[QUOTE=Jodern;42514170]I really don't get this either; consciousness and intelligence are just interactions in the brain, when those interactions stop you're dead and that's it. There's not really anything fancy about it[/QUOTE]
Yep, this exactly, we are all just chemical reactions in the big universe, when we die the chemical reactions that we see as "consciousness" change into the chemical reactions called "decomposition". We no longer have the ability to think, since no more new chemical reactions that allow consciousness can take place, but we do end up leaving our mark on the universe, our energy and simply existing forever changing the universe. If some alien race slipped their way into our universe long after the universes heat death, and made a map of what was left, I sure that they could find you, an image of your consciousness, in that mess eventually (assuming they can compensate for quantum mechanics, but regardless of those, the universe is still how it is because of you). When we never really die, we just go to sleep really, since your conscious image exists forever in the universe, sounds silly, but by simply existing you are changing the universe in such a way that only could have happened if someone exactly like you existed, and that always stays in the universe.
Maybe one day you might be woken up, your "conscious image"/effect on the universe changed into something real again, maybe by generous humans trillions of years into the future, or maybe an alien race even, you never know.
[QUOTE=Falubii;42549531]I claim that reincarnation does not occur after death. Now go ahead and test it. Wait, what? You can't? It must mean we are reincarnated!
But wait, how can there be both an afterlife and reincarnation? Please stop. Using your logic you could literally "prove" anything.
I'm done posting here as it's a tremendous waste of time. Have fun with your fantasies :)[/QUOTE]
Have fun with your arrogance. :)
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42549946]You clearly don't get this.
Without light, what is dark? It is endless darkness, and endless light would be endless light, but in the absence of their contrasting force, all you have is nothingness, a wave, a wash with nothing but the same as everything else. This is not of value in my opinion. You need contrast for anything to exist, for anything to be of value.
how am I being emotional about this? I don't care that i'm going to die, I've accepted that for literally decades and I'm not afraid of dying. I just see the lack of any reasoning in a heaven or hell(which you are convienently forgetting) as a reason to not believe in it. You don't have a logical discourse to tell me that is wrong.
This is not how logic works. That is not how "proof" works.[/QUOTE]
In a normal world, everything you said is correct. If we're arguing that there is an afterlife, who are we to say that we would be depressed for eternity? Wouldn't the fact that there actually is an afterlife be reason to assume we could be happy forever? Why would there be an afterlife if we were just going to be miserable in the end?
I should've never said that thing I said earlier. Apparently I'm more credible when I don't give a reason as to why I believe such things. Regardless, you would've never played the "You're just emotional" card if I hadn't. So... as far as I'm concerned, my point of view is just as credible as your own.
Right, logic only works if it's something you can agree with. Sorry, I forgot.
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Falubii;42550452]omg lol "scientific mumbo jumbo" are you even a real person or just a Poe.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because science isn't even really science anymore. Science by it's very purpose is to discover the truth by any means necessary. No one really gives a shit about finding the truth anymore now. It's all about expanding upon "truths" already established. Nobody cares about finding something new because it's just going to shot down by what people like you already consider science:
Something to shove in theists' faces when you don't agree with them.
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=xZippy;42559089]What were some things that happened in this dream exactly?[/QUOTE]
I'd like to go into detail, but it's very personal and kind of embarrassing honestly. I might if I change my mind later, but I really don't like giving the people in this thread more reason to make me less credible as I would be "too emotional."
If you don't believe in the process of science you are mentally ill or choosing to be ignorant. There is no dogma in science. On rare occasions people in science do have lapses in judgement, as humans are imperfect, but the scientific process constantly seeks these out and corrects them.
Also, you must be very self centered if you think the only purpose of science is to bicker with theists. If there were no theists, science would most definitely continue, assuming we don't all murder each other given our lack of divine moral code.
[QUOTE=Falubii;42561187]If you don't believe in the process of science you are mentally ill or choosing to be ignorant. There is no dogma in science. On rare occasions people in science do have lapses in judgement, as humans are imperfect, but the scientific process constantly seeks these out and corrects them.
Also, you must be very self centered if you think the only purpose of science is to bicker with theists. If there were no theists, science would most definitely continue, assuming we don't all murder each other given our lack of divine moral code.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying science isn't science anymore. Not that I don't believe in the process. You couldn't have said it better: "humans are imperfect." Thank you. You know why? Because that very statement proves that we can't always be sure of ourselves. It's a constant reminder that even the almighty science isn't always right.
