Do I Message Him Or Let Him Message Me?
Family & Relationships5 mins ago
Life after death!
53 Answers
So whats your views on life after death??
Is there really a heaven and hell??
Do ghosts exsit?? Has anyone got any stories/Views to share on this subject?
Is there really a heaven and hell??
Do ghosts exsit?? Has anyone got any stories/Views to share on this subject?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Sasha-2008. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Good morning Chakka. Well, is that a fact?
What do you mean 'explanation for what? Did you not read my post properly?
I would have thought that anyone purporting to espouse science and to celebrate the acquisition of knowledge would harbour an innate curiosity about something that is fairly widely reported but for which there is currently no explanation. Blanket rejection seems to me to be a sign of an insular, rather than an enquiring, mind, and as such, is in direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of science.
What do you mean 'explanation for what? Did you not read my post properly?
I would have thought that anyone purporting to espouse science and to celebrate the acquisition of knowledge would harbour an innate curiosity about something that is fairly widely reported but for which there is currently no explanation. Blanket rejection seems to me to be a sign of an insular, rather than an enquiring, mind, and as such, is in direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of science.
And good afternoon to you, naomi,and a happy March to you.
We seem to have different ideas of what an enquiring mind is. It appears that you think that if someone suggests an idea, no matter how little basis it has and how little sense it makes, one should take it seriously and pursue it. Otherwise one doesn�t have an enquiring mind.
My idea of an enquiring mind is that it should firstly enquire as to whether there is something to enquire into before starting to enquire. Without such elementary discrimination it will spend its life pursuing unicorns, flying carpets, magic crystals and ley lines at the expense of genuine mysteries.
So what about the afterlife? Since none of us likes the idea of death it�s hardly surprising that many people have invented a get-out from it. And since it is obvious that the body � together with the brain and therefore the mind � are destroyed at death then the idea of the soul is invented as something vague that survives death.
OK, fine. But what does the enquiring mind do now? Where does it start? Not with personal anecdotes; they are always worthless as evidence. So what about proper trials?
There must be countless psychic societies around the world who beaver away all the time trying to find evidence of the afterlife and have produced nothing. All spiritualists, as we know, are frauds and charlatans; if they are pursuing something real why do they have to cheat and lie?
As for the soul, that remains just a word, an idea without substance.
So I repeat my question: what is there to explain? Give me a sliver of a smidgeon of a wisp of evidence and I will enquire like billy-o. Golly I will. Oh my word, yes.
We seem to have different ideas of what an enquiring mind is. It appears that you think that if someone suggests an idea, no matter how little basis it has and how little sense it makes, one should take it seriously and pursue it. Otherwise one doesn�t have an enquiring mind.
My idea of an enquiring mind is that it should firstly enquire as to whether there is something to enquire into before starting to enquire. Without such elementary discrimination it will spend its life pursuing unicorns, flying carpets, magic crystals and ley lines at the expense of genuine mysteries.
So what about the afterlife? Since none of us likes the idea of death it�s hardly surprising that many people have invented a get-out from it. And since it is obvious that the body � together with the brain and therefore the mind � are destroyed at death then the idea of the soul is invented as something vague that survives death.
OK, fine. But what does the enquiring mind do now? Where does it start? Not with personal anecdotes; they are always worthless as evidence. So what about proper trials?
There must be countless psychic societies around the world who beaver away all the time trying to find evidence of the afterlife and have produced nothing. All spiritualists, as we know, are frauds and charlatans; if they are pursuing something real why do they have to cheat and lie?
As for the soul, that remains just a word, an idea without substance.
So I repeat my question: what is there to explain? Give me a sliver of a smidgeon of a wisp of evidence and I will enquire like billy-o. Golly I will. Oh my word, yes.
Good evening Chakka. With all due respect, when you say �someone� that isn�t entirely accurate - in fact it�s deliberately inaccurate. It�s what in modern parlance we would call �spin� - and spin is employed to suit a specific purpose - in this case your purpose - which is to undermine and ridicule the statements of people who claim to have experienced the �supernatural� in one way or another. If we�re going to discuss this, then, please, let us at least be honest. In reality we�re not talking about �someone� - we�re talking about thousands and thousands of people who claim to have seen, or experienced, something that they cannot rationally explain. True, many experiences are imaginary, but I can assure you - and I have assured you many times - not all - so there is something that merits investigation. Doesn�t a truly enquiring mind wonder if there could possibly be, at the very least, a fragment of truth in some of these claims? I�ve given you instances that I�ve asked you to explain, but you�ve failed. Doesn�t that induce curiosity? If you say there�s always a rational explanation, then where is it?
Furthermore, yes, it is obvious that the body and the brain die, but the soul consists of energy.
I�ll agree that most spiritualists are frauds and charlatans, but not all. Again I�ve given you instances which you�ve failed to explain.
