Again, the religious postion is HARMFUL

[JamesM]

You are equivocating.

 

Wrong completely. To define: equivocate - be deliberately ambiguous or unclear in order to mislead or withhold information.

 

I am not being unclear or ambiguous. I am not withholding information or misleading anyone. I am addressing him as he has stated his opinions. What you are suggesting is that I should have assumed what he meant or actually placed a different meaning to his words. I apologize for taking him at his words, but that is what I thought we do here.

 

Feel free to reread the post I quoted. While you are assuming he is only referring to religion and God, his post says very little of that. In fact, here is what I quoted and commented on....

 

Having faith in anything is the opposite of virtuous and in some extreme cases, it could actually be concidered insane.

 

I think it is very clear. He is referring to anything.

 

The kind of faith one has in science or in professionals doing there job is quite different from having faith in a supreme being.

 

Yes, it is. This would be an interesting thread for you to start.

 

These two types of "faith" are often at odds, and when one sides with the miraculous kind over the rational kind, sickness and death often result.

 

I am sure that you have statistics to support this. So, the death of the children of Christians is higher than the death of the children of atheists...percentage wise? Is there a connection with a faith in God and higher sickness rates? So the rational decision to place our faith in medical professionals and medical systems leads to less sicknesses and deaths?

 

Oh, and many of those doctors and nurses? They are religious...Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etc. Do you think this faith affects their ability to do their job? Another good thread for you to start.

 

As for faith in the medical profession and scientists, there are statistics that show their fallibility.

 

Since I know this to be a problem, I quickly found an article for you to look at...

Medical Errors - A Leading Cause of Death

 

The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000 article written by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, shows that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States.

 

The report apparently shows there are 2,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery; 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals; 80,000 deaths/year from infections in hospitals; 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications - these total up to 225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes which ranks these deaths as the # 3 killer. Iatrogenic is a term used when a patient dies as a direct result of treatments by a physician, whether it is from misdiagnosis of the ailment or from adverse drug reactions used to treat the illness. (drug reactions are the most common cause).

 

So, faith in people is not as great as it seems. Yes, there are many checks and balances, but it is people in all positions.

 

Oh, and notice how many reactions to drugs occur. Aren't those drugs researched by scientists?

 

Now the purpose of my thread is not to say that I do not have trust in medical professionals or systems. That would be far from the truth. My experiences show that they are very accomplished and skilled.

 

But again, this would make a good thread.

Edited December 25, 2007 by JamesM

[shadowofman]

I am really sorry to steer this in a sematic direction, but when I use the word faith, I refer to believing in something without evidence, or with evidence to the contrary. And I stand by my statement that faith in anything is not virtuous. It seems rediculous to me to compare faith in supernatural and "faith" in the natural. And yes, complete trust (blind faith) in anything, including a scientist's conclusions, is not virtuous either. Critical thinking and continued questioning on the other hand is. That is why peer review is such an important part of the scientific method. And only when enough people have retested and reconfirmed the result is it acceptable to begin trusting the result.

I have tested the automatic doors here at my job hundreds if not thousands of times and they have always given me the same results. Therefore I trust that they will open when I approach them. Yesterday I realized that should not have put my trust in them when I walked right into the glass. I had tons of personal experience with an easily replicated experiment, and my trust still let me down. Not to say that I should waste my time questioning whether or not they will open everytime, I have enough experience with them to understand that this one time was a fluke.

My point is complete trust in anything is not virtuous, even with evidence.

And blind faith in a stories written thousands of years ago, with tons of contradictory evidence, is not only anti-virtuous, but it borderlines insane. I know it makes you feel good to believe it, but drugs can do the same thing. It's an illusory happiness. Who wouldn't want to believe that they will live forever? I am just incapable of believing that, because that is insane.

[Moose]

And blind faith in a stories written thousands of years ago, with tons of contradictory evidence, is not only anti-virtuous, but it borderlines insane. I know it makes you feel good to believe it, but drugs can do the same thing. It's an illusory happiness

Ok then.....not sure where you're going with this, but are you making a case for doing illecit drugs?

 

Can you back up these so called contradictions?

 

Are you capable of defining that which is virtuous?

 

Who is?

 

If it's up to the individual, who's right is it to call whom insane?

 

Just some, "critical thinkin'" from a redneck back at ya'....

