Thank God I'm An Atheist (Warning: STRONG Content)

[Crunchy Cat]

Having evilness include diarrhea doesn’t seem to dilute the meaning of the word.

Ok ok, I have a confession here. I laughed my ass off for almost 5 minutes
after reading that statement. If there were some 'statement of the year'
award, I would most certainly nominate that one . I am still having
some difficulty regaining composure .

Having evilness include diarrhea doesn’t seem to dilute the meaning of the word. The laundry list of “evil” could be a thousand miles long. As long as it doesn’t include the thousand miles of generally accepted good stuff, few will be confused.

Even if it's absolutely absurd? Ok, I am having a second laugh attack here.
Composure has gone to the dogs again.

As long as the thing is “bad” to most people, few will be confused. Always some people will be confused. We can’t cater to them and still have a decent discussion.

This is true and by catering to the majority, coherency of the definition
becomes diluted.

Not more truthful. More believable. More convincing. Unlike the dragons I presume, you can re-experience a past life at will. No matter how often you do it, the experience will not alter but rather be filled in with ever greater detail.

Ahh yes, belivability. Perceived confidence that something is true. Before
moving along in this section, how is a past life re-experienced at will?

Indeed, by the same token why should any event be accepted as truth?

That's the point and the right question. It shouldn't.

What is true is a matter of faith. Always!

I disagree, faith is an unconditional trust that 'something' (usually 'God' will
grant a person's improbable or impossible expectation. Most people go about
their daily routine with probable and possible expectations that are not
unconditional and require little or no trust.

A truism is self-evident (yes, that is a play on the word, but it's true I tell ya). What is generally accepted as truth is that for which our personal evidence matches.

I partially agree with the second part of the statement and would ellaborate
on it by stating that those ideas we find attractive are more likely to be
accepted as being 'true'. Whatever we accept as truth is not necessarily
true. I can accept that it's true that when I jump into a raging fire for
1/2 an hour, I will walk away unharmed; however, if I put my 'truth' to
the test, reality will contradict my 'truth' and definitively proove that my
my 'truth' was actually false (not to mention I would be burned to a crisp).

 

[one_raven]

Why would you argue such a position if you are going to advocate deism? That seems arbitrary to me.

As I said, I am arguing the reasoning and logic honestly without agenda.
My goal in life, unlike so many others, is NOT to affirm my position and convince others of it, it is to honestly and openly find truth (or what I can honestly accprt as being the truth temporarily until someone enlightens me otherwise).

All I care about is truth. I don't argue to try to convince others, I argue so that others may convince me.

 

[§outh§tar]

God is a Deist, they say.

What truth? Your truth? We can't know anything; we can only assume.

Doesn't strike as a very good basis for determining truth.

 

[one_raven]

You assign the existence of the Earth more validity because you have not re-experienced that past life in glorious detail to give it equal validity.

Sorry, you are wrong about me.
The Earth can be objectively observed. That's why I firmly believe in it.
It can be seen, tested, measured and quantified not only by me, but by others and by devices that measure.

That, as I was attemtping to point out, is the difference between objective and subjective experiences.

Again, this does not mean that reincarnation isn't possible.
In fact, I lean heavily more towards believing in the Buddhist version of samsara than the Christian Heaven/Hell concoction.
However, if you honestly can't see the difference between objective and subjective experiences regardless of what you believe and you stick to the old standby epistemological cop-out of questioning the existence of everything equally because faulty logic systems can not prove existence itself, then as far as I am concerned this discussion has come to a stand-still.

 

[one_raven]

God is a Deist, they say.

HA HA HA!
Touché

I am arguing my present belief of what is true (that if God does exist, then he is the Deist version of God, at least he is NOW) challenging other to convince me otherwise.
When I look at others' arguments, I try to avoid doing so with any bias.
I am human, of course, and some bias does come through, but I do not ague in favor of any predetermined belief system against another system.
I argue the reasoning of what I see in front of me and whether that reasoning for that specific point makes sense to me or not.
For example, as I pointed out, I do not believe in the Christian God.
However, I don't let that belief get in the way of arguing the validity of the logic and reasoning of this specific topic of argument - whether or not the existence of "evil" negates the possibility of that God existing.
If you started a thread about whether or not the Christian God exists, and I decided (against my better judgement ) to join it, I would be sharing my arguments against Him existing.
because I care more about the honesty of the arguments and reasoning than I do about any system of belief, including my own.

