What determines where we go should there be an afterlife?

Really? I think it indicates pretty clearly that NDE's are all in the head.

I can lucid dream about driving my car on the highway. Does that mean driving a car on the highway is all in the head? There is no limit to what can occur in a lucid dream. Therefore it becomes meaningless as a gauge to what is or isn't real.

I'm beginning to think you are a troll.
 
I can lucid dream about driving my car on the highway. Does that mean driving a car on the highway is all in the head? There is no limit to what can occur in a lucid dream. Therefore it becomes meaningless as a gauge to what is or isn't real.

I'm beginning to think you are a troll.

No, just going through severe doubts on the tail end of depression. No, but that experience you have had went on inside your head
 
No, just going through severe doubts on the tail end of depression. No, but that experience you have had went on inside your head

Can you think of any similarities between the body in cardiac arrest and the body while dreaming? How could you draw the conclusion that the body would dream at the point of death? It may be so, but I don't think there is any medical or scientific proof that makes that link. That article certainly doesn't make any. You are not a careful or critical reader. Half of your suffering comes from your tacit acceptance of anything written on the internet. Educate yourself and learn to reason. You are no better than the new agers waiting for the 5th crystal ascension at this point. You are just grasping at beliefs willy nilly. Develop yourself instead. Find your own path. Quick following and begin leading yourself.
 
Can you think of any similarities between the body in cardiac arrest and the body while dreaming? How could you draw the conclusion that the body would dream at the point of death? It may be so, but I don't think there is any medical or scientific proof that makes that link. That article certainly doesn't make any. You are not a careful or critical reader. Half of your suffering comes from your tacit acceptance of anything written on the internet. Educate yourself and learn to reason. You are no better than the new agers waiting for the 5th crystal ascension at this point. You are just grasping at beliefs willy nilly. Develop yourself instead. Find your own path. Quick following and begin leading yourself.

I completely understand where you are coming from. I essentially want to be able to believe in things like reincarnation and NDE's as real, without feeling like I'm being irrational. I've read Tucker's and Stevenson's reports, and whilst I am amazed about the reports. I find them to good to be true, or there's the niggling doubt in my mind that I'm being too credulous.
 
I completely understand where you are coming from. I essentially want to be able to believe in things like reincarnation and NDE's as real, without feeling like I'm being irrational. I've read Tucker's and Stevenson's reports, and whilst I am amazed about the reports. I find them to good to be true, or there's the niggling doubt in my mind that I'm being too credulous.

You are being credulous either way. That's what you need to understand.
 
I completely understand where you are coming from. I essentially want to be able to believe in things like reincarnation and NDE's as real, without feeling like I'm being irrational. I've read Tucker's and Stevenson's reports, and whilst I am amazed about the reports. I find them to good to be true, or there's the niggling doubt in my mind that I'm being too credulous.
Too good to be true? I want someone to convince me that reincarnation is a lie and after I die I will immediately be transported to heaven where I will spend the rest of eternity in a state of perfect peace and bliss.

Cheers,
Bill
 
I completely understand where you are coming from. I essentially want to be able to believe in things like reincarnation and NDE's as real, without feeling like I'm being irrational. I've read Tucker's and Stevenson's reports, and whilst I am amazed about the reports. I find them to good to be true, or there's the niggling doubt in my mind that I'm being too credulous.
Yet when you find some article which is dismissive of NDEs you seem to have no qualms about accepting that with no concerns over being too credulous. I thought previously you were worried that you might be deluding yourself. It seems that isn't something which you apply equally to every piece of evidence or every opinion you encounter. I suggest you look at all sources of information with the same critical eye, rather than switching on and off your critical thought processes as the whim takes you.
 
I completely understand where you are coming from. I essentially want to be able to believe in things like reincarnation and NDE's as real, without feeling like I'm being irrational. I've read Tucker's and Stevenson's reports, and whilst I am amazed about the reports. I find them to good to be true, or there's the niggling doubt in my mind that I'm being too credulous.
You are being credulous either way. That's what you need to understand.

