n8nrgmi

the main reason i say that, is because the police man's supporters say floyd was gonna die anyway as he was doped up. they seem sure of it. i think this is the key issue that it will all hinge on, how likely floyd was gonna die and how much policeman contributed. i dont buy it that policeman should be found guilty just for making the death come sooner if he was gonna die anyway... and i dont think he should be found guilty if there was just a very small chance floyd would have lived. 

what i think this all should boil down to, is what percent of doubt is truly reasonable doubt? ten percent? five percent?  if there was a five percent chance floyd could have lived, i dont think we can say the policeman is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. id draw the line at ten percent. basically i think we need to be ninety percent sure someone did the crime before finding them guilty. and id say that probability of reasonable doubt, is tied exactly to whether floyd was gonna die anyway. 

unless we have special knowledge, consensus in science is all we got. what science is not, however, is whatever makes you feel good and is convenient, as it appears is your approach. 

i'm citing the consensus of science. there are news and science articles all over the place that say what i say is true. i cited some of the articles. it's out there, whatever the case. 

i'm responding to public health science. all ya'll are the ones making it political. when i point out that a disproportionate amount of conservatives dont want the shot, idiotically, i'm only pointing out that they are making something political that isn't really political. 

all i see are irrational responses for why folks dont want to get vaccinated. completely incoherent thoughts

wearing masks makes a difference

it's pretty much a given that the half of republicans who dont want the vaccine are also the deplorable half. all you have to do is look around to see who fits which description, and it's always the deplorables who dont want vaccinated. it's about cultural politics. it's about brainwashing. these people don't think for themselves. 

you've stretched being anti government beyond reason. the government helped us to get a safe and effective vaccine. so the government isn't inherently incompetent in everything that it does. greyparrot? more like anti government parrot 

your point is that a person's immune system might not work properly to stop the disease. but the thing is, unless a person has reason to think otherwise, they should act as if their immune system works properly. that's the reasonable thing to do.

and does a vaccine save lives? yes, they do. the very large majority of folks who take a vaccine won't die which can't be said if they dont take the vaccines. 

so your idea is people want to be able to choose which vaccine they get, so that's why they choose not to get one at all? the thing is, why would a rational person turn down a vaccine that leaves you with a tenth of a one percent chance of dying, just to get one that gives you a zero percent chance of dying? you still stand a significant chance of dying if you opt out of vaccines altogether. so the doctors like fauci are right, just take whichever you can get the soonest. 

how does the risk benefit analysis tend towards not gettin the vaccine? if you get the vaccine, you have next to no chance of dying. the worst that i see is maybe you might feel bad for some side effects. if you dont get the vaccine, you stand the risk of dying, even if you take precautions you still stand a significant chance of dying. 

isn't this a no brainer decision that the vaccine makes the most sense?

nothing you say contradicts my point. communism is about trying to maximize social good for everyone. i agree that it fails as an economic system, but the intent is good. it's fair to say communism is based on the idea of a commune.... that's why it has the name that it does. 

we can extend the existing fence if need be. i'm looking for someone to argue that a wall is worth the extra expense over a fence. to my limited knowledge, a fence is adequate. 

i dont know if that language thing is a miracle. but i think it points to something much bigger than humans can understand. 

what happened in the USSR was specific to them. and it's too vague to say communism is opporessive. lots of economic systems have pros and cons. communism is about living in commune. even if its flawed, the essence is plausible. the KKK was a hate group, who murdered people. big difference. 

obviously it is you that needs to think critically. 

you say there are plenty of stories out there, but yet you can't cite one example of an elaborate afterlife story that is based on drugs. 

you say the guy is discredited, but you choose to attack character instead of substance. there is nothing that makes me think what he's saying is untrue. 

and he did cite other NDE research, you just dont like his conclusions. 

there are also NDE studies that show that most of the time when people describe events outside of their body, they are accurate. and there's the AWARE study that showed a couple examples of that too. 

so do you admit you dont have examples of elaborate afterlife stories? 

the study my article was critiquing was flawed, as the article describes. i dont know why you keep reverting to attacking the character instead of the substance. have you read the article? there are clear differences between drugs and NDEs

i think u r confusing NDE like themes, and afterlife narratives. one of the key distinguishing points that article i cited had, was that many afterlife themes were absent with drugs. maybe you can say a dude thought he met God, but that's not an elaborate afterlife story.  

you mean, you took some drugs and you basically experienced an afterlife narrative? 

and the article i posted showed that there were dissimiliarities that were even greater between drugs and NDEs. 

can you show me one example where there's an elaborate afterlife story from a drug? not just overlaps, but an elaborate narrative. 

i'm not sure why you are making this complicated. atheists always do that, pointlessless, in these debates. a miracle is when something occurs that is impossible according to science. the doctors said optic nerve damage is irreversible. yet it was reversed. i call it a miracle. you say it was possible all along. not sure what your line of questioning has to do with anything except to be obtuse. 

look at his arguments, not who he is. 

"DMT Models the Near-Death Experience" by a team of UK researchers associated with the Psychedelic Research Group at Imperial College London

i'll let you do the google work 

that's the study that he critiqued. 

you are confusing opinions that i have with firm conclusions that you think i have. 

here is an example. 

"that because  you know of no seemingly impossible events happening to atheists that such events must not happen"

i didn't say they dont have happen as a fact. that would be a fallacy. i admit i could be wrong. i always am open to be shown i'm wrong and atheists never can pass the mustard. it's possible and rational to have my opinion. we see empirically that things science says are impossible, happen with praying theists. i believe they are miracles, you think it's proof that they weren't impossible things to begin with. my opinions are very much heavy on science. that's why the catholic church has the saint making machine, to prove miracles despite that best skeptics... because we are heavy in science. 

if we were getting into calling unscientific opinions as fallacies, then you would be the prime suspect. 

unlike you, i'm not going to say you commit a bunch of fallacies other than calling my arguments fallacies.... i can point out you have stupid opinions without saying you committed a fallacy. 

jesus said if you dont want to believe him for what he says, then you should believe him for the signs and wonders that he does. ie, miracles. 

his argument was sound, though. he pointed out that there are similarities with NDE and drugs, but there are even bigger dissimiliarities. 

again, drugs dont cause elaborate afterlife stories like NDEs do. 

it looks like u r on a hunting expedition and like to throw around fallacy buzzwords that have no basis in reality. can you specifically state where i committed a fallacy? 

i still maintain that you can't show elaborate afterlife stories from a drug like occur with NDEs. you can show similiaries, only. 

drugs can have some similiarities, but no one hallucinates elaborate afterlife stories from drugs. 

we agree then, if an atheist makes no claims about impossible looking things happening to atheists, they have no burden to show it happening to them. you really should be curious though, as to why things like retinas get healed for praying theists, and not for atheists. or if you can't how those examples happening to atheists, maybe you should reconsider skepticism. i guess ignorance is bliss. 

the evidence for God is very plain. theists pray, and impossible things become possible for them. the silence is defeanening for why that stuff doesn't happen to atheists. people have near death experiences, and atheists fall back to claiming the idiotic idea that it's common for people to hallucinate afterlife stories when they die. profound and elaborate afterlife stories. right. makes a lotta sense. i guess afterlife stories are part of our DNA? not to mention all the out of body experience evidence. i dont know. you can't make sense out of the senseless, idiotic claims of atheists. 

see my previous post. 

non christian religion's miracles are so rare that i can see, that it calls in to question the validity with the few rare times that they are purported to occur. christian miracles occur all the time, and give weight to the religion's claims. i'm not saying a non christian miracle never occurs, but there aren't many examples to speak of. 

optic nerves dont just heal themselves. that's impossible in our reality, but i posted a link where an optic nerve was healed for a praying theist. 

praying theists. with an emphasis on christians. but the point of this thread is to show atheists can't meet their burden of proof when they claim that impossible looking things happen to their group of people. 

i was talkin' in generic language in the opening post. not all atheists have the burden of proof, but all atheists who claim that impossible lookin' things happen to their group of people, has the burden to show that it's true. 

i'm showing phenomenon that looks like the impossible happening to one group, praying theists. we dont have to even debate whether they are miracles. ive shown the facts as they are. if an atheists comes along and claims the same sorts of things happen to his group of people.... he has the burden of proof to make good on that claim. why would you disagree with that? he's making a positive claim, so it requires positive evidence. 

so you admit that things that look impossible happen to christians but that atheists can't show examples happening to them? you seem to be claiming i'm ignorant, when the crux of the issue is that you can't support your arguments. your lack of substance isn't my ignorance. you wear rose colored glasses apparently. 

i notice you are avoiding the point of the thread. that atheists claim the same sorts of things happen to them, but they can never show proof of it. 

here are two examples of miracles happening to theists. one is where a woman's optic nerve became healed after being blind. optic nerves dont just heal themselves. the other is a woman with an incurable skin disease, becoming healed. 

atheists always claim the same sorts of things happen to them. sure they'll show lots of far out examples, but nothing that looks impossible becoming possible. they can't meet their burden of proof. theists, christians in particular, are always showing things that are impossible, becoming possible. 

how often do you see someone die, who's vaccinated?  seems like a pretty big reward, if you ask me. 

you still haven't given a coherent response as to why a person wouldn't get vaccinated. the risk to reward here is a no brainer. 

most of what he talks about aren't political issues. it's basic public health policy. 

plus i dont know why you are trying to change the focus of this thread, which is to call out the stupidity of half of the GOP, which again is the only sensible response. 

the only sensible response is to agree with me. because half of GOPers are being irrational on this. 

"they" are scientists, like fauci. the commonly cited number is three fourths or eigthy percent needing vaccinated to reach herd immunity, 

this is a pandemic. maybe we should wear masks, and stay away from folks who may have the virus. maybe we should get vaccinated. ya know the things that stops the disease from killing you. 

what's so complicated about this? 

they say only two thirds of folks want to be vaccinated, and that might not be enough to reach herd immunity. 

a lot of you are GOP'ers, so id think a lotta you dont want vaccinated. 

this doesn't have anything to do with sensibility, but it has everything to do with being politically brainwashed. 

so, why the stupidity? 

if you think there are things that are not debateable, what are some examples? 

because the ultra rich have wealth that trickles down to the rest of us peons. isn't that the conservative stance? 

well, on a state level, blue states are worth over twice as much on a GDP basis too. 

i dont know how "gdp per capita" is broken down between the two groups. 

questions, comments, words of wisdom? 

what say you?