Afterlife Exists says Top Scientist

[Riverwolf]

As an fyi, he didn't become a Christian, just a theist.

Irrelevant.

 

[Man of Faith]

Irrelevant.

No it isn't, you accused me of calling him the worlds most famous atheist because he accepted my form of religion, so it is relevant and to the point that I would correct you on that. I didn’t call him the worlds most famous atheist by coincidence or out of the blue, that is the title that he obtained in his life.

 

[Riverwolf]

No it isn't, you

I'm Riverwolf, not Mestemia.

accused me of calling him the worlds most famous atheist because he accepted my form of religion, so it is relevant and to the point that I would correct you on that. I didn’t call him the worlds most famous atheist by coincidence or out of the blue, that is the title that he obtained in his life.

Well, it's a title that is obviously incorrect, since I've never heard of him, and apparently, neither has anyone else on these forums. Therefore, he's apparently not famous at all.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Actually imc I dropped theism in light it's an introduced idealogy of which was not something originally acknowledged.

It was a simple move back to default.

Theism remains strictly an introduced idea where no such belief was beforehand.

All infants are born atheists.

 

[Freedomelf]

There is no "one size fits all" in religion. Each person must find their own unique path. God doesn't love some babies more than others; he (or she) doesn't stack the deck against some, making the odds of them getting into heaven much worse than the odds for those "chosen" babies who happen to be reared in one religion. God loves all babies, and nearly all peoples, everywhere, pass on their religion to their offspring in a way that is designed to guide their children to heaven, paradise, valhalla, etc. If a child learns the values upon which almost all religions are based, God will not deny them entry into the afterlife. Like parents welcoming their offspring, God does not stand at his door and turn away those that arrived by the highway rather than the thoroughfare. Can you imagine your mom telling you that you can't come home unless you take B street instead of A street?

God won't allow some of his babies to be brainwashed into "false" religions, and then blame them for not somehow overcoming that brainwashing while other babies, born into a different religion, can go waltzing into heaven. God is NOT a prejudiced, petty despot. God is god, and god loves all of us who struggle, seek, and find their own unique path to heaven. Blessed be to everyone who truly seeks god, no matter which religion they follow.

 

[Man of Faith]

God doesn't love some babies more than others; he (or she) doesn't stack the deck against some, making the odds of them getting into heaven much worse than the odds for those "chosen" babies who happen to be reared in one religion.

True man does that.

 

[George-ananda]

Here's my take on this NDE and after-life discussion.

I believe the evidence for continuation of consciousness at death is very strong from several areas of so-called paranormal phenomena (including the NDE) and also from my spiritual beliefs.

The strong skeptics will never be convinced by evidence as it is pretty much impossible to have perfect PROOF (as it will always involve human experiencers, witnesses, claims, etc. and things that are of a subjective nature). The debate can go on forever.

However, casual theists, agnostics, and open minded people are effected by this evidence. In very recent times with mass media, TV, etc., the so-called paranormal is much exposed to the general populace. The after-life from these sources is more presented as spiritual and not of a partisan religious nature as past generations have thought of it. Consequently polls have shown more of an acceptance of paranormal ideas in recent decades. The trend is towards people having more broad spiritual beliefs and less partisan religious affiliation.

Dr. Alexander's case will be embraced by believers in a spiritual afterlife. Rejected and criticized by strong skeptics. As for perhaps the largest group (casual theists, agnostics, and open minded people), the case of Dr. Alexander will continue to push things in the direction of spirituality without a strong partisan religious outlook.

 

[Vultar]

I agree with that in principal, but that isn't how it works in operation. I haven't heard of an atheist that accepts an afterlife and remains an atheist. None of the atheists mentioned in this thread have remain atheists after believing in an afterlife or a creator, which tells me that it is more unlikely that atheism is a valid philosophy if there is an afterlife.

