 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
Rants and articles submitted by and for ex-Christians
By Kent
I believe in life after death. So do you. The death of once living animals and plants nourish us. That is why we eat. When plants and animals are eaten, they are transmuted into whatever life form consumes them. Even when flora and fauna are not eaten, their decomposition returns nutrients to the soil or sea. These nutrients are eventually taken up by some form of life and reincarnated. This is the way of the world. Living things die so that other living things may live. Life follows death.
I don’t, however, believe individual consciousness transcends death. How could it? Consciousness depends on, and cannot be separated out from, our biological living bodies. Yes, our sense of self –which is as close as I can get to understanding what people mean by the word soul– usually endures throughout our lifetime. It survives sleep and periods of unconsciousness. But it is always affixed to our bodies. There is no way for our sense of self to continue once our corporeal senses are dead.
When most people speak of life after death, they use sense words like seeing and hearing. They say things of the dead person like, “She is watching her daughter grow from a better place.” But seeing requires eyes and hearing requires ears. With what eyes is a dead person watching? With what ears is a dead person hearing? None. So clearly people who speak of life after death in that way can’t really mean what they are saying. They must mean something else. But what that something else is, I couldn’t say. And neither can they–at least I have never heard or read anyone explain what is really meant when vision or hearing is attributed to a dead person.
Seeing requires a viewpoint. One must be located somewhere in
space. One cannot be everywhere or nowhere and be able to see any- thing. Vision is a physical interaction with light. Therefore, to see, one must be a physical entity. One cannot be nonphysical, spiritual only, and see. The same is true of all our senses. So disembodied souls are senseless.
I believe in life after death whenever dead plants or animals are transubstantiated into the body of a still living being. And so do you. That is why you eat. I don’t believe in the continuation of individual consciousness after death. Do you?
I believe in life after death. So do you. The death of once living animals and plants nourish us. That is why we eat. When plants and animals are eaten, they are transmuted into whatever life form consumes them. Even when flora and fauna are not eaten, their decomposition returns nutrients to the soil or sea. These nutrients are eventually taken up by some form of life and reincarnated. This is the way of the world. Living things die so that other living things may live. Life follows death.
I don’t, however, believe individual consciousness transcends death. How could it? Consciousness depends on, and cannot be separated out from, our biological living bodies. Yes, our sense of self –which is as close as I can get to understanding what people mean by the word soul– usually endures throughout our lifetime. It survives sleep and periods of unconsciousness. But it is always affixed to our bodies. There is no way for our sense of self to continue once our corporeal senses are dead.
When most people speak of life after death, they use sense words like seeing and hearing. They say things of the dead person like, “She is watching her daughter grow from a better place.” But seeing requires eyes and hearing requires ears. With what eyes is a dead person watching? With what ears is a dead person hearing? None. So clearly people who speak of life after death in that way can’t really mean what they are saying. They must mean something else. But what that something else is, I couldn’t say. And neither can they–at least I have never heard or read anyone explain what is really meant when vision or hearing is attributed to a dead person.
Seeing requires a viewpoint. One must be located somewhere in
space. One cannot be everywhere or nowhere and be able to see any- thing. Vision is a physical interaction with light. Therefore, to see, one must be a physical entity. One cannot be nonphysical, spiritual only, and see. The same is true of all our senses. So disembodied souls are senseless.
I believe in life after death whenever dead plants or animals are transubstantiated into the body of a still living being. And so do you. That is why you eat. I don’t believe in the continuation of individual consciousness after death. Do you?
Science tells us that every thought, feeling, emotion, perception,i.e., consciousness, is an electro-chemical reaction in the brain, and upon death, those electro-chemical reactions in the brain cease, therefore, our consciousness ceases as well. There is no evidence for a soul.
Science also tells us that "life" is whatever consumes food and reproduces itself. So in this sense, I don't believe your usage of "reincarnation" is accurate. Reincarnation is a concept found in Buddhism where a living being after death is actually reborn as a different living being.
Neverthless, many people do choose to be burried in a pastoral setting just for the very reason you stated - so that their decomposed bodies could nourish the natural setting around them. Their lives do not continue, just as the lives of the animals and vegetables that we take for consumption do not continue.
I don’t believe in the continuation of individual consciousness after death. Do you?
Jim Earl here, and no, I do not.
However, I must say that we are the exception, rather than the rule.
Here in South Carolina, it seems I'm one of the very few that do not believe this crap.
I believe that I have mentioned in the past the various articles in our local paper that daily speak to the dead and even some articles that appear to have been written by the dead. Some dearly departed's family member will write a memorial letter as though it is coming from the dead person him/herself as they reside in heaven. I have yet to see one written as though they were in hell and probably never will.
Anyway, it is all a little creepy and out of touch with reality. But that's typical with the cretin lifestyle. I prefer to live in reality myself. Jim Earl
go to this site and read about the explanations how people perceive after death.It might very well be in the theater of ones mind, but who's to tell.
http://www.near-death.com/
pekingjohn said, Science tells us that every thought, feeling, emotion, perception,i.e., consciousness, is an electro-chemical reaction in the brain, and upon death, those electro-chemical reactions in the brain cease, therefore, our consciousness ceases as well.
You have overinflated what science knows about consciousness and your conclusion is infantile. It is a field that really is in it's infancy and can barely scratch the surface of the brain and would be the first to admit it. The study of consciousness is only now beginning to get a head of steam, in the 21st century.
Consciousness, 'the last great mystery for science', has now become a hot topic. How can a physical brain create our experience of the world? What creates our identity? Do we really have free will? Could consciousness itself be an illusion? Susan Blackmore
Check out these sites,
http://www.mindscience.org/index.cfm
http://assc.caltech.edu/index.htm
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/jcs02.htm
But humans can't seem to be able to deal with that. Death is permanent, and some of us can't handle the thought of never seeing our loved ones again. We can't imagine what it is like to simply not exist, because we have only known existence. So we create methods to avoid reality. We imagine our loved ones looking down on us. We say that we will watch over our children when we pass. We invent gods and religions to explain what is unknown, or to comfort us.
Even as someone who does not believe in an afterlife, I still find reality difficult. But instead of investing my life in the belief that I will be living in some mansion in eternity if I indoctrinate enough people, or wishing away the years till I see my loved ones again, I prefer to make the most of the time I have here. I would rather make every second with my loved ones count, as happy memories, so that when they are gone, those memories can "live on" in me for the remainder of my life. I would rather leave good memories with my children in this life, so that when I am gone, a little bit of me will still live on for a time.
