Near death experience of Howard Storm

[pocaracas]

There is still a lot more to say, which I will, but I'm waiting for people to read what I've posted so far, and read what they have to say about it also. I don't have all the answers, and in the end this is something for people to find out on their own, and likely it will not be until we die. I'm going to present information but we need to all accept that we perceive the reality we exist in, and everyone will have their own opinion and form their own conclusions.

I plan to talk more about the spiritual realms the earthbound realm, which is here outside of our body, the void, hell, fog, heaven, examples of veridical OBE/NDEs. I'm surprised no one has commented on the baby part of the story on the link I provided, where outside his body, he found out the baby had a broken bone, that was later verified by the doctors when the parents took him in.

What needs to be talked about is whether consciousness can exist outside the brain. Do we even know what death is, such as clinical death where the doctor determines you are dead, but somehow you come out of that state.

Anyone have the time to watch the video to hell and back, where atheists died and went to hell, and came back? It's presented by a doctor. I'm not picking on atheists here, for me it's interesting because atheists believe nothing can happen after death, which is why they are more interesting than the stories of religious people who were expecting it. Here it is again. When I have more time I'll give some more info, but I have a full time job and a lot of other priorities to take care of as well. Howard Storm is interviewed here as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veD9dpgwnzc

I know you can't see it, but... the first five minutes of that video is just poisoning the well.

You watch that video to learn how to convince yourself of what it is that you start off already convinced.

[ignoramus]

Scooby, most people who are susceptible to woo are usually happy to swallow lots of it...
Tell us what wooey stuff you don't believe is real and that's also our reasoning of why your particular woo falls into the same category.

ufos = turd #1
NDE = turd #2
OBE = turd #3
homeopathy = turd #4
astrology = turd #5
feng shui = French onion soup! hehe

a

[Mr.wizard]

I'm starting to wonder if this is a Poe. This is ludicrous.

I think he is a Poe

[houseofcantor]

 faiks to understand the basics of atheim loses all credibility immediately.

I lol'd. 

[Mister Agenda]

Thanks for the welcome by the way! Sure I agree it's good to be skeptical. I tend to research both sides of all arguments, and trust me I know the arguments against NDEs like the dying brain theory etc. I would also say that although we are an advanced species, we know a lot more now than we did 500 years ago, and will form different conclusions in science and physics 500 years from now.

The thing with NDEs is if you study them in mass, you would form a different conclusion than reading a few, at least from the perspective of the NDE. A common theme and message that comes back is the experience will be different for everyone, just as the experience here is different for everyone, and the beings that people meet give answers to the questions. One answer is that they provide you with the experience that you need, whether you need to meet your deceased relitives for comfort, or need time alone in the void for contemplation before moving on. That's one reason for the tunnel for example. Those in the tunnel are rushing towards the light, others go immediately into the earthbound realm and find themselves outside of their body wondering what's going on, and eventually moving into the void. I'll explain it further as we move on.

You're welcome for the welcome. Thanks for your thoughts on this topic.

The null hypothesis for NDEs is that they are brain events. Differences in people's experiences aren't the way to defeat the null hypothesis. Commonalities where they shouldn't exist would be the line to follow. Or success with the various methods used to test if NDE reports of being outside the body are supported. For example, whether the NDE 'experiencer' can identify something that can be seen only from above the patient looking down, as commonly reported. No joy on that one yet.

[Mister Agenda]

Also, I have my doubts that Storm is a fraud.  I think he probably really did have an experience that changed him.  It's more likely that he just filled in some of the missing details to make his story more compelling.  The idea that he is secretly an atheist scamming people seems much less probable to me than the more likely explanation, that he's a believer who was probably an atheist for the wrong reasons.  It's certainly possible he could be exaggerating his prior atheism to sweeten the story.  Preachers tend to exaggerate for effect.  That doesn't mean they aren't sincere.

Have to ask what does it mean to be an atheist for the right reasons? What are the right reasons?

