Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[Ben Dhyan]

Is anyone denying aliens? It is a vast universe hundreds of billions of galaxies, billions of stars in each galaxy and planets which outnumber them. What do we know of aliens, human-like or otherwise? And there are earth-like planets also where life could exist. But there is no evidence that they have ever visited earth or that any human has been abducted by them.
Yes, it is a claim and belief of atheists because they have not found anything to accept the theory. What is your problem with that?How can I accept your experience? I have no such experience. And you may have your own reasons to make that claim. May be you are showing off in the forum.

I suspect you missed the point, what I said was in reply to the claim that I had not watch the referenced video clip. I said I had watched it, are you too claiming I did not?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What you are saying is that where there is a gap in objective knowledge that gap can be filled with anything and is true by virtue of being believed. How do you determine which believed answer of all the competing believed answers is the correct answer? If a million people believe one million different explanations for NDE, OOB, OPO, Bigfoot, alien abductions, etc. which is the right one. You no evidence to make the determination, so how is a determination made?

According to you I do not have evidence that my invisible clone is standing next to me with an invisible gun to my head. Therefore, it could be true. If I believe it, then it must be true.

No, I am saying a person who had a subjective experience for which they have an explanation is normal fare for human beings. For someone who did not have the experience to claim such people that they must provide objective proof that explains the experience is not realistic, it can't be done, period! If a million people believe one million different explanations for NDE, etc., then that is what is. If you did not have an experience you just stay out of it. if you had one, then by all means provide your explanation if you desire.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What is belief in lack of belief? Is lack of belief the same as rejection of belief? I believe this goes back to some points that were made by @TagliatelliMonster, though he can correct me if I am wrong.

I do not believe I am surrounded by a flock of turkeys. Until this moment, I hadn't even thought about the possibility. I am in a room in a house on property where there are no turkeys known to be present. Is that the same as being surrounded by turkeys and rejected that fact.

What you are saying is that what you believe is fact and that anyone that rejects it is disbelieving. What you and anyone else believes has not been established to be fact. So how can someone disbelieve what cannot be demonstrated to exist for them to have the choice of rejecting it?

I am not claiming anything, the only belief I have about atheists is that I take them at their word, by definition they do not believe in God, hence it follows that they reject the existence of God.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Btw, for anyone seriously interested in the subject of NDEs, here are links to lists of academic publications.

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/publications/academic-publications/?wpv-category[]=near-death-experiences&2author-names[]=&date-of-publication[]=

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies?cx=009548005491705796603:WMX1307513326&q=NDE&cof=FORID:360

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is a personal experience that is sometimes verified by others as in Pam's surgery.
It is, what it is. You either trust what others say they experienced or you don't.

I cannot know what others experience. How am I to know the difference between an actual experience and one resulting from mental illness, wishful thinking, confusion, drugs, injury, etc.?

How can I determine which is the right thing to believe if there are more than one believed view? What if you trust both people/groups?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not claiming anything, the only belief I have about atheists is that I take them at their word, by definition they do not believe in God, hence it follows that they reject the existence of God.

I did not say you were claiming anything.

With a couple of exceptions, the atheists I have spoken on here do not believe, because they have not found a reason to believe. That is different than rejecting God.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Btw, for anyone seriously interested in the subject of NDEs, here are links to lists of academic publications.

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/publications/academic-publications/?wpv-category[]=near-death-experiences&2author-names[]=&date-of-publication[]=

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies?cx=009548005491705796603:WMX1307513326&q=NDE&cof=FORID:360

Thanks. I think it is a very interesting neurological phenomenon.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is a personal experience that is sometimes verified by others as in Pam's surgery.
It is, what it is. You either trust what others say they experienced or you don't.

It isn't that I doubt that people have experienced something. It is that I have not seen any evidence that would lead me to conclude they are more than a neurophysiological phenomenon. I cannot say they are absolutely not evidence of a spiritual afterlife, but no one can show that it is either.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I am saying a person who had a subjective experience for which they have an explanation is normal fare for human beings. For someone who did not have the experience to claim such people that they must provide objective proof that explains the experience is not realistic, it can't be done, period! If a million people believe one million different explanations for NDE, etc., then that is what is. If you did not have an experience you just stay out of it. if you had one, then by all means provide your explanation if you desire.

An experience for which there is an explanation that has evidence can be demonstrated. Simply claiming something is evidence to reinforce the experience does not mean that it is really supporting evidence.

It is completely realistic to expect explanation with supporting evidence for any claim someone makes, period! A million different explanations would be unexpected, but it would just illustrate that we have no idea what it means beyond the brain's response to trauma. If someone is claiming something any person has a right to question it, point out the flaws and reject the explanation for lack of evidence. It is unrealistic to say otherwise. If a person wants to believe it personally, they have every right to. But if you are trying to sell the idea as fact, you willingly open yourself and your claims to examination.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I did not say you were claiming anything.

With a couple of exceptions, the atheists I have spoken on here do not believe, because they have not found a reason to believe. That is different than rejecting God.

So are you saying that atheists who do not find sufficient reason to believe in God are not rejecting God? And secondly, what reason do they give for not believing in God?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So are you saying that atheists who do not find sufficient reason to believe in God are not rejecting God? And secondly, what reason do they give for not believing in God?

I am saying that is what they have told me and others. I accept their position and understand the logic they are using to come to their conclusions. Based on what they have told me, they see no evidence to believe and just don't. Much like not believing in anything that has no evidence. This is not the same as rejecting belief in something that has been established to exist. The position leaves open the possibility of changing their minds if presented with compelling evidence. At least that is how I understand it. They can correct me if I am mistaken.

Now someone that says explicitly that there is no God is making a positive claim and that is different from simply seeing no reason to believe. They would have to support their claim.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

An experience for which there is an explanation that has evidence can be demonstrated. Simply claiming something is evidence to reinforce the experience does not mean that it is really supporting evidence.

It is completely realistic to expect explanation with supporting evidence for any claim someone makes, period! A million different explanations would be unexpected, but it would just illustrate that we have no idea what it means beyond the brain's response to trauma. If someone is claiming something any person has a right to question it, point out the flaws and reject the explanation for lack of evidence. It is unrealistic to say otherwise. If a person wants to believe it personally, they have every right to. But if you are trying to sell the idea as fact, you willingly open yourself and your claims to examination.

You can only speak for yourself, I have my own 'rough' understanding but I would not discuss it with anyone who has no basic knowledge of spirituality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am saying that is what they have told me and others. I accept their position and understand the logic they are using to come to their conclusions. Based on what they have told me, they see no evidence to believe and just don't. Much like not believing in anything that has no evidence. This is not the same as rejecting belief in something that has been established to exist. The position leaves open the possibility of changing their minds if presented with compelling evidence. At least that is how I understand it. They can correct me if I am mistaken.

Now someone that says explicitly that there is no God is making a positive claim and that is different from simply seeing no reason to believe. They would have to support their claim.

So what is it that atheists are not believing in if not God?

 

[rational experiences]

Experience. One self. The living human self only.

Self experience.

Tells stories. I nearly died.

Is the status

Not actually really dead. As a dead human life is accepted.

Dead meaning starts to decompose in a two termed human realisation.

As don't forget science says a human can die but be kept in suspended animation. One day I will learn to bring them back from that type of death as unnatural death.

As a science. All human theories.

Which has nothing at all to do with theism about reactive creative conditions whatsoever.

As it is a human believed condition. It was known to be caused as a term human Saint. Body kept as proof.

So the population has to ask modern science in theism. Are you trying to give earths bio life the non decomposing death as the death you determine is scientific.

By chemistry conditions.

Being an atmospheric study.

As if you are theorising this type of theory the science intention is to react invent it in heavens as an acute study human life death biology thesis.

Stating but a human doesn't die.

To cause themselves the totality of.

As theism is a human discussing concepts studied as a science in a human claim to cause react it as a heavens gas thesis. As the data of a human meaning is all humans.

Yet in their head they are a self still living as the other one human. As science said two of humans.

A human in biology atmosphere is one human actually.

The theist X two hence is an outright liar. Who said they personally by self claim only would still be living after. In science it meant suspended animation.

The rich man's ideal I can personally come back later.

Yet no human would be alive to supposedly bring you back.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thanks. I think it is a very interesting neurological phenomenon.

You are welcome, lots of reading material on NDEs there.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can only speak for yourself, I have my own 'rough' understanding but I would not discuss it with anyone who has no basic knowledge of spirituality.

It is a reasonably and widely known standard. If a claim is made it is expected to be supported or it can be ignored as baseless.

Do you believe everything anyone tells you just because they really believe it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So what is it that atheists are not believing in if not God?

I don't understand the question.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is a reasonably and widely known standard. If a claim is made it is expected to be supported or it can be ignored as baseless.

Do you believe everything anyone tells you just because they really believe it?

No I do not believe everything anyone tells me just because they believe, generally I get a feel for where they are coming from and based on that I will either engage further or let it go. Iow, I allow people to evolve according to where they are, people are not equal.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't understand the question.

You say atheists do not find a reason to believe, what is it they do not believe in?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So what is it that atheists are not believing in if not God?

Having no evidence to believe in God does not change atheism to lack of belief in something else. It is a very open-minded position as far as I can tell.

I am fascinated with mythological beasts like Bigfoot. I have seen no evidence that leads me to believe Bigfoot or something like that exists. But I don't say that the do not exist. They could. In one, I expressing the fact of lack of viable evidence leaving no reason to believe. In the other I am making a positive claim that would need to be supported.