Satan At Work. Through YOU!

[Dutch Uncle]

Maybe it is me. I have no idea what you are talking about.

It's a straw man argument. He's an atheist and is attacking anyone who believes the Bible is the direct word of God.

He made a few silly logical arguments trying to prop up his straw man, but in the end, he's simply hating on Christians.

I'm guessing a Christian woman (or man) broke his heart and now he's getting his revenge by attacking his straw man.

Regardless, it ironically reveals he's nowhere close to Zen mode. LOL

 

[Melchizedek = Michael]

Not that I believe in satan as a deity. But when what he might wish to happen is fulfilled, does it really matter? There was a song done once by somebody named Arthur Brown called "Fire." In the video of it I will give a link to, it portrays satan as saying, "I am the god of hell fire, and I bring you, fire." But in reality, it isn't satan bringing the fire. It is the vast majority of you. In the video, there is a lyric that tells how it is done. It says, "You've been living like a little girl. In the middle of your little world. And in your mind, your tiny mind. You know you've really been so blind." Here is the video. Enjoy.

Jude 9

 

[Saint Guinefort]

It's a straw man argument. He's an atheist and is attacking anyone who believes the Bible is the direct word of God.

He made a few silly logical arguments trying to prop up his straw man, but in the end, he's simply hating on Christians.

I'm guessing a Christian woman (or man) broke his heart and now he's getting his revenge by attacking his straw man.

Regardless, it ironically reveals he's nowhere close to Zen mode. LOL

So I take it you think the Bible is the inspired word of God?

Can you PLEASE do me a favor and explain 1Sam15:3 in light of John3:16?

Honest request. If the Bible is inspired by God and is accurate at least in scope, please explain how the God in 1Sam15:3 is the same as the God in John 3:16.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So I take it you think the Bible is the inspired word of God?

Can you PLEASE do me a favor and explain 1Sam15:3 in light of John3:16?

Honest request. If the Bible is inspired by God and is accurate at least in scope, please explain how the God in 1Sam15:3 is the same as the God in John 3:16.

Inspired? Sure. I think all ancient texts that reach for a higher understanding are "inspired". A good place card for where that inspiration comes from is "God", at least in the Western world. Others will say Allah or Buddha, the Tao, etc.

One is a brutal extermination of people and the other is a message of peace and love.

Again, the Bible is mankind's perception of God, not the actual written word of God. If God wanted mankind to adhere to certain rules, then those rules could have been ingrained in our DNA. They weren't. Therefore, IMO, our lives are like a TikTok challenge to figure it out.

Are you an atheist, Perry Phd, or simply an agnostic? Do you believe in theism, deism, pantheism, panentheism or just atheism? What is your reasoning for choosing any of those beliefs?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Inspired? Sure. I think all ancient texts that reach for a higher understanding are "inspired". A good place card for where that inspiration comes from is "God", at least in the Western world. Others will say Allah or Buddha, the Tao, etc.

One is a brutal extermination of people and the other is a message of peace and love.

Again, the Bible is mankind's perception of God, not the actual written word of God. If God wanted mankind to adhere to certain rules, then those rules could have been ingrained in our DNA. They weren't. Therefore, IMO, our lives are like a TikTok challenge to figure it out.

Are you an atheist, Perry Phd, or simply an agnostic? Do you believe in theism, deism, pantheism, panentheism or just atheism? What is your reasoning for choosing any of those beliefs?

So not going to try to answer my question. But it sounds like you are reasonably ecumenical. As for me I'm an atheist. I'm not the kind of atheist who says "There is no God" because that's a universal negative which cannot be proven. I start with the null hypothesis that there is no God and test against that. So far I have failed to reject the null hypothesis.

I used to be a believer but it wasn't a great fit for me. Upon detailed examination of my faith over the course of many years and reading a lot about the history of the faith and theology and even the Bible front to back, I don't feel that I can reject the null hypothesis.

So I am an atheist.

I take it you are a Christian?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So not going to try to answer my question. But it sounds like you are reasonably ecumenical. As for me I'm an atheist. I'm not the kind of atheist who says "There is no God" because that's a universal negative which cannot be proven. I start with the null hypothesis that there is no God and test against that. So far I have failed to reject the null hypothesis.

I used to be a believer but it wasn't a great fit for me. Upon detailed examination of my faith over the course of many years and reading a lot about the history of the faith and theology and even the Bible front to back, I don't feel that I can reject the null hypothesis.

So I am an atheist.

I take it you are a Christian?

Your own existence and the existence of the Universe isn't a null hypothesis. It's a fact. Since current evidence indicates this is a One-shot Universe and not an Oscillating Universe, then it begs questions like "Why?" and "What caused the Big Bang?"

I was an atheist by age 14 but had a NDE at age 16 and was compelled to reevaluate my previous position. As you well know, there is no confirmation of anything, null or otherwise. The Universe just "is".

I am a panentheist who uses the term "God" as a place card for an unknown intelligent force behind the creation of our physical Universe. For all anyone knows, "God" is an advanced computer programmer working on the equivalent of a PhD in simulation theory.

