If you are able to accept the reality of an unconditioned state then it’s clear that observation is possible outside the confines of a body.
You doubt the authenticity of these experiences and you do so on the basis of claiming that they are merely vivid hallucinations. When clearly you have no mechanism to explain it. And the one you do have would only account for random hallucinations.
These people are having experiences with shared properties. If the afterlife did not exist and did not influence the experiences of people undergoing the process of death, we’d predict random collections of hallucinations. However, that’s not what we see. What we see is a collection of experiences which align with the predictions made by a model of experience supporting the existence of an after life.
You can’t account for the non-random nature of the these NDE reports on the basis of “pure hallucination”. However the existence of an afterlife allows for authentic and repeatable experiences which collections of people share and relate.
The existence of an unconditioned state allows for the observer to exist outside the confines of typical consciousness tied up with the body. The existence of a well established afterlife allows for the same experiences to be had by multiple, multiple people.
I don’t have the luxury of taking these states of mindfulness to be “bubble gum” for the mind. I have a nefarious Overlord to appease. I either end my own suffering by quieting the mind and releasing my self from the bondage of existence or I am at His mercy. That’s the sad part about this illness and not being “relatively normal”. Would I like to sit in and office and not hear the thoughts of other people? Not know that they can hear my thoughts. Sure. But I have a little friend who does not give me such a fair deal. I’m not saying you don’t have your “demons” - but I am saying that my demons are more demonic than yours. And my dick is bigger than yours as well. And when I spray my kundalini all over my self it’s a bigger deal than when you do.
Quelle surprise, that’s because your claim was a straw man fallacy. Or is that too literal for you?
It’s not a "staunch position, I merely pointed out that all the objective evidence indicates this, nd of course this is a very different claim to the one you made, and wrongly assigned me.I’d appreciate it if you didn;t paraphrase me, as you always get it very wrong.
Untrue, you never mentioned consciousness, you said ego, and here is your claim,
I have never made this claim, and don’t paraphrase me please, your use of language is too sloppy and inaccurate.
I’d rather you left it, as it took many months for you to admit your last mistake, just quote me verbatim, it’s easy quick and there is less chance you’ll create a straw man. I never mentioned the ego, that was entirely your claim, and thus a straw man.
That’s just a string of subjective unevidenced caims, and none of it evidences a soul?
Then quote my post, and don’t embellish or ignore what I’ve said, as we always spend as much time arguing about your endless straw men, and misrepresentations as your original claim, that a soul exists, which you have still failed to demonstrate any objective evidence for.
It was just a string of unevidenced woo woo claims? No explanatory powers and no objective evidence, you may believe in unevidenced superstition of course, but I will not.
Straw man fallacy, and I stated the exact opposite in the last post, HERE:
Too literal for you, or did you not read it properly?
Well there you go, you don’t know the difference between explanatory and subjective unevidenced claims, after all this time that’s takes a spectacularly closed mind.
I don;t care what you prefer, the statements are not mutually exclusive, and more importantly you claimed they were dead, (which you now admitted has never happened) and that they are glimpsing something after death, when they’re not in fact dead.
They are alive, are you now going to pretend you’ve not conceded this point? They need medical science to ensure they stay alive, as their hearts have stopped, if their hearts are not restarted their brains, which are being starved of oxygen will die, and that is the legal and clinical definition of death.
I hate to get literal, but being alive is a necessity before anything can die, dear oh dear. FYI, everything that is alive is “in the process of dying”. I never remotely claimed they would stay alive without intervention, you’re using another tedious straw man argument there, in fact I gave a very specific and literal description of the what was needed to “keep them alive”.
Not even remotely what I said, another straw man fallacy. What’s more everyone here, including you, knows the pains I go to, to avoid making absolute and unevidenced claims like that one.
I am seeing your antipathy towards the literal, but please don’t paraphrase me, or try to interpret what I say subjectively, just read the post, it is literally as i intended it.
Can you demonstrate some objective evidence that anyone has experienced anything after all brain activity has ceased? The medical world seem to think no one has ever recovered after brain death, so I must say I am dubious, I may have mentioned this already. FYI please don’t try to imply what I think, even as a question, you’re nearly always wrong, as you still don’t seem to understand the difference astonishingly between disbelieving your claim, and making a contrary claim, which I have not done. All I asserted was that no one has recovered from brain death, it’s not even my claim, but that of medical science, both I and @Cognostic offered citations for this, and since no one returns how then can anyone have realyted any experience of death?
Yes, if you read carefully, you will see me explaining this more than once in my last few posts. The reason they can be saved is because THEY ARE NOT DEAD, as I and @Cognostic explained months ago, clinical death and brain death are very different, medical science can save people who are clinically dead, no one has ever recovered from brain death. Clinical death is a medical term that describes the cessation of breathing and blood flow brought on by cardiac arrest.
The brain is still alive, which is why patients are still storing memories…you now the brain you say is not required for consciousness. Dear oh dear…when that brain dies, consciousness disappears, and no one has returned to relate anything.
Fnarr been there have you? Or is compare another word you don’t understand the literal meaning of? No one can claim what they experience whilst alive, matches being dead, because no one has been dead and related anything, your claim is risible.
