Quote:Something else you are not open to and that is evolution is a wrong idea.

Their is nothing to be open too . You might as well chide us for accepting gravity .

---

Quote:A few bad apples is not a good defence. Scientists have had failures too. Just saying.

NDE Pseudoscience has nothing but failures and frauds . So don't even think of comparing it to real science .

(March 13, 2018 at 11:13 pm)He lives Wrote: I already know there are some people who wrote fake NDE stories. I have read many books on NDEs and watched TV shows,etc. I believe that most of the full blown NDEs are reputable. An unfortunate consequence is there is a high divorce rate for people who have NDEs. I believe this is due to the great change in lifestyle and conviction that comes to those who experience an NDE. Some of the people who have had NDEs have come back with greater knowledge as was the case with Rajaa Benamour. One of my neighbors had a NDE. She has since moved. She told me about what she saw and how it changed her life. In her life review she was shown how she could have done some things differently. Each story, though different, is kind of like another piece of a puzzle to me as I want to know what the spirit world is like. I also believe that testing people who have never had a real OBE or a did not have a NDE, is not practical or reliable.

These were NDE accounts collected by reputable researchers. The only reason you want to discount them is because they don't fit your narrative. That's confirmation bias plain and simple. You count the hits but ignore (or rationalize away) the misses. That's only proof that you want so badly to believe that you're willing to distort the evidence to fit. That only leads to unreliable conclusions based on fallacious reasoning. If you're willing to distort the evidence because of such strong, irrational bias, why should we believe anything you have to say about NDEs? We've already seen you present a misleading account of Charles Tart's research. I read some of the entries on that page you linked to earlier and the facts were either distorted or outright misrepresented in practically all of the ones I examined. And this type of lying and misrepresentation is common among NDE researchers. The charge of fake NDE is more justifiably leveled at the accounts of NDEs in general.

NDE "researchers "(Biased advocates ) are just that 

Our new Christians are welcome to tell me why I should care about Christianity, even if it's true. Is there anything other than "join or you'll be sorry"?

(March 14, 2018 at 5:04 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 13, 2018 at 11:13 pm)He lives Wrote: I already know there are some people who wrote fake NDE stories. I have read many books on NDEs and watched TV shows,etc. I believe that most of the full blown NDEs are reputable. An unfortunate consequence is there is a high divorce rate for people who have NDEs. I believe this is due to the great change in lifestyle and conviction that comes to those who experience an NDE. Some of the people who have had NDEs have come back with greater knowledge as was the case with Rajaa Benamour. One of my neighbors had a NDE. She has since moved. She told me about what she saw and how it changed her life. In her life review she was shown how she could have done some things differently. Each story, though different, is kind of like another piece of a puzzle to me as I want to know what the spirit world is like. I also believe that testing people who have never had a real OBE or a did not have a NDE, is not practical or reliable.

These were NDE accounts collected by reputable researchers.  The only reason you want to discount them is because they don't fit your narrative.  That's confirmation bias plain and simple.  You count the hits but ignore (or rationalize away) the misses.  That's only proof that you want so badly to believe that you're willing to distort the evidence to fit.  That only leads to unreliable conclusions based on fallacious reasoning.  If you're willing to distort the evidence because of such strong, irrational bias, why should we believe anything you have to say about NDEs?  We've already seen you present a misleading account of Charles Tart's research.  I read some of the entries on that page you linked to earlier and the facts were either distorted or outright misrepresented in practically all of the ones I examined.  And this type of lying and misrepresentation is common among NDE researchers.  The charge of fake NDE is more justifiably leveled at the accounts of NDEs in general.

It depends on which account of Charles Tart you believe. Anyone can post on Wikipedia and express their views and although I like Wikipedia, it is still biased. Susan Blackmore expressed her opinion, but she was not there. Neither were the others who expressed their opinions. Charles would have continued his study had not the woman moved away. I did nothing to misrepresent the account. What I posted was from the account and I didn't change one word.

(March 14, 2018 at 12:12 pm)He lives Wrote:

(March 14, 2018 at 5:04 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: These were NDE accounts collected by reputable researchers.  The only reason you want to discount them is because they don't fit your narrative.  That's confirmation bias plain and simple.  You count the hits but ignore (or rationalize away) the misses.  That's only proof that you want so badly to believe that you're willing to distort the evidence to fit.  That only leads to unreliable conclusions based on fallacious reasoning.  If you're willing to distort the evidence because of such strong, irrational bias, why should we believe anything you have to say about NDEs?  We've already seen you present a misleading account of Charles Tart's research.  I read some of the entries on that page you linked to earlier and the facts were either distorted or outright misrepresented in practically all of the ones I examined.  And this type of lying and misrepresentation is common among NDE researchers.  The charge of fake NDE is more justifiably leveled at the accounts of NDEs in general.

It depends on which account of Charles Tart you believe. Anyone can post on Wikipedia and express their views and although I like Wikipedia, it is still biased. Susan Blackmore expressed her opinion, but she was not there. Neither were the others who expressed their opinions. Charles would have continued his study had not the woman moved away. I did nothing to misrepresent the account. What I posted was from the account and I didn't change one word.

*Bolding mine*

Research papers lay out their methodology so others who weren't there can review them and determine if there were problems with the manner in which the experiments were conducted or with the interpretation of the results and, if possible, to repeat the experiments under controlled circumstances to either confirm or disconfirm the previous findings. That's not bias. That's science.

(March 14, 2018 at 6:30 am)robvalue Wrote: Our new Christians are welcome to tell me why I should care about Christianity, even if it's true. Is there anything other than "join or you'll be sorry"?

It is not about join or you'll be sorry, it is learning the importance loving everyone through word and deed.

---

(March 14, 2018 at 12:22 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(March 14, 2018 at 12:12 pm)He lives Wrote: It depends on which account of Charles Tart you believe. Anyone can post on Wikipedia and express their views and although I like Wikipedia, it is still biased. Susan Blackmore expressed her opinion, but she was not there. Neither were the others who expressed their opinions. Charles would have continued his study had not the woman moved away. I did nothing to misrepresent the account. What I posted was from the account and I didn't change one word.

*Bolding mine*

Research papers lay out their methodology so others who weren't there can review them and determine if there were problems with the manner in which the experiments were conducted or with the interpretation of the results and, if possible, to repeat the experiments under controlled circumstances to either confirm or disconfirm the previous findings. That's not bias. That's science.

Susan Blackmore made a statement that does absolutely show bias.

(March 14, 2018 at 12:30 pm)He lives Wrote:

(March 14, 2018 at 6:30 am)robvalue Wrote: Our new Christians are welcome to tell me why I should care about Christianity, even if it's true. Is there anything other than "join or you'll be sorry"?

It is not about join or you'll be sorry, it is learning the importance loving everyone through word and deed.

That claim might be a bit more compelling if there wasn't that nagging damnation thingy hanging over it all.

If learning to love others through word and deed is the bottom line, you might as well be a Buddhist.

(March 14, 2018 at 12:30 pm)He lives Wrote: It is not about join or you'll be sorry, it is learning the importance loving everyone through word and deed.

Which can adequately be done without adherence to religion.

(March 14, 2018 at 12:30 pm)He lives Wrote:

(March 14, 2018 at 6:30 am)robvalue Wrote: Our new Christians are welcome to tell me why I should care about Christianity, even if it's true. Is there anything other than "join or you'll be sorry"?

It is not about join or you'll be sorry, it is learning the importance loving everyone through word and deed.

Keep working on that. How are you like us atheists so far? Still tempted to judge? Keep working on it and you might might get there yet.