What is the evidence for life after death?

[tonyrey]

What evidence is there to suggest that the mind doesn’t cease to exist after death? Does anyone know of any people who have passed away and talked to anyone from the great beyond? (And if so, how can we discern if that wasn’t just a production of the living person’s mind?)

I’m sure you know as well as I do that one cannot quantify the mind, or consciousness. The best we can hope for – at this time – is to look at exterior evidence of internal mental activity, such as is seen with EEGs, anecdotal reporting, etc. While scientists come up with fascinating findings when they do things like mapping activated brain regions when a stimulus is applied, mind/consciousness is still quite a scientific mystery.

But, at the very least, there IS that external evidence for mind.

So, given the evidence, which seems more likely, mind or souls? Otherwise put, why would one believe in “souls” that have an “afterlife” if there is absolutely no reasonable evidence for it? (Other than, of course, belief in doctrine.) We can believe in “mind” because we can generate evidence of mind’s activity.

 

[reggieM]

What evidence is there to suggest that the mind doesn’t cease to exist after death? Does anyone know of any people who have passed away and talked to anyone from the great beyond? (And if so, how can we discern if that wasn’t just a production of the living person’s mind?)

I’m sure you know as well as I do that one cannot quantify the mind, or consciousness. The best we can hope for – at this time – is to look at exterior evidence of internal mental activity, such as is seen with EEGs, anecdotal reporting, etc. While scientists come up with fascinating findings when they do things like mapping activated brain regions when a stimulus is applied, mind/consciousness is still quite a scientific mystery.

But, at the very least, there IS that external evidence for mind.

So, given the evidence, which seems more likely, mind or souls? Otherwise put, why would one believe in “souls” that have an “afterlife” if there is absolutely no reasonable evidence for it? (Other than, of course, belief in doctrine.) We can believe in “mind” because we can generate evidence of mind’s activity.

“Mind” is a function of the soul. So is free-will, imagination, memory, rationality, the moral sense and consciousness.

It seems like you drifted off of your initial question – the evidence of life after death. All of the arguments supporting the existence of God are arguments in favor of life after death – since God is life *beyond *death.

 

[StrawberryJam]

There is none.

 

[tonyrey]

The best way to answer this question is to put it into context. What are we? Collections of particles - or persons? Strange freaks of nature which exist for no reason - or rational beings who exist by Design? Whether or not we survive after death obviously depends on why we are alive.

I’m sure you know as well as I do that one cannot quantify the mind, or consciousness.

The fact that the mind or consciousness cannot be quantified implies that they are not properties of material objects. There is plenty of evidence that the mind is more powerful than the body. Physical processes are not aware of themselves whereas we are. The brain is a physical organ consisting of cells which function according to biochemical laws. All its activity can in principle be explained scientifically. It is a biological machine which operates automatically and predictably. It cannot be regarded as rational, having free will or being responsible for its activity. Nor does it have insight into itself or anything else whereas we can control ourselves, plan ahead, choose what to think and how to behave. How have we acquired this power?

While scientists come up with fascinating findings when they do things like mapping activated brain regions when a stimulus is applied, mind/consciousness is still quite a scientific mystery.

This is because the mind and consciousness exist at a higher level than material objects. Science is restricted to atomistic explanation whereas the mind requires a holistic approach which encompasses science itself. The mind of the scientist exists prior to scientific activity. To explain something is a purposeful activity. To attempt to explain the scientist scientifically is to go round in circles. It is equivalent to believing atomic particles have somehow become aware of themselves, can analyse and understand themselves - and, above all, act purposefully! This hypothesis is almost as incredible as the notion that everything has come from nothing…

But, at the very least, there IS that external evidence for mind.

There is external evidence for the activity of the mind but the mind remains an intangible entity, the **unity **of which is beyond the scope of science. A person with an inalienable right to life, freedom and happiness is not adequately explained as a higher mammal which has evolved solely as the result of physical causes like natural selection and random mutations.

