Disagreeing with the AMA about what “dead” is isn’t bad science. It’s disagreement that the medical term has the same definition as the common word. This isn’t exactly uncommon - I’ve had cars die, but the AMA would disagree.
Your definition of atheist faith:
b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
I am not sure you realize what you did, you just proved what I said that atheism is a faith.
Then on the issue that random creation is without meaning, you changed the word to meaningful which is now a different subject. It is good to live a meaningful life, but not the same as finding meaning in randomness.
Quiet true, I have taken almost ten years to gather the material there, so why wouldn’t I quote it. Some I wrote and some I didn’t, most I didn’t write just posted it.
Cars don’t die they just stop running, until someone fixes and revives them just like humans.
Daeth is irreversible. You are going to have to show me where the AMA says otherwise.
You’re clearly confused about what atheism is. And proof, for that matter.
You will not allow yourself to be corrected in this because allowing other people to have justification for their beliefs would make your beliefs look shakier by comparison, so there is little incentive to bother repeating the correct information to you.
I was unaware that “without meaning” and “meaningful” were on different subjects. Well, regardless, the whole notion of “meaning” outside of its literal use (that is, the meaning of explicit messages) is pretty amorphous. Does it mean “purpose”? Does it mean “beauty”? Does it mean “hidden messages”? Until that is clarified there really is no chance of sensible discussion about it.
If it’s “just like humans”, why isn’t it death?
Regardless, you completely missed the point. So that you may miss it again, I’ll point it out again: different words have different meanings in different context. AMA “dead”, legally “dead”, and colloquial “dead” are all different to varying degrees. (And really, none of that makes any difference regarding the Pam situation anyway; the point was that she was insensate for a little while, which nobody, even the AMA, disagrees about.)
The point of contention about the Pam Reynolds case, from what I’ve gathered, isn’t whether or not she was ever “legally dead” or “really dead” or “close to death” or “really, really, really, really almost dead” or “we have to convene the entire AMA and take a vote to decide just how dead she really was”-- so honestly, we can throw that part completely out and it doesn’t change things one way or the other. Begbert2 makes a good point: Pam was completely out of it for a good chunk of time. <i>If</i> she really saw and heard certain information during that time, and <i>only</i> during that time, then that really would be solid evidence that something very strange was going on. But there’s another explanation, I’m sorry to say.
I’ve seen arguments <i>against</i> the Pam Reynolds story which can get pretty silly too, such as the one that Pam was somehow awake during general anesthetic. (That was one I did NOT need to read, because if I ever need to have another major operation, I guarantee I’m going to be worrying about that as I go into pre-op…) :eek: There are also some very convoluted counter-arguments based on the idea that Pam got confused about times. Unfortunately, there’s another possibility, based on the fact that there’s no way to know beyond a reasonable doubt exactly when she could have learned the information, and that people don’t always tell the truth about everything. Couldn’t she have heard the nurses talking about the nature of the veins and arteries in her legs way <i>before</i> the operation? Couldn’t she have seen the special saw that was used <i>after</i> the operation or found a picture of it? I hate to accuse anyone of fabricating a story or even some details of a story, but that would go a very long way towards explaining what happened here. Frankly, I would be a whole lot more impressed by this story if it involved more details that Pam Reynolds really would have had no chance to learn at any time except during the surgery. But that is not the way it looks to me.
Because you don’t post links to primary sources, so that we can confirm that your claims are what you say they are. You are asking us to take your word for it. Why should we?
The surgeon stated that he never opened the case of the saw until Pam was “out” and ready for surgery. That was for sanitary reasons. The nurses didn’t start cutting into Pam’s veins until after she was “out” when they discovered the vein in one leg was too small. The surgeon said he had no medical explanation for what Pam saw. I think this is enough to say, yes, there is really something here that don’t add up. Now for your information Pam’s surgery is not the only one where the patient on returning to consciousness accurately described the previous surgery. This is what started the research on near death experiences, and the totally changed life that results from them. I do appreciate your post, some of the skeptics get really wild with their assumptions and opinions.
The above is a link to an emergency room experience.
Primary sources are the best sources, being the first. I don’t make claims and I don’t expect anyone to take my word for anything. I read about near death experiences and studied them for years, you could do the same if you wanted.
People die and are brought back to life every day. But in the Pam surgery it doesn’t matter, or in any near death experience. All that matters is “was she clinically dead” at the time the events happened that she accurately described. And the answer is yes.
I feel obliged to note that If Pam wasn’t dead when she talked to people, then she’s not an example of “The dead contacting the living”.
Welcome to NDE tangent city! lekatt is the mayor.
I have spent too much time in this city already. I think I’ll wait on the outskirts of town and see if the thread ever emerges from there again.
There is not a single case in the history of medicine in which a person who has died was brought back to life.
Then why do you post links to your own website, which has no links to primary sources? You obviously do expect us to believe that your anecdotes represent actual events. Unless you provide some corroborating links or sources, your study is meaningless to this discussion.
I’ve checked out lekatt’s page, and I don’t have a lot to add besides what’s already been said by others. But to be fair-- which I think is important-- I will say that I agree with him about two points, because those relate to the dissociative disorders,which I can speak about with some level of knowledge. (BTW, beginning with the DSM-IV, MPD was redefined as Dissociative Identity Disorder in the U.S., which is a much more accurate definition, I think.) NDE’s as subjectively defined on the Greyson scale have absolutely nothing to do with pathological dissociation; that’s been shown in some solid research. Also, the dissociative anesthetic ketamine produces an experience which really has very little in common with a Greyson scale NDE.
Of course, there’s no particular reason why an NDE should have anything in common with a genuine dissociative disorder, because the DD’s are not dimensional disorders in the way that,say, depression is. Basically, everyone scores somewhere on the Beck Depression Inventory, but if you don’t have an actual dissociative disorder, you almost certainly won’t answer yes to even one question on the Dissociative Experiences Scale Taxon. Daydreaming, fantasizing, “spacing out”, getting lost in a movie or a book, etc., do not exist on any kind of continuum with pathological dissociation. They aren’t “the mildest form” or the least extreme end. I’m not sure there really is any least extreme end, because the dissociative disorders are pretty extreme stuff. Athough they are quite a bit more common than was previously thought, it’s very important to define where they are found and where they are not. So it’s always good to get that point cleared up.
Other than that… well, maybe the less said the better.
Thank you for your honesty. I truly appreciate it.
I am the primary source of some of them. Those that were emailed to me made my site the primary source. I tire of your assumptions, take a note from
Anise, she is a grand person.
I don’t believe they were emailed to you.
Does this mean I am not a grand person? Gosh, I hope so.
You seem to be the only person that doesn’t understand what is going on here. What kind of person that makes you? I don’t know.
Love
Oh I understand what’s going on here too. You post a bunch of links to a website (yours) that’s nothing more (for the most part) than things that you have posted.
We call that disingenuous, at the very least, where I come from.