I'm going through the posts, and have noticed a pattern so far. The main one is that people are claiming he wasn't a true atheist because he now believes in God, and is either a liar that never was an atheist, or not a true atheist. I would say that everyone can change, and to say that if you are an atheist you have to be one for life, is almost like faith of religious people where nothing can effect your belief system.

What's interesting is that many religious people disagree with NDEs because they don't fit into their faith. Not all, but many that I've talked to at least. NDEs are something that can unite many belief systems and people from all walks of life.

---

Would you please reference a post in which the reasoning for claiming he wasn't an atheist is because he now believes in God or that people can't change? I promise to look that post up and give the person a mild chiding. If you can find three posts by different contributors that support your claim, I'll concede your point that it's a pattern (and chide each of them).
The reason his atheism is implausible, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY THE PATTERN OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING SO FAR, is that his attitude towards his previous atheism is so shallow and stereotypical that it does not seem to be informed by any actual experience of being an atheist. That there is no independent confirmation available so far of his former staunch atheism doesn't help. Many people who don't understand what atheism actually is, claim to have been atheists when they were really just not very good Christians, or weren't 'born again' yet, or weren't fundamentalist enough. Atheists do occasionally convert to a theistic religion, and Storm may be an example of it, but his description of life as an atheist doesn't ring true.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I voted yes. I now don't believe in your version of whatever god it is you worship even more.

[Mister Agenda]

If you really wanted to know, you could email him. His email address is on his website. I've emailed him before to thank him.

Seriously contemplate how you would talk about atheism if you turned away from atheism. How many people who didn't know you would believe what you are saying?

I'm not here to push anything. I realize we are all individuals and form our own conclusions. I just wanted to give people information to contemplate.

If I wanted an objective assessment of a product, why would I go to the salesman? The veracity of his version is exactly what's in question.

I believe I would be very convincing because I would still understand how most Western atheists think and what they would find compelling. I don't think what I learned in my years as an atheist would magically vanish from my brain. And I actually have heard convincing accounts of conversion from atheists, though there reasons for converting were never compelling.

OTH, if I were trying to cash in my atheist cred to rake in Christian cash, I can see where it would be in my financial best interest to play up the stereotypes. If I had the cynicism to try to use my atheist past that way, I suppose I would be cynical enough to milk it for all it's worth, and anything that smacks of atheists being reasonable is a non-starter in Evangelical circles.

[Mister Agenda]

People communicate their past experiences through the filter of their current worldview.  His comments aren't at all surprising and are wholly representative of a well storied christian evangelical narrative.

That's kind of my problem with Christian evangelical narratives. I have never met a group of people who base things on stories the way they do. And it's rude to question Brother Jake's story about how God got him to the revival meeting without any gas in the tank.

[Mister Agenda]

What I was saying about Catholics here was 100% true based on my own experience, too. If anything, I was being kind, considering that Ronedee is the only other Catholic here who comes to my mind. However, when not making a point about over-generalizing, I try to be careful not to over generalize. Some posters may be Catholics without me knowing about it. I may be misjudging the Catholics I encounter here because of bias or just the difficulty of knowing someone's heart over the internet. Or the simple fact that making bald statements in a medium devoid of body language and tone can feel like hostility.

At any rate, you know who is likely to be insulted by your generalization? The people who don't fit it. Even if it were actually a fair assessment. Not to mention that even bringing it up sounds like an insinuation that the people you are having a conversation with aren't having it in good faith because they are biased against your position. That's pretty useless isn't it? Especially if you're conversing with someone you know doesn't fit your description of the usual suspects.

By the way, I'm not as peeved as I may sound, I'm taking the opportunity to make a point that applies to everyone, no matter their position. I'm not peeved, I'm pedantic.

I don't think it's a generalization to say "most here", when that has been my honest observation/experience here. When I think of a generalization I think of a phrase like "Atheists are _____" rather than using words like most or many. Those words specifically imply that it does not apply to everyone.

Again, sorry if I insulted you (and btw, you are not in that group of people), but if all these people I'm thinking of are in fact not hostile towards religion then heck, they sure fooled me!

No hard feelings. On a forum with a lot of skeptics, I would be prepared with some numbers and a list of names before I made claims about the majority, but that's just me.