NDEs - Relevant or not so much?

[JYJ]

I will not get sucked into an endless cycle of challenges and rebuttals. Perhaps you've noticed how they so often lead nowhere and waste energy?? All the appropriate material is available for any of us to study. Acceptance or rejection is a personal issue. Suffice to say that I believe in the existence of the spirit universe and that the physical correspondence is only a shadow of reality.

I note that you are both a liberal and atheist. Is an atheist necessarily one who rejects the existence of spirits and the spiritual universe. Does the non belief in a supreme deity require that you also non believe in spirit? I've never been clear on that but if you are Wiccan I would think you are used to working in subtle energy which is in tune with spirits??? This would seem to allow agreement with the NDE phenomena. Confusing it is. Can you expand on this?

 

[KCfromNC]

Joking, of course. I meant that if God doesn't exist, it's because He chose to take the easy way out from answering skeptics. I.e., skeptics make excellent rational demands.

Easy and hard are concepts which don't apply to an omnipotent being. Or at least they both mean the same thing. It's kind of like my boss - except since he's not omnipotent his version changes from everything is easy when I do it to everything is easy when someone else has to do it.

As for the NDEs, there seem to be lots of urban myths about them and a strong lack of actual documentation for all of these fantastic claims. The obvious ones seem obvious and can be duplicated by drugs or brain trauma. The incredible ones are, well, incredible.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I will not get sucked into an endless cycle of challenges and rebuttals.

That's your choice. It is noted, however, that though you criticise someone's post, when someone does the same to you, you run away. Are you scared that your claims aren't supported by the evidence?

Perhaps you've noticed how they so often lead nowhere and waste energy??

No, actually, I haven't. A civil discussion with an open mind can be very enjoyable indeed, and more than a few minds have been changed through civilised discourse. The administration at CF shut down the General Theology forum for that very reason.

All the appropriate material is available for any of us to study. Acceptance or rejection is a personal issue. Suffice to say that I believe in the existence of the spirit universe and that the physical correspondence is only a shadow of reality.

I would be interested in knowing why you believe this.

I note that you are both a liberal and atheist. Is an atheist necessarily one who rejects the existence of spirits and the spiritual universe. Does the non belief in a supreme deity require that you also non believe in spirit?

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, and can be either on the fence, or can actively affirm that no deities exist. Apart from that, an atheist can believe in whatever they want. Buddhists are generally atheists as there is no deity in Buddhism, but they still believe in souls or spirits or other supernatural goings on. I have an atheist friend who is almost embarrasingly dismissive of deities, but is adament that ghosts and magic and aliens all exist. Peculiar fellow.

I've never been clear on that but if you are Wiccan I would think you are used to working in subtle energy which is in tune with spirits??? This would seem to allow agreement with the NDE phenomena. Confusing it is. Can you expand on this?

I used to be Wiccan when I joined CF, hence my name and avatar, but I have since deconverted and become an atheist. With regard to spirits and souls, I don't believe either exist.

 

[JYJ]

That's your choice. It is noted, however, that though you criticise someone's post, when someone does the same to you, you run away. Are you scared that your claims aren't supported by the evidence?


No, actually, I haven't. A civil discussion with an open mind can be very enjoyable indeed, and more than a few minds have been changed through civilised discourse. The administration at CF shut down the General Theology forum for that very reason.


I would be interested in knowing why you believe this.


An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, and can be either on the fence, or can actively affirm that no deities exist. Apart from that, an atheist can believe in whatever they want. Buddhists are generally atheists as there is no deity in Buddhism, but they still believe in souls or spirits or other supernatural goings on. I have an atheist friend who is almost embarrasingly dismissive of deities, but is adament that ghosts and magic and aliens all exist. Peculiar fellow.


I used to be Wiccan when I joined CF, hence my name and avatar, but I have since deconverted and become an atheist. With regard to spirits and souls, I don't believe either exist.

Thank you for your insightful and courteous words younger brother. My beliefs are the result of long years of experience. You, also, will have long years of experience but that will be after those long years and not at the tender age of 23.

 

[Antarctika]

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, and can be either on the fence, or can actively affirm that no deities exist. Apart from that, an atheist can believe in whatever they want. Buddhists are generally atheists as there is no deity in Buddhism, but they still believe in souls or spirits or other supernatural goings on. I have an atheist friend who is almost embarrasingly dismissive of deities, but is adament that ghosts and magic and aliens all exist. Peculiar fellow.

I thought atheists were the ones not sitting on the fence, but rather actively affirming that god(s) doesnt exist.

Depending on how you define believing, I could arguably be an atheist here.

 

[Mling]

I thought atheists were the ones not sitting on the fence, but rather actively affirming that god(s) doesnt exist.

Depending on how you define believing, I could arguably be an atheist here.

There are different understandings of atheism-- one interpretation is what you're saying: "I affirmatively believe that gods do not exist." Other people who identify as atheists would frame their beliefs as "I do not believe that gods exist."

 

[Mling]

NDE's are relevant to some things, and not to others. They are an interesting phenomenon, and may offer significant insights into aspects of the human experience at the moment of death.

But, as the experiences are generally things which we are capable of experiencing through natural causes, they are not relevant to the question of whether afterlives exist.

 

[Cuddles333]

For years and years and years we heard accounts of people who were in death for a time and came back describing accounts and conversations that were impossible for them to have seen and heard. Now, finally, science has almost caught up and is developing the technology to verify these things. Now, maybe hardcore skeptics would not be very impressed with NDEs being scientifically verified....but....they definitely would give attention to scientific verification of evidence of 'the other side' existing from people who were clinically dead for an extended time in a medical setting. With no blood being in the body and no brain activity. Science is starting to prove that people can confirm vision all around their setting and hear everything that is being said and what sounds the instruments make and can even describe them. My lands.....they even found the soul/spirit and traced it out of the body and into the atmosphere! However, like some poster has already said in this thread, it does not verify exactly the way we have been taught how things are supposed to go according to the New Testament. Here is a link that has already been aired on tv and it is extremely interesting: Watch Videos Online | The Day I Died, Near Death Experience | Veoh.com

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

For years and years and years we heard accounts of people who were in death for a time and came back describing accounts and conversations that were impossible for them to have seen and heard. Now, finally, science has almost caught up and is developing the technology to verify these things. Now, maybe hardcore skeptics would not be very impressed with NDEs being scientifically verified

And just what are these new technologies exactly?

Actually I would be pretty impressed by that.
Since you seem to suggest its been verified I'm sure you can easily produce the evidence?

....but....they definitely would give attention to scientific verification of evidence of 'the other side' existing from people who were clinically dead for an extended time in a medical setting. With no blood being in the body and no brain activity. Science is starting to prove that people can confirm vision all around their setting and hear everything that is being said and what sounds the instruments make and can even describe them. My lands.....

Are you saying the playing card test has been passed? Or are you simply saying some cases of people saying things that match up to reality without telling us its 0.01% of the cases?

they even found the soul/spirit and traced it out of the body and into the atmosphere!

Okay, NOW I know you're not being truthful. I mean really? Scientifically found the soul/spirit AND they follow it outside the body all the way up into space? (How is this not frontpage news all over the world if it were true)

I just want to take a moment to remind you that aura reading machines are in fact, not science.

However, like some poster has already said in this thread, it does not verify exactly the way we have been taught how things are supposed to go according to the New Testament. Here is a link that has already been aired on tv and it is extremely interesting: Watch Videos Online | The Day I Died, Near Death Experience | Veoh.com

I was kind of hoping for a link to the science you were telling us about, I guess a tv episode is better then nothing.
After watching it, there was not much said about the evidence just telling the story of a few people. And some guy saying quantum alot. So maybe you could link to the other things you mentioned?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I thought atheists were the ones not sitting on the fence, but rather actively affirming that god(s) doesnt exist.

Depending on how you define believing, I could arguably be an atheist here.

Indeed. Most people who call themselves 'atheists' define atheism as not being part of the group who say "God exists". Weak atheists are those who neither say "God exists" nor "God doesn't exist", and strong atheists are those who actively affirm "God doesn't exist".

Belief is typically defined as the affirmation of truth. If I 'believe' in evolution, I affirm it to be true. If I believe in something for no good reason, then I arguably have faith in it. If I believe in something despite good reason not to, then I have blind faith.

So, I neither believe in God (I don't affirm "God exists"), therefore I am an atheist. Nor do I believe in no God (I don't affirm "God doesn't exist"), which further specifies me as a weak atheist.

Semantics is fun

 

[Wiccan_Child]

For years and years and years we heard accounts of people who were in death for a time and came back describing accounts and conversations that were impossible for them to have seen and heard.

We've also heard of the Loch Ness Monster. Hearsay is an unreliable source of evidence.

Now, finally, science has almost caught up and is developing the technology to verify these things. Now, maybe hardcore skeptics would not be very impressed with NDEs being scientifically verified....but....they definitely would give attention to scientific verification of evidence of 'the other side' existing from people who were clinically dead for an extended time in a medical setting.

