Church erects billboard saying

[Meiliken]

He is not talking about medical statistics .. Religious views and statistics can be made up by anyone more so if a biased person is conducting them .... I say this because I have seen statistics done in order to make atheists and non religious people look bad.. On the same note, I have also seen statistics based on the same sort of thing made l out to make Christians and other religious look bad...... So that IMO can be biased research...or fiddled .Anyone basing their research on beliefs can do this. ..Not all will, but so many I believe have done..... Medical satisitcs dealing with facts not a chance...it clearly differs

You're exactly right. Statistics are only as reliable as the person writing them. I actually took a course in statistics, heh.

[Mr Walker]

name='Arbenol68' timestamp='1330933428' post='4222761']

I think you miss the point. It's pretty unlikely that someone would choose to believe in a god because it's good for them. I can't talk for anyone else, but I couldn't believe if I tried - and believe me, I have.

I can't nderstand that thought process. If there is a yellow pill and science says it has no medical properties at all, yet it makes you happy fit and healthy if you take it. then surely every logicala /rational person would take it .

Some of your other points are fair, but the positives you talk about are independent of faith. They have more to do with being an active member of a group of like-minded people, and the 'good feeling' that comes from belonging. Churches have historically provided that .

It is more complex than this. Some element are intertwined. eg a person who does not smoke drink or eat meat because of their religion will have multiplier effects (but if they were not of that religion they might gain none of the benefits because the y would not live that lifestyle.) and yes a person who goes to a senior citizen meeting every week might have some similar benefits but the studies are conclusive. Both religion and faith patrticularly, in them selves, confer significant benefits Hope breeds health for example. Religious people in old folks homes live longer and express more satisfaction and happiness in their lives.

[Mr Walker]

Every thing you wrote thats in italic can be said of alcohol.

Perhaps, but in my personal opinon, and based on statistics, alcohol is truly one of humanity'sgreat social evils. It causes so much death destruction and misery . Religion gives all the benefits of alcohol, and many more, without any of the physical damage and without most of the huge social costsof alcohol. It is physically non addictive and doesn't harm babies of pregnant women either.

Oh, and it costs nothing.

And is available all hours

Edited March 6, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

That you would write garbage like this, after what Beckys_Mom said about the things some people said to her about the lost of her child, is inhuman. It shows what kind of person you truly are.

It’s like my profile quote says:

I like your Christ.

I do not like your Christians.

They are so unlike your Christ -Gandhi-

Dont speak about things you are not informed on. (in regards to becky's mum)

And your judgement of me is particularly irrelevent, because it is particularly uninformed. When the arguments get personal it indicates that the attacker has no way of winning the argument on reason and logic. It also speaks to the nature of the attacker, rather than the person attacked. Everyone gets upset when another puts forward ideas they disagree with. But ideas are not people.

Every human being has the capacity to respond to loss and grief in a variety of ways. We learn how to respond and we chose how to respond. Those responses can be relearned and rechosen. No one HAS to suffer from grief so terrible that it destroys them, or brings them great pain, There are many philosophical mental and aother strategies to be more empowered and to minimise loss and pain. Religion and belief happens to work spectacularly well in this regard For example. A person who loses a close loved one, but truly believes that loss is temporary, and that they will be reunited for ever, is likely to suffer far less psychological sense of loss, grief and pain, than a person who believes they are separted for ever from tha tloved one.

Until a couple of hundred years ago, a woman would lose up to 12 out of the 14 children she gave birth to. She also had a 50% chance of dying as the rsult of child birth. Religious belief and faith offered great comforts to all those involved in those losses. It still can.

[Mr Walker]

That you would write garbage like this, after what Beckys_Mom said about the things some people said to her about the lost of her child, is inhuman. It shows what kind of person you truly are.

It’s like my profile quote says:

I like your Christ.

I do not like your Christians.

They are so unlike your Christ -Gandhi-

Dont speak about things you are not informed on. (in regards to becky's mum)

And your judgement of me is particularly irrelevent, because it is particularly uninformed. When the arguments get personal it indicates that the attacker has no way of winning the argument on reason and logic. It also speaks to the nature of the attacker, rather than the person attacked. Everyone gets upset when another puts forward ideas they disagree with. But ideas are not people.

Every human being has the capacity to respond to loss and grief in a variety of ways. We learn how to respond and we chose how to respond. Those responses can be relearned and rechosen. No one HAS to suffer from grief so terrible that it destroys them, or brings them great pain, There are many philosophical mental and aother strategies to be more empowered and to minimise loss and pain. Religion and belief happens to work spectacularly well in this regard For example. A person who loses a close loved one, but truly believes that loss is temporary, and that they will be reunited for ever, is likely to suffer far less psychological sense of loss, grief and pain, than a person who believes they are separted for ever from tha tloved one.

Until a couple of hundred years ago, a woman would lose up to 12 out of the 14 children she gave birth to. She also had a 50% chance of dying as the rsult of child birth. Religious belief and faith offered great comforts to all those involved in those losses. It still can.

