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'd be more impressed with the evidence to date if it were conclusive and unambiguous.
Indeed, so would I -- but that could be said as well about the evidence for evolution and a host of other theories.
Quote:
If you want to be completely consistent, then you should regard that as evidence that dreams are something more than the random firings of a sleeping brain and/or the somnambulant working out of current issues in one's life.
Indeed I do. Very strongly, in fact. I frankly find it amazing that anyone who has lived more than 15 years does think that all dreams are nothing more than the random firings of a sleeping brain.
Quote:
Someone who has wronged others generally knows it at some level (unless perhaps they are a sociopath, and even then, they have an awareness that others will disapprove even if they don't understand why). So it's no surprise that in an altered state of consciousness, one's conscience might reprove the person.
This statement reflects a lack of familiarity with the NDE evidence.
Quote:
In the interest of full disclosure I'm willing to admit that I'm not really interested in any sort of afterlife for myself, so I don't really WANT to discover that I'll be obliged to partake of one. However, I don't think my leaning away from NDEs is animated by that, only made easier.
Your honesty is commendable. It is not uncommon -- indeed, some very well-known atheists fit the profile -- for non-believers to have a strong will to disbelieve for a variety of motivations. By the time NDEs first made the news, I already had a strong inclination toward belief on the basis of personal experiences and considerable study of other afterlife phenomena, so my enthusiasm was greater than someone starting at ground zero. My interest in NDEs has waned simply because the field has been overwhelmed by silliness -- it is now a convenient field in which to make a fast buck, the phenomenon has become so well-known that most of us could write a fairly convincing account off the top of our heads, the field has been co-opted to some extent by those with a religious agenda (typically New Age or Christian), and it is no longer demanded that one be even vaguely near death in order to report a "near death" experience.
First off, I didn't specify that the ones holding NDEs as proof would be ones that take the subject really seriously. The point was who might be accounting for an upsurge in sales and that might well include many that prefer to not look too deeply into a subject.(Not an unknown or small segment of theists, by the way)
A fair point. "Preferring not to look too deeply into a subject" could be said of most people, including a not unknown or small segment of atheists.
Quote:
What is a 'fair number of cases'? 20.. 20,000?
That's difficult to say because, as I said above, the field has been overwhelmed by silliness. What even qualifies as an NDE anymore, and how many of the cases are either invented or embellished by those who have an ulterior motive or agenda? My statements would prefer primarily to the research by the pioneers of the field, such as Moody, Ring, Sabom, Greyson, et al.
Quote:
I find nothing about it "just a bit odd". The brain and what it's capable of is a fascinating thing.
Since I must be so "staggeringly uninformed." why don't you tell me what cerebral hypoxia or other known brain functions couldn't explain, when it comes to NDEs?
If you find nothing a bit odd in what I described as a bit odd, then we simply have a different perspective. I find it near-impossible to believe that "cerebral hypoxia or other known brain functions" would generate the aspects of NDEs that I described as a bit odd (or my own paranormal experiences, for that matter). I assume you are starting from the position that known brain functions also explain the phenomenon of consciousness, for which I believe the best evidence points in the other direction. I believe that NDEs must be viewed in the context of the entire spectrum of afterlife phenomena, such as the best mediumship cases, the best haunting cases, the best apparition cases, the best possession cases, the best cases of other forms of After Death Communications, the best reincarnation cases, etc., as well as the scientific evidence pointing toward mind-body dualism and the "new physics" pointing toward the nature of reality being far different from what the "old physics" deemed it to be. When this is done, it seems to me that the evidence is compelling if not overwhelming for the survival of personal consciousness after bodily death. Attributing to the brain mysterious, near-miraculous powers to explain away all of the evidence strikes me as little different from the "God of the gaps" thinking that atheists love to accuse Christians of resorting to.
I understood you to be suggesting that the "science behind the phenomenon" explains away the NDE phenomenon, when no one but a diehard, don't-bother-me-with-the-evidence True Believer in scientism believes that. Hence my "staggeringly uniformed" comment. If this is not the case, then my comment may be stricken from the record.
It's an atheist conspiracy. A well-funded national atheist group is going around to all of the book stores and buying up all the books about the afterlife - to keep them out of the hands of believers and their children.
We have a really big warehouse (I'll never disclose the location even under pain of torture) where we're storing all of the books. When we're confident that we have roughly 85% of all the books on that subject, we're going to haul them to a recycle facility.
Yep.
It won't work. This type of books breeds like rabbits in Australia.
Do any of you know if thee have been any studies relating lucid dreaming to NDE?
Lucid dreams, where you can actually direct your actions in the dream, are so incredibly fascinating to me. I had one for the first time in many years, and it was very therapeutic.
It is possible to be an atheist and still believe in some sort of afterlife, like I do. It's not the Christian version or any other religion that I agree with, it's just a gut feeling that this isn't all there is. I feel more that it is a continuation of consciousness rather than some fantastical story of mansions and bliss. How that works is a mystery to all of us and I have no way of proving a gut instinct but it's what I choose to believe.
There is at least one thing we agree about and it does preclude any more discussion.
There is, of course, a distinction between an informed perspective and an uninformed perspective. Discussion can be profitable to the uninformed. I have found that the vast majority of folks who believe it's "case closed" on the possibility of an afterlife -- and I'm not talking about anonymous posters on Internet forums, but about the very darlings of CSICOP -- know close to nothing about the evidence that is actually out there. Seriously looking into it is "beneath" them. They are as fundamentalist in their mindset as the looniest Young Earth Creationist and just as fearful of seriously confronting evidence that might challenge that mindset. It's quite humorous, although they seldom get the joke.
It is possible to be an atheist and still believe in some sort of afterlife, like I do. It's not the Christian version or any other religion that I agree with, it's just a gut feeling that this isn't all there is. I feel more that it is a continuation of consciousness rather than some fantastical story of mansions and bliss. How that works is a mystery to all of us and I have no way of proving a gut instinct but it's what I choose to believe.
Bingo. The greatest thinkers of all religions have said that the belief is largely a matter of intuition. It would, of course, be goofy to intuitively believe in something that is overwhelmingly contradicted by the evidence, but a study of the evidence can take one only so far. At some point, after the best evidence has been duly considered, belief does become a matter of intuition, which is in its own way as reliable a faculty as the dualistic (this vs. that) thinking on which we rely in our day-to-day lives. If my intuition pointed me in the direction of Something More (as it does), I would find it odd to also be in the atheist camp. I think I would (as I did) be looking for the most likely explanation of the source. My own search led me to Christianity (not necessarily the "mansions and bliss" version), but I suppose it would be possible for the search to lead to the conclusion that "There is no source -- it all just exists." I would find atheism difficult to accept largely because my own experiences have been indicative of a benevolent, personal intelligence taking an interest and role in the unfolding of my life.
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.
