Profile pic

SnoopSqueak, snoopsqueak@lemmy.today

Instance: lemmy.today
Joined: 3 weeks ago
Posts: 1
Comments: 201

I was abused by my christian parents.

I would like to live long enough to see humanity mature out of superstition and free the world from human greed.

RSS feed

Posts and Comments by SnoopSqueak, snoopsqueak@lemmy.today

We pay in sabertooth tigers for sabertooth tigers, and hey, your sabertooth tiger boss would like to show you a sabertooth tiger, just scroll down on your mobile sabertooth tiger, skip a few sabertooth tigers, click the tiger, and then you should see a sabertooth tiger.

And do not sleep. There are tigers.


Another polish article about this: https://naukawpolsce.pl/aktualnosci/news%2C367624%2Cuniwersytet-medyczny-odcina-sie-od-badan-ws-cudu-w-sokolce.html

The Medical University of Białystok officially distances itself from the results of these studies and emphasizes that the university does not endorse them.

One of the most valuable things about science is the consistent ability for anyone to repeat the experiment and get the same result. Why does the catholic church keep hiding from showing us that it is true?

“We did not do this as a university,” Chyczewski told PAP, adding that the tests were conducted illegally, “quietly,” outside the official channels. They took place at the Academic Department of Pathomorphological Diagnostics. Chyczewski emphasizes that the university was not commissioned to perform these tests, and the study was not registered anywhere. “Please do not attribute the diagnosis to any specific department operating within the institution called the Medical University,” Chyczewski wrote in his statement.

Why didn’t they collaborate with the university, if they have legitimate evidence?

Professor Chyczewski believes that his colleagues who made the diagnosis made a “schoolboy error” by trying to combine theology and biology, which, in his opinion, is impossible.

Because biology is evident and theology is not.

Just a few weeks ago, when the news of the tests became public, Archbishop Ozorowski said: “We are dealing with an extremely subtle matter. If we confess that this is the body of Christ, we cannot just cut it into pieces and subject it to tests. We must exercise caution and a certain fear.”

Fear of your own savior? Fear of your “loving” god’s punishment for proving his own existence? This same god who once loved when his own creations were eviscerated and cooked now is squeamish? Ohhhh, no, I get it, he’s only offended when it’s his OWN flesh that gets… Wait, what about Jesus, though? He was willing to make that sacrifice, but not this one?

Please stop defending catholicism. It is a death cult. People are dying for your false beliefs.


But without detailed reports? You just take them at their word?

You believe god is all-powerful, yes? And you believe this is how he chooses to interact with us?


Why would I do that when it’s not my claim? The onus is on you to show that they were disallowed.

If you can disprove the contents of the article you chose to criticize, please do.


I know what the article and the headline say. Your initial criticism is still invalid.

Can you find a source that says they were allowed to resubmit the post?


I do not have a facebook account to see the group page for myself. According to the article, the criticism was not reposted. It was banned there, as reflected by the headline.


They asked about submitting the post for approval

…which was ignored. Instead:

they were offered a meeting with Acton.

…which turned out to be a lie.

Where do you get the idea that they were allowed to resubmit the post?

the Ohio Democratic Party had demanded the criticism be removed. The caucus protested, appealed, but then relented. The criticism never went back up.

It was banned.


No. Remember? They tried that:

After deleting the original statement, we promptly asked about submitting the post for approval through the proper channels so that it could be reposted. At this point, ODP staff informed us that a meeting with Acton was on the table. After thorough discussion, caucus leadership determined this offer aligned with our goal to bring our message directly to her.

They got tricked into attending a meeting without Acton. And some of them weren’t allowed into the meeting.


That isn’t the question. The question is “why can’t the original posters resubmit through the proper channels”? Because it was banned.


The page where it could do the most good. Why is that not enough for you? It is still a ban.


Sokolka went through electron microscopy, and serratia tests.

How do we know that?

I found a Polish newspaper article suggesting the research was amateurishly performed and should have been more extensive. I used the auto-translate feature that my browser has, I can’t guarantee accuracy.

https://www.rp.pl/kosciol/art7471901-co-sie-naprawde-stalo-w-sokolce

What kind of research did Professor Sulkowski perform? It’s unclear exactly. He enigmatically replies that it fell within the scope of his specialty.