That you would write garbage like this, after what Beckys_Mom said about the things some people said to her about the lost of her child, is inhuman. It shows what kind of person you truly are.

It’s like my profile quote says:

I like your Christ.

I do not like your Christians.

They are so unlike your Christ -Gandhi-

Dont speak about things you are not informed on. (in regards to becky's mum)

And your judgement of me is particularly irrelevent, because it is particularly uninformed. When the arguments get personal it indicates that the attacker has no way of winning the argument on reason and logic. It also speaks to the nature of the attacker, rather than the person attacked. Everyone gets upset when another puts forward ideas they disagree with. But ideas are not people.

Every human being has the capacity to respond to loss and grief in a variety of ways. We learn how to respond and we chose how to respond. Those responses can be relearned and rechosen. No one HAS to suffer from grief so terrible that it destroys them, or brings them great pain, There are many philosophical mental and aother strategies to be more empowered and to minimise loss and pain. Religion and belief happens to work spectacularly well in this regard For example. A person who loses a close loved one, but truly believes that loss is temporary, and that they will be reunited for ever, is likely to suffer far less psychological sense of loss, grief and pain, than a person who believes they are separted for ever from tha tloved one.

Until a couple of hundred years ago, a woman would lose up to 12 out of the 14 children she gave birth to. She also had a 50% chance of dying as the rsult of child birth. Religious belief and faith offered great comforts to all those involved in those losses. It still can.

[Cybele]

I think you miss the point. It's pretty unlikely that someone would choose to believe in a god because it's good for them. I can't talk for anyone else, but I couldn't believe if I tried - and believe me, I have.

I can't nderstand that thought process. If there is a yellow pill and science says it has no medical properties at all, yet it makes you happy fit and healthy if you take it. then surely every logicala /rational person would take it .

Well, in this case "the yellow pill" makes some people unhappy. It can be associated with memories of repression, abuse, and the like. Religion is far from the panacea you make it out to be.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Cybele

[Mr Walker]

name='Alienated Being' timestamp='1330960711' post='4222987']

Religion was founded to explain what the majority couldn't in ancient times, simply because their scientific and technological resources prevented the ability of logical, scientific deduction. We now have the resources to scientifically disprove the beliefs of historical societies and civilizations... such as...[/

1. Why a volcano erupts. In Hawaii, ancient tribes believed that the volcanic god was angry whenever an eruption occurred. We now know why eruptions occur...

2. Mayans. The Mayans believed that, whenever a solar eclipse occurred, the sun god was pleased with the sacrificial offerings, and would bless them with good crops.

I could go on, but I think you can logically deduce my intentions of the argument.

Fair enough. Now get science to give the explanations for ghosts and other paranormal activities, For Obeing clairvoyance clair audience etc., They can't, and they dont bother trying, yet many humans know these thngs are real, because they experience them as a part of their lives. In other words there always is, and probably always will be, a huge area of the unknown, in which only belief and faith are useful. For example, is gravity a universal constant? What lies at the other end of a black hole? etc etc Does our consciousness persist after the death of our body? Is there a universal consciousness which holds and stores the essence of all humans so that we can link with them and visit with them including after the death of their body??

And, combining religion with logic is as ridiculous as swimming with an open wound in a pool of sharks. Religion is not logical, it is not based on logic, but rather factless, baseless claims and anecdotes.

Religion is absolutely logical It evolved in huma thougth before forml logic and it evolved alongside informal logic as a means to make sense of our world Belief and faith work where logic canot work bedcause we do not have the knowledge base or experince ot use logic And peole used religion to chse times to plant to sow and when to harvest Places like stone henge were a combination of astrological astronomical and religious sites. The people who built them combined their thoughts and resources on all these, to make calendars, celebrate and predict equinoxes solstices and eclipeses. Religion was integrated with the knowledge and logic of the day. And it still can be.

I don't need religion to fulfill myself, because I have a strong mind.

I widh you alll the best and a lot of luck with that .

Only the weak need religion for fulfillment.

And thats jus tbull**** .You judge 90% or more of humanity as weak do you? I wonder how fully life has tested you, and how well you will cope in those tests over the next 50 or 60 years. Oh sure, some single minded, tough and independent people, with strong resilience and endurance, CAN walk through life alone. But why would anyone chose to do so. I could go out into the wildernes and survive indefinitely. I have the inner resources and skills to do so. But what would it profit me to chose to do so.

Oh, believe me... I have had my fair share of what some would refer to as "divine intervention", but I found no evidence to reinforce such claims. There's no evidence to suggest the existence of a god, not even a morsel... a grain.

No, YOU found no evidence. You simply cannot logically or factually apply your experiences and conclusions to anyone else. I ahve as much evidence for god, as I do for my wife or my dog Thats the reality of MY life.

The fact that you said probably indicates to me that you do not fully believe that it is rubbish. It is not rubbish. Attacks would not have occurred on the twin towers, providing that those Muslims did not hold those ridiculous beliefs that they would be blessed with virgins in heaven.

