Evolution

[Little Rik]

Sorry darl.
NDEs are not bare assertions.
They are 100% evidence.
Real people, real accidents, real hospitals, real doctors, real death, real coming back to life and real witnesses so your dismissing is like a fart worth nothing.

Let's recount exactly what was discussed to see whether or not I dismissed NDEs as bare assertion.

1.  You made an argument that God would not "send them back" if reincarnation did not exist (HERE).  At this point I objected that your introducing God without evidence for his existence was logically vapid, and that we only have your bare assertion as to what this God character would or wouldn't do.

2.  In your next post you claimed that Newton's first law of motion was an example of karma, and that the existence of karma demonstrates the existence of God (HERE).  I pointed out that Newton's first law was not in fact an example of karma, but that even if it was, extending laws of motion to a law of moral behaviors required justification beyond simply claiming that it applies equally to motion and moral acts.  You never followed up on this point.

3. You then made the claim that if God did not exist, then the universe would have disintegrated because of "bad luck" long ago (HERE).  I pointed out that things happen in the universe because of "causes" and that "bad luck" was not itself a cause, so you needed to demonstrate a cause that would have resulted in the disintegration of the universe.  You never followed up on that argument either.  This appears to be a common theme with you.  You have all the staying power of a limp dick.

4. What followed next was your post filled with whining and crying about how I arbitrarily dismissed your evidence (HERE).

As we can see from the history of the discussion, at no point did I dismiss NDEs as bare assertion on your part.  So you can take your claim that I did and shove it up your fucking ass.  What I do see is you making several lame arguments, my rebuffing them with good reasons for doing so, and your failing to follow up on your own arguments.  I did not dismiss NDEs nor did I arbitrarily dismiss any argument made.  If you failed to pursue your own arguments, then you have only yourself to blame.  But instead you bounced from topic to topic like a hyperactive child.

But let's set all that aside and look at the argument you originally made which set all this up.

Obviousy NDEs in most cases entails reincarnation.
Why then God would send these people back?
If these people would be ready to be with God right then then God would not send them back.
It is like in this physical-material life that if you still have some work to do you are not ready to get your degree.

Now, even if we ignore the fact that you've introduced a "God" which you have no evidence actually exists, and simply look at your argument, there are still problems to be found.

You claim that the "sent back" theme is evidence that reincarnation exists.  In the first place, this is just your own conjecture about the reason why "God" would send people back.  It's worth noting that this is certainly not the only possible interpretation of why these people are being "sent back."  It's fully consistent with the sent back theme that these people are being sent back, not because it is not time for them to reincarnate, but rather that death in fact entails complete annihilation of an individual and an end to their existence.  In that case they would be being sent back because it is premature for them to be snuffed out altogether.  There is no indication in the NDE accounts that an interpretation of reincarnation fits the facts better than one of annihilation, so your asserting the one rather than the other is purely arbitrary and is based upon your prior beliefs rather than any actual evidence from the NDEs themselves.

Furthermore, it's interesting to note what people from India, the original home of the concepts of karma and reincarnation, have to say about the theme of being sent back.  In Indian NDEs, the person being sent back is typically understood to be the result of a clerical error in the cosmic bureaucracy, that they are being sent back because the death that they are approaching was actually meant for another person (see Near-Death Experiences and Hinduism).  They do not recount anything having to do with karma or reincarnation.  If anybody knows the correct interpretation of the sent back theme you would think it would be Indian Hindus who are steeped in the concepts of karma and reincarnation their whole lives, yet they do not interpret their NDEs in the way you suggest they should be interpreted.

So what we have is your claim about what the correct way to interpret the theme of being sent back is, with no corroboration for your claim from the NDEs themselves or from anywhere else.  I would accept if you were to show that your interpretation is the most probable one, but you can't even do that.  Instead what you have is a claim about the implications of being sent back, which is not corroborated by the NDEs themselves in anyway, and competing explanations that are equally likely.  Even if I accept that the experiences of being sent back are real, this idea that they entail karma/reincarnation is an addition to the evidence from the NDEs themselves which you've added solely because it fits with your prior beliefs.  What you believe independent of the evidence is not itself evidence.

So, yet again, even if I'm extremely charitable toward you here, you have failed to make your case.  Your attempt to provide evidence for the existence of karma and reincarnation is nothing but a colossal failure.  Your claims that I dismissed NDEs are false.  And the notion that I arbitrarily dismissed anything is just a lie.  No, what we see here is you assuming a great deal not in evidence, and providing piss poor support for the things that you do claim.  Your allegations as to what occurred in this discussion are completely unfounded and nothing more than the product of your imagination

Now, all that being said, you have yet to provide good evidence that NDEs are evidence of karma or reincarnation, both of which are required for your idea of the evolution of consciousness to be valid.  Feel free to provide arguments or evidence of either of these.  As far as your claims that I arbitrarily dismissed shit, or that I dismissed NDEs as unreal, you can take both those claims and go fuck yourself.  I did no such thing.

1) Hindus follow a religion with all their dogmas and their hundreds of Gods so it is irrelevant to me what they think.
2) As far as NDEs are behind contradiction then those experience in which there is God, karma and reincarnation are real therefore is pointless for you to argue unless you can contradict that NDEs are not real.
The day that you can prove that an NDE can be experienced with a dead brain then you will have a good argument to bring forward.
At the moment you don't so all your blah, blah, blah is pointless.  
Obviously you haven't read much about NDEs.
If you would have you would know that a lot of those people clearly explain that life continue until the peak of evolution is reached and those who do not talk about that do not say the opposite because for them is something obvious.
3) You say that you do not dismissed NDEs as false but at the same time you keep on asking for more and more evidence 24/7.
No matter the amount of evidence given to you.
You still would ask for more and more evidence obviously because your strong belief in no God would collapse in no time.
No point in trying to understand.
You are hopeless.
4) Many NDEs clearly talk about action and reactions which result in going up or down evolutionary speaking that is why as it happen physically also happen in consciousness.
5) Why the universe would disintegrate without someone in charge.
The universe need energy to survive like a body need energy to survive.
There is no such a thing in the universe that is able to exist without being continuously fed so obviously lack of "food" means death.


