Do Heaven and Hell truly exist? If so, why?

[Lonewulf]

Feel free to discuss. I'm sure everyone knows my opinion, so I'll watch and reply when appropriate.

[teri tait]

Anyone who could confirm beyond question is deceased and therefore not available to give their account. Aside from that we have many testimonials from historical figures who claim to have knowledge of heaven and hell. I believe it is just as possible if not probable due to these accounts. Who am I to say Mohammad did not tour the different heavans? Or Jesus did not spend 3 days in Hades? Or Abraham did not tour the world and the heavans. They existed historically, their testimony is considered valid by their believers. I have no evidence to prove them wrong.
We know very little of different planes of existence, yet we know things like dark matter are scientifically shown. We know energy never stops, it just converts to a different form, why wouldn't the energy of the soul do the same thing?
Its clear to me we continue to exist after leaving the solid matter our bodies are entrenced in, I cannot say difinitively what or where that existence continues, only that it does.

[Lonewulf]

I believe it is just as possible if not probable due to these accounts. Who am I to say Mohammad did not tour the different heavans? Or Jesus did not spend 3 days in Hades? Or Abraham did not tour the world and the heavans. They existed historically, their testimony is considered valid by their believers. I have no evidence to prove them wrong.

Should, then, we take the words of madmen that claim, say, that Jesus told them to go kill people as that of "it might be true" and not convict them in court?

Further, you are taking the accounts of "historical figures" that are dubious accounts at best; accounts based on materials that are not hard history books, but religious texts that have been constantly edited, reprinted, and cobbled together by various figures, many of which had no first-hand accounts at all.

And then, why does a lack of evidence that disproves them automatically mean we should accept it as valid? Isn't this against everything that has actually benefited society? I mean, compare the record of the church to that of scientists. Scientists have brought about far greater understanding of the universe we live in; churches have not -- they have brought prejudice, assumptions, and judgement.

We know very little of different planes of existence, yet we know things like dark matter are scientifically shown. We know energy never stops, it just converts to a different form, why wouldn't the energy of the soul do the same thing?

This assumes that there is a soul, and that the soul is energy. Has any study confirmed such a thing?

Also, I'm dubious as to the whole "energy never stops" as being any evidence of a soul or an afterlife in any way whatsoever.

And then, a further point: If we know very little of different planes of existance, and know very little of how our own plane of existance fits into everything, why make the basic assumption that this suppose "soul" "carries over" from one to another?

Its clear to me we continue to exist after leaving the solid matter our bodies are entrenced in, I cannot say difinitively what or where that existence continues, only that it does.

It's clear to me that we can't say one way or the other -- but speaking on the premise that we can (otherwise, why start a debate in the first place?), then it seems to me that more evidence points to us being dead and gone.

When we make a machine, give it a mind, give it the ability to think (though not the ability to truly reason, yet), and then turn it off and junk it, why should we assume that that machine "lives on" in any other way than being an off, junked machine?

People claim that, yes, humans aren't machines, but what parts of humans aren't? We don't even know about this "soul" other than what people claim exists.

For that matter, what about this "soul"? What, exactly, does it carry?

Does it carry our memories, which have been shown to be a matter of the brain? Does it carry our emotions, which have also been shown to be a matter of the brain?

What we know, what we remember, how we think, how we feel, have all been proven to be simple processes of chemical and electrical impulses in our body, through the acts of nerves, neurons, hormones, and various other devies. If we die, those electrical synapses stop; there is no reason to believe they "convert", just like there is no reason to believe a machine's circuits "convert".

And what would be left for this soul to carry on? And if the soul is our emotions and memories, in spite of all I just said, then would someone that was made mentally retarded by a brain injury have a different "soul" than he had before?

[umop ap!sdn]

OK I'll throw in my observations, from having thought long and hard about this.

There seems to me to be an undeniable sense of being present, a vivid perception of "I am here". To me it appears that some kind of observer is occupying my body and that the observer is my true self.

Now consider this: a machine wired to have processes similar to our cognitive thought would, if asked, also assert that it is "here". In fact, its own internal processing would likely include placing itself as an observer acutely aware of its surroundings. Thus, even though I know full well that I'm here observing the world, I cannot know whether this sense of being is the result of a soul occupying my body or some kind of feedback loop among my neurons, effectively causing my brain to tell itself "yep, you're really here living this life." So even while we know inside that we're really here, it's impossible to know just from that whether we have nonphysical souls that survive death.

I used to have my feet planted firmly in the dualist camp. Complete with nocturnal experiences that I took to be "astral projection". But after a few forlorn attempts trying to AP at will, and some critical evaluation of the elements of the experience (e.g. hearing my own pulse in my head, seeing said pulse as flashing blue light, feeling a sort of electrified floatingsensation) I have come to believe that they are probably just some kind of night terror.

So to ask me now, do we have souls? We have a pattern of electrochemical impulses in our neurons. I guess you could call that a soul. But once the body ceases functioning the neural impulses stop as well - and I'm fairly sure it's lights out.

[teri tait]

Jeez, I think its too late at night for me to answer all of your points one by one. I can't argue with your supposition that Jesus, Mohammid, Abraham, and all the prophets throughout history may have been insane. It is a possibility, but not a probability. Each apostle is sainted and to become a saint there has to be verifiable documentation of miraculous acts, witnesses, discussions, etc. That narrows down the chances of a ranting madman considerably.
As to bodys being like machines, yes they are very much like a machine. Like many machines our bodies run on electrical impulses generated within. Like you said, a machine can be running one day and discarded the next. The only difference being disengaging the power source. When the soul leaves the body, the power source is gone. No matter if it is a young, healthy person, an infant, or an elderly person. You can take that body and attach it to artificial devices that will pump the heart and fill the lungs, stuff a tube down its throat for sustinence and supply every "external" need for human life but it will not bring that body back into being. The soul, the proper source of power to the body is gone.
I don't want to comment on planes of existance because I don't have enough knowledge in that area. I don't think anyone really does. I can say from my personal NDE that although I was no pulse no heartbeat for approximately 10 to 15 minutes, I never entered any state of nothingness. I enjoyed quite a lively time and was rather bummed to come back to normal conciousness. You might say my full recovery was a bit of a minor miracle since I was out so long. The doctors were astounded and the two days I was in the hospital, they kept bringing med students by to ogle me.
Your arguments are valid and thoughtfully written but unless you can give me unequivical proof that nothingness is all there is, I don't buy it. Especially since my personal NDE is completely in contrast to that supposition.

[Enzo]

And then, why does a lack of evidence that disproves them automatically mean we should accept it as valid?

Note that she never said it made them valid. She said she had no proof otherwise, that she couldn't with certainty refute such claims. But she did not say that that THEREFORE made them valid claims.

If a madman claims Jesus told him to kill someone, he may indeed have heard voices in his head that he truly believed came from Jesus. Doesn't make the voices real, just his experience was perceived as real by him. And it absolutely has no bearing whatever on he actual existence of said Jesus. Jesus might or might not exist and might or might not be talking to the killer, but the anecdote is not evidence either way.

When we make a machine, give it a mind, give it the ability to think (though not the ability to truly reason, yet), and then turn it off and junk it, why should we assume that that machine "lives on" in any other way than being an off, junked machine?

This bad example assumes that a machine is alive and has a soul that even could continue after death even if we granted that it might happen in humans. I don't believe in souls or afterlives, or any of the other connected baggage, but if there were such things, the machine example would not be germane.

And if the soul is our emotions and memories, in spite of all I just said, then would someone that was made mentally retarded by a brain injury have a different "soul" than he had before?

Good question, can the soul be damaged or diminished? Granting the existence of souls, this is hard to answer. I have no problem with it, since I am in the camp that thinks when you die, you are gone. I don't believe in souls, yet I still have a concept of soul, just as I have a clear concept of Santa Claus. To me soul refers to the life force or essence of someone, not their conscious entity or their personality or memories. It wouldn't refer to anything on the conscious plane.

