New NDE Study Concludes That There IS An Afterlife

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Is that why they burned those girls in Salem? Is that why they mutilate genitals? Very nice and constructive. I'm not a militant atheist and yes it is fun to mess with you religious people. But I am passionate about Christianity dumbing down the population. I mean it's 2023, our civilization is a little too old to still believing in fairy tales

a reply to: Satanwasframed

Thats "fire and brimstone" Christianity, only extremist and mentally ill people think its ok to take the viewpoint that god is by nature wrathful to the unfaithful. No one needs a building to pray in let alone an "corporate entity" to give 10 percent of your life to. Our faith should come from the inside and stay inside. People that go to church every sunday are there for help and companionship, you don't need any building or book to believe.

a reply to: MConnalley

So what's the point of it? To just lie to yourself all the time? Sounds like a coping mechanism to me. Since I became an atheist I'm happier than ever. Also if you leave that part out when reading the Bible why not just rewrite the bible?

I'm probably going to regret jumping into the fray. The last debate I got caught up on here detained my attention far longer than I'd have liked...

I won't divulge my religion, but I do not identify as Christian. I actually came to resent my Christian upbringing. I will only make exception for these sects: Deism, Eastern Orthodox, Unitarianism, New Thought, Bahai.

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
Explain the contradictory NDEs. Hence, Christians having a different NDE than islamists and so on and so forth.

I think the matter of that world adapts itself to the person's perception. Basically, you see what you expect/want to see.

For instance, George Ritchie allegedly observed a "receiving station", where beings arrived in a deep hypnotic state and were difficult to awaken, as a result of their belief in "soul sleep" held during life. A Protestant expects to be tortured for all eternity and shapes his own future suffering, whereas a Catholic who braced himself for suffering as a result of accepting purgatory, finds himself in a better condition, thanks to the realization that the suffering is temporary.

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
a reply to: FlyersFan
Because religious people always play the skeptic then use anecdotes to try and prove their point. 5000 stories are just that, stories. It's not proof of anything.

Not just religionists. Spiritualists like myself are forced to resort to anecdotes too.

Not everyone has access to peer-reviewed works locked behind academic paywall. Granted, most academics are obliging enough to share their research when contacted directly. I've even received free, signed copies of their books.

I have collected well over 3500 paranormal stories and interviewed hundreds of online users over seven years. There were a lot of fascinating anecdotal coincidences, but ultimately, I concluded that it is pointless to try and categorize paranormal phenomena into neat little boxes. Most paranormal investigators, who have been in the business for 30+ years, have probably never even left the starting line. Case in point: i.imgur.com... Some have remained die-hard skeptics, they go through some serious mental gymnastics to explain away their unusual experiences.

I think Nikola Tesla arrived at similar conclusions about the paranormal: "For many years I endeavored to solve the enigma of death, and watched eagerly for every kind of spiritual indication." ... "I have failed to obtain any evidence in support of the contentions of psychologists and spiritualists." His conclusion was that "there is absolutely no foundation" for psychical/spiritual phenomena.

I myself think NDEs, dreams and visions, clairvoyant proofs, etc. can never demonstrate life after death to the majority, but the possibility still remains for science to prove it along material lines. All attempts have up until now been made from the consciousness aspect (i.e. Gustav Fechner's Zend-Avesta, Rathenau's Zur Mechanik des Geistes) and came up short. The reason why Demokritos, Epikoros, Francis Bacon, and Aristotle's presentation were so successful was because they stuck with the matter aspect.
___

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
a reply to: marg6043

Energy can be transformed. Like when you go within the ground. Your body breaks down supplying the earth and the various insects energy.

I don't have time to go off on a tangent, but energy is actually very little understood by scientists.

In the first place, the word has come to mean something completely different from how it was understood in antiquity, they preferred dynamis (or motive force), which can also mean power, potential, activity. www.etymonline.com... [from dynamis "power," from dynasthai "to be able, to have power, be strong enough"]

The Pythagoreans believed power was a near neighbor to necessity. Thales regarded necessity as the strongest, since it masters all. Pittacus declared that even the gods cannot strive against necessity. Also, Voltaire viewed "to be free" to mean "to be able". history.hanover.edu...

Regrettably, the English translations for Plato/Aristotle reflect scholarly bias. Western civilization has proceeded from Aristotle's usage of energeia, which has also deviated from its original meaning. en.wikipedia.org...

English translators stubbornly refuse to recognize word distinctions in foreign languages, they tend to translate two distinct words as the same one word (i.e. Tatkraft and Energie, Technik and Technologie in German).

