lekatt's recent hijacks (removed from original threads)

Great Debates
361

[QUOTE=DiggitCamara]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I think you understood it wrong. I did several times, I can’t help it if you missed it,

362

[QUOTE=lekatt]
We have established at least one of the links is true science.

Is that last remark an insult?
[/QUOTE]
If it was, he was insulting us who allow our spleen to overtake us when arguing with you. That remark was definitely not insluting you.

(Backing away swiftly now…)

363

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I think you understood it wrong. I did several times, I can’t help it if you missed it,
[/QUOTE]

No. You did not.

You never explained the part about your “Near Death”. Not in this thread. Not on your site.

You evaded the question. Time. After. Time. You are still evading it.

Thus: you did not have an NDE. What you described on your site was an OBE.

364

Of course you can, lekatt. Don’t be disingenuous. You can link to where you explained it before (several times) or you can explain it again. Why are you being so difficult about this? It’s not an unreasonable question – especially if you’ve tallked about it before.

How are you going to label those of us who value the scientific method and participate in religious activities and have experienced alternate realities that left us in awe of the possibilities? There are more of us out here than you seem to be aware of.

Science and religion are not automatic enemies. Both are about the search for truth. Both can get off track. In my own life I can’t really think of a time when one has interferred with the other.

365

I STILL want to know-have, or have not there been negative NDEs?
lekatt, you know, you’re only hurting your cause when you refuse to answer.

366

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Yes, I did answer the question. Three times.
[/QUOTE]

Well then I didn’t understand or comprehend it. Like I said in my original post, I have read this entire thread, I have not seen a clear answer from you regarding what your Near Death Experience medical issue was.

I cannot take anything you say seriously if the basic premise of your whole life changing event is a lie.

Again, what did you nearly die from?

A simple one sentence answer is all I need, not a convoluted sarcastic comment please.

Show me some love.

367

[QUOTE=lekatt]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I want to give me a link of the study that you think shows consciousness will live after the death of the body. Then we can talk about whether it does in fact show what you say it shows. (As others have asked, a direct link to whatever it is).

Actually I did see it, actually I pointed out that this is the (claimed) authorship, and I also pointed out that this is NOT the peer-reviewed study, but rather his PERSONAL interpretation. Strange you didn’t notice that. He’s free to talk about his interpretation all he wants, but an interpretation isn’t scientific fact. That’s why the actual abstract to that study makes a difference between findings and interpretation. The findings of that study say nothing about whether NDE’s have a physical basis, absolutely nothing at all. The findings are uncontroversial, unsurprising, and not very interesting. What you don’t seem to grasp is that a personal interpretation is just that, a personal interpretation, and it is not a scientific fact.

The interpretation is easily enough debunked; he’s basically saying “if NDE’s have a physical basis, why doesn’t everyone have NDE’s?” Implying, of course, that they have a non-physical cause. Alright, let’s take that thesis to be true. NDE’s have a non-physical cause. How does this satisfy his rhetorical question? If everyone has an immortal soul, then why doesn’t everyone experience an NDE? Neither cause can answer his question, so the question isn’t a very good one.

Now, bearing all this in mind, what is that source you’re claiming has been accepted as “good science” with evidence that consciousness lives after the body?

368

Back in post no. 138 I gave some background material on my NDE. This is that material.

Then when repeatedly asked about what caused it, I posted in no. 221.

Now in further explanation I want to say it was probably my heart problem that cause the experience, but I don’t know for sure, this is a guess.

Please understand, especially those of you who are honest and do post serious questions, I am besieged on this board with posters that are not serious and honest. They misquote what I say, they claim I said things when I haven’t, they claim my links are faulty when they are not, and they insult and belittle me and my beliefs. It has been that way since I started posting here years ago. I don’t want any sympathy and I don’t expect that will change much, but I want all of you to know that I will answer questions and other comments with honesty and truth as I understand it. I have been studying NDEs and related events for over 20 years, and I have experienced some of what I have studied. If I miss your post I am sorry and apologize.

369

[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
I want to give me a link of the study that you think shows consciousness will live after the death of the body. Then we can talk about whether it does in fact show what you say it shows. (As others have asked, a direct link to whatever it is).
Actually I did see it, actually I pointed out that this is the (claimed) authorship, and I also pointed out that this is NOT the peer-reviewed study, but rather his PERSONAL interpretation. Strange you didn’t notice that. He’s free to talk about his interpretation all he wants, but an interpretation isn’t scientific fact. That’s why the actual abstract to that study makes a difference between findings and interpretation. The findings of that study say nothing about whether NDE’s have a physical basis, absolutely nothing at all. The findings are uncontroversial, unsurprising, and not very interesting. What you don’t seem to grasp is that a personal interpretation is just that, a personal interpretation, and it is not a scientific fact.

The interpretation is easily enough debunked; he’s basically saying “if NDE’s have a physical basis, why doesn’t everyone have NDE’s?” Implying, of course, that they have a non-physical cause. Alright, let’s take that thesis to be true. NDE’s have a non-physical cause. How does this satisfy his rhetorical question? If everyone has an immortal soul, then why doesn’t everyone experience an NDE? Neither cause can answer his question, so the question isn’t a very good one.

Now, bearing all this in mind, what is that source you’re claiming has been accepted as “good science” with evidence that consciousness lives after the body?
[/QUOTE]

I believe your assumptions about the piece are unfounded and ridiculous. Read it again, he clearly states consciousness continues to live after the death of the body.

370

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I believe your assumptions about the piece are unfounded and ridiculous. Read it again, he clearly states consciousness continues to live after the death of the body.
[/QUOTE]
And he has nothing but his personal belief on which to base his statement.

None of the information provided in the actual “scientific” paper indicates that there is any evidence for his belief.

The closest he comes to “evidence” is a personal interpretation that a guy who was supposed to be unconcious allegedly knew that a nurse took his teeth and put them in a particular location. He provides no evidence that the teeth were moved during a point where the brain was flatlined. Even if they were moved during a flatline episode, the patient could have heard the nurse declare her intentions or actions before or after the flatline episode–we have no control to know that the patient did not hear the nurse say “I’m going to put Mr. X’s teeth over here,” (lots of people hear information while in unconcious states; that has been documented for years)–only the doctor’s need to assign an undocumented event to a particular malleable memory.

That is not science.

371

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Now in further explanation I want to say it was probably my heart problem that cause the experience, but I don’t know for sure, this is a guess.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you. It’s nice to know that I was not wrong that you claimed to have had a self-diagnosed heart attack, unconfirmed by any trained medical personnel, the night of your supposed NDE.

372

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Back in post no. 138 I gave some background material on my NDE. This is that material.

Then when repeatedly asked about what caused it, I posted in no. 221.

Now in further explanation I want to say it was probably my heart problem that cause the experience, but I don’t know for sure, this is a guess.

Please understand, especially those of you who are honest and do post serious questions, I am besieged on this board with posters that are not serious and honest. They misquote what I say, they claim I said things when I haven’t, they claim my links are faulty when they are not, and they insult and belittle me and my beliefs. It has been that way since I started posting here years ago. I don’t want any sympathy and I don’t expect that will change much, but I want all of you to know that I will answer questions and other comments with honesty and truth as I understand it. I have been studying NDEs and related events for over 20 years, and I have experienced some of what I have studied. If I miss your post I am sorry and apologize.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you. BUT surely you can see where my problem with your claim lies. In order for this to be a NDE, it needs to be documented. I am willing to call and accept it as an Out of Body Experience, but you don’t have the necessary proof to state you had a NDE.

373

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Back in post no. 138 I gave some background material on my NDE. This is that material.

Then when repeatedly asked about what caused it, I posted in no. 221.

Now in further explanation I want to say it was probably my heart problem that cause the experience, but I don’t know for sure, this is a guess.

Please understand, especially those of you who are honest and do post serious questions, I am besieged on this board with posters that are not serious and honest. They misquote what I say, they claim I said things when I haven’t, they claim my links are faulty when they are not, and they insult and belittle me and my beliefs. It has been that way since I started posting here years ago. I don’t want any sympathy and I don’t expect that will change much, but I want all of you to know that I will answer questions and other comments with honesty and truth as I understand it. I have been studying NDEs and related events for over 20 years, and I have experienced some of what I have studied. If I miss your post I am sorry and apologize.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you for finally answering the question directly.

I’ll have to point out, that, even though you are convinced you had an NDE, your answer tells me that, at best, we can talk about an alleged NDE.

Why?

Because you have no one’s word but your own to prove you were actually Near Death during your Out of Body Experience. This is one of the points most posters are trying to make: there is a world of difference between the retelling of the experiences of a person and scientific data. Maybe you have even read the phrase “The plural of anecdote isn’t data”.

