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

[Angrboda]

---

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?

---

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...

No, I did not. I had not said that it was your claim. That I may have later argued that it was your claim is not a contradiction.

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?

Since I never aggressively defended the opinions expressed in the 'Bell curve', I have nothing to explain.

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

---

---

You did that and you also attacked the credibility of Augustine's other claims based upon your belief that he was wrong in referring to Pam Reynolds as a pseudonym. Regardless of whether you think such attacks are reasonable or not, they are ad hominem arguments, as they address the qualities of the man in order to cast doubt on his other facts and arguments rather than actually demonstrating those facts are wrong. As the expression goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Arguing that because someone is biased or had some unrelated fact wrong does not lead to the conclusion that they are wrong about their other facts. Perhaps it is evidence that they might be wrong, but, as noted, he wasn't, so it's a moot point.

Regardless, you were provided with adequate resources to conclude that Dr. Sabom's statement was in error, and rather than investigate the truth of the matter, you chose to attack those that opposed his claim.

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...

Fine, if that was not your intent, it was not your intent. But nobody here can read your mind. The way you presented it looked as if you were representing it as Augustine's opinion.

 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.

It was a hypothetical question. I said 'if' that were the case, not that it was the case. So, it's not a straw man, but rather a hypothetical, which you obviously would rather not answer.

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...

Again, I never defended the bell curve, so that is simply a false allegation. Second, deferring to a medical professional is fine until you've been given reason to doubt that medical professional. (Not that you wouldn't have reason to doubt such a claim anyway.) But Dr. Sabom wasn't giving his opinion as a medical professional but rather as a journalist, so his qualifications as a medical professional are irrelevant to the question that was at issue. And not once, but twice, you continued to defend that opinion when you had been given information contrary to that opinion, including information that came from Dr. Sabom himself.

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.

Your complete statement was, "Well according to the medical staff performing the surgery, she was able to recount conversation and the equipment used to perform the surgery, this would have been during the time she was flatlined." It's not entirely grammatical, but "this would have been during the time she was flatlined," is an independent clause and would logically be read as your opinion, not that of the medical staff performing the surgery. You have given Dr. Sabom's statement that these events occurred while she was flatlined, but since you've also been shown that Dr. Sabom has contradicted himself on that score, and since he wasn't a part of the medical staff performing the surgery, his statement's don't acquit the claim. What evidence do you have that Dr. Spetzler and his surgical staff believed that these events occurred while she was flatlined?

However to answer your question, the answer is no.

Is that a no that according to the medical staff performing the surgery she was flatlined during those events, or no that she wasn't flatlined during those events? If the former, then you haven't provided any evidence that this is true (that I recall). Given that the surgical staff as a whole are likely as aware of the relation of events in the surgery as Dr. Sabom is, I find it rather unlikely that their opinion was that she was flatlined during this period. If your statements weren't based upon those of the medical staff performing the surgery, but rather upon Dr. Sabom's reconstruction, then you would have been wrong, or at least, making an unsupported statement.

That leads to the natural question which is really at issue here. Do you believe that Pam Reynolds was flatlined when the events in question, the conversation about her veins and her seeing the bone saw being used, occurred?

ETA: I note that your response as to what the medical staff report was in response to the point that according to the Wikipedia article you quoted, there was some doubt as to whether Reynolds was flatlined during the events in question. As such, you were using the statement of what was true, allegedly according to the medical staff performing the surgery, as evidence to the belief that she was flatlined during those events. So in context you were attempting to argue that she was indeed flatlined during those events.