why do you worship Gods?

[Ophiolite]

There's a lot to attack.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SkinWalker,

Obviously she wasn't that dead. Neural activity was apparently still occuring in the brain and auditory input was still being processed.

According to the EEG monitor there was no brain activity.

“This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death.”

If, indeed, the events she described genuinely occurred.

Are you suggesting that the whole team who helped perform Ms Reynolds operation were in on some conspiracy of deception?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The non-believer subjects raised in judeo-christian cultures is relative in that their accounts of NDE fit the cultural expectations of "heavenlylight" and other related nonsense…..

…..That some of these people were non-religious or non-believers prior to the NDE is inconsquential since they were raised in a judeo-xian culture where such beliefs are accepted norms.

Where is the evidence for these claims?

Really? What other ways of "knowing" exist beyond the scientific method?

That all depends on what type of ‘knowledge’ you are talking about. Do you believe that knowledge is only objective?
Can you give a scientific explanation as to why babies just prior to being born go into what we call ‘labour?’

I did answer your question.

Apologies, it was quite late when I replied.

You obviously aren't interested in reading the words of someone with whom you disagree.

On the contrary with regards to lack of interest.
I think that you will find that it is you who does not agree with what you assume I am about.
I was interested in knowing how you know what you at first claimed to know, then retracted when challenged.
So now my interest has switched to; In light of your phantom knowledge, how do you know that your whole belief system isn’t as spurious as your rant which attracted my attention?

The sensations of movement (floating, flying, etc.) are also easily explained and should be expected, since oxygen starvation is a common cause of brain malfunction... in otherwords, the brain misinterprets the sensory input that it gets from the body.

In the case of Pam Reynolds, how could the brain have misinterpreted the sensory input when the EEG monitor showed zero brainwave activity?

re all things we can measure, examine, observe and record. Nothing regarding the so-called afterlife can be.

So the scientific method is useless in this case.
Either that or you choose not to open your mind.

So do I " know for sure" that there's no "afterlife?" No. Of course not.

You just don’t believe there is one and you’re not prepared to believe personal observations, or observation of a more scientific nature. And your dogma does not allow you to open your mind to anything that does not meet the approval of some scientists (namely sceptical, atheistic types, or ones who want to keep their credibility, jobs or fundings in tact).

…wouldn't we believe that chemical imbalances while unconscious won't have similar effects?

Belief is not the question here. The hypothermic cardiac arrest procedure is a little more complex than popping pills, smoking a joint or falling of a ladder and banging your head.

What I doubt is that what they experience is what they believe.

Why do you doubt it? Why should you doubt it? Does it really matter? Or is it because you are intolerant of anything which falls outside the modern scientific method?

There's just nothing to indicate that the NDE phenomenon is the evidence.

Why can’t you accept that what these people experience may be true, and that whether it is or not modern science (by its definition) will never be able to observe or test it, as it falls outside of the physical realm. Why is your default position on these matters “there is no life after death, only to retract that statement when challenged?”
Why can’t you accept that the procedure mentioned in the link is a good indication that there may well be life after death.

But simply being a researcher and a cardiologist isn't reason enough to discount the possibility that he is biased by his own belief system and that he is conducting bad science. It does happen.

Your right, and it does happen, Piltdown man springs to mind, but hopefully if he is sycg a fraud then he will be exposed. But there is no reason to close your mind to it, until such time. Also I’m sure if he was a fraud he would have been exposed by now.

Neurons, chemicals, fatty tissues, proteins, etc. What else?

What do you mean by “what else?” Either you know what the mind is made of or you don’t. Please explain what the mind is made of, or better still, show a picture of a mind.

1)The probability of NDE being evidence for some sort of afterlife is extremely low in light of physiological possibilities.

And physiological possibilities is extremely low in wisdom, great philosophy and spirituality.

2) If #1 weren't true, what good would pursuing the notion do? What proof could ever be obtained?

It would be stupid to not pursue something based on the question what if it wasn’t true, despite the testimony of thousands of people and the Pam Reynolds case.

Jan Ardena.

 

[duendy]

GREAt reply Jan

what interests me, is the MOULDING of the --what i am terming--the Imaginal Realm according to one's belief-systems. so that for example, someone brought up iin a Judaic Christian environment (even athiests) may have images, symbols according to that belief system, whilst an Indian will have images and symbols according to theirs

so my question would be...what in its ESSENCe is this dimesnion that can be so moulded?

