Total posts: 1,499
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I would support reasonable work or financial requirements. That wouldn't change my proposal so u can still consider it. Also u don't support theft or involuntary labor by providers but given we r already slaves to society a hefty forced contribution would also in a way be forced servitude, so keep it reasonable
Created:
Posted in:
anyone who really knows me knows that healthcare is my biggest issue. it should be affordable for everyone, as a right, at least in prosperous countries. but i've been becoming to see, that our political system is hopeless. politicians sell out to the highest bidder. i means, we should be able to cover everyone at half the cost like every other developed country does, with less wait times and better care.... but our system is too engrained. all those other countries built their systems from scratch, and we'd be fighting to change a major existing infrastructure, our status quo. what would happen if we did pass medicare for all or a public option? well, people would have care, but we couldn't force corrupt politicians into making it affordable for the people and government.... it's very possible that they could bankrupt us. we might get universal care, but they wouldn't fight the industry, and we could go bankrupt.
see, the biggest reason we spend more than every other country, is because we let providers charge to much. it's a fact that that's the biggest reason. health insurance is also overemphasized, given insurance companies are a pointless middleman that charges thirty percent on the dollar for administrative costs and profit, whereas medicare only charges three percent for adminstrative costs.
so what should we do? keep what we got, and grow healthcare costs at less than inflation for a set period of time. we can't just take axes to costs, as it'd shock the system. but we can grow slower than we otherwise would until costs are better managed. plus, we can deemphasize insurance to make it non profit so there's no profit motive. see, most other countries aren't single payer anyway... they just deemphasize insurance and make it nonprofit. thus, we'd be in line with most other countries too.
we can do those two thing without doing medicare for all or a public option. those choices are too risky, given our politicians propensity to be corrupt. we can have half the healthcare industry provided by private sectior as currently exists, but they just dont get charged so much. forty percent of the population gets government healthcare, medicare medicaid CHIP etc, or a small amount of these are insure themselves. these major engrained structures can remain.
i'm open to addressing the uninsured, the remaining ten percent of people, just not changing the whole system. id be open to getting the poor in states that didn't expand obamacare, covered with obamacare. that wouldn't do much to move needles but would be a big help for them. i'd be open to putting well off people who dont qualify for obamacare into a medicaid plan, where their costs are rationed but they receive good care, that way no one is uninsured. id expect rich people to reimburse all their costs if they are in medicaid though, and i'd suppose they'd be able to afford it.
in case anyone doesn't realize it, that's how other countries are half as expensive. they regulate prices. also, existing healthcare through government is regulated. medicare pays a third less than insurance for healthcare costs, and medicaid pays a third of what medicare pays. all im proposing is doing more of this, to be in line with other countries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
what's the problem with believing in God but not believing all the stupid stuff that christians beleive? you have to realize that it's very strange to declare christnaity and in particular fundamentalist christianity is true... but then go ahead and say you're not a supporter, as if you reject truth. it's strange because you dont have to think that way, and you have no reason to think that way to begin with.
Created:
Posted in:
Things that do not exist cannot be asserted as the cause for other things.Does this mean God and/or the supernatural doesn’t exist? No, it means that they cannot be asserted even as a candidate explanation until you can first demonstrate that they exist.
it looks like you're getting close to merely asserting that God doesn't exist. i dont have to prove conclusively that God exists if all i need to do is show that God existing is a good theory. it's stupid to the point of irrationality to claim that it's common to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when we die. do you even hear yourselves? all you guys do is assert that to you it looks like a hallucination, or a drug trip. simply asserting it's a hallucination isn't an argument. (that's mostly what ya'll do, but i also suppose i just dont buy your theories for why people just happen to hallucinate a bunch of elaborate afterlife stories... they're weak theories) comparing it to drug trips is irrational when i've shown that drug trips are completely different... those are scattershot experiences, and random imagery, not elaborate afterlife experiences. plus NDEs are studied extensively, and when researchers (who report their findings in journals) ask people to explain what they experienced out of their body, they are very highly accurate with even doctors and such to verify the stories. i realize that it's not determined to the degree either of us would like (leaving no doubt about the accuracy), but it's still strong evidence that you just choose to ignore. people who just guess what happened out of their body are way off. plus the AWARE study showed two examples of out of body information being verified, it just isn't strong enough evidence to convince skeptics.
you've given no good reason to assume things that look supernatural happen to atheists. like a blind person's retina being healed. if something happens to one group, praying theists, but we have no reason to assume it happens to another group, atheists.... then i'm gonna take that as plain evidence that something is special with the theists.
i could go on and on. it really does boil down to skeptics being skeptical for the sake of being skeptical, to the point of irrationality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
@Double_R
We know of nothing beyond the universe that exists, so the conclusion requiring the least amount of assumptions is that the universe is not an effect.
i know you guys like debating causality, but if you go back to the opening post, there are some reasons to think the universe is an effect. there's no evidence that the universe could have been produced a higher level of energy than the beginning universe, that we might expect is required. also it is very strange to think existence could have a finite beginning but last eternally, which is our best observation, to my knowledge. infinite regress makes more sense to me, but an uncaused cause beyond the universe could also help address the issues. it's not a matter of sticking to a simpler approach that double would like, when that simple approach is so full of problems. i know that Ram thought that all answers about the origin of the universe, breaks down. while i agree, my only quibble with that, is that i think we can have some potential answers to origins that makes more sense than others.... and the common atheistic answers make less sense, scientifically.
Created:
Posted in:
the central issue, is that what i presented in the opening post, is plain evidence. and atheists demand more evidence, and remain skeptics for the sake of being skeptics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
it's not possible to seek a neutral position in this, by claiming your claim is that you dont know how the universe began. the problem, is that any explanation for how the universe began breaks down, and must be a special exception that can't be demonstrated. that means if a person has the balls to speculate a theory, they are committing a fallacy, according to you. your position isn't neutral if you call anyone speculating as committing fallacy, when all we can do is speculate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
@Fruit_Inspector
isn't lud guilty of special pleading by his own standard? as ram has pointed out, every theory about the beginning of the universe breaks down. yet lud says everything needs time to begin, his exception that the universe doesn't need time to begin. and he can't demonstrate his special exception. so by his standard, he's committing a fallacy. of course, the better explanation is that neither of you are special pleading.... it's legit to speculate special circumstances, because it's just speculating. it makes absolutely no sense to call something a fallacy if there's a possibility that it could be true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
if you hold to traditional atheistic opinions about the universe causing itself, then your assumptions are inferior.This proposition has literally nothing to do with atheism.
you are correct that atheism is just believing god doesn't exist, but you are incorrect in saying atheism isn't related to the idea of the universe causing itself, or always existing or any of that stuff. atheists usually hold those beliefs, even though there's no good evidence for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
In other words, all causes were at one time effects, except for one thing?Special pleading, particularly when you're not able to conclusively demonstrate that one thing.
if what he said could be true, how can it be a logical fallacy? it's just a theory. if he said it must be true without question, then maybe it's a fallacy. i dont know why, people like to run around calling everything a fallacy, but then again i shouldn't expect otherwise on a debate website. if a cave man thought maybe things could travel faster than light... he's not committing a fallacy, he's just speculating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
you say we can't know. okay, ultimately we can't know, i agree. but we can infer from the science we do know, into good guesses. also, i realize you didn't argue a lot of your own assumptions, but everyone has an opinion, and if you hold to traditional atheistic opinions about the universe causing itself, then your assumptions are inferior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
as was said, you're just substituting your set of assumptions with another set of assumptions. why should we believe your set of assumptions? as you've noted, every theory that can be posited is open to be distinguished from our principles of science. but isn't what i was arguing more in line with our current understanding of science? i say the universe's maxium energy at the big bang must have been caused by a higher set of energy, and there's nothing in the universe to think it could have did that to itself. you're the one making the bigger leap from science. and why is it faulty thinking to think an infinite ending must have an infinite beginning? again, i acknowledge that it's possible to criticize that argument, but it aligns with science more. you give no good reasons your assumptions are better.
Created:
Posted in:
theists say God could have caused the universe. atheists say the universe could have caused itself. but the problem is we have reasons to think otherwise.