Additionally:
[hide]

On top of this we have ex hard and staunch atheists that are now strong theists so you are just fooling yourself     in believing that evidence is not there.

This isn't evidence for either karma or reincarnation, so your complaint here is irrelevant to this discussion.

These ex atheists went trough an NDE which entail that God is there, karma is there and reincarnation is there.  

[Ravenshire]

Let's recount exactly what was discussed to see whether or not I dismissed NDEs as bare assertion.

1.  You made an argument that God would not "send them back" if reincarnation did not exist (HERE).  At this point I objected that your introducing God without evidence for his existence was logically vapid, and that we only have your bare assertion as to what this God character would or wouldn't do.

2.  In your next post you claimed that Newton's first law of motion was an example of karma, and that the existence of karma demonstrates the existence of God (HERE).  I pointed out that Newton's first law was not in fact an example of karma, but that even if it was, extending laws of motion to a law of moral behaviors required justification beyond simply claiming that it applies equally to motion and moral acts.  You never followed up on this point.

3. You then made the claim that if God did not exist, then the universe would have disintegrated because of "bad luck" long ago (HERE).  I pointed out that things happen in the universe because of "causes" and that "bad luck" was not itself a cause, so you needed to demonstrate a cause that would have resulted in the disintegration of the universe.  You never followed up on that argument either.  This appears to be a common theme with you.  You have all the staying power of a limp dick.

4. What followed next was your post filled with whining and crying about how I arbitrarily dismissed your evidence (HERE).

As we can see from the history of the discussion, at no point did I dismiss NDEs as bare assertion on your part.  So you can take your claim that I did and shove it up your fucking ass.  What I do see is you making several lame arguments, my rebuffing them with good reasons for doing so, and your failing to follow up on your own arguments.  I did not dismiss NDEs nor did I arbitrarily dismiss any argument made.  If you failed to pursue your own arguments, then you have only yourself to blame.  But instead you bounced from topic to topic like a hyperactive child.

But let's set all that aside and look at the argument you originally made which set all this up.


Now, even if we ignore the fact that you've introduced a "God" which you have no evidence actually exists, and simply look at your argument, there are still problems to be found.

You claim that the "sent back" theme is evidence that reincarnation exists.  In the first place, this is just your own conjecture about the reason why "God" would send people back.  It's worth noting that this is certainly not the only possible interpretation of why these people are being "sent back."  It's fully consistent with the sent back theme that these people are being sent back, not because it is not time for them to reincarnate, but rather that death in fact entails complete annihilation of an individual and an end to their existence.  In that case they would be being sent back because it is premature for them to be snuffed out altogether.  There is no indication in the NDE accounts that an interpretation of reincarnation fits the facts better than one of annihilation, so your asserting the one rather than the other is purely arbitrary and is based upon your prior beliefs rather than any actual evidence from the NDEs themselves.

Furthermore, it's interesting to note what people from India, the original home of the concepts of karma and reincarnation, have to say about the theme of being sent back.  In Indian NDEs, the person being sent back is typically understood to be the result of a clerical error in the cosmic bureaucracy, that they are being sent back because the death that they are approaching was actually meant for another person (see Near-Death Experiences and Hinduism).  They do not recount anything having to do with karma or reincarnation.  If anybody knows the correct interpretation of the sent back theme you would think it would be Indian Hindus who are steeped in the concepts of karma and reincarnation their whole lives, yet they do not interpret their NDEs in the way you suggest they should be interpreted.

So what we have is your claim about what the correct way to interpret the theme of being sent back is, with no corroboration for your claim from the NDEs themselves or from anywhere else.  I would accept if you were to show that your interpretation is the most probable one, but you can't even do that.  Instead what you have is a claim about the implications of being sent back, which is not corroborated by the NDEs themselves in anyway, and competing explanations that are equally likely.  Even if I accept that the experiences of being sent back are real, this idea that they entail karma/reincarnation is an addition to the evidence from the NDEs themselves which you've added solely because it fits with your prior beliefs.  What you believe independent of the evidence is not itself evidence.

So, yet again, even if I'm extremely charitable toward you here, you have failed to make your case.  Your attempt to provide evidence for the existence of karma and reincarnation is nothing but a colossal failure.  Your claims that I dismissed NDEs are false.  And the notion that I arbitrarily dismissed anything is just a lie.  No, what we see here is you assuming a great deal not in evidence, and providing piss poor support for the things that you do claim.  Your allegations as to what occurred in this discussion are completely unfounded and nothing more than the product of your imagination

Now, all that being said, you have yet to provide good evidence that NDEs are evidence of karma or reincarnation, both of which are required for your idea of the evolution of consciousness to be valid.  Feel free to provide arguments or evidence of either of these.  As far as your claims that I arbitrarily dismissed shit, or that I dismissed NDEs as unreal, you can take both those claims and go fuck yourself.  I did no such thing.

1) Hindus follow a religion with all their dogmas and their hundreds of Gods so it is irrelevant to me what they think.
2) As far as NDEs are behind contradiction then those experience in which there is God, karma and reincarnation are real therefore is pointless for you to argue unless you can contradict that NDEs are not real.
The day that you can prove that an NDE can be experienced with a dead brain then you will have a good argument to bring forward.
At the moment you don't so all your blah, blah, blah is pointless.  
Obviously you haven't read much about NDEs.
If you would have you would know that a lot of those people clearly explain that life continue until the peak of evolution is reached and those who do not talk about that do not say the opposite because for them is something obvious.
3) You say that you do not dismissed NDEs as false but at the same time you keep on asking for more and more evidence 24/7.
No matter the amount of evidence given to you.
You still would ask for more and more evidence obviously because your strong belief in no God would collapse in no time.
No point in trying to understand.
You are hopeless.
4) Many NDEs clearly talk about action and reactions which result in going up or down evolutionary speaking that is why as it happen physically also happen in consciousness.
5) Why the universe would disintegrate without someone in charge.
The universe need energy to survive like a body need energy to survive.
There is no such a thing in the universe that is able to exist without being continuously fed so obviously lack of "food" means death.


