Sriram #fundie

Sriram #fundie religionethics.co.uk

There is plenty of evidence for an after-life. Many people just don't want to see it...that is all. Instead of seeing the phenomena for what it is...you want the phenomena to present itself to you in a manner that you think is acceptable. That is not going to happen.

The more the scientific community ignores such evidence, the more it is likely to be ignored by the people in the years to come. Many people today are educated and confident enough to know how far science can go and where it cannot. The word of the scientific community will no longer be 'God's' word, that it hitherto was.

40 comments

old comment by Skide

There is plenty of hard evidence of what our conciousnes is and where does it reside, also what happens naturaly when the hardware it`s based on ceases to function: The energy dissolves, most of the time with barely a tick on our sensory instruments, at times outright violently when it can short a nearby electric appliance. All else is apes finding patterns(or indeed trying as they might to not go with the evidence) where there are none with our level of knowledge and desperately trying to justify crumbling control mechanisms. This knowledge can and will be extremely useful but only if and when we use it to full effect, something I believe the control freaks of this world`s systems will not allow without severe regulating.

old comment by Psycho Tits

I believe in a form of afterlife, but only on the strength of my own experience. I don't expect anyone else to believe my claim because...well, actually I am in a Catch-22 in terms of "proof." I can prove a person lived in the past. I can prove I, myself, am alive. I cannot prove the two are linked beyond producing facts not on record...and there is no one alive who can varify my statements.

Someone could easily argue that my discovery of this nobody from the past could have spawned confabulation, delusion, or even just plain lies. (I'm not actually lying. Whether I'm unstable or not is easier for outsiders to judge. When I sought counseling for this, there were no diagnoses of any mental illness. I have one potentially crazy belief, and enough sense to recognize intellectually that it could be a mistake. Human brains make them all the time.)

There is no way to conclusively prove an afterlife. If there were, I'd have James Randi's million dollar offer. Alas. No million for me.

old comment by keppie

I don't expect science to be "god's word." Science can inform ethics but it is not the last word.

For example, science *informs* our decisions surrounding end of life matters by telling us, at the present time, what the likely outcomes will be. We then take that information, combine it with our ethical/moral/religious beliefs, to make a decision.

Science is not ignoring evidence. To the best of my knowledge, science is simply silent (or very quiet) on the issue because there aren't too many legitimate ways to study the subject. The only thing I've heard of is collecting subjective near death experiences. Those are interesting but hardly "plenty of evidence."

I would much rather science remain silent on an issue than attempt to prove something that is beyond any kind of objective study. This is both proper science and respectful of those with religious beliefs.

old comment by Skide

@dxdydz

Apologies for ther latter one. This is of course pure conjecture on my part. As for the former, this is a well known anatomical fact that electricity plays two basic parts with chemistry in how our brains operate, guess I`ll give you a direct cites if you still need`em but this is really in standard medical manuals. The energy for all we know might not actually be able to dissipate with meaningful outside the body effects unless specifically proven.

"This knowledge can and will be extremely useful but only if and when we use it to full effect, something I believe the control freaks of this world`s systems will not allow without severe regulating."

It`s my personal belief that if and when such a technology that could encroach upon a territory traditionaly held purely by religious dogma would become aviable there would be an immidiate and severe call for legislation. Not that somebody actively is suppresing such a thing from being made in the first place or other such conspiratory crap. If this still looks like subworthy material then by all means sir, go ahead.

old comment by dxdydz

@Skide

I'm not interested in your beliefs, you can believe what you want. I'm interest in well documented, peer reviewed evidence, and I'd like you to critically examine your own beliefs. I can criticize your beliefs as much as I want, but at the end of the day the one that decides what you believe is you.

This isn't really a conjecture either, conjectures are based off of incomplete information, this looks like no information was the starting point here.

A bit about how the brain works: The brain does work on electrical signals, that part is really true. I had once heard that the brain runs on less wattage than a standard in home lightbulb; doing a search for 'watts the brain runs on' I am seeing that it runs on anywhere between 8 to 20 watts. This is far too low a wattage to be shorting out any appliances, and it's not directed like current from a wire.

Neurons are also busy doing their own thing, their job isn't to work together to produce a large current; my guess is that this 8 to 20 watt number was acquired from adding up all the small amounts of power between individual synapses, a calculation that would be akin to adding up the strength of all the little breezes you feel on a nice day and getting a wind speed that looks like something from a hurricane. But it's a guess, and if true it makes the number a bit less impressive to me in terms of high power. However it does mean that the brain is a pretty power efficient calculator, and that's impressive.

It's important to note that electricity in the brain isn't quite like the flow of electrons in a wire (this may be a bit rusty, it's been a long time since I've studied chem, biology, or emag). The brain relies on an electrochemical gradient driven by the flow of sodium and calcium ions to communicate between neurons. And when there is something more akin to current you know within neurons it's something that stays there; neurons are coated in something called a myelin sheath, this acts as an insulator* and allows for a stronger signal to make it to the next synapse. This makes it hard for any current to leave the circuit (in this case the axon of the cell). So with the myelin acting as an insulator, the amount of power being weak, and the fact that this isn't an episode of the xfiles, I don't see how what you're saying makes sense.

The brain doesn't appear to be special either, just very complicated in the view of our understanding at the moment. So why would we expect to observe such a phenomenon only in the brain, why do we not see it when a cell phone dies, other animals die, or the power goes out?

And no, I'm not going to submit you to CTSTDT. For me, one of the things that separates the people who write the quotes that get archived here and the commenters that post here is that we have the ability to critically examine our own beliefs and rely on evidence. I have not been commenting here long, but from reading your comments when I see them I know you have that ability.

*It also reduces capacitance and increases signal speed, but that's not really important right now.

old comment by Kid Cthulhu

The irony of this post appearing the same day I buried my beloved parrot...

I get that people want to believe in an afterlife. I get that it's a defense mechanism. I get that people grieve in different ways. I find myself saying things like my dear Ozzy is on permanent vacation with Quetzalcoatl now. But that's not a hard fact; it's something we say to deal with the things we can't deal with. Nothing more.

There's no documented proof. The bible is the claim, not the evidence. There also isn't any hard proof the "scientific community" is willfully ignoring mountains of data on the subject. So take your smug attitude and cram it walnuts, ugly.

I miss my Ozzy Ozbird. He's been my a part of my daily life for the past 20 years (and a daily part of Crimson Ghost's life for the last 12 or 13). His "afterlife" is in our memories and our photos.

old comment by Skide

@Kid Cthulhu

Damn I can emphatize, myself having lost a very dear friend and my companion dog I grew up with rather recently. Guess I just naturally accepted the sad fact that everything my dear Roxie was has dissipated and been lost to me forever but in this very fact I find solace as I see the unique gem her existence was, from her first happy yips to her peaceful last sleep in the venerable age she`s met. Death isn`t supposed to be eased I believe, it is a challenge we all as self aware sentients must face for in it`s face it is often that we find our values reflected the strongest.

Your companion must`ve had a great, fulfillig and long life for a member of his kind, existence is not beautiful because of its permanency but precisely it is so fleeting.

old comment by Jamaican Castle

@Psycho Tits: I'm not sure that it would lose anything, honestly. Other people's, perhaps, but our own?

I have a hard time thinking about dying. Not about pain or sickness or being unable to affect anything in the world, but about the actual cessation of consciousness itself. It's not just that it's creepy or fearful (although it is), I literally can't comprehend what that's like, how it works. Everything I have seen and done in life, pleasant or otherwise, I (or anyone) could observe and contemplate, but in dying, that's not true. So to me the true comfort of any afterlife, or reincarnation, or ghosts or anything, is the thought that while dying might suck, massively, at least it's not this alien, existential crisis. That I'd be able to look back on what happened and maybe give a sarcastic comment. Even if life is wonderful and death is painless there's still that worry.

...well, that got heavy. Anyone have a wacky conspiracy theory?

old comment by Skide

@Jamaican Castle

Don`t think any would break the mood anyway...

I understand your point of view, a solid default for any person never yet faced with what might be the last, final loss of conciousness, one who has yet to make a leap, so to speak.

I was in mine, twice in fact. Once I literally lost it from bleeding out(so had the slow gradual getting dark, faced it with the "lets get this the fuck on" attitude, more enraged by my existence to that point than satisfied with any of it) but was saved at local ER without permanent damage save an impressive scar through my underbelly, on the second time during a heavy surgery about 4 years ago. This time it was diffrent though, for many reasons there was no more blind anger and self-destructive instincts in my life and I faced the possibility with a few tremors, a smile and "it was still all worth it after all".

For me at least it turns out when you`ve been able to actually face the challenge and overcame it with dignity, without hysteria nor depression and falling into madness of blind reasurance it brings out such mental strengh and discipline that I believe it`s really best to see it all as a challenge in the first place, and the final time you pass, you won`t even know it.

Sriram #fundie religionethics.co.uk

40 comments

Confused?