They both support that the afterlife is a very very very big place though. In addition Monroe and Ziewe are coming into the afterlife zone from different angles than Michael Newton and his clients. Michael Newton regresses people to their death, then their pre-life specifically while Monroe and Ziewe are kind of dipping their heads into the ocean and looking around.
Dr. Michael Shermer on Near-Death Experience Science |379|
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
That, along with the transcripts (which seem very cleaned up and book-made friendly), are my reasons for questioning a lot of it. I find it hard to believe that he has perfectly cataloged the entire experience so perfectly down to a T. I can't believe it. I believe its quite feasible that he has gathered some good data. But I dont know the extent or value of it. Although, maybe, hes more spot on than I give him credit for.
http://bigthink.com/big-think-books...arch-for-the-afterlife-immortality-and-utopia
It is sometimes funny that the strongest argument against the NDEs of skeptics is that people who have experienced NDe have not died as bigthink concludes from sher's book
It is sometimes funny that the strongest argument against the NDEs of skeptics is that people who have experienced NDe have not died as bigthink concludes from sher's book
It’s been awhile since I’ve logged on, but I’m certainly not disappointed with the new content.
Quick question, Alex always seems to bring up the same people for reference, Jeffery Long, Sam Parnia, etc. it kind it feels like he’s beating a dead horse. I’m not aware of any recent results, maybe you guys can link me some?
Quick question, Alex always seems to bring up the same people for reference, Jeffery Long, Sam Parnia, etc. it kind it feels like he’s beating a dead horse. I’m not aware of any recent results, maybe you guys can link me some?
I think the problem is that academia deal with research like that, like you would a dog turd on the lawn! I mean the implications are extraordinary, and there isn't a decent conventional explanation, but the vast majority just turn to one-side with embarrassment. Also the internet is replete with other accounts, some of which are well corroborated by medical evidence, for example:
There are a number of analogous disputes in science, and something roughly similar happens in every one (which is why, I suppose Alex wrote his book). Modern science just gets locked into ideas, some of which are plain wrong.
David
There are a number of analogous disputes in science, and something roughly similar happens in every one (which is why, I suppose Alex wrote his book). Modern science just gets locked into ideas, some of which are plain wrong.
David
Yes. it does.
This might be old news on this forum but I just came across an article by Eben Alexander (pub. July/Aug. 2015) in which he wrote a refutation of an argument by one NDE sceptic Dr. Kevin Nelson (I haven't seen Nelson's original article). I thought it one of the best bits of writing I've seen from Eben stating where he is coming from in relation to NDEs and how mainstream science utterly fails to get to grips with them. So I post up the link here in case anyone hasn't read it.
Eben Alexander III - Near-Death Experiences - The Last Word (Missouri Medicine, July/Aug. 2015)
I thought it the best plain-speak, anyone could understand it, introduction to the limits of mainstream materialist science I've ever read. Eben did very well in such a short article.
This might be old news on this forum but I just came across an article by Eben Alexander (pub. July/Aug. 2015) in which he wrote a refutation of an argument by one NDE sceptic Dr. Kevin Nelson (I haven't seen Nelson's original article). I thought it one of the best bits of writing I've seen from Eben stating where he is coming from in relation to NDEs and how mainstream science utterly fails to get to grips with them. So I post up the link here in case anyone hasn't read it.
Eben Alexander III - Near-Death Experiences - The Last Word (Missouri Medicine, July/Aug. 2015)
I thought it the best plain-speak, anyone could understand it, introduction to the limits of mainstream materialist science I've ever read. Eben did very well in such a short article.
Sorry, I thought how to do the download of the PDF would be clear. But now I see that the coders of the website are too clever by half and have the means to do the download hidden and revealed in a chaotic fashion. How to force the download button to appear is as shown here:
That shown, thanks to Typoz for doing the extract from the full PDF file.
EDIT: I just spent fifteen minutes toying around with the display options on that website and have to say I am now impressed with the way the site is laid-out. View the page in full-screen mode (button on the lower blue-bar) and it really is impressive.
That shown, thanks to Typoz for doing the extract from the full PDF file.
EDIT: I just spent fifteen minutes toying around with the display options on that website and have to say I am now impressed with the way the site is laid-out. View the page in full-screen mode (button on the lower blue-bar) and it really is impressive.
Last edited:
hi Alana... I realize that the NDE research can sound a little stale after all these yrs, but the flip-side is even more disturbing -- why the heck do these folks not accept the data!!!
and in this case, Shermer who a whole chapter specifically about NDEs and total, completely, maybe deliberately missed the point.
and in this case, Shermer who a whole chapter specifically about NDEs and total, completely, maybe deliberately missed the point.
I stopped following Shermer after I saw him on the Joe Rogan podcast where he had to deliberately apologize for misquoting Graham Hancock's work. This is simply inexcusable, especially the fact that he took many of Graham's statements completely out of context. Anyone who does this cannot possibly be a credible researcher in my opinion.