n8nrgim

folks who have ndes weren't really dead, or weren't irreversibly dead?

the philsophy of thinking we choose or benefit from strife in life

some videos about the nature of the universe and consciousness 

why is there such dismissal of NDEs as authentic in the media?

it's just pulling teeth to get skeptics to provide any coherent 'whys' of why these things happen at all.

you just keep bare asserting that it seems likely to you that people would have these coherent elaborate afterlife stories, but you ignore that if it is that way, it should be tied to natural selection. yet, nothing coherently ties it to natural selection. the other poster posted about a study about 'playing dead' tied to near death experiences, but it's only vaguely connected and a leap of logic.  someone says it's tied to chemicals in some lose sense, even though drugs,dreams,and hallucinations in any other aspect of life dont cause elaborate afterlife stories that have those phenomenological common themes. i keep seeing these half thoughts for explaining why this happens that dont add up. if skeptics are so absent in the why's and logic department... why is it such a leap to think maybe they visited the afterlife? i realize you take as your premise that supernatural things dont occur, or things of that nature... but that's an assumption on your part, and if they are visiting the afterlife, it's staring you right in the face. even if you dont want to call it evidence, it indicates something, however you want to spin it, it points to something, and it's plain as day staring you right in the face. 

the holy spirit i would like to think unites the father and son, but each is distinct. whether we're communicating more than one God or not, is a mystery. it's beyond our understanding.

i like the one analogy i shared, cause it's familial and a more direct comparison. my dad is a father, son, and brother, in one person. the son aspect is not the father aspect, but it's still one person. and the holy spirit is like a family, father, son, adopted brothers of believers. 

here is a poem that is extracted from a movie about a priest getting the third degree. 

Per my last post, the experiences r also elaborate afterlife stories. That's a specific theme, it doesn't sound like a random hallucination... so if there's a natural way to explain it, it's gotta be tied to natural selection 

it looks like the article says 'some animals play dead. humans are animals and they might play dead. therefore NDEs are tied to playing dead'.  you see how weak the reasoning is dont you? it looks like they think using a bunch of pretense and jargon makes a good argument. 

reminds me of that calvin and hobbes piece. 'academia, here i come!"

I think you might be reading too much into 'measure'. It implies knowledge and such, but it doesn't have to. Even without knowledge, the act itself of measuring affects quanta. But maybe all I'm establishing is that humans can affect reality, and that's not at all much of a statement?

in the double slit experiment... isn't the act of measuring causing different outcomes? 

i asked if the best word is 'observation affects quanta' or if it's 'measurements affects quanta', and you said 'wave collapse affects quanta'. if wave collapse is affected by the outside reality, which we manipulate, how isn't that a matter of observation or measurement? 

what advantage do NDEs have in natural selection? 

people who dream say NDEs are more real than this earthly life and they have no question in their mind that it's real, and they no longer fear death. that is the opposite of a dream. people who have had both experiences say they are not at all the same. 

do you think NDEs are a product of evolution? they'd have to be, considering how common they are if they are products of the brain only. how does an end of life hallucination improve one's ability to reproduce?

some thoughts on nde's as a product of evolution

do you think NDEs are a product of evolution? they'd have to be, considering how common they are. if NDEs are merely a product of the brain how does an end of life hallucination improve one's ability to reproduce? 

do you think NDEs are a product of evolution? they'd have to be, considering how common they are if they are products of the brain only. how does an end of life hallucination improve one's ability to reproduce? 

you should google the number of people who are self aware or truly use critical thinking. there's actual science on it, and the number is very small. 

do you have any insight on this? 

some folks say like the double slit experiment, that the particles are affected by measuring them. 

others say often on the topic of quantum mechanics, that simply observing particles at the quantum state affects them. 

the bigger implication, is that there's those who say our consciousness can affect reality. which is true to the extent that we can measure quanta, with our devices and tools. but if all that is requirement is observation, then that's a bigger fish to fry for consciousness affecting reality 

what do you want to talk about the trinity?

the bible says in the beginning the word was with God, and the word was God, and the word became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus said that "before abraham was around I AM".  "unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins". "i am" was a reference to God in the bible 

in the letters of the bible, from his disciples, it refers to Jesus as 'our lord and God'. etc

i would search the forum from recent dates to look for talk about the trinity. 

and the spirit enters the son, and the father enters the son, through the spirit. they again are different but the same. 

the trinity is a paradox, a contradiction in human terms. it is an example of the unlimited trying to limit itself. God is unlimited and in this existence he limits himself and creation is limited. the afterlife in God are unlimited. 

