[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44898476]I have already stated that the gospels are affirmed by the epistles, which were in some cases written within 5 years after the Christ's death. The styles of writing between certain epistles and certain gospels are similar as well, providing even more evidence that they were most likely written by the apostles. It very much seems that the gospels were written by the apostles, so your line of refutation will have to rely on claiming that they are not telling the truth (knowingly or unknowingly).[/QUOTE]
Please cite this as I've not heard a figure earlier than 80 years. I've heard highly respected people quote 80 years, so that's going to need some evidence for me.
[QUOTE]People who believe that their Guru's have magic powers are constantly criticized, especially when said Guru has millions of followers. When anyone makes a claim that is out of line with the facts and it gains enough momentum it goes without saying that it will be challenged openly.[/QUOTE]
Let's argue for a moment, that beliefs in anything are all equally able to be messed with to differ from reality. So, in todays modern world where we know for a fact that climate change is a real thing, and we still have people in power, and people who have been taught to know better than that arguing that it isn't real. So clearly, in spite of great knowledge and information that is highly understood, highly explainable information, people can still have a belief that is entirely off base with that of reality.
Now, as a guru's followers will tell you, they may have genuinely seen something, and they may be telling you their truth that they believe that this event happened. In spite of evidence that claims these things can't happen, they still believe. Clearly ideas are not slain just by momentum or information that is much more "real".
Why you don't turn your dismissal of those masses of people towards yourself for a moment is maybe a question for a different time.
[QUOTE]If the early Christians were so out of line with the facts, then how come there is not a single record of the Jewish authorities of the time challenging their claims (apart from trying to come with explanations for where the body went)? Surely if Christ's body was still in the tomb it would have been easy to snuff out the disciples and the witness they professed?[/QUOTE]
Because things can be lost to history. We're lucky to even have the records we have today. I'd think it's much more likely that history has lost its records of the event, they have been changed by superior forces years later, or they may however unlikely it may be, never have existed.
I don't understand why this one event in human history over 2000 years ago is adaquately explained for you by simply the absence of records countering you. Where were jewish records kept in that time frame? Was that place ever occupied by christian forces?
You know my view on history on this subject, that we've lost history to people and time alike. For me, when you say that you doubt that the church ever tampered with history or the documents it likely found itself in control of at a later time in its history I find that to be unfounded. No, I can't hand you evidence of the destruction of the exact documents because that's why they would be destroyed. I don't find it out of order that they would have had a book burning or another form of destruction of literature as they have actually done so in their history.
[QUOTE]I have never heard of Sathya Sai Baba before and thus do not know what kind of criticisms have been made of his supposed miracles, but I have no doubt that there are many none-the-less. While I consider it unlikely that Sathya Sai Baba himself has performed any supernatural acts, I do not deny that such acts are possible outside of Christendom (I simply do not believe them to be of the same origin as the people conducting them claim).[/QUOTE]
Well who are you to say he wasn't born to a virgin like his story claims? Why is his claim less credible than one you do actually believe in?
[QUOTE]So in the case of Sathya Sai Baba (assuming that there is extensive critique of his practices), the fact that his critics have given reasonable alternate explanations for his acts is a clear difference from the resurrection (which is free of critique from authorities of the time). In any case, I have never defended the resurrection purely on the fact that there were eyewitnesses alone, in fact the only reason I try to support that claim is to show that the gospels were not simply stories devised long after the fact.[/QUOTE]
It's free of critiques that we can currently be aware of. It's not eyewitnessed though so it's still highly questionable.
[QUOTE=Ziks;44898882]You appear to disagree with the majority of modern biblical scholars here.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_canonical_Gospels#Authorship_and_date[/url][/QUOTE]
The link you sent seems to deal with the latest copies of the gospels that we have on hand, which I already agree are not the original inspired texts. However, as the ultimate authors (be it through dictation or pen and paper) of the gospel narratives were most likely Saints Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. You cannot deny the congruence between the epistles (documents that could have very likely been eye witness testimonies) and the gospels.
[QUOTE]What do you mean by authorities? Are you only counting Christian ones? Or do you permit the non-Christian authorities that hadn't even heard of the myth until several decades afterwards, which absolutely did criticise the authenticity of the resurrection by persecuting Christians?[/QUOTE]
By authorities I mean educated individuals with a high status in society and I refer to those authorities present during Christ's ministry and death. Jewish and Roman authorities would have done themselves well to disprove the claims of the followers of the Way (assuming their claims were false), yet they are for some reason silent on a matter where the evidence would have been overwhelmingly in their favor.
[QUOTE]Are you purposefully straw-manning my position? I've explained before that it's entirely likely the people that supposedly witnessed his resurrection honestly believed they saw Jesus after his burial; through misidentification, confusing a dream for reality, memory recall fault or any of the other possible natural explanations. Just like with Sathya Sai Baba, they wanted to see a miracle, or other people they trusted told them something ambiguous was a miracle, and then their imaginations ran away with the idea.[/QUOTE]
My apologies, I did not mean to direct that statement at you in the sense that all I really wanted to say is that I do not view the fact that they were eye-witnesses a good piece of evidence in itself.
[QUOTE]If you honestly care about analysing the historicity of the resurrection on fair terms I think this is worth reading: [url]http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html[/url][/QUOTE]
I generally prefer discussing subjects person to person in these threads, allowing for a sort of synthesis of information as opposed to an exchange of links to experts' opinions on the matter.
However I can see a few strange extrapolations from a quick skimming before I get into an in-depth reading, such as the claim that the doubt experienced by some of the disciples even in the presence of the resurrected Christ implied that the miracle was not all that convincing. I'd like to note that this conclusion is reached based off of:
[QUOTE=ESV Bible Mark 28]17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.[/QUOTE]
This is clearly a presumptuous claim that ignores core Christian doctrine about how one comes to faith in Christ, that none can come to Christ without God calling them.
[QUOTE=ESV Bible John 6]44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.[/QUOTE]
Essentially conversion is not so simple as being factually convinced that the resurrection happened, rather it is a process that transcends mere rational thought. The fact that some disciples doubted is just a sad result of our sinful nature as opposed to them just not having the sufficient evidence to believe.
