The Afterlife! Is it Possible?

[_Ray A]

No problem, QW. And don't forget to read this link: http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scienti ... stein.html

Einstein disucssing the ether, something many scientists today totally mock. At least Einstein was not closedminded.

[_Quantumwave]

Is anything impossible? Life after what? Of course there's "life" after "death"! In fact, does "life" ever cease? NO, "it" just changes its state. Like gas to liquid to solid to liquid to gas to... WE decompose and return all to the environment from which we extracted, in various ways, what sustained us after the egg and sperm wrestled in ecstacy.

Theories, hopes, dreams, speculations, philosophies, fanticies, circumstancial evidence.... "Near-death" experience, is that like being 'nearly-pregnant'? I might be less sceptical if we were talking "Really-dead" experience; like for days... in numbers claimed by the NDEs.

You are correct about the reluctance of religious types to conclude anything but the traditional grave side poetry, prose and ruminations that provide comfort at a time of loss and grieving. Satisfying as that might be for a short period of healing time, we Judeo-Christians do not invest in the premise as our Egyptian neighbors once did... Too smart for that?

However, is "it" as probable as "it" is improbable? Simply speculation. Belief or disbelief is purely a matter of choice and indoctrination; as a Christian or an Atheist hopeful. I tend to think we need more folks enjoying "Near-Life Experiences"...

"Is anything impossible?" Two things come to mind...the cow jumping over the moon and the LDS version of the afterlife. They both have the same credibility.

While life continues after some organisms expire, this is not the same as the survival of conciousness, which is the subject being discussed.

Afterlife evidence is much more than simple speculation, which is based totally on opinion. As has been pointed out, there are millions of testimonials and scientific parallels with strong implication of the existence of the afterlife.

But your idea of "Near-Life Experiences" is a good one.

[_gramps]

The subject of afterlife seems to be very sensitive, and perhaps even strangely frightening. After posting some information on another thread, the poster “Gramps” said that the subject made him require a “shower” (which I found humorous) and he said he never wanted to talk to me again. Wow!...such an egregious loss! Brings up memories of junior high school.

But then perhaps he was expressing a valid and not so unpopular sentiment. Is the subject of afterlife that sensitive?

The LDS version is tied to temple activities, so the subject is understandably sensitive for our TBM friends. The CK is only achievable after the required amount of pray-pay-and obey is rendered and then of course admission is by secret handshakes and proper answers to codified questions. Reminds me of the “secret clubhouse knock” my friends and I had when we were about 12.

The main problem I have with the LDS version of the afterlife is the belief that God has a human body, and lives near a star in the sky. The name of this star is Kolob and it controls other lesser stars. The whole concept strikes me as ridiculous.

But then, the afterlife concepts that I find interesting are way beyond the realms of possibility for many, and even creates the response of anger in some. I find that a lot of people won’t even consider discussing it, many who otherwise openly discuss the sensitive issues of religion and politics. I find these reactions quite curious.

After I ferreted out the unvarnished LDS history back before the internet, I became a card-carrying, meeting-attending atheist. A project I undertook was to expose the fraudulent mediums and phony psychics who were pushing the concept of the afterlife and extracting money from the credulous. I found a truckload of phonies, but I also found some evidence I could not break down. Eminent scientists who like me, (not and eminent scientist) set out to expose fraudulent mediums, but were subjected to personal experiences they couldn’t refute, even with dozens, and sometimes hundreds of experiences under strictly controlled conditions which they carefully documented. (I have not personally had such an experience).

There are many different categories of experience that imply an afterlife. One of the first I investigated, and did not accept for some time, are the testimonies of near-death experiencers. The first book I read regarding this subject was the now notorious “Life After Life” by Dr. Raymond Moody. The explanation that was provided, and which I accepted at the time, was the NDE’Relief Society were experiencing stress-induced hallucinations, most likely the result of apoxia. But then, after considerable time, I happened to find examples of NDE’s that couldn’t be explained by chemical imbalance or stress. So I concluded that while NDE testimonies do not conclusively “prove” the afterlife exists, they do provide some consistent evidence of high integrity.

Other experience categories I investigated are reincarnation evidenced by past-life memories, death-bed visions out-of-body experiences, instrumental transcommunication, ITC, electronic voice communication, EVP, and then perhaps the most controversial, the mediumistic communications.

