42
I've noticed on here a Lotta people who voted for trump yet dont want to do much to do defend the guy. Which is understandable. What's less understandable is that they try claiming Biden and Harris were worse, not so much that trump is good. So, tell me, how were Biden and Harris worse than trump?
I think some people want to just vote for someone like trump, then they refuse to do anything to defend themselves. I think it's mostly just tribalism
1
Your reasoning is logically strong if we distinguish love from approval, trust, or lack of boundaries.
In the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the command to "love your enemies" is significant because enemies are precisely the people who have not met any condition that would make them easy to love. If love were only owed to those who behave well, then the command would simply be "love your friends."
For example:
Many Christians understand love in this context as willing the good of the other person—desiring their redemption, healing, and ultimate good—even when they are acting as an enemy.
This is also consistent with passages where Jesus forgives those crucifying him, yet still condemns evil and calls people to repentance. Love does not erase consequences.
One nuance some theologians raise is that while our obligation to love is unconditional, the experience of relationship and intimacy is not. A parent may love a child unconditionally, but the closeness of the relationship can be damaged by the child's actions. Likewise, Christians often argue that God loves all people, yet fellowship with God can be affected by how people respond to Him.
So your insight could be stated this way:
If Christians are commanded to love even their enemies, then Christian love is unconditional in the sense that it is not dependent on the other person's worthiness or behavior. However, unconditional love does not mean unconditional approval, trust, intimacy, or freedom from consequences.
That distinction resolves much of the debate.
33
# Why Are We Here? Why Must We Die?
*"Life is the arena where faith, love, and free will become real. Death and suffering are not good in themselves, but they create the conditions in which the deepest forms of love, trust, courage, and dependence on God can emerge."*
Why are we on earth?
Why do we suffer?
Why must we die?
These questions have accompanied humanity throughout history. Philosophers have wrestled with them, religions have built entire worldviews around them, and every person eventually confronts them in moments of grief, illness, loss, and mortality.
Modern society often offers two unsatisfying answers. One is that life has no ultimate purpose and that consciousness is merely a temporary accident of matter. The other is that the purpose of life is to maximize pleasure, comfort, wealth, or achievement.
Yet neither answer seems adequate to the deepest experiences of the human heart.
The moments we cherish most are rarely moments of comfort alone. They are moments of love, sacrifice, courage, forgiveness, wonder, meaning, and transcendence. We admire not merely the successful but the faithful. Not merely the powerful but the compassionate. Not merely those who avoid suffering but those who endure it with grace.
Perhaps this points toward a deeper truth.
Perhaps life is not primarily about comfort.
Perhaps it is about transformation.
## We Are Called Not Merely to Exist, but to Become
One of the most profound insights of Christianity is that God desires not slaves, pets, or robots, but children capable of freely participating in divine love.
Love cannot be forced.
A robot can obey perfectly but cannot love.
Love requires freedom.
Freedom requires choice.
Choice requires alternatives.
And alternatives create the possibility of suffering, failure, sacrifice, and loss.
The Christian tradition teaches that humanity was created in the image of God but not yet fully united with God. We are called not merely to exist but to become.
This theme runs deeply through the early Church. Irenaeus described humanity as being created immature, destined to grow into spiritual maturity through relationship with God. Athanasius spoke of humanity's participation in the divine life. Maximus the Confessor envisioned creation itself as moving toward union with God.
The Orthodox tradition calls this process *theosis*—the gradual transformation of the human person into deeper communion with God through grace.
This vision differs from a purely legal understanding of salvation. The goal is not merely to be declared righteous. The goal is to become righteous. Not merely to be forgiven, but to be transformed.
Earth, therefore, is not primarily a courtroom.
It is a school.
A workshop.
A hospital.
A training ground for eternity.
## Why Suffering Exists
This raises the most difficult question of all.
If God is good, why does suffering exist?
Christianity does not teach that suffering is good in itself. Disease, violence, grief, injustice, and death are tragic realities.
