DinosaurNerd89 (11877186) wrote:Whatever "evidence" you seen, could certainly be applied to any religious figure, even ones you don't believe in. At best, Christ was a normal dude like me and you, who said some cool stuff, and pissed off the religious folks of the time(which i can deffo get behind LOL)


Thats all im saying on the matter though, since im currently not in the mood to debate it in this thread or anywhere else at the moment, but when we both have the chance to down the road, im deffo your huckleberry.

We should definitely chat sometime outside of here.

The Tutor (126579776) wrote:

SvG Jericha (6077295) wrote:

The Tutor (126579776) wrote:

SvG Jericha (6077295) wrote:

Erwyle (187240896) wrote:

SvG Jericha (6077295) wrote:

Erwyle (187240896) wrote:I also hear something like, "I'm not worried, God will protect me." Reminds me of a possibly cute joke. Stop me if you've heard it:

The river is rising and citizens have been warned to evacuate the flooding. A man says, "I'm not worried, God will protect me."

Soon after, another man knocks on his door and says, "Come on neighbor! The river is rising and we have to leave." The man simply replies, "I'm not worried, God will protect me."

Well, a while later, the waters have risen so the street is now flooded and the man's home is halfway submerged. Another man comes by in a boat and says, "Come on neighbor! Your house is nearly gone and we have to leave." The man simply replies, I'm not worried, God will protect me."

So, now the man is clinging to the chimney on the roof of his house, flood waters swirling around him. A helicopter appears above and lowers a rope. From above, a man shouts, "Come on! The river is rising and you have to leave!" The man simply replies, I'm not worried, God will protect me."

Well, as you might imagine the poor man dies in the flood. And when he gets to heaven, he asks God, "God, you saw I was in trouble. You know I needed you. I had faith that you would save me, but you let me die. Why?"

God says, "Are you kidding me right now?! I sent a guy on foot, another in a boat, I even sent a helicopter. What more did you want?"

You'll have to pardon me, but I think all religions are a farce...but, that about sums up xtianity for a person.

No pardon needed. It's up to each person what they want to believe. I guess I like that joke because it correlates to the mask and vaccine situation. They think God is going to protect them, yet eschew protection. Strange. If you ever run into a Bible thumper who you feel needs this joke, it works pretty well. Gives them pause to think...

I think that's the entire problem. They don't think. They feel that they need a mythical being to do all that for them. One thing I don't tend to run into is a bible thumper. They tend to steer clear of me. I don't blame them, either. An atheist who is capable of critical thinking is not their BFF.

I'm your huckleberry.......

I spent just over 4 years as an atheist working very hard to disprove the story of Christ. The evidence is overwhelming as to His existence, his death, and the eye witness accounts around His appearances after death. These sources exist outside of the Bible and corroborate the account within it. They come from Roman soldiers who knew that death was their reward for admitting they failed at their orders and from Jewish leadership who were trying to murder the very man they hated.

I'm no Bible thumper. I don't shove the facts in anyone's face. They are out there for any critical thinker to find for themselves. It's just easier to discount the facts and ignore them, because their existence means that we are forced to choose.

I'm sorry you guys have met/seen/read about some supposed Christians who got it wrong. People have abused their roles and caused many to see that as the reason to discount the only story that ever mattered. These people will pay for their abuses, as the God they used promised them. But there are millions who got it right and do so every day. They follow a being who exists outside time and space, who is so powerful that His very words became reality, and who just wanted some friends with the free will to choose to hang out with Him throughout eternity. He wears the label "God" because our limited minds can handle that simplified construct, but it's such a small name that's filled with connotations that are improperly strained through our limited understandings and experiences.

Anyhoo, I do understand why many Christians run from atheists - they aren't prepared to adequately discuss their "faith" as they were instructed by Paul to do. They haven't been properly discipled, and instead run blindly through life tripping over themselves and running from the reality of their calling. Religion does that to people and it is perhaps the greatest threat to the truth that exists. The Bible was never about religion. It is all about relationship.

