Richard Dawkins' Brand of Atheism

Great Debates
521

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
She could have seen the instruments in her prep video. She could have seen them on the table before they put her under. She could have seen them on Discovery Health. That doesn’t mean she had an NDE.
[/QUOTE]

Because you can think up alternate senarios doesn’t mean there is any truth to them. She also saw her deceased grandmother and talked to her, plus many other things. Please read the account so you can understand.

The doctor testified that he didn’t take the saw from its box until after she was unconscious.

522

i think the description of someone whose heart action has been halted by a medical process can’t really be describec as dead. The body’s cells are being supplied with the required oxygen and other inputs by a machine and the cells don’t die. Actual death results in cell death.

In addition, there have been a number of studies about the level of consciousness during anesthesia. Even with adequate anesthesia the results of these studies seem to indicate that there is some primitive awwareness. The incident under discussion here was not a well-controlled experiment by any means and Reynolds wasn’t “dead” for a couple of hours.

523

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Because you can think up alternate senarios doesn’t mean there is any truth to them. She also saw her deceased grandmother and talked to her, plus many other things. Please read the account so you can understand.

The doctor testified that he didn’t take the saw from its box until after she was unconscious.
[/QUOTE]

And it doesn’t mean those aren’t the most likely reasons for her supposed “experience.” She had many opportunities to see an instrument like the one used in her procedure. People who “believe” in the supernatural see it everywhere. That certainly doesn’t make it valid. It’s the least likely explanation.

524

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
i think the description of someone whose heart action has been halted by a medical process can’t really be describec as dead. The body’s cells are being supplied with the required oxygen and other inputs by a machine and the cells don’t die. Actual death results in cell death.

In addition, there have been a number of studies about the level of consciousness during anesthesia. Even with adequate anesthesia the results of these studies seem to indicate that there is some primitive awwareness. The incident under discussion here was not a well-controlled experiment by any means and Reynolds wasn’t “dead” for a couple of hours.
[/QUOTE]

Since this was an experimental surgery, it was very well-controlled. From extra monitors and equipment to a complete video of the event.

Levels of anesthesia don’t play any role in this event. I know of no anesthesia that allows one to see and hear, as well as change positions of the body. All these things are well documented in this case as well as dozens of others.

525

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
And it doesn’t mean those aren’t the most likely reasons for her supposed “experience.” She had many opportunities to see an instrument like the one used in her procedure. People who “believe” in the supernatural see it everywhere. That certainly doesn’t make it valid. It’s the least likely explanation.
[/QUOTE]

The doctor testified this was a new kind of saw and had not been used before. I don’t believe in the supernatural either, all events are natural events. The account of the operation is valid. That is why they made a TV special out of it. If this has been a normal event no one would have ever heard about it.

526

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Since this was an experimental surgery, it was very well-controlled. From extra monitors and equipment to a complete video of the event.

Levels of anesthesia don’t play any role in this event. I know of no anesthesia that allows one to see and hear, as well as change positions of the body. All these things are well documented in this case as well as dozens of others.
[/QUOTE]

You’ve never heard of people coming out of anesthesia while under the knife?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4207-2004Nov22.html

527

[QUOTE=lekatt]
It is very difficult to “see” under any kind of anesthesia.
[/quote]

There was no need for her to do so. As I said, he description would have fit a dentists’ pnuematic drill equally well regardless. Furthermore, this is about the ONLY detail of any interest in the entire affair, and this is supposedly one of the best cases of showing that NDEs can sense things that shouldn’t be able to. In other words, regardless of anything else, the fact that you’ve simply picked this case to trumpet out of all the claimed NDE’s that have happened is suspect: she could have out of all NDE’s happened to be accurate about events by purely chance. What you never mention, of course, is all the NDE’s in which people remember details that are wrong, or see people in “heaven” that HAVE NOT DIED and so on.

It also says that she got a key detail puzzlingly wrong, which would be hard to explain if she mystically viewed it. What the surgeon might find puzzling is not of much consequence: surgeons are no better than anyone else at snap judging probability of events correctly, or of avoiding jumping to conclusions without considering more reasonable alternatives.

I quoted the text directly, something you have not bothered to do.

In fact, when I searched the internet for any documentation for the claim of her being “dead” for two hours, the only sources I could find we’re, in fact, YOU, making the same claims you are now, being pointed at the same text to show that you are grossly exaggerating the matter. In those threads, also, you simply ignored this and plowed on with your claim despite being told that it was counter-factual.

Please, cite where in the book it says she was clinically dead for two hours. You have a lot of cites outstanding at this point lekatt.