You assume wrong...again, Perry PhD. I was raised a Christian and use Christianity as a common social reference since the vast majority of the Western world is more familiar with Christianity than they are Judaism, Islam or Buddhism.

FWIW, your willingness to leap to conclusions contrary to posted evidence is interesting to me. It's a personality flaw that indicates you are either deliberately lying or that you truly believe your irrational conclusions. IDK which it is yet but am interested in finding out.

Have you taken the Myers-Briggs personality test? https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Your own existence and the existence of the Universe isn't a null hypothesis. It's a fact.

I am surprised you are unfamiliar with the concept of the null hypothesis. It is a standard in science.

Since current evidence indicates this is a One-shot Universe and not an Oscillating Universe, then it begs questions like "Why?" and "What caused the Big Bang?"

Unanswerable questions probably. But that doesn't mean it is "ok" to simply create a new complexity in the for of "God". "Who created God?" "What Caused God?" If you rely on Aquinas as God is the first uncaused cause that is little more than "special pleading".

I was an atheist by age 14 but had a NDE at age 16 and was compelled to reevaluate my previous position.

As a scientist why did you assume your NDE was giving you insight into the afterlife? I once did a rather large dose of shrooms and was pretty sure my wife didn't exist. But that was just what happens chemically in your brain when you mess around with the serotonergic systems. When one reads about NDE's it could just as easily be an hallucination brought on by the stressors on the brain.

I am not saying it wasn't "real" or anything, just that there's no reason for it to be real.

FWIW, your willingness to leap to conclusions contrary to posted evidence is interesting to me.

I didn't leap contrary to evidence. You provided little and I simply drew the wrong conclusion. I see that is a problem for you.

Have you taken the Myers-Briggs personality test?

Interesting. You DO realize that Myers Briggs has almost no real science behind it, right? It's one of those fake pseudo-science things that are favored by business types who don't actually know science.

I am surprised that a trained psychologist with an actual degree would value pseudoscience. It was created by two non-professionals leveraging Jungian psychobabble. To my knowledge there is no science behind it.

Why wouldn't you suggest a more appropriate test like the MMPI? Is it because you don't actually KNOW any psychology?

I wonder at times if you even know what the DSM is.

 

[Melchizedek = Michael]

Well, there's two options: a) Satan is as powerful as, or more powerful than God or b) God chooses to let Satan terrorize the world.

Which one is it?

Jude 9 !

 

[Jarod]

Through me?

Maybe, you are so deluded that you believe governor DeSantis was elected to prevent Civil War history from being taught in Florida schools

 

[Melchizedek = Michael]

I don't believe in Satan or God, that doesn't mean I don't know what the Bible says to be able to ask questions for clarification.

What you believe is meaningless! What's reality only matters!

 

[Melchizedek = Michael]

So I take it you think the Bible is the inspired word of God?

Can you PLEASE do me a favor and explain 1Sam15:3 in light of John3:16?

Honest request. If the Bible is inspired by God and is accurate at least in scope, please explain how the God in 1Sam15:3 is the same as the God in John 3:16.

Sometimes God has to kick ass and take names!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

As a scientist why did you assume your NDE was giving you insight into the afterlife?...

...You DO realize that Myers Briggs has almost no real science behind it, right? It's one of those fake pseudo-science things that are favored by business types who don't actually know science.

I am surprised that a trained psychologist with an actual degree would value pseudoscience. It was created by two non-professionals leveraging Jungian psychobabble. To my knowledge there is no science behind it...

...Why wouldn't you suggest a more appropriate test like the MMPI?...

You are leaping to conclusions again, Perry. I didn't understand what happened to me and spent another decade researching it to replicate the experience. I never could. It was a primary driver in focusing upon behavioral psychology in college. A parallel line of exploration was spirituality. Since I didn't accept the "old man on a golden throne" scenario, I began looking at alternative paths of spiritual growth.

The MBTI is easy and fun. People are more likely to do something that is easy and fun over something that is harder. Ergo, the MBTI (and the Hogwarts test for that matter) is more likely to generate results on an anonymous internet forum than the MMPI. Have you taken the MMPI?

As a self-proclaimed scientist, would you rather recommend a test that is unlikely to produce any results or a test that, albeit flawed, will generate multiple results?

After all of our conversations, Perry PhD, it's not a surprise to me that you completely disregard an area of research and then give yourself an out with "to my knowledge" where you admit you don't know. That, in itself, is an indication of your personality, son.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You are leaping to conclusions again, Perry. I didn't understand what happened to me and spent another decade researching it to replicate the experience. I never could. It was a primary driver in focusing upon behavioral psychology in college. A parallel line of exploration was spirituality. Since I didn't accept the "old man on a golden throne" scenario, I began looking at alternative paths of spiritual growth.

I don't believe I leapt to any conclusions. I understand you are not a regular version of Christian or believer.

The MBTI is easy and fun.

But not scientific. Which is ironic for someone who supposedly has a degree in that particular science.

