https://guneducationalinformation.weebly.com/
Here is the truth about gun control. Please educate yourself.
I know its not laid out in simple soundbytes, but it takes a lot to unpacked the stubborn warped ideas of you and your ilk.
https://guneducationalinformation.weebly.com/
Here is the truth about gun control. Please educate yourself.
I know its not laid out in simple soundbytes, but it takes a lot to unpacked the stubborn warped ideas of you and your ilk.
Your analogy isnt right. It dont make sense to vote for trump just because dems suck when trump sucks worse.
You have a decent point that dems could have probably did a lot more during the 60 vote majority with Obama. But still getting consensus and sometimes a 60 vote threshold would have been not feasible many times too.
I dont know how much these things were even sought out, though, during that term
Good points
As you guys have said, a lotta the issue boils down to how the religion is framed
What often gets called “the Gospel” in many religious environments is not good news for a developing human being. It is a psychologically invasive framework imposed at a stage when a child cannot meaningfully question or refuse it, and it does not simply shape belief. It actively distorts identity, undermines self-trust, and restructures how a child relates to reality.
When these ideas are introduced as unquestionable truth, they do not sit on the surface as theology. They work their way into the foundation of the self, where they can produce shame, fear, confusion, and internal division that a child has no capacity to process or resolve. This is harm, not formation. It is developmental damage dressed up as spiritual instruction.
Here is what that does in practice.
1. It tells a child they enter life already wrong. Not in process. Not forming. Defective at the level of being. Instead of developing a basic sense of worth, they learn that their starting point is defectiveness, that who they are is a problem to be solved.
2. It frames violence as moral necessity. A child is taught that their condition is so severe that it required divine brutality to resolve it. This does not produce gratitude. It teaches a child that violence is love, punishment is justice, and suffering is good.
3. It severs self-trust at the root. Thoughts, emotions, instincts, curiosity, all of it becomes suspect. The child learns that what arises naturally within them is unreliable or dangerous, and that authority must always come from outside.
4. It uses fear and shame as behavioral technology. Compliance is not built through understanding or growth, but through the constant threat of rejection, punishment, or exposure. Fear becomes the operating system.
5. It normalizes eternal harm as part of a moral universe. A child is asked to accept that most people, possibly people they know and love, are destined for endless torment. That idea does not stay abstract. It reshapes empathy, safety, and the meaning of existence itself.
6. It divides humanity into categories of worth. “Believer” and “non-believer” becomes more than a difference in perspective. It becomes a moral hierarchy. The child absorbs a framework where some people matter more than others.
7. It suppresses independent thought. Questions are reframed as rebellion. Critical thinking becomes a liability. The child learns that using their own mind can separate them from belonging, approval, or even God.
8. It equates goodness with self-erasure. Healthy development involves forming a self. This framework teaches that the self must be denied, minimized, or eliminated to be acceptable. That is not humility. That is internalized rejection.
9. It leaves sexuality underdeveloped and distorted. Instead of receiving grounded, responsible guidance, children are given silence, fear, or shame. A core part of being human becomes something to manage, hide, or fear, rather than understand.
This shapes a child in ways they do not choose and cannot undo. It determines how a person relates to themselves long after the beliefs are questioned or abandoned. You do not just “leave” these systems. You have to untangle what they trained you to believe about your own mind, your own body, and your own worth.
If something in this list feels familiar, the work is not to replace one system with another. It is to rebuild your capacity to see clearly, think independently, and relate to yourself without inherited distortion. That is where something healthier can actually begin.
Jim Palmer
"The Self Does Not Die" contains about 100 verified cases of perceptions that are impossible to explain in terms of coincidence, overhearing, or by any sensory means possible. (Do not pay attention to Geri Woerlee's review - it is full of the most basic logical errors and misrepresentations)."
