Other-worldly Concerns > Near Death Experiences
How would scientists explain this....
Milkdrops:
Well this is to anyone who may be skeptical and for anyone who isnt, just to get your feedback.
When it comes to the whole huge debate of NDE's being nothing more than hallucination due to chemical reactions and lack of oxygen in the brain, many scientists insist the beautiful NDE's frequently experienced by those who have been declared clinically dead and come back are reactions/hallucinations of the brain. A sort of psychlogical foulsafe comforting process for the death procedure.
BUT......if this is the case how would they explain Hellish NDE's? I'm sure you people who are interested in NDE's have some knowledge about those who have been to hell and back but we all know there considerbly rare. That isnt to say they dont happen however.
My whole point/question was IF scientists do declare a regular peaceful NDE to be a natural mind hallucination process then how would they explain the hellish ones? It seems to me if thats supposed to be natures way of easing someone during the dying process I dont think seeing the devil or being tortured by sadistic demons is going to put them at ease lol!
So what views do you have on this whole argument please people. How do YOU think scientists would try to explain that?
Shastar:
I don't know much about NDEs but I would think the scientist would explain the hellish way just about the same way as the peaceful one.
I think they would simply state it as a chemical overload. I personally think some people have to have an explanation for everything and can not/will not accept things on faith alone.
Scientist have tried to explain things that even they are not sure of that is why most of them create theories. If one would deals in theories alone then in theory I could sprout wings out my bum and have a world record for flying. Any thing can be broken down and made into a theory one would just need the bs to make it so. I am not saying that all scientific theories are bs some are very plausible, and then there are some that are as outrageous as the one I said earlier.
Just my opinion though.
mslemon:
Milkdrops, I have read about that. They (scientists) also can replicate an out of body experience that way. So of course the scientists are now thinking it's all in our head.
But as you point out, that doesn't explain the "trips to hell."
As for my beliefs, why does it have to be one or the other?
That may be one explanation. It doesn't have to be the only explanation.
Shastar said:
--- Quote ---If one would deals in theories alone then in theory I could sprout wings out my bum and have a world record for flying.
--- End quote ---
[/COLOR] :happy0039: :happy0039: :happy0039: I love it!
all_outta_angst:
hmmm....that's a really good question mslemon...i'm gonna go strangle a scientist half to death to get the answer to that and i'll tell you when he comes back.
I think to believe in a NDE you have to either believe the person or not simple as that. I remain a skeptic on the theory. I ain't a scientist, but i like to believe they are just vivid dreams, clinically dead or not.
Primarily if you accept and are a believer, then you have to acknowledge that there is a heaven and hell...the NDE stories tends to back that up...either follow the white light and be at peace and such...but some people are thrown straight into demons and nashing of teeth lake of fire etc I'm not saying those other people get to meet god and yadda yadda yadda....but why only two places? then again...some just float above the room and are able to see bald spots....i just don't know....
mslemon:
I've read stats that survey those who have had NDEs and despite religious belief they still have similarities such as "going to the light" and a few others that kinds hint at religious beliefs.
So, is it expectation? We see what we think we should see? We see what we read about and thus fuel the expection? Until there is a control group who is neither religious nor exposed to these possible ideas of going towards the light etc., I don't think we can difinitively say.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page