Sincerely MR.depressed, and afraid of the infinite end.

[wwfjdraw]

Here's my problem. And I hate to by a whinny baby about my problems to complete strangers especially when it is about something that is so personal, but I do not know where else to turn to, and was really hoping someone, ANYONE could please shed some light and give me the answers that I seek.

A atheist friend of mine has basically proven to me (without even trying hard at all) that there is no afterlife, that once we die, that is it.

I of course after months of research and stress can not live with the thought of never existing after I die in any conscious way.

I found out about, a challenge made by someone who would give over a million dollars to anyone who could please just prove once and for all in a controlled setting that this OBE or AP belief is real to the point where at least ONE person can claim the money. So far to this day, nothing. NO proof, and no claims.

I heard all the boo hoo excuses of how it is bad karma money, or how money is not important, and blah blah blah.

Then damn it do for free and give the money away to charity.

I do not understand what to believe anymore. Can someone please use reason and logic to help me. Because as far as I am concerned, there is no point of living, I am very depressed with this realization, and I know it is not anyone job to make me feel better. But I can not understand how if there are so many people who make the claims that they can make, but yet no one wants the money? Or at least to prove it is real?

Also the rubber hand and rubber body for inside the mind outside the body experiences is not helping either.

Please someone help me with this. Thank you.
Signed,
Sincerely MR.depressed, and afraid of the infinite end.

[Xanth]

Well, if you think that constitutes proof that none of this is real...

Then honestly, you're in the wrong place.  You're among people who practice this on a daily/weekly/monthly basis and KNOW it's real.

So where does that put your BELIEF?

[Astralsuzy]

A atheist friend of mine has basically proven to me (without even trying hard at all) that there is no afterlife, that once we die, that is it.
I do not understand what to believe anymore. Can someone please use reason and logic to help me. Because as far as I am concerned, there is no point of living, I am very depressed with this realization
Signed,
Sincerely MR.depressed, and afraid of the infinite end.

I know there is an after life but I am not able to prove it.   It is not that I do not want to, it is because I am not able to.   No one can prove if the afterlife is real or not.   I would advise you to forget about all this as it is making you depressed.   Get on with your life.   Get involved with your friends, family, sport, career etc.   You will never know and it will tear you apart.   You may get more and more depressed.  If you cannot stop thinking about it, I would advise you to get professional help, otherwise it might destroy you. 

[Szaxx]

It is Jeremy D.
If one person of any belief told me something that appeared to be, was infact nonsense, I'd reserve the respect of that persons words. There's always a fool on the hill.


I sensed something about you earlier when I accepted your request to join.
No afterlife, well thats the half-arsed comment from someone stuck on a hill.
who is Bill?
Whats your underlying purpose and money?
Yes some here can yell you things you already know. You can get the answer yourself. Depressed Meh. Stop listening to Randi followers. These are all closed minded idiots.
Why next thing you'll be saying S.Hawking doesn't believe. He can't even if he wanted to. He's a scientist and bound by the money payers wants.
Get a grip man you are made from far better stuff tjsn this.
Go back 15 years and think about what it was you wanted or didnt do. You were 15 or 16 years old back then.
No afterlife meh. There's no now life either.
What do you think of this from a complete stranger who doesn't know you?
Magic.....

[Volgerle]

Why do you state that your friend "proved" sth to you? Fact is: He didn't. He is just giving his false and shallow materialist "reasoning" or opinion. And you fell for it.

You fell into the pseudo-skeptics trap, don't be ashamed because many do unfortunately. The Randi prize is a scam all-out. It is not intended to prove paranormal phenomena. It is there to uphold the materialist world-view which is nothing but another religious BELIEF.

Just a few links that might interest you:

I recommend great book which any Randi disciple wouldn't even touch with gloves, as it could shatter their BELIEF system:

http://www.amazon.com/RANDIS-PRIZE-sceptics-paranormal-matters/dp/1848764944/

Here's about Randi in a fictitious cross-eximanation by a lawyer, it is as you might note a light-hearted and humourous approach. but the background about the skeptic delusion and the examples of evidence for the paranormal presented is more than true:

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/crossexaminationnumberPARTONE.htm

Here's some blog entries by M. Prescott which are good ...