Why do we need an afterlife, anyway? The time we have right now is precious, and full of all the meaning that we can stuff into it. I don't need life after death. This life is amazing!
I have a sneaking suspicion that the billions and billions and billions of years that will pass "after me" will provide an equal measure of difficulty for me.
The fear of death is a basic animal survival instinct, and religions prey on that fear.
It's a distinction worth noting and which I glossed over.
I, too, prefer to make the most of the life that I have right now.
Consciousness is a tricky concept and so is realiy; who's to say that the new position it returns to, isn't some sort of afterlife? If energy can't be destroyed, who's to say consciousness doesn't somehow retain itself, out of body?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MToOECmwMB0
The truth is, I hope there is an afterlife full of bliss and happiness. With a whole universe to explore, I'd certainly like to live a lot longer than I currently get to. It would also be nice to see loved ones again, and to enjoy those relationships I enjoy so much here on Earth.
For me, the desire to live forever is certainly there.
However, the evidence of an afterlife is slim, and the evidence that the way to an after life is to believe proper things is even slimmer.
So the trick is for me to try to enjoy the here and now as much as I can, and simply hope for the best after I die. And like Webmaster said, the billions of years I didn't exist before I was born didn't bother me, and the billions of years after probably won't either.
"who's to say that the new position it returns to, isn't some sort of afterlife?"
I guess it would depend on the definition of "afterlife." When I die, the matter that made up my phyical self will be taken up somewhere else, and the energy that moved the matter will go somewhere, but by "afterlife" do you mean that my consciousness, or what made me "me" is somehow retained? This is where I am doubtful.
I checked out the sites you listed, and I am interested in this new field of research into human consciousness, but I am getting the impression that it is more about the biological basis of consciousness.
The wonderful thing about science is that it is always searching, always learning, always changing. And to keep up with it, you must have an open mind and be willing to change with it.
If there is something to this "consciousness" outside of the body, I will remain a cautious skeptic, watching where the research leads. But an afterlife in the religious context, supernatural and magical, I do not buy.
The word reincarnated seems awkward to me in this context.
Reincarnate, basically means to be born anew, in another body. There is the assumption, that "some" essential element (identity) of a body, is retained during such transmigration into another.
In the decomposition process, nutrients break down, and are then capable of being absorbed by another organic agent, creating new life/growth.
Once decomposition occurs, and the plant breaks away into smaller elements, how does one consider that a homogenous "body" exists, such that it can be transmigrated?
Kent wants to redefine the phrase "life after death" and tell us that we believe in his new definition. Sorry, Kent, that tactic doesn't work. "Life after death" has definite connotations if not one definite meaning, and you can't make them go away by concocting a new definition.
Kent continues arguing semantics by saying that words that describe physical senses cannot have any meaning outside the physical. While it is true that "seeing" and "hearing" for the disincarnate are not the result of physical organs, you are using the limited nature of the language --we do not normally talk about such things and so there are no words for such things-- to claim that the concept itself is invalid. This is obviously bad logic, but the situation is complex because not many people have experienced the direct communication between two consciousnesses. "Seeing" and "hearing" are attempts to explain things for those with a physical viewpoint.
In between, Kent says that his lack of belief in survival of consciousness --a non-physical thing-- depends on the lack of a physical explanation for it. He fails to explain why a non-physical thing must have a physical explanation, although basing his viewpoint on the idea that consciousness arises from the body explains his confusion. Those who claim that consciousness does survive death rely on the idea that consciousness inhabits the body rather than arising from it.
To answer Kent's final question, I do believe in the survival of individual consciousness. I base this on several experiences of communication with those who have physically died. That this is difficult for many to believe because it is beyond their own experience is one thing, but don't try to tell me what I believe.
So, Samantha, forgive my skepticism, but were there any witnesses to these conversations of yours, or were you the only oxygen breather participating in your chats with the deceased?
Care to share a few more details?
If it is impossible for a human being to play witness to your supposed convocations with the dead, then how did you witness it?
Seriously. Are you telling me that you are not physical?
I'm sure you are smart enough to realize that normal, everyday people do have hallucinations from time to time, for a variety of reasons.
If you are embarrassed to share the details of your tea party with the spirit world, what does that tell you?
A witness is not a participant. I participated. I am not in the habit of yelling "CAN I GET A WITNESS?!" and I don't know how anyone can witness a thought process anyway.
I was sure you had already shoved my idea into your little box labeled "hallucination" and I am just tired of playing these little fundie games. Embarrassment is not even the tiniest part of my emotional makeup about this.
There is no need to get your panties all in a wad. You stated that you had a couple of meetings with some disembodied people. I'm just skeptical that you had an authentic conversation with a dead person, that's all. You even now admit that the entire process of communicating with the dead is purely "mental."
I had many such communications with GOD when I was a Christian. And sometimes I thought HE was talking back! Isn't that cool!?
Obviously I no longer think I was talking to a deity, I was merely talking to myself. It happens.
Perhaps embarrassment is not your issue, but it is apparent that you have some anger issues in regards to being questioned about this matter.
When you're ready to put your cards on the table and let us all know what a conversation with the dead looks like, please feel free to post it. Until then, have a nice day.
Pardon, but your premise is non-sequitur. You erroneously argue that if "A" is true", then "B" must be true..i.e..that because the concept "life after death" has specific connotations; specific meaning, etc., that there is "life after death". There is no evidence for post-mortem life, other than of the anecdotal type you offer now.
Samantha...Those who claim that consciousness does survive death rely on the idea that consciousness inhabits the body rather than arising from it.
Personally, I think you've made a distinction without a darn bit of difference. But I'll run with it. Question: If this alleged non-physical "thing" that isn't "thing" - which also allegedly cannot be explained with physical limits of "language", despite the attempts to explain it with language - "inhabits" the physical body, then in which part of the body does it reside?....i.e.."heart", "liver", "brain", "kidneys", etc. I'm curious.
Samantha...To answer Kent's final question, I do believe in the survival of individual consciousness.[bold added]
And you're not alone---the majority of the world's population "do believe", likewise. In any event, truth isn't determined by popular vote, as far as I know.
Samantha...I base this on several experiences of communication with those who have physically died. That this is difficult for many to believe because it is beyond their own experience is one thing, but don't try to tell me what I believe.
