No one needs to. All we need to do is read their published, double blind, peer reviewed studies. Do you have any links to such?
Nothing new under the sun with your cites you listed. The first link basically describes the tunnel, the light, etc. The second link only has a few short paragraphs and doesn’t say anything other than someone is promoting their book on NDE’s. The third link being totally ridiculous doesn’t even back up what it puports to claim. Noticed it even had a prayer study which tries to link women getting pregnant by being prayed for, and it ranks up there the highest grade of bullshit, and not impressed with the psychic BS either. You wouldn’t know a credible study, if someone slapped ya with it!
You don’t need to bring hundreds of studies, just bring a couple where it has replicated studies of those having OBE’s, time and time again, and are able to show what number or object is on the top shelf without any shenanigans going on. What better way to show something physically is actually leaving the body? I’ve heard enough about the tunnel, light and love thing goin’ on. Yawn…
razncain
I can tell by your post you read nothing of the above links. When you know enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently get back to me.
Where did I err? The second one wasn’t even a study, it was a book promotion. The third link was only a minute read. The first one is supposed to show what?
Do us all a favor and come back with the replicate studies of OBE’s that was proposed; then, you’ll truly have something if they truly can detect is what is on the upper shelf.
razncain
Just as there is no evidence for superintelligent wombats from Krypton being in control of the government. There’s no evidence that God or the wombats are even possible, much less real.
I’ve seen better.
Obviously as an atheist it wasn’t going to make my list of favourite films. But it’s a notably dishonest and immature documentary.
On the actual subject of the OP, I didn’t think I could contribute, but on reflection I can.
Firstly, FWIW, I once came close to death (my heart stopped) and I remember absolutely nothing of the event. This probably is no surprise to anyone: no-one’s claimed that everyone has NDEs. But still, while we’re sharing experiences, I thought it was worth sharing my lack of one.
Secondly, I feel that some of the skeptics on this board are making increasingly precarious assertions unnecessarily. Some of the posts are leaning towards the position that we know that there cannot be any new physics associated with the brain and that we already understand all brain function. The latter claim being obviously the more absurd. Even in outline we don’t understand all brain function.
All that is necessary for a skeptic to say is that at this time we have no good reason to suppose that NDEs are evidence for life after death. The profoundness of the experience means nothing.
Finally, leading on from what I was just saying: I have had some powerful and profound experiences in my life. Experiences where I felt I could see beyond the everyday into the profound, spiritual reality beneath it all.
But in the cold light of day, I can’t consider these experiences as being evidence for anything. And it’s quite glaring that in all such experiences I’ve never gained any information. Just had “feelings”.
:eek:
You have the same high opinion of yourself. You have repeatedly said other people did not have true spiritual experiences because they don’t match your criteria.
So when we do it, it arrogance and ego. But, when you do it, it’s just fine because . . . because . . . help me out here.
Wow. Simply astounding.
My fantasy world is an honor student and it can beat up your fantasy world.
My other fantasy world is a broom.
When you post interviews with people who believe they have had out of body experiences or post-death consciousness, you are simply posting opinions and I have no problem with that.
When you post those same anecdotes and make claims that they are scientific, or that they represent scientific research, then I can call that nonsense.
I have pointed this out in previous exchanges, but since you only read what you wish to see, I will repeat it for other readers: I have never made a claim that NDEs or perceived OBEs cannot be attributed to some non-material phenomenon. I am not one of your absolutists mechanistic opponents. What I have done is request, then beg, then demand, that you pay attention to the difference between science and personal recollection and stop interrupting threads to post absolutist claims that specific events have happened when I have read the same books and articles that you have read and I know that they do not provide the evidence you claim they do and that none of them are actually scientific in nature.
They may actually be real events narrated accurately, but nothing you have ever posted provides evidence that that is true. I have read Sabom’s book and the Wikipedia article that describes the timeline is accurate to that book. The fact that you keep denying that point indicates a basic hostility on your part to an open examination of the phenomena. The conclusion that any objective observer would draw would be that the mind behaves in funny ways under duress and that we do not yet know what causes those experiences. (Research into oxygen deprivation and the effects of ketamine suggest several possible explanations, but I would not say that we have a definitive statement on the issue from that research.)
The few (and there are very few) explorations into the phenomena by actual scientists has, so far, been limited to after-the-fact interviews with people who claimed various experiences. As a preliminary approach to discovering that there are interesting phenomena to explore, they are fine. They are probably necessary. However, no scientist has yet done more than that. You have no link to a scientist who has placed objects in an operating theatre that could only be viewed by a person hovering near the ceiling who has had a patient describe those objects. You have no scientist who has deliberately performed an action or displayed an object only during a period when a patient was clinically dead, then asked the patient to describe the display with successful results. (The funny skull saw does not make it into the realm of science. There was no effort made to hide the saw before or after the operation and Ms. Reynolds first described it days after the operation with plenty of time for someone to have mentioned it or shown it to her. Claims that she “could not” have known about it or “did not remember” any such contact are useless–false memories are a common human condition.)
Of course I am. As are a number of other posters, here. We have already described good science on any number of occasions. Good science includes observing events in a way that reduces (actually, strives to eliminate), the possibility of human misinterpretation of the actual events. Good science proposes hypotheses to be tested and then tries to provide ways to carry out those tests. (And this does not mean that it has to occur in a laboratory.) Good science describes the tests in ways that other people can attempt to duplicate those tests. Not one of your citations meets any of those criteria.
Conducting a bunch of interviews might well be part of a greater effort to conduct science, but simply conducting those interviews is not engaging in science. (In fairness to the people involved, I have not actually seen any of them claim to have been conducting science; that is a burden that you lay on them without their request or permission.)
= = =
Two very strong points: As I have just noted, we do not really have any reason to believe that any of the various interviewers are claiming to do science; that is your claim, not theirs. So all your ranting about other posters’ arrogance is little more than your own projection.
Secondly, that sort of name calling is not permitted here.
[ /Moderating ]
Sure. I don’t believe in a monotheistic God. I don’t think there is a kind and loving God. Basically, I just don’t believe in religion. I believe that existence consists of three aspects: 1. the known
2. the unknown, which can and is becoming known
3. the incomprehensible
I believe that the universe is aware of itself and has intent and purpose. I think it is an impersonal universe.
I think that’s a fair statement.
No, not at all. It is a biased opinion. If I say there is a God, that is also a biased opinion.
I tried as best I could. I had this thread in “general question” It got brought into the debate section. It then morphed into a larger, expansive debate about transcendence and a metaphysical aspect to the universe.
Neither could you.
I don’t know how you could get any more straight forward than that. He ask him for his views and Peter Akins gives. I wasn’t a loaded question, you could ask that question to anybody and it would not be biased in any way shape or form. He did give them a chance to state their philosophical stance and they expressed it. If he did the same kind of documentary about “Jesus Camp” my guess is that you would not make the comments you did.
The method of filming documentaries, movies, commercials, etc. is you always shoot way more film than you are actually going to use. They will always cut back and forth and edit Q.s and A.s together to eliminate needless dialog. Certainly doesn’t mean they can’t be biased or slanted one way or the other. But again, Rod asked straight forward question about their viewpoints.
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?
This may have already been asked.
Which parts of the universe are storing its awareness? A human who’s had his head removed isn’t aware of much, because we store our awareness in our brain. Where is the universe’s awareness stored? In the vast tracts of empty space? In the scattered-far-apart balls of burning gas? In the scattered-far-apart balls of unburning gas, and of inert rock?
Remember, if you say “in people”, then the universe can’t have been aware of prior to their existence and thus could not have directed the evolution of said people.
The known is what we already have
The unknown is the things that we will eventually know; whether string theory is the real deal or not, ect.
the incomprehensible is that which is describable, unknowable, that which can not be grasped, understood or apprehended by the finite human mind
So to answer your question, I have no idea.
Does it bother you that there is no imaginable way to store an active universal intelligence in empty space and widely distributed and essentially noninteractive stars and planets?
Cause to me, the fact that there’s no imaginable way to do something is a pretty good clue that it’s not happening - a far cry from “no idea”, anyway. Of course, I don’t use the unknown as a justification to imagine that there is an ‘incomprehensible’ into which to stuff all my illogical and impossible fantasies and pretend they have equal likelihood as known and knowable facts…
POSTED BY: tomndebb #212
This statement regarding that list is utter nonsense, probably invented by some anti-science crackpot to rationalize why their own weird beliefs should be given greater acceptance.
That is a highly disdain and contemptous argumentum ad personam attack.
Try these out.