Skip to main content

My vision of Christopher Hitchens in the afterlife

I had a vision of Christopher Hitchens in the afterlife.

In it he was in a locker room type environment (i.e. a confined space with low lighting), with other people (men I think), and he was engaged in lively conversation and debate.

His mood was good and he was enjoying himself.

I think there was some irony about the fact he was carrying on happily in the afterlife even though he was an enemy of religion during his life which many people would think precludes him from having an enjoyable afterlife experience. In other words, religious belief was seen as irrelevant to whether you continue to exist or not, and that disbelief doesn't doom you to eternal suffering as some believers would have you think.

In addition, I had the sense that just because Hitchens and his comrades were alive and well in the afterlife did not mean they were suddenly blessed with all the answers to life or even whether God existed, for example. Instead, I think the humor and irony of life was brought home to them, in that death was seen as indeed an illusion, though it did cause an apparent separation from those still on earth.  But the mind was still sharp, perhaps sharper that ever and still capable of wondering about the true nature of things.

Note: I am not saying that I actually saw Hitchens in the afterlife, rather this was the image my subconscious presented to me.  I have no idea of whether it reflects his current situation or not, but as a believer in an immortal soul, I believe it is possible!

Additionally, as someone who has a soft spot for "Hitch" I believe this can help create a psychic bridge to the person in question. Sadly, as most of his followers are avowed atheists and materialists belief in an afterlife is rare and so no attempt would be made by them to connect with Hitchens now because they believe he no longer exists. That lack of belief shuts the door on such connections being made.


Popular posts from this blog

The only meaningful science on vaccines...

Is missing.

What is that science?
Comparing children who receive various regimes of vaccines against those who receive none at all, for a wide variety of health outcomes, over the next 15-20 years of their life, and beyond.
Such studies are not done because they are deemed unethical.

Why unethical? 

Because it is assumed that childhood vaccines do more good than harm, and that the current childhood vaccine schedule is fine, and to deny children vaccines when they are presumed safe and effective would be an act of criminal negligence.
None, because it would be "unethical" to complete the studies that would prove this.

Catch-22, anyone?
Therefore, we don't know if these assumptions about safety and effectiveness are true or not.
And we never will, unless such comparative studies are done. 

And such studies would only be meaningful if conducted by someone without a dog in the fight- that is, not aligned with promoting or resisting community vaccine uptake.

And, as anyone…

Conflict is best avoided

Interpersonal conflict wastes valuable time and energy that could be better devoted to other, more fulfilling things.

Our energies are best spent creating a fulfilling life for ourselves and those we care about, not attempting to destroy another person, group or idea.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the opinions of others are irrelevant in terms of how we wish to live our lives, and how we wish to interpret reality.

That is, we are under no obligation to listen to others or respond to them in any way.
Our lives are our own to create, and no one else's!

If we share a physical space with others, or trade goods and services with them, we will need to come to agreements, but otherwise our life is our own to create, in any way we see fit.

If others don't share our views or support our choices there is no need to fight them on it.
Instead, we must discover what works best for us and practice it, while allowing others the same freedom.

The governments role in health care

"Let the consumer decide, not the government."
The government has a role in freeing up the healthcare market, making sure it is free of collusion and big firms bullying smaller firms out of the market, and in ensuring the poor have access to adequate health care.
Currently, health care is deeply corrupt in the west, with too few companies controlling the market and with governments only exacerbating the situation by providing market protection for these firms.
The end result is high prices and poor products leading to poor health outcomes.
What needs to happen is opening the health care market up to competition by leveling the playing field with the government getting out of the business of picking winners and losers. That is for consumers to decide as they do in other markets, and is based around branding.
Good products and manufacturers will do well as their brand succeeds in the marketplace, while poor and overpriced products and their providers will disappear.

The level pla…