Good morning Rikkardo. How are you this morning? Enlightened, I assume. Please tell me all your secrets. Bring me to that state of mind you have perfected where I too can stand amid the unenlightened masses and scoff at their name calling, indifferent to the imbecile I have become. Teach me!

(June 23, 2016 at 3:12 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(June 23, 2016 at 11:12 am)Little Rik Wrote: . . . .
It is obvious that a trauma in or to the brain will affect the consciousness.
When you have a car accident the car get smashed and you also will get hurt.
That is normal as it is normal that a trauma in the brain will affect your consciousness.

More bare assertions.  It is normal that a brain trauma will affect consciousness if that consciousness is a product of the brain.  If consciousness is separate from the brain then you have an event that requires explanation for how it can occur.  Simply declaring that it's normal doesn't explain anything.  You're claiming that a change in the physical affects what you claim is non-physical.  How?  You've offered no mechanism, just the bare assertion that it does.  That's not demonstrating anything, it's just making things up.  I can make up bare assertions all day long, it's meaningless.

(June 23, 2016 at 11:12 am)Little Rik Wrote: The consciousness is stuck inside a body and until this situation persist body-brain-consciousness
will have to experience each other in any situation.

More bare assertions.  Do you have any actual evidence that consciousness is not a product of the brain besides some questionable NDE accounts?

(June 23, 2016 at 11:12 am)Little Rik Wrote: All what external eyes can see is how the brain is affected but the brain is not you.

Do you actually know how to make anything other than an unsupported argument?  I asked you earlier to back up your assertions with evidence and you declined.  It appears the reason you declined is because you can't back up your assertions with evidence.  Again, pointing out that we can't yet 'see' consciousness in the brain is an argument from ignorance.  It's conclusion is simply not reliable, so you've said nothing but a non sequitur.  Your conclusion doesn't follow from what you've provided.  That we can't currently pinpoint consciousness in the brain is not itself evidence that consciousness does not lie in the brain.  It's a false argument.  So once again you've got nothing to back up your claim that consciousness is intangible.

The consciousness lie in the brain as a driver lie in the vehicle.
That doesn't mean that the vehicle is the driver or the other way around
or that the brain is the consciousness or the other way around.
The two are just two separate things that they are stuck together until physical death occur.
Would you die when your car become a wreck?
Why should you?
You are not the car.
With the same logic you are not the brain.  

(June 25, 2016 at 9:39 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: Good morning Rikkardo.  How are you this morning?  Enlightened, I assume.  Please tell me all your secrets.  Bring me to that state of mind you have perfected where I too can stand amid the unenlightened masses and scoff at their name calling, indifferent to the imbecile I have become.  Teach me!

Ok, whatever mate.
I will teach you.
First lesson.......never call yourself an imbecile.
The mantra will decide who you are.
If you keep on repeating that you are an imbecile imbecile will become but
if you say that you are that cosmic entity you will become Him.
That is what a mantra is all about son.  

Right, so...

If you were you, but you were an atheist, and then you had an NDE, and then you believed in God, you'd be upset that you an atheist before?

Why would you be upset? Presumably you'd had no evidence of a god before this experience, so why would you have believed?

If I suddenly found proof of something, I wouldn't be upset that I previously didn't believe based on no proof. Why would I?

(June 25, 2016 at 9:59 am)robvalue Wrote: Right, so...

If you were you, but you were an atheist, and then you had an NDE, and then you believed in God, you'd be upset that you an atheist before?

Why would you be upset? Presumably you'd had no evidence of a god before this experience, so why would you have believed?

If I suddenly found proof of something, I wouldn't be upset that I previously didn't believe based on no proof. Why would I?

It is all about stupidity Roberto.  

How the hell can you think that such a vast and complex universe would pop up as per magic and nobody would run it?  

So wait...

If I was you, and you thought I thought the universe had a NDE but he was an atheist, you'd be upset because of the evidence it sent back before you even thought that I'd had an experience because of the ultimate reason it can't have been during the NDE can't perform controlling the thoughts and the spirit but then if you were me, and an atheist in the universe but the evidence swirling into other galaxies provided we scientifically stated the cause?

Have I got that right?

(June 25, 2016 at 9:00 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(June 25, 2016 at 7:41 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Lol...you're not even attempting to argue with me any more. You're now reduced to nothing but personal attacks. Thanks for admitting defeat, Rikki.

Wrong again Pinky.  

If you would have stopped thinking about your clown shows and concentrate on what i said in my previous post you would have understood that in fact I did answer your question.
Your question was about believe only when the evidence is there.
My answer to your question was that in life the evidence can only be found when you move your backside
get up and do the hard work yourself.
Especially in the field of consciousness the evidence can only be found when you let yourself go and take the risk to believe that something really big and great is there.
If you wait for the manna to fall from the sky you will wait for ever.  

Another dodge. Cute.


If you are making a claim you want people to believe, you are responsible for providing evidence for that claim. If you won't do that, then the laziness is yours, not mine, and it's also not my fault if I don't believe your claim. Evidence, by definition, can be shown. If you can't show it, you don't know it.

(June 25, 2016 at 9:47 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(June 23, 2016 at 3:12 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: More bare assertions.  It is normal that a brain trauma will affect consciousness if that consciousness is a product of the brain.  If consciousness is separate from the brain then you have an event that requires explanation for how it can occur.  Simply declaring that it's normal doesn't explain anything.  You're claiming that a change in the physical affects what you claim is non-physical.  How?  You've offered no mechanism, just the bare assertion that it does.  That's not demonstrating anything, it's just making things up.  I can make up bare assertions all day long, it's meaningless.


More bare assertions.  Do you have any actual evidence that consciousness is not a product of the brain besides some questionable NDE accounts?


Do you actually know how to make anything other than an unsupported argument?  I asked you earlier to back up your assertions with evidence and you declined.  It appears the reason you declined is because you can't back up your assertions with evidence.  Again, pointing out that we can't yet 'see' consciousness in the brain is an argument from ignorance.  It's conclusion is simply not reliable, so you've said nothing but a non sequitur.  Your conclusion doesn't follow from what you've provided.  That we can't currently pinpoint consciousness in the brain is not itself evidence that consciousness does not lie in the brain.  It's a false argument.  So once again you've got nothing to back up your claim that consciousness is intangible.

The consciousness lie in the brain as a driver lie in the vehicle.
That doesn't mean that the vehicle is the driver or the other way around
or that the brain is the consciousness or the other way around.
The two are just two separate things that they are stuck together until physical death occur.
Would you die when your car become a wreck?
Why should you?
You are not the car.
With the same logic you are not the brain.  

And more bare assertions. You really got nothing.

I know exactly how the universe started and it has nothing to do with God. So there.

Done and dusted. No need to feel bad about it.

There is no reason to believe there is a god or gods, so a member here having an NDE would be irrelevant unless they presented some greater evidence to support their new found beliefs.