Additionally:
[hide]

On top of this we have ex hard and staunch atheists that are now strong theists so you are just fooling yourself     in believing that evidence is not there.

This isn't evidence for either karma or reincarnation, so your complaint here is irrelevant to this discussion.

These ex atheists went trough an NDE which entail that God is there, karma is there and reincarnation is there.  

Well, at least one of the idiots in this thread had the sense to leave after being beaten repeatedly.

[Crossless2.0]

2) As far as NDEs are behind contradiction then those experience in which there is God, karma and reincarnation are real therefore is pointless for you to argue unless you can contradict that NDEs are not real.

What the actual fuck are you trying to communicate here?

The day that you can prove that an NDE can be experienced with a dead brain then you will have a good argument to bring forward.

I'm honestly confused. Am I to assume you are breathtakingly stupid or stunningly dishonest?

[Amarok]

The day that you can prove that an NDE can be experienced with a dead brain then you will have a good argument to bring forward.

The day bring any evidence that NDE proves the afterlife rather then the clear scientific evidence that the brain and conscience are one in the same . And conscience is not a separate  substance of entity . Then you might take your baseless hearsay seriously.

[Brian37]

Let's recount exactly what was discussed to see whether or not I dismissed NDEs as bare assertion.

1.  You made an argument that God would not "send them back" if reincarnation did not exist (HERE).  At this point I objected that your introducing God without evidence for his existence was logically vapid, and that we only have your bare assertion as to what this God character would or wouldn't do.

2.  In your next post you claimed that Newton's first law of motion was an example of karma, and that the existence of karma demonstrates the existence of God (HERE).  I pointed out that Newton's first law was not in fact an example of karma, but that even if it was, extending laws of motion to a law of moral behaviors required justification beyond simply claiming that it applies equally to motion and moral acts.  You never followed up on this point.

3. You then made the claim that if God did not exist, then the universe would have disintegrated because of "bad luck" long ago (HERE).  I pointed out that things happen in the universe because of "causes" and that "bad luck" was not itself a cause, so you needed to demonstrate a cause that would have resulted in the disintegration of the universe.  You never followed up on that argument either.  This appears to be a common theme with you.  You have all the staying power of a limp dick.

4. What followed next was your post filled with whining and crying about how I arbitrarily dismissed your evidence (HERE).

As we can see from the history of the discussion, at no point did I dismiss NDEs as bare assertion on your part.  So you can take your claim that I did and shove it up your fucking ass.  What I do see is you making several lame arguments, my rebuffing them with good reasons for doing so, and your failing to follow up on your own arguments.  I did not dismiss NDEs nor did I arbitrarily dismiss any argument made.  If you failed to pursue your own arguments, then you have only yourself to blame.  But instead you bounced from topic to topic like a hyperactive child.

But let's set all that aside and look at the argument you originally made which set all this up.


Now, even if we ignore the fact that you've introduced a "God" which you have no evidence actually exists, and simply look at your argument, there are still problems to be found.

You claim that the "sent back" theme is evidence that reincarnation exists.  In the first place, this is just your own conjecture about the reason why "God" would send people back.  It's worth noting that this is certainly not the only possible interpretation of why these people are being "sent back."  It's fully consistent with the sent back theme that these people are being sent back, not because it is not time for them to reincarnate, but rather that death in fact entails complete annihilation of an individual and an end to their existence.  In that case they would be being sent back because it is premature for them to be snuffed out altogether.  There is no indication in the NDE accounts that an interpretation of reincarnation fits the facts better than one of annihilation, so your asserting the one rather than the other is purely arbitrary and is based upon your prior beliefs rather than any actual evidence from the NDEs themselves.

Furthermore, it's interesting to note what people from India, the original home of the concepts of karma and reincarnation, have to say about the theme of being sent back.  In Indian NDEs, the person being sent back is typically understood to be the result of a clerical error in the cosmic bureaucracy, that they are being sent back because the death that they are approaching was actually meant for another person (see Near-Death Experiences and Hinduism).  They do not recount anything having to do with karma or reincarnation.  If anybody knows the correct interpretation of the sent back theme you would think it would be Indian Hindus who are steeped in the concepts of karma and reincarnation their whole lives, yet they do not interpret their NDEs in the way you suggest they should be interpreted.

So what we have is your claim about what the correct way to interpret the theme of being sent back is, with no corroboration for your claim from the NDEs themselves or from anywhere else.  I would accept if you were to show that your interpretation is the most probable one, but you can't even do that.  Instead what you have is a claim about the implications of being sent back, which is not corroborated by the NDEs themselves in anyway, and competing explanations that are equally likely.  Even if I accept that the experiences of being sent back are real, this idea that they entail karma/reincarnation is an addition to the evidence from the NDEs themselves which you've added solely because it fits with your prior beliefs.  What you believe independent of the evidence is not itself evidence.

So, yet again, even if I'm extremely charitable toward you here, you have failed to make your case.  Your attempt to provide evidence for the existence of karma and reincarnation is nothing but a colossal failure.  Your claims that I dismissed NDEs are false.  And the notion that I arbitrarily dismissed anything is just a lie.  No, what we see here is you assuming a great deal not in evidence, and providing piss poor support for the things that you do claim.  Your allegations as to what occurred in this discussion are completely unfounded and nothing more than the product of your imagination

Now, all that being said, you have yet to provide good evidence that NDEs are evidence of karma or reincarnation, both of which are required for your idea of the evolution of consciousness to be valid.  Feel free to provide arguments or evidence of either of these.  As far as your claims that I arbitrarily dismissed shit, or that I dismissed NDEs as unreal, you can take both those claims and go fuck yourself.  I did no such thing.

