Do you believe in life after life?

I believe in life after death. I have no proof, scientific or otherwise, that this is the case, and that is why it is a belief. If I said I know there is life after death, then I would be remiss in not providing at least some verifiable evidence. I do have the sneaking suspicion that my belief is rooted in the simple fact that, as far as I can remember, I've always existed. I am able to imagine that before I was born (this time) I didn't exist, but deep down, in the reptilian hind-brain, I don't really believe it. It's one of those beliefs that seems to be a part of who I am. And like any religious belief, attempting to defend it scientifically would make me look even more foolish than usual.

Huh? I just looked, this is what I found on dictionary.com

2 entries found for gullible.
gul·li·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gl-bl)
adj.
Easily deceived or duped.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[From gull2.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gulli·bili·ty n.
gulli·bly adv.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


gullible

adj 1: naive and easily deceived or tricked; "at that early age she had been gullible and in love" [syn: fleeceable, green] 2: easily tricked because of being too trusting; "gullible tourists taken in by the shell game"


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

and...

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary






gullible
One entry found for gullible.


Main Entry: gull·ible
Variant(s): also gull·able /'g&-l&-b&l/
Function: adjective
: easily duped or cheated
- gull·ibil·i·ty /"g&-l&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
- gull·ibly /'g&-l&-blE/ adverb

What makes you think you need to prove anything scientifically? Are you a scientist? I asked your opinion. Scientists can't even come near this topic. It's like trying to view stars with a microscope, it's not possible.

There are many ways to learn and understand. Science can only attempt to answer what is visible/physical. Science is very limited in what it can study.

I'm wondering, do you only accept as true what science has said? Or is there any other source of knowledge you accept as valid?

Not trying to be argumentative, did you look to see if it was in a printed dictionary - do you happen to have one available to look? I just did a search on Wikipedia and got redirected to the word "naivety".. it's odd and sounds completely like an urban legend to me, but since my hardcover dictionary got ruined last year, I can't go look (and it was a BIG one too )

People actually use paper dictionaries? They are outdated before they hit the shelves.

But really, the only dictionary I have was passed down from my grandmother from 1973 lol

I find mine to be useful, satisfying, less hard on the eyes than a screen, and rather fun as I take random roams through its pages. If I need to look up an especially new word, then I'll surf for it.

Yeah I know, big shock that people still use some of that outdated paper stuff

You mean to things like reality?

So you don't believe the claims of Dr. Gary Schwartz after all?

I believe he did a good job showing people can talk to the dead, at least he tried, and wasn't afraid to bring it to the media. I believe his results were very accurate. He didn't prove scientifically life goes on after death with that experiment, imho. I think he adds to the other tons of evidence though, absolutely.

Science can't disprove life after death, so it's not really a scientific question to me. Unless there is a way to test it, and say if this experiment goes this way it will disprove life after death, I don't call it science. What test could disprove life after death? But then, there are a few theories some consider science that I don't for that very reason.

Translation:

"Facts" that aren't based in fact =

I have no idea, nor does anyone else, so I guess I will find out when I get there.

I don't believe he did a good job showing that people can talk to the dead. He used poor techniques and allowed himself to influence the results. He was overly eager to promote himself to the media. I belive his results are not accurate. He didnt prove scientificly that life goes on after death with any of his experiments. I think he adds to the tons of pseudoscientific claptrap that is used to bolster the beliefs of people who want to believe in life after death but can't convice themselves without some kind of prop.
IMO