Anyone ever become an atheist after believing?

[estebanrey]

Just because no-one has yet ascribed some observable evidence to the effect of a deity, does not mean it doesn't exist.

Never claimed that, I was pointing out that comparing the rationality of the existence of love to God is flawed.

How does consciousness spring from what numerous believe to be an unconscious universe? In my mind, that may be the closest we will ever get to proof of a deity.

I don't know is the answer to your question. But saying "I don't know" doesn't mean you replying with "God must have did it then" solves the problem or is a likely answer.

You're making a God of the Gaps argument.

In reality, a much older belief system seems more plausible - that consciousness is the foundation of the universe. Our maya is nothing more than a complicated hologram.

If you wish to put it in the box of a word, perhaps you should try to understand what the word means - a dictionary may be of use to you.

Bit rude, don't understand how it rebuts the point you quoted though.

 

[estebanrey]

Exactly... "faith" and "blind faith" are two very different things

Yeah the second one is tautologous

 

[Hatter The Mad]

This is quite succinct at only 18 minutes in length and well presented... he makes good points about dogmas to which most scientific minds subscribe:

Just because evidence fits to one idea, does not mean it could not apply to other ideas too

Anyone can have their ideas, but it does not make them facts. He also doesn't have many 'good points'. He just has a bunch of ideas, stemming from parapsychology. Granted some of his questions are great and thought provoking (i.e. our use of constants in a shifting universe), but beyond that...

 

[Castiel]

It didn't actually say it was.

However most popular religions do have some level of judgment and if you do not prescribe to these beliefs (whether because you are non religious, you follow a different religion, or you pick and choose your beliefs) then you are a better man (at least where thats concerned).

Thats about my only reason to really actively dislike religion.

This is true of political, cultural and religious ideology....it is at its root dependant upon Human Nature.

It largely is actually. You observe, you draw conclusions based on those observations. Alright it's not scientific theory with peer reviewed journal publications but as humans we do a lot of fantastic shortcuts in our minds to figure things out. Sometimes this messes us up and we'll be later be found out to be wrong, but generally it comes from logic and reason.

I am glad you made this distinction, with exceptions (as in all things) many religious people come to their faith, or remain in their faith by doing exactly as you describe...by observation, conclusions and attribution to what they see within their experience. It is a rational and logical journey for them. As Ringo is saying, it may not be for you, or I for that matter, but you can come to different conclusions while remaining logical and rational.

There are videos that make the case for why atheism is the preferred choice and I still believe for the sake of argument it is.

The dragons point is supposed to illustrate why the burden of proof is on the believer, which is why I'm happy for science to be atheist by default. That seems sensible to me.

I think the point of what Eugenie Scott was saying is that Science is not making a judgement about God, as she said "you cannot put God in a test-tube" this logically follows that Science has nothing to say about God, again to paraphrase Dr Scott, it doesn't mean God is nothing. This is from a purely scientific position, rather than a personal one...I respect and understand that many people, including yourself if I understand you correctly, reason in a personal sense that atheism is the rational choice, rather than stating Science's default position is Atheism, which I don't agree it is.

However, I've also stated that there are far too many missing "whys" and that makes being agnostic a good fit too.

People will interpret evidence of whatever nature in a way that fits into their world-view, some see the world and scientific discovery as explaining Gods Universe, others do not...there are some who are indeed on a path of blind adherence to faulty and irrational ideas, but it isn't indicative of everyone, whether they be religious or not.

I've also suggested being religious (within reason) doesn't stop you being scientific in the rest of your life.

Indeed. In fact a persons religion can drive their scientific endeavour rather than derail it. In some cases their scientific endeavour informs their faith, rather than tests it.

It's a complicated world we live in, and we are even more complicated cognitively.

 

[aln]

I assumed we were still discussing scientific evidence for metaphysical questions here.

I haven't stated that I accept anything without evidence. I have simply stated that contrary to your own opinion theists do utilise scientific evidence in support of their views. I'm not interested in attempting to present any evidence for either side.

But I disagree and thus until someone comes forward with something doesn't require a leap of faith there is nothing else to be said between us.

I took your statement to mean that you would reject scripture due to the fact that it was written well after the events happened. I was merely asking if you use the same approach for all historical texts where there is a gap between the record and the event? Failure to do so wouldn't appear to be rational.

Yes, I do. Anything that stands alone can be rejected and questioned.

So you are saying that unless something can be evidenced scientifically then it can't be accepted as truth?

Basically the world is a big shade of grey to me. Even science itself is sometimes wrong, shock, horror.

And what about if he told you he got a new job? Would you ask to see the contract before believing him?

You're talking about a different type of faith that doesn't really reflect the conversation we're having. But given he doesn't have a history of making stuff up and his new job sounds realistic, then yes, I would believe him. Like I previously said though, the mind takes shortcuts so you don't really know you're validating what he's saying based on what you know.

I think this is quite a narrow view of faith. I don't agree that you need to leave logic and reason behind totally. Some of the pillars central to the belief may well be evidence based in the first instance.

I never said you need to disband it completely. As I've said several times, the scientist who believes god fills the gaps is a completely logical person, I just think his belief doesn't come from the same place. Ego, fear, something else? Maybe. Logic, not so much.

Similarly if you believe we're just observing the rules of god, thats fairly logic itself too. But thats you using logic to connect faith and logic. It still completely requires your actual faith (the belief in god) which in itself has nothing to do with logic in my mind.

We're complicated creatures, you need to accept we're not logical about everything. I let my ex-girlfriend rip the **** out of me for the last 3 years. If I'd lived by logic instead of emotion, she'd have been gone 3 years ago. I run away when I see a spider. There is nothing logic about either. Those who believe in god? I don't think that comes from logic. End of story.

 

[crinkleshoes]

Never claimed that, I was pointing out that comparing the rationality of the existence of love to God is flawed.

While flawed, not impossible - just implausible based on the generally accepted belief systems in place today.

I believe the point of this life is to love, it's the essence of our existence.

I don't know is the answer to your question. But saying "I don't know" doesn't mean you replying with "God must have did it then" solves the problem or is a likely answer.

Of course not and I agree - nothing yet explains consciousness.

I think our experience of consciousness may be the closest we will ever get to proving the existence of something that powerful.

If more exists, this experience may be to allow us to appreciate the infinite or to learn to reconnect with our spiritual side - a task that's become much harder in the materialistic primary world view we've been dropped into.

While I've heard this from others and debunked it myself - it may not be possible to prove the existence of God - that may defeat the object of this experience. How can you appreciate the infinite if you aren't limited by the finite to begin with?

I've only quite recently switched my belief systems - so pushing these ideas in public still feels weird.

The holographic universe theory makes a lot of sense to me.

Bit rude, don't understand how it rebuts the point you quoted though.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude - must just have been my choice of words.

I was trying to point out that you're trying to re-define a definition that already exists in the english dictionary.

The definition of the word disagrees with your presentation of how you personally interpret the word.

Yeah the second one is tautologous

Not according to the definition of the word faith.

 

[aln]

This is true of political, cultural and religious ideology....it is at its root dependant upon Human Nature.

Of course it is, I dislike all those things equally when they prescribe hate or judgment on others. Obviously we accept that morals are subjective but I really wish "don't hurt others" was universal.

I am glad you made this distinction, with exceptions (as in all things) many religious people come to their faith, or remain in their faith by doing exactly as you describe...by observation, conclusions and attribution to what they see within their experience. It is a rational and logical journey for them. As Ringo is saying, it may not be for you, or I for that matter, but you can come to different conclusions while remaining logical and rational.

I don't entirely agree. As I've already said, I think actually accepting religion requires a logic lacking leap of faith at some point or another. Some people carry this very well and will come across completely sane by being able to fit it in to their world view without breaking their logical thought process about science and such but their belief ultimately comes from deciding it's true because they want it to be not because they have any proof to believe so.

I respect and understand that many people, including yourself if I understand you correctly, reason in a personal sense that atheism is the rational choice, rather than stating Science's default position is Atheism, which I don't agree it is.

There is no real difference between me stating I believe Atheism is the default view or the most rational choice. Both still offer you the choice, both offer what I think the most logic option is. I also don't entirely ascribe to it as my personal view point.

People will interpret evidence of whatever nature in a way that fits into their world-view, some see the world and scientific discovery as explaining Gods Universe, others do not...there are some who are indeed on a path of blind adherence to faulty and irrational ideas, but it isn't indicative of everyone, whether they be religious or not.

Indeed. In fact a persons religion can drive their scientific endeavour rather than derail it. In some cases their scientific endeavour informs their faith, rather than tests it.

