lekatt's recent hijacks (removed from original threads)

Great Debates
581

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Your analogy is not the same as a personal experience involving only the person experiencing. A person whose life is totally changed by that experience so they are never the same again.
[/quote]
I assure you that a person who decides to hate millions of people based on skin color or eye shape because of some personal experience has undergone a life change. For you to say otherwise is nothing more than sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “LA LA LA.”

[QUOTE=lekatt]
As for science, it was designed by humans and humans are falible, so I believe it is science that is mistaken and not thousands of people from all walks of life, countries and cultures.
[/quote]
This is silly on every level. No scientist has claimed to have proven that NDEs do not occur, so your whole point is a straw man aimed at something you are making up so that you can cling to your beliefs.

Some scientists have proposed various physical causes to explain the memories of NDEs, but no scientist has claimed to have disproven NDEs. Why are you making the dishonest argument that “science is mistaken” when “science” (meaning the entire fields of neurobiology, neurology, psychology, and all the related disciplines) have not “said” anything on the subject?

You are trying to derail the discussion by making false claims.

[QUOTE=lekatt]
A method is a series of beliefs, thus a belief system. Unchangable therefor fixed.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=lekatt]
There is no way to ascertain if the scientific method is accurate or not. What do we compare it with. It has not been used in all possible situations, we don’t even know all possible situations. So what we have is an unknown (scientific method) trying to invalidate an unknown (NDEs). Then we have people arguing that it does not show consciousness is non-local, which it does, and these people can’t prove that consciousness is local or anything elso for that matter. Not a pretty picture.
[/QUOTE]
A method is NOT a “series of beliefs.” The scientific method is a series of actions in which people who disagree with each other make and test observations. No one scientist can performn an experiment and declare that he or she has discovered “the truth.” That is not how it works. (And if you knew a tenth of what you claim to know about science, you would already be aware of this.)

Instead, a scientist makes an observation, designs a test to see whether his observation is accurate, then publishes the results of the test. The results will include the time and duration of the event, the physical conditions of the location of the event, etc. When he publishes his results, several oither scientists are asked to comment on whether they think his test will/would actually demonstrate his observation. Even when that happens, no one believes that anything has been proven. Instead, other people who agree with the tests and still other people who disagree with the tests try to replicate the test following the guidelines of the first scientist. To the extent that those who agree and those who disagree all come to the same conclusions following their various tests, the original scientist’s hypotheses are accepted as accurate (until a better hypothesis is put forward).

So far, we have one scientist who has noted that people who experience NDEs have similar life stories to people who are administered the drug ketamine. (He has not made any claim about the experience except to note the parallel.) We also have (so far) one single group of scientists who have actually attempted to verify that OBEs are not dreams–and they have not yet produced any results.

So when you attack “science” as being “mistaken,” what you are actually doing is saying that you are afraid that science might provide an alternative explanation than a link to the spirit world and would rather make a preemptive dismissal of science before it can produce any real evidence so that you can go on believing stuff even if, in the future, science does provide a physical explanation of NDEs.

As I and others have noted, you contiually attack science for being wrong, then turn around and try to appeal to science when you believe it supports you. That is blatant hypocrisy. If science is going to get it wrong, then you have no right to post that science has “shown” anything. Just post your beliefs as beliefs and cite your anecdotes as personal testimonies and leave science out of your posts.

582

[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Waiting for you to die will accomplish that nicely.
[/QUOTE]
Too close to a personal attack.

Back off.

[ /Modding ]

583

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
Sorry, it’s not that simple. For instance, being Mr./Ms. Positive doesn’t help you survive cancer.

*"Having a positive attitude may help cancer patients deal with their disease, but it doesn’t directly affect survival, according to one of the largest and most rigorously designed investigations ever to examine the issue.

The study included more than 1,000 people treated for head and neck cancer; the emotional state of patients was found to have no influence on survival.

The findings add to the growing evidence showing no scientific basis for the popular notion that an upbeat attitude is critical for “beating” cancer, says University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine behavioral scientist James C. Coyne, PhD, who led the study team.

“I wish it were true that cancer survival was influenced by the patient’s emotional state,” he tells WebMD. “But given that it is not, I think we should stop blaming the patient.”*

I wonder what the overall survival disadvantage is of being extremely gullible (“positive thinking” taken to the extreme level of accepting whatever one is told, if it fits in with one’s worldview). I don’t know of any large-scale clinical trials in this area, but anecdotal evidence suggests that one’s health and economic fortunes can be severely damaged by a Forrest Gump-like attitude of childlike trust. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

You have a choice and you choose even if you don’t choose that is still a choice.
No one said positive thinking cures cancer, but it can keep you from feeling sorry for yourself.

