Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. Just wanted to let everyone know that I'm now accepting reading requests again!
  3. Hi all! I was wondering if I could have a Dream interpretation or some insight. Recently, I’ve been having recurring dreams of an aquantaince and I dating. In these dreams we either are physically with each other or my dad introduces me to him and tells me it’s okay to date him. I was wondering if anyone has any interpretation of what this can translate to in waking life? Thank you.
  4. The vast majority of them being religious. Fancy that. I wonder how that could have happened.
  5. Now you say that.... oh yes and there's a bear driving a mark 3 cortina, a 2.0 litre gl automatic the one that was a south African import with the pinto engine by the looks of it
  6. Being Aware when Dreaming (Lucid) many have experienced one time or another, this state blurs the lines even more as this quite common phenomena opens up a whole new philosophical question of – Could We Be Always In A Dream? Dreams we Dream don’t take the simulation theory for what it is but for what it isn’t. The Condition of the Dream demonstrates proof that one cannot seperate the real world from an illusion of a real world experienced. The memory of experiences as state-of-awake and state-of-dream get blurred and this fact alone should push us to examine both experiences with an unbiased reasoning to somehow fathom which is more real, and which senses do we ‘actually’ rely upon?
  7. The average bed houses ten million dust mites.
  8. Sorry, Sir Smoke a Lot! I missed that aspect ...
  9. As a wise man once said...... [
  10. The Ark of the Covenant is most likely mentioned in the El Arish Shrine Text: "and had made for it a box of real hard stone (or metal), it was hidden in [this?] place, namely, the Per Aart near the sacred Aart of the majesty of Ra: then was healed this heat in the limbs of the majesty of Seb." Seb as a god was the son of Amehotep III, and was also the biblical Moses.
  11. Are our computers almost at the stage of running simulations programs with inhabitants of full consciousness like ours. Who wrote or who is writing our simulated universe? Who are our advanced ascendants and where are they now?
  12. Not really. I just don't feel like wasting my time and giving ad money to someone on YouTube.
  13. That shows how much you are interested to learn, I guess.
  14. The United Nations is in place as a world governing body, but has no real power. People need to feel they have autonomy over their region and they should have. After all they are the ones who have to live there. The minute you say world government to lot of Americans go out and buy more guns. Another layer of government is a hard sell mostly, because the ones most of us have are so messed up. I don't want a government to tell me what religion I am, who I love, or what I'm having for dinner. I do want a government that fixes pothole up the street, clean water coming out of the tap, the fire department, schools, hospitals, etc.. . Infrastructure is the number one job of government. If they would just stick with that and keep their nose out my of personal affairs. As long as nobody is getting hurt it isn't anybody's business. I think eventually world government will happen, because we can't go on supporting arms profiteers. The price we pay to them with our children's lives is too high. Hopefully reason will prevail and we won't end up worst off than we are.
  15. Its easy to control others through belief and superstition. Especially with their mortality and desire for some type of eternal existence. It plays on existential fears.
  16. Way back then they barely knew what they were doing, now imagine a whole Chamber of them knowing exactly what they were doing ...
  17. Sorry I have nothing.
  18. You and Krater are slacking, do you not see the row of demon bats hanging on the top and below them towards the left we have a chinese emperor, maybe from the ming dynasty, and he has horns. Well i must say it is fun what you can look for within a window, reflections, indoor lighting, out door darkness, camera flash, and an imagination.
  19. Poor dawg-gy ~
  20. @oslove -- That is obvious, yes. I would think we all (or most of us) would agree. .... Ok, we have that first part down. ........ Now, this is where you will not have total agreements. Because, as oppose to our existence, in which we all can actually see and so forth, God, and God being the creator, cannot be readily accessible in seeing and so forth as truthfully being the creator cause of everything with a beginning. We all can prove our existence, how can it be proven that there is a God, and that he created it all to everyone? Do you see what I'm saying and why I'm saying it? You have an objective based outlook and using as proof from a subjective based outlook. Since you can prove that there is existence, you need to prove that God is the creator of it all including existence, in the same way, the same manner!! In an objective based outlook. Meaning, there is proof that he is definitely there in the same manner that our existence is. What you seem to present in all, from my point of view, is something that seems to leave out something important to link up your first point to your second point. How can there be evasion to something that is not being presented, ie: the proof of God's existence and that he is the creator. You think there is a God creator, but that is your outlook. I think there isn't a God in the manner that people perceive God, because I was raised secular, and have had no idea of there being a God, because I didn't see it in my first many years of life. But yes, in those first many years of life, I definitely have proof of my existence, because I saw and was aware of my existence. But the only proof to the start of my existence, I only saw my mother and my father. There was my proof of the reason of my existence, my parents. So, if I did not have the actual proof of God and God being the creator, how would think I would link something I never saw or noticed growing up, to why I am here? Maybe, if you put yourself in the shoes of those who don't believe, and see how you can prove to them the existence and proof of God, in the manner that they can see him, than maybe you can show them how God is linked to existence of everyone and everything. You need to prove that God is on the same ideal objective outlook as existence is. And I don't see how you can, when I can't help in seeing it as not being on the same level. Existence= Definitely proven to everyone God(Creator)= Not showing over all proof of his existence and that he's responsible for said existence. I'm sorry, but to me, it looks like to me, you're evading. I see that you're evading from showing proof of God to show how it can be simplistically and understandingly be proven that he is responsible for our existence. You need to link the second part to the first part logically. Having everyone sit there and constantly reflect on their existence is not going to give the answer that it was created by God. And considering, it is usually a mother and father, or was told a mother and a father brought on their existence, that will be the go to reasoning for their existence. I think, you need to stop making excuses and start looking outside your box, if you really want everyone to see what you're trying to do.
  22. It's nothing more than a "focusing tool" like a mandala or drum. Don't waste your money...
  23. Nope and double nope!! At least I can't - I guess most religious people do but I've already made it clear what my views are on that subject. But to reiterate: religion/god(s) was invented by people barely out of the 'tree swinging' stage who could not explain and protect themselves from things they didn't understand and were afraid of - in my mind, it's that simple. I am not afraid of things that I understand - take for example, snakes - I spent many years as a licensed land surveyor and know which snakes reside in my area and which ones can kill me (rattlers, cottonmouths, coral). The others (black snakes, corn snakes, king snakes, etc.) are not a threat and I know it and, therefore, feel no fear when I see one. The others I don't really fear but I respect them enough to steer clear. Lack of knowledge/ignorance (different from'stupid') leads to fear which is why we should keep learning as much as possible about our surroundings - the more knowledge, the less fear. You can't fear what you understand - respect, yes, but not fear. I think religion was picked up by shamans, medicine men, priests and rulers to further expand their own power and keep the populace under control - it's still that way today IMHO.
  24. I'd like to enlighten my cigarette, anyone got a match jmccr8
  25. Who me jmccr8
  26. First of all, I will conceded that there apparently was in fact some data there that you pointed out that missed my attention. I apologize for the mishap. I could blame it on exhaustion or whatever else, but when I'm wrong I'm wrong. So congrats on that. Regardless though, you once again missed my entire point. I wasn't rejecting your links simply because they come from a conservative source. I was pointing out the right-leaning media biases so as to show that those specific sources have a clear political motive behind what they're presenting here. I didn't just say "This comes from a right-wing website, therefore it's fake news." I believe I was crystal clear in my explanation as to what the motives were. For instance, I said in regards to the first link: "With Forbes, their job is primarily to promote strong capitalist ideals, which promotes businesses. Therefore since it is a magazine designed around big business, they have a clear motivation to promote conservative ideologies." Stating that a source has a motive behind what they present does not automatically mean that the data that they present to us is flawed, or completely false. Nor does it mean that absolutely everything from said source is utterly false by definition. There is no such thing as a politically neutral media source, so if that were the case then you couldn't trust anything presented in any news article ever. What it does mean however, is that what is presented may not be the whole story, or it may be a slight misrepresentation of the actual data itself. Furthermore, the means by which they actually collect the data may have a slight leaning in one direction over another. So essentially, bringing up the political leaning of a news source is not without merit. My entire point of the previous post was not to discredit the data itself, but rather, to point out the political motivations that could alter how exactly the said data is presented. 1) I cited the Wikipedia article for the purpose of providing the basic knowledge of Steve Forbes running as a Republican political candidate. Do I really need to go any further than that in proving such basic info? 2) I'm not rejecting their findings ad hoc. My point is simply that there may be various factors being left out here, and so we have to at least to some extent just take them at their word. Given that they do have a clear political motivation behind said findings, it makes their findings questionable. The single greatest error in most data collecting are sins of omittion. There may be something they've left out (which I will address here specifically in a sec) for political purposes. This is where you're right, I missed this for whatever reason. Was pretty late at night, so yeah. I'll use that as an excuse. Now let's talk about the data itself. This is what I mean by there could be some aspects of the data being left out: As you can see, it's not as simple as "they're just more conservative". There are other factors, and indeed, other studies, that show that Gen Z is even more liberal in some cases. Not to mention the fact that most are still very young, and have a lot more time to mature a grow into their political beliefs. It's not like we can look at a bunch of teens and preteens and instantly determine that that's exactly what they're going to be their entire lives. This is where I'm saying that such articles like the ones you linked have a clear conservative bias here. They're leaving out key factors that would influence our interpretation of the data. Here's the underlying problem with this... The mainstream Democratic party is not liberal. At least not on the world stage, and certainly not in the eyes of us actual grass roots progressives. True progressives seek to get all big money out of politics entirely, and are not beholden to special interests. The mainstream democratic establishment is a center-right organization that is just as beholden to the whims of the corporations as the republicans are. The only real difference is that democrats happen to be a bit more lax on social issues. There are plenty of corporations who support that, since they don't necessarily want to alienate any key demographic from buying whatever it is they're trying to sell. You're right that Goldman Sachs often leans towards the democratic ticket. However, what they have supported are establishment democrat shills like Hillary Clinton. They would never support a candidate like Bernie Sanders, who seeks to enact major campaign finance reform, and supports things like a minimum wage of $15 an hour and massive tax increases on corporations and millionaires/billionaires such as them. To call Goldman Sachs 'liberal' only makes the least bit of sense here in America, where the democratic party is center-right, and the republican party is super far-right. They do not represent truly progressive ideologies. Not in the slightest. So to put simply, yes, they are undoubtedly biased, and quite possibly the single most biased of all the ones you've sourced. They are absolutely unequivocally pro-corporate. Just because both dems and reps are pro-corporate, does not mean us Bernie-esque progressives are pro-corporate. Again, not in the slightest. First off, I already admitted to you that I unintentionally overlooked some of the sources. That was a mistake on my part. That wasn't any sort of intentional bias. Second, I cited more than just Wikipedia, and the only time I ever cited Wikipedia was to prove a simple basic ass fact that anyone could look up with a simple Google search. I was simply saving you the trouble. Lastly, if you fail to take the political leanings of certain sources into account, then you fail to acknowledge the potential for missing variables within the data presented. This doesn't mean that the data presented is necessarily flawed, just that there may be more data that's missing which when placed in conjunction with the previous data paints a slightly different picture. Therefore noting the political motivations behind certain sources is undoubtedly a critical part in any sort of research. So with that I rest my case.
  1. Load more activity