There Are some hints. although i am not a Chaos magickian, i have communcated with them. Their motto is 'nothing is true: everything is permitted', and also have created the concept of 'meta-belief'. This means that for their magick they will use ANY images and symbols from ANY belief system, whist REALIZING that NONe of them are THE truth, YEt they can work
i will leave it there, cause i dont want to drag this discussion to far away from the main subject at hand

 

[Xylene]

When you consider how many pantheons of gods have been worshipped over the millenia since civilisations began to be formed--at least 6000 years--it's obvious that Christianity and the other current 'great faiths' are only mileposts along the road of Human faith. Supposing our species still exists ten thousand years from now (having meanwhile resisted the urge to blast each other to commit mass-suicide by war) who knows what form society will take, or what god/s Humanity will be worshipping?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Xylene: When you consider how many pantheons of gods have been worshipped over the millenia since civilisations began to be formed--at least 6000 years--it's obvious that Christianity and the other current 'great faiths' are only mileposts along the road of Human faith. Supposing our species still exists ten thousand years from now (having meanwhile resisted the urge to blast each other to commit mass-suicide by war) who knows what form society will take, or what god/s Humanity will be worshipping?
*************
M*W: Assuming we haven't destroyed the planet by that time, the only god we should be worshipping IS Humanity--and a more androgynous one at that.

 

[Yorda]

M*W: Assuming we haven't destroyed the planet by that time, the only god we should be worshipping IS Humanity--and a more androgynous one at that.
*************
Yorda: I think we should "worship" the invisible, inseparable self which is inside us all.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

M*W: Assuming we haven't destroyed the planet by that time, the only god we should be worshipping IS Humanity--and a more androgynous one at that.
*************
Yorda: I think we should "worship" the invisible, inseparable self which is inside us all.
*************
M*W: Yeah, that, too!

 

[SkinWalker]

Obviously she wasn't that dead. Neural activity was apparently still occurring in the brain and auditory input was still being processed.

According to the EEG monitor there was no brain activity. [...]In the case of Pam Reynolds, how could the brain have misinterpreted the sensory input when the EEG monitor showed zero brainwave activity?

The EEG only registers activity on the surface of the cerebral cortex (McCullagh, 1993). It is probable that brain activity continues in other regions of the brain. Indeed, NDE is evidence of this. As far as I can see, we have only Pam Reynolds anecdote of the aftermath of the operation -the surgeons apparently weren't astounded enough to write a paper that can be found on MedLine, so several possibilities exist: 1) Pam died and saw a supernatural, mythical being and her dead ancestors, whilst watching her dead body on the operating table; 2) Pam's doctors explained the procedure to her prior to the operation (just as my wife's doctor did prior to her gall bladder removal); 3) Pam's brain was receiving sensory input in spite of the instruments inserted in her ears to help monitor brain activity on the surface of the cerebral cortex; 4) Pam's doctors described the process to each other post surgery as she was being taken off anesthesia and hypothermic standstill -surgeons do this routinely when teaching new or seldom used techniques (do you think hypothermic standstill might qualify as a technique that is infrequently used and the opportunity to teach to others compelling?); 5) some combination of each of one or more of these.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The non-believer subjects raised in Judeo-Christian cultures is relative in that their accounts of NDE fit the cultural expectations of "heavenly light" and other related nonsense…..

…..That some of these people were non-religious or non-believers prior to the NDE is inconsequential since they were raised in a judeo-xian culture where such beliefs are accepted norms.

Where is the evidence for these claims?

You serious? You're not suggesting that Americans aren't living in a Judeo-Christian culture are you? I believe most or all of his test subjects were Americans, though I could be wrong, since I'm going off of memory. Are you saying that American holidays, like Christmas and Thanksgiving are so secular as to eliminate religious overtones? Are you saying that the presence of churches every few blocks in American cities doesn't suggest a Judeo-Christian environment? Or are you saying that those of the Judeo-Christian faith don't try to spread their cult knowledge to the rest of society? Or are you really saying that the characteristics of NDE aren't Judeo-Christian motifs.

Really? What other ways of "knowing" exist beyond the scientific method?

That all depends on what type of ‘knowledge’ you are talking about.

You're being evasive. Do you have other ways of knowing that don't include observation and experience or don't you? Of course you could always cite the circularity of religious doctrine: it's true and factual because it say's it is.

So do I "know for sure" that there's no "afterlife?" No. Of course not.

You just don’t believe there is one and you’re not prepared to believe personal observations, or observation of a more scientific nature. And your dogma does not allow you to open your mind to anything that does not meet the approval of some scientists (namely sceptical, atheistic types, or ones who want to keep their credibility, jobs or fundings in tact).

It is precisely scientific observation that I rely or "believe" in. The "some scientists" you make note of is most scientists. The vast majority in all probability. There are few researchers who see NDE as anything more than an interesting psychological response to trauma or extreme conditions associated with death of the brain. In fact, () cites evidence of neurophysiological disparities of NDE characteristics between near-death experiencers and a control group. The control group exhibited a 5% incidence of epileptiform EEG whereas the NDE group exhibited a 22% incidence of epileptiform EEG. These measurements were of interictal discharges, or discharges that were other than seizures from the temporal lobe.

I would say that this observation qualifies as being of "scientific nature" and is part of the body of evidences that creates the bias I have against the existence of some mystical "afterlife."

As to my "dogma," I don't have one. There are two, generally accepted, definitions for "dogma:" If you are implying that I see science as a religion, I most assuredly do not, for reasons that are obvious: stating so would imply that science has the same zealotry and bigotry as cults like Christianity. Obviously it doesn't, since scientists are plainly happy merely arguing with those whom they disagree rather than killing them off. Second, I'll have to quote Richard Dawkins (1997), since he says it better than I could ever paraphrase, "There's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation."

I do, however, find it interesting that paranormists, supernaturalists, and other superstitious types find it useful to create the strawman argument that scientists and proponents of the scientific method are simply dogmatic members of a "religion" that calls itself science. There simply is no evidence that this is so.

…wouldn't we believe that chemical imbalances while unconscious won't have similar effects?

Belief is not the question here. The hypothermic cardiac arrest procedure is a little more complex than popping pills, smoking a joint or falling of a ladder and banging your head.

How so? Are you aware of the complexity that occurs once the "pill" is introduced into the circulatory system and then into various brain centers? The introduction of certain medications, particularly those that include the elements lithium, sodium, potassium, etc. have profound and complex effects upon the membrane potentials of axons, the ion channels of brain cells, the efficiency of electrical and chemical synapses, or the production, reception, and transmission of biogenic amines like dopamine and serotonin; or the thousands of other actions, reactions, and inactions possible with the chemical of a "pill." Hypothermic cardiac arrest is an infrequent procedure. Its application is very straightforward to those that have the knowledge to conduct it.

What I doubt is that what they experience is what they believe.

Why do you doubt it? Why should you doubt it? Does it really matter? Or is it because you are intolerant of anything which falls outside the modern scientific method?

Why would I waste time believing in it? Why should I? Of course it matters, since it is the type of thing members of Christian cults use to manipulate membership to continue the exploitation of the masses. <- which is relative to this thread, "why do you believe in gods?"

There's just nothing to indicate that the NDE phenomenon is the evidence.

Why is your default position on these matters “there is no life after death, only to retract that statement when challenged?”
Why can’t you accept that the procedure mentioned in the link is a good indication that there may well be life after death.

To answer your first question: I haven't changed my position. There is no more evidence to conclude that there is a "life" after death than there is to conclude that werewolves and vampires exist in Transylvania. While I readily concede that I don't know for sure that there is no "life after death," I also don't know for sure that there are no werewolves or vampires. Hence, I'm happy in stating neither of these exist until such time as evidence to the contrary is produced. Should a werewolf be caught and contained in the Fort Worth Zoo this week, I will no longer be agnostic about the concept (providing it is thoroughly examined and determined that the creature is, indeed, a human that morphs into a wolf-like creature at the full moon).

To answer your second question: The procedure mentioned in the link is an anecdotal account that originates from the believers' bias and not the surgeons/scientists who conducted the procedure. Moreover, controls were not used to determine the voracity of Pam's information (different information given during the operation than that given during the pre-operation briefing, than given during the post-operation debrief with attending physicians, for instance).

In short, Pam's account is only an anecdotal account, which does not amount to evidence.

But simply being a researcher and a cardiologist isn't reason enough to discount the possibility that he is biased by his own belief system and that he is conducting bad science. It does happen.

Your right, and it does happen, Piltdown man springs to mind, but hopefully if he is sycg a fraud then he will be exposed. But there is no reason to close your mind to it, until such time. Also I’m sure if he was a fraud he would have been exposed by now.

I don't think he's necessarily a fraud... I just think he's practicing bad science. His passion for the afterlife creates bias. That he's picked a subject matter that has many "non-falsifiable" attributes, helps him in that science cannot readily say it is wrong. Science can only say, "it can't be tested as a hypothesis." As is the case with werewolves.

Neurons, chemicals, fatty tissues, proteins, etc. What else?

What do you mean by “what else?” Either you know what the mind is made of or you don’t. Please explain what the mind is made of, or better still, show a picture of a mind.

I don't get your question entirely, since I made it clear that the mind is made up of the physical elements listed above. What I meant by "what else?" is just that: what else could it be comprised of? Your answer, of course, will invariably include some mystical, un-testable "fact" of a soul or spirit.

2) If #1 weren't true, what good would pursuing the notion do? What proof could ever be obtained?

It would be stupid to not pursue something based on the question what if it wasn’t true, despite the testimony of thousands of people and the Pam Reynolds case.

Again, the answer is the ability of various human cults to increase/maintain membership by making the likelihood of some mystical afterlife "real" in their minds. This, again, permits the increase of power and status for the hierarchies of the cults (not to mention wealth) at the expense of superstitious beliefs of ignorant people.

That, of course, is my opinion, but one that I think is valid.


References:

Dawkins, Richard (1997). Is Science a Religion?. The Humanist. Jan/Feb issue, 1997.

McCullagh, P. (1993). Brain dead, brain absent, brain donors: Human subjects or human objects. Chichester, England: Wiley.