1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.

Is this proof of the afterlife??

Discussion in 'Afterlife Evidence' started by dreams9, Jan 2, 2018.


have you had an experience you might consider proof of afterlife?

  1. yes, it was very specific not general

    20 vote(s)
  2. no, never specific enough

    14 vote(s)
  1. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    In particular:
    "The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.

    It's thus inaccurate to say "Skeptics don't believe in ghosts." Some do. Many skeptics are deeply religious, and are satisfied with the reasoning process that led them there. Skeptics apply critical thinking to different aspects of their lives in their own individual way. Everyone is a skeptic to some degree.

    Skepticism is, or should be, an extraordinarily powerful and positive influence on the world. Skepticism is not simply about "debunking" as is commonly charged. Skepticism is about redirecting attention, influence, and funding away from worthless superstitions and popular misinformation, and toward projects and ideas that are evidenced to be beneficial to humanity and to the world."

    Applying reason and critical thinking to validate.
    I am a skeptic, as I try and apply critical thinking in order to validate some belief or ideas put forward.
    bluebird likes this.
  2. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    This is a great deal of blather which tells me that you and I agree - except that you seem to feel that the scientific community is a great deal more honorable than it has shown itself to me to be. But on skepticism, I see no daylight between us. Good job. I couldn't have said it better!
  3. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    I don't speak of the scientific community as a whole- it would be a generalization anyway. I speak of the scientific method as a means to validate information. I see that as part of critical thinking.

    I think there are good scientists and bad scientists just like any other profession out there. No one is immune to error or bias.
  4. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    The scientific method is A means of validating information. It is only one, and it is probably the most limited option because it is specifically designed around the study of this material reality. It turns out to have extremely limited utility when studying a greater reality that is not only not material, but that actually is as different from our material reality as fruit is from soap.
  5. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    Can you tell me a better means of validating a bit of information for many people, as opposed to one?

    A blind controlled peer reviewed study which gets validated through replication that's able to show statistically significant results on, for example, mediumship, has the ability to create validation for many in a way more powerful that any other means I can think of. I'd be interested to know whether you think there are more powerful means of validating "truth" for many, and what that may be.

Share This Page