And this thread even illustrates another angle of the problem: when people talk, they don’t necessarily communicate. Many times you think you have said something, loud and clear, but no one else actually got the meaning of your words, the ideas you wanted to convey. It helps if you are far more patient and tolerant towards others. You, for instance, would have saved yourself a lot of trouble if you rephrased your experience for those who were asking questions about it, instead of stubbornly refusing to talk about it again.

Think about it. You say you have an important message to tell. Fine with me. But, like others have pointed out, the way you are transmitting it, you are hurting your message instead of spreading it.

374

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I believe your assumptions about the piece are unfounded and ridiculous. Read it again, he clearly states consciousness continues to live after the death of the body.
[/QUOTE]

Again: you have to learn to see the difference between a scientist’s personal beliefs and his opinion.

For example: Newton was an alchemist . And he did (according to the article) devote a lot of his time to the endeavor of trying to transmute lead into gold.

Does this mean that, because one of the greatest scientists of all time, modern scientists have to try to turn lead into gold by the same means? Of course not. Is it enough to quote Newton’s thoughts about the subject to make it science? Again: no, it isn’t.

And it’s the same for any scientist you care to summon: If he publishes a paper, it’s subjected to a rigorous examination by his peers (hence peer-reviewed) and if it passes muster, it is published in periodicals. If he holds an opinion about his or anyone else’s investigations, he simply can submit it to a newspaper or even write it in his blog, if he so wishes.

There’s a world of difference between a peer-reviewed paper and an editorial piece by a scientist.

375

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Is there scientific evidence to prove that? Can’t be to careful you know.
[/QUOTE]
Better than that, I have personal experience. Once, I dreamed that I found her dead body, and had sex with it. She didn’t move at all, ergo she was dead. Disprove that!

376

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Thank you. It’s nice to know that I was not wrong that you claimed to have had a self-diagnosed heart attack, unconfirmed by any trained medical personnel, the night of your supposed NDE.
[/QUOTE]

If you came to that conclusion from my post, there is no hope. I made no claim of any kind. You are wrong again.

377

[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Better than that, I have personal experience. Once, I dreamed that I found her dead body, and had sex with it. She didn’t move at all, ergo she was dead. Disprove that!
[/QUOTE]

If you are willing to have sex with dead bodies, I don’t believe any proof is needed. Ugh. :eek:

378

[QUOTE=DiggitCamara]
Again: you have to learn to see the difference between a scientist’s personal beliefs and his opinion.

There’s a world of difference between a peer-reviewed paper and an editorial piece by a scientist.
[/QUOTE]

Only if you distrust him, or distrust everyone, in that case you have the problem.

379

[QUOTE=DiggitCamara]
Thank you for finally answering the question directly.

I’ll have to point out, that, even though you are convinced you had an NDE, your answer tells me that, at best, we can talk about an alleged NDE.

Why?

Because you have no one’s word but your own to prove you were actually Near Death during your Out of Body Experience. This is one of the points most posters are trying to make: there is a world of difference between the retelling of the experiences of a person and scientific data. Maybe you have even read the phrase “The plural of anecdote isn’t data”.

And this thread even illustrates another angle of the problem: when people talk, they don’t necessarily communicate. Many times you think you have said something, loud and clear, but no one else actually got the meaning of your words, the ideas you wanted to convey. It helps if you are far more patient and tolerant towards others. You, for instance, would have saved yourself a lot of trouble if you rephrased your experience for those who were asking questions about it, instead of stubbornly refusing to talk about it again.

Think about it. You say you have an important message to tell. Fine with me. But, like others have pointed out, the way you are transmitting it, you are hurting your message instead of spreading it.
[/QUOTE]

Well, you see I am not paranoid, I don’t distrust everyone, I don’t think everyone is out to lie to me. When I have read a thousand near death experiences I believe there is truth to the experience. Why in hell, would a thousand people be trying to fool you, do you think you are that important, people need to lie to you.

It goes to just plain old common sense. Something rare here.

380

[QUOTE=lekatt]
If you came to that conclusion from my post, there is no hope. I made no claim of any kind. You are wrong again.
[/QUOTE]
Fine, then.
Though you keep bringing up “heart disease”, it is your actual claim that you self-diagnosed that you were dying from nothing in particular, and never bothered to immediately go seek help from a professional physician to get an official diagnosis.
If you think you were dying of anything in particular, please let us know what you think you might have been dying of. If you think it had nothing to do with your heart just say so directly, please.