Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ok so with the evidence that you guys have claimed then i will have to stick with agnosticism because this is not even close to powerful evidence of souls/spirits
I was looking at atheist to disprove spirits/souls using this evidence and they were successful.
Ok so with the evidence that you guys have claimed then i will have to stick with agnosticism because this is not even close to powerful evidence of souls/spirits
To me it's just boring. I hear stories with claims that are far out of proportion of the evidence.Whatever your purpose was with this thread, I can't help but throw in my two cents that the atheist explanation seems woefully poor and desperate.
Their brain was still alive. The heart stops, brain activity becomes erratic and then eventually winds down, and if the cells in the brain die then that's it. The people that came back didn't have their brains die- they still had a living brain to come back from.They're telling you that people with serious brain trauma and show no brain activity
Most of the ones I've heard aren't particularly coherent.can have these amazingly similar experiences that are very coherent and seem so real that these people believe them to be more real than their waking reality.
a) Where do you get the idea that they would experience nothing? When people sleep, they dream. When people's brain chemistry is altered, their perception of reality can change dramatically. When the body is dying, all sorts of things are happening to the brain. Lack of oxygen, releasing of chemicals, and so forth.Wouldn't it be expected that if the atheist's view of the brain and consciousness were correct these people would experience nothing, and if anything, a very random weird firing of the brain that would not all be similar person to person. And that these people when normal consciousness is regained would not be convinced in a life-changing way that they had real experiences.
I've looked into those. The claims really haven't been that interesting to me- people that were dying but aware of certain things. I remember one where she said she noticed things during the time when the blood was drained from her brain but looking over the timeline there wasn't any reason to believe it happened at that time compared to any other time.And I won't go into detail of people's stories of having knowledge of real-world events during their trauma that they couldn't have known through normal means.
I don't see how those are connected. I have read about people having NDE's where no gods were involved at all.Simple question: How can you explain the numerous reports of people that can see outside of their body when they die and come back to life? (To atheist)
To me it's just boring. I hear stories with claims that are far out of proportion of the evidence.
Their brain was still alive.
The heart stops, brain activity becomes erratic and then eventually winds down, and if the cells in the brain die then that's it. The people that came back didn't have their brains die- they still had a living brain to come back from.
Can you demonstrate that their experience occurred during the brief time when they had no brain activity, rather than at any point throughout the rest of the multi-stage process of death?
Most of the ones I've heard aren't particularly coherent.
a) Where do you get the idea that they would experience nothing? When people sleep, they dream. When people's brain chemistry is altered, their perception of reality can change dramatically. When the body is dying, all sorts of things are happening to the brain. Lack of oxygen, releasing of chemicals, and so forth.
b) Many of the experiences are different- meeting different deities or no deities, going to hell and seeing eternal damnation for people that don't believe in Jesus or being told there is no hell and no eternal damnation, seeing relatives or not seeing relatives, having a past life review or no past life review, floating on butterlies and meeting an unborn sister or not, getting a life review from nonjudgmental beings dressed in light or getting attacked by demons in darkness, and more.
c) When my father's heart stopped in a hospital he said he didn't experience anything. To him, he just slipped away into subjective nonexistence and then was surprised to be woken up. He still believed in an afterlife anyway until the day he eventually did die, but in that chance for a NDE he didn't experience it.
I've looked into those. The claims really haven't been that interesting to me- people that were dying but aware of certain things. I remember one where she said she noticed things during the time when the blood was drained from her brain but looking over the timeline there wasn't any reason to believe it happened at that time compared to any other time.
To me its quite interesting. I think there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that something is happening that doesnt fit the materialist/physicalists view of the world.
Same reason it happens to me while I'm sleeping, I suppose. It's a dream.Simple question: How can you explain the numerous reports of people that can see outside of their body when they die and come back to life? (To atheist)
ok, I would certainly find that persuasive. But only if it could be clearly demonstrated that it was a real observation and it really did occur during a period when the brain was not functioning at all. The observation would have to be something specific and unique enough that the person could have not just imagined or guessed at. It would have to be clearly established that the person had no other way of learning about the events. And it would have to be clearly established that the brain was actually dead at the time. In simple terms it would have to be established that there was no possible natural explanation before I would consider a spiritual one. You might think this is incredibly biased on my part, and if so you would be correct.One argument for there being no brain activity during the experience is their viewing of resuscitation scenes and other scenes from an outside the body perspective during the time of no brain activity.
People often find bad evidence convincing when they need to validate a fictional reality.
fantôme profane;3359828 said:ok, I would certainly find that persuasive. But only if it could be clearly demonstrated that it was a real observation and it really did occur during a period when the brain was not functioning at all. The observation would have to be something specific and unique enough that the person could have not just imagined or guessed at. It would have to be clearly established that the person had no other way of learning about the events. And it would have to be clearly established that the brain was actually dead at the time. In simple terms it would have to be established that there was no possible natural explanation before I would consider a spiritual one. You might think this is incredibly biased on my part, and if so you would be correct.
I can dismiss all near death experiences with a single word:
Near.
Nobody has ever actually died and come back. Once the brain chemistry is gone, it's gone.
Many are of the position that the real 'Self' was never the brain to begin with. And the analogy is that 'death' is just the real 'Self' dropping its outermost cloak.
So what? We're not dealing with what people desperately want to be true but what is true. Science couldn't care less what you believe.
And the Universe couldn't care less what 'Science' believes.
Same reason it happens to me while I'm sleeping, I suppose. It's a dream.