# Life after death
**URL:** https://forum.skepticza.org/t/life-after-death/7352
**Category:** Skepticism
**Created:** [8 May 2021 15:12 UTC](https://forum.skepticza.org/t/life-after-death/7352 "2021-05-08T15:12:29Z")
**Posts on this page:** 5
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Tweefo](https://forum.skepticza.org/u/Tweefo)
#### Post date: [8 May 2021 15:12 UTC](https://forum.skepticza.org/t/life-after-death/7352/1 "2021-05-08T15:12:29Z")
[ ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AtTM9hgCDw)
---
### Author:  [@cyghost](https://forum.skepticza.org/u/cyghost)
#### Post date: [10 May 2021 06:56 UTC](https://forum.skepticza.org/t/life-after-death/7352/2 "2021-05-10T06:56:35Z")
it takes one hour two minutes and eleven second to say no?
weird
---
### Author:  [@Tweefo](https://forum.skepticza.org/u/Tweefo)
#### Post date: [10 May 2021 10:32 UTC](https://forum.skepticza.org/t/life-after-death/7352/3 "2021-05-10T10:32:59Z")
Have to admit I did not finish it. Those stories sounded too tall.
---
### Author:  [@Mefiante](https://forum.skepticza.org/u/Mefiante)
#### Post date: [10 May 2021 11:40 UTC](https://forum.skepticza.org/t/life-after-death/7352/4 "2021-05-10T11:40:40Z")
I got about halfway through the video before I gave up on it. @Tweefo, your “sounded too tall” take about sums it up. There’s not a single mention of testing or analysing the anecdotes for any alternative (read “simpler”) possible explanations—e.g., the tellers misperceiving or making stuff up or embellishing a mundane experience—and all of the “evidence” cited in support of the salient points of particular accounts is uniformly hearsay. That is, it’s anecdotes all the way down, and where objective tests are done, such as the memory-consistency-over-time assessments, this says very little about the factuality of the accounts per se.
The credo that “The plural of ‘anecdote’ isn’t ‘evidence’” doesn’t feature at all, and so concluding therefrom that there must be life after death is little more than ill-disguised _argumentum ad ignorantiam_.
In truth, my alarm bells went off right at the beginning when the MC did the introductions of the presenters and made a huge spiel about their imposing qualifications and experience. To me, that smelt of _argumentum ad verecundiam_ right off the bat.
'Luthon64
---
### Author:  [@BoogieMonster](https://forum.skepticza.org/u/BoogieMonster)
#### Post date: [10 May 2021 13:57 UTC](https://forum.skepticza.org/t/life-after-death/7352/5 "2021-05-10T13:57:37Z")
I didn’t get even half way. Much ado about science and impartiality and then anecdote, followed by anecdote, followed by anecdote. Never is it considered, for instance, that children might make up stories to explain their own physical scars, birth marks, or disabilities. Nope, the kid said it, it must be true.
I found it revealing, for instance, that the guy who’se kid thought he was in WWII also happened to be buying his dad WWII history books as presents that just happened to contain the same stories. Really… it’s just a concidink that your family happens to be into WWII history and your kid is a WWII casualty.
Also … 50 fucking years! and you got squat?! A bunch of stories and no actual conclusions other than “oooooh spooky” and knowing expressions that you can shoot around. That’s it.
MOREOVER, I do love how this investigator got “funding” so he could travel all around the world on other people’s dime and “investigate” these matters… then they step up and proudly proclaim to have “no conflicts of interest” besides, you know… still needing their jobs to exist.