We can believe in “mind” because we can generate evidence of mind’s activity.

We **know **we have a mind because that is our primary datum. Without a mind we would not know anything else exists. We infer that there are external objects from the evidence of our senses but we have direct experience of our mental activity. If that experience is an illusion “we” cease to exist! In fact there is no reason to believe anything exists. For us our mind is the fundamental, inescapable reality.

Why then should it be limited to the body, dependent on the body and confined to the here and now? The very fact that we can grasp abstract ideas and think of the past and future demonstrates that our mind is not limited to the dimensions of time and space. There is no reason to suppose objective realities like truth, goodness, justice and purpose disappear when the human race becomes extinct. So why should the mind which grasps and pursues those realities perish without a trace? It is far more reasonable to believe our minds and bodies originate in a Supreme Mind and that we are intended to exist for more than an infinitesimally brief spark in the eternal darkness postulated by atheism.

 

[PatThompson]

What a great quote!

Whether or not we survive after death obviously depends on why we are alive.

I will have to give that more thought; at first blush it seems empty… You’re saying

• if there is a creator
• then we need to understand WHY we were created
• which would then suggest whether or not our ‘purpose’ extends beyond the death of our body.

So I guess to paraphrase:

Whether our soul survives after our body dies depends on why we were created.

 

[Convert66]

What is the evidence for life after death? Well, faith, of course. The evidence of things not seen.

At it’s root the debate is just another clever distinction between two kinds of knowledge. Faith and Reason. One is objectively physiological: “mind” as a function of brain . . . (chemical and so on). The other is intuitive, which is then summarily attributed to instinct and "socializing: , which is, redundantly, physiological. The question, as with any other issue relating to a belief that the world is “enchanted” somehow (which skeptics and agnostics can most reasonably reject or set aside), be it life after death, or the meaning of the creation event still, and ultimately, will always boil down to whether or not the world is, in fact, “enchanted.”

I personally believe that every man has some measure of faith—“He hath set eternity in their hearts . . .”—, and he always believes something from the start in order to “order” his life with coherency, internally and socially. He believes in something, even if it is his own doubt and in his ultimately limited (I don’t care if he is Stephen Hawking) intellect. He is limited, like all mankind. Finite. He assumes something because he is finite. One man assumes faith, and another assumes reason or evidence. (I mean no disrespect to the ladies, by the way, I simply use “men” and “man” for shorthand purposes.)

It is fundamentally rational to order one’s life around evidence. If I require food, I must discover a reasonably effective way to aquire what I need for survival. It is a biological fact for all of life on earth. The “biological imperative” literally drives us. The animals are this way. But the animals do not build factories and build empires by the mass-manufacturing of food, nor paint portraits of one another. And the animals do not invert the principle of life and despair themselves to a hangman’s noose. They do not make up reasons for not going to church on sunday or stay out too late the night before partying because bears have neither gods nor temples nor “spirits” to imbibe. Men do, and men do not see spirits simply because they are drunk (or hard wired for brain simulation), they get drunk because men and women have always seen spirits. This should be astonishing. It is explained away as a matter of reason. Fair enough. Don’t believe.

How did man survive the trip without this emphasis on science and reason for the last several thousand years? He waged wars and scaled cities; fought plagues and starvation; raised children and buried so many too early, just as we do now. He strived and worked and studied to progress himself and his kinsmen, as we do now. Man hasn’t changed, he just has more and better toys, and more efficiency, and the manufacturer needs a reason and a lot of evidence before he decides to make your design for mass production . That is what works. Science works. But what works, when what works doesn’t work anymore?

Faith. The evidence for life after death is simply faith, subjective and personal. The faith of thousands and thousands of years of human history (often mandatory.)

