Pray+rain= Proof of God?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@lekatt

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

I have a few problems with that. Or rather, you do.

1. The Dalai Lama is a Buddhist. He believes (or so we assume) that he is a reincarnation in a long line of previous Dalai Lamas. He believes in fact that he is a bodhisattva (had to look up how to spell that).

Are you a Buddhist? Do you believe these things about him? If you do not, it would appear you disagree on some issues with him; thus, to you, he is not a certain source, but in fact a person who can be misled. His testimony cannot be trusted.

2. He doesn’t actually support what you’re saying anyway. He puts “love” as the second thing on his list, a list of four items. He doesn’t put it above the others. He also says religions “emphasise” these, not putting love primarily. He also says “more or less”; he seems to indicate a lack of certainty in his emphasising of love equally among other virtues that you do not share.

3. I would humbly suggest he’s wrong. Not all religions have the same viewpoint on love or any of the other topics he mentions which are similar in status to love. That religious people disagree with your ideas and each other show this pretty well. Hey, they even have different definitions of what love is. On the most basic, petty level, you capatalise love, whilst most people do not.

4. That’s not actually a cite showing all those religions show the same thing. That’s a cite showing the Dalai Lama thinks they are.

5. Your cite does not, in fact, contain the lines you’ve quoted.

6. What the page does include, however, is examples of religions which do not act as you say.

A few religions, such as Satanism and The Creativity Movement have what might be called an Ethic of Non-Reciprocity.

So to to sum up; your cite (which does not contain the lines you’ve quoted, but does suggest the exact opposite) is from a single man (with whom you disagree on significant issues) of one faith (not all of them) who says love is similar to many virtues (not the utmost) which are emphasised (not held primal) in all religions (of which he is uncertain), with whom I happen to personally disagree.

Would you care for another go?

[the_PC_apeman]

Bravo, RT!

Too bad such effort will be met with only a dismissive platitude.

[Flyhalf]

@lekatt

I was told my experience (or implied) was just a dream or delusion, that has happened many times by those who are not qualified to judge my personal experience.

How does one become qualified to judge these experiences?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Revenant Threshold

5. Your cite does not, in fact, contain the lines you’ve quoted.

It’s been brought to my attention that this is actually wrong; for some reason, some people get the page with** lekatt’s ** quote, while I didn’t. I assume **lekatt ** actually did get the quote-having-version, so I apologise for that particular accusation.

Rest still stands, as far as I can tell.

[lekatt]

@Flyhalf

How does one become qualified to judge these experiences?

They don’t, no one can judge the personal experience of another, even if they shared the experience. No two people are like. No two share the same belief systems. All experiences are unique. However, if two or millions have an experience usually called a near death experience they can relate to each other on the level of feeling, an emotional bond.

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

@lekatt

Seems like all you can do is judge without any knowledge of what you are judging. Millions of people have had near death experiences such as mine, and many universities are doing research which shows consciousness lives after the death of the body. The researchers are qualified scientists working at qualified universities and published in qualified scientific journals. Simple put, you don’t know what you are talking about.

What I said was your evidence is some personal religious experience backed up by cherry-picked scientific evidence which is dismissed by mainstream scientists. You refute me be presenting exactly these two things. So I think this round goes to me.

[lekatt]

@Revenant Threshold

I have a few problems with that. Or rather, you do.

1. The Dalai Lama is a Buddhist. He believes (or so we assume) that he is a reincarnation in a long line of previous Dalai Lamas. He believes in fact that he is a bodhisattva (had to look up how to spell that).

Are you a Buddhist? Do you believe these things about him? If you do not, it would appear you disagree on some issues with him; thus, to you, he is not a certain source, but in fact a person who can be misled. His testimony cannot be trusted.

2. He doesn’t actually support what you’re saying anyway. He puts “love” as the second thing on his list, a list of four items. He doesn’t put it above the others. He also says religions “emphasise” these, not putting love primarily. He also says “more or less”; he seems to indicate a lack of certainty in his emphasising of love equally among other virtues that you do not share.

3. I would humbly suggest he’s wrong. Not all religions have the same viewpoint on love or any of the other topics he mentions which are similar in status to love. That religious people disagree with your ideas and each other show this pretty well. Hey, they even have different definitions of what love is. On the most basic, petty level, you capatalise love, whilst most people do not.

4. That’s not actually a cite showing all those religions show the same thing. That’s a cite showing the Dalai Lama thinks they are.

5. Your cite does not, in fact, contain the lines you’ve quoted.

6. What the page does include, however, is examples of religions which do not act as you say. So to to sum up; your cite (which does not contain the lines you’ve quoted, but does suggest the exact opposite) is from a single man (with whom you disagree on significant issues) of one faith (not all of them) who says love is similar to many virtues (not the utmost) which are emphasised (not held primal) in all religions (of which he is uncertain), with whom I happen to personally disagree.

