n8nrgmi

i'm all for deporting anyone who doesn't work in the fields and abide by the rules, or if they are criminals. 

i use to want all illegals deported. then i realized we can just use E verify to stop illegals from stealing almost all our jobs, if all they do is rough produce production. plus, a large majority of americans do not want to work in fields, and it'd be rough on farmers to strip them of that cheap labor, plus this gives us cheap produce, plus it doesn't cost so much to deport them this way.  i agree they deserve to be deported, but this is just a practical step that benefits everyone involved. 

and to be sure, gun murders should be even more wildly out of proportion compared to other countries just based on people choosing guns. but non gun murders should be to a lesser extent but still wildly out of proportion too. 

with that said, banning guns isn't right as it could leave the innocent unarmed against criminals. i recognize that. 

the consensus in science is that where more people have guns, there is more murder. i sited the studies and literature reviews many times around this site. this is more than just here is a city, there is a city.... it's a consensus and you can conclude the same thing with a review of scientific literature. 

on the gun v non gun homicides. this is more than just there's more gun murders v non gun murders. the key is that if you compare these things to other countries, the non gun murders are in proportion to the other countries, but the gun murders are not, and wildly out of proportion. it is logically possible that there is some sort of coincidence or random phenomenon where non gun murders are not also wildly out of proportion.... but if this is an issue of people just being bad, non gun murders should be out of whack too. that's what should be expected, based on basic logic. but it isn't happening. 

you reject science, so your opinion doesn't matter. 

you say people just choose to use guns, so non gun homicides don't increase too. but that's far fetched. if people are just bad people, we should see non gun homicides go wildly out of proportion too. that's the most logical expectation. but that's not happening. neither is there greater crime rates outside of gun murder. 

you say people just kill with knives or alternative weopons if they dont have a gun. but that's illogical. places that have more guns have more murder, and less guns equals less murder. if people just killed with alternative means, there would be no correlation with guns and murder. even beyond science, what you say lacks common sense. think of any altercation.... if you have a gun involved there is obviously a greater liklihood of someone getting murdered, than compared to no gun involved. 

it is probably mainly a cultural problem. but it's also a gun problem. we know this because non gun homicides are not wildly out of proportion compared to the rest of the world, while gun homicides are. if this was just a cultural or evil problem, non gun murders would be wildly out of whack too. and because where there are lots of guns, there's more murder, police shootings, and police getting shot, more women getting murdered, and a lot of other things. we have four percent of the world's population, yet we have half the world's guns. that sort of dynamic is begging for excessive murder. 

what reasonable means isn't determined by presidents. it's determined by judges and or juries. 

if the legal system determines someone is likely, or probably, going to commit a violent crime, why shouldn't we take their guns, at least temporarily? that's all red flag laws do. why should the standard for preventing gun access be that the person already committed a violent crime beyond a reasonable doubt?

only thirteen percent of mass shootings happen in gun free zones

https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/feb/21/richard-corcoran/do-most-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-zones/ 

i would guess that most mass shootings occur in non gun free zones, because most places are not gun free and most shootings that i see are not gun free. 

as usual, you appear to be too incompetent to converse with, but here is some evidence..... how do you respond?

so you choose to ignore the trend and focus on an exception? the trend says places with more gun control have fewer mass shootings and fewer homicides. this is a fact, it's science. you're just too stupid to understand

it's one thing if the stats are too ambiguous to tell anything, but here the stats are overwhelming in what they indicate. if you don't look to stats, you continue calling this a mental health problem, or a hate problem, when both of those arguments are contradicted by stats. you continue pointing to chicago or whatever pet city that has a murder problem and lots of background checks, despite the fact that most areas with background checks have fewer mass shootings and murders. i probably debunked half the gun lobby talking points in a paragraph, yet you won't even entertain the science. it's anti intellectual and stupid to ignore this stuff. 

most atheists who have a near death experience come back believing in God. that should count for something. 

if you think you know so much, why can't you answer the question in the opening post? why are gun murders wildly out of whack in the usa, but not non gun murders? 

firearm ownership is correlated with murder. read the damn link, and educate yourself 

states with more gun control have fewer mass shootings.... for more on that an for an overview of gun control science, see here: 

you dont understand human nature if you dont think having guns around will make someone more likely to murder someone. simple fights turn deadly quick, when they otherwise wouldn't, amoung other things.

there too many things that correlate with gun ownership, like homicides and a lot more....

https://guneducationalinformation.weebly.com 

things that look like miracles happen to theists, particularly after they pray. like someone who is blind getting a healed retina, something irreversible being reversed. i never see that sort of thing happen to an atheist. 

near death experiences. they are consistent. they are thought by the experiencer to be more real than our life, and definitely more than just dream like. to think the brain is just telling us a story, or that there is a story embedded in our brain, is far fetched. there are lots of credible people who verify things that happen during out of body experiences. the AWARE study showed two examples in their study that were verified. i heard of one study that showed someone reading numbers on a piece of paper that they shouldn't have been able to read. 

there are ghost visions from credible people. credible people say possessed people can make inanimate objects move without touching them. that sort of thing. 

there are lots of circumstantial evidences and even things that are not debunked that look pretty compelling, such has this...

i think there are good arguments from causality and design, at least as evidence even if it's not exhaustive proof. 

there's too much evidence to just write off the supernatural, unless you just have a deep seated need to not believe. 

i still see lots of verbiage, but nothing to explain the opening post. why are gun murders wildly out of whack, but not non gun murders, in the USA? if you can't find a reasonable alternative explanation other than we have too many guns, please state that you have no explanation. 

we have only four percent of the world population, but half of the world's guns. there's a gun for everyone who's a citizen, on average. 340 million guns. that's got to account for something. 

like the sky is generally blue, or that there are three primary colors that humans see, these are facts. just like there's consistent death stories when people die and come back. that's a fact. to say it's not is illogical. why is there that story? either the brain is telling us a story before we die, or people are experiencing another realm. it's far fetched to say it's the brain telling us a story considering how lucid they are, and how detailed, like sometimes seeing a beautiful city with the deceased. why are there only less than five percent of people met on other side alive? if it was just a hallucination shouldn't that number be higher? plus the book 'evidence of the afterlife' and the AWARE study and all the credible out of body verification stories.... the evidence is plain, and overwhelming. it's clear atheists just have a stupid, deep seated need to not believe. 

"Asked on Fox News whether his immigration proposals would include E-Verify, Trump responded that it could "possibly" be part of it. "E-Verify is so tough that in some cases, like farmers, they're not -- they're not equipped for E-Verify," he said. Oh, really? Does Trump think farmers don't have laptops?"

just google e verify and trump as key words for more info. 

trump has had the opportunity to press having employers use E verify to verify that employees are US citizens. and he chooses not to press that. he says it's too hard on employers. so does he really care about illegals stealing jobs? it's possible he doesn't, at least not fully.

he also should have been pressing deportation constantly since being elected, but i know has recently did a big example of it over a recent weekend. maybe it was just for press coverage and he really has been trying and does care, i dont know. 

if you showed people thinking they were abducted by aliens, or seeing random images, then you could call it a random hallucination. atheists have to at least admit the hallucinations if that's what they are, are not too random. they are very consistent stories. 

the consistency of NDEs proves that they are either experiences of higher realms, or they are death stories embedded in our brain. anything other explanation is just the stupid and illogical musings of atheists. 

why isn't there random hallucinations at death? why isn't there imagery of getting abducted by aliens? or something like an acid trip? why is it that there's a coherent and very vivid death story, in some version or another? 

either there's death stories embedded in our brain, or people are actually experiencing an ultimate reality. 

again, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that atheists think there's a story embedded in the brain. very far fetched. you think there's a death story embedded in our brains. it doesn't matter if there's a little variation in the stories, or there's different cultural versions of the NDE, they are still by and large very similar with similar elements, seeing a being of light, meeting dead relatives, having a life review, being told it's not your time etc etc. (in "evidence for the afterlife' the doctor shows that the percent of times each of those elements happens is the same for young kids and people who have never heard of NDEs and non-western NDEs too.... showing the consistency) every story is different, but they are generally the same. if it was just a bunch of random visions or something, then you could rightly call it random hallucinations. but that's not what happens. i cannot see at all how you think your position isn't that there is a story embedded in our brain. it's the only logical conclusion that that's what atheists think. 

i like to think of hell as a temporary prison. for some people they spend a long time there, others less. the good outweighs the bad because most people go to heaven or dont need to spend time in prison. the few negative experiences are examples of prison. 

all i can say is the bible has errors in it, so can't be relied on completely. it could also be that the people who have positive nde's were destined for heaven for some reason, and we dont see all the negative experiences. or maybe NDEs are not heaven but just glimpses of what's possible. i dont know, there are too many possible explanations. 