All of these categories consist of anecdotal evidence which do not provide conclusive proof. However, taken as a whole, and after evaluating the integrity of many of those making the claims, I must admit the evidence becomes compelling.

As I have stated before, if any one of the multiple-millions of testimonies is true, then the afterlife is a reality.

So is the subject of the afterlife aggravating or frightening, or perhaps so completely incredulous that it is not worth considering?

Hi Quantum Wave. I am already breaking my promise to never deal with you again on this stuff. But since you brought up my name in the first few lines of your OP, I should say just a little.

The subject of the afterlife is not at all frightening to me. You spiritualist types only bother me if I feel you are proselyting in some way, but, then, all proselyters bother me and make me want to take a shower after hearing their spiel.

What really turned me off, Quantum Wave, was your site you linked for us to get a handle on what you were trying to promote.

Come on. Sitting in a dark room, and Louis Armstrong materializing to sing "What A Wonderful World?" Get a grip.

And, wow, it's all on MP3. It must be believable. Sorry. This, I will never buy. That is a tougher sell than just a belief in an afterlife, generally. Who knows, maybe there are spirits all over the place. I don't know for sure. But, that they come back with encore concerts. No. I don't think so.

So, nothing against you Quantum Wave. I'm sorry if I came off too rash and for that I apologize. Peace.

And, if Woody Guthrie, or for that matter, John Lennon, were to come back, materialize, and sing their greatest hits, alone or together, then I guess I would go to the site to hear that for free.

[_Quantumwave]

Good to “see” you Gramps.

I read some of your posts and realized you are a solid atheist, and a pretty intelligent one to boot. I can relate to your revulsion to proselyting, but rest assured, I don’t do that. Any information I choose to provide is just that, INFORMATION. You can pick it apart, ridicule it or even accept some, but it is all up to you.

You said, “Come on. Sitting in a dark room, and Louis Armstrong materializing to sing "What A Wonderful World?" Get a grip.

And, wow, it's all on MP3. It must be believable. Sorry. This, I will never buy. That is a tougher sell than just a belief in an afterlife, generally. Who knows, maybe there are spirits all over the place. I don't know for sure. But, that they come back with encore concerts. No. I don't think so.”

You may be surprised to know that I don’t accept all of the information on Victor Zammit’s site as completely accurate, and the Louis Armstrong recording is one I question. However, unlike you, I don’t KNOW it is phony.

Gramps also wrote, “So, nothing against you Quantum Wave. I'm sorry if I came off too rash and for that I apologize. Peace.”

Hey, I understand, and was not offended. As I stated in my opening post, I was an atheist for many years, and much of the philosophy stays with me. For example, I don’t believe in God, so technically I am an atheist, but I do accept what is to me a natural order of life that includes an afterlife. Most dyed-in-the-wool atheists I used to associate with would classify me as something other than an atheist, and the verbiage of the classification would depend on the mood the particular atheist was in.

[_marg]

Q.W. :

As I have stated before, if any one of the multiple-millions of testimonies is true, then the afterlife is a reality.

Q.W.

Afterlife evidence is much more than simple speculation, which is based totally on opinion. As has been pointed out, there are millions of testimonials and scientific parallels with strong implication of the existence of the afterlife.

So give what you consider is the best case for an afterlife which might be convincing to a skeptic and narrow it down to providing the best testimony or piece of evidence that you know of. I ask for one only not to limit you but to focus because previously I asked you for three and you didn't give me any. Please define words that you use such as afterlife intelligences and spiritual.

[_Quantumwave]

Q.W. :

As I have stated before, if any one of the multiple-millions of testimonies is true, then the afterlife is a reality.

Q.W.

Afterlife evidence is much more than simple speculation, which is based totally on opinion. As has been pointed out, there are millions of testimonials and scientific parallels with strong implication of the existence of the afterlife.

So give what you consider is the best case for an afterlife which might be convincing to a skeptic and narrow it down to providing the best testimony or piece of evidence that you know of. I ask for one only not to limit you but to focus because previously I asked you for three and you didn't give me any. Please define words that you use such as afterlife intelligences and spiritual.

Hi Marg,

After mulling over your request for some time, I must admit the best evidence, or at least the evidence that convinced me of the validity of the afterlife was not one piece, but the preponderance of evidence from sources of high integrity. Any one piece taken alone is really not convincing, and certainly would not have convinced my atheistic mentality. If there existed only a smattering of this evidence, I would never have been convinced of even the possibility of an afterlife.