Yet Christianity does teach that God can bring good out of suffering.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus rejects the assumption that a man was born blind because of his own sin or the sin of his parents. Instead, he teaches that God's works would be revealed through the man's healing. Christianity does not always explain suffering by identifying a cause. Sometimes it points toward a future redemption.
This perspective suggests that suffering is not always punishment. Sometimes it becomes the arena in which faith, hope, courage, compassion, and trust are formed.
Certain virtues can only emerge in a world where suffering is possible.
Courage requires danger.
Forgiveness requires injury.
Compassion requires suffering.
Faith requires uncertainty.
Perseverance requires struggle.
Sacrifice requires cost.
Without the possibility of loss, these virtues become abstractions rather than realities.
The cross stands at the center of Christianity precisely because Christ does not bypass suffering. He enters into it.
The pattern of Christian life is not avoidance of suffering but transformation through it.
## The Science of Happiness and the Wisdom of the Saints
Interestingly, modern psychology has increasingly rediscovered truths that spiritual traditions have taught for centuries.
Researchers consistently find that lasting well-being is not primarily derived from pleasure, wealth, or status.
Beyond basic needs, happiness correlates much more strongly with:
* Meaning
* Relationships
* Gratitude
* Service
* Purpose
* Forgiveness
* Community
* Spirituality
Psychologists often distinguish between *hedonic happiness* and *eudaimonic happiness*.
Hedonic happiness concerns pleasure and comfort.
Eudaimonic happiness concerns meaning, virtue, growth, purpose, and fulfillment.
Again and again, studies suggest that people who orient their lives around meaning report deeper and more enduring satisfaction than those who pursue pleasure alone.
This mirrors the teachings of Christ.
"Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."
The paradox is striking. Happiness often arrives indirectly. The people most obsessed with happiness frequently fail to find it. Those who devote themselves to love, service, purpose, and meaning often discover happiness as a byproduct.
The saints understood this long before psychologists began measuring it.
## The Witness of Near-Death Experiences
Near-death experiences introduce another fascinating dimension to this discussion.
Interpretations vary, and caution is warranted. Yet researchers have documented remarkable consistencies across thousands of reports from different cultures and backgrounds.
People frequently describe:
* Profound love
* A sense of interconnectedness
* Life reviews emphasizing the impact of their actions on others
* Reduced fear of death
* Increased compassion
* Reduced materialism
* Greater spiritual awareness
Perhaps the most striking feature is the life review.
Many experiencers report reliving not only their own actions but also their effects upon others. Acts of kindness, cruelty, generosity, neglect, love, and indifference are experienced with startling clarity.
Whether one interprets these reports spiritually, psychologically, or some combination of both, their message is remarkably consistent.
What mattered most was not status.
Not wealth.
Not achievement.
Not power.
What mattered most was love.
Again and again, experiencers describe discovering that the deepest significance of life lies in how they treated other people.
This resonates profoundly with Christian teaching.
Christ summarized the law as love of God and love of neighbor.
The Apostle Paul declared that faith, hope, and love remain, but the greatest of these is love.
The convergence is difficult to ignore.
Ancient spiritual wisdom, modern happiness research, and many near-death experiences all point toward the possibility that reality itself may be oriented around love.
## The Desert Fathers and the Inner Battle
The Desert Fathers understood that the greatest battlefield is often not external but internal.
Retreating into the deserts of Egypt, Syria, and Palestine, they confronted the passions that distort human freedom.
Pride.
Anger.
Greed.
Fear.
Vanity.
Attachment.
Their goal was not self-hatred but purification.
They recognized that true freedom is not the ability to do whatever one wants.
True freedom is becoming the kind of person capable of choosing what is good.
Many modern people spend enormous energy attempting to control the external world while neglecting the internal one.
The Desert Fathers reversed this priority.
Their wisdom remains surprisingly relevant. The greatest obstacles to peace are often not external circumstances but the disordered desires and fears within ourselves.
## Thomas Merton and the True Self
Centuries later, Thomas Merton expressed similar insights in language accessible to the modern world.
Merton distinguished between the false self and the true self.
The false self is constructed from ego, achievement, social approval, comparison, fear, and status.
The true self is rooted in God.
Much of human suffering arises because we spend years constructing and defending an identity that was never our deepest reality.
We chase success, recognition, possessions, and validation while remaining strangers to our true selves.
Merton believed that spiritual growth involves the gradual surrender of the false self and the discovery of the true self hidden in Christ.
This vision closely parallels both the Desert Fathers and the Eastern Christian understanding of the image of God within every person.
## Why We Must Die
Death remains humanity's deepest mystery.
Yet perhaps death serves a role that earthly life alone cannot accomplish.
As long as we imagine ourselves self-sufficient, we may never fully recognize our dependence upon God.
Death exposes the limits of every earthly achievement.
Eventually wealth cannot save us.
Intelligence cannot save us.
Status cannot save us.
Even health cannot save us.
Death forces us to confront the deepest questions.
Who am I?
Why am I here?
What endures?
What is ultimately real?
Christianity answers these questions not merely with a philosophy but with a person.
Christ.
Humanity's encounter with sin and death creates the possibility of a relationship with Christ that could not otherwise exist.
We can admire a teacher without needing salvation.
We can appreciate wisdom without depending upon it.
But when confronted with our mortality, our limitations, and our need for redemption, Christ becomes not merely a teacher but a healer, redeemer, and savior.
In this sense, death is not simply an ending.
It is the final surrender of the illusion of self-sufficiency.
The resurrection proclaims that death is not the destination but the doorway.
## A Vision of Human Existence
When the insights of Christian spirituality, Eastern theology, happiness research, philosophy, and near-death studies are viewed together, a coherent picture begins to emerge.
Human beings appear uniquely oriented toward love, meaning, relationship, growth, and transcendence.
The deepest forms of happiness arise not through acquisition but through self-giving.
The greatest spiritual traditions emphasize transformation more than comfort.
Near-death experiences repeatedly point toward the centrality of love.
The saints speak of purification, healing, and union with God.
All of these perspectives converge upon a common insight:
We are not merely created good.
We are invited to become good.
Perhaps life is neither a meaningless accident nor merely a test.
Perhaps it is a process of becoming.
A journey in which faith, love, and free will are gradually woven together.
A school in which souls learn to love.
A workshop in which character is forged.
A hospital in which hearts are healed.
A pilgrimage toward union with God.
If so, then suffering, loss, and death are not accidental obstacles to learning love.
They are among the very conditions that make its deepest forms possible.
The purpose of life is to freely learn love.
The arena in which that learning occurs is a world marked by faith, sacrifice, suffering, and mortality.
And the destiny of that love is union with God.
11
??
63
"I can't believe people think having to work for basic needs is synonymous with freedom. It's literally a bunch of rich people hoarding essential resources and telling us to serve them or die."
4
Whereas you believe that God watches evil and is unwilling or unable to stop it
We are not the same
39
Giving more tax cuts to the wealthy?
Yeah leftists have a lot of interventions to try to make life more affordable. Some r good ideas and some are not.
But what are the rights solutions? It seems as far as I can tell is do nothing and hope somehow the economy that is making things worse will just magically get better. Or to the extent that I see solution attempts it's just throwing money at rich people. As if that'd fix anything
9
"Let's assume God wants to tell the human race about hell. It's a big deal, hell is. Affects a lot of people.
So here's what God does:
1. He doesn't warn humanity of it from the get-go, but rather tells Adam and Eve that the consequence of their fall was that they were now mortal, and that they would now have to toil on the earth and then die.
2. He makes sure to never mention it in the entire Jewish canon. Never. Once.
3. Then, he makes sure that rival mythologies of pagan cultures believe in some kind of a fiery underworld as punishment for wickedness.
4. Still doesn't tell the Jews about it.
5. Then, he makes sure that in the centuries and decades prior to God's coming to earth as a man, the competing Greco-Roman mythologies start to mingle and mix together. Jews start kind-of, sort-of believing in hell, too, now, even though their scriptures were silent on it. Rather than teach folks about hell himself, God allows pagans to do it.