To me, the idea of Heaven or Hell is a sort of juvenile concept to keep folks in line. Like Santa Claus. To me, descriptions of life in Heaven sound like a mindless drug stupor.

[Lonewulf]

Jeez, I think its too late at night for me to answer all of your points one by one. I can't argue with your supposition that Jesus, Mohammid, Abraham, and all the prophets throughout history may have been insane. It is a possibility, but not a probability. Each apostle is sainted and to become a saint there has to be verifiable documentation of miraculous acts, witnesses, discussions, etc. That narrows down the chances of a ranting madman considerably.

Oh, I never claimed they were ranting madmen (though I did infer it a little more than I meant to).

But they had "visions", the same as madmen had "visions" -- and the same way those that dehydrate or starve themselves have "visions" -- the same way those that go without sleep for nights and nights have "visions".

A person having a vision is not necessarily any reason to believe that they had a "true" vision with true spiritual insight.

As to bodys being like machines, yes they are very much like a machine. Like many machines our bodies run on electrical impulses generated within. Like you said, a machine can be running one day and discarded the next. The only difference being disengaging the power source. When the soul leaves the body, the power source is gone. No matter if it is a young, healthy person, an infant, or an elderly person. You can take that body and attach it to artificial devices that will pump the heart and fill the lungs, stuff a tube down its throat for sustinence and supply every "external" need for human life but it will not bring that body back into being. The soul, the proper source of power to the body is gone.

Right for a few reasons, wrong for a few very important ones.

There is no evidence that shows that, if you have complete and undamaged tissue, have the ability to get the heart pumping, and send oxygen, water, and energy up to the brain, that you still can't "reanimate" the body.

Why do you think that we're getting to the point where resuscitation can take place longer and longer after someone is declared "legally dead"? There is a reason why that term is used, you know; they are, for all intents and purposes, dead. Their heart doesn't pump, their body doesn't work. Yet we can get it working again, as long as we're fast enough!

When we get to the point that tissue becomes damaged and fails beyond repair, it's the same as a damaged circuit being expected to carry out a process. The body is a complex machine, and many parts of it has to work if it expects to carry out it's functions; and most of those parts depend on the brain, which is pretty easy to damage in the long run.

Deprive the body of oxygen enough, and you have damaged braincells.

I don't want to comment on planes of existance because I don't have enough knowledge in that area. I don't think anyone really does. I can say from my personal NDE that although I was no pulse no heartbeat for approximately 10 to 15 minutes, I never entered any state of nothingness. I enjoyed quite a lively time and was rather bummed to come back to normal conciousness. You might say my full recovery was a bit of a minor miracle since I was out so long. The doctors were astounded and the two days I was in the hospital, they kept bringing med students by to ogle me.

Well, that leads to a question, doesn't it? If you did "die", would you remember having been "dead" at all? It is not just a case of nothing to remember, but the fact that your memory processes at the time were also gone. There is no reason to believe that this grants any evidence of the afterlife.

Your arguments are valid and thoughtfully written but unless you can give me unequivical proof that nothingness is all there is, I don't buy it. Especially since my personal NDE is completely in contrast to that supposition.

And there's no reason to believe that your NDE is in contrast to the supposition. Memory is a tricky thing, and unreliable -- which is why eye-witness statements are considered such.

There is no reason to believe that you should have a gap of "remembering nothing" in those few minutes you were dead, and it's easy to supplant the idea of, "conscious to conscious". Overall, it seems a subjective issue that only you can really know about -- and you really knowing much about it is debatable.

[teri tait]

Jeez, I think its too late at night for me to answer all of your points one by one. I can't argue with your supposition that Jesus, Mohammid, Abraham, and all the prophets throughout history may have been insane. It is a possibility, but not a probability. Each apostle is sainted and to become a saint there has to be verifiable documentation of miraculous acts, witnesses, discussions, etc. That narrows down the chances of a ranting madman considerably.

Oh, I never claimed they were ranting madmen (though I did infer it a little more than I meant to).

But they had "visions", the same as madmen had "visions" -- and the same way those that dehydrate or starve themselves have "visions" -- the same way those that go without sleep for nights and nights have "visions".