Probably, indicates that no one can be absolutely certain, however history alone tends to say you are wrong. It is not religion which drives any major conflict, from the crusades to the present day. it is inequality, injustice, greed, fear, envy,hopelessness, prejudice, hubris, and amny many other human traits. The muslim extremists DO NOT hate the west for our religion, they hate us for how we live our lives compared with how they have to live their own. Give them all that we have and you wouldnt find many prepared to sacrifice their life for allah.

We have had difering religions such as islam and christinity for all of human history. They dont cause problems unless other forces also come into play. Islam amd christianity could easily and happily coexist if the countries of islam had the same privileges and advantages enjoyed by western christian countries.

Atheism has reached between 50% and 85% in Switzerland... if anything, I'd say that religion is depreciating.

Wrong again Atheists, agnostics, AND non believer s in god is between 17 % and 27 % That is fairly average for a westernrn country And in line withte figures I gave. Pure atheists taken separately is about average also, at under 10% In 2005 48 % of people in switzerland believed in a god and 39% believed in a spirit or a life force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

I don't need to believe in god in order to have a fulfilling life. Nor did Bertrand Russel, Einstein, Stephen Hawking, etc.

I wouldnt use them as examples of happy satisfied and fulfilled. They are famous and certainly intelligent and capable in certain disciplines, but i doubt they are as happy and fulfilled as i am . From memory einsteins personal life wasnt the happiest, although I can't speak for the others.

I have found myself much happier without god.

I doubt you have ever truly been "with god", and so can't make that comparison.

You may well be happy. I was very happy and content without god. But there is no comparison to the quality of a life lived in the presence and power of god.

ROFLMAO Russel was divorced three times and married 4 and you use him as a example of a happy and fulfilled person. Happy and fulfilled people do not need to get divorced, even once. Steven hawkings been divorced twice and his wife didnt seem to think the marriage was very happy. And as for Einstein

He may have been a genius and leading light in the world of physics, but Einstein was a dismal failure at relationships. He left behind a trail of broken marriages and affairs in pursuit of his first love - science.

http://members.fortunecity.com/templarser/secret.html

Or, as he said himself.

"When it comes to close relationships I failed twice,disgracefully...marriages are dangerous".

NA mate I think you picked the wrong examples to prove your point.

[Mr Walker]

Well, in this case "the yellow pill" makes some people unhappy. It can be associated with memories of repression, abuse, and the like. Religion is far from the panacea you make it out to be.

Ah but thats my point. Taking Religion (the yelow pill) is entirely voluntary for any adult. (in western countries anyway.) And one can always cease taking it, if it makes them unhappy. BUT, very, very, few people chose to stop taking it, BECAUSE they aren't stupid. It works for them. And that is realistically, all that counts.

Those abused in religious orders etc., may, and some do, reject that religion. But not always. Some can differntiate the people who abused them, from the religion that supports them.

[Mr Walker]

Apologies for the multiple posts some time back. My computer froze up and also failed to connect into the web site. I left it to get tea ready for my wife and neice. When i came back, i noticed one multiple post and removed it. But I did not see the others. which were on a previous page. By the time i returned after tea. i was no longer able to edit out those posts.

[fullywired]

Perhaps, but in my personal opinon, and based on statistics, alcohol is truly one of humanity'sgreat social evils. It causes so much death destruction and misery .

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Benjamin Disraeli

[Alienated Being]

Fair enough. Now get science to give the explanations for ghosts and other paranormal activities, For Obeing clairvoyance clair audience etc., They can't, and they dont bother trying, yet many humans know these thngs are real, because they experience them as a part of their lives. In other words there always is, and probably always will be, a huge area of the unknown, in which only belief and faith are useful. For example, is gravity a universal constant? What lies at the other end of a black hole? etc etc Does our consciousness persist after the death of our body? Is there a universal consciousness which holds and stores the essence of all humans so that we can link with them and visit with them including after the death of their body??

Psychic ability and ghost are two entirely different concepts. Also, science can't prove or disprove something that we have no solidified evidence to support. Ghost hunters are not scientists. And, they (the ghost witnesses) don't know that they are real, but rather believe that they are real because of what they've seen. What they have seen can, again, easily be explained by the mind, and its susceptibility to hallucination.

Religion is absolutely logical It evolved in huma thougth before forml logic and it evolved alongside informal logic as a means to make sense of our world Belief and faith work where logic canot work bedcause we do not have the knowledge base or experince ot use logic And peole used religion to chse times to plant to sow and when to harvest Places like stone henge were a combination of astrological astronomical and religious sites. The people who built them combined their thoughts and resources on all these, to make calendars, celebrate and predict equinoxes solstices and eclipeses. Religion was integrated with the knowledge and logic of the day. And it still can be.

Religion isn't logical because it entertains the idea that a sky daddy exists, which is ridiculous.

I widh you alll the best and a lot of luck with that .

