Why the after life probably isn't true as far as I can tell.

Don't read it. I'm not saying that flippantly, I really mean it -- this shit is hard enough without reading books that set out to prove there is no afterlife. I've been clear on this site that I am agnostic regarding the existence of an afterlife, but I don't see any point to my reading books that I know will only make me feel worse. Of course, if you didn't know that was the authors' position prior to reading the book, then what I've just said doesn't apply.

 

I understand you completely, and I agree. Thank you! I needed to hear that.

 

Conscience is the only objectivity we experience here on earth, because that is pulling knowledge from both poles: the invisible and the visible.
Physical science alone is not objective just as spiritual science is not objective. Neither alone is objective in order to live a legacy here on earth. Conscience, however is objective since it tries to combine the two poles, invisible and visible, in a "conversation" here on earth. The invisible spirit converses with the visible human body

 

DenverGuy, these are just the sad last gasps of the dying religion of scientism. Long ago it was much more active and hopeful, and as I was doing my early research I routinely read a lot of what these folks wrote; but I also was reading the afterlife evidence. And every single attempt to discredit that evidence by these benighted fools involved literally no research on their part! Their modus was simply to read just a bit, focus on that bit, come up with an alternative explanation for that single phenomenon that didn't need an afterlife-related explanation, and call it a day. Now, though, people are better educated about the evidence, so attempting to debunk individual aspects of it just makes them look silly. My guess is that what they are doing here is aggregating a lot of debunking attempts in an effort to build a better case, but that doesn't make their case any stronger. Just the blurb itself is ridiculous! "We all hope not to die" is not evidence that therefore we must die, is it? And "the evidence of our senses and the ever-gaining strength of scientific evidence strongly SUGGESTS otherwise" is a ridiculous statement. GENUINE scientists know just how very unreliable our sensory organs are, and the fact that they miss nearly everything; and GENUINE scientists would never write a book like this unless they had such a big breakthrough that they were touting it loudly on the front page (for example, "Because we have bred pigs with wings in the laboratory, we can prove now that pigs can have wings!")

How do you deal with it? You just smile. And if you still feel the need to deal with it, please devote the next year to filling your mind with the afterlife evidence so thoroughly that this sort of silliness can never affect you again!

 

Roberta, thank you for your common sense response. I agree, and it's reassuring to read your words. Every now and then I read about something that argues against an afterlife and begin to doubt myself. But when I start to dismiss the negative information I can't help but wonder if I am being biased, and that I should look at both sides. It's very disheartening and easy to get off-track.

But then I get steered back to a better place. Thanks again.

 

What Roberta said above. Also, I'm surrounded by naysayers in Real Life and have made an effort to understand their motivation. I knew that somehow a type of superiority complex was at work, but couldn't put my finger on it until the husband of a friend who goes to the Spiritualist Church in San Francisco confided something in me. He said that he'd been one of those naysayers for the first half of his life, but stopped cold when someone accused him of "needing to be the smartest guy in the room"! It was a shock to him to hear that, but when he looked hard at his own motives, he had to admit they were 100% right.

He had no real evidence with which to honestly debunk mediums or people like me who've had experiences with people who are what we call "dead." All he had, he said, was a hidden, raging inferiority complex and some denied, deeply buried resentment at people who had had genuine encounters with the unknown.

I'll never forget that conversation. I have a feeling that it's pretty rare for a Scientism-addicted naysayer to come clean like that. Now, when our scientist-wannabe friends sit around and ridicule the very idea of life after death, I look around the circle of noses in the air and feel the obnoxious condescension and think: I've got your number, you pathetic snobs. And while I feel sorry for you, I also wonder how many vulnerable grieving people you've cruelly patronized and how many hopes that they'd see their loved ones again you've shattered in your pursuit of superiority?

Don't let them win. Keep reading and thinking for yourself.

 

{{{{{{{{hugs}}}}}}}}

 

Juniper, if I can add to that the statement that the authors are philosophers and not scientists, correct?

 

If some weren't so brainwashed they would be able to look at the Bible they adhere to so rigorously and and see that there is something about our "material" reality that needs to be considered and reexamined such as when Jesus got out of the boat and walked on the water. Peter, a disciple, was instructed by Jesus to get out of the boat and Peter walked on the water towards Jesus until fear overcame him and began to sink. There is also another instance in which Jesus is thought to have passed through a wall.

 

Another YouTube video to avoid is a debate to present proof of the afterlife. On the defending team were Drs Ray Moody and Eben Alexander (who experienced an NDE). Both put forward excellent theories as proof. The opposing team were Drs Sean Carroll and Steven Novella who reacted in a superior sneering manner to negate any concept of life after death or NDEs. After both teams finished debating a vote was passed to the studio audience who very disappointingly returned their decision in favour of the opposing team. It left me feeling deflated, sad, and yes temporarily doubtful that there is an afterlife.

 

I saw that, too, Maria, and felt as you did. "Deflated" is an accurate term. I'm glad that your doubt was temporary.

 

It has been several months DenverGuy since I saw it, but the smug face of Dr Sean Carroll has somehow remained in my memory. (I would love to see his facial expression when he transitions and realises that he was so wrong). I tend not to read scientific articles about the proof of life after death or their “disproof”, and being like you in the throes of painful grief, it is easy to despair and fear that we may not see our loved ones again. I therefore to turn to places like ALF for positive and reassuring comments that there is life beyond death. I really emphasize with you, and understand your eager attempts to receive contact from your girlfriend. I notice from one of your posts that you have made an appointment to see another medium and I dearly hope that it will be a good reading. Try also to ask the medium to convey any questions you have to your girlfriend. I’m sure she will come through and you will feel happier.

