Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[Ben Dhyan]

Anybody should be able to validate it, if it is true. Whether it be an atheist, theist, believer, communist, anarchist, dog lover, wine afficionada, hairdresser, etc., etc., etc.

That. Is. The. Point.
Why you don't get it, I don't know at this point.

And I have repeatedly explained to you that it is a subjective realization, not an objective one.

For example, another person can't validate the experience of sorrow when say their beloved had died. It is a subjective experience. Countless religious aspirants across all religions across all nations have experienced the bliss of union with spirit, but in every case it is a subjective experience and can not be validated by objective means.

You can validate it directly by having such an experience, but you would need to spend possibly years of religious practice to realize it.

I really don't see how you can't understand this, it is so obvious to a reasonable soul imho.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Look at what you've reduced yourself to.
This is just getting sad at this point.

Oh to be clear, that is not my naked self in the photo.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Anybody should be able to validate it, if it is true. Whether it be an atheist, theist, believer, communist, anarchist, dog lover, wine afficionada, hairdresser, etc., etc., etc.

That. Is. The. Point.
Why you don't get it, I don't know at this point.

Btw Skeptic Thinker, in case you are under a wrong impression, awareness or experience of 'spiritual realms' does not confer any enduring or enhanced quality to the life of an aspirant in this world, it is merely a part of the unfolding journey of realizing what and who one really is in the context of existence. In fact, the life of a serious religious aspirant will generally incur much more suffering to their ego and body self than say an atheist would experience in their life. This is because the the higher spiritual Self is not of this physical world and to become that, one must 'die' to self identification to the ego and body self of this world, not an easy path.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I alluded to this a few posts back, but I will try and make it clearer.

An NDE is not real in the sense that what is being seen is actual reality. The reality 'seen' in the astral is an interpretation by the 'spiritual' mind in a manner meaningful to the OOB soul. Jim/James in this instance saw a pit with a satanic entity. A Hindu or Buddhist would never 'see' this in an NDE because it would not be meaningful, though they may 'see' some scene that suggested the awful suffering of a potential reincarnation. There is no hell as Jim perceived, but there is the awful suffering of a potential reincarnation if they fail to realize salvation, the monster choice represented this threat.

In a way, the NDE is like a lucid dream experience, the ego mind tries to interpret its meaning on awakening to this physical reality. Jim is now working hard to make sure that his soul will be redeemed, and not tortured eternally by a monster, even though the proper interpretation is that the monster only indicates the suffering associated with reincarnation. But in the larger scheme of things, if Jim's soul makes it when he dies fully, ie., spiritual immortality and thus no further reincarnation, the NDE experience will have served its purpose.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok, bear with me this is pretty deep.

First "waking state" means being awake, not asleep. To not be asleep is to be awake and thus to be in the waking state. Do you understand?

Second, "ego self" refers to the cognitive mind self, not the physical body self. Do you understand?

Thanks for being so rude about explaining it.


Now please explain how any of this explains how we don't think while we're sleeping, as per your claims.
Are you claiming that our minds are a separate thing independent of our brains?

 

[SkepticThinker]

And I have repeatedly explained to you that it is a subjective realization, not an objective one.

For example, another person can't validate the experience of sorrow when say their beloved had died. It is a subjective experience. Countless religious aspirants across all religions across all nations have experienced the bliss of union with spirit, but in every case it is a subjective experience and can not be validated by objective means.

You can validate it directly by having such an experience, but you would need to spend possibly years of religious practice to realize it.

I really don't see how you can't understand this, it is so obvious to a reasonable soul imho.

Sorry, but no.

You're claiming there is an entire thing called a "spiritual realm" and that there are actual spirits. That is a claim about reality that should be easily verifiable by anyone, if true. Like the claim that the sky is blue or that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. But it isn't, as you point out here - you have to already believe in such things to experience them. Well, that's called confirmation bias and it's not going to get us to the truth of the matter.

This is not how we glean information about things that exist in reality. You don't get to make a special exception just because it's a religious belief.

You think we can't validate the experience of sorrow when someone loses a loved one? I think we can. There are common characteristics involved in the expression of sorrow that are identifiable to other humans, even if they haven't experienced the loss of a loved one. But of course, that's a different thing than we're talking about. What we're talking about here is the existence of spiritual realms and spirits. Things for which you've provided no evidence and instead have insisted that you have to already believe in order to believe. Sorry, but that's not how we figure out if things exist in reality.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh to be clear, that is not my naked self in the photo.

Whew!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Btw Skeptic Thinker, in case you are under a wrong impression, awareness or experience of 'spiritual realms' does not confer any enduring or enhanced quality to the life of an aspirant in this world, it is merely a part of the unfolding journey of realizing what and who one really is in the context of existence. In fact, the life of a serious religious aspirant will generally incur much more suffering to their ego and body self than say an atheist would experience in their life. This is because the the higher spiritual Self is not of this physical world and to become that, one must 'die' to self identification to the ego and body self of this world, not an easy path.

More claims not in evidence. And more disparagement of atheists for just being atheists.


<Sigh>

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thanks for being so rude about explaining it.


Now please explain how any of this explains how we don't think while we're sleeping, as per your claims.
Are you claiming that our minds are a separate thing independent of our brains?

Sorry, I will try not to be rude.

No, but there is a higher mind independent of the ego mind. When the ego mind is asleep and thus not thinking, just like in meditation when the ego mind is not thinking (lower mind), there is higher mind awareness.. That is not to say that the brain mind does not process the input from the higher mind. just that is does not do so through the normal awake state cognitive process. In the NDE state, the awareness is akin to the dream state.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but no.

You're claiming there is an entire thing called a "spiritual realm" and that there are actual spirits. That is a claim about reality that should be easily verifiable by anyone, if true. Like the claim that the sky is blue or that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. But it isn't, as you point out here - you have to already believe in such things to experience them. Well, that's called confirmation bias and it's not going to get us to the truth of the matter.

This is not how we glean information about things that exist in reality. You don't get to make a special exception just because it's a religious belief.

You think we can't validate the experience of sorrow when someone loses a loved one? I think we can. There are common characteristics involved in the expression of sorrow that are identifiable to other humans, even if they haven't experienced the loss of a loved one. But of course, that's a different thing than we're talking about. What we're talking about here is the existence of spiritual realms and spirits. Things for which you've provided no evidence and instead have insisted that you have to already believe in order to believe. Sorry, but that's not how we figure out if things exist in reality.

If 95% of the universe is unobservable to human science, and the spiritual realm is the dark energy (didn't you notice my signature line), and you claim the evidence of a spiritual experience should be easily verifiable by anyone, that is plain silly. Truth is, it definitely can't be verified by science objectively, the spiritual reality can only subjectively be experienced by practicing a religious life.

Spiritual reality is not objective reality, there is no duality, no solid things as such, there is a oneness from which emanates all vibrational forms. For example there may be the impressions of an angelic entity but it is not separate from oneself, both are emanations from the one same source. One can only have a subjective experience of spiritual reality, there is no such thing an objective experience of spiritual reality!

If you reread what I have explained before about spiritual reality, to experience it, self identification with the human form must be transcended and replaced with self identification with the spirit. there is no 'I' present during the spiritual experience. Where the inexperienced go wrong, including those who experience NDEs, OoBEs, dreams, etc., is that when they awaken, drop out of the still mind meditative state, etc., the mind impressions of the non-dual state experience are remembered and are now processed by the ego mind, the 'I', and relate to the experience as though they experienced it, but they did not, nor will they ever in all eternity. I understand you will have a difficult time trying to understand this as you have no experience or knowledge of it until now. What I am saying is that even most of those who have had an experience do not understand that they, ie., their personal self, did not experience that which they describe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

More claims not in evidence. And more disparagement of atheists for just being atheists.

<Sigh>

Atheists can't help it, I have a brother who is an atheist, you couldn't have a better brother, I love him dearly. So though we have in the past had many arguments about the subject of religion, we never raise the subject directly anymore. It may come up in a conversation but neither of us make a for or against comment, why should we, we both know how the other one stands.

I see atheists as being like little children in relation to the subject of sex, just as if you explained it to little children, they would never believe that the little thing they pee out is capable of such delightful experiences , but the day will come when they come of age that all will be revealed.

I don't mean that as disparagement, great wonders await when, like the the people in Platos's cave, they begin to turn their vision form the shadows cast on the cave wall to the source light that is causing the shadows.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If 95% of the universe is unobservable to human science, and the spiritual realm is the dark energy (didn't you notice my signature line), and you claim the evidence of a spiritual experience should be easily verifiable by anyone, that is plain silly. Truth is, it definitely can't be verified by science objectively, the spiritual reality can only subjectively be experienced by practicing a religious life.

Spiritual reality is not objective reality,

Yep, it's just made up and not backed up with any evidence, as you've admitted above.

there is no duality, no solid things as such, there is a oneness from which emanates all vibrational forms. For example there may be the impressions of an angelic entity but it is not separate from oneself, both are emanations from the one same source. One can only have a subjective experience of spiritual reality, there is no such thing an objective experience of spiritual reality!

Well if you have no way of identifying, measuring or observing it, then it's as if it doesn't exist at all. And yet you claim with great certainty that it does exist. See the problem there yet?

If you reread what I have explained before about spiritual reality, to experience it, self identification with the human form must be transcended and replaced with self identification with the spirit. there is no 'I' present during the spiritual experience. Where the inexperienced go wrong, including those who experience NDEs, OoBEs, dreams, etc., is that when they awaken, drop out of the still mind meditative state, etc., the mind impressions of the non-dual state experience are remembered and are now processed by the ego mind, the 'I', and relate to the experience as though they experienced it, but they did not, nor will they ever in all eternity. I understand you will have a difficult time trying to understand this as you have no experience or knowledge of it until now. What I am saying is that even most of those who have had an experience do not understand that they, ie., their personal self, did not experience that which they describe.

So the way to prove it is through woo woo? Nah.

You can't claim knowledge without some way to demonstrate it to anyone else. That's the same as just making stuff up.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Atheists can't help it, I have a brother who is an atheist, you couldn't have a better brother, I love him dearly. So though we have in the past had many arguments about the subject of religion, we never raise the subject directly anymore. It may come up in a conversation but neither of us make a for or against comment, why should we, we both know how the other one stands.

I see atheists as being like little children in relation to the subject of sex, just as if you explained it to little children, they would never believe that the little thing they pee out is capable of such delightful experiences , but the day will come when they come of age that all will be revealed.

LOL How condescending of you. This just looks like a pathetic attempt to shift the burden of proof to those stupid old atheists. Nice try, but it's still your burden of proof.

I don't mean that as disparagement, great wonders await when, like the the people in Platos's cave, they begin to turn their vision form the shadows cast on the cave wall to the source light that is causing the shadows.

As a human being who is interested in believing true things and not believing in false things, I don't believe in things just because people say they're real. I'd have to believe in a whole ton of nonexistent things if that were the case.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yep, it's just made up and not backed up with any evidence, as you've admitted above.


Well if you have no way of identifying, measuring or observing it, then it's as if it doesn't exist at all. And yet you claim with great certainty that it does exist. See the problem there yet?


So the way to prove it is through woo woo? Nah.

You can't claim knowledge without some way to demonstrate it to anyone else. That's the same as just making stuff up.

Look, I understand atheistic beliefs exclude that of the existence of a spiritual realm. Best keep it simple.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

LOL How condescending of you. This just looks like a pathetic attempt to shift the burden of proof to those stupid old atheists. Nice try, but it's still your burden of proof.

As a human being who is interested in believing true things and not believing in false things, I don't believe in things just because people say they're real. I'd have to believe in a whole ton of nonexistent things if that were the case.

You see, that is where you and I are different, you are interested in belief, I am not, I only seek understanding.

Atheism 101 is your bible as to what to believe as true and what is false, but in my case it is my understanding that determines what is true and what is false.

Your beliefs limit your understanding, whereas correct understanding allows everything, including understanding not understanding.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Look, I understand atheistic beliefs exclude that of the existence of a spiritual realm. Best keep it simple.

There are no "atheistic beliefs."
Atheism is the lack of belief in God(s). That's it.

What you have missed over and over again is that your claim should be verifiable to ANYBODY, regardless of their beliefs about God(s). Like how we'd demonstrate the existence of elephants. You'd never say, "well, atheists don't believe in elephants because of their atheistic beliefs against elephants." No, you'd just show your evidence for elephants.

You're claiming the existence of an entire realm filled with spirits. That's a pretty extraordinary claim to ANYBODY, whether atheist or theist or anarchist or wine aficionado or whomever. It doesn't matter who. Really all you're doing here is scapegoating atheists for your lack of ability to demonstrate the veracity of your claims. Shifting the burden of proof doesn't help you when you're making a ton of extraordinary claims.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You see, that is where you and I are different, you are interested in belief, I am not, I only seek understanding.

What I am interested in is believing in as many true things as possible and not believing in as many false things as possible. You're not?

Atheism 101 is your bible as to what to believe as true and what is false, but in my case it is my understanding that determines what is true and what is false.

Ridiculous.
Atheism is a response to a single claim. There is no Bible. There are no other beliefs required or not required.

Stop trying to scapegoat atheists for your lack of ability to make your case. That's on you alone.

Your beliefs limit your understanding, whereas correct understanding allows everything, including understanding not understanding.

Oh, do they? What are my beliefs, pray tell?

My desire to want to believe in only true things limits my understanding? Please do explain.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There are no "atheistic beliefs."
Atheism is the lack of belief in God(s). That's it.

What you have missed over and over again is that your claim should be verifiable to ANYBODY, regardless of their beliefs about God(s). Like how we'd demonstrate the existence of elephants. You'd never say, "well, atheists don't believe in elephants because of their atheistic beliefs against elephants." No, you'd just show your evidence for elephants.

You're claiming the existence of an entire realm filled with spirits. That's a pretty extraordinary claim to ANYBODY, whether atheist or theist or anarchist or wine aficionado or whomever. It doesn't matter who. Really all you're doing here is scapegoating atheists for your lack of ability to demonstrate the veracity of your claims. Shifting the burden of proof doesn't help you when you're making a ton of extraordinary claims.

A religious soul is not required to prove to atheists the existence of a spiritual realm, get over it, if you don't understand then you don't understand, it's an inner state, not an objective thing. I might make the comment though that once you realize the inner state of union with the Spirit, one sees the whole physical universe (5%) as the objective manifestation of God.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What I am interested in is believing in as many true things as possible and not believing in as many false things as possible. You're not?

Ridiculous.
Atheism is a response to a single claim. There is no Bible. There are no other beliefs required or not required.

Stop trying to scapegoat atheists for your lack of ability to make your case. That's on you alone.

Oh, do they? What are my beliefs, pray tell?

My desire to want to believe in only true things limits my understanding? Please do explain.

You appear to believe in not believing, and that's fine, you are free to believe what you like, the true seeker seeks to understand. But to dismiss the possibility of there being a divine reality represented by the concept 'God' without seriously investigating is folly. I will explain.

Concepts of themselves are mere symbols, like numbers, they can be used to represent real things. For example, the concept 'God' is just a few letters of the alphabet, but we English speakers understand that it represents some reality. How do we know what that reality represented by the concept 'God' is? Ask a religious person and all you can get are more concepts, conceptual descriptions, conceptual teachings, conceptual images, conceptual rituals, conceptual religious practices, etc. All these concepts will never in all eternity reveal what the reality, if there is one, represented by the concept 'God' is.

So to test the efficacy of the religious teachings and practices, we must actually devote some effort to understand. Only after doing this can one know what the reality represented by the concept 'God' is, or is not.

To believe there is no reality represented by the concept of God without ever trying to realize the truth or not of such a reality, is to not understand true understanding.

Have you done this or are you just happy with your present beliefs?

 

[SkepticThinker]

A religious soul is not required to prove to atheists the existence of a spiritual realm, get over it, if you don't understand then you don't understand, it's an inner state, not an objective thing. I might make the comment though that once you realize the inner state of union with the Spirit, one sees the whole physical universe (5%) as the objective manifestation of God.

Sure thing. Sounds made up.

Let me know when you can demonstrate any of that.