in.
I suspect I will never climb out while I am alive. It will be part of the next adventure. I hope I am ready for it.
I wonder if that is just another pre-cursor or another cursing...We shall see.

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