Semmelweis Reflex

[SemmelweisReflex]

3 minutes ago, freshstart said:

I love seeing this .  

 Next to this:

 

It speaks volumes.

 

Yeah, about that. Can I get rid of that? First of all, like I said, I'm not Christian and secondly if I were I wouldn't venerate the Roman phallic symbol the cross. 

 

But, if you were trying to imply that my attitude is hypocritical that is because your own Christian background is founded upon hypocrisy and ignorance. 

 

God referred to the wicked as prostitutes, to their idols as shit and penises and the Greek word katabole used many time in the Christian Greek scripture to describe the founding of the world, Satan's world, is etymologically exactly the same as our word fuck. The laying or throwing down of seed. 

 

Only the religious or overeducated idiots object to words as obscene.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

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

Perhaps you could supply us with a quote, or a screenshot, where someone told you what you could believe, or to shut up and go away.  In other words, provide evidence for your opinion, like the photograph below:

 

 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

I am seeing shades of Brother Mario in this discussion.

[SemmelweisReflex]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Perhaps you could supply us with a quote, or a screenshot, where someone told you what you could believe, or to shut up and go away.  In other words, provide evidence for your opinion, like the photograph below:

 

 

 

I was speaking metaphorically. That is what calling someone a fucknut and threatening to ban them implies, don't you think? It's cool, though. Just an observation. I'm not bitching or whining. Far be it from me to ask for a little courtesy and respect for my beliefs . . . oh! I know. That is too much to ask for someone as humble and knowledgeable as myself, but try to look past my shinning uniqueness. 

 

You know I'm just playing, don't you? There is a time for serious debate and a time for rolling around in the muck. 

 

You can call me a fucknut any time, buddy. 

[freshstart]

6 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

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. 

Why is that stupid?  Science has always been part of  "supernatural" investigation.  That's how we learned, for example, that mental illness is not due demon possession.

In the absence scientific exploration, what evidence would you suggest? 

[SemmelweisReflex]

9 minutes ago, Krowb said:

I am seeing shades of Brother Mario in this discussion.

 

I think it's so dumb when unbelievers are neurotic and paranoid. Troll! Sock puppet! 

 

You know, when I read any post in this thread I see shades of every other atheist forum I've participated in over the last quarter of a century. 

 

You get used to it. I don't think the heathens have united against me to make me a martyr for the brotherhood. 

 

 

 

At least not out loud I don't. 

[freshstart]

15 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

But, if you were trying to imply that my attitude is hypocritical that is because your own Christian background is founded upon hypocrisy and ignorance. 

You know nothing about my Christian background.

 

8 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Far be it from me to ask for a little courtesy and respect for my beliefs .

Funny how you want to ask for something you can't give. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

2 minutes ago, freshstart said:

Why is that stupid?  Science has always been part of  "supernatural" investigation.  That's how we learned, for example, that mental illness is not due demon possession.

In the absence scientific exploration, what evidence would you suggest? 

 

It's stupid like me saying that science should be tested by theological standards. Does that comparison make sense? Now do you see?

 

I get the subtle nuance of your mental illness comparison and of course I realize that science minded atheists like to dismiss the supernatural in that unscientific sort of way but it really is an unscientific claim and comparison you are making.  

 

Do you think it possible that you don't make that connection due to your ideological fixation? 

[SemmelweisReflex]

2 minutes ago, freshstart said:

You know nothing about my Christian background.

 

It was an unscientific guess. Let me check.  "I'm a former Christian in search of more like-minded free thinkers." Sound familiar?

 

2 minutes ago, freshstart said:

Funny how you want to ask for something you can't give. 

 

Now do some comparisons of comments made in this thread. Mark those that are rude and disrespectful by the folks on your side compared to those on mine accounting for the difference in numbers on each side (only one of me) or something scientific like that.

[freshstart]

4 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

It's stupid like me saying that science should be tested by theological standards. Does that comparison make sense? Now do you see?

 

Oh, I see.  Science is stupid.  Got it. 