I never said science is used solely to bicker with theists. People do it [b]all the fucking time[/b] though. It seems like every atheist out there has a goal to make theists feel like shit. And you're saying theists "shove their beliefs down your throat." A theist starts quoting the Bible and it's doing just that, but if an atheist does it, all of a sudden it's justifed. Science has its perks when it's done right. Hell, it has its perks now. But just imagine how many more doors could be opened if we didn't see science as having to be conducted a very specific way and any other way is considered uncredible.
It's the way it works now. If something is hard to believe, it must not be true. Bigfoot, UFOs, etc. are all great examples of things that have a ton of supporting evidence, but are dismissed simply because "this makes more sense." Science is a pick-and-choose kind of thing now. And if that's what science is, I can't really take is seriously.
[QUOTE=H2OJesus;42561394]I'm saying science isn't science anymore. Not that I don't believe in the process. You couldn't have said it better: "humans are imperfect." Thank you. You know why? Because that very statement proves that we can't always be sure of ourselves. It's a constant reminder that even the almighty science isn't always right.
I never said science is used solely to bicker with theists. People do it [b]all the fucking time[/b] though. It seems like every atheist out there has a goal to make theists feel like shit. And you're saying theists "shove their beliefs down your throat." A theist starts quoting the Bible and it's doing just that, but if an atheist does it, all of a sudden it's justifed. Science has its perks when it's done right. Hell, it has its perks now. But just imagine how many more doors could be opened if we didn't see science as having to be conducted a very specific way and any other way is considered uncredible.
It's the way it works now. If something is hard to believe, it must not be true. Bigfoot, UFOs, etc. are all great examples of things that have a ton of supporting evidence, but are dismissed simply because "this makes more sense." Science is a pick-and-choose kind of thing now. And if that's what science is, I can't really take is seriously.[/QUOTE]
What I'm saying is that when people come to an incorrect conclusion, science will eventually correct it. That's what it's designed to do.
P.S. You only put words in quotes when the person you're quoting actually said them.
P.P.S. You have revealed yourself as a true whack job through your Bigfoot and aliens tidbit and I now see you are hopeless.
[QUOTE=H2OJesus;42561394]
It's the way it works now. If something is hard to believe, it must not be true. [b]Bigfoot[/b], UFOs, etc. are all great examples of things that have a ton of supporting evidence, but are dismissed simply because "this makes more sense." Science is a pick-and-choose kind of thing now. And if that's what science is, I can't really take is seriously.[/QUOTE]
Oh heLL NO, the folks that created that first recording of bigfoot ADMITTED the thing was a hoax.
[QUOTE=Falubii;42561441]What I'm saying is that when people come to an incorrect conclusion, science will eventually correct it. That's what it's designed to do.
P.S. You only put words in quotes when the person you're quoting actually said them.
P.P.S. You have revealed yourself as a true whack job through your Bigfoot and aliens tidbit and I now see you are hopeless.[/QUOTE]
Exactly... proof doesn't matter if it goes against what you believe. Thank you for proving my point. You're the only who is hopeless. Most people here will agree with you, simply because the true meaning of science has been lost and replaced with kids like you that want to use it to bash theists and call everyone else an ignorant fag.
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Levithan;42561458]Oh heLL NO, the folks that created that first recording of bigfoot ADMITTED the thing was a hoax.[/QUOTE]
I don't remember seeing anything about that. If you'd like to PM me a source or something, that'd be cool. Let's try and keep it out of here, though. This thread isn't about Bigfoot... or what science is about for that matter...
[QUOTE=H2OJesus;42561394]I'm saying science isn't science anymore. Not that I don't believe in the process. You couldn't have said it better: "humans are imperfect." Thank you. You know why? Because that very statement proves that we can't always be sure of ourselves. It's a constant reminder that even the almighty science isn't always right.[/QUOTE]
Believe it or not, philosophers have grappled with the same question. Generally, yes we know that humans are imperfect. How do we figure out how the universe operates?
Well, it's down to some simple reason and evidence. If the sun rises every day, whilst it will be technically a fallacy of induction by saying "the sun will rise tomorrow", it has sound grounding because there is evidence for it.
Karl Popper later turned things on its head by saying "well actually, science isn't about verifying things, but trying to disprove them". Simple put, if you make the statement "the sun rises every day", you try your hardest to actually prove that isn't the case.