Would you care for another go?

No, most people will get the point. Literal thinking makes no attempt at seeing patterns in thought, so literalists will never get it.

[lekatt]

@Sophistry and Illusion

What I said was your evidence is some personal religious experience backed up by cherry-picked scientific evidence which is dismissed by mainstream scientists. You refute me be presenting exactly these two things. So I think this round goes to me.

Naturally you would think that, but the round goes to neither of us, all mainstream scientists are not rejecting the evidence. The science is good, and true. It is truth that wins all rounds.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@lekatt

No, most people will get the point. Literal thinking makes no attempt at seeing patterns in thought, so literalists will never get it.

Again, cite. I would be highly impressed if you could find some cite that explained how the majority of the world think, but please, go right ahead. Again, that you have access to this information is unlikely, but do give it a try.

I suspect that literalists, lateralists, emotioneers and pretty much everyone “will never get it” because you are willing to lie and mislead to protect your point. Seriously, if you prepared a good argument, gave some nice cites, and actually defended your point, i’d be happy to listen. Life after death? Sounds great! It’s like you have a lovely big chocolate cake with you and you’re trying to sell it to a chocoholic. If they’re not taking it… what does that say about your salesmanship? You do not do your cause justice.

[Flyhalf]

@lekatt

They don’t, no one can judge the personal experience of another, even if they shared the experience. No two people are like. No two share the same belief systems. All experiences are unique. However, if two or millions have an experience usually called a near death experience they can relate to each other on the level of feeling, an emotional bond.

If NO ONE is qualified to judge these experiences, how can you expect ANYONE to even understand what you’re saying. If that’s the case, doesn’t it make the whole experience subjective? And if the whole thing is subjective, what does that have to do with science?

[lekatt]

@Revenant Threshold

Again, cite. I would be highly impressed if you could find some cite that explained how the majority of the world think, but please, go right ahead. Again, that you have access to this information is unlikely, but do give it a try.

I suspect that literalists, lateralists, emotioneers and pretty much everyone “will never get it” because you are willing to lie and mislead to protect your point. Seriously, if you prepared a good argument, gave some nice cites, and actually defended your point, i’d be happy to listen. Life after death? Sounds great! It’s like you have a lovely big chocolate cake with you and you’re trying to sell it to a chocoholic. If they’re not taking it… what does that say about your salesmanship? You do not do your cause justice.

You break me up, how could anyone not get it. I didn’t write the site, so how could I have lied, just your favorite word for now I guess. 21 religions founded on good will toward men and love one another. As for selling something, I don’t. I am stating there is life after death because I experienced it. So have millions of others experience it, and say it. It doesn’t need to be proved, it will just happen. There are some very good arguments for it if you care to read them. No reason to worry about it, you won’t get hurt.

[lekatt]

@Flyhalf

If NO ONE is qualified to judge these experiences, how can you expect ANYONE to even understand what you’re saying. If that’s the case, doesn’t it make the whole experience subjective? And if the whole thing is subjective, what does that have to do with science?

That’s exactly what I have been saying for years, but scientists keep butting in telling me they know all about my experience, that it is self-delusion, etc. How could they know about my experience when it is subjective, but they keep telling me anyway. Perhaps you could help and explain to them that it is impossible for them to judge near death experiencers. Why don’t they just stick with the things they can measure and test and leave spiritual things to the spiritual. I think that is a great idea, glad you thought of it.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@lekatt

You break me up, how could anyone not get it.

Well, I clearly don’t. Now, I think that’s because your argument is poor, and you may think that i’m just being dense or i’m incapable of getting it. But that I don’t is pretty incontrovertible, unless you think i’m lying.

I didn’t write the site, so how could I have lied, just your favorite word for now I guess.

You misrepresented the contents. Here’s an example of how this works; this page is about the evolution of fish. Of course it isn’t, and despite the fact I didn’t write the page i’m lying by misrepresenting the contents.

21 religions founded on good will toward men and love one another.

Like here, for example. The page gives examples from those religions; it does not say they were founded on that subject. As I pointed out earlier, the page also gives examples of religions which do not include those details (and since they do not include them at all according to the cite, they cannot have been founded on them on top of that), as well as suggest and give examples of where those religious texts also contradict themselves on that subject.

In other words, your cite supports me, not you. A lot of your arguments don’t seem to mean what you think they do. Note that this is not a criticism of NDEs; it’s a criticism of you. You’re bad at this.

As for selling something, I don’t.

No? You debate on a forum on whether they exist or not. You have a website discussing them and attempting to explain them to the masses. I wasn’t implying you were literally attempting to sell NDEs, if that’s what you mean. Just that you were attempting to persuade people that they occur. Which you do.

