My home town was carved out of swampland.
Please understand that real knowledge is an extremely precious and valuable thing. It is both precious and valuable precisely because it has standards for evidence.
---------- Post added October-11th-2012 at 01:15 PM ----------
Last edited by alexey; October-11th-2012 at 12:18 PM.
The second possibility I mentioned is also a "we don't know (yet)" scenario, but it involves a much less grand re-imagining of our current knowledge about the brain and how it works. The first option has a huge number of moving parts and is incredibly complex by its very nature; that is why I invoked Occam's razor.
I think it is wonderful that this person thinks he died and had a dream to what heaven would be like. Believe what you want and enjoy it.
My heaven is probably a lot different than most of the people who actually believe this guy went to heaven.
Thanks for the sig LCSF
The crucial part of the article, IMO:
"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."
Fat Boys First!!!!!!
Let's just cut to the quick here. Science has, for YEARS now, been using the scientific method to disprove the existence of a higher being. Because you can't "prove" such a being exists using the scientific method. People that do this, then look down on anyone espousing religious beliefs (not all, but in generalities). Faith has been, for YEARS, trying to convince people to ignore science and accept a belief. For some of us, the scientific method is not the end all be all. Science needs to accept this. No matter how factually and coldly presented, science will not eradicate faith. For some of us, faith is not the end all be all. Faith needs to accept this. No matter how grandly and convincingly presented, faith will not eradicate science. Can we all agree on this?
Now to this thread: why do those who rely on science feel the need to "disprove" this mans book/article? Does it make you smarter? More accomplished? More respected? I'm gonna answer for you and say no to each of those. Then why enter the discussion? And why post /thread after your response, like you are THE authority on this matter?
Sig courtesy of Sticksboi05
I need to adopt the practice of staying away from any religious based thread at ES going forward. It's sad that even a mild epiphany from an avowed skeptic that made him question his own personal beliefs because yet another tired debate of the validity of religious belief.
You all have my personal vow to respect your faith. lack of faith and anything and everything in between. You cannot have a wrong belief in my mind on this subject and I honor what you see as real in your personal life's perspective.
Wish more would do the same
Conservatives cant trust Republicans
When I see people believing without good reasons in things which I think are not true, I naturally feel compelled to discuss the situation. I could be making a mistake. You could be making a mistake. Let's talk about it. This is not about being smart or accomplished. This is about us trying to do the best that we can by putting our minds together.
Last edited by alexey; October-11th-2012 at 12:34 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)