I don't think anyone's trying to tell you what to believe, or disbelieve. Moreover, while you appear to be fuming, still, you don't seem to be offering your hypothesis with conditions attached, which is nice for a change. On the other hand, I still don't mind pointing out that just because someone believes something, doesn't mean it's true.
No worries. You can believe whatever you want as long as your beliefs don't harm me or others. I have neither the desire nor the knowledge to tell you what to believe.
I would note, however, that at the point in my piece where I state that the reader believes in life after death, I had not yet "redefined" the term. So it was true and remains true, as far as I know, that you, Samantha, believe in life after death.
Since "'Life after death' has definite connotations if not one definite meaning," you might want to enlighten me.
pekingjohn and one-eyed jack,
I am sorry that you got hung up (a little) on the word "reincarnated". I was using the traditional idea of reincarnation metaphorically, not literally.
sconnor,
I went to your near death site and didn't find anything explaining "how people perceive after death." I guess I missed it.
Kent
I agree, I don't believe in the Christian superstition of an afterlife, but that doesn't mean an afterlife doesn't exist. Being that religion and cultures have afterlife notions, leads me to believe that we are painfully limited to grasp something as transcendent as an afterlife and the words we, use to try and explain, what the afterlife is or could be is too limited and usually gets perverted or used as a bogus agenda -- it is ineffable.
You also said, I don't need life after death. This life is amazing!
Evidently, you haven't recently walked through a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit or Burn Unit or studied the history of diseases, natural disasters, wars or genocide.
You said, I went to your near death site and didn't find anything explaining "how people perceive after death." I guess I missed it.
Either you are lazy or you are inept. The site is chalk full of testimonials on how people perceive, when they have had NDEs. I suggest you go back and take more than five minutes to peruse the wealth of information. And not for one minute am I not skeptical but the information you you so easily dismiss, is there.
Scott
NDE's...i.e..people who experience visions, dreams, etc., when near death, is evidence of nothing.....well, except that people who are near death experience visions, dreams, etc.
'Tell ya what---find me a person who comes back with an "experience" to talk about---- that is, after they are taken to pathology, have their vital organs cut out, weighed, stuffed back in, stitched back up. Then we'll talk, m'kay?
And BTW, what say you about all the Muslims who claim to see "Allah", and all the people who claim to see nothing, when they were "near death"? Do you simply dismiss their experiences out of hand? I'm curious.
What are you, in the mood for a fight? If you comprehended my last post; I said I was skeptical -- what don't you understand? I just point out that people who have had NDEs can perceive and they talk about at length. If it is the theater of ones mind or a real afterlife experience, I can not say, but it is you who dismiss these experiences out of hand.
I could play devils advocate, if you need someone to mentally tangle with.
Scott
You said, "I agree, I don't believe in the Christian superstition of an afterlife, but that doesn't mean an afterlife doesn't exist."
True, it doesn't mean that. And yes, words are a poor means of communication. I once went to a seminar for work which taught that body language was the best means to communicate, and words ranked last. So I guess that the concept of an afterlife could be one that we can't understand. But, as long as it doesn't involve setting me on fire for all eternity for not believing in the correct religion, I guess I don't need to worry about it. I'll make the best of the current moment.
"Evidently, you haven't recently walked through a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit or Burn Unit or studied the history of diseases, natural disasters, wars or genocide."
I have studied the history of diseases, and the history of drug development. I work in a community hospital. I have seen peds patients and burn patients and cancer patients. I've seen a tornado rip through my community and destroy the homes and lives of people I have known my entire life. I have two friends with autistic children (one has two sons with the disorder). I grew up living next door to a girl my age who had spina bifida. Another neighbor of mine, the mother of one of my childhood friends, drowned when she was 29 years old and left my friend without a mother. Another friend of mine from high school was murdered at age 19 by her stepfather, along with her mother who was at one time one of my Girl Scout leader. I'm familiar with the history or wars and genocide. In my lifetime alone there has been plenty of that. I just returned from Kenya. I was there when the post-election violence broke out. I met so many wonderful people there and when I read yet another article about what's going on over there, I cry.
I know I have it better than many. I know that this life can be difficult and painful. But I still think it's amazing.
Thanks for the reply and the thread. It seems to have piqued the interest of many.
It does appear that energy exchange continues through all cycles of life, and through differing material stores. Take care.
You said, I know I have it better than many. I know that this life can be difficult and painful. But I still think it's amazing.
We both understand pain and suffering, but thinking life is amazing is fairly subjective. Can you clarify what you mean by, life is "amazing"? What is so amazing? Is it loves first kiss? procreation? A helping hand? A starry night? Fuzzy bunnies? The birth of a child? A beautiful sunset? A job well done?
I don't know; tell me what you think.
Thanks, Scott
BTW, yeah, I agree about the Christian afterlife. Being burned, in a pit, for an eternity or bowing, on my knees, in worship, in the clouds, for an eternity, both sound grueling and torturous.
What are you, in the mood for a fight?
I'd never rule it out---but for the time being, what I'm really in the mood for, is for someone - whether they are proponents of NDE's, or not - to explain how eternal consciousness is conceptually even possible. To "exist" is a temporal act; to "think", or to contemplate, has a starting point, and ending point. 'Just a few things to think about.
Sconner/Scott...If you comprehended my last post; I said I was skeptical -- what don't you understand?
Thanks for asking---I don't understand people who seem to be 'hopeful' when it comes to the possibility of existing in some way, shape, or form, for an eternity. Admittedly, I don't "get it". I hope that's okay with you, yes? Maybe you can even help me understand it. Until then, I'm intrigued by the notion. Shit, I couldn't imagine going 48 hours without shutting "off" my thoughts, let alone, one long perpetual, atemporal, never-ending "thought". Speaking of "shutting off" our thoughts---if we couldn't "rest"..i.e.."sleep", our over-sized brains - and the rest of our physical bodies - would over-heat, and we'd croak. On the other hand, a non-physical "self"; a disembodied "consciousness", wouldn't require said "rest", for said reasons.
Existing eternally sounds more and more like a living "hell"(pun fully intended) to me.
Sconner/Scott...I just point out that people who have had NDEs can perceive and they talk about at length.
Okay. But isn't it implicit that you believe that such "perception" and "experieces" lend plausibility to the notion of a post-mortem "life"? I think so.....but you can correct me if I'm out in left field somewhere. On the other hand, if I'm right on target, then maybe you could give some perspective on the problems I posed for the concept of an "afterlife", above.