I have accumulated a library consisting of more than 70 books and dozens of downloaded papers I have printed out. While I don’t agree with everything I have read from these books and papers, there is an abundance of consistent information from people of high integrity, not motivated by monetary gain, and who put their professional reputations on the line. They were motivated only to share information they felt people should be aware of.

The most convincing evidence at least for me, is from someone with proven ability to reason, who set out to prove the afterlife hypothesis wrong and was convinced otherwise. A short list of these people are: Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge, Arthur Findlay and Dr Ian Stevenson. I have read books they have authored, and am convinced they did not fabricate their data, nor were they deceived.

One of the “best” evidences of an NDE, at least in my opinion, is one of a woman who was clinically brain dead. If you are interested you can read the account at the following link:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

And if you are interested further, an internet search will provide books by two or three of the above names, available by simply downloading. But then I realize you are not interested anyway from your statement:

“In general Q.W. I’m not interested in spending much time on farfetched unrealistic ideas. There is only so much time and one must choose how to spend it. I have little interest in whether there is or isn’t an afterlife. It is irrelevant to me.”

And since these scientists I have named have undoubtedly promoted “farfetched unrealistic ideas” I wouldn’t expect you to spend valuable time evaluating their evidence. After all, if they are correct and the afterlife is a reality, you will only be spending more than a billion years there anyway. For me, this piques my curiosity, but then for others, apparently including you, what will be, will be, and that’s fine with me.

[_Roger Morrison]

Ray, thanks for the link to Geo. Rodonaia's experience. You qote him in your post as not believing in the "God" of religions, yet embraces a Universalist all encompassing "God", if i understood him correctly.This fits more my understanding of "God" as being far removed from any religious interpretation. George also states:

Anyone who has had such an experience of God, who has felt such a profound sense of connection with reality, knows that there is only one truly significant work to do in life, and that is love; to love nature, to love people, to love animals, to love creation itself, just because it is. To serve God's creation with a warm and loving hand of generosity and compassion - that is the only meaningful existence.

This too fits my concept of "God", and man truly serving the higher purpose of creation. Being different from all other species in that empathetic sense... While not 'provable, it does seem plausible.

Even if "after life" is a fallacy, abiding the, "...only one truly significant work to do in life..." here in mortality, would be following the admonitions of Jesus--whether divine or not--to the benefit of the whole of humanity. Would be a good-thing... Roger

[_Ray A]

Even if "after life" is a fallacy, abiding the, "...only one truly significant work to do in life..." here in mortality, would be following the admonitions of Jesus--whether divine or not--to the benefit of the whole of humanity. Would be a good-thing... Roger

Roger, I entirely agree. There's no quid pro quo here, i.e., "I do good, God gives me eternal life". One thing I do believe in is karma, and that features prominently in many reports. Or as the Bible says, you reap what you sow. As for the teachings of Jesus, I'm probably a "Jeffersonian", I take out what I think is worthwhile and disregard the rest. Like the fanaticsm, the exclusiveness, and dividing families and people. The story/parable of the Good Samaritan, for example, is one of my favourites. Jefferson, by the way, was a deist, so he could not have taken the gospels literally, in any sense, but extracted what he thought was worthwhile in the teachings.

In regard to my own afterlife studies, I don't do this to bolster my personal beliefs. If I cease to exist at death I'm perfectly fine with that, and I shudder at the thought of having to do "another round" on earth, if reincarnation is a fact, and if it is, maybe that's why we have no memories of a former life, except in some cases as have been reported, and in children up to about the age of seven or eight. I believe we will know within the next ten years whether there is an afterlife, because sophisticated technology is now being developed which will be able to determine this with a high degree of accuracy. For example, consider this report:

