Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it may have been. dohCarnignals linked in the OP to a popular article taking the ball and running with it. Indeed, they probably got it from some other sources who saw the study showing that consciousness/awareness can continue even when the bod. is regarded as clinically dead. And, if it is revived, then it can recall what was going on while it was 'dead'.
It would be impossible for the Believers NOT to see this as meaning that our Self (incorporeal form) was active and conscious even when we were "Dead" and thus was evidence of an Immortal soul, heaven, God, Jesus and teaching Genesis instead of Darwin.
And, for all we know, it might be a scrap of evidence for a soul, though, if it is it is a problem for those awaiting the last of Trump, and zombies emerging from their graves; because their Souls are flitting through the Canis Minor Galactic cluster en route to God (music by Elgar) if indeed they are not already being pushed aside from your place at the viewing - rail by Malcom Muggeridge.."Out of my way, young man! I was Born Again, long before you were even born!" who snuggs in between Judas Iscariot and Joseph Caiaphas, Jews,though they were, because they made sure that Jesus' saving blood was spilt, and they can watch Pilate and Simon Peter roast and writhe and scream and bubble and boil and burn ("But He Loves you" ) because they tried to prevent it - and the salvation of mankind.
Anything at all to verify this narrative in any way? Or is this going to be an "assert and run" tactic mainly? Because last time I checked, putting the word "truth" in your user name does not stop your outright unsubstantiated assertions from BEING unsubstantiated assertions.
The verification is persuasion and influencing,
think of someone who was living in the era of someone who claimed that he is a messenger from the god and he followed him not because he believed in him but because he wants to run away from the ruler
and when they have reach the sea and the soldiers behind them to kill them and the followers cry that they have finished and the claimer said no I have the creator he will guide me,
Then he hit the sea with his rod So it divided, and each separate part became like the huge, firm mass of a mountain.
Then they passed the sea until they are safe and the soldiers drowned.
Now this person can link what happened to the god and become believer or he can link it to the nature or any thing else other than the god .
Of course I was referring to the miracle of prophet Moses and he was not the only one there were prophets before him and after him from the first one Noah until the final one Mahammad.
Now we can prove that there is a life after death if we can prove that this miracle is true
And there are proofs for it.. but many do not accept them or the link them to any thing else other than the creator.
From the point of a man of faith, I think it more important that believers concentrate on being servants of others in THIS life. "Proving" life after death is simply a detraction from the most important points of the Christian belief---and maybe that of some of Allah's followers as well.
Many of us have a "need" to know if life goes on. But some years ago I began asking myself if I would remain a man of faith if there was no God--or, more importantly, if He gave no afterlife to anyone. When one can answer that in the positive, they are free from religious constraint to live putting others ahead of themselves--which I think was the whole point of the "Christian" God.
By the way, there are about 3000 gods worshiped in the world today. Most religions believe in only one, as does Christianity (many of our sects work very hard to have three Gods in One). In other words, we believers generally hold to only ONE God, while discarding the other 2999. That means atheists are very much exactly like us--they just don't believe in one more. So why should I disparage their failure to accept MY God, when they have 3000 choices. Just because I say so? That's a pretty self-serving thought. I give them the freedom to search and find or just make fun of us who have selected one of the 3000. It's not like any of us are that different from one another with regard to "beliefs."
And when it comes to putting "faith" into practice, I find religious people are frequently far more annoying and foster much more civil unrest (in the name of their god) than atheists ever have been.
That's not the point, old chum. It's not about the individual characteristics of the reaction going on, but 'where it goes' after it has run out of ability to continue.
That's the same invalid objection as is made to the "Santa"analogy. "You can't compare Santa to God". That is not the point of the analogy; it is comparing the evidence for the belief in either of them.
Interestingly, since I mention it, that analogy was used on an Atheist Experience 'phone in. "I don't want to compare Bigfoot to God". It enabled the caller to evade answering the point.
I'm not saying that you are doing it on purpose, but it does have the effect of avoiding the point being made.
That's not the point, old chum. It's not about the individual characteristics of the reaction going on, but 'where it goes' after it has run out of ability to continue.
That's the same invalid objection as is made to the "Santa"analogy. "You can't compare Santa to God". That is not the point of the analogy; it is comparing the evidence for the belief in either of them.
Interestingly, since I mention it, that analogy was used on an Atheist Experience 'phone in. "I don't want to compare Bigfoot to God". It enabled the caller to evade answering the point.
I'm not saying that you are doing it on purpose, but it does have the effect of avoiding the point being made.
It is always a bogus analogy....the puerile things like Santa, Tooth Fairy, etc...with God...based upon evidence.
God Entities are supported by the most epic and prolific writings known to humankind...and the personal testimony of the perception of billions of adults, some of them the greatest minds in human history...sufficient to lead them to a determination of the existence of God Entities.
Those typically trotted out childish comparisons have none of that as evidentiary support...and only bias, ignorance, or dishonesty would claim they do.
Some of that evidence notes a necroexistence in some afterlife location.
Do I believe that? No...not as described, exactly. But I would never claim there is no evidence for it.
Think of a candle. It isn't even a noun That's only the name attached to an assemblage of biochemicals.
Now instead of "Game" (which exists nowhere outside human convention), use "flame".
We know where it came from. Just as we know where a human life comes from.
Where does it go when the candle burns out? The same place as the "life" goes.
Okay. The flames go out into the universe and if you had the proper equipment on some planet light years away from here, you would be able to see the flames long after the candle went out. Our consciousness is of a similar EM-like character to a flame and it continues out into the universe as well, long after we stop producing it, perhaps to infinity.
now replace the word "flame" with the standard model "parts".
then, if you think you got game,
do you know what to replace those words with?
But I don't think I got "game", which is human -imagined convention. It doesn't exist, apart from human convention. Parts (if you mean particles) do. And we can tell what becomes of those after death: they dissipate. Aren't we actually agreeing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
It is always a bogus analogy....the puerile things like Santa, Tooth Fairy, etc...with God...based upon evidence.
God Entities are supported by the most epic and prolific writings known to humankind...and the personal testimony of the perception of billions of adults, some of them the greatest minds in human history...sufficient to lead them to a determination of the existence of God Entities.
Those typically trotted out childish comparisons have none of that as evidentiary support...and only bias, ignorance, or dishonesty would claim they do.
Some of that evidence notes a necroexistence in some afterlife location.
Do I believe that? No...not as described, exactly. But I would never claim there is no evidence for it.
More rubbish, old son. The analogy is valid. Your appeal to Faith - even on the part of some great brains - is not. And you would never claim that there is no evidence - you would claim that bad evidence is still "evidence", and bolster that with abuse and accusation.
As I say; more rubbish.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-22-2017 at 12:34 AM..
I don't have an issue with noz pointing out that the paper title was misleading, I simply cannot help it that that is first where I read of the study.
Nor is anyone suggesting you should "help" that or even apologize for it. But you DO have the opportunity to learn from it. You get to talk to real scientists, with real knowledge, like myself and learn not just THAT the paper does not suggest life after death but WHY it does not.
Alas you do not seem willing to do that. You are more intent on straw manning everything I say...........
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
And after all noz posturing, in his last post he finally admitted what I said at the beginning which is he disagrees with the science.
....... and claiming things that I PATENTLY and DEMONSTRABLY did not say. Why you feel the need to get this defensive and dishonest is not known to me, but I doubt it is fooling anyone here but yourself.
I have said MULTIPLE times now that I am not discussing the findings, but the interpretation of the findings. Yet you insist, with fetid consistency, on pretending the opposite. Why is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
ok let me rephrase it then.
How about, no. How about you let ME phrase my positions, rather than have you do it for me? Especially given you have proven your intention is to summarize my positions to be exactly the opposite of what they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
You disagree with the results of Panias scientific study/findings
Ok let us here demonstrate the depth of your dishonesty. QUOTE me saying I disagreed with the results of the study, or it's findings. Show EXACTLY where I said that.
You will not find it. You know why? Because you 100%, blatantly, dishonestly, and demonstrably made it up. I never said it. I never did it. I never even IMPLIED it. You simply made it up. You are lying.
What I DID say was that I disagree with the interpretation of what the study said.
And what I DID say was that two things the news paper quoted Parnia as saying, were errors and Parnia was wrong.
But I NEVER at any point, questioned the findings of the study. You. Simply. Made. That. Up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) because they tried to prevent it - and the salvation of mankind. 
