Dr. Jeffrey Long’s, God and the Afterlife, Science & Spirituality Have Collided |327|

E.Flowers said:
I actually found his "I'm out of here!" irritability more amusing. Since he doesn't believe in free will, faulting others for their beliefs is a waste of time. Yet, those that believe such a thing are the ones that fail most often to act as if it was real.

"They don't have a choice, tiny canine!"
Click to expand...
He lost me when he said pressing your eyeball might give an NDE-like hallucination.
 
gabriel said:
He lost me when he said pressing your eyeball might give an NDE-like hallucination.
Click to expand...

I'll have put down to posturing and point scoring the inability of some, usually sharp, posters to follow an analogy.

Small dog was no more dismissive of Long's conclusions than, say, K9 (I wonder why dogs feature so strongly on this forum?). The difference was that Small Dog was trying to work out why we shouldn't trust his data.

So why are the rump of the 'proponents' coming off as unconvinced/faintly embarrassed by Long's work? The data gathering? inexplicable jumps in his conclusions? The book format rather than a peer reviewed paper?
 
Ian Gordon said:
He goes on to say, "The fact that they describe these encounters so similarly gives us confidence that they have, indeed, met the same Being." (p. 4). Again, is he sure all of those NDErs are talking about meeting the Creator, or instead some other kind of being that emanated "godly"/"heavenly" qualities?

...At the same time, I'm finishing this post and questioning its worth. Are these points meaningful? Who cares if it's about a supreme being or not - there's something incredible on the other side - and it is about love and beauty and existence having meaning.
Click to expand...

nice... I mean, I think it's fair to pick apart the research and then again to step back and look at the bigger picture. I'd also suggest we consider the narrative descriptions of the NDE... particularly since they are all there... open sourced if you will. I think it's difficult to read these accounts and come to a different conclusion.
 
Small Dog said:
Michael, if you can point to me part of my post where I said that NDES are the result of psychosis - please do. Though frankly, I don't give shit if you do or if you will come up with some clever crap to hide your inability to understand the analogy.

According to Alex, substances that open the mind to the extended consciousness are actually accompanied by the reduced EEG activity of the brain. Now, after a few Kavalans having somewhat flattened my EEG and supposedly having expanded my perception of reality I find myself asking the same question: what the fuck am I doing here? Is not life too short to waste precious mindstones- mine including - on pointless discussions, especially if they lead to bitterness and irritation.

Therefore so long, my unrealised friends. No hard feelings and best of luck in the afterlife and future incarnations. Small Dog has left the building.
Click to expand...
ok... your choice. I'll go ahead and remove you from the system.
 
malf said:
I'll have put down to posturing and point scoring the inability of some, usually sharp, posters to follow an analogy.

Small dog was no more dismissive of Long's conclusions than, say, K9 (I wonder why dogs feature so strongly on this forum?). The difference was that Small Dog was trying to work out why we shouldn't trust his data.

So why are the rump of the 'proponents' coming off as unconvinced/faintly embarrassed by Long's work? The data gathering? inexplicable jumps in his conclusions? The book format rather than a peer reviewed paper?
Click to expand...

The difference? K9 does not talk down to people and flaunts his, alleged, degree only to later make mistakes in his next set of posts (some so basic that would be obvious to anyone with that degree or even basic training in medicine) and then try do some damage control by spitting something as full-of-it as (paraphrasing) "I don't like to talk to experts or non-technical people". He was a decent Google surfer and link farmer, but his know-it-all approach grew increasingly boring when combined with clumsy arguments.

Ergo, what is seen here is not really product of just this thread, but the accumulation of tedium with his personality and questionable appeals to authority.
 
Last edited:
malf said:
I'll have put down to posturing and point scoring the inability of some, usually sharp, posters to follow an analogy.

Small dog was no more dismissive of Long's conclusions than, say, K9 (I wonder why dogs feature so strongly on this forum?). The difference was that Small Dog was trying to work out why we shouldn't trust his data.

So why are the rump of the 'proponents' coming off as unconvinced/faintly embarrassed by Long's work? The data gathering? inexplicable jumps in his conclusions? The book format rather than a peer reviewed paper?
Click to expand...
You can divide proponents into those who flinch at the G-word, and those who do not. I'm determinedly in the latter camp, but my BigG isn't a cartoon character. Although I doubt whether Dr Long is in my tradition (I'll guess Baptist or Presbyterian), he seems sufficiently broad minded not to deal in straw gods and intelligent design faux-science silliness. As proponents I think we need to grow out of the idea of God shaping evidence, and reducing NDEs to a variety of back door proselytization, and dare to imagine the evidence trail the other way round. Poking yourself in the eye to simulate a deity is pure provocation, and I'm happy to call it for the BS it is.
 
E.Flowers said:
He was a decent Google surfer and link farmer, but his know-it-all approach grew increasingly boring when combined with clumsy arguments.
Click to expand...

How patronising.

Once again Michael accuses someone of trolling here, in this case he may or may not be right. But I know of two cases before where he was wrong. Small Dog was not particularly rude or offensive, if he was genuine then I'd be pissed off at Michaels post too. If he was such a dope why did you keep responding to him?

I find you and others gloating on here to be childish.
 
Steve said:
How patronising.

Once again Michael accuses someone of trolling here, in this case he may or may not be right. But I know of two cases before where he was wrong. Small Dog was not particularly rude or offensive, if he was genuine then I'd be pissed off at Michaels post too. If he was such a dope why did you keep responding to him?

I find you and others gloating on here to be childish.
Click to expand...

I guess it's easier to talk love than demonstrate it ;)
 
Steve said:
How patronising.

Once again Michael accuses someone of trolling here, in this case he may or may not be right. But I know of two cases before where he was wrong. Small Dog was not particularly rude or offensive, if he was genuine then I'd be pissed off at Michaels post too. If he was such a dope why did you keep responding to him?

I find you and others gloating on here to be childish.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I did not use the term troll, just noted that his personality was grating and that he failed to live up to the image that he manufactured for himself. Even those that actually bothered debating with him after the first few weeks of his stay commented that he came across as arrogant, you should know it since you have been posting in the "General discussion of NDE's and OBE's" thread.

So... No. I don't feel sorry at all for "gloating", after being mocked by an equally childish user that flaunted his supposed degree and assumed that everyone that bothered to engage with him was illiterate. I rarely discuss my own education and work line, doing so in a forum is shallow and a cheap attempt at being perceived as an authority, but I would bet my ass that at my age my experience is above his and that if he is what he claims to be, then he is a rookie at most and has not shaken that youthful arrogance off.
 
Steve said:
How patronising.

Once again Michael accuses someone of trolling here, in this case he may or may not be right. But I know of two cases before where he was wrong. Small Dog was not particularly rude or offensive, if he was genuine then I'd be pissed off at Michaels post too. If he was such a dope why did you keep responding to him?

I find you and others gloating on here to be childish.
Click to expand...
Small Dog was in a tradition of posters who feign objectivity and a desire to learn, only to deal in materialism 101. He regurgitated every half-baked skeptic retort, and dreamt up a few of his own. Michael Shermer says he doesn't require an apprentice.
 
gabriel said:
Small Dog was in a tradition of posters who feign objectivity and a desire to learn, only to deal in materialism 101. He regurgitated every half-baked skeptic retort, and dreamt up a few of his own. Michael Shermer says he doesn't require an apprentice.
Click to expand...

I have my own views of various posters, good and bad. If I agree with them they get a 'like' if not, I move on, sometimes with an accompanying scowl at best. :) SD seemed to click with Susan Blackmore's views, someone I don't rate, so what? I enjoyed his to's and fro's with other posters, I'll miss him. It takes all sorts to teach us different things. Alex should surely know that by now.
 
Steve said:
I have my own views of various posters, good and bad. If I agree with them they get a 'like' if not, I move on, sometimes with an accompanying scowl at best. :) SD seemed to click with Susan Blackmore's views, someone I don't rate, so what? I enjoyed his to's and fro's with other posters, I'll miss him. It takes all sorts to teach us different things. Alex should surely know that by now.
Click to expand...
Well nobody pushed him out - he can resume posting any time he likes - or not as he wishes.

David
 
gabriel said:
Small Dog was in a tradition of posters who feign objectivity and a desire to learn, only to deal in materialism 101. He regurgitated every half-baked skeptic retort, and dreamt up a few of his own. Michael Shermer says he doesn't require an apprentice.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that many of us started off extremely sceptical - it took years to shift position. He could learn a lot on this site, if only he could realise that nobody is going to try to push religion down his throat - because very few of us are conventionally religious.

I think knowing some science (or medical science) can make one arrogant - it can take a while before one realises that science can't even formulate some problems.

David
 
I respect you Steve. And like you, I have my own criteria. One of the things that I don't like is seeing someone address a group of users that are honestly trying to engage him and say something along the lines of "I'm a professional and require real evidence"... What exactly were the other users trying to share with him (for several pages) if its not evidence?

IDK, maybe I'm simply not able to appreciate the condescendence that is so prevalent in millenial dialect and feel no remorse when responding with my own.
 
I respect you Steve. And like you, I have my own criteria. One of the things that I don't like is seeing someone address a group of users that are honestly trying to engage him and say something along the lines of "I'm a professional and require real evidence"... What exactly were the other users trying to share with him (for several pages) if its not evidence?

IDK, maybe I'm simply not able to appreciate the condescendence that is so prevalent in millenial dialect and feel no remorse when responding with my own.
 
It's morning in Australia and I've just read through the forum discussion regarding Jeff Long's interview which I listened to a couple of days ago. Thank you for the spirited and intelligent forum discussion, it is fascinating to read and I am impressed by the quality of discussion. I am agnostic about survival but really want to believe as my wife died of cancer and I would love to know we could be reunited. Skeptiko and the forum discussions give me real hope. Thanks to Alex for such a great show and the forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top