Semmelweis Reflex

[TheRedneckProfessor]

17 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

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. 

 

 

I can explain this all to you (again); but I can't comprehend it for you.  If you can't do that for yourself, nobody can.  Have a good day. 

[sdelsolray]

This one is full of hubris, ego, pretense, a need for attention, a need to control, obfuscation, feigned mysticism, immature apologetics and similar canards, as well as disingenuousness and lies, with side salads of some willful ignorance and some contradictory personal statements...the list goes on.

 

I chose to address his posts only in the third person, if at all, to focus on providing information and thoughts to the lurkers of this forum.  Playing directly in his wishful thinking/fantasy sandbox is a waste of time and only feeds his narcissism.

[florduh]

4 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

How do you know what a creator of the universe can and can't do? What he is willing or unwilling to do? Besides, how do you know that isn't what he did? 

Why are YOU the expert on such matters? Remember, you make positive claims, you must support those claims. I (we) have no obligation to refute your assertions.

[Myrkhoos]

9 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Why do you think it wasn't?

Asking me a question does not equal an answer. So, do you want to answer the question or not?

[Astreja]

8 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Who says we can't skip that step and why? 

 

Normally I wouldn't, but I'm going to play this game with you. 

 

How would we establish a character actually exists that we can't see and that can't appear in the universe? 

 

How would science do that? 

 

We need some sort of testable evidence.  Without it, we have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe you.  To convince us, you have to meet our evidentiary standards rather than yours.

 

Science has developed instruments capable of detecting signals that human senses cannot perceive.  We can't hear radio waves, but they're there.  A similar advance in god-detecting technology is required.

[SemmelweisReflex]

2 hours ago, florduh said:

Why are YOU the expert on such matters? Remember, you make positive claims, you must support those claims. I (we) have no obligation to refute your assertions.

 

Atheists always want proof, we’re not making cars here, we don’t give guarantees.

[SemmelweisReflex]

2 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

This one is full of hubris, ego, pretense, a need for attention, a need to control, obfuscation, feigned mysticism, immature apologetics and similar canards, as well as disingenuousness and lies, with side salads of some willful ignorance and some contradictory personal statements...the list goes on.

 

I chose to address his posts only in the third person, if at all, to focus on providing information and thoughts to the lurkers of this forum.  Playing directly in his wishful thinking/fantasy sandbox is a waste of time and only feeds his narcissism.

 

Blah, blah, blah ... 

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 hour ago, Myrkhoos said:

Asking me a question does not equal an answer. So, do you want to answer the question or not?

 

Actually it might. Uh ... what was the question? Oh, why do I think the Bible was inspired by the being you call Jehovah?

 

Because I asked him and he told me. When I first began to study and realized that there was something to it I put it to the test and it passed. Since then I have tried to disprove it and I can't. 

 

 

[Myrkhoos]

18 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Actually it might. Uh ... what was the question? Oh, why do I think the Bible was inspired by the being you call Jehovah?

 

Because I asked him and he told me. When I first began to study and realized that there was something to it I put it to the test and it passed. Since then I have tried to disprove it and I can't. 

 

 

How did you ask him and what did he tell you? Exactly? As in did you sit in a room and uttered a question and you phisically heard an answer? Or saw a spirit talking? The concrete details. And what was the test you put it to and how did it pass? Again, in concrete details.

[WalterP]

2 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Actually it might. Uh ... what was the question? Oh, why do I think the Bible was inspired by the being you call Jehovah?

 

Because I asked him and he told me. When I first began to study and realized that there was something to it I put it to the test and it passed. Since then I have tried to disprove it and I can't. 

 

 

 

And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.—1 Kings 19:11-12.

 

 

It might be possible to find objective geological evidence for an earthquake occurring where Elijah was and it might also be possible to find similar evidence of a wind so strong that it could break rocks.  Likewise, evidence of a great fire sweeping that area could be found.  This would be objective evidence available to anyone, if they looked for it.

 

But Elijah's personal experience of god's still, small voice is subjective evidence.

 

Nobody but Elijah experienced it and it left no lingering objective evidence that anyone else can be party to.

 

Therefore, unlike the earthquake, the wind and the fire, the existence of that voice MUST be accepted by faith and ONLY by faith.

 

This is true for ALL subjective, personal experiences.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[SemmelweisReflex]

3 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.—1 Kings 19:11-12.

 

 

It might be possible to find objective geological evidence for an earthquake occurring where Elijah was and it might also be possible to find similar evidence of a wind so strong that it could break rocks.  Likewise, evidence of a great fire sweeping that area could be found.  This would be objective evidence available to anyone, if they looked for it.

 

But Elijah's personal experience of god's still, small voice is subjective evidence.

 

Nobody but Elijah experienced it and it left no lingering objective evidence that anyone else can be party to.

 

Therefore, unlike the earthquake, the wind and the fire, the existence of that voice MUST be accepted by faith and ONLY by faith.

 

This is true for ALL subjective, personal experiences.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

So, if a Christian scientist found the evidence of which you speak and determined it as such and then an atheist scientist disputed it would the evidence of Elijah's event be objective or subjective?

[SemmelweisReflex]

6 hours ago, Astreja said:

 

We need some sort of testable evidence.  Without it, we have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe you.  To convince us, you have to meet our evidentiary standards rather than yours.

 

Science has developed instruments capable of detecting signals that human senses cannot perceive.  We can't hear radio waves, but they're there.  A similar advance in god-detecting technology is required.

 

And that technology would naturally be infallible, meaning that whatever you decide is true is objectively true and whatever you can't test is objectively false?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

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

 

10 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Why not?

I will regret doing this; but what is a life well-lived if it doesn't contain some regret?  Let me try one more time to explain this a different way in hopes that you will understand. 

 

According to your own definition, "evidence" should consist of facts and information that indicate whether or not a belief or idea is valid or true.  What you have presented as "evidence" is nothing more than assertion, conjecture, and personal interpretation.  These modes of thought are not factual, even though they may be based on facts.  Rather, conjecture, personal interpretation, and assertion are what some educated and informed people might refer to as opinion.  Unfortunately, opinion does not fit into your own definition of "evidence", let alone mine or any other skeptic's.  This is because opinion simply is not evidence.

 

The only thing you have so far demonstrated is that the word "god" can be used to describe a really good footballer or a woman more attractive than either of us could ever hope to have a chance with.  Both of which do exist; but neither of which come remotely close to the almighty creator of the universe whom you, specifically, call jehovah.  As a result, your childlike "evidence" isn't even in the same timezone as your claim.

 

Finally, you admit that it all has to be accepted by faith.  Well, no, it doesn't actually.  I can accept, by faith, that your opinion is your opinion; but I cannot accept, by faith, that your opinion is valid or true.  I'm under no obligation to accept it just because you say it.  For me to accept your opinion as valid or true, you'd need to support it with something more than just assertion, conjecture, and personal interpretation.  This is why your assertion does not indicate your belief to be valid.

 

You have failed to provide any evidence, by your own standard, of your claim.  We are, therefore, still at square one until you either retract your claim or present factual and informative evidence.  I'd recommend you pay close attention to your conversation with @WalterP concerning "objective" versus "subjective" interpretations, as this might help you better understand the difference between fact and opinion.

[SemmelweisReflex]

6 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

How did you ask him and what did he tell you? Exactly? As in did you sit in a room and uttered a question and you phisically heard an answer? Or saw a spirit talking? The concrete details. And what was the test you put it to and how did it pass? Again, in concrete details.

 

This is how I first became a believer. 

 

When I was about 12 I stopped watching TV and became an avid reader. I had had a paper route since I was 9 so I would go to the thrift store or order books from school. My grandmother loved going to yard sales and garage sales and bring me home boxes of books. American history, Stoker's Dracula, Shelley's Frankenstein, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Rudyard Kipling, Max Brand, Jack London - I would even read Erma Bombeck.  

 

My mom was irreligious, having seen the hypocrisy when being dragged from church to church by her mom as a kid, but when I was about 5 she was visited by the Jehovah's Witnesses and tolerated them. Over the years they left books and one of their Bibles but they were never read. Just stored in the back of a closet under the stairs. 

 

Since I read anything I could get my hands on I saved a few of the books and the Bible and figured some day I would read them. I didn't though, until I was far away many years later. When I did it made an impression on me. I took the JW Bible and a KJV my grandmother had given my mom - also never read - and compared translations. I also read the JW books. 

 

One of the books instructed the reader on what they thought was the proper way to pray to Jehovah and I decided I would give it a try. So I did. In the proper way which I had learned. I requested that if the people who had wrote the book from which I learned that had the truth would he please send them to me. 

 

I figured if there was anything to this God, Jehovah, they would come and find me in the secluded country home where I lived at the time. The next morning while doing laundry I prayed again and the doorbell rang. It was them. 

 

I was so stunned that I just stared blankly at the elderly lady giving me the magazine and a well practiced presentation and she was gone. I had lived in this place for 6 years and had never seen or heard of any JWs in the area. Had never seen one of their Kingdom Halls, though there was one in a town about a half hour's drive away. I would find out later that they had a Bible study in the nearest town and the lady had cancelled so they just drove around and found my place. 

 

After the lady had gone I soon gathered my senses and look up their number in the phone book to arrange a study. Normally there wasn't anyone there at that time of the day but a young Witness happened to be there doing some sort of administerial work or something and she answered the phone.  She thought it was a joke and so after waiting a week I called again and arranged a study.

That began a spiritual journiney for me that continues to this day. The test was to do as the noble minded Bereans of Acts 17:3 had done. I studied the scriptures carefully to see whether they were true. 

 

That journey continues to this day. I especially like to explore critical examinations of the Bible online. Like the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and address the criticisms atheists or - Ex Christians in the case of this forum - so that I am not too closed minded and biased in my search. 

[florduh]

8 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Atheists always want proof, we’re not making cars here, we don’t give guarantees.

Every thinking person should want at least some evidence for any assertions that come along, particularly the more outlandish ones. Would you take my word if I told you a Bigfoot wandered into my yard then vanished without a trace?

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

I will regret doing this; but what is a life well-lived if it doesn't contain some regret?  Let me try one more time to explain this a different way in hopes that you will understand. 

 

According to your own definition, "evidence" should consist of facts and information that indicate whether or not a belief or idea is valid or true.  What you have presented as "evidence" is nothing more than assertion, conjecture, and personal interpretation.  These modes of thought are not factual, even though they may be based on facts.  Rather, conjecture, personal interpretation, and assertion are what some educated and informed people might refer to as opinion.  Unfortunately, opinion does not fit into your own definition of "evidence", let alone mine or any other skeptic's.  This is because opinion simply is not evidence.

 

In this thread I'm having some fun with a discussion between myself and a group of people with differing opinions. I'm allowing myself to explore your collective thinking processes or lack thereof with a casual improvisational exchange. 

 

It isn't my intention to prove anything or convert anyone. You all seem to be really defensive and your strategy isn't to have the sort of exchange I see this as but to demand scientific evidence for the supernatural which validates your world view. To me the most obvious reason for this is that you have, in the process of going from believers to unbelievers, only changed one idealistic crutch of reality to another. From the quixotic to the mundane. 
 

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

The only thing you have so far demonstrated is that the word "god" can be used to describe a really good footballer or a woman more attractive than either of us could ever hope to have a chance with.  Both of which do exist; but neither of which come remotely close to the almighty creator of the universe whom you, specifically, call jehovah.  As a result, your childlike "evidence" isn't even in the same timezone as your claim.

 

The evidence, in that specific case, is that the meaning of the word god is misunderstood. If, by definition, atheism is the "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" as it in fact is, then at the very least there is something to think about. You needn't jump to the conclusion that that fact indicates anything other than what it does. The fact that you can't assimilate a simple fact without emotionally reacting to a threat to your ideology, world view, or paradigm in such a way tells me something about you all. 

 

I'm not trying to take away your crutch or beat you over the head with my own. I'm simply observing you. 

 

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Finally, you admit that it all has to be accepted by faith.  Well, no, it doesn't actually.  I can accept, by faith, that your opinion is your opinion; but I cannot accept, by faith, that your opinion is valid or true.  I'm under no obligation to accept it just because you say it.  For me to accept your opinion as valid or true, you'd need to support it with something more than just assertion, conjecture, and personal interpretation.  This is why your assertion does not indicate your belief to be valid.

 

Yes, but the interesting thing about that is that you seem to think that a contrary assertion of a similar nature, without evidence - with only assertion, conjecture, and personal interpretation on your part - is somehow more valid and true than my own. Or am I merely projecting? 

 

A discussion such as the one we are having, an exchange of opinions, should read something like this:

 

I believe this to be true. 

 

Why? 

 

Because [et cetera]

 

I believe it not to be true.

 

Why? 

 

Because [et cetera]

 

But instead it sounds like this:

 

I believe this to be true.

 

You can't believe that because our gurus haven't tested that in a laboratory to determine infallibly that it is true! You can't make me believe that! I hate you, I hate you, you fucknut! Shut up! Go away!

 

Wah! Wah! Wah!

 

[Laughs; shakes head]

 

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

You have failed to provide any evidence, by your own standard, of your claim.  We are, therefore, still at square one until you either retract your claim or present factual and informative evidence.  I'd recommend you pay close attention to your conversation with @WalterP concerning "objective" versus "subjective" interpretations, as this might help you better understand the difference between fact and opinion.

 

Grow up and try and have a meaningful conversation. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

51 minutes ago, florduh said:

Every thinking person should want at least some evidence for any assertions that come along, particularly the more outlandish ones. Would you take my word if I told you a Bigfoot wandered into my yard then vanished without a trace?

 

That depends on whether or not I knew and trusted you. Then I would investigate to determine for myself. What I wouldn't do is call Bart Ehrman, Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins and ask them what they think about it. 

 

I thought you would recognize the quote. Dr. Gregory House said that in the first season. 

 

House: Patients always want proof, we’re not making cars here, we don’t give guarantees.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

32 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Or am I merely projecting?

Yes.

 

32 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

You can't believe that because our gurus haven't tested that in a laboratory to determine infallibly that it is true! You can't make me believe that! I hate you, I hate you, you fucknut! Shut up! Go away!

Not a single person in this thread has told you what you can or cannot believe.  We have merely asked you why you believe it and can you support it.  Not a single person in this thread has said they hate you.  Not a single person in this thread has told you to shut up or go away.  You have a serious persecution complex if you really perceive this discussion as you've described.  You fucknut.

[florduh]

39 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

1 hour ago, florduh said:

Every thinking person should want at least some evidence for any assertions that come along, particularly the more outlandish ones. Would you take my word if I told you a Bigfoot wandered into my yard then vanished without a trace?

 

That depends on whether or not I knew and trusted you.

No, it doesn't hinge on how well you know me. The claim itself needs evidence for it or you must dismiss it regardless of your opinion of me.

[SemmelweisReflex]

20 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes.

 

Not a single person in this thread has told you what you can or cannot believe.  We have merely asked you why you believe it and can you support it.  Not a single person in this thread has said they hate you.  Not a single person in this thread has told you to shut up or go away.  You have a serious persecution complex if you really perceive this discussion as you've described.  You fucknut.

 

Well, you ignorant cunt, I don't see it that way. 

[freshstart]

58 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

your strategy isn't to have the sort of exchange I see this as but to demand scientific evidence for the supernatural

And what is so wrong with demanding scientific evidence? 

 

53 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

1 hour ago, florduh said:

Every thinking person should want at least some evidence for any assertions that come along, particularly the more outlandish ones. Would you take my word if I told you a Bigfoot wandered into my yard then vanished without a trace?

 

That depends on whether or not I knew and trusted you.

 

So as long as you know and trust someone, anything they assert is to be believed without further investigation?  Thank goodness our criminal justice system, health care system, journalism, etc. operates with the understanding that trustworthy people we know very well don't always get it right. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

10 minutes ago, florduh said:

No, it doesn't hinge on how well you know me. The claim itself needs evidence for it or you must dismiss it regardless of your opinion of me.

 

You asked me if I would take your word. The evidence for it, as I said, would be investigated later. 

[freshstart]

I love seeing this .  

 Next to this:

1 minute ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Well, you ignorant cunt, I don't see it that way. 

 

It speaks volumes.

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 minute ago, freshstart said:

And what is so wrong with demanding scientific evidence? 

 

To demand or suggest the merit of scientific evidence for the supernatural, which science can't test is stupid at the least and at the worst, deceptive. 

 

1 minute ago, freshstart said:

So as long as you know and trust someone, anything they assert is to be believed without further investigation?

 

Read it again. That implication is the exact oppisite of what I said. 

 

Quote

 Thank goodness our criminal justice system, health care system, journalism, etc. operates with the understanding that trustworthy people we know very well don't always get it right. 

 

Does it? You might want to check out the thread in the science forum I just posted. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, freshstart said:

I love seeing this .  

 Next to this:

 

It speaks volumes.

In Semi-Wise's defense, I did call him a fucknut.