It's a complicated world we live in, and we are even more complicated cognitively.

I'm debating whether that world-view is based on faith or logic. I don't think it's logic (alone) if we're talking about a religious person. In reality nobody is completely logic anyway, so it's not like I'm trying to insult anyone.

 

[crinkleshoes]

Anyone can have their ideas, but it does not make them facts. He also doesn't have many 'good points'. He just has a bunch of ideas, stemming from parapsychology. Granted some of his questions are great and thought provoking (i.e. our use of constants in a shifting universe), but beyond that...

No-one presented them as facts There is however, evidence that suggests some truth behind some of his ideas. It doesn't make those ideas specifically accurate - just another possibility. The fundamental idea of quantum physics is that existence is only a set of possibilities, there are interesting links that can be drawn between the observer effect and consciousness.

His point that many believe manipulable theories to be solid fact is important and worrying.

Everything should be questioned and re-evaluated until we do have an ultimate understanding, if that's even possible.

To believe that everything we "know" is truly known is naive.

Sure we have empirical evidence that backs up postulated ideas. Does that mean that all ideas have been thought of or brought forward? No.

We should question everything... including scientific "fact".

The inflated egos we possess are highly restrictive to our own development.



To restrict ideas just because something is "known" is idiotic.

 

[ringo747]

But I disagree and thus until someone comes forward with something doesn't require a leap of faith there is nothing else to be said between us.

I'm not interested in giving examples but if you watch some debates you will most certainly see theists use scientific evidence to support a philosophical premise. Your should watch the video that was posted earlier. Science isn't atheist by default as you claim.

Yes, I do. Anything that stands alone can be rejected and questioned.

Interesting! I assume you must have a value in your mind of what gap is acceptable? Would you automatically reject a history of WW1 if it was written by someone 80 years later? I'm not a historian but I'm sure many would find your view rather odd!

You're talking about a different type of faith that doesn't really reflect the conversation we're having. But given he doesn't have a history of making stuff up and his new job sounds realistic, then yes, I would believe him. Like I previously said though, the mind takes shortcuts so you don't really know you're validating what he's saying based on what you know.

So we have established that faith in general isn't irrational.

I never said you need to disband it completely. As I've said several times, the scientist who believes god fills the gaps is a completely logical person, I just think his belief doesn't come from the same place. Ego, fear, something else? Maybe. Logic, not so much.

Similarly if you believe we're just observing the rules of god, thats fairly logic itself too. But thats you using logic to connect faith and logic. It still completely requires your actual faith (the belief in god) which in itself has nothing to do with logic in my mind.

We're complicated creatures, you need to accept we're not logical about everything. I let my ex-girlfriend rip the **** out of me for the last 3 years. If I'd lived by logic instead of emotion, she'd have been gone 3 years ago. I run away when I see a spider. There is nothing logic about either. Those who believe in god? I don't think that comes from logic either.

You still seem to think that faith is only belief without evidence. When theists talk about faith they will most likely be referring to the act of putting trust in "God" but faith also includes "belief that" beliefs such as the belief that a deity exists.

If a theist believes that "God" exists based on his interpretation of evidence, then it simply does not follow that the same person believing in "God" is somehow irrational.

 

[aln]

No-one presented them as facts There is however, evidence that suggests some truth behind some of his ideas. It doesn't make those ideas specifically accurate - just another possibility. The fundamental idea of quantum physics is that existence is only a set of possibilities, there are interesting links that can be drawn between the observer effect and consciousness.

His point that many believe manipulable theories to be solid fact is important and worrying.

Everything should be questioned and re-evaluated until we do have an ultimate understanding, if that's even possible.

To believe that everything we "know" is truly known is naive.

Sure we have empirical evidence that backs up postulated ideas. Does that mean that all ideas have been thought of or brought forward? No.

We should question everything... including scientific "fact".

The inflated egos we possess are highly restrictive to our own development.



To restrict ideas just because something is "known" is idiotic.

We don't believe everything we "know" in the sense that you're talking about. Everything has to be questioned which is entirely why I'm against blind jumps of faith being considered legitimate use of science, logic and reason.

We just do the best with what we have and good scientists are well aware some of out best theories have been debunked in the past and will continue to be so in the future.

However this is all about putting our best foot forward to do the work which is why there is no place for "god did it and we'll never understand it" in a scientific mind. Given unlimited time and unlimited resources, we'll know everything. We'll probably die before then though. ;P

 

[Castiel]

Of course it is, I dislike all those things equally when they prescribe hate or judgment on others. Obviously we accept that morals are subjective but I really wish "don't hurt others" was universal.

I agree...we should really be fighting prejudice wherever it is rather than opposing everything because it has members who interpret their ideology in order to justify those prejudices.

I don't entirely agree. As I've already said, I think actually accepting religion requires a logic lacking leap of faith at some point or another. Some people carry this very well and will come across completely sane by being able to fit it in to their world view without breaking their logical thought process about science and such but their belief ultimately comes from deciding it's true because they want it to be not because they have any proof to believe so.

All complete world-views require some level of faith, whether they be based on theism, agnosticism or atheism...we all acknowledge to some degree a level of trust in what we do not know or understand. I reiterate however, that one mans evidence is not necessarily the same as another's and even if the evidence is the same they may interpret it and integrate it into their world-view in different ways...you cannot say it is illogical or irrational without the knowledge of how the individual came to their personal conclusions....you can disagree with their conclusions, but I don't agree we can judge them without that knowledge.

There is no real difference between me stating I believe Atheism is the default view or the most rational choice. Both still offer you the choice, both offer what I think the most logic option is. I also don't entirely ascribe to it as my personal view point.

The difference is between your personal view, which is subjective, and saying science supports that view as an absolute. I agree with the former, but not with the latter.

I'm debating whether that world-view is based on faith or logic. I don't think it's logic (alone) if we're talking about a religious person. In reality nobody is completely logic anyway, so it's not like I'm trying to insult anyone.

I don't think any world-view is based entirely on logic, we are by definition irrational at times and so our worldview is influenced by that irrationality inherent in human cognitive behaviour. However I do not agree that simply being religious makes an individual any less rational or any more irrational than someone who is not...it is dependent upon how the individual came to their conclusions and how they conduct themselves generally.

 

[ringo747]

However this is all about putting our best foot forward to do the work which is why there is no place for "god did it and we'll never understand it" in a scientific mind. Given unlimited time and unlimited resources, we'll know everything. We'll probably die before then though. ;P

You are simply replacing the "God of the gaps" argument with your own "science of the gaps" argument - they are equally as bad! You are falling back into the view that science alone holds all the answers.

What led you to hold the view that the God-explanation and the science-explanation cannot both be relevant? One may explain how something works, one may explain why something works? One being true doesn't automatically invalidate the other.

 

[Castiel]

I've only quite recently switched my belief systems - so pushing these ideas in public still feels weird

I was under the impression that you were an atheist, if I recall some discussions we have had?

May I enquire how and why you have changed...if indeed I was correct in my assumption.

 

[crinkleshoes]

But I disagree and thus until someone comes forward with something doesn't require a leap of faith there is nothing else to be said between us.

While there is no direct proof of existence.

There are millions of experiential accounts, many with incredible similarity.

While these could be a side-effect of the human condition / psyche / similar build formation /etc - the opposite is still a possibility.

Even Rupert Sheldrake's non-local communication (ie telepathy) experiments are showing that there is a form of communication or connectivity that we don't yet understand.

Carl Jung's collective unconscious makes a lot of sense to me.

Basically the world is a big shade of grey to me.

Well... we agree on that.

I never said you need to disband it completely. As I've said several times, the scientist who believes god fills the gaps is a completely logical person, I just think his belief doesn't come from the same place. Ego, fear, something else? Maybe. Logic, not so much.

Logic is manipulable - since the 1700s we have been taught to have more trust in materialistic-based logic. Just because you've been taught one way, doesn't make it an absolute.

Actually - the Ego is a set of barriers/filters that are built throughout childhood in order to fit in with this society - the ego is incredibly transformative depending on how and where you are raised.

It's more like the ego disconnects us from our spiritual side and in our culture, connects us with the material.

You'd be surprised about how many belief systems come from personal experience. Also, logic is manipulable - yours is not necessarily any more correct than anyone else's - just because you believe it is, is irrelevant.

The is no irrationality in the belief of creation, there is no irrationality in the belief of materialism either.

BOTH require faith, to deny that is ignorance.

