Jari Iivanainen's article about NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCES AND DAMNATION http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/Border_of_death_experiences Most people are probably curious of what is after death, and beyond the border of death. This many be a reason why they seek knowledge from spiritism-sessions or books that ponder this issue. Many have also had personal close-to-death experiences – i.e. experiences when their heart may have stopped in the hospital or in connection with an accident and when they may have seen themselves as if from the outside; they may have seen the operations done to them or the entire operation hall. Some may have also seen in connection with their experiences, a light being that seems to be full of "love and compassion". The greatest conversation concerning this topic is indeed generally connected with the question, that are all the death-bordering experiences positive and will everyone end up fine beyond the border in spite of the way they have lived on earth? Many researchers want to believe this but is it true? We are going to look at this matter in the following lines. Several observations and examples seem to indicate that not everyone will necessarily end up well.
In terms of curiosity there does seem to be the basic choice, to prefer to be obsessed with life or with death. Those obsessed with life seem do to well enough, before death at least, but then again there is no accounting for taste. --- Ron.
maybe, those intoxicated with the religious mind virus, may be curious, but as no one has ever returned, from the dead, then it would be foolish to even concider, that anything could be after. you are either dead or not dead there is no inbetween. no such thing as near death experiences, just halucinations.
The fact you think the Bible is evidence of anything therefor rules you out of any rational debate. Goodbye.
If we don't exist after death why do we have the desire not to die? - I mean why is such a strong desire implanted in the consciousness that there is something greatly perplexing about ceasing to exist - you could write it off as an obscure social phenomena if it was isolated to a few pockets of places an dtime but you see that it is a uniform characteristic of human society - the inevitability of death and the ability to perceive it actually happening to us inthe future (or if you happen to be very old or sick, today)
Light, It is one of the most powerful processes, if not the most important, in evolution – the survival instinct. It is why most species alive today are not extinct.
I think you miss the point - if the ultimate reality is that we don't exist after death, why can't we view death as the same thing as pulling the plug on the kitchen sink after doing the dishes, since the sink water and our bodies are more or less composed of the same ingredients
But then to accept evolution you have to take leaps of faith of the same breadth as a theist pondering the next life .... what's the difference? Both of them rely on extrapolilation and are outside of a purely inductive model of observation
Any NDE is experienced under severe brain trauma. Any memories the subject recalls under those conditions are at least highly suspect. It is also inevitable that the synapses will be significantly affected, these are the connections between neurons and are protein based not electrical. It is these areas that are the targets of nearly all the hallucinegenic drugs and even nicotene. The effect of damaged or altered synapses is a tendency towards random neuron firings which naturally result in many degrees of fairly weird hallucations. Dreaming is somewhat similar but less severe as the used proteiens in the synapses are being replaced. It seems quite certain that NDE events are plain and simple hallucinations and shouldn't be interpreted in any other way. Now if the person had been actually dead (brain dead) for say several days and then came back to life with full brain function - then that would be of some interest.
Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is an idiot. Why else would we have smaller appendixes(for eating raw meat) than ancient man(ate raw meat).Why does a chipmunk look like a feild mouse?
again - another model of explanantion that is highly deductive - these "quite certain conclusions" in the realm of consciousness studies are highly speculative, or at the very least encounter severe difficulties at the platform of observation
(sigh) If you say that human beings evolved from microscopic organisms you are advocating a highly deductive model - if you cannot understand that you are not aware of the general principles you are applying to arrive at a conclusion - which is kind of the thought processes an idiot tends to be guilty of performing
It becomes fact only by the acceptance of a highly deductive model as reality I wonder how you would exhibit your powers of facillitation if a person simply made statements like "god is a fact - deal with it"
kennyJC said PetriFB:you reply would'nt reading the bible put kennyJC, into the irrational, reread his quote. anything from the bible is pointless, do you understand yet.
If I claim that Bible (matt 24) has evidences that it is word of God and you don't wanna read it, how you can make statements against the Bible, because you haven't read it?
I've read it and found it to be just as contrived as the rest of the bible. Surely you aren't suggesting that evidence for the bible's veracity can be found within the bible? Begging the question anyone? Circular reasoning? petito principii?
