Near Death Experience proves

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing 11:08! As another poster mentioned, nderf.org is full of similar accounts (going back home, "how could I have forgotten?" Etc) and has changed my view on religio/faith (it's stronger now) and ideas on an afterlife.

The naysayers will find out eventually but for now they're clearly intent on sounding salty and soulless.

Maybe that's the brain's way of shutting down - feeling at one with the universe - not struggling, feeling loved. A pretty nice final memory.

I thought about that. But there would have to be a biological reason for that, wouldn't there? If there is nothing after death, then why would it matter what your final memory is? Everything our body does, it does for a reason. What would be the reason for a peaceful death, biologically speaking?

The biological process and how we interpret it aren't necessarily the same thing. People who experience the biological process of the brain shutting down may interpret that as feeling peaceful and loved, but that doesn't mean that there was some kind of evolutionary benefit to the process of shutting down producing that effect. It may just be a nice side effect of the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing 11:08! As another poster mentioned, nderf.org is full of similar accounts (going back home, "how could I have forgotten?" Etc) and has changed my view on religio/faith (it's stronger now) and ideas on an afterlife.

The naysayers will find out eventually but for now they're clearly intent on sounding salty and soulless.

Maybe that's the brain's way of shutting down - feeling at one with the universe - not struggling, feeling loved. A pretty nice final memory.

I thought about that. But there would have to be a biological reason for that, wouldn't there? If there is nothing after death, then why would it matter what your final memory is? Everything our body does, it does for a reason. What would be the reason for a peaceful death, biologically speaking?

The biological process and how we interpret it aren't necessarily the same thing. People who experience the biological process of the brain shutting down may interpret that as feeling peaceful and loved, but that doesn't mean that there was some kind of evolutionary benefit to the process of shutting down producing that effect. It may just be a nice side effect of the process.

Agreed. We have no memory of being born -- and it seems like it would be a rather shocking experience from the baby's point of view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing 11:08! As another poster mentioned, nderf.org is full of similar accounts (going back home, "how could I have forgotten?" Etc) and has changed my view on religio/faith (it's stronger now) and ideas on an afterlife.

The naysayers will find out eventually but for now they're clearly intent on sounding salty and soulless.

Maybe that's the brain's way of shutting down - feeling at one with the universe - not struggling, feeling loved. A pretty nice final memory.

I thought about that. But there would have to be a biological reason for that, wouldn't there? If there is nothing after death, then why would it matter what your final memory is? Everything our body does, it does for a reason. What would be the reason for a peaceful death, biologically speaking?

The biological process and how we interpret it aren't necessarily the same thing. People who experience the biological process of the brain shutting down may interpret that as feeling peaceful and loved, but that doesn't mean that there was some kind of evolutionary benefit to the process of shutting down producing that effect. It may just be a nice side effect of the process.

Agreed. We have no memory of being born -- and it seems like it would be a rather shocking experience from the baby's point of view.

I can see those points. But I'm the PP with the near death experience and there was nothing about my experience that mirrored any of the religious teaching I was raised with. I went to the site the PPs suggested and was moved to tears by how similar our experiences were. It wasn't just about the general feelings of peace and love. It was very specific images and knowledge (for truly a lack of better term) that were so very much the same. I don't see how people from so many different cultures and religious backgrounds could have such similar experiences.

Maybe you have to experience it to really believe it. But I can tell you that this life is just a tiny piece of a puzzle that we can't even begin to see.

Think about this - as a full term infant in your mother's womb you had no concept at all of your mother and father. None. You were very much alive. You could feel, hear,taste,see.... But still, you had no idea of the world outside that womb. But it existed, didn't it? Why on earth would we believe we know everything now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing 11:08! As another poster mentioned, nderf.org is full of similar accounts (going back home, "how could I have forgotten?" Etc) and has changed my view on religio/faith (it's stronger now) and ideas on an afterlife.

The naysayers will find out eventually but for now they're clearly intent on sounding salty and soulless.

Maybe that's the brain's way of shutting down - feeling at one with the universe - not struggling, feeling loved. A pretty nice final memory.

I thought about that. But there would have to be a biological reason for that, wouldn't there? If there is nothing after death, then why would it matter what your final memory is? Everything our body does, it does for a reason. What would be the reason for a peaceful death, biologically speaking?

The biological process and how we interpret it aren't necessarily the same thing. People who experience the biological process of the brain shutting down may interpret that as feeling peaceful and loved, but that doesn't mean that there was some kind of evolutionary benefit to the process of shutting down producing that effect. It may just be a nice side effect of the process.

