The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Skepticalone
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

near death experiences are a good reason not to be atheist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Skepticalone
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 711 times Debate No: 77616
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

here are some examples of them
www.nderf.org

almost no one who is an atheist comes back still an atheist. they might have a bigger or different conception of God than what is normally talked about, but atheist they are not.
Skepticalone

Con

I look forward to an interesting debate. Good Luck, Pro!

Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

that first round was my argument. i know it wasn't much. but con should have also started out with arguments
Skepticalone

Con

Thank you, Pro.

Let's get right into it, shall we?!

Near Death Experiences





NDE - A near-death experience (NDE) is a personal experience associated with impending death, encompassing multiple possible sensations including detachment from the body, feelings of levitation, total serenity, security, warmth, the experience of absolute dissolution, and the presence of a light. [1]

1. Pro claims "almost no one who is an atheist comes back [from a NDE] still an atheist. they might have a bigger or different conception of God than what is normally talked about, but atheist they are not."

This is an unsupported assertion. Pro's position is completely unwarranted based on what she has provided us, and she has not met her burden.

2. A personal experience someone else has is not evidence for anyone but that person. Whether that person was (or is) an atheist is irrelevant.

3.Certainly, almost dying can be a lifechanging event and a catalyst for reprioritzing one's life and views. An individual changing their views after such an event may have absolutely nothing to do with a NDE.

4. Lastly, Near death experiences are not consistent with an all-powerful god and tend to favor the beliefs and culture of the individual:

"While it is “definitely clear that people do have experience at the time that they’re dead”, Parnia says, how individuals actually choose to interpret those experiences depends entirely on their background and pre-existing beliefs." [2]

If we had high percentage of individuals from all religions claiming they saw Vishnu or Zues (for example), then that would be something to think about. Unfortunately for Pro, collectively we have no consistent expectations of NDE other than the experience (when compared) will be inconsistent:

These mental experiences ranged from terrifying to blissful. There were those who reported feeling afraid or suffering persecution, for example. “I had to get through a ceremony … and the ceremony was to get burned,” one patient recalled. “There were four men with me, and whichever lied would die … I saw men in coffins being buried upright.” Another remembered being “dragged through deep water”, and still another was “told I was going to die and the quickest way was to say the last short word I could remember”.

Others, however, experienced the opposite sensation, with 22% reporting “a feeling of peace or pleasantness”. Some saw living things: “All plants, no flowers” or “lions and tigers”; while others basked in the glow of “a brilliant light” or were reunited with family. Some, meanwhile, reported a strong sense of deja-vu: “I felt like I knew what people were going to do before they did it”. Heightened senses, a distorted perception of the passage of time and a feeling of disconnection from the body were also common sensations that survivors reported. [2]

Back to you, Pro!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2]http://www.bbc.com...


Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"A personal experience someone else has is not evidence for anyone but that person. Whether that person was (or is) an atheist is irrelevant."

it might be a personal experience, but it looks like the experience has to do with us all. this means we should listen even to the personal expereinces of those people.

"Certainly, almost dying can be a lifechanging event and a catalyst for reprioritzing one's life and views. An individual changing their views after such an event may have absolutely nothing to do with a NDE."

it's more than just a life changing event. they go from not believing, to 'knowing' God exists.

people overwhelmingly experience God. very few if any experience people like Zues Buddha or Mohammad. on a related note, an overwheling number experience Jesus, or at least a being of light, but my main point is they overwhelmingly expereince God.
Skepticalone

Con

Thank you, Pro! Again, let us cut straight to it:

1. "almost no one who is an atheist comes back [from a NDE] still an atheist. they might have a bigger or different conception of God than what is normally talked about, but atheist they are not."

I stated last round, Pro’s assertion was unsupported. She has dropped this point upon which her entire case is built. On this alone, the decision of the voters should be simple. However, in the interest of providing a thorough case, I will respond to Pro’s rebuttals.



2. "it might be a personal experience, but it looks like the experience has to do with us all. this means we should listen even to the personal experiences of those people."

NDE’s are an inherently subjective experience. If we were to consider anecdotes as evidence, then they would be a weak standard of evidence indeed. These stories rely on the interpretation of one person – an interpretation that cannot be verified or corroborated in any objective way. At best, it would be evidence for one person, and anyone else would be required to take their word for it.

3. "it's more than just a life changing event. they go from not believing, to 'knowing' God exists."

There is many things wrong with this statement. First and foremost, these individuals gain a new perspective on how fragile life is. That alone is enough for a person to re-examine their life and views - NDE or not.

I will address the ‘knowledge’ claim in the next section since it will be tied to her statement there.


4. "people overwhelmingly experience God. very few if any experience people like Zeus Buddha or Mohammad. on a related note, an overwheling number experience Jesus, or at least a being of light, but my main point is they overwhelmingly expereince God."

Pro suggests that NDEs provides “knowledge” of God. As a non-believer, I find this statement interesting and perplexing. It seems by Pro's logic, NDE’s provide ‘knowledge’ of any gods ever experienced, including ancient gods that are generally accepted as myths now. Either we accept all gods experienced in NDEs as myth or we accept them all as true. We know NDEs were known by Plato 2500 years ago [3]. Would Pro have us believe the Greek gods are not myths?

I discussed last round that NDEs were not consistent and were strongly correlated to pre-existing beliefs. It is much more reasonable to conclude these experiences build upon information, beliefs, and fears already possessed in the dying brains rather than to jump to the dubious conclusion that ‘knowledge’ is gained from an immaterial realm beyond this one.

Lastly, Pro asserts “people overwhelmingly experience God” – This is an unsupported assertion. Not to mention, I have already provided evidence to the contrary by way of Sam Parnia (director of resuscitation research at Stony Brook University School of Medicine in New York) in the last round.


In summary:

1. Pro has devoted her energy to refuting my arguments, and in doing so, has completely neglected her positive case. This is sufficient for a Con win.

2. Subjective experience is only good for the ‘subject’ (individual).

3. Realizing life is fragile is likely to cause re-evaluation – No NDE is necessary.

4. NDEs are all different and the possible deities can be linked to the pre-existing beliefs in the individual and/or culture whether the experience occurred in ancient or modern times. No supernatural explanation is needed.




**I thank Pro for the opportunity to debate this subject, and the reader for hanging with us.**

[3] http://www.near-death.com...

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
RFD:

This is fairly straightforward, so I'll just go over the main points. The tilde of my vote is that Con more cleanly explained their points, and Pro often lacked links and didn't sufficiently explain their points. I vote Con on the basis of the burden of proof. The resolution is a fact claim, and, as such, Pro retains the entirety of the BoP, which I don't think they fulfilled properly and adequately.

Basically, Pro's only argument is that those that have NDE generally become theists, which is a bare assertion. Additionally, I'm not seeing a link, since the resolution says NDEs are a "good" reason to become theistic, but this correlation fails to even relate to the resolution. Con argues that NDEs as a reason to become theistic lack explanatory power due to the variance in such experiences. How individuals interpret these experiences is dependent on culture and upbringing. Finally, Con shows that NDEs are inherently subjective.

Con clearly wins on links and impacts. Links: Pro's sole argument lacks a link, while Con's interpretation argument was entirely linked to the argument. Impacts: the lack of link undermines all Pro's impacts, and Pro's other argument is a bare assertion, thus fails to actually deliver a link. On the other hand, Con sources and establishes all impacts. The subjectivity of NDEs lacked sufficient explanation because the links could have been expanded on, but it still holds an impact strong enough to negate.

I was also tempted to award the spelling and grammar point to Con, but I don't think the point is sufficiently warranted since Pro only fails to punctuate, and there were no further grammatical errors.

Ergo, I vote Con.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: Lsumichiganfan// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Conduct and S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Okay this was a blow out! Let me explain.. Con gets conduct and argument points because he rebuted pros little arguments and formating was very well and he used a picture. Con gets spelling and grammar points because pro failed to capitalize there letters. Now sources are tied because even though con used more sources he used wikipedia so sources is tied.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The argument points are not clearly explained. Saying that one of the debaters "rebuted pros little arguments" lacks any analysis specific to the debate. (2) Conduct is not explained in any way that justifies the vote. Formating differences and use of a picture do not justify the point allocation. (3) Merely failing to capitalize letters at the start of each sentence is insufficient justification for the S&G point. Unless their S&G is such that it interferes with your comprehension of the arguments, it doesn't warrant giving the point out. (4) The source point seems to insinuate that there's something inherently wrong with Wikipedia as a source without explaining why.
******************************************************************************
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
I've had a near death experience while I was religious and I still ended up being an atheist.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
I would like to accept.
Posted by SNP1 1 year ago
SNP1
I am and atheist and have had an NDE. I am also interested in this debate, but it also seems like it would be a waste of time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
dairygirl4u2cSkepticaloneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.