You say that personal anecdotes are worthless - and I could easily take that as a personal slight, but I won�t. I will simply say that we have nothing else, so unless we listen to, and evaluate these personal anecdotes, then we cannot begin to investigate - and therefore we will never know.
(I got the quiz today. Have you got yours?).
Furthermore, yes, it is obvious that the body and the brain die, but the soul consists of energy.
I�ll agree that most spiritualists are frauds and charlatans, but not all. Again I�ve given you instances which you�ve failed to explain.
You say that personal anecdotes are worthless - and I could easily take that as a personal slight, but I won�t. I will simply say that we have nothing else, so unless we listen to, and evaluate these personal anecdotes, then we cannot begin to investigate - and therefore we will never know.
(I got the quiz today. Have you got yours?).
naomi, you make quite a lot of claims in your last. Before I get down to anecdotes, a brief mention of them:
I doubt whether �thousands and thousands� of people (and I can�t imagine why you object to �someone�) have evidence or experience of an afterlife, which is what we are discussing. I assume that you mean experiencing psychic phenomena in general.
I�m disappointed that you use the word �energy� to describe the soul. That word, together with �vibrations�, �resonance�, �positive and negative�, �frequency� and so on are notoriously used by post-modernists and other cranks who use scientific terms to try to give respectability to their weird ideas. You let yourself down by such a use. If there is energy then it can be measured. If it can�t be measured then it isn�t energy.
I didn�t know that there were some genuine spiritualists. Where do I find them?
You chide me for not offering explanations for what you report, but how can I? All I have is a story, something I can�t check on. I cannot just accept it at face value, whoever is telling it, but neither can I dismiss it. All I can do is make no comment. Which brings me to anecdotal �evidence�:
Some anecdotes are easy to investigate. When a couple of teenage Catholic girls see a vision of the Virgin it�s obvious that it bears a strong resemblance (tall, pale complexion, golden hair, blue eyes) to the pictures above their beds and none at all to a 1st-century Jewish mother. Uncle Fred can claim that his first visit to a homeopath cured his long-standing rheumatism, but double-blind trials show that it was no more than the placebo effect.
But what about Charlie who tells of a psychic experience he had? Because he is a fine, trustworthy, honest fellow his friends and loved ones naturally believe him. Why shouldn�t they? He believes it himself and is not trying to deceive anyone.
Cont�d �.
I doubt whether �thousands and thousands� of people (and I can�t imagine why you object to �someone�) have evidence or experience of an afterlife, which is what we are discussing. I assume that you mean experiencing psychic phenomena in general.
I�m disappointed that you use the word �energy� to describe the soul. That word, together with �vibrations�, �resonance�, �positive and negative�, �frequency� and so on are notoriously used by post-modernists and other cranks who use scientific terms to try to give respectability to their weird ideas. You let yourself down by such a use. If there is energy then it can be measured. If it can�t be measured then it isn�t energy.
I didn�t know that there were some genuine spiritualists. Where do I find them?
You chide me for not offering explanations for what you report, but how can I? All I have is a story, something I can�t check on. I cannot just accept it at face value, whoever is telling it, but neither can I dismiss it. All I can do is make no comment. Which brings me to anecdotal �evidence�:
Some anecdotes are easy to investigate. When a couple of teenage Catholic girls see a vision of the Virgin it�s obvious that it bears a strong resemblance (tall, pale complexion, golden hair, blue eyes) to the pictures above their beds and none at all to a 1st-century Jewish mother. Uncle Fred can claim that his first visit to a homeopath cured his long-standing rheumatism, but double-blind trials show that it was no more than the placebo effect.
But what about Charlie who tells of a psychic experience he had? Because he is a fine, trustworthy, honest fellow his friends and loved ones naturally believe him. Why shouldn�t they? He believes it himself and is not trying to deceive anyone.
Cont�d �.
�.contd.
But that cannot be enough for the World At Large (the WAL). Charlie�s friends would not dream of being so rude as to subject him to the necessary intensive third degree about his experience or to demand that he takes them through the whole thing on the spot. All that the WAL can do is put it down as an anecdote, not proven, not disproven, not investigated, not evidence.
If the phenomenon is repetitive the it canbe investigated and often is. Many allegedly haunted houses have had teams with sophisticated equipment install themselves, but always to no avail. Individual reports of the Loch Ness Monster caused large teams with the most hi-tech equipment possible to keep an 24/7 watch for the summer months of many years but produced nothing. (I spent many hundreds of hours there before the big searches started.) All of which shows that anecdotal �evidence� on its own is not enough; it can be flawed.
But, you say, surely it should be investigated. Well yes, if that is feasible. But Charlie�s experience was a one-off, as most of them are. If it happened regularly then investigators could move into his house and live with him, ready to spring into investigative action the next time it happened. How practicable is that?