Similarly if you believe we're just observing the rules of god, thats fairly logic itself too. But thats you using logic to connect faith and logic. It still completely requires your actual faith (the belief in god) which in itself has nothing to do with logic in my mind.

Belief in the big bang requires faith that something sprang out of nothing.

Logic is personal - yours is not more accurate than anyone else's.

 

[aln]

I'm not interested in giving examples but if you watch some debates you will most certainly see theists use scientific evidence to support a philosophical premise. Your should watch the video that was posted earlier. Science isn't atheist by default as you claim.

Yeah it's not like 80%+ of the world elite scientists don't prescribe to religion or anything.

Interesting! I assume you must have a value in your mind of what gap is acceptable? Would you automatically reject a history of WW1 if it was written by someone 80 years later? I'm not a historian but I'm sure many would find your view rather odd!

If you're talking about someone writing a persona account, then yes. Don't get me wrong, I'd probably consume it and enjoy it but I wouldn't take it as a completely factual account. It's not like it's unknown for people to lie about their service history, is it?

If you're talking about an expert gathering a whole bunch of sources and constructing what they believe events to be based on that. Again I wouldn't ultimately assume everything stated would be 100% factual but we'd probably be closer to the truth assuming his interpretation seemed reasonable.

Many may find that odd, but I couldn't care less what many think.

You still seem to think that faith is only belief without evidence. When theists talk about faith they will most likely be referring to the act of putting trust in "God" but faith also includes "belief that" beliefs such as the belief that a deity exists.

If a theist believes that "God" exists based on his interpretation of evidence, then it simply does not follow that the same person believing in "God" is somehow irrational.

I've already explained this several times. I do not believe logic gets you all the way without a leap at some point. To me these leaps are either jarringly obvious that makes me thing the person speaking is an idiot or they tend to speak in such vague terms that they don't actually say anything. I've never once consumed any material which actually attempts to tackle proof without thinking "Oh god, no" or "what the actual **** was that".

 

[crinkleshoes]

We don't believe everything we "know" in the sense that you're talking about. Everything has to be questioned which is entirely why I'm against blind jumps of faith being considered legitimate use of science, logic and reason.

Where did that come from? I don't recall saying that...

We just do the best with what we have and good scientists are well aware some of out best theories have been debunked in the past and will continue to be so in the future.

Exactly - my issue is that too many aren't even willing to question their beliefs and that they don't understand that that's what they have - a belief system.

However this is all about putting our best foot forward to do the work which is why there is no place for "god did it and we'll never understand it" in a scientific mind. Given unlimited time and unlimited resources, we'll know everything. We'll probably die before then though. ;P

I agree, there is no place for that in science.

However, a belief in a higher power does not preclude the development of science. In fact, it was partially my scientific ideas that lead me to look for God, the observer effect and its relationship to consciousness specifically. Quantum non-locality is an interesting subject to me.

Some organised religions have twisted that severely, however. Some organised religions have severely hampered scientific progression and I am vehemently against it.

Heck - if we want to use their own argument against them - it seems rather obvious to me... if it's there for us to find and manipulate - perhaps your God put it there for us to do just that?

Any restriction on human behaviour and development is wrong.

 

[aln]

While there is no direct proof of existence.

There are millions of experiential accounts, many with incredible similarity.

While these could be a side-effect of the human condition / psyche / similar build formation /etc - the opposite is still a possibility.

Even Rupert Sheldrake's non-local communication (ie telepathy) experiments are showing that there is a form of communication or connectivity that we don't yet understand.

Carl Jung's collective unconscious makes a lot of sense to me.



Well... we agree on that.



Logic is manipulable - since the 1700s we have been taught to have more trust in materialistic-based logic. Just because you've been taught one way, doesn't make it an absolute.

Actually - the Ego is a set of barriers/filters that are built throughout childhood in order to fit in with this society - the ego is incredibly transformative depending on how and where you are raised.

It's more like the ego disconnects us from our spiritual side and in our culture, connects us with the material.

You'd be surprised about how many belief systems come from personal experience. Also, logic is manipulable - yours is not necessarily any more correct than anyone else's - just because you believe it is, is irrelevant.

The is no irrationality in the belief of creation, there is no irrationality in the belief of materialism either.

BOTH require faith, to deny that is ignorance.



Belief in the big bang requires faith that something sprang out of nothing.

Logic is personal - yours is not more accurate than anyone else's.