A person having a vision is not necessarily any reason to believe that they had a "true" vision with true spiritual insight.

As to bodys being like machines, yes they are very much like a machine. Like many machines our bodies run on electrical impulses generated within. Like you said, a machine can be running one day and discarded the next. The only difference being disengaging the power source. When the soul leaves the body, the power source is gone. No matter if it is a young, healthy person, an infant, or an elderly person. You can take that body and attach it to artificial devices that will pump the heart and fill the lungs, stuff a tube down its throat for sustinence and supply every "external" need for human life but it will not bring that body back into being. The soul, the proper source of power to the body is gone.

Right for a few reasons, wrong for a few very important ones.

There is no evidence that shows that, if you have complete and undamaged tissue, have the ability to get the heart pumping, and send oxygen, water, and energy up to the brain, that you still can't "reanimate" the body.

Why do you think that we're getting to the point where resuscitation can take place longer and longer after someone is declared "legally dead"? There is a reason why that term is used, you know; they are, for all intents and purposes, dead. Their heart doesn't pump, their body doesn't work. Yet we can get it working again, as long as we're fast enough!

When we get to the point that tissue becomes damaged and fails beyond repair, it's the same as a damaged circuit being expected to carry out a process. The body is a complex machine, and many parts of it has to work if it expects to carry out it's functions; and most of those parts depend on the brain, which is pretty easy to damage in the long run.

Deprive the body of oxygen enough, and you have damaged braincells.

I don't want to comment on planes of existance because I don't have enough knowledge in that area. I don't think anyone really does. I can say from my personal NDE that although I was no pulse no heartbeat for approximately 10 to 15 minutes, I never entered any state of nothingness. I enjoyed quite a lively time and was rather bummed to come back to normal conciousness. You might say my full recovery was a bit of a minor miracle since I was out so long. The doctors were astounded and the two days I was in the hospital, they kept bringing med students by to ogle me.

Well, that leads to a question, doesn't it? If you did "die", would you remember having been "dead" at all? It is not just a case of nothing to remember, but the fact that your memory processes at the time were also gone. There is no reason to believe that this grants any evidence of the afterlife.

Your arguments are valid and thoughtfully written but unless you can give me unequivical proof that nothingness is all there is, I don't buy it. Especially since my personal NDE is completely in contrast to that supposition.

And there's no reason to believe that your NDE is in contrast to the supposition. Memory is a tricky thing, and unreliable -- which is why eye-witness statements are considered such.

There is no reason to believe that you should have a gap of "remembering nothing" in those few minutes you were dead, and it's easy to supplant the idea of, "conscious to conscious". Overall, it seems a subjective issue that only you can really know about -- and you really knowing much about it is debatable.

You can reanimate a body with technology but you cannot make that body function as the person that it was prior to death. Keep it alive all you want but it still won't have any life other than bodily functions.
If a person has no activity, no pulse, no heartbeat, it stands to reason there is no nuerological activity as there is no energy to support that activity. After approximately 6-8 minutes, the brain should be sufficiently oxygen-starved to be damaged (except in cases of severe cold conditions). The longer the lack of oxygen, the greater the damage sustained, eventually reaching a level of damage that is essentially hopeless to expect anything beyond rudimentry brain function if the person can be revived through artificial means.
It stands to reason then, any conciousness would not be related to the body itself but to the soul of the person. Blood is not pumping, electrical nuerons are not pulsing, etc. As you said, the body functions can be duplicated by mechanical devices, but nothing can revive the brain activity of a "brain dead" patient.
How do you explain the continued conciousness of a person legally dead for 10 minutes if there is nothingness after death?

[Lonewulf]

You can reanimate a body with technology but you cannot make that body function as the person that it was prior to death. Keep it alive all you want but it still won't have any life other than bodily functions.

Er, not true. Many people have been resuscitated after have been declared legally dead, and they lead perfectly normal lives. So why, then, would you make the assumtion that with healthy body matter, that it can't be resuscitated fully?

I see no reason for it not to, and I see no evidence that it can't be, as long as you have healthy brain matter, too.

If a person has no activity, no pulse, no heartbeat, it stands to reason there is no nuerological activity as there is no energy to support that activity. After approximately 6-8 minutes, the brain should be sufficiently oxygen-starved to be damaged (except in cases of severe cold conditions). The longer the lack of oxygen, the greater the damage sustained, eventually reaching a level of damage that is essentially hopeless to expect anything beyond rudimentry brain function if the person can be revived through artificial means.

And yet, if you could restore the brain fully, or make a complete exact copy, you would get the exact same person, and if you hooked it up to their body and got their body working again, you'd have a living person that was completely able and functional (from what I know and what science tells us, at least).

So where is this soul thing?

It stands to reason then, any conciousness would not be related to the body itself but to the soul of the person. Blood is not pumping, electrical nuerons are not pulsing, etc. As you said, the body functions can be duplicated by mechanical devices, but nothing can revive the brain activity of a "brain dead" patient.

Most of the time it's because their brain actually is dead. If you could find a way to completely rejuvinate it...

How do you explain the continued conciousness of a person legally dead for 10 minutes if there is nothingness after death?

Added memory after-the-fact, transition from "conscious" to "conscious" with a lapse of "dead brain" in-between, any number of things I could add in.

Anecdotes aren't data, and I can't take your NDE, or any NDE, as concrete evidence of anything. I'm not you, I didn't experience it, and there's no reason to believe that you didn't supplant the memories yourself.

Anyways, I'm too tired to carry out a good debate now, so I'll go to bed. If you see any glaring errors in my argument at the moment, I'll probably notice them when I re-read what I said.

[umop ap!sdn]

You can reanimate a body with technology but you cannot make that body function as the person that it was prior to death. Keep it alive all you want but it still won't have any life other than bodily functions.

I'm confused. Aren't you by your admission living proof that these statements (or at very least only the second one) are not correct? :?

And yet, if you could restore the brain fully, or make a complete exact copy, you would get the exact same person

Maybe not directly relevant to your post but the timing is uncanny.

[teri tait]

Well, you can't give me evidence of any conciousness being residual memory. You can't provide evidence of complete void of conciousness after someone is clinically dead and unrevivable, and you can't provide evidence that miraculous visions do not occur in now and throughout history.
Its possible that you are correct but there is no evidence to support your theory. In contrast there are numerous instances of individuals experiencing moments of divine communication, miraculous occurances, and plausable accounts from respected sources.
You can say there is very little documentation of historical biblical figures but that is simply not the case. Josepheus recorded information on Jesus and his activities. He is considered one of the great recorders of history. If you accept his writings as historical fact, which historians do, then you have to take all of his data as factual as he that was his job.

[Lonewulf]

You can say there is very little documentation of historical biblical figures but that is simply not the case. Josepheus recorded information on Jesus and his activities. He is considered one of the great recorders of history. If you accept his writings as historical fact, which historians do, then you have to take all of his data as factual as he that was his job.

Which historians, and how many? All historians?

[teri tait]

You can reanimate a body with technology but you cannot make that body function as the person that it was prior to death. Keep it alive all you want but it still won't have any life other than bodily functions.

I'm confused. Aren't you by your admission living proof that these statements (or at very least only the second one) are not correct? :?

And yet, if you could restore the brain fully, or make a complete exact copy, you would get the exact same person

Maybe not directly relevant to your post but the timing is uncanny.

In a way I did beat the odds and I should not have been functioning. That was very surprising to the doctors. They kept telling me that over and over.
While I was "clinically dead" for aproximate 10 minutes, I was unconcious for close to three hours. When I regained conciousness in the physical sense, I couldn't move at all. I couldn't even open my eyelids. It was the weirdest feeling, being exhausted from straining to open my eyes. I could hear perfectly but not move a muscle.
When I finally did manage to open my eyes the doctors kept telling me to give them a "thumbs up" and I couldn't for about two more hours. By late afternoon I was able to get up and use the restroom. That freaked them out totally. They also told me my blood suger was 386, they thought I was in a diabetic coma. I explained I did not have diabetes, I had asthma and they did not believe me.
They put me on a diabetic diet and kept me in the hospital. When my blood sugar dropped to normal, they said my body must have been so stressed from no oxygen, it just flooded my blood with insulin. Apparently that should have killed me as well.
I can't explain it, you're right Umop, I should have been veggie. Twice if you count the insulin rush. Instead, I walked away with my brain fully intact and my asthma has not troubled me since.

[umop ap!sdn]

Which historians, and how many? All historians?

Argumentum ad populum.

Now, if we are talking about a document that's been handed down for well over a millennium, and has gone through several translations in the process, it's probably not going to be a reliable historical account. One example that I've run across is the phrase "let there be light": in the early Greek version it was worded as γεννηθήτω φώς, which actually means "may light be born." This in turn from a group who set about to translate from Hebrew, when supposedly some of them spoke Hebrew and no Greek, some Greek and no Hebrew, and the rest not a word of either language. It's like playing "telephone" or using an online translator to go back and forth a few times. Thus it is hard to have much confidence in the version that survives today.

[teri tait]

You can say there is very little documentation of historical biblical figures but that is simply not the case. Josepheus recorded information on Jesus and his activities. He is considered one of the great recorders of history. If you accept his writings as historical fact, which historians do, then you have to take all of his data as factual as he that was his job.

Which historians, and how many? All historians?

Here's a link regarding historical jesus

But really the point is continued existance after death, specifically heaven and hell which is found in most religions and in variations of christian belief.
Historical records of jesus don't really establish exclusive evidence for heaven or hell. They do support the man existed, which we can choose to assume or not his teachings were valid. Personally, I believe they were. Not because of the historical records of jesus, but because of faith and my own experience with other planes of conciousness.

[Enzo]

I would also point out that "clinically dead" and "legally dead" are terms of art and do not necessarily mean you really are dead - as in not coming back. Those official terms are useful to make legal distinctions as to what may or may not be done to or for you and when.

We like to think it is neat and clean that if the heart stops you are dead. But they can restart hearts, and in fact for some procedures they stop the heart on purpose, then start it again when they are done.

"I was dead for a few minutes then came back" is rather a contradiction. That wasn't death, that was a condition close to death. The old close call. When the brain decays to the point where it can no longer operate the body, then yuo are dead. If you suffer brain damage and come back but severely damaged, personality gone, etc. You are not dead, but much was lost. Since I don't believe in souls, I can't say that the soul was lost in that scenario.

[Lonewulf]

Well, you can't give me evidence of any conciousness being residual memory. You can't provide evidence of complete void of conciousness after someone is clinically dead and unrevivable, and you can't provide evidence that miraculous visions do not occur in now and throughout history.

But you cannot prove that they are the afterlife, and not the same visions people happen to receive when they dose themselves with drugs, go without sleep, or anysuch thing.

Its possible that you are correct but there is no evidence to support your theory. In contrast there are numerous instances of individuals experiencing moments of divine communication, miraculous occurances, and plausable accounts from respected sources.

I wouldn't say "no" evidence to support my theory. There is a lot of evidence that shows that memory is an easily malleable thing, and plenty of evidence that people can see some pretty trippy stuff when in certain situations. There is plenty of evidence to support my position, and the "numerous instances of individuals" are an individual here and there that make a claim; there's nothing scientifically testable, and no way to ascertain what they really experienced, and whether or not they were even telling the truth.

You can say there is very little documentation of historical biblical figures but that is simply not the case. Josepheus recorded information on Jesus and his activities. He is considered one of the great recorders of history. If you accept his writings as historical fact, which historians do, then you have to take all of his data as factual as he that was his job.

So Josepheus was with Jesus when he went to hell? And saw what Jesus did?

Or did he write about how a guy went away, and came back and said how he saw Hell?

No, I don't have to take all of his data as "factual". You can write about something you see, and something you believe, and the two may come together and be completely unfactual. And I'm really not sure why I have to take as "fact" that Jesus had to see Hell, and take it as any proof or evidence of the afterlife.

