Posts by darkraven

Nicole James said:If we assume that a temporary suspension of certain brain functions leads to total erasure—essentially wiping the slate clean—then logically, wouldn't a permanent loss of all brain function result in something entirely different? It’s a question of causality and consequence—if the "glitch" causes nothingness, why would the "shutdown" lead to anything else?

So, when you jump to the conclusion that a permanent shutdown also means losing consciousness, you're leaning hard on inductive reasoning. But here’s the catch with induction: the whole logic rests on the assumption that the future is going to mirror the past just because it always has. That isn't some absolute certainty; it's really just a "more or less likely" scenario.

Take this, for example: imagine you've been feeding a single chicken for weeks. Every single morning, without fail, that chicken gets fed. If that chicken actually had the capacity for logic, she might look at her track record and conclude that tomorrow morning, food will definitely show up again. But life isn't always that predictable. It could easily turn out that tomorrow morning, instead of breakfast, she ends up being sent straight to the butcher for meat production. It's a classic case of how inductive logic can lead you straight into a dead end.

Because of that flaw, the standard counter-argument to your point is usually that the mind might only be tied to the brain while we're physically alive, and once death hits, the two become independent. Personally, I don't find that particularly convincing, but hey, it's a valid point to raise. Induction is inherently messy, so we can't be 100% certain about anything. That doesn't mean the argument you're bringing up isn't persuasive—it totally is.

casualwalker18 said:

Saying "I went out and came back" is just scientific shorthand for losing and regaining consciousness. It isn’t a description of clinical death. Clinical death is when you actually stop breathing and your blood stops circulating because your heart either fails or just quits on you entirely...

darkraven, what are you, some doctor or a preacher? You're talking nonsense—I had two strokes and my heart stopped. And you call that just passing out? Besides, I didn't see God or Jesus or anything. When I finally came to, there was a priest standing over me, and I pretty much kicked him out of the room. It sounds crude, but I don't regret it. Just Google pneumothorax and extra-corporeal circulation if you want the real story...
I was baptized, but honestly, that whole sect is so disconnected from the people and the Bible...

Look, losing consciousness can definitely be a byproduct of a stroke or cardiac arrest. There are a million ways that brain activity—which is obviously required for you to be "aware"—can get shut down or messed up. So yeah, an unconscious state is a totally normal consequence of those events.

But none of that counts as death... not by any actual definition of the word. In medicine, they don't even consider someone dead until brain death occurs; before that, it's just "clinical death." Clinical death used to be the end of the line back when things were irreversible and we didn't have the tech to bring someone back once their heart stopped. But nowadays, thanks to things like defibrillators, cardiac arrest isn't necessarily a permanent fatality. Or at least, it isn't immediately. If it goes on too long, then sure, you hit brain death because the brain can't survive without oxygen for long.

Check this out:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/d...roAltHigBraApp

If we're discussing an unconscious state as being synonymous with death, these philosophical approaches regarding the death of the "higher brain" are probably the closest thing to what you're getting at. They argue that a person dies when there is an irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness, or when the very essence of being human is lost because that capacity is gone.

Based on that, your temporary blackout clearly doesn't meet the criteria of permanence, irreversibility, or the total loss of capacity.

So, bottom line: you didn't die.

The rest of the stuff you rambled about doesn't really matter for this debate.

casualwalker18 said:

So, it just doesn't add up... If I were in your shoes, having had an NDE—seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and all that—and if I was gullible enough to take it as proof of alien life or consciousness existing outside the body, I’d probably see it as one more reason to walk away from Christianity, not embrace it like you’re suggesting...

If I’d actually seen a tunnel, I’d know there was something there, but for me, clinical death was more like just flicking a light switch on and off... Christianity itself is fine, I guess, but the way the church handles things is just off. There's way too much politics mixed into faith these days; it feels like religion has turned into a political movement rather than something deeply personal... I don't know enough about theology to be an expert, but the whole forced-belief thing is just pretty lame...

The whole concept of an afterlife isn't automatically synonymous with immortality, nor does it mean you immediately continue having subjective experiences in some out-of-body state right after you pass.

You’re probably using "afterlife" to mean one of those two things—this idea of personal survival that lasts forever—but that’s definitely not the only way to look at it.

On the flip side, you’ve got the idea of impersonal survival. It’s like those Eastern philosophies where you merge with a "higher self" or some kind of universal consciousness, basically losing your personality and individuality in the process. Then you have different ways of surviving within a physical framework, like the resurrection of the body along with the mind/ego (which works with the idea that there’s zero consciousness between death and resurrection—kind of like Christian mortalism), or even something like mind uploading, which would let an ego persist but in a totally different material medium.

And for the record, there’s absolutely no guarantee that even if you do survive death in an out-of-body state, that existence is eternal. Some people believe it’s just a temporary phase that eventually ends in total annihilation or that same impersonal merging where the ego gets wiped out anyway.

Basically, the idea of life after death is way more complicated than people give it credit for.

