Is there an after life.

In my opinion agnostism is a starting point. It might seem a permanent state. But I'd say it is only an expression of "insufficient evidence". Continued research could generate / find "sufficient evidence". In that respect I consider it a temporary state.

Why you all so sure about that?

Why you all so sure about that?

Long life - lots of time to look into it over many years. But my views are my own. I don't think they can transfer to anyone else. It is up to each person to reach his or her own conclusions.

Well if there is an afterlife i would like to meet you guy in the future

Max said > "Sometimes experients see relatives who are still alive?"

The vast majority see the deceased (over 90%) the figures vary of course as you would expect. Sometimes (rarely) the living children of the experiencer are encountered as they progress down the tunnel towards the light (as they say). It seems to occur as a powerful reminder that they have responsibilities and need to go back. We will never know why this happens but obviously it isn't the "spirits" of the children. Maybe it's the supreme intelligence behind the universe, organising it = "god" but you will no doubt find that highly amusing)    

Max said >"Other experients have seen not their deceased relative, but the deceased relative of a person working to resuscitate them?"

Allowing your theory ?

Max said >"As you know, I don't accept the idea of no brain activity at all."

Naturally, but nevertheless there isn't any, it's just a fact. Cell viability is not the same as brain function.

Max said >"Even though the organism may appear behaviourally unconscious, the majority of the cells that make up the organism will still be viable and/or functional, otherwise people couldn't tell us about their NDE after their resuscitation."

A brain with no blood flow has no electrical activity (after 10-20 seconds) and the brain stem is also down. The brain is effectively unplugged. There should be nothing seen, remembered or reported, just a complete blank and yet this is the time where people can have the most profound remembrances of their lives. That's why it's such a problem for science.

You are trying to hijack the obvious implications of what this means (a separable continuing mind) by attempting to introduce a highly fanciful (to say the least) theoretical 'solution' of your own, without a shred of plausibility to it.   

The people themselves (providing the data) tell us that they left their bodies. They can see from above what is occurring, well above head height, sometimes up through the ceiling or down the hall. Your theory can't even begin to cope with that, so you simply reject those NDE's that don't work for you.

I've even given you examples of people having an OBE/NDE with no one else around but you do the same with those.
There are so many reasons why your theory could never work Max, but you just keep asserting that it does. Why not put your creative energy into something else ?

We know that human beings have minds. We know that the mind (thoughts/feelings etc) is immaterial and can't be seen.  I don't see why, based on thousands of authentic reports, that it's considered so outlandish and impossible for that said immaterial mind to leave the physical base it normally resides in, in certain situations. The data points to that, why couldn't it be correct ?

Max said > "Sometimes experients see relatives who are still alive?"

The vast majority see the deceased (over 90%) the figures vary of course as you would expect. Sometimes (rarely) the living children of the experiencer are encountered as they progress down the tunnel towards the light (as they say). It seems to occur as a powerful reminder that they have responsibilities and need to go back. We will never know why this happens but obviously it isn't the "spirits" of the children. Maybe it's the supreme intelligence behind the universe="god" but you will no doubt find that highly amusing)    

Max said >"Other experients have seen not their deceased relative, but the deceased relative of a person working to resuscitate them?"

Allowing your theory ?

Max said >"As you know, I don't accept the idea of no brain activity at all."

Naturally, but nevertheless there isn't any, it's just a fact. Cell viability is not the same as brain function.

Max said >"Even though the organism may appear behaviourally unconscious, the majority of the cells that make up the organism will still be viable and/or functional, otherwise people couldn't tell us about their NDE after their resuscitation."

A brain with no blood flow has no electrical activity (after 10-20 seconds) and the brain stem is also down. The brain is effectively unplugged. There should be nothing seen, remembered or reported, just a complete blank and yet this is the time where people can have the most profound remembrances of their lives. That's why it's such a problem for science.

You are trying to hijack the obvious implications of what this means (a separable continuing mind) by attempting to introduce a highly fanciful (to say the least) theoretical 'solution' of your own, without a shred of plausibility to it.   

The people themselves (providing the data) tell us that they left their bodies. They can see from above what is occurring, well above head height, sometimes up through the ceiling or down the hall. Your theory can't even begin to cope with that, so you simply reject those NDE's that don't work for you.

I've even given you examples of people having an OBE/NDE with no one else around but you do the same with those.
There are so many reasons why your theory could never work Max, but you just keep asserting that it does. Why not put your creative energy into something else ?

We know that human beings have minds. We know that the mind (thoughts/feelings etc) is immaterial and can't be seen.  I don't see why, based on thousands of authentic reports, that it's considered so outlandish and impossible for that the said immaterial mind to leave the physical base it normally resides in, in certain situations. The data points to that, why couldn't it be correct ?

What about there are still people see their family that still a life and fail nde, i see linda say alot about that (even she full of bias)

What about there are still people see their family that still a life and fail nde, i see linda say alot about that (even she full of bias)

Sorry, Vy Chan Hai, please can you rephrase that question ?  

What about the people (NDErs) who see family that are still alive ? and ….? NDE. (I understand the last line perfectly and I fully agree  )

Doug, please can you put us out of our misery!  

Sorry, Vy Chan Hai, please can you rephrase that question ?  

What about the people (NDErs) who see family that are still alive ? and ….? NDE. (I understand the last line perfectly and I fully agree  )

I mean family people that still alive in real life.

I mean family people that still alive in real life.

I think I suggested an answer t this in another thread but I'll try again. What and who people see in this state of being seems to be very subjective. People see religious figures too: angels, Jesus, God, etc. So, in theory, they probably see who they expect to see or are comfortable with. Figures who put them at ease. This could be because the spirits who are generally around to assist the transition are aware of these expectations and adopt the appearance of those religious or family figures - even family figures who are still, in physical terms, alive.

Another possibility is that the spirits of the living are actually who they seem to be. There are accounts of the spirit acting independently of the physical self. Accounts of living "spirit helpers" who also assist with the transition.

Of course, all of these accounts and evidence amounts to nothing if one is convinced that no form of consciousness (including the spirit or soul) can exist other than as some form of physical brain activity. That is a halt beyond which the materialist will refuse to venture which is why so many scientists and materialist philosophers vehemently deny the afterlife and consider such ideas as being anti-science. Much as Linda will insist that she is open-minded, she has consistently argued that materialist position over the years that many of us have been exposed to her opinions.