Why does science tend to ignore evidence of life after death?
928631
there is no real evidence of life after death, this is all rubbish
877746
I believe in the existence of a life after death.But I don't believe that anyone can describe it accurately nor judge on who goes where and why.That is up to someone or something that is beyond our current level of understanding and our only guide is often mistranslated religious texts of various religions that may or may not hold guidance in a better way of life in order to gain a better life after death.but these texts and religious beliefs should never be used to try and judge others or behave with self righteous attitudes carried by self propaganda.
954755
Proof is of no importance to believers, they accept without any serious research.For many the brain is a tool for evaluating input and computing probability, fact from fiction, myth from reality. For others it is a receptacle for receiving data via emotion, wishful thinking, and gullible  acceptance. Aided by social conditioning myths and legends become implanted, and alternatives ( logic, research, science etc, are shunned,and rejected in favour of belief. Myths feed the psyche of the believer, truth destroys myths, so alternative `truths` are adopted. The majority of bullshit (as you put it) comes from adherents of belief systems.
457365
If you don't believe in Life after Death then I would pick up the Bible. Especially if you are an atheist, how do you know what you don't believe if you haven't done your homework.
816348
I am convinced there is life after death for one reason: Jesus Christ died and was placed in a tomb—and three days later came back to life.\n\nThink about it a moment: What would it take to prove to us that there is life after death? The answer is clear: Someone would have to die, and then come back to life again. It wouldn't be enough for them to have a so-called "near-death" experience; their death would have to be real. And it wouldn't be enough for only one or two people to see them; it would require many witnesses.\n\nBut has this ever happened? Yes—when Jesus Christ rose from the grave! His death was real; hard-bitten Roman guards made sure He was dead before they took Him down from the cross. And His resurrection was real also, because hundreds saw Him during the next forty days. Paul, writing over 25 years later, noted that "he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living" (1 Corinthians 15:6).\n\nHow could this happen? It happened because Jesus Christ was not just another man. He was God's only Son, sent from heaven to save us from our sins. Only He could say, "I am the resurrection and the life. ... Whoever lives and believes in me will never die" (John 11:25-26). This can be your hope, by giving your life to Christ today. \n   Heaven for the Christian will be a place of glorious life that will never end. Joy inexpressible, limitless peace, pure love, beauty beyond description—that's what heaven is. Greatest of all will be the presence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, with whom we will enjoy fellowship forever. Loved ones who have known and loved the Lord will be there. Revelation 21:2 says, "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." \n    Heaven will be a place in which its inhabitants will be freed from the fears and insecurities that plague and haunt us in the present life. No energy crisis there ... Free from the economic and financial pressures that burden us down here. Free from the fear of personal and physical harm ... No fear of personal failure ... Our relationship with Him will be intimate and direct. I'm looking forward to that glorious day of going to heaven. \n\n"Heaven will be what we have always longed for. It will be the new social order that men dream of. All the things that have made earth unlovely and tragic will be absent in heaven. There will be no night, no death, no disease, no sorrow, no tears, no ignorance, no disappointment, no war. It will be filled with happiness, worship, love, perfection and other good qualities. Heaven will be a place to challenge the creative genius of the unfettered mind of redeemed man." Revelation 21:4 says, "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." \n\nHowever, the Bible makes clear that there is only one way to heaven, and that is through repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ who said, "I am the way ..." (John 14:6). Jesus paid for our sins through His death on the cross. God offers us the free gift of friendship with Him in this life and eternal life in heaven when we die if we will but turn from sin and trust in Jesus as our Savior and Lord. "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved ..." (Acts 16:30).
554900
Nothing does exist, nothing is real. Life is a journey, not a destination. Our perception of life is only memory and stimulation of senses. These things are not permanent in time. After our bodies and mind have decayed, from our perspective nothing exists. Because our memory of our entire life is also decayed, our life will also not exist. \n\nTherefore we exist only in the eyes of God because only God can transcend time. We are a creation of God and a part of him. Death is permanent. Death is reality.