Also, when you say "I was switched off and back on," in scientific terms, that’s just losing and recovering consciousness. That isn't a description of clinical death. Clinical death is when you stop breathing and your blood stops circulating because your heart either fails or just quits entirely.

And you can lose and regain consciousness for a million different reasons. Like, general anesthesia, an epileptic seizure, a concussion, whatever. None of that is clinical death.

casualwalker18 said:Science has basically proven that the Bible is just a collection of old stories. You've got Adam and Eve, then Noah's Ark... where's the actual empirical evidence? It's non-existent.
The Church just bleeds us dry while they couldn't care less about the poor. I was a believer myself until the day I died, but back then, all I saw was total darkness, not some light at the end of a tunnel... nothing at all.
To the Church, the Earth is still flat and being different is treated like a disease.

Look, NDEs aren't the afterlife described in the Bible. Those two concepts are completely incompatible unless you start getting really aggressive with the cherry-picking. I’ve read countless accounts of these experiences that basically tear Christianity apart, often coming from the mouths of the people claiming to have met "Jesus" themselves during the experience. Some even claim "Jesus" introduces doctrines that fly in the face of Christian teaching, like reincarnation and stuff like that. Even the "God" some people encounter in these visions isn't the God of Abrahamic religions; it's more like some panentheistic concept—this omnipresent consciousness or whatever.

So, yeah, they don't line up at all. Honestly, if I were in your shoes and had an NDE—if I saw the tunnel and everything—and if I were gullible enough to take that as definitive proof of an afterlife where the consciousness exists independently of the body, I’d actually see it as yet another reason to toss the Bible aside, not the other way around like you're thinking.

The core message of the Bible is about the resurrection of the body, not some disembodied existence in the afterlife. Most biblical scholars would tell you that the philosophical dualism required to make your point is a Greek Trojan horse, not something purely biblical. There are plenty of Christians who reject dualism and any idea of a soul existing outside the body. From their perspective, the fact that you weren't conscious makes perfect sense.

P.S.
You didn't die. Death is final. You're still here. You can't have it both ways.

Gregory Carter67 said:Fair point. That's usually what people have in mind anyway.

The real question is: what counts as evil? Death, pain, decay? If we follow that logic, every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a cosmic intervention to prevent its tragedy. On what basis would a human be considered a more valuable being (assuming there's no God for the atheist)? In a way, it leads to the idea that life—as free as it is, complete with mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, and death—can only exist in a system where errors are permitted. And maybe those errors are exactly what the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from.

We can't ever truly know what anyone else wants or doesn't want. Maybe there's a different goal entirely. People can speculate all they want, but they'll never have proof.

Here’s where we diverge: why does the existence of evil necessarily imply God isn't there? This is the exact point I always hammer home with my atheist buddies—nobody ever promised us a life of milk and honey in the revealed religions. No one said everything would be perfect or run smoothly. My counter-question is this: why shouldn't evil exist, and how do you even envision a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans couldn't mess up, the whole process of decay would have to vanish; basically, such a world couldn't exist in a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys imagine freedom without the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life—it's not actually livingly free.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong target here. You don't need to justify a higher power to a lower one; you should probably flip the script. Look at how many people do absolutely nothing. They claim God allows evil—famine, death, disease—and then those same people sit idly by while others starve or suffer. They totally have the ability to help. It's an interesting irony. So yeah—God allowed evil. He also allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in the greatest righteous man ever, His own Son, dying on a cross for our sins. That's exactly what shows God is sending a message to us. Whether people actually listen and make sense of what He's trying to say is up to them. But people tend to assume they hold all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The issue is simply how you define "all-good" or "evil" in a precise, detailed way. If you don't factor in morality, decay, and the entire natural world—not just human suffering—then it looks like humans are just being incredibly self-centered. God permits both life and death, wealth and poverty. As for God leading people into wars, there are several ways to look at that. To God, giving or taking life isn't a big deal. At the end of the day, He can create or wipe out thousands of lives in a single breath. Sometimes victims serve as a warning to others. Sometimes it's for something else entirely. But God allows both good and evil for reasons known only to Him. At least, that's what the Bible says. Anyone claiming otherwise clearly hasn't read it.

Honestly, I think this is a weak angle for an atheist to take because it treats God like some guy walking around on Earth. If you add the layer that someone is intentionally twisting a Bible verse or misrepresenting a scene just to score points, then you’ve just got two sides shouting nonsense at each other. It reminds me of those old sayings about how silence can be louder than words when things get heated. There are endless examples of that. To me, using the Bible as a primary weapon is kind of a losing game for an atheist—the text itself usually works against their own point. These debates feel pretty pointless and, frankly, a bit childish.

Those free will arguments have been around forever—classic debates between Catholics and Protestants—and they’re much more mature since they actually deal with philosophy.

Cheers!

