Total posts: 1,219
you guys also are ignoring that if they are accurately describing things when they are out of it, consistently... that'd be impossible unless they actually out of their bodies.
Created:
you guys are playing word games. the folks who have NDEs actually died. by standards of modern medicine. their brain and heart stopped. who's the one grasping at straws when you reject science to pursue an agenda?
Created:
"In a little over 40 percent of my surveys, NDE"rs observed things that were geographically far from their physical body, that were way outside of any possible physical central awareness. Typically, someone who has an NDE with an out-of-body experience comes back and reports what they saw and heard while floating around, it"s about 98 percent accurate in every way. For example, in one account someone who coded in the operating room had an out-of-body experience where their consciousness traveled to the hospital cafeteria where they saw and heard their family and others talking, completely unaware that they had coded. They were absolutely correct in what they saw."
Created:
u guys are missing the point. it might be possible to have an artificial out of body experience, but the thing that is being measured in all those science journals, is people accurately describing what happened out of their body when they are dead, on a consistent basis.
Created:
i was kinda rambling in the last post, but i think it's objectively circumstantial evidence what i posted. i think a reasonable person could hold an irrational view and say it's too subjective to call it evidence. evidence is evidence though, however you want to look at it. this is all splitting hairs too much for something so obvious as a matter of common sense.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
if out of body experiences are true, that's evidence the afterlife is true. if what i said about out of body experiences is true in my above post, that's evidence that out of body evidences, and therefore the afterlife.
in another debate i just had on this topic someone argued my points are too subjective. i guess i can't deny there are alternative ways to interpret what i posted. (other than the out of body info) so at the very least, it lacks common sense to argue there's no evidence for the afterlife. maybe my own subjective views are not strong enough for me to use an objective standard like 'irrational' here. that's plausible, but it's still extremely stupid not to think there's evidence of the afterlife after reading all that stuff i posted. i think it would be fair though to call it all circumstantial evidence at the very least, objectively.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
let me know when you're ready to actually debate something
Created:
i organized my thoughts from another thread, and thought i'd share it here. i'll probably take the debate to other debate websites too, to get a feel for a wide range of opinions. i have trouble logging in so i wont be able to respond as consistently as i'd like.
----------
dr. jeffrey long wrong a book, 'evidence of of the afterlife'. a smart and capable doctor writing a book like that should be sufficient to establish evidence, but i know some peeps are too stubborn to leave it at that.
let's look at some lines of evidence:
philosophically, it's just plain stupid to argue that it's common for people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die. why would this even happen? drugs, dreams, and other hallucations dont cause people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories in any other aspect of life... why should we assume there's something special about dying that causes this?
out of body experiences are commonly verified as accurate, to the point of almost always being accurate. doctors and professionals are often some people verifying things that occurred when someone was dead, when what the dead person knew was impossible to know. if ya'll want a start in researching out of body experiences, 'evidence for the afterlife' by doctor jeffrey long does a short literature review of some highlights. there's lots of studies that look at the accuracy of those experiences and they're always shown to be accurate. there's whole scientific journals out there dedicated to this stuff, the evidence is basically too overwhelming to just ignore. even the AWARE study where they tried to measure out of body phenomenon, had two examples where someone who was dead knew what happened out of their body. and there was some measurement of auditory ability when they were dead. now, yes this isn't the level of evidence that leaves no room for doubt, and this isn't exactly being able to be measured in a lab on demand.... but this is all evidence that is being measured and can be repeated. it's basic science.
dead family members. when people experience beings on the other side, the beings met are almost always dead and almost always family members. if this was just a random hallucination, there should be many more examples of living people and people other than family members. this consistency is a strong point.
there are plenty of examples of blind people seeing when they die, often for the first time ever. the examples who people who are coming to grips with a new sense, it takes time to process and that's exactly what we see.
here is more on the NDEs of blind people
some other lines of evidence:
-another good piece of evidence is that when experiencers are surveyed, they say their 'life reviews' are always accurate, 100% of the time. if this was just a brain going hay wire, we'd expect lots of false memories.
-i think this also goes along with the idea that if this was a brain going hay wire, people would experience lots of random images, like a hallucination or dream. instead, they see lucid clear after life experiences that they have no doubt about and that are more real to them than their earthly lives.
-also, people often see images in their life review, that they've long forgotten. it's not as likely just a brain going hay wire if it's showing the whole life even the forgotten stuff.
-it's also good evidence that the same sorts of NDEs happen to people who have never heard of these experiences, and to children who are too young to know about it either.
-it's also good evidence, that across all cultures, the themes in the experiences happen the same. that is, tunnels, light being, life reviews and such... all these things happen at the same rate regardless of country or culture. i realize humans are similar, so the argument that we just have similar experiences is possible. but if this just a brain going hay wire, it wouldn't be so consistent and would be a lot more like random images or random experiences.
more on consistency.
-almost every person who has these experiences after the exerperience then believes in the afterlife. if these were just hallucaionations, you'd expect this not to so consistent.
-it's also worth noting, that a majority of atheists even come back believing in God... it's almost never the case that theists end up becoming atheists. the atheists who dont convert, just had no special insight on the matter, the ones who gain knowledge of something end up becoming believers. (this is also a line of evidence for the existence of God)
-it's very rare to find a non christian religion NDEs by the way. the experiences are so rare, that i challenge anyone to find just a few of them. the only ones i've seen are too open to interpretation to draw too many conclusions from.
the skeptic arguments against NDEs being authentic are at best hunches, it lacks specificity in science. there's no known afterlife gene or something in our brain that we know of that would cause this. yes, we are all similar so maybe our survial gene is facilitating all this. but like i said, it's all just a big hunch. we have lots of science and scant evidence to support skeptics. there's simply not enough evidence to be a skeptic about whether there is even evidence to begin with. this is all evidence, so skeptics have a repubuttable presumption against them and they are bad and providing actual evidence to support their claims.
philosophically, if it's common for people to experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die, that's prime facie evidence that an afterlife might exist. even if i were to admit that an afterlife isn't most probable... it's objectively possible based on that evidence and all the other lines i've provided. that's why it's objectively irrational to say there's not even evidence for an afterlife.
Created:
i mean, it's good to subsidize alternative fuel, cause it speeds up the transition to those sources. but i hear things like how hydorgen engines are making lots of break throughs recently. what if hydrogen makes more sense technologically, but economically electric cars have the advantage due to excess subsidies? maybe the government should give blanket tax credits to alternative energy sources, and let the chips fall where they may.
note, this is a hybrid free market argument. i recognize that government intervention could be a good thing, but i still see how tinkering in the market could distort maximum economic/technological progress.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
what do you think of ukraine telling biden to stop escalating the situation?
what do you think when people say biden is sticking his nose into business that isn't his?
Created:
the media is good at telling us we should care about ukraine getting invaded, but they aren't good at telling us why.
what does biden do? he says he'll consider adding ukraine to NATO, and he is moving troops to NATO countries. these are needlessly escalating tensions.
what's the reason for such strong language? his actions are so untethered i can't quite pin point a reasonable motive. maybe it's as simple as ukraine being soverign is in the USAs best interests, and biden is just trying to act tough and is over reacting. id say a reasonable approach is to take what GDP ukraine is, and if russia invades, do twice as much GDP damage to russian GDP. that's tough without over reacting. give putin a choice. it's really not our business to be sticking our noses into otherwise. even the ukrainian president thinks the US president and media are over reacting.
Created:
Posted in:
i'm not sure you guys are aware, but biden gave warnings earlier in the year that people should be leaving so the usa could withdraw from afghanistan, and the people that stayed when things when to shit after the usa withdrew, had fair warning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
i could see your argument saying trump 'probably' committed a crime, but i'm not convinced it's beyond a reasonable doubt or more than a technicality. when he asked the dude for the exact number of votes he needed to win, it doesn't strike me more like he's trying to steal votes, it's that he's trying to win but he doesn't care how. the point being, if he genuinely thought he won the state, trump is just being trump in saying he doesnt care how he wins, but the fact remains he thinks he won. it would be a technical violation of law only. i know this argument probably sounds hokey, but i just can't get around how much trump seems to believe his own tripe, even his aids thought he was in a mentally disturbed state after the election such as how he was pacing around repeating to himself that he won. i can say maybe your argument is right, but trump is a disturbed individual so i dont know
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
maybe earth would be better without reefs, but that's not the point. the point is that humans are clearly causing them to die. ya'll have been trying to argue that's not true. but you guys are not capable of logical argumentation, so it's probably not worth my time trying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
i do think it would be reasonable for a jury to find him guilty based on what you've argued, but i could also see thinking trump is sincere in his election ideas
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
i agree that it's possible to infer from someone's actions that he actually did intend a mens rea even if you cant read their mind. i just dont think you have presented good enough arguments to make the case in this situation. i think trump lives in a fantasy world, perhaps you could compare it to being delusional where he believes his own tripe.
Created:
Posted in:
if trump was sincere, then he didn't violate what you yourself quoted... "A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony under this article, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct."
Created:
Posted in:
usually what happens is liberals spout that trump has committed all these crimes, but if you notice, rarely can they back up what they are saying with specifics.
often they're too subjective. things like inciting a riot, or campaign finance violations.
or they're too hawkish instead of common sense. such as trump merely giving the benefit of the doubt of what his properties are worth for different reasons, such as taxes versus getting loans.
there are some technical laws he may have violated, but they are not serious. such as lying about how big his properties are. it would be reasonable to disagree o this example and think it's a serious violation.
so, what are your examples of trump breaking the law in a serious way... and can you back it up with specific facts and laws?
Created: