Does Uncle Dale Receive Special Protection Here?

[_harmony]

Well, this thread is obviously Terrestial material.

[_Ray A]

Well what have you been reading for 39 years? Obviously not the science behind it.

Just how thick are you?

I told you I mainly read the science behind it.

It doesn't matter how many NDE stories you've read the point is you based your evidence on there being many claims of NDE's & OBE's. And then coupled that with Lommel's article..at least that's essentially all you've presented.

And I really shouldn't be indulging you here anymore, at least not until you've read one book about near death studies.

Even if you read thousands it wouldn't make much difference..because Ray people who have induced NDE's and OBE feel the experiences as real. Even people on drugs, the fact that they can be induced and felt as real indicates the same phenomenon existing for people who experience them in near death situations. That they truly feel real doesn't mean they are real. Surely you can appreciate how easily the mind can play tricks and how perception can be affected.

When you have an NDE I'll consider your opinion on this. Don't try to explain what it's like being in the jungles of Vietnam fighting Vietcong if you haven't been there.

Blackmore does go for that these days. She says science sufficiently explains NDE physiologically and she rejects the paranormal explanations.

You fail to understand the concept of skepticism & burden of proof. You think rejection of a claim is closed minded and agosticism is open minded. And then you claim you're open minded because you don't hold a position on NDE paranormal. This is not true ..you do hold a position. You believe in the paranormal re NDE's.

Blackmore and myself are not agnostic, we are skeptics, we are open minded (to evidence and changing our minds should the evidence warrant it)and we reject the paranormal claims based upon lack of rigorous science and objectively verifiable evidence to warrant acceptance.

Sorry, but you are not open minded. If you were you'd have read at least one book on near death studies. Blackmore has read hundreds. In other words, she formed an opinion based on thorough study. You haven't. So don't give me that old chestnut.

The problem is either you don't or can't understand or appreciate anything these guys say or you are too heavily and emotional invested in the NDE paranormal that you are too closed minded to even attempt.

The problem is your astonishing dogmatism, when you've read less than a dozen articles, and all from the skeptical side, with the exception of van Lommel.

This is not discussing an issue Ray, this is resorting to ad hom in lieu of discussing. That's been your tactic.

It has been yours from the beginning. That is why I'm returning it.

First of all you asked me if you were gullible. I asked you some questions, in particular whether you believed your passenger truly was cured of her migraines by sleeping with the Bible and you said I believe "yes" to which I responded with that answer yes you are, that I wasn't going to lie to you.

I did not say yes. Get your facts right.

Second Susun Blackmore used the term New Ager and it seems to apply to you with your belief that consciousness exists outside the body and the brain might be a receiver of information rather that the generater. She said New Agers call her closed minded. So the term I thought seemed applicable to you.

Well you're wrong. The scientists investigating this are not "New Agers".

And third "irrational" I explained why. I said most people don't like the term applied but it means a belief is formed based on lack of evidence. You beleive in consciousness outside the body ..and it's based on poor evidence at best..essentially anecdotes..hence why I said based on that you held an irrational position.

A belief formed based on a lack of evidence? So where does that leave you? Having not studied 1/100th of the evidence in near death studies? You are the one who is irrational.

As far as bias Ray you've pretty much demonstrated that this whole issue you've had both in the NDE thread and Spalding complaint one, is really about your insecurities of yourself. Your inability to discuss issues without getting emotional and feeling insulted. Yet you freely have spewed out excessive amounts of insults at me. This issue about my moderating with favoritism was never really the real issue. You've been pissed off at my position on NDE's from the get go. You asked for opinions but then got pissed off when I and antishock gave us our. You took it personally, and as an afront to your intelligence.

False diagnosis. You were pathetically biased in your moderating. If you were not biased I would not have raised it.

As you know Ray from the beginning I wasn't keen on moderating. By not moderating I will no longer have to visit here as often and be reminded of what a vindictive, silly, petty, insecure individual you are, that's my main motive for wanting to quit it. There was nothing honorable about the decision it was a selfish one, doing what is best for me.

I think you are the one with the insecurity. You are so insecure about the possibility that consciousness may exist outside of bodily death that you'll spare nothing to ridicule the idea, and brand all of those consider this possibility as "irrational".

[_Ray A]

This is not discussing an issue Ray, this is resorting to ad hom in lieu of discussing. That's been your tactic.

