Posts by Roger Fox56

Roger Fox56 said:Why on earth would angels be just "fantasy"?

It’s actually a perfectly logical assumption—honestly, it’s a legitimate scientific hypothesis to suggest that angels really exist.

1) Every major religion on the planet bears witness to them. We have accounts that align almost perfectly, even though they were recorded independently and "spontaneously" across different cultures.

2) It is highly probable that intelligent beings exist whose consciousness isn't tied to a material, neurological carrier.

I don't see any valid reason to deny the existence of conscious intelligences that lack a physical body.
For instance, we recognize different types of minds—like flies or even plants—that process information using non-human brain structures.

Humans are just one specific case where consciousness has taken on a sensory, biological form.
Most of us look at a dog and think it's somehow "lesser" than us, probably because it doesn't know anything about quantum physics.😁

But maybe a creature like a dog possesses a cosmic perspective where it is whole, and we are the ones who are incomplete.
After all, our concept of a "bone" is completely different from how a dog experiences it.🙂
Likewise, our coarse, everyday matter might seem totally unreal to beings made of finer substance.
There is no way for us to prove this, just like there is no way to definitively prove whether four dimensions truly exist.

Space and time are just phenomena through which we perceive distorted images of ideas. Our measurements of space and time are basically just social constructs, and they likely vary wildly between different types of beings.

There is clearly a gap between our senses and how they correspond to consciousness. Any theory needs a medium to bridge matter and spirit, much like how physicists once needed the "ether" to explain how vibrations travel.

3) Countless people have reported encounters with angels well into the 20th century.😲

4) Take Paulo Coelho, for example, in his book Valkyrie 5.

5) Or the famous Rupert Sheldrake and Matthew Fox in their book Angel Physics.

My takeaway:

The person claiming angels are just a fantasy is probably the one doing the fantasizing.😉
And one thing is certain: they've definitely never met one themselves.🙂

Besides, everyone remembers that famous octopus, Paul, who was basically the greatest soccer expert on the planet because he PREDICTED every single match result during the World Cup whenever he was asked.🙂

All those endless, annoying "expert" analyses on ESPN pale in comparison to the absolute, unstoppable predictive accuracy of Paul the octopus.🙂

If a perfectly ordinary little octopus can predict the future of sports with 100% accuracy, then it’s honestly pathetic for some people to claim that the existence of angels is just some fantasy.🙄

because

anything is possible 🙂

and

nothing happens by accident.🙂

jademarlin26 said:Is that so? Perhaps you can attempt to shoehorn that fantasy into the period when a child is too young to articulate anything, leaving you free to believe whatever conveniently fits your personal "philosophy."

Once you impose an identity and language upon them—essentially conditioning them for life—they lose touch with objective reality. I am not suggesting this conditioning isn't necessary. It is simply a fact that children, much like adults, invent stories.

Why on earth would angels be just "fantasy"?

It’s actually a perfectly logical assumption—honestly, it’s a legitimate scientific hypothesis to suggest that angels really exist.

1) Every major religion on the planet bears witness to them. We have accounts that align almost perfectly, even though they were recorded independently and "spontaneously" across different cultures.

2) It is highly probable that intelligent beings exist whose consciousness isn't tied to a material, neurological carrier.

I don't see any valid reason to deny the existence of conscious intelligences that lack a physical body.
For instance, we recognize different types of minds—like flies or even plants—that process information using non-human brain structures.

Humans are just one specific case where consciousness has taken on a sensory, biological form.
Most of us look at a dog and think it's somehow "lesser" than us, probably because it doesn't know anything about quantum physics.😁

But maybe a creature like a dog possesses a cosmic perspective where it is whole, and we are the ones who are incomplete.
After all, our concept of a "bone" is completely different from how a dog experiences it.🙂
Likewise, our coarse, everyday matter might seem totally unreal to beings made of finer substance.
There is no way for us to prove this, just like there is no way to definitively prove whether four dimensions truly exist.

Space and time are just phenomena through which we perceive distorted images of ideas. Our measurements of space and time are basically just social constructs, and they likely vary wildly between different types of beings.

There is clearly a gap between our senses and how they correspond to consciousness. Any theory needs a medium to bridge matter and spirit, much like how physicists once needed the "ether" to explain how vibrations travel.

3) Countless people have reported encounters with angels well into the 20th century.😲

4) Take Paulo Coelho, for example, in his book Valkyrie 5.

5) Or the famous Rupert Sheldrake and Matthew Fox in their book Angel Physics.

My takeaway:

The person claiming angels are just a fantasy is probably the one doing the fantasizing.😉
And one thing is certain: they've definitely never met one themselves.🙂

Patrick Wright2 said:I’ve been noticing lately on this forum that some folks—and I’m talking about the ones who actually show a spark of intelligence and common sense, not the clowns who basically trip over their own feet in a single sentence 🤦—who tend to lean into logical, coherent reasoning and follow a thought process pretty selectively when they're using their brains.

For example, someone will grab a logical argument just to tear down someone else's point, completely failing to see that the exact same logic totally nukes their own argument too. So, they just pick and choose where to apply logic, staying totally blind to it whenever it hits their own side of the fence.

That kind of intellectual hypocrisy and inconsistency really gets under my skin. Personally, if I ever debunk a claim and realize it might actually mess with my own stance, I’m more than willing to pivot and revise my view if it turns out I was being illogical.

Have you guys run into this kind of mindset before, and honestly, how do you even get people to start applying the same logical standards to themselves as they do to everyone else?

-Can you give us one or more actual EXAMPLES so we aren't just talking in circles?

-And can everyone else chime in with some examples too? 🙂

Gregory Williams7 said:Only about 3% of the world's money exists as physical paper currency. Everything else is purely digital. This wealth doesn't travel in paper form; it moves through electronic transfers.

So what you're saying is a random bank in Chile could have an digital deficit of 20,000 US Dollars

while I’ve got those same 20,000 US Dollars sitting in my sock as physical, colorful bills?🙂

It makes you wonder who's actually stopping some bank director or even a low-level clerk
from just transferring 10,000 electronic US Dollars into their own "private" account.

There's gotta be massive holes in the system where money leaks out to the people
who actually know how to hold the digital sieve together.😲

Can someone please explain this to me in plain English? I need a step-by-step, visual breakdown of how "PAPER" money—not just digital numbers on a screen—actually moves from one bank to another.

For example,

Let’s say I receive $20,000 in my US bank account from a Bank of England branch.
The amount doesn't matter, and the origin doesn't matter either; it could be $100,000 coming all the way from Chile.

I just don't get it. I need someone to draw me a map or tell me a story about the actual journey this money takes.

How does that $20,000 PHYSICALLY arrive here in the States from England or Chile?
(Are we talking carrier pigeons, airplanes, the postal service, or armored trucks?)🤷>
In other words,

Does a bank account in Chile suddenly have $20,000 less because that Cash is now sitting under my mattress?
What I want to know is: how does that bank in Chile actually collect that $20,000 from my bank?
Look, I'm not an idiot. I know about letters, faxes, money orders, SWIFT, checks,
and encrypted emails.
But I'm asking about the movement of physical CASH through the world.

And what happens when we're talking about $1 million in cash?🤷

Edward Flores4 said:Basically, even if your core premise was something you cooked up back when you were just a kid, you'll always find some way to repackage it in a new light to fit your original agenda... right? 😁

Quinn:

It’s true that the quality of a forum depends on the quality of its users, but which users actually survive on the platform ends up being determined by which group the moderator belongs to.

Exactly.

Quinn:

Would you agree that every fool thinks they're brilliant while viewing everyone else as an idiot?

Maybe on the surface, sure, but deep down, even the biggest idiots know they aren't all that bright.
Quinn:

So, the moderator will perceive their own group as the "smart" one, regardless of whether they actually are.

Theoretically, yes—but we aren't talking about an idiot here, so there’s really no reason to panic. Just relax.

Quinn:

And they will moderate based on that perception.

Of course. That’s exactly why we have them!

Quinn:

So, essentially, what you’ve identified as the fundamental requirement for a high-quality discussion is actually entirely dependent on the style of moderation used.

Spot on. In the short time since Drake has stepped in as moderator... discussions have become noticeably more productive—aside from these little "attacks" on him, which I attribute to a certain crowd that’s rightfully worried about their survival now that they realize they belong to the non-constructive side of things.

Quinn:

True, but what if the moderator misjudges who the idiots are?

Shit happens.🙂

Quinn:

Hmm, yeah, but how exactly would you define "quality"?

Here’s a little visual for you 😁

Quinn:

Don't you think it's necessary for a moderator to actually understand the core subject matter if they want to weed out members who aren't contributing anything meaningful to the discussion?

By default, I don't hold convictions about situations that haven't even happened yet. Every single thread and every single conflict is its own unique beast. If we could just pre-define everything in advance, we wouldn't need people at all—we'd just hand the whole moderation job over to some basic computer script. But since that’s impossible, we rely on humans to step in and deal with things as they arise, rather than creating a massive headache by trying to solve problems that don't even exist yet.

Quinn:

I’d suggest you maybe refrain from commenting on a text when you clearly haven't grasped the point. Maybe try reading the controversial passage a few more times:

If I were you, I wouldn't bet on assumptions about what I failed to understand—you’re going to end up losing those bets quite frequently.

Quinn:

Well, since it seems you're struggling a bit, let me give you a clear example: Peter (Department Manager): The best soccer player in the world is Rolando! Ivan: Yeah, totally! Rolando rules! Steve: No way, Beckham is a hundred times better. Ivan: Beckham? You're an idiot! Steve: And you have no clue what you're talking about! Peter: (slaps Steve with a clipboard) You told Isaac he had no clue, which means you insulted him. Steve: But he called me an idiot first! Peter: True, but Ivan says Rolando is the best, and since I also believe Rolando is the best, that means Ivan is right.

In this little scenario, everyone involved is an idiot. Using a term like "the best" is obviously arbitrary, purely subjective, and impossible to prove. A moderator in this situation could easily just ban Peter, Ivan, and Steve... because honestly, it's pretty clear none of them are using their brains.

If you actually realize you're an idiot, then you aren't really an idiot!

Angela Morris said:This is not an isolated occurrence. Ever since I began studying psychology as a young girl around age twelve or thirteen, consuming books in an attempt to improve myself... I find myself once again losing the will to live. Besides, life lacks inherent meaning...

Notice how people in love never stop to ask about the meaning of life.😉

Anonymous said:I’m not entirely sure what you’re looking for, but if you head up to where the thread title is in bold, just right-click that little folder icon next to it and select "Bookmark this link." 🤷

I would give anything for my question to be clear, and honestly, I'm baffled
how anyone could possibly misinterpret what I'm asking. 😕
Look, I'm not asking how to save a URL to my browser favorites. I want to know if there's
a way to bulk-save all 19 pages of a massive thread at once, instead of me having to manually save every single page one by one—which would be 19 separate clicks.

Basically, when I find a thread I actually like, I want to dump the whole thing into a specific folder—preferably
using some built-in feature on this site.

Is there any way to save every single page in a thread all at once, or am I stuck clicking through them one by one like a damn idiot? 🤷