The Afterlife

[SysTaMatIcS]

MR_J see you in hell dude

[rldxp]

Originally Posted by mr_j

"freedom that no religion is gonna tell me what to eat, what to wear, how to worship, when to lie and when to have sex, who to kill, who to steal, how to look at members from the opposite sex, how to flirt, what to do with my parents, how to raise my child... (I have class now so I'll continue this list later)

Is there a religion that teachs you to do such things??!!!!

[mr_j]

Originally Posted by rldxp

Is there a religion that teachs you to do such things??!!!!

lets see, in christianity: من نظر الى امراة واشتهاها فقد زنى بها في قلبه
أن مرور جمل من ثقب إبرة أيسر من أن يدخل غني إلى ملكوت الله
then jesus goes around telling you that if you don't help the poor and feed the hungry you're going to hell:
"كنت غريباً فما آويتموني، وعرياناً فما كسوتموني"

isn't that teaching you how to live? our souls, our afterlives are hostages, and these are the demands, you have not been given freedom to choose wether or not to do these, it's clear, كنت جائعا فما اطعمتموني you don't feed the hungry, you go to hell, you get rich, you go to hell, you desire a woman, you have sinned

islam is not my religion, I don't have quotes, but then alcohol is forbidden, veils are essential, don't eat pork, don't have sex before marriage. the veil thingy is again as in christianity, a way to forbid lust and sexual desire


I can argue that economicly and biologicly religion fails big time. economicly, if we help the poor and the handicapped all the time, and we give most of our money for that, we would be promoting poverty, this poor person who does not have a job and probably does not know how to perform a job, now thanks to you, instead of diying, he will now grow and breed children, more parasites on society, more mouths for you to feed.
back in jesus's time the rich were the kings and religious people who lives off the back of the tax payers(farmers who were the real workers) in capitalism, jesus's teachings about rich people going to hell is absurd, after all you need to work to get money here.

biologicly, how can you choose your correct mate(wife/husband) if you are afraid of looking him/her in the face fearing sin, if you have no intentions of meeting many people and dating alot, looking up, looking down, etc...

[rldxp]

Originally Posted by mr_j

lets see, in christianity: من نظر الى امراة واشتهاها فقد زنى بها في قلبه
أن مرور جمل من ثقب إبرة أيسر من أن يدخل غني إلى ملكوت الله
then jesus goes around telling you that if you don't help the poor and feed the hungry you're going to hell:
"كنت غريباً فما آويتموني، وعرياناً فما كسوتموني"

isn't that teaching you how to live? our souls, our afterlives are hostages, and these are the demands, you have not been given freedom to choose wether or not to do these, it's clear, كنت جائعا فما اطعمتموني you don't feed the hungry, you go to hell, you get rich, you go to hell, you desire a woman, you have sinned

islam is not my religion, I don't have quotes, but then alcohol is forbidden, veils are essential, don't eat pork, don't have sex before marriage. the veil thingy is again as in christianity, a way to forbid lust and sexual desire


I can argue that economicly and biologicly religion fails big time. economicly, if we help the poor and the handicapped all the time, and we give most of our money for that, we would be promoting poverty, this poor person who does not have a job and probably does not know how to perform a job, now thanks to you, instead of diying, he will now grow and breed children, more parasites on society, more mouths for you to feed.
back in jesus's time the rich were the kings and religious people who lives off the back of the tax payers(farmers who were the real workers) in capitalism, jesus's teachings about rich people going to hell is absurd, after all you need to work to get money here.

biologicly, how can you choose your correct mate(wife/husband) if you are afraid of looking him/her in the face fearing sin, if you have no intentions of meeting many people and dating alot, looking up, looking down, etc...

First Jesus never told us that if we don't help the poor and feed the hungry we're going to hell, he was teaching us to love and care about each other and not think "I'm ok that's great, f**k the rest" and not also to give everything but whatever we can!!!

