Are near-death experiences merely illusions ?

[psyche101]

54 minutes ago, skliss said:

Just because your religion is science doesn't mean you are right. 

Science isn't a religion. Most people are aware of that actually. Religious people struggle to acknowledge a natural universe, its like they need to be ruled. 

Quote

My sister and her husband have experienced exactly what I said within the scientific community

Then it's one heck of a dodgy community that they belong to. They might want to get involved with more professional communities if they think ID is science. It's not. 

Quote

and I'm not sure why you think they need to convince you of anything.

I didn't say I need convincing. I don't. I invited you to invite them to discuss how they could possibly think ID is science or that no refutation of a cultural story is any sort of evidence contrary to a natural universe. I say they are full of bunk and must be poor scientists to say ID has any validity at all. 

Quote

You can link, i can link it doesn't change what I said

Yes it does. It supports what I said and refutes your claims. 

Opinions don't change facts, but facts should change opinions. If one is rational that is. 

Quote

but it does always seem curious to me the lengths non-belivers go to as if they are so insecure in their belief. Always makes me think they have some underlying doubts about it

Really, yet you felt need to comment with some wild claims. This doesn't apply to you for what reason? It's a skeptic discussion forum. I find it curious how believer's make grand proclamations and claim others have doubts when challenged in a forum designed for debate. 

I'd say it's the believers who have doubts. They cannot support claims and tend to lose debates pretty much 100% of the time. Perhaps believers recognise how bad their arguments are and are trying to conscript people with brains to support them. 

[psyche101]

37 minutes ago, Habitat said:

So underlying in fact, that they have no inkling that the doubts are there. Having doubts is good, and it certainly does not oblige anyone to sign up to any dogma, by admitting to them.

So underlying that they don't actually exist. Only your butt hurt imagination does to make such self serving tripe up to begin with. 

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

So underlying that they don't actually exist

I'm not saying you are being dishonest in saying that, you just don't have cognizance of the fact that doubts are involved, it does not make sense to be banging on about something you are "certain" does not exist.

[onlookerofmayhem]

@Alchopwn

Nowhere in any of the links you provided could I find any mentions of the studies detailing the results of OBEs occurring at the same time as the individual was proven to have no brain activity. 

Could you please specifically point out where these are located?

[psyche101]

30 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I'm not saying you are being dishonest in saying that, you just don't have cognizance of the fact that doubts are involved,

Do you have any idea how self serving your being right now? It's not enough that you project your doubts, but now your problems too? 

This is how we all know that you are an unstable individual. You keep forcing your failings onto others. Anyone with half a brain can see you're talking about yourself. Except you, but I guess the qualification of the observers explains that.

30 minutes ago, Habitat said:

it does not make sense to be banging on about something you are "certain" does not exist.

It makes perfect sense as that is exactly what this forum is designed for. I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. But then again, you do tend to default to the whacky. 

It obvious to all but you that you're trying to recruit a critical mind to support your imagination You fail there as well. 

[+DieChecker]

21 hours ago, eight bits said:

I never reach the question of whether the stories are bunk, because whether they are truthful, fabricated or something in between, the stories as presented are irrelevant to the announced topic of the thread. First, the stories are anecdotes, and second, they are identical to stories offered in support of other alleged phenomena which if those other things actually ever happened, then they would fully explain the claimed feats whether or not people don't really die.

I'd argue that the stories are not irrelevant. They are the only reason the thread exists.

I'd agree, if they happened. If they happened, then 100% they are an observation and evidence. If they are a trick, then it should be possible to show how it was done.

I've not seen people say how it was done. I've seen people say it was lies, or set up ahead of time, or just random chance. None of which have any evidence of being true, other then they are non supernatural. The consensus from many is anything is more believable the the supernatural... because they dont believe it that.

Quote

study dreams. A lot. I couldn't tell you how many times I have encountered the claim "I dreamt something and it came true." As if dreams were some kind of portal to the Wonderland of Woo. You know. like "almost" dying is supposed to be a portal there, too.

Die, it's the same fracking claim. 

I'd agree it is the same claim, but if it can be shown to not be a trick? Then just dumb luck? Is there any real difference in appearance between dumb luck and divine intervention, for practical point of discussion?

Quote

Yes, and normatively so. Whenever no useful evidence is presented, then there is nothing but opinion to discuss. That is the situation here. We have amusing anecdotes, humorously light on the gee-whiz factor ("I almost died and found a quarter!"), but instead of arguiing that dreams come true, the current storytellers wish to argue that death is an illusion.

So, your not so much arguing the anecdotes as the supposition they supposedly support?

[Habitat]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

we all know that you are an unstable individual.

I thought "we" (the Team) doesn't exist, according to you ?

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

It makes perfect sense as that is exactly what this forum is designed for

The forum is designed to bang on about things that don't exist ? Interesting slant.

[+DieChecker]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Sorry still not following. I said I have no doubts, that is regarding evidences, and that my prejudices are well founded. 

That's because I question things. So no, not seeing it. I didn't say I have no question, which would still be very different from questioning claims. 

So "no doubts" and "no questions" are not the same for you?

I can see where you are coming from. The post was just ironic funny to me. No problems....

[psyche101]

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So "no doubts" and "no questions" are not the same for you?

I can see where you are coming from. The post was just ironic funny to me. No problems....

All good. I feel questions are the only way to approach doubts. Not the same, one resolves the other. To doubt something is to find it unlikely. A question is open to either doubt or confirmation. 

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Science isn't a religion. Most people are aware of that actually. Religious people struggle to acknowledge a natural universe, its like they need to be ruled. 

 

This is true. But I've know people... undereducated, ignorant people, who have invoked it in the same way.

"Because... uh... because.... SCIENCE!"

Usually for things they dont understand, but that they think they know about.

Edited August 23, 2019 by DieChecker

[psyche101]

Just now, DieChecker said:

This is true. But I've know people... undereducated, ignorant people, who have invoked it in the same way.

"Because... uh... because.... SCIENCE!"

That's everybit as bad as goddidit. Science might have a good track record but it's open to all. There's no good reason for not presenting why it's relevant to any discussions. 

[+DieChecker]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

That's everybit as bad as goddidit. Science might have a good track record but it's open to all. There's no good reason for not presenting why it's relevant to any discussions. 

Ignorant people are going to be ignorant. Regardless if the follow science, religion, or both.

[psyche101]

31 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I thought "we" (the Team) doesn't exist, according to you ?

No, I was referring to anyone with at least half a working brain. 

Yeah Hab, the entire world is out to get you, but you're not paranoid or anything............ 

Quote

The forum is designed to bang on about things that don't exist ? Interesting slant.

Yes. Do you think Bigfoot, Atlantis and mermaids exist? They get discussed a lot, just like ghosts gods and the great morse code office in the sky. 

You know what's interesting? 

That such a basic concept continues to escape you whilst you hypocritically bang on about others who are debating just as you are. You're rather 'special' in that regard Hab. Window licking crayon eating special. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by psyche101

[psyche101]

14 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Ignorant people are going to be ignorant. Regardless if the follow science, religion, or both.

Yes, we see too much of that don't we...... 

Although you would have to admit its predominant with religious/spiritual posters as opposed to the academically inclined though. Here at least. Past present, and no doubt future. 

[Habitat]

20 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No, I was referring to anyone with at least half a working brain. 

Yeah Hab, the entire world is out to get you, but you're not paranoid or anything............ 

Yes. Do you think Bigfoot, Atlantis and mermaids exist? They get discussed a lot, just like ghosts gods and the great morse code office in the sky. 

You know what's interesting? 

That such a basic concept continues to escape you whilst you hypocritically bang on about others who are debating just as you are. You're rather 'special' in that regard Hab. Window licking crayon eating special. 

One senses an element of resentment, that wouldn't be there, if doubts weren't. But "we all" certainly wouldn't accept that !

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

One senses an element of resentment, that wouldn't be there, if doubts weren't. But "we all" certainly wouldn't accept that !

I don't understand. You're not exactly charming and cordial. You are belligerent. How would any normal person find that endearing? How many posters do not resent your behaviour would be a more pertinent question wouldn't it? 

 All I doubt is your ability to act in a respectful manner and learn new things. But they say you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Seems they were right whoever they are. 

[Habitat]

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I don't understand.

Ask the team

[psyche101]

12 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Ask the team

Might take some time to ask everyone on earth except you and PG. 

[Habitat]

5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Might take some time to ask everyone on earth except you and PG. 

The papa seems like a fine gentleman to me.

[+Liquid Gardens]

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

If they are a trick, then it should be possible to show how it was done.

I've not seen people say how it was done. I've seen people say it was lies, or set up ahead of time, or just random chance. None of which have any evidence of being true, other then they are non supernatural.

I'm not following your thinking here, if the claim isn't actually true then I don't know why you think it should be possible to show how it was done, since there is no 'trick' to actually explain.  I uttered a druid spell and teleported to work this morning; if it's a trick then it should be possible to show how it was done.  Proceed if possible, but you're not going to incorporate the possibility that I'm lying/misunderstood my experience because it's not evidence that it's not true, only that it's not supernatural?

 

[XenoFish]

10 hours ago, skliss said:

Wha? No one is saying anything remotely like that...you say these things are still happening to you and you deal with it by ignoring and denial. But you also say it's torturous... I thought you might benefit from some help. I do tend to forget there are people who enjoy their misery and may be you're one of those...so....do whatever you want. 

It's not a matter of denial. It's a matter of it being objectively real or not. 

[+DieChecker]

8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Yes, we see too much of that don't we...... 

Although you would have to admit its predominant with religious/spiritual posters as opposed to the academically inclined though. Here at least. Past present, and no doubt future. 

Here at least. Too much ad hominem and not enough actual thinking about what is being written. Though that is true of some on both sides to degrees.

[+DieChecker]

4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm not following your thinking here, if the claim isn't actually true then I don't know why you think it should be possible to show how it was done, since there is no 'trick' to actually explain.  I uttered a druid spell and teleported to work this morning; if it's a trick then it should be possible to show how it was done.  Proceed if possible, but you're not going to incorporate the possibility that I'm lying/misunderstood my experience because it's not evidence that it's not true, only that it's not supernatural?

 

That the base assumption is these reports are untrue is what is wrong. The base assumption should be true, and the a conclusion follows the evidence. That the evidence is piled against is true, but that doesn't excuse a bad initial assumption.

Did you actually teleport. Did someone watch you do it?

Someone witnessed these predictions being made and found to be correct.

If that person is real or not is the actual question.

It has been implied by other posters that it may have been chance, or actually seen, but not consciously remembered. So the prediction was real, and find was real, but not supernatural in origin.

I can see that possibility. I simply not dismissing the supernatural.

THOUGH.... I've maintained in the past that those who need such verification are probably not going to be helped by it. They will fail in their Faith anyway, IMHO. Those who have strong Faith dont need evidence, and aren't worried that there is none. Frankly, I'd be scared to death if there was actual good scientific evidence of God, or just the supernatural.

Edited August 23, 2019 by DieChecker

[+Liquid Gardens]

15 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

That the base assumption is these reports are untrue is what is wrong. 

I think you are making an assumption about the base assumption here.  It's not a 'base' assumption that what is being reported is incorrect, it's a tentative conclusion from what little evidence, or complete lack thereof, for the idea that it is correct.  It's not like we don't have any facts and history concerning these claims, namely that after decades/centuries and 'thousands' of claims, no one yet has provided any good evidence of anything supernatural.  If someone says there's a real Bigfoot outside in the parking lot, is the base assumption that it is untrue 'wrong'?

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Did you actually teleport. Did someone watch you do it?

Someone witnessed these predictions being made and found to be correct.

If that person is real or not is the actual question.

Then sure, 'someone' watched me teleport, since whether that person is real or not isn't the actual question.  I may be lost on your example though, do you know or did you witness these 'someones' who witnessed and verified these predictions?  Or is that just another unverifiable claim being offered to 'support' the initial unverifiable claim, like I just did with claiming a witness for my teleportation?

29 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

THOUGH.... I've maintained in the past that those who need such verification are probably not going to be helped by it. They will fail in their Faith anyway, IMHO. Those who have strong Faith dont need evidence, and aren't worried that there is none.

Perhaps, but faith is usually invoked for religious matters where the religion itself praises/requires one to have faith in order to understand the 'truth'.  That doesn't apply to a lot of supernatural events; no one I know of says you have to have faith in order to believe houses are haunted or to have encounters with ghosts or poltergeists.

[eight bits]

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I'd agree, if they happened. If they happened, then 100% they are an observation and evidence. If they are a trick, then it should be possible to show how it was done.

Working backwards, I'm not getting where the idea of "trick" comes into it. All we have are reports; there's no performance here for us to criticize. One person said something, a second person said that what the first person said was shown to be true. It is self-evident how it is possible for two reports to have been made.

There is nothing in the reports that logically connects finding an everyday object in an unusual place, looking there because somebody told you to, with anybody's personality surviving death. Nobody died in these stories. That the predicting person was very sick at about the time they think they found out about the unusual location of the object is evidence of what, in your view? Why is this different from an ordinary dream report about coins or shoes turning up in the darnedest places, and by golly, they sometimes do?

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I've seen people say it was lies,

That's a harsh reading of Joe's behavior in my hypothetical. Speech is a social activity, and like any social activity, the same behavior serves different purposes in different contexts. For example, when your lady love inquires whether her jeans make her look fat, she is not necessarily seeking information. You are not lying to say No, regardless of the mere facts of the matter. (And guys, too, ask questions whose candid answers aren't the point of asking.)

Hypothetical Joe went along with something, and maybe got into deeper water than he initially bargained for. Stuff like that happens in the real world. That's one of the reasons why anecdotes, especially anecdotes without opportunity to question the reporter, carry so little weight in serious investigations.

But yes, I did invoke the shade of David Hume, and a fair reading of Hume is that yes, now that you mention it, some people probably have lied about this sort of thing.

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I'd agree it is the same claim, but if it can be shown to not be a trick? Then just dumb luck? Is there any real difference in appearance between dumb luck and divine intervention, for practical point of discussion?

It's not just "dumb luck" that things like this sometimes happen (whether with dreams or other private mental states). What would require divine intervention, IMO, is somehow to orchestrate things so that the riot of disjoint imagery that unspools four or five times a night for just about everybody would never "resemble" anything that occurs the rest of the day.

What happens next is conscious selection. No luck, no chance, and no need to disturb the divine. "Holy sugar! He said I'd find a shoe up here on the roof and there it is!" Out comes the cell phone, and off the image goes to Farcebook, from where it goes viral. As opposed to what happens if somebody goes to the roof and can't find a shoe up there, >crickets<.

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So, your not so much arguing the anecdotes as the supposition they supposedly support?

I think I'm arguing both.

Edited August 23, 2019 by eight bits