Anti-religion internet memes

Not addressed to me but as a retired Registered Nurse I can answer

Many times I witnessed a "should have died but didn't" event

Conclusion - the evidence used by the medical staff (of which I was one) was incorrect

Of course it could also be said us angels from heaven performed miracles but we are to modest to make such claims

We could claim to have been well taught how to handle various human medical events and to gain experience though repeating such events

Though flushing out a teenage girls stomach repeatedly (that's different girls) so many times you could do it on auto pilot became tiresome and you waited for a newbie to train and hand over the flush out mantel

However having performed said miracles the box of chocolates was always welcomed

I miss delivering babies the most

Not a miracle but damn close

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, the body's subconscious control functions can be remarkably resilient . Unless your body receives overwhelming shock or severe damage to a critical organ, your body will continue to function for a long time until you become braindead from lack of blood and/or oxygen.

I would call it a probabilistically low potential event with a "good" outcome. A "one in a thousand"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

p.s. In a Texas Hold-Em poker game I once drew a 7 card royal flush (8 -----> Ace). That's a "one in forty three thousand" probability event. Won a few free pokerchips, no miracles for me, it seems.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I completely agree, but also never in the name of God, whereas the Gods of several religions and faiths have been the driving force and commanded wars in His Name.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well put.
I know I have my flaws and I dont try to hide them.
But it simply boils down to this ...we each know the other is wrong☺
What you see as evidence I dont.
I think the key point of disagreement would be that JC is God.
Your hypothisis,is I assume, JC is God your evidence is he said so and did things that you attribute to the power of God and died and rose three days later to then leave the Earthy relm presumably to become the God of all over.

Would it be safe to say that if the story I suggested is not correct in a broad sense then everything else is irrelevant because it would be in fact built on a lie.
JC being God is critical.
JC claims he is God some believe it some dont.
I dont you do.

I know that.
My only strength, out side of bebate, is to continually ask questions that need to be answered without let up.
It requires no cunning or thought but usually wins the day.
It all boils down the mentally being in the moment you want to work out at a mere human level...tracking it that way you may get a thread of what went on and at what points the story may be real or invented.
Anyways that usually produces one question that if unanswered or avoided wins the game for you really...leading folk to focus onbthe key point is the art not debate.
But I agree with your view.

You are right.
Thats terrible and I appologise.

There is no excuse for that..I was going to shrug it off but you are right.

I am sorry.

That really is the best thing I dont want upset you and clearly I have.

I would love to continue to address more but I must go.

But on the up side I have been contenting myself thinking about all the good things christians do and that most are trying to do their best for themselves their family their friends the needy the nation and the world so that is a good thing.
Alex

 

///
Yes. A few typos is only a very small indication of error in argument. If the argument is valid, they do not matter.

<>

 

You libeled in a different thread↗. Why can't you ever remember your own posts? Seriously, is there a reason you can't keep track of your own actions?

As to proving you wrong? Okay, fine: To take you at face value—

—you are either too stupid, or too dishonest, or perhaps both, to attend the issue in its proper context:

• No matter how much I might chuckle at the old advice column morality about how she just needs contact with sperm, and not intercourse itself ....

• If God is capable of separating night and day, and making the Earth come together, and breathing life into clay, sure, divinely manifesting a blastocyst inside a woman ought to be pretty simple. However, compared to the rest of society around them at the time, something had them really, really focused on what ought by now be familiar issues of youth, age, purity, and corruption. Like Nicaea, when the objection was to Christ's humanity because human frailty is disgusting and Jesus cannot be weak and disgusting, so also did someone really, really need Mary to be a virgin not because God can't be a rapist but because the mother of Christ cannot be a roadworn slut.​

Those two points are from 171↑ the post you quoted in #173↑. That is, to be specific, you either didn't read the post you quoted, or couldn't answer it and thus chose to require a change of subject.

No, really: The story is the story is the story, whether we believe it or not. Just like Vlad's bit in Yendi about cyclical and enforced poverty, i.e., racist classism. It doesn't really matter that sorcery isn't real, even if someone decides to pretend it is. If you can't figure out what the story is telling you, why? If you purport to choose to address the story but can only actually countenance a change of subject, why?

Is it that you are not capable of understanding the stories?

Or is it that you refuse to?

And we should take the moment to highlight that the latter does not preclude the former.

Screw your fallacies. In the end, you're a troll wasting people's time.

 

If I libelled in a different thread it is a little dishonest of you to voice your criticism in this thread. How am I supposed to track your accusation to another thread?
And now you are libelling me for your faux pas as well? Keep shovelling, the hole is getting deeper

You must be talking about the "silvery salamander" ? She does indeed produce offspring, but without male sperm at all. (no contact no magical merging, just no male sperm). And that 's why the species are all female and clones of each other, each with identical physiology which is why they need to be protected. A single virus could kill the entire population. My point was not if Mary could have been a virgin and a holy vessel at the same time. My point was that if Mary had been literally a "virgin", she could not have produced a male child. By God's Law.

This is where you are wrong. God already laid down the laws of mammalian procreation and the chemistry involved. God's Laws are unbreakable.