And thats jus tbull**** .You judge 90% or more of humanity as weak do you? I wonder how fully life has tested you, and how well you will cope in those tests over the next 50 or 60 years. Oh sure, some single minded, tough and independent people, with strong resilience and endurance, CAN walk through life alone. But why would anyone chose to do so. I could go out into the wildernes and survive indefinitely. I have the inner resources and skills to do so. But what would it profit me to chose to do so.

Okay, this sent me over the edge. I will tell you how much LIFE HAS TESTED ME.

When I was a baby, I was diagnosed with a severe case of lactose intolerance. I was also diagnosed with an immunodeficiency (immunoglobulin G deficient). I caught two viruses; one virus at the age of three which reduced my lung capacity to 60 percent and almost killed me, and another at eight years old that almost killed me, and I was reduced to 30% lung function, and still maintain that to this day (I am 21).

I have had 300+ hospital admissions (I will obtain the document, scan it, and show you, if you like), I get an IV every month, I have gotten more blood tests than any human should have, I have had surgeries, I have developed deterioration of my hip bone from ingestion of prednisone steroids (known as leg perthes), and I take puffers four times a day, antibiotics to prevent the accumulation of infectious mucous into my lungs, and on top of that, I have been cheated on and used. I have lost friends, I have seen people die in the hospital.

... I think that is much more than what any human should have to go through, and I don't wish it upon anybody.

I have been tested; very much so... I -still- don't believe in god, and think it is absolute rubbish. What would you expect me to go through in order to suspect that god exists?

No, YOU found no evidence. You simply cannot logically or factually apply your experiences and conclusions to anyone else. I ahve as much evidence for god, as I do for my wife or my dog Thats the reality of MY life.

Well, if god is as real as you say, then you should have no problem providing any evidence for his existence to the brilliant physicists who have spent an insurmountable amount of time trying to determine whether or not he exists.

Probably, indicates that no one can be absolutely certain, however history alone tends to say you are wrong. It is not religion which drives any major conflict, from the crusades to the present day. it is inequality, injustice, greed, fear, envy,hopelessness, prejudice, hubris, and amny many other human traits. The muslim extremists DO NOT hate the west for our religion, they hate us for how we live our lives compared with how they have to live their own. Give them all that we have and you wouldnt find many prepared to sacrifice their life for allah.

We have had difering religions such as islam and christinity for all of human history. They dont cause problems unless other forces also come into play. Islam amd christianity could easily and happily coexist if the countries of islam had the same privileges and advantages enjoyed by western christian countries.

You, essentially, reinforced what I said, in terms of the absolute certainty.

In my opinion, without religion, this world would be a much, much better place.

Wrong again Atheists, agnostics, AND non believer s in god is between 17 % and 27 % That is fairly average for a westernrn country And in line withte figures I gave. Pure atheists taken separately is about average also, at under 10% In 2005 48 % of people in switzerland believed in a god and 39% believed in a spirit or a life force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

I wouldnt use them as examples of happy satisfied and fulfilled. They are famous and certainly intelligent and capable in certain disciplines, but i doubt they are as happy and fulfilled as i am . From memory einsteins personal life wasnt the happiest, although I can't speak for the others.

I doubt you have ever truly been "with god", and so can't make that comparison.

You may well be happy. I was very happy and content without god. But there is no comparison to the quality of a life lived in the presence and power of god.

It was most likely that they were unhappy in the marriages, not unhappy in general.

ROFLMAO Russel was divorced three times and married 4 and you use him as a example of a happy and fulfilled person. Happy and fulfilled people do not need to get divorced, even once. Steven hawkings been divorced twice and his wife didnt seem to think the marriage was very happy. And as for Einstein

http://members.fortunecity.com/templarser/secret.html

Or, as he said himself.

Religion has no bearing on happiness in a marriage. If you believe that, then you may as well believe that atheists are all evil, or have a tainted sense of morality.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Alienated Being

[Karlis]

Mr Walker and Alienated Being -- your last few posts have been aggravating each other's sensitivities; and possibly impinging on the sensitivity of others on UM who have had traumatic events in their lives.

Please try to keep personal experiences out of this thread. Not only will that derail the topic, but inevitably lead to "flaming".

Think about other people's sensitivities *before* you post ...

Karlis -- moderator team member

[Mr Walker]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Benjamin Disraeli

Perhaps that was statistically true in disraelis time Perhaps he was right in the application of statistics for political purposes; but only someone completely uninformed, or deliberately/ willfully in denial, would attempt to argue against this point.

I have presented the statistics before particularly for a modern western country like Australia. They are easily obtainable/verifiable The financial costs cumulatively are in the billions. The social/personal costs in violence abuse and accidents/injuries etc are also colossal.

I support anyone's basic right to do anything they chose, but tend to think they should be made to pay the full costs of their choices. Well over half, and sometimes up to 80% of domestic and street violence; work, home, and vehicle accidents could be prevented if alcohol was not involved.

These figures are significantly higher in certain indigenous and ethnic groupings. And thats just for starters. In a current road traffic blitz in Adelaide, more people were caught driving under the influence of (other) drugs, than of alcohol.

