Latest Near-Death Experience Research Hit Job |326|

Thanks for some of the positive comments guys! Most days I can roll with negativity but if I'm having a down day they can push me into quite dark spirits. Feeling better today.

Are there hundreds?

I've read a few but most are quite guarded in their conclusions. I've suggested in the past giving skeptics 3 or 4 papers to look at before your interview as it would provide a more informed discussion and the interviewee would have a better idea where you're coming from. Which papers best support your position?


Greyson did a literature review from 1977-2013: Almost 40 Years Investigating Near-Death Experiences: An Overview of Mainstream Scientific Journals (not sure if its behind a paywall, if anyone can't access the full text PM me).

Here's the breakdown based on 277 papers.

upload_2016-9-12_17-48-6.png
upload_2016-9-12_17-47-5.png

Note, however that this study did not include articles from the Journal of Near-Death Studies, which has over 700 articles. I don't know the breakdown there.
 
It isn't necessarily negativity. Encountering opinions or attitudes with which one disagrees is a fact of life. It may not always be pleasant, but that doesn't mean it should be characterised as negativity. If it really seems that way, then perhaps it is something which is created internally in the ears of the beholder, rather than externally in the mouth of the speaker.

I agree with that to an extent, like I said above, many times it just rolls off. But in certain states of mind they have a bigger effect.

That said, I think there were objectively a good number of personal attacks (being called dogmatic, or disingenuous, arguments ignored in favour of ad homs), general attacks (atheists being described as essentially pieces of shit, etc.). This discussion in this thread was particularly disheartening frankly. Combine that with a depressed mood - perfect mixture for feeling hopeless and futile.

For what its worth, its not the opinions that disagree with my ideas that get to me, I welcome those.- even seek them out. It's why I'm here. It's the personal comments that often accompany them, or worse, the personal comments without the added benefit of actually dealing with what I wrote that have the negative effect.

My dream is that we can reach a state where we can discuss these ideas with one another, disagree vigorously, but still treat each other with respect. Part of what got to me the other day was being overpowered with the sense that that will never happen and that if I can't get people here to want it (where my views on that should be consistent with many who view us all as part of a unified whole), that it will never happen anywhere - and that there is little hope to that things will improve. Us vs. Them is just too strong a beast to overpower. It was a damn depressing thought!

Anyhow, sorry folks. Was just one of those days.
 
Obviously, I don't know Arouet, and he's probably a perfectly nice chap. However he reminds me of someone who claims to want to learn how to dive off the high board like an Olympian, while simultaneously dismantling the steps, putting yellow warning tape around the pool, and demanding the local authorities lock the building over health and safety concerns. Sooner or later everyone has to decide, there's no textbook to living in freefall.

You and I approach these questions very differently- very likely our brains are wired differently. I mean that literally. A few years ago I was diagnosed with ADHD and it suddenly made a lot of my habits make sense. I admit I can have trouble making decisions. That's very common for ADHD. When I dive indepth from issue to issue, that's the hyperactivity at work. When I find myself compelled to respond to a negative post it's the executive function deficiency at work.

I can't see things in black and white, good and bad, us and them. When I hear a comment, my mind automatically goes into action, being the devil's advocate - regardless of which side. My world is one of constant attention to nuance. often it is a process of questioning, of analysing and re-analysing, of weighing pros against cons, and seeing the "yes buts".

I suspect there are benefits to society having types like you as well as types like me. A diversity of thought can only be positive, as well as a diversity of methods. There are pros and cons to each. And there is value to each. The upshot is that we sometimes drive each other nuts.
 
...Which brings us to the idea that learning to live today may be more important than trying to figure out what's going to happen, in this life, after, or in the next. I don't see how the existence of the afterlife changes the meaning of what I do today. Neither I see much relief if reincarnation is true: I will be just as confused as I am in this life, hoping my soul doesn't die and I will come back to live another life... Just as confused...
great stuff... thx. a similar point was made very nicely by: http://skeptiko.com/brad-warner-zen-dont-be-a-jerk-311/
 
If people knew what they did or said had consequences and reverberations, most people would live their lives very differently.

agreed... kinda... most (something like 80-90%) do believe "what they do and say have consequences and reverberations."

Brad's/SD's point is that for most of us it take a lotta work to really grock this and allow Gnosis to change us.
 
I don't think it matters at all what we take as our worldview as long as our trend is towards love/compassion. Even if it's not I think it doesn't really matter much, the drive behind it all is loving so it is hardly likely to be too judgemental, but at the same time I get the feeling that 'being cruel to be kind' is part of the process.

nice. but this is all so tricky for me.

the secret of the ascent -- always look up.
 
I'm struggling with the doublespeak. One side of the mouth tries to belittle science enthusiasts, whilst the other side of the mouth is appealing to peer reviewed studies :eek:
 
I'm struggling with the doublespeak. One side of the mouth tries to belittle science enthusiasts, whilst the other side of the mouth is appealing to peer reviewed studies

Science enthusiasts.....yes people who parrot information.....and yes I know both sides parrot information. cherry pick data ETC

Cr7JbFrUIAADdQW.jpg
 
pls tell me that's not an original quote... way, way too good!!!
All mine Alex, but there's a wider point. When I first expressed my thoughts regarding the nature of reality on the internet, they were sincerely held but ill-formed. This lead to me getting kicked from pillar to post by people who had ready answers for each of my points. Not only that, but the answers were the same wherever one asked, and even the phasing of them was identical. Clearly, there was some central authority generating this stuff, which was my first exposure to organised skepticism. Those early exchanges have shaped my response to the cut and thrust of the debate, the tactics involved (scorn and humiliation, especially), and the insupportable BS that gets passed off as facts and data.

If my responses are unnecessarily robust at times, that's why.
 
I think we need to cut him some slack... I don't think he's done a lot of media.

and he was facing some pretty pointed questions. I think he did better than most folks who are called upon to defend such a weak position.
Well him i think he just did not know about any of the data so he had to think about it for a sec and other skeptics would have just got loud and said some stuff that was said 30 years ago by some one like susan blackmore
 
All mine Alex, but there's a wider point. When I first expressed my thoughts regarding the nature of reality on the internet, they were sincerely held but ill-formed. This lead to me getting kicked from pillar to post by people who had ready answers for each of my points. Not only that, but the answers were the same wherever one asked, and even the phasing of them was identical. Clearly, there was some central authority generating this stuff, which was my first exposure to organised skepticism. Those early exchanges have shaped my response to the cut and thrust of the debate, the tactics involved (scorn and humiliation, especially), and the insupportable BS that gets passed off as facts and data.

If my responses are unnecessarily robust at times, that's why.
used to think the same... but have some to understand it as more of a group think kinda thing. it's the disinformation agent versus useful idiot kinda thing... i.e. it doesn't take that much to start a new meme... many willing to jump on board. looking back I can see where I've unknowingly done it a bunch of times.
 
Back
Top