Something more
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19466657&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8

584

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
But you said you take most things at face value* until proven different*. This established that you do have a method for disproving what people say. All I asked is what that method was; what does it take to prove someone wrong in your eyes? We have already established that you can be convinced that some people’s personal experiences can be proven to be false; I just want to know what that takes.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t operate on a right or wrong basis, not necessary for me to know for sure on most things. Hard to explain. But I do use my feelings, and listen to my guides, I do ok. Sure I can be fooled, so can everyone, especially those that are predictable.

585

[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Waiting for you to die will accomplish that nicely.
[/QUOTE]

Having been there, I am looking forward to it. But for now I am needed here on the physical plane.

586

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I believe you said it was a liminal experience or “In speculative fiction and, loosely applied, in mythology, a liminal being is a fantasy character.”
[/quote]

No.
I am not even sure where you got your definition from, it seems as if you invented it.
You do, also, notice that you had to change “liminal experience” into “liminal character”, and “an experience I had” into “speculative fiction and […] mythology” to even make your point, don’t you? Doesn’t it strike you as odd that you have to work so hard to twist what I actually said into something that bears no resemblance at all, and then use that distortion in order to ‘justify’ evading the question, again?

Here is the actual definition of the word. It is odd that you don’t know it, as the sort of experience you’ve been relying on are most often referred to as “peak experiences” or “liminal experiences” or “oceanic experiences” or what have you. Very odd.

[QUOTE=lekatt]

I think you have your answer,
[/quote]

Nope. You’re still steadfastly avoiding my question.
Why, do you think, that is?

[QUOTE=lekatt]

I don’t do “what if” discussions if I can avoid them. I believe they are a waste of time.
[/QUOTE]

Luckily, I’ve asked no “what if” questions. I described an experience I had. I provided a link to my original description of it on the SDMB. I asked, as my experience directly contradicts your claims, how and more importantly why you would choose to integrate it a certain way.
Can you or can you not explain why my experience of being in communion with Goddess, while She clearly said that death is final and absolute, does or does not contradict your claims of non-local consciousness? Can you or can you not explain why it either contradicts, somewhat refutes or totally refutes your claims?

If you can’t even answer such simple questions, you do realize the many things that it reveals about all of your sweeping claims about personal experience, don’t you?

587

Further, I pointed out several times that it was a true experience that really happened, even going so far as to prove that I’ve related the story years before even mentioning it in this context.

Why, then, would you deliberately twist it in order to describe it as fiction, mythology or fantasy?

588

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Having been there…
[/QUOTE]
Say what? According to your own testimony, you went to sleep, woke up, and a mysterious voice told you to decide between life and death. Not even in your own words did you ever say that your were dead at the time. Was there some other time that you were declared dead that you have yet to tell us about?

589

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I don’t operate on a right or wrong basis, not necessary for me to know for sure on most things. Hard to explain. But I do use my feelings, and listen to my guides, I do ok. Sure I can be fooled, so can everyone, especially those that are predictable.
[/QUOTE]
But you do judge people, and some times you conclude their personal experience is not believable. What standards do you apply to reach this conclusion?

590

[QUOTE=lekatt]

I think you have your answer, I don’t do “what if” discussions if I can avoid them. I believe they are a waste of time.
[/QUOTE]

Then I don’t think I’m alone in wishing you’d stay out of those sorts of threads.

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Yes, of course I can pick and choose, everyone on this board does the same.
[/QUOTE]

Depends on what you “pick and choose”, lekatt. You can’t choose to believe studies when they agree with you, then dismiss them when they don’t. You can’t say science is stupid (a general statement), then try to use that very same method when it suits you.
Why, oh WHY is it so important to you to have your belief proven by science? As I said before, the Catholic Church does not demand that science prove Transubstantiation. (Damn, that word’s a pain in the ass to type). They don’t demand that science prove that this or that is a miracle.

591

[QUOTE=lekatt]
No, I am saying I am not a devotee of science, nor religion for that matter. I see them as belief systems, and all belief systems are faulted. You can not pass the unique and varied events of this world through any fixed filter, some events will defy passage.
[/QUOTE]

Did you ever consider the fact that your beliefs is your belief system? It can be faulted as well. Do you consider your self as infallible?