So, I'll ask again, what evidence do you suggest for determining which of the millions of supernatural claims are "truth?"

[◊ Krowb ◊]

 

19 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

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

 

The point was to establish there are methods of indirect evidence to show when something affects a system but may be outside said system.

 

To summarize your response:

1. the bible, as currently published, is incorrect.
2. jesus was being figurative

With respect to our current understanding, lightning was attributed to various gods for over 1,000 years.  It is indeed an awesome natural force, but is not the work of skygod birds, Thor, or Zeus, among many others.  Your response is disingenuous and the wordplay is unbecoming.

 

With respect to "appear", can you please clarify between "can't appear" and "does not appear like you state" (- to be clear, I never stated how he appeared - merely that the bible attributes appearances to him)

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

33 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

That is what calling someone a fucknut and threatening to ban them implies, don't you think? It's cool, though. Just an observation. I'm not bitching or whining. Far be it from me to ask for a little courtesy and respect for my beliefs . . . oh! I know. That is too much to ask for someone as humble and knowledgeable as myself, but try to look past my shinning uniqueness. 

Honestly, what did you think was going to happen when you came here making extraordinary claims without sufficient evidence to support them and then started acting like we were assholes for not accepting them? 

 

Also, no one has threatened to ban you.  You were specifically told that you'd be welcome to stay, and be heard, for as long as you'd like (and I can prove that you were told this, if need be).  Now, dry up that bleeding gash and go on about your business.

[SemmelweisReflex]

8 minutes ago, freshstart said:

Oh, I see.  Science is stupid.  Got it. 

 

I don't think science is stupid. I think John Cleese said it best: "Science is not a belief system it's a method of investigation." I think, like theology, politics, music, art, fashion, sports or any other endeavor of mankind, science is extremely subject to corruption. Funding, conflicting interest, publishing, peer review et cetera. 

 

See, I think that our biggest conflict is that you seem to think that I present theology is infallible truth and I think that you present science as infallible truth. We are probably both wrong and that is probably due to ideological differences and confirmation bias and that sort of thing on both our parts. 

 

I honestly think that if we could remove the monetary incentive the corruption would end in all of those endeavors. I think that theology and science are suppressed by money, the love of which is the root of all evil. And that is a real shame.  

 

8 minutes ago, freshstart said:

So, I'll ask again, what evidence do you suggest for determining which of the millions of supernatural claims are "truth?"

 

Define evidence, supernatural and truth for starters. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Yeah, about that. Can I get rid of that?

Certainly.

[SemmelweisReflex]

20 minutes ago, Krowb said:

The point was to establish there are methods of indirect evidence to show when something affects a system but may be outside said system.

 

Was it? Well, it's a good thing you dropped by because I thought the point was to establish what a fucknut I was.

 

20 minutes ago, Krowb said:

To summarize your response:

1. the bible, as currently published, is incorrect.
2. jesus was being figurative

 

Only one question, if you don't mind. Exactly in which case was I suggesting Jesus was being figurative? 

 

20 minutes ago, Krowb said:

With respect to our current understanding, lightning was attributed to various gods for over 1,000 years.  It is indeed an awesome natural force, but is not the work of skygod birds, Thor, or Zeus, among many others.  Your response is disingenuous and the wordplay is unbecoming.

 

Good lord, man! Where did you get this ability?! When did I make the alleged disingenuous response to lightning and skygod birds? 

 

20 minutes ago, Krowb said:

With respect to "appear", can you please clarify between "can't appear" and "does not appear like you state" (- to be clear, I never stated how he appeared - merely that the bible attributes appearances to him)

 

 

Well can't you do that for me? 

 

This response, for some reason, reminds me of Slartibartfast

 

Slartibartfast: Perhaps I'm old and tired, but I think that the chances of finding out what's actually going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say, "Hang the sense of it," and keep yourself busy. I'd much rather be happy than right any day.

 

Arthur Dent: And are you?

 

Slartibartfast: Ah, no. Well, that's where it all falls down, of course.

 

I don't know why that comes to mind but I thought I would throw it in for fun. 

 

Uh . . . what were we talking about? I'm going to need some clarification by your supplying a reference by link or quote from my comments regarding appearances, see if I don't.  

[florduh]

1 hour ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

...your own Christian background is founded upon hypocrisy and ignorance. 

There it is again. The usual "You weren't a real/informed/proper believer like I am."

 

I'm done with what turned out to be another typical know it all Christian, claiming of course he's NOT a Christian because he's better than that. Enjoy, folks!

[midniterider]

If only Jesus would appear and clear up misconceptions for us non-believers. You know, like he appeared to people after the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:6. Why doesn't he do that in 2021? It's almost like...the bible is fiction and Jesus is non-existent.

[SemmelweisReflex]

44 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Certainly.

 

Hmm. Thanks? But isn't Genuine Christian a sort of contradiction of terms. 

 

What about El Conquistador? Is that taken? 

 

Or, no! How about one of my old atheist forum nomenclatures from years ago - Greasus Chrysler?

 

Whatever. I'm not one to complain, as you well know. . . or is that campaign? I'm not one to campaign . . . Champaign! I never was one for Champaign. 

 

Edited To Add: Doctrinally Sound Christian? I kinda' like that. That's crazy enough to work. 

 

[WalterP]

5 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

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?

 

First things first, David.

 

I saw that you were going to tell us how god spoke to you and so I posted the passage where god spoke to Elijah.  As the RedneckProfessor has pointed out, there is a vital difference between what is subjectively experienced by one person and what may be objectively known by others.  Elijah's encounter with the earthquake, the fire, the wind and the still, small voice is perfect for illustrating this difference.

 

Before I explain further, let me first disabuse of the notion that there are such things as Christian scientists. Aside from members of this  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science sect there are no Christian scientists.  There are scientists who are Christians, just as there are scientists who are Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and other faiths. 

 

But, just as the RedneckProfessor has also pointed out, science is an agnostic activity and is not affiliated to or under the control of any supernatural belief system.  Science is the investigation of the natural universe and its not within the remit of science to import any supernatural beliefs into its working principles.   

 

Ok, having got that out of the way, lets move on to the important point of the dichotomy between the subjective and the objective. We can do this by adjusting your words to more accurately reflect what science can do.

 

Q.

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

 

A.

The scientist in question might find physical evidence of the fire, the earthquake and the great wind.  This would constitute objective evidence because other scientists could visit the scene, make the same observations and measurements and replicate the results.

 

From this body of objective evidence it would then be possible to infer that god's meeting with Elijah took place.  But no more than that.  Since religious faith plays no part in science it would not be possible for any scientist, regardless of their private religious beliefs, to claim that god did speak to Elijah.  That was a supernatural event which went unwitnessed by anyone else and which left no physical evidence that could be examined at a later time.  Said religiously-minded scientist might privately believe that god did speak to Elijah, but that would not be a scientific conclusion - that would be a personal, religious conclusion.

 

There is an unbreakable dividing wall between what a scientist does professionally and what they believe privately.  The former is strictly agnostic and the latter is a matter of personal choice.  But the two cannot and must not mix.

 

There is also an unbreakable dividing line between the subjective and the objective.

 

Elijah's experience of that still, small voice was absolutely and totally subjective.  There were only two persons present and nobody else there to corroborate the fact that it happened as the bible describes.  What we read is a record of the event, but we, like everyone else except Elijah, were not and cannot be party to what he privately experienced. 

 

Subjective experiences are, by definition, closed to everyone else except the person experiencing them.  Ok, we can believe that they happened by reading about them or by listening to that personal relating their experiences to us.  But what we can never do is to SHARE in those experiences, either in real time as they happen or later on, as if a person's memories could somehow be replayed within our own minds.

 

And this is THE major problem with almost everything recorded in the bible, David.

 

It is next to impossible to find any objective evidence to corroborate what has been reported in that book.  Sure, the places where they are alleged to have happened can be visited, but nobody today can be party to the conversations that supposedly took place in Jerusalem, Damascus or Bethlehem so long ago.  What happened in closed rooms between several people leaves no physical traces we can detect.  What occurred in public spaces leaves no physical residue that any instrument can measure.  All of the things experienced by Moses, King David, John and Peter and Paul might have happened.  But there is no objective way of definitively finding out if they did or not.

 

That is why these things are taken as true by faith, not on the basis of any objective evidence.

 

The bible even confirms this.

 

John 20 : 30 & 31.

 

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 

31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

These words were written for the eyes of those who did not see and experience what happened in the time of Jesus.  Those subjective experiences were only for the eyes of those people present there and then.  But they are recorded so that others can believe by faith (not evidence) that they did happen.

 

This is the dividing line between the subjective and the objective, David.  Subjective experiences are only for the person experiencing them and in themselves do not constitute objective evidence.  Objective evidence can support the possibility that someone experienced these things subjectively, but it can never confirm a subjective experience as an objective fact.

 

In the same way, whatever subjective experiences you have had do not constitute objective evidence that you actually had them.  All we or anyone else can do is read what you say about what you've experienced.  It is then up to us to decide if we believe you or not.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter. 

 

 

[SemmelweisReflex]

7 minutes ago, florduh said:

There it is again. The usual "You weren't a real/informed/proper believer like I am."

 

I'm done with what turned out to be another typical know it all Christian, claiming of course he's NOT a Christian because he's better than that. Enjoy, folks!

 

You'll have to excuse florduh, ladies and gentlemen, he comes with a preset chip on his shoulder. 

 

Walk it off, pal!

[WalterP]

David,

 

The bible illustrates just how difficult it is even for multiple witnesses to agree on what they experiencing.

 

John 12 : 27 - 30.

 

27 “Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. 

28 Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven: “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.” 

29 The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, “An angel has spoken to him.” 

30 Jesus answered, “This voice has come for your sake, not mine.

 

Do you see how different people had their own, uniquely subjective experiences of the same event?  Some heard the voice of god, some heard the voice of an angel and other heard the sound of thunder.

 

If we say that a person's subjective experiences DO constitute objective evidence, then where does this passage leave us?

 

With three bodies of objective evidence that contradict each other.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Honestly, what did you think was going to happen when you came here making extraordinary claims without sufficient evidence to support them and then started acting like we were assholes for not accepting them? 

I don't think you're assholes for not accepting them. I think you're assholes for the same reason I am. We're human. From sin. 

 

I also don't think you are interested in or capable of defending your position as well as I am mine and that pisses you off. Otherwise you would just ignore me and I would eventually just go away and this forum would die like every other one I've been on. 

 

As a regular on Steve Well's Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB) he invited me to comment on his Dwindling In Unbelief because he wanted representation of an alternative perspective. I think I made one post and he advised everyone there to ignore me as he was going to ignore me. 

 

The first forum I posted on in the mid 1990's, a Ex-Jehovah's Witness site called Watchtower Observer, I got email bombed and threats to my life. This ain't, as they say, my first Rodeo Drive by.

 

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Also, no one has threatened to ban you.  You were specifically told that you'd be welcome to stay, and be heard, for as long as you'd like (and I can prove that you were told this, if need be).  Now, dry up that bleeding gash and go on about your business.

 

[Sulking] Fine! 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

30 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

I also don't think you are interested in or capable of defending your position as well as I am mine and that pisses you off.

I have no "position" to defend, son.  That's the beauty of having neither doctrinal beliefs nor theological opinions.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

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

I believe I called him an ignorant fuck a couple times.

 

He had already become belligerent as well tho.

 

if I were him I would think we hated him. He has grounds for thinking that. I really don't like him at all. And someone did say shit up or put up. I guess that could be interpreted as telling him to shut up. 

[Astreja]

7 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

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?

 

No, the technology just has to detect something rather than nothing.  It doesn't have to be "objectively true"; it just has to be plausible.  (As things stand now, I'm utterly baffled why anyone over the age of 5 or 6 actually believes the arrant nonsense in the Bible - it's always seemed more than a bit "off" to me.)