I repeat, this has been your tactic from the beginning. You started off with insults and the "gullible" charges when you had read next to nothing. I think it should be obvious where you're coming from.

It's like when you started posting on MAD, claiming to know so much about Mormonism, yet you hadn't read the foundational text of Mormonism - the Book of Mormon. You had also read next to nothing (maybe nothing) from Mormon scholars.

Please name me one apologetic book you have read.

One, marg.

Yet when you started posting on FAIR you claimed to be so knowledgeable.

So like I said, marg is the expert on everything who has read nothing.

[_Ray A]

One can read garbage and gain nothing, one can read uncritically and gain wrong insights and/or no insights of any consequence. Reading lots is no indication that one thinks well about an issue.

Except when it comes to Spalding?

And being well educated and having a PHD, as Lommel (re the NDE discussion) does, does not mean that the person thinks well on all issues put to them.

Unless her name is Susan Blackmore?

Other scientists have refuted his article.

Not in The Lancet. That's their opportunity, but they haven't taken it up. And maybe you should get a clue as to why they haven't tried, because they are only offering counter-opinions, not conclusive facts.

So intelligence is multifaceted and shows up differently in people.

It sure does.

[_Yoda]

OK...This thread has really spun into a nonsensical bitch session.

An issue was raised about a poster receiving preferential treatment.

The issue was resolved.

The Moderator, who was supposedly causing the problems, has voluntarily given up her moderating status for the overall good of the board.

She's not moderating anymore, folks! So, what's the beef, now? You're going to continue to attack her moderating skills when she's no longer moderating? WTF?

[_Ray A]

OK...This thread has really spun into a nonsensical bitch session.

I'm inclined to agree.

She's not moderating anymore, folks! So, what's the beef, now? You're going to continue to attack her moderating skills when she's no longer moderating? WTF?

She keeps raising the issue, Liz.

If she will let this thread die, I will let it die. But she is coming back to "bitch" about the issues.

Let's see what she posts next.

[_marg]

OK...This thread has really spun into a nonsensical bitch session.

An issue was raised about a poster receiving preferential treatment.

The issue was resolved.

The Moderator, who was supposedly causing the problems, has voluntarily given up her moderating status for the overall good of the board.

She's not moderating anymore, folks! So, what's the beef, now? You're going to continue to attack her moderating skills when she's no longer moderating? WTF?

Well Liz this thread has not spun out into something nonsensical at all. Originally the premise was pretty much nonsensical. What has happened is that Ray has revealed what his real motivations behind his original complaint has been all along.

If anyone has bias here trying to taint something to appease his own beliefs it's been him, he's loaded with bias. He's so insecure so unable to accept that maybe he's wrong. Rather than discuss he resorts to pathetic game playing..attack ..attack the other person...pretty much ignore the actual issues.

[_Ray A]

Well Liz this thread has not spun out into something nonsensical at all. Originally the premise was pretty much nonsensical. What has happened is that Ray has revealed what his real motivations behind his original complaint has been all along.

If anyone has bias here trying to taint something to appease his own beliefs it's been him, he's loaded with bias. He's so insecure so unable to accept that maybe he's wrong. Rather than discuss he resorts to pathetic game playing..attack ..attack the other person...pretty much ignore the actual issues.

I take it that this post is also "for the good of the board".

[_marg]

OK...This thread has really spun into a nonsensical bitch session.

I'm inclined to agree.

She's not moderating anymore, folks! So, what's the beef, now? You're going to continue to attack her moderating skills when she's no longer moderating? WTF?

She keeps raising the issue, Liz.

If she will let this thread die, I will let it die. But she is coming back to "bitch" about the issues.

Let's see what she posts next.

I'm going to look at your post and address it, surprised?

[_marg]

Well Liz this thread has not spun out into something nonsensical at all. Originally the premise was pretty much nonsensical. What has happened is that Ray has revealed what his real motivations behind his original complaint has been all along.

If anyone has bias here trying to taint something to appease his own beliefs it's been him, he's loaded with bias. He's so insecure so unable to accept that maybe he's wrong. Rather than discuss he resorts to pathetic game playing..attack ..attack the other person...pretty much ignore the actual issues.

I take it that this post is also "for the good of the board".

Yes it is for the good of the board. This is open discussion Ray.