Are Near Death Experiences Proof Of An Afterlife?

[crowTrobot 2]

A person has a NDE, it impacts their life, and they adjust their life because of it ( not a stretch, many of those people do ), it's not real because why?

again you keep dodging questions by appealing to personal meaning of the experience when it's quite obvious nobody else is talking about that.

And btw, you have less of proof that there is no afterlife as that person does that there is.

there is a mountain of objective evidence indicating an afterlife is unlikely and zero evidence that supports the existence of one. nobody can prove either in terms of absolutes, but if you want to talk probabilities based on evidence it's no contest.

[Balloon guy 158]

again you keep dodging questions by appealing to personal meaning of the experience when it's quite obvious nobody else is talking about that.there is a mountain of objective evidence indicating an afterlife is unlikely and zero evidence that supports the existence of one. nobody can prove either in terms of absolutes,

You would think a mountain of evidence would result in a somewhat more definitive answer than...probably not.

but if you want to talk probabilities based on evidence it's no contest.

which 'evidence' gives you any clue as to the existance of an afterlife?

[crowTrobot 2]

Most NDE don't support Christian beliefs

they certainly do in the general sense. non-christians may interpret them differently, but that's another issue.the point was you (presumably) wouldn't say someone's trauma-induced internal revelation that the giant purple snorkwiller was coming from planet volumpia to save mankind was a "truimph over science unless science could authoritatively disprove it". to say the same thing about someone's trauma-induced NDE is no less crazy than saying it about anything else anyone says based purely on personal experience. personal experiences are OBVIOUSLY not reliable. they are not evidence for objective truth in any way.

but I can see why in your 'anything but an afterlife or God' philosophy of life, you would make this connection.Typical triple standard

false. i want there to be an afterlife. i'm just not the type that needs to brainwash myself to believe in one to be happy.

[crowTrobot 2]

You would think a mountain of evidence would result in a somewhat more definitive answer than...probably not.

science deals in probabilites, not absolutes. unlike religious people it is always open to changing its mind based on evidence. in this case there is more than enough evidence indicating that an afterlife is so improbable that "no afterlife" should be the default assumption by any rational person.

which 'evidence' gives you any clue as to the existance of an afterlife?

you mean non-existence? that would be that virtually all aspects of consciousness/awareness have been tied experimentally to the physical brain. it's also the implication of evolution.

[Randy Reed 0]

(

A person has a NDE, it impacts their life, and they adjust their life because of it ( not a stretch, many of those people do ), it's not real because why?And btw, you have less of proof that there is no afterlife as that person does that there is.

Okay so a person has a NDE and thinks it is a proof of an afterlife and it effects them in a positive way. Great! You do see that it is no proof of an afterlife though right? It is simply what they believe and as I and crow have said numerous times without refute that believing in something doesn't make it true. Kids have imaginary friends but do you really think an invisible purple dinosaur exists for real? Would someone in a psych ward that hears voices from Mars be evidence of life on Mars? NDE's are no different in that regard. How it effects their life is no evidence for it being real.We've been over the proof of the afterlife thing ad nauseaum as well with the design arguments, watchmaker theories and Ultimate 747 theories. If your only argument for afterlife existence is complexity it's a shallow one. I've yet to hear any other argument that's even close to reasonable.Your problem seems to be that you are in love with the idea of believing in belief and that it somehow makes the world better. I don't. It doesn't make it true. I can also argue (discuss is a better word) that we are better off being faithless.

[KramitDaToad 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7621608.stm

[copernicus 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7621608.stm

And the result will be NDEs that don't have "above and looking down" aspect so something else can be studied. What a waste of money.Like the popular (but incorrect) interpretation of Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, "measuring the NDE will change the NDE"