# NDE, I had one, has anyone else? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 11, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411 "2009-02-11T19:15:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/241 "2009-02-22T21:06:12Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You had a dream, others have had dreams, and a precious few have had _actual_ NDES that seem to to differ from each other depending on the situation and their current religious beliefs-and you take all this to mean that this is proof of your ideas? Millions have had near death experiences, 12 million in the US alone. The trouble with pseudoskeptics is their information is wrong. Look, who does it matter so much about NDEs. What is your emotional involvement in denial that they exist and show life continues after death. God is not going to hurt you in any way, there is nothing to fear. I can’t understand it. The research says consciousness continues after death. I didn’t make it that way, I just experienced that way like millions of others. WTF ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/242 "2009-02-22T21:14:59Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > The research says consciousness continues after death. You have demonstrated over and over again that you have no idea what research is. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/243 "2009-02-22T22:48:01Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > The research says consciousness continues after death. I didn’t make it that way, I just experienced that way like millions of others. WTF NDE’s is not about after death. The NDE is about Near Death Experiences, comprehende? You want dead? Find a body which has grown cold, hard and stiff after days on end. razncain ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/244 "2009-02-22T22:51:55Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > The research says consciousness continues after death. No research says anything of the sort and you are not to return to this thread with that claim until you can provide examples of actual research. Not a handful of interviews where people said things that the interviewer wanted to hear. Not pretty stories without a single shred of verifiable information. Not claims by people to have heard or seen things during an event where there is no evidence that they could not have seen or heard them before or after the event. Actual research in which a control is established that tests claims against information that can be verified by neutral observers rather than credulously recorded by true believers who have a deep need to shape reality to their own desires. Without that evidence of research, your claim is false and you have already been permitted to post it too often. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/245 "2009-02-23T08:58:06Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > bolding mine > > Nitpick alert. > > Slide rules do not measure things. They calculate things. They are not rulers, they are calculators. > > Carry on. Flying over your head like a 747 alert. My use of slide rules and rulers are metaphors. This is usually obvious to most people. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/246 "2009-02-23T12:28:02Z")
> [@Sacrilegium](#): > > Funny, I don’t recall assuming that or stating any such thing. > > I think you misunderstood my use. Let me clarify: If you come up with something that _sounds_ insane but turns out to be true, science will eventually follow. I’m not calling your ideas (or any specific ideas) insane. > > No, not the argument from First Cause. Saints preserve us! > > Metaphysics investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. If you investigate that the ‘first cause’ is part and parcel and must be considered. > > \*\*\*\*\*The ‘fallacy card’ applies to the structure of argument. It does not apply to the conclusion of the argument, regardless how it’s reached. Also, when dealing with something of this manner the logical fallacy of > The whole point being that our minds are incapable of comprehending grasping > > I think you didn’t finish that last sentence. It should read _“Quantum mechanics is a great example of a part of science so new and misunderstood that people with no education in it at all feel they can use it to support any wild idea they pull out of their butts.”_ (Hello, Depak Chopra!) > > \*\*\*No, let me rephrase it this way: When you come up with answers you also create more questions > > Are you missing the point accidentally or intentionally? I’m not saying **your** pet theory is crazy. I’m saying that sometimes a crazy idea is just a crazy idea. They’re not all valid. They can’t be. If I told you that my nipples are the source of all the world’s peanut butter, wouldn’t you take that as a crazy idea? Wouldn’t you feel justified in thinking it a crazy idea if I could offer no evidence for it? How many years and how many tries would you grant me before moving toward the opinion that perhaps I was misguided? Or is that an acceptable theory that just hasn’t been borne out by science yet and eventually might turn out to be true in your eyes? > > \*\*\*\*Of course, some ideas are just that, crazy. That is where logic and common sense come into play. An agnostic skeptic will not close any door until it closes itself. We just don’t hasten the process. > > I don’t even know what to say about whatever leap may have led you to that statement. I’m not the sole arbiter of anything. Even my cat disagrees with me sometimes… > > Psychotherapy != metaphysics. I really don’t see where you’re going with this. > > \*\*\*\*It’s