Monavis

592

Even such skeptics as Karl Janson and Susan Blackmore recognize the life changing effects of the near death experience. There is a reason people change, and that reason is what they learn from their experiences. This is a measureable effect of the near death experience that can not be ignored. People change for the good, they become kinder, caring, and compassionate. They write books, articles, author web sites, they also give lectures. Some volunteer their time and services to hospices, there is even a web site run by Dannion Brinkley that encourages this for near death experiencers. A few open healing centers, Danion Brinkley, Depok Chopra, and others have just started healing groups like myself. The overall result of the near death experience is service to others. Experiencers come from all walks of life, races, countries, religions and non-religions. They all get the same message in their experience. They all feel the experience is spiritual and that they will live in a spiritual world after the death of their body. This spiritual world was shown to most of them during their experience. Should we believe them, or at the least learn more about them, I think so.

To my knowledge, science is the only, emphasize only, group, organization, or institution that has ever placed a “not reliable” sticker on personal experiences calling them anecdotes. After all, personal experiences are our only, emphasize only, method of interfacing with the physical world. So just because science doesn’t recognized NDEs as real spiritual experience doesn’t mean much at all. Yes, I think science is wrong, and misleading people in their stance. I am confident the near death experience will become recognized as a real spiritual experience with or without science.

593

[QUOTE=lekatt]
To my knowledge, science is the only, emphasize only, group, organization, or institution that has ever placed a “not reliable” sticker on personal experiences calling them anecdotes. After all, personal experiences are our only, emphasize only, method of interfacing with the physical world. So just because science doesn’t recognized NDEs as real spiritual experience doesn’t mean much at all. Yes, I think science is wrong, and misleading people in their stance. I am confident the near death experience will become recognized as a real spiritual experience with or without science.
[/QUOTE]

The big, emphasise big problem with this is that your claim isn’t about the physical world.

594

Also, I think you’re tilting at windmills. Every time you say something about science, I’m nudged further into doubt that you have very much idea what science is.

595

[QUOTE=lekatt]
To my knowledge, science is the only, emphasize only, group, organization, or institution that has ever placed a “not reliable” sticker on personal experiences calling them anecdotes.
[/QUOTE]
I tell you three times:
Science is not a “group, organization, or institution”, lekatt-it is a process.
Science is not a “group, organization, or institution”, lekatt-it is a process.
Science is not a “group, organization, or institution”, lekatt-it is a process.

596

[QUOTE=lekatt]
You have a choice and you choose even if you don’t choose that is still a choice.
(snip)
[/QUOTE]

I like this version better:

597

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Depends on what you “pick and choose”, lekatt. You can’t choose to believe studies when they agree with you, then dismiss them when they don’t. You can’t say science is stupid (a general statement), then try to use that very same method when it suits you.
Why, oh WHY is it so important to you to have your belief proven by science?
[/QUOTE]
The hunger for scientific validation is a common theme in the land of woo.

And remember that validation is defined as any study published in any journal anywhere, no matter how obscure, small in scale or poor quality, and regardless of how many better-conducted studies refute its findings. No matter - devotees will cite lists of their favorite references until doomsday, garnished with anecdotes and personal attacks on naysayers.

Pick any area of woo and you’ll find similar tactics.

598

[QUOTE=lekatt]
(snip)

To my knowledge, science is the only, emphasize only, group, organization, or institution that has ever placed a “not reliable” sticker on personal experiences calling them anecdotes. After all, personal experiences are our only, emphasize only, method of interfacing with the physical world. So just because science doesn’t recognized NDEs as real spiritual experience doesn’t mean much at all. Yes, I think science is wrong, and misleading people in their stance. I am confident the near death experience will become recognized as a real spiritual experience with or without science.
[/QUOTE]

And to further Czarcasm’s point: The Law (again: no such “group, organization or institution” embodies the whole of the Law) is another process which doesn’t rely directly on anecdotes. Whenever a witness says anything it’s cross-referenced to:

  1. Physical evidence
  2. Other witnesses
  3. Reliability of the witnesses character

Even in “The Law” numerous anecdotes, brought by unreliable witnesses will be dismissed. Or if the physical data contradicts the witness’s testimony, it’s likely that the physical data will be listened to.

Anecdotes may be interesting, amusing or true. But you need to verify them before take actions on them.

599

Might I add that anonymous and unverifiable anecdotes are not usually even admissible as evidence, let alone proof, in court.
In lekatt’s defense, however, I have to admit that he is just as knowledgeable about science as he is about NDEs.

\Edited to add-Looks like DiggitCamara alreday covered my first point.

600

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Even such skeptics as Karl Janson and Susan Blackmore recognize the life changing effects of the near death experience.
[/QUOTE]

So what? People have life-changing experiences all the time. That doesn’t mean they’re anything other than material processes at work.

I broke my neck several years ago, and it changed my life in some aspects. Although I’m fine now, my priorities have shifted around. Surely you wouldn’t say that breaking my neck was some kind of supernatural occurrence? And if not, why do you seem to claim that about NDEs?