(March 23, 2016 at 4:37 am)robvalue Wrote: All that shows is they are unable to critically examine their own experiences.

If you read their experiences they all agree that NDEs can NOT be understood by physical science.
There is nothing to examine Rob.
It is all experienced and felt by the consciousness not by the physical senses and brain which was off at the time.

http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Archives/...counts.htm

Quote:Also, afterlife and "God" are two seperate things. One can exist without the other.

This contradict their experiences.
They all agree that a controlling mind is fully in charge.

Quote:My wife believes in afterlives, but not in God. As do many Buddhists.

99% of Buddhists these day do not follow Buddha teaching so they really haven't got a clue
about the issue.
Buddha was practicing the real yoga and by doing this he got to merge into the ocean of cosmic consciousness and become one with God.
These days the so called Buddhists go to the temple, lighten a stick of incense while praying that Buddha
sort out their problems.
In other words nothing of what Buddha was teaching so no wonder they don't know what they are talking about.
There are exception of course like zen Buddhism and few other but they are an handful.

Yes, I'm familiar with the argument from ignorance. It's the foundation of almost all superstition.

I don't care what a group of deluded people with no critical thinking skills agree on, there's no logical reason why "God" and "afterlife" require each other. Neither are coherent or have any evidence supporting them. Claiming to know about connections between them is even more removed from reality.

Of course, in your imagination, you can form whatever connections and requirements you want.

(March 23, 2016 at 7:12 am)robvalue Wrote: Yes, I'm familiar with the argument from ignorance. It's the foundation of almost all superstition.

I don't care what a group of deluded people with no critical thinking skills agree on, there's no logical reason why "God" and "afterlife" require each other. Neither are coherent or have any evidence supporting them. Claiming to know about connections between them is even more removed from reality.

Of course, in your imagination, you can form whatever connections and requirements you want.

So, let me summarise.
I talk rubbish.
Thousand of those who had an NDEs experience talk rubbish.
Ex atheists talk rubbish.
Rob is the only one who doesn't.
Right?  

Appeal to popularity fallacy.

Out of the people you just listed, yeah. I'm not claiming to be the only person in the world who doesn't talk rubbish.

You're committing two very severe errors:

1) You assume that what someone has experienced is "real", without any form of verification

2) Further, you assume that their interpretation, assessment and memory of the experience is accurate

If you care about reality, you should hold your own experiences (and testimony of others) to higher standards. If you just assume both of the above when an extraordinary anecdote lines up with your beliefs, you are gullible.

To clarify:

The people you listed talk rubbish when discussing such subjects as NDEs and "God", in my opinion. I've never heard them say anything to the contrary.

They may well make perfect sense regarding other subjects.

Your use of "ex atheists" rather than just theists makes me think you believe events which cause a change of belief must have some element of truth to them. They only have to be convincing to the person in question, and some people are very easily convinced of things.

(March 23, 2016 at 8:11 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(March 23, 2016 at 7:12 am)robvalue Wrote: Yes, I'm familiar with the argument from ignorance. It's the foundation of almost all superstition.

I don't care what a group of deluded people with no critical thinking skills agree on, there's no logical reason why "God" and "afterlife" require each other. Neither are coherent or have any evidence supporting them. Claiming to know about connections between them is even more removed from reality.

Of course, in your imagination, you can form whatever connections and requirements you want.

So, let me summarise.
I talk rubbish.  
Thousand of those who had an NDEs experience talk rubbish.
Ex atheists talk rubbish.
Rob is the only one who doesn't.
Right?  

Oh, you ALMOST got there.  Keep trying.  Yes, it's the argument from ignorance (Rob has those logical fallacies mastered - bravo!)  AND you're implying that Rob is a singular objection and is outnumbered.  Just how long have you been wasting your life here posting shit?  Surely you know that the vast majority of us agree with him (no, I'm not saying greater numbers equals correct thinking) - it's his clear pointing to logical fallacies that are correct.

Thank you

Rick has admitted there is no evidence for NDEs from the study, then has gone straight back to just believing them. I'm wondering if it's possible he can ever actually learn anything.

(March 23, 2016 at 3:47 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(March 23, 2016 at 2:09 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: Yeah but that only includes people who have the flimsiest idea of what "know" means.  And no, you don't know .. they don't know .. no one living knows what happens after physical death.  But I harbor the supposition that we return like compost to the biosphere (or get packed into little concrete boxes to postpone that event).  At that time, I assume, all the chemical, electrical and emergent phenomena supported by the brain will cease.  

I suspect you suppose something else.  I suppose you think you know only you really know.  I don't really know but I reject your claims of swami-hood.

It is absolutely bizarre guys.
Few weeks ago some of you came up with the suggestion that i should read the most important study
done by Dr Parnia (an expert in the field of the brain-consciousness) so i would know that NDEs are all bullshit.
Well well, guess what.
I did read that report and guess what Dr Parnia said?
He said that there is not evidence that NDEs are real but at the same time he said that there is also no evidence that they are not real and conclude saying that more study need to be done.
Eh eh.  

Well that shows that NDEs are on the same level as every other not yet supported idea then.

(March 18, 2016 at 10:32 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 18, 2016 at 10:24 am)drfuzzy Wrote: Yes Brian, exactly. I once had a Deist tell me that "if there is a god, life on Earth is an experiment. And you can't keep meddling with your experiment. You just set the parameters and then observe the results."  I rather liked that take on things, but even that, when you consider billions and billions of galaxies - - - just doesn't really make sense.

Deist aren't any better, neither are pantheists, those are simply watered down woo where the gap answer tries to avoid the divisions the old woo does, but it is still a gap answer. It is simply better logic to accept that our gods and religions were not around 4 billion years ago, or 14 billion years ago, and there is no need to gap fill with old religion or even a generic deity. The universe did fine prior to our existence and it will continue on long after we go extinct. We CAN as a species be positive about our ability, IF IF IF, we pull our collective heads out of our asses, we can be positive about finding ways to extend our finite ride. 

There simply is no going back for me while I retain my lucid state, while my marbles are in tact, to go back to believing in sky wizards. I know too much about the size of our universe, to think that our god's or religions we create are important to the universe. It was understandable when humans didn't know any better that they made such bad guesses, but we know better now.

Atheism is not something that one has to accept, anymore than one has to accept that two plus two equals four. Theists ask us to accept their god. We say no and that is that. If they can't prove god, then we have nothing to prove.

(March 23, 2016 at 12:16 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(March 18, 2016 at 10:32 am)Brian37 Wrote: Deist aren't any better, neither are pantheists, those are simply watered down woo where the gap answer tries to avoid the divisions the old woo does, but it is still a gap answer. It is simply better logic to accept that our gods and religions were not around 4 billion years ago, or 14 billion years ago, and there is no need to gap fill with old religion or even a generic deity. The universe did fine prior to our existence and it will continue on long after we go extinct. We CAN as a species be positive about our ability, IF IF IF, we pull our collective heads out of our asses, we can be positive about finding ways to extend our finite ride. 

There simply is no going back for me while I retain my lucid state, while my marbles are in tact, to go back to believing in sky wizards. I know too much about the size of our universe, to think that our god's or religions we create are important to the universe. It was understandable when humans didn't know any better that they made such bad guesses, but we know better now.

Atheism is not something that one has to accept, anymore than one has to accept that two plus two equals four.   Theists ask us to accept their god. We say no and that is that. If they can't prove god, then we have nothing to prove.

No, they just like to argue about the nonsense for days and days on end and tell us that we're going to hell if we don't repent.