Who or What really has a Soul?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(cont) coming into your house, and by eavesdropping on you figures out how to use your language? Now that's something that I sill think is a scam -- those "babies" must be some kind of aliens coming to take over our world!

and those babies, who can't even walk or go to the bathroom on their won, are capable of picking up ANY language and speaking it, when they learn how to speak, like a native. As they get older, this amazing ability diminishes. Weird

perhaps it's proof of heaven!

It takes a baby multiple years before they can fluently speak. If you embedded just about anyone into a culture that only spoke one language that person would learn to speak that language faster than a baby.

Actually, babies are picking up meanings and sounds before they can speak in whatever languages they hear, and when they do start to speak, they speak like a native, without the accent or syntax problems that adults have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(cont) coming into your house, and by eavesdropping on you figures out how to use your language? Now that's something that I sill think is a scam -- those "babies" must be some kind of aliens coming to take over our world!

and those babies, who can't even walk or go to the bathroom on their won, are capable of picking up ANY language and speaking it, when they learn how to speak, like a native. As they get older, this amazing ability diminishes. Weird

perhaps it's proof of heaven!

It takes a baby multiple years before they can fluently speak. If you embedded just about anyone into a culture that only spoke one language that person would learn to speak that language faster than a baby.

Actually, babies are picking up meanings and sounds before they can speak in whatever languages they hear, and when they do start to speak, they speak like a native, without the accent or syntax problems that adults have.

They speak like the people around them, this is nothing special. When your kids are teenagers they begin to pick up accents, syntax and vocabulary from their friends. Then when they come home and use those "clique" verbals their parents holler at them for not speaking properly. It has more to do with constant exposure and use than being young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the blind man saw a square and mistook it for a tram or are you saying he saw a tram and mistook it for a square? He clearly said " I saw a tram and it was an ordinary square tram." That a tram, in fact, existed outside his building is what is compelling, not that he described it as squarish." Trams are very boxy looking. He nailed it simply by identifying a tram. Sorry but it sure does look like you don't have a leg to stand on.

You really think he didn't know tram tracks and trams went by that building before his NDE? Or was he totally making it up and trams never have gone by the building? I think your leg is amputated if you think the man's testimony/story is earth shattering proof of heaven.

Oh for Gods sake, he was not at his house. He was in a hospital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you discount the testimony of thousands of patients, then you discount the confirmation of doctors and nurses who verify their information, then you ignore NDE'ers who are surgeons or nurses, what data remains to scientifically evaluate? I think the reason all testimonies are discounted is because science lacks the tools to explain it.

I think NDE's themselves are not discounted. But the content or meaning of the NDEs are. Take the common ascent into heaven, aka the bright tunnel of light and angel ones. These images have been previously implanted into our mines. Almost everyone knows the general story before they have an NDE. So the fact they recall thoughts already in their brain is not significant.

No, the first NDEs could not have known about lights, tunnels, or out of body awareness. Atheists had the same experience. They rejected such ideas. Besides, it doesn't explain how conversations were heard in other rooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the blind man saw a square and mistook it for a tram or are you saying he saw a tram and mistook it for a square? He clearly said " I saw a tram and it was an ordinary square tram." That a tram, in fact, existed outside his building is what is compelling, not that he described it as squarish." Trams are very boxy looking. He nailed it simply by identifying a tram. Sorry but it sure does look like you don't have a leg to stand on.

You really think he didn't know tram tracks and trams went by that building before his NDE? Or was he totally making it up and trams never have gone by the building? I think your leg is amputated if you think the man's testimony/story is earth shattering proof of heaven.

Oh for Gods sake, he was not at his house. He was in a hospital.

So your saying he went to a hospital far away from his house and knew nothing about what was near said hospital? Do you have proof of that?

Do you know whats around your hospital?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you discount the testimony of thousands of patients, then you discount the confirmation of doctors and nurses who verify their information, then you ignore NDE'ers who are surgeons or nurses, what data remains to scientifically evaluate? I think the reason all testimonies are discounted is because science lacks the tools to explain it.

I think NDE's themselves are not discounted. But the content or meaning of the NDEs are. Take the common ascent into heaven, aka the bright tunnel of light and angel ones. These images have been previously implanted into our mines. Almost everyone knows the general story before they have an NDE. So the fact they recall thoughts already in their brain is not significant.

No, the first NDEs could not have known about lights, tunnels, or out of body awareness. Atheists had the same experience. They rejected such ideas. Besides, it doesn't explain how conversations were heard in other rooms.

Cave Men probably had NDEs, and I'm pretty sure they didn't have visions of lights, tunnels and angels. The notion of lights, tunnels and angels hasn't been around for that long considering how long mankind has been around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(cont) coming into your house, and by eavesdropping on you figures out how to use your language? Now that's something that I sill think is a scam -- those "babies" must be some kind of aliens coming to take over our world!

and those babies, who can't even walk or go to the bathroom on their won, are capable of picking up ANY language and speaking it, when they learn how to speak, like a native. As they get older, this amazing ability diminishes. Weird

perhaps it's proof of heaven!

It takes a baby multiple years before they can fluently speak. If you embedded just about anyone into a culture that only spoke one language that person would learn to speak that language faster than a baby.

Actually, babies are picking up meanings and sounds before they can speak in whatever languages they hear, and when they do start to speak, they speak like a native, without the accent or syntax problems that adults have.

They speak like the people around them, this is nothing special. When your kids are teenagers they begin to pick up accents, syntax and vocabulary from their friends. Then when they come home and use those "clique" verbals their parents holler at them for not speaking properly. It has more to do with constant exposure and use than being young.

it's exposure AND being young -- the young brain is simply better at picking up languages. It's a known FACT and doesn't contradict any religious beliefs, so if you look into it, perhaps you will be more inclined to accept the information that's out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the blind man saw a square and mistook it for a tram or are you saying he saw a tram and mistook it for a square? He clearly said " I saw a tram and it was an ordinary square tram." That a tram, in fact, existed outside his building is what is compelling, not that he described it as squarish." Trams are very boxy looking. He nailed it simply by identifying a tram. Sorry but it sure does look like you don't have a leg to stand on.

You really think he didn't know tram tracks and trams went by that building before his NDE? Or was he totally making it up and trams never have gone by the building? I think your leg is amputated if you think the man's testimony/story is earth shattering proof of heaven.

Oh for Gods sake, he was not at his house. He was in a hospital.

So your saying he went to a hospital far away from his house and knew nothing about what was near said hospital? Do you have proof of that?

Do you know whats around your hospital?

That was a stupid question to ask. No, I have never seen whats around the hospital closest to my home. Its about 40 minutes away and I am in good health.

Your question assumes all the thousands of people who had NDE were lying. Seriously, thousands of them? It makes no sense whatsoever to make that claim just because you can't understand it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the blind man saw a square and mistook it for a tram or are you saying he saw a tram and mistook it for a square? He clearly said " I saw a tram and it was an ordinary square tram." That a tram, in fact, existed outside his building is what is compelling, not that he described it as squarish." Trams are very boxy looking. He nailed it simply by identifying a tram. Sorry but it sure does look like you don't have a leg to stand on.

You really think he didn't know tram tracks and trams went by that building before his NDE? Or was he totally making it up and trams never have gone by the building? I think your leg is amputated if you think the man's testimony/story is earth shattering proof of heaven.

Oh for Gods sake, he was not at his house. He was in a hospital.

So your saying he went to a hospital far away from his house and knew nothing about what was near said hospital? Do you have proof of that?

Do you know whats around your hospital?

That was a stupid question to ask. No, I have never seen whats around the hospital closest to my home. Its about 40 minutes away and I am in good health.

Your question assumes all the thousands of people who had NDE were lying. Seriously, thousands of them? It makes no sense whatsoever to make that claim just because you can't understand it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the blind man saw a square and mistook it for a tram or are you saying he saw a tram and mistook it for a square? He clearly said " I saw a tram and it was an ordinary square tram." That a tram, in fact, existed outside his building is what is compelling, not that he described it as squarish." Trams are very boxy looking. He nailed it simply by identifying a tram. Sorry but it sure does look like you don't have a leg to stand on.

You really think he didn't know tram tracks and trams went by that building before his NDE? Or was he totally making it up and trams never have gone by the building? I think your leg is amputated if you think the man's testimony/story is earth shattering proof of heaven.

Oh for Gods sake, he was not at his house. He was in a hospital.

So your saying he went to a hospital far away from his house and knew nothing about what was near said hospital? Do you have proof of that?

