SkepticalOne

I accept this as a valid criticism. A better comparison is murder rate.

"The United States had, by far, the highest homicide rate of the G7 countries between 2000 and 2023. In 2023, it reached 5.76 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, a decrease from 6.78 in 2021. By comparison, Canada, the G7 nation with the second-highest homicide rate, had 1.98 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2023. Out of each G7 nation, Japan had the lowest rate with 0.23 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants."

To apply "superstition and ignorance" to religion

No one has done that except for you. The higgs particle has absolutely nothing to do with gods or religion. It like calling Ricky Gervais a theologian or David Barton a historian 🤔. One has nothing to do with the other. Its marketing sensationalism that ultimately causes confusion among the uninitiated.

fauxlaw wrote:

Yes, the red bars are homicide, the blue, suicide. That's clear. But the numbers do not match. Italy, for example, your upper numbers list indicates the death rate there as 0.2:100,000, but the graph, by measurement, is 0.19 ÷ 0.47 = 0.4, not 0.2. There are several examples of your inaccurate conversion, or the source, on your upper list.

Are you busting out the micrometer and measuring? There are no graduated measurements between 0 and 1. Regardless, even if the graph were wrong it doesnt change the comparison. This is a distraction.

This is a demonstration why scientists object to the 'god particle' label. It invites superstition and ignorance into the discussion.

The numbers match - the red bars are homicide. Linate has posted the same comparison with more current data. It should be no surprise that the numbers haven't gotten better...

SergeantLynch wrote:

Everything is an internal simulation derived from sensory input in the form of of either sensory signals or stored data.

Basically, NDE's and OBE's are created and viewed internally.

So OBE's are actually IBE's...And both NDE's and OBE's/IBE's are Not Dead Experiences.

If they were DE's how could they be "peer reviewed"?

Though how can a peer actually review another's internally generated imagery?

It's all belief based upon hearsay.

You and I are on the same page.

It makes his base feel safer.

There are very few beliefs, if any, that I would accept unconditionally.

An apples to apples comparison is a great idea. We are significantly higher than our peers.

Gun murder per capita among developed/high income nations:

United States: ~4.4 per 100,000 residents

Canada: ~0.7 per 100,000 residents

Italy: ~0.2 per 100,000 residents

Australia: ~0.1 per 100,000 residents

Spain: ~0.1 per 100,000 residents

Iceland: 0.0 per 100,000 residents

Japan / Singapore: <0.05 per 100,000 residents

With your writing of …snip….“The Bullet Cluster and time delay lensing represent two specific counters”, you convey “gravitational lensing proves gravitational lensing, so Rowland is wrong”; therefore, your conclusion is built on a circular reasoning premise which you stated as a matter of scientific fact thus exhibiting the Pharmakeia Principle (explained in post

The Bullet Cluster shows offset dark matter mass, while time delay lensing measures cosmic expansion rates and mass profiles via light travel times. It is a matter of empirical testing, not circular reasoning.

The answer appears to be "no". You make no attempt to explain why the criticism is invalid. Instead you claim there are supernatural events that are peer-reviewed - which makes no sense to me. (Not to mention this is essentially testimony of testimony). I suggested some studies that might fit that description, but you disregarded this and did not provide any of your own.

Ive looked into the cases that I could figure out what youre talking about, and I've not seen what you claim. Perhaps, I am a stubbornly difficult non-believer with blinders, or maybe you read too much into the stories because your standard of evidence is too low.

The first is **selection bias**. Most OBE cases enter the literature through voluntary reporting—books, interviews, or retrospective studies. People are far more likely to report experiences that are vivid, unusual, or seemingly accurate than those that are vague, incorrect, or mundane. This means the dataset we see is already filtered toward “hits,” while “misses” remain largely invisible. In other words, we may be observing not the true distribution of outcomes, but a curated subset.

Valid.

Closely related is **publication bias**. Researchers, publishers, and audiences are naturally drawn to compelling stories. A case where someone correctly describes an operating room event is far more likely to be written up than a case where someone’s recollections are clearly wrong or unverifiable. Over time, this skews the literature toward the extraordinary, creating the impression that accurate perception is more common than it actually is.

Valid.

Then there is **confirmation bias**, which operates at multiple levels. Experiencers may unintentionally reconstruct their memories in light of what they later learn. Third-party witnesses—doctors, nurses, family members—may affirm matches that are approximate rather than exact. Researchers themselves may interpret ambiguous details as meaningful correspondences. A statement that is general or partially correct can, after the fact, be seen as impressively accurate. The result is a subtle but powerful inflation of evidential strength

Valid.

Of course if a person sees something that wasnt possible for them to see cause they were dead,

Are you open to the fact that such a case could be explained by one, or all, of the criticisms you provided above? If so, how do you show that's not the case? If not, well, you're not being honest with yourself.

Regarding things that look supernatural happening to christians under peer review.

I have no good reason to accept "peer-review" and "supernatural" belong in the same sentence, and neither do you.

I could go on and on making arguments that you r too dense to make yourself, cause you only know how to argue like a high school kid. I grow tired of these head in sand and irrelevant posts from skeptics but I also dont like debating myself

"Too dense", "argue like a high school kid", "head in the sand", all equates to ad hominem and does nothing to address the arguments.

Proof that I'm a moderate. In fact, I'm more moderate than you according to your own profile.

First, I never claimed to be a moderate. Secondly, "More moderate" than someone else is not the same thing as moderate.

A moderate is:

Change that.

Thats not how 'rights' work.

It's a trend. From 41% to 36.5%. Independents and unaffiliated lean right; it's why combined they're closer to 50% then Dems + independents.