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge.html

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Examskeptics/Prescott_Randi.html

Another good page I had bookmarked long ago when it comes to de-construct the arguments of the pseudo-skeptics more generally:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Introduction.htm#How

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/index.php#Vinstonas

As regards evidence via AP, what we do here, I  suggest you click on the link in my signature (the description says it all). But anyway, here it is again:

http://da-lai.lima-city.de/OBE/index.html

It's always best to prove it to yourself by learning the art, so to speak. Validations will come than, intended or not, in various ways.

Important note: no one claims that remote viewing or validations via AP is easy. There are reality fluctuations due to 'dimensions/planes of realtity overlapping' in these states. It is also explained on that site (dalai-lama) linked above. Therefore it's a phony argument by skeptics claiming it "should" be easy to prove. Example: the world record for the 100-metre dash is 9.58 seconds. A skeptics asks a runner to run it in 6 or 7 seconds or otherwise he won't believe that he's a good athlete. This is by way of extreme comparison what skeptics do if they come here and say 'prove it to me, now, instantly, or I won't believe you'. They should know that it is not THAT easy but they pretend it should be, no one here makes that claim. It's the skeptic self-delusion.

NDEs and Remote viewing yields even stronger verifications, even on a scientific basis. There are many good studies and books out there by serious scientists (not skeptic cynics in "skeptical literature") and doctors, such as P. v. Lommel, R. Moody, K. Ring, Jeffrey Long, S. Parnia, and many more.

There's lots of scientific research that proves the paranormal in general. Check e.g. the work of Dean Radin and other. I also recommend you read up on Remote Viewing research by the Pear Institute.

If you don't like reading books on NDE, you can browse through these famous NDE-websites a little:

http://www.nderf.org/
http://selfconsciousmind.com/
http://www.near-death.com/
http://iands.org/home.html
(veridical NDEs, examples: http://iands.org/about-ndes/key-nde-facts.html?start=2 )

Last not least, here's a scientific paper more or less debunking of the standard pseudo-skeptical and pseudo-scientific medical arguments on NDEs:

http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Facco2012NDE.pdf

Here's a lot of types of evidence summary by Vic Zammit:

http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/

A last advice: Do or don't show these links or any evidence to your atheist friend, I guess it won't matter and change anything. I suppose it will not help in convincing him. He might even (as most skeptics do) not look at the evidence due to his severe state of cognitive dissonance.

I found out in the course of the years that it is futile to discuss with the close-minded pseudo-rational skeptics. They don't want to wake up and be convinced. It is their ego and their fear that keeps them from opening their minds. Instead they want to drag other people into their dark and superstitious (!) world-view, it even gives them some kind of sinister satisfaction. Don't ask me why but that's the way it is, at least from my experience with these people.  

But let's not forget or overlook: they are a minority on this planet, it seems to be much more than they are because the write a lot on the internet, they have even subverted Wikipedia now (http://www.astraldynamics.com.au/showthread.php?16878-On-Bias-in-Wikipedia-Audio-file), so they look mighty, but they are not! They are only a confused and extremist minority. And they are losing the fight in the long run, they will have died out in a few decades from now. The times are changing.

[wwfjdraw]

Why do you state that your friend "proved" sth to you? Fact is: He didn't. He is just giving his false and shallow materialist "reasoning" or opinion. And you fell for it.

You fell into the pseudo-skeptics trap, don't be ashamed because many do unfortunately. The Randi prize is a scam all-out. It is not intended to prove paranormal phenomena. It is there to uphold the materialist world-view which is nothing but another religious BELIEF.

Just a few links that might interest you:

I recommend great book which any Randi disciple wouldn't even touch with gloves, as it could shatter their BELIEF system:

http://www.amazon.com/RANDIS-PRIZE-sceptics-paranormal-matters/dp/1848764944/

Here's about Randi in a fictitious cross-eximanation by a lawyer, it is as you might note a light-hearted and humourous approach. but the background about the skeptic delusion and the examples of evidence for the paranormal presented is more than true:

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/crossexaminationnumberPARTONE.htm

Here's some blog entries by M. Prescott which are good ...