Radicalpolitik, are you saying you're suffering from depression, and that the depressive thoughts make you unable to believe that reality could ultimately be a good thing? Because while ultimately irrational, that is a valid reason for dismissing the implications of NDEs for what they are - being emotionally unable to believe that reality is a good thing. I have a friend who, while he was depressed, was unable to believe in them for the very same reason.

Too good to be true? I want someone to convince me that reincarnation is a lie and after I die I will immediately be transported to heaven where I will spend the rest of eternity in a state of perfect peace and bliss.

Cheers,
Bill

Why do you want to be convinced that reincarnation is a lie? When you say "after I die I will immediately be transported to heaven where I will spend the rest of eternity in a state of perfect peace and bliss", how does that require that there's no such thing as reincarnation? It's not like you HAVE to reincarnate - it's just that you can. Additionally, after 10^10^100 years in bliss, wouldn't you be ready for 70 years or whatever of physical existence again? Think about it from the perspective of eternity, and you'll see that it's not such a big deal.

No one is going to force you to reincarnate instantaneously again after this life is over. You can rest for as long as you like in bliss indescribable.
 
Yet when you find some article which is dismissive of NDEs you seem to have no qualms about accepting that with no concerns over being too credulous. I thought previously you were worried that you might be deluding yourself. It seems that isn't something which you apply equally to every piece of evidence or every opinion you encounter. I suggest you look at all sources of information with the same critical eye, rather than switching on and off your critical thought processes as the whim takes you.

probably because the conventional explanations seem more parsimonious.
 
Too good to be true? I want someone to convince me that reincarnation is a lie and after I die I will immediately be transported to heaven where I will spend the rest of eternity in a state of perfect peace and bliss.

Cheers,
Bill
I could go for an easily controlled existence that can be started up, stopped, and reset as I choose, a la the most immersive video game in the Universe crossed with a lucid dream, myself.

Radicalpolitik - I share your agnosticism (and possibly your condition, though the funds for a diagnosis are nonexistent), but I've learned in the past two years that any pop science writing on these topics - no matter what the author's bias - need to be taken with more than a grain of salt.
 
probably because the conventional explanations seem more parsimonious.

I've studied NDE's for more than three decades, I was one of the first to be interested. I remember the early sceptical objections and there are now over twenty, the latest being the silly rat brain surge. Even if you can't accept that something (call it fresh air if you want to) exits the brain in cardiac arrest, you have to accept that the experience is at least totally convincing for those that have it and remember it.

Think about what I'm telling you. One day (hope it's not soon as you are young I suspect) YOU will feel yourself leaving your body behind. YOU will probably look back at it and see it and KNOW that you are seeing it. You won't look back and think "This is a hallucination, my mind is making a model based on auditory and tactile input etc etc" ...you, like all the rest of them will know what is happening just as if you were hoisted up to the ceiling right now
by hooks attached to your trousers.

I've spoken to quite a few people who have had the OBE/NDE experience. They accept it, they don't question it so what I'm trying to say is ...even if you just believe that this means nothing ultimately, at least YOU will be convinced while the experience is occurring. So what difference does it make ?
 
I've studied NDE's for more than three decades, I was one of the first to be interested. I remember the early sceptical objections and there are now over twenty, the latest being the silly rat brain surge. Even if you can't accept that something (call it fresh air if you want to) exits the brain in cardiac arrest, you have to accept that the experience is at least totally convincing for those that have it and remember it.

Think about what I'm telling you. One day (hope it's not soon as you are young I suspect) YOU will feel yourself leaving your body behind. YOU will probably look back at it and see it and KNOW that you are seeing it. You won't look back and think "This is a hallucination, my mind is making a model based on auditory and tactile input etc etc" ...you, like all the rest of them will know what is happening just as if you were hoisted up to the ceiling right now
by hooks attached to your trousers.