[lonelybird]

II know it makes you feel good to believe it, but drugs can do the same thing. It's an illusory happiness. .

The difference is drug will make me addictive to it and NOTHING improves and waste lots of money; but faith in God not only make me happy, good things happen, but also improve me and my life

Edited December 25, 2007 by lonelybird

[shadowofman]

Sorry lonleybird, but I DO believe that religions are addictive, and a waste of money.

And no Moose I am not (in this instance) making a case for drugs. I am making a case against drugs and religions.

Religions and drugs provide an illusory happiness, was my statement.

And the religious claim they are capable of defining the virtuous. At the root of my argument, I am arguing against claims of virtue. My statement was that faith is not virtuous, and if anything is, critical thinking more virtuous than blind faith.

The insane statement was not meant to be harsh, but merely a description of a behavior. Having a worldview that is contradictory to piles and piles of evidence to the contrary borders on insanity. I do give credit to the individual for a rampant culture of childhood brainwashing, which is and has been worldwide for nearly all of human history.

[Moai]

Wrong completely. To define: equivocate - be deliberately ambiguous or unclear in order to mislead or withhold information.

 

I am not being unclear or ambiguous. I am not withholding information or misleading anyone. I am addressing him as he has stated his opinions. What you are suggesting is that I should have assumed what he meant or actually placed a different meaning to his words. I apologize for taking him at his words, but that is what I thought we do here.

 

We do. In the post that I refer to, I believe that you were addressing me. And while I didn't quote the paragraph, you used the word "faith" twice with a different meaning each time, without qualifying. That is equivocating.

 

I am sure that you have statistics to support this.

 

Not per se, but read on...

 

So, the death of the children of Christians is higher than the death of the children of atheists...percentage wise?

 

For Christians like Christian Scientists or Jehovah's Witnesses, yes.

 

Is there a connection with a faith in God and higher sickness rates? So the rational decision to place our faith in medical professionals and medical systems leads to less sicknesses and deaths?

 

Yes, obviously. Common sense should tell you that going to see a witch doctor will not be as effective as seeing someone trained in Western medicine.

 

Oh, and many of those doctors and nurses? They are religious...Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etc. Do you think this faith affects their ability to do their job?

 

No, not when they keep their faith separate from what they are doing. For example, I would rather the brain surgeon operate and then pray than for him/her to pray in hopes of my healing.

 

As for faith in the medical profession and scientists, there are statistics that show their fallibility.

 

Yes, they are human beings and make mistakes. Nobody disputes this. Their success rate is exponentially greater than the result of prayer. In fact, it is prayer=0, medical science=1,000^10.

 

So, faith in people is not as great as it seems. Yes, there are many checks and balances, but it is people in all positions.

 

Better than faith in god. Every single time.

 

Oh, and notice how many reactions to drugs occur. Aren't those drugs researched by scientists?

 

Now the purpose of my thread is not to say that I do not have trust in medical professionals or systems. That would be far from the truth. My experiences show that they are very accomplished and skilled.

 

But again, this would make a good thread.

 

Go for it.

[HokeyReligions]

I don't know what this thread is really about anymore, but I have a question/comment:

 

Without faith where would science and progess be? If doctors and scientists did not have faith that they find a cure or treatment for any and all diseases and afflictions - where would we be? Why would anyone bother to try anything if they did not have some kind of faith that an answer could be found or a resolution arrived at?

 

Would we have buildings or bridges or hairspray for that matter, if someone didn't see a problem that needed to be addressed; or a vision for something that would make the world better?

 

So take "religion" (which is a very broad word that cannot address a specific question) out of it and talk about faith. Those who choose medical care, vaccinations, etc. have faith in those - many tie them to their various beliefs in a Deity because they believe that science, the human drive to question, answer, and challenge ourselves - to a Deity-given trait or governance; while others have faith that all things come from mankind alone.

 

People are sheep. We are easily swayed and follow, often loudly - but follow indeed, those who squak the most and are the most charismatic. It is so much easier and far more comfortable to follow than to lead. But without their own faith - where would we get leaders of any kind?

 

There is balance and most who find it are not loud about it.

[JamesM]

We do. In the post that I refer to, I believe that you were addressing me. And while I didn't quote the paragraph, you used the word "faith" twice with a different meaning each time, without qualifying. That is equivocating.