493191
Whether or not Jesus was mortal shouldn't really matter, so far as I know. Jesus was supposed to die for humanity's sins so we could accept him as a savior, etc. The part about him bodily going to heaven after being resurrected was just a last miracle, a last hurrah, and to me doesn't seem necessary to the story. It would be easily enough taken as metaphor instead of literal anyway if physical proof came up to the contrary. Though you'd have to realize, with religious folk what is scientific isn't proof enough; heck, they don't believe in the dinosaurs half the time.
708405
"Yup. There is nothing after death. It is just like switching off a light bulb."\n\nbut on the other hand the electrical circuitry and infrastructure that powered the light bulb is still there even when the bulb (earthly body) burns out . Bung a new bulb in and who knows?\n\nI'm inclined to believe that when this earthly body burns out the power that motivated it is still there - it's either latent or seeking for a new form.  The "light bulb" is just the external manifestation of thousands of miles of hidden cable, switches, relays, et c, and just because the bublb goes it doesn't negate the existence of all this stuff....
192075
A couple of problems with your premise: A) all the research done to date, and experience with humans, indicates that living in high oxygen environments, and higher than normal pressure, reduces lifespan-probably due to increased formation of damaging oxidative compounds. B) If you dont already have proof of something, its intellectually dangerous to set about "proving" it- It means you already are sure what the answer is even though you have no evidence that it's true.  In addition, you cant take data on wound treatment and extraqpolate it to lifespan...faster wound healing indicated more rapid cell division, and rapid cell division tends to decrease tissue and organ lifespan.  One last thing-belief in the Bible requires faith, not scientific proof.
1180880
Death is defined differently depending on what institution or book you are accessing. Usually though, death is the complete and irreversible sesation of a heart beat and the death of brain activity (along with these, the lungs and other vital organs follow).\n\nIf our life solemnly depended on the functioning of cells, then you are right, it would not make sense to see people dying. But the human body, composed of several trillions of cells, needs to maintin certain levels of oxygen in order to keep these cells alive and in constant reproduction. So consider the following case, a person starts drowning, therefore he starts lacking oxygen. The lack of oxygen will eventaully lead to cells dying and thus the failure of the organ systems. After that, if the person isnt rescued, the whole body dies, thus the person dies. See how the human body doesn not only depend on cells in order to live? Thats why we die. \n\nAlso, as we age, the funcion of our cells becomes less and less productive. As we get old, so do our cells and guess what, they die too and are not always replaced. Eventually, the replacement of cells stops at some point.\n\nSo what gives us the strenght to do things? Its cells yes, but from a bigger point of view, its the nutrition that we give these cells. Cells run on ATP just like cars run on gas. If we eat the appropiate things, our cells will be stronger, and our bodies will too. Thus ATP is actual energy, energy that our cells provide to our tissues, to our organs, to our organ systems and to  us, as organisms-humans.\n\nThe reason why doctors cannot prevent death is simple, they cannot reverse the course of nature that our primary parents, Adam and Eve left for us to inheret. They sinned, inhereted death and illnesses and so did we. Although medical doctors can often make things better and help us feel that way too, expecting them to come up for a solution to death is a little to off, perhaps out of their league.
1084252
I noticed people become more believing when they get older...I think for a lot of people the thought that when you die, you cease to exist is difficult to comprehend, so there must be a God overseeing the afterlife...
727589
because death or bein dead is part of the unknown. people generally dislike unfamiliar circumstances i.e death. im scared of death, partially becuase im scared of how it will happen, but also becuase we dont 'really' know what happens after death till it happens. im not religious.. but who knows? no1.
1183349
The scientific acceptance of the idea of rebirth is largely about the exact definition of rebirth. While it's quite obvious that the human body is gone after the death, and cannot be recycled, proving a rebirth into a different body would be quite complicated, since you'd need some detailed evidence of things happening to people in previous life. Modern science or not, there has not been enough evidence yet of anyone living remembering vivid facts from their previous lives.
1097876
In some sense, society and culture can be viewed as a non-material aspect of our beings, so you have to be very careful about what you mean in this question. No, I don't believe in an after-life. When we die, we're dead and we have no consciousness left. It's like a candle that has been blown out. The flame no longer exists. I don't believe in spirits in the sense of some disembodied energy with consciousness. \n\nOn the other hand, I regard myself as a spiritual atheist. I believe that life is to be lived fully and happily. I believe that we should look around us and enjoy the beauty of the universe. I believe that we should love, and learn, and teach, and help others to achieve their goals. But I need no after-life to induce me to do these things. It is simply part of having a good life.
1117022
Are you seriously expecting that there are people here in Yahoo Answers (or here on Planet Earth for that matter) who KNOW what happens after death? No one knows what happens after you die. People who pretend to know are either charlatans or fools.
406389
It is well-established that the human brain has the capacity to take in an infinite amount of knowledge and information, far more than our 80 years of life allows.  It is also well-established that the human body is constantly repairing, renewing and replacing itself, and should go on doing so.  The human body, by design, should live forever and should be forever young. The  medical field cannot understand why it is not so. These two facts alone demonstrate that this life, logically, is not all there is.
800729
Whenever we argue about whether a thing can be proved, we should distinguish five different questions about that thing:\n\n\nDoes it really exist or not? "To be or not to be, that is the question." \nIf it does exist, do we know that it exists? A thing can obviously exist without our knowing it. \nIf we know that it exists, can we be certain of this knowledge? Our knowledge might be true but uncertain; it might be "right opinion." \nIf it is certain, is there a logical proof, a demonstration of why we have a right to be certain? There may be some certainties that are not logically demonstrable (e.g. my own existence, or the law of non-contradiction). \nIf there is a proof, is it a scientific one in the modern sense of 'scientific'? Is it publicly verifiable by formal logic and/or empirical observation? There may be other valid kinds of proof besides proofs by the scientific method. \nThe fifth point is especially important when asking whether you can prove life after death. I think it depends on what kinds of proof you will accept. It cannot be proved like a theorem in Euclidean geometry; nor can it be observed, like a virus. For the existence of life after death is not on the one hand a logical tautology: its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, as a Euclidean theorem does. On the other hand, it cannot be empirically proved or disproved (at least before death) simply because by definition all experience before death is experience of life before death, not life after death.\nIf life after death cannot be proved scientifically, is it then intellectually irresponsible to accept it? Only if you assume that it is intellectually irresponsible to accept anything that cannot be proved scientifically. But that premise is self-contradictory (and therefore intellectually irresponsible)! You cannot scientifically prove that the only acceptable proofs are scientific proofs. You cannot prove logically or empirically that only logical or empirical proofs are acceptable as proofs. You cannot prove it logically because its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, and you cannot prove it empirically because neither a proof nor the criterion of acceptability are empirical entities. Thus scientism (the premise that only scientific proofs count as proofs) is not scientific; it is a dogma of faith, a religion.\n\n\nI.\nThe first reason for believing in life after death is simply that there is no compelling reason not to, no objection to it that cannot be answered. The two most frequent objections are as follows:\n(a) Since there is no conclusive evidence for life after death, it is as irresponsible to believe it as to believe in UFOs, or alchemy. Perhaps we cannot disprove it; a universal negative always is difficult if not impossible to disprove. But if we cannot prove it either, it is wishful thinking, not evidence, that makes us believe it.\n\nNow this objector either means by 'evidence' merely empirical evidence, or else any kind of evidence. If he means the latter, he ignores all the following proofs for life after death. There is a lot of evidence. If he means the former, he falls victim to the self-contradiction argument just mentioned. There is no empirical evidence that the only kind of evidence we should accept is empirical evidence.\n\nIn most supposedly scientific objections of this type, an impossible demand is made, overtly or covertly-a demand for scientific proof-and then the belief is faulted for not satisfying that demand. This is like arguing against the existence of God on the grounds that "I have not found Him in my test tube," or like the first Soviet cosmonauts' "argument" that they had found no God in outer space. Ex hypothesi, if God exists He is not found in a test tube or in space. That would make Him a chemical or a meteor. A taxi trip through Cleveland disproves quasars as well as a laboratory experiment disproves God, or brain chemistry dispro