[BabyPeanut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BabyPeanut', 'd')efine "life".

[linlithgowoil]

i am catholic so i do believe in life after death, but i am also by nature a 'doubting thomas' and i have many moments of 'crises of faith' as i would call them. some days i dont believe in anything, other days i believe that someday i will hopefully be in heaven ( or possibly hell given all the sins ive done).

though, oblivion is probably better than hell. dont think i could take an eternity of gnashing teeth and beating of the breast!

to be honest i really dont know. i want to live forever, who doesnt? but i certainly wouldnt want to live forever on earth - its too flawed and crap.

i imagine that life after death would be an incredible thing. imagine meeting family members who have died, travelling the cosmos in an instant, floating around earth watching things happening - playing 'ghost football' on the hydrocarbon oceans of titan...!

[arocoun]

I'm agnostic, but I do believe that there is a lot of compelling evidence for the existence of spirits. On matters like this, rather than saying "I believe" or "I don't believe," I tend to state how compelled I am to believe something. In this case, I'd say--looking at what evidence is available--that the existence of spirits, and maybe reincarnation, are possibly true. In other words, I don't necessarily believe in spirits and such, but I am leaning toward that conclusion, and I'm keeping an open mind either way.

On the topic of open-mindedness: I definitely think that open-mindedness is a big positive. That's why I don't really like close-minded (a)thiests. I'm talking about the kind of person who refuses to even consider that his/her religion could be wrong, even in the face of compelling evidence which opposes that religion; or the type of person who absolutely refuses to even consider the possibility that anything like spirits or gods could exist, no matter what. A close-minded theist and a close-minded athiest seem nearly the same to me.

[threadbear]

The word "belief" is the greatest barrier of all. Belief may feel great, but it's potentially dangerous. I think there's enough evidence to support the after life, enough to give it very serious thought. It's the believing idea that bugs me. There's a reinforcing feedback loop involved in religious thought that is centered purely in belief. Secular humanism, the modern manifestation of atheism, could equally be referred to as circular humanism, as it's hopelessly mired in it's own philosophical cul de sac, based on belief.

I like Robert Anton Wilson's take on "belief". He supports the Maybe.

[Licho]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('uNkNowN ElEmEnt', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd btw, believing into something just because you want to believe and not because you have some reason is usually sign of weaker mind and not higher intelligence..

[katkinkate]

As a scientist (by training), the way I see it, science cannot prove the existence of ghosts, reincarnation, life after death, heaven, hell or god/s. However science cannot disprove any of this either. Therefore the only truly valid scientific stand is agnosticism.

What you choose to 'believe' however is not science but belief which isn't tied to logic but teaching, emotion, experience, etc. and how (or if) you choose to interpret it.

From my experience and reading, I want to believe (in life after death) and yet afraid to believe too passionately in case I find out I'm wrong. I guess no-one will really know until we die and see for ourselves.

[PenultimateManStanding]

Katkinkate, you might not find out anything at all, especially if consciousness does not survive the transition. Maybe we have souls that pass beyond but our everyday waking consciousness isn't part of the picture. I have wondered about this: if our consciousness passes over then do we ever get to sleep again?

[katkinkate]

Very true, PenultimateManStanding. I guess in the end you just have to make a choice about who/what to believe and trust in that.

[Licho]

Brain can "generate" many different personalities.. You can have different one in dream, you can have completely different or multiple egos in hypnotically induced states, even if you are completely healthy..
So I wouldn't hope for the survival of current "ego" ,which is shaped by genes, childhood environment etc..
Imo ego is doomed, only some kind of inner "base" of us, the thing that is actual "consciousness" might somehow continue, maybe in the state that is similar to dreaming until it binds self with another life being? Who knows..

[entropyfails]

Firstly, if the question you should ask about “life after deathâ€

[Licho]

The fact that children "recall" true events from the past doesn't mean that they lived other lives.. It could also be explained by form of "telepathy" or psychometry. In experiments conducted here certain rare people in deep stages of hypnosis were able to "watch" past events or impersonate dead people with staggering detail and shown previously unknown knowledge. This method of watching past was even used for to help decipher one old, long lost language.

[Madpaddy]

Deep in the heart of Ireland, Father O'Reilly was concerned that his flock was giving in to superstition, so in his Sunday sermon he took the congregation to task.
After explaining his concerns, he asked his flock, "How many of you believe in ghosts?"

20 parishioners raised their hands.

"Of those that believe in ghosts," he asked, "how many of you have actually SEEN a ghost?"

10 raise their hands.

"Of those of you that believe in ghosts and have seen ghosts, how many have actually SPOKEN to a ghost?"

3 reluctant souls raise their hands.

Getting a little testy, the father asks, "Okay, of those of you who believe in ghosts, have seen ghosts, and have spoken to ghosts, how many of you have had SEX with a ghost?"

From the back of the church a hand slowly rises...

"Andrew Murphy!" The father cried, "You haven't raised your hand throughout this discussion, but now you're telling me you've slept with a GHOST?"

"Oh, sorry, father," said poor old Andrew, "I thought you said GOAT."

[Madpaddy]

Ok, I know, I'm sorry, I'm sorry

I just couldn't help myself



The old jokes are the best though aren't they

[entropyfails]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Licho', 'T')he fact that children "recall" true events from the past doesn't mean that they lived other lives.. It could also be explained by form of "telepathy" or psychometry. In experiments conducted here certain rare people in deep stages of hypnosis were able to "watch" past events or impersonate dead people with staggering detail and shown previously unknown knowledge. This method of watching past was even used for to help decipher one old, long lost language.

[Licho]

Yes, deformations and various marks are really interesting aspect that add weight to the reincarnation thesis.. I believe that some of those cases are really sort of "memories" to past life. I just wanted to point out that there is other way to explain memories of these children.
You don't have to consider "telepathy" to dead brains.. There is probably some sort of "information field" that stores every event and every thought of the past and that can be occasionally accessed. Numerous experiments were conducted here before 1950 when communists stopped research and jailed the people who led it. (Only to start similar goverment funded research in ESP few years later). When spiritistic medium impersonates dead person, it uses information from this field. Especially highly emotional events make strong "marks" in the field and can be sensed by sensitive person. (Which could explain some sorts of ghosts experiences, especially "visions" that seems to repeat old events).

[MikeB]

edit

[Licho]

Well, there are many "weird" things in the world..
Universe is weirder than any imagination

And many weird things are actually supported by experiments/experiences of countless of people..
Want something "weird" with enough experiment data to support it?

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/terror.html

[MikeB]

edit

[Licho]

You didn't have basics of statistical methods on your high-school/uni, did you? It's really not so complicated You refuse to try to understand scientifically presented data, and rather seem to wish to believe what others believe
"The truth will come out" = I will believe when most of other people believe.
Thus you are the same believer you tried to criticize.. Only difference is that you would rather believe TV news than a priest
You don't seek the real answer, you wish to believe...

Or you want to believe into "common sense"? What is a common sense? Physics has almost no common sense, it contradicts day-life experiences, only thing we must count on are such boring stats..

[MikeB]

edit