An atheist worth his salt wouldn't be keep company with religious people? Didn't realize atheism was some sort of exclusive, prejudice club.
Much like I'm sure there are religious zealots who would not chill with atheists, I guess there are some atheists who handle that the same way.
Correction, I did not say "religious people", I said "priest", meaning all clergy. There are difference between the clergy and believers.
The clergy are members of perhaps the lowest form of profession in the world. Their creed is ignorance, their bibles are astoundingly unjust and filled with superstition, fear is their weapon, and ethics are non-existent. They have one of the highest child sex abuse rates in the world, they get out of military duty, get taxed less (if at all), and 100% of them are liars. Why would anybody want to hang out with one of them, unless it's at a debate in front of an audience?
I would imagine there are some priests who could abstain and respect your choices. Part of their job is giving convincing talks to their congregation, and a good approach toward creating material for those talks would be to respect other beliefs so they can learn what motivates them.
Considering the chemicals released into your brain upon a NDE, what's happened with my own NDE's and other parallel experiences, along with what McKenna says in the same vein, I can confidently say that Ayer remained an atheist as I did. A state known as "entity contact" is not uncommon under such influences, but ultimately they just remain personified aspects of ourselves and are not things that exist independently of our minds.
I know what you're talking about, and it's admirable that you try to follow the rules. But perhaps you can point me to some empirical evidence that the chemical in question mediates NDEs.
It's a theory that arises from the detection of it in the body at all times and the parallels between its ingested use and NDE's. There's also data suggesting it spikes in those having episodes of psychosis. And some anecdotal things with myself which don't really mean anything. But regardless of if it's true or not, NDE's and intentional dosing of certain things are extraordinarily similar and I can see how someone would envision certain things under the influence of either and incorrectly attribute them to outside entities.
I'd be interested in the data "suggesting it spikes in those having episodes of psychosis." A simple link will suffice.
If you're suggesting that NDEs are in some way processed by something other than the brain then lets see some empirical evidence. If you're conceding that the brain handles the experience, then brain chemistry is certianly relevant to that regardless of which specific chemicals are responsible. At that point, you're just picking nits.
You're the one who brought it up. I'm just asking for empirical evidence. Sorry for asking. I'm not suggesting anything. I'm inquiring about empirical evidence about a chemical that mad-shamani is linking to NDEs specifically, because as far as I'm aware (and I'm quite well versed in this particular topic), there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that the chemical in question does anything to our conscious state- whether it's during NDEs, dreaming, the birth experience, spontaneous mystical experience, or anything else. We know that it exists in the human body and most biological organisms. We don't know why, however. Obviously, the NDE experience derives from brain chemistry. What specific chemistry? That has not yet been answered. I just find it quite striking that somebody who spends his time in another topic in this subforum droning on and on about there being no evidence for a god or gods chooses to align himself with something that equally has no evidence whatsoever.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=peace-of-mind-near-death This was a trivial find. You could at least make a token attempt next time. Here, since I expect more nits to be picked: http://www.examiner.com/article/dr-rick-strassman-interview-dmt-and-near-death-experiences-shed-light-on-spirit-brain-relationship There's a guy engaged in specific study of this.
The point is you're trying to debate something that is irrelevant to the topic, honestly. I've already admitted the idea is speculation. However, given the similarities between endogenous and ingested use, it is the most likely explanation for the experience. And regardless of if it is or isn't, the fact remains that NDE's still mirror the experience and, as such, we can further extend the comparison to this situation. TL;DR - pointless debate.
the entire topic of NDE's is a bit boring. Nobody has ever come back after complete brain death, and as long as the brain is alive...even if the body isn't...a person is still able to experience visions, dreams, etc.. and the brain is an easy explanation for the experiences. Once a human returns to life after brain death then we'll have something worthwhile to discuss.