Boy, are you misinformed, where have you been?
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
Love
Leroy
Sorry, lekatt, but flattening somebody’s brain waves isn’t brain death. That’s merely a coma. Brain death means the brain cells die. Where have you been?
The only relevant question in that situation was whether we would live or not.
Okay, my mistake. Here’s the Merriam-Webster definition of brain death:
“final cessation of activity in the central nervous system especially as indicated by a flat electroencephalogram for a predetermined length of time.”
Emphasis mine. The article you posted a link to does not specify how long Pam Reynolds had a flat EEG. Plus, her body temperature was lowered to 60 degrees Fahrenheit, so the brain cells could survive without blood for a longer period of time – the “predetermined period of time” in brain death has to take tricks like lowering the body temperature into account.
lekatt, article goes to great lengths to justify its claim that Pam Reynolds was “brain dead” during the procedure, but I notice that they mention no M.D.s that have confirmed their “diagnosis.”
I like to think that I am a pretty, pretty schoolgirl. Given that I am a hairy, slightly overweight male in his early twenties, this may not be true.
Probably something along the lines of, “How do I resolve this situation without getting shot in the face or torso?”
[QUOTE]
**Just leaving your home is a risk. I thought I heard that rhere are 4,000 deaths a month on our highways! Being born under the nuclear threat I was always aware of the fragility of my existance. furthermore I read revelation wich realy amaxed and scared me
[QUOTE]
**
Of course, in the days of invading Romans and leprosy, no one was aware that they might die.
And 28 Days Later amazed and scared me. But I’m not going to try and prove any points about the nature of existence with it, even if it is more plausible and less trippy than Revelations.
[QUOTE]
**The predictions in that book are a vision of the capabilities of present day technology. there is a God, and he wants poeple to wake up!
[QUOTE]
**
Umm…cite on both of these statements?
Or at least an explanation of the first?
[QUOTE]
**you are fortunate to be alive now because 100 years ago none of that stuff would have appeared to be viable, and therefore you wouldnt get to wonder how they could think of such appoccalyptic senerios so long ago.
[QUOTE]
**
blink They? I wasn’t aware that Revelations was a group effort. Mind you, I’m no Biblical scholar.
Also, how do you figure that no one was able to make up a story like the BoR? Sci-fi writers have been making up stories about things that won’t happen for millennia (if at all) since almost the dawn of the genre.
What’s your source for this? Whatever it is, be sure to disregard it in the future. (A simple board search should establish why the above statement is wrong. I won’t write on it here because it would be a massive hijack.)
I know you didn’t read it, skeptics hardly ever do.
Pam Reynolds had all the blood removed from her head, during the operation, approx two hours, there were no brain waves of any kind, nor any other body activity. The American Medical Assn. says that’s brain dead. So does every other doctor and researcher I know of. Pam Reynolds was Brain Dead for approx. two hours and had a NDE.
Believe what you want, you will anyway, but research has proven consciousness lives after the death of the body.
You can find another controlled research by going to thelancet.com and searching “near death.”
The conclusions of this research are the same – consciousness continues after the death of the body.
Love
Leroy
Um…I hope it’s clear that the above is massively horrible coding on my part and not an attempt to alter Blaxter’s words.
The surgical team was made up of M.D.s. The main surgeon confirmed it, was is the problem?
Yeah, that’s exactly what I said.:rolleyes:
If you want to make that analogy work, it would go something like this:
OP: My friend wants me to make pizza, but I don’t have a pizza oven, and I don’t even like pizza. How can I make pizza?
Reply: Well, it’s going to be difficult for you to make pizza without a pizza oven. If you don’t like pizza, why do want to, anyway?
Parody of X-Slayer: I find it amusing that the evil pizza-haters want to take over the world. This is our pizza-lovers thread - you can’t play.
Cite or retract.
Im not worried about hijacking this thread. After all, in a broader sense, this is relevant knowldege dont get testy, please.
If you re-read the OP, we’re not here to force Mottpot to believe. He’s a professed atheist. He doesnt believe already. Why tell him to do something he already does.
Of course I cant make an atheist truly believe. Faith comes from within. He has to want to believe. He expressed desires on the OP to do just that. Just because i cant ‘make’ him believe, doesnt mean he cant believe at all.
Is believeing useless? I dont think so. I may have no proof now but what about the future? The God exists not because there is proof. There is proof because God does exist. You just havent seen this proof yet. The absense of proof doesnt equate to non-existence, and with having proof, it is no longer faith.
I am not brainwashing him to do anything. I am encouraging him to seek more knowledge. Certainly more than just what he has now. More than just relying on his senses and believing only in things that have been proven.
Dude, the apple pie thing was an example, not an anology. It shows that using the rationale of a “relevant knowldege” the OP doesnt get what he wants which is this:
where in that does he say “he doesnt like pizza”? Seems to me he’s open to the idea that Pizza might be good even if he’s never tasted it, or seen it or know how to make it. Most of your analogy is quite correct tho except for the part where you interject that he doesnt like pizza.
Seems to me the OP is saying that he doesnt think he would have the same love of Pizza as his catholic friend does, mostly because he doubts it tastes all that good. Im just encouraged he is willing to try it. I see alot of kids who would go yuck and eww at foods and never even try it. They ask me to prove it tastes good and I always say, I cant prove it, you gotta taste it yourself, but they say no and without proof, they say it cant taste good.
You don’t know God exists; you believe he does.
Life afrer death has not been “proven.” Reader’s Digest? Yeah. I’ll take their word over, say, actual scientific studies. Does Ladies Home Journal have anything to say on the subject?
re the no atheists in extremis argument.
I’d agree, many people pray and cry out to ANYTHING to save them in extremis. Myself included. That’s not the same as believing that it will.
You’re drowning. You don’t want to drown. All you can see is that you’re in the middle of an empty ocean, but, as you go under for the third time, you keep yelling for help, because not yelling for help is giving up hope.
No faith required. Your yelling does not have to mean you believe someone is hearing you. In fact, I might yell the loudest when I could see nothing at all, because, hey, nothing to swim towards, nothing to do BUT yell.
My praying to god does not mean I believe in god. All it means is that I’m praying to god. I’m ATTEMPTING to communicate. I’m sending out a message, and all I can say is that, I attempted to send out a message. Not if it was received, or if there is anyone to receive it, or even a message was in any meaningful way sent.
Seeing someone pray does not mean you are seeing someone “believe”.
If you are blindfolded in a room, speaking to someone does mean there is or is not someone else there. The room is occupied or it is not, your voice does not make it one way or the other. That is my personal level of belief.
And if you see me speaking, you can make assumptions about who or what I believe is hearing me. But there are lots of levels of belief I could hold, and still have a reason or desire to speak.
I may be speaking because I * believe* I’m being heard, but I may also be speaking in the hope someone is there, on the off chance someone is there, or even believing myself to be completely alone and still thinking out loud to problem solve or clarify what I am thinking, or just to express my emotions.
The only time speaking in the room will make you believe you are no longer alone, is if you get an answer from someone other than yourself. So if you believe you’ve gotten an answer or response to your prayer, your prayer might make you believe.
I’m in the position where I’d like to believe in an afterlife/god but I don’t. I pray fairly often. Sometimes for stuff, sometimes about stuff, sometimes I’m just thankful in general and send up a open “thanks to whoever may or may not be there”.
Hasn’t changed my belief that god is unlikely yet.
If you seriously want to become religious, I’d say join a church or other group of believers. Singing, appeals to emotion, being in a large crowd of people caught up in the moment… all those things are much more likely to produce a religious experience than debating it one-on-one with anyone.
Ditto for things like fasting and meditating and other physical disciplines which may or may not be effecting your brain chemistry.