Second concerning من نظر الى امراة واشتهاها فقد زنى بها في قلبه u got in front of it من منكم
بلا خطيئة فليرجمها بحجر
that means we are dealing with a God that forgives and not a beast that punish us on each sin we made, a God who surely know that the man that desires a woman will desires also 100!!!

God by His nature is a rational being. He operates by the laws of logic. He is not constrained by them because they are some kind of "higher force", but they are the natural outflow of His will; they are His nature. He is as much a rational being as He is a loving being. Because only man has the true capacity for rational thinking, he is in this way also made in God's image. Also, man is intelligent; aware of his surroundings and capable of changing them. He does not act on instinct, but should be able to control his natural drives for higher purposes.

God has given man free will, which likewise reflects God's image. Every man has the ability to choose for himself his actions. He is morally aware. Man understands that certain things are good and certain things are evil.

God differs us from other creatures by some rules that helps to deal with life correctly.
Later on when u marrie and u get children try to raise them without some rules in life and u'll see the consequences, even so u have an animal u have to teach it some rules to deal with!!!
So what about we, the human, without some rules we got through history we would be living a Barbaric life and that's what are we doing now cause we forgot many rules!!!!

Concerning choosing mate(wife/husband), how did our grandparents through history did this and they were very happy and raised many children??!!! on the other hand we see these days many of divorce cases, why??? Didn't they meet many people and date alot, looking up, looking down, etc????!!!

Thanks

[mr_j]

First Jesus never told us that if we don't help the poor and feed the hungry we're going to hell

the sentence that jesus said about this starts with ابتعدو عنّي يا ملاعين something like that

how did our grandparents through history did this and they were very happy and raised many children??!!!

my grandparents were not happy historicly speaking women were always looked upon as merchandise or goods, owned by the father before marriage then the husband after marriage
this was true in europe till about the 19 th century, and in the middle east and the arab world it's still more or less common
when you want to marry a girl, you go to her father and "btotlob ida" what does that mean? you are taking his permission, I doubt women before were happy in their marriages
even now, the wife to go to work usualy needs the permission of her husbands, the husband does not need permission to go work outside

my grandparents were forced to marry each others on both sides of my family because it was convenient for their parents
they did not go out, hold hands, kiss like we can do now, they did not divorce, but it was actualy worse and she lived a sad life and died a horrible sad death.

divorce is freedom, it's not necessarly bad, and it's not because people had fun before marriage
some divorces are because the 2 partners did not have sex before marriage and when they did after marriage, they were not pleased with each others
this is true

we are not free, how are we threatned by out soul and be free? if I take one of your family members hostage and ask you for a pepsi can are you free not to give it to me?

about the bit where humans need rules, yes humans need rules, but rules change, and rules serve people. back in jesus's time, the rich were the kings, governors, priests. they did nothing all day and they collected taxes/donations and gave orders to people, whereas the peasents who worked got little pay and starved to death(case of slaves masalan) so it was normal for jesus to dislike the rich, and say that they cannot enter heaven

but with the conditions changing, this saying cannot persist, in our days the rich are the successful lawyers, economists, doctors etc... minorities inherited their money. Bill gates started off from nothing. now aproach one of my pharmacy doctors, she's about 35 years old, she stayed in the uni till the age of 28 to get her medical doctors, she then got a full time job with a good pay, no longer had time to date, her youth faded away as she was studying/ working, never got married, she wouldn't marry someone economicly and socioly and educationnaly much inferior to her, which would be the case with most
she's miserable, but it's all for the money. and after this hard work, go tell her she deserves hell after all this because she is rich
it doesn't make sense

in the case of islam you have the veil, no alcohol policy, and heaven with rivers of whatever
why river? because arabs used in the arabic desert, rivers were a dream to them, to us promising us a river is not very tempting

how did they live? arabs lives on alcohol and raping women, burrying women alive, getting drunk and killing each others.

so it was also logical to ban alcohol and force the veil.

rules and rewards were always affected by the enviroment. rules should always change

[rldxp]

