I am presenting research done by scientists, if you don’t think they qualify, tell them so, and don’t bother me with it.
Just some more non-reality.
I don’t care one way or the other. I was just trying to make a suggestion I thought might be useful. So much for that.
See, the problem is this; you’ve said you don’t give a toss about science, but that you’re presenting science arguments for those that think it’s important.
That would be fine.
Trouble is that what you’re presenting as science, just isn’t - I don’t think anyone fails to appreciate that you don’t care about it - what they’re all getting worked up about is that the material you’re providing doesn’t meet the specific requirements set out in the questions for which you’re providing it as a response.
So, you are arguing that you are the sort of new variety of scientist against which you complain? Because not one of your posts on which I have commented have actually expressed the truth that you have claimed for them.
So what you’re saying is, you’re perfectly happy to present total garbage, caring nothing for its complete worthlessness as science or evidence. That you have no interest whatsoever in presenting accurate or true information.
Because that’s what your flimsy dodge of “Don’t tell me it’s crap, tell the researchers” actually says.
Anyone who was actually interested in the truth would be very concerned about flaws in their arguments and position. (Persons who are only interested in protecting thier own closed set of opinions of course feel no such cumpulsion.)
The closest you seem to come to truth nowadays is when you’re speaking sarcastically.
I’ll try that next time I invite friends over for dinner - Instead of serving a meal, I’ll get a bunch of enraged monkeys to fling excrement at them. My excuse will be “take it up with the monkeys - they’re the chefs - not me!”
Is that Chef Ramsay’s show, next season?
Are you saying the studies and research quotes I have posted, the ones done by scientists and doctors, working at various universities are total garbage?
If you are, I think it prudent of me to refer you to the authors.
I always find it interesting how eager Lekatt is to trumpet the “research” that seems to back his dogma and how ready he is to dismiss any aspect of science that doesn’t.
I have no problem believing that people who’ve experienced NDEs often undergo positive psychological changes. That’s great for them. It still doesn’t mean there’s anything supernatural about the experience. It doesn’t prove the existence of a god or an afterlife.
After all, as has been pointed out many…many…many times before, Near Death Experiences are exactly that. They aren’t Death experiences. The people having them are still alive, if only barely.
I’m saying that you clearly don’t care if they’re garbage or not; you’ll say anything from anybody without regard to its value if you think it’ll support your position.
And that nurse is not a scientist or doctor, working at a various university. When you have quoted scientists or doctors, we’ve always been quick to point out why their conclusions don’t support your theories on the afterlife. As often as not, the problem is not their research, but rather your presentation of them. For which we see you as being the accountable one.
It’s cowardly to refer us to the authors. Sometimes they too have some little personal theories and opinions that aren’t really supported by their research (so far), but they’re not the ones posting their material and opinions on this message board. You are. Stop defering blame for your actions onto them.
So your ability to believe in something for which there is no evidence is a gift presumably bestowed by the being whose existence is unproven. Strange sort of circular reasoning.
Are there “gifts” of faith given to people in other unproven areas? For example, I have shown a friend of mine how atrology has been shot down and proven to be bunk over and over and over. He admits astrology has NO scientific basis and has failed every objective test, but he still says that he “feels” it is true.
Do you suppose that my friend received the gift of faith in Astrology? Is there a God of Astrology who bestowed that gift on him?
Or is the “gift of faith” just a way of saying that you choose to believe in a super-daddy in the sky, and to overlook the lack of evidence, just because this belief comforts you?
When you mention the “gift of Faith” and “God” I assume you are talking about the Christian (or Judeo-Christian) God.
But if faith that this God exists is a gift, bestowed by this God, then why was a different gift of faith bestowed on people who at various times did or still do believe in Wotan, Odin, Orsiris, Jupiter, Krishna, etc?
Over one billion Muslims beleive on faith that there is no God but Allah, that Allah has no son (Jesus was a prophet), that Mohammed was his messenger, etc.
Over one billion Christians believ the opposite, also on faith?
Why does the gift of faith work so differently?
Well of course reality contains much more than just what we can verify scientifically. I’m sure scientists would agree that there’s a lot of observed and documented phenomenon that they cannot scientifically explain. There’s what we feel sure we know and a whole bunch of stuff we have yet to understand. However, for language and communication to have meaning we have to establish some definitions. To that end we have the things we can verify objectively and pretty much agree on , fire is hot, rocks are hard , water is wet and many other universally accepted details of life. We have accepted standards of what constitutes scientific data and what is just anecdotal information. You and I and everyone else can *believe * whatever we like but coming to this forum called Great Debates and having some idea of the guidelines and expectations you should be able to tell the difference between beliefs that are really just strong opinions about NDEs and what would fall under the accepted guidelines of scientific research and evidence.
Note that a strong opinion may be just as true as any widely accepted scientific principle but the point others keep making to you is that you shouldn’t call it proof by any scientific standard when it is perfectly obvious that it is not.
Nobody is claiming that it isn’t true, or at least possibly true. Nobody is telling you not to believe it is true and is reality. {That I’ve seen} They’ve simply pointed out that you haven’t provided any proof but merely anecdotal evidence but you insist on calling it something it is not.
I’ve had several experiences I would readily call spiritual and I’ve talked to many others who have had their own. I factor these experiences and stories in when deciding what I believe. I wouldn’t call any of these stories or experiences *proof * by objective standards. They are not.
You have basically restated what you said previously, nothing new. You seem to be trying to compare fire is hot, with nde is false. That the beliefs and experiences of ninty percent of the world is false because they don’t fit into the artificial tests of science, while the other ten percent is right because they made up the tests. You said nothing about the absolute authenticity placed on science and why all people should embrace it. Personal experience (anecdotal) is acceptable in this world and in courts of law. All experience is personal, even the experiences of scientists. NDEs are very real and prove themselves with thousands of events. Veridical samples and scientific research if you need that sort of thing to believe what is self-evident to most. I think it is time to quit this thread. Nothing more will come of it, in my opinion is has not be wasted, some will read farther and learn more because of it.
That is absolutely **not **what I am trying to say. It a matter of an accurate widely accepted definition of terminology and it’s proper use. I very clearly said
and from the previous post
I’m sorry the point seemed to evade you. Since you’re moving on I’ll say no more.