Are Near Death Experiences Proof Of An Afterlife?

[rdtedm 0]

nobody claimed that.

But you don't seem to leave room for anything but that which can be explained by science.

[Balloon guy 158]

you're trying to scam scientists hum ho!

Yea you're right...$400 is way out of their league, should have said $4

[crowTrobot 2]

But you don't seem to leave room for anything but that which can be explained by science.

no, i just don't believe personal internal revelation is a useful method for determining objective reality, and i'm not aware of any other non-scientific method or even how one could exist. that's why i'm asking.

[crowTrobot 2]

Yea you're right...$400 is way out of their league, should have said $4

i'd be happy to put $400 in a mutual escrow account if you put in 400k

[Sal Paradise 57]

Yea you're right...$400 is way out of their league, should have said $4 hum ho!

fyp hum ho!

[crowTrobot 2]

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.

you have the common misconception that non-random implies guided by intelligence. natural selection is both non-random and non-guided. you should study it more. it's fascinating even if you don't buy into it 100%.

[Randy Reed 0]

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?

Here was a thread about NDE's that has alot of information and is an interesting read as well.http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...showtopic=78990

[Randy Reed 0]

Do you know what natural selection is?

I'm sure crow has finished my thought. I should have pasted your whole sentance and said we haven't mutated genetically from bacteria into humans and explained natural selection in the process.

[Randy Reed 0]

You do still live in Ohio...

See, more proof of natural selection!

[Balloon guy 158]

See, more proof of natural selection!

I grew up fishing smallmouth bass and trapping muskrats on the Licking river in Newark and raising cows in Utica so I can never really hate on Ohio.Chalk that one up to another joke that ws funnier in my head at the moment then it turned out to be.Talk about a long list

[speedz99 145]

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

I find it funny that you equate "science is capable of explaining all mysteries in the universe given unlimited time and resources" with "the universe was created by an invisible man in the sky that watches us to make sure we don't do anything against the rules, in which case we will be sent to a place to be tortured for all eternity". I mean...they aren't really the same thing. Both for sure involve some measure of faith, but one is based on knowledge and experience and the other is based on absolutely nothing concrete. If someone like BG wants to believe in god, fine...but let's not put them on the same level in terms of how far of a leap of faith they are making.And, like crow said, I don't think that "god created everything so whatever" involves more wonder than "let's learn how everything works so we can figure out what's going on in the universe".

Do you know what natural selection is?

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.

You're still confusing mutation with natural selection. Natural selection is not random. And while it doesn't necessarily have one direction that it "tries" to lead towards, it is also not really accurate to say that it is undirected. It's also not completely based on random genetic mutations in the first place. Not to be an ass, but you could stand to brush up on your understanding of how evolution works. It could help clear up a few things for you.

i'd be happy to put $400 in a mutual escrow account if you put in 400k

Uh oh...will BG put his balloon money where his mouth is?I'll agree to hold the money for you both until either the discovery is made or one of you dies. Or until I want to buy a house.

[Balloon guy 158]

Uh oh...will BG put his balloon money where his mouth is?I'll agree to hold the money for you both until either the discovery is made or one of you dies. Or until I want to buy a house.

My lawyer clearly told me that the offer I made allows me to hold all monies until such time as science discovers the cause for the big bang effect, or crow dies.However, should I win the tri state lottery, and in winning go to vegas, bet it all on red 22 and hit, twice, I will of course send you the $400K to hold until crow dies.

[copernicus 0]

Do you think that there's anything science will never be able to fully explain?So you're going with the "perception is reality" argument...which is fine as long as you understand that perception is most definitely not always reality.Somehow I'm pretty sure you're all wrong about this one.

I think youve missed his point by 180 degrees. Perception is totally unreliable, much less "reality". The best our brains can do is intepret the inputs, but it has no independent way to determine if those inputs are "real", or if his interpretation of those inputs is the same as everyone elses interpretations of those inputs.IMO, NDE's have been quite satisfactorily explained in terms of the release of chemicals that cause psychotic episodes..ie they are hallucinations. If you want to imbue them with more meaning than an LSD trip, then you need some external verification that you weren't just tripping.

[speedz99 145]

I think youve missed his point by 180 degrees. Perception is totally unreliable, much less "reality". The best our brains can do is intepret the inputs, but it has no independent way to determine if those inputs are "real", or if his interpretation of those inputs is the same as everyone elses interpretations of those inputs.IMO, NDE's have been quite satisfactorily explained in terms of the release of chemicals that cause psychotic episodes..ie they are hallucinations. If you want to imbue them with more meaning than an LSD trip, then you need some external verification that you weren't just tripping.

You're agreeing with me right after saying that I missed his point...so I'm not sure what's going on here. Hell, I can't even be sure who you think "he" is since you quoted me responding to two different people. Assuming that "he" is Balloon Guy, he said that a person's perception can't be quantified by science and is therefore as good as reality (not in those exact words, but it seems pretty clear to me that BG thinks there are personal experiences that are outside the realm of objective study and therefore are as good as truth to that specific person). I (mildly) disagreed with that point and said that, while science can't tell people what to think about their own experiences, it doesn't mean they are in fact "reality". You seem to agree with me. So...what?

[copernicus 0]

You're agreeing with me right after saying that I missed his point...so I'm not sure what's going on here. Hell, I can't even be sure who you think "he" is since you quoted me responding to two different people. Assuming that "he" is Balloon Guy, he said that a person's perception can't be quantified by science and is therefore as good as reality (not in those exact words, but it seems pretty clear to me that BG thinks there are personal experiences that are outside the realm of objective study and therefore are as good as truth to that specific person). I (mildly) disagreed with that point and said that, while science can't tell people what to think about their own experiences, it doesn't mean they are in fact "reality". You seem to agree with me. So...what?

i was referring to rdtetm's post, which you interpreted as "perception = reality" and I interpreted as "perception cannot = reality" because it is totally subjective. I think we do agree, but "perception = reality" is not the way to describe it.

[speedz99 145]

i was referring to rdtetm's post, which you interpreted as "perception = reality" and I interpreted as "perception cannot = reality" because it is totally subjective. I think we do agree, but "perception = reality" is not the way to describe it.

Ok, I guess this is where I was confused. You quoted my response to Balloon Guy...I don't think I ever responded to rdtetm, so I don't think I could have interpreted anything he said incorrectly (since I never even tried). I interpreted BG as saying that when science can't explain something "perception = reality", and I disagreed with that.I do think that, in the end, we agree.

[Balloon guy 158]

Ok, I guess this is where I was confused. You quoted my response to Balloon Guy...I don't think I ever responded to rdtetm, so I don't think I could have interpreted anything he said incorrectly (since I never even tried). I interpreted BG as saying that when science can't explain something "perception = reality", and I disagreed with that.I do think that, in the end, we agree.

I see why you can try to make the claim that experience = to science in determining truth, but if you don't qualify that with 'when science is incapable of determining truth' then you are just straw manning me.And I won't be straw manned!

[speedz99 145]

And I won't be straw manned!

ORLY?

[Randy Reed 0]

I see why you can try to make the claim that experience = to science in determining truth, but if you don't qualify that with 'when science is incapable of determining truth' then you are just straw manning me.And I won't be straw manned!

Yes you will and you'll like it.ExperienceEverything you percieve is threw your senses, feeling, hearing, seeing, smelling and tasting. As they come in you form them into a perception. People then take a numerous perceptions and form them into a larger conception. When you talk about experience you are refering to the physical conceptions you have formed in your brain thus experience is nothing but a physical process. To claim that experience somehow triumphs scientific theory as a way of explaining NDE's doesn't make sense.

[speedz99 145]

Yes you will and you'll like it.ExperienceEverything you percieve is threw your senses, feeling, hearing, seeing, smelling and tasting. As they come in you form them into a perception. People then take a numerous perceptions and form them into a larger conception. When you talk about experience you are refering to the physical conceptions you have formed in your brain thus experience is nothing but a physical process. To claim that experience somehow triumphs scientific theory as a way of explaining NDE's doesn't make sense.

NOT IF YOU FEEL IT IN YOUR SOUL!!!

[Balloon guy 158]

Yes you will and you'll like it.ExperienceEverything you percieve is threw your senses, feeling, hearing, seeing, smelling and tasting. As they come in you form them into a perception. People then take a numerous perceptions and form them into a larger conception. When you talk about experience you are refering to the physical conceptions you have formed in your brain thus experience is nothing but a physical process. To claim that experience somehow triumphs scientific theory as a way of explaining NDE's doesn't make sense.

Well until science tells a guy that had a NDE what happened with authoritive proof, than I guess that his experience will triumph over your week science theory every day now won't it?WON'T IT?

[crowTrobot 2]

Well until science tells a guy that had a NDE what happened with authoritive proof

for practical purposes that has already happened. NDE's have been tied to same chemical changes in the brain that result in other trauma-induced hallucinations.

than I guess that his experience will triumph over your week science theory every day now won't it?WON'T IT?

obviously you wouldn't say that about trauma-induced internal experiences that don't support christian belief. typical double standard.

[Randy Reed 0]

Well until science tells a guy that had a NDE what happened with authoritive proof, than I guess that his experience will triumph over your week science theory every day now won't it?WON'T IT?

No it won't. I asked my imaginary friend if it he was proof of a soul and he said NO!What you are talking about with experience is nothing more than a feeling some person might have had while under trauma. They chose to believe that that feeling was evidence of an afterlife. They chose to believe in belief. But it's actually feelings vs. truth. They are not the same thing. I or you can believe as hard as we want for something to be true, but it has nothing to do with whether it is or not.

[Balloon guy 158]

for practical purposes that has already happened. NDE's have been tied to same chemical changes in the brain that result in other trauma-induced hallucinations.obviously you wouldn't say that about trauma-induced internal experiences that don't support christian belief. typical double standard.

Most NDE don't support Christian beliefs, but I can see why in your 'anything but an afterlife or God' philosophy of life, you would make this connection.Typical triple standard

[Balloon guy 158]

No it won't. I asked my imaginary friend if it he was proof of a soul and he said NO!What you are talking about with experience is nothing more than a feeling some person might have had while under trauma. They chose to believe that that feeling was evidence of an afterlife. They chose to believe in belief. But it's actually feelings vs. truth. They are not the same thing. I or you can believe as hard as we want for something to be true, but it has nothing to do with whether it is or not.

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.