However, he refuses to say how the nuclei were arranged in the fiber of the tissue he examined. “Such questions fall within the purview of the appropriate commission investigating the miracle,” he says, cutting the conversation short.

DNA testing would precisely indicate whether the tissue being examined is human or animal, and whether it’s male or female. “We would determine with a high degree of probability what region of the world it comes from. We would dispel any doubts,” assures Professor Śliwka.

Prof. Chyczewski: – The Archbishop was not interested in conducting such research. I was told that since the material was believed to be of miraculous origin, there was no need to bother with it any further.

Did he even publish his results? There should be images, evidence. So far we still just have claims.


They posted to Facebook. The post was taken down, allegedly because they did not go through proper channels to post it. Their requests to return the post to Facebook were met with invitations to a shitty zoom call they couldn’t enter with a person who did not attend.

that specific criticism isn’t banned because we just read that criticism in a substack

It remains forbidden from being posted on their Facebook page.

I appreciate you trying to hold headline authors accountable, but I don’t see how this headline is inaccurate.

Ohio Dem Party Has Banned Criticism Of Gov. Candidate Amy Acton Calling Trans Girls “Boys”

I think it is future-proof, too. Even if the post is restored, the fact remains that it was once banned.


That is a letter, not a report.

I have not been able to find the report myself, but other scientists have commented on it, including catholic “scientists":

DR. KELLY KEARSE, A CHEMIST SPECIALIZING IN BLOOD RESEARCH AND IMMUNOLOGY AND A TEACHER AT KNOXVILLE CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL, IS CALLING FOR THE USE OF MORE ACCURATE RESEARCH METHODS IN INVESTIGATING THE SHROUD OF TURIN AND OTHER RELIGIOUS PHENOMENA THOUGHT TO BE DIVINE.

Dr. Kearse points out important natural explanations that were never addressed. Until those are ruled out as causes, it is premature to claim a miracle.

It seems remarkable that all five test for the same, rare blood type. But there is a problem: the A and B antigens are not unique to humans. Since the 1960s, biologists have known that bacteria cells also have A and B antigens on their surfaces. Hence, if a sample is contaminated with bacteria, even if it contains no blood at all, it could still show a type AB blood result in this test.

A “very low concentration of human DNA” is indicative of handling contamination. In forensic DNA tests, trace amounts of DNA from humans who touch a sample can be unintentionally amplified, and reports say the hosts were touched by several people.

https://etcatholic.org/2025/01/exaggerations-and-eucharistic-miracles/


Dumb fuck, it’s not all-or-nothing. Specific criticism that could make a positive difference is being censored. I’m sorry you fucked up, but please stop pretending otherwise. It was an easy mistake, but a harmful one. We should not downplay what is happening here, criticism was banned.


Interesting, I’d love to see the report. Ah, it’s linked at the bottom of the article. Hmm, the link is unsafe, certificate expired two years ago. I proceeded with caution and saw… a 404 error.

There is no evidence of this supposed miracle.


Its not special pleading if its ACTUALLY special.

But it’s not actually special, evidently. Evidently, it does not exist, and special pleading is your excuse for believing it.

We are not of a different nature. For man has the nature of man, and a pig the nature of a pig.

I have the nature of me, you have the nature of you. It’s arbitrary, meaningless.

  1. the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something

Example: helping them to realize the nature of their problems

You haven’t answered anything. I can just say the nature of the universe is the universe. The nature of god is that he does not exist.

Try getting more specific.


Your words:

But sure, let’s frame it as banning all criticism.

Criticism has been banned.


But you never proved or defined “god”.

Anyway, even catholic scientists admit your example is not a miracle: https://drjulesgomes.substack.com/p/catholic-scientists-debunk-assertions

Catholic scientists are now urging the faithful to be cautious about claims that eucharistic miracles have been scientifically proven, as unconsecrated hosts tested under similar conditions have also shown similar “bleeding” appearances.

Peer-reviewed studies published by Catholic scientists who believe in Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist have also dismissed assertions that the miracles were validated by research carried out by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UN).

Would you like to try another? Spoiler: they’re all bullshit, magic isn’t real. Please use your brain.


I can’t steel-man something that is blatantly false. You repeatedly insisted that they were not banning criticism. You pretended that by offering a direct meeting instead of allowing the criticism to be reposted, they were not banning any criticism.