You could start out by watching the sky. The sun rises every day, but how can you go further to try and prove it won't rise?
You can do a bit of astronomy, work out the movements of the celestial bodies, and try to see if there's a situation where the sun won't rise.
Alternatively, if you say "all swans are white", you have to go around looking for a swan which isn't white. Until you find a black swan, you must conclude "all swans are white".
Science can't tell us the answers, but it does the next best thing of telling us what /isn't/ the answer, from which we can work out a rough answer and refine it as time goes on.
Bigfoot, UFOs, gods, genies, ghosts, demons, etc don't exist in Science. Why is this? It's because we haven't found evidence for them yet. If you can find the X, you can safely say "X exists". Until you have evidence of the existence of what you are looking for however, you cannot say "X exists".
X will never ever exist until you find evidence for it existing, at which point it starts to exist.
I am very much interrested in that evidence for ufos.
Not existing scares the shit out of me so I therefore believe in life comprehension. I think it's pretty odd that some people don't believe in life after death consider the selfish nature of most people. And how people can accept that there is no life after death without getting depressed when considering how much death there is in the world is beyond my comprehension.
[editline]19th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Orkel;42557694]Don't forget the multiverse/quantum immortality theory. That when you die, the universe actually splits in alternate ones. One where you die and one where you don't, and "you" survive in the second. Essentially you'd always stay alive from your own point of view, while alternate universes where you die would be constantly branching off. You'd just never see them. This is a terrifying concept though, because of obvious factors like aging and diseases. Even if there's one in a quintillion chance you'd live up to be a thousand years old as a barely functioning wreck with no bodily control, that's still enough for that particular universe to branch off and you'd stay "alive" even if you wanted to die.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality[/url]
[img]http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/quantum-immortality-1.gif[/img]
[url]http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/quantum-suicide.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
I came up with that same theory on my own. Bit of a joke really.
I think that theory is bullshit, at least in relevance to our lives. What relevance would that theory have, or how would it change anything?
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=xZippy;42547662]And how do you know this 100%? Have you been dead before?[/QUOTE]
Plenty of people have been..
[QUOTE=H2OJesus;42561498]Exactly... proof doesn't matter if it goes against what you believe. Thank you for proving my point. You're the only who is hopeless. Most people here will agree with you, simply because the true meaning of science has been lost and replaced with kids like you that want to use it to bash theists and call everyone else an ignorant fag.
[/QUOTE]
this isn't true and the sooner you stop feeling like you're being persecuted because people don't agree with you, the faster you'll stop feeling that all science is wrong and can't be trusted.
No one is persecuting you.
But your ideas that bigfoot is real, that ufo's have been proven but everyone denies them anyways, etc are not true because they can't be proven. If you want to feel like they can't be proven because you're being persecuted, go ahead, but you're dead wrong in the most significant way possible.
Bigfoot was a confirmed hoax when several people came forward. The first video of Bigfoot was proven to be a hoax by the creators of the video. The first yeti paw print was proven to be fake. Scienctists and sketpics have been trying for a long time to understand why these things would be real, and they can only do this by having proof for it. They can't do this without proof.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAHVHKlxikU[/url]
just watch that video. not often I feel like Penn and Teller get it right but this is a good example.
It's not like me or anyone else that doesn't believe in Bigfoot just gets up in the morning and thinks, "Now what can I do to ignore the mountain of evidence supporting Bigfoot today? I sure enjoy pretending he doesn't exist even though all the facts are all there!"
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;42565488]Plenty of people have been..[/QUOTE]
Plenty of people have also seen shit when every part of their body stopped working for some time. Before anyone rushes like hell to scream "hey that's not complete proof!!!!" Yes, I know that. That kinda leads me to my next question.
Let's say you're in a room with 3 people who claimed they've had NDE's, and all 3 of these people were stone cold atheists that thought there was jack shit after death. Their NDE's weren't the same, but they were very consistent, and on top of that, they all mentioned that they were "floating" above their own bodies and watched what doctors did to them, and the doctors themselves confirmed what the dead people "saw" actually happened.
Then all of 3 of them ask you "what do you think caused that experience?" What are you gonna tell them? Are you gonna say "No, you didn't go anywhere after death. You were just hallucinating that whole time. And you got lucky by saying what the doctors did to you."?
[QUOTE=xZippy;42568325]Plenty of people have also seen shit when every part of their body stopped working for some time. Before anyone rushes like hell to scream "hey that's not complete proof!!!!" Yes, I know that. That kinda leads me to my next question.