'Near-death' survivors show brain-wave abnormality, study finds.
Many people who have undergone near-death experiences - a profoundly affecting glimpse of a loving afterlife - have abnormal brain waves, a University of Arizona study has found.
This is the first scientific confirmation that something extremely unusual is going on in the brains of people who briefly died, reported leaving their bodies and moving toward a loving, peaceful light or presence, then were resuscitated and returned to life.
The finding does not prove or disprove that near-death experiences are actual encounters with a heavenly afterlife, but it may help explain why lives and attitudes are often dramatically changed by such experiences.
"This is the first study ever to find neurophysiologic differences in people who have had these experiences," said Willoughby B. Britton, the United Airlines researcher who led the study, published last month in the journal Psychological Science.
"They have to some extent an abnormal brain. But even after going through a life-threatening trauma, they are absolutely psychologically healthy, with no post-traumatic stress, no fear response.
"This gets to the question of how the brain and consciousness and reality interact. Everyone wants to know how the spiritual and the physical meet."
Throughout human history, people who have suffered traumatic events that nearly killed them - cardiac arrest, drownings, violent accidents, medical complications, allergic reactions, even suicide attempts - have reported eerily similar transcendental scenarios.
They almost always involve a sense of leaving the body or viewing it from a distance, transcending time and space, entering a dark void or "tunnel," encountering and being strongly attracted to a bright light or sometimes a religious figure, with an all-encompassing feeling of peace, warmth, unconditional love and welcome.
In some cases, the "dead" undergo a "life review" - a rapid unfolding of life events, with an understanding of how their actions affected others.
However, this is not the typical response to life-threatening trauma. Most people react with intense fear, anxiety, sometimes lasting for months or years, resulting in post-traumatic stress disorder marked by nightmares and chronic distress.
Only about 10 percent to 18 percent of people instead have these extremely positive "near-death experiences" that leave them with little or no fear of death or danger, an optimistic outlook on life, increased spirituality, and often major lifestyle improvements.
"They can't wait to have it happen again, they have no fear whatsoever. You have to ask, are these people completely crazy?" said Britton, who specializes in studying the neurologic effect of traumatic events.
"It is a moving experience to be around them. They are different. You can almost sense it."
The results of her study prove they are. During a night of sleep, Britton recorded the brain waves of 23 people who had near-death experiences, comparing them with the brain patterns of 23 who had not.
An unexpectedly high number - 22 percent - of the near-death experiencers showed a rare brain-wave pattern known as "synchronized brain activity" in the left temporal lobe. That is a simultaneous firing of neurons - sometimes described as "an electrical storm" - in that part of the brain. It is the kind of abnormal pattern seen in people who suffer epileptic seizures in the temporal lobe.

Edit.

"When the heart stops, when the brain shuts down, during the traumatic event, we do know there is a lot of discharge of brain activity," said Carter. "The brain is the ultimate computer. When it shuts down and reboots, it comes back with a lot of activity that can cause changes. "So I think most of this can be explained on a physiological basis. I certainly don't want to say there isn't an afterlife, but I don't think these experiences are the evidence for it. They can be explained."

edit

"There really is no such thing as death. We go from here up into the light. We change form and go on," said Susan Dayton, 58, who underwent a near-death experience 30 years ago, when she suffered a blood clot to the brain.
"It was the most intense, warm, loving, beautiful experience I've ever had. I can't even describe it. I was surrounded by light and love. It was like going home," said Dayton, who participated in Britton's study.
Noting that prior to that she had a drinking problem, smoked two to three packs of cigarettes a day, and "got married too often," Dayton said her life has changed "dramatically."
"I simply quit all that. I've been sober for 20 years. I have a heart now, a sense of compassion for others, and absolutely no fear of death.
"Believe me, this is not just the brain misfiring. There definitely is a God."

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/09-13f-04.asp

So as you can see, there are no easy answers. Not at this stage, but as studies continue we will come nearer to the truth. People who assert one way or the other, pro or con, that we definitely know, are wrong. Except of course those who have had the experience. Most of them seemed convinced that it's "more than real". Yet at best only 10-18% of those who have "died" report seeing anything.

[_marg]

Q.W.

Hi Marg,

After mulling over your request for some time, I must admit the best evidence, or at least the evidence that convinced me of the validity of the afterlife was not one piece, but the preponderance of evidence from sources of high integrity. Any one piece taken alone is really not convincing, and certainly would not have convinced my atheistic mentality. If there existed only a smattering of this evidence, I would never have been convinced of even the possibility of an afterlife.

Hi Q.W., As you probably are well aware, an atheist is not necessarily a skeptical/good critical thinker. Whether you are an atheist or not is irrelevant for the most part on how you think or what beliefs you hold other than by the self described label “atheist” all one can conclude is that you have no god belief. I mention this because I’ve noticed a few times you used the word atheist when skeptic would probably be better.

