[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Also, would any self respecting Christian who “died” for a few minutes admit that nothing out of body happened? The next Sunday, the preacher asks him to come forth and tell the flock what happened, what’s he going to say- nothing?
[/QUOTE]
Actually- yeah, because
just because nothing happened to him YET didn’t mean there wasn’t going to be something happen if he was dead long enough, OR
maybe the “soul-sleep” interpretation of the Bible is right.
[QUOTE=Omegaman]
I would just like to offer my support and Prayers to those here who can use them. I will not even try to "run with the big dogs " as it were as we all know how that goes. But I offer my Prayers just the same.
[/QUOTE]
Note that the subject of said prayers is carefully left unspecified. 
[QUOTE=Apos]
Your answer was, and a paraphrase, but this isn’t very far off “no, you’re wrong.” Then you left the thread and basically declared that you didn’t want to talk about the subject anymore.
The very BOOK THAT YOU CITED describes a timeline wherein Reynolds was only brain dead for a few minutes. You asserted that she was dead for a matter of hours, and then cited a book for this claim. I pointed out that the book explicitly said the opposite. Calling me a liar is simply irrelevant rhetoric. Show me I’m wrong.
We have to keep coming back to these issues because you keep claiming that there is objective evidence of your claims, but when it comes down to discussing that evidence, it turns out that it isn’t what you say it is after all. That’s a serious problem with your claims that you can’t run away from with vague assertions about “research being done.” What does that research consist of? If it is all as factually challenged as your account of Pam Reynold’s case, then that IS a pretty darn important issue.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
2) maybe the “soul-sleep” interpretation of the Bible is right.
[/QUOTE]
What interpretation is that?
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
…No, i’d say people suffering major trauma are changed like that, too. Big changes to lifestyle happen with many people who go through an event and start actually thinking more about things. If it’s a heart attack or other serious medical issue (like… losing a leg, or finding out you have diabetes), people will often change their lifestyle beyond that which is demanded by their condition.
I know you have a website, and I’m sure there are people who require support, whether or not NDEs are real or more like dreams. But there are websites, support centres, counsellors for those who lose limbs. Big changed come with major traumatic events - it’s not just NDEs.
How long for?
[/QUOTE]
Researchers will disagree with you. I really didn’t expect you to study NDEs and find out for yourself.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Actually, I have my doubts as to whether even God could prove the existence of God (except by reaching directly into your mind and tweaking your belief-system, but that would be brainwashing, not proof).
[/QUOTE]
This is, on one hand, a great point–but on the other hand, at some point a demonstration of omnipotence is so convincing that a tricksy alien may as well be a God.
For example, for an omnipotent God, it would be trivial to make the stars tonight spell out, “Lay down your weapons, for I am God!” It woudl be trivial to make the message instead be the most inspiring, beautiful, and persuasive bit of theological poetry ever written. It would be trivial to have the message appear to each human in the primary language they can read, and for those who cannot read, it would be trivial to allow them to hear the poem spoken by the stars. It would be trivial for an omniscient God to think of an even more persuasive form of proof of its existence, if its desire was to provide every human being with adequate proof. Such a God would know what would convince each one of us and could, using special omnipotence powers, provide us with that proof.
If an alien civilization could do the same, then that alien civilization may as well be God for all practical purposes.
The only problem with such an event would be the question of insanity. How would you distinguish between the perception of such an event and the total retreat into a fantasy world? As long as my secondary experiences (talking to others, looking at photographs of the event, etc.) were consistent, I’d probably conclude that it had actually happened.
Again, though, proving Its existence is the easy part. If an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God wants me to believe that omnibenevolent bit, it’s going to have some hard questions to answer. Being omnipotent, of course, they won’t be that hard :).
Daniel
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Buddhists allow for the existence of God but assign him absolutely no spiritual importance. It is the principal difference between Buddhism and Hinduism.
[/QUOTE]
It’s been many, many years since I read about these two religions, so forgive me if I got it wrong. The point is what it is, yes? :dubious:
Btw, the “proof”/“evidence”/“rationale”, whatever that is good enough to convince me of God (specifically YHWH Elohim- Father, Son & Spirit), though YMMV…
the emergence of something out of nothing,
the emergence of order out of chaos,
the emergence of organisms out of inorganic material,
the emergence of sentient animal life out of insentient organisms,
the emergence of humanity out of sentient animal life,
the emergence of the Israelite/Jewish people out of humanity,
the emergence of Jesus out of the Israelite/Jewish people.
As I said, YMMV.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
http://www.nidsci.org/articles/bestevidence.php
[/QUOTE]
Good grief. From YOUR OWN CITE:
“By all known standards Pam Reynolds was clinically dead and remained that way for many minutes.”
Emphasis mine.
This account of course also simply glosses over the fact that the observations she has of what the operating room people were saying all come from times that were demonstrably merely under general (and as often happens, she might well have not been fully under). There is no evidence at all given that she actually had any experiences during those few minutes when she was brain dead. The actual procedure, from when she was put under to when she was put in recovery took HOURS.
Hey All!
I’m very tired at the moment and so I must hit the sack. I wanted to respond to each of you but am about to drop over. Sorry.
I will say that you folks sure are smart! (Converting you may be tougher than I thought.
But you guys in some of your comments almost seem more like piranhas than people that sincerely seek the truth. Have any of you ever considered going on a Vision Quest?
Good nite!!
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Researchers will disagree with you. I really didn’t expect you to study NDEs and find out for yourself.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, i’m confused to all hell, now.
I’m saying that people’s lives are often changed when the have an NDE. You’re saying i’m wrong on NDEs, but i’m* agreeing* with you. What I am saying is not that NDEs don’t actually change people at all, but that major events as a whole change people. Would you like cites for support groups for diabetes? For those who’ve lost a limb?
I study psychology at university. That included (by choice) a module on parapsychology. I studied NDEs for an exam - one of my *final * exams. I’ve done research, mon ami (of course, we won’t know how well until my results come through )
Cite me up some researchers who disagree - cite me up some that show NDEs effect people significantly more than any other major traumatic event. You seem confident, i’m sure you know of some. But then of course I wouldn’t expect you to actually agree with someone who doesn’t share your basic premise. That would be the act of an open-minded person.
How long for?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
What interpretation is that?
[/QUOTE]
That one’s soul is unconscious or non-existent until Christ returns and raises the dead. It is held in varying forms by Seventh-Day Adventists, Armstrongists,
Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christadelphians.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Btw, the “proof”/“evidence”/“rationale”, whatever that is good enough to convince me of God (specifically YHWH Elohim- Father, Son & Spirit), though YMMV…
the emergence of something out of nothing,
the emergence of order out of chaos,
the emergence of organisms out of inorganic material,
the emergence of sentient animal life out of insentient organisms,
the emergence of humanity out of sentient animal life,
the emergence of the Israelite/Jewish people out of humanity,
the emergence of Jesus out of the Israelite/Jewish people.
As I said, YMMV.
[/QUOTE]
Oh- to give credit where credit is due, I think I derived this from G. K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man.
[QUOTE=GuyNblueJeans]
But you guys in some of your comments almost seem more like piranhas than people that sincerely seek the truth.
[/QUOTE]
As I noted, don’t you see that you are mainly just self-sealingly explaining away the existence of skeptics rather than addressing skepticism?
The skeptical points stand or fall on their own regardless of whether there exist any skeptics to put them forth. Whether or not we are “piranhas” or “insincere” as people, the ISSUES still matter.
[QUOTE=GuyNblueJeans]
I will say that you folks sure are smart! (Converting you may be tougher than I thought.