1) Hindus follow a religion with all their dogmas and their hundreds of Gods so it is irrelevant to me what they think.
2) As far as NDEs are behind contradiction then those experience in which there is God, karma and reincarnation are real therefore is pointless for you to argue unless you can contradict that NDEs are not real.
The day that you can prove that an NDE can be experienced with a dead brain then you will have a good argument to bring forward.
At the moment you don't so all your blah, blah, blah is pointless.  
Obviously you haven't read much about NDEs.
If you would have you would know that a lot of those people clearly explain that life continue until the peak of evolution is reached and those who do not talk about that do not say the opposite because for them is something obvious.
3) You say that you do not dismissed NDEs as false but at the same time you keep on asking for more and more evidence 24/7.
No matter the amount of evidence given to you.
You still would ask for more and more evidence obviously because your strong belief in no God would collapse in no time.
No point in trying to understand.
You are hopeless.
4) Many NDEs clearly talk about action and reactions which result in going up or down evolutionary speaking that is why as it happen physically also happen in consciousness.
5) Why the universe would disintegrate without someone in charge.
The universe need energy to survive like a body need energy to survive.
There is no such a thing in the universe that is able to exist without being continuously fed so obviously lack of "food" means death.


Additionally:
[hide]

On top of this we have ex hard and staunch atheists that are now strong theists so you are just fooling yourself     in believing that evidence is not there.

This isn't evidence for either karma or reincarnation, so your complaint here is irrelevant to this discussion.

These ex atheists went trough an NDE which entail that God is there, karma is there and reincarnation is there.  

How are the religions of others irrelevant? That is nonsense. If everyone of every religion thinks they got it right, then it is relevant.

All you are really arguing is you don't buy the religion of others, so? And they don't buy yours. Get in line take a number. 

What nobody has, not you,  or Hindus or Jews or Muslims or Buddhists for that matter, is any form of neutral methodology all of you can agree on to settle the question of who got it right.

[Amarok]

On top of this we have ex hard and staunch atheists that are now strong theists so you are just fooling yourself  On top of this we have ex hard and staunch atheists that are now strong theists so you are just fooling yourself     in believing that evidence is not there.

in believing that evidence is not there.

This assumes everyone who was atheist is rational or that atheist can't become irrational. This is clearly not the case . Drug addicts can relapse so can atheists back to irrationality . 

[Angrboda]

1) Hindus follow a religion with all their dogmas and their hundreds of Gods so it is irrelevant to me what they think.

I could really care less what you think of Hindus, the fact is that the reports of their NDEs are relevant to the argument you put forward.  I must also say that given how much you whined about me allegedly dismissing your evidence for arbitrary reasons, I find your dismissal of their NDE reports to be hypocritical.  Regardless, you brought forth that your interpretation of why people were being sent back was because of karma is contradicted by their experiences.  You still have that contradiction to resolve despite your rather irrelevant complaint about their dogmas and their hundreds of Gods.  Your objection would only be relevant if it were Hindu dogma to lie about NDE experiences, which I'm pretty sure it's not.

2) As far as NDEs are behind contradiction then those experience in which there is God, karma and reincarnation are real therefore is pointless for you to argue unless you can contradict that NDEs are not real.

Not true in more ways than one, but we'll get to that later.  The existence of your specific God appearing in an NDE might lend credence to the idea that karma and reincarnation exist, but only insofar as the god encountered in an NDE corresponds to your god.  Do you have an NDE in which the god that appears identifies himself as the god of reincarnation and karma?  If not, you don't have a case of an NDE in which your specific god identifiably appears.  From what I understand, the most common identifiable god appearing in NDEs is the Christian god in the form of Jesus.  Not only does that not help you as he is not your specific god, it in fact creates a problem.  If Jesus is real, then Christian beliefs about the afterlife follow, and that doesn't include reincarnation and karma.  So, no, the mere appearance of a god in an NDE does not by itself entail the existence of reincarnation and karma.

The day that you can prove that an NDE can be experienced with a dead brain then you will have a good argument to bring forward.
At the moment you don't so all your blah, blah, blah is pointless.  

You misunderstand the burden of proof here.  You are the person who claimed that reincarnation and karma exist because of the things experienced in NDEs.  I need not demonstrate that NDE experience is not real.  Quite the opposite, to demonstrate your claim, you must prove that NDEs are real in all applicable senses (below I have more to say on this).  I could accept that NDEs occur as you say, by consciousness leaving the body, etc., without having to concede that the things experienced in an NDE are all true (and not some type of illusion that consciousness is prone to once it leaves the body).  Typical of you, to claim victory when you've only half succeeded.  You need to demonstrate the truth of NDEs.  I do not need to refute NDEs as a whole to refute your particular claims here.  So, typical of you, your claim that my "blah, blah, blah" as you call it is not in fact pointless, as I don't need to present any such argument that NDEs occur in a dead brain to effectively refute your claims.  So, sorry, but you're wrong again.

Obviously you haven't read much about NDEs.
If you would have you would know that a lot of those people clearly explain that life continue until the peak of evolution is reached and those who do not talk about that do not say the opposite because for them is something obvious.

And we have NDEs in which people see Jesus Christ, who, identifiably does not endorse the truth of karma or reincarnation.  The thing you're not getting is that the problem is not whether you can dredge up some schmuck who had an NDE in which he talked about karma and reincarnation, the problem is that the NDE accounts report contradictory things.  If Jesus Christ appears in an NDE and is "real," then according to that NDE, karma and reincarnation do not exist.  Any NDE which reports a view of the afterlife which is not compatible with karma and reincarnation becomes a problem because contradictory things cannot both be true in the same sense.  In order to resolve the contradiction, you cannot appeal to particular NDEs as real and accurate and others as not so, based solely on the content of the NDEs alone, as that is simply begging the question.  You can only settle the Jesus versus Yoga God question regarding NDEs by proving that one or the other is the only accurate picture of reality based upon something outside of NDEs.  Otherwise you are just judging which account is accurate and which is not, solely on the basis of your prior beliefs about the respective religious/spiritual beliefs.  And your prior beliefs aren't evidence, so deciding by that is invalid, and your conclusions unfounded.  Ultimately, you must justify believing certain NDEs over others by reference to the real world, rather than to the NDEs.  However, I've never seen you provide any evidence for your god outside of NDEs, so I suspect that you don't have any.  Failing that, it is impossible for you to maintain that NDEs are real and that they exclusively provide evidence for your beliefs.  If you can't do that, then you don't have evidence that karma and reincarnation exist because your evidence paints a picture which is logically irreconcilable.

I will also note that you are prone to lying about the prevalence of specific content in NDEs (e.g. veridical NDEs), so I have no faith in your claim that "a lot of those people clearly explain that life continue until the peak of evolution is reached...." (emphasis mine).  Evidence not presented is not evidence.  Provide the accounts of three such NDEs or else your claim is just an unsupported assertion and will be dismissed accordingly.  (Not that it's even relevant, but I'm going to require you to substantiate your assertion.  Evidence that is not actually presented is not evidence.)

3) You say that you do not dismissed NDEs as false but at the same time you keep on asking for more and more evidence 24/7.
No matter the amount of evidence given to you.
You still would ask for more and more evidence obviously because your strong belief in no God would collapse in no time.
No point in trying to understand.
You are hopeless.

You were whining about my dismissing things in this thread, specifically that I had dismissed NDEs as not being real.  Your initial complaint was false, and your attempt to imply that any of my arguments depended upon such a dismissal is just dishonest.  Regardless, I'm not going to respond to your attempt to psychoanalyze the reasons why I have in the past asked for evidence as it is not germane to this thread.

However since you are being such a dishonest and hypocritical prick, I'm going to raise a point about the question of whether NDEs are real, and place some strictures upon your evidence as a consequence.   First let's get out of the way one niggling quibble which must necessarily be borne in mind.  This is the fact that, on the basis of the experience of an NDE, it is not possible to distinguish between attributing OBE experiences to clairvoyance/clairaudience, and attributing them to consciousness leaving the body.  Note, I am not here denying that, perhaps, there is no biological phenomena that can account for NDEs.  I am only claiming that there is not conclusive evidence that consciousness, whatever it is, actually leaves the body.  Since you are claiming that consciousness leaves the body prior to reincarnation, you necessarily must show that.  Specifically, you must show that OBEs in NDEs cannot be accounted for by clairvoyance/clairaudience, in which the consciousness never leaves the body.  It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.

Now onto the more significant stricture upon the NDE evidence you present.  Regardless of how one conceives of consciousness -- brain, soul, independent entity -- it is a known fact that people can hallucinate things (and I don't need to rely on a brain based explanation for this to matter, as, given the burden of proof, you are responsible for establishing the reality of NDE content, not the other way around).   We know that in hallucinatory experiences, only some of the perceived content is not veridical or false.  If I hallucinate a bear in my living room, that does not mean that my perception of the walls, my couch, the furniture in my room, my body, are all hallucinatory and therefore unreal.  The content of perception during a hallucination is mixed, part of it being real, and part of it not being real.  If consciousness, spirit, whatever, is capable of hallucinating, then we cannot depend upon the fact that some elements of perception are real to validate that all elements in my perception are real.  Because there is a mix of real and unreal elements in hallucinations, the fact that some aspect of a veridical NDE is real (such as Pamela Reynolds' perception of the operating room instruments) does not itself provide evidence that other aspects (such as seeing God, for example) are also real.  That doesn't follow given what we know about illusory content in perception.  Even if we grant that consciousness leaves the body and is able to perceive its surroundings, that does not in itself demonstrate that some of the perceptions, say those beyond the OBE, are not illusory.  The long and short of it is that you must either demonstrate that a disembodied consciousness is not capable of having illusory perceptions, or you must restrict the evidence you present to only those elements of an NDE that have been verified as real or veridical (such as the contents of the OBE).  Failing that, you cannot conclude anything based on NDE content that has not been verified by independent observers, as that would not be logically valid.

Good luck.

4) Many NDEs clearly talk about action and reactions which result in going up or down evolutionary speaking that is why as it happen physically also happen in consciousness.

Answered above.

5) Why the universe would disintegrate without someone in charge.
The universe need energy to survive like a body need energy to survive.
There is no such a thing in the universe that is able to exist without being continuously fed so obviously lack of "food" means death.

I'll give you points for creativity.  Unfortunately your argument fails.  The universe began with a rather low total entropy, which in plain speak means that it originally was possessed of considerable potential energy as a consequence of that low entropy.  Over time, the universe has been converting that potential energy into actual energy by increasing its entropy, becoming more and more disordered.  So, in fact, the universe began with an abundant source of energy which it has gradually been converting from potential energy into other forms of energy.  So, you see, the universe has had a continual infusion of energy thanks to its initial state; no god required.  So, no, the idea that the universe would have thus necessarily "died" from lack of food without god is simply false.  It has been constantly feeding itself through this process of entropy conversion since its inception.  It will only run out of energy at the heat death of the universe, but that's not going to occur for a very long time to come.  When that comes, there will indeed be a sort of death, but that has not happened in the past, so no god has been required between the inception of the universe and now (in terms of energy anyway).  But kudos for creativity, even though your answer is still wrong.

Try again.

Additionally:
[hide]

On top of this we have ex hard and staunch atheists that are now strong theists so you are just fooling yourself     in believing that evidence is not there.

This isn't evidence for either karma or reincarnation, so your complaint here is irrelevant to this discussion.

These ex atheists went trough an NDE which entail that God is there, karma is there and reincarnation is there.  

