jazzer

That's kind of a 50/50 thing: either you get the job or you don't. So if you didn't get it I suppose you'd say God didn't want to have it or something. You see where I'm going?

Amazing what you can do with 15 second clips, and of course the Libby thing turned out to be a witch hunt. Gost, some folks will never get it. There best left alone in their delusions.

I tend not to post because of all the insults hurled around, particularly against anyone opposing Government, either in Canada or the U.S. And heaven forbid if one speaks out against the war. So when the bullys leave the schoolyard, this might be a decent place for discourse.

Advice you may wish to try.

Aah, thank God for the hall monitor/rat.

Let's hope their deaths won't be in vain.

You never once recited in Mass: "the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church"? That's saying it is THE one. Yeah, but where I came from the concept wasn't bashed over the head. It was more lip service than anything else, something you said by rote Sunday after Sunday. I took it to mean that Catholic meant universal, a part of the whole Chrisitian experience. But now with the Pope making this proclamation, it drives the church back a few years, if not decades.

As a reformed Catholic that is news to me. They never used to be so forceful about it. Now I'm really glad I left that organization.

That's how you tell the Christians around here.

I don't think you've researched enough. I don't pay taxes or health care premiums yet I'm fully covered. I am on a disability pension though. So we don't "all pay for it" as you erroneously claim.

Okay, I'm game. Your ball.

Well stated.

I don't think you have to resort to insults. I see Zammit's claim totally different from you. I see him bringing forth a potpourri of evidence from many different sources. Some of these mini-claims have been authenticated and duplicated under scientific scrutiny. But because they are from the realm of paranormal, many in the scientific field feel it is not worthy of further study. Anyway, all an atheist has to do is take apart the argument in each individual case. For example, find fraud and discredit the examiner or expose fraud of known seances. That shouldn't be hard to do. So it's that type of examination that I'm referring to when I say "refute."

deleted

Randi is a known cheat. For example, he has been captured on tape bending a spoon prior to his attempt to bend it using psychic powers. He has reneged on his million dollar challenge, and has stated that he will make sure no one can win it. He is nothing but a con artist and a bad magician. Zammit, on the other hand, has provided the evidence to back up his claim. His challenge is for people to refute the evidence. He is working on making public what goes on in the seance room, thru video etc. But I have a feeling that even if Zammit succeeded, close minded skeptics wouldn't believe it anyway. Some people would rather die than change their minds.

Randi is bogus and a total fraud. He has no credentials and is just a major blowhard for the atheists. At least Zammit has taken the time to collect pertinent documentation to back up his claim. And he challenges everyone not to take anything he provides as direct evidence. He provides the info for one's own personal research. And for that he has my respect.

Have you read this book yourself? If so, what did you think of it - was the evidence as compelling as the advertising? It raises some interesting questions. My wife and I have had a couple of paranormal experiences, but that's hardly evidence of an afterlife. To me Zammit's site should definitely be viewed with skepticism, but with an open mind. I'm still skeptical, but at least I have not closed myself off to the possibility of life after death.

That's because it is categorically impossible to prove a negative. Aah, but it's not a negative. He has made a claim with his evidence. The challenge is to refute his claim. It should be extremely easy for all those atheists out there to collect.

If spirit and identity are not one in the same, then "you" are gone when you pass away. "You" don't continue on in another life. "You" don't get 72 virgins. "You" only live once. On the grounds of reason, I suppose. Wanna make a million bucks? This guy will pay you if you can refute his claim for an afterlife. So far no one has taken him up on his offer.

The near death experience concept relies on the body having a spirit. If you want to know if this is true, visit a hospital and observe a patient who's oxygen level is being slowly deprived. You'll observe the personality of the patient changes, drastically, to the point the 'spirit' of the person you knew, no longer exists. Edited for typo, me bad That might be the case for oxygen deprivatiaon, but I witnessed my parents deaths, and they were nothing but peaceful. I don't know if they live on, but they weren't fighting at the end.

Interesting observation, however the bulk of NDE contain the following: A sense of being dead. An out-of-body experience. A sensation of floating above one's body and seeing the surrounding area. Pleasant feelings, calmness. A sense of overwhelming love and peace. A sensation of moving upwards through a tunnel or narrow passageway. Meeting deceased relatives or spiritual figures. Encountering a being of light, or a light (possibly a religious or divine figure). Being given a life review. Reaching a border or boundary. A feeling of being returned to the body, often accompanied by a reluctance. So how is it that these are common to most NDEs? And if it is just neurons dying off, how come no brain damage seems to take place? Science can't answer these questions and so they try to come up with the neuron dying and oxygen deprevation scenarios, none of which have been conclusively proven.

Perhaps had they treated the area as a crime scene, their discovery might have come to light.

The only way the U.S. is going to stop terrorism is to stop supporting it. No world peace without it.

It can get a lot worse....see Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War I, and UN sanctions. Saddam is dead...he ain't coming back to give Iraq that "better life". Sheer speculation, and your position seems a good one since Bush is not likely to pull out. More lives to be lost for absolutely nothing.

My point is Iraq and Vietnam/Cambodia are two different conflicts. For the Iraqis how much worse can it get than what has been going on in the last 4 years. Many believe that the violence will indeed decrease once America gets the hell out. And yes, some even say life was better under Saddam.