If science proves NDE are just caused by brain chemicals, would that make you less likely to believe, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 9-10-2012 @ 01:21 PM by chelle21689

Thanks! I guess it's all still mysterious and I don't understand...we won't understand. Science and Faith argues a lot over this and I think there are questions on ALL sides that we can try to come up with to defend what we believe.

Here is the video of Through the Worm Hole, not sure if you've seen it but I think it's a good video for those who are interested. It doesn't say "NDE is real" or "NDE is false" but leaves it up to you and just presents you documents and facts.

www.youtube.com...

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 03:25 PM by TheBandit795

reply to post by chelle21689

Seems like Keith Augustine himself is being debunked.

With regards to the Pam Reynolds case (Woerlee also being debunked):

michaelprescott.typepad.com...

www.ianlawton.com...

Further links:

www.parapsychologyandtheskeptics.com...

www.victorzammit.com...

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 03:46 PM by chelle21689

Originally posted by TheBandit795
reply to post by chelle21689

Seems like Keith Augustine himself is being debunked.

With regards to the Pam Reynolds case (Woerlee also being debunked):

michaelprescott.typepad.com...

www.ianlawton.com...

Further links:

www.parapsychologyandtheskeptics.com...

www.victorzammit.com...

Awesome, thanks I'll read it. My mind is fried from too much thinking lol.

reply posted on 11-10-2012 @ 01:28 PM by eveshi

What each of us need to realize is that there are several behaviors that significantly lower the level of discourse:

1. Derision, smugness
2. Ridicule, ad hominem
3. Sarcasm
4. Putting the twist on people's words to make their arguments sound simple-minded or dumb
5. Failing ever to cede a point
6. Evading questions or providing intentionally vague answers
7. Attribution of fallacies to argumentation
8. Attribution of dishonesty
9. Attacks at motivation
10. Passive aggressive tone or behavior

There are more I could list, but I think everyone understands the jist of theses points. This said, each of us have likely engaged in one or more of these behaviors. My very reply to your post is aggressive and self-righteous, but only because I perceived yours to be unnecessarily uncomprising and rigid.

The fact is this: if participation in this forum and discussion with its members is something you value, that there is evidence for the paranormal (or what can variously be called by that label) is something you will need to toss away. We are here to debate whether or not the evidence is enough to convince each of us, but an acceptance of the term "evidence" is counter-productive and frankly, rude. And given the state of that evidence, it is fully acceptable for a skeptic to call it by that name, or even to say that it is compelling. It is also acceptable for a advocate to say that it is interesting and there, but not yet compelling, wrong and flat-earthed thinking as they are.

It is not however reasonable, given the state of lack of evidence for psi, for someone who is acquainted with it or who has spent significant time on this forum to say that it is "right", "proved", "existent", etc without offering significant justification. If this is someone's opinion after seeing it and hearing it defended on these boards then they may be on the wrong forum.

In the tradition of the best advocates and counter-advocates, parapsychology has never been respected as a science, the evidence has never been acknowledged to be at least intriguing, and the researchers have been paid no respect. We need to follow in that tradition.

edit on 10/11/2012 by eveshi because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 11-10-2012 @ 01:49 PM by adjensen

reply to post by eveshi

... and you felt the need to post this because?

You just joined today, you have no other posts in this thread, and you seem to be spamming all of the recent NDE threads. What's your agenda?

reply posted on 11-10-2012 @ 02:09 PM by eveshi

Originally posted by TheBandit795
reply to post by chelle21689

Seems like Keith Augustine himself is being debunked.

With regards to the Pam Reynolds case (Woerlee also being debunked):

michaelprescott.typepad.com...

www.ianlawton.com...

Further links:

www.parapsychologyandtheskeptics.com...

www.victorzammit.com...

Thank you but I firmly disagree. To quote KA himself.

"Again, you are stating something trivial that I never denied: of course the issue is whether existential dependence is true. My argument is that the neuroscientific evidence is best explained by existential dependence. There's no begging the question involved. Begging the question is assuming without argument. But there is an argument. In fact, the various heuristic criteria you mention in passing later--like simplicity, scope, predictive success, etc--are precisely those that render the productive hypothesis a better explanation of the data."

I have never seen this concept of KA's proper materialism debunked. I could be wrong but I usually are not.

edit on 10/11/2012 by eveshi because: spelling

reply posted on 11-10-2012 @ 02:16 PM by TheBandit795

reply to post by eveshi

Looks to me like you're only out to attempt to debunk NDE threads. Right or wrong???

reply posted on 11-10-2012 @ 02:19 PM by adjensen

reply to post by TheBandit795

I flagged them, but I'll also point out to you that his posts are plagiarized from another site. The one I replied to above is from here: forum.mind-energy.net...

It's not missing an "EX" flag -- he's rewritten the last bit of it to make it say something different than the author intended.

reply posted on 11-10-2012 @ 02:20 PM by eveshi

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by eveshi

... and you felt the need to post this because?

Fair question thanks for asking.

Don't we have a responsibility to present an accurate picture of the research; a sober analysis of the anecdotal evidence; a fair representation of the information available? Are we getting that from our self appointed defenders of psi? I don't believe that we are. This forum does not reflect the world at large: what gets discussed here gets dismissed out of hand outside. Opinions stated openly here are routinely sneered at by psi-proponent columnists and parascience bloggers.

reply posted on 11-10-2012 @ 02:21 PM by eveshi

Originally posted by TheBandit795
reply to post by eveshi

Looks to me like you're only out to attempt to debunk NDE threads. Right or wrong???

