'I've seen proof of the afterlife'

October 18th, 2007, 07:27 PM

LOL you can call yourself what you want please don't put words in my mouth . You want to know what I really think of you ? your susceptible in other words you already believe . I don't claim to know you or understand your background but for some reason you believe in these things and hence you see them . It doesn't concern you at all that people like me can walk around haunted houses alone at night ( which i've done for curiosity ) and not see or hear a dam thing outside the normal ? Power of suggestion is not the be all end all of human mental analysis but it is a know fact susceptible people are far more likely to hear things go bump in the dark.

October 18th, 2007, 07:34 PM

What I call myself is a Paranormal Researcher. Professionally. And Ive been in a few "haunted" places that don't have jack as well. But I also know what I have seen. I don't believe therefore I see. I see therefore I believe. Until proven otherwise.

I investigate hauntings on a daily basis. Nine times out of ten those "rattling chains" are squirrels in the attic. Blobs of light are usually reflections of car headlights catching mirrors, windows, or framed items under glass. Creaky noises usually ARE houses settling. That "woman screaming" out on Old Finch in Toronto? Peacocks at the zoo. Yes, 90+% of the time there is a rational explaination.

But sometimes there's not.

October 18th, 2007, 07:45 PM

i pissed myself laughing at this article

October 18th, 2007, 11:05 PM

I don't know if I've seen proof of an afterlife, but I have seen proof that it's not a space to fear entering.

Wolf

October 18th, 2007, 11:18 PM

I don't believe anybody's seen proof of the afterlife. What they've seen is things they interpret as evidence in support of that belief, without understanding how lamentably easy it is to fool yourself into believing things you want to believe. Personal experience and anecdote are worth nothing in this context, that's why legitimate scientific testing has such elaborate safeguards against things like fraud, error, and coincidence. Read this for instance. A rational skeptic is really just somebody who's learned that memory and perception cannot be trusted.

October 18th, 2007, 11:30 PM

I don't believe we would really recognize proof of an afterlife. We can only know logic as it exists on this plane. There's no reasoning the unreasonable - and what may or may not exist in a hereafter isnt something we are capable of or comfortable understanding.

Wolf

October 18th, 2007, 11:56 PM

Oh, I think we would; it shouldn't be particularly difficult if it's real. If somebody like John Edward or Sylvia Browne or any of the others who claim to be able to talk to the dead could produce something other than platitudes--I'm happy, I love you, I forgive you, I'm fine, it's lovely here, etc.--about what the dead want to tell us and provide real information instead, I think that'd be pretty convincing. If they could reliably get rich dead aunts to tell us where they left the keys to the safety deposit boxes and what's in them, for instance, that'd be a good start. But they never do. It's always just comforting platitudes and BS from people skilled at cold reading.

October 19th, 2007, 02:28 AM

The major problem with anecdotal evidence (besides the fallacy), even self experienced, is an analog of the chinese telephone effect: over time the accuracy of memory degrades but the self-reported certainty increases. This is especially a problem in court rooms where on appeals the eye-witnesses are more certain than before but clearly the memory could not have improved.

The following statements about memory are widely believed but contradicted by experiment:

1. Memory is like a video recording of your observations that can be played back at will to remind you of what you saw
2. When you are very confident about your memory for an event you observed, you are much more likely to be correct
3. Your memory is stable over time
4. Your memory for what you originally saw can be kept separate from things you learned after observing the event
5. People's faces stand out when you observe them and it is easy to remember faces, so recognition of faces is rarely in error
6. An eyewitness report is accurate evidence as to who was present and what happened
7. Having to tell the same story of what happened over and over reinforces it and makes it more resistant to change
8. When a weapon is visible during a crime, witnesses are more accurate in remembering the details of the crime.
9. Personally experienced traumatic events are remembered more accurately than everyday ones.
10. Observed violent events are remembered more accurately than everyday events.

In time, an individual who opened the front door and saw a bright flash of lightning and jumped back in surprise will report being thrown back from being struck by lightning. They will feel extremely confident about the memory due to its supposed traumatic effect and from the many times they have told the story over and over again.

A faulty memory is not psychotic, having an unwavering belief in any one of the preceding 10 statements might be.

October 19th, 2007, 09:05 PM

Science can and has studied the paranormal , and event taking place in the natural realm is testable by science and reason. I'am not dogmatic it does seem however that people that hold to this belief are immune to the sheer extent that these ideas defy not what we do not know but what we know for a fact . I roll my eyes talking reasonable about the unreasonable just causes animosity ,

February 13th, 2008, 03:43 PM









The demon or the genie is alive; he can carry material objects and can speak with an audible voice or can sometimes show himself to people; but the soul of a dead man cannot do that, unless during sleep or after man dies.

February 14th, 2008, 09:45 AM

Sounds a lot like science, only science plays around for a while to make it seem like they know what they are talking about.

....things they interpret as evidence in support of that belief.....

That's all life is.... that's everything in which we as humans do. No matter how much you study something, how much you write it down or record it, or test it, what happens in the end and what you write down are your own interpretations of what just occured, or influenced interpretations based from other's own explanations of the surrounding information in which you used..... therefore no matter what you do, it's all the same.

If you don't come to the conclusion based on your own understanding, then someone else will. In the end, you'll just accept their own explination because you determined already that they're more experienced in the topic in question and therefore must be correct.... so long as they present their explination with some scientific jargon.

And even those "Elaborate Safeguards" are not perfect and have been worked around countless times in many things over the last century alone, so that one person's conclusions or tests are the absolute. Decades later someone decides to retest and finds that something was missed or overlooked which changes the entire outcome of those original conclusions, and then what then?

