afrikan researchers studies of afterlife please watch!

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Given that logic seems to have no effect . . .

what would convince you that the story was true?

Posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
What evidence would it take to convince you that you are wrong about this story?

originally posted by: BO XIAN
the most rational answer is . . . nothing.

Yes, I suspected as much. How amazingly open minded of you..

I'd love to believe in life after death.

I'd change my opinion of this and the other NDE stories in a heartbeat if there were good repeatable and demonstrable evidence for any of them - experimentation under laboratory conditions and teams of scientists submitting papers that survive the peer review process, eliminating known mundane explanations and whipping up genuine scientific interest.

Something.. anything that amounts to more than a personal anecdote. Something approaching actual evidence would be nice.

You want to believe in magic, fine, just don't try and claim it's science or that you are employing critical thinking skills, because everyone can see that's not remotely true. When you're reduced to credulously believing people at their word on a supernatural claim and think the supernatural explanation is the most likely, ahead of naturalistic explanations, that's not critical thinking. At all. Seriously.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Actually, there are some decent fairly scientific treatments of the topic.

The proof is out there . . . for those really able and willing to fair-mindedly consider the evidence.

Of course, I'm not an acolyte of

the RELIGION-OF-SCIENTISM-AS-THE-ONLY-ROUTE-TO-TRULY-TRUEST-TRUE-TRUTH

meme.

I find that it obscures and prevents truth almost as much as discovers it.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

In terms of critical thinking . . . you seem to have defined

"critical thinking"

to ONLY INCLUDE

your perspective on such things.

I don't find that remotely in the ball park of truly

critical thinking.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I'd define it as -

- not taking any old claim at face value
- interrogating a claim, testing it and evaluating the quality of the evidence for the claim
- Being truly open minded (which includes exploring all explanations, not just those you like or which fit your personal bias)
- Allowing the evidence to inform your opinion
- Asking yourself, "Which seems more likely?" when faced with multiple explanations
- Being able to re-evaluate your own views in light of new evidence and recognize errors in your own thinking


ETA - here is a good little introduction to critical thinking -

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Have done all that tons . . . and

tend to routinely do so.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Have done all that tons . . . and

tend to routinely do so.

Ok great. So putting your critical thinking cap on, can you please summarize the good empirical (testable) evidence for the "Heaven is for Real" claim. Bearing in mind of course, that personal testimony is only anecdotal and does not itself qualify as testable evidence.


ETA -

I don't know how you are able to reconcile the positions -

A - "I'm a critical thinker, which includes re-evaluating my position in the face of new evidence and recognising flaws in my thinking"

and

B -"Nothing would convince me the "Heaven is for real" story is untrue"


Without at least some cognitive dissonance. How do you manage it?

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

As an addenum to this whole discussion, it just so happens that last week there was an Intelligence Squared debate on the subject.

If you would like a grounding of the various arguments pro and against NDE's, check it out.

Debate Motion: "Death is not final"

For the motion -

Dr. Eben Alexander, Neuroscientist and author of Proof of Heaven
Dr. Raymond Moody, Medical Doctor and author of Life after Life who has been studying NDE's since the 1960s and also he coined the term "Near Death Experience"

Against the motion -

Sean Carroll, Physicist and writer, PhD Harvard current faculty member at CalTech
Dr. Steven Novella, Academic Neurologist, Yale School of Medicine, co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society and editor of the website Science Based Medicine

Now personally, and attempting to put my own bias aside (I am a regular listener of Novella's Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast) I think Novella and Carroll absolutely wiped the floor with Eben & Moody, and the audience scores seem to reflect this as well, however you might have a different opinion..




PS. I'm so glad Steven Novella picked up Eben Alexander on his blatant misquote of Carl Sagan. The nerve of some people!!

I happen to have a copy of Demon Haunted World on my iPad, and what Sagan actually said was that the accounts by children of past lives was unlikely and the evidence was dubious. Somehow, Eben turned "unlikely" and "dubious" into "overwhelming".

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Great vid, big novella fan myself. The stats speak for themselves, a resounding victory in the debate.

NOPE

Defining things away is not scientific and not truly lastingly effective.

That perspective does NOT explain the business like the tennis shoe on top of the air duct in the operating room.

Pretending it does is . . . absurd pretense.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Says the man who simultaneously holds 2 logically contradictory positions at the same time..

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Not at all.

Your description of my 'reality'

is quite divergent

from what is truly my reality.

Yet that contradiction doesn't even seem to register on your consciousness.

And . . . drum roll . . .

you still fail to offer any hint of an adequate explanation in your scheme of things . . . for the tennis shoe on top of the air duct in the operating room.

Denial of that reality is . . . drum roll . . . NOT the same thing as true reality.
.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Denial of that reality is . . . drum roll . . . NOT the same thing as true reality.

Quit asking me to prove something wrong. That's an argument from ignorance fallacy and is an utterly transparent attempt by you to shift the burden of proof.

It has not been established that it is even reality. All anyone has to go on is hearsay, which you seem willing to accept unconditionally and credulously in what I can only imagine is some kind of wide-eyed sense of awe, no doubt because it agrees with your religious preconceptions and makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

You've already convinced yourself this ridiculous story is the truth and admit that you will not be swayed from this position no matter what the evidence presented - yet you insist on describing yourself as a critical thinker. These 2 things are mutually exclusive and a direct logical contradiction.

Meanwhile, the publishers, not content with the millions they made off the first book have put out a sequel, and there is a movie deal in negotiation. This is gravy train material for them, and they saw people like you coming a mile away.

I love how you insinuate everyone but you is closed minded and denying reality. Have you ever considered that you may be wrong?

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Ahhhhh the old . . .

evidence in your favor is 'solid scientific evidence.'

And evidence on the other side is automatically defined as 'hearsay.'

IMPRESSIVE trick.

a reply to: BO XIAN

The evidence isn't 'hearsay' because it's 'on the other side'. The evidence in this case is 'hearsay' because it is hearsay.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

NOPE.

A) you accept testimony from scientists that flatter your perspective.

B) you reject testimony from MD scientists that declare the specifics of the tennis shoe on the air duct to be accurate observational discovery.

Quite arbitrary.

Anyway--enjoy your perspective as long as you are able. Its half-life is decreasing rapidly.

Cheers.

a reply to: BO XIAN

More nonsense.

A)

- There is no guarantee that I will accept the word of a scientist, particularly if he is not an expert in the subject he is speaking about as I am well aware of the correct application of the authority fallacy.

- Generally speaking, when a scientist gives some tit bit of information they are either backed up or torn down by a) the scientific consensus and b) actual data (i.e more than anecdotes). In most cases, I can source the actual relevant academic paper and read through their experiments and conclusions. In some cases, if I am really eager I can go further and re-create the actual experiments or make similar observations.

- Finally, even if I do find something interesting a scientist has said, that is by no means the end of my inquiry. There are usually other areas of investigation, other scientists, other studies. How do they compare? I can find critical reviews and papers by scientific peers who believe differently.

B)

- I do not reject their testimony. I haven't even looked at it, but I have no reason at this stage to believe they are lying. However that does not mean I just accept it either as the real problem with anectdotal evidence is that by itself its unreliable and its untestable.

- They could also believe every word they say is true, yet be mistaken, or either consciously or subconsciously misrepresent facts. They may be biased for one reason or another, or have an agenda.

- I am getting this information, at best, 3rd hand. It's not coming from the horses mouths. All the problems listed above for the witnesses also applies to all those relaying this information to me.

- What supporting evidence do we have that backs up their stories?


I get it BO, the tennis shoe in the air duct super impressed you. It's the clincher, as far as you are concerned. But to expect this level of evidence to appeal to other people is unrealistic when it is not corroborated in any meaningful way.

Playing devils advocate, even if the tennis shoe bit is legit and can be shown to have been true, what does it prove? Extra sensory perception? Out of body experiences? Perhaps. It does not prove the trip to heaven and everything.

Just to recap -

- The boys pulse never stopped during the procedure. This is not an NDE as he was never dead
- The boy was raised in a highly religious setting, constantly exposed to religious imagery
- The father is the town preacher
- I see nothing odd in a 3 year old son of a pastor who listens to bible stories every day saying that while he was in surgery he went to heaven and sat on Jesus' lap
- The parents question him not over days or weeks but over YEARS. They expect him to tell them something new each time, so he does.
- The father was in a financial hole after the kids surgery, but no more thanks to book & movie deals. Convenient.
- In fact the profit generated by this whole thing, the books, the television and radio interviews, the movie deal has to be freaking gigantic, with many people getting rich because of it.
- Many of the wildest details did not come out until years later. In fact, the whole thing is very reminiscient of the false memories (aka 'recovered memories' or 'hypnotic regression' )stories of child abuse and alien abduction where it has been shown these experiences were generated in the brain but taken by some researchers at their word.


Now maybe BO you are 100% correct and the tennis shoe is the clincher and I'll learn all about that and be completely sucked in by it. But I really don't put high odds on that being the case. To me, this just seems to be one of the weakest and most blatantly made up piles of nonsense I've ever come across, and as a regular reader of ATS you just know there is some serious competition for that award..

I got to give it to your dogged perseverance though. Most posters would hang their tail between their legs and go hide for a while when they have been shown to hold two logically contradictive positions. Most people. Not you. I think you're almost proud of it..

Welcome to ATS - Embrace your ignorance...

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

NO.

I disagree with your assessment that I hold 2 contradictory positions.

I am convinced that you are inaccurate in that assessment.

And, that there's no way I can convince you otherwise.

Cheers.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Well that's not true I am always open to changing my position.

However, you did say these things and they are there for everyone to read. To recap - on the previous page when I asked you what evidence would convince you that the "Heaven is for Real" is untrue, you responded "Nothing"

Is that not a fair representation of your response?

In multiple places in the thread you also claimed your critical thinking skills were above average, and that you was a critical thinker who routinely practiced the tenets of critical thinking citing my list of some of those tenets, including the last one which was to be able to change your position in light of new evidence.

Have I misrepresented you yet in any way?

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

From where I sit, you are insisting that 2 + 2 = 5.

And I am reasonably certain that there's no way I can convince you of that. Even trying would be a long and very tedious process.

I'm not going there.

I'm reducing my posts in length and frequency . . . particularly the contentious ones. That's what I need to do to take care of myself.

I may feel constrained to briefly state a difference of perspective and note an em-pass.

That's not the same as tediously backing up my perspective with chapter, verse and algebraic/geometric proof.

Some understand where I'm coming from and why. That will have to do.

I do appreciate your civility and your dogged efforts to be reasonably fair and logical. I just know from hard long experience that such a perspective is . . . VERY . . . resistant to change. And I'm increasingly rarely up for that sort of effort.

I do appreciate that you seem able to at least CONCEIVE of the shoe example being a reasonable and impactful data point. That's impressive. Congrats on that.

The shoe example is but one. It's not my sine qua non on the topic. It's just a very very simple and starkly clear example. The facts are all straightforward and well researched from all directions and all participants.

LOL. It did take some doing. The hospital folks were resistant to checking the air duct. When they did, they were stunned.

Anyway--have a blessed week. I'm going to bow out. Not at all in a huff. It's just what I need to do to take care of myself.

Cheers.

I would like to restate . . . the issue of Colton not being clinically dead is a moot point, a straw dog. There are many thousands of folks who have not been in an accident or ill at all and yet they've had a visit to Heaven or a dream or vision equal to such a visit. Many such have also had extremely incontrovertable factoids arise out of their experience which are inexplicable apart from a truly supernatural experience. That's just a fact.

You sound like you have not read the book. I encourage you to read it. If you are truly fair-minded, you might be surprised at your response.