Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
sees

NDE: A skeptic neurosurgeon experienced this!

277 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

papageorge1
1 minute ago, TashaMarie said:

Ah okay thank you.  I do not believe in an afterlife and have not for many years.  And if I am totally honest with you a became a happier person once I stopped believing.  I know to little about NDE to make any comments.

Complete nothingness to become of yourselves and all your loved ones makes you happier? Versus a positive afterlife. What is your thinking, I'm curious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TashaMarie
Just now, papageorge1 said:

Complete nothingness to become of yourselves and all your loved ones makes you happier? Versus a positive afterlife. What is your thinking, I'm curious?

But what is a positive afterlife?  What makes it so much better than this life?  

The only thing that worries me about death is leaving behind my family and friends and how my death will affect them. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, TashaMarie said:

But what is a positive afterlife?  What makes it so much better than this life?  

 But we are comparing an afterlife to nonexistence. You are saying the future nonexistence of yourself and family makes you happier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

 But we are comparing an afterlife to nonexistence. You are saying the future nonexistence of yourself and family makes you happier. 

Some prefer honesty to self delusion even of it's not what one might choose if given the choice 

What you're actually confused about here is self respect. It strikes me that TashaMarie appears to respect herself too much to lie to herself.

I'd rather a mundane reality than a glamorous fantasy. I guess paranormal supporters just don't roll that way. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TashaMarie
6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

 But we are comparing an afterlife to nonexistence. You are saying the future nonexistence of yourself and family makes you happier. 

I do not think I am efficient enough with my written words to explain what I mean in order for you to understand where I am coming from.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Some prefer honesty to self delusion even of it's not what one might choose if given the choice 

What you're actually confused about here is self respect. It strikes me that TashaMarie appears to respect herself too much to lie to herself.

I'd rather a mundane reality than a glamorous fantasy. I guess paranormal supporters just don't roll that way. 

My intellectual honesty tells me that the afterlife is real beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence. I would also choose honesty over comforting beliefs.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
3 minutes ago, TashaMarie said:

I do not think I am efficient enough with my written words to explain what I mean in order for you to understand where I am coming from.

Fine. I won't press the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
38 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

My intellectual honesty tells me that the afterlife is real beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence. I would also choose honesty over comforting beliefs.

Tired of hearing this nonsense affirmation.

You do not choose honesty, you welch on bets, your intellectual pursuits are limited to fringe believer sites and discredited ex professionals who failed in their respective fields, often offering opinion well outside their outdated expertise.

You start with a conclusion and seek any nonsense to support it. I don't know why you think your comments would fool anyone. Perhaps they are affirmations too. 

Physics refutes the afterlife. Simple as that. It doesn't matter what your hopes and dreams are, they won't change that solid fact. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
13 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Really?  "Science says it is true"?  That sentence it the most obvious and most commonly used sentence to refute something without even knowing anything about the scientific method.  Just because a scientist hasn't proven it does not mean anything, and extrapolating something as true based on unproven is a deflection and weak argument.   Where is the scientific body of work that makes it true?  You aren't stupid but you act stupid quite often with your boasting and insisting that you know things you don't know.  Quit pretending like science is a person or as if it is irrefutable, as the conclusions based on science change every time we have a new set of scientists looking at something with fresh eyes and new understanding.  Humans are always biased and anytime "scientists prove" something it is based on current understanding.   Science does not say anything.

Over the last 10 years I've posted hundreds of academic medical and scientific   sources showing t it is true  if you don't believe it do your own research  It is now so accepted that it is part of curricula in modern western hospitals and universities  

The trouble is that this is NOT boasting, and you are arguing from  ignorance.

  Ie even a little research will show the thousands of peer reviewed case studies from  around the world and the many meta studies which have shown this to be the case 

hey hey I am just using the science based arguments which those who don't believe in religion and  spirituality  like to use.

 It is SCIENCE which has proven that a positive faith and spirituality (and/or regular church attendance )add up to 10 years to a life expectancy and improve the physical and psychological well being of humans.

it is science which has shown that people recover from  illnesses more quickly and completely, and tha t even physical traumas heal faster, and there is a higher rate of survival and remission from  cancers 

  It is science which has shown that faith can reduce pain perception by 30%  or more and thus  reduce reliance on strong painkillers 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
6 hours ago, TashaMarie said:

But what is a positive afterlife?  What makes it so much better than this life?  

The only thing that worries me about death is leaving behind my family and friends and how my death will affect them. 

ah ive commented on this before 

People who dont "find joy"  in this life don't see the point of an after life 

Really for  most  people in the west a t least  an afterlife shouldn't have to be better than this life. (only as good as this one) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Some prefer honesty to self delusion even of it's not what one might choose if given the choice 

What you're actually confused about here is self respect. It strikes me that TashaMarie appears to respect herself too much to lie to herself.

I'd rather a mundane reality than a glamorous fantasy. I guess paranormal supporters just don't roll that way. 

Non existence vs after life

Who is to say one is truth, and one delusion?

Who is to say WHICH is true and which delusion?  

You've constructed your own belief and are prepared to defend it.

However it is NOT a factual position which can be proven by evidences  (neither position is) 

Ps Why not have the best of both worlds ? (A "glamorous" reality) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
27 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Non existence vs after life

Who is to say one is truth, and one delusion?

Who is to say WHICH is true and which delusion?  

You've constructed your own belief and are prepared to defend it.

However it is NOT a factual position which can be proven by evidences  (neither position is) 

Ps Why not have the best of both worlds ? (A "glamorous" reality) 

I AM THE ONE TO SAY.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TashaMarie
2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

ah ive commented on this before 

People who dont "find joy"  in this life don't see the point of an after life 

Really for  most  people in the west a t least  an afterlife shouldn't have to be better than this life. (only as good as this one) 

Okay first of all I find a lot of joy in this life.  I also see the huge amount of pain and hate.   

And yes, if I am going to live eternally in one form or another it had better, be a better happier more caring afterlife or what is the point?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I AM THE ONE TO SAY.

Yep i figured that :) 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, TashaMarie said:

Okay first of all I find a lot of joy in this life.  I also see the huge amount of pain and hate.   

And yes, if I am going to live eternally in one form or another it had better, be a better happier more caring afterlife or what is the point?

My point was that our lives here today should be filled with love, peace,  joy, wonder, purpose, hope,  etc 

When that is the case then "more of the same " is all we require. 

When our lives here are filled with pain(emotional or physical)  suffering, loneliness, lack of purpose, or meaning etc., then of course we hope for something better.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
44 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Yep i figured that :) 

Just jealous you didn't call it first hey :P

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
11 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

My intellectual honesty tells me that the afterlife is real beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence. I would also choose honesty over comforting beliefs.

Unfortunately, there’s no evidence of any kind of afterlife. 

There are a number of stories, but nothing which can be classed as evidence.

Honesty would render your position moot, as honesty would surrender you to the idea that when we die, our bodies biological functions will end.

It can be profound to accept mortality. Many need belief of an afterlife though. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Over the last 10 years I've posted hundreds of academic medical and scientific   sources showing t it is true  if you don't believe it do your own research  It is now so accepted that it is part of curricula in modern western hospitals and universities  

The trouble is that this is NOT boasting, and you are arguing from  ignorance.

  Ie even a little research will show the thousands of peer reviewed case studies from  around the world and the many meta studies which have shown this to be the case 

hey hey I am just using the science based arguments which those who don't believe in religion and  spirituality  like to use.

 It is SCIENCE which has proven that a positive faith and spirituality (and/or regular church attendance )add up to 10 years to a life expectancy and improve the physical and psychological well being of humans.

it is science which has shown that people recover from  illnesses more quickly and completely, and tha t even physical traumas heal faster, and there is a higher rate of survival and remission from  cancers 

  It is science which has shown that faith can reduce pain perception by 30%  or more and thus  reduce reliance on strong painkillers 

I don't care about the subject you used the sentence in I care about the words you used.  You are an avid reader but you seem to not understand what you read.  "The science proves it". Is a LIE, use your words proving you are as educated as you claim.   That is a lazy way to start a refutation or response to a refutation.  Like I said before that sentence indicates a lack of understanding about what science is and has no value if you are trying to prove a point.  Just cut it out!  (and that goes for "science proved it isn't" as well)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
14 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

f one believes in an afterlife from NDE evidence and finds later that it is not true afterlife evidence because of new scientific knowledge, then one may experience a depressing disappointment. So by holding no expectation one can not get disappointed. So even if there is good evidence it is better to still not believe.