It's not just religion. It's also politics and relationships and personalities and characteristics. We grow from a blank slate into adults. Most people lack critical thinking and self awareness... but some don't. The ones that possess it to some extent choose their beliefs 

most games are too predictable. so not predictable. like first person shooters or racing games or basic sports games. if you want a good game, it needs to break new ground, like mario, plants v zombies, tetris, metroid, pac man. i think most ground was broke in the earlier systems like atari and the first few nintendos and play stations. a lot of the new stuff is just rehashing old concepts. of course, i dont pay attention to a lot of modern video games. 

western christians have the concept of original sin, the idea that we are born into sin. eastern christians, though, believe in the idea of 'propensity to sin'. we aren't born sinful, we are merely born with the propensity to sin. if you take western theology seriously, babies are born sinful and never repented, but if you dont assume that, we can imply that babies aren't guilty of sin. after all, they aren't born into it, and they aren't capable of sin as a baby. the fairest definition of sin, is intentionally doing what you know is wrong... it has all those elements, and babies dont have intention or knowing and thus aren't guilty. 

but i like my God as all knowing and the different vibrations theory better. 

i think you are being too legalistic with the mind of God. but it's fair to criticize how empty christian fundamentalism is. 

God knows the heart of everyone. he knows how children would have lived, and he knows their natural tendencies. if you think of heaven and hell as levels of vibration, in which we can improve and decline and move around, children probably just live their lives in the afterlife instead of this life and go to where their nature fits into. 

" give it a quarter billion years"

i meant a quarter trillion. 

the universe should last for trillions of years is my point. plus if life developed somewhere, we cant necessarily know. we can't even see planets in other galaxies, i dont think. (unless james webb telescope changed that). thirteen billion years is enough time for life to form, but we shouldn't assume it's adequate that there 'must' be other life forms out there, i would think. give it a quarter billion years and get back with us, i say. 

i think the only point that answers this, is that it's not so much a contradiction, the paradox, as something hard to understand. 

They say if aliens are going to exist, they should exist already and maybe have contacted us.

But the universe is young... why should we assume aliens would already exist let alone have contacted us? I don't see why they call it a paradox.

I took for granted that u were right about the law in this situation. It looks like the feds and Supreme Court r right. But I think u could make a moral argument in being right. Is your position more legal or moral? But, even if u r right morally, it's still Texas firing the first shot, so to speak

i liked debate.org better when it was at its peak. unformately i spent too much time doing formal debates and should have used the forum more. it wasn't until the end that i started using the forum. i love the free flow of ideas better on forums. i also like the free speech better at the old website too. 

i think for your overall point to be valid, you would have to explicitly show a strong trend where federal over reach is occurring, and that it's worth sacrificing the greatest country in history. you aren't doing a good job showing that trend, aside from a few conservative talking points, and you aren't showing how those existing infractions are sufficient to dissolve the country. i dont mean to keep keep insulting, but i see it that way, like it's a baby crying cause he doesn't get his way. i mean i can see why you're upset, you have a case for that, and how maybe trump could have or should have sent troops to sancturary cities (and all the liberal hypocrisy) but i dont think you are establishing the central points very well. 

i may be misinterpreting your points here and there, but at most you should just be saying the conditions are worsening in what may some day  result in a war or dissolution. instead you are getting hyperbolic ideas of federal authority soon possibly collapsing (your words) and implying war or such is at hand. i understand you are trying to make a point, but i think you are taking your ideas too far, like a radical or maybe an extremist. i know you disagree, though 

texas is sticking to its guns, but its bluffing if you think it'd wage a war against the USA. it's like a small dude taunting a tough guy, cause the small guys has enough leveerage to know he can get away with it. 

maybe i misunderstood you, and you dont think war is the likely outcome. but you do think that texas should be willing to go to war. that's what you said by saying i shouldn't be calling texas stupid like a baby. the thing is, if the usa calls its bluff, texas should back down. maybe texas should continue to bluff if that's in its best interests, but it still should be only a bluff. you actually think an immigration problem is a big enough reason for texas etc to divide the usa through war? in no way does that make sense. if your point is about a trend of federal over reach, you might have a point, but we're a long way from that to be so seriously entertaining the idea that texas should be willing to go to war. 

the most likely outcome will be that texas will ignore the court order, and the feds and texas will continue with a stand off. texas will for practical purposes do what it wants to do, unless they are forced not to, which i dont think will happen. at most there might be a battle, but it won't warp into a great civil war. jumping to that conclusion is just mypotic and short sighted, stupid. 

an immigration crisis isn't a big enough reason to start a war. this is like letting a relatively small argument in a marriage end in divorce. sometimes the sides have to live with each other. and, that would be the best outcome, finding a way to deal with it. our country is stronger and better united, not divided. at its core, this is still the greatest country in history, bar none, so to try to secede or whatever a war would be for, would be, again, stupid. like a baby crying over not getting its way. 

every government is involuntary to someone inside of that government. we are still called, at least by the bible, to respect the government. our society in the usa is the greatest in history, and it's not even close. it's not perfect, but we shouldn't let good be the enemy of great. besides, this is a great country, so that's not even the question. so to start a civil war in this great country, is a morally bankrupt position.  this is mostly just loony tune talk anyway, from internet dwellers... no state is realistically going to start a civil war. 

"They (the government) are stealing. The poor are receiving a tiny cut of the stolen wealth. That is the substance of the reason why informed people have absolutely no problem with Trump or anyone else slashing federal spending."

you admit it yourself. the poor aren't getting much if you count all the spending we do. how does it make sense to say we dont spend very wise and the poor dont get much of the benefit as it is, therefore we should help them even less? 

i agree that the spending needs to be more efficient but that's a separate argument than slashing spending to people need it.

also not everyone who struggles is under the poverty line. 

a single mom makes 30k and has a couple kids, or maybe a 150% of poverty. cutting assistence to her isn't going to make everything more efficient, it's just going to make her struggle more.

your argument is that spending in inefficient therefore we should give people less basic assitance. that just ends up increasing needless suffering. 

we spend the same as other countries overall if you count private health spending and defense, we just have less social services. our social services is very basic. you want to make it even more basic, for no good reason.

you should be making arguments about how to improve the programs, not mindlessly slash spending. 

Well it's a low bar, but at least I got that goin for me... that I'm not a bug person. lolz

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/trumps-2021-budget-would-cut-16-trillion-from-low-income-programs#:~:text=The%20Trump%20Administration's%20budget%20plan,basics%20and%20access%20health%20care.

He cut taxes permanently, only for the rich. Then attacked welfare which in our country Is meager. But trumpazees and magats only care about his culture of personality. and don't care about substance

lowering calories too low is dangerous, and bad for metabolism. you deprive your body of protein and nutrients at less than 1000. your metabolism actually slows, it doesn't speed up, which is counter productive to weight loss. you want higher protein diets to increase metabolism. lean protein, i'm not implying a lot of calories. a normal man shouldn't go below fifteen hundred or maybe eighteen hundred calories for long periods of time. only under doctor supervision or for short periods should anything like 1000 calories ever be attempted. it's unheard of as it's so unhealthy for anything less than 1000. 

i dont know where you are getting your info, but you should use credible sources off google and you will reach the same conclusions. 

you are straw manning as no one is talking about force or violence. 

what do you think of my last post?

just as a practical matter, in any relationship, there will be more of an alpha and a beta with the partners. it's natural for men to be alpha given their physical attributes and emotional etc. of course there should be freedom to not adhere to this structure... but in general, it's not just a religious idea, men should be more dominant and women more submissive. even before religion, i'm sure cavemen were the dominant ones, and cave women more submissive. it's  just nature. 

one time gray parrot has said that he collects welfare, but i dont know if he was joking. i know he's said people who make minimum wage 7.25 an hour or whatever it is, should just budget better if they are struggling financially. 

equal in dignity, not in equal in everything. men are stronger, and i might think have a higher range of intelligence (more genius and retard men than women etc), and have different instincts and reactions, sexually and in relationships. men are more rational women are more emotional. men and women have different biology. 

trolls gone troll

Gandi said an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind. Jesus said to turn the cheek instead of getting revenge. Christians believe Jesus had the right to defend himself before his death, but chose to offer himself as a sacrifice, and in the process he defeated sin and death.

ya, dat rite...  TALK 2 DA HAND, FACE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND

i agree that most people are zombies to culture and political party. we shouldn't know what a person believes, without even talking to them, by simply looking at common party platforms. there's too many independent ideas, as you said, on each list.

with that said, as ive said before... you spend way too much time trying to find consistency in beliefs and then attack anyone who doesn't follow your views. there's all kinds of ways to differientiate beliefs. someone can be against abortion cause it's a human but believe in big government which isn't party line, others may be for it cause they think the localest decision is the woman, even if they prefer local governing decisions in generl and aren't liberal. there's just so many ways to view the world and you try too much to make everything black and white. 

you spend so much time creating hard and fast beliefs, or truths. i dont think you're convincing others that much, but you are developing your world view, which has merit to that. i am different than you in beliefs... i stick to general principle on most things, and understand that reasonable people can differ on details, even me sometimes when being i'm wishy washy. 

i agree that we should try to use their pronouns and such. but with that said, i've known trans people and when it become a real life practical thing, it can be super hard to keep their pronouns straight. they usually dont even mind if you sincerely are trying. 

back when i was a kid, a pussy and breasts made ya a woman and a dick and balls made ya a man. and i'd say that's generally still the case.