Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The nice thing about NDEs, like many other death-related anomalous phenomena, is that at least some, like Pam Reynolds', are "veridical." Elements of them can be verified. There is no question that experiencers have observed and heard things they could not possibly have seen or heard in their medical condition or from the location of their physical bodies. Not just things in the vicinity of the accident or the hospital operating room (although many of those are highly veridical), but things at a considerable distance from their physical bodies.
As I have stated, NDEs are solid - essentially undeniable - evidence that (1) consciousness is fully operational, indeed operating at a greatly heightened level, in circumstances where materialistic brain science says it should barely be operational at all (or even flatly nonoperational), and (2) consciousness is nonlocal to at least some degree - not tied to the location of the body and brain. These realities pretty well destroy the materialistic paradigm and are strongly suggestive of survival.
All of this has precisely nothing to do with what we might call the spiritual aspects of NDEs - the unearthly light and colors, the overwhelming sense of love, the encounters with deceased persons, and whatever else may be reported. What I am talking about is what we might call the "hard science" aspects of NDEs.
The most significant spiritual aspect to me is the oft-reported encounter with deceased persons. This, of course is highly suggestive of survival. Often the deceased persons were mere acquaintances of the experiencer or distant relatives - not at all those whom might have been expected if the NDE were a delusion or hallucination. Sometimes their identity wasn't determined until after the NDE. Sometimes they weren't even known to be dead - but in fact were. I have been able to come up with no plausible mundane explanation for this aspect of NDEs.
Virtually all reports of death-related phenomena - apparitions, mediumistic communications, After-Death Communications - have a strong veridical element. Many of them do not - they are merely the reports of millions of otherwise sane and credible people with no obvious reason to fabricate. Even these form a vast body of human experience that I believe any rational quest for truth should take into account. But there is also a significant percentage of thoroughly investigated veridical reports across the entire spectrum.
When dealing with the debunker mentality, which we see exhibited on this thread and throughout these forums, it is important to keep two things in mind:
1. The debunkers seldom really know what they are talking about. They may say they have "studied deeply," but in fact they almost always have not "studied" beyond the superficial level of the literature that attempts to explain NDEs and other death-related phenomena in mundane terms. Those attempts always address some aspects of the phenomena while conveniently ignoring others. Again and again and again, they have been shown to be inadequate.
2. The debunkers cannot allow the tiniest crack in the wall of their materialistic paradigm. This is the most significant consideration. With the tiniest genuine crack, which I believe NDEs provide, the materialistic paradigm goes poof. As William James famously said, to prove all crows aren't black all you need is one white crow. Throughout the history of serious research into death-related phenomena, which now spans something like 150 years, debunkers have resorted to obviously inadequate (but materialistic) explanations or even outright dishonesty to avoid the tinest crack in the wall of their rigid paradigm.
Again, all claims and no evidence. And should you accuse others of not knowing what they are talking about when you goofed on what the observer effect is?
For over 2000 years, people like you have resorted to inadequate arguments and downright dishonesty in trying to refute naturalism. And in your 150 years, even the Society for Psychical Research that you promote was finding these alleged death-related phenomena were faked.
Show us the white crow that will refute naturalism. Not alleged white crows an internet goof bought in a book sold by a con artist, an actual, credible, obvious white crow.
This message is hidden because Harry Diogenes is on your ignore list.
I don't believe I've ever had a pooch as faithful as Harry and some of his fellow members of the Atheist Peanut Gallery, who appear to await my posts like a litter of eager puppies! It's quite flattering.
I hope you're making some good points, exposing my fallacies and whatnot. Methinks thou doth protest too much, perhaps?
This message is hidden because Harry Diogenes is on your ignore list.
I don't believe I've ever had a pooch as faithful as Harry and some of his fellow members of the Atheist Peanut Gallery, who appear to await my posts like a litter of eager puppies! It's quite flattering.
