"Vicarious redemption is immoral!" A case of anti-theist hypocrisy.

[Huggy Bear]

Paleophyte acknowledges in the post (which you liked btw) that the guy was from a Christian college… don’t try and backpedal now.

Paleo didnt post the article as credible source for NDE and all that shit, he linked it because it was deemed UNCONVINCING to anyone but the person experiencing the NDE, according to the fucking author himself.

You then latched onto it, because the article mentioned personal experience as evidence. The article doesnt make your point, it refutes your arguments about NDE and life after death, Jesus F. Christ.

I dont need to backpedal, but you need to, for a change, actually READ whats posted and linked, for fucking gods sake.

The author literally stated that HE IS ARGUING THAT EVIDENCE FOR LIFE AFTER DEATH EXISTS.

"I argue that the present NDE evidence does suggest the possibility of life after death;" the "UNCONVINCING" you seem to be grasping at clearly does not mean what you think it means, or it would be an obvious contradiction, either "present NDE evidence does suggest the possibility of life after death" or it's "unconvincing", it cannot be both.

Later in the article he clarifies what he means by "unconvincing".

[Minimalist]

the present NDE evidence does suggest the possibility of life after death

Actually, Huggy, that kind of sounds as if he is hedging his bet.  It is hardly a ringing endorsement.

[SaxonX]

Huggy still lying

[pattylt]

I’m trying to figure out why it even matters. Suppose for the sake of argument that some of our brain energy does continue after death? No one has any clue where it goes or what it means. Reincarnation could be possible. A hazy shadowy state of being could be possible. It could just float around in the universe. But that’s not what you want…you want it to be heaven and hell with a god caretaker. There’s really no evidence that ANY of it is true or false. It’s just the wet dreams of people afraid of death and/or non existence.

I prefer just being dead. Anything else is just weird.

[epronovost]

"I argue that the present NDE evidence does suggest the possibility of life after death;" the "UNCONVINCING" you seem to be grasping at clearly does not mean what you think it means, or it would be an obvious contradiction, either "present NDE evidence does suggest the possibility of life after death" or it's "unconvincing", it cannot be both.

Actually yes, there is such a thing as evidence that is "unconvincing" towards a certain conclusion. This means that said evidence could be perceived as supporting the desired conclusion, but could just as well be used to support another, competing explanation. Here is a crime example.

A man is shot dead and a camera records a lanky young man in a blue hoodie running away. One could say this is evidence that the lanky young man in the blue hoodie is the murderer since he is spotted running away from the scene of the crime. But, someone could easily say that the lanky young man with the blue hoodie is actually a witness of the crime running away from the scene because they are afraid to get shot too. The evidence we have, the video footage, is not enough to help us exclude one of those conclusion. The evidence is thus unconvincing. Personal bias is what will make someone support one conclusion over the other in such situation.

NDE could be evidence for life after death, but they are unconvincing because they do not exclude other competing explanation. NDE don't happen to dead people. They happen to people who are on death's door or in the process of dying, but not dead. It doesn't follow that because people have special conscious sensorial experiences as they are dying or dead that conscious sensorial experience continues after death. It would be just as ridiculous to say that because I experience the feeling of a heavy, stuffy nose while I have the flu that once the flu has passed that I will keep experiencing the same or similar feelings of a heavy, stuffy nose. That's not a given at all and could even be considered counter to other similar phenomenon. If it's the dying that produces the sensorial experience described in the NDE then death or miraculous recovery, the end of the dying process, would end such experience. 

Later in the article he clarifies what he means by "unconvincing".

What does he mean by unconvincing then?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I did answer you… you stated:

"Demonstrate that consciousness is actually out of body at that point, and get back to this conversation. Or demonstrate that if it goes on, then consciousness will definitely leave the body, while the body is alive and the mind is still aware"

I’ll repeat myself once again for the short bus crew; In the case of Pam Reynolds, having the blood drained from the brain, chilled to a hypothermic state, zero brain activity with earphones on to ensure there was no auditory response, THESE ARE FACTS. Yet she was able to recall conversations and events that took place during surgery WHILE THE BRAIN WAS NON FUNCTIONAL. THIS SUGGESTS THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE BRAIN.

It "suggests"? What kind of shilly-shallying is this? Don't you know exactly where thqt consciousness is?! If you do, lay it out, dweezil, and if you don't, be honest enough to admit that much. In other words, you never did say where consciousness is, nor how you know where it is or isn't.

I'm pretty sure you have no idea where consciousness is at all, probably because your affinity to it is passing and sketchy.

Once again, if you believe that consciousness is brain dependant, then you’re going to have to provide peer-reviewed research that states the brain can retain normal function while being absent of blood and cooled to a hypothermic state.

Eagerly awaiting your response.

No. All I have to do is show the innumerable head-wounds which have proven fatal. Emergency rooms, battlefields, auto-accidents, I can tell you from some first-hand experience that when you take a good crack to the noggin, your odds of dying rise remarkably.

Here, why don't you do a header into a dry canyon, and then come back here and explain how you survived?

Yeah, I didn't think so. Your mouth is writing a check your ass refuses to cash. Eagerly awaiting you putting your money where your mouth is by taking that dive ... well, not really, because I know you know I'm right. Head injuries are very often fatal. Cessation of brain function leads to death without medical intervention.

I understand this may be confusing to you, given your painfully obvious unfamiliarity with brain function.

[SaxonX]

Removes someone's brain and if the mind isn't dependent on the brain that person should get up and walk away 

[Rhythmcs]

I’m trying to figure out why it even matters.  Suppose for the sake of argument that some of our brain energy does continue after death?  

It doesn't.  Regardless of whether or not there's punch and pie in the sky OPs god decided that the way to fix our dirt-lives was to kill the better man. It's a ridiculous and immoral system, on it's face....and I presume it was invented by some lesser man to appeal to other lesser men. They knew, after all, that they would never deserve the golden ticket.

[Deesse23]

The author literally stated that HE IS ARGUING THAT EVIDENCE FOR LIFE AFTER DEATH EXISTS.

Read the fucking article. He states that its unconvincing to others but personal experience  (= evidence, the weak sort of stuff, you know) for the person who actually had the experience. Evidence, like many other things in life, is not a "0" or "1" dichotomy in terms of making conclusions. God, your density is right of the same ballpark as the active catholic troll.

I am done with you.