New NDE Study Concludes That There IS An Afterlife

originally posted by: Klassified
In my opinion, NDE's are not a reliable source of evidence for an afterlife.

I made note that the study didn't talk about 'the void' or about D M T and dying brain hallucinations etc. Those need to be addressed in a fully comprehensive study IMHO. Still, his findings were interesting.

a reply to: FlyersFan
Because religious people always play the skeptic then use Anecdotes to try and prove their point. 5000 stories are just that, stories. It's not proof of anything

a reply to: FlyersFan

That's another thing. He leaves out the experiences that contradict his study.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
a reply to: FlyersFan
Lol he's clearly biased

And you're not?

I'm a skeptic myself, but I try to be as objective as I can. In my opinion, NDE's are not a reliable source of evidence for an afterlife. They are too varied and interpretive even with their similarities, but one cannot deny they are transformative. This alone makes them compelling enough for study and research into the possibility of an afterlife.

So the study which you agree is performed by a man with bias and offers nothing admissible or conclusive but does reassure his patience dying of cancer not to fear death should be believed why? This website never ceases to embrace ignorance.

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
a reply to: Klassified
So why even bother with it? Until we can get more than Anecdotes it is irrelevant. The think that irks me is the OP saying this IS proof of an afterlife. It's nonsensical

After rereading the OP and her posts, I didn't see any place she said it was proof. She said the study concluded "there is an afterlife".

Why bother with it? A lot of scientific discoveries have been made starting with a hypothesis and no conclusive evidence that we now take for granted as fact. As Einstein once said "If at first the idea is not absurd, then there will be no hope for it."

By the way, washing your hands to stop the spread of germs was once considered nonsensical too.

a reply to: Klassified
But we can see germs. A hypothesis is fine but it needs to have evidence to support it. I'm realizing that most of you do not understand the scientific method or how it works. The op claims it's proof literally in the title. You guys keep proving my point over and over

a reply to: ITSALIVE
Thank you!

originally posted by: ITSALIVE

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
a reply to: FlyersFan
Lol he's clearly biased

And you're not?

I'm a skeptic myself, but I try to be as objective as I can. In my opinion, NDE's are not a reliable source of evidence for an afterlife. They are too varied and interpretive even with their similarities, but one cannot deny they are transformative. This alone makes them compelling enough for study and research into the possibility of an afterlife.

So the study which you agree is performed by a man with bias and offers nothing admissible or conclusive but does reassure his patience dying of cancer not to fear death should be believed why? This website never ceases to embrace ignorance.

No where did I say it should be believed. I said NDE's were worthy of research and study for the transformative effect they have on those who have experienced them.

The ignorance being embraced here seems to be coming from those who want to shut down any discussion of a topic they lack the ability to entertain without accepting it.

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
a reply to: Klassified
But we can see germs. A hypothesis is fine but it needs to have evidence to support it. I'm realizing that most of you do not understand the scientific method or how it works. The op claims it's proof literally in the title. You guys keep proving my point over and over

Now you're just being obtuse. I'm done.

I do not need a study to know that is an afterlife, I had known since I was a child, is interesting that US is one of the countries that are the most skeptical when it comes to the afterlife, while other countries in the world are more open to the idea.

a reply to: Klassified
Says the person who believes in things without evidence.

a reply to: marg6043
How do you know?

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: ITSALIVE

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
a reply to: FlyersFan
Lol he's clearly biased

And you're not?

I'm a skeptic myself, but I try to be as objective as I can. In my opinion, NDE's are not a reliable source of evidence for an afterlife. They are too varied and interpretive even with their similarities, but one cannot deny they are transformative. This alone makes them compelling enough for study and research into the possibility of an afterlife.

So the study which you agree is performed by a man with bias and offers nothing admissible or conclusive but does reassure his patience dying of cancer not to fear death should be believed why? This website never ceases to embrace ignorance.

No where did I say it should be believed. I said NDE's were worthy of research and study for the transformative effect they have on those who have experienced them.

The ignorance being embraced here seems to be coming from those who want to shut down any discussion of a topic they lack the ability to entertain without accepting it.

I think it’s you shutting down the conversation out of ignorance, friend. Someone pointed out that anecdotes are not proof of the afterlife and the bias the study has from the start. You agree motivation for his conclusion is also suspect and being biased is also worthy of discussion here but felt you should call out someone here for bias as if that supports the original claim? Strange.

Now if the study looked at the issue differently and provided more meat to sink into that could go into measurable science perhaps the claim could be discussed more as you find fit.

This subject seems to be quite personal to you considering how active you are in this thread and how opposed you are to anything but support for the good doctor and his claim.

my 'benchmark' for an afterlife was the account of the crucifixion with Jesus & 2 thieves... one criminal is assured of 'Paradise' the other criminal assured of Death-void-nothingness...

the one repentant thief and Jesus himself were to experience 'paradise'...which is a temporary state of ecstasy while in the throes of Death---- and not a journey to heaven as a residence for a spirit-body

nde is that elusive state-of-Paradise (or Euphoria at your last breath)

a reply to: ITSALIVE

This subject seems to be quite personal to you considering how active you are in this thread and how opposed you are to anything but support for the good doctor and his claim.

You and your sock either have...

Reading comprehension problems.

You haven't actually read any of my posts.

You just want to argue for the sake of argument.

I'm going to say all three, so I'm done with both of you.

a reply to: Klassified
Classic theist behavior. Shut down all discussion because people refuse to jump through your hoops

a reply to: Satanwasframed

Very personal experiences, including my mother that passes away two years ago, is no longer any more doubt for me.

a reply to: marg6043
I'm sorry to hear about your mother. But unless you have actual evidence it's not proof of anything.

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
. The op claims it's proof literally in the title.

No it doesn't.
It states that the study concluded that there is an afterlife.
No where did i say this study is proof of an afterlife.
It may be. It may not be.
It's a study on the subject and it's interesting.

a reply to: Satanwasframed

I agree, but after life is not a heaven or hell, that is a religious concept, I can tell you this much, is just a stage we go into when we lose our physical body.

One thing everybody should know is that we are energy, after the body, and energy can never be destroyed.

That makes us eternal.

But I respect other people's believes.