Life after death
Quote:When a neurosurgeon found himself in a coma, he experienced things he never thought possible—a journey to the afterlife. As a neurosurgeon, I did not believe in the phenomenon of near-death experiences. I grew up in a scientific world, the son of a neurosurgeon. I followed my father’s path and became an academic neurosurgeon, teaching at Harvard Medical School and other universities. I understand what happens to the brain when people are near death, and I had always believed there were good scientific explanations for the heavenly out-of-body journeys described by those who narrowly escaped death.
Quote:All the chief arguments against near-death experiences suggest that these experiences are the results of minimal, transient, or partial malfunctioning of the cortex. My near-death experience, however, took place not while my cortex was malfunctioning, but while it was simply off. This is clear from the severity and duration of my meningitis, and from the global cortical involvement documented by CT scans and neurological examinations. According to current medical understanding of the brain and mind, there is absolutely no way that I could have experienced even a dim and limited consciousness during my time in the coma, much less the hyper-vivid and completely coherent odyssey I underwent.
more here
It's provacative to a skeptic, including the claim of being a skeptic himself, recognition of science, his background, but...
When you go to the "other side" the proof you could bring back:
For instance, the day and hour, location of a future earthquate in a fairly rare earthquake zone, the day and location of landfall of a hurricane, the day of the eruption of any worldly volcano (which does not erupt yearly, perhaps dormant for at least 20 years or more).
This would be fairly excellent substantive info that couldn't be easily hoaxed (to my knowledge)
Of course, as a doctor, could he have brought back some medically significant info? (though I think such could be hoaxed, if someone wanted to withhold a discovery) Still that would be something.
He brings back this:
Quote:Each time I silently put one of these questions out, the answer came instantly in an explosion of light, color, love, and beauty that blew through me like a crashing wave. What was important about these blasts was that they didn’t simply silence my questions by overwhelming them. They answered them, but in a way that bypassed language. Thoughts entered me directly. But it wasn’t thought like we experience on earth. It wasn’t vague, immaterial, or abstract. These thoughts were solid and immediate—hotter than fire and wetter than water—and as I received them I was able to instantly and effortlessly understand concepts that would have taken me years to fully grasp in my earthly life.
His story requires and can produce no proof other than his claim,
and just because he has an advanced degree and knowledge of neuroscience
doesn't mean he knows all there is to know about the capabilities of the brain.
What is more likely? That it is real or that it is all in his head?
Quote: WongBoPics or it didn't happen...
This type of philosophy is ridiculous. Think about how much we would miss and not understand if we actually lived by it. For goodness sake please try believing in something that doesn't require or allow a picture to capture it! This is the really real stuff that is all in our head and makes all the difference about how we look at the world and see things that no photograph can prove because they go far beyond the visible and fleeting so called "realities" our senses perceive.
Quote: FrGambleFor goodness sake please try believing in something that doesn't require or allow a picture to capture it!
Yes! Lets go back to burning witches and blaming
every thing that goes wrong on the devil. We don't
need no stinking proof, thats for the simple minded.
Quote: EvenBobYes! Lets go back to burning witches and blaming
every thing that goes wrong on the devil. We don't
need no stinking proof, thats for the simple minded.
You do need proof but not always proof you can find in a picture or under a microscope. It seems to me simple minded or at least childish to only believe or accept that which is known by the five senses.
Quote: FrGambleIt seems to me simple minded or at least childish to only believe or accept that which is known by the five senses.
Thats why we have organized religions, for the
gullible and bored. People who have to be told
what to do and are lost on their own.
Quote: EvenBobThats why we have organized religions, for the
gullible and bored. People who have to be told
what to do and are lost on their own.
It is also simple minded and childish to believe only what you are told. Who told you there is no God or do you have physical proof there is no God?
By the way can we get back on track? This thread is about life after death and some interesting testimony from a skeptic turned believer through a personal experience. I can't tell you how many times so far in my short priesthood I have encountered amazing things that have happened to people at the moment of death. It is very real in my book.
Quote: FrGambleWho told you there is no God or do you have physical proof there is no God?
Nobody told me, I figured it out. And no proof
of something is just that, no proof. Thats why
we don't send people to prison without good
proof. Can you imagine how ludicrous that
would? Just think 'The Inquisition'..
Quote: rxwineIt's provacative to a skeptic, including the claim of being a skeptic himself, recognition of science, his background, but...
Yes, it is provocative (at first). But if what we know about the workings of the human brain were the Encyclopaedia Britannica, then what we have yet to learn would be, oh, the libraries at the British Museum (see this pic for an illustration: http://create.nacue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/BL2.jpg )
For starters, the author assumes his experience took several days. We know dreams are a lot shorter than they seem, and that the mind can distort its own perception of time. We also know fever can cause hallucinations. The author doesn't mention fever, but it's reasonable to assume it accompanied the infection. I had some very vivid hallucinations once when I had a very bad, very high fever years ago. they also seemed a lot longer than they likely were.
But even if all that he claims is so, even if he experienced it while "outside" of his functioning mind, the claim itself is worthless scientifically speaking. Even if all he saw happened as he says, there's no objective, tangible evidence to back this up. When a scientists makes an observation, other similar observations are needed to confirm or deny the original.
In this case we'd need to replicate the circumstances on other people and see what they report. Since the author's infection is so deadly, that's not going to happen (hopefully not ever).
Quote: EvenBobNobody told me, I figured it out. And no proof
of something is just that, no proof. Thats why
we don't send people to prison without good
proof. Can you imagine how ludicrous that
would? Just think 'The Inquisition'..
So is the expert testimony of a nuerosurgeon considered proof?
Quote: FrGambleSo is the expert testimony of a nuerosurgeon considered proof?
Read my post.
And stop feeding the trolls, please :)
Quote: Nareed
But even if all that he claims is so, even if he experienced it while "outside" of his functioning mind, the claim itself is worthless scientifically speaking. Even if all he saw happened as he says, there's no objective, tangible evidence to back this up. When a scientists makes an observation, other similar observations are needed to confirm or deny the original.
Thanks for the reminder, I totally missed your post.
I will agree that scientifically speaking the claim is worthless, but the big question remains: because something is scientifically worthless does that really make his experience or the thousands and thousands of others who have experienced similar things worthless. I maintain that there are some truths that science cannot provide evidence for and this does not make them not true or unimportant. In fact I think the things science is rendered helpless to verify are the things that are most true and most important.
Quote: FrGamblehelpless to verify are the things that are most true and most important.
The things in life that are most important are
food, water and shelter. Take care of those
and man finds time to amuse himself with
gods and the supernatural. Religion is man's
hobby, it has nothing to with survival.
Quote: WongBoChicken or egg?
I prefer Steak....
Quote: FrGambleThanks for the reminder, I totally missed your post.
Hey, if you don't toot your own horn, no one will do it for you :)
Quote:I will agree that scientifically speaking the claim is worthless, but the big question remains: because something is scientifically worthless does that really make his experience or the thousands and thousands of others who have experienced similar things worthless.
No. And I don't see any problem carrying out research. But, difficulties aside, such research is bound to uncover something in the human mind, or perhaps something different but equally mundane. Perhaps we'll find out, say, that glial cells do more than just support cerebral neurons, or that neurons other than those in the brain are involved in thought (unlikely), or that the quantum effects associated to neuronal processes may be carrying out information processing even in a non-functioning mind. Who knows?
Quote:In fact I think the things science is rendered helpless to verify are the things that are most true and most important.
Yeah, anyone can invent a "truth" and then challenge science to explain it. Science has no explanation for the "truths" claimed by Astrology, for example. That must mean these are most true and most important, right?
Quote: FrGambleI am simply saying that there are truths you cannot reach through science and these are the truths that really matter,
As wise woman once said "Anyone can invent a "truth" and then challenge science to explain it. Science has no explanation for the "truths" claimed by Astrology, for example. That must mean these are most true and most important, right?"
Quote: FrGambleI am simply saying that there are truths you cannot reach through science and these are the truths that really matter, like life after death.
How does what happens after death matter? It
happens to every living thing, it is what it is.
Its not us thats nervous about accepting the
inevitable, its the high strung religious types,
that are so stressed about it they have to invent
paradises and then convince themselves it real.
Quote: NareedAs wise woman once said "Anyone can invent a "truth" and then challenge science to explain it. Science has no explanation for the "truths" claimed by Astrology, for example. That must mean these are most true and most important, right?"
Not only are there truths outside of the scientific realm there are also ways of verifying truth and validity that do not depend on the scientific method. There are other tests besides scientific ones that can prove for example Astrology or the flying spaghetti monster is not the most true or most important.
Quote: FrGambleNot only are there truths outside of the scientific realm there are also ways of verifying truth and validity that do not depend on the scientific method.
Be honest. What you're claiming is that there are "truths" that can be verified without suing any evidence gained objectively by human senses. In other words, "truths" that can be verified by wishful thinking.
Quote:There are other tests besides scientific ones that can prove for example Astrology or the flying spaghetti monster is not the most true or most important.
BTW, the Pastafarian version of Armageddon has the Antipasto and his followers consuming the Most Hallowed Noodly One in a Last Supper. Scary stuff ;)
Understand, I'm not agreeing with those who are adamant about awareness after death. They are as ignorant as anyone else on the subject. However, I would suggest that if awareness leaving the body creates an impenetrable barrier to communication, then the question becomes moot. And, apocrypha to the contrary, there is no verifiable evidence of communication with the dead.
Quote: Scotty71I have never seen a picture of love but I have felt it.
That's not so. Everyone's seen and experienced love. People act and feel differently towards people and things they love than those they don't. The same goes for anger, sadness, happiness, etc. Emotions have been researched and investigated by psychiatrists, psychologist, sociologists, endocrinologists, neurologists, and a plethora of other specialists in the physical and social sciences.
Quote:I am NOT saying that the "non believers" don't have souls but simply cant explain why they are unique beyond obvious life experiences that shaped their attitudes.
I AM saying non-believers, believers and agnostics don't have a shred of evidence of any kind regarding the existence of "souls."
Quote: FrGambleWhen you see a corpse what is different about that human being whose heart has stopped beating and the moment before it stopped?
For one thing the corpse no longer has a beating heart. For another, the cells and compounds that constituted and sustained that person are now beginning to decay and rot. That's a very big difference. If you want more, the corpse's brian is no longer active, so it's without a mind. That's an even bigger difference.
Quote:What about the difference between us and every other living thing that exists?
Plenty. For one thing we have brains big enough to form and manipulate abstractions. for another, we have the physical means, lacking in most other species, to manipulate the world around us.
In most case, these are differences in kind. In some case, they are differences in degree. For example, many great apes can be taught a rudimentary form of language (though they have none of their own). Therefore they have some capacity for abstraction, but one that is clearly well below the human level. That's why even though they have hands, they don't build tools.
Quote:I think if you reflect on these things you might find some reasonable evidence for the existence of souls which goes a little beyond "wishful thinking".
I've reflected a great deal about it. I see nothing that would lead me to even suspect an immaterial human component that exists in any way independently of the human body.
Quote: FrGambleDo you really think there is no spiritual realm or immaterial realities like souls or spirits?
Whatever happens after death, happens to everybody.
Its organized religion that has to make a huge meldrama out
of it. Its lines their coffers and inflates their egos.
I've reflected on these things and have concluded that believing in gods and goddesses is wishful thinking. There are no spiritual realms or invisible friends. The difference between a dead person and a living person is that a dead person no longer has the capacity to sustain the basic functions of living in their body thus leading to catastrophic failure of all of the other parts of the body that are involved with living. A living person retains the capacity to remain alive at that moment.Quote: FrGambleDo you really think there is no spiritual realm or immaterial realities like souls or spirits? When you see a corpse what is different about that human being whose heart has stopped beating and the moment before it stopped? What about the difference between us and every other living thing that exists? I think if you reflect on these things you might find some reasonable evidence for the existence of souls which goes a little beyond "wishful thinking".
The difference between humans and every other living being is insignificant since we all share the same basic structure, DNA. If you go back far enough, we ( humans and all other species ) come from the same "Eve" critter and through evolution have become separate and distinct. My ancestor may not have been a monkey but a monkey and I do share a common ancestor.
Quote: FrGambleDo you really think there is no spiritual realm or immaterial realities like souls or spirits?
What about drowned people who got successfully revived after 30 or more minutes ?
So their soul gets disconnected from the body at the death, and naturally evolves to the spritiual realm. And then by some *physical* action in this very world, the soul is forced to return from the spiritual realm back into the body ?