First of all, it only entails that they believe there is a god, not that one therefore exists.  Their changed belief by itself is evidence of nothing.  But more to the point, their experience, if real, is evidence of a god, not necessarily your specific god.  If they have an NDE of Jesus, it doesn't help you, as reincarnation and karma are not implied by His existence.  In addition, my earlier comments about irreconcilable god claims also applies. So, no, this is not relevant.

[Little Rik]

1) Hindus follow a religion with all their dogmas and their hundreds of Gods so it is irrelevant to me what they think.

I could really care less what you think of Hindus, the fact is that the reports of their NDEs are relevant to the argument you put forward.  I must also say that given how much you whined about me allegedly dismissing your evidence for arbitrary reasons, I find your dismissal of their NDE reports to be hypocritical.  Regardless, you brought forth that your interpretation of why people were being sent back was because of karma is contradicted by their experiences.  You still have that contradiction to resolve despite your rather irrelevant complaint about their dogmas and their hundreds of Gods.  Your objection would only be relevant if it were Hindu dogma to lie about NDE experiences, which I'm pretty sure it's not.

2) As far as NDEs are behind contradiction then those experience in which there is God, karma and reincarnation are real therefore is pointless for you to argue unless you can contradict that NDEs are not real.

Not true in more ways than one, but we'll get to that later.  The existence of your specific God appearing in an NDE might lend credence to the idea that karma and reincarnation exist, but only insofar as the god encountered in an NDE corresponds to your god.  Do you have an NDE in which the god that appears identifies himself as the god of reincarnation and karma?  If not, you don't have a case of an NDE in which your specific god identifiably appears.  From what I understand, the most common identifiable god appearing in NDEs is the Christian god in the form of Jesus.  Not only does that not help you as he is not your specific god, it in fact creates a problem.  If Jesus is real, then Christian beliefs about the afterlife follow, and that doesn't include reincarnation and karma.  So, no, the mere appearance of a god in an NDE does not by itself entail the existence of reincarnation and karma.

The day that you can prove that an NDE can be experienced with a dead brain then you will have a good argument to bring forward.
At the moment you don't so all your blah, blah, blah is pointless.  

You misunderstand the burden of proof here.  You are the person who claimed that reincarnation and karma exist because of the things experienced in NDEs.  I need not demonstrate that NDE experience is not real.  Quite the opposite, to demonstrate your claim, you must prove that NDEs are real in all applicable senses (below I have more to say on this).  I could accept that NDEs occur as you say, by consciousness leaving the body, etc., without having to concede that the things experienced in an NDE are all true (and not some type of illusion that consciousness is prone to once it leaves the body).  Typical of you, to claim victory when you've only half succeeded.  You need to demonstrate the truth of NDEs.  I do not need to refute NDEs as a whole to refute your particular claims here.  So, typical of you, your claim that my "blah, blah, blah" as you call it is not in fact pointless, as I don't need to present any such argument that NDEs occur in a dead brain to effectively refute your claims.  So, sorry, but you're wrong again.

Obviously you haven't read much about NDEs.
If you would have you would know that a lot of those people clearly explain that life continue until the peak of evolution is reached and those who do not talk about that do not say the opposite because for them is something obvious.

And we have NDEs in which people see Jesus Christ, who, identifiably does not endorse the truth of karma or reincarnation.  The thing you're not getting is that the problem is not whether you can dredge up some schmuck who had an NDE in which he talked about karma and reincarnation, the problem is that the NDE accounts report contradictory things.  If Jesus Christ appears in an NDE and is "real," then according to that NDE, karma and reincarnation do not exist.  Any NDE which reports a view of the afterlife which is not compatible with karma and reincarnation becomes a problem because contradictory things cannot both be true in the same sense.  In order to resolve the contradiction, you cannot appeal to particular NDEs as real and accurate and others as not so, based solely on the content of the NDEs alone, as that is simply begging the question.  You can only settle the Jesus versus Yoga God question regarding NDEs by proving that one or the other is the only accurate picture of reality based upon something outside of NDEs.  Otherwise you are just judging which account is accurate and which is not, solely on the basis of your prior beliefs about the respective religious/spiritual beliefs.  And your prior beliefs aren't evidence, so deciding by that is invalid, and your conclusions unfounded.  Ultimately, you must justify believing certain NDEs over others by reference to the real world, rather than to the NDEs.  However, I've never seen you provide any evidence for your god outside of NDEs, so I suspect that you don't have any.  Failing that, it is impossible for you to maintain that NDEs are real and that they exclusively provide evidence for your beliefs.  If you can't do that, then you don't have evidence that karma and reincarnation exist because your evidence paints a picture which is logically irreconcilable.

I will also note that you are prone to lying about the prevalence of specific content in NDEs (e.g. veridical NDEs), so I have no faith in your claim that "a lot of those people clearly explain that life continue until the peak of evolution is reached...." (emphasis mine).  Evidence not presented is not evidence.  Provide the accounts of three such NDEs or else your claim is just an unsupported assertion and will be dismissed accordingly.  (Not that it's even relevant, but I'm going to require you to substantiate your assertion.  Evidence that is not actually presented is not evidence.)

3) You say that you do not dismissed NDEs as false but at the same time you keep on asking for more and more evidence 24/7.
No matter the amount of evidence given to you.
You still would ask for more and more evidence obviously because your strong belief in no God would collapse in no time.
No point in trying to understand.
You are hopeless.

You were whining about my dismissing things in this thread, specifically that I had dismissed NDEs as not being real.  Your initial complaint was false, and your attempt to imply that any of my arguments depended upon such a dismissal is just dishonest.  Regardless, I'm not going to respond to your attempt to psychoanalyze the reasons why I have in the past asked for evidence as it is not germane to this thread.

