More bad news for our friends who believe in the soul & NDEs

[_Buffalo]

Laughably inconclusive. But whatever makes you sleep at night.

Says the guy who believes the flood really happened. :D

[_Themis]

It's hilarious to read about "scientists" trying to explain away what they don't understand.

And you do understand it? You might want to actually learn a little of what they are doing first before you start to ignorantly say what you think they don't understand. Science is about discovery. I bet you don't complain on any discovery that has no religious implications.

[_Themis]

Laughably inconclusive. But whatever makes you sleep at night.

Says the guy who believes the flood really happened. :D

LOL

[_lostindc]

Lets try to stay on subject.

Buffalo,

You seem to believe you have a grasp on the phenomena of the nde. It is apparent you believe you can explain away nde's therefore I have a challenge. Why not set up another thread and you and I, and only you and I, can debate the phenomena of the nde? Are you up to it or are you scared to be embarrassed even more than you are embarrassed every time you type up a new post?

[_Buffalo]

Lets try to stay on subject.

Buffalo,

You seem to believe you have a grasp on the phenomena of the nde. It is apparent you believe you can explain away nde's therefore I have a challenge. Why not set up another thread and you and I, and only you and I, can debate the phenomena of the nde? Are you up to it or are you scared to be embarrassed even more than you are embarrassed every time you type up a new post?

Please, drop the bluffing and the pretense. It's immature. You're not capable of embarrassing anyone but yourself. No one is scared of you.

I'm more than happy to debate it with you right here. Last time all of your "points" seemed to consist of things like "YORE JUST IGNORANT YOU don't NO THE FACTS NDES ARE LEGITIMATE SIENCE!1!1!" but were awfully short on evidence. Hopefully you can do better this time.

[_lostindc]

Lets try to stay on subject.

Buffalo,

You seem to believe you have a grasp on the phenomena of the nde. It is apparent you believe you can explain away nde's therefore I have a challenge. Why not set up another thread and you and I, and only you and I, can debate the phenomena of the nde? Are you up to it or are you scared to be embarrassed even more than you are embarrassed every time you type up a new post?

Please, drop the bluffing and the pretense. It's immature. You're not capable of embarrassing anyone but yourself. No one is scared of you.

I'm more than happy to debate it with you right here. Last time all of your "points" seemed to consist of things like "YORE JUST IGNORANT YOU don't NO THE FACTS NDES ARE LEGITIMATE SIENCE!1!1!" but were awfully short on evidence. Hopefully you can do better this time.

hmm funny, last time, I believe I gave a high level account of (Nelson) the person you were quoting and his actual belief systems, specifically when he spoke/wrote on the subject (gyrus stim. and reactions) and subsequent media interviews. I have interacted with him and others and recently published via Dr. Jeffrey Long on a focused nde subject. I have a fair idea on Nelson's limits and his own personal thoughts on his limits. I fully expect that we will find a posivitist argument from your side of the isle and I will slowly dissect. Care to move forward?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19930

[_Buffalo]

hmm funny, last time, I believe I gave a high level account of (Nelson) the person you were quoting and his actual belief systems, specifically when they spoke/wrote on the subject (gyrus stim. and reactions) and subsequent media interviews. I have interacted with him and others and recently published via Dr. Jeffrey Long on a focused nde subject. I have a fair idea on Nelson's limits and his own personal thoughts on his limits. I fully expect that we will find a posivitist argument from your side of the isle and I will slowly dissect. Care to move forward?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19930

This may come as a shock to you, but name dropping isn't the same as having an argument.

If you have any actual arguments or credible evidence, I'd love for you to share them so we can have an actual discussion this time.

[_lostindc]

hmm funny, last time, I believe I gave a high level account of (Nelson) the person you were quoting and his actual belief systems, specifically when they spoke/wrote on the subject (gyrus stim. and reactions) and subsequent media interviews. I have interacted with him and others and recently published via Dr. Jeffrey Long on a focused nde subject. I have a fair idea on Nelson's limits and his own personal thoughts on his limits. I fully expect that we will find a posivitist argument from your side of the isle and I will slowly dissect. Care to move forward?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19930

This may come as a shock to you, but name dropping isn't the same as having an argument.

If you have any actual arguments or credible evidence, I'd love for you to share them so we can have an actually discussion this time.

So I am taking this as an invitation to begin?

What criticism of the nde do you want to broach? Please be specific. Pose an argument for why it disproves the nde and I will reply with reasoning/evidence to counter your argument.

[_Buffalo]

So I am taking this as an invitation to begin?

What criticism of the nde do you want to broach? Please be specific. Pose an argument for why it disproves the nde and I will reply with reasoning/evidence to counter your argument.

Sure, let's begin.

I don't really care where. If I have to choose something, let's start here:

In addition, research now shows that a number of medicinal and recreational drugs can mirror the euphoria often felt in near-death experiences, such as the anesthetic ketamine, which can also trigger out-of-body experiences and hallucinations. Ketamine affects the brain's opioid system, which can naturally become active even without drugs when animals are under attack, suggesting trauma might set off this aspect of near-death experiences, Mobbs explains.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I fully expect that we will find a posivitist argument from your side of the isle and I will slowly dissect.

Good Lord. Somebody shoot me in the head, please. Is this really the default apologetic argument for every debate, now? Before proceeding with this strategy, please at least read this.