Ah so you’re simply gong to ignore that then, I shan’t even feign surprise.
I think I know the answer here, but are you expecting me to believe this based on anecdotal claims, devoid of any objective evidence? I’ve just checked every major news network and none of them are ticker taping your claim has been properly evidenced?
Ding ding ding ding, we have a winner, now do you know why?
Nope, that’s a straw man fallacy, what did we say about putting words in my mouth, go back and read it please, or no cheese treat for you after we’re done.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, a claim is not true or valid just because there is no contrary explanation or evidence, I believe I may have mentioned this fallacy once or twice before.
Circular reasoning fallacy, begging the question fallacy, and a string of subjective unevidenced claims, sigh.
Anecdotal rhetoric…and not having an explanation for the imaginings of a brain being starved of oxygen is not evidence of anything, this is again an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Nor have I claimed to, nor do I need to in order to believe your unevidenced rhetoric about them, so this is another straw man fallacy.
I don’t believe you, since a) they are still alive as you have finally admitted, and b) you have no objective evidence to support any of your claims, just anecdotal rhetoric, and finally c) even if you could properly evidence the iagainings were exactly the same, all you’d have is something you couldn’t explain, so another irrational appeal to mystery.
Ramping up your rhetoric is just risible, you have failed to offer one shred of objective evidence for any afterlife. Like so many theists before you, you are deluding yourself that string unevidenced rhetoric, irrational arguments and poorly reasoned conclusions together is at all compelling.
My sympathies as I literally can’t imagine what this must be like, however we have many times discussed how people experiencing schizophrenia are far more likely to experience hallucinations, and are less able to differentiate between them, and objective reality.
Again I sympathise, but again this doesn’t make them objectively real.
The existence of an indestructible unconditioned element in which a unified observer exists is the definition of a soul. The fact of its existence is the evidence of the soul
Too literal in fact.
Almost dead. On the way there. Well on their way.
I concur
Not true. Early organism in the process of rapid growth and development are actively living. It’s around middle age that we humans in particular start to decay faster than we renew ourselves. Of course, on a microscopic level, cells are constantly growing, subsisting, replicating and dying. And everything which lives will eventually die. That doesn’t mean we’re born dying. And more importantly you’ve conflated the issue with this. It’s in poor spirits that you take a cardiac arrest minutes away from dying and, say, a new born child and say that both are “in the process of dying.”
That wasn’t my point. My point is that it’s safe to assume that some of the people who never get resuscitated also experience the same things as those who do. The latter simply don’t get to come back and tell the story.
Haven’t needed to. We have plenty of descriptions from people who have left the body, travelled to heaven through portals of light, and met other souls. Exactly the description of the entry into an afterlife we’d expect to hear if one existed.
A shame.
Because you’re afraid of the not having a good after life?
Nope. You’ve said the descriptions are vivid dream like hallucinations. I don’t need to weed through your posts to tell you that.
Let’s try this another way. If all there was after death was a dark nothingness, we’d wouldn’t expect a large community of people to come back from the verge of death and tell us otherwise. There’d be no mechanism for it.
Then why are the “hallucinations” ordered, predictable, and repeated? Why don’t we see people coming back with all assortments of stories? Why always OBES, heavenly light portals, and other souls - AT A TIME WHEN THE BODY IS ALMOST DEAD?
Alive but have left the body with full control of their faculties when, in fact, they should be entirely unconscious.
We have the regularity of the experiences which suggests something other than a hallucination induced by low blood oxygen
Easily explainable. The afterlife exists. That is why these people have these experiences.
Ehh. pretty solid objective evidence that if these experiences were low blood oxygen induced hallucinations we’d have a variety of random “I slept with a frog” kind of imagery going on.
That’s not what happens and what does happen is exactly what we’d expect if the foundation for those recollections was exactly as it seemed.
Feel free to doubt it. I don’t. Helps me sleep at night. Knowing I won’t dissolve into nothingness at death (which is a logical impossibility on its own in retrospect).
Circular reasoning fallacy, also the “explanation” not only has no explanatory powers, you have failed repeatedly to demonstrate any objective evidence it exists, just rhetoric and unevidenced subjective religious beliefs.
Clearly, or you;d not have misrepresented what I said with that straw man fallacy.
But not yet dead, see the difference? You are claiming people who are alive are imagining a state that no one has ever recovered from, let alone returned to relate anything.
Process
noun
a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.
Since life is a finite process, anything that is alive is in the process of dying, by definition. Claiming something one imagines whilst alive, is a glimpse of something that exists when dead is not very compelling, since it is not supported by any objective evidence. unless of course one wants to closed mindedly preserve a belief they value.
Indeed, one might call it a process.
No, but from that moment we are in a process that ends in death, thus whilst alive we are all near death, some just nearer than others.
They are, you don know that newborns often suffer cardiac arrest right?
It certainly was your original claim, would you like a quote?
Not if you care whether the claim is true or not, or whether what your believing is true. Though of course you are as i said free to believe the moon is made of cheese if it makes you happy.
We have descriptions of unicorns dragons and mermaids ratty, dear oh dear. We have descriptions of Superman and The Flash and Spiderman ffs.
