Do you really not know what witnessing is? It means “to bear witness to one’s religious convictions” (M-W online). Great Debates is the forum for complex or contentious debates, religious debates, and the religious kind of witnessing. It is not the forum for “stuff I saw one time.” The use of the word witnessing is not an invitation for you to dump your views on spirits and near death experiences into a thread regardless of its relevance. It means that if you really want to witness, Great Debates is the forum you should witness in.
That being said, we are not going to have a debate about your (non) near-death experience in here. If you have questions about the rules, ask them here.
I think I can help out. I used to race BMX, but had a bad accident back in 2000 that landed me in the hospital. I contracted one of those multiple antibiotic resistant superbugs and was very bad off. The original accident occurred on Jan 31, but I was still sick come May. I even flatlined on May 8th, which is when I had my near death experience. It has been well documented by the hospital as can be seen here
The point is, though, that the scientist’s experiment can be duplicated, and then we can see whether the results of the first experiment are duplicated, or if a totally different result occurs. That’s the difference between an experiment and an experience.
Hell, I take most “first studies” with a grain of salt, myself. Usually I take them with a whole shakerful of salt. I mean, people were all excited about the study that showed cinnamon lowered blood sugar. However, subsequent studies have not shown the same results. But, and this is VERY important, scientists did additional studies, to find out if the first study was a fluke or actually had merit. Witnessing doesn’t require additional studies, and in fact is simply one person telling an anecdote. And the plural of anecdote is not data.
Not all scientist’s experiments can be duplicated, especially those involving people. Here observation, testing, polls are frequently used. The social sciences were built on this kind of testing and it was accepted by most.
Near death experience research is not any different. Surgeons noticed that when a patient coded into clinical death on the operating table, no heart activity, and no brain activity, that when the patient was brought back to life, he could often accurately describe the activity going on in the operating room while he was clinically dead. This didn’t happen every time, but often enough to cause a couple of surgeons to give up their careers and become researchers into near death experiences.
This research produced many more instances of a patent with no heart activity, and no brain activity, that was able to somehow know what was going on while he was dead. Some of these instances were simple and some very complex.
There was the case of the teenager that lapsed into clinical death after the doctors thought he was stabilized. The nurse call the family house and asked them to come to the hospital quickly. After about 10 minutes the patient was revived and said he had been home at his mother’s house and they were rushing around to go somewhere, the patient told what program they were watching on TV and the comments being made. An alert nurse stopped the family as they entered the lobby and asked them what they were doing before they came to the hospital. The patient had accurately described the activity going on at his parent’s house.
So research on NDEs consist of verifying data provided the patient of what the patient saw while clinically dead. Now if these incidents only consisted of a few events they might be explained away, but there are hundreds of them being collected.
They are events observed and verified by the surgeon and doctors in attendance at the time. The research is being done at universities in America and overseas, by qualified doctors and published in Scientific Journals.
Some of the intesting ones are people blind from birth can see when they leave their body at the beginning of a near death experience.
One researcher put a card with 5 numbers on it near the ceiling, when the patient codes he goes out of body and usually hovers near the ceiling. After a few tries one out of body experiencer did see and accurately tell what the 5 numbers were.
This is the kind of research I have provided links to and received insults for my efforts. Skeptic don’t want to here anything contrary to their beliefs.
I will post one of these veridical NDEs below for you to quickly read. You will notice the disbelief by some, but no one can explain the patient’s ability to name the doctors accurately even though he was unconscious or dead at all times the doctors attended him.
Now it doesn’t matter to me what skeptics think of this research, but it is real, and it is here to stay. I realize the ramifications to science will be huge. Better to make adjustments now.
lekatt, we are not doing this in this forum. I don’t know how many times you’ve posted those arguments in Great Debates, but they’ve been dealt with frequently and the flaws in the experiment have been pointing out to you over and over. If you have questions about the rules, ask them here. This is the second time I’m telling you. If you continue your NDE spiel, you’ll be formally warned for ignoring mod instructions. With that I remind everybody else not to take the thread on an NDE tangent.
There are no flaws in the research. They were peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals. However, it seems nothing would be accepted by skeptics that are contrary to their beliefs. I had hoped Lynn might want to intelligently discuss the material, but I guess not. Perhaps Cecil would be more open to the research. I am wondering if this board wants to raise more money, why are the mods allowed to run off all the religious, and spiritual posters as quickly as they come on the board. I mean those who wish to present an opposing view. They would be potential sources of income. Controversy sells newspapers and magazines, and could grow the size of message boards. But maybe this board is just as the administrators wish it to be. I wish all the best of everything.
All research has potential flaws. That’s a constant in Great Debates. People make arguments, and then they’re asked to cite them. When the cites are posted, the posters argue about what the cites mean or what they don’t, and what the shortcomings of the cites are. Usually you continue to post the same cites over and over again no matter how patiently people explain why they are not valid. That said, you’ve made your points about these things often enough in Great Debates. I did not tell you to drop this line of argument in that thread just so you could start discussing it here.
By the way if we’re running you off, we’re doing it awfully slowly. You’ve been posting here for eight years.
Yes, I had read that before. He is fair, with the knowledge he has. I had a discussion with Susan Blackmore myself. After laying out the research I asked her, “How can you ignore this evidence,” the reply was “it is not easy, but possible.” That was the last communication.