Do you know whats around your hospital?

That was a stupid question to ask. No, I have never seen whats around the hospital closest to my home. Its about 40 minutes away and I am in good health.

Your question assumes all the thousands of people who had NDE were lying. Seriously, thousands of them? It makes no sense whatsoever to make that claim just because you can't understand it?

you mean like claiming to know there's an afterlife?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the blind man saw a square and mistook it for a tram or are you saying he saw a tram and mistook it for a square? He clearly said " I saw a tram and it was an ordinary square tram." That a tram, in fact, existed outside his building is what is compelling, not that he described it as squarish." Trams are very boxy looking. He nailed it simply by identifying a tram. Sorry but it sure does look like you don't have a leg to stand on.

You really think he didn't know tram tracks and trams went by that building before his NDE? Or was he totally making it up and trams never have gone by the building? I think your leg is amputated if you think the man's testimony/story is earth shattering proof of heaven.

Oh for Gods sake, he was not at his house. He was in a hospital.

So your saying he went to a hospital far away from his house and knew nothing about what was near said hospital? Do you have proof of that?

Do you know whats around your hospital?

That was a stupid question to ask. No, I have never seen whats around the hospital closest to my home. Its about 40 minutes away and I am in good health.

Your question assumes all the thousands of people who had NDE were lying. Seriously, thousands of them? It makes no sense whatsoever to make that claim just because you can't understand it?

you mean like claiming to know there's an afterlife?

Cant you see the difference between their judgment about their OWN experience and YOUR interpretation of THEIR experience? Which do you think carries more weight? You judgment is as an outsider. You lack the experience of it and the knowledge about it, and to complicate your situation, you are a steadfast atheist who abhors anyone with an open mind towards an afterlife. Thus, you are least qualified to cast an opinion. Your opinion is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

"Your opinion is irrelevant" at the exact moment it contradicts anecdotal experiences from a variety of unnamed and unverified sources.

I love it!

Atheists don't abhor people with open minds. They abhor gullible people who believe in incredible things without the least shred of evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Your opinion is irrelevant" at the exact moment it contradicts anecdotal experiences from a variety of unnamed and unverified sources.

I love it!

Atheists don't abhor people with open minds. They abhor gullible people who believe in incredible things without the least shred of evidence.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(cont) coming into your house, and by eavesdropping on you figures out how to use your language? Now that's something that I sill think is a scam -- those "babies" must be some kind of aliens coming to take over our world!

and those babies, who can't even walk or go to the bathroom on their won, are capable of picking up ANY language and speaking it, when they learn how to speak, like a native. As they get older, this amazing ability diminishes. Weird

perhaps it's proof of heaven!

It takes a baby multiple years before they can fluently speak. If you embedded just about anyone into a culture that only spoke one language that person would learn to speak that language faster than a baby.

Actually, babies are picking up meanings and sounds before they can speak in whatever languages they hear, and when they do start to speak, they speak like a native, without the accent or syntax problems that adults have.

They speak like the people around them, this is nothing special. When your kids are teenagers they begin to pick up accents, syntax and vocabulary from their friends. Then when they come home and use those "clique" verbals their parents holler at them for not speaking properly. It has more to do with constant exposure and use than being young.

it's exposure AND being young -- the young brain is simply better at picking up languages. It's a known FACT and doesn't contradict any religious beliefs, so if you look into it, perhaps you will be more inclined to accept the information that's out there.

I'll agree to that. The advantage of a young mind is that it has not yet been clouded with other ideas, thoughts, and habits. It's the only reason why adults have trouble learning a new language. They get caught up trying to associate the new language with the one they already know. This is why if they are forced to hear and only use the new language they will quickly adapt and have a working vocabulary in less than a month. But typically they go on using their native language almost exclusively and rarely use the language they are trying to learn. Which makes learning the new language extremely difficult. It's also the reason why young who know two languages will forget one if they do not continue to use both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Your opinion is irrelevant" at the exact moment it contradicts anecdotal experiences from a variety of unnamed and unverified sources.

I love it!

Atheists don't abhor people with open minds. They abhor gullible people who believe in incredible things without the least shred of evidence.

And thats why the Lancet wrote about it, because the opinion of atheists who discount their experience as well as their interpretation was irrelevant.