This is a point that has annoyed me. It might well be that there is merit to NDEs. Finding out that they do happen would be very impressive. But lekatt’s arguments on behalf of his cause are pretty damn poor. He himself doesn’t appear to be a very good ambassador.
I’ll start a whip-round for the necessary funds to send him there.
Bullshit.
Absolutely false.
We have the claims of a single nurse that even that nurse agrees is contradicted by others present. We absolutely do not have any evidence that it was “verified” by “doctors in attendance.”
This is whay I occasionally have to point out that your honesty is sorely lacking in these discussions.
You are probably right, I am not a good ambassador, just the only one that will endure the name calling and personal insults because I know how important the knowledge brought to us by NDEs can be. The claims I make on this board are 95% backed-up by research by real scientists. This research is not necessary for me, but I know it is for you. I hope you will follow-up by reading near death experience material by those who are better diplomats. I am not important, the message is very important.
I don’t belong to an organization, but there are billions of people here on earth that believe, as I do, that there is life after death.
I know what the science doctrine consists of and how it works, I just don’t buy into it. Not all of it anyway, it will not help us to reduce our self-destructive behaviour. What I presented in the near death experience is simply what happened. You are to take it from there.
If you can’t think outside formulas dictated by science doctrine, no, it will not mean anything, but if you are a person that can think for himself you will find meaning there.
And for the Nth time, that doesn’t matter. Billions of people can believe many things, and that belief doesn’t make any of them true. An argument from popularity is not proof so stop pointing that out. We know there are people who believe in life after death. Some, though not all of the posters here believe it. That still doesn’t prove anything.
What exactly does “the science doctrine” consist of?
Knowing thta a significant number of your children will turn aound and hate you, in fact deny your presence-why did God do that? I mean, free will is nice-but why go to ll the bother? Knowing youv’r created a monster (like Stalin or Hitler)-that has to bother the allmighty!
…95%?
Which is the 5% that isn’t?
And wait, the research isn’t necessary for you? You don’t require research to believe as you do? I fear you’re underestimating what I mean when I say you’re a bad ambassador. I don’t just mean you aren’t getting your points across, although I do think that. I think you’re actually making the idea of NDEs look bad. Your endurance doesn’t help your cause.
You belong to an organisation of one, like I said. And I take issue with your other statement; certainly there are billions of people that believe there is life after death, but they don’t believe it “as you do”. I would imagine that quite a large amount of those people believe in quite a different life after death.
Billions of people in the world are religious, by the way. If billions of people thinking it is so makes it right, you should logically be a religious person. On top of that, billions of people would say that they think your beliefs as a whole are wrong. Still think the “billions agree with me” argument is a good one?
Edit: Realised you didn’t quote that part up for me. Care to give it another shot?
Setting aside the as yet unanswered question of exactly what the “science doctrine” is, if you understand scientific terminology, you need to stop using it incorrectly.
No, you presented a story. We have absolutely no way of knowing what happened. For that matter, we don’t know that the patient didn’t sneak out of bed and look at a duty roster during the night, or that he didn’t know the nurses’ names *before *the surgery, when the “study” didn’t even exist. It is bad science to allow subjects of study to be unobserved. All kinds of crazy shit can happen.
Of course it matters, because many of them came to their belief through spiritual experiences like I did. That matters a whole lot, and if you had such an experience you would understand just how much it matters. I could care less about the logic doctrine of science, those who made it up never had a spiritual experience. Don’t have a clue about reality.
No, no way you would understand.
What you posted had nothing to do with the experience I posted, perhaps you should read it carefully again.
What you presented in the near death experience is simply what one observer claims happened even though that observer (unlike you) acknowledges that other observers of the same event did not see the same things.
What we take from there is that memories are imperfect and observation is imperfect and you are among the people who see only what you wish to see.
Actually, the first sentence is all I need to read:
Whatever follows is *necessarily *not a study, not a good study, and absolutely not a good scientific study.
Having said that, why is my post completely unrelated? Was there no patient? Was he in a controlled setting the entire time? Did he not spend the night? Were there no nurses? Did the “study” even exist before the alleged incidents following the surgery?
I agree that it matters but the point being made in this thread is that it is not **proof ** about what is or is not true, or what is or is not reality. We have subjective experiences and we make a decision about what that experience means to us and how it affects out lives. Nothing at all wrong with that. It’s how humans operate. We use a combination of objective facts {as best we understand them} and subjective experiences to determine our world view.
I think it’s important to realize we are still striving to understand and our interpretation of subjective experiences and anecdotal stories about those experiences will likely change as our understanding grows. That being the case that interpretation is not much more than an opinion. It’s a mistake to refer to that opinion as fact in any objective sense. It’s like insisting that your favorite fruit is actually a vegetable or vice versa.
In fact I’ll make the analogy that science {dealing with objective reality} and our subjective experiences are like fruits and vegetables in that they both are important parts of our lives but there’s no point in arguing that one is actually the other.
You have strong opinions about certain experiences and what it all means. That’s your choice. It’s completely inaccurate to refer to the examples you give as proof in any way. They’re not. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong about them. It does mean when others point out that it is not scientific evidence ,…they’re correct.
I have to wonder why this conversation is repeated with you so often on the boards. I never feel my beliefs are threatened by someone pointing out that I have no scientific evidence for my spiritual beliefs. It’s true, I don’t. So what? It has zero to do with whether my beliefs are valid or valuable.
Try me. What have you got to lose? I don’t believe you currently. The worst that could happen is that I continue not to believe you, and the best is that I become a rabid supporter. Come on, show that endurance! I very much want to know what the 5% is!
Still waiting on that quote, by the way.
I really appreciate your post, but my reality contains science, it is not science. Reality is everything, every person, every tree, every rock, mountain, drop of water, blade of grass, reality is what is. You can’t break it down into subjective or objective, right or wrong, black or white, that just isn’t reality, it’s only “accepted” reality which is false by definition. What people think, and believe does matter. They can not be separated into non-reality/reality by science or any other organization. If you are not dealing with all of reality you are not dealing with any of it. Many organizations in the past have tried to decide what people should believe in and what they should not believe in and otherwise attempt to control their lives, they all failed. I can remember when science studied reality and didn’t try to create it. When truth mattered and logic didn’t have to pass artificial doctrinal tests before it could be believed. I don’t live in your world of half-truths artificially manufactured by dogma.
If you’re only doing the science bit for everyone else, not yourself, wouldn’t it make sense to do it according to their constraints of what science actually is and is not?