Topic: Why I'm an atheist - page 92. (Read 89022 times)

Actually, the evidence shows that the memories from NDE are at least as valid as real memories. If you have a problem with the evidence, then you can critique the methods employed by the authors. Thonnard's study indicates that the memories are being generated in a valid way from valid perceptions; in fact, they must be generated in this way because the lack of EEG definitively indicates the absence of consciousness and the only thing that we know of which can generate memories that are at least as real as valid memories is consciousness. There is no scientific evidence linking NDE with hallucinations; for example, the patient from the AWARE study results had a true perception of a sound during a flat EEG, so his experience cannot be dismissed as hallucinations. Furthermore, where is the evidence that the memories are being generated after the fact? Thonnard's results evidence the validity of NDE memories, whereas the God Helmet does nothing but entertain skeptics.

As mentioned earlier, OBE is only one element of NDE, but NDE requires a number of different complementary explanations.
Does this Helmet really duplicate ALL of the salient elements of NDE, including the phenomenological characteristics that identify it as a valid memory (see Thonnard's paper)?

There is no evidence that our awareness can arise from nothingness. All the evidence points to awareness being cyclical and continuous.

No, I don't agree with that and I have made posts explaining why. Awareness is continuous and cyclical, it does not "go somewhere" upon death or upon falling asleep.

So what about the Eisenbeiss case? What about Pam Reynolds who had an NDE during brain death and with no blood flow? What about Thonnard's study which confirmed that NDE memories are at least as real as valid memories? Each of these cases document anomalies in medical understanding which would be more simply explained by way of the survival hypothesis.

Comprehensive reviews on brain injury and cardiac arrest are available. They support my assertions about brain function. Statements made by skeptic Chris French and van Lommel in New Scientist magazine also support these assertions.

The neural activity relevant for consciousness is observed by the EEG, so with no blood flow and no EEG there cannot be consciousness as experienced by the patients. Awareness requires higher mental functioning which will always show up on the EEG (according to the physicalist model of neuroscience). Therefore, it does not matter if the neurons are alive because the EEG will in fact tell us if the brain is non-functional, and this non-functioning is the key piece of information.

The primary objection to your claim is that a drug capable producing such a wide variety of "side-effects" is probably not the primary cause of such effects but is more likely an ingredient in opening up a huge area of experience which is difficult to classify.
Because NDEs contain so many elements, a number of different complementary explanations are needed to account for this complexity. But in most cases, each explanation focuses on only one element of the NDE and ignores the others.
See more:
http://www.spiritualtravel.org/OBE/nde_arguments.html

Actually, the evidence shows that these memories are at least as valid as real memories. As mentioned earlier, OBE is only one element of NDE, but NDE requires a number of different complementary explanations.

Actually, he was not able to explain how something (awareness) can come from nothing, which is what he set out to do. Actually this new "universe from nothing" is little different from the one offered by Isaac Asimov, so THIS POSTURING IS NOTHING NEW.

I confess that I cannot explain everything. You confess that all NDEs are hallucinations. If that were so, then how can you explain Thonnard's results? And do you believe that Eisenbeiss was part of a conspiracy like Moloch does?

You are confusing "nothing", as lack of awareness (being dead), with nothing as a physical vacuum with no particles (and I can accept also: with no quantum fields, even if Krauss doesn't accept this).

I use the term "nothing" and "nothingness" like many others (Kierkegaard, Unamuno, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, etc.). In my OP on this thread, I talk about death, about being a corps, without conscience. Not about our bodies' particles disappearing into nothing. I don't know if that is going to happen. Two sentences below I write "a lucky but tiny oasis of awareness that exists between two infinite deserts of nothingness".

But I already changed the text to leave that clear. I was trying to avoid being too crude.

I don't care much about what will happen to the atoms of my body. Actually, they are renovated completely every 5/7 years, so they aren't really mine.
(In due time, I'm going to write a post about the "philosophical" implication of this on my thread on meaning).

Since the main religions don't believe in resurrection of the soul on another body (and I agree with them on this point) you probably agree that before we were conceived we were nothing (we weren't a being with awareness, even if our initial atoms already existed before that).

On the survival of the conscience after death, the burden of evidence is on you. When I see a corps I can confirm he isn't aware of anything. You, or any other theist, clearly didn't fulfill it.

Your statement that "The brain cannot function (i.e. have perceptions, form memories, etc.) until blood flow is restored" is a factual assertion. I saw no testable evidence for that. As long as the neurons are alive, they can have some activity, even with no blood flow. The same happens with other cells. Actually, some still develop even after we are really dead (nails, hair).

But on my OP (it isn't accentuated, so people don't read it, point 5) I wrote: "The same hallucinations can be felt using chemicals like ketamine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_use_of_ketamine#Non-lethal_manifestations), Phencyclidine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phencyclidine) or Dextromethorphan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextromethorphan)".

So, we have evidence that those hallucinations can be reproduced by chemicals, including the "out of the body sensation".

Just ask some junkies: they will tell you that they can fly to the other extreme of the Milky Way in a second. If sensations like these could be accepted as evidence, we would have evidence that transportation problems could be easily overcame.

But I think this issue has been discussed abundantly. I don't want to go back to it.

Krauss's theory, even if he couldn't answer everything, is a major blow against religion. He explained the origin of particles. It's no small thing.

But as you confessed, theists also can't explain everything, mainly the origin of their god. So, explanation power isn't on your side either.

Here are a couple 60 second clips of atheists explaining it to you (you could have just googled the answer like I did... how hard is it really?)

Richard Dawkins on Bill Maher Show - No death bed conversion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzZ7VkDGuPc

Christopher Hitchens - On deathbed conversion [2010]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E1Im3Tu1Us



I suppose I should add a clip from Madalyn ... she's my hero!
Madalyn Murray O'Hair's GOING TO HELL. - Antitheist atheist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfGOZ9RjRP8

Being an atheist and presenting points is soothing while still alive and healthy, but when on the sick bed or at the point of death there is a longing for a stronger being to come in and assist. So what can be done then?

I feel like we are going in circles... this is the third time you asked me to repost something I already posted...  do you read my whole post or just the first sentence?

Got a source for all of that?

PLOS is where you go to self publish a paper.

Has the paper been published by a science journal after a peer review process? If so can you please link to *that* version?

The fact that he claims/feels/believes it to be a real/legitimate memory means absolutely jack shit

If you read my quote on Confabulation, you would realize that is a characteristic of a false memory

This is not some "imagined event", like pretending you went on a trip to Paris... this is a false memory... completely different

What evidence shows that the brain is generating false memories?
Thonnard's results are a strong indication that NDE memories are at least as real as valid memories.
I have provided Thonnard's paper as evidence that they are true memories; you repeatedly fail to address it.
Both you and P Z Myers claimed that NDE are nothing more than an illusion, but that hypothesis has been scientifically refuted.

Since reports of NDEs are claimed by Moloch to be imagined events and since memories of imagined events have, on average, fewer phenomenological characteristics than real events memories [empirical data], why won't Moloch test the validity of his hypothesis and compare the phenomenological characteristics of NDEs reports with memories of imagined and real events? Thonnard did just that and his results showed that, in NDE memories group, NDE memories have more characteristics than memories of imagined and real events (p<0.02).

I posted a response before I saw any such quote... not sure why that post didn't load for me


The fact that NDE can be reproduced with a magnet is proof that its a bullshit memory...

You can watch a man wear a helmet with his eyes closed for a few minutes... then listen to him tell a story about how some alien came into the room, abducted him onto a spaceship... where he was anally probed, then returned to the room...  That shit did not happen!  You can watch the video and see it did not happen the way he remembers it!


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-near-death-experience-isnt-proof-heaven/

http://skepdic.com/nde.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Scientific_explanation



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation

You might try searching the quote from the paper...


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057620

Can you repost the link to that paper? Which journal was it in?

I'm not going to waste all day debunking this nonsense for you... use google... search for "(my claim) debunked", and read what the opposition has to say about it... it's that simple

PS. You did not provide a link, and when I google "Thonnard paper", I see nothing relevant

You claimed that NDE are nothing more than a hallucination, but that hypothesis has been scientifically refuted.

Quote from Thonnard's paper:

Since reports of NDEs are proposed to be imagined events, and since memories of imagined events have, on average, fewer phenomenological characteristics than real events memories, we here compared phenomenological characteristics of NDEs reports with memories of imagined and real events. Results showed that, in NDE memories group, NDE memories have more characteristics than memories of imagined and real events (p<0.02).


You claimed that you provided evidence on "inducing an NDE", but you are a speaking falsely because what they induced was an OBE which is NOT an NDE (in this case) and this evidence doesn't get you any closer to proving that these memories are illusions!
"We cannot assume from the fact that electrical stimulation of the brain can induce OBE-like illusions that all OBEs are therefore illusions"!

You claimed that Eisenbiess knew the medium Rollans, but this explanation is not sufficient to explain the data apparently acquired from the dead personality himself, and it is problematic because it proposes an elaborate conspiracy where the two liars would have to do extensive research and painstaking labor for nearly a decade without any expected or actual reward; by itself, this fact does not provide any evidence of fraud. Professor Eisenbeiss is a trustworthy scholar, so what evidence can reliably implicate him in a scheme like this? I think that you have not provided any serious evidence for your proposed conspiracy.

You provided nothing but a story about 2 guys in a conspiracy to fool people... your article even mentions that these 2 assholes were friends for years before they pulled this scam (yes, I actually read links when people post them... unlike you, I prefer to be informed on all sides of every argument)

I provided scientific evidence on how to induce a NDE, and overwhelming evidence that all psychics are fraudulent

Please check out the Thonnard paper and tell me about your evidence in detail. Thanks!

That's ridiculous

James Randi is legitimate and would absolutely give out the prize if any paranormal claim was legit

Feel free to watch his videos... he has debunked 100% of applicants who didn't chicken out like Sylvia Brown (she did some research and realized it would be detrimental to her career to be debunked like he has done to many other frauds)

James Randi debunks Maureen Flynn (psychic)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSSPto8rvvs

James Randi Debunks Peter Popoff Faith Healer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y

James Randi exposes James Hydrick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc

James Randi's fiery takedown of psychic fraud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPuRaSEq1I

James Randi Debunks an Astrologer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r70HsEvNRck

James Randi demonstrates how to fake psychic powers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJQBljC5RIo


James Randi - Secrets of the Psychics Documentary (Full)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MFAvH8m8aI


As for being worth their time... ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY!!!11!!one!

Do you not realize how much fame and fortune they would have if they had scientific proof that they were the only legitimate psychic on the planet?!?!?