Do you really believe that ? Because if you do, you contradict yourself as the "spiritual realm" or the immaterial soul must then already be part of the physical reality, which is very accessible by scientific methods (at a last resort by unmoral drowning experiments).
what happens after death, they accept it as a part
of life. Its only as people get sophisticated and away
from their roots that they start to worry about it.
Judaism is a sophisticated religion from a sophistcated
society. It gave birth to Christianity and later, Islam.
Its a lot of sturm and drang and politics and hand wringing.
Mormonism is another offshoot.
I'd rather trust primitive societies where the ridiculous
concept of sin doesn't exist. I pity the padre, he has
an antiquated product he's selling to a modern world.
Quote: MangoJWhat about drowned people who got successfully revived after 30 or more minutes ?
So their soul gets disconnected from the body at the death, and naturally evolves to the spritiual realm. And then by some *physical* action in this very world, the soul is forced to return from the spiritual realm back into the body ?
Do you really believe that ? Because if you do, you contradict yourself as the "spiritual realm" or the immaterial soul must then already be part of the physical reality, which is very accessible by scientific methods (at a last resort by unmoral drowning experiments).
I do think that the spiritual and the physical are very much connected and that what we do or what happens to us physically can either positively or negatively effect us spiritually. The soul is very much a part of who we are as human beings and it can be accessed through poetic, musical, logical, philosophical, and theological methods but not strictly speaking scientific methods.
Quote: FrGambleEvenBob: I'm sorry to say this but I think your made up truths don't have any facts.
Which facts did I make up? Don't do that, be specific.
Quote: FrGambleI do think that the spiritual and the physical are very much connected and that what we do or what happens to us physically can either positively or negatively effect us spiritually.
Besides technological or moral issues however there is no fundamental reason why this "connection" cannot be studied with scientific methods simply by trail&fail. And once it is studied and understood, it very much becomes part of the physical realm (and thus was part of the physical realm beforehand).
Either there is a true spiritual realm - but then it cannot be connected to the physical realm.
Or the is no spiritual realm in the first place.
The revival of a by any other means dead person proves to me (by contradiction) that there is no spiritual realm. You cannot have both a spiritual but physical realm.
Lay my head on the surgeon's table
Take me fingerprints if you are able
Pick my brains, pick my pockets
Steal my eyeballs and come back for the sockets
Run every kind of test from A to Z
And you'll still know nothing 'bout me
Run my name through your computer
Mention me in passing to your college tutor
Check my records, check my facts
Check if I paid my income tax
Pour over everything in my C.V.
But you'll still know nothing 'bout me
You'll still know nothing 'bout me
Quote: EvenBobEver notice primitive cultures never worry about
what happens after death, they accept it as a part
of life. Its only as people get sophisticated and away
from their roots that they start to worry about it.
Judaism is a sophisticated religion from a sophistcated
society. It gave birth to Christianity and later, Islam.
Its a lot of sturm and drang and politics and hand wringing.
Mormonism is another offshoot.
I'd rather trust primitive societies where the ridiculous
concept of sin doesn't exist. I pity the padre, he has
an antiquated product he's selling to a modern world.
There are no facts here at all just some opinion pretending to be truth. I would say that primitive cultures worry tremendously about what happens after death including putting food and money in with the mummified coffins. I also think Bob's comment about sin not existing in primitive societies holds no water, where does such a statement come from and on what is it based? Finally, I don't know why one would call Judaism a sophisticated religion. I think it is beautiful in its simplicity - God loves His chosen people and teaches and prepares them for an everlasting covenant and the promise of a Messiah.
Quote: FrGambleI also think Bob's comment about sin not existing in primitive societies holds no water, where does such a statement come from and on what is it based?
When the priests came here in the 1600's, the biggest
problem they had was getting the indigenous population
to understand the concept of sin. That you could do or
say something that offends god. They had beliefs based
on life, while the Christians had no respect for life and
worshipped death.
"They came with a Bible and their religion. They stole our land and crushed our spirit and now tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved." - Chief Pontiac
http://www.skeptic.ca/Native_Religion.htm
Quote: EvenBobWhen the priests came here in the 1600's, the biggest
problem they had was getting the indigenous population
to understand the concept of sin. That you could do or
say something that offends god. They had beliefs based
on life, while the Christians had no respect for life and
worshipped death.
I read some of the stuff you linked to and it says pretty clear that you can indeed sin against Gaia (Mother Earth, nature). You can greatly offend God in this way. it happens that I would say the same thing, sins against God's creation are sins that offend God.
I read nothing about why you would have such a crazy idea that Christians had no respect for life and worshiped death? Maybe you think that honoring the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is akin to worshiping death but I think you know how wrong-headed that would be knowing that it was His sacrifice that gives us all life and life eternal.
Quote: FrGamble
I read nothing about why you would have such a crazy idea that Christians had no respect for life and worshiped death?
What? You worship a dead guy, all you talk about is death.
Christ died for you, to give you life after death. You have
to be good or after you die you'll be punished forever. All
your saints are dead and the Bible was written by men
long dead. Good grief, go into your church and the first
thing you see is a dead guy hanging on a cross. All you
talk about is what happens after death, its downright
morbid and depressing.
It's all a bit of a wonder. To accept that a man was tortured and
murdered because of the sins of mankind is also a wonder. Who
would be agreeable to this kind of treatment and then look starry
eyed about it. It's about time the poor guy was put to rest.
"Honoring" Jesus by wearing a cross is like honoring Christa McAuliff by wearing an O ring. It's a sick practice that turns death into a fetish. Even if you think that Jesus had himself executed for .. something, Jesus didn't choose his style of execution. Wearing a cross is more akin to honoring the Romans for being so freakin' cruel as to nail people to large pieces of wood to let them bleed to death.Quote: FrGambleI read nothing about why you would have such a crazy idea that Christians had no respect for life and worshiped death? Maybe you think that honoring the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is akin to worshiping death but I think you know how wrong-headed that would be knowing that it was His sacrifice that gives us all life and life eternal.
It's a sick and I mean SICK fetish.
Quote: s2dbakerIt's a sick practice that turns death into a fetish.
Padre, you can't tell me this is the first time
you've heard that Christianity is a religion
that worships death. I've been hearing it
all my life. Especially the Catholics, they
are obsessed with death. Death on the cross
was the Roman choice for capital punishment.
It could very well have been hanging. If it
had been, would Catholics wear Jesus around
their necks with a noose around his neck?
They would have to. There's nothing sacred about
a cross, hundreds of thousands of poor souls
died on it before Jesus did.
When properly understood, that was a whole big pile of rationalization. Dude, you'd be wearing a chair with a helmet if Jesus had been electrocuted. Sick and perverted!Quote: FrGambleWhen properly understood the crucifix is not to remember the Romans or some form of torture or some preoccupation about death - it is the sublime reminder of the unconditional love of Jesus Christ.
Quote: FrGambleSecondly those glorious saints are more alive now than you and I are.
No, they're not. Prove it
Quote: FrGambleIt is not about death... When properly understood the crucifix is not to remember the Romans or some form of torture or some preoccupation about death - it is the sublime reminder of the unconditional love of Jesus Christ.
Its about Jesus dying. Its about death! If it was about
life, your sympol would be an angelic Jesus with a halo
around his head when you walked into a church. Instead
we see a frightening dead man nailed to a cross, who
died in agony. You can tap dance around this all you want,
but death is the Churches chosen brand. They celebrate
it, they almost gleefully wallow in it. Easter is your most
sacred holiday and it glorifies the death of Jesus. Every
Easter you nail him back up on that cross and he dies yet
again. Those wascally Phillipinos actually do nail themselves
up on crosses, for crying out loud.
I'm sure you think this is all fine and dandy. But to us looking
in from the outside, its dark, maudlin, and more than a
little bit frightening. And this celebration of death and then
to call it a religion of love is just a little disjointed to the
uninitiated.
Quote: s2dbakerWhen properly understood, that was a whole big pile of rationalization. Dude, you'd be wearing a chair with a helmet if Jesus had been electrocuted. Sick and perverted!
Hey at least I don't wear a fork around my neck to honor a flying spaghetti monster.
Quote: FrGambleHey at least I don't wear a fork around my neck to honor a flying spaghetti monster.
Jesus could have had his head chopped off. That
would be interesting to see as you entered the
Church, and around peoples necks.