 

I am sorry that you took it that way. While your perception is your reality, it was not what my words meant. This post was directed at shadowofman as was indicated by my quoting him. I used the word faith twice as I see it, and I meant it as it sounds...

 

Interesting take. However, by your statement, you have included 99.9% of the population. Everyone (almost) has faith in something. In fact, you have faith in the scientists that give you the vaccinations. You have faith that they have done their research properly. You have faith that they have read the results correctly. And you have faith in the doctors/nurses that administer the shots. You have faith that the proper amount is put into the needle. You have faith that the needle is sterile. And on and on it goes. Faith is a good thing...it keeps us sane.

 

We do all have faith in something or someone. This includes religions, people, and things. Since shadowofman indicated that faith in anything is not good, I responded to that. There was not intentional misleading. If you took it as such, then I apologize for the confusion.

 

So, the death of the children of Christians is higher than the death of the children of atheists...percentage wise?

 

For Christians like Christian Scientists or Jehovah's Witnesses, yes.

 

Again, I am assuming there is statistics that show the comparison of deaths among children. While these two small sects believe somehow that medicine is not compatible with their beliefs, and while there have been cases reported of situations where children and adults have died as a result....this is a very small percentage of all "Christians." The two groups that you have selected are not only not mainstream Christians, they are not defined as Christian churches by Christians. However, to get into this would definitely derail this thread, and I have been accused of that before. For the sake of this thread we will assume they are, but again you are choosing the groups that are on the fringe. And based on that, we could say that the percentage of Christians that drive horse and buggys is higher than atheists...because the Amish drive them.

 

But I will give this to you.

 

Common sense should tell you that going to see a witch doctor will not be as effective as seeing someone trained in Western medicine.

 

So, what is defined as Western medicine? Does this exclude all forms of Eastern medicine such as acupuncture and similar healing?

 

Here is the thing. Most Christians...and probably all do put there faith in doctors because they believe that God guides the hands of the physicians. This alone gives them the comfort. You are correct...educated and skilled medical professionals are better trained than witch doctors but both are human.

 

No, not when they keep their faith separate from what they are doing. For example, I would rather the brain surgeon operate and then pray than for him/her to pray in hopes of my healing.

 

Interesting. Recently I had a sister who had a serious surgery which could have resulted in her death. When it was over, my folks were talking to the surgeon and said that they appreciated all that he did. He said..."God is over all. He guided my hands." This is the kind of doctor I want. And he was a Muslim not a Christian. As Christians, my parents were impressed by his understanding of his abilities. Is he a good surgeon? He has a great reputation among the nurses. His success rate is high. He is known as one of the best cancer surgeons in the area. Yet he recognizes that all comes from God.

 

In fact, it is prayer=0, medical science=1,000^10.

 

No, medical science is so great because prayer is so successful. But that is my opinion which is shared by all Christians. Take it as that...no need to dispute it as I know you feel differently. As you know, this cannot be proved by any statistics. Prayer can only be measured in the results we see. Again, another thread.

 

But again, I guess we are getting off topic. The original example of vaccinations being a religious concern only seems not to be so. There are other examples that could probably be used (such as the fringe beliefs of the Christian Scientists and the Jehovah's Witnesses), but vaccinations is not one.

[shadowofman]

We do all have faith in something or someone. This includes religions, people, and things. Since shadowofman indicated that faith in anything is not good, I responded to that.

Sorry for causing this confusion. Again, sematically, I refer to faith as being "believing in something without evidence or with evidence to the contrary". Many people love to use the word faith to describe trust in peoples abilities or intentions, but it is best to differenciate. Trusting a licenced doctor's abilities to treat your illness is completely and utterly different than faith in religion.

 

Likewise, having "faith" in a spouse is really just trusting a person. It's not really faith like religious faith. I will stand by my statements. Having faith in anything for which you have no evidence, or in spite of contradictory evidence is foolish. And could in many, many cases lead to dangerous ends.

 

Interesting. Recently I had a sister who had a serious surgery which could have resulted in her death. When it was over, my folks were talking to the surgeon and said that they appreciated all that he did. He said..."God is over all. He guided my hands." This is the kind of doctor I want.

 

It's fine if a doctor is using their scientific education to conduct legitimate modern and hygenic practice. He could personally believe that tapeworms from Neptune are using magnets to control his hands during surgery. I find it sad that this doctor is not willing to give themself the credit for a job well done. It's so convenient to be able to attibute all good in the world to a god. That way any evil can be misdirected toward a Satan.

 

I understand your more comfortable with a theist doctor, especially if you lack confidence in human ability perform highly trained skills. I would be much more comfortable with a doctor that at least accepted facts like evolution, but I could really care less what the personal beliefs they hold.

[JamesM]

n.

 

I understand your more comfortable with a theist doctor, especially if you lack confidence in human ability perform highly trained skills. I would be much more comfortable with a doctor that at least accepted facts like evolution, but I could really care less what the personal beliefs they hold.

 

I respect your opinion, and I am not commenting on that. But I do want to say that my sister did have an idea that she was in good human hands. It was not a blind faith in any doctor. Yet it was good to hear that this man was humble enough to not be arrogant about his abilities.

 

I understand your view and coming from your opinion, I can see that. I would feel the same way.

[shadowofman]

I do want to say that my sister did have an idea that she was in good human hands. It was not a blind faith in any doctor. Yet it was good to hear that this man was humble enough to not be arrogant about his abilities.

Of course she felt like she was in good human hands. This is I think where people with almost totally rational minds drop the ball and fall back on irrational, but admittedly comfortable safety nets. I'm sure that if given the choice between a licenced surgeon, arrogant and atheist, and on the other hand a preacher, strong in faith but without any medical training at all, I'm sure she would have chosen the doctor. It's a no brainer! Rationally, she would put more trust in human ability, then she would in her faith in God's divine intervention.

 

Yet it was good to hear that this man was humble enough to not be arrogant about his abilities.

But even I as an atheist can appriciate modesty, and find arrogance annoying. It does sound really good to return a "thank you for everything" with a humble response. It doesn't change the fact that it was the doctor that did it. Maybe it would have been more accurate to say, "Don't thank me, I had a lot of help from a deticated staff of very capable people."

[Moai]

Again, I am assuming there is statistics that show the comparison of deaths among children. While these two small sects believe somehow that medicine is not compatible with their beliefs, and while there have been cases reported of situations where children and adults have died as a result....this is a very small percentage of all "Christians." The two groups that you have selected are not only not mainstream Christians, they are not defined as Christian churches by Christians. However, to get into this would definitely derail this thread, and I have been accused of that before. For the sake of this thread we will assume they are, but again you are choosing the groups that are on the fringe. And based on that, we could say that the percentage of Christians that drive horse and buggys is higher than atheists...because the Amish drive them.

 

But I will give this to you.

 

Because you are nitpicking. I never said that Christians die at a higher rate than those who aren't Christians. However, the greater the faith, the greater the death. I "chose" those two examples because they eschew medical treatment, transfusions, or whatever. I am well aware that these sects are not the majority--but they are not "fringe" as you put it, either.

 

Who gets to decide which Christians are "fringe" and which are not? Catholics? Mormons? You? Are they fringe just because YOU happen to think that their brand of faith is a little nutty--but your faith is totally common-sensical and rational?

 

It was Muslim Mullahs who spread the lie that the polio vaccine was an attempt by the West to make Muslims sterile, and so nobody got the vaccine, and now polio is rampant. Muslim faith is no different than Christian faith, is it? I mean, they have faith in something, just like we all do. Right?

 

You seem to think that Christians are the only people who believe in god, and are somehow rational about it. Neither is the case.

 

So, what is defined as Western medicine? Does this exclude all forms of Eastern medicine such as acupuncture and similar healing?

 

Um....yes. It sure does.

 

Here is the thing. Most Christians...and probably all do put there faith in doctors because they believe that God guides the hands of the physicians. This alone gives them the comfort. You are correct...educated and skilled medical professionals are better trained than witch doctors but both are human.

 

The difference being that the witch doctor has a ZERO percent chance of effecting any sickness whatsoever.

 

Interesting. Recently I had a sister who had a serious surgery which could have resulted in her death. When it was over, my folks were talking to the surgeon and said that they appreciated all that he did. He said..."God is over all. He guided my hands." This is the kind of doctor I want. And he was a Muslim not a Christian. As Christians, my parents were impressed by his understanding of his abilities. Is he a good surgeon? He has a great reputation among the nurses. His success rate is high. He is known as one of the best cancer surgeons in the area. Yet he recognizes that all comes from God.

 

"Recognizes"? So, someone who is into astrology "recognizes" that the stars all align to create events here on Earth....super.

 

A great doctor can be a religious man. He could also not be religious at all. Just like a plumber, or mechanic, or librarian. However, when that faith is IN PLACE of the skills needed, failure and misery results.

 

How do you feel that God wasn't, in fact, guiding his hands? He rejects Jesus, and so is a pawn of Satan, no? In point of fact, it must have been Satan who guided his hands, he just THINKS that it is god. Isn't that true?

 

He also thinks that you are going to Hell, since you deify Jesus, and that is an insult to Allah because he would NEVER inhabit the disgusting, sinful human form.

 

No, medical science is so great because prayer is so successful. But that is my opinion which is shared by all Christians. Take it as that...no need to dispute it as I know you feel differently. As you know, this cannot be proved by any statistics. Prayer can only be measured in the results we see. Again, another thread.

 

Yep. And we see none. Forgetting that such an opinion is disgusting. Why did my mother die, but the neighbor's husband lived? Why did my child die of leukemia when the child molester in prison was healed of cancer?

 

Oh, I know, the Lord moves in mysterious ways, and we cannot know His Plan. Did you ever stop to think that if such is true, than for all you know you could be worshiping an EVIL being? If you can't know god's plan, you cannot know if it is good or not. You just assume it is. SO you happily walk down your primrose path, to your doom.

 

But again, I guess we are getting off topic. The original example of vaccinations being a religious concern only seems not to be so. There are other examples that could probably be used (such as the fringe beliefs of the Christian Scientists and the Jehovah's Witnesses), but vaccinations is not one.

 

Go back and read the thread again. It isn't that vaccinations are ONLY a religious concern. Sheesh. The fact is that the autism scare WAS started by one religious person with a Creationist agenda. And that's it.

 

Are there other people wigged out by vaccinations? Sure. Can vaccinations be dangerous? You bet.

 

No offense, but I think that this entire thread and/or topic is a little too complex for you. You are assuming things not said, arguing against positions not held, and statements not made.

[shadowofman]

My head just exploded due to the awe!

 

Oh, I know, the Lord moves in mysterious ways, and we cannot know His Plan. Did you ever stop to think that if such is true, than for all you know you could be worshiping an EVIL being? If you can't know god's plan, you cannot know if it is good or not. You just assume it is. SO you happily walk down your primrose path, to your doom.

 

Very nice! Never been able to get that out in such a concise manner. Kudos!

[JamesM]

No offense, but I think that this entire thread and/or topic is a little too complex for you. You are assuming things not said, arguing against positions not held, and statements not made.

 

Again, we get down to disrespect. I guess that is all that is left. Mock the God who you do not believe exists and discredit the poster by telling him he is simple minded and doesn't understand a connection that you make. Well, I will give you that point. You are too complex for me...your mind moves in mysterious ways. How you can draw the conclusions you do when the facts say otherwise...you are right, then your topics are too complex for me. No offense taken where none is meant, and considering the source, I am simply amused.

 

The fact is that the autism scare WAS started by one religious person with a Creationist agenda. And that's it.

 

"The fact is...". I am not allowed to argue with "facts." This "fact" is either true or false.

 

Again, this is where your premise went off base. It doesn't appear to be a fact. I gave you numerous websites, books, etc. that shows this scare started long before this lady wrote her article. I am glad you came out and said your premise so succinctly, but it has been shown to be wrong. If you choose to ignore the data presented in hopes that simply repeating the premise will make it true...so be it. This is your thread.

 

Note the quotes below from other posters. These are from atheists/agnostics...not religious people. Perhaps the view that vaccinations are harmful is NOT simply because a creationist started it.

 

sb129 My friend who didn't let her kids have the MMR jab didn't do it for religious reasons, she is into homeopathy and all that stuff and is anti- western medicine for that reason.

 

a4a Interestingly enough in the companion animal world vaccinations have now been looked at again because of the side effects on the animals.

 

I don't get vaccinated..... and never did have all my childhood vaccines.

I got nailed a few times to travel...... but otherwise I just won't do it.