At this point, the only interest i have in ATS is NDE but, if necessary, I can debunk OBEs as well. Is that against TOS, OBE debunking?

reply posted on 11-10-2012 @ 02:22 PM by adjensen

Originally posted by eveshi

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by eveshi

... and you felt the need to post this because?

Fair question thanks for asking.

Don't we have a responsibility to present an accurate picture of the research; a sober analysis of the anecdotal evidence; a fair representation of the information available? Are we getting that from our self appointed defenders of psi? I don't believe that we are. This forum does not reflect the world at large: what gets discussed here gets dismissed out of hand outside. Opinions stated openly here are routinely sneered at by psi-proponent columnists and parascience bloggers.

Plagiarized from here: forum.mind-energy.net...

reply posted on 11-10-2012 @ 02:28 PM by eveshi

reply posted on 11-10-2012 @ 02:35 PM by adjensen

reply posted on 11-10-2012 @ 02:57 PM by TheBandit795

reply to post by eveshi

So is it worth wasting time and energy debating with you if you're only out to debunk and not to discuss, then?

reply posted on 11-10-2012 @ 03:52 PM by eveshi

Originally posted by TheBandit795
reply to post by eveshi

So is it worth wasting time and energy debating with you if you're only out to debunk and not to discuss, then?

Why would debunking not include discussion? I would suggest the best way to debunk is to provide evidence that disallows the proponents' beliefs. (Assuming you are a proponent/believer, if I am wrong, I apologize).

reply posted on 12-10-2012 @ 08:24 AM by TheBandit795

reply to post by eveshi

I rest my case.

reply posted on 12-10-2012 @ 07:36 PM by lonewolf19792000

reply to post by chelle21689

Believe me, if I could make myself believe in this I would but it looks like science is winning here...

Not really, science actually confirms scripture, just 99% of people do not know what theyre looking at so they do not see the science. I never believed in that NDE stuff to begin with, so it's not going to bother me one whit. The people it will bother are people who use that as a crutch to supplement their weak faith on. I also studied the paranormal 10 years before i even became a christian and it is a fact there are a great many things science cannot explain, such as how a person can be levitated in mid air and thrown across the room like a rag doll by nothing but apparently something is there we can't see, often times they growl, or be scratched by things we cannot even see while people watch and video it happening on the spot. Naturally people try to rationalize the irrational, lie to themselves that certain things do not exist so they can get to sleep at night, otherwise they'd never sleep again. One such case by a man named Don Decker who was possessed by a demonic entity, who could make it rain inside buildings and houses, and make the rain fall from the floor to the cieling and defy the natural laws of physics and gravity.

reply posted on 12-10-2012 @ 11:54 PM by ahnggk

It can't be just chemicals, once God showed me something very fearsome and yet so spectacular in a vision. I've never seen it before.

The exact same image turned up in one of Hubble Space Telescope's image database.

reply posted on 13-10-2012 @ 12:33 PM by chelle21689

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by chelle21689

Believe me, if I could make myself believe in this I would but it looks like science is winning here...

Not really, science actually confirms scripture, just 99% of people do not know what theyre looking at so they do not see the science. I never believed in that NDE stuff to begin with, so it's not going to bother me one whit. The people it will bother are people who use that as a crutch to supplement their weak faith on. I also studied the paranormal 10 years before i even became a christian and it is a fact there are a great many things science cannot explain, such as how a person can be levitated in mid air and thrown across the room like a rag doll by nothing but apparently something is there we can't see, often times they growl, or be scratched by things we cannot even see while people watch and video it happening on the spot. Naturally people try to rationalize the irrational, lie to themselves that certain things do not exist so they can get to sleep at night, otherwise they'd never sleep again. One such case by a man named Don Decker who was possessed by a demonic entity, who could make it rain inside buildings and houses, and make the rain fall from the floor to the cieling and defy the natural laws of physics and gravity.

I used to be Catholic. Not trying to offend you at all, but I don't understand how people can still believe the bible.

reply posted on 14-10-2012 @ 02:37 PM by lonewolf19792000

reply to post by chelle21689

I used to be Catholic. Not trying to offend you at all, but I don't understand how people can still believe the bible

I'm not catholic, and i've only been a christian for just under 2 years. I was agnostic before. People can still believe the bible because science has begun to corroborate it via archeaology. The tombs of Christ's Apostles are being found. Simon Peter, Judah, Simeon, Lazarus, Mary, Martha, Andrew and Phillips tombs have been discovered (Phillip in Turkey near Heliopolis and the others discovered on the Mt. of Olives outside Bethany) with his aramaic name Yeshua carved into their ossuaries and crosses etched into them as well. For years nonbelievers used to say there was no evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate when ancient historians like Tacitus mentioned him, and some time ago an inscription dating back 2000 years was found in Caesarea, a place where Jesus preached often, bearing the inscription in Roman letters "Pontius Pilate Prefect of Judea" on it prving yet again the historical accuracy of the scriptures.

There is science in the bible, but most people do not know what theyre looking at and so they miss it, thinking it some bedouin's b.s. campfire stories they don;t think to take a second glance to see what lies "between the lines".

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^