Let's say you're in a room with 3 people who claimed they've had NDE's, and all 3 of these people were stone cold atheists that thought there was jack shit after death. Their NDE's weren't the same, but they were very consistent, and on top of that, they all mentioned that they were "floating" above their own bodies and watched what doctors did to them, and the doctors themselves confirmed what the dead people "saw" actually happened.
Then all of 3 of them ask you "what do you think caused that experience?" What are you gonna tell them? Are you gonna say "No, you didn't go anywhere after death. You were just hallucinating that whole time. And you got lucky by saying what the doctors did to you."?[/QUOTE]
I would be a lot more compelled to believe they are undergoing similar biological effects to their bodies and their physical minds are undergoing serious and significant changes to it's chemical composition in similar ways resulting in a similar effect than this being proof of heaven.
I was killed in a car accident when I was 8. I was revived 1 minute and 9 seconds later. I do not remember any of the "floating above my body" or "bright white light". I actually remember "floating above my body" and similar type effects in just badly remembered memories. Not from that. I would more likely attribute the effect to biology than anything else as it is the lens through which all your perceptions are filtered and which you yourself are alive through.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42567471]this isn't true and the sooner you stop feeling like you're being persecuted because people don't agree with you, the faster you'll stop feeling that all science is wrong and can't be trusted.
No one is persecuting you.
But your ideas that bigfoot is real, that ufo's have been proven but everyone denies them anyways, etc are not true because they can't be proven. If you want to feel like they can't be proven because you're being persecuted, go ahead, but you're dead wrong in the most significant way possible.
Bigfoot was a confirmed hoax when several people came forward. The first video of Bigfoot was proven to be a hoax by the creators of the video. The first yeti paw print was proven to be fake. Scienctists and sketpics have been trying for a long time to understand why these things would be real, and they can only do this by having proof for it. They can't do this without proof.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAHVHKlxikU[/url]
just watch that video. not often I feel like Penn and Teller get it right but this is a good example.[/QUOTE]
Now tell me that all the video evidence, witness testimonies, etc. supporting UFOs are all bullshit too. Bigfoot, you might be right about. I've never really cared enough to look into it. Also, I don't believe all science is wrong and can't be trusted... You should try reading my posts some time.
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;42561731]Believe it or not, philosophers have grappled with the same question. Generally, yes we know that humans are imperfect. How do we figure out how the universe operates?
Well, it's down to some simple reason and evidence. If the sun rises every day, whilst it will be technically a fallacy of induction by saying "the sun will rise tomorrow", it has sound grounding because there is evidence for it.
Karl Popper later turned things on its head by saying "well actually, science isn't about verifying things, but trying to disprove them". Simple put, if you make the statement "the sun rises every day", you try your hardest to actually prove that isn't the case.
You could start out by watching the sky. The sun rises every day, but how can you go further to try and prove it won't rise?
You can do a bit of astronomy, work out the movements of the celestial bodies, and try to see if there's a situation where the sun won't rise.
Alternatively, if you say "all swans are white", you have to go around looking for a swan which isn't white. Until you find a black swan, you must conclude "all swans are white".
Science can't tell us the answers, but it does the next best thing of telling us what /isn't/ the answer, from which we can work out a rough answer and refine it as time goes on.
Bigfoot, UFOs, gods, genies, ghosts, demons, etc don't exist in Science. Why is this? It's because we haven't found evidence for them yet. If you can find the X, you can safely say "X exists". Until you have evidence of the existence of what you are looking for however, you cannot say "X exists".
X will never ever exist until you find evidence for it existing, at which point it starts to exist.[/QUOTE]
But we have found evidence for said things... Just because it isn't hard, perfectly concrete evidence, does not mean it should be disregarded.
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Falubii;42567559]It's not like me or anyone else that doesn't believe in Bigfoot just gets up in the morning and thinks, "Now what can I do to ignore the mountain of evidence supporting Bigfoot today? I sure enjoy pretending he doesn't exist even though all the facts are all there!"[/QUOTE]
Actually, that's basically what you do...
[QUOTE=H2OJesus;42568667]Now tell me that all the video evidence, witness testimonies, etc. supporting UFOs are all bullshit too. Bigfoot, you might be right about. I've never really cared enough to look into it.[/QUOTE]
so you'll drop one contention that you made about science being bullshit as soon as it's confronted?
I don't have a serious opinion on aliens being on earth. There's not mountains of evidence, but there are clearly thousands and thousands of people willing to say they've seen things and experienced things, but I'm going to require actual evidence of something extra terrestrial in a serious way(Don't even mention Roswell, that's so disputable it's ridiculous) because if you feel like they are here and there is real proof, people just can't see it because the governments hiding it, then that may be true but is also unproveable without some evidence coming forward, which again, i'll require to believe in either case.
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=H2OJesus;42568667]
Actually, that's basically what you do...[/QUOTE]
No. It is not.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42568442]I would be a lot more compelled to believe they are undergoing similar biological effects to their bodies and their physical minds are undergoing serious and significant changes to it's chemical composition in similar ways resulting in a similar effect than this being proof of heaven.
I was killed in a car accident when I was 8. I was revived 1 minute and 9 seconds later. I do not remember any of the "floating above my body" or "bright white light". I actually remember "floating above my body" and similar type effects in just badly remembered memories. Not from that. I would more likely attribute the effect to biology than anything else as it is the lens through which all your perceptions are filtered and which you yourself are alive through.[/QUOTE]
You must be being emotional since you just gave a personal story as to why you believe what you believe!
[QUOTE=H2OJesus;42568711]You must be being emotional since you just gave a personal story as to why you believe what you believe![/QUOTE]
How is this at all a valid criticism of anecdotal evidence that I acknowledged as anecdotal?
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=H2OJesus;42568667]
But we have found evidence for said things... Just because it isn't hard, perfectly concrete evidence, does not mean it should be disregarded.
.[/QUOTE]
I have evidence that there is an invisible, floating, soundless, thermally invisible, unicorn. Right behind you. Right now. You can try and look for it, but you won't find it, but it's there.
I have proof in the form of 60 people I know told me they knew this to be true
WHY DOESN'T ANYONE BELIEVE ME
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42568696]so you'll drop one contention that you made about science being bullshit as soon as it's confronted?
I don't have a serious opinion on aliens being on earth. There's not mountains of evidence, but there are clearly thousands and thousands of people willing to say they've seen things and experienced things, but I'm going to require actual evidence of something extra terrestrial in a serious way(Don't even mention Roswell, that's so disputable it's ridiculous) because if you feel like they are here and there is real proof, people just can't see it because the governments hiding it, then that may be true but is also unproveable without some evidence coming forward, which again, i'll require to believe in either case.
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
No. It is not.[/QUOTE]
I'm not necessarily supporting the aliens theory... people seem to think UFOs instantly mean aliens. But the fact is there is a mountain of evidence to support UFOs. Disregarding the evidence and saying, "well uhh... I need more..." is bullshit. If it were something that sounded very possible, you would take even the slightest shred of evidence and call it a scientific law or something. But if it sounds a little sketchy and there's a mountain of evidence, it must not be true.
Funny... I [b]NEVER[/b] said science is bullshit. I said it's not being used to its full potential because society can't seem to understand that science isn't just about putting chemicals into a tube and shit. It's about [b]finding the truth[/b]. People are twisting science in a way that doesn't allow the truth to be found. I really don't know how to explain what I mean. But I'll repeat:
[b]I do NOT believe science is bullshit.[/b]
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42568731]How is this at all a valid criticism of anecdotal evidence that I acknowledged as anecdotal?
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
I have evidence that there is an invisible, floating, soundless, thermally invisible, unicorn. Right behind you. Right now. You can try and look for it, but you won't find it, but it's there.
I have proof in the form of 60 people I know told me they knew this to be true
WHY DOESN'T ANYONE BELIEVE ME[/QUOTE]
Because more than 60 people have reported UFOs. Oh yeah, and we have video evidence too. Once you get me some video evidence of that unicorn, I'll take your word.
[QUOTE=H2OJesus;42568667]But we have found evidence for said things... Just because it isn't hard, perfectly concrete evidence, does not mean it should be disregarded.[/QUOTE]
And this evidence is?
[QUOTE=H2OJesus;42568779]
Funny... I [b]NEVER[/b] said science is bullshit. I said it's not being used to its full potential because society can't seem to understand that science isn't just about putting chemicals into a tube and shit. It's about [b]finding the truth[/b]. People are twisting science in a way that doesn't allow the truth to be found. I really don't know how to explain what I mean. But I'll repeat:
[b]I do NOT believe science is bullshit.[/b]
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
Because more than 60 people have reported UFOs. Oh yeah, and we have video evidence too. Once you get me some video evidence of that unicorn, I'll take your word.[/QUOTE]
No one thinks that's what science is about...? Literally no one has made any of those claims. In fact, if I recall, people have only made claims about what is required for evidence.
