[split] IF you deconverted in midlife, can you help?-NDE Discussion

[Huggy Bear]

---

*emphasis mine*
Taken from your link: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/675...25-no4.pdf

Yes, he does refer to that part of her NDE as an OBE as well as referring to her overall experience as an NDE at other points in the article (e.g. "errors  of  fact  greatly  exaggerate  the  force  of  this  NDE  as evidence  for  survival  after  death").  As noted, OBEs sometimes occur without any corresponding elements of an NDE.  When they do, however, the combined experience is considered an NDE and the OBE portion of it is considered an element of that NDE.  This is perfectly consistent with Augustine's account as well as with what I said above that all the sources I had quoted refer to Pam Reynolds' experience as an NDE and consistent with standard usage.  Additionally, some passages refer to specific parts of her NDE as an OBE.  Exactly why you feel this is important or relevant I have no fucking idea.  I asked you previously to explain what your intention in bringing it up was, but you chose to ignore my request.  At best I can guess this is some reading comprehension fail like your example below.  If it's something more than tell me what it is.  What's your point, Huggy?

*emphasis mine*

You think I just made that up out of thin air? That is even what your own sources say that.

Taken from your own post.


YOU even emphasized those points, so how is it MY claim? My info is based on what Dr. Sabom wrote, HE'S the one that had access to the records...


*emphasis mine*



Again that is not MY claim it's Dr. Sabom's claim.

---

First, I never claimed that you had simply made up the claim.  And I did not say that it was your "claim" using claim as a noun, but that you "claimed," the verb, that those events occurred while Reynolds was flatlined.  According to google, to claim, the verb, means to "state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof."  You indeed were asserting that this was the case, even if you did provide support for your statement later.

*emphasis mine*
You pretty much contradicted yourself within the same post...

It became your claim when you restated Sabom's conclusions and then went on to aggressively defend his conclusions with additional arguments.

*emphasis mine*

If according to you, aggressively defending Dr. Sabom's conclusions (which I did no such thing, I plainly stated that I had no access to his book, what I did do was point out your source incorrectly referring to Pam's name as a 'pseudonym') then explain how YOUR aggressive defense of the opinions expressed in the 'Bell curve' did not become YOUR claim?

But you also went further than that.  Upon being shown information which cast doubt upon Dr. Sabom's statement, instead of doing what I did and following the footnotes of Augustine's paper to the same information that I found wherein Sabom contradicted himself, you chose to double down and make an aggressive defense of your statement by making ridiculous ad hominem arguments against the Augustine paper.  Even after I explicitly linked you to that information, you have continued to argue the point.

What I said was that you posted information from a clearly biased source, that is NOT a "ridiculous ad hominem", it is a valid observation.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/keit...h-bio.html

---

---

And it's dishonest of you to bring up my quote of Sabom via Augustine as Augustine was in that passage drawing attention to how Sabom's claim was wrong, so trying to pass it off as something that I agreed with is just lying by quoting out of context.  So, no, you didn't just pass off somebody else's claim.  It became your claim when you restated Sabom's conclusions and then went on to aggressively defend his conclusions with additional arguments.

*emphasis mine*

That was not my purpose and you full well know it.  

My point in quoting that was not to imply your agreement, but to show that what I said was clearly not MY CLAIM, but was a reference to A CLAIM...

 But what is your ultimate point here, Huggy?  That you're not responsible for the statements you make if they are based on something outside yourself?  That's ludicrous!  You wouldn't accept that for Khemikal's statement about bees or Pandemonium's statement about Denmark if they were to assert it, so why should it hold any weight with you?  Indeed, if we can't hold you responsible for the statements you make, then I guess all your bloviation about how superior you are to atheists and what a critical thinker you are don't hold water because you aren't the one responsible for the statements you've made.

*emphasis mine*

Strawman argument... 

Khemikal's and Pandemonium's statement's were purely based on their own ass...

Show me where they referenced ANY source that supported their statements. If they did so, then we'd be talking about the same thing, but they didn't so what are you on about? Both of their statements directly contradict facts, what we're discussing cannot be described as absolute fact in either case.

According to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_case

(Cardiologist Michael Sabom in his book Light and Death says that this occurred during a period in which her brain had completely ceased to function, but it is not clear that it occurred during this period.)

*emphasis mine*

You are responsible for the things you post, the arguments you make, and the beliefs you hold.  That is just common sense.  So exactly what point are you trying to make here by pointing out that "the claim" was Dr. Sabom's? What the fuck are you on about, other than muddying up the waters with more irrelevancies and red herrings?

*emphasis mine*
(I guess the part in bold only applies when it's augments not based on the bell curve?)

If you don't know why I would defer to someone else with medical expertise that has clearly has done more extensive research on the subject than I have, then I really don't know what else to say to you...

Yeah, the guy who just happens to be in the medical profession, who did the research and wrote the book on Pam Reynolds experience (the basis of this debate), his conclusion is totally irrelevant...

Now, you ignored my prior request for an acknowledgement that you were wrong when you stated that, "she was able to recount conversation and the equipment used to perform the surgery, this would have been during the time she was flatlined."  Were you or were you not wrong when you said this?

I prefaced that statement with "According to"... which you conveniently left out.

However to answer your question, the answer is no.