As a self-proclaimed scientist, would you rather recommend a test that is unlikely to produce any results or a test that, albeit flawed, will generate multiple results?

I am not one to collect data for the sake of collecting trash data. Bad science producing data is not a value.


(Also: did you catch the "self-proclaimed" bit you added in there? That's called an INSULT. It is how you subtly needle people as part of your troll game.)

After all of our conversations, Perry PhD, it's not a surprise to me that you completely disregard an area of research and then give yourself an out with "to my knowledge" where you admit you don't know. That, in itself, is an indication of your personality, son.

I am really surprised at how lax you are in regards to actual science.

Probably why you couldn't hack grad school in a real degree. It does, however, confirm my suspicion that you might have been worse at your "job" than you think you were.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Sometimes God has to kick ass and take names!

No he doesn't.

Genocide is NEVER the answer. NEVER.

Hope that helps!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't believe I leapt to any conclusions...

...I am not one to collect data for the sake of collecting trash data....

...(Also: did you catch the "self-proclaimed" bit you added in there? That's called an INSULT. ...

Of course you don't. You only see the flaws in others, not yourself.

Nice projection of your own beliefs into the actions of others. The fact you didn't understand the point is another indication of you seeing faults in others, but being blind to your own.

Self-proclaimed is factual. You haven't presented a single iota of evidence that you have a PhD, much less the subject, except for your claim you have one and your attacks on others for not having one. What term would you use for someone who claims something about themselves without evidence?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Of course you don't. You only see the flaws in others, not yourself.

Wow, you really missed the mark on that one. I'm actually one of the most self-critical people you'll ever meet. Of course I'm not like that on here since this place is anonymous and meaningless, but gosh ahmighty you are so incredibly wrong.

Nice projection of your own beliefs into the actions of others. The fact you didn't understand the point is another indication of you seeing faults in others, but being blind to your own.

You prefer pseudoscience crap because you have no actual training that stuck in the sciences. Sorry. Just callin' like I see it.

Self-proclaimed is factual. You haven't presented a single iota of evidence that you have a PhD,

That's because you are unfamiliar with all of my posts. There are many posts I've made in which I've held forth rather in detail about organic geochemistry. Remember when you were on the hunt to figure out what my degree was in? Well if you had actually done even a modicum of searching on this forum you would have known easily and quickly.

You see, your preference for pseudoscience, your lack of any actual technical skills in the sciences and your general preference of your own ignorance has led you to error, yet again!

much less the subject, except for your claim you have one and your attacks on others for not having one. What term would you use for someone who claims something about themselves without evidence?

I would suggest you do your homework first. But I know that's hard for you. Not much of a "student" of any sort it seems.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Wow, you really missed the mark on that one. I'm actually one of the most self-critical people you'll ever meet. Of course I'm not like that on here since this place is anonymous and meaningless, but gosh ahmighty you are so incredibly wrong.

You prefer pseudoscience crap because you have no actual training that stuck in the sciences. Sorry. Just callin' like I see it.

That's because you are unfamiliar with all of my posts. There are many posts I've made in which I've held forth rather in detail about organic geochemistry. Remember when you were on the hunt to figure out what my degree was in? Well if you had actually done even a modicum of searching on this forum you would have known easily and quickly.

You see, your preference for pseudoscience, your lack of any actual technical skills in the sciences and your general preference of your own ignorance has led you to error, yet again!

I would suggest you do your homework first. But I know that's hard for you. Not much of a "student" of any sort it seems.

Once again, thanks for your input, Perry PhD. While I continue to disagree as posted previously, each of your posts are insightful to your personality...a fact that I'm sure will go over your head as "pseudoscience". LOL

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Once again, thanks for your input, Perry PhD. While I continue to disagree as posted previously, each of your posts are insightful to your personality...a fact that I'm sure will go over your head as "pseudoscience". LOL
]

No, you misunderstood. I did NOT say that one cannot determine something about the person from their posts, rather I noted that you seem uniquely unsuited to doing so. Your error rate right now is pretty high. And you seem to have a penchant for pseudo-scientific stuff like the MB.

Your lax approach to a rather important topic is noted.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No, you misunderstood. I did NOT say that one cannot determine something about the person from their posts, rather I noted that you seem uniquely unsuited to doing so....

Which is why it amazes me that you are so interested in having discussions with me.

Why is that, Perry PhD? What about me interests you the most?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Which is why it amazes me that you are so interested in having discussions with me.

I find narcissists with inflated sense of their abilities to be utterly fascinating. OF COURSE I'm fascinated by you. You seem overall like you might be a generally decent person but your flaw is a need to "diagnose" everyone who even mildly disagrees with you. When that doesn't yield anything you start needling with subtle jibes.

Why is that, Perry PhD? What about me interests you the most?

Hope that clarified it. But I am ALSO interested in this huge chip on your shoulder you seem to carry about your lack of technical skill or ability. You seem genuinely pissed off that someone could achieve a doctorate when you clearly couldn't.

I think that's why you are often a prick. Obviously you are not an aggressive prick, but you're a prick. 100% Gold plated.