As an aside, if we were to suddenly discover that even the chimpanzees believed in God, would it get a peer-reviewed treatment or be dismissed as chicanery? Can we insert wires into a chimp’s brain and make him see God? We should hope not; because, if he did we may not be able to restrain his enthusiasm, as it were. He may shout “hallelujah” in Cohen-esque baritone, for all we know. The evidence is faith. Try convincing him that he didn’t meet his Maker. I might even reasonably expect him to think that God were a Super-Chimp, of some sort. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Even for a chimpanzee.

All my best . . .

 

[Biggie]

When I say “my mind” or “my soul” there is a “me” that is possessing them.

The obvious evidence for eternal life is that there are aspects of life that transcend death. Love for one who has died continues to be experienced and is not diminished by the death of the loved one. Likewise, beauty does not age as he who beholds it ages. Truth as well is truth at any time and in any place. Reason does not become old.

The very vanity of life points to an eternity, since it is irrational that such intricacy, beauty and perfection found in the world should all be for naught,

 

[Dameedna]

When part of a persons brain is damaged, behaviour is changed. An individual may become very aggressive and angry due to a brain malfunction not as a result of a moral choice. An individual may give up on life itself, due to a brain malfunction not as a result of a rejection of Love(or a God).

There is still the “me” factor to the question, however those that are schizophrenic cannot differentiate between the “me” and the “voices” in their brains. So the “me” becomes confused. So even personal identity is challengable by a blip in the brain activity.

Add to that, we as youngsters (babies) have absolutely no concept of “me” or “them”, it is simply a learned response to outside forces and stimulii, we have a pretty good idea that ourselves our mind and our conciousness comes directly from the brain.

I think this is one of the reasons why physical ressurrection is considered the correct afterlife existance(Catholic afterlife views.) It’s a bodily ressurection you will experience, because the mind and body are the same.

Quite frankly though, there is no evidence of life after death, and faith or a belief or a desire for it to occur are not what consitutes evidence. The fact that we may not want to die(and live forever) does not constitute evidence for an eternal life, but can be explained via a survival mechanism as a result of evolutionary forces.

The best “evidence” you will find beyond philosophical readings, is probably NDE’s. They seem to be the only thing that hint at an afterlife. Being an athiest I am highly skeptical, but on this one even for me, the jury is still out.

Cheers

 

[tonyrey]

                         "Whether our soul survives after our body dies depends on why we were created."

Do you believe our survival after death does not depend on why we were created?
Do you believe there is no reason why we exist?

 

[tonyrey]

There is still the “me” factor to the question, however those that are schizophrenic cannot differentiate between the “me” and the “voices” in their brains. So the “me” becomes confused. So even personal identity is challengable by a blip in the brain activity.

Insanity does not prove the mind depends on the brain. If a guitar is damaged we do not blame the guitarist for his inability to play music.

Add to that, we as youngsters (babies) have absolutely no concept of “me” or “them”, it is simply a learned response to outside forces and stimulii, we have a pretty good idea that ourselves our mind and our consciousness comes directly from the brain.

The fact that babies have no concept of “me” does not prove the mind comes from the brain any more than their ignorance of the world proves the world does not exist.

I think this is one of the reasons why physical resurrection is considered the correct afterlife existence(Catholic afterlife views.) It’s a bodily resurrection you will experience, because the mind and body are the same.

Catholics believe the soul will be reunited with the body after death. They do not equate the mind or soul with the body.

Quite frankly though, there is no evidence of life after death, and faith or a belief or a desire for it to occur are not what constitutes evidence.

Belief that there is no afterlife or aversion to the thought of an afterlife is not evidence for the finality of death. Belief that there is no afterlife is based on the assumption that materialism is true. Belief for an afterlife is based on the evidence that our life is not accidental, the universal belief in justice and the fact that our minds are more powerful than our bodies.

The fact that we may not want to die(and live forever) does not constitute evidence for an eternal life, but can be explained via a survival mechanism as a result of evolutionary forces.

To explain a belief does not prove it is false. You can explain the desire to eat as a survival mechanism. Does that mean the belief that it is good to eat is false? Can you explain all human activity as the result of its survival value?

The best “evidence” you will find beyond philosophical readings, is probably NDE’s. They seem to be the only thing that hint at an afterlife. Being an atheist I am highly skeptical, but on this one even for me, the jury is still out.

From my own experience I can highly recommend it!

 

[One]

Point of Order, Tonrey:
**
Next time you rip someone’s post word-for-word and post it as your own work, think twice about it, or use proper quote tags and own up to the fact that you didn’t write it.

For those who are not aware, the original post is direct plagiarism, word-for-word, of a post I made in another thread.

I find it really sad when people can’t seem to come up with an original thought, or use their own words to convey a thought. Now, I’m just wondering if Tonrey is mining for opinions to use in that other thread?**

 

[tonyrey]

Point of Order, Tonrey:
**
Next time you rip someone’s post word-for-word and post it as your own work, think twice about it, or use proper quote tags and own up to the fact that you didn’t write it.

For those who are not aware, the original post is direct plagiarism, word-for-word, of a post I made in another thread.

I find it really sad when people can’t seem to come up with an original thought, or use their own words to convey a thought. Now, I’m just wondering if Tonrey is mining for opinions to use in that other thread?**

I thought I had informed you that your post was irrelevant to the OP and deserved a new thread to itself. Your post was addressed to me and I thought it was a pity to ignore it. It is obvious to anyone who uses this forum that neither the content nor the style of writing is characteristic of my posts.** Since your post already existed for all to read it was clearly and unmistakably not my work**. I think most users read all the most recent posts. Mine was posted **immediately after **reading yours.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I would have been astonished to read an extract from one of my posts posted as a new thread but I would at least have consulted the person for an explanation rather than assuming the worst…

It seems that it is safer to ignore questions rather than answer them.

 

[One]

~
I like the opportunity to multi-quote. Most of the following seem to follow the same track of petitio principii:

“Mind” is a function of the soul.

This argument presumes the existence of a “soul”, and thus cannot be considered an legitimate statement on the existence of mind.

Whether or not we survive after death obviously depends on why we are alive.

Great, then. Why are we alive?

Great minds throughout millennia have not been able to answer this question. This is why some call it The Mystery!

Once again, this statement cannot be used to support or refute the notion of life after death.

The fact that the mind or consciousness cannot be quantified implies that they are not properties of material objects.

Now this is just flat-out wrong. The functioning of mind IS an attribute of the material object we know as “human.” That functioning may be limited or non-existent in some people (brain damage, coma, fundamentalist, etc.), but it exists in the majority of humans.

Just because we don’t know what it is doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist as a property of the material objects we call “humans.”

Besides, how does this support the notion of life after death? Stay with the question, please.

This is because the mind and consciousness exist at a higher level than material objects.

If, by your own statement, “mind or consciousness cannot be quantified”, then how do you make the leap of logic required to say that they “exist at a higher level than material objects?”

At first blush, you sound like you know what you’re talking about, but I think not. You have now entered the realm of “making stuff up.”

The mind of the scientist exists prior to scientific activity. To explain something is a purposeful activity. To attempt to explain the scientist scientifically is to go round in circles. It is equivalent to believing atomic particles have somehow become aware of themselves, can analyse and understand themselves - and, above all, act purposefully!

There is a great difference between atomic particles and the human mind, and that is that we have self-reflexivity, a function of human consciousness. An atom, at best, has irritabilty, which is its response to stimuli.

Once again, though the words sound impressive, they just don’t work to support much of any argument.

In fact there is no reason to believe anything exists.

FINALLY! Something that we can fully agree on!!! I’m over the moon!!

Why then should it be limited to the body, dependent on the body and confined to the here and now?

Wonderful! I love it!! Then I’ll ask: “Why should the Catholic concept of life-after-death, wherein the mind is reunited with the body, be dependent on the body?”

The very fact that we can grasp abstract ideas and think of the past and future demonstrates that our mind is not limited to the dimensions of time and space.

Another point of agreement!

If this is true for you, then what is to say that mind/consciousness IS limited to this body, or that it occupies a body once the current physical organism is dead and gone?

I’ll move on…

What is the evidence for life after death? Well, faith, of course. The evidence of things not seen.

Faith is specifically not evidence.

If it works for you, then great, but don’t suppose that your argument carries any weight when trying to determine whether or not there is life after death. It just sounds silly.

“Hey, mom! Why can’t I go out and play?”

“Because I said so.”

The obvious evidence for eternal life is that there are aspects of life that transcend death. Love for one who has died continues to be experienced and is not diminished by the death of the loved one.

Another poor argument. That love you reference exists as an emotion in the living, not the dead.

Quite frankly though, there is no evidence of life after death…

Since that is the point of the original, **plagiarized **question, then I’m happy that someone has come out with a realistic assessment.

There is no direct evidence.

Faith is faith, not evidence. I don’t disparage faith in this instance, but it does not constitute evidence.

The best “evidence” you will find beyond philosophical readings, is probably NDE’s.

Detales should jump in here, soon. Hey, guy!

 

[One]

I thought I had informed you that your post was irrelevant to the OP and deserved a new thread to itself. Your post was addressed to me and I thought it was a pity to ignore it. It is obvious to anyone who uses this forum that neither the content nor the style of writing is characteristic of my posts.** Since your post already existed for all to read it was clearly and unmistakably not my work**. I think most users read all the most recent posts. Mine was posted **immediately after **reading yours.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I would have been astonished to read an extract from one of my posts posted as a new thread but I would at least have consulted the person for an explanation rather than assuming the worst…

It seems that it is safer to ignore questions rather than answer them.

If you used some mechanism to inform me of this prior to posting, I did not receive it. How did you communicate this? I didn’t get a PM, and, perhaps my own fault, I do not closely scrutinize every single post.

I know that you know how to use the quotation system. Please do so when you pull an entire post of mine and put it under your name. You’re assuming a lot about what people here know and don’t know.

And… apology accepted. I’m glad you can share in my astonishment.

 

[tonyrey]

If you used some mechanism to inform me of this prior to posting, I did not receive it. How did you communicate this? I didn’t get a PM, and, perhaps my own fault, I do not closely scrutinize every single post.

I know that you know how to use the quotation system. Please do so when you pull an entire post of mine and put it under your name. You’re assuming a lot about what people here know and don’t know.

And… apology accepted. I’m glad you can share in my astonishment.

At the moment I have high blood pressure for the first time in my life and more liable to make mistakes than usual. I’m sorry for any distress I caused you. Ironically the effect of my post was the exact opposite of what I intended. I thought yours was so good it would have been unjust to dismiss it as irrelevant and you would be pleased to receive an answer. Alas. The road to hell is paved with good intentions…

 

[Convert66]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Convert66
What is the evidence for life after death? Well, faith, of course. The evidence of things not seen.

One responded: Faith is specifically not evidence.

Well, I’m glad you got the point. Faith is subjective and personal, just as I said.

One::::If it works for you, then great, but don’t suppose that your argument carries any weight when trying to determine whether or not there is life after death. It just sounds silly.

Because you said so? It “works” for whomever it works. Personally and subjectively.

One:::“Hey, mom! Why can’t I go out and play?”

“Because I said so.”

A legitimate reason.

All my best . . .

 

[One]

What is the evidence for life after death? Well, faith, of course. The evidence of things not seen.

And then…

Well, I’m glad you got the point. Faith is subjective and personal, just as I said.

At first this caused me a lot of confusion: You said that ‘faith is evidence’; I said “faith is specifically not evidence”; you suggest I get the point and then say that “faith is subjective and personal”, and yet subjective, personal experiences cannot possibly constitute evidence unless they can be verified by others.