I am stating there is life after death because I experienced it. So have millions of others experience it, and say it. It doesn’t need to be proved, it will just happen.

Then why do you attempt it?

Seriously, it always seems like the flow of argument is you putting forth a claim, others disagreeing, and you saying that it doesn’t matter anyway because we’ll all become believers when we experience it ourselves. So what’s the point explaining it? You’re very bad at it, and according to you it doesn’t matter anyway. What’s your motivation for continuing this when you think we’re incapable of understanding it until we experience it?

There are some very good arguments for it if you care to read them. No reason to worry about it, you won’t get hurt.

Please, bring these arguments forward. I look forward to seeing them. I’m really not worried; as I said earlier, life after death sounds great. I’m very emotionally invested in it being true. I think it would be fantastic; much better than no life after death. And a God of love, again, sounds flippin’ ace. All of the ideas you preach I find to be brilliant, hopeful, and basically a much happier way of things. And yet, you’re not convincing me. As I said before; if you’re offering me great, fantastic things that i’ve said I want, how bad must you be at selling them? Pretty damn bad.

[lekatt]

@Revenant Threshold

Well, I clearly don’t. Now, I think that’s because your argument is poor, and you may think that i’m just being dense or i’m incapable of getting it. But that I don’t is pretty incontrovertible, unless you think i’m lying. You misrepresented the contents. Here’s an example of how this works; this page is about the evolution of fish. Of course it isn’t, and despite the fact I didn’t write the page i’m lying by misrepresenting the contents. Like here, for example. The page gives examples from those religions; it does not say they were founded on that subject. As I pointed out earlier, the page also gives examples of religions which do not include those details (and since they do not include them at all according to the cite, they cannot have been founded on them on top of that), as well as suggest and give examples of where those religious texts also contradict themselves on that subject.

In other words, your cite supports me, not you. A lot of your arguments don’t seem to mean what you think they do. Note that this is not a criticism of NDEs; it’s a criticism of you. You’re bad at this. No? You debate on a forum on whether they exist or not. You have a website discussing them and attempting to explain them to the masses. I wasn’t implying you were literally attempting to sell NDEs, if that’s what you mean. Just that you were attempting to persuade people that they occur. Which you do. Then why do you attempt it?

Seriously, it always seems like the flow of argument is you putting forth a claim, others disagreeing, and you saying that it doesn’t matter anyway because we’ll all become believers when we experience it ourselves. So what’s the point explaining it? You’re very bad at it, and according to you it doesn’t matter anyway. What’s your motivation for continuing this when you think we’re incapable of understanding it until we experience it? Please, bring these arguments forward. I look forward to seeing them. I’m really not worried; as I said earlier, life after death sounds great. I’m very emotionally invested in it being true. I think it would be fantastic; much better than no life after death. And a God of love, again, sounds flippin’ ace. All of the ideas you preach I find to be brilliant, hopeful, and basically a much happier way of things. And yet, you’re not convincing me. As I said before; if you’re offering me great, fantastic things that i’ve said I want, how bad must you be at selling them? Pretty damn bad.

Again, I am not selling anything, so how could I be bad at selling something. I have a website discussing NDEs because I had one and want to provide a place others who have this experience can talk about them and exchange ideas. Yes, it is informational. I believe I do at least a reasonable job of it. People have written me loads of email saying so. Doctors call me to talk about it, and I have been on a radio talk show. Sure there are detractors, always will be, I don’t bother with what they think. And you, if you were as interested as you say, you would not be arguing with me, I think you would be reading and studing the material yourself. It is all over the net. You would probably be asking some hard questions about life after death instead of berating me. Think about it.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@lekatt

Again, I am not selling anything, so how could I be bad at selling something. I have a website discussing NDEs because I had one and want to provide a place others who have this experience can talk about them and exchange ideas. Yes, it is informational.

You’ve linked to it in the past, in order to try and convince others of your views. Now, I have no knowledge of what you might have done of any other sites, but those would be occasions on which you’ve used it to “sell” your views.

I believe I do at least a reasonable job of it.

I quite like the design, and generally you seem to have done a better job in terms of writing on it than you seem to here (i’m one to talk, I know). But as far as convincing others of your views, well, you don’t seem to have any converts on these boards. I don’t know about in general.

People have written me loads of email saying so. Doctors call me to talk about it, and I have been on a radio talk show.

That’s actually quite cool. I would suggest though that these people are more interested in the topic rather than your particular slant of message. NDEs, rather than your defense of them, which I still think is pretty crap.

Sure there are detractors, always will be, I don’t bother with what they think.

Yes, you do. If you didn’t care, then you wouldn’t still be posting here or replying to me. A person who didn’t care wouldn’t bother, would they?

And you, if you were as interested as you say, you would not be arguing with me, I think you would be reading and studing the material yourself. It is all over the net.

You seem to forget that I actually studied parapsychology at university, something i’ve pointed out before. I’ve had to research NDEs to the point of that level of study, so… I have looked it up? I don’t expect you to remember that about me. But i’ve done the research. When you link your site, I look at it. When you link to other sites, as you did earlier, I went there and read the page in question. I’ve done the research, mon ami.

You would probably be asking some hard questions about life after death instead of berating me. Think about it.

I’ve asked you those questions in other threads. You provided crappy arguments, lied, and misled there; why should I hijack this thread even further than we have done in order to continue that? No, i’m quite happy having already asked those questions of you. I hope your memory of your NDE is not as poor as your memory of what you talked about in your topic of choice a while back.

I have a question for you; do you honestly believe that I am worried about what you present here? Or that i’m fearful, scared, etc. of what you post?

[lekatt]

@Revenant Threshold

You’ve linked to it in the past, in order to try and convince others of your views. Now, I have no knowledge of what you might have done of any other sites, but those would be occasions on which you’ve used it to “sell” your views. I quite like the design, and generally you seem to have done a better job in terms of writing on it than you seem to here (i’m one to talk, I know). But as far as convincing others of your views, well, you don’t seem to have any converts on these boards. I don’t know about in general. That’s actually quite cool. I would suggest though that these people are more interested in the topic rather than your particular slant of message. NDEs, rather than your defense of them, which I still think is pretty crap. Yes, you do. If you didn’t care, then you wouldn’t still be posting here or replying to me. A person who didn’t care wouldn’t bother, would they? You seem to forget that I actually studied parapsychology at university, something i’ve pointed out before. I’ve had to research NDEs to the point of that level of study, so… I have looked it up? I don’t expect you to remember that about me. But i’ve done the research. When you link your site, I look at it. When you link to other sites, as you did earlier, I went there and read the page in question. I’ve done the research, mon ami. I’ve asked you those questions in other threads. You provided crappy arguments, lied, and misled there; why should I hijack this thread even further than we have done in order to continue that? No, i’m quite happy having already asked those questions of you. I hope your memory of your NDE is not as poor as your memory of what you talked about in your topic of choice a while back.

I have a question for you; do you honestly believe that I am worried about what you present here? Or that i’m fearful, scared, etc. of what you post?

I wouldn’t expect anyone to be worried or fearful of what I post, so no.
I have worked in hospital and hospice, been through several “facing death” situations with others and know that generally people are terrified of death. Most won’t even visit their dying loved ones, or discuss death. Death has a kind of morbid curosity about it. Why you continue posting is known only to you. I continue because it is what I do.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@lekatt

I wouldn’t expect anyone to be worried or fearful of what I post, so no.

So what was “No reason to worry about it, you won’t get hurt” about?

I have worked in hospital and hospice, been through several “facing death” situations with others and know that generally people are terrified of death. Most won’t even visit their dying loved ones, or discuss death. Death has a kind of morbid curosity about it.

Yes, you’re quite right. I’m certainly scared of death. That’s the whole reason why life after death would be great! All those are reasons why people would be motivated to believe you, or at least want to believe you. Do you by any chance listen to yourself? You’re confused about what you yourself think so much that I can only conclude your analysis of your own personal experience could be highly, highly flawed. You aren’t qualified to judge them, it would seem.

Why you continue posting is known only to you. I continue because it is what I do.

Why do you do it, though? You don’t think it will do any good. You don’t appear to think it will have any affect at all. I would guess then that really all you’re after is an ego boost and hits on your website. I think even I could do a better job of defending NDEs than you do.

[Flyhalf]

@lekatt

That’s exactly what I have been saying for years, but scientists keep butting in telling me they know all about my experience, that it is self-delusion, etc. How could they know about my experience when it is subjective, but they keep telling me anyway. Perhaps you could help and explain to them that it is impossible for them to judge near death experiencers. Why don’t they just stick with the things they can measure and test and leave spiritual things to the spiritual. I think that is a great idea, glad you thought of it.

Does anybody research and study these experiences?

[lekatt]

@Flyhalf

Does anybody research and study these experiences?

Yes, they have been researched for over 30 years by dozens of doctors. Many books have been written and papers published in the research journals. There are the sceptics and there are the believers. The sceptics can show no real evidence other than brain mapping which is inconclusive while the believers offer much better evidence of veridical near death experiences which show consciousness continues after the death of the brain and body. I will provide a link that outlines the research. It is long, with many sub-links but well worth reading through.

Question 28 about Near Death Experiences.

If you have questions please ask.

[Czarcasm]

Flyhalf, if you wish to continue after slogging through the “research”, could you please start a new thread on the subject?