The more you talk about science, the more it is very clear you really don't understand what any scientist has ever, ever done.
So you think every, single video of UFO footage is authentic?
[QUOTE=H2OJesus;42568779]If it were something that sounded very possible, you would take even the slightest shred of evidence and call it a scientific law or something.[/QUOTE]
Do you know what a scientific law is?
most UFOs reports come from places near goverment advanced aircraft and weapon systems testing facilities.....
science can only disprove what fits into the theorems, we could discover any time that there is a fundimental flaw in one of our cornerstone equations and that would let us observe other stuff. this is why einstein's general relativity is tested time and time again with more and more percision because if we find an instant where it's unexplainably broken, then we would have to throw the whole thing out.
our understanding of concousness is very limited, and the easy scientific path for the last 50-60 years has been to say that its all chemically activated and that that is the cause, but until we actually create concousness in something, we'll never be able to say for 100% cetainty. In the next 10-20 years we will have the ability to digitally emulate the chemical changes and neuron activity in the brain on a computer or with a computer, if that creates concousness then its over, its all chemical and religion is wrong, but if we get it perfectly accurate but we cannot achieve AI, then there is some missing piece that we have to account for and that is where we are at now. We are at the cusp of discovering this.
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tweevle;42568823]Do you know what a scientific law is?[/QUOTE]
a formula that discribes a set of rules or relations that occures in nature and in the physical world, so even though dalton's atom theory and later rutherford's models were simplistic and eligant, they were flawed and we had to scrap them
[QUOTE=xZippy;42568325]Plenty of people have also seen shit when every part of their body stopped working for some time. Before anyone rushes like hell to scream "hey that's not complete proof!!!!" Yes, I know that. That kinda leads me to my next question.
Let's say you're in a room with 3 people who claimed they've had NDE's, and all 3 of these people were stone cold atheists that thought there was jack shit after death. Their NDE's weren't the same, but they were very consistent, and on top of that, they all mentioned that they were "floating" above their own bodies and watched what doctors did to them, and the doctors themselves confirmed what the dead people "saw" actually happened.
Then all of 3 of them ask you "what do you think caused that experience?" What are you gonna tell them? Are you gonna say "No, you didn't go anywhere after death. You were just hallucinating that whole time. And you got lucky by saying what the doctors did to you."?[/QUOTE]
Yes, I see, it might very well be a reaction in your brain when you die. I bet you would get some interesting results if you scanned a bunch of dying people's brains.
[editline]19th October 2013[/editline]
But yeah, I've heard about that 'floating above yourself' type of experience, but i'm pretty sure it's your brain playing a trick.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;42569230]Yes, I see, it might very well be a reaction in your brain when you die. I bet you would get some interesting results if you scanned a bunch of dying people's brains.
[editline]19th October 2013[/editline]
But yeah, I've heard about that 'floating above yourself' type of experience, but i'm pretty sure it's your brain playing a trick.[/QUOTE]
Is every single post you make in this thread gonna be flooded with sarcasm? And what makes you sure it's just "your brain playing a trick"? Have you had this same experience?
[QUOTE=xZippy;42575757]Is every single post you make in this thread gonna be flooded with sarcasm? And what makes you sure it's just "your brain playing a trick"? Have you had this same experience?[/QUOTE]
I would say it points more to hallucinations than it points to an afterlife. I would lean towards hallucination because humans are prone to hallucinations all the time. Just applying Occam's Razor here. Could I be wrong? Sure. Anything thing could be proven wrong if the right evidence shows up.
[QUOTE=Falubii;42575806]Could I be wrong? Sure. Anything thing could be proven wrong if the right evidence shows up.[/QUOTE]
Well, at least you're admitting that you might be wrong, and not going "there's no life after death" like some people here have done, as if they're professionals on death itself.
[QUOTE=xZippy;42576916]Well, at least you're admitting that you might be wrong, and not going "there's no life after death" like some people here have done, as if they're professionals on death itself.[/QUOTE]
There's no life after death until you prove there is.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42577823]There's no life after death until you prove there is.[/QUOTE]
Is there 100% proof that an afterlife [I]doesn't[/I] exist?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