I was confused until I realized that we must have two different interpretations of the word “evidence.”

When I speak of evidence, I refer to empirically observable facts that cannot be denied by an external observer, particularly, in this case, when “faith” is not factored into the equation, for as you suggest with your own words, “faith” is entirely subjective.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that “evidence” can be provided by a subjective, interior experience. If it is true that this sort of “evidence” holds any weight at all, then it goes to follow that a patient on a psych ward who thinks he is Napoleon, actually IS Napolean.

Your personal, subjective experience cannot be considered as “evidence” worthy of any note unless it can be verified either intersubjectively or objectively.

Because you said so? It “works” for whomever it works. Personally and subjectively.

As suggested above, many peoples’ personal, subjective, interior experience can be interpreted by the individual as “evidence”, or “fact”, but when compared to the majority of a population, can be seen as nothing more than delusion.

So I repeat: Faith is not evidence – externally observable, non-faith-based recitation of an evidential experience that most people can agree upon.

Your argument holds no weight (other than as your personal, subjective experience.) If we got 100 people together to look at a rock, with 99 of them agreeing that the rock exists, and 1 of them suggesting that the rock is water, then we’re all but one likely to assume that the one is deluded. The next logical step is to test the rock for properties. If it has the properties of a rock – durability, solidity, appearance – then we go forth on the assumption that it is a rock… BASED ON THE EVIDENCE!

This entire discussion boils down to this:

What is the evidence for life after death?

There is very little evidence at all, save for some anecdotal reporting. Yet people make up stories about it, believe in it, live their lives by it, swear by it, and live in fear (or hope) of it. And all of that is nothing but a story. Fable. Myth. There is not one iota of evidence that there is an afterlife, and yet people cling to that notion and defend it with their life.

I’m wondering why, if there is supposedly an afterlife, there is no “beforelife?” Oh, right… that’s the realm of Buddhism. What a bunch of pagans, eh?

All that said, if such a belief works for you, then that’s wonderful! Really. Just don’t go around calling it “evidence.” It’s not evidence. Please be rational when answering questions like this. Or else, let’s ensure that we define our terms before standing on them.

~

 

[Convert66]

One,

I understand your position and find it as silly as you do my own. Yes, a man may think he is Napolean due to personal and subjective experience, but we would both surely admit that he has his reasons for doing so. He literally believes in himself----to the point of thinking himself Napolean.

I freely admit that personal and subjective “evidence” is evidence of nothing except to the subjective person. By my lights this is not fundamentally different than ordering your life around the subjective and personal experience of love. Can I have reasons to think my wife really loves me? Sure, but they are always subjective and personal. Any number of folks make claims to witness supernatural events and others either believe them because they want to; because they are swayed by the person’s story or trustworthiness (an act faith); because they find the subjective and personal evidence compelling, or they simply do not believe.

You see belief as weakness; a reliance upon myths or subjective experiences. I see this as the strength of belief, in that, because it is personal and subjective it is unassailable ( the strongest link in any chain is it’s weakest link). You may label this however you wish: (invincibility of ignorance) but that is precisely the point. The person who believes does not do so out of ignorance, they believe from experience, personally and subjectively which is not ignorance, it is merely private, like the evidence for love. The skeptic has their belief too, and it is in evidence as you have defined it. But all that really tells us (there is no evidence!!!) is that the skeptic has their own invincible ignorance of something that can only be subjective and personal. This does not surprise me in the least. They are ignorant of a personal and subjective experience, and place more faith in their doubts and their lack of (personally compelling) personal and subjective experience. It’s a little like a man that never fell in love telling everyone else who has that they are delusional. Who is Napolean now?

So why should we believe the skeptic over our own lying eyes? Are their doubts more powerfully persuasive than our own? Does the skeptic refrain from marriage because their “love” is just chemicals firing in ordered sequence owing to the evolution of consciousness, and it produces an emotion we call “love”? No, they believe themselves to be in love and wish to sustain it indefinitely. That is love’s strength. It believes . . .

We are not building the Brooklyn bridge based upon ghost stories, here; nor space shuttles because we love the man in the moon. I disagree that ghost stories require extraordinary evidence to be believed. All they need is to be experienced personally and subjectively. We do, however, need extraordinary evidence to believe that the engineers can suspend a bridge that will hold X amount of weight, or make a functioning O-ring that will prevent the Space Shuttle from exploding.

In truth, however, bridges collapse and space shuttles break down. Ghost stories remain . . .

All my best

P.S.

What is the evidence for life after death?

There is very little evidence at all, save for some anecdotal reporting. Yet people make up stories about it,

How could you possibly know that “people make up stories” about it? You mean like R.L. Stine or Stephen King?

 

[catholic1seeks]

The Ressurection of Jesus Christ. If we know that’s true, we have every reason to believe in life after death.

 

[One]

Yes, a man may think he is Napolean due to personal and subjective experience, but we would both surely admit that he has his reasons for doing so.

Sure, be he’s is still delusional. He is NOT Napolean Bonaparte, no matter how much he sticks his hand in his jacket.

I freely admit that personal and subjective “evidence” is evidence of nothing except to the subjective person.

I’m happy that we can agree on this.

By my lights this is not fundamentally different than ordering your life around the subjective and personal experience of love.

Apples and oranges don’t make good comparisons.

There is plenty of evidence for the emotion that we call ‘love.’ We can cite examples of events generated by love, though they might have other reasons as well: Mother Theresa devoting her life to the poor; a mother who’s able to lift a car off her child; a sibling willing to give up a kidney for another sibling; somebody devoting their life to the study of any art or scientific endeavor; love poetry, etc., etc., etc. It’s a long list.

You can ask someone their internals, if they are experiencing something that we agree to call “love.” THAT is direct experience, and can be verified to the extent that we agree upon the definition.

It is strictly impossible to ask the dead if they’ve experienced life after death, except in the case of NDEs, yet the jury is still out on that one… it could be a case of neurons firing at the event of death.

Any number of folks make claims to witness supernatural events…

They just might be delusional as well.

You see belief as weakness

I never said that. Please do not put words into my mouth. That makes the rest of the paragraph a throw-away. Sorry.

But all that really tells us (there is no evidence!!!) is that the skeptic has their own invincible ignorance of something that can only be subjective and personal.

Look, if life after death is “subjective and personal”, as you yourself say, then it has been adopted as an objective fact by those who believe. That is exactly what you are trying to defend.

Look, I don’t mind or care if that’s what you believe, as long as you don’t parade it around as an objective fact when there is no evidence to support it. If one is to parade it around, call it what it is: Myth-based belief. And may it support your life to the best.

They are ignorant of a personal and subjective experience, and place more faith in their doubts and their lack of (personally compelling) personal and subjective experience.

You assume an awful lot about some people, to your detriment. I’m arguing a point*, not stating what I do, or do not, believe. (*The point is: faith is not objective evidence.)

It’s a little like a man that never fell in love telling everyone else who has that they are delusional. Who is Napolean now?

Gosh, that’s a compelling argument. I go back to “apples and oranges.”

So why should we believe the skeptic over our own lying eyes?

I never asked anyone to believe a skeptic (your label, by the way.) I’m making a point that it’s not viable to go around labeling mythic stories as “facts.” That’s all.

We are not building the Brooklyn bridge based upon ghost stories, here

Correct. You are living your life based on stories.

In truth, however, bridges collapse and space shuttles break down. Ghost stories remain

Ghost stories break down upon the slightest examination.

How could you possibly know that “people make up stories” about it?

True. I couldn’t possibly know that it is NOT true, and agree wholeheartedly.

So, turning the question around, how do you know that it IS true (without relying on more stories)?

Faith is all you have shown so far. And that is not evidence, which, as I recall, is the point of the original post.

~