I hope you're making some good points, exposing my fallacies and whatnot. Methinks thou doth protest too much, perhaps?
First you want an extended and substantive discussion (with the brilliant method of putting actual experts on ignore), and then you complain when you get one? Who is protesting too much?
This is a movie from Angel Studios whose synopsis is "After Death is a gripping feature film that explores the afterlife based on real near-death experiences, conveyed by scientists, authors, and survivors. From the New York Times bestselling authors who brought you titles like 90 Minutes in Heaven, Imagine Heaven, and To Heaven and Back, emerges a cinematic peek beyond the veil that examines the spiritual and scientific dimensions of mortality, inviting viewers to contemplate the possibility of life after death."
Has anyone seen it yet?
I saw it last night. Very interesting movie. Was the first movie I've ever watched that focuses on NDEs. The movie features a few scientists/researchers who have studied NDEs and they explain the things they have researched over the years as well as a few testimonies from real people.
My takeaways from this movie:
Science cannot explain everything. This is a concept that one of the researchers emphasized on along with the fact that evidence can be huge factor in determining the reality of an "afterlife". The testimonies provided by the people provide support of a possibility that an afterlife exists but not a solid concrete conclusion. Skeptics would say "this person was dreaming. they had hallucinations. they were under drugs. they were not dead yet...they were just on the brink of death." Though the doctors supervising the operation that occurred when the person died would say "the person was clinically dead". It is also mentioned that while the heart might not be beating anymore, the brain still has activity, but that activity gradually slows down and the more oxygen is deprived from the brain, the more damaged it gets. Theoretically, a person who has been dead for over 10 minutes should be brain damaged and would have impaired body function if revived.
The movie shows multiple people being clinically dead for a long period of time and experiencing very realistic lucid experiences and, once revived, being able to retell those experiences in detail. Those same people also say they never told anyone their stories because other people would call them crazy so they kept quiet.
The challenge about this sort of stuff is looking at it objectively, without any bias. Coming to a conclusion without thinking "yes! God IS real." Scientifically, if a person was dead for over 30 minutes (this might be the case if they got into a crash or they had a heart attack or whatever and nobody found them until hours later) and they somehow got revived, I would think that serves as a case that something extraordinary happened.
I wonder how many times I have seen it explained that "science cannot explain everything." Of course this is true, but this simple truth always seems to give people license to explain what cannot be explained with their favorite speculations coupled with no apparent need to justify those speculations in any justifiable manner. NDEs have been explained in many fairly straightforward ways that don't involve the "here after." Yet, depending on the individual, the inclination to pick the explanation that appeals to them most generally determines what explanation they not only gravitate toward but also promote, rather than seriously consider the more realistic alternative explanations. I have no doubt NDEs happen, but I also well appreciate how they can and do happen without speculation they are any more real than the dreams I have that take me beyond the realm of reality.
I wonder how many times I have seen it explained that "science cannot explain everything." Of course this is true, but this simple truth always seems to give people license to explain what cannot be explained with their favorite speculations coupled with no apparent need to justify those speculations in any justifiable manner. NDEs have been explained in many fairly straightforward ways that don't involve the "here after." Yet, depending on the individual, the inclination to pick the explanation that appeals to them most generally determines what explanation they not only gravitate toward but also promote, rather than seriously consider the more realistic alternative explanations. I have no doubt NDEs happen, but I also well appreciate how they can and do happen without speculation they are any more real than the dreams I have that take me beyond the realm of reality.
What actually boggles me is when atheists say "these NDEs are <<bleep>>*. all religious crap. proof that there's no fantasy afterlife" as well when Christians say "NDEs are proof that God is real. Glory to God!"
I'm right in the middle. I find this topic very interesting. A lot of data has been collected over the years but nothing really conclusive, at least from what I have seen.
I'd love to see a case study that says: out of 1,000 NDEs that were studied, 70% had a "no experience" NDE, and 30% had an experience. "No experience" NDEs occurred approx 3 hrs after the patients died with no brain activity detected. 90% of the "no experience" NDEs patients describes seeing absolutely nothing while being dead. 40% of the "no experiene" NDE patients identified as a Christian.
See the amount of detail there? That's called filling in the holes and gaps. Minimizing the amount of questions that can be asked.
Last edited by mensaguy; 11-01-2023 at 01:24 PM..
Reason: Unacceptable language. Read the forum rules.
I'd love to see a case study that says: out of 1,000 NDEs that were studied, 70% had a "no experience" NDE, and 30% had an experience. "No experience" NDEs occurred approx 3 hrs after the patients died with no brain activity detected. 90% of the "no experience" NDEs patients describes seeing absolutely nothing while being dead. 40% of the "no experiene" NDE patients identified as a Christian.
If you'd "love to see" one, why not try educating yourself? There have been umpteen serious studies. Dr. Bruce Greyson ([url]https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/dops-staff/bruce-greysons-bio/[/url]), who has absolutely no religious agenda, is surely the premier U.S. researcher (there are many around the world) and has published extensively. This - "The Near-Death Experience Content (NDE-C) scale: Development and psychometric validation" - is just an example of the type of work being done: [url]https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2020/11/Nov-2020-NDE-C-CC.pdf[/url].
The percentage of no NDEs, superficial NDEs, deep NDEs, hellish NDEs, etc., etc., is essentially irrelevant. There are too many variables - actual medical condition, circumstances, memory, etc., to say it is significant that 17% of persons in a near-death study reported an NDE and that 5% of those were hellish, while 83% reported no NDE. It means pretty close to nothing.
I'm beginning to share LearnMe's perception - although I'm having my epiphany far more quickly than he did - that these forums are almost a complete waste of time. Let's face it, most people here (and elsewhere, for that matter) have no real interest in Religion & Spirituality beyond mental masturbation and lightweight chitchat. Good Lord, NDEs have now been intensively studied for nearly 50 years, people.
If you'd "love to see" one, why not try educating yourself? There have been umpteen serious studies. Dr. Bruce Greyson (https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-...-greysons-bio/), who has absolutely no religious agenda, is surely the premier U.S. researcher (there are many around the world) and has published extensively. This - "The Near-Death Experience Content (NDE-C) scale: Development and psychometric validation" - is just an example of the type of work being done: https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-...0-NDE-C-CC.pdf.
The percentage of no NDEs, superficial NDEs, deep NDEs, hellish NDEs, etc., etc., is essentially irrelevant. There are too many variables - actual medical condition, circumstances, memory, etc., to say it is significant that 17% of persons in a near-death study reported an NDE and that 5% of those were hellish, while 83% reported no NDE. It means pretty close to nothing.
I'm beginning to share LearnMe's perception - although I'm having my epiphany far more quickly than he did - that these forums are almost a complete waste of time. Let's face it, most people here (and elsewhere, for that matter) have no real interest in Religion & Spirituality beyond mental masturbation and lightweight chitchat. Good Lord, NDEs have now been intensively studied for nearly 50 years, people.
Thanks for the reference. Will look into Dr. Greyson.
When I say NDEs, I'm not talking about personalizing them. For example, what percentage of NDEs involve Jesus? what percentage involved an empty white room? what percentage involve seeing stars? what percentage saw fire? all of these NDEs can be clomped together into the "had an experience" or "saw something" NDE. The reason why it's relevant is because what happens if a person did not experience anything? they closed their eyes, flatlined, woke up after 3 hours of being dead and then recall experiencing nothing. Even if the experience is a complete blur, a person can experience "something".
If the person experienced nothing, why did they experience nothing? Imagine if they did not get revived, there would be no afterlife for them. That nothingness would last for eternity. Would that nothingness eventually transition into something? That's a good question.
I love how you totally accuse me believing in the afterlife because I'm Christian lol. I would suggest opening your mind up more instead of just assuming someone believes in something because of their religious background.