Irony isn’t your thing at all is it? You have no objective point of comparison, you;re claiming something people imagine is the same as something no one has ever seen, and failing to see the irony.
Perhaps, but nonetheless the notion your claim has any scientific credence ends right there. Unless one imagines such a discovery remaining the fringe belief of the superstitious, and the scientific world inexplicably ignoring it.
Do you fear what you don’t believe exists? Think hard now…
I certainly have not, I am always very careful to avoid making unqualified absolute claims. Quote me, otherwise don’t put words into my mouth please.
Another circular reasoning fallacy, and the people your claiming have imagine things are alive, so again this in no way would be evidence we can experience death. Indeed the medical and legal definition is precisely that all brain activity ceases, and no one has ever returned to relate anything after that, you may want to believe this is a remarkable coincidence, but that’s too obviously biased to ignore.
Are they? that claim is what I was referring to as anecdotal rhetoric.
I’d need you to demonstrate compelling objective evidence that people in cardiac arrest don’t imagine precisely that, things and concepts they’ve encountered in their lives, that there are common themes among some accounts is pretty meaningless, since the beliefs are pretty common. however you are labouring hard towards an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy anyway, nothing can be asserted as true because of the lack of contrary evidence or explanation.
Do you think you can just assert tat they’ve left their bodie and I will roll over and let you tickle my belly? The last part is not just a biased subjective unevidenced claim, it is again a circular reasoning fallacy.
That is unevidenced rhetoric.
That is also unevidenced rhetoric. Sigh…
That’s not an explanation, it is just a bare claim, explanations have explanatory power, you clearly don’t understand the difference.
That’s not objective evidence, it’s trite unevidenced rhetoric, it’s also argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and an argument from personal incredulity fallacy. repeating the same irrational arguments and unevidenced claims doesn’t make them less so?
Thank you, but I have no choice but to doubt unevidenced rhetoric, and irrational argument.
Emotional investment in beliefs is very common, they serve this purpose, but I care more about whether it is true, than how I feel about it.
You don’t know this, knowledge can be objectively verified, you believe it, and the belief is not logical if it’s based on irrational arguments using known logical fallacies, and unevidenced rhetoric.
If the superstitious conclusions peddled about NDE’s had any scientific credence then mainstream science would have accepted it as properly evidenced, they clearly have not.
In what sense?. I’ve provided you with a definition of a state. We have two equivalent quantities. The unconditioned observer. And the soul. If you want to take the word “soul” out of the equation, then I could care less.
Am I? Really? Even though I’ve conceded the point at least three times? The people are “alive”. The experiences happen in a “living body”. The efficacy of the experiences however cannot be evidenced by an unconscious body undergoing oxygen deprivation. If it could we’d have a whole host of wild recollections none of which need be by any standards equivalent to the ones we’re hearing about.
You’re assuming that life is a finite process. He’ll. The United States of America is still divided on where “life” begins in the womb. If you can’t define the beginning of the process how do you assess the end? And besides, the ending of life which you assume to be a decent into nothingness is a contradiction in ideas. Nothingness is as fragile and impermanent as existence is.
Death results in a state of nothingness which, if disturbed by existence, unravels immediately giving rise to future becoming.
Ahem. No. I wouldn’t thanks. The point is that people who die experience these things before death as well. And this is completely contrary to the atheist idea that when we die we enter a state of nothingness.
You’re naive to believe anything else. Of course this experience is happening to people along the way to death whether they’re resuscitated or not. You won’t admit it because it opens up a can of worms for you. In particular, why are people who are dying and presumably becoming nothing having experiences of an afterlife? Why are they not having vivid recollections of turning into dirt.
I’m not a big fan of irony. I prefer absurd humour. I relish the absurdity of existence.
A crying shame.
You ought to, considering you don’t have all the information and your intellect is highly restricted by your rigid benchmarks for analysis. You don’t except personal experience as evidence.
For example. Two people say a color is red. Is it really red? Does it exist outside the minds of the observers. Based on your limited experience you wrongly assume that the color red is a by product of subjective perception. What you fail to realize is that, like so many other quantities in the world, these things exist outside human perception.
So you accept the color red and yet you don’t believe it exists independently of the mind.
So, your plain hubris in stating that you don’t fear what you don’t believe in isn’t anything to brag about. You’ll have plenty of time to reconsider your astonishing capacity for bravery when the truth becomes known to you.
Cramped for time, Shelly. It’s been grand. See you next time.
One last chance to fuck the dog before I sign off.
Okay. You win.
Which provides no explanation to why it’s precisely when a person is close to death that they experience OBES, portals to heaven, and the existence of other souls.
Well. If you want to get into details they do experience things from their lives. They have what are called “life reviews” where they very quickly see all of the good and bad they’ve done in their lives and the consequences of those actions and the results in the afterlife. What we don’t hear about a lot are visions of having sex with frogs and goats and other random shit that we’d exactly predict from a hallucination/dream model of the experience.
The key here is time distortion. Hallucinations and dreams contain time distortions. NDE’s donut.
What exactly is so rhetorical about what I’m saying. You keep using the word “rhetoric”. Am I using figures of speech. You can hand wave my arguments away all you like. It’s lazy philosophy on your part.