Until and unless that happens, and produces incontrovertible results, there is nothing to �explain� � which was my point from the beginning.
Getting back to life after death, what have we got? What is there to explain? How can people possible have experience or evidence of it? Please tell me if they have, and what form it took.
(Yes, got the quiz.)
But that cannot be enough for the World At Large (the WAL). Charlie�s friends would not dream of being so rude as to subject him to the necessary intensive third degree about his experience or to demand that he takes them through the whole thing on the spot. All that the WAL can do is put it down as an anecdote, not proven, not disproven, not investigated, not evidence.
If the phenomenon is repetitive the it canbe investigated and often is. Many allegedly haunted houses have had teams with sophisticated equipment install themselves, but always to no avail. Individual reports of the Loch Ness Monster caused large teams with the most hi-tech equipment possible to keep an 24/7 watch for the summer months of many years but produced nothing. (I spent many hundreds of hours there before the big searches started.) All of which shows that anecdotal �evidence� on its own is not enough; it can be flawed.
But, you say, surely it should be investigated. Well yes, if that is feasible. But Charlie�s experience was a one-off, as most of them are. If it happened regularly then investigators could move into his house and live with him, ready to spring into investigative action the next time it happened. How practicable is that?
Until and unless that happens, and produces incontrovertible results, there is nothing to �explain� � which was my point from the beginning.
Getting back to life after death, what have we got? What is there to explain? How can people possible have experience or evidence of it? Please tell me if they have, and what form it took.
(Yes, got the quiz.)
Chakka, Forget the Loch Ness monster. It�s never (as far as I�m aware) been considered supernatural and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion, I was always talking about psychic experiences in general, and I object to the word �someone� because it implies a single person, whereas, like it or not, we are talking about thousands and thousands of people, Of course no one has experience of life after death, and I didn�t suggest that anyone has. And why are you disappointed that I use the word �energy�? I take exception to your patronising contention that I �let myself down�. In whose opinion? Yours? Man doesn�t know everything there is to know - even though he thinks he does. Perhaps we have no knowledge of this form of energy, and hence no one has as yet discovered a way to measure it. How do you know? There are so many �Charlies� (I do wish you�d have picked a more appropriate name, Chakka - or perhaps you thought that was appropriate?), but it isn�t fair, or indeed rational, to simply assume all the �Charlies� in the world are deluded. These experiences are often a �one off� (although not always - my clocks weren�t) and although impossible to investigate, nevertheless these accounts, unless rationally explainable, ought to be filed under the �Don�t Know� section.
Cont.
Cont.
Cont.
Although it may sound arrogant, I do expect people - even you - to believe me. I�m a grown-up lady, well-educated and well respected - and I can assure you that the things I�ve related here on AB really have happened - including some of my experiences with so called spiritualists. What reason would I, an avid opponent of irrationality, have to confess to my experiences here otherwise? I would say I�m fairly level headed, and I have no great desire to expose myself to ridicule, but I know, and I am honest enough to admit, that there are things happening in this universe that we simply do not understand. My rationality tells me that I wish it wasn�t so - but it is - and I cannot deny it. Therefore I find it quite encouraging when you say you cannot just dismiss it. At the very least it means you consider the possibilities. Have a cyber gin and tonic. Cheers!
(I�ve got about 30 up to yet - but I know the answers will become more and more elusive!).
Although it may sound arrogant, I do expect people - even you - to believe me. I�m a grown-up lady, well-educated and well respected - and I can assure you that the things I�ve related here on AB really have happened - including some of my experiences with so called spiritualists. What reason would I, an avid opponent of irrationality, have to confess to my experiences here otherwise? I would say I�m fairly level headed, and I have no great desire to expose myself to ridicule, but I know, and I am honest enough to admit, that there are things happening in this universe that we simply do not understand. My rationality tells me that I wish it wasn�t so - but it is - and I cannot deny it. Therefore I find it quite encouraging when you say you cannot just dismiss it. At the very least it means you consider the possibilities. Have a cyber gin and tonic. Cheers!
(I�ve got about 30 up to yet - but I know the answers will become more and more elusive!).
OK, naomi, we�ll just have to agree that we have different ideas as to what standards the WAL should apply when accepting one-off supernatural reports when there is no facility to investigate them. This is no reflection on the integrity of people like you, merely a brutal recognition that just because honest, upstanding people report something supernatural, it is not, alas, reasonable to accept it for that reason alone.
And on the rare occasions when the facility to investigate is afforded there has been no solid basis for assuming the untoward. My LNM mention was merely an example of how sincere reports by honest people can be shown to be baseless.
So I�ll restrict myself this time to your claim that the soul is energy, and, oddly, find myself repeating something that I often say to Christians!
I say that if they choose to believe the Jesus story purely as a matter of faith then that is their privilege; no-one can challenge them. But if they then claim that it is based on fact and history then they are fully entitled to be challenged to provide a basis for that claim.
Similarly, if you choose to believe in the soul, that is your affair; you cannot be challenged. But once you claim that it is �energy� then you enter that scientific area where you certainly can be.
We know about mechanical, electrical, chemical, heat and radiated energy and how to measure them. Which does the soul use?
If it is a new form of energy, how did you discover it and measure it? Have you told Nature? When does it appear? Just as the body is dying? How do we detect it at that moment?
I am not being sarcastic, merely pointing out the pitfalls of using scientific terms unwisely.
(I�ve done 45 and discovered some very interesting words in the process. I had no idea we had such things in the house!)
And on the rare occasions when the facility to investigate is afforded there has been no solid basis for assuming the untoward. My LNM mention was merely an example of how sincere reports by honest people can be shown to be baseless.
So I�ll restrict myself this time to your claim that the soul is energy, and, oddly, find myself repeating something that I often say to Christians!
I say that if they choose to believe the Jesus story purely as a matter of faith then that is their privilege; no-one can challenge them. But if they then claim that it is based on fact and history then they are fully entitled to be challenged to provide a basis for that claim.
Similarly, if you choose to believe in the soul, that is your affair; you cannot be challenged. But once you claim that it is �energy� then you enter that scientific area where you certainly can be.
We know about mechanical, electrical, chemical, heat and radiated energy and how to measure them. Which does the soul use?
If it is a new form of energy, how did you discover it and measure it? Have you told Nature? When does it appear? Just as the body is dying? How do we detect it at that moment?
I am not being sarcastic, merely pointing out the pitfalls of using scientific terms unwisely.
(I�ve done 45 and discovered some very interesting words in the process. I had no idea we had such things in the house!)
Chakka, Your assumption is entirely erroneous. I don�t choose to believe in the soul. I am obliged to believe in the soul. I have no choice in the matter. This isn�t �faith� - I don�t do faith. I want rational answers - I want the truth. I am well aware that this seems illogical, but, despite the fact that it may not appear rational, in all honesty it�s the only logical conclusion I am able to reach. Be assured I�d rather have settled on a different conclusion, but I can�t - and, although you dispute that conclusion, you offer no alternative explanation. You simply say it isn�t so - and that is of no help at all in solving this mystery.
If it is a new form of energy, how did you discover it and measure it? Have you told Nature? When does it appear? Just as the body is dying? How do we detect it at that moment?
Now, now, Chakka, this is sarcasm indeed, and as such, is unworthy of your intellect. Have we always known about energy in all its forms? No, of course we haven�t. And do we now know about energy in all its forms? It appears you think we do - but you may be sadly mistaken.
We know about mechanical, electrical, chemical, heat and radiated energy and how to measure them. Which does the soul use?
I don�t know, but perhaps none of the above apply. I don�t believe I am using scientific terms unwisely. What if there exists a form of energy - or more than one - that, as yet, we are unaware of? Is that possible? I would say that those who assume there is nothing left to be discovered are the unwise ones.
(I too have discovered things in my home that I didn�t know I owned!).
If it is a new form of energy, how did you discover it and measure it? Have you told Nature? When does it appear? Just as the body is dying? How do we detect it at that moment?
Now, now, Chakka, this is sarcasm indeed, and as such, is unworthy of your intellect. Have we always known about energy in all its forms? No, of course we haven�t. And do we now know about energy in all its forms? It appears you think we do - but you may be sadly mistaken.
We know about mechanical, electrical, chemical, heat and radiated energy and how to measure them. Which does the soul use?
I don�t know, but perhaps none of the above apply. I don�t believe I am using scientific terms unwisely. What if there exists a form of energy - or more than one - that, as yet, we are unaware of? Is that possible? I would say that those who assume there is nothing left to be discovered are the unwise ones.
(I too have discovered things in my home that I didn�t know I owned!).
Chakka, come off it. During the course of our discussions, I've given you several examples of unexplained happenings, and you've never been able to offer the merest hint of a solution. You simply say it isn't so - even though, in reality, you know no more than the next man.
I can't prove anything - but if you possessed a truly curious mind, you wouldn't persist in blanket dismissal - you would be curious - and you would want science to investigate that for which it has no answers. I know I do. It's you who are letting yourself down.
I can't prove anything - but if you possessed a truly curious mind, you wouldn't persist in blanket dismissal - you would be curious - and you would want science to investigate that for which it has no answers. I know I do. It's you who are letting yourself down.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Caught, Those Who Allegedly Cut Down The...
News10 mins ago
If The Local Elections In England Aren't...
News13 mins ago
Could The Nefarious Hand Of Antifa Be...
News15 mins ago