Also of course there's an inherent issue with a person's argument when they try to support it with evidence from one of the documents that they are trying to invalidate (the gospel of Mark).
Another claim the author makes is that the disciples did not actually believe in a bodily resurrection, citing Stephen's belief in him merely as the messiah. The issue is that the Jewish Messiah was meant to undergo bodily resurrection, even if Stephen did not state it outright he must ahve believed it if he accepted Christ as the messiah.
I'd also like to note that he skews the circumstances that resulted in the death of Stephen by claiming that he was killed because of "trumped up charges" and an angry mob that would have killed him anyway, thus not a martyr.
Stephen was seized because of false charges, yes, but ultimately because the people who heard him speaking were angered by what he said. Since they brought forward a false witness to testify against him they obviously wanted him dead precisely because of what he believed and preached. Of course he was ultimately stoned after giving his final speech, but specifically because of what he believed.
His whole argument seems to hinge on the invalidity of the gospels (except when they are used to support his argument) and make use of the vague interpretations of what Paul means by the Christ's spiritual body. He seems to ignore the fact that the resurrection accounts in no way seem symbolic by how they are written too. I don't mean to make it seem like I am more knowledgeable than the individual who wrote this, but I can see some clear issues that are unaccounted for and several others that certain experts would be in clear contention with.
I'd also like to note that in Phillipeans, Paul refers to the Christ's resurrection body as in fact a body, so his claim that Paul never references Christ's resurrection body as physical is incorrect.
[QUOTE]I really hope you read it, but it's worth considering something before you do. You can still be a Christian without believing Jesus literally rose from the dead, you just have to appreciate the resurrection as being spiritual rather than physical.[/QUOTE]
This is plain incorrect, the bodily resurrection is the core Christianity. If you do not believe in it then you also believe that the Christ did not return from the dead in any discernable way, that there is ultimately no indication that he is God or that our sins are justified through him. Acceptance of spiritual resurrection is essentially acceptance that there is no way you can actually know the Christ is God.
[QUOTE]Actually I might become a Christian, honouring Jesus for his insightful teachings of peace and tolerance, while discarding the supernatural baggage that trivialises his achievements to the point of insulting him.[/QUOTE]
It's the very discarding of the so called "supernatural baggage" that trivialises Christianity. Firstly because it goes against Christ's teachings, secondly because it removes any depth or purpose to what he said. If you simply accept the Christ's teaching on peace and tolerance you will merely be an adherer to peace and tolerance with Christianity stamped on top nominally, you will not actually be a member of the Church Catholic.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44901345]Please cite this as I've not heard a figure earlier than 80 years. I've heard highly respected people quote 80 years, so that's going to need some evidence for me.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps for the gospels, but many of the epistles that we have available can be dated back to the lifetimes of their respective apostles. The excerpt that I mentioned being written within 5 years after Christ's death is 1 Corinthians 15: 3-7 which is essentially a compressed credal statement that Saint Paul wrote.
[QUOTE=ESV bible 1 Corinthians 15]3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Let's argue for a moment, that beliefs in anything are all equally able to be messed with to differ from reality. So, in todays modern world where we know for a fact that climate change is a real thing, and we still have people in power, and people who have been taught to know better than that arguing that it isn't real. So clearly, in spite of great knowledge and information that is highly understood, highly explainable information, people can still have a belief that is entirely off base with that of reality.[/QUOTE]
It's one thing to hold disbelief in a process that is essentially invisible to the layman due to how large scale and gradual it is. It's another to believe that a man has risen from the dead when his body is still in the tomb. How could a person possibly conclude that the Christ had risen from the dead if the Jewish and Roman authorities of the time could easily have showed them the body?
[QUOTE]Now, as a guru's followers will tell you, they may have genuinely seen something, and they may be telling you their truth that they believe that this event happened. In spite of evidence that claims these things can't happen, they still believe. Clearly ideas are not slain just by momentum or information that is much more "real".
Why you don't turn your dismissal of those masses of people towards yourself for a moment is maybe a question for a different time.[/QUOTE]
There is no risk associated to following a guru, at least not here in north america or in India, the followers are not persecuted by their respective societies. Also I don't think a guru would make a claim so risky as the resurrection if they knew it was not true and its disproof was readily available. So essentially if you've got a vague spirituality that is not concretely defined in a physical historical act that is not persecuted by the society its followers live in, I can understand why people would easily convert to that.
However, that is hardly the equivalent of the resurrection.
[QUOTE]Because things can be lost to history. We're lucky to even have the records we have today. I'd think it's much more likely that history has lost its records of the event, they have been changed by superior forces years later, or they may however unlikely it may be, never have existed.[/QUOTE]
So you take the position that we have simply not found the records of the critiques yet?
[QUOTE]I don't understand why this one event in human history over 2000 years ago is adaquately explained for you by simply the absence of records countering you. Where were jewish records kept in that time frame? Was that place ever occupied by christian forces?[/QUOTE]
The absence of any educated criticism of a historical claim is kind of a big deal as far as historical claims go, it implies consensus. It does not adequately explain the resurrection, it simply adds more validity to the claims of the gospels and the epistles.
[QUOTE]You know my view on history on this subject, that we've lost history to people and time alike. For me, when you say that you doubt that the church ever tampered with history or the documents it likely found itself in control of at a later time in its history I find that to be unfounded. No, I can't hand you evidence of the destruction of the exact documents because that's why they would be destroyed. I don't find it out of order that they would have had a book burning or another form of destruction of literature as they have actually done so in their history.[/QUOTE]
So why are you inclined to believe that the lack of criticism is a result of destruction of said criticism if you have no evidence of such? I do not claim that the church never destroyed documents, but there are records of those destructions, there are records of all sorts of similar events all throughout history (including those conducted by the Catholic church). Why do you think this specific destruction would go unrecorded?
[QUOTE]Well who are you to say he wasn't born to a virgin like his story claims? Why is his claim less credible than one you do actually believe in?[/QUOTE]
As I said, I know absolutely nothing about Sathya Sai Baba, as for the case in support of the virgin birth I actually know very little. I'd have to do some further reading before I could come up with a response to that.
[QUOTE]It's free of critiques that we can currently be aware of. It's not eyewitnessed though so it's still highly questionable.[/QUOTE]
The gospels very likely are eye-witness in origin, we simply don't have the original inspired texts which they are sourced from.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44947370]Perhaps for the gospels, but many of the epistles that we have available can be dated back to the lifetimes of their respective apostles. The excerpt that I mentioned being written within 5 years after Christ's death is 1 Corinthians 15: 3-7 which is essentially a compressed credal statement that Saint Paul wrote.[/QUOTE]
This isn't proof that it's that age though or came from that time frame?
[QUOTE]It's one thing to hold disbelief in a process that is essentially invisible to the layman due to how large scale and gradual it is. It's another to believe that a man has risen from the dead when his body is still in the tomb. How could a person possibly conclude that the Christ had risen from the dead if the Jewish and Roman authorities of the time could easily have showed them the body?[/QUOTE]
But how many followers would have been there to witness him actually come back from the dead? Simply hearing it may have been enough for some, most, followers to sincerely believe. They would in that respect, be the same as a climate denier.
It's one thing to believe in one myth, it's another to say yours are the only right ones.
[QUOTE]There is no risk associated to following a guru, at least not here in north america or in India, the followers are not persecuted by their respective societies. Also I don't think a guru would make a claim so risky as the resurrection if they knew it was not true and its disproof was readily available. So essentially if you've got a vague spirituality that is not concretely defined in a physical historical act that is not persecuted by the society its followers live in, I can understand why people would easily convert to that.
However, that is hardly the equivalent of the resurrection.[/QUOTE]
So you believe that it doesn't matter the faith these people have in what they've seen, because they're wrong?
[QUOTE]So you take the position that we have simply not found the records of the critiques yet?[/QUOTE]
I take the position that we don't know enough to say with authority that a human being was resurrected 2000 years ago. That god walked on earth for 30 odd years out of over 200,000 years of human life existing on earth globally, that this one area, in this one period of time.
[QUOTE]The absence of any educated criticism of a historical claim is kind of a big deal as far as historical claims go, it implies consensus. It does not adequately explain the resurrection, it simply adds more validity to the claims of the gospels and the epistles.
So why are you inclined to believe that the lack of criticism is a result of destruction of said criticism if you have no evidence of such? I do not claim that the church never destroyed documents, but there are records of those destructions, there are records of all sorts of similar events all throughout history (including those conducted by the Catholic church). Why do you think this specific destruction would go unrecorded?[/QUOTE]
Do they have a written record of every book that was burned? That was destroyed? What those books contained? If they did, why would they bother destroying that information. Information is destroyed so as to not fall into the wrongs, to prevent such a thing. Why would they record themselves destroying evidence of a different history than what we know?
They ended up the victor in a long battle against roman culture. The victor writes the history. You seem to think that the church, the people who had the inquisition, were above this.
You'd rather believe that out of all the resurrection claims across human history, that one particular one was true? That this is the one that is real, and the others, those are all just stupid myths for children based on nothing at all?
[QUOTE]As I said, I know absolutely nothing about Sathya Sai Baba, as for the case in support of the virgin birth I actually know very little. I'd have to do some further reading before I could come up with a response to that.[/QUOTE]
So you can't debunk him being born of a virgin impregnated by his gods holy spirit?
[QUOTE]The gospels very likely are eye-witness in origin, we simply don't have the original inspired texts which they are sourced from.[/QUOTE]
How can you know this or cite this when we have literally no information agreeing with you on that?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44947473]This isn't proof that it's that age though or came from that time frame?[/QUOTE]
Yes it is, a lot of the Pauline epistles can be directly sourced back to Saint Paul's life. This particular excerpt, which is an early credal statement, is among the earliest.
[QUOTE]But how many followers would have been there to witness him actually come back from the dead? Simply hearing it may have been enough for some, most, followers to sincerely believe. They would in that respect, be the same as a climate denier.[/QUOTE]
Nobody actually witnessed the resurrection occur, the people who came closest to doing so were the Roman guards posted at the tomb. It was the post-mortem appearances of Christ that there were eye-witnesses for. In that case it was a little over 500 that scripture records as being witness to the resurrected Christ. Of course certain followers of Christ would have been willing to accept the witness of other trustworthy followers, but the followers of the Way spread far more than just within the community of Christ's followers. An orthodox Jew from that period would not have been so easily converted by a person just claiming that Christ had raised from the dead.
[QUOTE]It's one thing to believe in one myth, it's another to say yours are the only right ones.[/QUOTE]
I do not claim this to be a myth as it is not written like one.
[QUOTE]So you believe that it doesn't matter the faith these people have in what they've seen, because they're wrong?[/QUOTE]
No, I'm saying that the followers of a particular Guru have much less reason not to follow him than an ancient Jew in Judea to follow Christ (if the resurrection were a false), so the two are not comparable.
[QUOTE]I take the position that we don't know enough to say with authority that a human being was resurrected 2000 years ago. That god walked on earth for 30 odd years out of over 200,000 years of human life existing on earth globally, that this one area, in this one period of time.[/QUOTE]
Why?
[QUOTE]Do they have a written record of every book that was burned? That was destroyed? What those books contained? If they did, why would they bother destroying that information. Information is destroyed so as to not fall into the wrongs, to prevent such a thing. Why would they record themselves destroying evidence of a different history than what we know?[/QUOTE]
The purpose of destroying documents in the Church's past is mainly related to the removal of theological documents that have been deemed heretical through consensus. An example of this would be the destruction of Arian writings which claimed that scripture put Christ as below the father, there was extensive debate on this matter and essentially all of Christendom at the time had a part in the debate. The ultimate decision was that the Arian writings were wrong, even in the face of nearly all the Church willing to accept them initially, this whole process that lead to their burning was recorded along with precisely what it was they claimed.
So just because a majority of the Church may have been initially in favor of a position does not mean the opposing one is as good as wiped from history (thankfully).
[QUOTE]They ended up the victor in a long battle against roman culture. The victor writes the history. You seem to think that the church, the people who had the inquisition, were above this.[/QUOTE]
You are incorrectly posing the Church as some kind of hive mind that followed exactly the same doctrines, Christian history is full of situations where individuals within the Church have contested its claims. Christianity not only ended up the victor against Roman paganism, it ended up the victor over countless other heretical teachings that appeared within its ranks, all of this is recorded and explained.