Again, this does not necessarily signal sympathethy to Republicans.

You are not moderate. You're views are extreme and you lack subtlety. If it weren't for the traffic your ragebaiting potentially brings to the site, I suspect you would have been instabanned. I question the wisdom of wanting that type of traffic, but, hey, that's just me.

Re: freespeech - you have it regardless of your ability to post on this site. You dont have a 'right' to post here and neither does anyone (except for the site owners). Regardless, the government isnt restricting your speech.

As for the chart, independents have increased more than Republicans (seriously, a 1% increase isn't evidence of some grand paradigm shift). The people changing their labels arent necessarily sympathetic to Republicans, but less supportive of Democrats. And thats not hard to understand since neither party is doing enough to advocate for the majority of Americans.

Savant wrote:

Maybe the idea is that the motive for killing one race is hate plus racism, which is worse than just hate. And if they're not gonna actually kill people, well they might still be racist to people. Although ppl who want human extinction might still be jerks to everyone.

I think you are making assumptions about the person stating 'humans should die'. Is that necessarily hateful? Perhaps it is disappointment and/or someone advocating voluntary extinction of humanity.

The person advocating one race genocide is undoubtedly motivated by hate/racism. They are pointing to a group (presumably) they are not part of and wishing the worst on them.

More info would be appreciated - debate time, rounds, potential topics, pre-requisites, etc.

Please and thank you.

Just use common sense

I'm pretty sure thats not part of the scientific method. 🤔 Seriously, science is all about weeding out opinion. There are many things in the real world that defy 'common sense'.

Nde experiences are arguably spectral

You said this was the strongest evidence for god, but you also acknowledge the inaccessibility of it.

but peer reviewed things healing

I dont know what you're talking about. Intercessory prayer study? No change or worse outcomes. Spontaeous remission? Human error in diagnosis or many other natural explanations. No IRB has ever verified supernatural healing.

and peer reviewed obe experiences with witnesses

'Out of body experiences' have natural explanations. We can generate these experiences on demand.

and people claiming to see supernatural things in the real world are not spectral, and are text book definitions of evidence

Supernatural evidence is not accepted by the courts, and science famously operates on methodological naturalism. So, these are not textbook legal or scientific definitions of evidence.

It is starting to seem like you are not arguing for scientific/legal standards, but that these standards should be lowered. These standards are what they are. I dont know what to tell you.

Repeated anecdotes are never valid as scientific evidence. At best, they might be a justification to start formal investigation. Just to be clear, that is not the same thing as scientific evidence because investigation may or may not reveal something real.

Spectral evidence, in any quantity, is not considered evidence in a court of law.

I dont think my position is wrong or controversial, but I'm open to being proven wrong.

That has no relevance to my point. If you achieve your wants, but lose your humanity in the process what have you gained?

I never argued there was no evidence. I consider philosophical and logical argumentation to be evidence. I stipulate more evidence than you do. 😉

I am simply pointing out what you consider the strongest evidence (miracles and NDE) do not rise to your own standard (Legal/scientific).

Debby wrote:

Jesus turning water into wine, healing the sick, feeding a crowd of 5000 gathered to hear him speak were all called miracles and the people of his time accepted it as so. Science has no explanation for those miracles and they remain as miracles.

So the story goes.

linate wrote:

Arguments like causality or from design are formidable points. But theres equally formidable arguments against these. In philosophy and law and science theres the concept that purely philosophical evidence isnt even evidence. When an idea presents itself like these with being consistent with a proposition then its merely showing its not inconsistent Philosophically.

Arguments for christian miracles are weak evidence and evidence for god from the phenomenon of nde science is strong. But society is so stuck in religious and worldly ways that these points arent usually brought up in these discussions

In law and science, testimony is considered the weakest form of evidence. Spectral evidence fails to meet any legal or scientific standards for reliability, cannot be tested or verified, and constitutes inadmissible hearsay. "Christian miracles" and NDE are literally testimony of spectral evidence. (How does one objectively establish unexplained phenomena is of the Christian deity?)

if youre going to rely on legal and scientific standards, and throw everything else out then you have pretty much nothing left.

McCarthy, who? Joseph? No. Kevin? No. You keep claiming you know me. You don't. Get it? Yet?

We've already been through a crazy paranoid era of suspecting communists everywhere. Folks like yourself are doing their level best to bring it back. Do you have anything other than misrepresentation and fear to sell? If not, its time to close up shop because your products have passed their sell-by date.

Yah - thats 'the ends justify the means'.

But, the ends do not justify the means. The morality of an action isn't determined by results.

fauxlaw wrote:

People around the world soft-peddled the Marx Commuinist Manifesto in 1848, and Hitler in 1938, and the PRC in 1949, when I was born. In those 101 years, Those blinde3d morons lived to regret their soft-shoe dance. Just like yours.

Dance, dance, dance on.

Y'all've been warned. I've been warning since 1966. Call me crazy; y'all have that right. Doesn't make it right. We'll see, won't we?

You're a fan of McCarthy, amiright?

If we really comply with the definition of democracy, that must be a factor relative to joining unions, or not.

It is the ability to form and join unions that is important. Given our economy and country is currently run by oligarchs and we are veering into authoritarianism, the ability to band together and push back is necessary for our democracy.

Machiavelli's the 'ends justify the means' is a jaded philosophy incongruent with morality. There are some actions that can never be justified regardless of outcome.

Debby wrote:

Or the colour of their skin. Trump is a good example with his orange colour skin.

Any criticism I have of Trump is not motivated by the color of his skin.

Trump has no interest in implementing policies that benefit the average American. His policies are focused on self dealing and his oligarch buddies.