Yeah it was chatgpt that wrote the last post but I thought it was well done and if there's any weight to skeptical argument I thought this essay was it. To me, the sheer weight such as this book reference indicates obe and thus nde are accurate real accounts. To me it's common sense. But if I had to admit that we haven't completely proven these things as true, this chatgpt essay does the best job that I know
Black swans versus reporting biases- why Believers Stay Believers and Skeptics Stay Skeptics: The Case of Out-of-Body Experiences
Question
## Why Believers Stay Believers and Skeptics Stay Skeptics: The Case of Out-of-Body Experiences
The debate over out-of-body experiences (OBEs) and near-death experiences (NDEs) endures not because one side has decisive evidence, but because the evidence itself is **structurally ambiguous**. It sits at the intersection of compelling human experience and methodological limitation. As a result, believers and skeptics are not simply disagreeing about facts—they are interpreting an **incomplete dataset through different epistemological lenses**.
At the center of the discussion is the “black swan” argument. The logic is straightforward: if even one case could be shown where a person accurately perceived information they could not have known through normal sensory means, then OBEs would be real in at least some form. The disagreement is not about this logic, but about whether such a case actually exists.
Believers tend to think we are close, if not already there. They point to a body of reports in which individuals, often appearing to occur at clinical death, later describe events, objects, or conversations with striking accuracy. Cases like Pam Reynolds—who reported details of her surgery under conditions of extreme physiological suppression—are seen as especially suggestive. Other anecdotal reports, such as the “Maria’s shoe” story, reinforce the impression that perception may sometimes occur independently of the body. Taken together, these accounts create a cumulative weight: even if each case has flaws, the pattern itself seems meaningful.
However, this is precisely where skeptics introduce a critical layer of analysis: **the evidence base is not neutral**. It is shaped by multiple forms of bias that systematically inflate the appearance of accuracy.
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.
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.
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.
These biases help explain a striking pattern in the research. Retrospective analyses of reported cases often find very high rates of “accuracy,” sometimes exceeding 90 percent. But when studies attempt to control for bias—by testing OBEs prospectively under controlled conditions—the results change dramatically.
The AWARE study is the clearest example. In this study, researchers placed hidden visual targets in hospital rooms, visible only from an elevated perspective. If OBEs involve genuine perception from outside the body, some patients should have been able to report these targets. Yet none did. While a few patients described aspects of their resuscitation with some accuracy, the critical test of perceiving hidden, verifiable information failed.
For skeptics, this contrast is decisive. When bias is minimized and conditions are controlled, the evidence for veridical perception, largely, disappears. This suggests that earlier “accurate” cases may be the product of memory reconstruction, inference, or chance, rather than genuine perception. From this perspective, the apparent black swans dissolve under scrutiny, revealing only gray swans shaped by human cognition.
Believers, however, interpret the same pattern differently. They argue that controlled experiments may not capture the phenomenon because OBEs are rare, unstable, or dependent on specific conditions not easily reproduced in clinical settings. The absence of evidence in these studies does not necessarily mean the phenomenon does not occur—it may simply reflect the limitations of current methods. Moreover, the sheer number of suggestive cases, even if individually imperfect, is seen as unlikely to arise purely from bias and error.
This brings us to the deeper reason the divide persists: **different thresholds for what counts as sufficient evidence**. Skeptics require tightly controlled, replicable demonstrations that eliminate alternative explanations. Without this, they see no reason to revise the prevailing view that consciousness depends on brain activity. Believers are more willing to consider converging lines of imperfect evidence, especially when those lines point in the same general direction and align with powerful subjective experiences.
In effect, both sides are responding rationally—but to different aspects of the same situation. Believers focus on the **pattern of suggestive anomalies** and see the possibility of a deeper reality not yet fully understood. Skeptics focus on the **mechanisms of bias and error** that can generate such patterns without invoking anything extraordinary.
Thus, the current state of the evidence does not resolve the question but stabilizes the disagreement. We do not have a universally accepted “black swan”—a case that is airtight, independently verified in real time, and resistant to all conventional explanations. But neither do we have a complete account that fully explains away the most compelling reports.