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge.html

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Examskeptics/Prescott_Randi.html

Another good page I had bookmarked long ago when it comes to de-construct the arguments of the pseudo-skeptics more generally:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Introduction.htm#How

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/index.php#Vinstonas

As regards evidence via AP, what we do here, I  suggest you click on the link in my signature (the description says it all). But anyway, here it is again:

http://da-lai.lima-city.de/OBE/index.html

It's always best to prove it to yourself by learning the art, so to speak. Validations will come than, intended or not, in various ways.

Important note: no one claims that remote viewing or validations via AP is easy. There are reality fluctuations due to 'dimensions/planes of realtity overlapping' in these states. It is also explained on that site (dalai-lama) linked above. Therefore it's a phony argument by skeptics claiming it "should" be easy to prove. Example: the world record for the 100-metre dash is 9.58 seconds. A skeptics asks a runner to run it in 6 or 7 seconds or otherwise he won't believe that he's a good athlete. This is by way of extreme comparison what skeptics do if they come here and say 'prove it to me, now, instantly, or I won't believe you'. They should know that it is not THAT easy but they pretend it should be, no one here makes that claim. It's the skeptic self-delusion.

NDEs and Remote viewing yields even stronger verifications, even on a scientific basis. There are many good studies and books out there by serious scientists (not skeptic cynics in "skeptical literature") and doctors, such as P. v. Lommel, R. Moody, K. Ring, Jeffrey Long, S. Parnia, and many more.

There's lots of scientific research that proves the paranormal in general. Check e.g. the work of Dean Radin and other. I also recommend you read up on Remote Viewing research by the Pear Institute.

If you don't like reading books on NDE, you can browse through these famous NDE-websites a little:

http://www.nderf.org/
http://selfconsciousmind.com/
http://www.near-death.com/
http://iands.org/home.html
(veridical NDEs, examples: http://iands.org/about-ndes/key-nde-facts.html?start=2 )

Last not least, here's a scientific paper more or less debunking of the standard pseudo-skeptical and pseudo-scientific medical arguments on NDEs:

http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Facco2012NDE.pdf

Here's a lot of types of evidence summary by Vic Zammit:

http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/

A last advice: Do or don't show these links or any evidence to your atheist friend, I guess it won't matter and change anything. I suppose it will not help in convincing him. He might even (as most skeptics do) not look at the evidence due to his severe state of cognitive dissonance.

I found out in the course of the years that it is futile to discuss with the close-minded pseudo-rational skeptics. They don't want to wake up and be convinced. It is their ego and their fear that keeps them from opening their minds. Instead they want to drag other people into their dark and superstitious (!) world-view, it even gives them some kind of sinister satisfaction. Don't ask me why but that's the way it is, at least from my experience with these people.  

But let's not forget or overlook: they are a minority on this planet, it seems to be much more than they are because the write a lot on the internet, they have even subverted Wikipedia now (http://www.astraldynamics.com.au/showthread.php?16878-On-Bias-in-Wikipedia-Audio-file), so they look mighty, but they are not! They are only a confused and extremist minority. And they are losing the fight in the long run, they will have died out in a few decades from now. The times are changing.

Do you think that. science will ever be able to prove this? Or is there some natural law to the universe that says that this can never be made believable by atheist standards of massive mainstream of acceptance?

[Volgerle]

Do you think that. science will ever be able to prove this?

You still don't understand. Science already has. Paranormal phenomena have been proven in lab settings and in the field by scientists (with a degree!) e.g. parapsychologists, physicists, medical doctors etc. without doubt. For decades now. There is a vast amount of literature on this. This result is getting suppressed and ridiculed due to fear and dogma. 

I assume you refer to "mainstream science" which is based on the materialist/atheist dogma? Well, I'd say one day: Yes. But science must change its methodolgy and get rid of dogma and corruption. It's still a long way to go, but we're getting there.

Or is there some natural law to the universe that says that this can never be made believable by atheist standards of massive mainstream of acceptance?

What you referring to might be best expressed by Tom Campbell's "ruleset" explanation. Every reality we enter with our consciousness using bodies (such as the physical with a physical body) has its strict rules, it is obvieously set-up by "higher" realities and the beings or intelligences there, and no, it has not a lot to do with religion. This ruleset is why the paranormal is hard to prove because it breaks the ruleset of this reality, something which traditional scientiest call 'natural laws'. It's the 'glitch in the matrix' so to speak. The default setting of our senses does not allow to 'receive' information from other reality planes. But it is not natural laws, saying this is thinking in the box. It is only the 'laws' of this reality construct we're in, there are other planes of reality and other universes with different laws.

You see, reality is waayyy different than how you learn it in school.

I recommend you read all the links I gave you. Will you promise me to read them? They are very good, yeah, it takes some time for sure (sorry). But as I mentioned him above one more link: Here's a lecture from physicist Tom Campbell who explains reality with his theory of everything connected to virtual realities and digital physics (a more open-minded fringe branch of physics).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxECb7zcQhQ

[Volgerle]

Please also note that most atheists who mention 'science' actually are into "Scientism". This is the religion of all Pseudoskeptics (all atheists/materialists are pseudoskeptics, not real skeptics).

I just skimmed one of the links I gave you above myself again and quote the part on "Scientism" here since it is the best write-up on this topic in my opinion. Kudos to Mr Winston Wu for this piece of excellence. Please read carefully, as said his analysis is priceless!

Scientism – The Religion of Pseudoskeptics?

Now let me clarify something. Critics of pseudoskeptics have accused them of believing in Scientism – the belief that science is to be treated as an authority with all the answers and taken on faith, just like a religion is. In response, pseudoskeptics claim that science is a process of independent peer review and replication and therefore not a religion.

So then, is science a religion, you might ask? Well, yes and no. Technically, science is not a religion. It is a tool and methodology of obtaining logical conclusions through evidence and inquiry. As such, it is not an entity that holds positions or viewpoints, like people do. Therefore, science is not pro or anti-paranormal, anymore than a pencil, computer program or mathematical formula is.

However, the scientific establishment is another matter, because it involves people, politics, power, money, institutions and vested interests. And as such, politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression are naturally a part of it. Realists know and understand this. But for some reason pseudoskeptics don't.

The key fallacy that pseudoskeptics make is lumping the scientific process and the scientific establishment into one, and assuming that they are one and the same. That is the major fallacy of the organized skepticism movement, which consists of the JREF, CSICOP and Michael Shermer type crowd.

In doing so, they falsely assume that the science and medical establishment is objective and unbiased, and free of politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression. That's where their major mistake is. And as such, they deem the science and medical establishment as an unassailable authority that is not to be questioned or challenged. In that sense, they treat science as a religion. So even though they claim that science is not a religion, they still treat it as such, by holding the views of the science establishment as an unquestionable authority.

So, if researchers such as Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake or Dr. Gary Schwartz come up with evidence for psychic phenomena, it is automatically dismissed as invalid, simply because it challenges the orthodoxy of the science establishment, not because the experiments were not legit. And they will use any excuse to do so, including the lamest ones.

Likewise, when evidence comes up that vaccines, fluoride, aspartme or mercury dental fillings are dangerous and harmful, that evidence is suppressed and deemed inadmissible, simply because it threatens the medical establishment and its vested interests, not because the evidence is untrue.

By filtering out such contrary evidence, even when it is legit and valid, pseudoskeptics definitely are treating the science and medical establishment as a religion. And as we all know, religion is authority and faith based, not evidence based.

You see, no one likes to invest a lot of time and money into something, only to have it proven wrong or changed. And the science/medical establishment is no exception. They are people with political interests, not objective unbiased machines. So let's get real here.

You don't have to be educated to understand this. Anyone with common sense, street smarts, and real life experience knows this. But pseudoskeptics, in their fanaticism, ignore such common sense realities. They are fanatics, not realists.