If you define an atheist as someone who doesn't believe in a god(s), then I would be one who believes in an afterlife but not in gods (although there are spirits who pretend to be gods, hence all the confusion as many different ideas are relayed).

The biggest problem with trying to prove anything is that there are so many fakes out there and also many who have had NDE, just don't understand it as it is too much absorb (it is sort of like a baby doesn't immediately stand up after birth and walk around - there is a learning curve and many of the NDE people had little to no time to learn anything).

 

[Skwim]

Now that we are getting evidence that there is an afterlife, through NDEs and through interaction with the spirit world, the only questions now is which religion is correct. I know, but do you?

"Dr Eben Alexander, a Harvard-educated neurosurgeon... ...says he had heard stories from patients who spoke of outer body experiences but had disregarded them as "wishful thinking" but has reconsidered his opinion"... Afterlife exists says top brain surgeon - Telegraph

FYI. We went over this very story last month. See HERE for 135 other comments.

 

[mycorrhiza]

My experience has been that theists become atheists for two reasons.

One is they report that there is insufficient evidence for God, similar to what atheists say. However there must be evidence for God if both theists and atheists that become theists see it. If atheists and theists that become atheists don’t see the evidence then that is on them, they either don’t want to see it, or they can’t reconcile the evidence into the belief that it warrants.

Two is it makes them feel better. Sometimes theists can get to where they are bothered by God. They feel guilty because of sin. It is a liberating thing for them to not believe, their guilt is lifted. That has nothing to do whether there is evidence or not.

If there actually was evidence, then presenting it wouldn't be so difficult. I have had many debates with theists and creationists, and never have they presented actual evidence. They have presented misrepresentations of natural phenomena and emotional arguments such as "if there is no heaven, then life is meaningless, therefore there must be a heaven", but no actual evidence. It's not that I'm not open to evidence, as I'm actively looking for it. Not because I want there to be a God or an afterlife, but because I'm searching for the truth.

There's a reason why it's called faith. Does that make it bad? No, it doesn't. So I don't see why religious people claim to have actual evidence of God if they cannot present it. It's perfectly fine with faith alone.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Here's my take on this NDE and after-life discussion.

I believe the evidence for continuation of consciousness at death is very strong from several areas of so-called paranormal phenomena (including the NDE) and also from my spiritual beliefs.

The strong skeptics will never be convinced by evidence as it is pretty much impossible to have perfect PROOF (as it will always involve human experiencers, witnesses, claims, etc. and things that are of a subjective nature). The debate can go on forever.

However, casual theists, agnostics, and open minded people are effected by this evidence. In very recent times with mass media, TV, etc., the so-called paranormal is much exposed to the general populace. The after-life from these sources is more presented as spiritual and not of a partisan religious nature as past generations have thought of it. Consequently polls have shown more of an acceptance of paranormal ideas in recent decades. The trend is towards people having more broad spiritual beliefs and less partisan religious affiliation.

Dr. Alexander's case will be embraced by believers in a spiritual afterlife. Rejected and criticized by strong skeptics. As for perhaps the largest group (casual theists, agnostics, and open minded people), the case of Dr. Alexander will continue to push things in the direction of spirituality without a strong partisan religious outlook.

I don't like how you put open-minded and skeptic in different opposing categories. I would consider myself both, as I'm skeptically looking at things and I'm open to accepting them if the evidence is sufficient.

You're allowed to believe that NDE experiences confirm your stance on an afterlife, but for me anecdotal stories are hardly strong evidence.

 

[McBell]

As an fyi, he didn't become a Christian, just a theist.

My mistake.

Fact is I never heard of him until after Christians started going on and on about he converted from atheist.
Yet we hear not a peep about the people who convert from theist to atheist.

now if we were to follow your logic, those who convert from theist to atheist is just as much proof that god does not exist as those who convert from atheist to theist is proof that god does exist.

Please feel free to expose your double standard in this regard.

I also noticed that you completely failed to address everything else in that post.
Why is that?