Secondly, the original meaning for dynamis can be read in the surviving fragments from Zeno of Elea. A variation can be read in Aesop's fable of the hare and tortoise. In their conception, energy was matter "set in motion". www.etymonline.com... Energy ceased to be generated when the object was at rest, undisturbed, no longer moving.

a reply to: hjesterium

What is spiritual and can you measure it? I don't listen to science from people who literally have an imaginary friend

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
a reply to: hjesterium

What is spiritual and can you measure it? I don't listen to science from people who literally have an imaginary friend

Then you are asking in bad faith, why should I further waste my time explaining it to someone who is quick to jump to assumptions? I spent the past two hours preparing a thorough write-up and you completely ignored it.

For me, god is not a person with human passions. God is not a bearded man in the clouds, who made the world and departed, to observe human suffering for 500 years in negligence. I also reject pantheism on principle. Most scientists happen to be pantheists.

For the American Founding Fathers (i.e. Thomas Paine), Deism was the simple belief that the revelation of god comes through Nature. That is a religion I can accept.

I will not say what god specifically represents for me, Thomas Jefferson also declined to divulge his religion to anyone, considering it a private affair.

originally posted by: schuyler
But you're going to be pretty surprised in a few years.

Care to elaborate?

a reply to: hjesterium

Yeah but Jefferson was a deist. I don't speak for scientists so I don't know what they believe in. Mr you make a lot of assumptions. I didn't read your write up because it was a waste of time talking more unfounded factually incorrect nonsense.

What happened to the Christian ideal, seek and you will find? Nobody is ever going to find proof of the after life.

I don’t think there are even any biblical verses that support the idea of an after life. Can anybody help me at least find those?

a reply to: InachMarbank

Christians are lazy. They don't even read their own Bible.

a reply to: Satanwasframed

Deism as it is understood today has nothing in common with their Deism, Paine found fault with the Quakers for omitting the works of nature from their system. Similarly, the modern Pantheism has nothing to do with Plato nor Spinoza's conception.
___

Anyhow, I did not make a contribution here with the intent of entering into pointless debates, I don't have time for that sh*t anymore. I'll see my way out, but leaving the following reading material for anyone who is interested enough to examine it:

Ernst Haeckel: inbredscience.byethost31.com... Atheism affirms that there are no gods or goddesses, assuming that god means a personal, extramundane entity. This "godless world-system" substantially agrees with the monism or pantheism of the modern scientist; it is only another expression for it, emphasizing its negative aspect, the non-existence of any supernatural deity. [He's pointing out that atheists start from the same flawed premise as Christians for their conception of god. Pantheism taught in the Bible: Ecclesiastes 12:7, 3:20-21]

Schopenhauer: en.wikisource.org... "Moreover the word Pantheism, properly speaking, contains a contradiction; for it denotes a self-destroying conception, and has therefore never been understood otherwise than as a polite term of expression by those who know what seriousness means..."

George Brandes: archive.org... "Then I understood that in what I called Pantheism, the immortality of the individual had no place."

A convenient summary for spiritualist views: old.reddit.com...
___

As for why I addressed the energy topic, there have been cases where religious/spiritual people invoke the law of thermodynamics in an attempt to prove the hereafter: old.reddit.com...

This user's posting history is replete with repetitions of the dogma "Energy can’t be destroyed, only transformed": old.reddit.com...

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
a reply to: FlyersFan
Anecdotes are not evidence. This needs to be peer reviewed and replicated. Explain the contradictory NDEs. Hence, Christians having a different NDE than islamists and so on and so forth. This is literally more of the same. Interviews with people that cannot be corroborated or measured. You even leave out how Dr. Long admits he has no actual data to back his claim up. It's all feelings

Our brain computer off loads it’s memory data to the mainframe when the battery burns out .
Mystery solved . We are organic machines.

I agree that there is an afterlife. As to your own understanding and belief towards the "afterlife" will determine as to where you end up. Concerning the 'void' and 'nothingness', this can be related to Dimension 4 as Earth as you 'know' it to be is Dimension 3. Dimension 4 being the cross-over to Dimension 5 and higher.

When one does not believe in the afterlife, or has no knowledge concerning what is found is this 'portion' of the afterlife, you might likely end up there.. Thus you will find many earthbound souls, and souls which have not 'cross' over.. there are Many reasons one does not pass over.

Some being:

One lived a life of materialism never concerning yourself with divine or what was found in the afterlife or in 'Unseen' world,
One did not believe in any form of Real Gods, serving fake or man made gods. Also expecting God to serve you, rather than you serving him.
One thought "heaven" was made of gold, and being a vacation spending time with loved ones, spending time with family expecting ones family to be waiting once you 'Get there'.. Far from the truth
Hell singular and Heaven Singular being man Made concept, there are many Heavens Yes, Hell being in the mind. There are Heavens as to which is 'Light' and Heavens as to which are 'dark'. Through your actions, physically, mentally and emotionally will determine as to where you will end up. Going higher or lower. There are also other factors to consider.

Heaven meaning 'space' or Dimension. There being countless.

Develop your Psychic facilities, from there grow Spiritually.

Remember also there is an never ending and currently an Eternal war between the forces of Light and Dark.

