Are Near Death Experiences Proof Of An Afterlife?
#1
Posted 08 August 2008 - 11:24 AM
#2
Posted 08 August 2008 - 01:09 PM
#3
Posted 08 August 2008 - 02:14 PM
what a faggot.
GET WITH THE PROGRAM BITCH. WE DON'T DO BITCHES ROUND HERE.
#4
Posted 08 August 2008 - 02:26 PM
#6
Posted 09 August 2008 - 12:59 PM
Don't you like popsicles?
#7
Posted 12 August 2008 - 03:10 PM

"If it wasn't for luck I'd win every one" -- Phil Hellmuth
#8
Posted 12 August 2008 - 03:24 PM
#9
Posted 12 August 2008 - 04:13 PM
Conclusive
1 fer
1 agin

"If it wasn't for luck I'd win every one" -- Phil Hellmuth
#10
Posted 12 August 2008 - 06:47 PM
So I would say that if they are true, they are for the individual, not for public proof.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." G.K. Chesterson 1900
timwakefield, on 18 April 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:
#11
Posted 12 August 2008 - 07:41 PM
So I would say that if they are true, they are for the individual, not for public proof.
how is a traumatized individual supposed to reliably distinguish between truth and psychosis without "public" proof?
#12
Posted 12 August 2008 - 08:55 PM
Maybe I explained it bad, or come from a different perspective.
I meant even if they did die and have an afterlife experience, it isn't relative to anyone but themselves, ie not for the public.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." G.K. Chesterson 1900
timwakefield, on 18 April 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:
#13
Posted 12 August 2008 - 09:39 PM
http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...howtopic=126798
Ziigmund: f u luck
My favourite thread in the whole wide world
http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...howtopic=126798
#14
Posted 12 August 2008 - 11:05 PM
there's nothing relative about it at all. NDE's are either factual experiences indicating there is an afterlife that everyone is subject to or they are the result of psychosis, and the only way to differentiate is to use objective science. certainly a traumatized individual has no way to differentiate without public (objective) help.
same goes for any internal revelation of what is external reality. since it's an obvious fact that the mind/emotions can paint misleading pictures of external reality, without external public help an individual has no way to know if he's fooling himself or not.
also kind of makes faith in general pointless.
#15
Posted 13 August 2008 - 06:09 AM
Pretty sure that there isn't anything in the known world that you can try to use to make this claim.
It's kind of an obsession
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." G.K. Chesterson 1900
timwakefield, on 18 April 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:
#16
Posted 13 August 2008 - 06:16 AM
same goes for any internal revelation of what is external reality. since it's an obvious fact that the mind/emotions can paint misleading pictures of external reality, without external public help an individual has no way to know if he's fooling himself or not.
Sometimes I think you are pulling our legs. You want to use science to determine whether or not someone had a personal experience? You might as well make the claim that all truth will have to pass through you before it can be truth.
I'll let you in on a secret, we don't care if somethings happen that we can't explain, makes life kind of fun. We don't have to worry that the whole world will think less of us for not really knowing something. And when I say 'we' I mean the rest of the world, not just Christians.
LOL, of course, why can anyone think they can know what happened to them, without the help of modern science to tell them what it was.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." G.K. Chesterson 1900
timwakefield, on 18 April 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:
#17
Posted 13 August 2008 - 07:24 AM
same goes for any internal revelation of what is external reality. since it's an obvious fact that the mind/emotions can paint misleading pictures of external reality, without external public help an individual has no way to know if he's fooling himself or not.
also kind of makes faith in general pointless.
Hi. I am arrogant, but I am fairly certain by reading this post that my arrogance pails in comparison. It's a testament to your faith in yourself.
#18
Posted 13 August 2008 - 07:27 AM
i'm not making a claim, i'm stating the obvious. because individuals using strictly internal methods aren't capable of differentiating between truth and delusion, faith is effectively a useless method for an individual to reliably determine what is and isn't objective reality.
#19
Posted 13 August 2008 - 07:39 AM
no. i want to use science to determine whether personal experiences reflect objective reality or psychosis, since it's the only useful tool we have available to do the job.
for practical purposes they can't.
#20
Posted 13 August 2008 - 07:43 AM
what specifically are you disputing and why?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users









