If

[Surgenator]

Trying to relate two unrelated things.

Not at all surgen.
If i got right you said that definitions make sense because the majority dictate so that is why i said that it not necessary the majority opinion that make sense in most cases.

Society agrees on what the meaning of a word (i.e. the definition) is. This is required to be able to communicate. If you do not know how to use the words corectly, people don't understand what you're saying. Case in point.

So you already know that a feeling is no evidence.
How do you know that?
So if somebody tell you that he-she is in love with somebody you dismiss that just because it is a feeling even before you get any evidence on the contrary?
Very smart surgen.

Such an epic fail. Her/his actions are the evidence.

Not necessay surgen.
How would you know that?
Can you read in people mind to see whether they are acting or not?
Who are you?
Are you a magician or a normal human being?
Gee, surgen give me the right lotto number please.

Are you really trying to argue against cause and effect? The cause is the person's taughts/desires and the effect is their actions. It is that simple.

Yes, I'm a mother fucking magician, and I don't need to win the lottery because I get all the things I want because I'm a mother fucking magician.

As I said, failed at logic.

One of the most failed logic is to dismiss something without even try to see whether it is true or not.

3 things: 1) You shouldn't start believing things just because someone said it.
2) You're ignoring the criticisms of the so called evidence.
3) You're ignoring the counter evidence.

So.... You agree with me. Truth is independent of anybody's opinion.

The one you are talking about it is called RELATIVE truth which is valid only within the phisical-mental arena and in that particular space and time in which take place so in a way it is a truth but again because it is subject to relative factors can not be called an ultimate truth.

You got your relative and absolutes mixed up. Never in my definition of truth did I say it depends on the subject.

You call......SKEPTICISM?
Sacks debunks that NDEs allow to see God and that is a lot more than SKEPTICISM.

What was sacks exact words, please?

As you can see below Sacks start with the wrong foot by calling an NDE an hallucination and when you start with the wrong foot you just can't get it right.


Hallucinations, whether revelatory or banal, are not of supernatural origin; they are part of the normal range of human consciousness and experience. This is not to say that they cannot play a part in the spiritual life, or have great meaning for an individual. Yet while it is understandable that one might attribute value, ground beliefs, or construct narratives from them, hallucinations cannot provide evidence for the existence of any metaphysical beings or places. They provide evidence only of the brain's power to create them.

http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_th...based.html

First off, good job on backing up your claims (sorta).

You effectively quoted Sack's conclusion without looking at his reasoning that lead to the conclusion. Two example where Sacks uses other people experiments to back up his conclusion that from your source.

OBEs, as Henrik Ehrsson and his fellow researchers in Stockholm have elegantly shown, can be produced experimentally, by using simple equipment -- video goggles, mannequins, rubber arms, etc. -- to confuse one's visual input and one's proprioceptive input and create an uncanny sense of disembodiedness.

But we know from the experience of Tony Cicoria and many others, that a hallucinatory journey to the bright light and beyond, a full-blown NDE, can occur in 20 or 30 seconds, even though it seems to last much longer.

You can find a translator in a logic class.

One guy called surgen was sort of saying .........................Pointing out flaws in an experiment is very common and encouraged in the scientific community. The only place it is not encourage is the pseudoscience community..................well, well how surgen knows that my is pseudoscience when in fact the results say otherwise?
That is why i said that i needed a translator to understand your senseless statement.
You seem to follow Sacks footsteps in claiming things as truth when in fact are only claims.

You have results hock:, where are your results? Oh wait, is it your testimonials? Testimnonials are terrible evidence because hallucinations can be so real. For example, I once had a dream that I went to school, got a homework assignment, and came back home. I though it was so real that I even tried to do the homework assignment. (I figured something was up when I didn't have notes any homework for that day).

That is not an explanation of how you would verify if you are right or not. How do you verify a claim in "intuitional science?"

By digging the soil somewhere you may find something very interesting.
At the same time by working in a certain way under the instruction of someone who has already been there or done that you may find something very interesting.
When the claim become reality you know that it wasn't just a claim.

I digged a lot. The only thing I found was more soil or bedrock. Neither were very interesting.

So if someone can reproduce the halluciantion then that means it was not a halluciantion. You need more than repeatability to say something exist. You need consistent predictability of something new.

Claims, claims, claims and more claims but no answers. I'll make the claim that the devil is in charge and god is his little bitch (whipped and crucified jesus because he could). The whole karma is an illusion perputrated by the devil so that he can snuff the hope out of us. The happy NDE are illusions the devil gives to people because he loves to see peoples hopes disappear when they realize the truth. PROVE ME WRONG!

Gee, i thought that atheist don't believe in supernatural entities whether is God or the devil.
But your thought is interesting anyway.
So the devil could have created all this wonderful universe in order to make us suffer at the end when we realize that after all there is only hell.
That however contradict this actual reality in which everything is balanced by positive and negative and at the end the only way to get out this waste of lives is to enter the spiritual world.
So, no thanks, your hypothesis just doesn't make any sense at all.

Atheist don't believe in God and generally the devil. I personally don't. I only proposed a thought experiment.

Sorry, but everything is not balanced. There is only the illusion of "positive" and over abundance of "negative." The balanced you feel is trickery by the devil, and he has done a wonderful job of tricking you. Break free from your illusion and surrender to masochism.