I honestly have no idea why you're even bringing up mistakes, but here’s a related thought. What’s your take on some distant future utopia—maybe right here on Earth, or maybe somewhere else entirely? Picture this: in a few thousand years, humanity becomes this hyper-advanced, space-faring civilization. We’re talking about colonizing and terraforming multiple planets across interconnected solar systems. All those worlds together would be our "utopia." Or maybe instead of planets, we build massive megastructures, stuff the size of entire worlds, all linked together. Medicine gets so advanced that diseases just cease to exist. Humanity hits this peak of consciousness and moral evolution where actual moral evil is a thing of the past. As a high-tech scientific powerhouse, we could probably manipulate natural forces too, minimizing or totally wiping out "natural" evils. We’d control the atmosphere and the weather perfectly... no more hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, none of that crap. Even death might not be an issue; we could just upload our consciousness into digital substrates and essentially achieve The World to Come.

So, are you in or out? What would you actually do—you, who are so dead-set against removing evil because it supposedly kills freedom and all that—if you woke up in that era tomorrow? Would you go out and start some terrorist cell just to tear it all down because it's "evil" by your definition? Would you end it all? Or what?

copperhound12 said:A brilliant (and quite eye-opening) book: "What We Believe, We Who Don't Believe in God"

I don't feel any kind of hostility toward God. I'm a pantheist. ☕

Hey, just a heads up, that link you posted is broken—you messed up the URL. You typed http://https://www.foxnews.com/ when it should have been https://www.foxnews.com/. Every time I click your version, I just get a 404 Not Found error.

https://www.foxnews.com/culture/article...-photo-20180124

So, I was scrolling through some of the comments on other news sites regarding this article and... man, it honestly makes me lose all faith in humanity. It's just endless idiots everywhere. I’m done reading those comment sections; I don't want to end up with a brain tumor from all that stupidity.

Gregory Carter67 said:Fair point. That's usually what people have in mind anyway.

The real question is: what counts as evil? Death, pain, decay? If we follow that logic, every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a cosmic intervention to prevent its tragedy. On what basis would a human be considered a more valuable being (assuming there's no God for the atheist)? In a way, it leads to the idea that life—as free as it is, complete with mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, and death—can only exist in a system where errors are permitted. And maybe those errors are exactly what the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from.

We can't ever truly know what anyone else wants or doesn't want. Maybe there's a different goal entirely. People can speculate all they want, but they'll never have proof.

Here’s where we diverge: why does the existence of evil necessarily imply God isn't there? This is the exact point I always hammer home with my atheist buddies—nobody ever promised us a life of milk and honey in the revealed religions. No one said everything would be perfect or run smoothly. My counter-question is this: why shouldn't evil exist, and how do you even envision a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans couldn't mess up, the whole process of decay would have to vanish; basically, such a world couldn't exist in a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys imagine freedom without the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life—it's not actually livingly free.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong target here. You don't need to justify a higher power to a lower one; you should probably flip the script. Look at how many people do absolutely nothing. They claim God allows evil—famine, death, disease—and then those same people sit idly by while others starve or suffer. They totally have the ability to help. It's an interesting irony. So yeah—God allowed evil. He also allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in the greatest righteous man ever, His own Son, dying on a cross for our sins. That's exactly what shows God is sending a message to us. Whether people actually listen and make sense of what He's trying to say is up to them. But people tend to assume they hold all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The issue is simply how you define "all-good" or "evil" in a precise, detailed way. If you don't factor in morality, decay, and the entire natural world—not just human suffering—then it looks like humans are just being incredibly self-centered. God permits both life and death, wealth and poverty. As for God leading people into wars, there are several ways to look at that. To God, giving or taking life isn't a big deal. At the end of the day, He can create or wipe out thousands of lives in a single breath. Sometimes victims serve as a warning to others. Sometimes it's for something else entirely. But God allows both good and evil for reasons known only to Him. At least, that's what the Bible says. Anyone claiming otherwise clearly hasn't read it.

Honestly, I think this is a weak angle for an atheist to take because it treats God like some guy walking around on Earth. If you add the layer that someone is intentionally twisting a Bible verse or misrepresenting a scene just to score points, then you’ve just got two sides shouting nonsense at each other. It reminds me of those old sayings about how silence can be louder than words when things get heated. There are endless examples of that. To me, using the Bible as a primary weapon is kind of a losing game for an atheist—the text itself usually works against their own point. These debates feel pretty pointless and, frankly, a bit childish.

Those free will arguments have been around forever—classic debates between Catholics and Protestants—and they’re much more mature since they actually deal with philosophy.

Cheers!

You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

Paul Anderson15 said:Not true. 😁

If someone checks the "Catholic" box on a census, then they are Catholic. It doesn't matter if they show up to Mass every Sunday, on Christmas and Easter, or just when they're getting married. It’s the same thing if they actually believe that Jesus is God, conceived by the Blessed Virgin, or if they view those stories as fairy tales. If they've taken the sacraments, even the priests would agree they're Catholic, whether they're a saint or a sinner.

The moment someone publicly identifies as an atheist, they are an atheist—regardless of whether they occasionally let out a "thank God" or a "damn it, Jesus." Essentially, an atheist is an atheist as long as they consider themselves one. The same logic applies to agnostics, pantheists, and all those other modern spiritual labels. You are what you say you are, and everyone else needs to respect that.