Once you have attended a few road accidents, or taken a few women and childen to shelters or hospital, after incidents involving alcohol, you tend to be less accepting of its use.

[Meiliken]

Perhaps that was statistically true in disraelis time Perhaps he was right in the application of statistics for political purposes; but only someone completely uninformed, or deliberately/ willfully in denial, would attempt to argue against this point.

I have presented the statistics before particularly for a modern western country like Australia. They are easily obtainable/verifiable The financial costs cumulatively are in the billions. The social/personal costs in violence abuse and accidents/injuries etc are also colossal.

I support anyone's basic right to do anything they chose, but tend to think they should be made to pay the full costs of their choices. Well over half, and sometimes up to 80% of domestic and street violence; work, home, and vehicle accidents could be prevented if alcohol was not involved.

These figures are significantly higher in certain indigenous and ethnic groupings. And thats just for starters. In a current road traffic blitz in Adelaide, more people were caught driving under the influence of (other) drugs, than of alcohol.

Once you have attended a few road accidents, or taken a few women and childen to shelters or hospital, after incidents involving alcohol, you tend to be less accepting of its use.

Aye, I think alcohol is very bad, as well as tobacco products and most addictive drugs. My father died from alcohol and smoking. I never did understand the rational behind purposely harming ones self.

[Mr Walker]

Mr Walker and Alienated Being -- your last few posts have been aggravating each other's sensitivities; and possibly impinging on the sensitivity of others on UM who have had traumatic events in their lives.

Please try to keep personal experiences out of this thread. Not only will that derail the topic, but inevitably lead to "flaming".

Think about other people's sensitivities *before* you post ...

Karlis -- moderator team member

Fair enough. I understand Alienated Being's world view, and how/why he arrived at it. I can understand how my own might be in such contradiction to his, that it offends him. But i cannot accept his right to deny very real physical realities in my life, and the conclusions I have drawn from them.

He has chosen a certain response to his own life and it works for him.( I dont know how he would like me to feel about his life. Sorrow or compassion might only anger and offend him more, and I certainly admire the courage and other qualities he must have) But my feelings are irrelevant . His own evolved or chosen responses to his life's circumstances give him no right to deny differet responses by other people. I dont deny him the right to chose as he wants, for himself; only for other people.

I would apologise to him, if I had intended to upset or anger him. But each of us must take responsibility for our own emotional responses to anyone else's opinions. I take no pleasure, ever, when someone is hurt or upset by anything I post. But if we all remained silent every time another might chose to be offended, then many legitimate and acceptable opinions and beliefs would remain unstated, for fear of another's criticism or anger.

[Alienated Being]

Fair enough. I understand Alienated Being's world view, and how/why he arrived at it. I can understand how my own might be in such contradiction to his, that it offends him. But i cannot accept his right to deny very real physical realities in my life, and the conclusions I have drawn from them.

Exactly - conclusions that YOU have drawn from them. Just because you have concluded them to be as you have perceived them, that doesn't indicate that they are rational conclusions, with all due respect.

GOD is not a physical reality. In reiteration, if it were, then you should have NO problem convincing highly reputable and respected physicists.

He has chosen a certain response to his own life and it works for him.( I dont know how he would like me to feel about his life. Sorrow or compassion might only anger and offend him more, and I certainly admire the courage and other qualities he must have) But my feelings are irrelevant . His own evolved or chosen responses to his life's circumstances give him no right to deny differet responses by other people. I dont deny him the right to chose as he wants, for himself; only for other people.

I would apologise to him, if I had intended to upset or anger him. But each of us must take responsibility for our own emotional responses to anyone else's opinions. I take no pleasure, ever, when someone is hurt or upset by anything I post. But if we all remained silent every time another might chose to be offended, then many legitimate and acceptable opinions and beliefs would remain unstated, for fear of another's criticism or anger.

You didn't really upset me - you did, however, make reference to being tested in life, and I felt it necessary to respond with how I have been "tested".

I don't deny just ANY response; I deny a response based on logic, or a lack thereof. I am far from offended, believe me. I am the most dogmatic person I know when it comes to religion, so it would take a HUGE amount to anger me.

Cheers.

[Beckys_Mom]

Dont speak about things you are not informed on. (in regards to becky's mum)

He differed from yourself... He only had to read one line that read I had a great loss and was slammed for not following Jesus.. So he knew from reading that me line it would be wrong to post up anything insenstive ..... You on the other hand knew more and still chose to post up an insensitive post.. Which ended up upsetting others Fluffybunny and myself ...

To speak on my own behalf and because I have a right to - Here is what I find wrong... If I was someone who felt God was on my side more and always saved me...And I had the notion that no one should chose pain or suffering.. .making it look like a mere choice.. and not something that can naturally happen to anyone... And IF I felt I was higher than other religious on here.. Knowing that people have suffered who do in fact follow and serve god best they can.. If I read a post that spoke of a loads and how some religious person slammed them for not following their path......I would NOT take part of that same conversation and post up sheer ignorance and act insensitive regardless Just to make myself look good? ..... No thanks ..

I can not ever be presumptuous to think that because I feel the path I chose to follow God is right, that Christians, Muslims and others who may suffer with illness or losses over time are only suffering because maybe.. they are not as close to God as they think.. That is absolute rude, arrogant and a selfish insensitive attitude to take

If I took offence and didn't like it when someone called me a Christian.. like you once did with me... And I saw a few Christians stick up for me now and again showing me their understanding... Then I would have taken into consideration that maybe my bragging and holier than thou attitude might be a bit much.. when talking about those who are religious and do in fact suffer pain and from the loss of a loved one... It happens to the best of us.. So It would be insensitive and wrong of me to push that boat out too far

All of what I have spoken about above is purely on my own behalf ...And to be honest.. anyone acting like that there is no excuse for it

It is very easy to paint ones good kind picture to make themselves look good, but at the same time it is very easy to ignore what we actually do and say that can upset others..

You take a look at the OP .. That is just another example of people being insensitive... WHY? because so many good Christians have prayed hard and devoted their time to God.. and STILL suffered from Cancer... How anyone can say they may not have been close enough is sick and sad...

Edited March 6, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[Mr Walker]

name='Alienated Being' timestamp='1331058777' post='4224124']

Exactly - conclusions that YOU have drawn from them. Just because you have concluded them to be as you have perceived them, that doesn't indicate that they are rational conclusions, with all due respect.

GOD is not a physical reality. In reiteration, if it were, then you should have NO problem convincing highly reputable and respected physicists.

Again this is an experienced based belief. If you had my actual physical experiences and evidences you would be required, using logic, to come to similar conclusions to my own.. One cant deny the findings which reality and logic compell. And If i was a physicist and had the same experiences then i would be a reputable and respected physicist who happened to know god was very real. Knowledge is not incomaptible with science.

But god is not easily "amenable" to transferrable proofs of his existence due to its nature Our science is only now approaching the ability to find and measure something like a boson, despite years of effort and research. Very little physics or other science is devoted to seeking for evidence of, or attempting to quantify, god

You didn't really upset me - you did, however, make reference to being tested in life, and I felt it necessary to respond with how I have been "tested".

I don't deny just ANY response; I deny a response based on logic, or a lack thereof. I am far from offended, believe me. I am the most dogmatic person I know when it comes to religion, so it would take a HUGE amount to anger me.

Cheers.

And I do feel sorry, (even if that is an irrational response) for words which caused you to be emotionally stirred. I must have read other references to your life, and should have known that you had been tested more than most. In a way I think your dogmatism is an inverse response to that chosen by many who use religion as comfort.

Many posters, however, make similar claims that religion is for the weak, and that humans should be able to live without it, when they have never gone hungry let alone sufered many trials or losses in their lives. They do get under my skin at times. It is easy for a modern western person to have no appreciation for how humnas have lived over the last 50000 years, or indeed how many are forced to live today.

You, perhaps, find strength and comfort in being independent, and inwardly strong. And of course you are entitled to do so. But most humans, quite logically, find great comfort and release in faith, belief, and their religion. And, IMO, that is also a right and logical thing for them to do .

[Alienated Being]

Again this is an experienced based belief. If you had my actual physical experiences and evidences you would be required, using logic, to come to similar conclusions to my own.. One cant deny the findings which reality and logic compell. And If i was a physicist and had the same experiences then i would be a reputable and respected physicist who happened to know god was very real. Knowledge is not incomaptible with science.

Knowledge holds no bearing in science, if it cannot be reinforced with evidence of said knowledge.

But god is not easily "amenable" to transferrable proofs of his existence due to its nature Our science is only now approaching the ability to find and measure something like a boson, despite years of effort and research. Very little physics or other science is devoted to seeking for evidence of, or attempting to quantify, god

Physics is devoted to energy, matter, and essentially how we are... who we are (physically). It describes how we got here.

I have an example question...

A woman, 45, sees Big Ben as a large, steaming pile of faeces (and can even smell it). When she touches the exterior, it feels like touching actual faeces. She has, therefore, concluded that, because she has experienced it, it must be true. On top of that, her ENTIRE family and ALL of her friends perceive it as being the same thing, and it shares completely identical qualities to what I have just described.

Are they delusional, or is it really a steaming pile of faeces? No matter how much scientific evidence you present to them to sway their belief, they will refuse, and say it is still a steaming pile of faeces.

Who is wrong?? The scientist, or the people who are experiencing it?

It's an honest question. I am waiting to read your response.

And I do feel sorry, (even if that is an irrational response) for words which caused you to be emotionally stirred. I must have read other references to your life, and should have known that you had been tested more than most. In a way I think your dogmatism is an inverse response to that chosen by many who use religion as comfort.

Don't feel sorry for me, because I wouldn't feel sorry for you.

Many posters, however, make similar claims that religion is for the weak, and that humans should be able to live without it, when they have never gone hungry let alone sufered many trials or losses in their lives. They do get under my skin at times. It is easy for a modern western person to have no appreciation for how humnas have lived over the last 50000 years, or indeed how many are forced to live today.

If it comforts you, fine... believe in it. It just bothers me that you'd invest belief in such illogicality.

You, perhaps, find strength and comfort in being independent, and inwardly strong. And of course you are entitled to do so. But most humans, quite logically, find great comfort and release in faith, belief, and their religion. And, IMO, that is also a right and logical thing for them to do .

A lot of humans, not most. That is quite the stretch.

[Mr Walker]

He differed from yourself... He only had to read one line that read I had a great loss and was slammed for not following Jesus.. So he knew from reading that me line it would be wrong to post up anything insenstive ..... You on the other hand knew more and still chose to post up an insensitive post.. Which ended up upsetting others Fluffybunny and myself ...

To speak on my own behalf and because I have a right to - Here is what I find wrong... If I was someone who felt God was on my side more and always saved me...And I had the notion that no one should chose pain or suffering.. .making it look like a mere choice.. and not something that can naturally happen to anyone... And IF I felt I was higher than other religious on here.. Knowing that people have suffered who do in fact follow and serve god best they can.. If I read a post that spoke of a loads and how some religious person slammed them for not following their path......I would NOT take part of that same conversation and post up sheer ignorance and act insensitive regardless Just to make myself look good? ..... No thanks ..

I can not ever be presumptuous to think that because I feel the path I chose to follow God is right, that Christians, Muslims and others who may suffer with illness or losses over time are only suffering because maybe.. they are not as close to God as they think.. That is absoluteness rude, arrogant and a selfish insensitive attitude to take

If I took offence and didn't like it when someone called me a Christian.. like you once did with me... And I saw a few Christians stick up for me now and again showing me their understanding... Then I would have taken into consideration that maybe my bragging and holier than thou attitude might be a bit much.. when talking about those who are religious and do in fact suffer pain and from the loss of a loved one... It happens to the best of us.. So It would be insensitive and wrong of me to push that boat out too far

All of what I have spoken about above is purely on my own behalf ...And to be honest.. anyone acting like that there is no excuse for it

It is very easy to paint ones good kind picture to make themselves look good, but at the same time it is very easy to ignore what we actually do and say that can upset others..

You take a look at the OP .. That is just another example of people being insensitive... WHY? because so many good Christians have prayed hard and devoted their time to God.. and STILL suffered from Cancer... How anyone can say they may not have been close enough is sick and sad...

BM first you know how i felt and cried for the loss of your child. we have discussed this on pM. Second. You know that i have "ignored" your posts for some time, because you were getting upset at some of my responses to them and i said that nothing I had to say was worth risking your health for.

I am hpay to again put you on ignore so tha ti do not see or reply to your posts I remain concerned for your health and your childs.

But your responses and beliefs are your own.

Many people find solace, comfort, and an easing of both pain and burden, in their connection to god, or in their faith/belief in him. Its none of my business if you do or do not.

I am just saying this works for millions if not billions of people and has done throughout history I dont know why, because i dont have that form of belief, although my wife does. I am not now, nor never have been, making any judgement on you. That is in your own mind

Personally I use a learned detachment, logic and understanding to overcme grief (as I do with anger hate lust envy etc) I find these, especially when uncontrolled to be deatructive/nonproductive emotions .This is not religious practice but things i developed as a secular humanist or atheist to cope withlife.

I know that we all have a choice in how we respond emotionally, and i know that humans are conditioned into, or learn, 'appropriate" cultural responses to things like grief. History and observation of differnt people and cultures today demonstrates this.

But i have friends who had only one child, a boy, born with catastrophic brain damage. He is now nearly 40, and cant walk or talk or feed himself. They are intelligent and practical people. One is an accountant the other a graphic artist, but they freely admit that, without gods help, they could not have coped with, or dealt with, that circumstance in their life anywhere near as well.

It was their faith in god that sustained them through both his early years and for the last 4 decades. They love him and provide wonderful care for him, although his condition is so bad that the actual care is done by professionals in an institution. They bring him home for a few weeks each year and visit him regulalrly.

They believe that they will eventually be reunited with him, well and healthy, for eternity. Even if i dont share that belief, i can see the value in it.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Alienated Being]

I think this thread is getting a little too personal. I think we need to steer away from personal matters.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Alienated Being

[Mr Walker]

name='Alienated Being' timestamp='1331062133' post='4224181']

Knowledge holds no bearing in science, if it cannot be reinforced with evidence of said knowledge.

And hence a severe limitation in practical terms (if i accept this fairly rigid definition of science). Things existed before science was ever conceived. Science is basically a method for both collating and extrapolating knowledge Perehas becaus eof this defintion science does not atempt the exploration of things which cant be proven (and yet it does as long as there is no prejudice attached to them) Most things start of without proof and science gradually establishes evidences for them.

Physics is devoted to energy, matter, and essentially how we are... who we are (physically). It describes how we got here.

Yes and thus it is applicable to all real physical things. If god is a real physical entity, then god is subject to the laws of physics and quantifiable using them (as long as our physics is good/advanced enough)

I have an example question...

A woman, 45, sees Big Ben as a large, steaming pile of faeces (and can even smell it). When she touches the exterior, it feels like touching actual faeces. She has, therefore, concluded that, because she has experienced it, it must be true. On top of that, her ENTIRE family and ALL of her friends perceive it as being the same thing, and it shares completely identical qualities to what I have just described.

Are they delusional, or is it really a steaming pile of faeces? No matter how much scientific evidence you present to them to sway their belief, they will refuse, and say it is still a steaming pile of faeces.

Who is wrong?? The scientist, or the people who are experiencing it?

It's an honest question. I am waiting to read your response.

There are many potential answers to that, depending on whether you apply philosophy or physics for example. My favourite one might be this.

In the scenario given, big ben has obviously begun operating at a quantum level. It is thus subject to the observer effect. In other words, it is either or (or both) a pile of steaming faeses and a solid human built object used to keep time. depending on how it is observed and by whom.

Other means of rsoning include utilising historical knowledge of its constructin and history. But if indeed a million people saw it as a steaming pile of faeces, then science would have its work cut out explaining why, and who was right or wrong.

Don't feel sorry for me, because I wouldn't feel sorry for you.

I am responsible for my emotional rsponses and you for yours.

If it comforts you, fine... believe in it. It just bothers me that you'd invest belief in such illogicality.

Religious belief doesnt comfort me. I dont have any. idont believ in an afterlife or any of the constructed metaphysical concepts of god. I do have a physical connection to a physical god which gives me many physical advantages but my basic human strengtht of mind and body is my own. However I see in others how belief alone confers some of the same advantages which a physical connection to god confers courage strength peace joy etc. It does not necessarily confer the physical protection and guidance/mentoring of god which physicla conection with him confers. They are added bonuses.

A lot of humans, not most. That is quite the stretch.

Actually every piece of gathered evidence still says most. ie greater than 50%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

Edited March 6, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Beckys_Mom]

Personally I use a learned detachment, logic and understanding to overcme grief (as I do with anger hate lust envy etc) I find these, especially when uncontrolled to be deatructive/nonproductive emotions .This is not religious practice but things i developed as a secular humanist or atheist to cope withlife.

I know that we all have a choice in how we respond emotionally, and i know that humans are conditioned into, or learn, 'appropriate" cultural responses to things like grief. History and observation of differnt people and cultures today demonstrates this.

But i have friends who had only one child, a boy, born with catastrophic brain damage. He is now nearly 40, and cant walk or talk or feed himself. They are intelligent and practical people. One is an accountant the other a graphic artist, but they freely admit that, without gods help, they could not have coped with, or dealt with, that circumstance in their life anywhere near as well.

It was their faith in god that sustained them through both his early years and for the last 4 decades. They love him and provide wonderful care for him, although his condition is so bad that the actual care is done by professionals in an institution. They bring him home for a few weeks each year and visit him regulalrly.

They believe that they will eventually be reunited with him, well and healthy, for eternity. Even if i dont share that belief, i can see the value in it.

Like I said...The OP_ Church Billboard Jesus cures cancer.. That is intensive to post up.. because many Christians have been very close to God and still suffered from Cancer or lost loved ones who did.... People duffer.. Jesus is said to have suffered for the world... It happens

I think it is presumptuous for anyone to assume only God has picked over who he wants to save ... I believe in the natural order of life... Good and bad can happen and will happen to us all........

I believe in faith working with medical help....... The OP mentioned they still have to take their treatments.. So the billboard is a lie... a con and no wonder people got upset

[Mr Walker]

Like I said...The OP_ Church Billboard Jesus cures cancer.. That is intensive to post up.. because many Christians have been very close to God and still suffered from Cancer or lost loved ones who did.... People duffer.. Jesus is said to have suffered for the world... It happens

I think it is presumptuous for anyone to assume only God has picked over who he wants to save ... I believe in the natural order of life... Good and bad can happen and will happen to us all........

I believe in faith working with medical help....... The OP mentioned they still have to take their treatments.. So the billboard is a lie... a con and no wonder people got upset

I believe from the evidences available to me that 'god" and just "belief" can cure a lot of things including pain and cancer. So, to me, the bill board tells a truth. Not the whole truth perhaps but basically a truth. There are many unexplained reasons why, and cases where, cancer goes into remission or disappears in some people. God and faith are as good a rationale as any, especially where there are also some statistical and anecdotal evidences to support this concept.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Beckys_Mom]

I believe from the evidences available to me that 'god" and just "belief" can cure a lot of things including pain and cancer. So, to me, the bill board tells a truth.

Not the truth.. It skipped the real truth and that is they still have to take their meds... IF Jesus actually cured their cancer.. Then no further cancer treatment and meds would be needed.. So the billboard was a complete lie in that sense..

God and faith are as good a rationale as any, especially where there are also some statistical and anecdotal evidences to support this concept.

So many non religious and non believers get saved from Cancer too... I guess it means you do not really need faith to get help....

Edited March 6, 2012 by Beckys_Mom