 

[HonestJoe]

The strong skeptics will never be convinced by evidence as it is pretty much impossible to have perfect PROOF (as it will always involve human experiencers, witnesses, claims, etc. and things that are of a subjective nature). The debate can go on forever.

That isn't true. Most phenomena involve the limitations of human senses in their observation yet there are lots of things that have been, to all intents and purpose, proven. That is primarily because actual mechanisms for the phenomena were identified.

The key sticking point for establishing a scientific context for this kind of thing is that there is never a coherent identification of the physical mechanisms involved. The continuation of life after death would require some form of structured energy to be transferred from the brain to somewhere else. I'm not aware of any viable hypothesis for this, let alone any proof.

For the alternative explanations of dreams or false memory, the mechanisms are identified and have been studied and understood to some extent. We know people can dream and we know people can be convinced of their recollection of an event but be completely wrong. All else being equal, that makes the latter a more reasonable explanation for NDEs and the like.

 

[McBell]

Dr. Alexander's case will be embraced by believers in a spiritual afterlife.

As the OP clearly demonstrates, those looking to ratify their beliefs will jump on it with both feet.

Rejected and criticized by strong skeptics.

I agree that there are those who take the exact opposite stance as those who will jump on it with both feet.

As for perhaps the largest group (casual theists, agnostics, and open minded people), the case of Dr. Alexander will continue to push things in the direction of spirituality without a strong partisan religious outlook.

I suspect that there are less people in this category than your presentation above would like us to believe.

 

[Man of Faith]

If there actually was evidence, then presenting it wouldn't be so difficult.

It wasn't that difficult, it took me 5 minutes or less to create the OP.

 

[McBell]

It wasn't that difficult, it took me 5 minutes or less to create the OP.

So is the appeal to authority/popularity presented in the OP the best evidence you got?

I mean, where is all this "scientific data" you keep talking about?

 

[Man of Faith]

My mistake.

Fact is I never heard of him until after Christians started going on and on about he converted from atheist.
Yet we hear not a peep about the people who convert from theist to atheist.

now if we were to follow your logic, those who convert from theist to atheist is just as much proof that god does not exist as those who convert from atheist to theist is proof that god does exist.

Please feel free to expose your double standard in this regard.

I also noticed that you completely failed to address everything else in that post.
Why is that?

Actually there is no proof that God does not exist and not even any evidence either, just evidence that he does. Now if you don't accept that evidence or think that it isn’t credible then that is another discussion. However I have never seen any evidence that God doesn’t exist.

 

[McBell]

Actually there is no proof that God does not exist and not even any evidence either, just evidence that he does. Now if you don't accept that evidence or think that it isn’t credible then that is another discussion. However I have never seen any evidence that God doesn’t exist.

Ah yes, the old tired "no evidence that it does not exist" regurgitation.

Your reliance on such a dishonest cop out says much about the quality of your evidence.
Even more interesting is that you yourself must not like the quality of the evidence for god to rely upon such mental gymnastics.

And you still failed to present the alleged "scientific data".....

 

[mycorrhiza]

It wasn't that difficult, it took me 5 minutes or less to create the OP.

Where in the OP is there actual evidence? All I see is an anecdotal story, and we have those for the Loch Ness monster, alien abductions, ghosts, crystal healing, homeopathy, levitation, telepathy, clairvoyance, etc. There's no actual evidence, just stories. The more simple explanation is that the person was either mistaken or is lying.

 

[Kerr]

I agree with that in principal, but that isn't how it works in operation. I haven't heard of an atheist that accepts an afterlife and remains an atheist. None of the atheists mentioned in this thread have remain atheists after believing in an afterlife or a creator, which tells me that it is more unlikely that atheism is a valid philosophy if there is an afterlife.

I havent heard of anything that would say that atheists cannot believe in an afterlife . Remember that atheism is no philosophy or religion, it just says someone doesnt believe in deities. It might contradict some atheistic philosophies, but not atheism itself.