The explanation lies in the regularity and timing of the experiences. The regularity and timing don’t line up with a dream like state induced by oxygen deprivation. Such an explanation happens to be the only convienient one at your disposal. None the less, it doesn’t work. The explanation that works is that the afterlife is an objective reality. This explains the timing, the common features, and everything else about the NDE.
You know what would be nice. Hyper links to the definitions of your fallacy lists. That’d be nice. You throw those words around like a tossed salad. Expecting anyone and everyone to accept them simply because you’ve stated them. Show how my arguments are fallacy X,Y, and Z or else it’s just “Unevidenced rhetoric”.
Mainstream Science? When did mainstream science become the authority on life, death, and the hereafter.
Let the scientists stick to developing pharmaceuticals with which to line the pockets of billionaires and politicians. Science is a corrupt industry which manipulates so called knowledge to its advantage. Whether it’s to secure next years grant or to secure this years patent, it’s all a game played by chimpanzees in lab coats. Do you think for a moment it’s not a livelihood like any other. A livelihood where people lie, cheat, and take bribes? A lot of good science has done for us. Post Modern waifus walking all over the place believing the earth is flat because knowledge is all of the sudden completely subjective and never well defined.
In the sense the reasoning was circular, and therefore a fallacy.
No, just some subjective claims you’ve assigned a name to, some of which you can’t objectively evidence at all.
Equivalent in the sense they’re both unevidenced woo woo. Even were I to accept (purely for the sake of argument) that the first were objectively possible, it does not objectively evidence the second, neither claim seems to have any real explanatory powers, as is so often the case with claims.
It was your claim it exists, you have failed to demonstrate anything approaching objective evidence to support the claim, where you go with that is up tp you, but I must remain incredulous.
Yes you were, it was a factually correct statement?
The imaginings have only ever come from brains that are still alive, you have admitted this medical fact finally, so how are you now trying to claim otherwise? No one has ever recovered from brain death, ipso facto the imaginings must have come from brains that are still alive, you claimed they were dead, you of course meant clinically not medically, as they were in cardiac arrest, ipso facto the brains were being starved of oxygen, why do you keep admitting these facts, then contradicting it with this kind of rhetoric isn’t clear? No one is relating od experiences of being dead.
Again repeating this rhetoric is meaningless, I’m not sure why this is not sinking in? I’ll try bullet points:
You haven’t offered any objective evidence that what oxygen starved brains imagine is universally the same, hence it is rhetoric.
Even were the imagainings all the same, this would not evidence an afterlife, as the brains are alive.
You are again using an argument from personal incredulity, just because you can’t believe something, is not on its own evidence to refute it.
No I am not, it is an objective fact that people are born, then they die, that’s an objective fact every single time. The unevidenced assumptions being added to those facts are ALL yours. PLease don’t try the tired old theistic canard that not believing your claims must involve a contrary claim.
The cessation of all brain activity, is both a medical and legal definition of death, you may have missed this as I and others have only pointed it out a gazillion times. Whatever the debate about the point at which life begins, no one I hope is going to suggest it does not in fact have a beginning? You’re really clutching at straws now, as these are natural processes, and don’t support your claims for a supernatural afterlife at all.
Death results in a corpse which rots, and consciousness disappears at the point. The rest of that is unevidenced woo woo, and some of it is pure gibberish.
Quelle surprise.
Please demonstrate some objective evidence that anyone experiences anything after they die.
Straw man fallacy, atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. There is no atheist idea, only claims and ideas an individual atheist may make, if I didn’t make it then don’t pretend I have, we already discussed this, quote a claim by me and I’ll address it, otherwise it’s likely a straw man.
Really anything, so I am naive to believe the world is not flat? You really need to be more careful and accurate with your claims and assertions, also that’s a subjective opinion, about as compelling as your opinion on the best colour.
All experiences we can objectively evidence are, there is no objective evidence that anyone can experience anything after their brains die.
Now we’ve discussed your penchant for straw man fallacies enough now, behave ratty. I don’t believe your claim as you cannot demonstrate any objective evidence to support it, I treat all claims the same and subject them to the same standard for credulity. They must be supported by sufficient objective evidence and be rational, yours here are neither.
I give up, why?
Yes I see that, nonetheless the inroy of you claiming that something exactly matches something you have never experienced, and cannot objectively evidence is even possible, is palpable.
Again this subjective view may or may not be shared by others, nonetheless there is no scientific or objective evidence we can survive our own deaths in any meaningful way.
We ought to fear what we don’t understand, and don’t believe is real? That’s absurd sorry.
You think one’s intellect is expanded by believing unevidenced rhetoric and superstitious woo woo? In that case I have some magic beans to sell you.
Nope, that’s yet another of your tedious straw man fallacies, you know the rules ratty, don’t tell me what I think, quote me or else leave it alone.
Straw man fallacy, again, sigh.
a) I wasn’t bragging.
b) It would be absurd to fear what what one doesn’t believe is real.
c) this isn’t hubris, which may not mean what you think it does.
I never claimed it did. However I’d be frankly stunned to learn that people only dreamed of an afterlife during cardiac arrest, I simply don’t believe your unevidenced rhetoric.
Repetition, unevidenced rhetoric etc etc etc…there is no evidence anyone has objectively experienced any of that superstitious woo woo.
Indeed, the brain is no doubt fascinating and we probably understand very little of how it works to date, none of which supports any afterlife, a soul or anything supernatural of course.
I can’t say for sure, but I’d be dubious until some objective evidence is demonstrated to support it, either way I’d be wary of drawing wild conclusions from dreams and imaginings.
We? I made no such predictions, your bias in favour of a priori religious beliefs is producing your own “predictions”, they’re of no objective value in supporting those beliefs obviously.
Hell my dreams have had some freaky shit in them, so what? The definition of hallucinations is that they are not part of objective reality.
If you read the full quote for context, then Google the definition of rhetoric, you may see why the word keeps clinging to so many of your claims here.
Oh ratty ratty ratty, you do know anyone can click on the link in top R/H and see your original claim you made in seconds, here it is:
Now instead of leaping to a whole new claim that is itself unevidenced rhetoric devoid of any explanatory powers, please address that one, and the circular reasoning fallacy in it, which I’ve emboldened it for you.
Hmm, the same two unevidenced subjective rhetorical claims repeated over and over. I’ll try bullet points:
This “explanation” has no explanatory powers, it’s just a string of claims.
You have not demonstrated any objective evidence that the imaginings of dying brains are all the same, hence rhetoric.
If they were all the same it might be puzzling, but not being able to offer a contrary explanation or evidence to your superstitious belief, is not evidence for that belief, this is called an argument ad ignorantiam fallacy.
That’s still not an explanation, and it’s only an objective reality if you can support it with objective evidence, and you have none, you even admitted this pages ago. Would you like a quote of you admitting this?
It’s not mine by the way, the ancient Greeks created logic, and I’ve linked that innumerable times before, more than once for you. I look forward to my efforts going absolutely nowhere again.
Nope, I use them only when someone uses a logical fallacy, in your case I long ago gave up explaining each and every one, as you simply roll past them anyway, but others can see why they are apropos.
That’s a straw man fallacy, since I have never ever expected this, or claimed to hold any such expectation. This is pretty ironic as well, though since you’re irony impaired it may escape you.
Well scroll up…they are unevidenced rhetoric when they are rhetorical claims that are unsupported by any objective evidence.
See that is a straw man fallacy, because I never made that claim, you asked for an example of your irrationality, there it is. Science is however an authority on what represents compelling scientific evidence, and there is none that so called NDE’s evidence an afterlife, as I explained.
That one is called a poisoning of the well fallacy, trying to pretend that science is somehow invalidated by the greed of companies that use the results of some aspects of it’s research, it’s poor reasoning as it is of course irrational.
Nope, it is a group of methods for helping us understand reality. How individuals choose to use that knowledge doesn’t change the efficacy of the methods.
Straw man fallacy, and you’re talking about scientists not science, science is just a group of methods that better help expand our knowledge of reality, it’s successes are manifest in the results, which are now ubiquitous.
Another poisoning of the well fallacy. this is also the laziest stereotyping I’ve seen, that there are some people who lie cheat and are corrupt does not make it universal among scientists, and again you are not describing science, but how some people distort or misuse the methods of science. None of this objectively evidences woo woo superstition either.
Indeed, eradicating terrible diseases like smallpox for example, and helping us slash mortality rates during childbirth, and extend life expectancy.
I am dubious that flat earthers care or understand the difference between objective evidence or scientific rigour, and the kind of unevidenced rhetoric you seem to think is compelling here.
So having failed to objectively evidence an afterlife or a soul, you’re now reduced to broad irrational attacks on science, again if you weren’t irony impaired, it would be palpable.
That is so unfortunate for you. But then, you laid the trap, you might as well lie in it until you realize what in the fuck you are doing.
You don’t end your suffering by quieting your mind. You forestall the suffering. You tuck it away and pretend it is not there. Quieting the mind does not deal with suffering. Dealing with the cause of suffering deals with suffering. "I’m going to quiet my mind and not think about it.’ is escapism.
Why is the unconditioned subjective. Can’t it be demonstrated. In a world where everything is conditioned there should be an unconditioned element. I guess you haven’t ascertained its reality? It’s never appeared to you? Unfortunate. But not uncommon for over thinkers like your self.
Zebras are horses with white and black stripes. That *equivalency” falls out of logic.
Name: Zebra
Distinction: Horse with black and white stripes
Name: Soul
Distinction: unconditioned observer.
Oxygen deprivation occurs in g-force testing with pilots. They don’t experience the same effects.
Exactly. They’re not the same. When the brain is deliberately deprived of smoxygen during g-spot testing the ensuing delirium looks nothing like the lucid recollections of NDE’s
Except that it does. Because every prediction we could ever make about an afterlife where life’s are reviewed, bodies are left, and portals to heaven open are described by these NDE’s
Here’s some incredulity. I don’t know what the fuck that statement means and I’m not going to google it out of sympathy for you. Start using hyperlinks.
Medical and lega. But not literal.
