0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What do you make of NDEs and OBEs, and this former atheist's testimony?www.aglimpseofeternity.orghttp://Http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5979215757846504940
Are there good explanations for these NDE similarities?
QuoteAre there good explanations for these NDE similarities?Yes, it is what we expect to see. Think about it...
... I don't think I would have expected seeing "indescribable light" (which I have seen in a lucid dream), passing through a dark tunnel, or seeing myself from above.This doesn't mean I'm a believer, but I wish I had the time to investigate more those 'unexpected' items.
Expected? Well, maybe 'dearly departed', yes, or 'religious figures' (if I were religious)....but before I ever heard of NDE's, I don't think I would have expected seeing "indescribable light" (which I have seen in a lucid dream), passing through a dark tunnel, or seeing myself from above.This doesn't mean I'm a believer, but I wish I had the time to investigate more those 'unexpected' items.
I agree about the negativity of Dawkins, even though he talks an awful lot of sense. What he fails to do is to empathise with Joe public who may not have the intellect that he has and certainly doesn't have the time for such a cerebral approach.But 'religions' have a particular problem these days. Because this is the Age of Science they, too, feel the need for evidence - which doesn't exist - so they have to fabricate it or mis-interpret it. That just discredits them.What is the alternative tho', if we want a 'better world'?
Glovesforfoxes, you made some interesting comments about Dawkins' approach towards religions. I have some sympathy with your position because I think Dawkins deliberately underplays the complexity of the arguments and, as a result, implies that religious people to be fools. I think he does this partly because that is his style of arguing and partly because he is trying to establish a stronger argument for a negative position. I think he feels that people who say that X is true because they (and millions of other people say so) can be rather persuasive, whereas the scientific position of X may or may not be true but we have no evidence (and probably can never have any evidence) that can say one way or the other, is not. I think that from a scientific point of view, the existence of God, as previously defined throughout history, has been repeatedly, and effectively, disproved, only to be replaced with a new and more diffuse version that is conveniently placed outside the realms of scientific investigation. I think Dawkins is really just trying to point this out.
Don't you think that Dawkins is really not trying to change the minds of believers so much as balancing their apparent certainty with rationality for the benefit of the undecided? Why are whole nations largely swayed by such irrational beliefs except for the fact that every generation only ever gets a one sided view presented to them from a very young age?
RELIGIOSITY IS A FEELING