Message #3276

[Martin]

Since when  'because you haven't seen something' does that prove that it doesn't or cannot exist??

I am simply offering my opinion that zombies don't exist, and the article you post only serves to confirm that opinion.  It says:

At least 15 individuals who had been branded zombies by terrified peasants turned out to be victims of epilepsy, mental retardation, insanity or alcoholism. The case of Clairvius Narcisse, however, gave Douyon good evidence. Medical records showed he was declared dead in 1962 at Albert Schweitzer Hospital, an American-run institution in Deschapelles. Yet more than 200 people recognized him after his reappearance.

The best explanation, Douyon believed, was that Narcisse had been poisoned in such a way that his vital signs could not be detected.

In other words, though the headline of the article superficially seems to support the view that people who have been killed come back to a stupified life as a zombie, the article is suggesting that these people had not been killed, but poisoned in such a way as to make them appear as if they had died.

All of which points to the action of chemicals on the brain and offers not a shred of evidence as to the existence of something called the soul which lives on in a conscious existence after the brain and body are gone. 

Life can and does exist without a brain (plant life ... amoeba ..etc etc) - life existing without a brain.

 

Indeed, but none of these exist without the support of the physical, chemical reactions which support them.  The fact that life exists without a brain offers not a shred of evidence to support the existence of something we might call 'the soul'.

Actually - we perceive this world with just our 5 (sometimes 6) senses - some things might be just out of the reach of the 5. and I have learnt that what is obvious to some might not be so obvious to others 

Yes that's true, there may be many things we don't know about, and some people may be able to detectt things that others can't but, there is no good evidence for that.  There have been many, many, attempts to prove under scientific conditions, that people have special powers.  Not one has been able to do so.  The more times such experiments fail to prove what those taking part in them say they can prove, the more these failures contribute evidence against the existence of supernatural power. (in other words, every time the claims of those, like you Jan, who support the idea of supernatural power are shown to be poorly founded, the more it becomes apparent that some people will make such claims saying that they are well founded, when in fact they are not).

You keep on posting articles which, on examination, don't provide the evidence you say they do.  In doing so, you expose the fact, to anybody looking objectively, that your view is highly subjective and doesn't offer real evidence.

As I say, there is not a shred of evidence supplied by any scientific observation that such a thing as the soul exists.   If the soul could be shown to exist by scientific study, it would be all over the press.  It isn't.