I'll poke some holes in your first paragraph. Who are these "experts"? I haven't seen any medical experts openly admit that 99% of NDEs are "hot air--fictitious stuff made up just to get attention". Please show me a video of a medical scientist with a non-religious background saying that NDEs are fictitious. I'm genuinely curious. How do you define "God"? Again, you keep mentioning God as though you define God in a specific way and base all of your beliefs on your own definition of what you think God is. How do you know that in order for something to have something related to God, it has to be unambiguous? Your last sentence....how do you explain someone recalling their experience HOURS after they are declared dead? You are telling me that a person can recall VERY SPECIFIC lucid details of something while their brain is very quickly running out of oxygen?
I've openly questioned my own religion and yet here you go mumbling to yourself "compwiz believes in this **** cuz he's Christian". I'm here asking questions because this topic is something that has more questions than answers.
Well, show me a Christian who doesn't believe in an afterlife. I'd love to meet one.
Any competent neuro-scientist will shoot NDE's full of holes. Here's one:
Again, you ask me a lot of detailed questions which I couldn't readily respond to without doing hours of research--which I am NOT going to do on your behalf. IF you're sincerely curious you'll do the research yourself. If you're just sending me on a wild goose chase then nothing I am going to tell you will make the least bit of difference to your preconceived beliefs. Just remember that as a Christian I believed in NDE's---until I looked at the science and saw that they can be perfectly explained from a scientific POV as strictly a product of a dying mind. NDE's can be reproduced in the lab:
"However, NDEs are not always related to death (despite the 'D' in NDE). For example, the training of combat fighter pilots can involve high G forces in a centrifuge, which sends the blood away from the brain to the feet, leading to unconsciousness. The typical pathway involves a greying of the vision, followed by total blackout and vivid dreams. Some 20 per cent of pilots who blackout in this centrifuge training report classic NDEs, with the out-of-body experience. And to further separate the NDE from death, in hospital situations where patients report an NDE, some 50 per cent of them would have survived without any medical intervention."
Again, you ask me a lot of detailed questions which I couldn't readily respond to without doing hours of research--which I am NOT going to do on your behalf. IF you're sincerely curious you'll do the research yourself. If you're just sending me on a wild goose chase then nothing I am going to tell you will make the least bit of difference to your preconceived beliefs. Just remember that as a Christian I believed in NDE's---until I looked at the science and saw that they can be perfectly explained from a scientific POV as strictly a product of a dying mind. NDE's can be reproduced in the lab:
"However, NDEs are not always related to death (despite the 'D' in NDE). For example, the training of combat fighter pilots can involve high G forces in a centrifuge, which sends the blood away from the brain to the feet, leading to unconsciousness. The typical pathway involves a greying of the vision, followed by total blackout and vivid dreams. Some 20 per cent of pilots who blackout in this centrifuge training report classic NDEs, with the out-of-body experience. And to further separate the NDE from death, in hospital situations where patients report an NDE, some 50 per cent of them would have survived without any medical intervention."
Yes, but NDEs are all remarkably similar.
They either see and experience heaven, or the ferocity and hopelessness of Hell.
Jesus then usually appears, explaining very calmly why they did or didn’t make the grade.
It is Allah Who takes away the souls at the time of their death,
and those that die not during their sleep.
He keeps those (souls) for which He has ordained death
and sends the rest for a term appointed.
Verily, in this are signs for a people who think deeply.
I’m not sure about the dying while your asleep but.
I’ve had the occasional religious dream, but certainly had a lot more about people that are no longer here.
My mother is into Spiritualist beliefs, and often sees dead people.
In some ways this maybe why many ancient and indigenous peoples often prayed to, or summoned their ancestors and spirits , and/or deceased loved ones.
On the OP, I’m definitely going to watch the movie when it’s available.
Of course the critics don’t rate it highly, but I don’t go on their views here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
