The sacred chariot driver in Greek mythology?
She’s dead too.
Oh, don’t even try to pull that stunt. What’s being said that if you want claim something as scientific evidence, then it has to be supported by the scientific method. And who made the claim of scientific evidence for a non-physical basis for NDE’s? It was YOU. You pulled that genie out of the bottle. You’re the one who kept carrying the “shield”, as you call it, of your supposed scientific evidence, claiming that it proved you to be true. And when your shield collapsed, suddenly you decide science is no longer your friend. You want to know why the scientific method is more reliable than your personal belief? Because it allows a possible conclusion of “I was wrong”. Until your belief system includes that element, you have no standing to talk about what is real or true outside of your own head.
I’m done with this dogpile. It’s gone from interesting to sad.
… okay, this will probably lead to me smashing my head against the wall some more, but:
the epistemology of religion and the epistemology of the scientific method are diametrically opposed. So much so, in fact, that on true matters of faith (eg. aesthetic interpretations of what likes exists beyond the possibility of proof and refutation), and true matters of science (eg. that which can be observed either directly or indirectly, replicated, tested and whose explanations can be falsified), the two have nothing to say to, or about, each other.
That you do not grok the difference in methodology and epistemology between faith and science means that you don’t understand what their natures, limits or differences are. That you believe they have the same methodology proves that you have no idea what the methodology of either actually is.
Epistemology has nothing to do with “what people are told since early childhood.” Claiming that shows that you do not understand the logical basis of proof and refutation. Further, claiming that “personal experience is good” means, semantically in this context, zilch. Personal experiences prove nothing other than that you had some sort of experience, which you describe in a certain way, and attach a certain significance to. I’ve gone on record, on this board, as having had a ‘peak experience’, stone cold sober, in which I felt I was in communion with a vast, cool, unsympathetic and yet, infinitely loving female presence. Undoubtedly a “female” presence. One that was paradoxical, wild, wise, all-knowing and all-powerful. Goddess, if you will.
Now, that is not proof that there actually is a Goddess, or that if She existed, that my views of Her would define Her. It is proof that (as distorted by memory, all these years later), I actually did have such an experience. That you cannot differentiate the experience from the underlying reality is a spectacular failure in epistemology.
Certain drugs can, and are in fact well known, for producing truly extraordinary experiences. But that doesn’t make those ‘experiences’ valid as anything other than a mere experience.
In short, it’s like looking at a spoon in a glass of water, and claiming that you have “proof” that water causes spoons to bend, but they spontaneously and instantly un-bend once you take them out. You have committed a classic intellectual mistake; you have confused the map with the territory.
Oh, and:
That’s not what the phrase “free thinker” means. What you’ve just described is being so credulous, that you don’t even require any method to check your conclusions, you just believe what you want.
On a side note, yes, death is really, really fucking scary. Thinking about it, really deeply, is about the worst way you can spend an afternoon.
One day, you will simply cease to be. You will stop feeling, thinking, and being aware of anything. Yes, it’s terrifying to think of. But consider this, the “you” that is afraid will be obliterated by dying. There won’t be any ego left to notice anything, let alone to form value judgements about those changes. Death is only scary while you’re alive. And you, like me, and everybody else, really will die. It sucks. But it’s the truth. Nothing can change death, short of an immortal body or finding a way to download your brain to a computer of some form.
You, like the rest of everything that is, has been and will be alive, are made of meat.
And one day, you will rot.
Taking away from people the very real motivation that our limited time brings about, and convincing them that their limited time is essentially worthless, might just be the greatest sin a person is capable of.
We only get one go round, and a very short one at that. Please consider the moral ramifications to deliberately trying to get people to, for all practical purposes, throw away all the value their lives have or will ever have. All on the basis of one of your beliefs which, you freely admit, exists independent of proof, confirmation or refutation, since you decided to ‘just believe it.’
Do you really feel comfortable harming other people in such a grievous manner?
The only person here whose life you know dick about is yours. Are you talking about yourself here? If not, stop mewling insults from that pool of hatred and fear that your words give every evidence that you’re wallowing in.
But it’s super-super-secret extra-good evidence, right? Only available to people with really, really wild imaginations, maybe?
Do you honestly think the whole world agrees with you? I know you’re fond of inventing “millions” of people who agree with you; and I suppose claiming the support of all six billion people is only slightly less plausible. Are you really going to go that far down the path of hyberbole, though?