What truth? Your truth?

Yes.
Of course MY truth.
What kind of silly question is that?
Who else's truth would I be talking about?
When talking about things that are wholly subjective, whose truth matters more than your own?

What's most important, however, is to be flexible and open-minded enough in your beliefs to be able to recognize when someone makes a point and allow yourself to question, adjust or even completely change your own beliefs.

We can't know anything; we can only assume.

Doesn't strike as a very good basis for determining truth.

Nope. Not a very good basis at all.
We can prove facts to others, we can only prove beliefs to ourselves.
That's why subjective beliefs are a silly thing to fight about, but an important thing to argue about.


Don't you think this is not only fun, but important?
Is it not important to you to call your own beliefs into question?

 

[zanket]

Ok ok, I have a confession here. I laughed my ass off for almost 5 minutes
after reading that statement.

Glad to oblige.

Before moving along in this section, how is a past life re-experienced at will?

By revisiting the hypnotherapist.

That's the point and the right question. It shouldn't.

Exactly. The closest you can come to truth is faith. Truth is indeterminate.

I disagree, faith is an unconditional trust that 'something' (usually 'God' will
grant a person's improbable or impossible expectation. Most people go about
their daily routine with probable and possible expectations that are not
unconditional and require little or no trust.

I’m using the dictionary definition of faith here: “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.” Regardless how you feel about God, faith rules your life, for truth is indeterminate. For example, underpinning all science is the reflexive axiom: a = a. There is no proof for that. It is generally accepted as a matter of faith. All science is faith-based.

I partially agree with the second part of the statement and would ellaborate
on it by stating that those ideas we find attractive are more likely to be
accepted as being 'true'.

Yes. We use “true” as shorthand for “generally accepted.”

Whatever we accept as truth is not necessarily
true. I can accept that it's true that when I jump into a raging fire for
1/2 an hour, I will walk away unharmed; however, if I put my 'truth' to
the test, reality will contradict my 'truth' and definitively proove that my
my 'truth' was actually false (not to mention I would be burned to a crisp).

Likewise, whatever we accept as false is not necessarily false. You can accept that it’s false that you have lived other lives; however, if you put your 'false' to the test, reality will contradict your 'false' and definitely prove that your 'false' was actually true.

 

[zanket]

Sorry, you are wrong about me.
The Earth can be objectively observed. That's why I firmly believe in it.
It can be seen, tested, measured and quantified not only by me, but by others and by devices that measure.

You avoided my question. I asked, “Why stick to a definition of reality that excludes personal-only experiences?”

That, as I was attemtping to point out, is the difference between objective and subjective experiences.

You avoided my question. I asked, “If you are in pain but nobody else can experience it, measure it, or quantify it beyond your description of it, are you not in pain?”

However, if you honestly can't see the difference between objective and subjective experiences regardless of what you believe and you stick to the old standby epistemological cop-out of questioning the existence of everything equally because faulty logic systems can not prove existence itself, then as far as I am concerned this discussion has come to a stand-still.

What really happened is that you backed yourself into a logic corner.

 

[one_raven]

What really happened is that you backed yourself into a logic corner.

Not quite, Sparky.
When you use that tired, old epistemological crutch to question anything in a debate it makes the entire debate collapse into pointless words.
If anything can be held up it, everything can be, so, in effect, everything is correct and nothing is correct at the same time.
At that point, discussion is completely pointless because everything is equally deniable under "logic" because existence itself can't even be proven.
It's stupid to continue on discussing at that point because there is no conclusions to be reaced about anything, and a claim that God is a purple unicorn that frolicks around the tree in my back yard on full moons is as valid as a claim that the tree in my back yard even exists.

This is why I try and avoid arguing the logic of anything (since logic can be manipulated to prove anything you wish when you allow it) and instead, try and argue about the soundness of reasoning.

This is also why I said as far as I'm concerened this discussion has come to a standstill because under these circumstances we are both correct and we are both incorrect at the same time and truth is absolutely meaningless. If truth IS absolutlely menaingless, that's fine. I can accept that, but then there is nothing left to discuss. Ergo, the discussion has ended.

 

[zanket]

Not quite, Sparky.
When you use that tired, old epistemological crutch to question anything in a debate it makes the entire debate collapse into pointless words.

Maybe, had I done that. What I really did was ask you if your pain is real despite being subjective. That's a clear question.

 

[one_raven]

Maybe, had I done that.

Actually, that's precicely what you did...

Are you honestly trying to tell me that there is NO difference between the validity of a claim that the Earth exists and a claim that I was X person in a past life because I felt it while I was under hypnosis?
If so, then we really have nothing to discuss.

If not, then I will continue with your other points.

There is no difference. You assign the existence of the Earth more validity because you have not re-experienced that past life in glorious detail to give it equal validity.

 

[zanket]

Actually, that's precicely what you did...

No, that is not a claim that “everything is correct and nothing is correct.”

You say that only objective experiences are real. I ask, is your pain real? If so, then subjective experiences are also real and it follows that “there is NO difference between the validity of a claim that the Earth exists and a claim that I was X person in a past life because I felt it while I was under hypnosis” because a past life experience is subjective.

You’re just avoiding the question.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

By revisiting the hypnotherapist.

I understand. Those dragons can show up by will according to the same
standard. I can set my alarm clock to wake me up, think of dragons, open my
eyes and watch the scenery for a few moments (dragons galore!). On
another note, if the past life experience doesn't change but fills in with more
detail, wouldn't the added detail be change? I see the point however,
stability and recurrance can make things more believable (not more truthful).
I have had very stable recurring dreams where I am dog chasing chickens by
my home (an elven hut on the beach with two guard spiders that are the size
of bowling balls). My 'owner' is a short and old elf lady whom weilds powerful
cooking magic. Most importantly the dream is stable and recurring. It
becomes potentially believable but no more so than past life (or in between
life) regression. Only one of us considers at least one of these experiences to
be true. So why would my recurring dream not be true?

Exactly. The closest you can come to truth is faith. Truth is indeterminate.

I disagree. I just performed a rediculous experiment to prove the point. I
said 'cat'. I asked my friend what I said. He had a weird look on his face but
then he said 'cat'. No faith is involved and this individual was perfectly
aligned to the truth.

I’m using the dictionary definition of faith here: “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.” Regardless how you feel about God, faith rules your life, for truth is indeterminate. For example, underpinning all science is the reflexive axiom: a = a. There is no proof for that. It is generally accepted as a matter of faith. All science is faith-based.

Gotcha. Our definitions are misaligned but we are aware of it. This definition
of 'faith' is pretty much the definition of 'belief' that I use: 'acceptance that
an assertion is true without considering supportive / contradictory evidence'.
I agree this type of acceptance runs rampant in peoples lives (including mine).
I do conciously try to minimize this type of acceptance whenever possible.
It works wonders I tell ya'

Likewise, whatever we accept as false is not necessarily false. You can accept that it’s false that you have lived other lives; however, if you put your 'false' to the test, reality will contradict your 'false' and definitely prove that your 'false' was actually true.

Correct; however, I am not in agreement with the example. If I wrtie a
gabrled setnnece, the brain will fill in the garbled areas with what is expected
or hoped to be seen. It's the way the mind works. Memories can be
constructed from weak roots into anything desired through similar processes.
Dreaming alone validates that the mind can generate sensory input and
memory all on it's own. This is all truth whose existence challanges the idea
that content of past life regression is true.

 

[one_raven]

You can say the same about anything. I can no more prove reincarnation than you can prove that trees exist.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that there is NO difference between the validity of a claim that the Earth exists and a claim that I was X person in a past life because I felt it while I was under hypnosis?
If so, then we really have nothing to discuss.

There is no difference. You assign the existence of the Earth more validity because you have not re-experienced that past life in glorious detail to give it equal validity.

I've said what I had to say.
Several times, in fact.
I'm done wasting my time and effort on this with you.

 

[zanket]

I understand. Those dragons can show up by will according to the same
standard. I can set my alarm clock to wake me up, think of dragons, open my
eyes and watch the scenery for a few moments (dragons galore!).

Do you have all 5 senses in relation to the dragons? Can you touch them?

On another note, if the past life experience doesn't change but fills in with more
detail, wouldn't the added detail be change?

No, it would be new detail. It’s the detail you previously experienced that does not change. If you were a farm girl in Russia in the early 1800s, you can always return to that life. If you re-experience (re-re-experience?) that girl’s 5th birthday it will always be the same and you can continue to see what happened the day after the birthday. If on that day the girl helped in the field and broke a sweat then you will feel the heat and the sweat dripping from your brow.

