Can science agree with the concept of life after death?

Fair enough, Zetherin, I aplogise with regards to the remarks directed at you. I am arguing a case with someone but I accept that you might not be that person.

I have been having the argument/discussion about science, spirituality, materialism, and so on, for years, so I come into it with a lot of, how shall we say, momentum. Maybe I am guilty of the 'strawman' type of approach - perhaps I have an imaginary opponent whom I believe holds the kinds of attitudes that I wish to criticize, and then argue with that person. Sigh. Well I suppose that is the great thing about this forum, being able to go through all these issues and talk them through. Thanks.

The scenario is that the leopard is possible extinct and a photo is produced, now do you trust the image? The photographer is well known, now what do you say? The point im making, you jumped to the conclusion without question that the leopard existed but the yeti did not.

Science decides by previous inbuilt prejudices, inspired by the societies that survive by its dogma.

Of course I jumped to the conclusion that the leopard existed and the yeti did not. There is evidence of a snow leopard existing, and no evidence of a yeti existing. We aren't going to say something exists unless we're provided evidence, are we?



These conspiracy theories are getting old. Science doesn't go by prejudices, it goes by evidence. Science isn't discriminating against yetis, hobgoblins, or the manticore, there's just no evidence of these creatures ever having existed! It's not a dogma I'm following when I choose to not consider a mythological creature real when no evidence is provided. :perplexed:

Boy, you really must be fighting tooth and nail to have the creatures presented in The Lord of the Rings trilogy to be scientifically noted!

Beg to differ, I am not ignoring it, nor misunderstanding it, in fact as I said, I agree with you in many respects. But the case of Ian Stevenson's evidence of "children who recall their past lives" is compelling. There are cases where children remembered their previous names, occupations, names of family members, numerous features of the landscape around where they lived, and in some cases the circumstances in which they died.

Your distortion of my post and your inability to answer it has been noted.

The scenario is that the leopard is possible extinct and a photo is produced, now do you trust the image? The photographer is well known, now what do you say? The point im making, you jumped to the conclusion without question that the leopard existed but the yeti did not. You never asked who took the photos , the photo of the yeti was taken by the same man as who took the leopard, now what do you say?

Science decides by previous inbuilt prejudices, inspired by the societies that survive by its dogma.

How can the children be remembering if those children were not reincarnated in the first place? That they are remembering anything assumes, and does not prove, that they lived past lives. What is your argument that those children are actually remembering anything rather that thinking that they remember?
I am surprised that you cannot see the logical point.

Try working out yourself please, dont beg for guidance its so demeaning.

You respond with a dry, abrasive, uninformative one-liner and then upon me asking for guidance, particularly from you (since you made the statement I distorted your post), you state my requesting is demeaning?

As far as I'm concerned, I answered your point directly. More importantly, I don't know why you have such an attitude with me. I'm suspecting it has to do with me criticizing your argument earlier. I'm sorry if you took offense to my criticisms.

Cant you see that you accepted by previous acknowledged scientific facts that snow leopards exist so the two photos represented to you by your reasoning, one was correct and one was false, could you please explain why you automatically jumped to that conclusion?

I tried to point out to you that the scientific mind, by its historic knowledge always enters a debate with preconceived ideas about what is true and what is false

True science should never do that.

the concept of approaching a scientific enquiry with no preconceptions.

Hopefully this is clear enough for you.

this:



is what scientists do. Scienists don't conduct scientific analysis based on opinion or prejudice (and the few who do I'm sure are found out real damn fast through peer review and the like).

To be even clearer: Your yeti example was not an instance of scientists having preconceptions about the nonexistence of yetis.

What is your argument that those children are actually remembering anything rather that thinking that they remember?
I am surprised that you cannot see the logical point.

These children knew material particulars which it would be impossible for them to know by any rational means. They knew the names of people, the location of buildings and landmarks, and they had memories of events and so on.

The kind of detail was, for example, they remembered living in a white stucco house, with two cypress pines near the front gate and a red arch over the doorway, with a father called Moustafa, and so on. (I am quoting that from memory, but it is the kind of detail that was typical.)

So unless you have a better explanation than 'that could NEVER happen' then Dr Ian Stevenson's more than 100 documented cases are, in fact, 'suggestive of reincarnation', as he claimed.

Your preconception that yetis dont exist and snow leopards do, influenced your response to my statement, just like scientists do with any subject that falls out of general belief. Its a human condition that scientists are just as prone to exhibiting, as anyone else. They are prejudiced by the structure of the society they inhabit, not one of them dares step outside. They have seen what happens to those who do.

But see, even if everything you just said is true and these children eerily remembered this or that, you can't just conclude "reincarnation" based on no better explanations! Doesn't that seem a little convenient to you? Like the author is simply trying to reach the conclusion he desires, not the one that actually is? It does to me. Nothing actually points to reincarnation, we just have unexplained events. Wouldn't you agree?

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH.

These children knew material particulars which it would be impossible for them to know by any rational means. They knew the names of people, the location of buildings and landmarks, and they had memories of events and so on.

The kind of detail was, for example, they remembered living in a white stucco house, with two cypress pines near the front gate and a red arch over the doorway, with a father called Moustafa, and so on. (I am quoting that from memory, but it is the kind of detail that was typical.)

So unless you have a better explanation than 'that could NEVER happen' then Dr Ian Stevenson's more than 100 documented cases are, in fact, 'suggestive of reincarnation', as he claimed.