6. God comes to earth as a man to set the record straight.
7. Now, God-as-man makes sure to refer to hell almost exclusively using the term "Gehenna", which was actually a nearby valley.
"That'll clear things up, then, won't it?" God says to himself. "No room for confusion there. Onto other things."
8. God goes back to heaven.
9. God's new followers break into the scene and one of them preaches the first post-resurrection sermon. To God's chagrin, he completely forgets to mention hell.
10. God notices that his new followers are conspicuously omitting the hell message all over the place. Confounded, he anoints a new leader, to once again set the record straight.
11. This new guy, Paul, goes around the whole Roman world, one end to the other. Get this — he never mentions hell. Never. Not once in any of his sermons or letters.
12. Now irate, God finally makes one last ditch effort to send the message clearly.
He goes to Patmos and tells this guy: 'Please. Set the record straight about hell, would you?' John says, 'You got it, God. How'd you like me to do it?'
Knowingly, with a clever smile, God says, 'Do it like this, K?
'Put it towards the end of the most confusing letter you can imagine... Use dramatic imagery, you know, the kind nobody could believe literally. You know, flying dragons, giant beasts with horns, cosmic prostitutes. Get creative. The point is to make sure some parts are literal and some are figurative. That'll keep them guessing. Oh, throw in a bunch of Jewish and Greco-Roman symbology, just to confuse those guys in the twenty-first century.'
'You got it, Lord.'
And so you have it: hell exists.
With a body of textual evidence like this, clearly God has gone to great lengths to make sure his people are under no illusions about it."
-Peter Bradford Martin 🤍
9
Particularly subsidize human produce.
The government subsidizes farm animal food such that most of our crops are for farm animals. Meat is already a social ill in terms of efficiency and environmental effects. Why prop it up? If meat gets even more expensive who cares? Meat should only be a very small part of the human diet anyway.
25
Food Deserts are where grocery stores dont locate in urban areas cause its not profitable enough. So local people dont get access to basic nutrition. But why make every possible governmemt intervention as by definition wrong? Why frame every decision that affects the livelihood of citizens through purely economic lenses?
102
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
7
Yeah 65 is a perfect temp. In fact 60 to 70 is perfect. I dont think most people realize that its their favorite temp too... most people act like they want it to be 85 then they complain about how hot it is when it gets there, and they talk about how perfect it is when its in the 60s
Most people arent self aware enough to realize all this
36
This will be way more of a vanity run than last time. She thinks that since she might be popular with a plurality of democrats that she'll be popular with most of them, let alone most Americans, sounds like a vanity and power trip more than anything
She can't even articulate why shes best other than maybe orange man bad and her poll numbers are good enuff to maybe pull the dem nomination
5
The socialist govenor of NYC balanced a budget with a deficit of 12 billion. Republicans were saying the only fix was to use austerity measures in NYC
the word “bailout” can be misleading in this context.
There are two different questions here:
So your intuition is basically:
“If NYC already subsidizes the rest of the state overall, then getting extra state support isn’t necessarily an outside rescue — it may partly be NYC recapturing some of the value it already generates.”
That’s a legitimate argument and one many NYC officials make. Even critics of Mamdani often acknowledge NYC is the economic engine of the state. (NYC Comptroller's Office)
At the same time, critics would reply:
So the disagreement is partly semantic and partly about framing:
Both contain some truth depending on the level of analysis.