Agreed. We have no memory of being born -- and it seems like it would be a rather shocking experience from the baby's point of view.

I can see those points. But I'm the PP with the near death experience and there was nothing about my experience that mirrored any of the religious teaching I was raised with. I went to the site the PPs suggested and was moved to tears by how similar our experiences were. It wasn't just about the general feelings of peace and love. It was very specific images and knowledge (for truly a lack of better term) that were so very much the same. I don't see how people from so many different cultures and religious backgrounds could have such similar experiences.

Maybe you have to experience it to really believe it. But I can tell you that this life is just a tiny piece of a puzzle that we can't even begin to see.

Think about this - as a full term infant in your mother's womb you had no concept at all of your mother and father. None. You were very much alive. You could feel, hear,taste,see.... But still, you had no idea of the world outside that womb. But it existed, didn't it? Why on earth would we believe we know everything now?

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing 11:08! As another poster mentioned, nderf.org is full of similar accounts (going back home, "how could I have forgotten?" Etc) and has changed my view on religio/faith (it's stronger now) and ideas on an afterlife.

The naysayers will find out eventually but for now they're clearly intent on sounding salty and soulless.

Maybe that's the brain's way of shutting down - feeling at one with the universe - not struggling, feeling loved. A pretty nice final memory.

I thought about that. But there would have to be a biological reason for that, wouldn't there? If there is nothing after death, then why would it matter what your final memory is? Everything our body does, it does for a reason. What would be the reason for a peaceful death, biologically speaking?

The biological process and how we interpret it aren't necessarily the same thing. People who experience the biological process of the brain shutting down may interpret that as feeling peaceful and loved, but that doesn't mean that there was some kind of evolutionary benefit to the process of shutting down producing that effect. It may just be a nice side effect of the process.

Agreed. We have no memory of being born -- and it seems like it would be a rather shocking experience from the baby's point of view.

I can see those points. But I'm the PP with the near death experience and there was nothing about my experience that mirrored any of the religious teaching I was raised with. I went to the site the PPs suggested and was moved to tears by how similar our experiences were. It wasn't just about the general feelings of peace and love. It was very specific images and knowledge (for truly a lack of better term) that were so very much the same. I don't see how people from so many different cultures and religious backgrounds could have such similar experiences.

Maybe you have to experience it to really believe it. But I can tell you that this life is just a tiny piece of a puzzle that we can't even begin to see.

Think about this - as a full term infant in your mother's womb you had no concept at all of your mother and father. None. You were very much alive. You could feel, hear,taste,see.... But still, you had no idea of the world outside that womb. But it existed, didn't it? Why on earth would we believe we know everything now?

We don't - but you seem to have decided that your NDE proves an existence beyond this life, when it could be a brain function that we have not yet been able to explore scientifically.

In the case of the baby in the womb, there is a scientific explanation for the baby's lack of awareness of the world beyond it. Conception and birth has been studied and can be explained. The baby doesn't know about it, but the adult human it becomes can understand it. It follows the pattern of all other mammals, with evolutionary variations that are also understood, because they have been studied by trained scientists.

There's no reason to thick that NDE's fall out of this pattern that has so far explained things that humans once thought were supernatural.

No one is denying the existence of and the profound reactions to NDEs - we're just saying that how they feel to those experiencing them is not enough to determine what they mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As an unbeliever I don't get angry, I get sad. Sad that people can't appreciate the wonder of their existence without making up these fanciful stories.

I get sad that instead of appreciating the incredible science of existence they have to insist on something more, something childish like immortality when they wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it. It just seems so ungrateful.

I don't quite understand why you assume that people's beliefs somehow take away from their appreciation of today.

This topic came up in other threads, and I'd like to point out that such judgement of religion only shows how unfamiliar you are with what you deny. An open-minded person would attempt to educate him or herself before arguing non-existing points

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an unbeliever I don't get angry, I get sad. Sad that people can't appreciate the wonder of their existence without making up these fanciful stories.

I get sad that instead of appreciating the incredible science of existence they have to insist on something more, something childish like immortality when they wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it. It just seems so ungrateful.

I don't quite understand why you assume that people's beliefs somehow take away from their appreciation of today.

This topic came up in other threads, and I'd like to point out that such judgement of religion only shows how unfamiliar you are with what you deny. An open-minded person would attempt to educate him or herself before arguing non-existing points

You apparently are unfamiliar with the fact that many non-believers were once believers and have a personal experience of what it's like to believe -- and then to change your beliefs, based on new information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing 11:08! As another poster mentioned, nderf.org is full of similar accounts (going back home, "how could I have forgotten?" Etc) and has changed my view on religio/faith (it's stronger now) and ideas on an afterlife.

