Near Death Experiences (NDEs) as proof of an afterlife

Tens of millions of people have had NDEs so they know, anon. And NDEs are real and prove that there is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die. Of course, nothing gets normal people and NPCs more uncomfortable than the idea that NDEs are ACTUALLY real, and that there are valid reasons to think that they are and that we should take them seriously. Here is an extremely persuasive argument for why NDEs are real: https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o [Embed] It makes a huge deal about the fact that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and that when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist >"Statistics collected show that the "deeper" the NDE the greater the percentage of those who come away certain of the existence of the afterlife. Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"." Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. And so would you, me, or anyone, including the most dogmatic atheists and skeptics, because it is VASTLY more self-evidently real than this brief little experience of life on Earth we have now. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep, deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison. So many know. Still, keep spreading the word, while also being at peace with the fact that you can not reach everyone.

>>63582 you posted this on 4chan too. i gotta admit im not all that interested in weird online religions sorry

>>63583 I posted this elsewhere because I want to spread the information about afterlife being real. This isn't a weird online religion. I am not part of weird online religion nor do I push that idea out there. You're not sorry, you just think you are smarter than me and want to be cheeky.

>>63585 yeah you are right about the last part. it is a weird online religion though

>>63587 Why do you claim it is a "weird online religion"?

im not op and it doesnt looklike weirdonlinereligion to me. taking it on facevalue its just a claim: there's some evidence for this and there fore its true. Its trying to do the motions of science even though its a difficult thing to science at and it doesnt look like its done an actually exceptional job. I guess like a lot of psychiatry. personally I think its interesting but if all the evidence is that people with NDEs think something or other, thats a little shaky. evidence sure but not proof. interesting though ty op.

>>63582 Why would any of this be more credible than a person who's experiencing psychosis?

>>63592 cuz it taint A person its A LOT of persons if one psycho says hes napoleon u laf, if one million psycho say this one specific guy is napoleon, u scratch ur hed an think defnitly sumting going on. wut is it doh? whu is 2 say

>>63592 If correlations between said "psychoses" (read plural) that have grounds in reality doesn't pertain in your mind to possibility of them being true in metaphysical sense then I can't convince you. Let's say a hypothetical scenario. Three guys smoke DMT in woods, with their sober friends on the side. All three guys see what they would describe as "machine elf" come out of the woods. All three guys see that "machine elf" get scared of a necklace with cross on it, and they see machine elf run back to the woods. They don't speak to each other until the end of the whole "psychosis". None of the sober friends see what they saw. Would you be convinced that the event occurred? See, you are not smart, just arrogant and ignorant, seeing how you won't take upon the material provided to educate yourself rather than just dismissing the claim outright.

>>63592 >>63595 >>63587 A smart person can entertain an idea without adhering to it. You outright dismiss it without trying to prove yourself wrong by reading and educating yourself on the matter. Even after being provided material you demand it to be spoon fed to you. I suggest you take upon your intellect and try to prove yourself wrong rather than soykafting from the high horse onto "us peasants" who are religious and believe in the afterlife. If your intellect, with ALL its skepticism, can't prove itself wrong then you're right, that makes sense no? Take upon your ego as a strong horse steering you into the night, my friend.

>>63595 >>63592 >>63593 If an NDEr (Near Death Experiencer) or OBEr (Out of Body Experiencer) were to describe something happening on earth, in great detail, would that be a proof of afterlife? Lets say a person has OBE and they fly to Alaska and see a person put 64 random ASCII character password written on paper put in a shoebox and burried in the ground. The OBEr goes to that place and dugs it out, would that be proof?

>>63597 The existance of an afterlife is inherently extremely difficult to prove or disprove. A certain commonality of all NDErs is that they have not died, simply gotten somewhat close to it. Why would we expect a living person to have gone to the afterlife ? And least of all why would we expect an OBEr to have ? Absurd! No definitive relation to afterlife at all. what you offer wouldnt be proof of an afterlife. It might be proof of some sort of telepath ESP or whatever. Best way to prove (to yourself) the existance or non existance of an afterlife is to die. Failing that, I'm not sure there's a conclusive way. Perhaps imagine that person A dies. Person A had a secret, known only to himself and Person B. Person C experiences NDE and discovers this secret from Person A, despite his having already died. That would be strongly suggestive imho, though you'd have to be very careful about secret management to be sure its not just a trick, and it could be something else, telepathy or whatever. Also its failure is not disproof of an afterlife, for as I've mentioned before, Person C hasn't died, no particular reason to think NDErs would go to the afterlife at all.

>>63598 >Perhaps imagine that person A dies. Person A had a secret, known only to himself and Person B. Person C experiences NDE and discovers this secret from Person A, despite his having already died. If such thing was possible, would it happen in history of humanity and NDEs? To me the idea of such a thing happening is inevitable, if it were possible. I personally don't know of such thing occurring but I am googlin it right now. >A certain commonality of all NDErs is that they have not died, simply gotten somewhat close to it. Why would we expect a living person to have gone to the afterlife ? To define what we think of as "death" is what we need to think of when we talk about NDE. No heart beating for _ minutes? How about no brain function and then coming back? For how long? What if the person that died and went dead for 30 minutes came back and said the same thing as someone who was out for a minute or two? Also I think its highly disingenuous to say that someone who was close to death, or rather I would describe it as dying and then coming back to life, can't comment on death or afterlife. Death isn't binary, someone can die and come back into life.

>>63599 a significant distinction is that these are not called deaths and resurrections, but that they are called "NEAR death experiences". Death has a finality to it that does not permit waking up and nothing short of a litteral miracle can return the truly dead. If a stone cold corpse wakes up after about a week of getting eaten by maggots and resting at room temp without a breath or a twitch or a sign he's any different from the ordinarily dead then maybe that's a candidate for a true death experience, but just having your heart stop for 30 minutes is a very far cry from it. I think its possible that, assuming there is an afterlife, maybe these people experience some small taste of it. But we are dealing with some very uncertain territory, and its reasonable to be very skeptical. There are a lot of logically unsported guesses and intuitions to go from saying 'people who've nearly died report interestingly similar experiences', to this. Its an interesting hypothesis, but its not very well proven. What are some tests that could be made to prove it ? These people's experiences are interesting and I am sure there is something to be learned from them. But saying they have 'died' or otherwise experienced true death is a perversion of language. It is the stuff of clickbate headlines. I dont mind them commenting but I think their reports should be taken as what they are, reports of those with Near Death Experiences, not reports of the Resucrected. I don't mind people beleiving in an afterlife but its a belief predicated on a leap of faith. Please don't claim that its 'scientifically proven' if this is all you got.

I stopped entertaining the idea of supernatural after experiencing sleep paralysis and seeing the infamous Night Hag. None of this is real, it's just your brain malfunctioning. There's no life after death, there are no supernatural entities, our existence as humans is profoundly sad and all religion/spirituality is nothing but copium. Don't sleep for long enough and you'll start hallucinating, you'll hear and see implausible things and none of it will be real.

>>63598 It isn't inherently difficult to prove. There *could* be strong evidence for an afterlife. For instance we could imagine a spirit visibly departing from the body when someone dies. We could imagine that spirit take fly off into the heavens or perhaps into the body of a nearby newborn. That baby when grown up could then hypothetically recount memories from his past life that could be cross-referenced and verified. In this case it would be easy to prove. There could have been strong evidence for an afterlife, but there isn't any. NDE is, I suppose weak evidence of an afterlife. Finding evidence that there *isn't* an afterlife is inherently difficult, I guess.

>>63663 >There *could* be strong evidence for an afterlife A fair and valid correction. >>63662 >There's no life after death, there are no supernatural entities, our existence as humans is profoundly sad and all religion/spirituality is nothing but copium. a fine belief now please back try to back it up with evidence of some sort.

>>63669 The lack of evidence is inherent to the way empiricism/perspective works. Have faith if you want, don't if you want.

>>63706 >empiricism, confronted with a darkened room into which no windows exist, comes to the logical conclusion that not only is there nothing in the room, but indeed the room's interior does not exist. right nice i like it

>>63590 I'll come back to apologize for the knee-jerk reaction. I'm not opposed to the idea of an afterlife(though I wouldn't go as far as to say NDE or even the similarity in experience between people's NDEs would be proof), but I don't know, I just saw the afterlife discussion topic and figured it'd be a gateway to pushing some kind of weird online religion onto me, since that kind of thing tends to follow from most discussion of anything related to the spiritual I've read on imageboards. In particular, the > Of course, nothing gets normal people and NPCs more uncomfortable than the idea that NDEs are ACTUALLY real, and that there are valid reasons to think that they are and that we should take them seriously. combined with the mention of similarity between NDEs made me think a certain agenda was being pushed. It may very well still be, I didn't bother to look through for any written detailing of NDEs. I will say this though, if you are at all pushing anything Abrahamic/Judeo-Christian nonsense onto me I can definitely say that I would absolutely rather burn in hell than submit to any of those "gods". I got enough forces trying to manipulate me into accepting their ideas on faith.

>>63713 How exactly does empiricism even confront that is more my point actually For empiricism to work: don't you need to compare multiple perspectives? I think even framing as an inside and outside betrays a relatively common experience of feeling out of control, or feeling depersonalized, or like you are observing yourself decide but not feeling like you are deciding. If there is something, anything at all, it's certainly including (my) consciousness, but I don't see why the material world couldn't exist without experience, or inversely why subjective experience couldn't arise without any material realm to be hinged too. Also feels disingenuous to say I said it doesn't exist, I intended to mean more along the lines of evidence can't you to proof in the case of materialism vs idealism vs some other metaphysics. Faith can.