[Lonewulf]

I might also add that I'm not exactly close-minded to the idea of a Heaven or Hell; but I do note that many people make assumptions about "what is".

Heaven must exist because, well, everyone talks about how it exists, so therefore it must. We make the claim of Heaven, and then use all else to try to justify it after-the-fact. The same for Hell. The way I view it is thus:

If there is an afterlife, and if consciousness does somehow extend after death, then we know so little of it as to not make a difference. You can't make the claim that there is a Heaven or a Hell; just as you can't make the claim that there are 20,000 dimensions you can end up in. We just don't know on that matter, and anything else is belief (and beliefs, I believe, should be challenged -- as Jefferson said, "We should challenge everything, even the idea of God, because if he did exist, he would want us to use the reason He gave us" -- not an exact quote, but more or less correct).

[Lonewulf]

I can't explain it, you're right Umop, I should have been veggie. Twice if you count the insulin rush. Instead, I walked away with my brain fully intact and my asthma has not troubled me since.

But, is there any need to inject the divine, the spiritual, or a miracle into it?

Strange things happen all the time, and many of them have utterly normal explanations. What affects one person adversely does not affect another person adversely. There is no reason to inject the "soul" in a matter where your brain matter simply didn't degenerate the way some people's brain matter does. It's pretty simple to me, really.

Edit: I'm sorry for all the posts, and kinda jumping on the issue... I just have a lot of thoughts that want to jump out at once, and it's rather hard to avoid it.

[teri tait]

I would also point out that "clinically dead" and "legally dead" are terms of art and do not necessarily mean you really are dead - as in not coming back. Those official terms are useful to make legal distinctions as to what may or may not be done to or for you and when.

We like to think it is neat and clean that if the heart stops you are dead. But they can restart hearts, and in fact for some procedures they stop the heart on purpose, then start it again when they are done.

"I was dead for a few minutes then came back" is rather a contradiction. That wasn't death, that was a condition close to death. The old close call. When the brain decays to the point where it can no longer operate the body, then yuo are dead. If you suffer brain damage and come back but severely damaged, personality gone, etc. You are not dead, but much was lost. Since I don't believe in souls, I can't say that the soul was lost in that scenario.

You make a good point Enzo. Clinically dead is someone that shows no vital signs and is resusitated. Legally dead comes when resusitation fails. But the critical period of time involed makes all the difference. Since I was clinically dead at the time the paramedics arrived, they had no way of knowing when I stopped breathing or when my blood stopped moving. Their estimation of time was based on the time the call was logged, when the paramedics arrived and when vital signs were reestablished. If my bodily functions stopped just after the call came, I was out 15 minutes. If my bodily functions ceased just before they arrived, I was out maybe 10 minutes.
The doctors told me from their experience, I should have had some loss of brain function. One of them even came and asked me about any NDE but I didn't want to talk about it with him. My point was, if the body is not supplying the brain with oxygen needed to function, how can any brain activity occur? If no brain activity is processing, how can dreaming or hallucinations occur? It can't be both ways, if you are not breathing, have no pulse, not heart beat, then it stands to reason the brain has also stopped operating.

[teri tait]

I can't explain it, you're right Umop, I should have been veggie. Twice if you count the insulin rush. Instead, I walked away with my brain fully intact and my asthma has not troubled me since.

But, is there any need to inject the divine, the spiritual, or a miracle into it?

Strange things happen all the time, and many of them have utterly normal explanations. What affects one person adversely does not affect another person adversely. There is no reason to inject the "soul" in a matter where your brain matter simply didn't degenerate the way some people's brain matter does. It's pretty simple to me, really.

Edit: I'm sorry for all the posts, and kinda jumping on the issue... I just have a lot of thoughts that want to jump out at once, and it's rather hard to avoid it.

