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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
oops found it.This is your quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
But I also insist that this article AND this study in no way evidence consciousness surviving after death.
Yes I would have to say either very dishonest or just not good at understanding what you read.
Yes I would have to say either very dishonest or just not good at understanding what you read.
The article and study is talking about clinical death. Noz is not thus the confussion. I am talking about the studies term Noz is not. Thus it is easy to become confused. I don't see how you guys cannot see that
Perhaps the confusion arose (it confused me, too) because the thread started with a popular press 'take' on that study. Pneuma provided a link to the actual study.
I don't know whether Pneuma thinks the study does nothing to support an 'Afterlife' -claim (in the sense of the continued existence of the sentient self long after the body is dead and gone) but he can tell us. I'm willing to give him benefit of doubt.
if a believer has a doubt about life after death then he is not a believer.
Not a believer in life after death, certainly. But can still be a believer in a religion, can't he?
Quote:
I think that is because the source of the followed religion is not from the god or it was modified by man
and fake things added to it or deleted from it
it is very easy to filter all those 2999 gods by looking at each god product if there is any.
.
not every religious people are following the correct religion and even the correct one are not perfect.
It's easy enough to shrug off failings in a religion as man -made failings that don't in fact discredit the religion itself, but to be fairy, you have to do that with people who believe in all kinds of religions -or none.
And when the two bodies saw each other, the people of Moses said: "We are sure to be overtaken."
(Moses) said: "By no means! my Lord is with me! Soon will He guide me!"
Then We told Moses by inspiration: "Strike the sea with thy rod." So it divided, and each separate part became like the huge, firm mass of a mountain
And We made the other party approach thither
We delivered Moses and all who were with him;
But We drowned the others.
Verily in this is a Sign: but most of them do not believe. The Holy Quran.
The article and study is talking about clinical death. Noz is not thus the confussion. I am talking about the studies term Noz is not. Thus it is easy to become confused. I don't see how you guys cannot see that
What we "see" is that this is a thread about life after death, and you link dumped an article (without any substance of your own) into that thread with a title seemingly congruent with that context.
Then when it was pointed out, quite simply and quite accurately, that the study in question in no way shows the existence of life after death, or consciousness surviving death, you got somewhat triggered by this and tried to bury a series of back pedals in a pretense that I had somehow misunderstood something, or that I was some weird form of science denier.
If there is a more accurate summation of our conversation, I welcome anyone to present it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by truth_teller
here is one proof and there are many
You have a very unusual definition of the word "proof" if you think the claim about a parting ocean is verified by a 23 second video that does not in fact mention the event AT ALL.
It is the religious equivalent of me proving OJ Simpson killed his wife by reading to the court my personal recipe for guacamole.
AGAIN have you ANY substantiation at all that a man parted an entire sea, making a walk-able pathway between the sperated parts, solely by use of a hand held rod?
Perhaps the confusion arose (it confused me, too) because the thread started with a popular press 'take' on that study. Pneuma provided a link to the actual study.
No mate, I provided the link to the actual study. Pneuma only provided a link to an online article about the study.
Perhaps the confusion arose (it confused me, too) because the thread started with a popular press 'take' on that study. Pneuma provided a link to the actual study.
I don't know whether Pneuma thinks the study does nothing to support an 'Afterlife' -claim (in the sense of the continued existence of the sentient self long after the body is dead and gone) but he can tell us. I'm willing to give him benefit of doubt.
thank you trans.
There is somewhat of a philosophical debate in the study, but I did not go there for 2 reason.
1. because I was just posting the study as it was relevant to the thread.
2. because I believe in a bodily Resurrection so it does not quite match up with my believe.
That said it does match up with some others philosophical belief and if they want to argue it that is up to them.
What we "see" is that this is a thread about life after death, and you link dumped an article (without any substance of your own) into that thread with a title seemingly congruent with that context.
Then when it was pointed out, quite simply and quite accurately, that the study in question in no way shows the existence of life after death, or consciousness surviving death, you got somewhat triggered by this and tried to bury a series of back pedals in a pretense that I had somehow misunderstood something, or that I was some weird form of science denier.
If there is a more accurate summation of our conversation, I welcome anyone to present it.
the tread is about awareness after death and the study was about awareness after death.
Which death noz, there are so many deaths flying around it is hard to keep this straight.
When I say the study shows awareness after death I am referring to the death that the study is talking about which is clinical death.
You on the other hand seem to be speaking of brain death when you say the study does not show awareness after death.
again this is your statement.
Quote:
But I also insist that this article AND this study in no way evidence consciousness surviving after death.
I am speaking of the death as reported in the study, clinical death. So when you made the above statement how am I to take it? The study is on awareness after clinical death and you say the study does not show awareness after death. To me you are saying you disagree with the scientific study.
Thus the confusion. That you guys cannot see that this would cause confusion is beyond me. Instead you guys jump to the conclusion that I am a liar or being dishonest. I am not a mind reader noz, if you meant the study did not show awareness after brain death, that is what you should have said, not just death. There are just too many deaths flying around to keep it all straight.
So to keep it straight does the study show awareness after clinical death? yes or no.
if yes, then you are in agreement with the study and this has all been a big misunderstanding based on the word death.
No mate, I provided the link to the actual study. Pneuma only provided a link to an online article about the study.
thanks for doing that.
Tell me mat, do you ever read an article, find it interesting and post it? or do you only post links to the actual study?
If the former why am I a liar or being dishonest for doing the same thing?
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.