 

It's been several months for me, too, Maria. And it did leave a very bad taste in my mouth. I don't blindly accept anything, so I try to keep an open mind. This is a tough balance.

You have described well what this kind of loss is like, and it's beyond awful. I empathize with you, as well. I'm sorry that you're in this position, but I think that with ALF you are doing some good for yourself and others with your articulate and helpful posts.

Thank you for your advice. I will report back how it goes. Have you had any contact? Have you completed Dr. Hogan's program? Feel free to send me a private message if you're not comfortable with posting here.

 

I am just about to send you a personal message DenverGuy.

 

Who was in the studio audience?

 

Denver guy ,can you imaging the millions of differint experience people have had with spirits etc and countless other things ,it would only take one to be true and real to prove an afterlife,

 

I honestly don't know Gene, in the video the presenter just mentioned that the audience would vote on which side won the debate.

 

You are correct. That is a very good point.

 

I have spent years researching the afterlife. I started when there wasn't much going on about it on the internet. I have practiced OBE and can say I have had a few experiences that couldn't have been the product of my mind. I am pretty convinced that the afterlife is real; nonetheless, there are times when I become depressed and have doubts. But I think only when death comes can one be certain for sure.

In regards to what you said " just don't believe we are justified in believing that it does.", I disagree. At least that is not how I think. To me, immortality is ingrained in the the makeup of the Individual Intelligence. The ignorant, illiterate, native of the Amazon Jungle who has no idea what "religions or ghosts, recantation or afterlife" is, worships family spirits and knows that s/he will live on after death. If you were to look at the flesh/blood contents of the brain of several people you would see that all is exactly the same thing. Can you explain to me how one person can be a virtuoso and another an imbecile or ignoramus? You can see on youtube, for instance, Chinese children as young as five year old playing complex Chopin masterpieces. You may say they have practiced; nonetheless, for most pianists it takes years before they can get to that level. How do you explain that? Is intelligence a byproduct of flesh and blood? If so, how come we are all unique when we all have exactly the same mass contents in our heads?

The other thing that comes to my thinking all the time is: if there cannot be an afterlife, why then life at all? This life we are living right now is as unbelievable as the afterlife. Even though main stream science think they have figured life out, we actually know almost nothing about this thing we call life. And we live this life for just a moment. Why would this Great Creative Intelligence create life for just a moment? What is the point of living for just a moment? If life is just this one moment, then what a joke it is. I would not call it intelligence but a disaster of epic proportion. We can even go further: What if life is in fact a disaster of epic proportion? I think it would have been wiped out by now; after all, we can see in nature that disasters tend to be quick and destructive, but life in general persists.

I think this life is just a breeding ground. In order for Intelligence to express itself, it needs a form. The Individual Intelligence is born in this rough plane for one reason: to obtain a form. I think of this form as the matrix which contains the code for all the forms the Individual Intelligence will ever need in all planes of its existence. But this can be a subject for another tread.

Very interesting article published today 2/22/18

"WHERE DO WE GO WHEN WE “DIE?” SIGNS THAT CONSCIOUSNESS REMAINS AFTER DEATH ARE INCREASING"

 

That article is very interesting. I was discouraged, however, by this line: "But it does seem to suggest that when our brains and bodies die, our consciousness may not, or at least not right away."

It's the "at least right away" part that bothered me. I hope that our consciousness continues forever and that this is not a temporary result of brain cells just living longer, or something like that. Maybe I am overly concerned or am over-simplifying this. Your thoughts?

 

So, in a nutshell, do you think it's safe to assume that there is a decent chance that our consciousness survives physical death?

 

I am absolutely sure of this DenverGuy! No doubts what-so-ever!

 

I am also absolutely sure of this.

 

It is a wonderful piece of wisdom to behold isn't it Bill?

 

Right Kim.
I went to an incredible medium yesterday through a series of synchronicities. Susie was on fire! You could feel the energy. Both mine and the mediums hands were shaking. Love is a very beautiful and powerful force. I have been grieving deeply lately and it was not getting any easier.
Susie reassured me in many ways and was talking a mile a minute. The medium could not catch everything She was saying. She was intent on getting through to me and kept saying "Do you hear me?" "Are you listening to me?". The medium received Susie's father's name and my daughter's name and a lot of other things only Susie and I knew. I could feel Susie's intense love and also Her concern for my depression.
She made me promise several time to only remember Her life not Her passing.
She has been hearing me and talking to me non stop but possibly because of my grief and depression I'm not always able to tune in.

 

That is a wonderful thing to have that Bill. I am happy for you!

 

Hi all. Newbie on board. I think it's very safe to assune that DG. I think there is more than a decent chance considering the fact that Science doesn't look at all the huge amounts of veridical evidence that is right before their eyes. They don't consider it because it doesn't meet their criteria or definitions as evidence. Thus it is thrown out of court as hearsay, in lawyer-speak. It's best to just let Science get around to discovering it themselves. Don't worry they're getting closer and closer to painting themselves into a corner.

 

Bill - and everyone! - if you have found a terrific medium, will you please give me that medium's contact information? I am asked all the time to recommend mediums, and I would love to be able to recommend yours!