Furthermore, organized skeptics like to tout "science" as a peer reviewed process of independent replication, and therefore totally reliable. In doing so, they treat it like a "democratic process" in which the majority of scientists decide what's true by agreeing on it. This is another fallacy, because it assumes that most scientists are objective and unbiased, and free to say whatever they want without consequence.

But this is not the way the real world of money, power and politics works. Any realist knows that when you work for an institution or receive funding, you have to "tow the party line", or else you are out. It's that simple. Any scientist who says something that opposes the views of those he works for, will jeopardize his career and reputation. There are many real life examples of scientists and researchers who have lost funding or suffered damage to their career for espousing unorthodox positions, even if their position was legit and evidence-based.

Moreover, most people are not unbiased, open minded, or hold truth as the highest value. Instead, they are concerned with their image, reputation, career, funding, and hold rigid views that they feel safe and comfortable in. Many people do not like uncertainty or mystery. They want a world where things make sense and are predictable and well-defined. That's why they are prone to fall into rigid unchanging belief systems. Why would scientists be any different. They may be more educated than the average person, sure, but they are humans, and humans have biases.

It is the truth seeker and freethinker who questions everything and does not hold any authority as truth, who is most likely to find the truth. Not the most educated or well connected with institutions.

Pseudoskeptics ignore all this, or are blind to it, because they are fanatics, not truth seekers or freethinkers. When you look at the overall picture, this becomes obvious.

Thus, the key difference in this area between the pseudoskeptic and the truth seeker/freethinker, is that the former holds the science/medical establishment as a religion of unquestionable authority, whereas the latter does not, and recognizes it for what it is – an institution with vested interests, politics, power, money, control and censorship that is not above suppressing that which threatens it.

Anyone who examines the material produced by pseudoskeptics can see this apparent pattern. They hold everything said by the science/medical establishment as unassailable truth and authority, and never question or scrutinize it, ever, while automatically dismissing anything that opposes it. That's not skepticism. It's thought control, mind control, and suppression of truth.

- Winston Wu
Source: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Introduction.htm#How

[BranStark]

Why next thing you'll be saying S.Hawking doesn't believe. He can't even if he wanted to. He's a scientist and bound by the money payers wants.

I agree.
And BTW: Who is/was a greater scientist? Hawking or Einstein? I think it doesn't really matter but in addition to those scientists=atheists there are scientists, who believe that science actually proves the existence of God/wider reality/whatever else you wanna call it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

But beliefs in general, no matter how strong, suck. So do things that come from the mouth of people around you. They might be true but you can't know for sure, unless you have seen the proof for yourself. This is the only reliable way: go find out on your own. Don't believe me, don't believe Szaxx, don't believe Einstein, don't believe Hawking, don't believe Randi, don't believe your atheist friend, don't believe television, not even Mickey Mouse. Believe yourself!

For example, if you are dubious about AP validations, learn the art, if you have the dedication, and do one on your own. Then you will know and not just guess, assume, believe, be inclined to think... just based on what others told you.  These assumptions have no value! Knowing has! And until you do know, keep your eyes open and accept all possibilities. I hope you see what I mean. So Mr. Depressed, stop being depressed (what is the point of feeling depressed anyway?) and go ahead. Good luck.

At first you might be vexed to act on your own. After all, we humans are sometimes very lazy creatures and want to keep things easy and simple. But eventually yo will discover how good it feels to really know. I myself have been told many times: "You have to find you own way, see for yourself etc." On this forum, too. But people who say this have the right of it.

And in regards to that Randi thing and "No one has ever won the challenge." Well, how can you be so sure?  That guy is either a hypocrite or an extremely close-minded person. Even if he had the proof about afterlife etc. in his hands, he would surely find some feeble excuse and never accept it. And all his likes (hello guys from Metabunk.org, in case you are reading this, which you are probably not ) would never question him. That is my opinion, anyway.

Why do you state that your friend "proved" sth to you? Fact is: He didn't. He is just giving his false and shallow materialist "reasoning" or opinion. And you fell for it.

You fell into the pseudo-skeptics trap, don't be ashamed because many do unfortunately. The Randi prize is a scam all-out. It is not intended to prove paranormal phenomena. It is there to uphold the materialist world-view which is nothing but another religious BELIEF.

Yep, exactly

Do you think that. science will ever be able to prove this? Or is there some natural law to the universe that says that this can never be made believable by atheist standards of massive mainstream of acceptance?

By proving, you probably mean an utter-proof. The answer is probably no. But then, at court the judge (or the jury, depending on which country you are  living in) is sometimes presented with less strong proofs. And it is up to him to make the verdict. And should the judge be corrupted, he would even twist such a proof as a videotape, convicting the criminal of the crime he is committing on that recording.

Here it is basically the same thing. There is good evidence, there is evidence that is not so good but it is always up to the judgment of the person looking at it. And if a close-minded sceptic looks at this evidence... guess what?

[BranStark]

You still don't understand. Science already has. Paranormal phenomena have been proven in lab settings and in the field by scientists (with a degree!) e.g. parapsychologists, physicists, medical doctors etc. without doubt. For decades now. There is a vast amount of literature on this. This result is getting suppressed and ridiculed due to fear and dogma. 

And I can't help it but to add this favourite quote of mine:
Scientists from the Harvard University have found out that people believe everything that scientists from the Harvard University find out.

[Szaxx]

Some excellent replies here.
Don't believe anyone, that's the clincher.
Find out for yourself, afterall you are strong enough to do this J.


Bill, who is he? This name is not going away.
Perhaps it's the name of your friend on the hill... I'm guessing this one.

(shouting, swearing, cursing and being stuck between two worlds that are tearing apart)
A familiar feeling?

You may have been just under 15 years old. I'm not overly sure what this refers to but you should know.

[dreamingod]

ANYONE could please shed some light and give me the answers that I seek.

A atheist friend of mine has basically proven to me (without even trying hard at all) that there is no afterlife, that once we die, that is it.

I do not understand what to believe anymore. Can someone please use reason and logic to help me.

Many minds have shared their opinions, beliefs, experiences, but it is still up to each mind to decide what is believable.

How does one determine truth?
By what measure is believable?


-----
From Latin conscius,
itself from con- (a form of com- ("together")
+ scire ("to know").
scīre: present active infinitive of sciō "to know"
Conscience and conscious both come from the Latin word conscius;
the word elements mean "with" and "to know."
Yes, the -science in conscience means the same thing as science itself.
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_world_cultures_traditions_and_religions/reliegeion_living_word_is_lore-t39112.0.html;msg336378#msg336378
-----

TO KNOW THROUGH DIRECT EXPERIENCES
Many here have shared their experiences and perspectives on the Astral Pulse.
Many here know through their phasing, out of body experiences, vivid dreams, lucid dreams and more
that self is more than the body.
Physical death is not to be feared, for the spirit cannot be extinguished.


TO ACCEPT A THEORY, PERSPECTIVE, BELIEF AS TRUTH
We (by default) look towards others and our environment to define concepts, value and identity.
It is usually in context of the group or community.
Together depending on the community we most relate to,
we give meaning to life, and elements of life in the current context.


WHAT PERSPECTIVE & CORRESPONDING COMMUNITY IS MORE VALID?
Each community/group has certain core beliefs usually due to similar intentions and mindsets of members.
Similarly certain CULTures exist within a given group within hiSTORY/present story/context.
Is the scientific community and their perspectives more valid than another, such as the Astral Pulse community?
Subsequently, could the answer you seek be really dependent on other's;
others to validate your present self definitions and mindset
or your own measure of truth?


WHAT IS SCIENCE?
Science relies on consciousness, knowledge.
Science is not an absolute measurement of reality; it is a tool.
'The Scientific Method' is a method, dependent on subjective measurement of observable results.
The Experiment Aim/Objective must be stated first, demonstrating the Scientist's subjective expectations.
The participants will also have subjective expectations and beliefs.
The most widely published perspective accepted by a chosen Scientific Community will likely
be the most popular theory which gains awareness amongst a certain population.
Eg. Why is Material Science still taught at school?
Why isn't Quantum Physics taught at school?
What Science field is more valid?
YOU decide and choose.