Oh... Science saved the day did it? Science screwed it up originally and saved itself.... bravo. When science gets something right, then science is the greatest thing to man kind.... when science screws up.... oh.... it was so-n-so's fault for not putting something into calculation/factor, even though so-n-so was following proper proceedures at the time to come to the conclusions everyone agreed apon.... it's never science's fault itself. Science is a perfect system which can explain everything in the universe.

It hasn't yet.

And yet, science itself is the illusion of thinking you are following proper procedures to come to an unbiased and accurate outcome or answer. The problem is, is that hardly anybody when studying something with just science alone can not account for every possible outcome, solution/answer or conflict, but only the most common based on limited tests and studies they produced over time, or studies which they took from other scientists, trusting themselves that those studies are accurate. This further clouds the overall answer to which one is studying.

And besides all that, you can not tell me there is no level of bias and propaganda at work with the entire Global Warming swindle that's been going on. If there wasn't, then why are some scientists conflicted with others between Global Warming existing, and just plain old fashion Climate Change?

Sorry, but Science isn't the golden religion we're all seeking and science itself, much like past religions, can not answer everything we want to know as humans, and will eventually through a long period of time, will reach its own end based on it's own limitations on study.

Am I all Scientific? Nope.

Am I some Religious guy? Nope.

Am I a believer in a life after this?

Based on the collective scientific studies on the matter, based on historical reports and encounters of various people with various backgrounds of study and education, based on even Einstein's own explinations and beliefs of the afterlife, based on what we as humans understand about energy.... merged with the concepts of a few other things, plus my own experiences, there is more evidence provided and available to back up that there is an afterlife, then not.

Just because science hasn't evolved enough to figure out how to test for certain things, doesn't mean they don't exist. One thing that always pissed me off about science in paticular, is it's leeching of everything in and around it.

For decades, a religion or someone could claim one thing in paticular exists or has happened. For those same decades, science will say it didn't exist or occured because there is no way of studying it or proving that it did. Then eventually science figures itself out, finds a way to study the topic in question, and then claims it did exist or has occured.... therefore it's scientifically proven.... even though buddy has been saying that for decades and knew it did based on common sense and personal experience.

Humans have a brain and an imagination for a reason. We are not robots to think and operate based on rules and proceedures to come to our own conclusions. We are not supposed to just stop thinking or believing something because science claims it can not be tested or proven. Half the damn inventions and things we use today were designed more so by imagination first.

Humanity's mind is Imagination First, and if anything, Science second. If you have no imagination to think of something to test of see how it works, then what's the point of science?

Science itself requires the human imagination to think outside of the normal box of understanding. Human imagination helps people figure out alternative approaches to a problem or situation, beyond tests already done in the past that has not worked. If anything, Science, like Religion, is just a tool for understanding, it is not an answer.

February 14th, 2008, 09:55 AM

The unreasonable is what we don't yet understand. What is unreasonable can be understood very clearly. What is unreasonable is usually based on personal bias.

Before it was unreasonable to think we could ever fly, break the sound barrier, or even reach space.... let alone land a man on the moon. Science did not make these things happen directly.... science was used as a tool to make them work based on human understanding and imagination.

It was human imagination in which created science to begin with.

I personally disagree on that one. Some humans are comfortible with understanding what the afterlife is all about, and some are not. Are we as humans capable of understanding what it is?

I believe so... but only through time collectively. Individually, I believe some on this planet already have a clear understanding of what the afterlife is. Humans have always strived to understand and to get answers to the things around us. Through time we have come across a great level of understanding on many things. There is plenty more to come as well.

And not all of this was based around science. Science wasn't around when humans invented tools, weapons, ships, villages, towns, castles, cultures, money, how to grow food..... Science is like 3M.... they don't make the products you use, they make the products you use better.

Added:

Oh and those people who claim to talk to the dead? I don't believe most of them either.

February 18th, 2008, 10:13 AM

The only "afterlife" humans will experience is as wormfood and all natural fertilizer.

If humans weren't so prone to believing the unbelievable but instead working harder to make our earth a paradise we wouldn't always be craving for pie in the sky solutions dreamt up by writers of fictional nonsense posing as holy script.

February 22nd, 2008, 12:11 AM

February 22nd, 2008, 12:28 AM

February 22nd, 2008, 12:40 AM

Aw, yer so full of crap. You obviously have no idea what science is or how it works. It has only one core belief, that the cosmos is consistent and comprehensible, at least in principle, though we may not be smart enough to comprehend it all. It has nothing in common with religious belief, as you've tried to claim in other threads here (it does, for instance, change its mind), and it's been spectacularly successful in improving human lives in the last 400 years in ways no belief system ever has. Unfortunately its lessons have been inconsistently applied around the world so not everybody lives as well as we do here, but you cannot deny that it works. It's made mistakes, of course, because it's fundamentally a human enterprise and suffers from all the same flaws any human enterprise does, like ego, dogma, tradition, and all the rest of it, but it's eventually self-correcting. It's also the only successful method we've ever found for testing the truth content of empirical claims about the nature of reality. If you've got a better one, lay it out for us.

February 22nd, 2008, 01:07 AM

You are right; most of such people either are impostors or are cheated by some demons that mock them by assuming they are the souls of the dead when in fact they are invisible demons or genies, alive not dead.

Although not all of them; there is a story of evocating the spirit of Prophet Samuel for the behalf of King Saul by a woman that was a medium; the story is in the Torah or the Old Testament, First Book of Samuel(1Sa), chapter 28:

See:
Evocation of Spirits (or Spiritism)
http://man-after-death.741.com/1.htm...on_of_Spirits_


eanassir

February 22nd, 2008, 01:17 AM

Yeah, yer full of crap too. There's no good evidence for any such claims, it's all adequately explained by your first option: impostors. I'm running out of patience with nonsensical, evidence-free thinking.