simple, something that cannot be quantified by the SM. You say metaphysics can’t be proven and measured on a slide rule, the same applies to the benefits many people derive from it. It’s there, it works and it can’t be measured. I was using it as an example of how not all things can be physically quantified yet are real. > > Again, refer to the debates between Novella and Egnor for more. Dualism is as dead as Creationism, although some still insist on taking up the wrong side of the fight. Such as it ever was, such as it ever will be. > > \*\*\*\*You can have all the debates you want but they don’t prove anything. They are just different philosophical stances people take. > When you say some still insist on taking up the wrong side of a fight, statements like that go beyond arrogance into the realm of hubris. > > Strawman. > > Um…isn’t it? Love, hate and greed exist in the brain/body of the person experiencing them. I’m not sure what you think emotions are if not the reactions of physical processes. > > As said by someone else, you don’t seem to get what an Appeal to Authority is. > > I’m sure you would. And if you truly think Einstein would entertain the kind of notions you espouse, I’m not sure what to tell you other than I find your perception to be flawed. That you rely on that flawed perception over that of science is exactly where your problem lies, and I’m not sure that’s fixable. > > \*\*\*\*\*I’d say it’s pretty obvious that not only did he entertain these notions, he took them seriously as well. If you can’t see that then I don’t know if it’s fixable. > > Einstein: (on David Hume) > > his clear critique Hume did not only advance philosophy in a decisive way but also - though through no fault of his - created a danger for philosophy in that, following his critique, a fateful ‘fear of metaphysics’ arose which has come to be a malady of contemporary empiricist philosophising; this malady is the counterpart to that earlier philosophising in the clouds, which thought it could neglect and dispense with what was given by the senses. … It finally turns out that one can, after all, not get along without metaphysics. (Albert Einstein, Remarks on Bertrand Russell’s Theory of Knowledge) > > See, this is a problem. Atheism doesn’t offer ANY of that. Atheism is a simple lack of belief in god(s). Atheism neither requires nor includes evolution, the Big Bang, materialism, _nothing_. I’ve known Atheists who believe in all manner of things. Some supernatural. Even afterlife(s), for Pete’s sake. You’re equivocating loose tenants secular humanistic materialism with Atheism. That is incorrect. Atheism doesn’t answer who or why anyone _is_. You’re confusing Atheism with a set of other things that you see in some Atheists. > > \*\*\*Atheism, like any other world view, gives cognitive closure. It eliminates doubt, uncertainty and ambiguity. It provides explanations as to why, what are we, what is life, etc. Doesn’t matter whether the explanations are right or wrong, just that they explain why and what. > When I’m referring to atheism, I’m referring to neo-atheism which has become popular with the 14-30 year olds. It is not a live-and-let-live style anymore. It is a hard line, fundamentalists stance with the same psychodynamics as any kind of true beleiver. > A good definition of a neo-atheist is this: Neo-atheism is the acerbic, shrill polemics of writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens who disparage and refute the truth of the Bible. Unlike their predecessors, they exhibit both a ferocity and antagonism to religion which borders on the manic and seeks to demonize the traditionalist and fundamentalist strains of Christianity and creationism. It also promulgates an excessive zeal for evolution or Darwinism. This is exemplifed by Dawkins being known as Darwin’s rottweiller. > Have you purchased a book of logical fallacies and mistaken it for a book on the proper way to argue? > > I’m not assuming either of those things. I’m saying that if something runs contradictory to what we _know_ and has no evidence for itself and repeated attempts to find evidence for it have turned up nothing then the reasonable position to take in the meantime is that this “something” is not what it appears to be. > > \*\*\*Fair enough. > I’m so glad to see Einstein finally get mentioned in this thread. Really. I was thinking we’d go the whole discussion without once hearing his name. \*\*\*And I’m finally glad someone brought that up. I have intentionally posted/reposted the following: [http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/trouble\_with\_atheism.php](http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/trouble_with_atheism.php) Einstein: Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there. 5 > **[Albert Einstein Quotes on Spirituality](https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/)** Marcello Truzzi, co-founder of CSIOP - he left the group because he was skeptical of investigators and debunkers who determined the validity of a claim prior to investigation. He accused CSICOP of increasingly unscientific behavior, for which he coined the term pseudoskepticism. Truzzi stated, “They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. […] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts. Then, if the experiment is reputable, they say it’s a mere anomaly.” Truzzi held that CSICOP researchers sometimes also put unreasonable limits on the standards for proof regarding the study of anomalies and the paranormal. RIDICULED DISCOVERERS, VINDICATED MAVERICKS > **[Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated](http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html)** > **[Famous Scientists Who Believed in God](https://scottdaddy.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/)** > > Scientists Who Believed in God Belief in God Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even t… This is a psychological fallacy of “ignoring the obvious" or pretending it isn’t there”. The responses I’ve gotten so far are along this line: 1. Einstein - “To the degree Einstein believes in that (see quote) he is a fool. We’ve seen this many times before (rolls eyes in head). This is a very common psych fallacy of “skirting and dismissing the point without addressing it directly.” And the point being that pseudoskeptics have a hard time addressing the issue that many far more intelligent, and much more qualified person is saying something contrary or conflicting. 2. Saying I’m taking him out of context. All an open minded person has to due is to read about Einstein and his perception that the universe has aspects to it the he considers mysterious and uses the word God mysterious metaphysics numerous times in his philosophical reflections. He’s not using the word, God, in a literal sense like Planck would. It’s a metaphor but it conveys the meaning of outside of and beyond what the senses perceive and outside laboratories ability to sense or perceive. Documentary: The Trouble with Atheism The only response I’ve gotten is, “Too long to watch, why don’t you summarize it for me.” As far as I know, no one has said, “Yeah, yeah, we’ve see it all before.” To save you the time and the bother, here are a couple of excerpts that are indicative of what the documentary is all about. Q. = Rod Liddle, document producer A. = Peter Atkins, fellow and professor of chemistry at Lincoln College at the University of Oxford Q. Give me your views on the existence of god or otherwise. A. It’s fairly straight forward, there isn’t one. There’s no evidence for one, no reason to believe there is one. And so I don’t believe there is one. I think it’s rather foolish of people to think there is one. Q. Isn’t there a terrible arrogance in that certitude? A. What’s wrong with arrogance if you’re right? Q. But science does not know everything now. A. It doesn’t know everything but it’s got an extrordinarilly potent method and everything it touches gives way. I mean, that’s the extraordinary thing about science. You identify a problem, you bring this, the scientific method to bear on it, and it crumbles in front of your approach. It’s a wonderful method. Humanity should be proud that it stumbled on a technique for discovering the truth. For 3,000 years it thought it had a method of getting the truth and they called it religion, but that’s obviously impotent as a way of discovering anything about the world. Atheists don’t go out to kill for other people’s beliefs. Q. Stalin killed 20,000,000 million people! Q. Forgive me for mentioning Hitler, Stalin, Mao – A. No they weren’t. A. He was a Confusian. Q. Oh, come on, that is ridiculous coming – that’s ludicrous. It was an atheistic system. A. Yes, but they don’t go out to kill in the name of atheism, that’s really the point. Q. What do you say to pretty eminent scientists who have a belief in God? A. That they’re wrong, first of all. Q. Well, you don’t – again, let’s go back again. You don’t actually think that, do you, because you cannot – A. Well, I think they’re wrong. I can think that. Q. You can think that, yes. A. But might ask what the psychology is behind my thinking that. That’s an interesting meta-question, and so on. But if it’s like a (unintelligible) clearly the reason these very emmenint people, some of whom you’ve no doubt been talking to, are only half scientists, really. Also: Ellen Johnson, President of the American Atheists, host of Atheists’ Viewpoint A. The ordinary Christian will do, for the most part – they will – they’re not called followers for nothing. Q. So do you think they’re stupid? A. I would never, never attack someone – make an ad hominem attack against somebody. Q. You just did. I’m sorry, Ellen Johnson, you’ve just said that they’ll follow whatever rubbish you put in front of them A. You want to be rude about it, that’s being rude about it. I’m trying to be polite about it. But what I will say is that their ideas are stupid. Their beliefs are stupid. Their theology is stupid. And boy that half hour goes fast, doesn’t it, folks? I want to thank Rod….. What this documentary is show is the rigid, fundamentalist mind set in neo-atheists that gives off the sulfurous whiff of the true believer, just like the people they so vehemently attack.’ Me thinks they protesteth too loudly. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the rationale for these acerbic, shrill, polemic attacks from Dawkins, et al, seem to be based on the assumption that religion has either caused all the wars or at least the overwhelming majority of them. There seems to be this implication that if you could convert everyone to atheism, then you would have far fewer wars. Now contrast all of that with this, by Sir John Paulkinghorne, retired theoretical physicist, now an Anglican priest who believes God stands apart from physics, says in the same documentary. “I don’t think that God is scientifically knowable or the non-existence of God would be scientifically would be scientifically knowable. The character of the world is supportive of the idea that there is a divine mind or purpose behind it, but I don’t think it can amount to proof that that’s so. I think that none of us have access to knock-down proofs of that character whether theists or atheists.” Here’s a guy that has been a particle physicist and a priest that is showing more an openmindedness that is completely lacking in the neo-atheist. Marcello Truzzi, co-founder of CSICOP Truzzi’s form of skepticism was pyrrhonism, as opposed to the tradition strictly adhering to the established scientific method, which is followed by most scientific skeptics.[3] Truzzi was skeptical of investigators and debunkers who determined the validity of a claim prior to investigation. He accused CSICOP of increasingly unscientific behavior, for which he coined the term pseudoskepticism. Truzzi stated, n science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new “fact.” Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of “conventional science” as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact–he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. – Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987 I anticipated the Einstein comments. They employ the psychological ‘shielding and deflect’ tactic as a way to not have to deal with the issue head on. I fully expected the lack of non-response about the documentary ‘The Trouble with Atheism’. It was the psychological fallacy of ‘Contempt prior to investigation. I think the silence surrounding is thunderous. The response to the Marcello Truzzi post, while scant, surprised me. I fully expected people to rip into him saying something to the effect of: He didn’t leave, he got kicked out for being a woo woo fruitcake. Oh, well, two out of three ain’t bad. What I have found interesting throughout this thread is when it comes to non-personal issues like something dealing with cut and dried science the posters on this site are very intelligent and well thought out. But when it comes to issues that are psychological/emotional hot buttons like religion, supernatural, mystical, etc., a lot of these same posters resort to polemics and actually attack rather than rebut. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/247 "2009-02-23T12:35:12Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > So, atheism is a religion only for some tiny but undetermined number of atheists, (based on this utterly odd attempt to swap analogies), and your earlier claim that atheism is a religion is nonsense, just as I noted. > > I also note that you continue to wander around hurling accusations of narrow mindedness at posters who do not grovel at your speculation while refusing to provide even the tiniest shred of evidence for whatever it is you might be claiming, (since you also refuse to actually set forth a genuine position). > > This thread is really close to being shut down. I don’t mind posters arguing uselessly, but when I keep having to drop in on a thread to be sure that the rules are not being violated by posters armed only with lame insults and in the threads I find nothing but the scattered straw of dozens of false arguments along with hostile opinions unsupported by facts, I dislike that waste of my time. \*\*\*If you remember, this started out as a straightforward question in the General Questions section and was very quickly attacked by harsh, strident polemics and pulled into the Great Debate forum by a mod. My accusations of narrow mindedness are in direct response to the ad ad hominem attacks that use the words ‘fool(s)’ and ‘garbage’. These have been ‘hurled frequently throughout the thread’ with a general tone of sarcasm and condescendence. I have the right to respond accordingly. I have set forth my position a number of times but there seems to be an unwillingness to accept anything that is not totalized polarized one way or another. Again, I have said in different ways that I am an agnostic skeptic that does not close the door on anything until the door closes itself. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/248 "2009-02-23T13:08:19Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > \*\*\*If you remember, this started out as a straightforward question in the General Questions section and was very quickly attacked by harsh, strident polemics and pulled into the Great Debate forum by a mod. My accusations of narrow mindedness are in direct response to the ad ad hominem attacks that use the words ‘fool(s)’ and ‘garbage’. These have been ‘hurled frequently throughout the thread’ with a general tone of sarcasm and condescendence. I have the right to respond accordingly. Actually, you do not. If a poster attacks you, personally, you may use the Report function to call attention to that action for moderator correction. If you simply attack other posters, personally, for generalized comments they make, then you are the one in the wrong. Regardless, while I certainly agree that there are a number of posters whose absolutist positions regarding anything that is not mechanistic are amusing, (if grating), your replies have been little more than long winded _tu quoque_s filled with your own errors–such as your rather silly characterization of atheism as a religion. > [@jakesteele](#): > > I have set forth my position a number of times but there seems to be an unwillingness to accept anything that is not totalized polarized one way or another. Again, I have said in different ways that I am an agnostic skeptic that does not close the door on anything until the door closes itself. “Your position,” in this case, is not the position that others have sought that you explain, however. After dismissing every proposed explanation for your NDE, responding as rudely to those who were polite as to those who were rude, you changed the topic and wandered into your long harangue against “pseudoskepticism.” You have repeatedly refused to put forth an explanation for what you experienced while denying any other poster’s proferred explanations. If you actually have no proposed explanation, (which is fine: the world is filled with mysteries), and you are unwilling to accept any other poster’s conjectures, then this discussion has reached an impasse and we can safely close it as nothing more than an ongoing irritant to all sides. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/249 "2009-02-23T14:28:55Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It’s not an “extraordinary claim”, it’s the logical default. If you claim something exists, it’s your job to provide evidence for it. It’s not the job of the skeptic to try to disprove a claim that’s been carefully designed to be un-disprovable. > > And there’s no rational **reason** to believe that there’s a God. There’s no evidence for it, and God violates various physical laws which is strong evidence **against** it. According to all the evidence, God is a fantasy. \*\*\*So because there is no evidence to prove there is a God, therefore, God is a fantasy? ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/250 "2009-02-23T14:30:20Z")
Sorry, double post ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/251 "2009-02-23T14:30:32Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > \*\*\*So because there is no evidence to prove there is a God, therefore, God is a fantasy? Does this seem unreasonable to you? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/252 "2009-02-23T14:31:34Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > \*\*\*So because there is no evidence to prove there is a God, therefore, God is a fantasy? Could we talk about NDEs, and the evidence that might or might not exist concerning them? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/253 "2009-02-23T15:45:16Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > No research says anything of the sort and you are not to return to this thread with that claim until you can provide examples of actual research. > Not a handful of interviews where people said things that the interviewer wanted to hear. > Not pretty stories without a single shred of verifiable information. > Not claims by people to have heard or seen things during an event where there is no evidence that they could not have seen or heard them before or after the event. > > Actual research in which a control is established that tests claims against information that can be verified by neutral observers rather than credulously recorded by true believers who have a deep need to shape reality to their own desires. Without that evidence of research, your claim is false and you have already been permitted to post it too often. I have shown experiential evidence in the from of videos. I have shown research being done by the scientific method in universities across the nation and the world. They are good scientific research. Now I have noticed that the better the evidence is that I show the more upset the regulars get, and the more likely you are to come running to censor me. To bad you can’t censor reality. Now I see you are cersoring the other spiritual posters as well. Let me offer a suggestion. Just ban the discussion of spiritual things on this board, since they can’t be debated without censorship anyway. In that manner the regulars would not be upset with the real evidence to the contrary of their beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/254 "2009-02-23T15:51:38Z")
lekatt, not one of the things you have ever posted has been scientific research. I never objected to youi posting your little anecdotes, (although I found your ability to spin them to say way more than could be justified by what was presented to be irritating), but despite your claims to have cited “science,” a couple of people talking on tape about an incident long after it happened, even with tapes of surgeries spliced in), is not “science” or research. (And I would not have to ban nonsense if posters did not kep posting nonsense.) ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/255 "2009-02-23T15:58:15Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I have shown experiential evidence in the from of videos. None of your videos depicts an NDE as it happens. They are all interviews with people who claim they had an NDE, or people who claim they know someone who had an NDE. As such, they are not falsifiable, and are not evidence; they are anecdotes. > [@](#): > > I have shown research being done by the scientific method in universities across the nation and the world. They are good scientific research. No, they aren’t. > [@](#): > > Now I have noticed that the better the evidence is that I show the more upset the regulars get, and the more likely you are to come running to censor me. Considering you claim to have left your body and floated around the spirit world, your observations are suspect. > [@](#): > > To bad you can’t censor reality. To bad you are divorced from it. > [@](#): > > Now I see you are cersoring the other spiritual posters as well. Let me offer a suggestion. Just ban the discussion of spiritual things on this board, since they can’t be debated without censorship anyway. In that manner the regulars would not be upset with the real evidence to the contrary of their beliefs. Bring some real evidence, that can be tested and repeated, and the debate will begin. You have not offered anything that could remotely be called debate. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/256 "2009-02-23T16:42:53Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > lekatt, not one of the things you have ever posted has been scientific research. I never objected to youi posting your little anecdotes, (although I found your ability to spin them to say way more than could be justified by what was presented to be irritating), but despite your claims to have cited “science,” a couple of people talking on tape about an incident long after it happened, even with tapes of surgeries spliced in), is not “science” or research. > > (And I would not have to ban nonsense if posters did not kep posting nonsense.) What may be nonsense to you, may be sacred beliefs to others, who appointed you judge on the quality of the material posted in the debates. Of course they are scientific research done in accredited universities by accredited researchers and published in scientific journals. It don’t get more real than that. Are you saying these researchers are not scientists or that their research is faulty which would be nothing but a judgement call on your part. Are you qualified to judge scientists doing research in universities. Do you not believe the posters on this board have the right to all information available. [http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel\_skeptic\_response.htm](http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm) You can find this research in the Lancet. > **[Nursing Times](https://www.nursingtimes.net/)** > > A leading source of nursing news and the most-visited nursing website in Europe. Includes CPD, clinical research and innovation to support nurses’ careers. [http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/neardeth.htm](http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/neardeth.htm) I could post a hundred links, and you are no judge whether they are good science or not. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/257 "2009-02-23T16:49:46Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I could post a hundred links, and you are no judge whether they are good science or not. Of course I am; any thinking, rational person is capable of judging whether evidence conforms to the scientific method. All of your cites are collections of anecdotes. Even when collected by scientists, they are not scientific evidence. None of your cites are double-blinded, peer reviewed studies. Sacred beliefs are not evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/258 "2009-02-23T16:51:10Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > Watch this: [http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/trouble\_with\_atheism.php](http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/trouble_with_atheism.php) You’ve posted this link up many times and I thought someone should respond to it (even though the last time it was linked was a couple of pages ago). This is one of the silliest documentaries I’ve ever seen on any topic. Usually, when making a documentary about a group of people, you let said group speak, or you at least give facts about the group. Rod Liddle does neither; the film is one long monologue, as Rod works his way through an impressively long list of misconceptions and straw men. Occasionally atheists are shown, but you can hardly call them ‘interviews’: just one or two lines blatantly taken out of context. Often Rod asks the ‘interviewees’ a loaded question, and they don’t get a chance to answer; the film just cuts to the next part of Rod’s monologue. Frankly it makes “What the bleep do we know?” seem like a work of genius by comparison. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/259 "2009-02-23T19:36:54Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > You’ve posted this link up many times and I thought someone should respond to it (even though the last time it was linked was a couple of pages ago). > > This is one of the silliest documentaries I’ve ever seen on any topic. Usually, when making a documentary about a group of people, you let said group speak, or you at least give facts about the group. > > Rod Liddle does neither; the film is one long monologue, as Rod works his way through an impressively long list of misconceptions and straw men. > > Occasionally atheists are shown, but you can hardly call them ‘interviews’: just one or two lines blatantly taken out of context. Often Rod asks the ‘interviewees’ a loaded question, and they don’t get a chance to answer; the film just cuts to the next part of Rod’s monologue. > > Frankly it makes “What the bleep do we know?” seem like a work of genius by comparison. Does that mean you didn’t like it? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411/260 "2009-02-23T19:44:04Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Of course I am; any thinking, rational person is capable of judging whether evidence conforms to the scientific method. > > All of your cites are collections of anecdotes. Even when collected by scientists, they are not scientific evidence. None of your cites are double-blinded, peer reviewed studies. Sacred beliefs are not evidence. You have just pointed to the problem. You and some others posting on this board believe you are more intelligent, more knowledgable, more scientific, than anyone else and have the right to put down anything they don’t want to believe in as if they were selling good science. Got news for you. You are not, it is just arrogance and ego speaking. Why don’t you contact these researchers at their respective universities and tell them they don’t know what they are doing. I would love to see their reaction. You live in a fantasy world. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nde-i-had-one-has-anyone-else/485411.md?page=14)