• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

survival after death

In what way, I wonder, was he 'never allowed to give a balance in the "free" country of Great Britain'? I bet he got a rejection from a publisher, assumed a vast conspiracy against him, and then went to a vanity publisher.

This one has warning signals flashing all over it. He quotes Russell; I'll bet in the book he compares himself to Galileo.
 
"The British public are only allowed access to one expert opinion - the thoughts of Dr. Richard Wiseman and Dr. Susan Blackmore"

One doctor's opinion + One doctor's opinion = 2 expert opinions....
 
Whoops! Bang goes James Webster's Materialist Bravery Medal!

The debate over life-after-death has become empty and pointless for several reasons, most notably because it has become blighted by machismo. This is certainly what I've noticed in my Spritiualist discussion group. Those who don't believe in it strut around the room with their chests out, swaggering with their thumbs in their pockets like John Wayne, and for a very good reason:

If you reject the concept of survival-of-death then you are set up for life! The street-cred it gives you will carry you through scientific and philosphical circles as a hero, a brave, hard-headed warrior who has the guts to face the awful truth of the finality of existance which the feeble, huddling masses dare not, hiding beneath their comforting blanket of religion. I bet they get laid more than the mystics do!

I wonder how many of the macho-men actually do believe in life-after-death, but won't speak out about it because they're afraid of being called wimps! It's all a bit childish to me, rather like kids showing of their muscle in the playground.

"Neeah!!! I bet James Webster wears girls' clothes when he's at home!"
 
Adendum: When I say "men" I don't mean it literally. Heroic materialists can be of either gender; one of the most dedicated is Sue Blackmore, as you mention above.
 
From the foreword:
The anecdotal stories he relates are so vivid and evidentual which makes them so striking.
Click to expand...
Oh, good. I'm always convinced by a whole bunch of anecdotes strung together...
 
Certainly one of my worst nightmares is to have to spend an eternity in the spiritual bureaucracy of newage afterlife. While talking to deceased ancestors and distant in-laws. And turning out I was my own great-grandmother. And turning out Fermat has been reincarnated into the body of Paris Hilton and is unavailable just now.
Just in case, I plan to leave a sealed envelope with a person I trust. The envelope will containt a phrase which I, to the best of my efforts, will try to communicate from the great beyond. Should anyone contact me, unless they receive the phrase, should consider this a fantasy.
"Oh bother, in this here afterlife, it seems I can only speak Ancient Greek..."
 
I was surprised to hear Sam Harris mention, I think, Ian Stevenson and that 'morphic resonance' cat, forget his name.

Is there any respectable evidence? Any links to good arguments about 'afterlife' evidence?
 
Last edited:
If that's the best they can come up with to convince me to buy Webster's book then that's pretty sad. And is the forward by the same Alan Crossley that claims to be in contact with the dead Helen Duncan and prances round the countryside babbling about spirits in ethereal dresses?

website said:
Only giving the scientific case for oblivion, without any balance, is also against Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Click to expand...

Unbelievable.

website said:
The only difference is that Randi has been given total freedom of all media outlets to state his case for oblivion, and Webster is never allowed to give a balance in the "free" country of Great Britain.
Click to expand...

I suggest other factors might be at work here.

Porterboy said:
I wonder how many of the macho-men actually do believe in life-after-death, but won't speak out about it because they're afraid of being called wimps!
Click to expand...

I don't know about that, but I have always contended that it's not possible for someone to believe conclusively that there is no life after death. Certainly such a position can be convincingly argued on the basis of evidence and to a certain extent logic, but the inability of the human mind to imagine oblivion - nothingness - means that we cannot envisage not being alive and thus our belief cannot be total. Similarly, it is not possible to imagine a world that does not contain us, because to do so we would need to put ourselves in the role of observer, and once we do that the original premise of a world in which we don't exist is destroyed.
 
Last edited:
baron said:
I don't know about that, but I have always contended that it's not possible for someone to believe conclusively that there is no life after death. Certainly such a position can be convincingly argued on the basis of evidence and to a certain extent logic, but the inability of the human mind to imagine oblivion - nothingness - means that we cannot envisage not being alive and thus our belief cannot be total. Similarly, it is not possible to imagine a world that does not contain us, because to do so we would need to put ourselves in the role of observer, and once we do that the original premise of a world in which we don't exist is destroyed.
Click to expand...

Don't think that just because you can't imagine something no-one else can.
 
Cuddles said:
Don't think that just because you can't imagine something no-one else can.
Click to expand...

I think no-one else can because I believe it's logically impossible, not because I can't. Still, feel free to fill me in on the theory behind how a consciousness could imagine an environment that does not include themselves as the observer.
 
Consciousness is a product of life.
No life , no consciousness. No consciousness, no worries!

How well do you remember things before you were conceived?
But you can, presumably, conceive of the possibility that you were conceived and that a time before that you did not exist?

If you can believe you did not exist in the past, why would you have a problem conceiving that such a state may also exist in the future?

I agree with Cuddles. I suspect you just haven't thought about this enough or in the right way to convince yourself. I find it very easy.
 
Donn said:
I was surprised to hear Sam Harris mention, I think, Ian Stevenson and that 'morphic resonance' cat, forget his name.

Is there any respectable evidence? Any links to good arguments about 'afterlife' evidence?
Click to expand...

No - there is none. However woo's love to point to what they call the 'Survival Physics of Ronald Pearson' as their ideal....

Get ready for metaphorically laden nonsense and sweeping assumptions and not forgetting that all important theory of everything......Happy Googling

link
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/pearson/survival.htm
 
Last edited:
baron said:
I think no-one else can because I believe it's logically impossible, not because I can't. Still, feel free to fill me in on the theory behind how a consciousness could imagine an environment that does not include themselves as the observer.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that apply to your belief about what is logically impossible for other people to image? By your reasoning you couldn't have imagined a person having a logically impossible belief, and so you can't have a beleif about it?
 
baron said:
I think no-one else can because I believe it's logically impossible, not because I can't. Still, feel free to fill me in on the theory behind how a consciousness could imagine an environment that does not include themselves as the observer.
Click to expand...
Are you saying you cannot imagine a historical time period?

Anyway you may believe it is logically impossible but it clearly isn't. I have no problem imagining a world in the future where I am not here, and I am sure others have no problem with this.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Consciousness is a product of life.
No life , no consciousness. No consciousness, no worries!

How well do you remember things before you were conceived?
But you can, presumably, conceive of the possibility that you were conceived and that a time before that you did not exist?

If you can believe you did not exist in the past, why would you have a problem conceiving that such a state may also exist in the future?

I agree with Cuddles. I suspect you just haven't thought about this enough or in the right way to convince yourself. I find it very easy.
Click to expand...

You have misunderstood my post. I didn't say that the theory was in any way difficult to understand. I said that it is not possible to imagine your own non-existence. Imagination is not the same as belief.

I can indeed conceive of a time before I was born. I can acknowledge and describe that state of my own non-existance. I cannot, however, imagine it. It is impossible. That was my point.
 
Mangafranga said:
Doesn't that apply to your belief about what is logically impossible for other people to image? By your reasoning you couldn't have imagined a person having a logically impossible belief, and so you can't have a beleif about it?
Click to expand...

You've tied yourself up in knots. Impossibility has no bearing on me being an observer.
 
baron said:
You've tied yourself up in knots. Impossibility has no bearing on me being an observer.
Click to expand...

So its for impossible for person A to imagine situation X, but its possible for person B to imagine person A imagining situation X?
 
baron said:
You have misunderstood my post. I didn't say that the theory was in any way difficult to understand. I said that it is not possible to imagine your own non-existence. Imagination is not the same as belief.

I can indeed conceive of a time before I was born. I can acknowledge and describe that state of my own non-existance. I cannot, however, imagine it. It is impossible. That was my point.
Click to expand...
You can't imagine it and It is impossible are two different and unrelated concepts.
It's like the myth of scientists proving a bumble bee couldn't fly. Obviously any such 'proof' is based on faulty logic as you cannot prove something which is untrue.

I can imagine scenarios in the past and future without me in. Now you can choose not to believe me of course, but you can't claim you have proven anything because your 'proof' relies on having absolute certainty about what other people can or can't imagine. Which of course you cannot have.
 
Last edited:
"The resistance to new ideas increase by the square of their importance."

Yeah, that's why we reject the idea of life after death - because it's such a new paradigm shattering idea. Couldn't be because the idea makes no sense or because it is impossible to know or because there is no evidence for it. Yes, and we reject it because it makes us look tough and not seem to be sissies. Only sissies don't want to die.

Actually, I am more curious about life before birth. Are we dead before we are born. If so, well, it wasn't really that bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom