Are people who deny the reality of an afterlife in denial?

[Fearandloathing]

I would say that your belief can be argued to be false, and simply relies on insisting on faith that the material world is all that exists.

However, the reality is that the "you" that exists now did not exist when you were an infant. All of the cells that made up your body when "you" were an infant have died and no longer exist, so for you to be arguing that there is a continuous "you", you are arguing that what makes "you you" to begin with is something which isn't reducible to your material body.

Christians need to learn NOT to quote science.

You're wrong.

On every score.

I survived three years of part time bible college and emerged an atheist.

Please explain to me why anyone would follow a petty, egotistical god who tortured his greatest worshiper for a LIFETIME on a bet with "satan".

Now you add the part that after all "Adam and Eve" were allegory representing mankind...a belief that would get you whipped in my childhood! yeah I had six years at the hands of nuns/ NO DECENT god would tolerate their cruelty

 

[Daisy]

Nope, they are experiencing something which actually exists.

A hallucination is the experience of something which does not exist.

A "hallucination" is the sensory experience of something that does not exist

So, naturally, you would be mistaken.

So, when Jesus told Lazarus' sister he would rise, why did Lazarus' sister, Martha say...

“I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.” John 11:24

 

[Airyaman]

The "circular reasoning" is the insistence that the experiences aren't of something which exists, when the evidence indicates they do.

How exactly does that "evidence" work? How do you confirm that what a person saw during an NDE is real?

You can't, because it's all in the brain of the person having the experience.

 

[Daisy]

Christians need to learn NOT to quote science.

You're wrong.

On every score.

I survived three years of part time bible college and emerged an atheist.

Please explain to me why anyone would follow a petty, egotistical god who tortured his greatest worshiper for a LIFETIME on a bet with "satan".

Now you add the part that after all "Adam and Eve" were allegory representing mankind...a belief that would get you whipped in my childhood! yeah I had six years at the hands of nuns/ NO DECENT god would tolerate their cruelty

Groundhog Day...

 

[KingLeo]

Yes, there is overwhelming evidence, such as the video I linked in the OP.

People who deny the reality of the afterlife are basing their denial purely on faith, in denial of the evidence.

LOL
A YouTube video is 'overwhelming evidence'?
NOT.

 

[Integrityrespec]

I guess I am in denial. I am also guessing the sanctimonious and pious types will have other nasty things to say about my atheism or my belief that once you die, that is the end.

It ALWAYS amazes me that those with the deepest convictions are always so judgemental of those who don't share their convictions.

Seriously? Liberals seem to me to be the ones with the most extreme convictions and so judgemental of those who disagree. Take transgenderism for example.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Seriously? Liberals seem to me to be the ones with the most extreme convictions and so judgemental of those who disagree. Take transgenderism for example.

Can't help yourself, can you?
I NEVER said anything about political affiliation, I was talking about sanctimonious types who want to impose their religious beliefs on other people. AND YOU had to make it about Liberals and transgenders. Your comments sound more triggered and childish by the day, and you can NEVER resist changing the subject.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

I'm merely saying your belief is nonsense, and can be proven to be nonsense. If you don't want to accept that reality, it's your choice to live in denial.

Tell ya what, you believe what you wanna believe and it won't upset me one bit, and let me believe what I want to believe and ask you not to be upset one bit. Can you do that?

 

[tosca1]

Is it really just a fear of having to be held accountable for their actions here on earth? If, for example, someone was a murderer or a rapist, I'm sure they would wish that there was no life after death, even though there probably is.

The mental gymnastics that people will likely go through to avoid having to accept this truth are likely very astounding.

They flatly deny it in PUBLIC.
Lol - they talk about it like as if they've, "been there, done that." I mean.....dying, of course!



Whom are they kidding?
They ponder on it...............privately. In silence.

Evidence?
They wouldn't argue about it if they hadn't at least, thought about it.

 

[Gordy327]

Nope, they are experiencing something which actually exists.

A hallucination is the experience of something which does not exist.

A "hallucination" is the sensory experience of something that does not exist

So, naturally, you would be mistaken.

Subjective and anecdotal. No actual objective evidence of any afterlife.

 

[Gordy327]

LOL
A YouTube video is 'overwhelming evidence'?
NOT.

What about TikTok or X? Theists seem to utilize those to submit their "evidence" too. Curious they never submit actual scientific evidence or sources.

 

[Gordy327]

How exactly does that "evidence" work? How do you confirm that what a person saw during an NDE is real?

You can't, because it's all in the brain of the person having the experience.

Exactly. Its the proverbial "mind playing tricks on you."

 

[Rambozo]

Subjective and anecdotal. No actual objective evidence of any afterlife.

Doesn't matter.

Subjective and evidence is superior in many ways.

Your childhood experiences are subjective and anecdotal. So, by your logic, if a third party wasn't able to perform an experiment showing that your childhood experiences occurred, you would believe your childhood experiences didn't happen.

And yes, there is more than enough objective evidence of individuals reporting NDEs, or offering evidences of an afterlife.

So the fact that you'll continue to demand evidence after evidence (and deny them when they've been provided to you), when you'll have to come to terms with death eventually, regardless of what evidence is presented to you is pretty foolish. Your eternity is at stake regardless of what evidence is offered to you.

What about TikTok or X? Theists seem to utilize those to submit their "evidence" too. Curious they never submit actual scientific evidence or sources.

More than enough as been provided. But whether or not evidence is "scientific" or not is irrelevant and has no bearing on truth.

Five Scientific Proofs for the Reality of Life After Death in Some Form

What happens when we die? Does consciousness simply flicker out, like a candle extinguished, or does it continue in some other form?

anomalien.com

Exactly. Its the proverbial "mind playing tricks on you."

No, it's actually evidence of the afterlife.

If you aren't able to realize that, then your mind is playing tricks on you by causing you to think that it isn't.

 

[Gordy327]

Doesn't matter.

Subjective and evidence is superior in many ways.

Your childhood experiences are subjective and anecdotal. So, by your logic, if a third party wasn't able to perform an experiment showing that your childhood experiences occurred, you would believe your childhood experiences didn't happen.

And yes, there is more than enough objective evidence of individuals reporting NDEs, or offering evidences of an afterlife.

So the fact that you'll continue to demand evidence after evidence (and deny them when they've been provided to you), when you'll have to come to terms with death eventually, regardless of what evidence is presented to you is pretty foolish. Your eternity is at stake regardless of what evidence is offered to you.


More than enough as been provided. But whether or not evidence is "scientific" or not is irrelevant and has no bearing on truth.

Five Scientific Proofs for the Reality of Life After Death in Some Form

What happens when we die? Does consciousness simply flicker out, like a candle extinguished, or does it continue in some other form?

anomalien.com

No, it's actually evidence of the afterlife.

If you aren't able to realize that, then your mind is playing tricks on you by causing you to think that it isn't.

Subjective evidence is the weakest form of "evidence." Its only superior in demonstrating someone who is scientifically illiterate or just plain ignorant because they think subjective evidence is more valid than objective evidence.

 

[Rambozo]

Subjective evidence is the weakest form of "evidence." Its only superior in demonstrating someone who is scientifically illiterate or just plain ignorant because they think subjective evidence is more valid than objective evidence.

Nope. Subjective evidence is superior to objective evidence. I already demonstrated that, by getting you to admit that you can't provide objective evidence that you had a childhood.

Maybe you "subjectively" feel otherwise, but that doesn't change the objective reality that subjective evidence is superior.

 

[Gordy327]

Nope. Subjective evidence is superior to objective evidence. I already demonstrated that, by getting you to admit that you can't provide objective evidence that you had a childhood.

Maybe you "subjectively" feel otherwise, but that doesn't change the objective reality that subjective evidence is superior.

Only on your mind. Subjective "proof" is for the weak minded and ignorant who do not understand actual proof or science and prefers to go by their feelings and biases. Fortunately, science does not accept Subjective proof.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Is it really just a fear of having to be held accountable for their actions here on earth? If, for example, someone was a murderer or a rapist, I'm sure they would wish that there was no life after death, even though there probably is.

The mental gymnastics that people will likely go through to avoid having to accept this truth are likely very astounding.

No.

 

[Rambozo]

Only on your mind. Subjective "proof" is for the weak minded and ignorant who do not understand actual proof or science and prefers to go by their feelings and biases.

Nope. Evidence shows that feelings allow people to make superior decisions.

The Power of Emotions in Decision Making

Emotions play a major role in making decisions. When integrated properly with rational thinking, they can enhance the effectiveness of the decision-making process.

www.psychologytoday.com

The idea that anyone can be 100% objective is false to begin with, since every human experiences emotions and biases.

Fortunately, science does not accept Subjective proof.

Bullshit. Science relies on the feelings and biases of the individuals making the observations.

Unlike truth, science is not objective.

This further demonstrates the inferiority of science, since, as you conveniently failed to address, science wouldn't be able to offer you "objective proof" that you had a childhood.

 

[Gordy327]

Nope. Evidence shows that feelings allow people to make superior decisions.

The Power of Emotions in Decision Making

Emotions play a major role in making decisions. When integrated properly with rational thinking, they can enhance the effectiveness of the decision-making process.

www.psychologytoday.com

The idea that anyone can be 100% objective is false to begin with, since every human experiences emotions and biases.


Bullshit. Science relies on the feelings and biases of the individuals making the observations.

Unlike truth, science is not objective.

This further demonstrates the inferiority of science, since, as you conveniently failed to address, science wouldn't be able to offer you "objective proof" that you had a childhood.

No, feelings lead to irrationality and irrational decisions. Keep demonstrating your ignorance of science too. It's quite comical.

 

[Rambozo]

No, feelings lead to irrationality and irrational decisions. Keep demonstrating your ignorance of science too. It's quite comical.

Irrational decisions can be superior than rational ones. There's plenty of evidence for that, such as the fact that we have evolutionary instincts hardwired into us which aid our survival in ways which rationality wouldn't.

Athletes, for example, have to make decisions on the fly based on gut instincts during the middle of a game. They don't have time to plan or calculate every exact decision they make, and that wouldn't get results. A person can't just memorize a book on the sport and instantly play a successful match.

Evidence:

Intuition in High‑Risk Professions (E.G., Pilots, Firefighters) - My Intuition

Discover how developing intuition in high-risk professions can be a life-saving skill you can't afford to ignore.

my-intuition.com

 

[Michael Cole]

I would say that your belief can be argued to be false, and simply relies on insisting on faith that the material world is all that exists.

However, the reality is that the "you" that exists now did not exist when you were an infant. All of the cells that made up your body when "you" were an infant have died and no longer exist, so for you to be arguing that there is a continuous "you", you are arguing that what makes "you you" to begin with is something which isn't reducible to your material body.

Carbon molecules get swapped among species. The protein in my body came from a cow. The cow got it from grass. Lots and lots of grass. The grass got it from the ground. The ground got it from dead things.

The atoms in my body have existed for billions of years.

Calls for more music. That's what I like about your threads.