Well. The question is really “do we return to nothingness” or “do we return to the unconditioned”?
Nothingness is conditioned and thus liable to change. The unconditioned is not.
Happy birthday! Surprise!
Don’t have to. We’re talking about the moments prior to death. Why should we have any reason to believe that a potential NDE who doesn’t make it stops having experiences. Clearly the body isn’t necessary for it and clearly there’s a basis for experiences outside of conventional reality. All of the reports suggest that and not otherwise; not the idea that we turn into nothing. If that were the case we wouldn’t see repeated reports of OBE’s and heavenly portals in multiple NDE’s.
Well can I ask you what your “non-atheist” belief in the afterlife is? Something or nothing?
Apart from the existence of an afterlife which is evidenced by the consistency and the repeated nature of the reports. Add to that the disapproval of the low oxygen theory (as per our jet pilots) and we have a fully supported frame work for an afterlife.
Cause you can’t prove a negative.
Fascinating and also simple to understand when you accept the reports of NDE’s at face value b
Funny how you use logic in debates but you don’t accept it as a way of evidencing truths.
Yep. Over populating the earth with inferior genetic garbage that evolution was designed to take to the land fill. Thanks science. Thanks for the slow suffocating death of a feeble species.
I have a neat and concise system. I empty my mind and make it pliable. At this point I enjoy the bliss of silence. This isn’t escapism. This is an effective cutting off at the root of the voices which plague me.
When my mind is flexible, I apply the same process to the underlying metaphysical structure of the body.
This eliminates craving - which is the root cause of suffering. With the elimination of craving all feeling is extinguished and I am released into the unconditioned. I dwell there in peace. Maybe I think. Maybe I talk. But it is “me” doing the thinking and me doing the talking.
That ironically is very apropos, as you seem determined to make the same irrational assertions, even after years of having them and the consequences explained.
What you claimed was subjective.
I have no idea if it can be objectively demonstrated.
Nothing you have asserted suggests it objectively evidences a soul.
Horses and zebras are different species, who separated from their most recent common ancestor around 4.5 million years ago. So not only is that facile assertion incorrect, it has zero relevance to your unevidenced subjective assertion for an extant soul.
So your claim that all the imaginings were the same was wrong then, you have refuted your own unevidenced claim. Or this is yet another false equivalence fallacy, or both of course.
So your claim they all “experience” the same glimpse of an afterlife is demonstrably untrue, well done for refuting your own unevidenced rhetoric.
Predictions? Fnarrr, you have nothing to base such predictions on, since you’ve not experienced an afterlife. You’re just repeating your unevidenced subjective rhetoric, and have not addressed the point at all, I’ve emboldened the point you have ignored.
Since I explained what the fallacy means as simply as is possible you seem to be simply deflecting the fact your assertion was yet again irrational. I have emboldened the explanation. I also already linked a master list of logical fallacies after you asked, if you are so lazy you want to revel in your ignorance that’s very much your problem, and not mine. I already know what the fallacy means, and you used it, and thus your claim was irrational.
Wrong again, it literally is the point where a person dies, as opposed to being clinically dead, as no one recovers from brain death, they do from being clinically dead.
Repetition of your subjective unevidenced rhetoric won’t make it any more compelling.
Of course not, but no one here is going to believe your unevidenced superstitious claims.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and of course a straw man fallacy, look them up in the list I provided, that you asked for.
Subjective unevidenced rhetoric, dear oh dear.
What reports, what objective evidence can you demonstrate they support your subjective unevidenced claim here?
That question seems like gibberish, but I don’t believe we can survive our own deaths in any meaningful way, and this has nothing to do with atheism, why would it?
You can’t objectively evidence an afterlife, so that’s another circular reasoning fallacy, and you’ve offered no “reports” so that’s rhetoric, and you’ve offered a counter example of oxygen starved brains (pilots) not sharing those dreams, and for the last fucking time those people are alive. Fuck me it’s like trying to teach a goat to dance.
You just added another subjective and unevidenced claim. Your jet pilot comparison seems like yet another false equivalence fallacy, since they are no in cardiac arrest, unless you can offer a cogent explanation of its relevance, and some objective evidence to support your subjective unevidenced claim. Either way it refutes your own claim I was addressing, that all oxygen starved brains imagine the same thing.
Of course you can, what absurd nonsense, the world is not flat, we can amply demonstrate this negative claim with objective evidence. However you asked a question, I have no idea what the answer is, yet your answer seems to have zero relevance to it? Why did YOU imagine dying people would dream of “returning to dirt”, the implication like the question is yours not mine.
What reports? One can believe literally anything of course if one accepts it uncritically, but this tells us nothing about whether those claims are true, and as we see when they are subjected to cursory critical scrutiny your belief falls apart like wet paper, with nothing but irrational arguments and unevidenced rhetoric to support it.
Straw man fallacy, I never made this claim about logic. I note however that yet again you make a false statement, and instead of having the integrity to admit it, you make another one.
What a nasty bigoted thing to say. I invite you to take a moment and realise what a morally repugnant thing that is to say, how would you feel ratty, if someone said that about people suffering from schizophrenia for example?
