It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why so many people–including scientists–suddenly believe in an afterlife

page: 9
36
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you, not me.




posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   

WarminIndy

sleepdealer
What a silly title. "Aging scientists" or "people who have had NDEs and happen to be scientists" would have been more accurate.
Your idea of "proof" is equally amusing. It's like claiming to have proof of a place I dreamed of just because it felt real in my dream. Don't get me wrong, that place might indeed exist somewhere but to say that my dream is undeniable proof of its existence is ludicrous.


So what makes it proof, the existence of a place you dreamed about? So your dream isn't proof that a place exists, but if you have never been there, how do you know the place really exists?

Would you dream of Paris, France because Paris, France is real? If you have never been to Paris, France and dream about being there, then how do you know it is Paris, France?

But if you dream about being on a street in Paris, France, and you don't the name of the street, and one day you go to Paris, France and stand on that street suddenly remembering your dream, was that precognition or deja vu? Dreams contain precognition, so how it is there can be no place in the afterlife?

If a place in the afterlife does exist and people have been dreaming dreams of precognition of it, then go there to experience it, then it is as viable as any other place. That is more proof to me than someone saying "imagine" a world. Didn't John Lennon tell you to imagine no heaven and no hell? How did he know there was no such place, from imagination?

And if you can take it from his imagination, then why not believe those who have been there and back? Is it because you don't want anything that removes your belief in John Lennon's imagination? You simply don't believe because your imagination won't allow you yet.


Your France analogy is not accurate at all and your argument screams confirmation bias. There are hundreds of reasons why our brains might have invented the possibility of an after life or why we interpret our experiences in that light. One of the functions of REM sleep is emotional regulation, in the same manner it's possible that humans' obsession with immortality during NDEs is meant to comfort their worst fears.
Also, you keep talking about imagination and faith when clearly my discourse is based on the need for substantial evidence, which OP claims already exists (it really doesn't- not yet).
edit on 5-11-2013 by sleepdealer because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-11-2013 by sleepdealer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by sleepdealer
 



clearly my discourse is based on the need for substantial evidence, which OP claims already exists (it really doesn't- not yet).

I maintain that thousands upon thousands of NDEs that have currents of 'sameness', experienced by people who are alive NOW, but were DEAD (or thought to be dead) is "Substantial Evidence."

You can laugh at it all you want. There is evidence.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


No, that is not substantial evidence, not in the scientific sense. It's almost like saying that just because thousands of psilocybin users have had the same hallucination of aliens during their trips is proof that those aliens exist (actually, that's way less implausible). However many people recognize the fact that they are archetypal "entities" and don't take them literally. Also, how is it a surprise to you that we dream/hallucinate along the same lines?
edit on 5-11-2013 by sleepdealer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by sleepdealer
 


That's your opinion, and you didn't answer whether or not you've STUDIED it. MANY scientists and philosophers and researchers have done so, and continue to accumulate, sift through, and identify commonalities.

But, if you want to call us "silly", I can't stop you. (The mods can if you ratchet it up to truly insulting, but so far, it's your opinion ONLY, and an apparently superficial one based on your own bias.)
/shrug



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by sleepdealer
 



No, that is not substantial evidence, not in the scientific sense.

If that were the case, then there would be no scientific study of dreaming, BUT THERE IS. BECAUSE IT IS PROVEN THAT EVERYONE DREAMS. Scientifically proven. Long time ago.

Get up to speed before trolling the threads with naysayings and brief attacks with no substance.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   

sleepdealer
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you, not me.


I'm afraid the burden of proof is upon you, because you were the one who made the statement in your post.

You said "they were most likely hallucinating" and since was your statement, as though it is fact, although an assumption on your part, you still need the burden of proof for your statement.

If you make the statement, then by all means support your statement. You made it, prove it.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   

wildtimes
reply to post by sleepdealer
 



No, that is not substantial evidence, not in the scientific sense.

If that were the case, then there would be no scientific study of dreaming, BUT THERE IS. BECAUSE IT IS PROVEN THAT EVERYONE DREAMS. Scientifically proven. Long time ago.

Get up to speed before trolling the threads with naysayings and brief attacks with no substance.


You make me laugh sometimes....

My worthy adversary (only on ATS sometimes, not always), I am constantly amazed how people demand the burden of proof when they make statements such as that. "I tell you it is this way only" and then demand proof from us when they can't even provide proof for their own statements.

sleepdealer,

wildtimes and I may be on opposite sides of the fence sometimes, we at least give indication of why we hold these views. So, since you are capable of making statements based in bias, can you show us why you hold these views? Where's the proof that your view of hallucination is the cause?

wildtimes,

Thank you for the many times you have given information for all facets of your worldviews. At least you are honest in not making random statements. Trolls are assumptive agents, they love assumptions, even the assumption we think they are clever. Another droll troll, trying to be clever.

When does it ever end? Maybe droll trolls should stick to yahoo comments about the Kardashians. It seems they thrive on that. Maybe Miley twerking, that seems to be a good troll place to be.

ATS has designed that posters should supply something for their statements. Otherwise it goes against the spirit of ATS. Trolls, trolls, everywhere...



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

sleepdealer
They were, more than likely, merely hallucinating.


sleepdealer
your so-called proof is nothing but the fruit of imagination wrapped up in insecurities.


sleepdealer
I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you, not me.


Wrong.

YOU said that the people were hallucinating. YOU said 'imagination wrapped up in insecurities' So it's up to YOU to prove that the people were hallucinating, that it was all imagination and that they were somehow insecure.

BTW ... good luck with proving the 'insecurities' thing. Wildtimes and I both have our degrees in the psychology field. So you'll have to pull a rabbit out of a hat to be able to out-psychology us. I've got my school text on the psychology of dying all warmed up and ready to go ...


(text - The Last Dance, Encountering Death and Dying - 6th Edition)
Hey ... I'll go get my Jung books out as well. It'll be a bloodbath.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Sleepdealer is asking for and discussing empirical evidence from empirical research that uses the scientific method of observations of repeatable experimentation under highly-controlled conditions. Results from this method are considered more fact based and representative of reality.

Wildtimes and others are discussing anecdotal evidence and empirical research from the past and currently ongoing today. For some truly astounding empirical research, the annals of the 'British Society for Psychical Research' offer some truly astonishing results. From the Victorian era through to the present, no psychical research and its results have been accepted by mainstream science.

For research from long ago try the following link....

www.cfpf.org.uk...

For present day research try...

www.horizonresearch.org...

Wildtimes makes the point regarding the similarities in the shared accounts by disparate strangers having undergone a NDE. All report the same core elements (although no one experient experiences all the elements of NDE), an occurrence that is not as strongly shared within daily dreams, nor as coherently or as lucidly, nor whilst the physical body is in stress of the death process. These reported similarities really are evidence of a phenomenon.

IF NDE was simply a natural inbuilt comforting mechanism that occurs to the sentient awareness whilst the physical body was undergoing the death process, one could reasonably expect the ratio figure for NDE experients to be far higher than the current 18% of the population. It should happen to everyone, because as a natural inbuilt comfort mechanism everyone should have it? Until one has answered the questions, one really ought not make a decision either way.

I have made a conclusion which remains my stance, because I have studied the subject and currently stand at an impasse I cannot bridge. I have yet to come across research that helps me to overcome my impasse.
edit on 5/11/13 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/11/13 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/11/13 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by elysiumfire
 


Elysium

sleepdealer made the statement that requires empirical evidence on his part. He made the statement they were hallucinating, so we are simply asking to provide the empirical evidence they were hallucinating.

He made the statement, let him prove his statement. If he can't then perhaps he should not be posting in a forum that requires support of our statements?



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

You should have been more specific. I thought it was one of those "bring us proof that life after death/god does *not* exist" so-called arguments.
To answer your question, I think the most compelling evidence in this regard is provided by the fact that NDEs have been reproduced in lab by giving participants' '___' (have you read "Fire in the brain" by Ronald Siegel?) or ketamine. It is still unclear what the exact mechanism is, but a similar substance may be released during NDEs and attach to neurotransmitter receptors in the same manner.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

PROOF that at least some (if not most) NDEs are not hallucinations ....

People who are dead pop out of their bodies and witness things that they couldn't possibly have witnessed from inside their dead body. They describes scenes and conversations that take place outside the room they were in or they describe things from the point of view from looking down from the ceiling (like seeing things on top of shelves that couldn't be seen from the medical gurney that the body was laying on). These are later verified. So no ... those aren't hallucinations. They are the soul of the person traveling to those places and seeing what is happening.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


LOL FlyersFan,

I just thought, I don't have a degree in psychology. I am just a lowly filmmaker and article writer about films. But I know how psychology functions in film.

How many people do you know explain the world by film references? A lot do. Psychology and film, interesting study.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by sleepdealer
 



It is still unclear what the exact mechanism is, but a similar substance may be released during NDEs and attach to neurotransmitter receptors in the same manner.

And that disproves that NDEs are part of the dying experience? IT IS STILL UNCLEAR from neuroscience, yes. But it is VERY clear that the mechanism EXISTS, in our brains. It does NOT indicate there's no consciousness afterward.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

sleepdealer
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

You should have been more specific. I thought it was one of those "bring us proof that life after death/god does *not* exist" so-called arguments.
To answer your question, I think the most compelling evidence in this regard is provided by the fact that NDEs have been reproduced in lab by giving participants' '___' (have you read "Fire in the brain" by Ronald Siegel?) or ketamine. It is still unclear what the exact mechanism is, but a similar substance may be released during NDEs and attach to neurotransmitter receptors in the same manner.


How do you explain Astral Projection? They used to call it Transcendental Meditation. As I am a skeptic of every claim of Astral Projection, there are some that can't be dismissed, because they have been able to visit places and report accurately what they saw. The same applies for Remote Viewing.

There must be something reliable about Remote Viewing if in atheist Communist Russia, they relied on it for spying.

Remote Viewing became a big deal when people discovered the United States government was investing studies and employing it. So if Astral Projection and Remote Viewing are possible, then why not NDEs?



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by elysiumfire
 


But humans experience the same archetypes during drug-use, for example. Doesn't the fact that our brains are wired very similarly explain why, under extreme conditions- i.e. drug intoxication, NDEs- we experience the same imagery? As for the 18%- just like dreams, some may not remember their NDEs.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by elysiumfire
 



one could reasonably expect the ratio figure for NDE experients to be far higher than the current 18% of the population. It should happen to everyone, because as a natural inbuilt comfort mechanism everyone should have it? Until one has answered the questions, one really ought not make a decision either way.


I have dreams EVERY NIGHT, vivid, sequential dreams - like "where were we? Oh, yeah, I needed my tooth fixed" two nights ago in a dream where I was attending a convention. Then last night I proceeded to floor 2 only to find the waiting area FULL....so I decided to go elsewhere...

It is proven that EVERYONE DREAMS, but NOT everyone remembers their dreams. Some do, like me. Others do not. They say, "I never remember my dreams." But we ALL dream. Therefore, not all dreamers remember their dreams.

I see this as parallel to the NDE 'reporters' - my working premise is that the more 'tuned in' to one's subconscious (like through meditation, dream journaling, practicing lucid dreaming, etc), the more likely it is that one will "report" an NDE.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by sleepdealer
 



But humans experience the same archetypes during drug-use, for example. Doesn't the fact that our brains are wired very similarly explain why, under extreme conditions- i.e. drug intoxication, NDEs- we experience the same imagery? As for the 18%- just like dreams, some may not remember their NDEs.

Right. So, the fact that not everyone will remember a NDE is explained.

Are you aware of how drugs "work" on the brain? Our brains have "receptors" (for example, cannabinoid receptors) that are "stimulated" by ingestion of the substance which they "receive and recognize." It is also proven that the brain has the capacity to MAKE THOSE SUBSTANCES on its own; therefore, as you just said, drug intoxication may 'reproduce' what is already going on in a way that makes it less "subconscious" and more "conscious."

We all have adrenaline - but do all of us recognize when it's "turned on"? Like, "wow, I'm having an adrenaline surge" and paying attention while it dissipates.

I think many, many people are just not "tuned in" to their body's 'involunatary' functioning. Doesn't mean everyone doesn't have that 'involuntary function', only that not everyone RECOGNIZES it, (or as in the case of dreams REMEMBERS it).



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Perhaps NDEs are just (meaningful) out-of-body experiences. You are correct but anyone who's had a few OBEs also knows that they are often accompanied by hallucinations or at least errors in perception. I am convinced that our brains are capable of fantastic things, but to jump to conclusions and make assumptions about the immortality of our souls (!!) is too much.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join