Q.W.

I have accumulated a library consisting of more than 70 books and dozens of downloaded papers I have printed out. While I don’t agree with everything I have read from these books and papers, there is an abundance of consistent information from people of high integrity, not motivated by monetary gain, and who put their professional reputations on the line. They were motivated only to share information they felt people should be aware of.

What is important is whether claims made by these people are open to independent objective verification. An individual can apply excellent critical thinking to one or more areas yet poor critical thinking in other areas of their lives. I’m sure you likely appreciate this. Well known respected scientists may use the scientific process in their work yet in other areas may not. Integrity is one factor to consider but much more important and crucial to consider are other factors such as …are the theories/claims reproducible, testable, offer predictive results which can be verified. It is not the integrity of the scientist or individual which is most important but rather that their work is open to independent investigation.


Q.W.

The most convincing evidence at least for me, is from someone with proven ability to reason, who set out to prove the afterlife hypothesis wrong and was convinced otherwise. A short list of these people are: Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge, Arthur Findlay and Dr Ian Stevenson. I have read books they have authored, and am convinced they did not fabricate their data, nor were they deceived.

I did a quick search on the first person in your list. Besides William Crookes living 1832–1919 and being a rather outdated scientist to use as an example, he did NOT offer up his “paranormal” claims to scrutiny in the scientific community. His paranormal claims were not science. They were not examinable and verifiable. He controlled his experiments and made claims which were not open to independent nonbiased verification.

Without looking at your other examples, I suspect similar circumstances…that is that their work was not open to independent investigation and scrutiny which is a requirement of the scientific method. So I suspect that essentially these respected individuals that you list, may very well have been well respected but that their claims regarding the paranormal did not meet standards necessary by the scientific community for acceptance. That is not to say that in the future this might change with new insight and/or evidence.

by the way ..you asked me to point out logic flaws I found in Victor Zammit’s presentation. I’ll discuss one section on his web site because it came to mind as the concept I discuss above are in it. At http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/dawkins.html Zammit gives a rebuttal to what R. Dawkins had presented in his article ‘What’s Wrong With The Paranormal’

Zammit quotes Dawkins:

1. [ i] # “Science tells us what we have reason to believe. Not what we have a duty to believe. Not what experts, in their pontificating wisdom, instruct us to believe … science tells us what there is good reason to believe …” [/i]

[color=blue]Note this is not exactly a verbatim quote of what R. Dawkins said.

R. Dawkins actually said the following : Science tells us what we have reason to believe. Not what we have a duty to believe. Not what experts, in their pontificating wisdom, instruct us to believe. Not what some admired authority, like Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking, believes. No, science tells us what there is good reason to believe.

Q.W. note the obvious deliberate deception by V. Zammit. He left out the portion I bolded. The point Dawkins was making is that no matter what authority an individual has their theory rests on what it provides as an explanation for phenomena. The explanation must be open to independent scrutiny and verification which is part of the scientific method/science. It is the good reasoning behind the theory which is most important and typically that requires evidence which supports the theory..and acceptance of the theory in the scientific community is not based on the reputation of the individual.

V. Zammit:

First, who is making the statement ‘science tells us what we have reason to believe’? There are at least two views: there is inevitably the view of the orthodox scientists and the view of the ‘new scientists’ – (those who canvass any phenomenon where non-physical energy gives more likely than not reasons for its existence and occurrence).

V. Zammit is making a claim that there are 2 sorts of scientists.”.orthodox and new”. He makes this claim as if it is an established and accepted fact..when it isn’t but rather it is his claim unsupported with reasoning and evidence. Just who accepts these labels and why? It seems that one is supposed to infer "orthodox" scientist = bad shouldn't be trusted…"new" scientist = good, trustworthy, hold the latest best thinking.

V. Zammit:

The ‘new science’ empiricists and those into psychic phenomena state that all psychic activities have to do with non physical energy. Non physical energy has to do with quantum physics. A number of scientists including physicists, e.g. Prof Alan Wolf include quantum physics in their explanation of paranormal activities.