I've spoken to quite a few people who have had the OBE/NDE experience. They accept it, they don't question it so what I'm trying to say is ...even if you just believe that this means nothing ultimately, at least YOU will be convinced while the experience is occurring. So what difference does it make ?

Yes I am young, in my 20s to be precise. I suppose I've never spoken to people who have had one before. That is why I find it hard to stomach or even envision as real
 
... I might point to a case I came across relatively recently, that of Captain Robert Snow ...
I mentioned this just as an example yesterday. There is a video which personally I found quite entertaining, regardless of one's opinion, Snow has quite an engaging and almost humorous style when he presents his story (though he talks quite fast and the sound level is a little low in this recording):
 
Yes I am young, in my 20s to be precise. I suppose I've never spoken to people who have had one before. That is why I find it hard to stomach or even envision as real

This the last thing I'm going to say to you about it, because I'm getting a sore head from the bricks in the wall.

You posted a link somewhere else to the rat brain study which is being touted by some desperate sceptics who think this is the explanation for NDE.
Think about what they are trying to give us, here.

A rat (not a human) has an induced cardiac arrest. If they want to compare rats to humans, they therefore have to accept that consciousness is lost in an instant. So the rat is now in VF ...10-20 seconds later here comes some unusual surge of energy. They don't know what it is, it could be a number of things, calcium reacting for instance...but lets assume it's what is causing the NDE.

Firstly, the rat is not conscious so even if there is an NDE unfolding/playing in it's brain... it can't observe it or be aware of it. Secondly and more to the point, why would there be a "wrapped up experience" like a firework waiting to go off when the brain stops working. A firework that contains images of the rat's own body and the surrounding area, a light at the end of a tunnel, a trip down a tunnel into brilliant light, meeting other deceased rats etc etc.

What is the evolutionary point of that ? What evolutionary architect would bother placing such a fire work in there ? Instead of the rat trying to survive and regain consciousness before a bird of prey ate it for lunch , it would be wasting precious time having a chat with it's long lost rat family members not wanting to come back.

I mean this is all so ridiculous anyway, it's all about the determination of materialistic science to deny that human beings have a soul.
 
This the last thing I'm going to say to you about it, because I'm getting a sore head from the bricks in the wall.

You posted a link somewhere else to the rat brain study which is being touted by some desperate sceptics who think this is the explanation for NDE.
Think about what they are trying to give us, here.

A rat (not a human) has an induced cardiac arrest. If they want to compare rats to humans, they therefore have to accept that consciousness is lost in an instant. So the rat is now in VF ...10-20 seconds later here comes some unusual surge of energy. They don't know what it is, it could be a number of things, calcium reacting for instance...but lets assume it's what is causing the NDE.

Firstly, the rat is not conscious so even if there is an NDE unfolding/playing in it's brain... it can't observe it or be aware of it. Secondly and more to the point, why would there be a "wrapped up experience" like a firework waiting to go off when the brain stops working. A firework that contains images of the rat's own body and the surrounding area, a light at the end of a tunnel, a trip down a tunnel into brilliant light, meeting other deceased rats etc etc.

What is the evolutionary point of that ? What evolutionary architect would bother placing such a fire work in there ? Instead of the rat trying to survive and regain consciousness before a bird of prey ate it for lunch , it would be wasting precious time having a chat with it's long lost rat family members not wanting to come back.

I mean this is all so ridiculous anyway, it's all about the determination of materialistic science to deny that human beings have a soul.

- all animals are conscious to some degree
- for humans perhaps it's their brain going in overdrive, knowing it's about to die and it conjurs up lots of imagery
- we are not that different from animals, this is hubris
- evolution is not necessarily efficient
 
- all animals are conscious to some degree
- for humans perhaps it's their brain going in overdrive, knowing it's about to die and it conjurs up lots of imagery
- we are not that different from animals, this is hubris
- evolution is not necessarily efficient

Look, if you want to compose posts like that, please don't aim them at me. Thanks for the debate
 
Back
Top