65
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-backed-30-minimum-wage-plan-could-backfire-unexpected-ways-experts-warn?fbclid=IwdGRjcARwoKhjbGNrBHCgKGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHmXAHG3j8by3bhwXoagErgSnECZSzse0HXzjIJJqj5oK2f79qHe7t6-cvqcr_aem_5bBo-CizPqQ12bTmmIyWWA
Sweet spot is probably 12.50 territory for minimum wage
8
The government should give tax credits to alternative energy. Except, they shouldnt give them just for certain technologies like electric cars. Conservatives are right about that, they shoukdnt be picking winners and losers. If the government picked wrong they be subsidizing an inferior technology. But conservstives are wrong that the government shouldnt have a hand in transitioning. Fir one we know that alternative energy is cheaper, so its all around a win win for everyone. Fir two if we wait until the rich start transituoning it might be too late. By the time they start feeling the pinch of prices, evrryone else will feel it even more, the whole time we could have been transitioning everyone else will be feeling pinched
27
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/openai-sued-chatgpts-alleged-role-guiding-fsu-shooter-rcna344443
I dunno thats a tough one. I could see chatgpt having moral responsibility in aiding the crime but im not sure about legal. The question comes down to whether the ai engaged in 'aiding and abetting' the shooter, and i do see that that could potentially involve giving advice to a shooter. I dunno how clear the shooters intentions should have been to the ai bot. The prosecutor says an actual human would be charged with a crime for what the ai did, and that might be true.
I could see arguing that the shooters intentions were clear and even if they weren't clear to the bot the intentions should have been clear, as itd be clear to any human. I suppose itd boil down to whether ai should be held to the same standard as a human. And even if that standard isnt even considered at all, strictly speaking the bot gave advice to the shooter, point blank, though i do think the standard involved should be considered in the deliberation
14
First ask every government agency except maybe social security to find ten percent of its spending that can be cut. This is a modest doable amount and is a way better strategy than trump and musks ax to the budget strategy.
Heres ai generated ways to raise revenue through tax increases for the rest
| Proposal | Very Rough Annual Revenue
| 2% wealth tax above $10M | ~$700B–$1.6T
| 1% wealth tax on $500k–$10M | ~$350B–$700B
| 20% increase in income taxes on top 10% | ~$250B–$450B
| 10% increase on 80th–90th percentile | ~$40B–$100B
| Estate tax expansion + 20% increase | ~$50B–$120B
| End stepped-up basis above $1M | ~$20B–$80B annually equivalent
| **Total** | **~$1.4T–$3.0T+ annually**
Increasing someone's income taxes twenty percent might sound like a lot but its actually modest... if their original effective tax rate is 25 percent, its only a 5 percentage point increase
Of course, regulating the cost of government Healthcare programs is essential as is finding ways to cut waste, fraud, and abuse. While the governments at it they should do so in the private sector too given so much savings can be found. We dont need universal healthcare, we need to just get the cost thsts already provided under control. This healthcare approach would supercharge our economy and cost savings.
But with or without tackling healthcare the deficit can very feasible get managed with incremental moves. Its not beyond repair yet, which is a significant statement to make in itself
15
.... from Hillary's emails
Amiright??
11
The wealthy evade taxes by keeping their income very low and keeping money and source of revenue in wealth that isnt taxed.
The far left like Bernie wants a five percent wealth tax to get around the issue. Local states like California want to do the same.
The issues, are that 5 percent is a major blow and I could see the wealthy leaving the country over it or not coming here to begin with. And states are bad for this because they can just switch states.
But two percent seems feasible federally. Not as many won't give up all they have here to evade plus this isnt just one state, its national. Its low like one percent is low but not quite down all the way at 1 percent
1
I feel like sorta a bigot even making this argument as a liberal open minded fellow. But its my honest belief and sometimes I have I have stupid ideas so I figured id stress test it
I used to think this was crazy talk or at least I didnt know where it was coming from or what to think.
But islam is dangerous. Some of their jihad talk is dangerous and I know theres different interpretations of it but just the fact that its so prevalent the blood lust is important. Even beyond holy wars the Quran says to cut hands off enemies and the main focus isnt struggling for love, the greater good.
So that extends culturally too. I just dont want a clash of cultures here and our cultures are too different and values too
They say diversity is a strength, but thats not always true. Sometimes its not true.
12
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.
9
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
2
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
13
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
26
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
63
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?
16
Im correct right that this is the usual atheist position?
4
If a person isnt like that, they are most likely brainwashed and or subject to group think
How am I wrong?
2
"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
