NDE's are evidence for an afterlife

"My apologies but what? That's not what I'm trying to do at all. I'm a huge skeptic of most of the paranormal but not those close-minded ones that reject things that don't fit their view and skeptic Blackmore is one of them. [. .. ] she blatantly is in accord that NDE's are tricks of the mind. " I don't understand that fixation on a single person. Even if Mrs BlackMore was a complete idiot, that wouldn't strengthen your position that NDEs are proof of the afterlife, AT ALL. This is not an argument. "Interestingly, when the blind have NDE"s they report exactly the same phenomena. They see both this world and the next. " You say that as if you had such a certainty. Experiences that are 20 years old from the interview, that's hardly proof. Do you have any interview done just after the near death ? Who interviewed, how ? All important questions. Without that answers, you're running on a wild goose chase without knowing if there really is a goose. "When people who are born blind recover their sight through a natural process, such as a medical procedure, they report an initial period of disorientation because it takes their minds sometime to learn how to interpret the new visual input. This is exactly what the blind report during an NDE. Those who were blind from birth report having difficulty relating to what they are seeing, whereas those who lost sight later in life immediately recognize the return of vision. " Funnily, the opposite is reported in Mindsight. Vicki doesn't have any trouble "getting" what seeing is during her NDE, she claims. She couldn't fathom the mere concept of light before. Any sources for blind people having trouble adjusting to newfound vision in NDEs ? Otherwise your argument is unsourced and dismissed. "This research is reported among other sources in the Summer 1997 issue of "The Anomalist". Given the rather amazing result the authors try to come up with a naturalistic explanation for this phenomenon. They are able to eliminate certain explanations such as fantasy by independently verifying details through corroborating evidence. For example those who died in surgery were asked to describe the surgery room, the hospital and other environmental factors, which a blind person could not know, were there. This sometimes included such observations as relatives in the waiting room that they had no way of knowing were there at the time. Dr. Ring and his co-researcher Sharon Cooper were also able to eliminate a host of other natural explanations for why the blind can see at death, such as dream based explanations, sensory-cueing, skin based sight and a host of others. " This is plagiarism, . http://www.idscience.org... "Also, what if I were to tell you that Vicki told her account to doctors before going on the show? I mean she was born visually impaired and there is no way that she could have hallucinated all of that; whilst, [. .. ] or taste. During an NDE, the blind have ALL of the senses during the experience and just because the syndrome is a vivid hallucination, doesn't mean it destroys NDE's. You are way far from it. " Put forth without source or evidence, dismissed without source or evidence. "That is false. Most of science were built and founded on anecdotal evidence. " THAT is false. There's a difference between anecdotal evidence the accuracy of which can be assessed (e. g. single experiments, which are the basics of all sciences) and anecdotal evidence which are impossible to verify (testimonies) and are not evidence of a phenomenon, mereley evidence of the conviction of someone to have experienced that phenomenon. "Practically all of the NDE components are anecdotal but, that doesn't mean we have to reject it. Often times they bring back accurate information just like Vicki's and are recorded, and investigated. Anecdotes can be reliable. . http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...; Anecdotes are starting points for scientific inquiry. NDE inquiry starts and ends with anecdotes, there's nothing more. What's written in the link you posted ? Did you read ? "The first [factor ed. ] is that anecdotes should be documented as carefully as possible. " NDEs are NOT documented carefully. "they should be thought of as preliminary only". NDEs anecdotes are the paramount of NDE research, there's literally nothing coming out of it. "Any findings or conclusions suggested by anecdotal case reports need to be later verified by controlled prospective clinical studies". Have ANY NDE researcher even tried to do a prospective study ? Nope. The few ones who did, got results that invalidated the NDE-afterlife hypothesis (see previous sources) ""- NDEs wouldn't be universal, because each "near death" is unique in the way the brain is or is not deprived, which areas, etc. That's what we see: 80% of "near death" (recovering from cardiac arrest, this sort of things) never experienced any NDEs. " False. MOST NDE accounts are similar actually," It's not my point. I'm saying NDEs are not universal as in not everyone who is near death has them. As in, near death is not enough to have a near death experience. If NDEs were a universal spiritual "passage" that is abruptly ended, it should be experienced by everyone in the same condition of near death that is ended by resuscitation. But 80% of people near death and are resuscitated don't have NDEs, at all. "it's only seeing religious figures are different. Most of the NDE'ers see the universe or go through a portal of time and space or some strange field. Well, my apologies and poorly saying the argument above me but, I will refute your argument about expecting what you want to see. " The similarities between NDEs can't be assessed clearly: When we rely on anecdotes and poorly done interviews, how are we sure that the experience of two people match ? We don't. Have you counted the similarities in all the reported cases, as well as the dissimilarities ? No, you haven't. You just take this "NDEs are similar between each person" on faith. And common causes for brain dysfunction would reasonably do similar experiences, so similarities are not proof of the afterlife. .. "There has been hardcore atheists and agnostics who still have an NDE similar to a theist's. " So what ? It's entirely consistent with the hypothesis that they are dysfunction of the brain: atheists' and theists' brains are not different. No surprise they'd see the same rough things. "Also, if it were wishful thinking, then why do some NDE'ers have hellish experiences? Obviously nobody would want to think about that place during an NDE. " Why not ? You live your life in fear of going to hell, you think it's real, why not hallucinating you going there if subconciously you think you deserve it ? "Please, I would like you to present your arguments supporting that NDE's are hallucinations so I'll gladly debunk it. :-)" This is the last round. No progress has been made by you. You continued stating arguments without any sources. You plagiarized a whole paragraph. You have made no attempt to even start to present strong examples of NDEs. Your interventions are just wishful thinking "I wish it was true" and taking things said by people without critical thinking.