Talk:Religious and physiological views of near-death experiences

message: This is a POV fork.  It basically makes out that no paranormal views are scientific. If it is fleshed out to include paranormal scientific research, it would be OK. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 08:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV fork

message: The title of this article is spelt wrongly ("religous" instead of "religious"). -- Shoejartalk/edits
:All grammarical problems in an article or article title can be rightfully corrected by anyone, admin or new member, through the Move command at the top bar. --Chr.K. 07:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Because of the debate over it accusedly having a biased view against paranormal notions to be taken as serious and scientific, I am classifying the page as Start, rather than B, despite the considerable material currently present. --Chr.K. 07:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: If the brain is totally focused on the topic 'I am dying/dead' (as noted in element number 2) and according to element 3: "During the Scan it is possible to observe the own brain, LIVE, how it is working".
What/Who is really observing the desesperated brain? Veng 20:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New explanation model about Near-Death Experiences (NDEs)

message: I respect the new explanation of ndes, but I do not think that that article needs a whole section. I think it should be shortend.
Instead, how about having two separate sections - one on "religious" and one on "physiological" views.  There's no good reason I can see to have both in one section; and "physiological" is the main focus of two the main NDE section and the NDE Studies section....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obiskatobis (talk • contribs) 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why

message: The opening paragraph of this article is written in really clumsy english. I doubt if it was written by a native english speaker which is why I suspected  the following quote  'by' Jody Long to be inaccurate :
"One of the near-death experience truths is that each person integrates their near-death experience into their own pre-existing belief system." 
I have checked the reference that is provided and cannot find this quote. It needs to be removed. I will attempt to rewrite this when I can but if anyone wants to have a crack at it then be bold!--Godfinger 00:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Paragraph

message: The link to the Christian research journal is dubious.  It starts with a bit about a woman that wrote a book about a near death experiance but that is as far as the relevance to this article goes.  Instead of actually talking about or being sceptical of near death experiances, it instead questioned the integraty of the author who wrote the book because she was a closet "mormon".  It then goes into warning parents to avoid Opus Dei and the Catholic Church in general.  Please, review this link and if the reading of it is the same as what my oppinion stated here is, I highly suggest removing this link because it does not talk about the actual subject matter at hand, is of a fringe group that potentially are not even what they claim to be (Christian) and are highy bigoted in their writting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.89.146.222 (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this article by Abanes and Carden appears to be an editorial or opinion piece rather than a scholarly article. It raises some valid objections to Betty Eadie's account (e.g. lack of access to her medical records) but the bulk of the authors' criticism is that her experience and what she learned through it are not doctrinally "correct" from their particular interpretation of Christianity, and are therefore suspect. In particular, Eadie was evidently a member of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) faith but did not disclose this, perhaps for monetary reasons (her book would have been less popular among certain Christians). The section about Opus Dei is a separate article, unrelated to the article which is being cited. While Abanes and Carden may indeed be showing a particular bias, the obligation to provide all reasonable points of view in a Wikipedia article should be followed, in my opinion. This link is listed among the skeptical links in the article. Readers can form their own opinion about its validity. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: questioning a link

message: A new - (better and more informatve) - book with the Kinseher model of NTEs is now available: "Verborgene Wurzeln des Glücks - selbstbeobachtbare Gehirnfunktion", BoD, 2008, , German language.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.209.105.100 (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This book is on amazon.de but nowhere else via ISBN search yet -- just very recently released. --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: literature