I’ve avoided them myself, because I don’t equate a successful ‘religious experience’ with there actually being a god. Knowingly making myself suggestible in my mindset sort of negates my trusting any subjective experience I’d get out of it.
It’s also a bit of a cop out, I know. If god really wants us to chew peyote (or fast, or join a church and only associate with believers, or any of the other behaviors that are associated with religious belief), and that’s HOW he/she sets it up so we adjust our brains enough so we can have a bit of a natter, I’m basically refusing to do it, to protect my current way of perceiving ‘reality’.
The main surgeon confirmed that all the blood had been taken out of her head and that the EEG had flatlined. But brain death?
I find it highly amusing that the very article you linked to, lekatt, had a link to a medical article at http://www.transweb.org/qa/asktw/answers/answers9509/braindeath.html that begins with the following sentence:
“Brain death is defined as the irreversible loss of all functions of the brain.”
… and then proceeded to claim that Pam Reynolds had experienced brain death even though she was revived and therefore her brain functions had returned.
Pam Reynolds was. Not. Dead. Her brain may have been “put on hold” for a couple of hours, but she wasn’t dead. Nor can anyone demonstrate that those visions she had while she was unconscious happened while her brain activity had ceased – she could have had the first few of those visions before her brain had been drained of blood, and the rest of them after oxygen to her her brain had been restored and her brain was brought back up to its normal temperature.
I was half kidding. But only half. Pascal suggested precisely this sort of thing after his wager: that if you start working to believe, going through the motions, even if you don’t now belief, eventually you’ll get the swing of things and it will be real belief.
But the flaw in that theory is that it applies to all religions, not just Christianity.
I really have trouble believing that’d work for me: are you telling me that I’d eventually forget Pascal’s advice? Because if I remembered it AND remembered what I’d done, then I’d certainly conclude that I could just as easily have used the same technique to convince myself that Ra-Atum created the universe and that I should be offering Ra my worship. And given that I could have convinced myself of that, how could I possibly consider my belief in Yahweh to be sincere?
I just don’t get how this self-brainwashing technique can lead to sincere belief. Hell, in my college days, I assiduously avoided taking hallucinogens because I knew I’d never be able to trust my perceptions of the world again if I took them; what you’re suggesting sounds to me functionally equivalent to the people who suggested I “open the doors of perception,” and equally likely to make me not trust my own mind.
It’s icky-sounding.
As for metaphors, forget pizza. To me, it sounds as if Mott asked, “Guys, my eyes are blue. How can I get them to be naturally brown?”
My beliefs are not something I choose. They are the product of an integral part of who I am, and I cannot control the process by which they form. I find it bizarre that other people say that can control that process within themselves.
Daniel
You are wrong again, the main surgeon testified she couldn’t have known what she did by what you say. There are hundreds of these cases, dream on. How about just believing what you want, I don’t care at all. There would never be enough evidence for you.
Don’t forget the Lancet controlled study, they came to the same conclusion. Well, yes, just forget it all.
You are confused. It isn’t a theory of the truth of a religion we’re talking about, but simply a method for belief. If it applies to all religions, that just makes it a great method.
What you are forgetting is that past a certain point OTHER THINGS than the original logic kick in: all the weight of human habit, emotional connection, and solid conviction. Very quickly, human belief takes on a life all its own. You’d reason “yes, I did trick myself into this originally: but now I’ve started to feel the truth of it in a way i can’t quite describe: I finally knocked, and the door finally opened.”
You always chose your beliefs, always have and always will.
Usually people want to change their beliefs if they are painful and/or causing depressions. Thought is very powerful. Negative thinking causes physical pain.
When you see a stop sign you can believe it represents oppressive authority and resent complying, or you can see it as benevolent sign warning of the dangers ahead. Everyone chooses what they will believe. Whether you know it or not you are in control of all your thoughts and beliefs. When this is learned, you will be amazed at how easy life becomes.
Unknown to most Christians, Jesus’ teachings of forgiveness and love to others brings one to understand these principles. They are of great benefit.
Love
Leroy