Quantum physics is theoretical and does not say anything about an afterlife. Zammit is using scientific terminology, the mention of quantum physics and linking it to paranormal. This is not evidence for an afterlife. Apparently Alan Wolf is a bit of a celebrity for his sounds bites in the movie “What the Bleep do we know” For a critique of the movie by a scientist and a brief criticism of Alan Wolf see http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/review.html


V. Zammit:

The orthodox scientist, as R Dawkins is will interpret phenomena consistently with his own bias- and will ignore any possibility there could be a psi (all psychic and afterlife phenomena) explanation.

Science theories are open to investigation by anyone but in particular peers in the scientific community. Whether a science theory gets accepted by the scientific community does not hinge on Dawkins’ bias. Everyone has bias but the scientific process attempts to reduce that through the peer review process. It is effective. V. Zammit is attempting to discredit all scientists who don’t accept the paranormal. They are the bad “orthodox scientists” who reject the afterlife for the main reason of personal closed minded bias. It’s very simplistic black and white thinking.

V. Zammit:

The ‘new scientist’ will state that whereas in some instances orthodox science cannot explain some psi phenomena – (but the evidence for its occurrence is absolute) it does not mean the phenomena did not take place. Just because a phenomenon cannot be reproduced in a scientific laboratory it doesn’t mean it wasn’t experienced. For example, most of us experienced the phenomenon of love. Just because reductionist science cannot reduce the phenomenon of love in the laboratory, does it mean love does not exist?

Love is an observable emotions which can be tested in a laboratory..pulse changes, brain waves ..that sort of thing. It is observable, explainable and a recognized universal emotion.

V. Zammit:

Further, I have met people who did not experience love, were not loved, do not love and cannot express love. At least one of them stated ‘there is no such thing as love – it’s all the mind.’

One anonymous person’s opinion is irrelevant to rebutting Dawkins’ but besides that love is in the mind as are other emotions.

V. Zammit:

I totally agree, we should not allow irrelevant ‘experts’ to pontificate about what wisdom we should and should not accept.

This has little if anything to do with Dawkins’ point..which was not about “irrelevant experts” The focus was that scientific theories are accepted based on good reasoning...the evidence, the predictive value of a theory and how well it explains phenomena…rather than the authority of those behind the theory.

I won’t continue with the rest of V. Zammit’s critique of Dawkins’ article, it didn't improve. To summarize this, Zammit deliberately omitted Dawkins’ words and never rebutted with “good reasoning” anything Dawkins said. He labeled Dawkins “orthodox” his created label and contrasted that with “new scientists” the implication being all “orthodox" scientists are biased and not trustworthy. Zammit is a lawyer. His training and goal is to win arguments…not to reach best truths given the reasoning & evidence.

Q.W.

One of the “best” evidences of an NDE, at least in my opinion, is one of a woman who was clinically brain dead. If you are interested you can read the account at the following link:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

And if you are interested further, an internet search will provide books by two or three of the above names, available by simply downloading. But then I realize you are not interested anyway from your statement:

Q.W. I’ve taken a look at Zammit’s site..it’s filled with poor reasoning. Zammit is not a scientist but a lawyer and he uses those skills well, but he’s deliberately deceptive in order to win an argument for his claims of an afterlife.

I have little reason to believe at this point that Pam Reynolds had a true out of body experience. She may indeed have had an experience which she thought was ‘out of body’, and other people as well may have had similar experiences but what those experiences are versus the interpretation of them are 2 different things. Unless out of body experiences can be reproduced and verified independently then other explanations besides ‘out of body’ can account for them.

You may have read 70 books on the subject but an afterlife has not been scientifically verified, you said so yourself. Therefore, assuming an afterlife, is a leap to a conclusion...which is wishful thinking not skepticism involved with good critical thinking.

Q.W.

And since these scientists I have named have undoubtedly promoted “farfetched unrealistic ideas” I wouldn’t expect you to spend valuable time evaluating their evidence. After all, if they are correct and the afterlife is a reality, you will only be spending more than a billion years there anyway. For me, this piques my curiosity, but then for others, apparently including you, what will be, will be, and that’s fine with me.

That the ideas are “farfetched” is an indicator to me to be highly skeptical but when claims do not get acceptance by the scientific community, when I see poor reasoning..then it leads me to not take too seriously the claim and not put in a heck of a lot of time. Good science is filled with far fetched ideas, so that isn’t the main problem.

by the way...I'm not agnostic on this, I don't believe there is an afterlife.