Most importantly the dream is stable and recurring. It
becomes potentially believable but no more so than past life (or in between
life) regression. Only one of us considers at least one of these experiences to
be true. So why would my recurring dream not be true?

Past life re-experiences are a much more convincing form of reality than a dream. Dreams—at least none I’ve had—are not just like this reality, in full-on 3D with all 5 senses. In my out-of-body experiences (much the same except self-directed) I have walked around saying to myself, “I cannot tell the difference!” You remember them like any other highlight of your life—this life, whereas a dream tends to fade unless you commit it to memory.

A friend of mine’s had a past life experience where the death was so intense that after he left the hypnotherapist he sat in his car and bawled for an hour. Have you had a dream like that? I haven’t. Nor have I had dreams that skip across thousands of years of history and put me in situations where, say, I’m using Dark Ages tools and weapons.

I disagree. I just performed a rediculous experiment to prove the point. I
said 'cat'. I asked my friend what I said. He had a weird look on his face but
then he said 'cat'. No faith is involved and this individual was perfectly
aligned to the truth.

The mere existence of your friend is based on faith. There’s no way to prove your friend exists. Try it.

Gotcha. Our definitions are misaligned but we are aware of it.

Sorry, I don’t know what you’re getting at here.

Dreaming alone validates that the mind can generate sensory input and
memory all on it's own. This is all truth whose existence challanges the idea
that content of past life regression is true.

Like I said, it’s about how convincing and believable it is. We can keep discussing the definition of truth but I think that’s silly. The bottom line is, were you to visit a decent hypnotherapist you would almost certainly come away from it convinced that you had lived other lives. You’d no longer question it.

As I noted above, my dad was a staunch atheist my whole life until his heart stopped at my age 24. Before then he could go on and on about how there is no God and how he would turn to dust upon death. It took two minutes for the hospital staff to resuscitate him. In two minutes he became a firm believer in an afterlife, so much so that he signed a “do not resuscitate” order because he was pissed that he was brought back. That’s how real it is.

We can keep going on but I’d never convince you just with words. Nor would you convince me.

 

[zanket]

I've said what I had to say.
Several times, in fact.
I'm done wasting my time and effort on this with you.

Rather than answer a simple question that might reveal illogic, you quit. Bravo.

 

[one_raven]

Yep.
Your superior logic and reason skills have toppled my feeble attempts.
What can I say?
I, one day, hope to be as clever and intelligent as you.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Do you have all 5 senses in relation to the dragons? Can you touch them?

I can say for certainty that I can see and hear. Feeling does occur, but
it doesn't always match the hyponogigic hallcunication.

No, it would be new detail. It’s the detail you previously experienced that does not change. If you were a farm girl in Russia in the early 1800s, you can always return to that life. If you re-experience (re-re-experience?) that girl’s 5th birthday it will always be the same and you can continue to see what happened the day after the birthday. If on that day the girl helped in the field and broke a sweat then you will feel the heat and the sweat dripping from your brow.

If the detail is noticed in experience B but was not in an earlier experience
A, then how can it be certain the detail existed during A?

Past life re-experiences are a much more convincing form of reality than a dream.

I cannot agree or disagree as I have not experienced past life regression.

Dreams—at least none I’ve had—are not just like this reality, in full-on 3D with all 5 senses.

People's dream content and intensity can differ from person to person. Most of my dreams are involve all five senses. Many of my dreams result in
heightened senses.

In my out-of-body experiences (much the same except self-directed) I have walked around saying to myself, “I cannot tell the difference!”

I have had the dream equivalent of this. I must admit, differntiating between
the two can be difficult unless repeated observations are made and
remembered.

You remember them like any other highlight of your life—this life, whereas a dream tends to fade unless you commit it to memory.

Some dreams I loose, and some dreams I retain. The ones I tend to retain
are the ones that peak my interest above and beyond. I honestly probably
remember more dreams than what I do in waking life .

A friend of mine’s had a past life experience where the death was so intense that after he left the hypnotherapist he sat in his car and bawled for an hour. Have you had a dream like that?

I have had dreams of increadible emotional intensity (joy -euphoric-, sadness,
fear, etc.). They still have an impact on me today and influence my thinking.
I honestly feel quite lucky, as I have had fantastic dreams which are so
different from waking reality that I am repeatedly mind-blown by even thinking
of the experiences.

Nor have I had dreams that skip across thousands of years of history and put me in situations where, say, I’m using Dark Ages tools and weapons.

Not all people dream equally. I have had dreams that skip around in both
time and physical law (realities I suppose).

The mere existence of your friend is based on faith. There’s no way to prove your friend exists. Try it.

Of course there is. Video and audio or I can introduce you two in person.

Sorry, I don’t know what you’re getting at here.

Sorry for not being clear. We were using different definitions, and we
understood each of them for communication purposes without standardizing
on one of them.

Like I said, it’s about how convincing and believable it is. We can keep discussing the definition of truth but I think that’s silly.

I think it's fundamentally important, but its simply my opinion.

The bottom line is, were you to visit a decent hypnotherapist you would almost certainly come away from it convinced that you had lived other lives. You’d no longer question it.

Now that's confidence! I accept the challenge on the condition that an
agreeable commitment is established concerning what will happen if I don't
come away from it convinced I had other lives. I'll even use the same
hypnotherapist you did.

As I noted above, my dad was a staunch atheist my whole life until his heart stopped at my age 24. Before then he could go on and on about how there is no God and how he would turn to dust upon death. It took two minutes for the hospital staff to resuscitate him. In two minutes he became a firm believer in an afterlife, so much so that he signed a “do not resuscitate” order because he was pissed that he was brought back. That’s how real it is.

I've heard of this same type of scenario before (your dad is not a unique
case). The re-occurance of the event indicates that people are experiencing
profound events. Such people tend to jump to the 'God' conclusion while
others are more interested in understanding what the event was. Those
in search of the truth are more much more likely to find it than those who
don't search for it but rather declare it.

We can keep going on but I’d never convince you just with words. Nor would you convince me.

The second part of the statement may be true. The first part is false.

 

[zanket]

I can say for certainty that I can see and hear. Feeling does occur, but
it doesn't always match the hyponogigic hallcunication.

Do you have these experiences right after awakening, but before fully awake? What I call the twilight zone.

If the detail is noticed in experience B but was not in an earlier experience
A, then how can it be certain the detail existed during A?

You can't. It's new detail. There's no mystery... Either you didn't go there--in A you did the 5th birthday and 10th birthday, whereas in B you did the 5th, which was the same as in A, and the 7th, which was new. Or you didn't notice it the first time, like how you notice more when you watch a movie again. I'm saying that what you did notice in A is the same for the same event in B, and in B you can experience any event between, before, or after the events you experienced in A. Just like would be the case if you watched a movie in bits and pieces in multiple sittings, except in "full reality" mode.

Most of my dreams are involve all five senses. Many of my dreams result in
heightened senses.

Those sound like lucid dreams. That is when you are consciously dreaming. Your conscious is in control.

I have had dreams of increadible emotional intensity (joy -euphoric-, sadness,
fear, etc.). They still have an impact on me today and influence my thinking.
I honestly feel quite lucky, as I have had fantastic dreams which are so
different from waking reality that I am repeatedly mind-blown by even thinking
of the experiences.

Yes, that's what I'm getting at. My theory is that reality runs the gamut of realness. When my dad was resuscitated he said that where he had been was more real than here, with more awareness. It’s hard to imagine.

Of course there is. Video and audio or I can introduce you two in person.

We can keep discussing the definition of truth, starting here. Introducing me might convince me but it would not be proof. By your own logic I could claim that your friend is a hallucination, therefore unreal.

Now that's confidence! I accept the challenge on the condition that an
agreeable commitment is established concerning what will happen if I don't
come away from it convinced I had other lives. I'll even use the same
hypnotherapist you did.

Make it a personal challenge. I’m not trying to convince but rather just discuss the topic—teach and learn. I do recommend this hypnotherapist though. If you wish to travel to Bellevue WA then I’ll get the link. There’s bound to be good ones in any major city since they need only hypnotize you and prompt you.

Such people tend to jump to the 'God' conclusion while
others are more interested in understanding what the event was.

Yep.

Those in search of the truth are more much more likely to find it than those who
don't search for it but rather declare it.

Makes sense. “Ask and it shall be answered” is like a right in that realm. I’ve read about people who were dead on the operating table for only a few minutes, but in that Earthly time they spent what seemed like weeks asking questions to satisfy their longstanding curiosity about the afterlife. Some have gone on to write a book about their experience. And these books tend to be profound. Either that or the authors are the world's best storytellers.

You can read some good ones online at near-death.com. One story that I especially like is about a man who was hacked with a machete during the Hutu-Tutsi massacre in Africa a few years back. He was left for dead and the maggots swarmed over him. A week later he got up and now he’s a minister in Texas of all places. Of course what he experienced during his “death” is even more interesting.

 

[MarcAC]

Is there any Christian around who can give us a few reasons why these children should be thankful to God?

First they have to know who God is. Do they? Which God do they know?

How long should they wait for Jesus to send manna before they realize the truth?

Jesus? Who???

Ask and ye shall recieve; Give thanks to the Lord in your trials and tribulations; Glory be!

What Lord do they know?

Now let us ask ourselves, should these children be asked to follow the advice given in the passage above? When they see the birds flying to find food while they themselves starve, shall we tell them to rejoice in the goodness of the Lord?

First they have to come to know God through His Son Jesus. Then, they'll realise there are reasons to be thankful.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Do you have these experiences right after awakening, but before fully awake? What I call the twilight zone.

Most of the time. They are called hypnogigic hallucinations. They will
crop up on rare occasions (when the brain is tired) in the middle of
an active day.

You can't. It's new detail. There's no mystery... Either you didn't go there--in A you did the 5th birthday and 10th birthday, whereas in B you did the 5th, which was the same as in A, and the 7th, which was new. Or you didn't notice it the first time, like how you notice more when you watch a movie again. I'm saying that what you did notice in A is the same for the same event in B, and in B you can experience any event between, before, or after the events you experienced in A. Just like would be the case if you watched a movie in bits and pieces in multiple sittings, except in "full reality" mode.

I understand the assertion and any way we look at it the first two words
at the very beginning still apply and reinforce the previous point.

Those sound like lucid dreams. That is when you are consciously dreaming. Your conscious is in control.

At least 50% of them are lucid. My degree of control in a dream is usually
tied to how tired I am physically and mentally. The more tired I am, the
more control I have. Whether or not I realize I am dreaming is something
I have improved upon over the years.

Yes, that's what I'm getting at. My theory is that reality runs the gamut of realness. When my dad was resuscitated he said that where he had been was more real than here, with more awareness. It’s hard to imagine.

My theory is that the brain is capable of generating and interpreting
information in fantastic ways. While such mind-generated events can
be experienced, they are nontheless mind-generated (i.e. not a result
of stimulus from an extermal source). One of these theories has support
and the other doesn't (which unfortunatly reduces it to a hypothesis
at best).

I don't find an experience that seems hyper-real with hyper-awarness
hard to imagine (especially because my dreams have facilitated the
experience). In your fathers case, I would predict that a lack of oxygen
to various portions of the brain generated quite an experience.

We can keep discussing the definition of truth, starting here. Introducing me might convince me but it would not be proof. By your own logic I could claim that your friend is a hallucination, therefore unreal.

The logic used is correct. My friend could be claimed to be a hallucination
and this could be rectified by bringing in impartial observers whom you
were confident were not hallucinations (and then having them report the
results of the experiment).

I will admit though, 'truth' is a very hard word to define. At a very low,
and somewhat difficult to understand, level... truth is a state of information
represented minimally by the spatial coordinates x, y, z, t (time).

Make it a personal challenge. I’m not trying to convince but rather just discuss the topic—teach and learn. I do recommend this hypnotherapist though. If you wish to travel to Bellevue WA then I’ll get the link. There’s bound to be good ones in any major city since they need only hypnotize you and prompt you.

Discussion is good; however, convincing is upping the ante. I will
make a trip to Bellvue WA and see your hypnotherapist so long as that
condition I outlined before is met. It is taking things to the next level
and it also can act as precident.

Makes sense. “Ask and it shall be answered” is like a right in that realm. I’ve read about people who were dead on the operating table for only a few minutes, but in that Earthly time they spent what seemed like weeks asking questions to satisfy their longstanding curiosity about the afterlife. Some have gone on to write a book about their experience. And these books tend to be profound. Either that or the authors are the world's best storytellers.

Yep, and there's a bazillion TV shows about that kind of stuff do.

You can read some good ones online at near-death.com. One story that I especially like is about a man who was hacked with a machete during the Hutu-Tutsi massacre in Africa a few years back. He was left for dead and the maggots swarmed over him. A week later he got up and now he’s a minister in Texas of all places. Of course what he experienced during his “death” is even more interesting.

Saw some articles. Cool.