However since you are being such a dishonest and hypocritical prick, I'm going to raise a point about the question of whether NDEs are real, and place some strictures upon your evidence as a consequence.   First let's get out of the way one niggling quibble which must necessarily be borne in mind.  This is the fact that, on the basis of the experience of an NDE, it is not possible to distinguish between attributing OBE experiences to clairvoyance/clairaudience, and attributing them to consciousness leaving the body.  Note, I am not here denying that, perhaps, there is no biological phenomena that can account for NDEs.  I am only claiming that there is not conclusive evidence that consciousness, whatever it is, actually leaves the body.  Since you are claiming that consciousness leaves the body prior to reincarnation, you necessarily must show that.  Specifically, you must show that OBEs in NDEs cannot be accounted for by clairvoyance/clairaudience, in which the consciousness never leaves the body.  It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.

Now onto the more significant stricture upon the NDE evidence you present.  Regardless of how one conceives of consciousness -- brain, soul, independent entity -- it is a known fact that people can hallucinate things (and I don't need to rely on a brain based explanation for this to matter, as, given the burden of proof, you are responsible for establishing the reality of NDE content, not the other way around).   We know that in hallucinatory experiences, only some of the perceived content is not veridical or false.  If I hallucinate a bear in my living room, that does not mean that my perception of the walls, my couch, the furniture in my room, my body, are all hallucinatory and therefore unreal.  The content of perception during a hallucination is mixed, part of it being real, and part of it not being real.  If consciousness, spirit, whatever, is capable of hallucinating, then we cannot depend upon the fact that some elements of perception are real to validate that all elements in my perception are real.  Because there is a mix of real and unreal elements in hallucinations, the fact that some aspect of a veridical NDE is real (such as Pamela Reynolds' perception of the operating room instruments) does not itself provide evidence that other aspects (such as seeing God, for example) are also real.  That doesn't follow given what we know about illusory content in perception.  Even if we grant that consciousness leaves the body and is able to perceive its surroundings, that does not in itself demonstrate that some of the perceptions, say those beyond the OBE, are not illusory.  The long and short of it is that you must either demonstrate that a disembodied consciousness is not capable of having illusory perceptions, or you must restrict the evidence you present to only those elements of an NDE that have been verified as real or veridical (such as the contents of the OBE).  Failing that, you cannot conclude anything based on NDE content that has not been verified by independent observers, as that would not be logically valid.

Good luck.

4) Many NDEs clearly talk about action and reactions which result in going up or down evolutionary speaking that is why as it happen physically also happen in consciousness.

Answered above.

5) Why the universe would disintegrate without someone in charge.
The universe need energy to survive like a body need energy to survive.
There is no such a thing in the universe that is able to exist without being continuously fed so obviously lack of "food" means death.

I'll give you points for creativity.  Unfortunately your argument fails.  The universe began with a rather low total entropy, which in plain speak means that it originally was possessed of considerable potential energy as a consequence of that low entropy.  Over time, the universe has been converting that potential energy into actual energy by increasing its entropy, becoming more and more disordered.  So, in fact, the universe began with an abundant source of energy which it has gradually been converting from potential energy into other forms of energy.  So, you see, the universe has had a continual infusion of energy thanks to its initial state; no god required.  So, no, the idea that the universe would have thus necessarily "died" from lack of food without god is simply false.  It has been constantly feeding itself through this process of entropy conversion since its inception.  It will only run out of energy at the heat death of the universe, but that's not going to occur for a very long time to come.  When that comes, there will indeed be a sort of death, but that has not happened in the past, so no god has been required between the inception of the universe and now (in terms of energy anyway).  But kudos for creativity, even though your answer is still wrong.

Try again.

Additionally:
[hide]



These ex atheists went trough an NDE which entail that God is there, karma is there and reincarnation is there.  

First of all, it only entails that they believe there is a god, not that one therefore exists.  Their changed belief by itself is evidence of nothing.  But more to the point, their experience, if real, is evidence of a god, not necessarily your specific god.  If they have an NDE of Jesus, it doesn't help you, as reincarnation and karma are not implied by His existence.  In addition, my earlier comments about irreconcilable god claims also applies. So, no, this is not relevant.

1) Once you see God during your NDE you see that particular God that you believed during your life so for a Christian will be Jesus for a Buddhist Buddha, for an Hindu Shiva, Krishna or any of those hundreds Gods worship in their lives.
God is one of course but He will take a form that will be more familiar with the person who experience Him according to his-her previous culture.
This has been shown time and time again in thousand of NDEs.

2) Many NDEs already proved that consciousness separate from the dead body by being able to see their dead body below or to see things or places where these people never been before. Witness confirmed the authenticity of the vision so obviously at the time of physical death the consciousness separate from the body.
This by the way kill the atheist dogma that once you die is all over.

3) Obviously you have never seen me to provide any evidence for my god outside of NDEs.
Why?
Because awareness in consciousness is not transferable.
I could transfer money to you but not my awareness that God exist and that make sense.
Why should you or anyone else benefit from my spiritual efforts?
It would be like giving a degree to someone who never studied.

4) Entropy in the universe?
Guesses, guesses and more guesses.
In the meantime it make sense that constant food is needed for anything to be alive.  

5) Hallucinations are easily forgotten.
NDEs not, beside NDEs give spiritual strength while hallucination only give trouble.
Real NDEs spring from consciousness while hallucination from a brain in trouble but not dead yet.

[Angrboda]

1) Once you see God during your NDE you see that particular God that you believed during your life so for a Christian will be Jesus for a Buddhist Buddha, for an Hindu Shiva, Krishna or any of those hundreds Gods worship in their lives.
God is one of course but He will take a form that will be more familiar with the person who experience Him according to his-her previous culture.