Sconner/Scott...If it is the theater of ones mind or a real afterlife experience
The problem with this is, the lack of pulse, or heartbeat, does not necessarily mean the brain has died. Furthermore, look at the terms "near death", and afterlife. Do you see the conundrum this presents?
Sconner/Scott... I can not say, but it is you who dismiss these experiences out of hand.
No, I'm sorry, I do not dismiss - what you refer to as these people's "experiences", and "perception" of these experiences - out of hand. I never said, or implied, any such thing. I only question the nature/origin of said experiences---and like I said previously, I'm intrigued by those who would actually 'hope' that they could exist forever, whether they ever have an "NDE", or not.
Sconner/Scott...I could play devils advocate, if you need someone to mentally tangle with.
Ooo. Okay, I should be more cautious while you're around, then.
"Tell ya what---find me a person who comes back with an "experience" to talk about---- that is, after they are taken to pathology, have their vital organs cut out, weighed, stuffed back in, stitched back up. Then we'll talk, m'kay?"
Brillian statement my friend. I use a similar type of line when confronted with people who's proof of life after death are the countless reports by those who have experienced NDE's.
I will simply state."THESE PEOPLE WERE NEVER DEAD !!!!" So it proves nothing except that hallutionations often occur when one flatlines for a period of time.
They only way life after death could be proven would be if a psychic or other medium talking to the dead could get the deceased to answer a very specific question asked by a third party that only this third party and the deceased would know.
For instance if someone could contact my dead grandfather and ask him what was so funny about our trip to the zoo when I was seven, and get the correct answer, I would be convinced. It was 37 years ago and only he and I would know the answer.
The acronym NDE literally means near-death experience (life), not after-death experience (after-life).
Our language allows for precision but requires skill and energy; more so than if speaking in general terms with open context.
As well, we speak in moods, based on rhythm, volume, and pitch; think of all the mood states that can be conveyed using the word "dude", or the "f" bomb. Mood conveyance, as well as speaking in metaphor, allegory, etc., leave much room for a reader to misinterpret the sender's message.
I typically ask for clarification, in such cases, because I have not acquired the gift of ESP, although my taste buds have been a little more sensitive as of late :-)
To me, when the topic of after-life is introduced and it is eventually followed with NDEs, I tend to draw distinct lines between the two states of being, referred to.
Albeit, the word "life" itself, has a variety of meanings, and can be used metaphorically and in general context. To discuss the after-life, begs one to know what "life" means.
To Samantha, and many other Christians, life is to be understood in degrees, and in dimensions - non-unity. A sinful person's spiritual soul is not as strong as righteous persons' soul; a living physical body resides in a different dimension than angels and other spiritual souls in heaven, etc.
It would be more accurate for Christians to refer to the commonly used term after-life, as the after-physical-life, to express their belief in multiple life forms hosted in one physical body, e.g., spiritual life form.
When on the topic of spiritual life forms, it would be more accurate for them to distinguish between, human souls, angels, Holy Ghost, imps, demons, etc, and all the varying degrees they believe exists within each form, and between each form.
To end, the discussion of "life", over the past few thousand years at a minimum, has focused on two factors; form and substance.
While "most" people, even the more illiterate, see that life forms do transform via growth & decomposition cycles, e.g., bacteria, animals, plants, where each physically undergoes noted physical form changes over time, many will debate the issue of "substance".
The substance debate is centered on...
"Substance theory, or substance attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood, positing that a substance is distinct from its properties."
"Properties - b. (in Aristotelian logic) an attribute not essential to a species but always connected with it and with it alone."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/properties
Substance is the essential core that allows non-essential elements to form around.
"Monistic views, often associated with immanence, hold that there is only one substance, sometimes called God or Being."
And, sometimes the essence of Nature, Spinoza.
"Dualist and pluralist views hold that two or more types of substances do exist, and that these can be placed in an ontological hierarchy. Platonism or Aristotelianism considers that there are various substances, while stoicism and Spinoza hold that there is only one substance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
In short, according to Aristotelian philosophy, there are various substances in the Universe. These "substances" are the cores which can be/are surrounded by "non-essential" elements, that through natural forces and through energy exchange processes and mechanisms, have rendered physical forms, i.e., humans, animals, rocks, etc.
Substance is a topic that separates many beliefs. It is the controversy over substance that causes the argument over the Christian God (abstract mental concept) as being of "one" substance of differing substances.
Even when the argument that all three religious articles; father, son and holy ghost are said to be the same, they are typically said to be the same in purpose, but separate in substance, else all three would be of "equal" power, since substance is the "pure essence" of what it means to be something.
Take it the other way, that there is only one God, and one substance; which transforms into different forms to do business; holy ghost as protector & mediator of good and evil here on earth, and Jesus, savior of the lost souls he omnisciently and deliberately created.
This topic is not brought up on Sunday sermon, because the religious leaders have no answer; and there continues to be great conflict between the many thousands of different Christian religious denominations, and even among other religious denominations.
Noteworthy; is that this little splinter of dissent within Christianity began ~325 AD, when the "nature" of God was being voted on at the First Council of Nicaea. Once the vote became majority, articles and short writings were collected from the popular circles that supported the view, and they were used to create the bible.
"The First Council of Nicaea in 325 debated the terms homoousios and homoiousios. The word homoousios means "same substance", whereas the word homoiousios means "similar substance". The council affirmed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Godhead) are of the homoousious (same substance). Many commentators--most notably Walter Gibbon--have noted that the entire controversy hung on a difference of the smallest Greek letter (i, or iota)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiousios
There continues to be controversy.
So, when someone begins talking about spiritual life, or the after-physical-life, they are inherently (likely without a clue), speaking on the topic of "substance".
The way a person chooses to perceive substance, determines how they perceive the after-life, in terms of consciousness, etc. A person, may not make a distinction of substance at-all, there may be no single substance that stands as the "core", by which they believe the physical realm forms around.
This discussion can lead into many areas; Heraclitus suggested that change was a constant, but was that "change" in terms of form or substance...
I suppose we can all ponder, on the implications of substance and what it may mean, once we transform from our physical forms; but of course, there are no currently established facts regarding anything indestructible and unchanging in the Universe, and the philosophy of reductionism, that has for the past few thousand years, been the predominant principle of research, has been declared a dead-end by many leading philosophers and scientists of today.
Christians have murdered Christians, and anyone else who didn't conform to their belief, for the past few thousand years, based on the underlying beliefs of substance, and have done so blindly and without evidence.