Also for those who are willing, or in search of give this Youtube channel a look there are Many Parts:

www.youtube.com...

Hope this helps to a degree as to widen ones understanding, facts to consider.

Have a nice day,


Love and Light





a reply to: FlyersFan

The bible was rewritten many times before already, to be adjusted for political, economical gains. Try the following rather put your eyes on the History books of the church. There you will find many truths Lurking and even perhaps you will see what the Church in reality is. a reply to: Satanwasframed

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
a reply to: infp1986
We keep asking for replicated and measurable data because that's how you prove things in reality. Hearing the same arguments for th existence of an afterlife or a God gets old. Especially when those same arguments have already fallen flat so many times before.

If it's getting too old for you, feel free to stop coming into the thread.

If you want to rant about it further, consider the forum for that.

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
Christians are lazy. They don't even read their own Bible.

I don't think that's true. On Sundays, Catholics have three bible readings plus the entire Mass is full of scripture and psalms etc. Weekday Mass has two bible readings along with the scripture and psalms. The Eucharistic part of the mass is straight from 'The Last Supper' narrative in the bible. Plus they have bible studies and people read on their own if they are so moved to do so. Protestants have their services full of bible readings and have bible studies as well. They can read on their own as well. I don't know where you get the 'christians don't read their own bible' thing from.

a reply to: psychotrail

No the mystery is not solved. I will entertain the notion that what you have said is correct. But it opens up a lot more questions.

How are my memories recorded? And how is that converted into data? What form is the data in? Where/what is the mainframe my memories are stored in?

When somebody dies, is he or she still aware of these memories? Can he or she still observe new events and form new memories?

Please, indulge me….

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: psychotrail

No the mystery is not solved. I will entertain the notion that what you have said is correct. But it opens up a lot more questions.

How are my memories recorded? And how is that converted into data? What form is the data in? Where/what is the mainframe my memories are stored in?

When somebody dies, is he or she still aware of these memories? Can he or she still observe new events and form new memories?

Please, indulge me….

In a closed universe under quantum mechanics we are on rails from one infinite experience to the next .
We died in uncountable slids of the closed universe.
Everything you could know , experience, or understand exists simultaneously on a gate of infinite light .
Light is the holder of all gnosis.
Just Love
Thats my stab at it , as Im no theoretical physicist
Just another elf in a pine tree waiting for the lightning to strike

a reply to: FlyersFan

Dr. Kenneth Ring, professor of psychology and author of Life at Death, a believer in survival after death who has studied NDE's, admits: “I remind my audiences that what I have studied are near-death experiences, not after-death experiences. . . . There is obviously no guarantee either that these experiences will continue to unfold in a way consistent with their beginnings or indeed that they will continue at all. That, I believe, is the correct scientific position to take on the significance of these experiences.”

Dr. Richard Blacher of Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, wrote: “We are dealing here with the fantasy of death, not with death itself.”

As for death, psychologist Ronald Siegel gives his opinion: “Death, in terms of its physical sequels, is no mystery. After death the body disintegrates and is reabsorbed into the inanimate component of the environment. The dead human loses both his life and his consciousness. . . . The most logical guess is that consciousness shares the same fate as that of the corpse. Surprisingly, this commonsense view is not the prevalent one, and the majority of mankind . . . continue to exert their basic motivation to stay alive and formulate a myriad of beliefs concerning man’s survival after death.”

About 3,000 years ago the same “commonsense view” was given by a king who wrote: “For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun. All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol [mankind’s common grave], the place to which you are going.”​—Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6, 10.

King Solomon’s description of death and its effects has no hints of an immortal soul surviving into some other form of conscious existence. The dead “are conscious of nothing at all.”

Of course, those who practice spiritism and communication with the “dead” are only too pleased to have the apparent support of hundreds of near-death experiences. Psychologist Siegel quotes one lecturer on the paranormal, or supernatural, as saying that “if we are to examine the evidence for an afterlife honestly and dispassionately we must free ourselves from the tyranny of common sense.” (Psychology Today, January 1981) Interestingly, this same lecturer “argues that ghosts and apparitions are indeed hallucinations, but they are projected telepathically from the minds of dead people to those of the living!” That certainly does not agree with Solomon’s conclusion that the dead are dead and know nothing.

And neither do these myths:

Myth 1: The Soul Is Immortal (One Myth Leads to Another)
Myth 2: The Wicked Suffer in Hell

a reply to: FlyersFan

A person may read the Bible but many don't get the sense of it (regarding for example some of the Bible teachings concerning the 2 myths mentioned in my previous comment; many avid Bible readers do not know what the Bible really teaches regarding these subjects, and upon contact with the Bible's “beneficial teaching” concerning these things, they reject it, i.e. they don't want to know, preferring the teachings of their religious teachers because they 'tickle their ears', as described at 2 Tim 4:3,4).

“And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see. For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them.’” (Matthew 13:14,15)

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

“false stories” = myths (Greek, myʹthos)