This may be at a psychological level not even directly acknowledged.

Okay, psychology is a science and unlike paranormal studies there are more than 3-4 experts, so it would be interesting if you had anything to back up this specific 'may be'.  On the skeptic side, it is not at all difficult to find psychologists' views and explanations of motivated reasoning on the other hand and the effect of 'what we want to believe' on our rationality.

Furthermore, as far as your concern about 'bias towards the evidence', it looks like believers are still in the lead.  There is of course a flip side to your 'so even if there is good evidence skeptics may still not believe because they don't want to be disappointed', which is, 'believers find the idea of there being no afterlife disappointing, so even if there is no good evidence they still believe'.  Thus concerning the bias from not wanting to be disappointed, believers and skeptics seem to be equal. 

However, what is at issue is something that skeptics would normally want to believe in also, a 'positive afterlife' is something we can argue every person wants partly if for no other reason than it's tautological (if people didn't want it then it wouldn't be 'positive').  So even though both skeptics and believers may view a positive afterlife as desirable, the bias from this can only be affecting one side.  A skeptic can charge, 'maybe believers believe in NDEs even though the evidence is poor because they so strongly want/need a positive afterlife to exist', but the counterpart statement is not equal to that; it is:  'skeptics don't believe in NDEs even though the evidence is so good despite their wanting to believe in a positive afterlife'.

Yes, I know, " 'but maybe' the bias to avoid disappointment in skeptics is greater than in believers and overwhelms this other bias to want to believe in something positive", but we don't have any evidence supporting this 'skeptics are biased to avoid disappointment' theory at all currently.  So as I indicated above there's no reason to suspect that skeptics are biased by trying to avoid disappointment any more than believers are, but skeptics are not being biased by 'I hope there is a positive afterlife' which is a possible bias for believers.  Believers: 2, Skeptics: 1 (this is Bias Golf, you want a low score...).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
4 hours ago, Timothy said:

Unfortunately, there’s no evidence of any kind of afterlife. 

There are a number of stories, but nothing which can be classed as evidence.

Honesty would render your position moot, as honesty would surrender you to the idea that when we die, our bodies biological functions will end.

It can be profound to accept mortality. Many need belief of an afterlife though. 

I consider stories evidence and information for consideration. And here is one website with some of the evidence I have fairly considered: Afterlife Evidence

Anyway, I am just being honest to myself with the evidence and reasoning over more material and thought than I can link to in a reply post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
15 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Okay, psychology is a science and unlike paranormal studies there are more than 3-4 experts, so it would be interesting if you had anything to back up this specific 'may be'.  On the skeptic side, it is not at all difficult to find psychologists' views and explanations of motivated reasoning on the other hand and the effect of 'what we want to believe' on our rationality.

Furthermore, as far as your concern about 'bias towards the evidence', it looks like believers are still in the lead.  There is of course a flip side to your 'so even if there is good evidence skeptics may still not believe because they don't want to be disappointed', which is, 'believers find the idea of there being no afterlife disappointing, so even if there is no good evidence they still believe'.  Thus concerning the bias from not wanting to be disappointed, believers and skeptics seem to be equal. 

However, what is at issue is something that skeptics would normally want to believe in also, a 'positive afterlife' is something we can argue every person wants partly if for no other reason than it's tautological (if people didn't want it then it wouldn't be 'positive').  So even though both skeptics and believers may view a positive afterlife as desirable, the bias from this can only be affecting one side.  A skeptic can charge, 'maybe believers believe in NDEs even though the evidence is poor because they so strongly want/need a positive afterlife to exist', but the counterpart statement is not equal to that; it is:  'skeptics don't believe in NDEs even though the evidence is so good despite their wanting to believe in a positive afterlife'.

Yes, I know, " 'but maybe' the bias to avoid disappointment in skeptics is greater than in believers and overwhelms this other bias to want to believe in something positive", but we don't have any evidence supporting this 'skeptics are biased to avoid disappointment' theory at all currently.  So as I indicated above there's no reason to suspect that skeptics are biased by trying to avoid disappointment any more than believers are, but skeptics are not being biased by 'I hope there is a positive afterlife' which is a possible bias for believers.  Believers: 2, Skeptics: 1 (this is Bias Golf, you want a low score...).

It seems my comment has aroused your attention. We, including myself I think in particular, are careful observers of the world and people around us and we each form our theories from observation and consideration. I presented one theory that I never claim applies to everyone but is a thinking defense mechanism that does apply to some. And those 'some' may not acknowledge it in their higher thinking levels.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

It seems my comment has aroused your attention.

And vice versa.

7 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

We, including myself I think in particular, are careful observers of the world and people around us and we each form our theories from observation and consideration.

And yet people go to school for a significant amount of time to become psychologists/psychiatrists/neurologists, so mere layman 'careful observation' is apparently not sufficient since anyone can do that.  Why should we think we have any more expertise concerning psychology just because we possess a mind than we have expertise on cardiology just because we have a heart?

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I presented one theory that I never claim applies to everyone but is a thinking defense mechanism that does apply to some. And those 'some' may not acknowledge it in their higher thinking levels.

We don't know that this specific case applies to 'any' actually let alone 'some'.  For a skeptic, the biases are in conflict - the bias to believe in something positive is being countered by the bias to not be disappointed, which doesn't apply to a believer where these two biases are linked and 'maybe' reinforce each other arguably making their bias that much worse and corrupting.  And again psychology is not still in it's 'trying to determine if there is a phenomenon to study' stage like paranormal scientific studies are, so just appealing to any possibility you can think of isn't as appropriate since by this time we should have some study or expert opinion at least concerning this.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
8 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I don't care about the subject you used the sentence in I care about the words you used.  You are an avid reader but you seem to not understand what you read.  "The science proves it". Is a LIE, use your words proving you are as educated as you claim.   That is a lazy way to start a refutation or response to a refutation.  Like I said before that sentence indicates a lack of understanding about what science is and has no value if you are trying to prove a point.  Just cut it out!  (and that goes for "science proved it isn't" as well)

Just because you dont agree with my interpretations doesn't make them wrong. If you  can prove, or even show why you THINK , I  am wrong then I can debate it with you.  Otherwise i go with the overwhelming evidences of science and medicine  Maybe the problem is that i have a deeper /greater understanding  of this particular topic  than you do  :) 

 I often present arguable points but few people debate them They just deny them and call me stupid :) 

 

Science is many things. It can not be limited to a definition which  you like because it supports your pov 

"Science proved it" or "Maths proved it " or "History proved it"  are all acceptable and acknowledged  statements of fact  The y can thus be disputed on individual topics  but are correct usage 

Personally i don't accept anything which hasn't been proven  but i never completely  reject anything which has not  

Plus Ive written dozens of posts sourced to prove this particular point.  i was not going to go into it again, in part because people keep telling me I am just repeating myself 

"Science says it is true. "and Science proves it are true" are not lies. At worst the y are statements of fact which can be challenged,  but in this case the y happen to be proven true  

BUT if you dont believe that, then argue your points to show why I am wrong.

From some of your other posts i think you have a general belief tha t science doesn't actually prove anything and tha t this is not the role of science  

While the latter is partly true,  the former is not 

The AIM of science may not be to confirm or deny  but rather to study and investigate.    but that is it outcome .

Via investigation, it  proves/disproves,  confirms/ denies, hypotheses  or theories   

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
10 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I consider stories evidence and information for consideration. And here is one website with some of the evidence I have fairly considered: Afterlife Evidence

That is not evidence, it is a show of semantics.

10 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Anyway, I am just being honest to myself with the evidence and reasoning over more material and thought than I can link to in a reply post.

Then why do you refuse to consider physics.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Then why do you refuse to consider physics.

I consider physics. And the incompleteness of physics.

Observation (of the paranormal) can precede its understanding by science. That's rational scientific thinking right there.

Edited by papageorge1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

    • Hankenhunter