What we have instead is a landscape of **gray swans**: experiences that are vivid, sometimes strikingly accurate, but embedded in a system of reporting, memory, and interpretation that makes their true significance difficult to determine. Whether one sees in them the first glimpses of something profound or the artifacts of human cognition depends not only on the data itself, but on how one weighs bias, uncertainty, and the standards of proof required to believe
You miss the point. I agreed it's sometimes necessary to use force to stop a country even Iran from getting nukes. I already said that. What you failed to respond to, is that even if Trump gets what he wants by said force, then it's barely any different than Obama got without force. So what's the point? At this point, yes Iran might need force used against it due to current circumstances... But it's still nothing much different than Obama got
Obama had inspectors who'd be there for 15 years with low enrichment for nuclear power plants. Trump wants 20 years with no power plants and inspectors. Obama gave them less than 2 billion trump wants to give them 20 billion. So whats the key difference? They cant renege as easily without power plants but assuming they weren't going to Obama and trump have the same plan except trumps duration is slightly longer and hes giving them way more money. Which is worse. He fucked their shit up but that can all be rebuilt and dont change much.
I support in principle the use of force to stop nuclear weipons but thats assuming theres a point to it
I'm a practicing Catholic. And I need to say something that's going to make a lot of people uncomfortable.
Nigeria. The Sahel. India. Syria. Bangladesh. Pakistan. Hundreds of Christians have been murdered this year alone. Churches burned to the ground. Pastors kidnapped and killed. Communities that have practiced their faith for centuries are being wiped out.
Pope Leo XIV has said almost nothing.
No named condemnations. No emergency visits. No breaking of protocol. Just quiet platitudes about dialogue and peace — directed at nobody in particular.
But the week Trump escalated the Iran war? Leo flew across continents, gave media interviews, posted viral messages, and had three American Cardinals appear on 60 Minutes in what felt like a coordinated response. Bishop Strickland was removed for defending Church doctrine. Bishop Fernández in Puerto Rico was removed for defending religious exemptions that the Catechism itself supports. During COVID, governments padlocked churches across the world — the Vatican said nothing publicly. Joe Biden received communion for four years while publicly funding abortion policy — the Vatican said nothing.
But Trump calls Leo "weak" — and suddenly the institutional Church finds its voice.
I'm not defending Trump's tone. Trump talks like Trump. Water is wet.
I'm asking why my Church saves its loudest moments for American politics — and its quietest moments for the people actually dying for the faith.
That question deserves an honest answer.
Do you think the Pope should speak louder about Christian persecution worldwide? YES or NO? 👇
Do you think murderers should be allowed to have guns? If no why would you think iran should be allowed to have nukes?
Instead of “the Pope should tone it down,” a stronger version of my point might be:
The Pope should affirm Just War principles more explicitly when addressing real-world threats, so his moral guidance remains credible in situations where force might be necessary.
Trump made a good point about pope leo. Its one things for a figure head like the pope to in a general sense be against war. But theres a time for war and a time for passivity. As trump said, is it really fitting for the vicar of christ to be in support of allowing a country like iran to eventually have nukes? Theres something to be said about lofty pie in the sky rhetoric about how war is not ideal, but i think leo needs to know his role and tone down casting pearls at someone like trump who is simply trying to keep the world safe
It could just as easily be reversed
The whole premise of maga is to make America great again as if America aint already great. If maga dont like it, why dont they just leave?
i acknowledge your claim is possible. but my main point is to make skeptics step back and look at their world view in a general and critical sense. if there's no free will or spirit then we are merely robots, if NDEs aren't real then these elaborate flesh robots are hallucinating elaborate afterlife stories around death. it's self evidently absurd. if there wasn't science to support that philophical point it's one thing, but even the science discredits taking that ridiculous idea serious when it says we are merely flesh robots hallucinating afterlife stories.
science, like the book 'evidence of the afterlife' by dr long, where he talks about OBE being verified anecdotally over and over again under scientific conditions, or the blind seeing for the first time while dead, etc etc. and philosphy, that it's common for people to experince coherent and elaborate afterlife stories that are more real than their earthly life, where they no longer fear death, and they are sure about what they saw, where common themes are present, "being told it's not your time to die, or to go back", going through tunnels, meeting beings of light or jesus, seeing the afterlife, etc.