While science attempts to continue seeking a cure for such nonsense, by seeking a "constant" underlying substance that is beyond destruction, that is inherently "essential" to Nature, and perhaps other modes/substances within Nature, they do so, methodically and without prejudice - the facts will be objective in the end, it will be up to humans to give the objective data personal meaning.
Well, at any rate, it appears we can ponder the implications of our own beliefs on the matter, and wait for science to provide more information, since religion has been a hindrance since the beginning of civilization on anything remotely conflicting with their agenda.
Perhaps the problem that you had with my comment was that I did not mention the psychological aspects of consciousness, and reduced consciousness to mere electrochemical reactions.
Nevertheless, within the context of our discussion, "whether individual consciousness transcends death", my comment was quite accurate.
My point was that consciousness was physical (electrochemical reactions in the brain) as opposed to something spiritual, like a soul, which is assumed to have no physical basis, and that when the brain dies, these electrochemical reactions stop, and so does consciousness.
I went to the websites that you suggested, and what I found only supported my views:
1. http://www.mindscience.org/index.cfm
The first one contained the article,
"What Is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?" by Greg Miller. Here are some quotes from that article:
"... consciousness emerges from the properties and organization of neurons in the brain."
"Damage to certain evolutionarily ancient structures in the brainstem robs people of consciousness entirely ..."
It seems quite apparent that consciousness is intrinsically tied to neurons, which operate by electrochemical reactions, and that when the brain dies, consciousness ceases. Do you disagree with this?
2. http://assc.caltech.edu/index.htm
The second link you gave was to a student association at Caltech concerning consciousness studies. There were no articles directly on that site concerning consciousness that I could find.
However, there were links to other sites with related articles. I read a couple of them, there were many, and they were concerned with the psychological aspects of consciousness and not related to our discussion.
3.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/jcs02.htm
The third link you gave was to an article by Susan Blackmore entitled "There is no stream of consciousness." Again, it was an article that addressed the psychological aspects of consciousness and was not related to the discussion at hand.
However, there was one paragraph that linked consciousness to neurons, which, again, supports my point. A quote, " ... this knowledge may help us to locate the awareness neurons we are looking for."
Do you disagree that consciousness dies when the brain dies, or are you unhappy that I described consciousness in such simple terms as "electrochemical reactions"?
I hold that my original comment was accurate and pertinent.
My thinking that life is amazing is most definitely subjective. I never intended it to mean anything else. It is amazing for all the reasons you mentioned, and many more.
It comes down to how we view life. What attitudes do we chose to have, what do we focus on, etc. I don't have to look very far each day to find something that I could be upset about, nor do I have to look very far to find something that I feel good about. I try to focus on the things that make me feel good.
I think we're getting way off-topic now. Scott, could you explain to me your thoughts on consciousness, as far as individual consciousness staying intact beyond death. I guess I was a bit confused because of the first two sites you referenced. Like pekingjohn said, many of the articles referenced the neuronal basis of our consciousness, which would logically cease to exist when we die. You mentioned consciousness retaining itself outside of the body, but I'm not sure if you have definite ideas about that or if you are skeptical yet open to the idea.
Regarding NDE's: I don't doubt for minute that these people have these experiences. I know someone personally who had one. But to me it doesn't prove an afterlife. There have been experiments with the drug Ketamine in inducing NDE's in people, which would indicate a neuronal basis.
It's a complicated subject. I guess I simplify it by saying that I dismiss any kind of afterlife which is "supernatural" or magical in nature. If there is some other kind of consciousness which is beyond the physical limits of the body, it would still be "natural" as opposed to "supernatural," and I would think it would have some sort of electrical or energy basis. I don't pretend to know.
chris
Here's the deal, I don't dismiss the notion of a consciousness continuing after death. Several key ingredients to that observation are:
1. Children have NDEs and have expressed being outside their bodies
2. The majority of the experiencers have similar attributes.
3. Not all NDEs have resulted from the same cause.
a. Not all were under anesthesia
b. Not all were on drugs
c. Some were considered clinically dead
d. Some have had the experience, without being near death at all
e. National Geographic had an excellent show about a woman who had to have emergency surgery for an aneurysm. The show goes into great detail how they had to stop her heart and drain the blood from her brain. Everything was a flat line; she was clinically dead and then she had a profound outer body experience, where she was able to describe the medical instruments, what the doctors were saying, and what the saw sounded like that cut into her skull, as her consciousness floated above her body. She was completely out and had special plugs in her ears. After that she had the whole tunnel of light, perfect love, meeting dead relatives, etc. This is all corroborated with the doctors.
4. If they were just dreams or hallucinations they wouldn't have similar attributes. Their experiences were not about having sex on an island with a scantly clad woman, or running out of time on a test or pink elephants, they were of a spiritual nature, even for those who were not religious or spiritual. People who have had these experiences claim they are nothing like dreams or hallucinations.
5. NDEs, generally have a profound effect on the subject after the event
6. Doctors have started to take the study of consciousness surviving outside the body more seriously starting at the end of the 20th century going into the 21st century.
I'm like you, I am skeptical, but for me it is a thin thread of something concrete. A very thin thread, that if it was tied to that piece of concrete, dangling over my head, I wouldn't want to stand under it.
Go to this site, and thoroughly search it; I think it will answer many of your questions.
http://www.near-death.com/
You said, Scott, could you explain to me your thoughts on consciousness, as far as individual consciousness staying intact beyond death. I guess I was a bit confused because of the first two sites you referenced. Like pekingjohn said, many of the articles referenced the neuronal basis of our consciousness, which would logically cease to exist when we die. You mentioned consciousness retaining itself outside of the body, but I'm not sure if you have definite ideas about that or if you are skeptical yet open to the idea.
You can see my thoughts on consciousness in the reply to Boomslang. The only thing I can add is we know very little about how the mind works; we know there are chemicals and firing neurons and electrical pulses but this certainly does not rule out the idea that consciousness can continue outside the body. I'm with you, I am looking for the natural cause not the supernatural.
Scott
BTW, Boomslang, as far as having your consciousness go on for an eternity, all I can say is time is a man-made concept. In an eternity of time, a googolplex could be perceived as a microsecond. Perhaps if your consciousness continued for an eternity you would have an eternity of things to do, without the physical body getting tired.
Here's the deal, I don't dismiss the notion of a consciousness continuing after death.
Thank you for that astonishing disclosure.
Scott/Sconner...Several key ingredients to that observation are:
I think, and hope, that you meant "opinion"; not "observation". Right? If astral projecting and communicating with dead people, etc., where "observable", we wouldn't be having this conversation. Would we?
1. Children have NDEs and have expressed being outside their bodies
Children also claim that their stuffed animals talk to them, and that monsters live under the bed.
2. The majority of the experiencers have similar attributes.
Dreams and hallucinations are not exactly unheard of, and man has been experiencing them for time, immemorial. If such experiences are the result of chemical reactions in our physical brains, and/or, a lack of oxygen to or brains... well...we all have the same chemicals and reactions to lack of oxygen.
3. Not all NDEs have resulted from the same cause.
Relevance? You're presumably either "dead", or you're not, right?
a. Not all were under anesthesia
b. Not all were on drugs
c. Some were considered clinically dead
d. Some have had the experience, without being near death at all
a,b,c, etc., lends credibility to your premise, how?
e. National Geographic had an excellent show about a woman who had to have emergency surgery for an aneurysm. The show goes into great detail how they had to stop her heart and drain the blood from her brain. Everything was a flat line; she was clinically dead and then she had a profound outer body experience, where she was able to describe the medical instruments, what the doctors were saying, and what the saw sounded like that cut into her skull, as her consciousness floated above her body. She was completely out and had special plugs in her ears. After that she had the whole tunnel of light, perfect love, meeting dead relatives, etc. This is all corroborated with the doctors.
If they "drained the blood" from the subject's brain, we can safely conclude that, since blood carries oxygen, that her brain was deprived of oxygen, yes? 'Sounds like a perfect recipe for experiencing precisely what you've spent your whole life hoping for..and that is, meeting grandpa, and grandma---and even Rover, the family dog that was hit by a sewer truck when they were 7.
BTW, what say you about people who insist that they can communicate with dead pets? There are TV specials that "corroborate" the claims of these special people.
4. If they were just dreams or hallucinations they wouldn't have similar attributes.
No? Then how do you explain that dreams of "falling", dreams of "snakes", dreams of "monsters", and dreams of "teeth" are so common among people?
Their experiences were not about having sex on an island with a scantly clad woman, or running out of time on a test or pink elephants, they were of a spiritual nature, even for those who were not religious or spiritual. People who have had these experiences claim they are nothing like dreams or hallucinations.
I don't doubt that. Waking from a lucid, sleep-induced dream, is probably a lot different than being under anesthesia, and/or, your brain being physically near death(depleted of oxygen)
5. NDEs, generally have a profound effect on the subject after the event
I also don't doubt that. However, believing strongly in something based on pure experience, often times, isn't fully rational. Take, hypothetically, a women who has a vivid dream that she was mugged and raped. It, too, may have an equally "profound effect on the subject after the event". She may even conclude that it's totally unsafe to ever leave her house again. Yet, logically speaking, are the chances any greater that such an event will ever happen in real life, solely because of said "experience"? No.
6. Doctors have started to take the study of consciousness surviving outside the body more seriously starting at the end of the 20th century going into the 21st century.
Source?
Go to this site, and thoroughly search it; I think it will answer many of your questions.
http://www.near-death.com/[bold added]
I may go to the site; I may not.
I've hopefully already made it clear that "NDE's" are not admissible as evidence for an "dual existence"; for an "afterlife". Again, until I see - with my own eyes - a man get up from a gurney after being taken to pathology for protocal, I'm convinced that there's a natural explanation for said events.
Best regards
First let me commend you on your razor-like dissection of NDEs; it is that of a skilled surgeon wielding his scalpel like a precision-tuned artist -- strawmen aren't part of your arsenal. And your grasp of the information is truly commanding and is a testament of your obvious expertise and colossal intellect. Overwhelmingly, you have conveyed and possess a thorough knowledge of the subject matter and indeed, your extensive study and scholarship in NDEs are amazingly apparent and profound. Your one-offs and conclusions are expertly and impressively relevant and exhaustively decisive. Great work, man, truly stellar work!
Try educating yourself on the study of NDEs and OBEs before making ignorant conclusions and dismissing -- out of hand -- anything these people may say on the subject, just so you can bolster your world-view. You are just as bad as the creationist bunch, basing everything on speculation, conjecture and misinformation, without any real study.
http://www.melvinmorse.com/light.htm
http://www.lifeafterlife.com/
http://www.near-death.com/
http://www.observations.net/popup/sabom.html
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts04.html
"This picture[imagine crayon-drawn picture by child, or check the link for yourself] was drawn by a seven year old girl who nearly drowned in a swimming pool. Above the blue line, we see the girl in a world with flowers. As I expressed complete disbelief at her story, she patted me condescendingly on the hand and told me, 'You'll see Dr. Morse, Heaven is fun.'"[bold added]
So, Sconner/Scott, you're a Christian, are you? I'll attempt another direct question: Is it your position, Sconner/Scott, that "NDE's" are mutually inclusive with Christian Theology?...and further, that the THOUSANDS of testimonials of NDE'S" reported from Muslims and Buddhists are just fanciful hallucinations? You know, in some aspects, I guess it would only make sense that you are a Christ-follower, because after all, we see Christians turn purple and start frothing at the mouth on a daily basis on this site, especially when we challenge their "thought"-process.
Come on, Sconner/Scott, they cannot ALL be right. So which is it?....which Theology has a monopoly on the True Afterlife™? Please enlighten us, further.
PS: Oh, and thanks for the kind words, dude! You know, at first I thought you were just being a facetious little bitch-boy, but then it dawned on me---you didn't provide one single counter-point to my rebuttal. Nothing; zip; nadda. No, apparently, the best you've got are more links for us to check out, this, despite having been told that "near-death" is technically alive. BTW, I suppose that lucky little girl was never exposed to the concept of "heaven" prior to that. Nor did mommy, or daddy, EVER mention to her that she had a little brother(or sister) on the way. Nah, that would never happen......the nerve of me, right? lol
Hey, find me that talking cadavor, and then y'all come back!..okay handsome?
Bye now!
If consciousness exists outside of the body then it would have to be something other than the activity of brain cells. In other words, consciousness would not require a living brain in order to exist. How could we detect a "disembodied" consciousness? What would it be made of?