The naysayers will find out eventually but for now they're clearly intent on sounding salty and soulless.

Maybe that's the brain's way of shutting down - feeling at one with the universe - not struggling, feeling loved. A pretty nice final memory.

I thought about that. But there would have to be a biological reason for that, wouldn't there? If there is nothing after death, then why would it matter what your final memory is? Everything our body does, it does for a reason. What would be the reason for a peaceful death, biologically speaking?

The biological process and how we interpret it aren't necessarily the same thing. People who experience the biological process of the brain shutting down may interpret that as feeling peaceful and loved, but that doesn't mean that there was some kind of evolutionary benefit to the process of shutting down producing that effect. It may just be a nice side effect of the process.

Agreed. We have no memory of being born -- and it seems like it would be a rather shocking experience from the baby's point of view.

I can see those points. But I'm the PP with the near death experience and there was nothing about my experience that mirrored any of the religious teaching I was raised with. I went to the site the PPs suggested and was moved to tears by how similar our experiences were. It wasn't just about the general feelings of peace and love. It was very specific images and knowledge (for truly a lack of better term) that were so very much the same. I don't see how people from so many different cultures and religious backgrounds could have such similar experiences.

Maybe you have to experience it to really believe it. But I can tell you that this life is just a tiny piece of a puzzle that we can't even begin to see.

Think about this - as a full term infant in your mother's womb you had no concept at all of your mother and father. None. You were very much alive. You could feel, hear,taste,see.... But still, you had no idea of the world outside that womb. But it existed, didn't it? Why on earth would we believe we know everything now?

We don't - but you seem to have decided that your NDE proves an existence beyond this life, when it could be a brain function that we have not yet been able to explore scientifically.

In the case of the baby in the womb, there is a scientific explanation for the baby's lack of awareness of the world beyond it. Conception and birth has been studied and can be explained. The baby doesn't know about it, but the adult human it becomes can understand it. It follows the pattern of all other mammals, with evolutionary variations that are also understood, because they have been studied by trained scientists. .

There's no reason to thick that NDE's fall out of this pattern that has so far explained things that humans once thought were supernatural.

No one is denying the existence of and the profound reactions to NDEs - we're just saying that how they feel to those experiencing them is not enough to determine what they mean.

Think about the bolded text. The baby doesn't know. Is it possible that we are like the baby? There is something bigger than us that we cannot comprehend just as the infant can't conceive of life outside the womb. It could be tested if the baby had the ability to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an unbeliever I don't get angry, I get sad. Sad that people can't appreciate the wonder of their existence without making up these fanciful stories.

I get sad that instead of appreciating the incredible science of existence they have to insist on something more, something childish like immortality when they wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it. It just seems so ungrateful.

I don't quite understand why you assume that people's beliefs somehow take away from their appreciation of today.

This topic came up in other threads, and I'd like to point out that such judgement of religion only shows how unfamiliar you are with what you deny. An open-minded person would attempt to educate him or herself before arguing non-existing points

You apparently are unfamiliar with the fact that many non-believers were once believers and have a personal experience of what it's like to believe -- and then to change your beliefs, based on new information.

so true

I think back to my days in church - mind-numbing choral responses for an hour.

listening to quotes from the bible
same old

When you finally release yourself from those rituals, you begin to see just how little you use your brain.

Oh sure - someone's bound to say that we listen with our hearts. That's assuming you are enlightened by what's being preached to you. But again, once you release yourself from that trance-like state, you begin to see religion for what it is - brainwashing.

the same old song . . . Don't sin. Love God. Jesus saved our souls. Love they neighbor.

not enlightening
rote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing 11:08! As another poster mentioned, nderf.org is full of similar accounts (going back home, "how could I have forgotten?" Etc) and has changed my view on religio/faith (it's stronger now) and ideas on an afterlife.

The naysayers will find out eventually but for now they're clearly intent on sounding salty and soulless.

Maybe that's the brain's way of shutting down - feeling at one with the universe - not struggling, feeling loved. A pretty nice final memory.

I thought about that. But there would have to be a biological reason for that, wouldn't there? If there is nothing after death, then why would it matter what your final memory is? Everything our body does, it does for a reason. What would be the reason for a peaceful death, biologically speaking?

The biological process and how we interpret it aren't necessarily the same thing. People who experience the biological process of the brain shutting down may interpret that as feeling peaceful and loved, but that doesn't mean that there was some kind of evolutionary benefit to the process of shutting down producing that effect. It may just be a nice side effect of the process.

Agreed. We have no memory of being born -- and it seems like it would be a rather shocking experience from the baby's point of view.

I can see those points. But I'm the PP with the near death experience and there was nothing about my experience that mirrored any of the religious teaching I was raised with. I went to the site the PPs suggested and was moved to tears by how similar our experiences were. It wasn't just about the general feelings of peace and love. It was very specific images and knowledge (for truly a lack of better term) that were so very much the same. I don't see how people from so many different cultures and religious backgrounds could have such similar experiences.

Maybe you have to experience it to really believe it. But I can tell you that this life is just a tiny piece of a puzzle that we can't even begin to see.

Think about this - as a full term infant in your mother's womb you had no concept at all of your mother and father. None. You were very much alive. You could feel, hear,taste,see.... But still, you had no idea of the world outside that womb. But it existed, didn't it? Why on earth would we believe we know everything now?

We don't - but you seem to have decided that your NDE proves an existence beyond this life, when it could be a brain function that we have not yet been able to explore scientifically.

In the case of the baby in the womb, there is a scientific explanation for the baby's lack of awareness of the world beyond it. Conception and birth has been studied and can be explained. The baby doesn't know about it, but the adult human it becomes can understand it. It follows the pattern of all other mammals, with evolutionary variations that are also understood, because they have been studied by trained scientists.

There's no reason to thick that NDE's fall out of this pattern that has so far explained things that humans once thought were supernatural.

No one is denying the existence of and the profound reactions to NDEs - we're just saying that how they feel to those experiencing them is not enough to determine what they mean.

I'm not the PP with the NDE, but I think what the NDE-PP is saying is that just because YOU or scientists or atheists do not understand it, doesn't mean there isn't a Godly explanation either. And there is no reason to think that the Godly explanation doesn't have a basis in science. In most religions, God created all the heavens and earth but He may have used scientific principles to create them.

The Godly explanation is the explanation of believers. It now has sound basis since holy books have been saying there is an afterlife and a God that created the afterlife. Now that NDE's seem to validate the existence of some kind of afterlife, it may also be true that there exists a Creator. This kind of reasoning is simply based on critical thinking, not science, however.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing 11:08! As another poster mentioned, nderf.org is full of similar accounts (going back home, "how could I have forgotten?" Etc) and has changed my view on religio/faith (it's stronger now) and ideas on an afterlife.

The naysayers will find out eventually but for now they're clearly intent on sounding salty and soulless.

Maybe that's the brain's way of shutting down - feeling at one with the universe - not struggling, feeling loved. A pretty nice final memory.

I thought about that. But there would have to be a biological reason for that, wouldn't there? If there is nothing after death, then why would it matter what your final memory is? Everything our body does, it does for a reason. What would be the reason for a peaceful death, biologically speaking?

The biological process and how we interpret it aren't necessarily the same thing. People who experience the biological process of the brain shutting down may interpret that as feeling peaceful and loved, but that doesn't mean that there was some kind of evolutionary benefit to the process of shutting down producing that effect. It may just be a nice side effect of the process.

Agreed. We have no memory of being born -- and it seems like it would be a rather shocking experience from the baby's point of view.

I can see those points. But I'm the PP with the near death experience and there was nothing about my experience that mirrored any of the religious teaching I was raised with. I went to the site the PPs suggested and was moved to tears by how similar our experiences were. It wasn't just about the general feelings of peace and love. It was very specific images and knowledge (for truly a lack of better term) that were so very much the same. I don't see how people from so many different cultures and religious backgrounds could have such similar experiences.

Maybe you have to experience it to really believe it. But I can tell you that this life is just a tiny piece of a puzzle that we can't even begin to see.

Think about this - as a full term infant in your mother's womb you had no concept at all of your mother and father. None. You were very much alive. You could feel, hear,taste,see.... But still, you had no idea of the world outside that womb. But it existed, didn't it? Why on earth would we believe we know everything now?

We don't - but you seem to have decided that your NDE proves an existence beyond this life, when it could be a brain function that we have not yet been able to explore scientifically.

In the case of the baby in the womb, there is a scientific explanation for the baby's lack of awareness of the world beyond it. Conception and birth has been studied and can be explained. The baby doesn't know about it, but the adult human it becomes can understand it. It follows the pattern of all other mammals, with evolutionary variations that are also understood, because they have been studied by trained scientists. .

There's no reason to thick that NDE's fall out of this pattern that has so far explained things that humans once thought were supernatural.

No one is denying the existence of and the profound reactions to NDEs - we're just saying that how they feel to those experiencing them is not enough to determine what they mean.

Think about the bolded text. The baby doesn't know. Is it possible that we are like the baby? There is something bigger than us that we cannot comprehend just as the infant can't conceive of life outside the womb. It could be tested if the baby had the ability to do so.

That could describe everything we once assumed had a supernatural cause that we now know, through study and with ever advancing technology, thanks to human ingenuity, has a scientific basis. Maybe NDE's will be the exception to this, but there's no reason to assume that now, when they haven't been studied thoroughly.

As for the baby, we know why they can't comprehend what's outside the womb -- their brain has not developed enough. The baby's brain and motor skills continue developing after they're born and we can easily observe them becoming more and more able and sophisticated. They walk, they talk, they develop skills and talents and personalities. A baby grows into an adult who can do all sorts of thing that the baby can't. That's human development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not the PP with the NDE, but I think what the NDE-PP is saying is that just because YOU or scientists or atheists do not understand it, doesn't mean there isn't a Godly explanation either. And there is no reason to think that the Godly explanation doesn't have a basis in science. In most religions, God created all the heavens and earth but He may have used scientific principles to create them.

The Godly explanation is the explanation of believers. It now has sound basis since holy books have been saying there is an afterlife and a God that created the afterlife. Now that NDE's seem to validate the existence of some kind of afterlife, it may also be true that there exists a Creator. This kind of reasoning is simply based on critical thinking, not science, however.

You talk about the "godly explanation" as if there's agreement on what that is among believers -- and there is not. There are many different beliefs about god -- even among people who believe in the same (let's say, Christian) god.

Just because "holy books" say there is an afterlife doesn't mean there is one. that's not critical thinking at all -- you ought to know that - it's faith. NDE's don't validate anything, except the feelings people have during them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an unbeliever I don't get angry, I get sad. Sad that people can't appreciate the wonder of their existence without making up these fanciful stories.

I get sad that instead of appreciating the incredible science of existence they have to insist on something more, something childish like immortality when they wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it. It just seems so ungrateful.

I don't quite understand why you assume that people's beliefs somehow take away from their appreciation of today.

This topic came up in other threads, and I'd like to point out that such judgement of religion only shows how unfamiliar you are with what you deny. An open-minded person would attempt to educate him or herself before arguing non-existing points

You apparently are unfamiliar with the fact that many non-believers were once believers and have a personal experience of what it's like to believe -- and then to change your beliefs, based on new information.

That process works both ways. Non believers make claims that they, too, cannot prove.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an unbeliever I don't get angry, I get sad. Sad that people can't appreciate the wonder of their existence without making up these fanciful stories.

I get sad that instead of appreciating the incredible science of existence they have to insist on something more, something childish like immortality when they wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it. It just seems so ungrateful.

I don't quite understand why you assume that people's beliefs somehow take away from their appreciation of today.

This topic came up in other threads, and I'd like to point out that such judgement of religion only shows how unfamiliar you are with what you deny. An open-minded person would attempt to educate him or herself before arguing non-existing points

You apparently are unfamiliar with the fact that many non-believers were once believers and have a personal experience of what it's like to believe -- and then to change your beliefs, based on new information.

I am not the PP who eloquently suggested you educate yourself before arguing nonexistant points. I just want to answer your point though. The new information which you are failing to consider is that people with NDE's can testify to detailed information in conversations between people in other rooms or faraway locations. How would a dead person be able to do this if they did not have a soul? Why do you fail to investigate and take into account these experiences?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not the PP with the NDE, but I think what the NDE-PP is saying is that just because YOU or scientists or atheists do not understand it, doesn't mean there isn't a Godly explanation either. And there is no reason to think that the Godly explanation doesn't have a basis in science. In most religions, God created all the heavens and earth but He may have used scientific principles to create them.

The Godly explanation is the explanation of believers. It now has sound basis since holy books have been saying there is an afterlife and a God that created the afterlife. Now that NDE's seem to validate the existence of some kind of afterlife, it may also be true that there exists a Creator. This kind of reasoning is simply based on critical thinking, not science, however.

You talk about the "godly explanation" as if there's agreement on what that is among believers -- and there is not. There are many different beliefs about god -- even among people who believe in the same (let's say, Christian) god.

Just because "holy books" say there is an afterlife doesn't mean there is one. that's not critical thinking at all -- you ought to know that - it's faith. NDE's don't validate anything, except the feelings people have during them.

If NDE's do not validate anything at all, how do you explain people across cultures and religions able to testify to conversations heard in faraway locations after they are dead? This shows nothing then? All participants, the surgeons, the doctors, the patients…all lying? Is this your critical analysis?