Plus me saying they experience 'when they die' is ambiguous enough to indicate either at or right atound death not necessarily during death
Humans are elaborate flesh robots that sometimes Hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories around the time of death?
Is that better? Its technically describing your beliefs right. Even if it sounds ridiculous when its said out loud
Why would care what the jews thought of the old testament when you have the earliest christians and apostles to compare to? The apostles used the orthodox Bible and even the new testament makes reference to citations in that collection. Plus the orthodox Bible includes Jewish history in the 500 years prior to jesus whereas your Bible omits that 500 years.
Im correct right that this is the usual atheist position?
If a person isnt like that, they are most likely brainwashed and or subject to group think
How am I wrong?
"Militarily, the war is going as well as could be envisioned, yet Democrats seek to turn it into another Vietnam or Afghanistan—hoping to win control of Congress at the expense of national security, Victor Davis Hanson writes."
Read the full story here: https://bit.ly/4e5tUzo
After the fall of nazism and Hitler, 25 percent of Germany went to their grave supporting Hitler. They didnt cease being part of the cult. History had to make them irrelevant
Ive been verbalizing more lately that a big reason we are on this earth is to figure out these relational virtues... love, forgiveness, generosity, and boundaries. Of course, these virtues are often tied to christianity but they do in fact have broader applicability to everyone, right? And another thing ive noticed on the purpose of life thing, is some some people focus on simply existing and partaking in life, and some are more focused on engagement... or as I call it 'being versus doing'. To me, 'doing' is more about virtues and loving and serving others, but I know thats often associated with Christianity but id think it has broader applicability to everyone? Others might focus on science or art or business or wide arraignment of missions and I can't say if you aint a saint you didnt achieve your mission. But I suspect these relational virtues and broader philosophies of life are at least partly applicable to everyone.
Remarkable NEW Verified NDE with OBE. Happened in 2026.
Friends,
The new year brings new veridical data.
A peer-reviewed case report published in 2026 in an Italian psychiatry journal documents a 25-year-old woman who was placed in a pharmacologically induced coma for 20 days following a severe traumatic brain injury from a car accident, with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 3: the lowest possible level of consciousness.
Upon recovering, she reported a out-of-body experience during which she claimed to have floated above her body and witnessed a heated argument between a doctor and a paramedic during her ambulance transport, an altercation that resulted in the paramedic sustaining a minor nasal injury: a specific, unexpected, and independently verifiable detail that was subsequently corroborated by both medical professionals involved.
She also accurately described the operating theater, surgical tools, the appearance of medical staff, and fragments of their conversations, all reported with what she described as greater sensory clarity than normal waking consciousness.
The authors conclude the case “offers compelling evidence that challenges conventional reductionist models of consciousness,” and note that her pre-accident suicidal ideation completely resolved following the experience.
The full paper is available at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41665893/
I think red states have higher disposable income, or at least red areas of blue states do. The logic is that it often costs less to live in less desirable remote areas than the desirable urban or suburban areas. I dont know exactly how all this pans out by the rabbit hole in amalyzing stuff in this thread is deep
Theres a term called 'blue maga' which means the dems who are unquestioning of the dems like trumpets are of trump
A lot of great points
Its funny to think about. No matter what trump does, his core base will say hes exactly right. He could have done the exact opposite thing to what they think hes exactly right about, and either way, they'll think he's exactly right. I dont think his core base has enough awareness to know they do that.
Ive never seen a report of something appearing to violate known physics being later shown as man made. These claims aren't just objects doing strange things but rather violating physics as we know it
.
Claims:
Why it’s considered “physics-defying”:
Some analyses (e.g., by the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies) estimated:
👉 That would exceed known aerospace engineering limits by orders of magnitude.
Observed characteristics often cited:
Some officials and analysts have said these “appear to defy known physics” based on observed motion patterns (Futurism)
Example:
Claim:
This suggests:
👉 That would contradict known fluid dynamics if taken at face value
Some of the most compelling cases involve:
Scientific groups (e.g., Galileo Project led by Avi Loeb) are interested precisely because:
A 2025 multi-author scientific review (including physicists and engineers) states: