CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Thomas Edison proved the existence of heaven at his last breath
You know as they say, the last words of a dying man are very important. This is not just any man but a scientist who claimed there was no evidence for heaven and hell therefore debunked religion.
**In my Father’s house are many mansions. John 14:2
Some years ago a famous industrialist asked me to come and see him. His wife had died, leaving him with a terrible sense of grief and loss. He wanted assurance that he would be reunited with her someday. “Do you truly believe,” he asked me, “that after we die another life is waiting for us?”
I told him that I was absolutely convinced. I said we had the promises of the Bible, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the deepest instincts of countless people throughout history. I said I had no doubts about it whatsoever.
“But what about scientific proof?” he wanted to know. I said, “Let me tell you something about the greatest scientist our nation ever produced: Thomas A. Edison. I knew his widow, and one day when I was in her home I said to her, ‘Tell me about your husband. What sort of mind did he really have?’
“She said, ‘Exactitude was the mark of my husband’s mind. He was not sentimental. He had to know something for sure before he would say it or record it. It had to be proven.’ Then she told me that when her husband was dying, he could barely speak. His doctor, who was also a family friend, noticed that the great inventor was trying to say something. He leaned close and heard Edison whisper, ‘It’s very beautiful over there.’ Those were his last words.”
I said to the industrialist, “Edison would not lie. He would not fabricate anything. He would report only what he saw. Is that scientific proof enough for you?”
“Yes,” he said. “I think he glimpsed the land where my wife is waiting for me.”
The site bigots will once again spend their insecure lives tryng to disprove God and worrying over what other's believe.
Ask yourself why these bigots worry so about what Christians believe. I don't spend one second worring about what other religions believe.
There is only one reason why they worry so much over what you believe.
They feel the guilt inside. Their conscience bothers them when they choose to live irresponsible lives. Christians shine a light on their lifestyles. Christians show that we are not bound by our selfish natures.
We all have a choice what we do in life. Bigots want to live any way they choose without people speaking out on all the problems created by irresponsble lifestyles.
Again it takes you to get everything wrong ; my wife and family are Christians and I care not what they or others choose to believe, also I do not believe in a god and tend not to try and disprove things I do not believe in .
This believe it or not is a debate site a claim has being made by Jeffrey which is incorrect , when you and others like you post up misinformation in an attempt to mislead you's will be corrected .
It's remarkable you claim people can choose what they want to do in life but then moan about them living ' irresponsible ' lives , you're the bigot , you're a hypocrite and dislike anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow worldview
Permit me to comment that I feel you're wasting your time trying to have a rational debate with that bozo as he is either the patron saint of professional trolls or a hate filled, resentful little man.
My evaluation of him is that he has never achieved anything in life, cannot win a face to face argument and was bullied at school.
Social media/debating forums such as this are a ''God send'' to such freaks as they provide a vehicle for nature's oddities to vent their state of embitterment.
Feel free any time Antrim ; your assessment of this individual is spot on he sits on his lofty throne of self righteousness and condemns anyone who's not a narrow minded bigot like himself .
You certainly recognize narrow minded bigotry when you see it.. So, I'm wondering whether you think your new BFF's assessment of BLACK people is spot on too??
Look.. I think you're a straight shooter.. My guess is, you had no idea about the depths of his depravity and hatred.. If you didn't see it, and he deletes it first, I've copied his FILTH for your perusal..
Black people have coarse, 15 amp fuse wire hair so their sweat can run more freely from their head as they run through the searing heat of the jungle in pursuit of their prey.
Black people usually have large fanned nostrils so they can smell their prey hiding in the thick foliage of the jungle undergrowth.
Black people have extraordinarily thick lips so they can quickly and effectively suck the juice from wild fruits while hunting their prey in the jungles of deepest Africa.
What the hell they're all doing over here is beyond me.
Being from Ireland I've had to listen to an endless torrent of insulting Irish jokes which I endured passively before I delivered my own withering retorts.
Most, if not all other nationalities can take a little lighthearted banter and give as good as they get in return, but not the blacks.
They search and scrutinize every comment for hidden racist meanings and then spew out their expressions of self pity.
The Irish, the Jews, the Poles and many other nationalities/races all, to a greater or lesser extent, take some 'racist' stick from others without calling an emergency meeting on the United nations.
Hi Antrim , yes I've listened to the same nonsense over the years ; I was born and raised in Dublin and have listened to anti Irish slurs for years ; the amazing thing is they shriek and scream when it's given back don't they ?
I've being called a white drunken Irish pig several times by our black friends on here and they squeal like pigs when a dose of medicine is given back ; I've still never used the word nigger I'm a bit more inventive than that .
If people treat me in a fair and decent manner I will do likewise if they want to go the other route expect to be paid in kind
The first encounter I had with you , you were the one who threw the first insult I've told everyone from day one if you play nice I will also , if you throw an insult you will get two back .
You called me a white Irish pig remember ?
Also prove I'm a liar and show me one post where I called you or another a nigger bet you can't , so why are you lying ?
first encounter, I asked something relating your slumber dreams, you were not ready to share so i called you 'coward'(nothing racist about this).
Second.
i still hadn't checked where you came from
I said i spoke in tongues.
you asked me to buy a dog to speak it with when barking.
Then my reply was an offer to buy your mum because i heard she's a bitch(no racism attached)
Then you replied "it was yous(blacks) that were shipped in containers. you started it Dermot.
A nigger never started it.
I was still replying regularly but your racism was getting outta hand.
you chased me all over Debates i commented without addressing the topic but your personal racist agenda.
But since i didn't want to insult all other whites, i had to check your nationality and i read a lot on the negative experiences of ireland(specifically)......before my arrows set in.
You make disses and ma friends laugh about it.
I make mine and you and your long term memory forever frown upon it.
A nigger never started it
"You called me a white Irish pig remember ?"
Thanks for clarifying me being specific 'irish' is the word. I would have used any country your profile said you came from.
Before you i had met an irish girl on Fb and we were talking fine. Infact i had a lot of white friends because i had a .co.uk email address. all continents. even models and celebs(hard to be friend on fb).That was 6yrs ago.
Untill you came into da picha....
Oh you said nigger, jigaboo, negro, ape, monkey, baboon, severally in referance to blacks negatively on CD, it's just too much work to go search em'
Yes you called me a coward , you called my mother who is no longer with us a bitch and she was only recently deceased ,and now you state ....you started it !!!!
Yes I said you blacks were shipped in containers tell me how's that racist you're black I'm white that's a fact and not racist too say , I never chased you all over debates in fact the reverse is true and now you admit your racism by admitting you called me a white Irish pig , so tell me why are you getting all butt hurt and playing the victim card ?
I bet you cannot show me one post where I called you or others a nigger , jigaboo, negro , go on show me one post where I used them words ; lying does not help your case , bet you cannot prove me wrong ?
I have called you a black baboon as your are black and your behaviour is that of the babooon family and I have called you an ape which is incorrect as you cannot be both ape and baboon so I will settle on baboon for clarity .
Incidentally I let many things go but if you called my mother a bitch to my face I guarantee you one thing you would wake up sampling hospital food through a tube .
I wouldn't be talking about bitches if you didn't ask me to buy a dog
for speaking tongues company.
you started.
Yes I said you blacks were shipped in containers tell me how's that racist you're black I'm white that's a fact and
whenever a sentence is used, First consider the circumstances surrounding it and intention behind it, How did you mean it?
are we in history class? Why aren't you sharing your history but mine which i know already?
by admitting you called me a white Irish pig
as a reply
when you said jigaboo then i said pigaboo.
you always start
I bet you cannot show me one post where I called you or others a nigger , jigaboo, negro , go on show me one post where I used them words ; lying does not help your case , bet you cannot prove me wrong ?
hold on! when i have time , i wil bring up the links and don't get ahead deleting em'
I never chased you all over debates in fact the reverse
you lie again. infact everywhere you were, your second horseman was Nagpal.
have called you a black baboon as your are black and your behaviour is that of the babooon family
I guess i should also consider this history lessons.
Incidentally I let many things go but if you called my mother a bitch to my face I guarantee you one thing you would wake up sampling hospital food through a tube
dermot don't dream of it okay. The conditions my body has survived away from home would have killed you in a month even if you possessed black genes. Talkless you being white. From childhood i have seen choas you haven't hands cut off, bodies slamed, heads bleeding(home and school, Male and female), cutlass fight, bullet fight(my friend got hit luckily a rubber bullet but got it swelled still),chased by two cows at age 5 and one missed me and banged into a cement wall which collapsed(imagine the conditions)
built bodied people who attacked and threatened me but i never retreated.......i am usually quiet but your rage won't be upto a quater of mine if i intend to release it on you.
Ah , I see you have a ' defence ' already as in when you cannot find them you can accuse me of deleting , there a way to prove whether content was deleted or not , so go bet you find nothing .
I never lied .
Yes it's a history lesson .
You're usually quiet and if our paths ever cross I will gladly let you release your rage in the boxing ring don't worry it would all be over for you in seconds again that I guarantee
When last/first were you dissed by a black man(specifically) in the name of your skin colour or nationality.
My lecturer(black) says he once worked in Brazil, he had a doctrate degree always dressed professionally but he always saw the disrespect in the lowest coconut seller because he is black.
They felt superior to him because he is black yet though they only sell coconut and he is an advanced literate than any of them in three folds. But he is married to a white American with two kids
I have witnessed the same mentality within JatinNagpal, he thinks because one is black, he therefore cannot think above him and that is his only basis in an argument in an attempt to prove higher intelligence(only his angle).
And it's not like he'd be joking or just teasing. He is all serious about it like a world cup trophy(Babaric illiterate)
Dermot, your feather is pretty much the same. He pretends it's just a teasing reply, but that's actually his mentality
Blacks in Germany hardly get offended by racist talks from germans because they do it to each other, many german women are attracted to black men and with that they understand it is not a mentality of the germans and so are rarely bothered.(But in 2011 an extremist in Germany killed a man for being a black foreigner, no regrets, the rage was captured on video).
Chinese, Japanese, Korean women have a mentality that blacks are perverts and will leave you after impregnating you. They have a campaign on Youtube.
When Trump came into power, he claimed he was going to block internet from Africa which is totally within his rights and therefore acceptable without complains. But How many other continents didn't have satellites as at the time he said it that he failed to recognise?
This says a lot about his mentality/perception about.........
Every Continent in the world is on African blacks, but not a quater of a single continent is on the irish or jews, that is just a mere political supremacy battle among the whites(again) themselves.
Blacks don't have a reason to specifically pick at an irish/Jew/American/Asian.
Blacks don't have a mentality of superiority.
But a mentality of oppression that they are no longer(from 100yrs ago) ready to hold in. They are attack back lately.
A nigger never started it.
There are website(s) hosted by and articles written by whites accusing whites of being racist towards blacks in every action they take without even realising it.
Jeffrey do you not realise as an Irishman historically we have been treated fairly badly and discriminated against ?
The last time a black man dissed me was in Dublin the guy was a taxi man I was walking to my car with my wife and we were about to drive home the taxi man asked if I wanted a taxi , I replied " no thank you we are fine " he said you're a racist " I said " I told you I don't want a taxi how's that racist ? " he then said " fuck off you Irish pig "
That was last month no doubt you will say it's untrue but I know different .
I keep telling you and others if you debate fairly without ( as you do ) constantly calling your opponent an idiot I will do so as well but you refuse to do so why is that ?
You talk a lot about skin colour and racism you obvious know nothing about the appaling anti Irish sentiments and discrimination from past times , don't take my word for it look it up .
One does not have to have black skin to be a victim of racism
I keep telling you and others if you debate fairly without ( as you do ) constantly calling your opponent an idiot I will do so as well but you refuse to do so why is that ?
Err. for the record, for the same reason you banned, 4people straight at once on a particular debate. No hesitation.
with you.
Point 1.
you follow with a sound reply
point 2.
sound reply.
point 3.
Then ask me point 1 again in different verbs.
I try.
then you ask point 2. In different vocabs as if it is a new question.
i even pour out some logic that follow patterns and irrefutable or one would be being irrational,
as basis to argue(not opinions factual logic attested by other higher famous minds that i usually previously had no clue until i am looking for backup).
But for the sake of politics(believes) , bigotry sets in therefore denying the basis(i don't even know how) unclearly, then you build upon your inchorent statement ready to leave off as if it has been accepted by everyone.....
the only way you refute my basis so far is by saying i'm Ghanaian so it's therefore nonsense. Good debating.
I don't care about words of racism. Every insult even without involving colour is racism trying to prove why you're superior.
For this reason(Mentality) i have blocked plenty old friends. I hate negativety especially from close people(called frie...) ; hypocrites and fake laughs.
What i am concerned with is it being a mentality itself. Mentality(rarely changeable factor with extreme effects) of being superior.
And it very apparent in you , Nagpal, and every south American, Most of Asians concerning blacks. etc.
I banned three people because they spewed their hate filled rants on my topic without debating the topic , please check how many debates I've posted up and that was the first time I did it .
I haven't a clue what the rest of your post is about as it makes no sense at all
No for the first time ina long time people weren't disputing you with solely profound scientific facts you couldn't comprehend. So you banned them.
Had they used religion, you would have been dominating since you're a bible literate too and good at twisting it to defend you always.
Even nowasaint was speaking science without religion.
You don't follow my other argument because i didn't reference your points i was addressing.....but i always follow yours and other people's referenced or not.
Racism and angst towards whites because they are white is? Racism. Giving people jobs and spots in colleges solely based on race is? Racism. Saying all Trump supporters are white Christians when it is demonstrably false is? Racism.
I've being attacked several times on this site for being Irish and called an Irish pig , a drunken white Irish pig , a drunken 'Paddy' and no one says a word whys that do you think ?
When I dished it out to one comedian and brought his skin colour into it I was immediately attacked for doing so whys that ?
I said I don't try and disprove things I don't believe as in a god , if you find it an insult to have your beliefs questioned on a debate site it just goes to show what a prize prick you are .
Regards being a fool that's a bit rich coming from a cretin like you and regards lying bet you cannot prove that because you're a cowardly dog who seems to hate everyone and everything .
My herto sexual debate-mate. Thank you for providing popcorn material for me and my friends at the local bar. So i thought i would try a different tract.
P1 - The site bigots will once again spend their insecure lives tryng to disprove God and worrying over what other's believe.
p.1 - I think you have alot of doubt about "your god" which is why you can not define him or offer to demonstrate him beyond ranting. Often when people are insecure or confused they will "double down" on an issue recitign threats, cajolin and ranting rather then defend or debate the actual issue. And since alot of your rants seem homosexual in nature. I feel your revulsion is an actual projection of your own sexual insecurities. AFter spending alot of time helping people with problems I am here for you, becasue nothign worse then self hatred, except bad fasion sense. And I have provided links for demon-stration. :)
p1.2 - Since people act on belief's are your beliefs are harmful to me, and society and unhealthy why wouldnt i be worried.
.
P2 - Ask yourself why these bigots worry so about what Christians believe. I don't spend one second worring about what other religions believe.
.
P2.1 - Uh.. . I think all unfounded belief systems are bad.
p2.2 - Your assuming that everyone is picking on you, while i am sure you have harboured unwelcome feeling of a masucline nature from others. I think secretly you desire the agressive behavior. Many gay (and some straight) men like the attention of getting picked on, though its unhealhty. Your better then what you think, you desrve a better more welcoming world then the one you have created and believe in you head.
p3 - There is only one reason why they worry so much over what you believe.
.
p3.1 - Because what you believe and how you act affects those around you?
.
p4 - They feel the guilt inside.
.
p4.1 - No. Pretty sure im guilt free on the religous front. Is actaully p3.1. THough when i swear i tend to use religious terms.
.
p5. - Their conscience bothers them when they choose to live irresponsible lives. Christians shine a light on their lifestyles. Christians show that we are not bound by our selfish natures.
.
p5. - Again that projection thing going on. Christians shine a light on my lifestyle because im better then the book that christian look to. Ill use one example.
.
God molested mary to give birth to jesus. He didn't ask permision, she didn't consent. God is moral monster.
I dont molest women, Im more moral then god.
.
p6 - We all have a choice what we do in life. Bigots want to live any way they choose without people speaking out on all the problems created by irresponsble lifestyles.
.
p6.1 - IM not sure, apparently our brains make choices and we rationalize them. However that is science which requires evidence, clear terms and demonstrations. All things you fail to provide or believe in. But i have hope. Individulas i find that are like you tend to come out later in life, for science.
p6.2 - are you not being a bigot by generalization wihtout foundation of evidence or proof. . . . .
I feel for you brother. We all (no pun intended) have crosses to bear.
Here is some of the nonsense you just wrote.... "P2.1 - Uh.. . I think all unfounded belief systems are bad."
So lets get this straight, we are all suppose to believe what Gay people, Transgender, Pedophiles, etc. etc. tell us about their sexual orientations WITHOUT ANY PROOF THEY ARE BORN THAT WAY!
We are suppose to force every State to change their marriage laws on the say so of people's unfounded rationale concernng their sexual attractions.
We are suppose to allow Liberals to force every public school to allow so called Transgender boys in our daughter's bathrooms on the say so of these people with screwed up disorders.
But bigots like you must have undeniable proof of God before you would even remotely give it any credibility.
By the way, do you think this is some kind of essay where you have to title each sentence?
Get over yourself. Narcissisim is not a pretty thing.
I take a different approach to this. I DO believe Heaven is real and exists but I don't believe for a second that Edison's words proved it. The only way to prove beyond a reason of a doubt right or wrong for is to actually die and I'm not in a hurry to do that to prove anything. ;D
Secondly, if this was the case then it would be contrary to mainstream Christian doctrine. The debate description, with its Bible quotations and reference to Jesus Christ, is clearly biased towards the "proof" of Christianity. Yet the Bible says we don't go to heaven as soon as we die; we sleep in death (Ecclesiastes 9:5). If the New Testament is correct, then belief in Jesus Christ is necessary for admittance into Heaven, which, according to this anecdote, is something Edison lacked.
Thirdly, this is anecdotal and second-hand reported evidence and therefore not reputable "proof".
Firstly, near-death experiences are not reliable as they are arguably the result of a dying brain trying to make sense of the fact it's dying.
It's a lie. As long as you haven't been there, it's common opinion.
Read what mohammed ali's , leonardo da vinci's, thomas jefferson's(he died exactly this date 4th july), John adams's(he also died a few hours later on 4th july thinking jefferson was still alive so he said "jefferson still survives"), Isaac Newton's etc. last words were and tell me if you still feel the same about ya opinion.
. Yet the Bible says we don't go to heaven as soon as we die; we sleep in death (Ecclesiastes 9:5).
No where in my description did i say he went to heaven.
Remember the same bible says Stephen saw heaven while being stoned. John saw in revelation.
Because you see a bugatti parked in someone's garage doesn't mean you're already sitting in it.
Thirdly, this is anecdotal and second-hand reported evidence and therefore not reputable "proof"
That is why i didn't take just anyone's words but Thomas Edison's(you know him right?) who in his stronger days said a lot against the heaven and hell story to the extent where he was thought to be atheist(which he quickly denied in a private letter).
It's a lie. As long as you haven't been there, it's common opinion.
Common opinion? Tell that to Mobbs and Watt (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661311001550) who are cited here https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/ or Borjigin who found that high brain activity that happened when the heart was stopped was responsible for near death experiences. Out of body experiences, which are commonly reported by those who have near death experiences, were artificially induced under laboratory conditions (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15494379).
Those who have experienced an NDE themselves are giving second-hand anecdotal evidence. Since an NDE is frequently linked to trauma and strong emotions, they aren't reliable witnesses.
Read what mohammed ali's , leonardo da vinci's, thomas jefferson's(he died exactly this date 4th july), John adams's(he also died a few hours later on 4th july thinking jefferson was still alive so he said "jefferson still survives"), Isaac Newton's etc. last words were and tell me if you still feel the same about ya opinion.
Da Vinci's last words were (REPORTEDLY!) "I have offended God and mankind because my work did not reach the quality it should have." Do you take this to mean God doesn't like artists?
Thomas Jefferson's last words were reportedly "Is it the fourth?" so I don't see your point. And if Adams' last words really were "Jefferson still survives" and he THOUGHT Jefferson was still alive, that's all it means. He didn't know Jefferson had died and he had no way of knowing. I don't see the logic of your argument.
You can't dare call him insane would you?
This isn't even a logical question, it's loaded with emotions.
Edison may not have been insane, but again, he is not a reliable witness. It is likely that he was on some form of pain-killing medication or drug for his illness and his own fears of death (especially since he disbelieved in heaven and hell, at least in the traditional sense) were projected into his experience. It's basic psychology. If something is causing the brain extensive stress, the mind will fill in the gaps.
Anecdotal evidence is flawed, especially if it's historical. Exaggerations, biases and urban myths mean we cannot know for sure what anyone's last words were. For example, "It is very beautiful over there" was not even said at the time of his death, but several days beforehand. It is unknown what the context was and he was most likely semi-lucid as a result of waking from a coma.
They are just opinions of a scientist spiced with a little experiment(method not reliable, probably his own invention) I don't even know his political background and how much it influences his theory.
Those who have experienced an NDE themselves are giving second-hand anecdotal evidence.
Not everyone dies in fear and anxiety. A lot of people accept in their minds before the final day.
They speak sense. people who knew them understand and know how to package and channel it to the third decoder
A woman was about to be hanged and she said "pls don't let me fall"
meaning the executioner shouldn't cut her rope to send her lifeless body crushing on the ground, she probably wanted to be brought down gently after she died. Doesn't that make sense? does it sound like anything your scientistist saying(Light in the tunnel shit)?
reportedly "Is it the fourth?" so I don't see your point.
That sentence is incomplete but he mentioned the date he was about to die and made remarks about it being a good day; sort of. which makes sense. His brain didn't produce that out of anything your scientists claim.
I don't see the logic of your argument.
you said :
"Firstly, near-death experiences are not reliable as they are arguably the result of a dying brain trying to make sense of the fact it's dying."
So i gave a couple of last words to reference in order for you to see the flaw in your statement which is;
Apparently,your scientist is wrong since most of those people Ali, Adams, Jefferson, Da vinci all made coherent statements , which were actually facts of current situations that would be said by any normal brain under no anxiety or delirium.
2. We do not explicitly know if your scientist's method was a reliable one since it was artificial and could have been a wrong experiment or deliberate knowing the result he was already going achieve due to personal political biasness(don't be surprised,it happens all the time, The two APA's etc)after all it was his own set up under no external or authority's supervision..... in comparance to the natural experience examples i have just provided(they didn't fake it, they are still pretty much dead).
""It is very beautiful over there" was not even said at the time of his death, but several days beforehand. It is unknown what the context was and he was most likely semi-lucid as a result of waking from a coma."
you dispute yourself by that. Meaning his brain wasn't having those last minute experiences since he actually died some more days later.
2. He didn't just say those words, he asked his doctor to come closer to him then he said it. Meaning he considered those words important to be heard of all things that were at stake like his health condition.
In the few days he had , the doctor or wife never asked him to elaborate
neither did they report taking any words from him. Seems they were clear about what
3.And when his doctor and wife were asked for his last words on different occasions, they said the words you say weren't lucidious. Are you saying the three parties are insane and they only understand their zombie tongue?
4.You cannot call it a myth, it happened and recorded.
5. You can't say people are being biased when they didn't conjure that statement themselves. They promote unedited words. They didn't say it for Edison
Look up what a scientific theory is. It's an idea that's actually weighted with objective supporting evidence, not hearsay.
They are just opinions of a scientist
I haven't given you one scientist, I gave you multiple studies by different scientists. The scientist I assume you're referring to, Watt, is a professional psychologist. Dean Mobbs is a neuroscientist.
They know their way around the human brain better than we do.
I don't even know his political background and how much it influences his theory
But your own theory is influenced by other people's backgrounds; many of the people you cite were religious.
Besides, there was a whole team of scientists there and there are many checks done in laboratories to ensure that research is unbiased.
The actual research you cite was a review of existing research.
people who knew them understand and know how to package and channel it to the third decoder
Their friends and family are likely to be fallible and subjective. Death is an emotional time after all, and passing on last words to others can cause misunderstandings. Ever heard of Chinese Whispers?
she probably wanted to be brought down gently after she died
This doesn't actually mean anything. She could have been afraid of the height on the gallows for all you know. And people do like their bodies to be treated with respect. It has nothing to do with the existence of an afterlife.
made remarks about it being a good day
There's a very simple explanation for this that you seem to have overlooked. It was American Independence Day.
His brain didn't produce that out of anything your scientists claim.
See my point above.
Apparently,your scientist is wrong
Show me your counter-thesis and I'd be willing to take it into account.
We do not explicitly know if your scientist's method was a reliable one since it was artificial
This is the first sensible counter-argument. No, we don't know if it was reliable. But the scientists in these studies managed to replicate the symptoms of NDE. In a similar way, the "God helmet" managed to replicate religious experience. Therefore we have evidence to suggest that such experiences are caused by brain chemicals.
his own set up under no external or authority's supervision
It's done under university supervision and it would reflect very badly on the university if the research was poorly done, to the extent that their jobs might be at risk.
Meaning his brain wasn't having those last minute experiences since he actually died some more days later.
What makes you so convinced it wasn't a dream? He'd been asleep after all.
the doctor or wife never asked him to elaborate
A pity since a single sentence is not really enough to go on even if we're going by anecdotal evidence.
You cannot call it a myth, it happened and recorded
Please tell me where I could find the original recording of Edison's last words. If the original has been lost, word of mouth takes over and you end up with "popularised" last words like "Kiss me, Hardy" (an example of a myth).
You can't say people are being biased when they didn't conjure that statement themselves.
Again, if the original has been lost, people can conjure whatever imagined last words they like.
They know their way around the human brain better than we do.
That why i can't absolutely trust him.
Someone taller than me says there's a rabbit on the roof, could be true could be politics.
many of the people you cite were religious.
my site got it from his wife and it's religious accepted.
Wikipedia got it from hid doctor's camera interview not religious...and it both say the same words.
scientists there and there are many checks done in laboratories to ensure that research is unbiased.
The American psychiatric Association and American Psychology Association lied about their research on gay being a mental illness or not. They whole team were gays, bisexual,and lesbians.
Bias is not a new word in research.
When tests were made to prove King Tutakham was a negro, the caucassian science team said he had a negroid skull and caussian nose therefore cannot be concluded.
The second test said he was totally caucassian, and a higher authority investigated and declared their method unscientific.
Sense the conspiracy?
Ever heard of Chinese Whispers?
Irrelevant here.
It has nothing to do with the existence of an afterlife.
where did i say so?
It was American Independence Day.
Yes that is the point i'm trying to make. That he was about dying but his statement made sense.
It was real. Does your scientist think its delirium?
you can't push that on everyone for political convenience sake.
See my point above.
You have no point.
Show me your counter-thesis and I'd be willing to take it into account.
see my point above.
In a similar way, the "God helmet" managed to replicate religious experience
poor experiment. It was set up to produce that result...God Helmet
I hope you understand I can't trust your website for similar reasons.
my site got it from his wife and it's religious accepted.
Your site got it from his wife... are you aware of how biased YOUR sources are? You've cited a religious site! A scientist may or may not have an agenda... but a religious site definitely has one.
The American psychiatric Association and American Psychology Association lied about their research on gay being a mental illness or not. They whole team were gays, bisexual,and lesbians.
If it had been a lie, we'd be calling homosexuality a mental illness. Where's your evidence that they lied?
Irrelevant here.
Not really. One person says something and it gets distorted every time it's repeated.
It was real. Does your scientist think its delirium?
You do realise Edison had to be told what day it was? And constantly saying something is real doesn't make it so.
you can't push that on everyone for political convenience sake.
I'm actually really intrigued as to how near-death experiences are in any way a "political" topic. You keep bringing it up, but most people are fascinated by such experiences and I'm sure it would give great comfort to many to believe in an afterlife. I'm not sure you understand how science works.
poor experiment. It was set up to produce that result...
Yes, it was. Are you familiar with the research? The entire point of the God helmet was to demonstrate that a religious experience could be falsely induced, which it did. That's like saying testing a new heart drug which prevents heart attacks is a poor experiment because it's set up to prevent heart attacks.
I hope you understand I can't trust your website for similar reasons.
There are more than 5 non religious(dedicated to quotes) websites that say the same thing.
but a religious site definitely has one.
Okay. Then why is it saying the same thing as the non religious ones.
If it had been a lie, we'd be calling homosexuality a mental illness. Where's your evidence that they lied?
I provided it on a gay debate. Can't go back into old archives.
it was hosted by 'JustTruth' look through his debates on gay.
One person says something and it gets distorted every time it's repeated.
No one is.
You do realise Edison had to be told what day it was?
For Godsake, he had just woken from Coma. Coma patients don't keep calendars. It is was the most logical question to ask affirming he was in his correct state of mind.
I'm actually really intrigued as to how near-death experiences are in any way a "political" topic
Got it twisted.
I'm sure it would give great comfort to many to believe in an afterlife.
If it were only upto me, there shouldn't be heaven or hell at all.
Just die.
If that was the case as i wanted it, i would be dead by now(suicide) but it ain't.
pls stop assuming for everyone.
I'm not sure you understand how science works.
Which science? The ones with artificially influenced results lately?
Yeah i know how it works.
The entire point of the God helmet was to demonstrate that a religious experience could be falsely induced,
You admit it was a deliberate set up.
And totally unreliable. A maneuver.
You set up your exam and you fill in your answers then you get 100% and you want people to call you a genius?
it's set up to prevent heart attacks.
So it will stop delirium at point of death. Or trying to tell people not to trust last minute words of dying people or they can believe any except religious ones even if the dying person thought religious stories were junk and didn't consider it a bit but was rather more devoted to science.
You set up your exam and you fill in your answers then you get 100% and you want people to call you a genius?
This is such a ridiculous argument I had to read it several times to check it said what I thought it said. If it was a valid argument then we could debunk almost everything, scientific or not.
The helmet was originally called the Koren helmet, for starters, not the God helmet. It wasn't until it was tested on volunteers in the lab that it was discovered that some people were reporting seeing God when the helmet was active.
The scientists didn't just test it on themselves. You seem to have an image of scientists as being people who spend years and years working hard on something and learning the necessary research to do their bit of research, but can't be bothered to do the experiments properly. This has been properly peer reviewed.
I don't understand your logic. If religious experience cannot be artificially induced, how was the God helmet able to "manoeuvre" itself into working?
So it will stop delirium at point of death. Or trying to tell people not to trust last minute words of dying people or they can believe any except religious ones even if the dying person thought religious stories were junk and didn't consider it a bit but was rather more devoted to science.
Um... what? That's not the point of the God helmet. Psychology is interesting and if there's an interesting phenomenon, scientists like to investigate it.
You've completely twisted my words; it would appear you're running out of steam.
If religious experience cannot be artificially induced, how was the God helmet able to "manoeuvre" itself into working?
It's simply an invention, it could have been designed to make people see santa claus, dragons, spaghetti monster etc.
Even if you put it on a non religious monkey, it will still see God.
But in the natural one, not everyone religious sees God.
Your argument was wrong from the beginning since Edison didn't believe in religion as he stated severally.
Therefore if he had the God helmet on, he shouldn't see God.
If he does see God then the machine is a fake since he wasn't a believer.
So according to the logic in your premise, Edison shouldn't have seen God/anything religious.
It applies to scientists who tested themselves and saw God when you know many of those scientists don't believe in God in the first place, thats one of the influences for setting up that experiment.
There is no motivation for a religious a scientist to set up such an experiment especially when he knows it could affect the foundation of his beliefs.
You've completely twisted my words; it would appear you're running out of steam
It's simply an invention, it could have been designed to make people see santa claus, dragons, spaghetti monster etc.
You are missing the point on purpose. Let's say it's actually possible to make people see specific things (which it isn't, if you knew anything about the God helmet). You're shooting yourself in the foot by suggesting that something can be designed to do something that only God should be able to do.
Therefore if he had the God helmet on, he shouldn't see God.
If he does see God then the machine is a fake since he wasn't a believer.
You've completely missed the point and going off on a tangent. I was saying that if religious experiences can be induced then it implies that that kind of experience isn't limited to God. Therefore there can be another explanation for an experience or vision of God, the afterlife etc. as it's been demonstrated that by manipulating the chemicals in someone's brain, you can make them perceive something that isn't there. Think of how the chemicals in a dying brain might change and cause the patient to hallucinate.
So according to the logic in your premise, Edison shouldn't have seen God/anything religious.
It applies to scientists who tested themselves and saw God when you know many of those scientists don't believe in God in the first place, thats one of the influences for setting up that experiment.
Again, this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. The God helmet has, in some cases, caused participants to see or sense God / Jesus, which is where it got its name. It's also caused other visions, and I quote:
The Koren Helmet has also produced visions of demonic beings, out-of-body experiences, visions of other realities, and a range of other paranormal experiences.
Once again, you've proven that you haven't bothered to look at my citations.
I'll add that things like infrasound can also cause people to have visions of shadow creatures and so on, so there are a lot of different ways to trick the human brain.
It applies to scientists who tested themselves and saw God when you know many of those scientists don't believe in God in the first place, thats one of the influences for setting up that experiment.
Plenty of scientists believe in God and I'd imagine the group that worked on these experiments were a mix of theist and atheist.
There is no motivation for a religious a scientist to set up such an experiment especially when he knows it could affect the foundation of his beliefs.
I'm sorry to be the one to say this, but a lot of religious people don't blindly trust religious experience. In the USA and non-Western countries, it's quite common for people to trust in them, but in countries like Europe (which is where most of these studies were carried out), religious people are more likely to say, "I believe God exists, but I think the majority of religious experiences have another explanation" or possibly "I believe God exists. Why can't he manipulate our brainwaves to induce our religious experiences?" Either way, they still turn to science.
i am only rephrasing what your words imply
Not really, you're deliberately being obtuse and / or failing to comprehend my actual argument.
Let's say it's actually possible to make people see specific things (which it isn't, if you knew anything about the God helmet).
I know something
says you
I was saying that if religious experiences can be induced then it implies that that kind of experience isn't limited to God.
Why would you induce religious experiences into people under the experiment?
It is then not genuine. Genuine atheists and theists without any temporal artificial induction.
As long it is combined with the experiment around the same time, that would be the results to be achieved(seeing religious things like God, demons, a tunnel of light etc.)
Even a chicken would fall for that experiment and google will translate it.
Induction
2.the process or action of bringing about or giving rise to something.
3.the inference of a general law from particular instances.
Were there genuine religious people(and you can verify from their beforehand activities ex.church, their opinions, etc.) and they all saw something religious?
Either ways i will still call it fake because Isaac Newton was very religious, wrote thrice as much on religion than science, yet under the natural experiment he saw or said zero religion.
Whys that?
You would believe anything a religious dying man would say except something religious.
you would believe anything Thomas edison will say except something religious.(Even to flaw your argument further, his brain wasn't going off on power at that moment so the experiment fails here since he couldn't have been experiencing the last minute point of death sensation/anxiety/delirium your volunteers are artificially made to experience)
Therefore there can be another explanation for an experience or vision of God, the afterlife etc. as it's been demonstrated that by manipulating the chemicals in someone's brain, you can make them perceive something that isn't there
1. It doesn't apply to edison's since that reaction couldn't have occured at that moment when he had 48hrs more and just woken from Coma(death, long sleep~ rested mind)
2. The explanation was concluded before the experiment itself began
3.It was done horribly wrong.
Think of how the chemicals in a dying brain might change and cause the patient to hallucinate.
When edison awoke, he asked for date. That is a symptom of a sound mind. He couldn't have been hallucinating.
The Koren Helmet has also produced visions of demonic beings, out-of-body experiences, visions of other realities, and a range of other paranormal experiences.
demons, God, tunnel of light are all religious.
Once again, you've proven that you haven't bothered to look at my citations.
I looked at one. I tried looking at two but the site was giving a condition so i closed it.
One is enough. Two is just aroma of persuation while the situation is still the same.
so there are a lot of different ways to trick the human brain.
i know. But religion is a controversial topic and experiments around it should be done well.
If weed smokers died seeing themselves planting weed in paradise, in what category would the experiment be targeted? at weed smokers or religious people. Not all religious people smoke weed not all weed smokers are religious.
Plenty of scientists believe in God and I'd imagine the group that worked on these experiments were a mix of theist and atheist.
Still it was done wrongly. Why didn't they temporally induce atheistic believes instead? onto genuine religious people to see which beats the other. Still will be quack. Zero ind.... is needed
religious people don't blindly trust religious experience.
Who said i do? i argue my mum all the time.
Why can't he manipulate our brainwaves to induce our religious experiences?"
Was religious experiences induced in any volunteer that produced non religious visions? No? Oh man! get illumined.
Not really, you're deliberately being obtuse and / or failing to comprehend my actual argument.
Even if your argument about the experiment is genuine, it still does not apply to Edison's situation considering the factors i afore listed which clearly contradicts your experiment. Time, Condition, believe.
Why would you induce religious experiences into people under the experiment?
Because that was what the helmet did.
It is then not genuine. Genuine atheists and theists without any temporal artificial induction.
The God helmet proves that the brain can be tricked into experiencing something. It doesn't mean the God helmet is the only thing that causes the brain to experience something.
Vic Tandy, a scientist, worked in what was a supposedly "haunted" laboratory. He experienced various strange sensations when he was there, but it wasn't until he was alone that he had a paranormal encounter.
Bear in mind that paranormal encounters are not dissimilar to religious experience.
Later, Tandy discovered almost by accident that the paranormal occurrences were being caused by an extractor fan in the laboratory. It was emitting infrasound, a low-level noise frequency that humans can't hear. But humans can sometimes still sense that frequency. It's enough to spook a person and even to cause them to hallucinate.
As soon as the fan was fixed, the occurrences stopped.
It's not just fans that emit infrasound. A tiger's roar, tectonic rumblings (this is why animals can normally sense an impending earthquake before humans) and plumbing can all emit it.
you would believe anything Thomas edison will say except something religious.
No. If he was referring to something tangible that everyone could observe, it would be believed. When he reports seeing an "afterlife", when there is a very high chance that he could be hallucinating, it cannot be given the same credibility as when he reports seeing the sun out of the window. If he had said he could see a unicorn, I wouldn't believe him. If he had said it was night when it was clearly day, I wouldn't believe him. It has nothing to do with religion.
When edison awoke, he asked for date. That is a symptom of a sound mind. He couldn't have been hallucinating.
He could have awoken from a particularly vivid, even lucid, dream.
demons, God, tunnel of light are all religious.
The brain sees those images in popular culture or in pictures and transfers them to the experience. People who have never seen the Virgin Mary will not see the Virgin Mary, but if they are Catholic they are much more likely to see Mary than they are Allah. People who are raised in Hindu traditions will see Hindu gods, not the Christian god.
If the participants actually met God etc., why did they only do so in the experiment? Does this mean you can control God by controlling the brain?
The helmet has also produced out-of-body experiences and visions of other places, similar to what Edison reported seeing.
Still it was done wrongly.
The Koren Helmet wasn't actually designed to make people have religious experiences. It was designed to create conditions in which the sense of self was disrupted.
Why didn't they temporally induce atheistic believes instead?
How is it possible to do that? You can't induce an absence of something. The God helmet caused the brain to go into a state where strange experiences are more likely to happen, and the participants' brains filled in the rest.
Even if your argument about the experiment is genuine, it still does not apply to Edison's situation considering the factors i afore listed which clearly contradicts your experiment. Time, Condition, believe.
I wasn't the one who started debating the God helmet instead of Edison. I mentioned the God helmet and you called me on it, so that was where the debate went on a tangent.
If you want us to return to Edison, let us put the God helmet to one side for now and move the discussion on.
The helmet should have zero induction. The only thing it should do is to make a mental state of point
of death in a volunteer. It is not genuine as long as there's a deliberate type of induction.
As long as you pour black powder (Religious induction) into a normal water, it will certainly turn black, you shouldn't expect grey(philosphy) or blue(history)
Whatever hallunication it should result is not for the set up to induce. No one induced Edison plus he was pantheist and usually debunked religious believes. Zero external influence.
Let's look at the case of Vic Tandy.
She was just being herself; A pussy.
When he reports seeing an "afterlife", when there is a very high chance that he could be hallucinating,
do people hallucinate under these conditions;
while in coma.
wakes up and calls for someones attention, asks for date, telling a short story under good composure(if not the wife or doctor would report otherwise)
No. If he was referring to something tangible that everyone could observe, it would be believed.
Currently, intangible things are above science.
Inability doesn't mean non existent.
fishes can't walk, it doesn't mean walking doesn't exist.
If he had said he could see a unicorn, I wouldn't believe him. If he had said it was night when it was clearly day, I wouldn't believe him. It has nothing to do with religion.
Those are silly comparative examples.
He could have awoken from a particularly vivid, even lucid, dream.
what is that? dispute, point back up or what?
If the participants actually met God etc.,
Mohammed claimed he saw angel gabriel, if he was hallucinating, look how far his hallucination has come; Islam.
Do you insist a hallucination?
I have personally seen things while walking with a friend who didn't see also but two days later a second witness affirmed it. I did not run, i only asked my friend to stop walking forward till i saw it pass by.
Same happened second witness. There could have been more that were never reported to me .
I had been there for more than a year and it never happened but it also only happened once.
The brain sees those images in popular culture or in pictures and transfers them to the experience.
Why didn't newton or Da Vinci very religious people never saw it but a Edison a detester of religion see it.
This is a contradiction with your experiment.
The God helmet caused the brain to go into a state where strange experiences are more likely to happen, and the participants' brains filled in the rest.
This is a maneuver not an experiment. The result is predetermined. My mum was under health machine exercise today, she said she was screaming jesus(the device feels like electricution there are two types...the shoes and arm vein connection). I would say she is extremely religious as there was zero induction. Meaning it's genuine.
However, 3more of her friends tried(she didn't tell em what the machine does) two of them screamed as well without mentioning any religious figure,the last one said she wouldn't scream or cry so they don't laugh her.
Had God helmet been done this way, it would be genuine....not the fake one.
The helmet has also produced out-of-body experiences and visions of other places, similar to what Edison reported seeing.
Had the God helmet been applied on Da Vinci and Newton, i am sure they would have said something religious but on their actual death day, they said nothing relgious.
They are just having fun fooling religious people who can't ask the right questions about the set up. The are just overwhelmed by the mere sight of a sophisticated machine.
The Koren Helmet wasn't actually designed to make people have religious experiences. It was designed to create conditions in which the sense of self was disrupted.
But now it has been modified right? to more of a lie than genuine...people can't see.
The helmet has also produced out-of-body experiences and visions of other places, similar to what Edison reported seeing.
Edison never believed in such places till he saw it in sleep.
And it's not as if it all happened at the same time; hallucinating and reporting vision like the machine does.
He saw with a rested mind and reported with a stable mind not under a brain electricution provoking chemicals to forcefully react artificially.
How is it possible to do that? You can't induce an absence of something.
I know right?
That is why it should be done under a neutral state of mind.No rise in religious nothing. Just use the volunteers as they came.
I wasn't the one who started debating the God helmet instead of Edison
That is your only weapon here how can you do without it.
I mentioned the God helmet and you called me on it,
Because i have to first disarm you. I must destroy your weapon and arsenal as a whole first.
Maybe after that you could pick up some of dermot's points which are very strong but unfortunately he doesn't know how to dissolve a reply.
The other part of this argument, i tried replying, i was almost done and the browser just closed. I opened it and the words were lost. When i'm less annoyed about it, i will reply.
let me once again put my questions to you and I wil take each reply you give and respond, regards you saying I'm not "dissolving " a reply does not make sense .
Because Edison is an authority means nothing regarding what he stated , it's up to me to disprove nothing as the words he spoke could mean anything ; you're the one who claimed he proved the existence of heaven you or he have not done so have you ?
If you say Edison proved the existence of heaven you have not provided evidence to back your claim up if you had why does no one agree with your assessment ?
Edison never mentioned a heaven or a Hell I claimed he could have been talking about a holiday destination my claim regarding what he said is just as valid as yours but I don't claim it as ' proof ' so again your skewed 'logic ' fails
If Edison's claim is as you say proof everyone's deathbed claim is also proof of one thing or another if not why not ?
let me once again put my questions to you and I wil take each reply you give and respond
I have the same old replies you cannot understand(dissolve)
regards you saying I'm not "dissolving " a reply does not make sense
It doesn't make sense again!!
When you add a solute(sugar/my reply) to a solvent(water/your comprehension skill) you get a solution. A uniform muxture(that means it makes sense).
I used it in general terms of an argument.......not a science lab.
The last time i said i gave you an ass whooping, that was because i realised your confusion, so i kept confusing you, more and more though my sentences were still making sense.
you ended up saying
"some babies were dropped on their heads but you were thrown at the wall"
Very funny.
You cannot talk to me when you're not famaliar with some external terrms.
Even the famaliar one to you as a bible reader "rejected stone" you couldn't perceive.
Why do you blame me?
Edison never mentioned a heaven or a Hell I claimed he could have been talking about a holiday destination my claim regarding what he said is just as valid as yours but I don't claim it as ' proof ' so again your skewed 'logic ' fails
Very good point. but you can't dissolve a reply.
If Edison's claim is as you say proof everyone's deathbed claim is also proof of one thing or another if not why not ?
Nice one. But you cannot dissolve a reply.
All those i have already made several attempts to answer.
Yes dissolving a reply makes no sense maybe you try it in the school room and watch in astonishment as the tutor and class ' dissolve ' into fits of laughter .
You have never come close to giving me an ass whooping saying everything you disagree with is stupid or you're an idiot just shows how pathetic you are at debating .
Rejected stone meant no sense in the way you used it and it still does not ; instead of acting the coward and making claims why not back them up by answering my questions ?
You cannot thus you're deafeated yet again also why not take a father thrashing by posting up your imaginary Evolution deabate ?
I shall leave my questions up for all to see that you failed to attempt an answer on any and as usual flee when cornered .
The helmet should have zero induction. The only thing it should do is to make a mental state of point
of death in a volunteer.
You're conflating religious experience with near death experience. I didn't bring up the helmet for any other reason than, our brains can be tricked. And what do you mean by zero induction? It doesn't actually directly "induce" any visions. It changes patterns in the brain enough to create a changed state of consciousness.
No one induced Edison
I'm not trying to make the claim anyone did. I'm saying that if an altered state of consciousness is linked to visions and experiences, one could quite easily enter that state naturally, especially if aided by illness.
She was just being herself; A pussy.
And once again you've proven you haven't read what I said or linked. Firstly, he was male and a respected scientist. Secondly, why aren't you debunking it?
Currently, intangible things are above science.
Inability doesn't mean non existent.
fishes can't walk, it doesn't mean walking doesn't exist.
"Above science" is a cop-out. It's the reason why people still believe in religious and paranormal things yet nothing has ever been conclusively proven.
what is that? dispute, point back up or what?
It doesn't necessarily have to have been a hallucination. Could have been a dream, which might be more likely.
Mohammed claimed he saw angel gabriel, if he was hallucinating, look how far his hallucination has come; Islam.
Do you insist a hallucination?
Yes. Mohammed would have been familiar with Judaism.
Many religions have come about from visions and experiences. Buddha underwent some kind of religious experience which led him to found Buddhism. Joseph Smith had a vision and that led him to found Mormonism.
I have personally seen things while walking with a friend who didn't see also but two days later a second witness affirmed it. I did not run, i only asked my friend to stop walking forward till i saw it pass by.
Same happened second witness. There could have been more that were never reported to me .
I had been there for more than a year and it never happened but it also only happened once.
I'd be happy to listen to this story if you were to explain further.
Why didn't newton or Da Vinci very religious people never saw it but a Edison a detester of religion see it.
This is a contradiction with your experiment.
You've made the mistake of thinking that experience is completely uniform between people, when it isn't. Edison would still have been familiar with religion, and note how he never reported anything religious, like Jesus or the pearly gates. He may have just been in a very tranquil state of mind and reported that as "beautiful".
It's not a contradiction at all because if the afterlife doesn't exist, it would only be a few people who had visions of it and not every single one. We can't know what Newton or da Vinci really experienced any more than we can know that Edison experienced.
This is a maneuver not an experiment. The result is predetermined.
The result wasn't predetermined because, as I've said before, the helmet was not set up to create religious experience. It wasn't called the "God helmet" until participants started saying they'd seen God.
two of them screamed as well without mentioning any religious figure,the last one said she wouldn't scream or cry so they don't laugh her.
So the machine induced an experience and the religious person interpreted it as Jesus, and her friends interpreted it differently since they were presumably not as religious.
But if it feels like electrocution, what's to say they weren't in some kind of pain state?
But now it has been modified right?
Source please.
Edison never believed in such places till he saw it in sleep.
You mean until he dreamt about it, knew he had just a few days to live and used that as reassurance.
That is your only weapon here how can you do without it.
It's not my only weapon. But your only weapon is what Edison's last words were; if your premise is flawed, you have no argument at all.
The other part of this argument, i tried replying, i was almost done and the browser just closed. I opened it and the words were lost. When i'm less annoyed about it, i will reply.
Hi Catninja his premise is flawed in so many ways if we allow for his claim to stand then equally we have to allow for every other claim of this nature to stand and if not why not ?
It changes patterns in the brain enough to create a changed state of consciousness.
It is still not perfect and an accurate experiment per it's set princinples(circumstances, belief state) in comparance to a lot of the natural ones; the are a lot of contradictions especially in the case of edison. So ok it maybe a good experiment but it does not apply to edison's considering the circumstances that surrounded him and his belief state. So as far as we are talking particularly about edison, God helmet is debunked.
I'm saying that if an altered state of consciousness is linked to visions and experiences, one could quite easily enter that state naturally, especially if aided by illness.
If you analyse it well by the words and by the help of a mental imagined scenario, you should know that wasn't the case with edison.
Helmet debunked.
And once again you've proven you haven't read what I said or linked.
I read what you said which is enough but not the link.
Firstly, he was male and a respected scientist
I saw Vic, thinking vicky / victoria.
Secondly, why aren't you debunking it?
it is fact because those happened naturally, the fan , tiger roar etc.
Those things are perfect examples unlike man made experiments which is not accurate, can easily be disputed by a second or third finding, and it's principles are contradicted by many old or new similar natural phenomena.
Nevertheless, it is debunked because it has zero correlation with edison's. It is not an argument for edison's.
"Above science" is a cop-out. It's the reason why people still believe in religious and paranormal things yet nothing has ever been conclusively proven.
you think dreams are religious? That is; atheists don't dream. okaayy new lesson learnt.
It doesn't necessarily have to have been a hallucination. Could have been a dream, which might be more likely.
A dream not for him and to go further to mention in a sound mental state. And yes, he was in a sound mental state.
Many religions have come about from visions and experiences.
And their hallucinations brought them sermons day after day in sound statements? And gained following by both young, old,poor,rich, dumb and intelligent?
wow some damn! hallucination.
I'd be happy to listen to this story if you were to explain further
no, too long. And i can predict your reply....comparing to some shitty experiment when had it been you there, might not be in good health to be saying it here on CD.
Edison would still have been familiar with religion, and note how he never reported anything religious, like Jesus or the pearly gates.
it wasn't uniform, then are you saying the odd ones were not famaliar with those things?
He may have just been in a very tranquil state of mind and reported that as "beautiful".
First of all he was in a sound state.
he asked the guy to come closer first.....
plus it will be against his ego as a pantheis . But he said "i know it's somewhere" showing certainty.
That is why it doesn't hurt his ego to admit it as a man of exactitude and very non sentimental(as his wife describes him)
knew he had just a few days to live and used that as reassurance.
What kind of man do you think him to be?
if your premise is flawed, you have no argument at all.
The University of Cambridge is a well-respected academic institution and one of the best in the world. Find me their "agenda". I challenge you.
you mean you doubt his wife and doctor's account.
That's the whole point of science. Anecdotes aren't reliable, and when you compare it to science, they just don't stand up very well.
Let's say, hypothetically, that I accept that those were Edison's last words. Would it change anything? Not really, because I have multiple arguments to back myself up. Your argument, however, hinges completely on what Edison said.
Every website religious or not that keeps that quote originally got it from his doctor or wife.
Hardly. The doctor and wife weren't alive to ask at the time those websites went up. You're looking at second-hand information. It could be correct, but it is fallible.
The University of Cambridge is a well-respected academic institution and one of the best in the world. Find me their "agenda". I challenge you.
The Two APA's lied .A big organisation, with more respect where cambridge , havard etc graduates go to work.
It's not about how huge, popular, beautiful, respected an org. or inst. is. It's people with emotions/ego/political views of how their world should be.
They can sabotage anything.
Let's say, hypothetically, that I accept that those were Edison's last words. Would it change anything?
Dogs can't send emails but they won't call it a fallacy.
If you want to say science is at it's peek then you can conclude the testimony is nonsense.
The fact is, science has no method of measuring dreams or visions. It is the inability of science. Disability. Incapability. Limited ability.
Such abstract things are part of the human nature. It has existed ever since the human race.
Science is way back.
You can't blame such things for being beyond science's ability.
It's like you give a bottle of coke to a 3year old kid(science) to drink(investigate) you left the opener(instrument) on the counter which was too high for him to see, he tries with his teeth and to no avail. He gets angry and smashes it. And then calls it stupid shit. Since then whenever he sees coke(dreams, vision etc.), or any bottled type of things he calls it stupid shit and doesn't wanna near it.
He's oneday gonna grow tall enough to see the opener or develop strong teeth, until then coke is stupid shit.
You can't blame the coke.
It's nature is just beyond the kid.
Science has no right to call what it can't measure nonsense.
It isn't omnipotent or omniscient.
Everyrhing is regulated by equally timid, limited minded humans.
We are backward to nature.
The doctor and wife weren't alive to ask at the time those websites went up
wow. your bigotry is super.
as reported by his physician Dr. Hubert S. Howe, in Thomas A. Edison, Benefactor of Mankind : The Romantic Life Story of the World's Greatest Inventor (1931) by Francis Trevelyan Miller, Ch. 25 : Edison's Views on Life — His Philosophy and Religion, p. 295.
The fact is, science has no method of measuring dreams or visions. It is the inability of science. Disability. Incapability. Limited ability.
Yes, it's difficult to measure the actual dreams or visions. We can, however, put someone in a brain scanner during an experience or notice that the chemicals in the brain change during an experience.
Just because we can't tell exactly what someone is experiencing doesn't mean we should throw our hands up in the air and say, "That's it, God did it." That's intellectual cowardice.
wow. your bigotry is super.
I backed you into a corner. How does that make me bigoted?
as reported by his physician Dr. Hubert S. Howe, in Thomas A. Edison, Benefactor of Mankind : The Romantic Life Story of the World's Greatest Inventor (1931) by Francis Trevelyan Miller, Ch. 25 : Edison's Views on Life — His Philosophy and Religion, p. 295.
I'll concede that this is at least a passable source. Though it doesn't really checkmate me. Like I said, I have other arguments to back me up.
We can, however, put someone in a brain scanner during an experience or notice that the chemicals in the brain change during an experience.
We talking about pictures. You talking about chemicals. you see how backward science is ? Even google has animal language translations that make sense with the body movement of the animal.
and say, "That's it, God did it."
That not what i'm saying...but bite what you can chew. Don't bite too much and spit some out like it's shit.
Science shouldn't be making guesses about things beyond their current ability.
There is a mentality that if science cannot prove it, then it's nonsense which should stop because science is not at the acme.
backed you into a corner. How does that make me bigoted?
By what method? Ignoring all the hints about the sources of the statement.
We talking about pictures. You talking about chemicals. you see how backward science is ? Even google has animal language translations that make sense with the body movement of the animal.
So basically, anecdotes are better than science?
Yes, Google does have animal language translations (although to call it "language" is a little misleading). However, scientists cannot always determine what an animal or other organism is trying to communicate. This is also going off the point.
I am also not talking about just "pictures". I am talking about how chemicals in the brain have been shown to be abnormal or unbalanced during visions, ghost sightings, the feeling that you are not alone, and so on. Not all of these are pictures or coherent visions. Sometimes they're just feelings. Likewise, not all religious experiences involve seeing God or the Buddha; sometimes the experient feels a strong sense of Christ's presence, etc.
The human brain is so, so easily fooled, and strange experiences have been replicated time and time again. Here are a few more everyday examples of how we can fool our brains into sensing things that aren't there or aren't the case:
- Optical illusions
- Hearing your name being called when nobody has called you
- Night terrors and sleep paralysis
- Feeling like you're being watched when you aren't
- Hearing music playing when there's no music
- Dreams and daydreams
- "Phantom limb" syndrome
- Feeling better after taking a placebo
- Drug trips and alcohol-induced hallucinations
Science shouldn't be making guesses about things beyond their current ability.
Then the world would be considerably poorer for it. It's the whole point of science. Yes, some scientists once believed in the luminiferous aether. It's since been debunked, but for years it was the best theory as to how the universe worked.
There is a mentality that if science cannot prove it, then it's nonsense which should stop because science is not at the acme.
Who would have this mentality apart from maybe Alfred J Ayer? That isn't how science works. If there's an observable phenomena in nature (like religious experience) scientists put forward theories. Scientists can't definitively prove a lot of things.
Science can't prove that unicorns don't exist. It can't actually fully explain what dreams are or why we dream. But all good scientists have a quest for knowledge and as the paradigm gets built upon, explanations become better.
Nobody sane has blind faith in science or says that science has all the answers. But if a gap opens up, theists often take advantage of it to place whatever god or entity they worship into the equation, known as a "God of the gaps".
Why can't I equally say that religion should stop attempting to explain things?
Ignoring all the hints about the sources of the statement.
OK, so I've acknowledged some of your sources. I'm afraid that anecdotal evidence is not particularly good evidence. Moreover you're getting caught up in what was or was not said; your argument is shaky because this is the only shred of evidence you have to support your claim.
Though I have to admit I'm enjoying this debate a lot more than I thought I would and hopefully you feel the same way. :)
Actually to correct you yet again the words were spoken a week before he died , and either way so what how's that proof of an afterlife ?
Wiki ....
It is very beautiful over there!
These have sometimes been reported as his last words, but were actually spoken several days before his death, as he awoke from a nap, gazing upwards, as reported by his physician Dr. Hubert S. Howe, in Thomas A. Edison, Benefactor of Mankind : The Romantic Life Story of the World's Greatest Inventor (1931) by Francis Trevelyan Miller, Ch. 25 : Edison's Views on Life — His Philosophy and Religion, p. 295.
“She said, ‘Exactitude was the mark of my husband’s mind. He was not sentimental. He had to know something for sure before he would say it or record it. It had to be proven.’ Then she told me that when her husband was dying, he could barely speak. His doctor, who was also a family friend, noticed that the great inventor was trying to say something. He leaned close and heard Edison whisper, ‘It’s very beautiful over there.’ Those were his last words.”
So you trust wikipedia over his wife?
Do you know anyone could have an account on wikipedia? including you and me?
If it were you or me, who posted it there, in comparance to his widow's testimony, which would you consider more accurate? Especially when factors like atheism(you) and theism/deism(me) gets involved?
The widow will not disrespect her husband by letting her own religious politics disrupt the actual words of her husband.
Neither have i concluded Wiki is lying.
So a scientist who debunked heaven and hell religious story after a nap on his dying bed describes a place as very beautiful. What was the place he saw in his nap?
Where else do you think of?
No atheist can be honest about this, their politics will get in the way.
certainly, if his wife would've told this to me, I would've believed her, but since you're telling that his wife said so, I think it's reasonable to stick to wikipedia.
that doesn't necessarily mean what you say must be genuine, and "it is beautiful there", can never be considered scientific, and certainly there's no proof. We don't even know what he was referring to, might be one of places that he witnessed might have been spoken about, as a dying man sees flashes of all the good memories of his life.
can never be considered scientific, and certainly there's no proof
Considering the reputation involved, it is scientific enough. He's a scientist and needs no ones validation. It's a proof that cannot be shared. What do you want, a video recording of what he was seeing?don't be silly.
We don't even know what he was referring to, might be one of places that he witnessed might have been spoken about,
he had about 3days to clarify. But he left it as a food for thought(which doesn't need much, because it's quite clear).
, as a dying man sees flashes of all the good memories of his life.
you don't accept mine(or the general one) but i should believe your exaggerated one?
over there you think he couldn't have just said china, mexico, Alaska, Newyork?
Considering the reputation involved, it is scientific enough. He's a scientist and needs no ones validation. It's a proof that cannot be shared. What do you want, a video recording of what he was seeing?don't be silly.
are you even serious????? lololol
what I want is logical proof written down mathematically, of his assertion.
are you seriously calling something scientific just because a scientist said it?????
irrespective of the fact that there's no scientific proof for it??
looks like I know who's being silly here.
he had about 3days to clarify. But he left it as a food for thought(which doesn't need much, because it's quite clear).
lolol it is not. First of all I don't know your source, and second, you think it has to refer to something because you want it to. lololol
you don't accept mine(or the general one) but i should believe your exaggerated one?
over there you think he couldn't have just said china, mexico, Alaska, Newyork?
and why very beautiful?
yeah? lol a dying man, how the hell would he have an idea of the flashes he gets???? lol even if he's seeing those places, it's not necessary that he remebers the name, or there just wasn't any time to specify, your's is the exaggerated one here, not mine, my case considers all possibilities whereas yours on just one.
and why very beautiful?
lolololol because it was, he didn't feel only beautiful would do justice, and hence he added a very.
now let me ask you this, if I were to become a very great scientist, and in my dying moments I think of my happy moments in life and say it's beautiful/ remember the bad moments and call it shitty, would you make a baseless conclusion that I was referring to heaven, though I haven't even used this word???
lol I'm still trying to figure out on how to stop laughing on this one:
Considering the reputation involved, it is scientific enough.
what I want is logical proof written down mathematically, of his assertion.
are you seriously calling something scientific just because a scientist said it?????
The dream you had last night, can you prove mathematically? The mental picture of your future can you prove mathematically?
The next time you tell your mum you love her, please add some formulas.
You can't he can't.
But he's a trust worthy scientist.
His wife says he was a person of exactitude and wouldn't say anything till he is certain about it.
How his wife packaged those words simply means she wanted people to see it from the religious heaven point of view.
You don't put shoes in a blender box for your customers, do you?
you think it has to refer to something because you want it to. lololol
No. Beacause that is how his wife and doctor (Physician) packaged it.
it's not necessary that he remebers the name, or there just wasn't any time to specify,
Wrong he had time a few days more.
He said it after he woke from a short coma. Called the doctor to come closer and he said only that him(as reported) and died a few days later.
Considering the reputation involved, it is scientific enough.
You can laugh at it until after refuting his discipline towards talking with certainty first.
now let me ask you this, if I were to become a very great scientist, and in my dying moments I think of my happy moments in life and say it's beautiful/ remember the bad moments and call it shitty, would you make a baseless
As i said, he had more days to clarify which you deliberately refuse to notice because you know it will therefore mean it wasn't as a result of delirium plus someone from a coma will surely have a good rested mind.
Wiki... got it from his doctor on a camera interview about philosophers.
They both said the same words.
you can't call things scientific just because a scientist said it.
Not any scientist.If he lied, his reputation is at stake.
also why would he lie on a dying bed.
perhaps you would...you think he's like you.
still doesn't prove your assertion right.
i think the physician and wife shoulda known better that those words were nonsense, insignificant to reach the public of all he must have said.
Do you even know to what levels of desperation your assertion portrays?
Nerh. not desperate. Judging by the package it's a blender not a shoe.
based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science.
But his physician was satisfied, apparently he didn't ask for elaboration.
More than 24hrs.
and guesses like these and dreams are not scientific.
Dreams are part of humans(nature).
I have had dreams that came through(happened and i remembered).
Scientists haven't a method of measuring it.
Just like God.
You can't call your disabilty(ex. can't sing) a fallacy.
Don't tell me scientists don't dream(even ones that came into happening), have deja vu, six sense(feeling someone behind you without being touched, or hear or smell,), feeling of something wrong with someone close which is later confirmed(external networking program that will take science hundreds of years to discover) etc.
Science can't measure these things neither can they say aren't real.
There are some immaterial things science can't dare to touch yet.
It is part of men, but the inadvancement of science doesn't is not an excuse to debunk things above it.
Science doesn't know upto 1% about the universe and debunking things it is inable to cover now is a very bad start.
Darwin apparently was non-religious. . However he was reported to repent on his deathbed. However the people that claimed this were religious. These are some explanations that can cast doubt on the story.
1) darwins wife lied.
2) the priest lied.
3) other people made up to the story
4) its an urban myth that has nothing to do with what was said
5) i just made up the whole thing.
as for wikipedia, I would point t the Steven colbier (sp) and the bit on animals when he told people to re-write the article.
Wikipedia articles can be checked for accuracy and actually I trust the words of his physician who tended the man when he was ill ; your source comes from a religious site which I certainly would not trust .
I'm saying that the source you seem to take your information from I would not trust ; you then ask what was the place he saw in his sleep ?
Did you ever hear of something called a dream apparently people have them and most see them as just what they are a dream .
Near death experiences are different depending on the beliefs of the individual compare the near death experiences of Muslims and other religions and what they experience in similar circumstances and their experiences are similar to those of the beliefs of fellow believers .
.You failed to acknowledge my source which can be checked .........as reported by his physician Dr. Hubert S. Howe, in Thomas A. Edison, Benefactor of Mankind : The Romantic Life Story of the World's Greatest Inventor (1931) by Francis Trevelyan Miller, Ch. 25 : Edison's Views on Life — His
Your closing statement is absurd as in no atheist can be honest about this , why do you post up debates if you only want people to agree with you ?
Regards honesty that's what I've just given you the truth does indeed hurt doesn't it ?
Did you ever hear of something called a dream apparently people have them and most see them as just what they are a dream
What makes that one special to report to his doctor of all the dreams he dreamt in that week?
Near death experiences are different depending on the beliefs of the individual compare the near death experiences of Muslims and other religions and what they experience in similar circumstances and their experiences are similar to those of the beliefs of fellow believers .
Thanks for that....now here's what thomas edison believed...
"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake… Religion is all bunk."
"Nature is what we know. We do not know the gods of religions. And nature is not kind, or merciful, or loving. If God made me — the fabled God of the three qualities of which I spoke: mercy, kindness, love — He also made the fish I catch and eat. And where do His mercy, kindness, and love for that fish come in? No; nature made us — nature did it all — not the gods of the religions."
He was even tagged atheist(but he denied, calling himself a pantheist)
so clearly, depending on his believes, that's not what he should have seen(what he claims nonsense).
It's only taken as 'important ' by believers that's why you posted up your Christian source who have taken this to mean there's an afterlife.
The words were said to his doctor not his wife and yes believers have near deaths similar to those of the same beliefs , Edison could have being talking about a favourite. holiday memory a restaurant or anything else , so what ? it proves nothing .
So his statement couldn't have been influenced by religious believes.
Plus what he was saying wasn't a memory(past experience) he was sharing with his doctor, he addressed it as present it's(it is~present form)
Also that is not how to share memory, it was just too short when he had more time to complete it and he shouldn't be sharing such memories with his doctor but wife(Close family~loved ones) as a dying man
I don't understand your first comment please re -phrase .
you said
"It's only taken as 'important ' by believers that's why you posted up your Christian source"
And i asked
Is wikipedia a christian source?
you remember pulling the same statement from wikipedia right?
Again i said;
And if those(words) were promoted, it started from his wife and doctor.
Why did they find that(particular statement) significant to let out to the public of all he might have said especially one you(and others) claim to be incoherent.
If it is incoherent to you and others don't you think it should have been incoherent the doctor and his wife as well? and they had enough time seek clarity from him. They didn't and when the public needed to know his last words, it were those particular words(you claim incoherent) that they fed to the public.
You actually helped me by saying he didn't die immediately.
Why ? what's the ' recommended way to share a memory ?
Edison said a couple of words regarding a dream he had and you're inventing a mystery around it .
The article is from wiki the words are from his physician why not check that out ?
Your source is after making a big song and dance about a couple of words Edison said and it still proves nothing does it ?
Edison was pretty famous and a lot of his thoughts and words have come up in several books on his life and times ; not all sources and books mention his final days or words and believe it or not the dying words of famous people are normally given in bios .
So do you take the dying words of all humans as fact ?
Just to correct you yet again Edison's quote in full was .....
“Thomas Edison's last words were "It's very beautiful over there". I don't know where there is, but I believe it's somewhere, and I hope it's beautiful.”
It affirms nothing as i and others have told you , and even at that if he didn't know where ' somewhere ' was why would you assume a heaven ?
Also if he lived a further week after these words why did he say no more about them ?
You also claimed Edison was an atheist , he wasn't , in his own words .......Wiki
Here is Edison to a journalist who claimed he was an atheist , this is what he said about the article he wrote .....
.You have misunderstood the whole article, because you jumped to the conclusion that it denies the existence of God. There is no such denial, what you call God I call Nature, the Supreme intelligence that rules matter. All the article states is that it is doubtful in my opinion if our intelligence or soul or whatever one may call it lives hereafter as an entity or disperses back again from whence it came, scattered amongst the cells of which we are made.
He also stated, "I do not believe in the God of the theologians; but that there is a Supreme Intelligence I do not doubt."
That's all you ever say isn't it ? Your initial statement remains incorrect Edison did not prove the existence of heaven maybe it's time you acknowledged that ?
Einstein says if you can't explain it simply then you don't understand it.
Dreams and visions are above current science and that is what you fail to acknowledge.
When a baby can't speak(above it's current state's ability) about something, it points to it, and when a man can'twrite down a formula(above current state ability) he can only talk about it.
When a man can't invent something(above current state, this case factors could be opportunity, finance, raw material Etc.)in his mind, he only writes down the formula.
Yes I know what Einstein said I get what you're saying , which is that Edison's words should be taken as proof for an afterlife because it was Edison who uttered them .
You're claiming Edison's words were in reference to an after life yet he lived for another week after uttering these words and said no more on the matter , nor did his wife and physician mention that these words were regarding an afterlife so they didn't place much importance on them did they ?
Science is suffering ' disabilities ' that's utter nonsense
nor did his wife and physician mention that these words were regarding an afterlife
They packaged it religiously in their presentation.
You don't put shoes in a blender box for customers do you?
they didn't place much importance on them did they ?
When something is not important, you don't call people closer to tell them.
During the week after those words, he must have said several other things.(Ex. please give me water, good morning dear(wife), good day doctor etc.)
Why didn't they say the latter words but instead the one you claim they didn't give much importance which was said a week earlier(you see a feature of the packaging?)
The reject stone you claim is now in the books, websites and history.
Science is suffering ' disabilities ' that's utter nonsense
It's either you aren't following the pattern of my logic.....or
i should report you to catninja who doesn't believe there are people who blindly follow science.
So you accept that because Edison uttered them that should be accepted as proof ?
They packaged it religiously in their presentation ..... what presentation ?
Your shoes comment makes no sense at all .
You say when something is not important you don't call people to tell them , that's why the words weren't mentioned again until his physician wrote his apparent last words which is what all biographers do when they write about the famous .
What's a reject stone ?
No your ' logic ' is actually not logic as it makes no sense , what does blindly follow science mean ?
You ask right questions but you're the right person to receive the answers.
Had it been soneone else who was asking your questions, we would have been done 4hrs ago.
If i may ask, do you a problem with reading?...... .. . ...
There are some jabs on this topic i have repeated severally to other opposite view holders, they all get it and reply but only you always say "it makes no sense".
I ask right question .... ok .... but you're the right person to receive the answers ..... this make absolutely no sense at all .
I'm fine with reading , English seems to be your problem .
Here is what you wrote ....
..Why didn't they say the latter words but instead the one you claim they didn't give much importance which was said a week earlier(you see a feature of the packaging?)
What the fuck does that even mean ... a feature of packaging ?
Then this nonsense...,
The reject stone you claim is now in the books, websites and history........
What the fuck is a .... reject stone ?
I know English is not your language but most of what you post is pure gibberish ..... news flash no one gets it
but you're the right person to receive the answers
sorry. you're not.
What the fuck does that even mean ... a feature of packaging ?
that's why you're the right person.
You have interfered in conversations with wrong approach's too.
What the fuck is a .... reject stone ?
rejected stone? something considered not important.
I relate it to when you said the message wasn't important.
But now thats what is been broadcasted on websites and in books.
you have a problem with following up. i explained it to you the last time and even the explanation you called it nonsense.
I have been defending my debate's topic against others too since yesterday and you're the only who saying my statements make no sense(as in the grammar is not lucidious)...
i have already explained . After explaining rejected stone. you should realise lack of comprehension is your fault.
you can't manage proverbs and analogies.
You always like words raw.
Broadcasted on what websites do you mean the religious ones that spout bullshit ?
you got the same words from wikipedia. is it a religious site?
Actually someone accused you of speaking tounges which is speaking gibberish ...... I agree
I told someone i speak in tongues and it is good evidence for me God exists. The guy ignored that statement. You(the other someone) interfered and said tongues have been tested and proven nonsense.
bad memory.
Even if I'm the only one saying it so what ?
you are your own problem.
Or has anyone agreed with you yet ?
no. but it's a debate. i have managed to checkmate stsweb,beast, greenache, jolie, excon etc. left with catninja and you but you don't know how to follow up so yours is a discard.
I can manage proverbs and analogies when they're given you seem to think the gibberish you post is either of the two .... it's neither .
That's a site , you said sites didn't you ?
Actually it's in this t hread where someone tells you directly your speaking in tounges .
Bad comprehension. Speakers in tounges are self deceivers it's bullshit .
No , I'm your problem as you've no valid answers .
You've checkmated no one except in your own mind ; you actual checkmated yourself as in your debate title and you still don't realise it do you ?
The testimony of one person regarding a death bed utterance is not proof of anything if that was the case every death bed utterance would be proof of one thing or another which isn't the case is it ?
I enjoyed toying with you but your topic was flawed as in using the term proved .... sorry Jeffers checkmate
I can manage proverbs and analogies when they're given you seem to think the gibberish you post is either of the....
you can't spot them(among a sentence) how do you manage it.
You couldn't spot basic rejected stone how can you spot a feature of packaging......
Actually it's in this t hread where someone tells you directly your speaking in tounges
Thats not the only thing he talks about. He tries to tease me about things that are not even funny in the first place. While he has many unreplied arguments from me.
Plus he has never complained in any argument about not understanding sentences...he's trying to be a troll when he's not good at it.
Speakers in tounges are self deceivers it's bullshit .
I don't know why i will fake a language. I used to be too shy to have people hear me pray so(even church members).
No , I'm your problem as you've no valid answers
You need an interpretor as you keep going in circles and cannot perceive basic slight twists..
You've checkmated no one except in your own mind ;
you can see for yourself.
you actual checkmated yourself as in your debate title and you still don't realise it do you ?
what i realise is you having difficulting in proving that.
if that was the case every death bed utterance would be proof of one thing or another which isn't the case is it ?
An example? factors: Timing, State of mind, Belief state, And statement(words with citation).
the term proved .
i know proved is very exaggerated considering there was no generally accepted method of proving something involved.
But he's an authority, good reputation , non sentimental, sceptical and confirmed non religious.
(Einstein made wild claims that later was proved in space that earned him the noble prize. That is how geniuses behave.)
It is up to you still to disprove it.
So far, we are on the same balance, no one has been thrown off the cliff yet(begging you to comprehend just this one).
I haven't had a good opportunity to throw you over
because you keep going back and in circles as you have difficulty in comprehending basic things.
with you, i can never arrive at anything even in two months.......
Yes but you denied he mentioned it in this thread I was correcting you .
Yes I don't know why you have a need to fake speaking in gibberish ( it's not a language ) so why do you do it ?
Yes I clearly need someone to interpret what you're saying I never denied it .
Yes , I can see for myself your defeat .
No difficulties at all what I state is a fact dreams are not proof or facts .
Your comment on death bed utterances makes no sense
You have things the wrong way around , you made a claim regards Edison as in he proved an afterlife I dispute that it's not up to me to disprove anything , you haven't backed your claim up by proving it .
Because Edison is an authority means nothing regarding what he stated , it's up to me to disprove nothing as the words he spoke could mean anything ; you're the one who claimed he proved the existence of heaven you or he have not done so have you ?
If you say Edison proved the existence of heaven you have not provided evidence to back your claim up if you had why does no one agree with your assessment ?
Good job avoiding answering the questions I asked as in ....
Because Edison is an authority means nothing regarding what he stated , it's up to me to disprove nothing as the words he spoke could mean anything ; you're the one who claimed he proved the existence of heaven you or he have not done so have you ?
If you say Edison proved the existence of heaven you have not provided evidence to back your claim up if you had why does no one agree with your assessment ?
So you still cannot answer ?
Ok you have made your excuse to flee yet again no change there .
You're correct so why not attempt to make sense and yet again answer my questions or you can run ..... again ,
Good job avoiding answering the questions I asked as in ....
Because Edison is an authority means nothing regarding what he stated , it's up to me to disprove nothing as the words he spoke could mean anything ; you're the one who claimed he proved the existence of heaven you or he have not done so have you ?
If you say Edison proved the existence of heaven you have not provided evidence to back your claim up if you had why does no one agree with your assessment ?
So you still cannot answer ?
Ok you have made your excuse to flee yet again no change there .
My saying athiest, you dismiss the argument by dismissing the person who makes the claim. That is neither fair honest or rational the argument stand regardless of who makes the argument. True is true regardless of who says it.
"Proved" is a very strong word. If these were indeed Edison's last words it doesn't "prove" anything, though it can be said to give weak evidence for such a claim.
“I don't know what I may seem to the world. But as to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore and diverting myself now and then in finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than the ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”
Do you think he was experiencing some delirium?
if no(most probable), why do you think Edison's is yes?
No, I think that the obviously far more likely and sensible explanation is that he was religious and genuinely believed in all of it because, like almost everybody else in the 17th and 18th centuries, he was raised to do so and back then, in the absence of modern scientific knowledge, there was seemingly precious little to suggest that this was not the case.
Many smart people believe stupid things. It doesn't mean that they must be right about them simply because they were broadly right about most things. May I remind you that much of Newton's life's work consisted of trying to turn various base metals into gold? The idea that Newton or Edison or anybody else could "prove" the existence of heaven by a simple statement, particularly one made in an incapacitated state in which the mind is often subject to various delusions, is quite frankly risible.
Isaac newton was religious but did not say anything about religion in his last words.
Let me reveal edison's thought about religion to you.
"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake… Religion is all bunk."
"Nature is what we know. We do not know the gods of religions. And nature is not kind, or merciful, or loving. If God made me — the fabled God of the three qualities of which I spoke: mercy, kindness, love — He also made the fish I catch and eat. And where do His mercy, kindness, and love for that fish come in? No; nature made us — nature did it all — not the gods of the religions."
After now you should agree with me Edison wasn't religious.
I never said anything about Edison being religious or indeed non-religious in my original post or my previous argument. Please learn to read, and in the meantime stop posting stupid nonsense like this.
And if Newton didn't say anything about religion in his last words, why are they at all relevant to a debate about whether or not Thomas Edison "proved the existence of heaven at his last breath"? Are you just bringing him in in a half-hearted attempt at appeal to authority, or is there some greater meaning.
Whether or not Edison was religious or not, or whether or not he was delirious or in some other way mentally or physically impaired at the time or his death, is totally irrelevant. The question being debated is whether or not one man, even one as great as Edison, could "prove" the existence of heaven at his last breath, an idea which, as far as I am concerned, is total lunacy.
I never said anything about Edison being religious or indeed non-religious in my original post or my previous argument. Please learn to read, and in the meantime stop posting stupid nonsense like this.
According to you
"No, I think that the obviously far more likely and sensible explanation is that he was religious and genuinely believed in all of it because, like almost everybody else in the 17th and 18th centuries, "
i like the way you lie................down
so cute.
And if Newton didn't say anything about religion in his last words, why are they at all relevant to a debate about whether or not Thomas....
Lost again stswebb in the wonderland. There old posts are still there. you can follow.
Are you just bringing him in in a half-hearted attempt at appeal to authority, or is there some greater meaning.
Read from beginning of you and me.
little help. says you, religious people behave like edison at point of death.(Rephrased)
He hated religion but ended up talking religious.
Newton was very religious but died talking purely science or zero religious.
contradictory huh?
you flawed.
an idea which, as far as I am concerned, is total lunacy.
First of all, I apologise for not responding to you for a long time, as, unlike many of the basement-dwellers on this website, I actually have a job and adult responsibilities which sometimes prevent me from visiting this site every day. Obviously, this is a grievous sin, for which I apologise unreservedly.
The quote "No, I think that the obviously far more likely and sensible explanation is that he was religious and genuinely believed in all of it because, like almost everybody else in the 17th and 18th centuries, " obviously refers to Newton and not Edison. Again, please learn to read before engaging in a debate.
How is it at all "contradictory" that Edison hated religion but ended up talking about religion when he died, whereas Newton, a deeply religious man (I have no dispute with you on this point) died without talking about religion? Newton most likely simply had other things on his mind at the time, and religious delusions, as I have explained before, are quite common amongst those about to die. Why do you refuse to even entertain the possibility that Edison was undergoing one at the time he was dying.
And, once again, you fail to address the main issue of the debate, which is how on Earth Edison on his own could possibly "prove the existence of heaven" simply by saying something. That really isn't how "proof" works, at least not by any reasonable definition.
If you say your words i quoted were for isaac newton, then it isn't an answer or at least not one that makes sense.
I can pardon your skill of lying but I see you suffer short term memory issues also.
There are many adults here with jobs and responsibilities, anyway an apology isn't necessary, what for.....
I am not the one refusing to entertain, It's Edison who never entertained such things, you can check many of his quotes on religion. But you want to force your gusses/unbacked assertions for the convenience of your belief state.You want to entertain your atheistic state of belief. So you insist when there was appparently no chance of your wishful guesses coming into play.
I am debunking this whole cliche sayings that religious people hallucinate at point of death about religious things. It's bases is destroyed with the fact that non religious people sometimes talk about religious things and some religious people do not talk about religious things at all at point of death.
You cannot force the religious state of mind on whoever you wish for your own mind relieve.
When a religious man talks religious at point of death, you incline to his religion.
when again the religious talks non religious you still okay and don't ask why he didn't hallucinate religiously.
But when a non religious man talks religiously at point of death.......then again you stupidly and forcefully want to incline to his religious believes he never believed in for your own mind relief. You enjoy what you want to believe that makes you feel good than the facts ...bigotry at the extreme but then again you have nerves to shift the tag of bigotry on the other person baselessly but insistent.
You know how constantine converted to christianity at a full grown age right? Not childhood indoctrination.
Do you think he was hallucinating the whole time while winning the war?
Or you think it never happened? Or in fact you think constantine never existed?
It's quite simple. I stated quite a few arguments ago that "I never said anything about Edison being religious or indeed non-religious in my original post or my previous argument." You then claimed that when I made the statement "No, I think that the obviously far more likely and sensible explanation is that he was religious and genuinely believed in all of it because, like almost everybody else in the 17th and 18th centuries, " I was referring to Thomas Edison, and accused me of lying. I then pointed out that I was obviously actually referring to Newton, at which point you now for some unknown reason accuse me of lying again. I'm sorry, but if you lack such basic reading comprehension skills, then this conversation will be fruitless.
I am perfectly aware that some non-religious people make religious statements when they die and that some religious people do not. What I'm trying to understand is why you think that this proves anything at all, as opposed to merely being a result of the various quirks of human psychology.
And I cannot see how Constantine is relevant to this at all. I am perfectly aware of the story of his conversion. Do I believe that a cross of light actually appeared in the sky to him? No, of course I don't, for reasons which should be obvious. I do think, however, that he could well have seen such a thing in a vision or dream, although I would have no idea why. But again, the relevance of this escapes me.
I then pointed out that I was obviously actually referring to Newton, at which point you now for some unknown reason accuse me of lying again.
If you were refering to newton then that answer doesn't make sense looking at the question here.
So my bases is, you clearly understood the question and answered accordingly so you lie when say you were referring to newton. You are only making an escape attempt from the trap.
What I'm trying to understand is why you think that this proves anything at all, as opposed to merely being a result of the various quirks of human psychology.
My bases were he shouldn't have said that as a pantheist, he is a reputable figure in science, person of exactitude, and he was in a fine condition of no mental imbalance as at that time.
About 3people on this same topic have brought suggesting experiments and other scientific explanation which i took time to destroy , am ready you can introduce yours. The factors, the set up, by who on who?, aim of experiment, observation, conclusion etc
No, of course I don't, for reasons which should be obvious
Which are???
First constantine formerly was not a believer, he had a vision(which you call hallucination) , he pursued it in a very risky situation(politics and war) and it yielded positive results.
Point one he was not on a death bed and there is no prove he was hallucinating.
2.He actually had victory after doing what he saw why do you insist to call it hallucination? because you are a die hard atheist?
Why do insist to call everything you conveniently wish not true hallucination without proof or examination.
That is delibetate extreme die hard bigotry not atheism~Nihilistic,
I think it's great that he believed this, and also that you think what he said was proof. But hallucinations and wishful thinking as the body starts to shutdown could make anything seem like anything. Hey, another stereotype is "their whole life flashed before their eyes", and if he claimed he had that happen and then suddenly remembered a baby sitter molested him it wouldn't necessarily mean that in that nanosecond of flash he had uncovered incontrovertible evidence he'd been molested.
But hallucinations and wishful thinking as the body starts to shutdown could make anything seem like anything.
You see that wasn't the case, he had more than 48hrs to clarify.
Hey, another stereotype is "their whole life flashed before their eyes", and if he claimed he had that happen and then suddenly remembered a baby sitter molested him it wouldn't necessarily mean that in that nanosecond of flash he had uncovered incontrovertible evidence he'd been molested.
