Life after death OR Consciousness after death?

by Space Madness 65 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  willmarite

  I'd agree with you gromitsk that if someone truly did research into the topic of afterlife they could not assert without doubt that we do not survive physical death.

  I've been particularly impressed by Ian Stevenson's research into reincarnation.He's researched many cases where young children remember living another life and have provided many details that later prove to be true. These are extremely well documented cases. I believe he has investigated over 2000 cases. In a typical case a child between 2 and 5 yrs. of age begins talking about a previous life. Usually by 6-8 yrs. of age the child no longer remembers.

  Only someone who hasn't studied the evidence in-depth or someone with a completely closed mind can assert that there is no afterlife.
• 

  cofty

  if someone truly did research into the topic of afterlife they could not assert without doubt that we do not survive physical death

  I truly have, and I do assert without any shadow of doubt.

  By studying the evidence in depth do you mean reading lots of anecdotes?
• 

  willmarite

  Hello cofty,

  Exactly what research have you done into the afterlife?
• 

  cofty

  Read lots of personal accounts and anecdotes like you have.

  For balance I also read the other side of the issue. Susan Blackmore dedicated half her career trying to use the scientific method to prove these things were real. In the end she concluded her world was in vain. It was all anecdote and deception.
• 

  willmarite

  Since you've done so much research on the afterlife undoubtely you've read about Dr. Ian Stevenson's research on reincarnation , what did you think about it? What points made you totally reject it?
• 

  GromitSK

  @cofty you're perfectly entitled of course to form your view on the research you have carried out. I don't know how much effort you've put into it or how objective you were, and really it's a matter for you. I think that's the point I was making really. Having done my own research, your assessment of your own findings is not pursuasive for me on the subject, as I wouldn't expect mine would be to you.

  This only really matters if a person wants to pursuade me to their point of view (or vice versa) and I have no such desire. So people can read the evidence for themselves, if they have an interest, and form their own view. I wouldn't expect a person to form a view on the subject based on my opinion of the evidence, or on yours. I don't think you would either.

  The issue won't be resolved in discussions on forums like this. The only way to do that would be to engage in discussion based on common reading and there seldom seems much genuine appetite for that. Discussing other people's experiences is,in my experience, inconclusive anyway. This kind of discussion can be constructive when it is an open-minded discussion, but if not the dialogue tends to be tiring and unproductive.

  Good questions Willmarite.
• 

  cofty

  Stevenson started with a belief he inherited from his mother and then spent the rest of his life gathering anecdotes that he could use to confirm it.

  As Michael Shermer said, "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons."

  Stevenson began with the risible belief that some illness cannot be explained by genes or infection but only by reference to past lives. Similarily he postulated that birth marks and defects are signs of wounds sufferd in previous lifetimes.

  Not surprisingly he went to India and other countries where belief in reincarnation was already rife and started interviewing children via biased interpreters. Children in these cultures are raised from infancy to believe they have lived many times before and no doubt entertain childish fantasies about their past.

  Interestingly when children talk about their past lives they are almost always of a higher class and lived and died in dramatic circumstances.

  Stevenson's work was entirely unscientific. Nothing could possibly be allowed to count against his beliefs. Any time a child's story didn't check out it was simply discarded. Any time he found a connection between what a child said and some historical reality, however tenuous, it was marked up as evidence.

  Stevenson never proposed any mechanism for how injuries experienced in one life could physically impact on the next. He only cared about collcting anecdotes like an obsessive train-spotter collecting locomotive numbers.

  What a waste of a mind. The only empirical experiment he ever did was the day of his death. So far he hasn't bothered to report the results.
• 

  GromitSK

  So cofty - did you read the research or are you reporting someone else's analysis of it? If so whose? That was a very quick response btw :)

  It is very difficult to engage in conversation with people who have not even looked at the research for themselves, but who simply quote the opinion of others.

  If you have actually read it I look forward to an interesting discussion between you and Willmarite :)

  Of course if you haven't actually read it, then it's going to be Willmarite comparing their view against someone else's - assuming Willmarite has read it too.
• 

  willmarite

  I can tell cofty you haven't read Stevenson's research. You probably went to skepdic.com or similar site.

  In the short time I've been on this forum I can see that you are completely convinced you are right and you've closed your mind off to any other opinion. That's all right you have the right to a closed mind.
• 

  cofty

  I researched the topic years ago using internet sources on both sides and concluded it was religious dogma masquerading as science.

  Is there anything inaccurate in my analysis?