Are Near Death Experiences Proof Of An Afterlife?

[Balloon guy 158]

not everything. i don't need science to prove art or music appreciation or any other value judgement that is of a subjective nature.however science is the only thing we have that has proven the least bit useful in answering questions about external objective reality, such as the one asked in the thread title.

But you would agree that all these subjective likes and dislikes have come about through evolution of our societal decisions just a compassion, empathy and deciding to allow women to vote?

[Balloon guy 158]

From what I've gathered after reading three or four threads in this forum in their entirety:Balloon guy is religious and funny, and has a good grasp on how to use metaphorical arguments. Sometimes discussion of his beliefs is taken as aggressive missionary action, to which many just get angry at.Crow, understandably, needs science to prove everything.Speedz and Randy share crow's mindset for the most part.But pretty much all of the threads have this in common:contentcontentcontentconfusion, misinterpretationNO GOD, YES GOD, NO GOD, YES GODagree to disagreesnide commentssnide commentssnide comments

I got these two covered, I'll let someone else have the last one because I'm a giver

[rdtedm 0]

not everything. i don't need science to prove art or music appreciation or any other value judgement that is of a subjective nature.however science is the only thing we have that has proven the least bit useful in answering questions about external objective reality, such as the one asked in the thread title.

The problem with using the words "objective" and "reality" is that they are also humanly defined concepts. Who are we to say that seeing is believing, and that science as we know it must explain everything? There is partial evidence of evolution, but do you really believe that through random genetic mutations we have come from microscopic bacteria to advanced, intelligent, and intricate humans? We are capable of making decisions, hypothesizing, dreaming, thinking, reacting, and of having emotions. Science, of course, is undoubtedly the most solid way we have about thinking of the world. But does that make it the only way that we can attempt to explain what we see and observe? Many can say that we don't want to think about a "higher power" or anything but science being behind everything that exists. But that is because we narrow our minds to think that science can, and will eventually explain everything just because today it's the most accepted procedure that we are able to use.To some, science is the only objective entity. To other, God and other religious beliefs are objective truth. It's about perception and belief. If you choose to believe that everything in this world is scientific and worldly explainable, then that is your path. Like BG said, it's really up to the person whether or not they want to let a little wonder in their lives.

[Balloon guy 158]

there is nothing intrinsic keeping science from explaining the beginning of our universe. it may well happen in your lifetime.

I forgot I wanted to give action on this, laying of course the standard 1,000-1 against. Please feel free to send me any amont up to and including $400 and I will cover this action

nobody is talking about personal meaning (read thread title!!!!)

Except some idiot in post #10

[rdtedm 0]

I forgot I wanted to give action on this, laying of course the standard 1,000-1 against. Please feel free to send me any amont up to and including $400 and I will cover this action

Read: BG has a net worth of at least $400,000. Thinly veiled brag post?

[Balloon guy 158]

Read: BG has a net worth of at least $400,000. Thinly veiled brag post?

Don't blow this opportunity for me to make an easy $400 off these mooks okay?

[rdtedm 0]

Don't blow this opportunity for me to make an easy $400 off these mooks okay?

:x

[Randy Reed 0]

The problem with using the words "objective" and "reality" is that they are also humanly defined concepts. Who are we to say that seeing is believing, and that science as we know it must explain everything? There is partial evidence of evolution, but do you really believe that through random genetic mutations we have come from microscopic bacteria to advanced, intelligent, and intricate humans? We are capable of making decisions, hypothesizing, dreaming, thinking, reacting, and of having emotions. Science, of course, is undoubtedly the most solid way we have about thinking of the world. But does that make it the only way that we can attempt to explain what we see and observe? Many can say that we don't want to think about a "higher power" or anything but science being behind everything that exists. But that is because we narrow our minds to think that science can, and will eventually explain everything just because today it's the most accepted procedure that we are able to use.To some, science is the only objective entity. To other, God and other religious beliefs are objective truth. It's about perception and belief. If you choose to believe that everything in this world is scientific and worldly explainable, then that is your path. Like BG said, it's really up to the person whether or not they want to let a little wonder in their lives.

Yippe me first!We don't think people come from random genetic mutations it's from natural selection. God is as objective as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.Athiests have wonder in their lives if not more.Science has reason and truth as opposed to faith wich is just wishful thinking. You can wish to believe anything you want, doesn't make it true.So, you think objectively using science to explain things is narrow minded but you think believing in the FSM is objective?

[Sal Paradise 57]

Don't blow this opportunity for me to make an easy $400 off these mooks okay?

but you won't be able to collect if you win. not quite the businessman we propose ourselves to be now are we hum ho!

[crowTrobot 2]

The problem with using the words "objective" and "reality" is that they are also humanly defined concepts.

objective = mutually verifiable. objective reality = truth about the world that is mutually verifiable external to and not subject to what an individual believes or feels. those are straightforward concepts that there is certainly no problem with in terms of the subject of this thread.

Who are we to say that seeing is believing, and that science as we know it must explain everything?

i didn't say either of those things.

There is partial evidence of evolution

say goodbye to your credibility.

but do you really believe that through random genetic mutations we have come from microscopic bacteria to advanced, intelligent, and intricate humans?

i'm not sure why anyone wouldn't. even for a religious person to think it's impossible would just be placing limits on god. also, note that while mutations are random, evolution by natural selection is not. it is the opposite of random.

We are capable of making decisions, hypothesizing, dreaming, thinking, reacting, and of having emotions.

yeah so are dolphins & chimps, to a somewhat lesser extent.

Science, of course, is undoubtedly the most solid way we have about thinking of the world. But does that make it the only way that we can attempt to explain what we see and observe?

if you'd like to propose another way that's of any use at all for anyone other than the individual employing it i'd certainly listen.

To other, God and other religious beliefs are objective truth.

you mean subjective, of course. faith by definition is about as far from objectivity as you can get.

It's about perception and belief. If you choose to believe that everything in this world is scientific and worldly explainable, then that is your path. Like BG said, it's really up to the person whether or not they want to let a little wonder in their lives.

what does wonder have to do with discovering truth about objective reality? as i said it may be helpful in discovering personal values, but those are entirely subjective. wonder is utterly useless in determining if NDE's are proof of an afterlife.also science and a sense of wonder are obviously not mutually exclusive. atheist scientists are typically just as awed by the universe and reverent of their place in it as religious people, frequently much moreso.

[rdtedm 0]

Seriously, just lol. You criticize people for having one track minds and believing things that you don't. You say often that believing things doesn't make them right, but you often do it a lot yourself.The point I was getting at is there is no way of proving or disproving anything in the grand scheme of things. No one or group of people knows everything there is to know. I see that you're basically a whitecoat, glasses wearing, test tube humping scienceman, and that's fine. I agree with science too, and I'm not saying it's "wrong". What I'm saying is that the universe is too big and unknown to rule out everything just because on our planet things are a certain way.

[rdtedm 0]

Yippe me first!We don't think people come from random genetic mutations it's from natural selection. God is as objective as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.Athiests have wonder in their lives if not more.Science has reason and truth as opposed to faith wich is just wishful thinking. You can wish to believe anything you want, doesn't make it true.So, you think objectively using science to explain things is narrow minded but you think believing in the FSM is objective?

Do you know what natural selection is?

[rdtedm 0]

objective = mutually verifiable. objective reality = truth about the world that is mutually verifiable external to and not subject to what an individual believes or feels. those are straightforward concepts that there is certainly no problem with in terms of the subject of this thread.i didn't say either of those things.say goodbye to your credibility.i'm not sure why anyone wouldn't. even for a religious person to think it's impossible would just be placing limits on god. also, note that while mutations are random evolution by natural selection is not. it is the opposite of random.yeah so are dolphins & chimps, to a somewhat lesser extent.if you'd like to propose another way that's of any use at all for anyone other than the individual employing it i'd certainly listen.you mean subjective, of course. faith by definition is about as far from objectivity as you can get.what does wonder have to do with discovering truth about objective reality? as i said it may be helpful in discovering personal values, but those are entirely subjective. wonder is utterly useless in determining if NDE's are proof of an afterlife.also science and a sense of wonder are obviously not mutually exclusive. atheist scientists are typically just as awed by the universe and reverent of their place in it as religious people, frequently much moreso.

Natural Selection is a random process. Ok, undirected if you will. Saying that there is a guiding force is giving in to the notion of intelligent design. Natural selection is completely based on random genetic mutations.

[rdtedm 0]

Let it be known that I'm not here to convince people that God is real. I don't claim to "know" fact. While I tend to side with science more than religion, I have curiosity that often leads to speculation and and acceptance/tolerance that science may not be the only truth in the universe.And earlier, by partial evidence, maybe partial wasn't the right word. I was getting at the notion that it might not solely be evolution.

[crowTrobot 2]

But you would agree that all these subjective likes and dislikes have come about through evolution of our societal decisions just a compassion, empathy and deciding to allow women to vote?

i'm talking about on an individual level. science can certainly explain subjectives statistically in terms of population dynamics/social evolution, but obviously it can't tell you what type of music you personally must enjoy listening to.

[Balloon guy 158]

I forgot I wanted to give action on this, laying of course the standard 1,000-1 against. Please feel free to send me any amount up to and including $400 and I will cover this actionExcept some idiot in post #10

but you won't be able to collect if you win. not quite the businessman we propose ourselves to be now are we hum ho!

not quite the reader we propose ourselves to be now are we hum ho!

[Balloon guy 158]

Yippe me first!We don't think people come from random genetic mutations it's from natural selection. God is as objective as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.Athiests have wonder in their lives if not more.Science has reason and truth as opposed to faith wich is just wishful thinking. You can wish to believe anything you want, doesn't make it true.So, you think objectively using science to explain things is narrow minded but you think believing in the FSM is objective?

Wait till the end when you wonder what the heck were you thinking.ZING!

[crowTrobot 2]

that science may not be the only truth in the universe.

science isn't a truth, it's just a method. we use it because it's the only practical thing we have that works at all.again, if you know of another method of discovering objective truths such as whether NDE's are proof of an afterlife or not i'd love to hear about it.

[rdtedm 0]

science isn't a truth, it's just a method. we use it because it's the only practical thing we have that works at all.again, if you know of another method of discovering objective truths such as whether NDE's are proof of an afterlife or not i'd love to hear about it.

I never claimed NDE's are proof of anything.

[rdtedm 0]

science isn't a truth, it's just a method. we use it because it's the only practical thing we have that works at all.again, if you know of another method of discovering objective truths such as whether NDE's are proof of an afterlife or not i'd love to hear about it.

Also, I'm not really familiar on any research relating to dreams or NDE's. Are there really any explanations for why we dream what we dream, or see what we see (or think we see) in NDE's? How will science ever explain something so vague and individually different? And if science fails to explain something about our universe, or ourselves, how can we claim that nothing exists past hard science?

[crowTrobot 2]

Seriously, just lol. You criticize people for having one track minds and believing things that you don't. You say often that believing things doesn't make them right

no i said believing things about external reality doesn't make them objectively true. you're using "right" in the subjective sense.

but you often do it a lot yourself.

nope. i don't actually believe anything in the sense you're talking about.

The point I was getting at is there is no way of proving or disproving anything in the grand scheme of things. No one or group of people knows everything there is to know. I see that you're basically a whitecoat, glasses wearing, test tube humping scienceman, and that's fine.

you'd probably be shocked by how much of a sense of wonder i have about the universe and the possibilities i allow room for. however that isn't a license to run wild and start believing things about the universe are objectively true without objective evidence that they are.

I agree with science too, and I'm not saying it's "wrong". What I'm saying is that the universe is too big and unknown to rule out everything just because on our planet things are a certain way.

science doesn't rule things out in the sense you are talking about. it deals in probabilites determined to the best of our knowledge. to the best of our knowledge the evidence indicates NDE's are purely physical phenomena and are not proof of an afterlife. if evidence surfaces indicating otherwise science would certainly be open to it.

[crowTrobot 2]

I never claimed NDE's are proof of anything.

but you're implying there may be a way to determine if they are or not without using science.

[Sal Paradise 57]

but you won't be able to collect if you win. not quite the businessman we propose ourselves to be now are we hum ho!

not quite the reader we propose ourselves to be now are we hum ho!

you're trying to scam scientists hum ho!

[rdtedm 0]

but you're implying there may be a way to determine if they are or not without using science.

Pretty thin interpretation. All of my chatter has been speculation, at best. I'm not siding with one thing or another.

[crowTrobot 2]

And if science fails to explain something about our universe, or ourselves, how can we claim that nothing exists past hard science?

nobody claimed that.