Yes I understand the metaphors and targeted psychology in most of biblical scripture. But that makes it no less factually impossible! God cannot break his own laws, they are divine laws!

Even when speaking from a theist perspective, mathematically, as per God's Law, female DNA can only produce females. It requires male DNA to introduce the male Y chromosome into the equation.

As per God's Law!

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

No,
one could make an argument that religion is a Troll and has been wasting peoples lives for millennia. When religious people come knocking at my door and tell me I need to be saved, they are TROLLS! I do not do that to them.

This forum is for honest discussion and honest criticism, without insult to serious participants.
I am sorry but I must repeat my original question. When discussing science you insist on scientific rigor, which I applaud. Why on earth do you completely discard scientific standards when discussing theism and religion?

Fables have great moral values also but no one suggests that a fox can really talk, no? The moral message can be true, but that does not make the story factually true. The story and message of Christ is on the whole positive, but that does not make Jesus the literal son of God, unless you are suggesting that it is morally acceptable to trick people into becoming "believers" (it is defined that way).

Can I take anything you say at face value, or should I worry if you are feeding me parables (fiction), also known as alternate truths just to keep (will) me on the straight and narrow? Or can such results be achieved by relying on human intellect itself.

IMO the Bible is a magnificent fable and we know that half of it is pure fiction, the parables identifying the subject of morality. You cannot suddenly discard the scientific approach when applying abstract logic and the system of verification in its expressions in the physical world.

 

God is as science tells us it must be, at least to a great part. Science tells us God employs the laws of mathematics. All things are mathematical patterns of interacting values and functions. If God works in these phenomena it is in fact working in accordance to rigid mathematical accuracies and consistencies. Thus these mathematical and physical universal constants must be God's laws, no?
Divine, unbreakable, unalterable Universal Laws of logic, mathematics and physical expressions in reality as physical patterns.
A far cry from immaculate conception.

But if one wants to ascribe all that to a motivated sentient supernatural being (perhaps from another dimension), that is a matter of choice by the individual. I maintain that mathematics do not require a sentient operator. Universal Mathematical functions are the pseudo-sentient constants which can account for the enormous amount of data transfer and expression in human reality.

 

If God wasn't bound to this mathematics, in what way would this world appear different?

 

You cannot unbind yourself from that which mathematically (logically) constitutes your reality.
Not even God.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hence the turtles.

 

With you there. No way can you break non existent laws

If you had said Physics Laws are unbreakable I certainly would also agree and while it could be debated physics could don the mantle of god it would have to be without the anthropomorphism aspects

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, Remember, I was speaking from a theist perspective, but which does not alter the seemingly relatively few numerical symbols and a handfull of mathematical equations that can account for how it all works. That's Tegmark.
Mind it does not make any other claims than the accountable aspects, which is translatable by our science.
IMO, a Universal God is a superfluous concept. Each one of us is a god of his own internal universe (mind) to greater or lesser degree. The universal Mathematical matrix of the Wholeness itself permits or restricts our motivated actions. Patterns.

 

The question is whether the reality that God engineers for us also constrains God (and, furthermore, what would you isolate within the reality that constrains us as necessarily constraining God)?

 

Yes, it does. No choices except for quantum.

The mathematics demand constancy, the restraint lies in the necessary consistency. Variety is naturally achieved even by implacable mathematics, not necessarily sentiently created.

Patterns are naturally occurring organizations. Density and fluidity of the patterns create our observable reality.

A motivated operator is not required. Just a functional self-referential mathematical operating system is sufficient for near infinite variety of expression.

Not all energetic or mathematical potential becomes reality, but all reality is, was, and will be preceded by potential, not by God. But according to scripture that is not how it works, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This is why it was impossible for the church to maintain denial of evolution. The evidence for natural universal evolutionary processes was so overwhelming, that scientific rigor
demanded the church make a statement in acceptance of Darwinian evolution.

To the church's credit, two catholic popes did in fact make those declarations. Problem is they didn't change scripture because creationism is not literally compatible with natural
evolution and the entire bible would have to be rewritten, mostly in the language of mathematics and emerging patterns.

 

Then that is the point that your definition of God radically diverges from scripture. You could even say that there would be no purpose in worshipping such a God, beyond the worldly political aspirations that sees one person esteemed over another.

 

Or put the other way, in reality there is no such God.

You have never presented a definition of God. Apparently, you don't have one.
There is none in scripture, either.
So how are you discovering these "differences"? You aren't. You are asserting their existence, as a pretext for disparaging certain kinds of people on a science forum.

 

Is there a thread for religious memes?

 

There is a joke in there somewhere but it is midnight and 3 cell brain closing down for sleep

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Erm... "called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin" would seem to indicate the term Christian came about because of one so-named. Plus, the reference to Pontius Pilatus "checking" the movement, would seem to indicate the Crucifixion, would it not?

 

Oh, certainly, the diagnosis can be wrong - but certain materials (especially of an extreme acidity or basic nature) should, under certain conditions, inflict severe, if not fatal, wounds.

That said, I see your point.

Fair enough.