But you guys in some of your comments almost seem more like piranhas than people that sincerely seek the truth. Have any of you ever considered going on a Vision Quest?
[/QUOTE]
Have you ever considered doing in depth research on the arguments about god, from both sides? Have you ever considered researching the origins of modern religion, and finding out where they and their practices really came from? Have you ever considered researching other religions, not just the big ones, but ancient extinct religions and splinter groups and regional groups, and tried to figure out why they were wrong and you were right? If you go on a Vision Quest looking for god, then most likely anything you find you attribute to god. Learning without interpretive bias is much more useful.
If we seem like piranhas it’s because we’ve seen these arguments time and time again, presented in the same way every time, and we can guess how it’s going to go. Arguing against them, and getting absolutely no where with the person making the claim gets a little old.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Btw, the “proof”/“evidence”/“rationale”, whatever that is good enough to convince me of God (specifically YHWH Elohim- Father, Son & Spirit), though YMMV…
the emergence of something out of nothing,
the emergence of order out of chaos,
the emergence of organisms out of inorganic material,
the emergence of sentient animal life out of insentient organisms,
the emergence of humanity out of sentient animal life,
the emergence of the Israelite/Jewish people out of humanity,
the emergence of Jesus out of the Israelite/Jewish people.
As I said, YMMV.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have any proof there once was nothing?
The Universe clearly tends to chaos. We have managed a small local ‘order effect’ on one planet, but it’s a continuous battle.
How old do you think the Universe is? In a time frame of billions of years, life could have arisen and evolved.
The theory of evolution also explains animal life and humanity.
What is the significance of the Israelite/Jewish people?
Since the Jewish religion denies Jesus was God, I don’t see how that helps either.
[QUOTE=GuyNblueJeans]
… (Converting you may be tougher than I thought. …
[/QUOTE]
Converting to what exactly? Do you have a well-defined God scenario you feel we should adopt? Or would you be satisfied if all non-theists became just some variety of theist or other?
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
…
the emergence of order out of chaos,
…
[/QUOTE]
I wonder if you attach spiritual significance to well-ordered salt crystals forming from the chaotic locations of salt molecule in sea water? You may well feel all such natural processes are miraculous. How then do you feel about the crystals dissolving when salinity or temperature conditions change again? Is this emergence of chaos out of order just as spiritually significant? If so, how did you decide on your examples?
I notice nobody here is seriously considering the possibility of polytheism. If there are many gods and they don’t always get along or have the same agenda/aims/desires, that would explain a whole lot about the universe.
Nor is anybody questioning the basic assumption that God would be interested in human beings or human affairs. If I had an ant farm, I would feed the ants out of a basic sense of responsibility and/or care for my property. I might derive some esthetic pleasure from the ants, some entertainment from watching them go about their business, perhaps even some sadistic pleasure from occasionally burning them with a magnifying glass. But I wouldn’t pass moral judgments on their behavior, I wouldn’t expect them to worship me, I wouldn’t even worry about whether they like me or are even aware of my existence.
Nor is anybody questioning the assumption that evidence of the existence of an afterlife (e.g., NDEs) is relevant to proving the existence of God. It isn’t. There is no logically necessary connection between God and the afterlife; either could exist without the other. In the Hindu/Buddhist world-view, the afterlife is reincarnation, which is neither a gift nor a curse from the gods, but simply part of the nature of things. No deity is involved in karmic judgment – your soul finds the incarnation appropriate to its karma like water finding its own level.
Monotheism, an interested deity, and a deity who provides a personal (and morally relevant) afterlife are basic assumptions of the Yahvist/Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam – except that the Jewish conception of an afterlife is rather different and much less important than in the other two). But to discuss the OP properly on its merits, we need to be willing to think outside the Yahvist paradigm.
Converting implies we were not once religious. Our indoctranation was complete. Eventually the fatal flaws of religion became too obvious to ignore. Atheists do not seek to become non believers. Critical thinking demands it.