sentience or consciousness involves feelings, and the ability to be self aware, and the ability to learn, and to do more than programmed to do. as i said, robots also dont goof off or enjoy recreation, or doing 'naughty' things, or be altruistic. 

you can argue humans just do what they are programmed to do, but that's a stretch, just looking at it with common sense. robots also might learn, but there's no cognition involved, it's all programming. 

of course trump's comments were racist. he didn't and woudnt say those sorts of things to a white person who was born here. you can't assume just because they are colored people that their homeland is a shithole, or that they have anything to do with their homeland. there's too many racist moving parts here to say it wasn't racist. 

there are only about five percent of people who see deceased people who see non-relatives, like friends. including relatives you dont think of much and that are long deceased.  i conclude that there's a special link to our blood relatives, cause if it was just random hallucainating, youd expect that number to be a lot higher than just five percent. 

here is an article that says the country was good when oil was plentiful and oil prices were up, and not so much when that wasn't the case. 

republicans like to point out that they gave everyone free college and healthcare, and then went bankrupt 

i think that misses the point. there are plenty of rich successful countries, like those in europe, who provide healthcare and eduation and they dont go belly up. these countries probably have agriculture or other sources of income, like the usa. 

i admit you can't give everyone everything when you don't have the means, but that's only when you don't have the means. flat out socialism i would surmise is bad, but just giving people food education and healthcare, isn't, or at least shouldn't, going to automatically bankrupt a nation. 

i just showed you how dreams are different than NDEs. why are you going to just continue to pretend they're the same?

the actual number of people seeing living relatives is less than five percent. it's in the book i mentioned earlier. many of them describe seeing relatives that have long passed and they dont think of much. there's a strong connection to your blood line, even though you might think it would include friends more often. also, there are many examples of people seeing relatives they didn't know they had, until they died. there's too many intricacies like these to just dismiss NDEs as hallucations. all i see from atheists who actually get informed of this stuff and then reject it.... is a deep seated need to not believe. 

the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you think there are elaborate stories that look a lot a like in their content, are consistent... in the brain. you stating that you don't think this but rather that you think it's the brain hallucinating is just another way of stating what i said. maybe you should reckon with your beliefs, take them to their logical conclusion. 

in the link in the last post i show NDEs of non western and children and those before 1975 (the year they become public knowledge for the vast majority of people), all have similar outcomes and elements. they see a being of light, for example, at the same proportion in each group. the studies of this break the experiences down into components like that. 

here is more on the science of near death experiences, how it's corroborated 

people also never see living relatives when they die. they are always dead relatives. if it was just a hallucination, you would expect flukes, but there are none. 

for more examples of little evidences such as that, check out doctor long's book, "evidence of the afterlife" 

you think there's elaborate stories embedded in our brain when we're dying. that, on it's face, is far fetched. why not just take it for what it looks like? people die and experience something that looks like the after life. it's plain evidence but atheists are too dense to acknowledge it. 

robots also dont going looking to have recreation, have fun, which i guess is related to emotion. they don't decide to go fishing just for leisure, for instance. 

we know humans have emotions because we experience them ourselves and it is a good assumption that others do as well, especially if they display the outward signs of it. robots are not programmed to experience emotion, only to show outward signs of emotion. that's a fact. this is just another example of atheists being dense instead of acknowleding that emotion cannot, at least as of yet, be programmed. 

i assume you're just being dense, but maybe you don't know. no one who experiences an NDE thinks it's like a dream. when people wake up from a dream, you know you had a dream and are awake. when people have NDEs, they know they have experienced the afterlife, something more real than this life. 

i also highly doubt robots will have have emotions. they might show outward signs of it, but they won't experience saddness or anger or happiness etc

if you think there's an elaborate story embedded in our brain when we are dying, and you can't tell if AI has consciousness, i also might have a bridge to nowhere that you might be interested in purchasing. 

this link has some smart people explaining the difference in consciousness and AI

you said our brains are similar so we would have similar NDEs, but why would they be so vivid and more real than real and with such common elements that are more like a story and less like a random hallucination? 

so you think there's an elaborate story embedded in our brain or genes when we are at death's door? how does that not seem far fetched to you? what's your theory as to why the brain would hallucinate in that way, so consistently? 

even if NDEs were based on culture, it doesn't mean they aren't still authentic experiences of the afterlife. 

where do you get your information about the afterlife? do you just read the internet and books? how do you decide what information is most reliable? 

lolcat