I like to think logic is consistent is just that we all do it wrong.

Belief in the big bang requires faith that something sprang out of nothing.

Not exactly, it's just a conclusion drawn from the expanding nature of the universe. For the most part you'll get a "we don't know what happened before that".

However if you follow this process to its conclusion at some point you hit the barrier of "OK, something came from nothing" or "something has just always been". This is the same thought process as "god came from nothing" or "god has always been".

I think most atheists will accept thats a complete and utter mind ****. They just don't believe that adding god in helps it make any more sense.

However, a belief in a higher power does not preclude the development of science.

Just to note, I never actually said it did. I've already said both can co-exists, I'm just debating that both come from the same mindset.

In fact, it was partially my scientific ideas that lead me to look for God, the observer effect and its relationship to consciousness specifically. Quantum non-locality is an interesting subject to me.

The observer effect is a complete and utter mind ****. It's like magic to me, I really don't understand how that can happen. However it doesn't do anything for me to start looking for a higher power.

The point I'm going to make has been raised a lot of times on this forum but it fits perfectly with this. Many elite scientists from the past, all smarter than me, have turned to god when they've reached the limit of their understanding.

I believe it's your ego that makes you go to a higher power because you don't want to accept you don't know the answers when it's possible to figure out. We probably won't know the answer in our lifetime but I'm willing to bet someone will figure it out.

This video is posted a lot, but it's worth the watch to show my point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo

Better men than I have been folly to such thinking.

 

[crinkleshoes]

I was under the impression that you were an atheist, if I recall some discussions we have had?

May I enquire how and why you have changed...if indeed I was correct in my assumption.

Your assumption is correct - I used to be an atheist and, in fact, reveled in squashing the ideas of others as idiocity/ignorance spurred out of nothing more than a fear of death or perhaps a deep desire to find meaning. I could be quite abrupt and very rude about it, brushing them off as idiots...

I've learnt to eat my words and have a broader view of the possibilities that exist.

Some people will think I'm crazy for my reasoning or just for thinking I had the experience - I don't really care anymore - it's my reasoning and it does nothing to harm anyone - only allow me to appreciate life, people and the experience more... so I'll explain.

I had a rather significant personal experience - I met God, through what can be described as an angel/sub-goddess or similar that channeled the light for me to see and talk through it... A rather amazing mixture of white/gold/silver and a colour I've never witnessed before, accompanied with the most powerful feeling of love, so strong you can't imagine.

I've been chasing meaning for a while and started looking into more eastern religious ideals to comprehend and began pursuing meditation.

I have been able to get quite far with it quite quickly and it turned my belief system on its head.

It's extremely hard for me to explain what I experienced as *just* my imagination - although I'll admit, it's possible.

It showed me many things that would never normally enter my mind and used my own logic to prove to me, subjectively, that it exists. It addressed my fears and answered some questions - while guiding me to discover the answer to most of my questions by myself. It was unfathomably intelligent - much more so than me or my imagination.

It allowed me to glimpse the shared consciousness, seemingly outside of the normal confines of time. When you dream you're back there and I've had a couple of shared dream states.

It showed me how time works and explained that it's fundamental to this experience - although I can't claim to have understood the function (as it warned me I wouldn't).

Experiencing a lifetime in the blink of an eye may sound like a delusion, but it seems far beyond the possibility of the computational power of the human brain.

I've witnessed telepathy between myself and three other people who've been able to confirm the same thing. This has been confirmed between us on multiple occasions.

It's just generally made me feel wonderful and I'm now searching for a vocation that will fulfill me more than the less meaningful job I have at the moment.

Quite a brief overview of what I've been through - but it should give enough of an idea about the shift in my belief system and the reasoning behind my pleasant insanity

 

[aln]

I had a rather significant personal experience - I met God, through what can be described as an angel/sub-goddess or similar that channeled the light for me to see and talk through it... A rather amazing mixture of white/gold/silver and a colour I've never witnessed before, accompanied with the most powerful feeling of love, so strong you can't imagine.

Sure I think this was your imagination / hallucination / mind playing ticks on you but it's still interesting. More info please. Where, when, why?

For the record, I wish I could believe. The prospect of nothing after death is morbid. I doubt I'll ever get there though.

 

[Castiel]

That is some epiphany you must have had Crinkleshoes....it sounds fascinating.