Semmelweis Reflex

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Are you just being intentionally obtuse here?  None of us are going to take the bait because science is agnostic and has nothing to say on the subject of gods, angels, devils, or fucking leprechauns. 

 

A god is anyone or anything that is considered mightier than the one attributing the might. This is a god. 

 

An illustration: The God Bullshit

 

A man stumbles across the grassy plains. He's tired, cold and hungry. It's getting dark and there are wolves tracking him, but there is no wood for a fire. Then he stumbles upon something in the grass. A dried pile of bovine excrement. Looking around he finds more and makes a pile of them, eating the creeping creatures he finds beneath them. Lighting them he is warm and protected from the wolves. 

 

He makes the shit his god for it saved him from certain death. 

 

A god is anything or anyone that is venerated, made into a god because it is considered mightier than the one attributing the might. The Bible calls Moses and the Judges of Israel gods. They were mortal men. Angels, idols, men. All called gods in the Bible. 

 

To prove the existence of gods is so easy a child could do it. Even science, which is almost always wrong. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

I think you haven't even begun to come close to my assertions, conjectures and personal interpretations.  

I take that as a compliment, given that none of these constitute evidence.

[SemmelweisReflex]

40 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I take that as a compliment, given that none of these constitute evidence.

 

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

To prove the existence of gods is so easy a child could do it. Even science, which is almost always wrong. 

So then, why haven't you proven it?  Or even provided evidence for it beyond your assertions and conjecture?  Are we to assume you are not as intelligent as a child?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Stop abusing science for your confirmation bias. Stop making vague statements about a scientific outcome that has never been done. 

 

Yourl were an atheist for 27 years and never studied to defend yourself against the assertions of the religious? Here is a quick link from the Smithsonian. There are more but I'm wading through a vast amount of religious flood geology bullshit. 

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/

 

Here one to counter the flood geologists

 

 

Nr38Reasons.pdf

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

You have yet to make any facts available.  You have provided only assertion, conjecture, and personal interpretation, none of which indicate your belief to be true or valid.  

 

Again, son, you posited the claim that a god, specifically jehovah, exists.  It is up to you to support that claim with evidence (facts or information made available for our examination).  

 

Once you support your claim, we can continue.

[SemmelweisReflex]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  I want you to support your claim.  Science didn't make the claim.  YOU DID.  Put up or shut up.

 

That's so funny! You only say that because you think that I can't. You think that I can't because you can't accept any evidence. It's like a corrupt court of law. 

 

I can always support what I claim, even if I make it clear that the claim is only anecdotal, speculative, conjectural etc. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Just now, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

I can always support what I claim, even if I make it clear that the claim is only anecdotal, speculative, conjectural etc. 

None of which is evidence, according to your own definition of what evidence is, fucknut.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

You only say that because you think that I can't.

I know you can't based on the evidence of the past six (6) pages of you doing nothing but asserting, conjecturing, and interpreting.  

[SemmelweisReflex]

8 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So then, why haven't you proven it?  Or even provided evidence for it beyond your assertions and conjecture?  Are we to assume you are not as intelligent as a child?

 

A child shall lead them. 

 

God: 

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
    
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

    

   • an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.
      
3. an adored, admired, or influential person.

    
4. informal
   the gallery in a theater.

Some of these are proven to exist. I've proved the existence of gods. Not that that means much. A god doesn't even have to exist.

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Don't tell me I can't be right, show me where I'm wrong. If the example of the Ex Christian is as it seems, so totally ignorant of these things and unwilling to do just a little research it doesn't take a genius to see that they can't have been much of a Christian in the first place. 

 

 

 

Christianity is about research? Why's that? Because he doesnt actually show up to answer questions? Because he doesnt exist? God seems to be only words in your bible ... which seems to have some translation errors and other problems.  

 

Having faith in a supposed loving God that causes massive destruction seems wrong to me. Making up excuses for God never being around seems wrong to me. You give some vague reason that he is bigger than the universe or for some reason cannot occupy a human sized body and perform some miracles (in 2021)... I guess , because he's not all powerful.

 

A few weeks ago we had a Mormon that said God was not omnipresent. He could only be in one place at a time.... the Mormon also said God was a physical fleshly being, and his God could most definitely appear anywhere....just not in front of any of us, naturally. 

 

If being a good Christian means making up BS on the fly, doing mental gymnastics or believing stupid shit, then I was not the best Christian...and today I would be considered a horrible Christian. I just dont believe the bible or Christian doctrine anymore. 

 

 

[SemmelweisReflex]

8 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

None of which is evidence, according to your own definition of what evidence is, fucknut.

 

Fucknut? I don't believe I've had that hurled at me. I'll say it again. 

 

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Some of these are proven to exist. I've proved the existence of gods

Congratulations... except that your claim was specific to jehovah.  Care to admit you have no evidence to support your claim and retract it?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Fucknut? I don't believe I've had that hurled at me. I'll say it again. 

 

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

And I'll say it again, fucknut.  Your assertion does not indicate your belief to be valid.  

[SemmelweisReflex]

3 hours ago, WalterP said:

Oh brother, am I glad that I've declined to get involved in another game of burden tennis...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

 

...that's going to lead down another bottomless rabbit hole.