1. lower energy states come from higher energy states. something had to cause the first maximum energy state of the universe. as far as we know it from our reality, an energy state greater than the universe must have caused it to occur, because we have no reason to think the universe could have caused itself given it had a maximum energy state as a beginning.
2. existence should have an infinite beginning given it looks like there's an infinite end. i acknowledge there could be a finite end, but from what we can tell existence will be forever more even if it's emptiness. an infinite ending of our universe cannot have a finite beginning that we see. something else must be the infinite beginning. if i'm wrong, how can a finite beginning cause an infinite end? how does that series play out out of nowhere?
i acknowledge that there could be evidence that contradict these principles... the problem is that we see no such evidence in the universe, all we have is speculation that these presumed principles are faulty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
lower energy states come from higher energy states. something had to cause the first maximum energy state of the universe. similar to the causation argument but also pointing out that the universe causing itself is a violation of reality as we best know it. also the ticking clock point is such that how can we have an infinite ending come from a finite beginning? something has to be at the beginning that is infiinite but it doesn't look like the universe meets that criteria.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
drugs dont cause people to experience elaborate afterlife stories. there are some similarities with drug trips, but they are completely different otherwise. most drug trips involve lots of random imagery, a scatter shot of experiences. not consistent elaborate afterlife stories.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
why would you say you left christianity and then assume all of the stupid stuff christians believe is actually true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
it's possible to believe in God without believing the bible is inerrant and without being a fundamentalist christian. don't throw the baby out with the bath water. it's a decent point regarding 'the problem of suffering' but all the points you made show you to be basically creating a straw man. "these stupid arguments are often attributed to God so you assume they must be true)
Created:
Posted in:
eternal view had me organize my thoughts so i thought i'd jot them down for my easier future reference.
there's good evidence for God. atheism is irrational because they pretend there's no evidence or at least there's enough evidence to be at least agnostic.
we see things that look supernatural happen to praying theists but there's no reason to assume those things happen to atheists. supernatural healings.
the large majority of people who have NDEs who are atheists end up believing in God (almost everyone who has those experiences, even skeptics, end up believing in the afterlife, but that's just a related point). there's lots of good evidence for NDEs so we should take them seriously. such as out of body experiences being verified under scientific study. it's stupid to argue that it's common for people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die and then give no good reason why that happens, when drugs dont cause that to happen either. dr longs book 'evidence for the afterlife' is full of good evidence.
there's good and inexplicable evidence for demonic possession.
there's the point that the universe is going from high energy to low energy as if it's a clock that got set (how does something happen once within all eternity and never happen again, what does that even mean?)... there's no good alternative hypothesis that has good evidence for it, just speculation.
it's stupid to argue that humans are just elaborate living robots. it should be intuitive that we are more than that, and it's forced and artificial to think that way.
the design of the universe is weak evidence but it's evidence
Created:
Posted in:
there's good evidence for God. atheism is irrational because they pretend there's no evidence or at least there's enough evidence to be agnostic.
we see things that look supernatural happen to praying theists but there's no reason to assume those things happen to atheists. supernatural healings.
the large majority of people who have NDEs who are atheists end up believing in God (almost everyone who has those experiences, even skeptics, end up believing in the afterlife, but that's just a related point). there's lots of good evidence for NDEs so we should take them seriously. such as out of body experiences being verified under scientific study. it's stupid to argue that it's common for people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die and then give no good reason why that happens, when drugs dont cause that no happen either. dr longs book 'evidence for the afterlife' is full of good evidence.
there's good and inexplicable evidence for demonic possession.
there's the point that the universe is going from high energy to low energy as if it's a clock that got set (how does something happen once within all eternity and never happen again, what does that even mean?)... there's no good alternative hypothesis that has good evidence for it, just speculation.
it's stupid to argue that humans are just elaborate living robots. it should be intuitive that we are more than that, and it's forced and artificial to think that way.
the design of the universe is weak evidence but it's evidence
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
well i would definitely designate a lot more places where people can throw down a cheap trailer and live cheap
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
i didn't say limiting the number of houses to just one per person. renting should still exist and that means some people need to own more than one house. i'm open to ideas on how many houses a person could own.
Created:
i dont actually support this, because of freedom and all. but i dont know what would happen if this law was implemented? id think the cost of a house would plummet and it'd be affordable to own a house for almost everyone who works full time. what do you think would happen?
Created:
i think biden's rule is still unconstitutional based on overly broad legislation. he has a statute to back him up and a constitutional clause, but it's still too vague of legislation and too much power to give one man to coerce millions, a third of the population, into getting an injection. that's the kind of thing a legislature is meant to do
Created:
-->
@thett3
i think the courts could grant an emergency injunction to make biden's rule unenforceable until the case is settled. that may or may not happen
Created:
here is another plausible law biden could use for his basis for mandates
Created:
-->
@oromagi
actually reading closer, there might be a basis here, but not with the basis you cited.
"According to the CRS, several federal vaccine mandate actions are theoretically possible. The Executive Branch could cite Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (or PHSA), which allows the Department of Health and Human Services or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to make necessary measures “to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.”
that law could be based on the interstate commerce clause, so it'd have constitutional authority too. i didn't know that law existed, till now.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
the case you cited was enforcing a then existing state law, nothing about the federal government.
"In 1905, the Supreme Court ruled in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts that under a state law local health authorities could compel adults to receive the smallpox vaccine. Henning Jacobson refused a free smallpox vaccination that was mandated by the city of Cambridge; he was fined five dollars as a result. Jacobson argued the vaccination law violated his 14th Amendment due process rights."
here is more on the constitutional basis for vaccine mandates.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
what statute or constitutional provision gives biden the authority to execute those laws? you didn't cite anything.
the things you cited, were general principles that it's possible to enforce vaccine mandates if there are some, back when those cases were written. where are the modern laws that give biden the authority?
Created:
i totally believe in miraculous healings. but when it comes to things like the parting of the red sea, we never see it. i tend to believe in some non healing miracles, but they are harder to pin point beyond something just unlikely or coincidence or a figment of imagination.
maybe many miracles need plausible deniability to maintain faith?
what do you think, theists?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
everything i said is the basis of our legal system, legal theory 101 that everyone in the legal field understands. everything you said is either wrong or half truths.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
when a law is passed, it has to have a basis for existing in the constitution. i dont know of any provision that would give him the authority. for example, the commerce clause of the constitution gives congress lots of leeway in creating regulations that touch on interstate commerce. again, i dont know what basis the executive branch has to create laws out of nowhere, that have no basis in the constitution. it's possible a law or provisions exists that i dont know about. though.
Created:
-->
@thett3
yes that's true too... all the economic damage being caused by the unvaccinated keeping the pandemic going on and on.
Created:
-->
@thett3
there are people around the fringe who can't get vaccinated, plus the breakthrough vaccinated, plus the new variants that the unvaccianted cause.
i guess my points are just around the fringes, so i see your point.
Created:
he's requiring it on large businesses. i might be wrong but i think a person doesn't have to get the shot if they get weekly testing.
if ya'll idiots dont care about the people you're killing by not getting vaxed and wearing masks when needed, why should i care that someone is illegally trying to coerce you into doing the right thing, what you should have done all along?
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
i disagree on both points. the article broke down some arguments into a way that the stupid people who dont get the vaccine might understand, and the unrestrained use of the word 'fuck' added comical, off color humor to the points.
Created:
-->
@dfss9788
the sad thing is i'm not even sure if you are joking or just sharing a fact or being serious in something you fear. given the bullshit stuff people actually believe, i s'pose you might be actually seriously fearful.
Created:
OH MY FUCKING GOD, GET THE FUCKING VACCINE ALREADY, YOU FUCKING FUCKSHi, if you are reading this essay then congratulations, you are still alive. And if you are alive, then you have either gotten the COVID-19 vaccine, or you still have the opportunity to get the vaccine against COVID-19. And holy fuck, if you aren’t fucking vaccinated against COVID-19, then you need to get fucking vaccinated right now. I mean, what the fuck? Fuck you. Get vaccinated. Fuck.The fucking vaccine will not make you magnetic. Are you fucking kidding me? It just fucking won’t. That’s not even a fucking thing, and that lady who tried to pretend the vaccine made her fucking magnetic looked like a real fucking fuckwad and a fucking idiot, so get fucking vaccinated. Jesus. Fuck.The vaccine also doesn’t have a fucking 5G chip in it. What the fuck do you think a fucking 5G chip is, fucknuts? You think it’s like some invisible nanotechnology they can suspend in a liquid and then just put in your fucking blood and then it what, exactly? Fucking floats around in your body going on Instagram and telling the government you went to the grocery store? No one fucking cares where you go, you absolute fucking fuck-barf. Fuck off with that. Fuck.Oh, you’re afraid of fucking side effects? Fuck you. You know what has fucking side effects? Fucking aspirin, fucking Tylenol. You could be fucking allergic to pineapple, you fucking fuckwit. Everything has side effects. You’re being a big fucking baby with a huge diaper full of fucking diarrhea, complaining about maybe feeling slightly tired for a day or two while your asymptomatic COVID case you get and pass to some innocent fucking kid could wind up killing them or someone else. Fuck you, you fucking selfish fucking shit-banana, you unredeemable ass-caterpillar, you fucking fuck-knob with two fucks for eyes and a literal poop where your heart should be. You want a two-month-old to wind up on a fucking ventilator instead of you, a fucking adult, getting a fucking sore arm for a day? What are you, a pitcher for the Yankees? A fucking concert pianist? An arm model? Get the fuck out of here! Fuck you. Get vaccinated. Fuck. Fuck you!You think vaccines don’t fucking work? Oh, fuck off into the trash, you attention-seeking fuckworm-faced shitbutt. This isn’t even a point worth discussing, you fuck-o-rama fuck-stival of ignorance. Vaccines got rid of smallpox and polio and all the other disgusting diseases that used to kill off little fucks like you en masse. Your relatives got fucking vaccinated and let you live, and now here you are signing up to be killed by a fucking disease against which there is a ninety-nine-percent effective vaccine. You fucking moron. Go in the fucking ocean and fuck a piranha. Fuck. Fuck that. Fuck you. Get vaccinated.Oh, you say you have a genuine allergy or medical condition that prevents you from receiving a fucking vaccine? That’s fine. I’m clearly not talking to you. I fucking love you. Fuck.Look, if you have been forwarded this essay from a friend or loved one, then there are two possibilities. Either you are a normal, regular, sensible fucking person like me who got fucking vaccinated at the first possible moment, and this essay channels all your fucking rage and sadness and is therefore cathartic OR, and I really hope this isn’t the fucking case, you AREN’T fucking vaccinated, and someone sent it to you because you fucking fucking fuck, you need to get fucking vaccinated. And rather than being fucking offended that someone is trying yet again to get you to take the fucking vaccine, you should understand that someone fucking loves you enough to try one last motherfucking time to get you to take the fucking vaccine before you fuck off to heaven, or hell, or some in-between place that’s just like a fucking mall or something where everything is free, including and especially the soft pretzels. So, congratulations! There is ONE person remaining in your life who wants to fucking save you from drowning in your own fucking lungs, you fucking fuckshit fuckdick, so for god’s sake, get your fucking ass out of your chair, go to the fucking pharmacy, and get a fucking vaccine, you absolute conscienceless fucking fuck fuck fuck. Get it. Get the fucking vaccine. Fuck you. Fuck fuck fuck. Fuck. Fuck you. Fuck!
Created:
Posted in:
i just wanna make jams, to pack the clubs and stadiums... with people of all types, while makin the crowds hype... i got christ in me, for the life of me, stayin truly thankful for the sights i see.
Created:
Posted in:
this forum is full of atheists all spouting the same nonsense. it will be hard for them to resist violating your restrictions.
Created:
Posted in:
the idea is, that truth should prevail if there is an open market place of ideas. we see things like covid misinformation being spread by conservatives, but if a person is reasonable, the truth prevails. all we can do is hope the majority follows the truth.... and i think human nature is such that the truth tends to prevail when it matters most.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
have you ever actually seen or read of NDEs that involved muhamed or buddha or indian gods? ive only seen one experience where the dude saw shadow figures he assumed were hindu gods. my take, is that that was just his interpretation. my point, people say there's such variety with NDEs but i've yet to see comprehensive examples of it. as far as i can tell, it's just one of those things people just regurgitate with little truth to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
why does the bible have to be 100% accurate for God himself to be inerrant? that's a very simplistic and artificial worldview
Created:
i'm looking for examples of atheists being healed with causes unknown to science. and it should go without saying, that if a healing becomes standard in science as possible, then that doesn't count. i'm looking for healings that are unheard of, and doesn't become part of science. we know these things happen to theists... we have no reason to think and no evidence to think it happens to atheists. this paragraph should go without saying, but given atheists lack common sense, you have t spell it all out to them. they deny all terms and conditions, and fight tooth and nail to ever make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm not asserting a theory about there being a survival gene.
no, you're not asserting there being a survival gene, but you are asserting that people hallucate elaborate afterlife stories when they die, based on the survival gene. that's all your claim is... something someone pulled out of their ass. it doesn't have any scienctific basis to it, in that you can't point to specific afterlife genes or anything specific. all you have is a plausible connection to the survival gene that skeptics seem to like for some reason.
The reason my 'theory' is more plausible than yours is because everything I said is demonstrated: people nearing death, particularly prolonged struggles, report 'life flashing before their eyes.'
here is some science pointing to NDEs being authentic.
so we have common sense, people died and reported the afterlife. and we have loads of science pointing to them being authentic experiences. all you have is a theory that someone pulled from their ass, that is at best plausibly rational but with scant science attached to it.
"Why do Christinas see CHristian iconography, why do Hindus see Hindu iconography, why do some people see none, why do parents see their children when they're young, even if they're old? "
it's possible that our afterlives are of our own creation. that doesn't disprove there being an afterlife just because they might be different. but i also contest that there are so many types. have you actually ever seen an NDE of budda or muhamed? i haven't. i highly suspect you can't find very many of non christian religions. i know i found one where they thought some shadow figures were hindu gods, but i think they could have misinterpreted it. at least, i need more than just one example. i need a good array of examples... and that's hard to come by if it's at all possible. i'll stick with what i know... that there's a ton of light figures who people think is jesus and all that stuff.
"They're clinically dead, they're not ACTUALLY dead to report what's happening when they're really dead. I repeat: what do people who've been shot in the back of the head report vis a vis the afterlife? "
you have a point that NDErs are not irreversibly dead. but they are still dead, and you can't deny that's significant. they died, and came back with afterlife stories. very straight forward
Created:
-->
@Double_R
you say a retina healing itself is proof that retina must be able to heal themselves. okay, that's plausible. but why can't atheists show similar inexplicable healing that has causes unknown to science? i know you asked me for studies that say that atheists dont get similar healings. but it doesn't work that way. you can't ask me to disprove a negative. if you had balls to your position, you would claim that atheists do receive inexplicable healings with unknown causes. but if you did that, you would have to show me some examples, the burden would be yours, and you would fail horribly. either you have no balls cause you dont want to make the claim, or you will fail horribly in proving your claim. either way you look bad. you still haven't answered why we should just assume inexplicable healings that are unknown to science happen to athests the same as theists. i dont think it's smart or wise or scientifiic to just take your word for it.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
it's considered a fact of science that damaged retinas to the point of blindness cannot be repaired.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
'You're doing the popular "claim IS evidence" conflation. You need to claim there's an afterlife, then demonstrate there is. I get that you think an accusation is a form of evidence, but it's an exceptionally soft form. '
actually youre the one doing the claim is evidence conflating. you think simply asserting a theory is a good explanation. i see no reason to assume it's true, even if i agree it's plausible. i'm the one that has evidence here... people are clinically dead, and they tell us of the afterlife when they when they come back. that's plain evidence. so yes, i have evidence, all you have is a claim that you are conflating as evidence.
Created:
atheists lack critical thinking. the issue of miracles and NDEs are proof enough of that.
Created: