A Challenge For FunkyDerek... My Experiences With The Afterlife

by FMZ 70 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  doogie

  I seriously just wanted to see how people can twist and turn these events to try to make them fit into their own world view. It seems they think the same of me.

  hey, hey...come on now. to each their own, but to insinuate that the "dissenters" have to manipulate the data to fit their own bias seems a bit unfair. the data already fits yours and my own respective 'biases'...that's why we start from our positions (either of material explanations or supernatural ones).

  i don't know about anyone else, but i don't think you have to twist and turn these events to make them fit your worldview. i think they already fit quite naturally since you are someone who was (at least tentatively) already open to the idea of an afterlife. likewise for me, i don't have to twist and turn your story to make it fit my worldview. it already fits quite naturally into a materialist explanation (as has been shown).

  as far as sirona's experience, i simply reserve judgment. whether i decide at this point to believe in her experience as proof (or at least favorable evidence) of an afterlife OR to simply dismiss it as nonsense, would be jumping the gun, IMO. i'd have to have a couple of questions answered first.
• 

  Winston Smith :>D

  check you PM's FMZ.

  Unfortunately I don't have time to read and post in the thread at the moment, but I do find views from both sides very intersting.
• 

  Princess

  Princess:

  I do feel some are legit (I lean towards that with yours) while some (John Edwards) are fake.

  A lot of people believe John Edwards is the real deal. He seems to give readings at least as convincing as those FMZ described. Given that you know some of these are fakes - good enough fakes to fool thousands of people - how do you tell the real from the fake?

  John Edwards doesn't do "cold" readings on TV. I know people who have been to his show. He has audience members waiting in line, talking, for hours before the show. He plants people to get information. I thought John Edwards was the real deal until I started reading more information about him.

  Keith's experience was not at all like that. Sounded a lot more legit to me.

  I find myself wondering why you would share these experiences in such a way as to open up to skeptics? You obviously find comfort in them, so why let others rip them apart?

  I think it's very brave of FMZ to share his experiences for discussion

  .

  I wouldn't say brave. I've had my share of posts ripped apart by skeptics and after the redhotchilipepper fiasco last Christmas, I've pretty much stopped posting. Everyone has an opinion regardless of the facts, and the mods jumped all over my posts, I have no need for that. I was just wondering why he would take such a personal, meaningful experience (to him) and put it out there to be shredded.

  A belief that provides comfort is not necessarily true. Some people prefer to know the truth, regardless of whether it is as they would wish.

  I don't get the feeling that Keith is looking for "the truth" as he said he's quite comfortable with his beliefs. For some reason he just wanted to know what everyone thought.

  I'm not trying to argue. I find the thread very interesting, skeptics like yourself included. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure what to believe anymore. I swallowed the whole Jesus thing easy enough, maybe I'm a little too quick to believe in the paranormal as well. I honestly don't think it matters though. After leaving the WTS, I have come to the conclusion that unless we have absolute proof, it must not matter. If it mattered, then I would think the creator (or whatever) would give us absolute proof. I don't believe the Bible is absolute proof of anything, so until I get my burning bush, I'm just going to keep on keepin' on.

  Rachel
• 

  Sirona

  Derek

  The granny thing, I don't know. It's certainly spooky and if it happened exactly as you described, would require quite a chain of coincidences. While I don't think for a second that you're telling porky pies, you may be mistaken about the level of detail, the order of events and how much you knew beforehand. Human memory is notoriously unreliable, even though we often think otherwise.

  I told my husband beforehand, plus I told one other person (the cousin) before the gift was known about.

  Therefore all three of us must have distorted memories of it.....if your "false memory syndrome" thing was true. I know that my husband related this experience to someone fairly recently, and I was suprised because he is a natural skeptic, but he still remembered all the details despite the fact that is happened about 6 years ago.

  For the record, I swear I told the truth in my account of what happened.

  Sirona
• 

  outoftheorg

  FMZ Can you PROVE BEYOND A DOUBT, that these experiences of yours are truly from deceased

  relatives through a Psychic??

  Can any of you non believers PROVE BEYOND A DOUBT that FMZ "s experiences are NOT from deceased relatives and a Psychic and that this this is a scam??

  If not this leaves us with two possiblities.

  He may be right or he may be wrong.

  Nothing much proved here by all the emotional responses for and against on this thread.

  Outoftheorg
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  outoftheorg,

  Can any of you non believers PROVE BEYOND A DOUBT that FMZ "s experiences are NOT from deceased relatives and a Psychic and that this this is a scam??

  the burden of proof does not rest on the skeptics. it rests on those making extraordinary claims to the positive. until he can provide extraordinary evidence, the neutral position is that he is wrong in his assesment of the extraordinary experience. see Occam's Razor please.

  Nothing much proved here by all the emotional responses for and against on this thread.

  by all the emotional responses? pardon me, but i have not really seen any emotional responses. if anything, the large majority of responses are quite constructive.
• 

  outoftheorg

  Sapien all the posts on this thread have a measure of emotions.

  Including yours and mine.

  By the way Occam's razor shaves both sides of this discussion.

  The same demands that the non believer puts on the believer are the same demands that the believer is putting on the non believer and justly so.

  You have not delivered any (evidence)" that absolutely" destroys the legitimacy of his claims, just as he has not done so for you.

  So far all that I have read are probablities and doubts and questions.

  No firm without a doubt from either side.

  By the way I am not in favor of either side.

  Outoftheorg
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  hey out,

  By the way Occam's razor shaves both sides of this discussion.

  i don't know. i think that Occam's Razor is the side of the skeptic. i don't see how it could shave the simplest explanation down any further than it already is.

  are the same demands that the believer is putting on the non believer and justly so.

  sorry, not justly so. again, the burden of proof does not rest on the unbeliever. don't ask skeptics to prove negatives.

  You have not delivered any (evidence)"

  again, not required. having a lack of belief in the supernatural, i have no reason to provide evidence for the negative position.

  So far all that I have read are probablities and doubts and questions.

  No firm without a doubt from either side.

  i'm seeing the glass as half full. why is a 100% answer required? has there ever been a 100% answer in the history of the universe? that's where probabilities come in, no?

  i am not debating this with you just for the lone sake of debating with you. i really do not agree with your assertions. of course, you are entitled to them.
• 

  outoftheorg

  Sapien

  Since you don't believe in the supernatural, you find no reason to provide evidence for the negative

  position.

  This sounds like your position is based in your lack of "belief".

  But isn't that just what we non believers require from the believer?? EVIDENCE. If he can't give it, it must not be true.

  My only position on this thread is, we are talking about a relm that we, none of us, can prove one way or the other.

  My position is I would LIKE that there be an after life. This is what many make into their beliefs.

  What they would like.

  But pragmatists like me, we end up in the middle, we have nothing to believe from either side of the discussion.

  Outoftheorg
• 

  googlemagoogle

  outoftheorg, that's the point: evidence, and lack thereof. a skeptic won't believe something without evidence. and he doesn't need to provide evidence that there is no evidence. it's just not there.
  
  that would be like you telling me that an invisible apple is on the table. i'd say, no there isn't. because there's no evidence that invisible apples exist, less on my table. don't you agree that you - not me - would have to provide evidence that it is there to make it believeable?
  
  i've had an experience about my wife previsioning the death of a sister in our congregation (including her name, btw). this DOES indeed feel very spooky, that's why i understand when people believe in that kind of things. especially because we've got all those stories in our head for watching too many ghost-movies and having been JW too long.