So… If I took some LSD and thought that I was being attacked by twenty-foot spiders, and I developed a phobia of spiders, because of that, that would be proof that I was actually attacked by twenty-foot spiders? :dubious:
The evidence has been convincing enough to convert every serious researcher that looked into it. Skeptics will never be convinced of anything, that is why they are skeptics. Once convinced they lose their identity.
Believe what you will, it is true and eventually you will know that.
Save the dumb jokes for those that enjoy them.
If you want knowledge you have to do something to obtain it.
Let me guess : “Serious researcher” means “People who agree with lekatt”. Proof of God/the afterlife would be international news - if it was true.
It’s not a “dumb joke”; it’s an obvious variation of what you believe. Your second statement while true makes no sense in context.
Considering the topic, I wonder if that wasn’t an oblique violation of the “don’t wish death on other posters” rule.
Debates on spiritual experiences on this board never get pass the first step. As soon as a link is posted the serious debate stops. The heckling starts. I have no problem with people who just say they don’t believe. But there is never a discussion of the link. No one reads it? It scares them? What happens? This is good solid scientific evidence, much of it gathered by researchers.
Dr. Raymond Moody, Jr. Psychiatrist
Dr. Elizabeth Keubler-Ross, M.D.
Dr. Pim van Lommel
Dr. Kenneth Ring
Dr.Melvin Morse M.D.
and many more.
This is real stuff.
Below is a link that is not a NDE but it is a spiritual experience, any discussion.
Pretty story that is better suited for maybe Fate magazine. Lets get back on topic. If you want to start another thread on your supposed NDE experience(with minimal links to your own website this time), do so.
My post was exactly on the target subject of this thread Mr. Moderator. But if you choose to heckle me and the subject I will oblige you and leave. Have a good day.
Lekatt, Czarcasm was posting as a member/debater, not with his Mod Hat on, as he occasionally (far too seldom) does.
While I confess to some skepticism as to the significance of NDEs in an objective metaphysical context, I believe them to be legitimate spiritual experiences for the individuals concerned. (A fascinating take on NDEs was advanced by Spider Robinson in the context of a rather complex SF setup, too complex to explain here, but effectively that they were the “downloading of the soul” at the time of death – “life going before one’s eyes” being a high-speed playback of the life experiences of the individual, while the “tunnel leading to a bright light” is analogous to the experience of going through a fibre-optic cable.)
However, and with respect for Lekatt’s point, can I ask that this discussion not get sidetracked into one on the validity of NDEs? I found the discussion fascinating and surprisingly conflict-free, and would love to see it continue.
I respect you and your posts Polycarp. I think you are honest and will say this.
Near death experiences are spiritual experiences, that’s what this thread is about, spiritual experiences. It is also about whether one believes in them which raises the “why” question. There was nothing wrong with my post.
Now, about “life reviews.” If one would read some real life reviews they would find the theories like Spider Robinson’s just doesn’t fit what happens. When a NDEer has a life review, it’s true his life passes before him, but not all of it. He is shown the important encounters, that meaning the main choices he made, with the emotions reversed. If he harmed others, then he will feel the pain he caused them in himself, if he helped them he will feel the joy he caused in himself. This is a learning situation for the individual.
Life reviews are few considering the thousands of NDEs, but you can find them by reading the material. Some of the ones I have read:
This lady said after her LR, “I never felt so bad in all my life, I just couldn’t face the things I had done to others.”
Another said: “I was so embarrased, all I could do is cry.”
Dannon Brinkley, wrote is his book that his life review was the most difficult thing he ever went through. He was a covert operative and killed people along with other really bad things. He said: “I felt the pain of the enemy officer I killed, along with the pain of his solders, his wife, and his children.”
Read some of Dannon’s books or visit his web site.
http://www.lightstreamers.com/cia-1.htm
What passes for NDEs in the skeptical science world are not NDEs.
I hope you don’t believe me, I hope you will do your own research going to the people who actually experienced them. That is why I say that every serious researcher of near death experiences ended up a believer. There is a long list of doctors in this group which I had listed before being ridiculed.
Things that can’t survive the scrutiny of skeptics are almost certainly delusions or lies. That one statement pretty much crushes what little credibility your claims had. And once again, I suspect you mean “agrees with lekatt” when you say “serious researcher”.
No, I’m pretty sure he means, “end[s] up a believer.”
That’s assuming that skeptics actually scrutinize, or as lekatt put’s it, do serious research. I don’t see anything crushed. Skeptics and believers have their prejudices that motivates them to prematurely embrace or reject evidence. ** Lekatt **has offered several links to support a position. If you have anything other than opinion to refute it then let’s see it.
The God helmet thing was very interesting but hardly conclusive.
True skeptics do not “prematurely embrace or reject evidence”. We just have this annoying habit of rejecting bad evidence and fanciful tales, even if they support what we already believe. We recognize the “True Scotsman” fallacy when we see it(the dismissal of scientifically controlled NDES for no other reason than that they are scientifically controlled is an excellent example), and we are perfectly willing to change our position providing the new evidence is sound and varifiable. Pretty tales of vaguely mystical events that evoke emotions do not qualify. Appealing through authority does not qualify. Appealing through popularity does not qualify.
What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell”, avoid opinion, Care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history” — what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always in to an unknown future; facts are your only chance. Get the facts!
– Lazarus Long
I thought I had misssed a link. Who dismissed scientificlly controlled NDEs? Where was that? Even a so called scientific study that came to some conclusion against them could be flawed. If several studies done over a period of time by spererate research groups found the same thing that would be real evidence.
Most people find it difficult to be completely objective. People on both sides tend to lean one way or the other and look at evidence accordingly. NDEs seems to be an area where there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other.
Well, here’s someone who dismissses any NDE that doesn’t end up converting someone to True Believer status. He is saying right here that any NDE that is man-made and/or belief-changing is not a “real” NDE at all.
[Church Lady]How convenient![/Church Lady]
Thanks Cosmosdan for comprehending my post. I think you would like Dannion Brinkley, he has helped thousands of people through his programs. If you decide to go to his site let me know what you think. I wish I could do as he does.
http://www.lightstreamers.com/Dannion_About.htm
I will check back to see if Polycarp or anyone else wants to go further into the reality of actual near death experiences before quitting this thread.
How does one refute an anonymous and uncomfirmed story, a news story that also points out major faults in a non-repeated study, another pretty story backed up by nothing, a link that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand, and self-written puffery from an author.
From cosmodan we get
I notice that scientific studies are the ones that get the beloved “so called” condemnation, and that they can be easily dismissed as flawed. You know what? If I were playing the odds, I’d go with the the "so called’ scientific studies over the anonymous stories and puff pieces any day.
I saw that statement and don’t agree with your conclusion, although I think it could have been worded better. Lekatt seems to be saying that the so called scientific research he has seen so far is flawed. Do you want to offer anything other than an opinion to refute it. Do you have any cites of valid scientific studies casting serioous doubt on NDEs? Let’s see them.
What is it with my screen name. It happens over and over on SDMB
It’s **cosmos ** with that second S not
cosmo sheeesshh :rolleyes: