n8nrgmi

u r missing the point. i can show you an example of someone's retina being healed. retinas dont just heal themselves. you confuse improbable with impossible. a retina healing itself looks impossible.  you cant show that level of proof.... you can't give a reason we should assume it happens to atheists at all, the point of the thread.

u just ignored the point of the thread. why dont the same level of healings that look supernatural, that happen to theists... also happen to atheists? or, why should we assume that they do, if they just are never reported? 

if i see an alarm ringing, i infer that someone set it. i guess you might say we deduce that someone set it. but if you boil it down to the most essential thing philosphically... we infer it. it's the same thing with near death experiences. we see people die, and then they come and tell us of the afterlife. it's like going to the south pole and seeing penguins, and then trying to claim that you dont believe they're there unless you see it with your own eyes. near death experinces are good evidence for the afterlife. to try arguing that people hallucinate eleboarate afterlife stories when they die, and then give no good reason for why they do so, is as stupid as it comes.  

the catholic church has a whole system designed to find impossible cures happening to people. just in case anyone wants more examples. 

we theists can show things that look like supernatural healing. healing that happens despite the science saying it's impossible. atheists can't show things that look supernatural happening to them. why is that? atheists assume the same level of things happen to them... but the examples are just never reported. for me, if someone prays and then something supernatural occurs, i see no reason to assume similar things happen to atheists too. the burden of proof is on the atheist, if they claim those things happen to them too. 

there's also stories of God talking to people, and then healing them. a lot of times these people seem perfectly credible. it's a stretch to think they hallucinated, and then something that's thought to be impossible then occurred. 

atheists just have a deep seated need to not believe, that's all there is to it. 

do you agree that it's a stupid theory for atheists to just assume people hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die?

why do you think atheists have such stupid ideas? why do they have this deep seated need to disbelieve? 

insurance should be minimized. i realize that most countries aren't single payer.... that is, they dont outlaw health insurance. but they do make it non-profit. they also put people into medicare type plans, that removes a lot of the insurance, and only have insurance for supplemental care, copays and such. remember, insurance pays 30% on the dollar for profit and administrative costs, whereas medicare only pays three percent on admininstration and has no profit motive. point being, insurance is middleman that should be minimized to increase efficiency. 

also, i am skeptical of single states running healthcare systems. the main way other countries make healthcare cheaper, other than minimizing insurance, is through regulating healthcare costs. negotiating and regulating.  if a single state tries doing that, it would cause medical providers to switch states, and the state that is trying to do it, would suffer consequences like that. it needs to be national to work  right. 

maybe the simplest thing we can do, given how hard it is to achieve universal care, is to just keep things as it is, except we regulate healthcare costs, and find a sensible way to ensure no one is uninsured, the remaining ten percent who aren't currently insured. 

i questions the accuracy of the numbers in that article that you cited.

but even if they are accurate, i think he's cherry picking some fatality statistics to make the usa look bad. by some measures, the usa is worse, by some it's better, as far as fatality. we can't get an accurate picture just looking at some random examples. 

also, a lot that that article cited is specialized care does worse in the usa. i dont contest that, and i dont think anyone knowledgeable would contest it. but that doesn't mean socialized medicine is bad, it just means other countries shouldn't disincentivize doctors becoming specialists. we can have socialized medicine in the usa, without changing our doctor pay, and all those incentives. in a smartly run system, usa doctors would make close to the second highest paid country for doctors, but specialists would be incentived to speciaiize. i agree that it's hard to expect the government to do things competently, but all it would take to fix other countries, is to tweek specialist pay. dont throw the baby out with the bath water. 

even if there's a few tens of thousand of deaths per year more deaths elsewhere, that doesn't justify all the bankruptcies and people paying up the gills for their healthcare, and the fact that healthcare costs twice as much here. if it's the either/or propoisition you're offering, every other country is still better. i know it hurts your sensitive ears to hear it (joking), but a few lives are negligible when it comes to costing so astronomically much. i doubt you think one life is worth a trillion dollars extra that we pay per year, so i'm sure you have your limit to in what you'd accept. 

when folks talk about quality of care, they usually mean wait times are worse in the rest of the world. (every other developed country covers everyone at half the cost that we do) the thing is, we know this isn't true just by lookin at the supply of doctors. we have a doctor shortage.... which means we suffer when it comes to wait times compared to other countries. doctors like to specialize to make more money... so we do slightly better with specialized care. if you dont believe this basic supply and demand statistic, just look at the study done by 'the commonwealth', a healthcare think tank, that measured wait times, and concluded exactly what i just said. 

we have ten percent of people uninsured. we know that they still receive care, just not as much. so adding ten percent more people to coverage isn't going to change much, even if they weren't already using care. 

no matter how you look at it, this universal healthcare equals wait times thing, is a myth. 

u r one of the most partisan and brainwashed people i've ever come across. it's mind numbing how partisan u r.  u r the ultimate sheep.  if u look up sheep in the dictionary, there would be your picture. 

after millions of years, they just decided to die in the industrial age. is there a conspiracy by mother nature to make mankind look guilty when it's really not? 

i realize some skeptics acknowledge man's role, but still dont think we should do anything, but this thread is for those who think man hasn't caused this. 

how about building lots of subsidized apartments and just having managers with no profit motive? the idea is creating a supply given the lack of supply. or do you think that the 'projects' are just as bad as boarding houses and shelters as far as societal problems? 

so what's ur solution? or do you aknowledge that you have no solutions? 

well argued... i am reconsidering my position. 

so you dont care that housing is so unaffordable? 

why are we paying people's rent, when we could be building lots of shelters? i dont know the costs involved, but this could be building more apartments at the most, or it could just be building boarding houses like we used to have a long time ago. it doesn't cost a lot to give people shelter. we could give zero percent loans for the private sector to build and maintain those shelters, and instead of writing open checks, the government gets paid back. this would involve going against the left who wants to pay everyone's rent and the other part of the left who is opposed to opening development to the low income. of course, this is opposed to the right too, who doesn't want government involved in housing. 

instead of just paying people's rent, we could make shelter affordable for a lot more people. people pay what they can afford, income based. homeless people get first dibs on new shelters.... homelessness would be cut drastically as a portion of their meager income is next to nothing. 

i'd propose everyone pays ten percent of their income per year, for ten years.  that means, everyone chips in for their own tuition. everyone can afford ten percent of their income, no matter what the income is... so this improves affordability. it also means, that the better off grads/majors pay more.... which is the way it should be. any major that thinks they need more tuition should need special approval from congress. also, the fact you pay loans shouldn't affect your credit or ability to get a mortgage or things like that... it should be a hidden cost you pay. (currently many former students can't get mortgages and such cause of student loans)

at the very least, this should be the case for students who use FAFSA for financial assistance. 

this is very generous, as it doesn't cost a lot to educate people. we should focus on educating people and getting them jobs, not on writing open checks to throw money at tuition. i'm opposed to free college the way the ilks of bernie want to do it. 

i'm skeptical of the numbers people throw around. even if we leave, we are still paying the same amount of soldiers their salaries. we are still buying lots of weopons and equipment. there's a little extra we spend on healthcare when they are injured, and when we use those weopons and equipment. but just being there and maintaining order i would guess doesn't cost a lot extra... with emphasis on the extra part. 

how much does it really cost to maintain a precence though? we could have a few thousand soldiers, and that would prevent the country from becoming a playground for terrorists. i also dont think too many soldiers died per year. they knew killing americans was a recipe to get bitch smacked, so just us being there kept shit together. it isn't in our national security interest to leave... for biden to say that is an empty statement. 

it all boils down to how much money and how many soldiers makes it worth it to prevent future 911 attacks? id think it's bound to happen, it's just a question of how often those things will happen. a few billion and a few soldiers a year, is a worthwhile sacrifice. but i dont know the exact numbers to weigh here, and i would think u dont either, so it's anyone's guess. it's clearly not clear that it's in our best interest to leave, though.... too many unknowns

many generals in the army said it would happen, and even before the operation to end that war was over, the country succumbed to the taliban. it was definitely predictable. now the taliban has all the resources and weopons and such that they seized. 

with that said, some people say if it was so easy for all this to happen, it was always a tenuous situation and we were just fighting an endless war to prop them up against something inevitable if we ever left. some say we also achieved our main objective, which was gettin those who were primarily responsible for 9 11. 

maybe the real test for if biden gets blame, is if any of those terrorists regroup and attack the usa. 

questions, comments, words of wisdom? 

u claimed it was disproportionally 300 pound fatties dying. i asked u to cite evidence. u did not cite evidence.

as far as i can tell, given most people are overweight or obese, most people are at risk of dying. given the average middle age person has a 2 out of a thousand chance of dying if they catch it, it's probably at least one in a thousand if u take out the really large people. one in a thousand chance of death, is still a lot. that's my whole point. 

yes we all know fat people make up most of the cases. i've established that the average person is fat. you haven't established that it's disproportionately morbidly obese people dying. 

also a bunch of 300 pound fatties won't bring up the average death stat, insofar as one morbidly obese person is still just one morbidly obese person. their weight doesn't disproportionately affect the death count, in that way. 

we know most people are overweight and obese, though, and we know those are the ones most at risk, even with just the information in this thread we can make that determination. if someone wants to claim there's a bunch of 300 pound fatties bringin up the average, they have to cite a source, they can't just make sh*t up. 

u r the one making claims with no sources. it's not my duty to find evidence for you, that probably doesnt even exist. plus u r denying science. sounds like u r the one unable to do research. 

i would need a source that it's mostly fat people over 300 pounds. most people are over weight or obese... that's risk enough. the average person is middle age. again, my stats refer to the average,and this is all of an average nature.

my stats refer to the average. whatever is average is "most". u keep saying 'most', but it contradicts the average. of course it boils down to whether one thinks that two in a thousand chance of death is 'sifniciant', but that doesn't sound like something worth foolin around with, and i think most people would agree with me, if they really looked at the data and were honest. 

"You're not the authority to declare all people at risk when most people are not at any significant risk. Especially kids."

that's the point of averages. most people are at risk, if you consider the average middle aged person your criteria. u r factually incorrect. 

even those in their twenties and thirties might have around a one in a thosuand chance of death, on average. but even if you are young and healthy, there's a chance of death in not getting the shot, and next to no chance of death if you do get the shot. 

why does your politics always influence your science and not other way around? 

most people have health problems like blood pressure and cholesterol, or are overweight or obese. my stats refer to the average, and the average person fits those health criteria. maybe ya'll are thin and healthy. good for you. for the large majority of everyone else, the fact remains that there's a decent chance of death if you are unvaccinated. 

of course this boils down to what is 'decent'.

just look at the amount of deaths and how many people live in the usa. 640000 dead divided by 333333333 living people = 2 in a thousand people have died, and the pandemic isn't even over yet. 

here is more data....

"For all these reasons, reported infection fatality rates have varied. To get a better estimate, Brazeau and his team looked at 175 studies, finding just 10 they regarded as reliable. They adjusted for confounding factors and calculated the death rate for each age group, including 0 per cent for under 4s, less than 0.1 per cent for people under 40, 0.36 per cent if 50 to 54, 2.17 if 70 to 74, 5 per cent if 80 to 84 and 16 per cent for those over 90."

to put these numbers in perspective, if u r under 40, u have a one in a thosuand chance of death if u get the virus. if you are in your 40s u have probably about two or three deaths in a thousand.

they say with the delta variant, everyone will come in contact with the virus at some point. r u sure u wanna have a two in a thosuand chance of death for the average middle age person? 

that's basically saying the same thing as 'not yet fda approved' as i assume the fda would consider long term data.

i looked it up, and the death rate is on average .7% for the whole population. one in a thousand for people under forty.  it only gets higher for people older. folks in their forties are two or three deaths per thousand. we also know that every credible authority thinks the vaccine is safe and effective. 

are you cool with that high of chance of dying, just because there theoretically could be side effects, even though science doesn't know of any and doesnt expect any?

u might be a special case 

"but it isn't that there aren't significant possible side effects."

those clots were like one in a million or something like that, the sorta thing that would be less likely than getting struck by lightning.  i dont know the exact figure off hand, but it wasn't a 'significant' side effect. 

"there theoretically could be side effects even though there are none that are significant as of yet"... this is your argument, and it's basically what everyone says who doesn't get the shot.  i guess in your case, you are least have some immunity already so your point is a little stronger. if i were you, i'd go with what looks like the consensus, which is we dont have any reason to think there might be side effects so you are better off getting the shot and boosting your immunity. 

ive only seen arguments from credible sources that say not getting vaccinated causes the virus to have chances to mutate. 

aside from not being fully FDA approved, there's no good reason not to get it. every credible scientist says it's safe for almost everyone. there's a chance of death if you dont get the shot, but there's almost no chance of death if you do get the shot. 

i expect a lot of non sense in this thread. probably a bunch of conspiracy theories. a whole lot of "consensus science isn't necessarily true even though i trust my own versions of authority". a lot of saying things without really saying anything. 

i would suppose God can create an unstoppable force, or he could create an immovable object... but he can't do both at the same time, if he's bound by logic. i think the time element is key here, because he can switch gears between those two things as long as they dont exist at the same time. 

fair enough, you just dont understand it then. 

the two things can't exist at the same time, as a logical necessity. unstoppable forces can't exist if there's immovable objects. think about what each thing means... they are absolute statements. two absolute statements that contradict each other can't exist at the same time, logically according to our current reality. 

i think underdog just refuses to listen to logic. 

u r just ignoring everyone. the only way God can be all powerful according to you, is if he can be illogical. why is it so hard to accept that some people think God would be only logical? 

an immovable object can only exist in the same reality as an unstoppable force, in an illogical world. the two things can't exist at the same time, by definition. the rock is the immovable object and God is the unstoppable force, here. 

the question boils down to whether God is bound by logic. if he's not, then everything goes. if he is, then he just can't contradict himself or reality. 

like was said, just because he can't make a square ciricle doesn't mean he can't do everything. that's a logical impossiblity, so we shouldn't expect it from him. 

on the heavy stone question.... it boils down to the comment from the batman movie. what happens when an immoveabe object meets an unstoppable force? the rock here is the immovable object and God is the unstoppable force. the two things can't exist logically in the same reality. either one exists, or the other. and, so, God can create a rock he can't lift, or he can lift any rock he creates... but he can't do both, somehting impossible. 

it might be safe to assume me and Trade only disagree about who is saved, and who God shows unconditional love to. we probably agree that full love is communion, and it's not possible to commune with evil. it's possible to love the sinner and hate the sin, even if you dont commune with them. 

i dont think the bible even says all unbelievers are damned though. it only says rejecting jesus means damnation, and to me that means a full sense enough to reject the truth. emphasis 'rejecting' jesus. not the folks on an island. and to my understanding, not the people who dont know any better. a sin is willful engagment of wrongdoing, period. even that popular John verse that says God loves the world, says the reason some folks are condemned is because they reject the light. they reject the truth. even if i'm wrong and everyone who rejects jesus is damned, at the very least they have to know of him and reject him. that's very explicit in all the specific verses of who gets damned. 

"Frankly, Bridger, I’m appalled at the fact that some Christians have an understanding of God’s love which is comparable to that of the Qur’an. They actually think that God does not love all people unconditionally. They have failed to understand something so fundamental and basic to Christian discipleship: God’s wonderful love."

how would you justify disagreeing with an atheist if he said God is more hateful than loving? 

do you agree that the God of the bible is conditional love?

do you agree with my presumption that you are disregarding 90% of christians when you say christians have your concept of God as very conditional about his love? i realize the road to perdition is wide, but i dont think it's safe to assume the majority of chrisitanity gets it wrong and only your and your ilk have it right. most christians think God loves everyone and it's common for them to think God loves everyone unconditionally. the fact that the bible depicts something else doesn't mean most christians are wrong, it just means that you have made an idol of the bible. the spirit guides christians, yet you disagree with a large majority of them, which might be fair to say you disagree with the consensus. most folks are wishy washy though, so it's hard to say exactly what the consensus is, granted, but i think i'm more right about this than you. 

the reason i say the fundamentalists will engage in gymnastics.... they have no reason why love should be emphasized instead of hate. the God of the bible seems angry and hateful, much or most of the time, at least in the old testament. they also can't deny that the bible depicts God as conditional love. you have to look outside the bible to say that insofar as the bible makes God's love conditional, it's mistaken.... a man made concept. they can't conclude that sorta thing with just the bible as their source. God loves everyone unconditionally, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences to one's actions. 

i think u will or could find some more fundamentalist chrisitans to argue with. they will engage in gymnastics. it's best to recognize those types do that. it's fun to debate just for the heck of it, and to educate people, but in the end, it's an exercise in futility and should be recognized as such from the get go. people generally just dont change their opinions in debates, no matter what. 

i believe in NDEs. that experiences by far emphasizes love. to reconcile that with the bible, the focus should be on the love verses. 'hate' might just mean dislike or something like that. i might be wrong to have the premise of looking to NDEs, but i strongly would disagree. 

fundamentalism makes no sense. i might even say it's wicked. things like noah being just a story yet so many wanting to insist it's not. it violates truth. that's evil. 

i also think you are taking the hate verses too literally. and stuff like God being jealous and love being not jeolous, that's too literal too.