Farkers believe that Pravda is full of shiat.

Would that be space alien researchers?

Sorry, but when you die, that's it. Game over man.

We all will know some day, what's the point of pondering.

With all those grammatical and spelling errors you just know it has to be true!

I almost died once, and all of the dogs that I had videotaped myself harassing before they killed themselves came back to haunt me. And then I realized that I was just very confused.

Pravda = Weekly World News

"there are people who saw neither tunnels, nor light or dead relatives."

of course they only mention this once, and in the last paragraph. they should do some test like this, but differentiate between the experience of religious/non-religious and psychedelic drug user/non-user.

i also think some tests on extending clinical death and reanimation would be interesting too... although, i guess thats basically just "flatliners" or whatever than name of that movie was....

Reanimator?

That's assuming it was there in the first place.

I have this 'theory' that the reason people say they see lights in near death experiences (in addition to the chemicals secreted in your brain) is because that's how you come into this world. You travel down the birth canal and see a bright light, or your plucked from your mother's womb and are plunged from darkness into light. I wonder if people who say they didn't see the bright lights if they were born in the dark?

M'eh, whatever, I'll stick to my belief that anyone who experiences a fatal heart attack will simultaneously:
1) understand the meaning of life, and yet...
2) will know they don't have time to share it.

If that's don't make you say "oops I crapped my pants," there ain't nuthin.

Sorry, but when you die, that's it. Game over man.

Prove it.

I walked up right to the edge of the Grand Canyon once, and I can now tell you for a fact that falling to your death is terrifying, and yes, you feel it when you hit the ground.

Ditto: Prove it.

It's already been proved, in that there is no proof for life after death. And wishful thinking does not count as proof.

brazil

Sorry, you still haven't proved anything.

FL8ME: brazil

Sorry, you still haven't proved anything.

You've proved nothing. Thus no life after death. Sad how simple logic is beyond the grasp of so many.

I blame public schools and corrupted colleges.

I may have proven nothing, but you did just as well as me. Congrats, you're as boneheaded as this public school graduate.

And time for my drunk ass to go to bed. I still don't get what you're trying to say brazil but post your rationale in detail if you care to. I'll read it when I drag my drunk ass out of bed.

FL8ME: post your rationale

An assertion does not make a fact. I can assert that you are really a genetically modified gerbil working from a Russian genetic lab. It does not make it so. And you can not produce any evidence here that I could not just poo poo away.

Facts and concepts are built on perceptions. There are none that back life after death. So it is an arbitrary assertion.

I belive in death after life.

It's already been proved, in that there is no proof for life after death.

And you can not produce any evidence here that I could not just poo poo away.

The fact that the existence of an afterlife can't be proved is not proof that there is no life afterlife. You can neither prove nor disprove either concept. You can try. Please do. I do find your circular logic interesting.

Ditto: I do find your circular logic interesting.

Since you must have skipped over it the first time...

Concepts are built on perceptions. There are none that back life after death. So it is an arbitrary assertion.

Sorry, but when you die, that's it. Game over man.

You are not arguing that there is no afterlife, you are arguing that when you die, that's it. I'm not attempting to prove the existence of an afterlife. Please prove that "when you die, that's it." Listing things that do not happen when you die does not prove that nothing happens when you die.

Your argument that there isn't an afterlife still isn't very good but that isn't what my initial post was aimed at.

Ditto: Please prove that "when you die, that's it."

Because there is no proof that there is anything after.

That's why I say that life after death is an arbitrary assertion. I don't have to disprove it. Since it is an assertion, and all concepts are built on percepts, there must be proof to support it before I accept it.

No proof, it is just an arbitrary assertion. I don't have to disprove the arbitrary.

So I got that going for me.... which is nice

Vger?

Factor in the laws of conservation of mass and energy then, Brazil. I know where the mass goes, where does the energy go?

brazil
It's already been proved, in that there is no proof for life after death. And wishful thinking does not count as proof.
I can use the same principal to say that since you have no proof otherwise, there must be life after death.

Hello? God, is that you? Is this heaven, or am I just in television?

I'd like to test this theory.

The word "researchers" should never be followed by the word "believe". They should be proving stuff or STFU.

Where's there's smoke, there's a flame war.

/would rather be dead than see this argument.
//thinks death is the end

Funny story:

I had a friend who was run over by a car. He was clinically dead briefly, then went into a coma for two months. When he came out of the coma, there was a nun in his room praying. When she realized he was awake, she started praising God, but he stopped her and said: "Sister, I was dead. I've been to the other side. There's nothing."
The nun burst into tears and ran out of the room. True story.

ponder this mystery on mushrooms

/saw my own death and completely freaked everyone out when I wouldn't shut up about it

Alright, somebody's gotta jump in here to Brazil's defense. It goes a little something like this: when we are arguing about where the burden of proof lies, that burden must be proved against the perceived empirical evidence. Just because a life after death might seem rational to you does not make it a rational, empirical thought. There is no obvious, perceived proof for life after death, and therefore the burden to prove life after death lies upon those wishing to prove, not disprove it. To say that there is no evidence for life after death requires no empirical evidence. To assert flatly that there is no life after death is an exercise in (logical) futility, because in order to assert something, there are always assumptions made. Namely, we assume we can trust our senses. So Brazil is correct in his logic if he says that there is no evidence for life after death, and all farkers getting pissed and saying they can say the same thing in reverse, well, they're wrong. At least, logically speaking.

"Factor in the laws of conservation of mass and energy then, Brazil. I know where the mass goes, where does the energy go?"

So, just bridging off that statement, does that mean that lemurs and pandas go to Heaven too? Cause that would just be kick ass.

Where does the energy go? We are powered by our own electricity.

Mr. Clarence Butterworth
Dissipates into heat?

EatYourHeartOut

That works.