Bam! Welcome back! Headshot.

(June 25, 2016 at 9:21 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(June 25, 2016 at 9:06 am)robvalue Wrote: Wait...

You would upset if you were you, but you were watching an atheist version of yourself, who had delusions? Do you think this scenario is very likely? Check your insurance documents. Some of them cover this anyway.

Roberto.  

If you go through the hundreds of NDEs experiences there are few about atheists now believers.
Guess what?
These guys feel ashamed of themselves for their previous stupidity in thinking that there was no God
that is why I said what I said in the previous post.  

I've grown a beard, married my wife, gotten a few children here and there, even met my grand grand grand children and yet till this day you haven't presented a valid, non biased source. 

(June 25, 2016 at 9:53 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(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.  

I just wonder what kind of psychological tragedy he had to be clinging to this fantasy world. Some famous examples are Arthur Conan Doyle who lost his son in ww1 and went totally berserk, living in the fantasy world is really not uncommon. But also it reminds me of a woman that lost her son in the 80s and since medicine gave up on him (he had Leukemia) she was bringing him to all those faith healers like Popoff to the point, when he did die, she totally started believing in Sai Baba, to this day, as this god like being - although she was educated and non believer before. Telling this really staggering stories how Sai Baba has this ability to project something like google maps on the wall and zoom in so deep inside that he can create portal and teleport people trough it.

And when you think about it life after death is really not for us personally, it is not so unbearable to us that we have to die, but it is actually harder to be reconciled with the fact that people that we love are not here anymore. I don't deny it, it is a mystical feeling that you have still in your brain memories of personality of some person that perished. Therefore there are religions that give some people illusion of extending that relationship trough prayer or by paying mass decades after death so that their supposed soul can go from purgatory to paradise that if it's someone's parents they feel like they're responsible children.
Needles to say people should thought how to face the reality.

I'm a lazy fuck who cba to read 19 pages, so I apologize if I'm retreading ground here.

As a general rule I don't take anyone at their word since people are liars and we live in an age where it's even easier to manipulate things to push an agenda. And that isn't even getting into hallucinations or people with mental illness. So without evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, no, I wouldn't believe, and here is where I reach my problem with this entire debate.

What are you even trying accomplish with this? Say for sake of argument a theist actually manages to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (assuming this version of God even matches your own) that He exists. Then what? Admittedly, it'd be exciting at first and a breath of fresh air because it'd bring in new discussion. Though we'd have to deal with all the smug assholes who would go, "Hahahahahaha I told you so!" and explain to them we were never unreasonable in the first place because all of them couldn't prove jack shit before. But one of two things would happen depending how much this hypothetical God would match up to (insert religious text here)

1.) People would convert merely out of fear
2.) People would still refuse to follow a corrupt god knowing full and well they'd burn in hell for it (assuming hell was proven in addition).

Unless of course it's a different god that's proven real, in which case an added third option appears.

3.) People still refuse to believe that version of god exists above their own despite physical evidence for the same reason there are people who still think the earth is flat.

Your religion would cease being about faith (if it ever was to begin with) and become 100% about fear with those of us holding our ground in the face of damnation. Am I to assume your endgame is to bring people to you out of fear? Because that's the only conclusion I can see in all of this, and that seems to be the prime motivation a lot of people stay in the fold.

Of course, I could also tell you what would happen if Maisie Williams came to my house and offered to give me a blowjob because it's not going to happen.

(June 25, 2016 at 9:36 am)Little Rik Wrote: 1) A brain devoid of blood and oxygen can not produce any hallucination therefore it is the consciousness that take over and experience what is described by these people who had the NDE.

2 Things:

1) Brains are not "devoid" of oxygen and blood during NDEs. If they were, they would just be called DEs. In fact, some people supposedly have out-of-body spiritual experiences while alive in surgery. The little boy from "Heaven is for Real," for instance, supposedly visited Heaven and saw Jesus and some dead relatives he had never met, and that was during a surgical procedure that went more or less normally.


2) Even if they were without blood or oxygen, how would you establish that such brains do not hallucinate? Hallucinations are only perceived by the person they're happening to, so how would you figure out whether somebody is hallucinating if they don't have a way to report their perceptions to you? Do you have some way of demonstrating that? If not, you're just making another assertion you can't prove.

Quote:2) Real NDEs follow a certain pattern.
They are there to teach however I do not doubt that some NDEs can produce nothing or something
not related to God.
It is obvious that not all people care to learn so they get nothing.  

"Real" NDEs? Are you now trying to say that anything that doesn't follow your preconceived pattern isn't a "real" NDE?


You dishonest little shit.


NDE stands for "near death experience," and the definition is right on the fucking tin. ANY experience where somebody almost died (read: draws near to death) is a "real" near death experience. There's nothing in there about visions, learning things, or even losing consciousness. If somebody goes into a coma and almost dies, but they wake up and go about their lives, that is a "real" near death experience, regardless of what they saw while out (if anything). If somebody is shooting at me and a bullet goes whizzing past my head close enough for me to feel the wind but not close enough to hit me and knock my brains out, that is a "real" near death experience because I was almost shot to death (even if I wasn't harmed).


That is the definition. You do not get to dick around with it. What you're describing as a "real" NDE is actually a particular set of circumstances where a person loses consciousness, nearly dies, and wakes up believing in god. That is only one kind of NDE, and it is not sufficient evidence for believing in god, even if it happens directly to you. Before you can jump to that conclusion, you have to either support it with evidence, or at minimum you have to rule out other possible explanations (like maybe these are just dreams, for instance). You're not doing any of that, though. You're just latching onto a story and using it to come to a conclusion you like even though that conclusion isn't supported by anything in the story.

(June 25, 2016 at 10:11 am)robvalue Wrote: 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?

For Christ'sake Roberto, stop eating those funny mushrooms.  
Your confusion is now out of control.  

(June 26, 2016 at 12:45 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(June 25, 2016 at 9:36 am)Little Rik Wrote: 1) A brain devoid of blood and oxygen can not produce any hallucination therefore it is the consciousness that take over and experience what is described by these people who had the NDE.

2 Things:

1) Brains are not "devoid" of oxygen and blood during NDEs. If they were, they would just be called DEs. In fact, some people supposedly have out-of-body spiritual experiences while alive in surgery. The little boy from "Heaven is for Real," for instance, supposedly visited Heaven and saw Jesus and some dead relatives he had never met, and that was during a surgical procedure that went more or less normally.


2) Even if they were without blood or oxygen, how would you establish that such brains do not hallucinate? Hallucinations are only perceived by the person they're happening to, so how would you figure out whether somebody is hallucinating if they don't have a way to report their perceptions to you? Do you have some way of demonstrating that? If not, you're just making another assertion you can't prove.

Quote:2) Real NDEs follow a certain pattern.
They are there to teach however I do not doubt that some NDEs can produce nothing or something
not related to God.
It is obvious that not all people care to learn so they get nothing.  

"Real" NDEs? Are you now trying to say that anything that doesn't follow your preconceived pattern isn't a "real" NDE?


You dishonest little shit.


NDE stands for "near death experience," and the definition is right on the fucking tin. ANY experience where somebody almost died (read: draws near to death) is a "real" near death experience. There's nothing in there about visions, learning things, or even losing consciousness. If somebody goes into a coma and almost dies, but they wake up and go about their lives, that is a "real" near death experience, regardless of what they saw while out (if anything). If somebody is shooting at me and a bullet goes whizzing past my head close enough for me to feel the wind but not close enough to hit me and knock my brains out, that is a "real" near death experience because I was almost shot to death (even if I wasn't harmed).


That is the definition. You do not get to dick around with it. What you're describing as a "real" NDE is actually a particular set of circumstances where a person loses consciousness, nearly dies, and wakes up believing in god. That is only one kind of NDE, and it is not sufficient evidence for believing in god, even if it happens directly to you. Before you can jump to that conclusion, you have to either support it with evidence, or at minimum you have to rule out other possible explanations (like maybe these are just dreams, for instance). You're not doing any of that, though. You're just latching onto a story and using it to come to a conclusion you like even though that conclusion isn't supported by anything in the story.

Imbecile.  

The name N on the NDEs was given because the bloke that really die in the first place came back to life.
It really die in the first place and that was certified by real doctors so real death was there.
The heart stopped, the blood and oxygen stop flowing in the body included the brain so no Pinky you are wrong once again.
Nobody so far has come forward with evidence that during a real death the brain is able to produce hallucinations so it is obvious that the consciousness take over have those experiences and then come back in the dead body to revived a dead body.
You are a clown not a doctor so you can't say whether the bloke really die or not.
Fail again son.  

(June 25, 2016 at 6:07 pm)Ayen Wrote: I'm a lazy fuck who cba to read 19 pages, so I apologize if I'm retreading ground here.

As a general rule I don't take anyone at their word since people are liars and we live in an age where it's even easier to manipulate things to push an agenda. And that isn't even getting into hallucinations or people with mental illness. So without evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, no, I wouldn't believe, and here is where I reach my problem with this entire debate.

What are you even trying accomplish with this? Say for sake of argument a theist actually manages to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (assuming this version of God even matches your own) that He exists. Then what? Admittedly, it'd be exciting at first and a breath of fresh air because it'd bring in new discussion. Though we'd have to deal with all the smug assholes who would go, "Hahahahahaha I told you so!" and explain to them we were never unreasonable in the first place because all of them couldn't prove jack shit before. But one of two things would happen depending how much this hypothetical God would match up to (insert religious text here)

1.) People would convert merely out of fear
2.) People would still refuse to follow a corrupt god knowing full and well they'd burn in hell for it (assuming hell was proven in addition).

Unless of course it's a different god that's proven real, in which case an added third option appears.

3.) People still refuse to believe that version of god exists above their own despite physical evidence for the same reason there are people who still think the earth is flat.

Your religion would cease being about faith (if it ever was to begin with) and become 100% about fear with those of us holding our ground in the face of damnation. Am I to assume your endgame is to bring people to you out of fear? Because that's the only conclusion I can see in all of this, and that seems to be the prime motivation a lot of people stay in the fold.

Of course, I could also tell you what would happen if Maisie Williams came to my house and offered to give me a blowjob because it's not going to happen.

It would be nice if you would put the name of the person to which you are referring to.
As far as myself I do not follow religions nor I believe in a physical and eternal hell.  

(June 25, 2016 at 4:48 pm)RozKek Wrote:

(June 25, 2016 at 9:21 am)Little Rik Wrote: Roberto.  

If you go through the hundreds of NDEs experiences there are few about atheists now believers.
Guess what?
These guys feel ashamed of themselves for their previous stupidity in thinking that there was no God
that is why I said what I said in the previous post.  

I've grown a beard, married my wife, gotten a few children here and there, even met my grand grand grand children and yet till this day you haven't presented a valid, non biased source. 

Garbage son.  

Doctors declare the bloke dead before their NDE but you guys think that the bloke didn't die for real.
These are ............non biased sourceS......but you guys are a bunch of hypocrites to say that you only believe in non biased sources and then when doctors that are these type of valid non biased sources tell you that the bloke die for real you do not believe that.
What crap are you talking about?  

Why do you come to this forum, Rik?