The purpose of the research was to show evidence of a non-local consciousness, which it did.
What is your ultimate goal, lekatt? The website, the messageboard posts, all of your efforts to spread your beliefs about NDE’s; what is your objective ? To convince skeptics? To comfort NDE survivors? To start a new spiritual movement? Just what are you trying to achieve?
You claim this despite the fact, as noted, that the researcher himself, Dr. Tart, indicates this test was not conclusive. What do you know about it that Dr. Tart doesn’t?
My purpose is to help others. I can’t do that as long as they believe there is no future, or hope. People who believe they are in this world as the result of an accident have no hope and no future, no reason to be kind to one another. No reason to be honest. When they realize they are connected to a bigger picture then they have a reason to be peaceful and happy. Science is wrong, and hurting millions of people by their false teachings. The suicide rate has tripled, the violence in schools has more than doubled. People with no future are desparate people.
Future of what? Hope for what? Are you really saying that people who don’t believe in life after death have no reason to be kind and honest? On what do you base this opinion?
I realize you were distinctly vague, but since when?
Again, vague, but is that a fact?
This was the first Google hit, incidentally.
In your straw-grasping with respect to research on NDEs, it seems you are more desperate than anyone.
So, do you have an answer to this question?
I realize you must have **Czarcasm **on ignore because you’ve ceased to address any of his questions, difficult as they must be for you, but am I to assume you’ve added me to this illustrious list? Wait, don’t answer that. It would be unsportsmanlike and therefore, against the rules.
I’ve added pretty much all I can in this thread (and Brown Eyed Girl is doing a bang-up job of continuing to fight ignorance - when it was clear that lekatt still didn’t appreciate the definitions of scientific terminology I was all ready to try again, but it was already taken care of), but I just want to add that this sentence made me weep:
Modern science and the scientific method was, after fierce debate and much trial and error, formulated in the mid 18th century, during the Age of Enlightenment (which, among other things gave us the concepts of things like the United States of America…it’ll never catch on).
Now, take a look at this graph of average lifespan over the years. Notice a trend? This is *not *a coincidence, but the result of exhaustive research and progress in the field of medicine I mentioned earlier, all made possible by the scientific method. If you’re asking ‘sure, but what have they done for me lately?’, well, research is ongoing on things like cancer, increasing our knowledge and ultimately benefiting humanity, as it has demonstrably done in the past. Being against ‘science’ is being against the progress of humanity.
I’d also ask that you really go back over the thread and try and answer questions posed and points raised in opposition, other than copy and pasting the same bold assertion of “I know, therefore you’re wrong. Look at the anecdotal evidence.”
I find it interesting that you believe science is wrong when it runs counter to your beliefs yet you try and pass off the supposed research on NDEs that support your claims as science.
You state that people who believe in life after death will be peaceful and happy. How many people have been killed for not believing in the scientific method? Compare that number to the number of people killedby those who believein lifeafter death*.
I always find it interesting that those who are religious or believe in life after death somehow think that life after death would make this life more meaningful. I totally disagree. In fact, it makes this life *less *meaningful. We’ve got one chance it get it right. There is no payoff from some god for doing the right things. There is this life and its meaning will come from how you live it. The reason to be peaceful and happy is that you don’t get a second chance or some glorious reward when you die.
Slee
- I could, obviously, go on with tons of links about religiously motivated killing. But it is a Saturday and that is a bummer of a subject. You should get the point…
If science is nothing but supposition and vague theories, and all it does is harm people, does that include all the supposed “science” that convinced you, lekatt? Is your research supposition and vague theories? Are the scientists you link to hurting people?
From Wikipedia
Depends on where you look.
lekatt, a person simply believing something is true does not make true.
If we want to learn if what we believe is true, we need an objective method of investigation. That is why we use the scientific method.
Or to put it another way, asdgf awertald waegthv awerth asdtt.
If that was a scientific study, why do you trust it?
Antidepressants: brought to you by [del]pharmaceutical science[/del], no, spirituality. Wait, no that can’t be right.
So, your quote (the link to which you’ve conveniently not provided) attributes an 8% rise in suicide among American adolescents (aged 10-24)* to decline in prescription of anti-depressant medication to combat depression.
First off, your math is bad if you think +8% equates to tripling. Your link also does not, of course include any information at all on any other age group. Why leave those age groups out? Well, because it doesn’t support your statement. Let’s review it, shall we?
See how you kept saying “people” (I bolded it for you to make it easier to determine who you were presenting as hopeless and, presumably therefore prone to suicide. Where did mention adolescents or girls aged 10-24? Why does this matter? Well, because if you had looked at the chart I linked to refuting your generalized, vague claim (here it is again), you’d have noticed that overall the suicide rate has declined. You would have also noticed that again from 2004 to 2005 the very age group your link addresses (well, mostly) – ages 15-24 – has also shown a decline in suicide. Essentially, you cherry-picked some text that seemed to agree with you (although it didn’t unless you discount math) and used that to justify your worldview. Sorry, though, it doesn’t work that way for rational, thoughtful people.
But let’s get back to your premise. You allude that science is giving people no hope thus leading to suicide and violence. Please explain (coherently, if you can) how science has contributed to this actual overall decline in suicide and school violence (which I noticed you didn’t acknowledge). If you can’t do that, let’s try a different tack. Please explain how the spirit world came up with pharmaceuticals that have reduced suicide due to major depressive illness, which you seem to demonstrated with your link. If we are to accept your premise, science is bad and can claim no good from that.
*Since when is the early 20s considered adolescence?
My bad. The chart I actually linked to in my first response is from here and only covers 1950-2003. The second chart, via infoplease, includes data from 2004 and 2005. Both charts are compiled from information from the Centers for Disease Control.
I thought one could not put moderators on ignore. The most likely explanation is that lekatt is just blowing the questions off after reading them and then realizing that he has no actual answer.
Good point. Hadn’t thought of that.
Huh. It hasn’t stopped him from pulling ridiculous answers out of his ass replying to others, though.
Ah *HAH!! *More scientists!
Suicide and schools shootings are related. They are violence turned inward and outward. They are done by people who feel they have no options, no way out, they are without hope for the future. They want to wreck people who treated them unjustly and know the law will never do it, and since God doesn’t exist He won’t either. Years ago people could look over injustice believing that God would right all wrongs so they didn’t need to. “Vengence is mine saith the Lord, I will repay.” Believing that was consoling and allowed patience in the face of evil. Now the anger builds and builds until it explodes, after all science says God doesn’t exist. No higher power to come to the rescue, no John Wayne and the horse soldiers. So if God does not exist, then God won’t punish them either if they act in vigilante style to right the wrongs they perceive done to them. Doesn’t matter whether the injustices were real or not, only if they were perceived as real.
When I was going to school, there were no schools guards, no metal detectors, no bomb threats, only a fist fight once in a while. Yes, science remove the higher law, the higher judge, and now it’s everyone for themselves. Notice people are now allowed to carry concealed guns again.
Well the higher power is still in place and still takes care of business.
Well, it appears **lekatt **has run out of research.
Of course. It is encoded into computer switches that indicate either “1” or “0”, or else they are encoded into ferrous particles which point this way or that, indicating “1” or “0”. The whole system is vast of course.