That aside it is asinine nonsense, as eradicating smallpox did not make us genetically weaker. You are implying we should simply let people suffer and die needlessly in pursuit of your facile notion of eugenics, it sounds not dissimilar to the vile ideology the Nazis espoused.
It has run nowhere, you and you alone are failing to understand why. Your claims are unsupported by any objective evidence, your arguments are littered with logical fallacies, and your rhetoric is the same woo woo you started with, you’ve gone nowhere. You are also demonstrably biased in favour of your belief, refusing to acknowledge how irrational your claims and arguments are, even when this is demonstrated over and over.
I can’t be alone in seeing the irony of him claiming he can’t objectively evidence that anyone has experienced anything after they die, whilst simultaneously claiming to be able to predict exactly what it is like?
They’re not irrational. They’re logical. You’re looking for empirical evidence. I’m giving you a logical conclusion.
Clearly there can only be an objective view on an unconditioned reality.
It’s all around you man! Dip your toe in it!
It doesn’t require empirical evidence to support the logical conclusion. If you wish to address the logic of the argument, then we can talk. Otherwise, this is quite illogical to keep going in these loops.
Of course you would be the one to point out that a zebra is not technically a horse. I’m assuming correctly that they can interbreed which makes you facile correction utterly moot.
It counters your assumption that oxygen deprivation is the cause of the NDE’s. clearly it is not or we would see NDES in jet pilots.
Uhh. Okay. If you prefer to swing that way. Go on and grab that monkey off that tree!
Well. Clearly the prediction that we return to nothingness hasn’t produced any suggestive NDE’s. queer as it is.
Fnnnar. I am incredulous to this last statement. So be it. I’m a crusty, incredulous, ragamuffin.
No. It’s medically and legally the point where a person dies. We don’t know what happens after death. We have theories. But we don’t know.
To you. So I’ll stop repeating it. Incredulous fallacy right there. Just because you refuse to believe it doesn’t disprove the contrary.
See: unconditioned reality and the definition of the soul as the basis for continued existence after the death of the body.
Safe to say you have no intellectual grasp of the word “nothing”?
The relavenxe is that low oxygen induced hallucinations isn’t the mechanism for the NDE’s. it doesn’t happen in jet pilots who pass out under strong g-spot forces.
The roast of Sheldon D.
Exaggerated oversimplification. And bad faith.
Yeah. Exactly. I should be in a ditch somewhere. Or I suppose you prefer that 1% of the population control 90% of the wealth? While the other 99 wallow in the mud. What a UTOPIA. Thank god for modern medicine and Cesarian sections. And spectacles.
Nothing that contains a known logical fallacy can be asserted as rational, it is a basic principle of logic. Your claims are littered with logical fallacies, ipso facto they are irrational.
You have not offered one, just like this latest sweeping subjective claim, your claims about it are pure unevidenced rhetoric. You have even failed to properly define it. You have shown no link between that claim and your equally unevidenced claim for a soul.
Another subjective unevidenced piece of rhetoric. You need to learn what objective evidence is, and how this differs from purely subjective claims.
I never said it did, so this ironically is a straw man fallacy, and by definition it is irrational.
The argument is irrational, since it is a straw man fallacy, as I never even mentioned empirical evidence, and again your claims about it, have failed to even define what it means, or why you keep making the unevidenced assertion it is itself evidence for a soul.
Really, perhaps you can explain which principle of logic you think has been violated by pointing out repeatedly that your claims are unevidenced and your arguments irrational as they are using known logical fallacies?
They’re different species, and you have now spun this so far from you ordinal false equivalence fallacy as to render it meaningless. Not that it had much relevance to your unevidenced claim for an extant soul anyway.
That’s not my assumption, you are using another straw man fallacy, which is another example of your arguments being irrational. They were your examples of people (so called NDE’s) of people whose brains were being starved by oxygen, that was a fact you introduced, and I assumed nothing, the unevidenced assumptions are yours. Though this example clearly refutes your earlier claims that all such experiences are universal.
Do you imagine that is a compelling response? I can help you out if the answer is not obvious? You are deflecting a fact you don’t like, because you introduced it and failed to see the immplications.
Who predicted that? Think carefully now, as you’re teetering on another straw man fallacy.
That response gets a (D-), for an (A), examine the assertion, and address the fallacy you used.
Wrong again, we know that this is the point when all brain activity ceases, and we know that consciousness disappears at this point, and we know no one ever recovers from this, unlike your rhetorical examples of NDE’s who are only clinically dead, and can recover. So your claim they have experience an afterlife, despite the fact they are still alive is adding unevidenced assumptions to those facts, and violating Occam’s razor.
Yet you keep claiming people have experienced it, and that this matches exactly what you predict it would be like, even though you know state unequivocally no one knows, is the penny dropping at all?
Nope, you have anecdotal rhetoric, I have have made no claims about what happens after we die, beyond objective facts:
Cessation of all brain activity.
Consciousness disappears.
No one recovers from brain death.
Whose opinion would you imagine I’d be offering?
If you mean argument from personal incredulity fallacy, then no, as I didn’t claim it must be untrue because I simply couldn’'t believe it to be, I only asserted not to believe it as it was not supported by any objective evidence.
Gibberish, try that again with the triple negative.
More subjective unevidenced rhetoric.
Another piece of unevidenced rhetoric, and what is safe to say is that you have demonstrated repeatedly that your grasp and use of language is sloppy and inaccurate. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, this literally has nothing to do with my disbelieving your unevidenced and irrational rhetoric about an afterlife, again why would it?
Two unevidenced rhetorical claims of course, and a false equivalence that compares two different states, one being cardiac arrest. Basically people who pass out from lack of oxygen suffer hallucinations that differ from what people in cardiac arrest ALLEGEDLY experience. How does that evidence an afterlife or a soul?
Oh dear ratty, you made a fool of yourself with a question that implied yet another straw man, you are roasting yourself, and don’t even understand why.
It was your claim that I should take your unevidenced irrational rhetoric at face value. I exaggerated nothing, it is simple because your claim was facile, and I have no idea what you are claiming is bad faith, but it just seems like more of the rhetoric that litters your irrational verbiage.
Straw man fallacy.
Straw man fallacy.
Straw man fallacy.
False equivalence fallacy. I note again you haven’t the integrity to actually address how morally repugnant your remark was.
Why would I assume this, and I never mentioned it?
So you admit your guff about accurate predictions that exactly match an afterlife, are nothing more than pure assumptions about it, thank you, hence to irony and the humour I was referring to.
Unevidenced superstitious rhetoric.
You have not provided any, but what can draw a rational inference from these alleged scientific studies, by the fact the scientific world does not accept your claims here at all.
Rhetoric.
Rhetoric.
Well it is an objective fact that the brains of people in cardiac arrest are being starved of oxygen. The second claim is pure unevidenced assumption, and again it is a false equivalence, and again pure rhetoric, since all you have offered are the bare claims.
I shouldn’t have to. We’re calling a spade a spade. It’s not my problem you’ve gone your whole 50 some odd years of life without recognizing what’s right in front of your face everyday without exception.
This is like me pointing out a red bird to you in a tree. And your colour blind; screaming “unevidenced!”
So then accept the definition.
Zebra = animal with black and white stripes
Soul = unconditioned observer.
That’s the logical equivalency. Very simple. If you can’t accept the existence of an unconditioned reality, then I can’t help you.
What qualifies as objective if consistent, repeated experiences from multiple sources who corroborate each other is mere “anecdote”. I don’t care to show you how easy it is to accept the reports at face value. You simply don’t have the capacity to extend the benefit of the doubt.
Equivalency principle. The principle of definition. If X = Y then Y = X.
Fucking moot point. Zebras have stripes. Souls are unconditioned observers. Stop muddying the waters.
Yes it is. You’ve put forth the claim multiple times that the experiences are hallucinations caused by oxygen deprivation in an active brain have you not?
I’m getting bored at this point.
It’s a reasonable prediction. It seems to be one or the other now doesn’t it. I don’t really care if you side step around the issue. It’s plain that you’re on that side. You don’t have the coconuts to admit it.
Lost in translation at this point Sheldon. Don’t tell me what to do. I’m not your bar maid.
Care to hazard a guess as to what happens to the person after they die? I’ve given you my take. What’s yours. Clearly you think something has ceased to exist. Or are you content to side step the obvious.
And yet #4 regarding the personage of that consciousness which “disappears” is merely another way of expressing nothingness. And you, my friend, are woefully ignorant as to the concept of nothingness.
Oh. You noticed that did you. Yaaaaaawn. Umm. What time is it? Oh dear. It’s getting late. Sheldon honey. Could you turn off the Christmas light and lock the car outside?
And yet you won’t admit that the end of life is nothingness. Is it unreasonable to ask you your personal opinion on a topic? You seem woefully insecure about speculating on death? You haven’t prepared any logical arguments as to how the end of consciousness spells out nothingness it seems. Or you’re unwilling to defend such a position. Unwilling and yellow.
Because prior to entering the afterlife those at the end of life have visions of an afterlife.
Well. You seem to be implying that your utterly subjective moral stance could have any bearing whatsoever on my perfectly justified moral belief that the world is full of cretins and we’d be better off annihilating the whole lot in one go. Maybe with a nuke?
This civilization has long since reached its peak. Human kind slaughters 70 billion animals a year without so much as blinking an eye. You praise medical science for saving human life and extending it while passively ignoring the fact that 70 BILLION animals are slaughtered every year.
We could go vegetarian but we like the “taste”.
On top of that we burn 15 billion metric tones of fossil fuels every year. And why?
Do we need automobiles? Do we need international trade? Or is industrilzation in the best interests of a few powerful and wealthy men.
We humans have sacrificed every thing redeemable about our species in the name of “progress” - failing to realize at any point that the grass is not always greener on the other side. I think we’re a pathetic lot. And our inability to accept our mortality is pathetic.
The fact that we would voluntarily extend our lives in first world countries at the expense of all of those in third world countries is not so much a testimony to the achievements of Science as it is a pathetic reflection of our brutal, unconcerned primal instinct to dominate each other into subjugation.
pretty solid objective evidence that if these experiences were low blood oxygen induced hallucinations we’d have a variety of random “I slept with a frog” kind of imagery going on.