I've broken a forum rule by responding to this. But I thought it important enough to clarify. I hope I did so gracefully. This is a conversation I usually save for in person discussions, but the topic came up in my thread and I'll never be afraid to "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks to give reason for the hope that lies within" me.

I think you've thought WAY too much about my comment once again. I don't believe in fairytale beings and I don't live by a book that was written by a mere mortal man because all humans are prone to error. If you can show me tangible evidence of this deity's existence, I'm all ears. If you can't, that's simply your opinion and I don't agree with with it.
But, hey, that's the great thing about this country we live in. You can believe in whatever you want, just as I can believe in facts, science and whatever you can show proof of existing.
This wouldn't even be a conversation that we would have, to be honest. I think I'm safe in saying that I'm quite a few years older than you are (at least a decade, I'd venture to guess) and you wouldn't be the first to try to get me "to see the light". I don't believe in all that junk. I never will. You do you on that one.
Now, as you have stated on my posts, you are entitled to your opinion. That's what I did here. Are you saying that I don't have the same rights as you do...or what is going on with this? You'll have to tell me because, rather than jump to an assumption, I think I'll just ask you to clarify.
And, as for you being the huckleberry, I don't think so. You have not brought up anything akin to trouble with me. You just saying that you have a right to believe in xtianity, which is fine. There's no trouble with that. I'm saying I don't believe in any of it, from xtianity, to islam to wiccan...and you haven't proven that any of these deities exist.
That's what "I'm your huckleberry" means, in case you did know. It means that you're down for causing trouble. I'm still waiting for you to do that on this subject.

No maam, I wasn't tryin to convince you or change your words or deny your opinion. Mine's different and I simply stated why.

I often use the "huckleberry" comment when responding directly to posts. You said they 'steer clear' of you, and I just wanted to be one who didn't.

But that is not what that huckleberry saying means. It literally means that you are down to cause trouble. Maybe that's why a lot of people don't really know how to take you...you're using a saying in a way that you think is clever, but it's actually being used incorrectly.
And, I can guarantee that if we met up in real life, you'd turn on your heel and walk away after about 30 seconds of what I have to say, in person, to someone who thinks that they can convince me a some invisible being in the sky. You're not unique in that aspect. I've been there and done that...more than once.

The Tutor (126579776) wrote:

DinosaurNerd89 (11877186) wrote:Whatever "evidence" you seen, could certainly be applied to any religious figure, even ones you don't believe in. At best, Christ was a normal dude like me and you, who said some cool stuff, and pissed off the religious folks of the time(which i can deffo get behind LOL)


Thats all im saying on the matter though, since im currently not in the mood to debate it in this thread or anywhere else at the moment, but when we both have the chance to down the road, im deffo your huckleberry.

We should definitely chat sometime outside of here.

Also, i ain't looking to change your mind on anything, and you sure ain't gonna change mine, but i do find debating on different subjects to be rather entertaining, and i feel it sharpens everyones minds.

I'll gladly take you up on a chat sometime outside if here though.

The core tenet of all major religions is feeling of universal unity and decreased sense of self.
They all promote ethics of good morals, teachings of goodwill, forgiveness and selflessness.
All of which are embedded in humans. In reality, no book or a messenger is needed to tell us that we have to be good as a human. It's all common sense.
But I can understand why most feel the need to follow a person or an ancient book for moral guidance.

Mahalo

DinosaurNerd89 (11877186) wrote:

The Tutor (126579776) wrote:

DinosaurNerd89 (11877186) wrote:Whatever "evidence" you seen, could certainly be applied to any religious figure, even ones you don't believe in. At best, Christ was a normal dude like me and you, who said some cool stuff, and pissed off the religious folks of the time(which i can deffo get behind LOL)


Thats all im saying on the matter though, since im currently not in the mood to debate it in this thread or anywhere else at the moment, but when we both have the chance to down the road, im deffo your huckleberry.

