Crosswords0 min ago
The Afterlife
107 Answers
This is interesting: http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DeeLicious. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I haven't done so, but even if I have, how can anyone know whether or not they imagined something with the certainty you assert? And how can they be sure that they correctly interpreted what they saw?
But, more to the point, how can someone who did not experience it, or was not present, be persuaded? It's not enough to say "why would you lie, therefore you are telling the absolute truth", or "you can't be deluded, therefore there is an afterlife", or any other equally flawed logic based on some attempt to avoid causing offence.
If you are insulted by the claim that you might be -- like literally every other human who ever has lived or ever will live -- not wholly reliable in reporting your personal experiences, then so be it. But that doesn't change human nature.
But, more to the point, how can someone who did not experience it, or was not present, be persuaded? It's not enough to say "why would you lie, therefore you are telling the absolute truth", or "you can't be deluded, therefore there is an afterlife", or any other equally flawed logic based on some attempt to avoid causing offence.
If you are insulted by the claim that you might be -- like literally every other human who ever has lived or ever will live -- not wholly reliable in reporting your personal experiences, then so be it. But that doesn't change human nature.
Naomi, I'm quite surprised at you pussyfooting around a factual word in case it is seen as insulting... that isn't like you. I don't think anyone has suggested it's delusional. It might be, but on the surface, it looks more sensory. It is strange how people can sense a "presence" in a room, where nobody else does and still interpret it as an external presence.
Pixie, //Naomi, I'm quite surprised at you pussyfooting around a factual word in case it is seen as insulting//
What are you talking about? I've pussyfooted around nothing at all. I used the word 'delusional' - which Jim says could be perceived as insulting. Pussyfooting, as you rightly say, isn't my style at all.
What are you talking about? I've pussyfooted around nothing at all. I used the word 'delusional' - which Jim says could be perceived as insulting. Pussyfooting, as you rightly say, isn't my style at all.
jim360 - // A-H put his opinion across in his usual way, and I wish he wouldn't ... //
Do you wish I would not put my opinion, or do you have an issue with the way I express it?
For the record, and contrary to what other posters seem to think, I have simply expressed a view, as I usually do. I am not suggesting, much less stating that I am 'right' and others are 'wrong'.
This is a discussion - no-one has the absolute answers, so we all say what we believe.
The difference is, some people are willing to criticise other's views because they like criticising the individual, rather than the view, which is not helpeful.
Do you wish I would not put my opinion, or do you have an issue with the way I express it?
For the record, and contrary to what other posters seem to think, I have simply expressed a view, as I usually do. I am not suggesting, much less stating that I am 'right' and others are 'wrong'.
This is a discussion - no-one has the absolute answers, so we all say what we believe.
The difference is, some people are willing to criticise other's views because they like criticising the individual, rather than the view, which is not helpeful.
I would never dream of saying that someone did not see, or feel what they claim to have seen or felt.
But I do offer the possibility that what someone sees and feels is not actually what they believe it to be.
If you could hook up primitive man to a lie detector, and ask him if he believed that lightning was the manifestation of the gods' anger, he would say, and he would pass the test, because he believes that something he cannot explain is rooted in the supernatural.
But believing it does not make it so - it is his belief, and he is entitled to it, but he is probably wrong.
I simply offer that logical explanation to anyone else who believes they have had a supernatural experience.
If the dead could communicate from 'the other side', why are not all dead people chatting away to all their friends and relatives? Why is is simply some individuals who get a vague 'visit' or 'presence' with no actual message as proof?
I believe that points to the willingness of some people to believe that what they experience is real, when I suggest that it is not.
I would stress that this is simply my opinion, I have no 'experience' on which to base it.
But I do offer the possibility that what someone sees and feels is not actually what they believe it to be.
If you could hook up primitive man to a lie detector, and ask him if he believed that lightning was the manifestation of the gods' anger, he would say, and he would pass the test, because he believes that something he cannot explain is rooted in the supernatural.
But believing it does not make it so - it is his belief, and he is entitled to it, but he is probably wrong.
I simply offer that logical explanation to anyone else who believes they have had a supernatural experience.
If the dead could communicate from 'the other side', why are not all dead people chatting away to all their friends and relatives? Why is is simply some individuals who get a vague 'visit' or 'presence' with no actual message as proof?
I believe that points to the willingness of some people to believe that what they experience is real, when I suggest that it is not.
I would stress that this is simply my opinion, I have no 'experience' on which to base it.
Mamya - // Nothing at all wrong with debating the topic from different angles, it's when someone zeroes in on another person's experience and tries to explain it away that it alters the tone for me at least. //
If I believe something to be true, the 'zeroing in' of someone else trying to explain it away has absolutely no effect on my belief whatsoever.
It would be a poor belief if the casual questioning of a complete stranger caused me to question it - wouldn't it?
If I believe something to be true, the 'zeroing in' of someone else trying to explain it away has absolutely no effect on my belief whatsoever.
It would be a poor belief if the casual questioning of a complete stranger caused me to question it - wouldn't it?
It happens, Fender......but you'll not get folk to believe you if they don't want to.....
I recall telling my mother in law that my granny had died in the night....I knew because I had seen Michael (a friend who had been killed shortly before) and he had come for her.......
Bit longer than that but I won't bore you....
She told me not to be daft until later in that day the telegram came from Ireland....she had died in the night..... :-)
I recall telling my mother in law that my granny had died in the night....I knew because I had seen Michael (a friend who had been killed shortly before) and he had come for her.......
Bit longer than that but I won't bore you....
She told me not to be daft until later in that day the telegram came from Ireland....she had died in the night..... :-)
It isn't a matter of believing or not believing, it's a matter of verification. As a rule, no matter how honest you find someone to be:
1. If you can check what they are saying for yourself then you should do so -- the person you trusted could have been wrong, and you'll look pretty stupid if you just blindly assume they were right and discover that they were wrong after all (regardless of the reason for the mistake).
2. If you *can't* check what they are saying for yourself then it's surely sensible not to allow such anecdotes to influence your view of the world.
For example, with respect to fender's stories, there is no way I can possibly verify whether it even happened (I have only his word); there are other explanations for the story, of varying degrees of plausibility; and there's no way I know of to replicate the incident. This isn't an assertion that Fender is a liar, or deluded, or whatever other adjective you'd care to invent. It's just an assertion that I have no desire to let someone else's personal accounts influence my view of the world if I can possibly help it.
If and when such an incident happens in my life, maybe my opinion will change accordingly -- although, as with other people, so with myself. I'm no more immune to cognitive biases than anyone else, so it also seems sensible not to take everything I think I see/hear/experience at face value either. Or, at the very least, nobody else should.
1. If you can check what they are saying for yourself then you should do so -- the person you trusted could have been wrong, and you'll look pretty stupid if you just blindly assume they were right and discover that they were wrong after all (regardless of the reason for the mistake).
2. If you *can't* check what they are saying for yourself then it's surely sensible not to allow such anecdotes to influence your view of the world.
For example, with respect to fender's stories, there is no way I can possibly verify whether it even happened (I have only his word); there are other explanations for the story, of varying degrees of plausibility; and there's no way I know of to replicate the incident. This isn't an assertion that Fender is a liar, or deluded, or whatever other adjective you'd care to invent. It's just an assertion that I have no desire to let someone else's personal accounts influence my view of the world if I can possibly help it.
If and when such an incident happens in my life, maybe my opinion will change accordingly -- although, as with other people, so with myself. I'm no more immune to cognitive biases than anyone else, so it also seems sensible not to take everything I think I see/hear/experience at face value either. Or, at the very least, nobody else should.