It would have to be immaterial, since no one has seen a consciousness leave a person's skull. If it were energy then what keeps it from dissipating? If consciousness is something other than brain activity then why does damage to the brain affect it? If someone's consciousness is floating above their body then why would it then return to the body? As you say there is quite a lot we don't know about the brain, but we need to be careful when we start filling in the gaps with speculation.
We know that many organs can continue functioning after perceived death.
We know that the hair, skin, and fingernails keep growing weeks after death.
Also, when my grandfather died of heart disease a few years ago, his heart kept a steady little murmur for nearly 15 minutes after the doctor pronounced him dead. You could see it quite plainly on the cardio-meter.
Where I live, we like our fish fresh. I have personally scaled and gutted a live fish (our evolutionary ancestor), keeping the head on, just minutes before throwing it into the frying pan. Scaled and gutted, the fish still jumps around until you get him into the hot oil, where he makes a final huge jump. Regardless of the fact that the heart was removed, the nervous system was in fine working order. (I know this example might not fit the context of our discussion, but I believe there is a relevant point to be made here.)
The point I'm trying to make is, at the time of death, not everything shuts down all at once, whether humans or a fish. So it's quite conceivable that the brain could keep working minutes or even longer after the heart stops.
I too have had a close friend who claimed to have an NDE. It was as everybody else said - floating over the operating table, watching the doctors work, etc ...
Could it be possible that the human brain is hardwired to have such an experience just a moment after the heart stops?
Scott, you seem to really be reaching for evidence for consciousness after death. You seem to have sort of a desperate hope about this:
"Consciousness is a tricky concept and so is reality; who's to say that the new position it returns to, isn't some sort of afterlife? If energy can't be destroyed, who's to say consciousness doesn't somehow retain itself, out of body?"
I know you are suffering a loss, and I can really feel for you. I have a son, and I can only imagine the suffering you must be going through.
I was very close to my father, who died 5 years ago. I regret not spending much time with him in the last 10 years of his life. Deep down inside I wish that I could be with him in heaven.
You don't ever really get over the lost of a loved one, you just get used to it.
Hang in there, Scott.
We know that the hair, skin, and fingernails keep growing weeks after death
---
Pekingjohn,
Sorry my friend, but this is incorrect, although it has been an age-old common fallacy to believe so.
See here...
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhairgrow.html
and
http://www.snopes.com/science/nailgrow.asp
ATF(who once upon a time also thought this was true)
Again, well said, very articulate. It only took you a couple of posts to call me a belligerent name -- a sign of a confident and polished debater.
1. I'm not Christian
2. I'm non-religious
3. I oppose Christianity and it's doctrines
4. I don't believe in psychics; pet or otherwise, or mind readers, or fortune tellers, ETC.
5. I don't believe in a personal god
6. If anything I believe in an ultimate reality, that includes natural law, the vastness of the universe, consciousness, and our very own existence as something immanent, transcendent and ineffable. The ultimate reality for me is "just being". Furthermore, this is an ongoing process and I have the right to change my mind anytime I want, especially given new, pertinent, information. Also, from a personal study, I have been conducting for the past year and a half, I think there is something to these NDEs and somehow it is possible that consciousness can live on outside the body. Again I am skeptical but at first when Raymond Moody started studying these experiences, his peers dismissed everything out of hand and exclaimed, they were dreams, lack of oxygen, anesthesia, drugs and so on, but how do you really know unless you conduct extensive studies?
Should we stop studying these experiences because you have written them off as dreams or hallucinations?
1. Children have NDEs and have expressed being outside their bodies
Children also claim that their stuffed animals talk to them, and that monsters live under the bed.
(Yeah, but usually after battling leukemia, then being revived after a heart attack a child's imagination isn't at full speed and you wouldn't think the first thing they would do -- in recovery -- is lie about an extraordinary experience.)
BTW, I suppose that lucky little girl was never exposed to the concept of "heaven" prior to that. Nor did mommy, or daddy, EVER mention to her that she had a little brother(or sister) on the way. Nah, that would never happen......the nerve of me, right? lol
(If you would have spent more than five seconds scanning the Morse sight, maybe educating yourself, you would have found some of these children were not religious or had Christian backgrounds or were old enough to understand the concept of heaven. You might have recognized that Dr. Morse is a neuroscientist and pediatrician who has been studying these experiences for about twenty eight years -- something convinced him.)
2. The majority of the experiencers have similar attributes.
Dreams and hallucinations are not exactly unheard of, and man has been experiencing them for time, immemorial. If such experiences are the result of chemical reactions in our physical brains, and/or, a lack of oxygen to or brains... well...we all have the same chemicals and reactions to lack of oxygen.
(Everyone who has had these experiences, adamantly deny they were dreams or hallucinations.)
These are the common elements.
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence06.html
3. Not all NDEs have resulted from the same cause.
Relevance? You're presumably either "dead", or you're not, right?
a. Not all were under anesthesia
b. Not all were on drugs
c. Some were considered clinically dead
d. Some have had the experience, without being near death at all
a,b,c, etc., lends credibility to your premise, how?
(The relevance is that the lack of oxygen is not the only way you can have this experience.
You are getting hung up on the semantics of "death" -- near death is a term coined by Dr. Moody. I'm establishing that there are reports of near death like experiences, where the subject is not near death or dead, but very much alive and have the same common elements.
These examples are used to show you that experiences happened to people who weren't under the influence of drugs and anesthesia, some happened when they were clinically dead and others while they were perfectly alive and not under the influence of drugs.)
If they "drained the blood" from the subject's brain, we can safely conclude that, since blood carries oxygen, that her brain was deprived of oxygen, yes? 'Sounds like a perfect recipe for experiencing precisely what you've spent your whole life hoping for..and that is, meeting grandpa, and grandma...
(This doesn't explain what she witnessed and was able to describe while she was deprived of oxygen.)
...what say you about people who insist that they can communicate with dead pets? There are TV specials that "corroborate" the claims of these special people.
(You also forgot, big foot, Loch Ness monster, UFOs, psychokinesis, and faith healing. Straw man? I didn't say the show corroborated; I said the doctors who drilled into her head, corroborated the story.)
4. If they were just dreams or hallucinations they wouldn't have similar attributes.
No? Then how do you explain that dreams of "falling", dreams of "snakes", dreams of "monsters", and dreams of "teeth" are so common among people?
(I didn't make myself clear. The experiencers have the same attributes (common elements) and are nothing like dreams or hallucinations. refer to the common elements site.)
