Where Jerome bases evidence on belief

[Jerome]

Come on Odd, your initial read was correct, I am Town.

[odd]

Come on Odd, your initial read was correct, I am Town.

##vote Jerome##

Maybe we just stick to the mafia from now on eh?

[EvilDRMike]

This is getting silly, you want me to be someone I am not.

Indeed we want you to be someone that can demonstrate they have a fucking clue. This is clearly beyond your realm of expertise. I for one think you are far more likely to be banned for being an evasive little weasel than be able to summon a fucking clue and put it imto words. I would actually like to be provided wrong, alas I will not hold my breath.

EDM

[Jerome]

being an evasive little weasel

Please present evidence of your claim.

Otherwise, you are a fraud.

[Jerome]

Ok these are the questions you need to answer.

1. Do you believe in the christian hell?

Not at all.

[Jerome]

Ok these are the questions you need to answer.

1. Do you believe in baptism? If so, what is the relevance of it?

That one is given some special power because they are dunked in a vat of water, no.

[loubert]

The things we are having a hard time explaining, such as our models currently predicting something like 92-96% of the universe (everything) is unmeasurable directly. There is a large gap in our knowledge as to what is going on.

As I explained, just because we have gaps does not mean you get to fill it with some god of the gaps explanation.

The probabilities of random construction are improbable.

this is implying some form of deity, or whatnot.

I did not say that at all.

Please take the time to digest my words, I don't write many, it shouldn't be a cumbersome mastication.

no, you really don't write many do you.

You heavily imply a reason for something without ever actually stating the reason, and when someone calls you on it, you jump up and down saying " I didn't say that!!!" but when no one calls you on it and asks for direct evidence you claim " I already have!!!"

dodge duck parry swirl. You have no idea what you are talking about most of the time, you make vague statements (climate change thread) that you think disarm the logical reasoning behind the counter argument to yours without producing evidence at all, and when shown to be wrong, you do not, nay, refuse to acknowledge said error and carry on as if you just won some kind of victory.

[Jerome]

Ok these are the questions you need to answer.

1. Do you believe in 'original sin'? If so, what is it and what is the impact?

Could be, idk, there are stories that do turn out to be true, like vegetarian black and white bears that live in green forests .. that was a nonsense story until they were found, hardly more than 100 years ago.

[Jerome]

1. Do you believe that humanity should NOT make rules for societal conduct?

That is a ridiculous thought.

[Jerome]

1. Do you believe that something taken on 'faith' can claim to be 'knowledge'? If so, how would you justify that?

I prefer empirical evidence.