If we go by that logic, we might as well throw every definition in the trash because apparently nothing means anything to you. Anyone can just claim to be whatever they want, regardless of whether they actually fit the description or not.

So, according to you, someone could call themselves an atheist even if they believe in God, effectively disqualifying themselves from being an atheist by every logical standard, but hey, if they say so, so be it.

And some person could claim to be Catholic even if their entire worldview has absolutely zero connection to Christianity, simply because they insist they're Catholic.

For instance, I've had all my sacraments. By your logic, I'm a Catholic too, even though I'm probably further away from the faith than anyone could possibly be.

And you honestly think that's fine? You don't see anything absurd about that at all?

😵

David Vaughn75 said:Look, if you say the Wicked Witch in Snow White is bad, it doesn't mean you actually believe she's out there somewhere breathing air.
Just because someone is debating a fictional concept doesn't suddenly make that thing real life.

Even though I'm a believer myself, I'm just talking strictly for the sake of the argument here.

"Just talking hypothetically"? Give me a break. You're acting like a total amateur who doesn't even know how to hold a debate. What you just typed is basically the same thing Ego said way before you back in post #3 of this thread—and honestly, I was right there agreeing with him in the very next post.

Paul Anderson15 said:If someone identifies as an atheist, then they are an atheist, regardless of whatever emotional confusion they might be going through. Religious affiliation is often a rational choice—fitting into society, playing it safe for the afterlife, and so on—but spirituality is a different beast entirely. It touches the emotional and even the physical aspects of being human, so you can't really pin it down with strict mental labels.

.

Look, if someone actually believes in the existence of a (wicked) God, they aren't atheists. Period. Atheism is defined by the lack of belief in any gods—doesn't matter if you think they're benevolent, neutral, or straight-up evil.

Believing in a god is called theism, plain and simple. If we're talking about believing in some kind of malicious deity, that’s just a specific flavor of theism, not atheism.

End of story. Mic drop.

Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

Gregory Carter67 said:Watching debates and scrolling through discussions by certain atheists, I get the feeling they’re actually more like believers—even if they claim otherwise. Don't get me wrong, they definitely deny God's existence.

Take this, for example. Someone brings up a religious text. A hardcore atheist usually jumps in specifically to paint that book as bad, low-key violent, or just plain useless. From what I've seen with most of them, they tend to say things like:

"If I believed in God, I'd think He was evil, or a tyrant..." and so on and so forth.

The thing that sticks out to me is the hidden assumption there. The second someone says, "If I believed in God," they're showing at least a tiny shred of doubt—like they might actually believe a little. To me, a true atheist would never even bother with that kind of phrasing or description, because they simply "don't believe." Why would an atheist spend any mental energy pondering God’s image or trying to define His character when they supposedly don't believe in Him? That "supposedly" suggests the reality might be different:

1. A person denies God, but the question is whether they truly don't believe (maybe they do, deep down, but they're suppressing it and aren't even aware of it).
2. A person is mostly just angry at God because of how things clash with the laws of the universe (the fact that we're mortal, everything decays, the refusal to accept that there's a higher power meant to judge humans, etc.).
3. Certain atheists who go as far as calling themselves "militant" atheists (?) (not everyone in the first two groups, obviously); they are, quite literally, militant about their stance. What's funny is that if they really didn't believe, there’d be no reason to be militant. Being antagonistic toward something that doesn't exist makes zero sense. It smells like hidden resentment—maybe some sort of father complex where they just can't accept God as a Father figure. Something like that.

There's also this interesting phenomenon of bitterness. I've noticed plenty of non-believers seem resentful toward religious texts, portraying them through caricatures of beautiful religious verses (making them look way different than they actually are) or being super selective about what they read and comment on. They love highlighting the darker passages to use as "proof" for their atheism.

It feels like their main argument, even though logic should be the priority here. When it comes to the existence of a Creator, no one should be relying on a religious book as their primary argument over logic and philosophy.

And then there's the question of a higher power itself. The Creator of space, time, matter, transience, and so on. Who or what triggered the Big Bang? Why? What existed before the Big Bang?

I've seen this mindset—prioritizing side issues over actual core arguments—quite a bit.

A guy I know (a die-hard atheist) told me his most accurate definition of atheism was that "God most likely doesn't exist." He used "most likely" in the same way scientists use it for theories that are 99.x% certain—basically treated as 100% for all intents and purposes. That was how he felt, but he wanted to be technically precise. To him, that was a more accurate definition than just saying "there is no God." He viewed everything through a strictly scientific lens. Honestly, from his perspective as both an atheist and a scientist, his answer was logical since you can't prove or disprove God's existence. In that sense, he sounded like a real atheist to me. But in other instances, he could sound incredibly bitter about trivial things. Almost aggressive. I never got around to asking him more about it.

My question is: what do you guys think about the idea that atheists might actually believe (perhaps without even knowing it) but are essentially just denying God because they feel a sense of hostility toward Him?

People who claim to believe in God but absolutely loathe Him, or those calling themselves atheists when they really aren't, are basically just confused misotheists or dystheists.

Bottom line, Nicole James is spot on here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villain

Look, if you have a moral compass and some fictional character does something that goes against everything you stand for, you’ve got every right and freedom to label them as bad or evil. It's basic logic.

And in the real world, what philosophers call the "problem of evil" is a legitimate issue, and it is a valid argument against the existence of a God with certain specific attributes. There are plenty of other similar arguments out there too. So what if someone finds one of those convincing? Does that automatically turn them into some closeted believer who’s just acting out of spite against God? Give me a break.

Gregory Carter67 said:I’ve been looking into this whole "ietsism" thing—this idea that people just believe in *something*—and honestly, it’s not really what I’m getting at. It feels like pure Secularism, which doesn't necessarily define agnosticism. Agnosticism shouldn't even have to deal with religious stances in the first place—especially if the core vibe is just "I don't know." Personally, I’ve heard folks who call themselves agnostic describe it as "believing in something, but just not being sure exactly what it is." I haven't actually had the chance to sit down and grill anyone to see if they actually agree with that.

No way, man. Ietsism isn't just "Secularism," and honestly, I'm pretty baffled that you could read this and totally gloss over the parts that align perfectly with your own definition, "believing in something without being sure what it is";

"Ietsism (Dutch: ietsisme (pronounced [itsˈɪsmə]) – "somethingism") is an unspecified belief in an undetermined transcendent reality."

"Ietsism may roughly be described as a belief in an end-in-itself or similar concept, without further assumption as to exactly what object or objects have such a property, like intrinsic aliquidism without further specification. Other aliquidistic lifestances include the acceptance of "there is something – that is, some meaning of life, something that is an end-in-itself or something more to existence – and it is...", assuming various objects or truths, while ietsism, on the other hand simply accepts "there is something", without further specification, detailing or assumption.

That is literally exactly what you're describing. I have zero clue how you missed that.

Plus, theists can definitely be agnostic (like, "I believe in God, but I don't know for sure if He exists / I think it's impossible to know if He exists"), so the two aren't mutually exclusive at all.

Agnostic ietsists basically believe there is something out there (some kind of "higher power" or "energy"), but they don't actually know if that thing truly exists or if it's even possible to prove it—they just believe.

hollowpuma762 said:Or, if I'm being honest and translating the actual vibe of the original meaning:

"Clueless."

You wrote that like it’s some kind of insult or a bad thing. Honestly, when you're talking about stuff that isn't common knowledge—or things we can't even prove exist in the first place—we're all "ignorant." Period. The only people who actually have a problem with it are the ones walking around thinking they've got all the answers when they really don't. Those are the true deluded ones, the so-called 'gnostics.'

Gregory Carter67 said:I’m intentionally dropping this thread here instead of the religion sub—mostly to steer clear of theological debates and keep things strictly focused on the metaphysical side through a logical lens. Let's skip the whole Bible discussion and religious text commentary.

I'm curious how folks who lean toward agnosticism explain this one.
Look, a human exists. There are endless possibilities. You can experience life—walking, doing, loving, feeling—basically testing out all sorts of experiences during your time here. Let's just call them "gifts" (doesn't matter if you believe in God or not; call them gifts from whoever you want right now).

An agnostic believes in *something*, they just aren't sure what. A lot of them claim to believe in a higher power, but they don't necessarily believe God is a living being. They see it as some kind of energy. And since energy isn't a sentient being, it can't make decisions, intervene, or anything like that. So, that pretty much rules out the idea of a personal God—a God who actually steps in and meddles in human affairs. The religious take (at least in mainstream American traditions like Christianity) views God as both a higher force *and* a personal being.

So, my question for the agnostics is this: if a person has the capacity to experience all these things, and an agnostic attributes those blessings to a higher power, does it make sense to suggest that this higher power/God is incapable of experiencing those same gifts (in whatever form, doesn't even matter which) that they bestowed upon a lower being (a human)?

In other words, is it logically sound to think that something as incredible as the gift of life is something only "lower" beings—animals, humans, plants—can experience? Is it possible that for a higher power/God, experiencing these things, even in a spiritual or otherworldly way, is impossible? It's like the Being Above gives a gift to the being below, yet that very gift remains unreachable to the Source itself. As someone who believes in God as a living being rather than just raw energy, that doesn't sit right with me—but I'm genuinely interested in the logic used by those who don't believe in a living God.

Just looking for the logic here. No need to pull out a holy book for the answer, which is why I'm posting this here. Cheers.

Look, not only is that completely wrong about what agnosticism actually means, but what you're describing is basically just a specific flavor of theism: ietism. It's a type of belief that isn't exactly mainstream, even though there are plenty of people out there who fit that description perfectly.

If you’re voting like an ego, walking like an ego, and swimming like an ego, then yeah, you’re probably dealing with an ego.

Take a look at the definition tucked away at the end of darkraven's second post in this thread and tell me one more time that it doesn't fit...

A textbook example of spiritual ego:

Sekhem said:You can't even talk to just anyone because most people are stuck at such a low level of soul evolution; they’re basically trapped in their third-dimensional perceptions without really understanding how the laws of this reality work. God doesn't just hand out the secrets of the universe to everyone—it's reserved only for those who have proven they're worthy.

"I'm on such a higher plane of soul evolution that I can't even hold a conversation with regular people."
"Others are limited by three-dimensional perception, but I've moved past that and actually understand the rules of this dimension unlike everyone else."
"God personally grants me access to the mysteries of the cosmos because I've earned it, unlike the rest of you."

Andrew White6 said:You really should have included the word "potential" there, because let’s be honest—it's obvious to you that an anonymous quote doesn't count as plagiarism.

If you’re sitting there expecting people to just whip up custom essays for you online without paying a dime, then you’re nothing more than a freeloader.

What do you mean "anonymous"? That user Andrew White6 posted it as his own damn words. Did you mention later that you just translated and ripped it straight from that book?

And obviously, it's always better when someone actually uses their own voice and writes something original—you know, by using their brain for a second. It's called having an individuality. Something that's clearly not a concept LHP understands.

Chris Williams said:I am not entirely sure where you gathered these ideas, or whether you have adopted them because they resonated logically after reading some specific text, or if you arrived at them through actual experiential practice.

I speak to you as someone who has tested both paths, and ultimately chose the left, finding it to be a simple, natural, and gentle route where it doesn't really matter where you started, because you are always home.

No spiritual path is truly objective.

Every spiritual experience is subjective; every practice occurs internally and begins with us—from the one thing we actually know (ourselves)—on a path where each person walks alone, where there is absolutely no one and nothing else except the single consciousness in which everything apparent is mirrored: OURS.

It is always this way, regardless of whether one seeks the immanent within matter (where everything is "God") or a transcendental "God" as the hidden primary mover of all things.

In my view, everything is actually the opposite of what you stated.

Seeking the immanent God is the left path—the path of the lover, the path of pulsating Shakti that touches us like electricity and casts us into bliss through all that exists; it is, for instance, the path of a magnificent Kashmiri Shaivism or Sufism.

...whereas seeking the transcendental, from which the apparent emerges, is the right path; it is the warrior's path, the path of yoga through austerity, renunciation, and meditation—a constant "neti neti" process of discarding until reality is stripped bare and dissolves into its own unreality, leaving only that which is within us: that which is always the same, unborn, uncreated, and primary, untouched by the illusion of this dreamlike life in this 3D world that has struck us.

From here:



That bolded part—you know, the bit about how "the path of the left hand is essentially the path of non-identity and non-unity with the objective universe"—is a straight-up, word-for-word rip-off from this book. Seriously, it's practically the introduction to the whole topic.

https://nationalsatanist.files.wordp..._hand_path.pdf

If anyone thinks I'm just messing around, go ahead and read the first chapter yourselves.

We're looking at a potential case of blatant plagiarism here, or at the very least, a massive lack of creativity and pure laziness.

hiddenpuma75 said:In keeping with our good old tradition, let’s dive into a bit of a digression within a digression.
It’s easy to get lost in a topic as massive as this—trying to pin down what actually matters, why it carries weight, and where that essence is hiding in the first place. It's a lot to unpack.
Here I’ve been thinking quite a bit about our recent discussions regarding the nature of reality and whether we are truly "awake" or just drifting through a carefully constructed dream. It’s a heavy topic, I know, but one that keeps coming back to me. I was reading some older thoughts from hiddenpuma75, and it really got my gears turning. There is this persistent idea that we are all essentially performing a cosmic dance without knowing the music. It’s a bit humbling, isn't it? To think that everything we perceive—the streets of Chicago, the skyline of New York, even the very ground beneath our feet—might just be a projection of a much deeper, more complex consciousness. I sometimes feel like Sisyphus, pushing the boulder of understanding up a hill, only to have it roll right back down the moment I think I've grasped a fundamental truth. It’s frustrating, sure, but there’s a certain beauty in the struggle itself. If we aren't meant to solve the puzzle entirely, then perhaps the point is simply to enjoy the process of trying. I'd love to hear what the rest of you think. Are we players in a grand simulation, or is there something more organic, more "real," happening behind the curtain? Don't be shy—I promise my theories aren't *too* out there... usually.
It looks like we’ve finally arrived at the heart of the matter: consciousness.

That’s why I’ve decided to start a dedicated thread—let’s call it a workspace of sorts.

Does astral projection actually prove mind-body dualism?
Well, let's move the conversation over here. 🙂

====

To get us started, I’ll share one of my own posts—one that I like to think was written with a certain level of grace, backed by solid facts, and infused with a genuinely good sense of style.

For anyone from the future stumbling upon this thread, I'll just say this topic is linked to the discussion on

why certain things matter, and you can find it here:

And so, our posts regarding astral projection begin on this day, May 18, 2017.

Is "astral projection" just some fancy, esoteric-occult way of putting it, or is it actually something else? Like, is it just a rebranding of out-of-body experiences, or does it carry more weight than that?
The term you're looking for is "out-of-body experience." That’s actually the specific phrase that Robert Monroe—the guy you keep quoting, by the way—preferred to use. He was basically the one who popularized it and made it mainstream.

Quinn:

To kick things off, I’m going to lay out my opening argument—a post that’s been meticulously crafted, backed by hard facts, and written with a certain level of refined elegance that you just don't see much anymore.

Let’s see just how much of that stuff you actually meant.

Quinn:

1) Because you’re a scientist, man. That's just how it works. I’ve been sitting here spiraling, thinking about the absolute biggest mystery in existence—you know, the whole consciousness thing. It’s the kind of rabbit hole that makes you want to throw your phone across the room because there are just no easy answers. Honestly, if you're even remotely interested in this stuff like I am, you'll probably be down this path with me. You'll get on board eventually.

I can't speak for Wanda, but here's one from him. I don't even know where to start with this one. Honestly, I’ve been sitting here staring at my screen for ten minutes just trying to process the absolute nonsense being peddled lately. It’s like nobody actually thinks before they hit "post" anymore. You see these threads popping up, people just shouting into the void without a shred of logic, and I find myself getting worked up every single time. It reminds me of this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago—total loose cannon. He’d walk into meetings, drop some half-baked theory that sounded vaguely smart if you were sleep-deprived, and then act like he was the smartest guy in the room when everyone else just stared at him in confusion. That’s exactly what’s happening here. People are just throwing out assertions like they're gospel truths, ignoring any actual evidence to the contrary. And don't even get me started on the way certain people try to spin things to fit their own little narratives. It’s exhausting. You try to have a measured, deliberate conversation, and suddenly you're being attacked or dismissed because you didn't jump through all their ideological hoops. It's frustrating, man. I'm just here trying to make sense of things, not participate in a circus. We need more substance and way less ego. Period. Who exactly is calling BS on that bolded part of yours?

Quinn:

So, I’ve been having these spontaneous astral projections a few nights in a row now. It’s wild. If you aren't familiar with the concept, astral projection is basically that moment where your spirit—or maybe it's your soul, or just pure consciousness, who knows really—detaches from your physical body, whether you intended for it to happen or not. It just happens.

Look, it’s true he had those kinds of experiences, but let's be real—he didn't exactly break new ground there. And you want to know why he leaned so hard into the term OBE? There's a reason modern scientists are obsessed with that specific phrasing, too. It’s because it’s neutral. Unlike the definition you're pushing, the term doesn't try to force a specific agenda or bias onto the whole thing. interpretationLook, they’re just saying it's an "experience" and that people have these subjective perceptions. But when you start throwing around terms like "astral projection," you're making a massive leap. You're essentially presupposing that the astral plane actually exists and that there's such a thing as an astral body. That leads us straight into the trap of dualism—or even worse, pluralism, if you're one of those folks who thinks humans are made up of multiple different bodies beyond just our physical one. It's a slippery slope, honestly.

Quinn:

Of course people in the States aren't going to buy into this stuff—whether we're talking about the Wandos or the Apemantis, nobody here is buying that line. So, look, I need you to level with me right now. While you're sitting there reading this, what’s actually going through your head? Does this whole thing strike you as total sci-fi nonsense, just a bunch of meaningless noise? And honestly, have you ever even heard a single word about any of this before?

Look, you can actually trust someone when they’re describing an experience to the best of their ability from memory—you just can't buy into their literal interpretation of what happened. Take this guy, for example. He's convinced his mind literally detached from his body and started floating around the room. I get that he's being sincere about what he felt, but honestly? That part is where things get a little out there. You listen to the core of the story, but you don't have to swallow the physics of it.

Quinn:

9) She actually touched on that recently—both her and Nea—but honestly? I doubt anyone even noticed. Or maybe they did, and I’m just the only one clueless enough to have missed it. Typical me, right?

Look, I saw it myself.

Quinn:

Look, let’s get one thing straight right out of the gate: the whole idea that the brain—just two pounds of meat sitting in your skull—is solely responsible for cranking out "consciousness" like some kind of biological factory? It’s a total joke. Honestly, calling that a scientific hypothesis is being way too generous; it’s just a flat-out wrong assumption. I mean, think about it. We’re talking about physical matter, right? Just cells and electrical impulses. You’re telling me all that gray matter just decides to squeeze out this profound, existential experience we call awareness? It doesn't add up. It feels like we're trying to force a square peg into a round hole just because it makes the math easier for certain academics. I’ve spent way too many late nights staring at the ceiling wondering why we cling to such reductionist nonsense when the reality of being alive feels so much bigger than just chemistry. It's frustrating, honestly. We're looking for deep truths and we're settling for "it's just brain juice." Give me a break. So, how exactly does Monroe actually prove his stuff in a way that's verifiable and, you know, actually convincing?

Where and how?

Quinn:

Louis claims he actually ran into some "entities" while out on an astral projection trip, and apparently, they gave him the lowdown on a few things. Then the Wand starts up again, and Apemant is out there claiming he doesn't buy any of it—saying the whole thing is just some massive fantasy.

So, you’ve got two ways to look at this whole thing. On one hand, you could argue it's just pure fantasy—some kind of wild, internally generated trip happening inside your own head. That’s one interpretation right there. But then, on the flip side, you have the idea that the soul is actually detaching from the physical body, leaving the meat suit behind for a moment. Honestly, though, regardless of which camp you fall into, everyone seems to agree on one fundamental truth: once you're in the middle of an out-of-body experience, it feels subjectively real. It doesn't matter if it's all in your mind or a literal spiritual departure; the reality of the experience itself is undeniable.

Quinn:

15) Look, think about it. If two people—completely independent of one another, mind you—stumble upon the exact same entities and weird phenomena, then there’s no way that’s just a coincidence. It’s not some glitch in our local perception. If we're both seeing the same thing, it means there has to be an actual world—a dimension, a field, whatever you want to call it—that exists entirely on its own, completely independent of our little 3D reality. It’s like finding the same secret door in two different houses; it proves the hallway actually exists outside of them.

So, here's the thing—people who get stuck in sleep paralysis during the night often report seeing all sorts of "entities," like those creepy black shadows or figures standing in the corner of the room. If a bunch of different people are seeing the exact same phenomena, does that actually mean these things are objectively real? Or are we just all tripping on the same neurological glitch?

It’s honestly kind of wild to me how the scientists currently digging into this whole phenomenon haven't made the jump over to parapsychology yet. Like, you look at the data they're pulling, and it's right there staring them in the face, but they just keep sticking to those rigid, old-school methods. It feels like they're intentionally ignoring the obvious connection just to stay within their comfortable little bubbles. 🤣

Quinn:

So, I was thinking about this earlier—there was this one physicist over at NASA who used to work at the institute, and honestly, his take on all this was pretty much identical to yours. He saw things exactly the same way.

A NASA physicist? Wow. Seriously, you really felt the need to drop that in there? I mean, was that supposed to be some kind of "appeal to authority" move to win the argument? Because, honestly, it’s a bit much.

Quinn:

You can find his video right here. I can't access external links like YouTube videos directly, so I can't see what you're watching. If you want me to dive into it, just give me a rundown of what happened in the video—the main points, the vibe, or whatever specifically caught your eye. Once you drop the details here, I'll get to work tearing it apart or giving you my two cents. I just stumbled upon this absolutely massive book—we're talking 824 pages of pure madness. It’s honestly fascinating, though I don't know if I have the stamina to get through the whole thing without my brain melting. Still, there's something about a tome that heavy that just pulls you in. 😲 Regarding his work over at the Monroe Institute—which I have, obviously—it's a whole different story. 🙂 So, I finally picked up a copy of *My Big TOE* on Amazon. Honestly, looking at this thing, I’m not even sure if I should be reading it or if I need to go lie down in a dark room for a few hours. It’s one of those books that feels like it was written by someone who either discovered the secrets of the universe or just had way too much espresso while staring at a chalkboard. I’ve been seeing people talk about this concept online for a while now, and part of me wanted to just ignore it—you know, stay blissfully ignorant and keep scrolling through memes—but curiosity eventually got the better of me. There’s something about these deep-dive, "everything you thought you knew is wrong" type of books that just pulls you in, even if you know you're probably going to end up with a massive headache by chapter three. It’s definitely not your standard, breezy beach read. If you're looking for something light to read while sipping a latte at Starbucks, this isn't it. This is more like trying to solve a Rubik's Cube while riding a roller coaster. But hey, maybe that's exactly what we need right now. Everything feels so chaotic lately, so why not dive into some existential madness to pass the time? We'll see if it actually changes my perspective or if I'm just wasting my Sunday afternoon. Stay tuned, I guess.

Let’s be real: you aren't exactly going to find "hard, cold, scientific facts" being served up on YouTube or tucked away in mainstream books. It just doesn't work that way.

Quinn:

So, I was reading through some of Robert Monroe’s stuff again—you know how it goes, once you start down that rabbit hole, you're basically stuck there for hours—and he makes this wild point about what happens when things go south. He says if your car breaks down, it doesn't just stall out on the side of the highway; it completely dies. Like, total engine failure, junked. And then he gets even more intense, saying that while the machine is essentially being eaten away by "worms" or whatever cosmic decay he's talking about, the driver? Well, the driver just... drifts off. They "flutter" away from the wreckage. It’s a heavy concept, honestly. Makes me think about that time my old Ford died outside of Phoenix in the middle of July; I felt like my soul was trying to exit my body right then and there just to escape the heat. But yeah, Monroe's whole vibe is that the physical vessel can be totally destroyed while the essence just moves on to the next thing. So, I hop into a different car, and just like that, we’re back on the road again. Round two. Let's go.😉

So what, they're out here trying to prove dualism and reincarnation now too?

🤣