Also you seem to think that the Catholic church in the 1500's was the same as the early Church, that is simply false. Even within the 1500's, there were those within the Catholic church that cried out against its deviation from Christian tradition, that's why we have the protestant reformation.
[QUOTE]You'd rather believe that out of all the resurrection claims across human history, that one particular one was true? That this is the one that is real, and the others, those are all just stupid myths for children based on nothing at all?[/QUOTE]
Why should the presence of belief in other resurrections be reason to doubt this one if the others have barely as much evidence, are not recorded as occurring in any specific place or time and in some cases are even written like myths? I do not claim anyone's belief in another resurrection is "stupid" or is composed of "myths for children based on nothing at all". I just don't think that you're going to find a resurrection claim with as much support as that of the Christ.
[QUOTE]So you can't debunk him being born of a virgin impregnated by his gods holy spirit?[/QUOTE]
Well, since I know absolutely nothing about him I suppose so, also I doubt that there is a hindu equivalent to the Christian Holy Spirit.
[QUOTE]How can you know this or cite this when we have literally no information agreeing with you on that?[/QUOTE]
There is information agreeing with me though, such as the agreement of the epistles (which can be traced back to their original writers) with the gospels and the fact that the writing styles of the gospels is not indicative of early church writings. I have already agreed that we do not have the original inspired texts, but history has already shown us that you do not need the original text an individual wrote to determine that they were the original source of certain writings.
We do have fragments of the Gospel of John going back to the early 2nd century. (less than 60 years after the claimed original authorship) ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52[/URL])
This is RIDICULOUS as far as ancient writings go. For example, the closest copy of the Iliad that we have found was written ~500 years after the original.
But we don't base historical fact on the illiad.
we're supposed to with jesus, believe that this is the one, one particularly true tale of fantastical tales that is true and real and objectively factually real and none of the others are real or right or anything close to what this one would be.
There's not a lot of evidence. I have to research these epstles because this is the first i'm hearing of it.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44966758]But we don't base historical fact on the illiad.
we're supposed to with jesus, believe that this is the one, one particularly true tale of fantastical tales that is true and real and objectively factually real and none of the others are real or right or anything close to what this one would be.
There's not a lot of evidence. I have to research these epstles because this is the first i'm hearing of it.[/QUOTE]
My point in posting that wasn't to prove it as fact, but to show that it was most likely written when witnesses of Jesus would have still been alive. So many of the claims would have been easily refuted by the people living and it is very possible that John himself would have been a witness, based on the timeframe. I'm going to stop here though, don't want to get in the way of the ongoing discussion.
John is also accepted as last written gospel of the four.
I remember reading this interesting article about Life after death . I am a borderline atheist and a Christian . I don't believe in heaven or hell but just maybe our bodies are carriers of our soul .There is afterlife for our soul ...but the idea of reincarnations is not something I'd like to believe. Ok now did I just sound all confused !!!
I used to think about Life after death or resurection into something else, but the more i learn about life and biology in general, the more i get to a different conclusion.
So far, all of our consciousness is a chemical reaction in our brain, different chemicals doing different feeling etc. that's also what drugs does. many of them just boost a chain of reaction giving you extreme feelings and so on.
It only mean that there is absolutely no energy or spiritual thing inside us, all we do, think, imagine or feel are only a combination of chemical reaction within our brain ending up with our personality.
It is also a good explanation why it is just impossible to measure or test souls.
Since the brain also work with small electrical pulse, a large dose of electricity can cause leisures and even disrupt parts of the brains and change your entirely personality in which a supposed souls shouldn't be affected.
Same goes with peoples whose survived extreme brain injuries
It is also possible to affect mental illness by using huge electromagnetisms forces. which can cause pain and/or even create hallucinations like hearing noises or seeing things that aren't there.
To come back at the life after death, once we die, the brain simply stop working so does the heart. Since we are our brain, the chemical reaction stop so does the heart, meaning your are dead once the brain stop working and lack of oxygen and other chemicals it require to function. After a few minutes, it get too severely damaged to work properly once again.
Conclusion, If we were to claim that those chemicals are the souls, then every thing leading to these chemicals, from drugs, food, air, etc are or have souls. Meaning, that soul would simply be basic chemistry.
I don't know. I would say, probably not.
[IMG]http://coolrain44.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/life-after-death-trespassing-sign.gif[/IMG]
but in seriousness Maybe???? Heaven????
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Read the section rules before posting here. Put more effort into posting here." - AshMan55))[/highlight]
"Life After Death": Very general... let's take a gander!
Some things I learned + thoughts:
1) Heaven and Hell doesn't exist in Judaism. The concept wasn't in Abrahamic religions until the New Testament and Quran.
2) Jesus probably lived. Was he the Messiah? I do not believe so. He didn't fulfill multiple prophecies:
A) Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B) Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C) Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D) Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
3) Bahá'í Faith believes that all Abrahamic religions are correct in a way (they preserve the good ethics), that the prophets did indeed communicate with god, but were influenced by the areas they originated in.
Just some observations. Lets find peace, happiness, love, and the truth together!
I do. If you go to heaven, I consider that living still since your soul goes on to otherworld.
It isn't logical that we just die and sort of "go to sleep" forever. Imagine falling asleep and never waking up, it's not something that really makes sense. Unless I dream, normally, after I fall asleep, I wake up immediately (not actually, but mentally) about 8-9 hours later.
I couldn't picture my soul being put to rest forever after I die. Maybe we go to some other world or become reincarnated, I have no idea. :L
Do you remember before your birth? You weren't alive, didn't exist, I see that as exactly the same as death
[QUOTE=Temples;45157484]It isn't logical that we just die and sort of "go to sleep" forever. Imagine falling asleep and never waking up, it's not something that really makes sense. Unless I dream, normally, after I fall asleep, I wake up immediately (not actually, but mentally) about 8-9 hours later.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like argument from "I can't imagine it."
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45157542]Do you remember before your birth? You weren't alive, didn't exist, I see that as exactly the same as death[/QUOTE]
Do you remember the exact words amount of words you spoke on October 10th, 1999? Do you remember every conversation you overheard when you were 5? It's understandable you see death that way, but the remember-things-before-birth comment isn't always the best comparison.
[QUOTE=Temples;45157484]It isn't logical that we just die and sort of "go to sleep" forever. Imagine falling asleep and never waking up, it's not something that really makes sense. Unless I dream, normally, after I fall asleep, I wake up immediately (not actually, but mentally) about 8-9 hours later.[/quote]
And this is where things get awkward, as I pretty much turn the other cheek here. It's not very easy to imagine the pure nothingness of death when you lived your whole life... being alive. Sure, when you're sleeping, your brain is still going, but you're alive during that time.
Before I forget. HumanAbyss, what was the reason you said that we never hear about NDE's where the person supposedly went to a realm the opposite of how morally sound they were?
[QUOTE=xZippy;45159127]Do you remember the exact words amount of words you spoke on October 10th, 1999? Do you remember every conversation you overheard when you were 5? It's understandable you see death that way, but the remember-things-before-birth comment isn't always the best comparison.
Before I forget. HumanAbyss, what was the reason you said that we never hear about NDE's where the person supposedly went to a realm the opposite of how morally sound they were?[/QUOTE]
I don't recall saying that to be honest but I bet it's because at a deep down level, most people want to forgive themselves for all the bad things they are aware they've done in their lives and an NDE being little more than an over active brain state from what we can tell, someone would hallucinate a place they want to belong. People don't genuinely find themselves to be "evil". So why anyone would put themselves in hell, i'm not too sure.
No, I can't remember those days to the exact detail, but I also can't know that I wasn't created 1 second ago with memories of this reality in the order I have them. It doesn't MEAN anything though. I feel like you're a much more staunch supporter of the afterlife than you let on.
I don't deny it could possibly exist. I just don't see it existing or any reasons to even imagine it exists.
[editline]19th June 2014[/editline]
And one quick search shows that people can and do have negative NDE's
the idea that someone is "morally" sound requires an objective moral scale, I'm quite sure no such thing exists so a subjective moral code that only that person can actually understand in their own mind would be what they judge themselves on. we can't really know whether they are the "opposite" of their "moral soundness" because they might not even be able to explain where they fall in their own deep seated personal moral code.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45159236]I don't recall saying that to be honest but I bet it's because at a deep down level, most people want to forgive themselves for all the bad things they are aware they've done in their lives and an NDE being little more than an over active brain state from what we can tell, someone would hallucinate a place they want to belong. People don't genuinely find themselves to be "evil". So why anyone would put themselves in hell, i'm not too sure.[/quote]
I can't exactly say that never happened to anyone, but I never heard of a story where some horrible person went to any form of utopia while they were pronounced dead. There's been religious people who were baptized and all that, thought they were the apple of their god's eye and still saw hell despite who these people thought they were.
If anyone has a story of a horrible person ever seeing heaven, at least without good reason, I'd love to read about that.
[quote]I feel like you're a much more staunch supporter of the afterlife than you let on.[/quote]
It was only a matter of time before someone said this. I've probably mentioned that I'm an atheist more times than anyone cares to count. In both this thread and the other about a higher being. Just because I don't think there's life after death doesn't mean I welcome that with open arms. It also doesn't mean I have all the facts of death under my belt. No one does. No one can.
[quote]And one quick search shows that people can and do have negative NDE's[/quote]
I have searched this. Many times. A lot of those aren't as negative as people make them out to be, or at least they aren't meant to be permanently negative.
When I bring up stories about a blind woman who claimed to see what doctors did during her "out of body" experience and these doctors confirm what the woman heard and saw, I don't bring this stuff up as definite proof, I bring that up to read how others would explain that. A good chunk of the time, people just get uppity about it and spout out "how bad the source is" and skip the explanation part - regardless what the source actually was.
I think they skip it mostly because it doesn't seem credible. I don't put any value in the things I wish were true. They have no value just because I want them to be true.
I know you're an atheist but you play devils avocado quite frequently with this question.
Where/why/what/who/how someone hallucinates they are or are doing in an NDE isn't understood fully. We've barely broken the shell on our consciousness, let alone our subconscious, but we do understand very vitally that we build our perception of the world based on flawed tools. Our eyes don't see everything we might want them to. Our ears don't hear very many frequencies, our touch sense of touch isn't delicate like a spiders where they can sense ground vibrations with great accuracy. Our software that runs our brains is riddled with bugs and perceptive errors that make us very flawed creatures when trying to piece together a picture of the world. We only get so much right and we are so very vulnerable to trickery. It's hard for me, knowing this, to put any level of faith into an NDE. We may not know a whole lot about beyond death, but we do know enough about how our very brains work to kind of be able to make the call that there isn't really a lot of mystical stuff going on there.
An afterlife requires a soul. An afterlife that doesn't require a soul would have some influence on our bodies and the energy in our brains and would be traceable because it's using some real components that allow you to exist, that ARE you in fact. So for me, that means that an afterlife requires a soul, a supernatural element of existence that is tied to us in a manner. But this raises it's own questions that we may not be able to answer in full, but again, we can look pretty closely and not see any trace of something that can't be explained by the physical world.
When we make the determination of "what knowledge can we have" we're making a judgement call on what can and can't be known, before we actually know what there is to be known or not. This to me spells out the failure of any mindset that uses this as a serious crutch. Saying we can't understand death is saying we shouldn't bother looking because, we can't understand it. This to me is a falsehood that would lead to never understanding it. Why is something by definition, incapable of being understood?
Near death experiences are well documented and the result of chemical reactions taking place in the brain
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45160368]I think they skip it mostly because it doesn't seem credible. I don't put any value in the things I wish were true. They have no value just because I want them to be true.[/quote]
What would actually make them credible then? I can assure you that if I linked people to the best looking website that was about NDE's, and that website was "approved" by the world's smartest people and strangely enough, even Richard Dawkins himself, people would still reply with the good ol' "Nope. Source isn't good enough." while skipping the question entirely and taking the easy way out.
This is just like in the other thread when I asked "what proof would you need to believe in a god?" Out of all the people in that thread, only [i][b]one[/b][/i] person actually answered that question. You said that was a loaded question, and everyone else said that it wasn't their place to say. That's kinda goofy. So with pure confidence you can keep saying that something isn't proof of a god/afterlife/whatever, but not have any clue what the proof actually would be?
This is why I've accused people of vent-posting, because some of them only reply to what's easy to them, then suddenly become mute when something different comes along. Then those same people suddenly pop back in the thread again when another post they can easily respond comes around again. Don't worry, I don't group you with those kind of posters.
[quote]Where/why/what/who/how someone hallucinates they are or are doing in an NDE isn't understood fully. We've barely broken the shell on our consciousness, let alone our subconscious, but we do understand very vitally that we build our perception of the world based on flawed tools. Our eyes don't see everything we might want them to. Our ears don't hear very many frequencies, our touch sense of touch isn't delicate like a spiders where they can sense ground vibrations with great accuracy. Our software that runs our brains is riddled with bugs and perceptive errors that make us very flawed creatures when trying to piece together a picture of the world. We only get so much right and we are so very vulnerable to trickery. It's hard for me, knowing this, to put any level of faith into an NDE. We may not know a whole lot about beyond death, but we do know enough about how our very brains work to kind of be able to make the call that there isn't really a lot of mystical stuff going on there.[/quote]
All of this is true. Not like 99.5% true, but 100%. Here, you admit us humans know tons, but don't know it all, our minds still have faults and can still fail us. So doesn't that work both ways? An NDE could easily be a hallucination, but still, we can't know for sure unless we shared the same consciousness of that person. At this point I'm just repeating you, as you pretty much said this in the first sentence.
There was a time when humans couldn't even figure out there own emotions. I mean hell, we haven't even discovered more than 2.4% of the ocean floor creatures. Let alone finding out about a life after this life. Yes, I know one is more sensible to accomplish than the other.
When I said many times that an afterlife - even if it existed, still could not be proven true, was I wrong there?
[quote]Saying we can't understand death is saying we shouldn't bother looking because, we can't understand it. This to me is a falsehood that would lead to never understanding it. Why is something by definition, incapable of being understood?[/QUOTE]
Just so I respond to this part properly, is this a reply to all of the times I've asked "what definite way would there be to be sure of life after death anyway?"?
[QUOTE=xZippy;45161784]What would actually make them credible then? I can assure you that if I linked people to the best looking website that was about NDE's, and that website was "approved" by the world's smartest people and strangely enough, even Richard Dawkins himself, people would still reply with the good ol' "Nope. Source isn't good enough." while skipping the question entirely and taking the easy way out.
This is just like in the other thread when I asked "what proof would you need to believe in a god?" Out of all the people in that thread, only [i][b]one[/b][/i] person actually answered that question. You said that was a loaded question, and everyone else said that it wasn't their place to say. That's kinda goofy. So with pure confidence you can keep saying that something isn't proof of a god/afterlife/whatever, but not have any clue what the proof actually would be?[/QUOTE]
I believe I answered that question beyond saying it was a loaded question, which it is.
But proof of a god would be a divine act that doesn't fit inside any of our understanding but doesn't break it.
[QUOTE]
It wouldn't say which god or what they want, but it'd be proof. Is it wrong to want that verified? Or questioned? The same thing goes to an afterlife. If there is no proof of it, and we can't have proof of it, what is the solution in your eyes? What do we do from there? We literally have to give up and not bother looking or thinking about it and accept we can't know everything. I agree we can't know everything but why shouldn't we look? Why should we say we can't know before we know we can't know?
All of this is true. Not like 99.5% true, but 100%. Here, you admit us humans know tons, but don't know it all, our minds still have faults and can still fail us. So doesn't that work both ways? An NDE could easily be a hallucination, but still, we can't know for sure unless we shared the same consciousness of that person. At this point I'm just repeating you, as you pretty much said this in the first sentence.
[/QUOTE]
Well that's my point. Just relying on our perceptions as something that can give us all we need is wrong, we need to go further than that as best we can. We'll always be limited by the perciptive capabilities of our bodies to read the instruments, but I believe that if something affects the real world, wouldn't there be some way of understanding it in some way?
[QUOTE]There was a time when humans couldn't even figure out there own emotions. I mean hell, we haven't even discovered more than 2.4% of the ocean floor creatures. Let alone finding out about a life after this life. Yes, I know one is more sensible to accomplish than the other.
When I said many times that an afterlife - even if it existed, still could not be proven true, was I wrong there?[/QUOTE]
I believe it is wrong to classify things as impossible to know, I think there's somethings that are more or less improbably but impossible is a bad word. I would say that there is no reason to currently believe an afterlife, or proof that would allow us to then base the afterlife on, like a soul or something, is real. I think saying "we can't know" is wrong and short sighted. If it exists and there's no way to ever prove it, then practically, everything related to the idea of an afterlife should just be seen as a waste of breath, it's beyond us forever and ever.
[QUOTE]Just so I respond to this part properly, is this a reply to all of the times I've asked "what definite way would there be to be sure of life after death anyway?"?[/QUOTE]
It's a response to that and just the general idea of our limitations on our knowledge
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45161901]I believe I answered that question beyond saying it was a loaded question, which it is.
But proof of a god would be a divine act that doesn't fit inside any of our understanding but doesn't break it.[/quote]
This does not change the fact that we have no idea what absolute proof of a god is - and claiming what isn't proof when we have no damn idea what is. On that topic, there's still too many variables. Who's to say how much worse off or complacent the would would be if God did reveal himself?
You also completely dodged the question of what would actually make a NDE source credible.
[quote]Well that's my point. Just relying on our perceptions as something that can give us all we need is wrong, we need to go further than that as best we can. We'll always be limited by the perciptive capabilities of our bodies to read the instruments, but I believe that if something affects the real world, wouldn't there be some way of understanding it in some way?[/quote]
Yes, but the concept of an afterlife doesn't seamlessly fit in here. The afterlife is a place after the life, where the person is no longer in the regular life. So for the sake of argument, at least [I]as of now[/I], how would one be in both at once? If were in the afterlife and wanted others to know, how would this info be shared? How we actually know and see that the person was going to the afterlife while we're stuck in the normal life?
You're right, claiming something that can't be solved and then never putting effort into something because of that claim is a cheap falsehood, but I didn't actually say that people should just stop searching for the answers there because it's unsolvable. If we do research and further confirm that no life after death exists, then at least we can be more sure of that.
[quote]I believe it is wrong to classify things as impossible to know, I think there's somethings that are more or less improbably but impossible is a bad word. I would say that there is no reason to currently believe an afterlife, or proof that would allow us to then base the afterlife on, like a soul or something, is real.[/quote]
Alright, but if people come up with presumed facts that the soul does in fact exist, and they've "proven" that an afterlife exists, would you believe them anyway? If so, what grounds would you have to prove them wrong? This was another simple question that a lot of people ran away from.
These claims have [url=http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes]already been made[/url]. Not that I'm saying they're true, but it's happened.
[QUOTE=xZippy;45166388]This does not change the fact that we have no idea what absolute proof of a god is - and claiming what isn't proof when we have no damn idea what is. On that topic, there's still too many variables. Who's to say how much worse off or complacent the would would be if God did reveal himself?
You also completely dodged the question of what would actually make a NDE source credible.[/QUOTE]
I didn't dodge it, I framed it in the question of gods existence. The same thing would have to happen. An event that doesn't fit in with our scientific understanding, but doesn't cause us to reform all our knowledge.
[QUOTE]Yes, but the concept of an afterlife doesn't seamlessly fit in here. The afterlife is a place after the life, where the person is no longer in the regular life. So for the sake of argument, at least [I]as of now[/I], how would one be in both at once? If were in the afterlife and wanted others to know, how would this info be shared? How we actually know and see that the person was going to the afterlife while we're stuck in the normal life?
You're right, claiming something that can't be solved and then never putting effort into something because of that claim is a cheap falsehood, but I didn't actually say that people should just stop searching for the answers there because it's unsolvable. If we do research and further confirm that no life after death exists, then at least we can be more sure of that.[/QUOTE]
I don't know. I don't want to speculate on something that is out of my grasp. We don't know yet. Why, when we don't know, should we consider it to be true?
You also said "we can't know" which means that we can't know so any and all efforts that go to understanding it are wasted.
[QUOTE]Alright, but if people come up with presumed facts that the soul does in fact exist, and they've "proven" that an afterlife exists, would you believe them anyway? If so, what grounds would you have to prove them wrong? This was another simple question that a lot of people ran away from.[/QUOTE]
Well what do you mean by presumed facts and "proven"? It's impossible to disprove someones hallucination isn't a hallucination to them. To them, if they sincerely believe it, it was as real as anything can be. So, I don't know how one would tackle that problem but to me, it makes sense to put it into a field of study that we can learn about and are learning about, neuro science.
[QUOTE]These claims have [url=http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes]already been made[/url]. Not that I'm saying they're true, but it's happened.[/QUOTE]
None of this says anything. This just repeats itself constantly saying what bio centrism is and that modern science disposes of the soul. It doesn't give a single argument. It doesn't have any evidence or proof in that link that I could see in that long shpeal.
[editline]20th June 2014[/editline]
i'm reading the articles related to it
I don't see anything even remotely resembling "proof".
[editline]20th June 2014[/editline]
It's just hard to take it seriously. It's nothing but Lanza's and Deepak Chopras conclusions wrapped up in a psychologytoday article.
I don't take this very seriously because what is there here for me to take seriously?
[editline]20th June 2014[/editline]
I mean if that guy is credible with what he gave for arguments and evidence, then this [url]http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/[/url]
smashes them to bits with presentation of evidence and proof and arguments and what not.
I wanted to expand on my argument about this after having some time to think about it.
Biocentrism puts biology at the centre of scientific importance basically. Biology, and it's complications create the world around us. But, that's literally not possible. Just by definition it isn't. Biology isn't anything beyond chemistry, and physics at work. I know that his argument is that it's not, and it's more than that, but he doesn't reference how or why at any point really.
I had a really, really shitty professor of philosophy in my first year of college. He taught "Science and Religion" and didn't really cover much of either topic. What he did cover was his own book on philosophy, I wish I could remember the title, but I doubt you'd find it on the internet because he is just that insignificant of a teacher and thinker. But, he did have one idea that(he really just rephrased an entire field of philosophy) called "phystrilogy". He really just squished physics, chemistry, and biology, into one word. Phy-stry-ology. Really, really dumb name. Great premise though. Physics is the base of everything. It's the base of chemistry, and chemistry is the base for biology. He had a whole book on this(it was very dry) but the idea seems to be of value in this context.
to me, biology is incredibly impressive. But it's not supernatural defined and I don't see why life should be considered to be something beyond the physical without evidence. This "biocentrism" isn't evidence. It's an argument, but not a strong one. Biology is just the works of physics and chemistry at larger and larger scales. Why that causes many people to require something more complicated is beyond me. Life is complicated sure, but why does it rely on a whole supernatural field to exist?
Flight is complicated, counter intuitive, and no one thought it was possible before it happened. Flight is literally just the wind passing over a wing in varying pressures causing lift, it's not magic. It's complicated physics at work. And I don't see life in a different boat like Adam Lanza does.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45168304]I didn't dodge it, I framed it in the question of gods existence. The same thing would have to happen. An event that doesn't fit in with our scientific understanding, but doesn't cause us to reform all our knowledge.[/quote]
You say these questions are loaded, but you answer them anyway. Which still isn't very difficult because you can't exactly get a wrong answer on them. I'm not quizzing people when I ask stuff like that. Those questions of mine are just what other people, in their opinion - their frame of mind, would be proof to them. I don't understand the big deal.
But my statement still stands, many on this forum camp out at this thread for days telling people "that's not proof, and neither is that." when they have no idea what the real proof would be.
I'm sorry, but the couple times the "source isn't credible" line was used, I think were just cop-outs to blame the source and not talk about the question at hand because some couldn't think of an answer, because god forbid someone looks bad on an internet forum. It doesn't take a lot of effort to keep spouting "No." at someone else's posts.
[quote]I don't know. I don't want to speculate on something that is out of my grasp. We don't know yet. Why, when we don't know, should we consider it to be true?[/quote]
No, there's not much reason to believe something is true when it hasn't been proven fully, but there's almost no point in debate when you lock yourself to one side of the argument with no hope of recovery.
