What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[vulcanlogician]

I did a google search on the quote. It seems that Helsenberg did actually say that. Here is another site if you are interested:   http://the-formula.org/how-to-deal-with-...-atheists/

As I said before Heisenberg did not say that. It was from Heinz Otremba. But your article might be forgiven for citing Heisenberg. It's commonly misattributed to him.

Your article "How To Deal With Skeptics & Atheists" was rather enlightening though as it shows where you are coming from. You've heard of confirmation bias, right? This article is working on building up your propensity to fall into it. I can see how posting to AF has done little more than show you that you are right about NDEs, and that's a problem. Our attitude towards NDEs says nothing of their truth or falsity, but (in a roundabout way) the article uses our skepticism to bolster your belief.

There is no popular scientific consensus concerning NDEs. Why? Because there is no evidence for them. With this in mind, it's easy to see why skeptics do not believe in NDEs. That's kind of their thing. They adopt beliefs for which there is evidence... otherwise, they would not be skeptics. In William James's essay, "The Will to Believe" he tries to argue that faith is a viable force in one's search for truth, but in it, he takes great care to show how skepticism is equally valuable. How is skepticism valuable? It prevents error. In a world full of shysters and charletains, skepticism is a valuable tool. After all, shysters and charletains make their living on being believed and not being scrutinized too much. We scrutinize and doubt things. We look for the trickster who may be pulling the strings. Average "credulous" people don't.

My YouTube ads have featured ads for the "California Psychics" phone line recently. Their ad campaign claims that "even skeptics" were swayed to believe in powers of divination after a free five minute trial with one of their psychics. Why is this supposed to be convincing? Because skeptics don't fall for bullshit. If something is evident, we accept it. If it is not evident we don't. We accept Newton's laws of motion and things like protons and electrons. We don't accept (generally) things like bigfoot and haunted houses. In an investigation, our opinion matters for this very reason. That's why, on talk shows that feature guests making outrageous claims, a skeptic is often invited on to provide alternate explanations. If the opinion of someone who only values what is evident didn't matter at all, we wouldn't be used as a talking point in a psychic phone line ad.

What your article attempts to do is paint skepticism like a character flaw. If you believe that we are just a bunch of depressed naysayers, you will be more apt to discount what we have to say. Let's look at a quote found early in the article:

The problem here is that NDErs “KNOW” God first hand. And Skeptics are basing everything on their stubborn inability to experience another human being’s experience. They can’t get beyond their own voice. The ones I have debated on Oprah, Donahue, Larry King (twice), CNN Medical News, etc., are sad and depressed people who consider themselves “experts” by their own decree. A few atheists like me (before my NDE) have a direct experience of the numinous and then easily “come out” because we get something we never had before called “humility!”

What is being said here?

1) Skeptics base everything on their "stubborn" inability to experience another human being's experience. (Lol.)
2) Skeptics can't get beyond their own voice.
3) Skeptics are often sad and depressed people who consider themselves "experts" by their own decree.
4) Skeptics do not have humility.

None of these says anything about a skeptics ability to ascertain the truth. They are all ad hominems. But why are they included in the article? I'll tell you exactly why. Skeptics are people who look for solid evidence. There IS NO solid evidence for NDE's. This might be disheartening for some believers (in their quest to convince others that NDEs are real). So this article is meant to strengthen the resolve of believers. It's a pep talk: "Don't listen to the naysayers... they are depressed people without humility. That's why they reject NDE's. It has nothing to do with the utter lack of solid evidence. Keep believing, child of God... keep believing..."

Our inability to experience another person's NDE has nothing to do with stubborness. It's impossible for ANYONE to experience another person's NDE. That's a fact for skeptics and believers alike. We can't get beyond our own voice? Then why do we accept things like Newton's laws of motion or Quantum mechanics? We obviously got beyond our own voice to read about Isaac Newton's discoveries. The thing is: THERE IS EVIDENCE for Newton's theories. Solid evidence. So it carries weight with us. Next claim: Skeptics are depressed people. That's not true, but so what if it was? Are depressed people automatically wrong in their assertions? No. (I have suffered from depression for years... I guess I'm wrong about everything.) "Experts by our own decree?" No. We need evidence. If there is no solid evidence we conclude that there is no reason to accept it. We're not experts... YOU are the expert on NDEs-- not us. We are simply people who need evidence before we accept something. Deal with it. 

Last point: skeptics do not have humility. Let's first note the arrogance it takes to point to an entire group of people and accuse them ALL of lacking humility. Wow. That's incredible. But, again, assuming the author is correct here, what does that have to do with accepting things based on solid evidence? Nothing. This article is meant to create confirmation bias IN YOU. After reading this article, if you meet a depressed skeptic, you will subconsciously take that as evidence for NDEs. Is that logical? No! But that's the way type 1 thinking works. This article is manipulating your emotions and not telling you the one thing it should be telling you:

Skeptics need solid evidence before being convinced of claims, especially extraordinary claims. Don't expect a skeptic to accept an extraordinary claim you make unless you have extraordinary evidence. If you ever meet a skeptic who denies your claims due to shaky evidence, simply accept the fact that that is the nature of skepticism and move on.

That's how you deal with atheists & skeptics.