Near Death Experience: A Damaging Lie?

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Well what that 'tells' you is besides the point.

Do you have anything other than anecdotal tales to confirm your claims?

Because then you'd be breaking new ground on this superstition.

Well this would sound extremely cruel and unusual to me if said to a person lying in a hospital bed who having just cheated death has had on of the most profound and happily exciting experiences in their life.

This is yet another way that Atheism fails basic room #101 test in the morals and ethics department.

Science is to sympathize with the experience in order to investigate and understand it before they can claim something in fact didn't happen.

What?!? The point of science isn't to sympathize... It's to measure and cataloge facts... Where is sympathy used in any experiment lmao..


"Did you guys add the sympathy to the LHC before y'all started it up?"


Lmao :p

a reply to: Entreri06

yes... a consciousness, one either has it or they don't.

It also distinguishes us form the lower life forms being that as far as we know, the humans are the only species able to ponder their own existence.

and write about it...

originally posted by: AinElohim
Well this would sound extremely cruel and unusual to me if said to a person lying in a hospital bed who having just cheated death has had on of the most profound and happily exciting experiences in their life.

The truth can indeed be cruel and unusual. Welcome to planet earth....

This is yet another way that Atheism fails basic room #101 test in the morals and ethics department.

This has nothing to do with atheism so yet again you're talking from between your butt-cheeks.

Science is to sympathize with the experience in order to investigate and understand it before they can claim something in fact didn't happen.

Science is a tool for investigating the world around us, sympathy has nothing to do with it. Such claims have been investigated and have found nothing to substantiate the myriad of claims of life after death or NDEs.

We've never encountered a mind that wasn't within a squishy, meaty brain. Ever.

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: Entreri06
You gotta hate those people who blindly believe whatever they hear with zero evidence in it's favor.... I mean it's not like every human on the planet for the last 15,000 years (at least) has been hunting for some proof.... Any proof there religion is true . Only to never have come up with one credible shred of evidence in all of human history.


I have yet to see these science bozos show one example of these mysterious cars, trains and microwaves they have been theorizing......


Lol just lol

The evidence is in...

It can not be denied that yet one more thing theistic religion offers that atheism does not is... a conscious

I believe you meant to type conscience? And your statement is grossly without evidence of any kind to back it up.

originally posted by: Entreri06
The point of science isn't to sympathize... It's to measure and cataloge facts... Where is sympathy used in any experiment lmao..

Gathering "these" facts in cases of "morality" which is not a scientific field of study, requires the scientist to be sympathetic in gaining said facts.

So like life in every way... for to understand how a tree grows does the scientist go cut it down?

originally posted by: Klassified
I believe you meant to type conscience? And your statement is grossly without evidence of any kind to back it up.

If I did not see an injustice would I have even commented?

This thread not even moving yet we can use as a microcosm...

We have 2 individuals who are not sympathetic to the plight of the person who just had an NDE.

PS; I believe I spelled it correctly

a reply to: Prezbo369

lacking sympathy in my opinion is also lacking a wholesome consciousness...

again this is only from observed data I have gathered in fact.

originally posted by: AinElohim
a reply to: Entreri06

yes... a consciousness, one either has it or they don't.

It also distinguishes us form the lower life forms being that as far as we know, the humans are the only species able to ponder their own existence.

and write about it...

Not really true... There is a very clear and defined intelligence ladder amongst the earths animals. We might be the smartest, but not by as much as you are saying. There is no bold line that distinguishes us from the other intelligent animals. We are barely smarter then chimps or dolphins evolution wise. We are just awsome tool users.

How can we know that chimps and dolphins have no concept of self?

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: Entreri06
The point of science isn't to sympathize... It's to measure and cataloge facts... Where is sympathy used in any experiment lmao..

Gathering "these" facts in cases of "morality" which is not a scientific field of study, requires the scientist to be sympathetic in gaining said facts.

So like life in every way... for to understand how a tree grows does the scientist go cut it down?

There are thousands of scientific studies on morality... It's called Psycology.....

originally posted by: Entreri06
How can we know that chimps and dolphins have no concept of self?

It just doesn't appear that they have some kind of wall they keep going back to on the ocean floor which contains a vast store of their knowledge? That's why I added "humans write about it" so that is one way we can distinguish.

Ignorance is not that which I seek to deny, rather I would embrace it and sympathize with it, and do everything I could do to pull it out of the darkness where it resides.

a reply to: Ignatian
Im an atheist and I fully believe in NDEs as well as open to the idea of a creator, not open to 2000 year old scroll. Us atheists come in degrees just like the religious, we all aren't closed minded, some of us have hope. A means no. theist=Theology and usually in a religious sense, so it basically means that I don't believe in the stories but I can believe in a "God" or "Goddess" or anything else I want, Im not bound by a name or a title, the religious make it convenient for themselves so why cant I ? There are tons of recounts of NDEs and I know they are real to the people I just don't know how long the experience lasts.

If you compare American to Thai near death experiences, it is obvious that culture and beliefs shape the interpretation of near death experiences, which in every case is the effect of a stressed and dying body.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If you compare American to Thai near death experiences, it is obvious that culture and beliefs shape the interpretation of near death experiences, which in every case is the effect of a stressed and dying body.

Very good point. If culture reflects the NDE experience, then that would indicate that it's the brains response in a time of deep distress, i.e the dying body.

There have been interesting tests done though, leading some scientists to believe the mind is independent of the brain. I will dig it up and link it here, if I can find the articles.

I think most ANY experience a person has, wether alive or dying...their "culture and belief shape the interpretation". That's obvious.

That being said, the stories people tell, after "coming back" can't be explained away. They know things, or have seen things that they should not have known or seen. They were "dead". So how do they know? This is the crux of the matter for our secular, worldly society where God is not an optional explanation.

So, how do they know things they should not know, due to the fact they are dead?





a reply to: LesMisanthrope

There are far too many compelling cases of near death experiences for me not to believe. People come away from their experiences transformed and no longer fear death afterwards. People who were dead could see and hear what was going on in other rooms, or seen something that could only be seen at a certain height etc.

a reply to: AinElohim

Well this would sound extremely cruel and unusual to me if said to a person lying in a hospital bed who having just cheated death has had on of the most profound and happily exciting experiences in their life.

Can you give me one example of a person who just cheated death(died and was resuscitated) who was ecstatic immediately afterwards?

NDEs are the way people cope with immense trauma.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I do not think you are quoting me?

---

ok that is me, duh! lol sorry I was doin' politics you know how that is...?

Well this would sound extremely cruel and unusual to me if said to a person lying in a hospital bed who having just cheated death has had on of the most profound and happily exciting experiences in their life.

I do believe you are taking my quote out of context.

I think it is unusual for the naysayers to show such insensitivity to the ecstatic newly resurrected person on their hospital bed or even multiple years after the NDE.

This person may still be trying to contemplate the experience.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Can you give me one example of a person who just cheated death(died and was resuscitated) who was ecstatic immediately afterwards?

am I supposed to be going and searching for this to post for you now?

at any rate the naysayers mine as well be doing just that to the newly resurrected person.

sometimes my exampleism must go straight to the gist...

a reply to: AinElohim

You could have simply have said "no".

I know of resuscitated people, but I don't know of any "resurrected person".

It must be a cult thing.

a reply to: Grimpachi

After 80mins in death in Sweden I don't know...

We will have to ask if they personally felt resurrected or resuscitated?


RESURRECT
transitive verb
1: to raise from the dead
2: to bring to view, attention, or use again

www.merriam-webster.com...

I don't think the difference has anything to do with atheism's little cult... it's just different ways of expressing te same exact thing.