[_Quantumwave]

Even if "after life" is a fallacy, abiding the, "...only one truly significant work to do in life..." here in mortality, would be following the admonitions of Jesus--whether divine or not--to the benefit of the whole of humanity. Would be a good-thing... Roger

Roger, I entirely agree. There's no quid pro quo here, i.e., "I do good, God gives me eternal life". One thing I do believe in is karma, and that features prominently in many reports. Or as the Bible says, you reap what you sow. As for the teachings of Jesus, I'm probably a "Jeffersonian", I take out what I think is worthwhile and disregard the rest. Like the fanaticsm, the exclusiveness, and dividing families and people. The story/parable of the Good Samaritan, for example, is one of my favourites. Jefferson, by the way, was a deist, so he could not have taken the gospels literally, in any sense, but extracted what he thought was worthwhile in the teachings.

In regard to my own afterlife studies, I don't do this to bolster my personal beliefs. If I cease to exist at death I'm perfectly fine with that, and I shudder at the thought of having to do "another round" on earth, if reincarnation is a fact, and if it is, maybe that's why we have no memories of a former life, except in some cases as have been reported, and in children up to about the age of seven or eight. I believe we will know within the next ten years whether there is an afterlife, because sophisticated technology is now being developed which will be able to determine this with a high degree of accuracy. For example, consider this report:

'Near-death' survivors show brain-wave abnormality, study finds.
Many people who have undergone near-death experiences - a profoundly affecting glimpse of a loving afterlife - have abnormal brain waves, a University of Arizona study has found.
This is the first scientific confirmation that something extremely unusual is going on in the brains of people who briefly died, reported leaving their bodies and moving toward a loving, peaceful light or presence, then were resuscitated and returned to life.
The finding does not prove or disprove that near-death experiences are actual encounters with a heavenly afterlife, but it may help explain why lives and attitudes are often dramatically changed by such experiences.
"This is the first study ever to find neurophysiologic differences in people who have had these experiences," said Willoughby B. Britton, the United Airlines researcher who led the study, published last month in the journal Psychological Science.
"They have to some extent an abnormal brain. But even after going through a life-threatening trauma, they are absolutely psychologically healthy, with no post-traumatic stress, no fear response.
"This gets to the question of how the brain and consciousness and reality interact. Everyone wants to know how the spiritual and the physical meet."
Throughout human history, people who have suffered traumatic events that nearly killed them - cardiac arrest, drownings, violent accidents, medical complications, allergic reactions, even suicide attempts - have reported eerily similar transcendental scenarios.
They almost always involve a sense of leaving the body or viewing it from a distance, transcending time and space, entering a dark void or "tunnel," encountering and being strongly attracted to a bright light or sometimes a religious figure, with an all-encompassing feeling of peace, warmth, unconditional love and welcome.
In some cases, the "dead" undergo a "life review" - a rapid unfolding of life events, with an understanding of how their actions affected others.
However, this is not the typical response to life-threatening trauma. Most people react with intense fear, anxiety, sometimes lasting for months or years, resulting in post-traumatic stress disorder marked by nightmares and chronic distress.
Only about 10 percent to 18 percent of people instead have these extremely positive "near-death experiences" that leave them with little or no fear of death or danger, an optimistic outlook on life, increased spirituality, and often major lifestyle improvements.
"They can't wait to have it happen again, they have no fear whatsoever. You have to ask, are these people completely crazy?" said Britton, who specializes in studying the neurologic effect of traumatic events.
"It is a moving experience to be around them. They are different. You can almost sense it."
The results of her study prove they are. During a night of sleep, Britton recorded the brain waves of 23 people who had near-death experiences, comparing them with the brain patterns of 23 who had not.
An unexpectedly high number - 22 percent - of the near-death experiencers showed a rare brain-wave pattern known as "synchronized brain activity" in the left temporal lobe. That is a simultaneous firing of neurons - sometimes described as "an electrical storm" - in that part of the brain. It is the kind of abnormal pattern seen in people who suffer epileptic seizures in the temporal lobe.

Edit.

"When the heart stops, when the brain shuts down, during the traumatic event, we do know there is a lot of discharge of brain activity," said Carter. "The brain is the ultimate computer. When it shuts down and reboots, it comes back with a lot of activity that can cause changes. "So I think most of this can be explained on a physiological basis. I certainly don't want to say there isn't an afterlife, but I don't think these experiences are the evidence for it. They can be explained."

edit

"There really is no such thing as death. We go from here up into the light. We change form and go on," said Susan Dayton, 58, who underwent a near-death experience 30 years ago, when she suffered a blood clot to the brain.
"It was the most intense, warm, loving, beautiful experience I've ever had. I can't even describe it. I was surrounded by light and love. It was like going home," said Dayton, who participated in Britton's study.
Noting that prior to that she had a drinking problem, smoked two to three packs of cigarettes a day, and "got married too often," Dayton said her life has changed "dramatically."
"I simply quit all that. I've been sober for 20 years. I have a heart now, a sense of compassion for others, and absolutely no fear of death.
"Believe me, this is not just the brain misfiring. There definitely is a God."

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/09-13f-04.asp

So as you can see, there are no easy answers. Not at this stage, but as studies continue we will come nearer to the truth. People who assert one way or the other, pro or con, that we definitely know, are wrong. Except of course those who have had the experience. Most of them seemed convinced that it's "more than real". Yet at best only 10-18% of those who have "died" report seeing anything.

Hi Ray,

Thanks again for an informative link.

The statement in the link regarding after effects is good evidence of a unique experience: (I'll have to use quotations since I don't know how to make the quote control work. Simply pressing it doesn't do it)

"However, this is not the typical response to life-threatening trauma. Most people react with intense fear, anxiety, sometimes lasting for months or years, resulting in post-traumatic stress disorder marked by nightmares and chronic distress.
Only about 10 percent to 18 percent of people instead have these extremely positive "near-death experiences" that leave them with little or no fear of death or danger, an optimistic outlook on life, increased spirituality, and often major lifestyle improvements.
"They can't wait to have it happen again, they have no fear whatsoever. You have to ask, are these people completely crazy?" said Britton, who specializes in studying the neurologic effect of traumatic events.
"It is a moving experience to be around them. They are different. You can almost sense it."

This reminded me of a book I own, by P.M.H. Atwater called “Coming Back To Life: The After-Effects of The Near-Death Experience” I read it several years ago, so I picked it up to refresh my memory.

The author makes the statement: "My research of near-death states began in 1978, one year after my own episodes, and continues today. I was trained in research by my police-officer father, and conduct my investigations accordingly, cross-checking my findings at least three times before I publish anything. Most of my material is based on on-the-spot interviews, observation and analysis - all of it original. My preliminary findings were published in a column I wrote for Vital Signs Magazine, then a publication of the International Association for Near-Death Studies, beginning in 1981. "COMING BACK TO LIFE" is an outgrowth of those early columns."

The book was published in 1988. The author, Phyllis Atwater writes with the personal knowledge of “been-there, done-that” due to her own NDE episodes.

On page 67, she states: “What I believe to be the pattern of major after-effects from the near-death experience is:

1. The inability to personalize emotions or feelings, especially those of love and of belonging to anyone.
2. The inability to recognize and comprehend boundaries, rules, limits.
3. Difficulty understanding time sense, or references to what occurred in the past or might occur in the future—a sense of timelessness.
4. Expanded/enhanced sensitivities, becoming more intuitive, psychic, knowing, spatial, non-linear in perceptions.
5. A shifted or changed view of physical reality, becoming more detached, objective, seeing “through” events and problems with a noticeable reduction of fears and worries.
6. A different feeling op physical self, a certain detachment from the body and any identification with it as “self,” rather knowing we live in and “wear” our bodies.
7. Difficulty with communication and relationships, finding it hard to say what is meant or to understand language phrasing used by others."

Ms. Atwater discusses each of the seven factors separately, substantiating claims from direct quotes from NDEers.

So, given that the above “aftereffects” evidence from the NDEers provides credibility to the claim that what they say happened actually happened, and if one concludes that the NDE phenomena is real, and then projected to validate the afterlife as real, which I believe to be the case, then how does all that imply the existence of “God”? It seems that everyone, religionists and all who believe in an afterlife also believe in some kind of “God”.

I fail to see the connection.

Here is some “straw-man” logic: The afterlife means there is an overall plan, otherwise consciousness would be extinguished along with physical death. An overall plan means some intelligent being had to originate and implement such a plan, ergo, “God!” And, of course, I don’t buy that in the least.

So what are your thoughts regarding the implications of afterlife and "God"?