5. NDEs, generally have a profound effect on the subject after the event
I also don't doubt that. However, believing strongly in something based on pure experience, often times, isn't fully rational. Take, hypothetically, a women who has a vivid dream that she was mugged and raped. It, too, may have an equally "profound effect on the subject after the event". She may even conclude that it's totally unsafe to ever leave her house again. Yet, logically speaking, are the chances any greater that such an event will ever happen in real life, solely because of said "experience"? No.
(Straw man? You give me the extensive list of women who have vivid dreams about anything and let me know how it profoundly effected their life? "Hypothetically", doesn't get you off the hook.)
Is it your position, Sconner/Scott, that "NDE's" are mutually inclusive with Christian Theology?...and further, that the THOUSANDS of testimonials of NDE'S" reported from Muslims and Buddhists are just fanciful hallucinations?
No. Studies suggest that NDEs are experienced in the religious and cultural background of the experiencer. Most, however, after their experience, become less religious or become non-religious and maybe, more spiritual.
6. Doctors have started to take the study of consciousness surviving outside the body more seriously starting at the end of the 20th century going into the 21st century.
Source?
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/skeptic03.html
http://www.iands.org/research/important_studies/out-of-body_experiences_all_in_the_brain.html
(And this site I recommend, you read the entire article.)
http://www.iands.org/research/important_studies/dr._pim_van_lommel_m.d._continuity_of_consciousness.html
Hey, find me that talking cadavor, and then y'all come back!..okay handsome?
(Here are some testimonials, but again my contention is, there is overwhelming anecdotal evidence that consciousness, can continue outside the brain, the mind and the body, without being dead as well as being clinically dead.)
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence10.html
You said, Could it be possible that the human brain is hardwired to have such an experience just a moment after the heart stops?
Maybe, but that is what science is for; to make discoveries of phenomena.
Isn't it possible, consciousness can continue outside the body?
Same answer as before.
I visited the sights you suggested. I stand corrected. Thank you.
Regarding, near-death experiences (NDE), I read Dr. Moody's "Life after Life" when it was first published in 1975. Since that time I've read numerous criticisms of his work and generally kept up on various scientific studies on the phenomena.
To top it off, I've actually had one out-of-body (OBE)experience. An OBE is not the same as an NDE, but the personal testimonials of these experiences contain similar elements.
Even though I've had an OBE, and it was remarkably "real-to-me" as well as strikingly memorable (the experience was 30 years ago), I am of the opinion that my essence or "soul" or mind or "energy" didn't really leave my body. I'm convinced I had a natural mind experience, somewhat akin to having an extremely vivid dream. I can, for instance, still clearly recall the details of and strong feelings generated by a couple of my childhood dreams. Of course, my opinion on NDEs is just based in part on of my own subjective interpretation of my OBE experience. I appreciate that different people sincerely interpret these types of things in different ways. I also appreciate that there is no adequate way to resolve differences of interpretations on highly subjective personal experiences.
I would suggest that perhaps the best and most well-rounded online synopsis on the topic of NDEs is available here: How Near-death Experiences Work. (Be sure to click on the next page links at the bottom of each page. The article goes on for several pages.)
Regardless, although I personally no longer believe in the supernatural, nor a continued conscious life after the death of the body, this site, above all, is intended for the encouragement of those leaving Christianity. Not all people leaving Christianity become atheists.
Scott and Samantha seem of the opinion that NDEs and other subjective experiences present clear evidence of life after death. Scott, having lost his son recently, probably has good reason for his current interest in the matter. Samantha also thinks she has good reason for her interest. Fine. I understand the reason for the interest and I personally don't mind if either Scott or Samantha cling to a belief in the hereafter. What I don't understand is the apparent need to convert those skeptical of the hereafter, nor do I completely comprehend an apparent intolerance of people who cling to a belief in a hereafter.
Anyway, that's my final two cents on this thread.
There are a couple of ironies as 1 Corinthians 15 relates to me. Paul wrote that if there is no resurrection, then Christians are to be pitied. That didn’t seem right to me, and awakened in me the ideal of living a good life for its own sake. This certainly eased my journey out Christianity. The second irony is that, if i’d read the chapter more carefully, i would have seen that Paul himself didn’t believe in a physical resurrection! Having not been aware of the arguments against non-physical consciousness, this understanding of immortality may well have postponed my final crisis of faith. Still, it wouldn’t have lasted forever; evidence was getting more and more elusive.
As differential as The Discovery Channel and its affiliates must be to their Protestant-majority audience, some of their programming can be hazardous to one’s faith. Near-death experiences can be induced by excessive G forces. Operating room out-of-body experiences never report anything that the patient couldn’t otherwise know. One experiment has a text message placed outside the patients’ line of sight; so far as i know, no disembodied patient has reported it. Jesus’s resurrection is given a naturalistic explanation, even without resorting to The Jesus Puzzle’s hypothesis that the whole story was pure mythology.
As hard as it was for me to swallow, i was forced to admit to myself that, one day, there will be no more “me.” The death knell for any hope of immortality came with a couple of articles[1][2] that showed conclusively that consciousness is a physical phenomenon. While Scott is correct in that we cannot explain consciousness, the evidence that we do have shows unequivocally that consciousness is bound to a functioning brain.
Notwithstanding any games with semantics and redefinitions, I must agree with Kent. There is no continuation of individual consciousness after death.
________________________
Somewhere in this thread, Carl Sagan’s moving words need to be posted:
“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.
“The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”[3]
________________________
References:
[1] The Ebon Muser, “A Ghost in the Machine.”
[2] Hertzler, Merle, “Is There Life After Death?”
[3] Sagan, Carl, “In the Valley of the Shadow,” Parade Magazine, March 10, 1996.
Actually, they don’t; the “growth” is an illusion. As the body dehydrates, the skin pulls back, revealing more of the roots of the hairs and nails. See Snopes article.
The law of conservation of matter applies. After death, skin, hair, and nails have no food supply. There is no new material for them to grow with.
Thanks for the reminder. Actually, AtheistToothFairy was kind enough to correct me on this. I guess I fell for this misnomer too.
We need to live this life as best we can, because it is all we got. Dont put off that vacation, or going skydiving, or taking your wife to see Paris. Live each day like its your last, because eternity for me does not exist. Your mielage may vary...
--Chris
Again, well said, very articulate. It only took you a couple of posts to call me a belligerent name
Scott, I ask you at this time to please notice that said response came in the wake of a entire paragraph of facetious "praise", dedicated just to me, from you. I