n8nrgim

i thought dr. long's book 'evidence of the afterlife' was the best book on evidence of the afterlife... it looks like another book might be better. i have it ordered and will start reading it soon. 

knowledge... and wisdom

especially if we are branching out into space. just let the best and brightest reproduce, say on mars. then remove problematic humans and genes and put them back on earth. even if there is speciation, it's still a decendent of humans and part of our lineage, so it has value. we have the knowledge and technology to do this... so it should be done. 

even if this wasn't done on mars... we can still breed super humans on earth. 

it looks like u r simply saying that society's views on sexuality depends on the culture. if that's the case, a bigger question is... what should be our sexual standards, if any? 

sounds like another way of saying 'cognitive dissonance'. 

as a science, nuclear makes sense as an energy source. there are states who want to do it more, but they find it too costly and time consuming. i assume that's a regulatory problem, but i could be wrong, otherwise i dont now why it's so burdensome to do nuclear. it's been decades and we're barely making progress in getting more nuclear, cause of all the negative stererotypes and mostly the costs. we need an alternative to fossil fuels cause those are dirty and unsustainable. 

man u r really smart. it's so odd that u r also a libertarian. ha, JK. 

i could be wrong about this, but that's the way it looks to me.

wrong forum. ignore this thread. 

electric ones require too many minerals. it requires tons and tons of rare minerals, which which we have limited amounts of, and that damage the environment when they mine for them. hydrogen as far as i know just requires energy to separate the atoms before they're reunited in combustion. car manufactruers are already getting on the fuel cell band wagon, so it looks like i might be right on this. 

i could be wrong about all this, but that's the way it's lookin to me. 

the proof is in the pudding. the pudding is in the crust. plus, e = mc squared. whence, i think, therefore, i am. harvester of land, taken of the fallen lamb. 

islam is obviously a false religion where the quran talks about cutting of heads and hands, and their followers talk about getting virgins at death. it's obviously a man made religion. 

i think a thing that you struggle with, is having principles. it's okay to stand for things, but you need to make sure that you are speaking and acting, based on truth. it's okay to say islam is a trash religion, and that muslims are simple mistaken and deceived. 

it looks like you focused too much on the catholic style of 'being good enough'. you should focus more on the protestant idea of grace and simply having faith. having a loving relationship with God is a two way street... you have grace but you have responsibility too. that's the nature of love, and loving relationships. we were created by God to do his handiwork which were prepared in advance for us to do, as it's taught in the bible.

it's better to look at hell as a spiritual condition. hell is separation from God. we can be right by God or not right by God. i know there's lots in between, but there are bad people out there, who are not right with God. i mean them no judgment. that's what free will affords us... we can either choose a higher vibration or a lower one. we can acknowledge our sins and repent and do good... or we can choose not to. if one person chooses one path and someone else chooses another... you can't tell me t's all the same difference. what we do and think makes a difference. 

when measurement occurs, observation is only incidental to what's happening. the act of observing itself doesn't change the outcome of the quantum world, does it?

it looks like you are disagreeing or distinguishing with me, if i'm not mistaken, but i think we agree. if a tree lands in a forest and no one is around, it still we assume did what it did in reality. if we measure it falling with a video, our observation of it falling didn't change anything. 

what do you think of sidewalker's take? 

doesn't it require actual measurement to affect quantum phenomenon? im not seeing where just observation is sufficient. 

also, even if we can affect quantum measurement... it seems like adreamofliberty was saying, it's only incidental. like we can use materials to affect the quantum world, but even if it wasn't a consicious human doing the manipulation, the quantm world would still be affected. it's like if we assume a tree falls in the forest even if no one is there to observe it or cause it.

when conservatives try to pretend like democrats dont truly care about the poor. 

How would you guys briefly describe your religious or spiritual beliefs or lack thereof

some reasons we are here on earth if the other side is 'whole' and complete. why can't we just be whole and complete to begin with? 

the teaching is that each part of the trinity is God, and yet they are distinct. it's not a logical syllogism. the father is god, the son is god, but the father isn't the son. that sorta thing. 

i've been taught the trinity more so but i feel i've considered it critically and decided the mystery fits well into life and religious philosphy. before, i didnt think the evidence was that jesus was god, because the bible isn't always clear on that point, or points in another direction. i believe the lack of clarity to those who aren't knowledgeable is because jesus wants to reveal himself throughout a process to those who seek him. 

folks who have ndes weren't really dead, or weren't irreversibly dead?

the philsophy of thinking we choose or benefit from strife in life

some videos about the nature of the universe and consciousness 

why is there such dismissal of NDEs as authentic in the media?

it's just pulling teeth to get skeptics to provide any coherent 'whys' of why these things happen at all.

you just keep bare asserting that it seems likely to you that people would have these coherent elaborate afterlife stories, but you ignore that if it is that way, it should be tied to natural selection. yet, nothing coherently ties it to natural selection. the other poster posted about a study about 'playing dead' tied to near death experiences, but it's only vaguely connected and a leap of logic.  someone says it's tied to chemicals in some lose sense, even though drugs,dreams,and hallucinations in any other aspect of life dont cause elaborate afterlife stories that have those phenomenological common themes. i keep seeing these half thoughts for explaining why this happens that dont add up. if skeptics are so absent in the why's and logic department... why is it such a leap to think maybe they visited the afterlife? i realize you take as your premise that supernatural things dont occur, or things of that nature... but that's an assumption on your part, and if they are visiting the afterlife, it's staring you right in the face. even if you dont want to call it evidence, it indicates something, however you want to spin it, it points to something, and it's plain as day staring you right in the face. 

the holy spirit i would like to think unites the father and son, but each is distinct. whether we're communicating more than one God or not, is a mystery. it's beyond our understanding.

i like the one analogy i shared, cause it's familial and a more direct comparison. my dad is a father, son, and brother, in one person. the son aspect is not the father aspect, but it's still one person. and the holy spirit is like a family, father, son, adopted brothers of believers. 

here is a poem that is extracted from a movie about a priest getting the third degree. 

Per my last post, the experiences r also elaborate afterlife stories. That's a specific theme, it doesn't sound like a random hallucination... so if there's a natural way to explain it, it's gotta be tied to natural selection 

it looks like the article says 'some animals play dead. humans are animals and they might play dead. therefore NDEs are tied to playing dead'.  you see how weak the reasoning is dont you? it looks like they think using a bunch of pretense and jargon makes a good argument. 

reminds me of that calvin and hobbes piece. 'academia, here i come!"

I think you might be reading too much into 'measure'. It implies knowledge and such, but it doesn't have to. Even without knowledge, the act itself of measuring affects quanta. But maybe all I'm establishing is that humans can affect reality, and that's not at all much of a statement?

in the double slit experiment... isn't the act of measuring causing different outcomes? 

i asked if the best word is 'observation affects quanta' or if it's 'measurements affects quanta', and you said 'wave collapse affects quanta'. if wave collapse is affected by the outside reality, which we manipulate, how isn't that a matter of observation or measurement? 

what advantage do NDEs have in natural selection? 

people who dream say NDEs are more real than this earthly life and they have no question in their mind that it's real, and they no longer fear death. that is the opposite of a dream. people who have had both experiences say they are not at all the same. 

do you think NDEs are a product of evolution? they'd have to be, considering how common they are if they are products of the brain only. how does an end of life hallucination improve one's ability to reproduce?

some thoughts on nde's as a product of evolution

do you think NDEs are a product of evolution? they'd have to be, considering how common they are. if NDEs are merely a product of the brain how does an end of life hallucination improve one's ability to reproduce? 

do you think NDEs are a product of evolution? they'd have to be, considering how common they are if they are products of the brain only. how does an end of life hallucination improve one's ability to reproduce? 

you should google the number of people who are self aware or truly use critical thinking. there's actual science on it, and the number is very small. 

do you have any insight on this? 

some folks say like the double slit experiment, that the particles are affected by measuring them. 

others say often on the topic of quantum mechanics, that simply observing particles at the quantum state affects them. 

the bigger implication, is that there's those who say our consciousness can affect reality. which is true to the extent that we can measure quanta, with our devices and tools. but if all that is requirement is observation, then that's a bigger fish to fry for consciousness affecting reality 

what do you want to talk about the trinity?

the bible says in the beginning the word was with God, and the word was God, and the word became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus said that "before abraham was around I AM".  "unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins". "i am" was a reference to God in the bible 

in the letters of the bible, from his disciples, it refers to Jesus as 'our lord and God'. etc

i would search the forum from recent dates to look for talk about the trinity. 

and the spirit enters the son, and the father enters the son, through the spirit. they again are different but the same. 

the trinity is a paradox, a contradiction in human terms. it is an example of the unlimited trying to limit itself. God is unlimited and in this existence he limits himself and creation is limited. the afterlife in God are unlimited. 

It's not just religion. It's also politics and relationships and personalities and characteristics. We grow from a blank slate into adults. Most people lack critical thinking and self awareness... but some don't. The ones that possess it to some extent choose their beliefs 

most games are too predictable. so not predictable. like first person shooters or racing games or basic sports games. if you want a good game, it needs to break new ground, like mario, plants v zombies, tetris, metroid, pac man. i think most ground was broke in the earlier systems like atari and the first few nintendos and play stations. a lot of the new stuff is just rehashing old concepts. of course, i dont pay attention to a lot of modern video games. 

western christians have the concept of original sin, the idea that we are born into sin. eastern christians, though, believe in the idea of 'propensity to sin'. we aren't born sinful, we are merely born with the propensity to sin. if you take western theology seriously, babies are born sinful and never repented, but if you dont assume that, we can imply that babies aren't guilty of sin. after all, they aren't born into it, and they aren't capable of sin as a baby. the fairest definition of sin, is intentionally doing what you know is wrong... it has all those elements, and babies dont have intention or knowing and thus aren't guilty. 

but i like my God as all knowing and the different vibrations theory better. 

i think you are being too legalistic with the mind of God. but it's fair to criticize how empty christian fundamentalism is. 

God knows the heart of everyone. he knows how children would have lived, and he knows their natural tendencies. if you think of heaven and hell as levels of vibration, in which we can improve and decline and move around, children probably just live their lives in the afterlife instead of this life and go to where their nature fits into. 

" give it a quarter billion years"

i meant a quarter trillion. 

the universe should last for trillions of years is my point. plus if life developed somewhere, we cant necessarily know. we can't even see planets in other galaxies, i dont think. (unless james webb telescope changed that). thirteen billion years is enough time for life to form, but we shouldn't assume it's adequate that there 'must' be other life forms out there, i would think. give it a quarter billion years and get back with us, i say. 

i think the only point that answers this, is that it's not so much a contradiction, the paradox, as something hard to understand. 

They say if aliens are going to exist, they should exist already and maybe have contacted us.

But the universe is young... why should we assume aliens would already exist let alone have contacted us? I don't see why they call it a paradox.

I took for granted that u were right about the law in this situation. It looks like the feds and Supreme Court r right. But I think u could make a moral argument in being right. Is your position more legal or moral? But, even if u r right morally, it's still Texas firing the first shot, so to speak

i liked debate.org better when it was at its peak. unformately i spent too much time doing formal debates and should have used the forum more. it wasn't until the end that i started using the forum. i love the free flow of ideas better on forums. i also like the free speech better at the old website too. 

i think for your overall point to be valid, you would have to explicitly show a strong trend where federal over reach is occurring, and that it's worth sacrificing the greatest country in history. you aren't doing a good job showing that trend, aside from a few conservative talking points, and you aren't showing how those existing infractions are sufficient to dissolve the country. i dont mean to keep keep insulting, but i see it that way, like it's a baby crying cause he doesn't get his way. i mean i can see why you're upset, you have a case for that, and how maybe trump could have or should have sent troops to sancturary cities (and all the liberal hypocrisy) but i dont think you are establishing the central points very well. 

i may be misinterpreting your points here and there, but at most you should just be saying the conditions are worsening in what may some day  result in a war or dissolution. instead you are getting hyperbolic ideas of federal authority soon possibly collapsing (your words) and implying war or such is at hand. i understand you are trying to make a point, but i think you are taking your ideas too far, like a radical or maybe an extremist. i know you disagree, though