 

 

Yeah . . . but look how much fun they're having! They just need to blow off some steam. Tomorrow I will begin posting more serious topics of debate which will be ignored.

[SemmelweisReflex]

15 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

And I'll say it again, fucknut.  Your assertion does not indicate your belief to be valid.  

 

Why not?

[SemmelweisReflex]

17 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Congratulations... except that your claim was specific to jehovah.  Care to admit you have no evidence to support your claim and retract it?

 

Would you like that? I can do that, you know, because it's about faith. Not supporting claims. Anyway, remember? We have to wait for science to make a device that we can see God. Not to mention a machine that can take us outside of the created universe. 

 

Why do you think it comes down to faith? Why wouldn't Jehovah defend Israel against iron chariots until they had faith?

[midniterider]

27 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

A child shall lead them. 

 

God: 

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
    
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

    

   • an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.
      
3. an adored, admired, or influential person.

    
4. informal
   the gallery in a theater.

Some of these are proven to exist. I've proved the existence of gods. Not that that means much. A god doesn't even have to exist.

 

God the bunny rabbit, of the bible. That's what you worship, right?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Why do you think it comes down to faith?

Finally, we get to the truth.  There is no evidence to support your claim, you just have to accept it on *faith*; and I have no compelling reason to accept your personal interpretation, of 1500 years worth of pedophile priests' interpretation, of a semi-demented Roman emperor's interpretation, of a heretic gnostic's interpretation of 1st century Superman comics, on faith alone.  Thanks for playing.

[SemmelweisReflex]

28 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Christianity is about research?  

 

No. Not about research, but research help one to understand it and criticize it. Ideally. 

 

Quote

Why's that? Because he doesnt actually show up to answer questions? Because he doesnt exist?

 

Who, Christ? You think maybe it's because they nailed him to a tree that one time?

 

Quote

God seems to be only words in your bible ... which seems to have some translation errors and other problems.  

 

Translators are imperfect. Like you and me. You know that the translation isn't inspired? The Bible wasn't written to us, it was written to others. It only serves as an example for us. 

 

Quote

Having faith in a supposed loving God that causes massive destruction seems wrong to me.

 

Why? Do you love your fellow man? They have caused massive destruction. In fact, God warned them that they would and they did. You still blame God for man's destruction? 

 

Quote

Making up excuses for God never being around seems wrong to me. You give some vague reason that he is bigger than the universe or for some reason cannot occupy a human sized body and perform some miracles (in 2021)... I guess , because he's not all powerful.

 

I think you might be learning. Yearning. 

 

Quote

A few weeks ago we had a Mormon that said God was not omnipresent. He could only be in one place at a time.... the Mormon also said God was a physical fleshly being, and his God could most definitely appear anywhere....just not in front of any of us, naturally. 

 

Most of that is correct at least in some sense. God (majestic plural) isn't omnipresent. A god can be a physical being. I gave several examples. His God appearing anywhere I can't comment on because I don't know exactly what he meant by his God. 

 

Quote

If being a good Christian means making up BS on the fly, doing mental gymnastics or believing stupid shit, then I was not the best Christian...and today I would be considered a horrible Christian. I just dont believe the bible or Christian doctrine anymore. 

 

Fair enough, but are you a good critic of Christian theology or the Bible? 

[SemmelweisReflex]

20 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

God the bunny rabbit, of the bible. That's what you worship, right?

 

Well, I uh . . . What? Uh, no. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

You're not interested in the truth about God's possible existence. You never were. Why are you still wasting your time with it? Do a little research for fuck's sake.

 

My first post concerning your assertions of hell was to tell you to read Bart Ehrmans book. He is an actual scholar. Not some ignorant fuck thats made up his own bullshit theories like you. 

 

And Hell no I'm not interested in Gods possible existence anymore. But you are wrong. For years I was and so many of us were interested in it. But its all lies. So far most everything you've said was a lie. And I very much doubt you were ever an atheist like your profile says or you would know most of the information we have tried to give you. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

18 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Finally, we get to the truth.  There is no evidence to support your claim, you just have to accept it on *faith*; and I have no compelling reason to accept your personal interpretation, of 1500 years worth of pedophile priests' interpretation, of a semi-demented Roman emperor's interpretation, of a heretic gnostic's interpretation of 1st century Superman comics, on faith alone.  Thanks for playing.

 

You know, if I didn't know any better I would say you are Dealing Despair

 

Evidence is information to support a belief. Nothing special. Your asking for it is pointless. I've given you tons. 

 

 

[SemmelweisReflex]

7 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

My first post concerning your assertions of hell was to tell you to read Bart Ehrmans book. He is an actual scholar. Not some ignorant fuck thats made up his own bullshit theories like you. 

 

Actually, that is exactly word for word how I would describe him. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

8 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Actually, that is exactly word for word how I would describe him. 

then you sir are truly a delusional ignorant fuck. Your just wasting everyone's time trolling the site. And you won't accept studies from people of academia. Who can read the original texts in the original languages they were written in. 

 

I imagine you have done a grand amount of cross referencing with your strongs Hebrew and Greek concordance. Coming up with all these "new" interpretations. Just another back slid closet scholar that thinks his way is the right way.