I didn't say it was miraculous, the doctors did. Since I believe in God and miracles I would not disagree with their assessment. I definitely experienced conciousness when my body was clinically dead and showed no signs of life. I have no data that tells me that my brain would continue on without oxygen, and plenty of data that says it shouldn't.
I've done a few drugs in my wilder days and I can assure you, it was nothing like that. Nor did I see a bright light or the like. Suffice to say I spoke with people I would have no way of speaking to in regular conciousness, saw people that I knew as a very young child and enjoyed the company of loved ones I did not even remember until I saw them.
I can also say I have absolutely no fear of dying, other than leaving behind loved ones to cope with my loss. Did I visit heaven or hell or Nirvana or [whatever name you want to give]? I don't know where I was, I just know it was fun, I enjoyed myself tremendously, and it had nothing to do with what was going on with my body in the present moment.

[Lonewulf]

I didn't say it was miraculous, the doctors did. Since I believe in God and miracles I would not disagree with their assessment. I definitely experienced conciousness when my body was clinically dead and showed no signs of life.

Whether or not the doctors called it miraculous is meaningless, and an Argument from Authority if used as an argument.

Like I said, I'm dubious as the "experienced consciousness" truly being "afterlife consciousness", and that's where I leave off. We can go back and forth on this forever; either way, it's meaningless. It's an anecdote at best, and something that is completely unreliable at worst. It doesn't really count as "evidence".

I am keeping an open mind, which is why I'm not saying straight-out that you didn't really experience anything; but neither am I going to claim straight-out that it must mean there is an afterlife, or a heaven.

While, like I said, an afterlife could exist, the subject of the afterlife on the soul has always seemed to me born out of hope than out of Reason, and mostly believed in because, well, everyone else does.

[teri tait]

I didn't say it was miraculous, the doctors did. Since I believe in God and miracles I would not disagree with their assessment. I definitely experienced conciousness when my body was clinically dead and showed no signs of life.

Whether or not the doctors called it miraculous is meaningless, and an Argument from Authority if used as an argument.

Like I said, I'm dubious as the "experienced consciousness" truly being "afterlife consciousness", and that's where I leave off. We can go back and forth on this forever; either way, it's meaningless. It's an anecdote at best, and something that is completely unreliable at worst. It doesn't really count as "evidence".

I am keeping an open mind, which is why I'm not saying straight-out that you didn't really experience anything; but neither am I going to claim straight-out that it must mean there is an afterlife, or a heaven.

While, like I said, an afterlife could exist, the subject of the afterlife on the soul has always seemed to me born out of hope than out of Reason, and mostly believed in because, well, everyone else does.

I'm not saying it counts as evidence of heaven or hell either. I'm simply stating it gave me proof positive of continued planes of existence. Whether or not you believe I experienced what I experienced is irrelevent to me. Just as whether you believe any of the ancient writings or numerous descriptions of continued existence throughout history. You have to take those writings on faith.
The flipside of this is I don't put very much stock in your argument as you cannot give any evidence that other planes of existence don't exist. Essentially, we are at an impasse on that point, except I happened to have a personal experience that I can consider as evidence and you do not.
If you can give me evidence of nothingness after the body has ceased to function, I'll consider it. Keep in mind though it would have to be pretty strong evidence to sway my opinion since I've my own experience supporting my beliefs.
As a sidenote, hope is considered a lack of faith by some as the faithful believe well beyond any hope.

[azazul]

The flipside of this is I don't put very much stock in your argument as you cannot give any evidence that other planes of existence don't exist.

This is exactly why those ridiculous claims like the Invisible Pink Unicorn exist, as you cannot prove the non-existence of the IPU, I personally despise such people that come up with lies just to make a point, but this is why it was done. Science in general seems to go with the notion not to make up things to explain everything around you. You need to come up with the reproducible, verifiable evidence for the possible existence first. There is no proving something does not exist.

[Lonewulf]

How can I prove that other planes don't exist? You might as well ask me to prove the nonexistance of God.

You're basically saying, "Something happened to me that is unshakeable to me, and is evidence of an afterlife. Prove the impossible, and I'll change my mind."

Why bother with debate or discussion in the first place? Hasn't it all been a waste of time? You don't care what others think or say, you demand them to prove the impossible, and you don't seem to want to "convert" other people. So what was the whole point?