Because as far as I am concerned, there is no point of living, I am very depressed with this realization,

How can one real-ise without knowing through direct experiences.
A chosen belief is not an absolute truth.
Similarly a chosen or inherited religion is not the only perspective or religious group that claims validity of beliefs.
Try having phasing/OOBEs before you set your mind against the possibility of such experiences.
This will make all the difference.

Know that you give meaning and purpose to life. Choose.

[desert-rat]

I dont think any one could come up with 100% proof that could win a Randi foundation like prize .  On an after life , there are many people that do have memories from past lives that they find records of . On a.p. there was a British m.p. ( late 1800s ) that while he was sick in bed apeared in his astral body before the house of commons to cast his vote . I have yet to have a conscious o.b.e. , but I did will my self to give my cell phone # to any one I meet while out of body , we all go out at night , but dont remember . I did get a bunch of out of state calls where no one would speak to me .

[deepspace]

I would recommend not being concerned about the afterlife, just learning to be fully conscious in every moment of the present tense. Learning to live in the "eternal now" will help you understand that there is no "afterlife" only life in this moment of time which always will be.

[Lionheart]

I would recommend not being concerned about the afterlife, just learning to be fully conscious in every moment of the present tense. Learning to live in the "eternal now" will help you understand that there is no "afterlife" only life is this moment of time which always will be.

That's the best advise anyone could give you!  

Live for today and worry about tomorrow when it comes!  

You are here now, so make the best of this current physical existence! 

[seapony]

Okay...I'm curious....Just HOW did this atheist friend prove to you that there is nothing after death ?
Exactly HOW did he PROVE this ? Can you have the same experience that he did that proves this ?

And you say you are so depressed that you don't want to live....but you are upset about there not being
and life after death ? As my husband likes to say...if You're dead you're dead and you don't know you're dead,
how do you know you're depressed by it ?

I can't prove to you that I KNOW that I will live on....its my experience, so it my knowing. You would do better to
explore things on your own do find out for yourself. Not depend of another's experience.

I'm sorry you are having difficulties with this..I think you should explore why you are so depressed and work on that.
There is more here than just a worry about life after death...

[Sal6826]

Talk to anyone that's had a near death experience and they'll tell you that they've experienced consciousness outside of the physical body (While the physical body was dead briefly). The afterlife isn't something that you explain or prove its something that you experience. The human mind can't comprehend the vastness of existence that is consciousness. It would be like trying to explain the colors of a rainbow to a blind person. Think about it, if you only have bucket-sized awareness you can only have a bucket-sized consciousness . We're merely infants in understanding the ways of the universe, but if you look to nature you see intelligent design (Fibonacci spiral growth patterns and Golden mean (PHI) ratios in all lifeforms). Think about all of the variables in nature that had to work together in perfect harmony to even make life possible. If you think that is merely just chance then i'm sorry you feel that way, but i choose to see intelligent design. And where there intelligent design there is a conscious creator (God). But don't just take my word for it. I challenge you to explore spiritual sciences, ponder existence, and have your own experiences. Life's a journey not a destination, the soul is eternal.

[Goggles Pizano]

Its ultimately your right to decide what to believe. Not sure how old or young you are, but:

arguments can be had at any side: for this, or against that...for anything you can imagine.

To me, the dividing line (& personal strength) comes down to personal, DIRECT, experience.

Not something that someone tells you 2nd hand (at best).

To me, personal experience trumps anything 2nd hand-given great self examination so as to avoid simplistic delusion. Not everything can be put into words at all, PERIOD( & wherein to try, I shall fail horribly)

let alone convenient sound bytes able to understood by anyone at any time, simply by common debate about known knowns via subtle angles of common reasoning.


That which is entirely uncommon to know, CAN be found out, but nobody can tell you- you must find for yourself. Use your passion, therefore a strong intention-a true NEED TO KNOW. The language it can be expressed to you needs no language at all.

I am at the point now, where I know that we are something so much greater than "electric meat"!  I usually fail horribly at either explaining (anything), yet my personal experience has been so vivid, sublime at times. I don't need to believe this or that, or anything.

A question that can break all bonds of common reasoning:
Is science from the body that compels it?