Ignoring for the moment that this is a rationalization about NDEs rather than actual evidence from NDEs, this doesn't actually help you. First, you're now asserting that the perceptions experienced in an NDE do not accurately reflect the underlying reality. This undermine's your claim that the presence of a God in an NDE establishes reincarnation and karma as you've severed the link between the character of the God presented and his actual attributes or character. Regardless, in point #5 below you're attempting to assert the exact opposite, that the perceptions in an NDE are an accurate reflection of the underlying reality and not illusory. You can't have it both ways. You have to choose one or the other. The good news is that you're fucked either way you go. If you assert as you are here that the perceptions in an NDE do not in fact represent reality reliably, then we cannot reliably infer anything based upon the content of NDEs, as according to you, it's just a reflection of prior beliefs. On the other hand, if the perceptions in an NDE accurately reflect reality, as you try to argue in point #5, then you're back to having mutually contradictory accounts of reality. If those perceptions are accurate, then reality is inconsistent and absurd, and we again cannot rely upon the testimony of NDEs because it is not clear from the content of NDEs what version of reality is in fact the true one. So, the argument above doesn't help you. As a matter of principle, though, you need to decide which poison pill you want to swallow and stick with it.

This has been shown time and time again in thousand of NDEs.

No, this is a rationalization attempting to explain the inconsistencies in NDE accounts, and is based not on the content of the NDEs but is instead is just an example of advocates of the survival hypothesis trying desperately to salvage something out of the actual evidence. Even if you were to somehow dredge up an NDE account in which a god figure claimed, "I am not the real god, but simply an avatar of the one true God," you would simply be adding yet another God to the pile of incompatible gods. But you can't do that, because there is no NDE evidence for this view of the inconsistency; what you have is a rationalization based upon prior beliefs and a desperate desire to rescue the supposed reliability of NDE accounts. Unfortunately it fails because it undermines its own goal, that of establishing that NDE content is an accurate and reliable representation of an actual reality. Moreover, having effectively severed the link between a particular go figure and its alleged attributes, you can no longer determine whether Christian God or Yoga God is the underlying "one true god." So instead of furthering your attempt to demonstrate that karma and reincarnation exist, instead you've simply shot yourself in the foot. Way to go, Ace.

2) Many NDEs already proved that consciousness separate from the dead body by being able to see their dead body below or to see things or places where these people never been before. Witness confirmed the authenticity of the vision so obviously at the time of physical death the consciousness separate from the body.

Since I explained the problems with this in my last post, I'm going to be brief and refer you back to that post for clarification if needed. As a practical matter, the content of the OBE portion of an NDE can be explained multiple ways. It's consistent with consciousness leaving the body. It is also consistent with consciousness being capable of clairvoyance/clairaudience in which visual and auditory perception is extended outside of the body without consciousness actually leaving the body. There is nothing in the OBE/NDE content which can itself distinguish between the two explanations. You've chosen to champion the consciousness leaving the body hypothesis, as you should, given its necessary to your claims of reincarnation. However you haven't produced any evidence which would tip the balance in favor of your view, and against clairvoyance/clairaudience. Additionally, as noted in my previous post, the truthfulness of the OBE portion of an NDE doesn't demonstrate the truthfulness of other parts of an NDE (such as an experience of God). That simply doesn't follow. Moreover, as noted in my last post, perception of illusory content is often experienced with truthful, non-illusory content. Our experience of illusory perceptions is that the content is mixed, including one part truth and one part fantasy. So demonstrating the truth of part of an NDE doesn't establish the truth of the whole of the NDE.

I went over all this in great detail in my last post. What, did you sleep through most of it?

This by the way kill the atheist dogma that once you die is all over.

As noted in my last post as well as above, this is simply not true. You have yet to establish that consciousness even can leave the body, so your claim of victory here is premature.

3) Obviously you have never seen me to provide any evidence for my god outside of NDEs.
Why?
Because awareness in consciousness is not transferable.
I could transfer money to you but not my awareness that God exist and that make sense.
Why should you or anyone else benefit from my spiritual efforts?
It would be like giving a degree to someone who never studied.

I could really care less about what you claim about your personal experience, it isn't evidence of your claims of karma and reincarnation. From what I've seen, you reason like a pregnant cow, and any conclusions you draw based upon your own experience are not reliable. You can't even be trusted to reason profitably about the material presented in an internet post, much less demonstrated any more advanced acumen. If your mental abilities are defective, your belief that you have acquired truth is likely also defective. Deluded people cannot be trusted to determine the truth or falsity of their delusions.

Regardless, the point was that you have not established the reliability or truthfulness of the content of NDEs. Until you do, all your babbling about what NDEs do or do not show is quite beside the point. Until you establish their reliability, the only other evidence you can appeal to is empirical evidence about the real world. Since you apparently don't have any such evidence, and you've failed to provide credible evidence from NDEs, you're effectively left with squat. You have no evidence for the existence of karma and reincarnation, which is required if you're to be believed regarding your views on consciousness and evolution.

4) Entropy in the universe?
Guesses, guesses and more guesses.
In the meantime it make sense that constant food is needed for anything to be alive.  

Hahahahahaha! Entropy is established physics. There is no guessing involved. It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. But this is testimony to the fact that you will deny established facts if they conflict with your religious/spiritual beliefs. That's pathetic. You whine about my justified dismissal of your prior arguments, and then you have the gall to attempt to dismiss established physics with a wave of your hand. You have a double standard and are a confirmed hypocrite.

Regardless, entropy is real, and the universe thus has had an abundant supply of energy throughout its history. This is simply more proof that you're a deluded crank. Denying entropy. Sheesh! How stupid.

5) Hallucinations are easily forgotten.
NDEs not, beside NDEs give spiritual strength while hallucination only give trouble.
Real NDEs spring from consciousness while hallucination from a brain in trouble but not dead yet.

As noted in my reply to point #1, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. I really don't care which line of bullshit you choose to subscribe to because neither one leads to the conclusion you desire. So commit to one or the other. Or don't. I don't care. If you choose to hang onto both it will simply show that your beliefs are not logically consistent, and your holding them is irrational. So pick a side, asshole.

[Amarok]

And no Riks dismissing entropy as a guess lol