Now what happened? She didn’t show up to the meeting and the trans people she should have apologized to were prevented from even attending.

Acton and her team are still pretending they have done nothing wrong, are still actively shielding themselves from consequences of their bad decisions.

Criticism has been banned again.


Do you still think they were being fair?

https://lemmy.today/post/57542998

Inside sources who have gone public now say the “listening session” was a debacle. Acton did not show up, her campaign manager barred Arienne Childrey—Vice Chair of the party’s Pride Caucus, a transgender candidate for the Ohio House, and Ohio’s first openly trans city council member—from even entering the Zoom call. When another advocate demanded to know why Childrey was barred, she was ejected. The Chair of the Progressive Caucus, Kim McCarthy, was locked in the waiting room during the entire “listening session.” And in the end, the campaign ultimately refused to apologize for calling trans girls “boys,” refused to retract Acton’s support for a transgender sports ban, and ended the meeting with no plans for what come next.


RSS feed

Posts by SnoopSqueak, snoopsqueak@lemmy.today

Comments by SnoopSqueak, snoopsqueak@lemmy.today


There is no artist’s signature on our universe. Stop making stupid false equivalences.


They protect pedophiles until they cannot, if the evidence is overwhelming. How many are they still protecting today? How many were simply sent to other churches to harm more victims?

Still happening this year, actively covering up abuse: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2026/01/27/catholic-abuse-powerful-utah/

Also, there have been many scientifically proven miracles.

Define “miracle”. Name one that has been scientifically proven.


No, he doesn’t. He is of a different nature.

Special pleading.

Why do you think its ok to eat chicken but not human flesh? Because we of a different nature than chickens.

Because a society that tolerates needless cannibalism is unsustainable. And because prions. But also, I don’t think it’s okay to eat chicken.

Thus, God is also of a different nature than us.

Special pleading. Aren’t we each of a “different nature”, as individuals? Define “nature”.


Scientifically speaking, we have no evidence suggesting the existence of a god. How do you even define “god”? It is human wishful thinking every time.

If there was sufficient evidence, I would still be a believer. But when I am as honest as I can be, I see nothing at all in this universe to suggest a god’s existence, much less the christian god, who is described in contradictory ways because biblical authors were not consistent with themselves or with each other. Loving + powerful = no need for suffering. God is unimaginative. Stupid. Cruel. Non-existent.


Absolutely. You identify the process of evolution based on evidence (well done, some theists can’t even manage that), and then you attribute it to a creator despite there being no reason to make that jump.

Faith is weakness, an assumption made in the absence of fact and stubbornly held despite what any evidence might suggest.

You worship the god of the gaps. “We don’t know, so it’s probably god.” But it’s probably not. “We don’t know” means it could be anything. The odds of your baseless guess being correct are virtually zero.

Meanwhile, real people are being harmed as a result of your beliefs.


The gears extending infinitely would be a Reductio Ad Absurdum, so one gear must be the start of it all

So god also requires a cause. The only alternative is special pleading.

Definitely not within your lifespan, and definitely not fast enough if the sun actually disappeared.

Why did god choose to make a sun that gives us cancer?

I am making a claim by saying “X isnt real”

Atheists are “making the claim” that we don’t believe your claim, because there is no argument, evidence, or reason supporting your claim. You not only assume there is a god, you then assume to understand why he created suffering, even though you have not been able to explain it. He cannot be both powerful and loving, if he existed at all.


Sin was introduced to humanity by the serpent when Adam and Eve ate the apple.

…all of which god created, knowing this would happen.

ill need sources for the claims you made in the last paragraph

You need look no further than the bible to confirm that all of christianity is a death cult, yahweh is a death god. Do you drink your savior’s blood and eat his flesh? Do you know how fucked-up that is?

Rapists and pedophiles: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6676731/

Murderers and genociders: https://www.worldhistory.org/Crusades/

All in the name of your god. Can you prove they are wrong and you are right? Everyone reasonable is still waiting for any proof of god’s existence before claiming they believe in it.


If god is all-powerful, he chose to make us suffer. There is no reason for that unless he is not loving or does not exist.


Causality can be interpreted as a series of gears. > > One thing is caused by the other.

If you say so. But that would include god, in that case.

Verses?

The honest answer: we don’t know. Probably not god, certainly not the christian god.

If the sun disappeared, you would die, thus you depend on the sun.

