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

[He lives]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...e-says-yes

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversa...rain-54828

[ouote-Lutrinae]Why psychology lost its soul: everything comes from the brain.

But as a neuroscientist and psychologist, I have no use for the soul. On the contrary, all functions attributable to this kind of soul can be explained by the workings of the brain.

[/quote]

Who id D. K. Johnson that I should believe her?

https://www.soulproof.com/evidence/

[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.

[Amarok]

Oh yeah that article is so neutral and open minded. And does not sound like NDE preaching and personnel attacks to convince the audience and author himself to dismiss their critics . And of course the writer was an atheist and a skeptic . They all were 

[GrandizerII]

There are 8 witnesses to an accident. Each one has a different story to tell. Each one has a different perspective of the accident. Does that mean the accident didn't happen? Of course not. The same is true for NDEs. Thousands of people throughout the world have had NDEs and they did happen. Much like the accident people who have NDEs have different perspectives of what happened. However there is enough correlating evidence to prove that NDEs do happen. There is also evidence that the spirit leaves the body when a person dies.

But the accident isn't necessarily an example of a supernatural event, and neither are the experiences of NDE necessarily examples of a supernatural event. You still need to provide the evidence that NDEs are due to supernatural phenomena. I've yet to see this evidence that clearly points to such things and is not easily accounted for by naturalistic explanations.

[drfuzzy]

There are 8 witnesses to an accident. Each one has a different story to tell. Each one has a different perspective of the accident. Does that mean the accident didn't happen? Of course not. The same is true for NDEs. Thousands of people throughout the world have had NDEs and they did happen. Much like the accident people who have NDEs have different perspectives of what happened. However there is enough correlating evidence to prove that NDEs do happen. There is also evidence that the spirit leaves the body when a person dies.

Oh and . . . (how did I forget to mention this?) . . . here's the way out of your current reputation as an ignorant, closed-minded, deluded asshole who lives in his own little fantasy world.  It's really really simple.

All you have to do is provide links to 3 solid, peer-reviewed, scientific studies that prove that a soul exists, and that clearly demonstrate the soul exiting the human body (electric fields? magnetic measurements? a stable, measurable loss of mass?).  And of course, they must contain solid proof that this - exudate - clearly contains the consciousness of the newly-deceased, so - the soul has to speak for itself after physical death - somehow, enough to be recorded as audio or video.  And, obviously, this has to have been verified by 3 very different scientific teams in 3 different locations with three different subjects, recorded using multiple recording devices, with all three teams getting the same results.  You keep claiming that there is "evidence" but you do not provide any links to any reputable studies that have successfully proved the existence of a soul.  Perhaps we have missed them.  

When you make statements like the one in bold above, then you had better provide links to globally-accepted research immediately following your statement.  Three peer-reviewed replicated studies from three different countries, showing concrete proof of your statement, or you're just another liar.

[vorlon13]

There is also evidence that the spirit leaves the body when a person dies.

Incorrect.  There is not even any evidence of a spirit residing in the human body.

Indeed. But nevertheless, Christians should be reasonably expected to believe that there are spirts in their bodies, or more accurately, immortal souls, and such souls are inspirated into their bodies upon successful birth, and that those souls depart their bodies via the last breath.

Just like it says in the Bible.

Beliefs contrary to that that are held by Christians would be evidence those persons are apostates or heretics.

[vulcanlogician]

Incorrect.  There is not even any evidence of a spirit residing in the human body.

Indeed.  But nevertheless, Christians should be reasonably expected to believe that there are spirts in their bodies, or more accurately, immortal souls, and such souls are inspirated into their bodies upon successful birth, and that those souls depart their bodies via the last breath.

Just like it says in the Bible.

Beliefs contrary to that that are held by Christians would be evidence those persons are apostates or heretics.

Interestingly enough, the immortal soul is mentioned nowhere in the Bible. All that comes from Plato. A literal reading of the Bible suggests a  hylomorphic soul. Hylomorphism has been described as a "polite form of materialism." LOL... all these Christians are supposed to be materialists and they just don't know it!  

[vorlon13]

Genesis 2:7

[vulcanlogician]

Yes, but nothing about immortality there or anywhere else. People are going to be "resurrected" at the end times. They aren't just automatically immortal. Splitting hairs, I know... and I really don't care either way. But some Christians take the "not immortal soul" thing quite seriously... for example, Banned.

[He lives]

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.

I agree with your points and your argument. However by agreeing I would like to point out that everyone should also be skeptical about abiogenesis as there is no solid evidence to it's extraordinary claims that life began from some hypothetical primordial soup that was thought to exist on the pre life earth. This sounds too much like the fictional story of Frankenstein. At least in the story of Frankenstein body parts were used to bring him to life. You may say that life on earth is evidence of abiogenesis. However life on earth can also be used as evidence of intelligent design. In fact I am very much a skeptic of abiogenesis. The chances of the biogenesis Hypothesis ever happening are 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. It would be more likely to find a brand new F-16 on the dark side of the moon. I therefore would like to know why anyone would trust in the abiogenesis hypothesis?I don't see it as being of any more value to anyone than ID since neither one have been proven.

---

Indeed.  But nevertheless, Christians should be reasonably expected to believe that there are spirts in their bodies, or more accurately, immortal souls, and such souls are inspirated into their bodies upon successful birth, and that those souls depart their bodies via the last breath.

Just like it says in the Bible.

Beliefs contrary to that that are held by Christians would be evidence those persons are apostates or heretics.

Interestingly enough, the immortal soul is mentioned nowhere in the Bible. All that comes from Plato. A literal reading of the Bible suggests a  hylomorphic soul. Hylomorphism has been described as a "polite form of materialism." LOL... all these Christians are supposed to be materialists and they just don't know it!  

Actually there is mention of an immortal spirit in the Bible:

(Old Testament | Ecclesiastes 12:6 - 7)

6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

---

There are 8 witnesses to an accident. Each one has a different story to tell. Each one has a different perspective of the accident. Does that mean the accident didn't happen? Of course not. The same is true for NDEs. Thousands of people throughout the world have had NDEs and they did happen. Much like the accident people who have NDEs have different perspectives of what happened. However there is enough correlating evidence to prove that NDEs do happen. There is also evidence that the spirit leaves the body when a person dies.

But the accident isn't necessarily an example of a supernatural event, and neither are the experiences of NDE necessarily examples of a supernatural event. You still need to provide the evidence that NDEs are due to supernatural phenomena. I've yet to see this evidence that clearly points to such things and is not easily accounted for by naturalistic explanations.

So far there is no proof of either out of body experiences or biogenesis.