Originally Posted by mr_j

my grandparents were not happy historicly speaking women were always looked upon as merchandise or goods, owned by the father before marriage then the husband after marriage
this was true in europe till about the 19 th century, and in the middle east and the arab world it's still more or less common
when you want to marry a girl, you go to her father and "btotlob ida" what does that mean? you are taking his permission, I doubt women before were happy in their marriages
even now, the wife to go to work usualy needs the permission of her husbands, the husband does not need permission to go work outside

my grandparents were forced to marry each others on both sides of my family because it was convenient for their parents
they did not go out, hold hands, kiss like we can do now, they did not divorce, but it was actualy worse and she lived a sad life and died a horrible sad death.

It was a sad personal experience that's not necessary that all our grandparents passed through it!!!
Btw for many, the look toward women never changed through history till now, some consider it a slave to serve them, some a sex machine, etc....

Concerning the marriage side (force the woman to marry, permission to go out), u're totally right, but these aren't rules held by God or bible or whatever(p.s. i was discussing with u the religious side), it's just the man who transfer it via history through Customs and traditions inherited, even in Europe the woman till now has many difficulties!!!

Originally Posted by mr_j

divorce is freedom, it's not necessarly bad, and it's not because people had fun before marriage
some divorces are because the 2 partners did not have sex before marriage and when they did after marriage, they were not pleased with each others
this is true

In some cases yes but in many no cause love and marriage is not all about sex, many other things to share!!!

Originally Posted by mr_j

back in jesus's time, the rich were the kings, governors, priests. they did nothing all day and they collected taxes/donations and gave orders to people, whereas the peasents who worked got little pay and starved to death(case of slaves masalan) so it was normal for jesus to dislike the rich, and say that they cannot enter heaven

but with the conditions changing, this saying cannot persist, in our days the rich are the successful lawyers, economists, doctors etc... minorities inherited their money. Bill gates started off from nothing. now aproach one of my pharmacy doctors, she's about 35 years old, she stayed in the uni till the age of 28 to get her medical doctors, she then got a full time job with a good pay, no longer had time to date, her youth faded away as she was studying/ working, never got married, she wouldn't marry someone economicly and socioly and educationnaly much inferior to her, which would be the case with most
she's miserable, but it's all for the money. and after this hard work, go tell her she deserves hell after all this because she is rich
it doesn't make sense

The rich till today still in general the same, the governors the robbers,the priests nothing changed since that time but to get worst!!
btw Jesus never hated the rich, he even didnt hate who killed him!!!

[mr_j]

Concerning the marriage side (force the woman to marry, permission to go out), u're totally right, but these aren't rules held by God or bible or whatever(p.s. i was discussing with u the religious side), it's just the man who transfer it via history through Customs and traditions inherited, even in Europe the woman till now has many difficulties!!!

you were saying that in old times people lived happily, and I'm telling you how it was
religion does seperate alot between sexes giving the man the upper hand. Jesus's disciples were all males after all, jesus's examples were maybe all concerning men not women, women cannot be priests and cannot hold a ceremony(éddes) why?

In some cases yes but in many no cause love and marriage is not all about sex, many other things to share!!!

you were saying that I should see the many divorce cases we have now, and I am pointing out for you one of the major causes, major cause= religion banning sex

The rich till today still in general the same, the governors the robbers,the priests nothing changed since that time but to get worst!!
btw Jesus never hated the rich, he even didnt hate who killed him!!!

I didn't say hate, I said disliked, did not encourage etc... priests now do not have the riches and powers they had back in the old days
jewish priests had jesus crucified right? now holy men can no longer influence the justice system
they no longer ask for money in return for a "piece of land in heaven" it used to happen

we all know rich people, you tell me how did most of them become rich?

and you didn't comment on the fact that rules should change but in religion they don't

jews by the way(or some jews) till now, blood transfusion is prohibited (mamnou3 na2el dam) till now they die of bleeding but still refuse blood transfusion
that's because back when their book was written, each time a blood transfusion was attempted, the recipient died (they didn't understand minor histocompatibility complexes ) and some diseases were caused, and till the 18 th century it was believed that all disease came from God( they did not understand bacteria) so blood transfusion angeres God and is forbidden.
and after all these discoveries they still believe in that

if this sounds absurd and weird to you, what sounds weird to me is how christians give up breakfast for 40 days, the most important meal of the day. some people give up meat during that time, though some vitamins and proteins necessary for normal life is only found in meat.

religion is too fix and too irrationnal for me

this is getting a bit out of topic maybe we should make a seperate thread

and take it easy on the exclamation points, I feel as if you want to hit me

[rldxp]

Originally Posted by mr_j

you were saying that in old times people lived happily, and I'm telling you how it was
religion does seperate alot between sexes giving the man the upper hand. Jesus's disciples were all males after all, jesus's examples were maybe all concerning men not women

It will still ur opinion and not as a general one. Concerning the religion it depends which religion u're talking about, if it's christianity then i guess there's a confuse here:
Jewish women disciples, including Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna, had accompanied Jesus during his ministry and supported him out of their private means (Luke 8:1-3). Although the details of these gospel stories may be questioned, in general they reflect the prominent historical roles women played in Jesus' ministry as disciples. There were women disciples present at Jesus' crucifixion. Women were reported to be the first witnesses to the resurrection, chief among them again Mary Magdalene. She was not only "witness," but also called a "messenger" of the risen Christ.

Women in Christianity
Women in the Bible

Originally Posted by mr_j

Women cannot be priests and cannot hold a ceremony(éddes) why?

but on the other hand they can be sisters, direct schools, be saints, guide battles for God (Joan of Arc). Btw we can see priests that cannot go for election (like Mubarak recently) and in some case they cannot even marry why?

Originally Posted by mr_j

you were saying that I should see the many divorce cases we have now, and I am pointing out for you one of the major causes, major cause= religion banning sex

I don't think banning sex is the official case of divorce, cause if it's true we would see this case heavily before (and that was few happening) and not now(where u can do whatever u want)!!

Originally Posted by mr_j

I didn't say hate, I said disliked, did not encourage etc... priests now do not have the riches and powers they had back in the old days
jewish priests had jesus crucified right? now holy men can no longer influence the justice system
they no longer ask for money in return for a "piece of land in heaven" it used to happen

we all know rich people, you tell me how did most of them become rich?

The priest will always stay rich and all pple know how, and most of the over- rich pple, especially in leb, are known how they get rich!

Originally Posted by mr_j

and you didn't comment on the fact that rules should change but in religion they don't

as Christians we have something considered as rules "The Ten Commandments" so logical, even we don't practice some of them, that shouldn't means they are wrong and we should change them!!!
And doesn't mean what u said before:

Originally Posted by mr_j

"freedom that no religion is gonna tell me what to eat, what to wear, how to worship, when to lie and when to have sex, who to kill, who to steal, how to look at members from the opposite sex, how to flirt, what to do with my parents, how to raise my child... (I have class now so I'll continue this list later)

Originally Posted by mr_j

jews by the way(or some jews) till now, blood transfusion is prohibited (mamnou3 na2el dam) till now they die of bleeding but still refuse blood transfusion
that's because back when their book was written, each time a blood transfusion was attempted, the recipient died (they didn't understand minor histocompatibility complexes ) and some diseases were caused, and till the 18 th century it was believed that all disease came from God( they did not understand bacteria) so blood transfusion angeres God and is forbidden.
and after all these discoveries they still believe in that

Don't care about it, and btw that doesn't mean that religion control their whole way of life, and that was my major discussion with u regarding my 1st post!!

Originally Posted by mr_j

if this sounds absurd and weird to you, what sounds weird to me is how christians give up breakfast for 40 days, the most important meal of the day. some people give up meat during that time, though some vitamins and proteins necessary for normal life is only found in meat.

Yes many do it, but that doesnt mean this is a rule, u can eat whatever u want, and just give up or fast about anything u like!!

Originally Posted by mr_j

religion is too fix and too irrationnal for me

I can see it well

Originally Posted by mr_j

and take it easy on the exclamation points, I feel as if you want to hit me

Wrong feeling, it's just my way in expressing and confirming when writing since i was child
btw i'm enjoying discussing u, cause i like to check other thoughts and opinion!!!

[mr_j]

as Christians we have something considered as rules "The Ten Commandments" so logical, even we don't practice some of them, that shouldn't means they are wrong and we should change them!!!
And doesn't mean what u said before:

the 10 commandments became absolete after the coming of jesus, these were given to moses if I am not wrong on a rock
and jesus added on those, like on لا تزني he said enno looking is considered as such and on don't worship any other God than the God he also added that money is considered as such

but on the other hand they can be sisters, direct schools, be saints, guide battles for God (Joan of Arc). Btw we can see priests that cannot go for election (like Mubarak recently) and in some case they cannot even marry why?

priests can still also lead schools and whatever, but still there is a difference between men and women in religion

The priest will always stay rich and all pple know how, and most of the over- rich pple, especially in leb, are known how they get rich!

the ministers and such are not"most of the rich people in lebanon" and why limit the universe into just lebanon?

we are drifting anyway
point is, religion has some useless none sense rules that should be gone
end of story
I'm not talking about don't steal don't kill stuff
I'm talking about most things that exist in religion and do not exist in the justice system

[Mitzidupree]

To what extent does it make sense to talk about life after death?

Almost everyone doesn’t like the idea that we are going to die. It’s one of those things that pop into your head whenever you get comfortable, possibly as a subconscious motivational tool. Just in case you ever get really, truly at ease with your life it strikes you that it will all come to an end (possibly quite horribly) without your say-so or even prior notification. Many people find this decidedly inconvenient, and refuse to accept that their lovely lives could ever end (talk about selfishness). Others are content to allow existence is occasional bout of poor manners and go quietly.

An undeniable statement by all, philosophers or not, is that our earthly life will one day cease to exist and every living individual will one day meet their death. A simple definition of death would be the complete annihilation of one self, where the life or awakens one would feel in their brief life would be no more. Basically, the opposite to life.

However, even the definition of death may be open to argument by many. Some may believe that death is not the end of life or not the opposite of life. Some may believe that we do live on through the passing on of our genes or through stories being told about you after the process of death. Some may believe that we are reincarnated after our soul leaves the body. Some may believe that the soul is an eternal entity and never stops living. All of these are however open to argument. There is not even factual proof that a soul even exists so how would it be possible for such an entity to hold so much value in this argument.

The three main theories that will be discussed in this essay will stem from the Materialism perspective, the Idealism perspective and the Dualism perspective. The materialists’ beliefs are opposed to the idea that there is a life after death and the other theories support the idea of a life after death. I shall also discuss in this essay the possibilities of reincarnation and if it possible to have more than one life. Some religions will also be briefly looked at in this regard. Another commodity that will be looked at will be evidence to support the idea of life after death and the value of this evidence. I shall then conclude by summing up the theories and discussing the theory closest to my opinion in relation to this subject.

First-century Sadducees claimed that man is wholly material, having no spirit, so at death he simply ceases to exist. Modern materialists and Humanists likewise say we evolved by natural forces from animals, so like the animals, we simply cease to exist at death. Materialists believe that a human is nothing more than a living physical creature and once gone is gone. Every action is a result of a chain of events and that over time science has found more and more answers and eventually, science will also be able to answer the controversy surrounding life after death. Just as there is no more to a dress sewn from a few yards of cotton, there is no more to a person than a brain attached to a body with a nervous system.

Gilbert Ryle argues that the soul should not be considered as something that is separate to the mind or body. Any talk of a soul was talk about the way in which a person acted and integrated with others and the world. It was not something that was separate or distinct. When one says that ‘he bought me a left shoe and a right shoe’ he would not say ‘he bought me a left shoe, a right shoe and a pair of shoes’. This is what Ryle would call the dogma of the ghost in the machine. He said: “When two terms belong to the same category, it is proper to construct conjunctive propositions embodying them”.

Hard materialists have solid beliefs that there a living creature is just like a chemical. If there is nothing that can be seen, it does not exist. The consciousness of a man in nothing more than just mere brain activity and once the body dies, so does the brain. However, opposed to this there are soft materialists. Soft materialists although believe in the mainstream argument that materialists believe, they are less harsh in thinking that all characteristics are not physical ones. Consciousness is more than just a brain process although the mind and body are related and do not act independently of each other.

The common factor between hard materialists and soft materialists is that when the body dies, so does the mind. In short, as the soul cannot be seen or scientifically proven, materialists do not believe in the existence of it. As the body is matter alone, a soul cannot exist and when and if proven by science, this view may be reconsidered. Therefore there is no life after death according to the materialists.

However, not all materialists accept that death is the ultimate end. Because they believe that the physical body cannot be separated from the mind (soul) the only way there can be a life after death is if the whole body could continue after death. For example, the whole body is somehow resurrected even from ashes or decay by a superior being i.e. God (for example). However the problem with this theory would then be how a body or in what form it is resurrected. If a person was to die at the age of 93 and was normally buried and she was to be resurrected, what age would she be resurrected as? If in fact at this age then what would then be the case if she was senile and had lost half of her memory, and if she were to be resurrected at the age of 35, what would become of her memories between the age of 35 and 93? It would obviously be in such a form that the person is recognizable and if indeed in her old age or have been cremated, and then this would cause a problem. If the person were not recognizable then this would erase that person’s identity.

Idealism is based on the premise that nothing exists except minds and spirits and their perceptions or ideas. A person experiences material things, but their existence is not independent of the perceiving mind and those material things are hence, mere perceptions. The thesis of Idealism is that what exists is spirit, or at least is penetrated by spirit. Therefore, there is a great possibility for life after death as it is the spirit that is the important factor for life and this can survive death.

Leibniz said that the true atoms of nature were souls and that nothing existed except minds. Berkeley claimed that sensible things have no existence without the mind and that it is the spirits that experience and there are the contents of their experiences, but there is no independently existing world of matter. Both Leibniz and Berkeley were subjective Idealists, they conceived of reality in terms of the experiences of individual minds.

Hegel suggested that our minds are ultimately unreal and that there is a separate underlying ‘absolute spirit’ which is regarded as the rational soul of the universe. It is from this spirit that our minds and other things in the world come. Hegel’s idealism has been adapted by many philosophers as proof for life after death, however on the other hand, has been used by many to discard such an assumption. Historically, the vast majority of Christians have believed and still believe today that human nature is dualistic, consisting of a material, mortal body, and an immaterial, immortal soul. At death, the soul allegedly detaches itself from the body and survives in a disembodied state. This is the dualism theory of life after death.

A famous dualist was Plato who stated that the soul belonged to a level of reality that was higher than that of the body. His belief was that there was a perfect idea of everything, for example, for every woman there is an ideal woman, for every school there is an ideal school and so on and everything that is in existence runs through this thought. As ideas are not physical things they belong to a spiritual realm of reality which are in fact more actual than the material realm. Therefore in terms of a soul, it is an immaterial substance and has more reality than the body, which is a material substance.

Rene Descartes introduced the idea of Cartesian Dualism. Descartes believed that anything that is not physical, for example, thoughts, feelings etc. is part of the mind, which is not a part of the brain as the mind is not physical like the brain. Whatever one thinks is what one is. “I think therefore I am” and even though the mind and body interact, they are distinct from one another. He claimed that in contrast to the mind, the body is that which is extended. It has a material form which can be described in forms of extensional features, for example, size, shape etc…

The mind is a personal substance that only the individual can experience and the body’s actions are observable to all. Descartes concluded that as our minds and bodies are separate substances, it is very possible for us to survive death and remain with the same identity. He stated: “Our soul is of a nature entirely independent of the body, and consequently it is not bound to die with it and since we cannot see any other causes which destroy the soul, we are naturally led to conclude that it is immortal…”

Dualism does however raise some questions as to the validity of the theory. One would be that if our identities are only the result of memories and actions in our mind and were completely separate from our bodies, what would come if we had different bodies. Would this not change others’ reactions towards you or how you behave? For example if you were really deprived of good looks and this affected your personality to a very high extent as others would react coldly towards you in contrast to having really good looks. Bernard Williams stated that identity came from physical characteristics as well and it was not right to believe that the physical body had nothing to do with the mind. Another question would be what about the use of substances such as drugs and alcohol that are physical but affect the mind, which is not physical, to an extent where they do change personality.

A majority of monotheistic religions have the common belief that life after death exists and this is controlled by the all-powerful superior being God. This falls in line with the idealistic approach to life after death where the soul is immortal. Some polytheistic religions, namely Hinduism believes in reincarnation. This is what you call the process where the individual’s soul inhabits a new body, which is totally different from that in their previous life. Each life is influenced by the karma from the previous lives. The aim is to achieve perfection so that the need to be reborn ends and a state of bliss is achieved. It is a form of soul evolution. The main criticism of reincarnation is that if the identity of the soul is erased through each transmigration, how can one know that it really them who transmigrate. The best way to tie up an argument is to produce evidence and in this case to prove life after death. There are quite a few constituents that may be looked at in regards to this. Many people have claimed to have had near death experiences.

The supporting evidence to these experiences was the common features to the experience. A study conducted by Dr Raymond Moody realized that the descriptions by these people of what had happened to them while they were ‘dead’ were so similar that they must have been more than just a mere coincidence. For example absence of physical pain, a sense of indescribable bliss and peace, the floating above the body, the moving towards a light etc…

Each scenario, no matter how it is interpreted or what kind of imagery it encompassed, is absolutely and totally and completely real to the one who experienced it. What happened, happened. No one's belief or disbelief can change that simple fact. It is inconceivable to the conscious mind that any other reality could possibly exist beside the earth-world of matter bounded by time and space. We are used to it. We have been trained since birth to live and thrive in it. We know ourselves to be ourselves be the external stimuli we receive. Life tells us who we are and we accept its telling [?]

However, the near-death experience has not gained general acceptance by scientists and academics as being any sort of an encounter with the Divine by a soul that survives death. In fact, a fairly extensive literature has developed criticizing contending the contrary. The trouble with these critics, though, is that not all agree on exactly what the cause of the experience might be.

Theories range from the influence of an unusual flow of brain chemicals; to the reaction of the dying brain to reduced levels of oxygen; or to purely psychological factors such as dreams, hallucinations, or wish fulfillment.

The subject of the belief of life after death is a very difficult one to debate. There are so many conflicting theories that is easier to believe bits of each one. My personal opinion is closest to the idealistic one, the immortality of the soul but also hold a percentage of the materialist believes that the body is required to survive death.

In some way it would be in the interest of the population to believe in life after death in the sense that one will be judged for their actions after their death. This would be to control one’s moral behavior. If one knows that they are answerable to a higher authority, then they would try harder to act morally right.

It is a subject that is too complicated to sum up. There is little or no factual evidence to support life after death in the physical reality. However, if it is the mind that counts, then there is plenty of evidence. It is really dependant on personal beliefs and opinions even if it is arguable at almost every level.

So to what extent does it make sense to talk about life after death? Materialism will say the only way we can live on is via the spreading of our genetic material down the lines of time in our children. As for individual survival after death, it is a fallacy of mental creation. Dualists/Christians will say you are to be recreated/your soul migrates for a life with the almighty in a better dimension. Most of the eastern world would argue that this might happen, but that we have a lot more traversing of the terrestrial plane of existence to do first.