This is extremely reductive and unimaginative. What if we find a way to replace the light, warmth, vitamins etc we get from the sun? Heck, maybe we could even make a version that doesn’t give us cancer, one-upping your fictional god.

If all the arachnids and the sort died, the ecosystem would be rattled and we’d all die. We depend on other things to live. That is my evidence for this claim, as we can observe.

This says nothing about the origins of the universe. It wasn’t made for us, we evolved to survive.

And to deny God’s existence is to claim that what requires all (the universe, it depends on a lot of factors to survive) requires nothing (Does not require God to exist).

No. Atheists are not making a claim. You are making a claim that god exists based on nothing but wishful thinking and a poor understanding of science. We deny that claim because there is no evidence to support it.

This is a logical contradiction.

All you have is god of the gaps and special pleading. You have failed to convince me or anyone else with integrity that your god exists.


Stop stealing credit for natural processes, shitbag.

Evolution is God’s way of creating us, and we are still evolving, yes, but the process of evolution wad created by God.

He designed us to get sick and die young despite doing nothing wrong? He designed the bad mutations because he loves it when we suffer?

Fuck you, death cultist. You are defending the indefensible.


I described the need. Please read the comments I made above.

Are you talking about the gears analogy? Again, it’s a false equivalence. Wouldn’t god just be another gear, also in need of something to start it turning?

And it is because that God is of a different nature than of his creation.

Ah. Special pleading. You see that’s exactly what it is, don’t you?

The universe doesn’t need a god, based on everything we know so far. You need a god because you are scared and selfish. You would rather outsource your thinking and morality no matter how many people it kills.

Fuck you for choosing death.


Imagine a series of gears. One of them has to start spinning to start up the entire series. The gears cannot suddenly start spinning from nothing.

False equivalence. The universe is not a series of gears, we do not understand it well enough to reduce it to such a rudimentary example.

God is neither weak nor cruel. Just because we may not understand his plan for his does not make either true.

He is both weak and cruel, according to the bible. Thwarted by chariots of iron. Regularly uses violence to solve problems of his own making, commands his followers to take young sex slaves after killing their families.

So you have no explanation for children’s cancer wards, yet you insist on worshipping the god you think is responsible for them. That’s really sick.

What do you mean “no”? You didn’t bring forth an argument at all?

You keep making claims without evidence. There’s nothing for me to disprove. I’m trying to help you understand so you stop spreading deadly bullshit.

You said:

to claim that God does not exist is to claim that what has need of all has need of nothing.

What need? This led us to the gears, a bad analogy to support your special pleading fallacy.


For our sins. God gave us free will, but made us perfect.

If the sin he created us to commit is perfect, why does he punish us for it? You are ignoring the blatant contradictions. Cancer is perfect? He made that, too, right?

Please stop serving a literal death cult. Please stop defending rapists and pedophiles. Please stop glorifying violence.



what has need of all has need of nothing

What need are you talking about?

You still haven’t answered how god solves this problem yet we can’t apply the same logic to existence itself. You are still using special pleading to assume a conclusion that is not supported by any evidence.


But it is special pleading. Why can’t the universe itself be like that, no god needed?

Can you even define “god”?


Why are you assuming they were designed at all? We evolved our brains and emotions this way because each child born is unique, different from both parents. Some of these changes enable longer lives, reproduction, more children. Those that don’t survive long enough to reproduce, their genes and behaviors do not get passed down. We were not designed to fit this world, and we are still evolving.


If one truly existed of himself, he would have no dependencies, that one is God.

So, yes, special pleading. Your claim is that everyone (presumably everything ( requires a “dependency”… except god because he is special.

Grow up, your cult is killing us.

God has no dependencies, he doesn’t need us or depend on us but he loves us.

You don’t know what love is. Is god too weak to prevent cancer, or too cruel to care?

Thus, to claim that God does not exist is to claim that what has need of all has need of nothing.

Nope. To claim god doesn’t exist is to accurately represent reality as we sense it.


We do what? Have evidence for god and/or free will? We do not. Go ahead and provide your best, I will explain how it is fallacious or inaccurate.

Existence is evidence of existence, no creator implied. If you want to pretend everything requires a cause, then so does god, otherwise you’re falling for the special pleading fallacy.

The choices we make are a result of biological processes, not magic.