We should definitely chat sometime outside of here.

Also, i ain't looking to change your mind on anything, and you sure ain't gonna change mine, but i do find debating on different subjects to be rather entertaining, and i feel it sharpens everyones minds.

I'll gladly take you up on a chat sometime outside if here though.

I'm the same. Nobody learns a thing by propping up fact tents around their beliefs while never considering new data points. I reasoned myself into and out of atheism by sticking to data. Both the absence of a god and the existence of a god take faith.....and the data are all we have to get to either result. Blind "faith" in either case is a bad path.

Hey guys, I'm not tryin to "last word" anyone here, but I am going to cease and desist now in deference to the forum rules. I feel like you are all great people and we could probably have a good discussion without getting torqued at each other, but we are technically in violation. The Vikes have worked hard enough the past few months. LOL

The core tenet is that ALL religions were invented as a means of control and systemic brainwashing. It's not just a xtianity thing.
More murders, in the history of the world, have been committed in the name of one religion or another.
No thanks.

The Tutor (126579776) wrote:Hey guys, I'm not tryin to "last word" anyone here, but I am going to cease and desist now in deference to the forum rules. I feel like you are all great people and we could probably have a good discussion without getting torqued at each other, but we are technically in violation. The Vikes have worked hard enough the past few months. LOL

Another time, then. Thanks for keeping it civil. I can discuss stuff, precisely like this, all day long as long as it's done in a debate manner.

I spent some time today reading through the available data around the risk that "animal reservoirs" are a possible cause in the spread covid. Until today, I didn't know the term "animal reservoir" was the existence of a virus within a non-human species that is harmful to humans.

The short answer is that there have been no official studies or experiments done. All evidence is either spot related or determined after the fact. There are documented cases of covid-19 in animals that have been confirmed by the CDC, but the risk of spread from them as a source is low (CDC official statement).

We don't have enough data yet to asses this potential threat vector. But what if this is the source of continued infection? There are 2 confirmed cases in dogs, and we do love our dogs. Dogs interact with both other dogs and humans regularly when they are out. There have just been too many cases where people have steered clear of interacting and have still come down with covid, both with and without vaccine. I'm just speculating here.

If you can find a good source about this possibility, I'd love to read it. Thx!

SvG Jericha (6077295) wrote:

The Tutor (126579776) wrote:Hey guys, I'm not tryin to "last word" anyone here, but I am going to cease and desist now in deference to the forum rules. I feel like you are all great people and we could probably have a good discussion without getting torqued at each other, but we are technically in violation. The Vikes have worked hard enough the past few months. LOL

Another time, then. Thanks for keeping it civil. I can discuss stuff, precisely like this, all day long as long as it's done in a debate manner.

I know you can. I admire your capability and tenacity. Unfortunately there's a few peeps who'd potentially see the discussion and think we were 'rastlin. Some peeps just can't read a good debate without losing their biscuits.

The Tutor (126579776) wrote:

SvG Jericha (6077295) wrote:

The Tutor (126579776) wrote:Hey guys, I'm not tryin to "last word" anyone here, but I am going to cease and desist now in deference to the forum rules. I feel like you are all great people and we could probably have a good discussion without getting torqued at each other, but we are technically in violation. The Vikes have worked hard enough the past few months. LOL

Another time, then. Thanks for keeping it civil. I can discuss stuff, precisely like this, all day long as long as it's done in a debate manner.

I know you can. I admire your capability and tenacity. Unfortunately there's a few peeps who'd potentially see the discussion and think we were 'rastlin. Some peeps just can't read a good debate without losing their biscuits.

It's true.

My wife came home from her work at the hospital today and said they'd laid down a new edict. Effective immediately, no one may visit a patient without proof of vaccination or a negative Covid test within the last 3 days. Also, beginning in September, no employee may work there without proof of vaccination. She noted they are already very understaffed and overwhelmed.