[quote]You also said "we can't know" which means that we can't know so any and all efforts that go to understanding it are wasted.[/quote]
I wouldn't say wasted, but it's still two different planes of existence. As of now, the only link is the testimony of others and what they say they saw when they were dead for some time. Are they all true? Who knows? Are they all making it up, not all of them. No.
Sure, there's people who went from atheist to christian just from one NDE, doctors who confirm what an out-of-body patient saw actually happened, and even blind and deaf people who were given these senses after death but lost them again upon coming back. They're interesting, but are they proof? Unless every person experiences this or finds a way to confirm someone's NDE are true without flaw, then obviously no.
If you're gonna write off any NDE or claim with an effortless "nope." every single time no matter what, then you have no purpose in thread, because you aren't debating anymore, you're just being a broken record and posting things to make yourself feel better. Again, I'm not placing you in that group, but there's too many of those user who enter these threads.
[quote]Well what do you mean by presumed facts and "proven"?[/quote]
Exactly that. Those who simply [I]say[/I] they found proof of something, and that's it, it's just the claim.
[quote]It's impossible to disprove someones hallucination isn't a hallucination to them. To them, if they sincerely believe it, it was as real as anything can be. So, I don't know how one would tackle that problem but to me, it makes sense to put it into a field of study that we can learn about and are learning about, neuro science.[/quote]
For all we know, it could include more than neuroscience.
[QUOTE=xZippy;45176485]You say these questions are loaded, but you answer them anyway. Which still isn't very difficult because you can't exactly get a wrong answer on them. I'm not quizzing people when I ask stuff like that. Those questions of mine are just what other people, in their opinion - their frame of mind, would be proof to them. I don't understand the big deal.[/QUOTE]
It's not a "big deal". It's just not a question that is sincerely asked very often.
[QUOTE]But my statement still stands, many on this forum camp out at this thread for days telling people "that's not proof, and neither is that." when they have no idea what the real proof would be.
I'm sorry, but the couple times the "source isn't credible" line was used, I think were just cop-outs to blame the source and not talk about the question at hand because some couldn't think of an answer, because god forbid someone looks bad on an internet forum. It doesn't take a lot of effort to keep spouting "No." at someone else's posts.[/QUOTE]
Just because you can have sources doesn't mean it's a great idea. You sourced biocentrism, but it's not a good idea. It's a circular argument.
How can someone really argue with a circular argument? If you vehemently believe in something that is circularly supported, you won't recognize that and won't take any argument as anything but a "no".
[QUOTE]I wouldn't say wasted, but it's still two different planes of existence. As of now, the only link is the testimony of others and what they say they saw when they were dead for some time. Are they all true? Who knows? Are they all making it up, not all of them. No.[/QUOTE]
How can you claim they're not all making it up? Because some people honestly believe themselves? because there's situations we can't understand where they somehow have some sort of knowledge we wouldn't expect them to have? I don't consider that proof of supernatural. I believe that's proof to look into it further(which, believe it or not, scientists do look into things like that)
[QUOTE]Sure, there's people who went from atheist to christian just from one NDE, doctors who confirm what an out-of-body patient saw actually happened, and even blind and deaf people who were given these senses after death but lost them again upon coming back. They're interesting, but are they proof? Unless every person experiences this or finds a way to confirm someone's NDE are true without flaw, then obviously no.
If you're gonna write off any NDE or claim with an effortless "nope." every single time no matter what, then you have no purpose in thread, because you aren't debating anymore, you're just being a broken record and posting things to make yourself feel better. Again, I'm not placing you in that group, but there's too many of those user who enter these threads.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that a great deal of people who post here don't belong here as they don't want a debate, just a soapbox.
There's not much that can be done to talk about NDE's beyond "Well I know they're real" and "I know they're not". People who genuinely believe they're real, or think that it's possible ignore any and all science around the brain in an attempt to keep it alive.
[QUOTE]Exactly that. Those who simply [I]say[/I] they found proof of something, and that's it, it's just the claim.[/QUOTE]
People can claim anything they want. That doesn't mean I need to take it seriously if it doesn't stand up.
[QUOTE]For all we know, it could include more than neuroscience.[/QUOTE]
Well, here's a scenario that came to me earlier.
Premise 1, Neuroscience is the study of the brain and how it works and why it works
Premise 2, if neuroscience is able to predict something about how the brain works(which it does) then it is a strong model
Premise 3, if there is another, supernatural force at work here in an undetectable way, it must make sense within the confines of neuroscience as it has not broken the rules or predictability of neuroscience
Premise 4, If this force doesn't work inside neuroscience, we must conclude that neuroscience is an auxiliary, and non predictive model set, and that there is something else to explain it.
Premise 5, if neuroscience as a whole is broken as a science and is unable to predict or make judgement calls about the brain, it's functions, and how or why those work in the manner they do, then we must conclude again, that everything we know about biology, chemistry, and physics, has to be rewritten around this.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45178612]How can you claim they're not all making it up? Because some people honestly believe themselves? because there's situations we can't understand where they somehow have some sort of knowledge we wouldn't expect them to have? I don't consider that proof of supernatural. I believe that's proof to look into it further(which, believe it or not, scientists do look into things like that)[/quote]
I can't exactly read someone's mind to know if they're making something up, that same question could be asked about almost any interesting situation that someone says they've experienced.
If you take your time and really read between the lines in these stories, they do pick apart at them just being lazily made up. There are people smarter than most of us on this forum combined that look into this kind of thing, and are better at logically tackling it better than we have.
It's not always as black and white as "uhh yeah so you know this guy was dead for a while and uhh yeah he saw heaven and it was cool so you know uhh anyway uhh..." It gets much more interesting and convenient than that.
[quote]There's not much that can be done to talk about NDE's beyond "Well I know they're real" and "I know they're not". People who genuinely believe they're real, or think that it's possible ignore any and all science around the brain in an attempt to keep it alive.[/quote]
This kind of stuff has happened when people have been dead for extreme periods of time. The length of time where the brain couldn't even hallucinate as it wasn't working at all.
[QUOTE=xZippy;45180322]This kind of stuff has happened when people have been dead for extreme periods of time. The length of time where the brain couldn't even hallucinate as it wasn't working at all.[/QUOTE]
Source please.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