Only if there is sufficient evidence. And why would a sceptic be anything but 'hardcore' - either you base your beliefs on the evidence, or you don't. A sceptic isn't someone who stubbornly refuses to believe, a sceptic is someone who disbelieves in the absence of evidence - I am a sceptic of evolution and quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in them.

With no blood being in the body and no brain activity.

Wait, no blood in the body? They were completely exsanguinated - and then came back to life? I find that more unbelievable than any NDE they may report.

Science is starting to prove that people can confirm vision all around their setting and hear everything that is being said and what sounds the instruments make and can even describe them. My lands.....they even found the soul/spirit and traced it out of the body and into the atmosphere!

Yeah, I doubt that. What're your sources, please?

 

[variant]

The main question about NDE's is if they relate to an afterlife or are the sorts of hallucinations we would expect from an oxygen starved brain of an unconscious person.

Since I experience unconscious hallucinations that seem entirely real to me and are sometimes very perceptive every single night, I find it likely to be the latter.

The unconscious mind is very active, and people who have NDE's are a particular kind of unconscious.

 

[JYJ]

The main question about NDE's is if they relate to an afterlife or are the sorts of hallucinations we would expect from an oxygen starved brain of an unconscious person.

Since I experience unconscious hallucinations that seem entirely real to me and are sometimes very perceptive every single night, I find it likely to be the latter.

The unconscious mind is very active, and people who have NDE's are a particular kind of unconscious.

And how does the unconscious mind, the oxygen starved brain, become aware of other goings on in or near to the same location as is the subject that the ordinary conscious brain may not detect?

And what, exactly, is a hallucination? From whence do they originate. Has a part of the brain been discovered which is home to these?

And how can it be that we sometimes hear Christians arguing against these phenomena when they, above all others, should certainly believe in the spirit world which is known to them as heaven? Is this belief a question of "yes" when it follows death but "no" when it occurs during a short time when the body is very close to death?

 

[Antarctika]

I think its more like since its not consistent with the idea of necessary salvation through christ, they have to dismiss it, or else theyre wrong.

I dont want to generalize though, some christians may think differently.

 

[JYJ]

Complicated ideas are the joy of the inquiring mind. But in this wondrous landscape we are not likely to find any "believers".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And how does the unconscious mind, the oxygen starved brain, become aware of other goings on in or near to the same location as is the subject that the ordinary conscious brain may not detect?

The same way as it always does: through the eyes and ears. The unconscious mind is always aware of these things, it just filters them out. There are numerous things that the unconscious mind knows about, but filters out from the concious mind: the eye's blind spot, repetitive background noise, and any number of optical or auditory illusions.

 

[JYJ]

The same way as it always does: through the eyes and ears. The unconscious mind is always aware of these things, it just filters them out. There are numerous things that the unconscious mind knows about, but filters out from the concious mind: the eye's blind spot, repetitive background noise, and any number of optical or auditory illusions.

Our hearing center is in the brain stem. Our hearing processing and memory centers are in the forebrain. Where is that part which, when deprived of oxygen, renders us unconscious? If consciousness is a product of the same part of the brain that processes hearing and memory then can one remain operable while the other does not? Maybe. This is something that would have many variables and certainly be "occasion and subject specific". The best way to determine the truthfulness of the NDE'er would be to use a prepared for test wherein various instruments would be in place, ready for the possibility of such an event. Not likely to happen.

To state, as you do, that the ears can work while consciousness is missing ignores other areas where the lack of oxygen is taking it's toll as well. It presupposes that there is a linear process, front to stem, which is predictable. Has this been established?

Sorry. Your statement reveals a likely predisposition for bias. Your responses to others show a certain aggressiveness which demands they come to you with evidences which you then dismiss with various statements of your own. But your answers lack believability.

In the scientific method we must never simply make a statement which fails to allow for the possibility of a multitude of variables which might modify. You have said that consciousness goes away but that hearing remains functioning. Just a statement with nothing in between??? The hearing center is in the brain stem but the memory center is in the same part of the brain as is that which turns consciousness on and off. See the remaining question? So, while hearing may exist will it be remembered? Maybe. Maybe not. Simple, all encompassing statements do not satisfy.

The proper way to study this is by testing with subjects but imagine how difficult this would be? It should rest then at the point where testimonial meets Missouri if you know what I mean. Your signature indicates scientific methodology is valued but your responses indicate only a basic knowledge of physiology wherein simplistic statements alone are sufficient.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Our hearing center is in the brain stem. Our hearing processing and memory centers are in the forebrain. Where is that part which, when deprived of oxygen, renders us unconscious? If consciousness is a product of the same part of the brain that processes hearing and memory then can one remain operable while the other does not? Maybe. This is something that would have many variables and certainly be "occasion and subject specific". The best way to determine the truthfulness of the NDE'er would be to use a prepared for test wherein various instruments would be in place, ready for the possibility of such an event. Not likely to happen.

Indeed. Nonetheless, we can test the ability for the brain to unconsciously process visual and auditory stimuli. It's interesting that there are no verifiable cases of an NDE that relates information that couldn't be acquired were the individual awake and concious - such as something unusual happening at home, rather than at the hospital.

To state, as you do, that the ears can work while consciousness is missing ignores other areas where the lack of oxygen is taking it's toll as well. It presupposes that there is a linear process, front to stem, which is predictable. Has this been established?

Methinks you misunderstood my statement.

Sorry. Your statement reveals a likely predisposition for bias. Your responses to others show a certain aggressiveness which demands they come to you with evidences which you then dismiss with various statements of your own. But your answers lack believability.

They weren't uttered to convince you. You asked a question, I gave an answer. If you have prejudged me and deemed me aggressive - something I'm genuinely baffled by - that's your business.

In the scientific method we must never simply make a statement which fails to allow for the possibility of a multitude of variables which might modify. You have said that consciousness goes away but that hearing remains functioning. Just a statement with nothing in between??? The hearing center is in the brain stem but the memory center is in the same part of the brain as is that which turns consciousness on and off. See the remaining question? So, while hearing may exist will it be remembered? Maybe. Maybe not. Simple, all encompassing statements do not satisfy.

Nor were they meant to. Your satisfaction is not my concern. You asked a simple question, I gave a simple answer. If you want a more detailed answer, ask a more detailed question. Banging on about your presuppositions of my person is hardly conducive to a civil exchange of ideas.

The proper way to study this is by testing with subjects but imagine how difficult this would be? It should rest then at the point where testimonial meets Missouri if you know what I mean.

I haven't the foggiest.

Your signature indicates scientific methodology is valued but your responses indicate only a basic knowledge of physiology wherein simplistic statements alone are sufficient.

Like I said, simple question, simple answer. My intent was not to write an essay for publication to Physiology, it was to write a short, brief answer to an even shorter, briefer question.

 

[JYJ]

Indeed. Nonetheless, we can test the ability for the brain to unconsciously process visual and auditory stimuli. It's interesting that there are no verifiable cases of an NDE that relates information that couldn't be acquired were the individual awake and concious - such as something unusual happening at home, rather than at the hospital.


Methinks you misunderstood my statement.


They weren't uttered to convince you. You asked a question, I gave an answer. If you have prejudged me and deemed me aggressive - something I'm genuinely baffled by - that's your business.


Nor were they meant to. Your satisfaction is not my concern. You asked a simple question, I gave a simple answer. If you want a more detailed answer, ask a more detailed question. Banging on about your presuppositions of my person is hardly conducive to a civil exchange of ideas.


I haven't the foggiest.


Like I said, simple question, simple answer. My intent was not to write an essay for publication to Physiology, it was to write a short, brief answer to an even shorter, briefer question.

How cavalierly you manage to burden the questioner and make him responsible for any confusion while you remain objectively disassociated and free of responsibility for anything said. "Simple question...Simple answer". Try submitting that to a professor some time and see where it gets you.

You must be a master at dodge ball but you have on an invisible jersey.

Look through the fogs by using a dictionary of colonial quips and discover the meaning, and the intent. Here is a simple answer for you... Gee that works nicely. I don't have to be resourceful any more. All I have to do is to say "simple answer" and I'm off the hook. Wow.

This exchange has gone as far as it can go. I detect no inquiring mind at your end.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How cavalierly you manage to burden the questioner and make him responsible for any confusion while you remain objectively disassociated and free of responsibility for anything said. "Simple question...Simple answer". Try submitting that to a professor some time and see where it gets you.

As I explained, my response wasn't meant to be taken as an exhaustive essay on the sum total of my neurological prowess. That you took it as such is your fault, not mine.

You must be a master at dodge ball but you have on an invisible jersey.

Look through the fogs by using a dictionary of colonial quips and discover the meaning, and the intent. Here is a simple answer for you... Gee that works nicely. I don't have to be resourceful any more. All I have to do is to say "simple answer" and I'm off the hook. Wow.

Dress it up however you want, the mistake is yours.

This exchange has gone as far as it can go. I detect no inquiring mind at your end.

Thank God. Maybe now I can go back to discussing the evidence with civilised people, instead of deflecting these asinine criticisms that my post, by virtue of being short, somehow belies a fundamental ignorance - instead of a simple desire for brevity.