The phrase "life after death" is not meant to be taken literally. No one I know that believes in it expects the post-death existence to be anything like the one we have now, so in that sense it can't even be considered "life." Fine. But how can you use that as an argument against postmortem consciousness? That's like saying black holes don't exist because if they did they wouldn't be holes. That's a poor argument, using a human term to restrict a theory entirely seperate from human notions. You have to realize that our terms and definitions are imperfect, especially when dealing with a completely theoretical concept. (i.e. life after death.) You can't use a subjective term to disprove the objective idea it describes, as Alex seemed to do. That's all. I don't believe in it either, but I'm always glad to attack anyone. :)

• Life in the absence of life? - alexander - March 13, 2001 - 22:17 UTC
  • Egad! - stormcrow - March 14, 2001 - 04:28 UTC
    • What is actually being said? - doctordick - March 14, 2001 - 15:44 UTC
      • Of course - stormcrow - March 15, 2001 - 03:30 UTC
        • Show a little thought! - doctordick - March 15, 2001 - 13:57 UTC
          • Think a little. - alexander - March 19, 2001 - 20:19 UTC