528

[QUOTE=Apos]
Please, cite where in the book it says she was clinically dead for two hours. You have a lot of cites outstanding at this point lekatt.
[/QUOTE]

Two things you can believe: There is no NDE evidence and lekatt will not produce a cite.

529

I don’t believe any amount of scientific proof would be enough to convince a hard-core skeptic of anything. Why? I am not sure. Most people would be willing to read the material at the very least. So, nothing I can say will really add to the discussion. I will suggest again you read the numerous accounts of the surgery and the book.

I will show this quote from another writer:

530

Is there any reason to assume that unlike dreams these ‘NDE’ things take place in real time?

After all, it is possible to have a dream that appears to take hours, but in reality lasts less than a few minutes.

531

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I don’t believe any amount of scientific proof would be enough to convince a hard-core skeptic of anything. Why? I am not sure. Most people would be willing to read the material at the very least. So, nothing I can say will really add to the discussion. I will suggest again you read the numerous accounts of the surgery and the book.

I will show this quote from another writer:
[/QUOTE]

Again lekatt, note that this writer simply leaves out any actual timeline of events. My time is taken right from the primary source. Virtually all of the events Reynolds describes took place BEFORE SHE WAS DEAD. Furthermore, the period of complete flatline was very short: around five minutes before they began to bring her back. These writers are simply being vague about when certain events happened so that they can make it sound as if they happened during the period she was in flatline. But we know, from the very book all of these people are drawing their claims, that this take on things is false.

532

[QUOTE=lekatt]
As for religion, your attack is similar to others on this board. I get the feeling you learned your hate for religion in school. Actually religion has a place in this world the same as you have a place. Religions have traditionally helped others throughout the centuries. Of course, there is a downside to everything, but nothing is all bad or all good. If you would read and learn about religion you would not be so fearful of them. Mostly they are people like yourself, trying to do good in the world.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, I was raised Catholic and became a Born Again Christian during my freshman year of college. I went on to lead a number of bible studies over the course of the next 9 years. When I finally had an opportunity to question my beliefs (I moved to take a new job and for the first time in almost a decade I wasn’t surrounded by other Christians reinforcing the belief system and warning me against “dangerous” questioning thoughts) I didn’t want to abandon spirituality. I looked into a number of belief systems (theistic and nontheistic) before I decided that the best philosophy of life may be to simply grow continuously in knowledge and character, to guard against intellectual stagnation and to learn from every experience. So your assessment of my position and the events that lead me there are not accurate in the least. You can get the full details here and here.

I’m well aware that most people try to do good things most of the time. I wonder if many of the religious faithful are afraid that they would not be as good without either the threat of hell or the rewards of heaven to spur them on? There were times that I believed that sort of thing; it’s hard not to when it’s drilled into you by hundreds of sermons and books and biblical passages that you are inherently sinful and wicked and would continuously do evil if it were not for the restraining hand of God.

Can we be good without God? Absolutely, and in some cases we can be better without God. Sometimes religous people do bad things with the intention of doing what, to them, seems good. How many of them sincerely believe they are doing good? I have to believe they are sincere and do believe they are serving the greatest good. Are they?

My Aunt is a devout Catholic. When she was a teenager, she got pregnant, had an abortion, and confessed all of this to her priest. He prescribed a penance that was very difficult to see through to the end, and indeed she never was able to complete it. For over 30 years my Aunt was convinced that she would die a reprobate because she couldn’t complete her penance. Finally I was able to convince her that she was forgiven the moment she confessed and that her penance was not necessary anymore, and she finally was released from her guilt. Did the priest believe he was helping save my Aunt’s soul? I have no doubt that was his intention. A fully religious concern. Instead he pushed her into a depressing spiral of guilt that saw her attempt suicide twice until lil’ ol reprobate atheist me came along to pull her out of that using simple compassion.

I generally don’t get upset about religious people following their beliefs until their desire to spread the word starts infringing on my rights and the rights of others. I especially am incensed that religious groups in America and Europe keep trying to undermine scientific education concerning evolution so they can preach their creation myths. Keep your myths away from the science classroom! Teach about creation mythology in a religious studies or social studies class or something. Still, I don’t see creationists as having evil intentions even if the actions they take are, in my opinion, damaging. They believe they are providing a blessing to children. Such well-intentioned people would possibly be better people without their religious faith. Good people are good people no matter what their belief system. But bad ideas executed with good intentions are still damaging.

533

[QUOTE=catsix]
Is there any reason to assume that unlike dreams these ‘NDE’ things take place in real time?

After all, it is possible to have a dream that appears to take hours, but in reality lasts less than a few minutes.
[/QUOTE]

There are two considerations here, when the experiencer leaves his body, and looks down upon it, this is real time.

If the experience continues long enough for him to see the Light and follow it then time is not a factor. In the spirit world all events happen simultaneously, so our experiencer could experience days, months, even years, in spirit time and it seem only a moment, not unlike sleep.

534

[QUOTE=Cuckoorex]
Actually, I was raised Catholic and became a Born Again Christian during my freshman year of college. I went on to lead a number of bible studies over the course of the next 9 years. When I finally had an opportunity to question my beliefs (I moved to take a new job and for the first time in almost a decade I wasn’t surrounded by other Christians reinforcing the belief system and warning me against “dangerous” questioning thoughts) I didn’t want to abandon spirituality. I looked into a number of belief systems (theistic and nontheistic) before I decided that the best philosophy of life may be to simply grow continuously in knowledge and character, to guard against intellectual stagnation and to learn from every experience. So your assessment of my position and the events that lead me there are not accurate in the least. You can get the full details here and here.

I’m well aware that most people try to do good things most of the time. I wonder if many of the religious faithful are afraid that they would not be as good without either the threat of hell or the rewards of heaven to spur them on? There were times that I believed that sort of thing; it’s hard not to when it’s drilled into you by hundreds of sermons and books and biblical passages that you are inherently sinful and wicked and would continuously do evil if it were not for the restraining hand of God.

Can we be good without God? Absolutely, and in some cases we can be better without God. Sometimes religous people do bad things with the intention of doing what, to them, seems good. How many of them sincerely believe they are doing good? I have to believe they are sincere and do believe they are serving the greatest good. Are they?

My Aunt is a devout Catholic. When she was a teenager, she got pregnant, had an abortion, and confessed all of this to her priest. He prescribed a penance that was very difficult to see through to the end, and indeed she never was able to complete it. For over 30 years my Aunt was convinced that she would die a reprobate because she couldn’t complete her penance. Finally I was able to convince her that she was forgiven the moment she confessed and that her penance was not necessary anymore, and she finally was released from her guilt. Did the priest believe he was helping save my Aunt’s soul? I have no doubt that was his intention. A fully religious concern. Instead he pushed her into a depressing spiral of guilt that saw her attempt suicide twice until lil’ ol reprobate atheist me came along to pull her out of that using simple compassion.

I generally don’t get upset about religious people following their beliefs until their desire to spread the word starts infringing on my rights and the rights of others. I especially am incensed that religious groups in America and Europe keep trying to undermine scientific education concerning evolution so they can preach their creation myths. Keep your myths away from the science classroom! Teach about creation mythology in a religious studies or social studies class or something. Still, I don’t see creationists as having evil intentions even if the actions they take are, in my opinion, damaging. They believe they are providing a blessing to children. Such well-intentioned people would possibly be better people without their religious faith. Good people are good people no matter what their belief system. But bad ideas executed with good intentions are still damaging.
[/QUOTE]

I really liked your honest, heart-felt post. Your journey was not so different than mine. I was raised in fundamental, evangelical protestant churches. Forced to go because it was good for me. I too witnessed, teached Bible classes, and on some occasions delivered a sermon. During all this time I questioned the authenticity of the Bible, but was afraid, very afraid of going to hell, so didn’t make many waves.

There did finally come a time when I refused to go to church any more. But the big break came in college, I majored in psychology, with minors in religion and philosophy. In one religion class I was forced to actually read the Bible from cover to cover. I can still remember how angry I became to find all the contradictions and moreover the things never taught or that were taught wrongly.

I didn’t finish college because I was offered a business to run, and I was becoming very disillusioned with psychology. Seemed to me psychology just taught things that were mostly common knowledge using big words as obfuscation.

I did and still do love to read, so I read and read. Archology I like, but mostly I read in religion, philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, social studies and other books that had to do with the human condition. I also read many science books, I was not impressed with Carl Sagan I will have to admit.

I was agnostic, reading my books, running my business, until the bust of '80. My business nosedived along with my health, and I had a heart attack. The doc wanted to operate giving about six months to live. I declined the operation, and started reading about getting healthy. Deepak Chopra became my hero. Soon after that I had a near death experience. Totally, and completely changed my life forever, been studying NDEs, and related spiritual material for over 20 years.

What I have learned I am sure you will learn also. It took time, a lot of it, to look upon religion and science for what they really are. Man’s attempts to understand his world. Nothing more. One is no more perfect than the other.

So now I try to help people live more joyful lives, in a self-help way.
If you wish to communicate more I doubt this board is the place. But maybe a new thread might be tolerance here.

Love

535

So, apparently we’re done talking about the Reynolds case? This fits in with the other threads I read: when people pointed out that the claims you were making about the Reynolds case were factually wrong, you either change subjects entirely or simply never post in that thread again.