You are the dude who tries to hold up the scientific method as a shield, when you go around claiming that there’s scientific evidence and studies supporting your beliefs. We just wish you’d get yourself enough personal experience to figure out that in reality the scientific studies mean what you claim they do, so you wouldn’t have to go all fearfully spastic and hatefully defensive when we point out that that particular sheild only works for objectively real things.
And you really ought to stop mischaracterizing your opponents. Regardless of how much you might hate and fear the possibility that they might be right.
Moderators,
Something occurs to me. I am fully aware that by the rules of the forum, we are not to engage in ad hominem attacks or otherwise disparage other posters. We are to attack the arguments and evidence of others in order to try and prove our points. However, lekatt has rested his case in large part, if not entirely, on his own experiences. Essentially, he has made himself his own evidence. It seems utterly unfair to allow one side to have evidence that is unimpeachable, solely on account of the rules of the debate. Therefor, if we are to attempt to disprove him by attacking his evidence, we must attack him and his own credibility. In light of this, might the other posters in this thread be entitled to a little latitude in demonstrating that lekatt is, in fact, full of shit?
You’re WAY over the line, here.
By now you should know how lekatt is going to respond to any statement or question. As long as he is not interrupting some other poster’s thread, why don’t you just leave the whole matter alone rather than risk a Warning simply to vent your spleen?
[ /Moderating ]
Okay. Sorry about that, but I feel the post that that was a reply to to be equally insulting to me.
Demonstrating to whom?
lekatt will not acknowledge your evidence.
No one here really believes him, anyway.
If he makes a claim that purports to be scientific, this is the thread in which his claim may be challenged, but his beliefs are no more likely to change under pressure from insults than than they are from facts or logic. I am not aware of any desperate need that the SDMB has to “correct” any poster’s beliefs. Setting the record straight for readers should be sufficient and that can be done without all the personal invective.
For some of you, lekatt has become the hole where a tooth has been removed and I think you would be better off going out in the Spring air and hurling a Frisbee™.
[ /Modding ]
You don’t need to call **Lekatt ** names. There is no need to bend the rules of GD. All you need to do is point out the problems with his own story. There’s at least one obvious one. You’re letting him get away with ignoring it by posting other stuff. There’s only one question you need to ask. Of course, it is inevitable that in an open debate like this people come in afresh and/or have their own approach so that **Lekatt ** is *always * able to dodge. You can’t focus the debate relentlessly on the key points. It’s a pity, but there you go…
Like hell you don’t. Most of your “sources” are directly from your own site.
And again, I’d like to know: ARE there negative NDEs out there?
So, I’ve spent the day off and on reading this thread. And alternating between shaking my head and laughing my ass off. Lekatt, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion, and I only have one question.
What did you nearly die of the night of your Near Death Experience? No you have not answered this question, you have avoided it.
Let me point out that I have posted and it has been confirmed as good science at least one study that says NDEs show evidence that consciousness will live after the death of the body. So your answer is no, because we already have good science on the subject.
Yes, I did answer the question. Three times.
It has his name on the top as the author, twice I believe. Very strange you didn’t see it. It was his interpretation of his own research, why is that not correct that one can’t talk about their own research and what it contained?
No. You did not.
And, please, remember: you didn’t have an NDE. What you (possibly) did have was an OBE.
Is there scientific evidence to prove that? Can’t be to careful you know.
This post was post 318. If you click on this link RIGHT HERE, it’ll take you to that post. And if you go to that post, you’ll find that you quoted me providing a link that takes you to the actual Lancet Study.
When you say, “I don’t have access to the actual Lancet study”, what you are saying is demonstrably false, incontrovertibly false. When you say that in response to a five-sentence post in which the only link was to the actual Lancet study, surely you can imagine what questions arise as to your approach to the topic?
Daniel
Count 'em then say that.
Nope.
What we have is one study where the scientists involved interviewed people after they had NDE’s and did a follow-up a couple of years afterwards, mostly trying to find out whether there was some correlation between the groups and the reported NDE’s.
Even though there is some talk about “confirmed” events during the NDE’s unconscious phase, this was not really the focus of the study, as far as I understand it.
However, you didn’t post a link to it. I did. You haven’t even quoted it, as you promised to do during this thread.
And you haven’t even described what the Near Death was, when you had your Out of Body Experience.
We have established at least one of the links is true science.
Is that last remark an insult?