I told her there is some precedent for these measures. Kids can't go to school, for example, unless they are vaccinated for mumps, measles, etc. yet the children must still be taught. And the Supreme Court ruled in the 80's I think it was, that employers may invoke certain restrictions in the workplace that would generally not be acceptable otherwise, such as censorship of speech, etc.

This is going to be interesting...

Erwyle (187240896) wrote:My wife came home from her work at the hospital today and said they'd laid down a new edict. Effective immediately, no one may visit a patient without proof of vaccination or a negative Covid test within the last 3 days. Also, beginning in September, no employee may work there without proof of vaccination. She noted they are already very understaffed and overwhelmed.

I told her there is some precedent for these measures. Kids can't go to school, for example, unless they are vaccinated for mumps, measles, etc. yet the children must still be taught. And the Supreme Court ruled in the 80's I think it was, that employers may invoke certain restrictions in the workplace that would generally not be acceptable otherwise, such as censorship of speech, etc.

This is going to be interesting...

One thing that people are either forgetting or simply don't know is that on the January 6, 1777, George Washington wrote to Dr. William Shippen Jr., ordering him to inoculate all of the forces that came through Philadelphia. He explained that: "Necessity not only authorizes but seems to require the measure, for should the disorder infect the Army . . . we should have more to dread from it, than from the Sword of the Enemy."
The urgency was real. Troops were scarce and encampments had turned into nomadic hospitals of festering disease, deterring further recruitment.

At the time, the practice of infecting the individual with a less-deadly form of the disease was widespread throughout Europe. Most British troops were immune to Variola, giving them an enormous advantage against the vulnerable colonists. Conversely, the history of inoculation in America (beginning with the efforts of the Reverend Cotton Mather in 1720) was pocked by the fear of the contamination potential of the process. Such fears led the Continental Congress to issue a proclamation in 1776 prohibiting Surgeons of the Army to inoculate.

Washington suspected the only available recourse was inoculation, yet contagion risks aside, he knew that a mass inoculation put the entire army in a precarious position should the British hear of his plans. Moreover, Historians estimate that less than a quarter of the Continental Army had ever had the virus; inoculating the remaining three quarters and every new recruit must have seemed daunting. Yet the high prevalence of disease among the army regulars was a significant deterrent to desperately needed recruits, and a dramatic reform was needed to allay their fears.

Weighing the risks, on February 5th of 1777, Washington finally committed to the unpopular policy of mass inoculation by writing to inform Congress of his plan. Throughout February, Washington, with no precedent for the operation he was about to undertake, covertly communicated to his commanding officers orders to oversee mass inoculations of their troops in the model of Morristown and Philadelphia (Dr. Shippen's Hospital). At least eleven hospitals had been constructed by the year's end.

Variola raged throughout the war, devastating the Native American population and slaves who had chosen to fight for the British in exchange for freedom. Yet the isolated infections that sprung up among Continental regulars during the southern campaign failed to incapacitate a single regiment. With few surgeons, fewer medical supplies, and no experience, Washington conducted the first mass inoculation of an army at the height of a war that immeasurably transformed the international system. Defeating the British was impressive, but simultaneously taking on Variola was a risky stroke of genius.

SvG Jericha (6077295) wrote:

Erwyle (187240896) wrote:My wife came home from her work at the hospital today and said they'd laid down a new edict. Effective immediately, no one may visit a patient without proof of vaccination or a negative Covid test within the last 3 days. Also, beginning in September, no employee may work there without proof of vaccination. She noted they are already very understaffed and overwhelmed.

I told her there is some precedent for these measures. Kids can't go to school, for example, unless they are vaccinated for mumps, measles, etc. yet the children must still be taught. And the Supreme Court ruled in the 80's I think it was, that employers may invoke certain restrictions in the workplace that would generally not be acceptable otherwise, such as censorship of speech, etc.

This is going to be interesting...

One thing that people are either forgetting or simply don't know is that on the January 6, 1777, George Washington wrote to Dr. William Shippen Jr., ordering him to inoculate all of the forces that came through Philadelphia. He explained that: "Necessity not only authorizes but seems to require the measure, for should the disorder infect the Army . . . we should have more to dread from it, than from the Sword of the Enemy."
The urgency was real. Troops were scarce and encampments had turned into nomadic hospitals of festering disease, deterring further recruitment.

At the time, the practice of infecting the individual with a less-deadly form of the disease was widespread throughout Europe. Most British troops were immune to Variola, giving them an enormous advantage against the vulnerable colonists. Conversely, the history of inoculation in America (beginning with the efforts of the Reverend Cotton Mather in 1720) was pocked by the fear of the contamination potential of the process. Such fears led the Continental Congress to issue a proclamation in 1776 prohibiting Surgeons of the Army to inoculate.

Washington suspected the only available recourse was inoculation, yet contagion risks aside, he knew that a mass inoculation put the entire army in a precarious position should the British hear of his plans. Moreover, Historians estimate that less than a quarter of the Continental Army had ever had the virus; inoculating the remaining three quarters and every new recruit must have seemed daunting. Yet the high prevalence of disease among the army regulars was a significant deterrent to desperately needed recruits, and a dramatic reform was needed to allay their fears.

Weighing the risks, on February 5th of 1777, Washington finally committed to the unpopular policy of mass inoculation by writing to inform Congress of his plan. Throughout February, Washington, with no precedent for the operation he was about to undertake, covertly communicated to his commanding officers orders to oversee mass inoculations of their troops in the model of Morristown and Philadelphia (Dr. Shippen's Hospital). At least eleven hospitals had been constructed by the year's end.

Variola raged throughout the war, devastating the Native American population and slaves who had chosen to fight for the British in exchange for freedom. Yet the isolated infections that sprung up among Continental regulars during the southern campaign failed to incapacitate a single regiment. With few surgeons, fewer medical supplies, and no experience, Washington conducted the first mass inoculation of an army at the height of a war that immeasurably transformed the international system. Defeating the British was impressive, but simultaneously taking on Variola was a risky stroke of genius.

Very cool story. I've read a biography on each of the presidents from Washington through Truman and stopped because I was familiar with the rest lol. I also have read dozens of books about the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish/American War, WWI, WWII and stopped there because I was familiar with the rest.

Point is, I never heard that one before, so thank you very much. I'll add it to my collection. It's going to get dicey here soon I think because the deniers are getting shoved in a corner and they don't like it. I am literally surrounded and this may be my last writing. Tell mom I love her though and I'mma miss her...

Erwyle (187240896) wrote:

SvG Jericha (6077295) wrote:

Erwyle (187240896) wrote:My wife came home from her work at the hospital today and said they'd laid down a new edict. Effective immediately, no one may visit a patient without proof of vaccination or a negative Covid test within the last 3 days. Also, beginning in September, no employee may work there without proof of vaccination. She noted they are already very understaffed and overwhelmed.

I told her there is some precedent for these measures. Kids can't go to school, for example, unless they are vaccinated for mumps, measles, etc. yet the children must still be taught. And the Supreme Court ruled in the 80's I think it was, that employers may invoke certain restrictions in the workplace that would generally not be acceptable otherwise, such as censorship of speech, etc.

This is going to be interesting...

One thing that people are either forgetting or simply don't know is that on the January 6, 1777, George Washington wrote to Dr. William Shippen Jr., ordering him to inoculate all of the forces that came through Philadelphia. He explained that: "Necessity not only authorizes but seems to require the measure, for should the disorder infect the Army . . . we should have more to dread from it, than from the Sword of the Enemy."
The urgency was real. Troops were scarce and encampments had turned into nomadic hospitals of festering disease, deterring further recruitment.

At the time, the practice of infecting the individual with a less-deadly form of the disease was widespread throughout Europe. Most British troops were immune to Variola, giving them an enormous advantage against the vulnerable colonists. Conversely, the history of inoculation in America (beginning with the efforts of the Reverend Cotton Mather in 1720) was pocked by the fear of the contamination potential of the process. Such fears led the Continental Congress to issue a proclamation in 1776 prohibiting Surgeons of the Army to inoculate.

Washington suspected the only available recourse was inoculation, yet contagion risks aside, he knew that a mass inoculation put the entire army in a precarious position should the British hear of his plans. Moreover, Historians estimate that less than a quarter of the Continental Army had ever had the virus; inoculating the remaining three quarters and every new recruit must have seemed daunting. Yet the high prevalence of disease among the army regulars was a significant deterrent to desperately needed recruits, and a dramatic reform was needed to allay their fears.

Weighing the risks, on February 5th of 1777, Washington finally committed to the unpopular policy of mass inoculation by writing to inform Congress of his plan. Throughout February, Washington, with no precedent for the operation he was about to undertake, covertly communicated to his commanding officers orders to oversee mass inoculations of their troops in the model of Morristown and Philadelphia (Dr. Shippen's Hospital). At least eleven hospitals had been constructed by the year's end.

Variola raged throughout the war, devastating the Native American population and slaves who had chosen to fight for the British in exchange for freedom. Yet the isolated infections that sprung up among Continental regulars during the southern campaign failed to incapacitate a single regiment. With few surgeons, fewer medical supplies, and no experience, Washington conducted the first mass inoculation of an army at the height of a war that immeasurably transformed the international system. Defeating the British was impressive, but simultaneously taking on Variola was a risky stroke of genius.

Very cool story. I've read a biography on each of the presidents from Washington through Truman and stopped because I was familiar with the rest lol. I also have read dozens of books about the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish/American War, WWI, WWII and stopped there because I was familiar with the rest.

Point is, I never heard that one before, so thank you very much. I'll add it to my collection. It's going to get dicey here soon I think because the deniers are getting shoved in a corner and they don't like it. I am literally surrounded and this may be my last writing. Tell mom I love her though and I'mma miss her...

The thing that just makes me sit here and SMDH is that these deniers sit and scream about their rights. For every single right that we, as Americans have, there are inherent responsibilities that go along with each and every single one of those rights. You never hear anyone talking about that, though. I don't know how you can get any more founding father than George Washington and there he was, making vaccinations mandatory.
People are really ignorant about history these days. Really frigging ignorant.

SvG Jericha (6077295) wrote:
The thing that just makes me sit here and SMDH is that these deniers sit and scream about their rights. For every single right that we, as Americans have, there are inherent responsibilities that go along with each and every single one of those rights. You never hear anyone talking about that, though. I don't know how you can get any more founding father than George Washington and there he was, making vaccinations mandatory.
People are really ignorant about history these days. Really frigging ignorant.

Indeed. But the trouble is, truth is not relevant anymore. You simply need to believe and it'll be true. And history, well, if education were emphasized more, there would be a greater understanding of the issues and no one would choose to be kept poor by the very ones they support. Doh! Ignorance is just the right word...

If the time travel machine been invented, all evidence of Sky Finger goes out the window. . Ok bye.

.

Xx Peach xX (143363031) wrote:

SvG Jericha (6077295) wrote:

The Tutor (126579776) wrote:Hey guys, I'm not tryin to "last word" anyone here, but I am going to cease and desist now in deference to the forum rules. I feel like you are all great people and we could probably have a good discussion without getting torqued at each other, but we are technically in violation. The Vikes have worked hard enough the past few months. LOL

Another time, then. Thanks for keeping it civil. I can discuss stuff, precisely like this, all day long as long as it's done in a debate manner.

Same. Controversial debates like this are my favorite to have in RL. But, I understand why some people avoid these type of topics. & I understand the hopelessness some people feel when the conversation reaches no where, imo it doesn't have to. I like knowing how different people think, just so I can have a rebuttal ready with someone else or know who to avoid (in extreme cases).

You should see me on Facebook and Twitter...LOL!

.