 

Premarin and Prempro (HRTs) were also dished out for years... now studies show that they "can" cause cancers. Bla bla blah....

 

I don't have a god telling me to not get vaccinated, I tell myself. Just because a drug company say "it's safe"...... well, we could pull up all kinds of facts about that too.

 

But hold to your "complex" views. As I have attempted to tell you, there ARE examples that can be used for a premise that religion can be harmful, but vaccinations is not one of them.

Edited December 26, 2007 by JamesM

[Moai]

Again, we get down to disrespect. I guess that is all that is left. Mock the God who you do not believe exists and discredit the poster by telling him he is simple minded and doesn't understand a connection that you make. Well, I will give you that point. You are too complex for me...your mind moves in mysterious ways. How you can draw the conclusions you do when the facts say otherwise...you are right, then your topics are too complex for me. No offense taken where none is meant, and considering the source, I am simply amused.

 

I wasn't trying to be insulting.

 

In reality, it isn't that the subject of this thread is complex, it is that it is so simple.

 

Moreover, why can't I insult god? If he/she/it exists, can't he/she/it handle it?

 

You assert that you are a Christian. That means that Jesus is the Messiah, and that the only way to Heaven is through him--he says so himself, right? The surgeon you quoted is a Muslim. He does not believe in the divinity of Jesus. Therefore, he is going to Hell. Not only that, he is worshiping a false god. All false gods are really just lies told by Satan, no? Since you must believe this as a Christian, how is it that a false god (Satan) guided his hand?

 

Please explain how I am mocking you by simply pointing out what you believe--I mean, these doctrines are well-known. It is in your book, after all. I appreciate that this is a difficult thing to explain, but such goes with choosing one religion over another.

 

I have no such problem since I postulate no deity. Islam is the same as Christianity--in fact, all religions are the same.

 

"The fact is...". I am not allowed to argue with "facts." This "fact" is either true or false.

That is not so. It is just that most of the facts that you posted are not germane.

 

Again, this is where your premise went off base. It doesn't appear to be a fact. I gave you numerous websites, books, etc. that shows this scare started long before this lady wrote her article. I am glad you came out and said your premise so succinctly, but it has been shown to be wrong. If you choose to ignore the data presented in hopes that simply repeating the premise will make it true...so be it. This is your thread.

Well, the thread belongs to anyone who posts on it. I did not see anything listed that showed the "scare" to exist before her column, nor did I find anything compelling on the sites that you linked. Moreover, there are more ways than one to be irrational than just Creationism. Why ignore the Musim connection I posted originally?

 

Here is a quote from the original articel I read: "Yet when Professor Colin Blakemore, head of the Medical Research Council, pointed out this elementary scientific truth [that viruses evolve in response to claims in her column], she accused him of seizing any sneaky opportunity to "beat the drum for Darwin" and for claiming "there was no intelligent design in a virus, only the mindless force of natural selection".

 

And: "Britain's chief scientist, Sir David King, warned last week that it is now probable fifty to one hundred kids will die of measles because of the disinformation campaign spearheaded by the Mail. It's rare a newspaper actually manages to kill people, but Sir David King believes they may pull it off." (bold mine.)

 

Note the quotes below from other posters. These are from atheists/agnostics...not religious people. Perhaps the view that vaccinations are harmful is NOT simply because a creationist started it.

Someone can be rational about one subject and irrational about another, and the issue isn't whether or not people are paranoid about viruses and drug companies, etc. I wouldn't say that someone into homeopathy is rational about science, either by the way.

 

This is about a specific instance of vaccine paranoia that stemmed from one woman and her religious agenda.

 

But hold to your "complex" views. As I have attempted to tell you, there ARE examples that can be used for a premise that religion can be harmful, but vaccinations is not one of them.

Sorry that I hurt your feelings, but the fact remains that your argument is essentially "other people are irrational too". And that is meaningless. In your zeal to defend Creationism you missed that simple point.

[KenzieAbsolutely]

moai.....have you read god is not great: how religion poisons everything?

 

i forget the author, but it seems as though it may be of interest to you...(sorry if this was addressed before, i saw some comment made in this thread that made it impossible for me to stomach the whole thing in its entirety.)

[Moai]

moai.....have you read god is not great: how religion poisons everything?

 

i forget the author, but it seems as though it may be of interest to you...(sorry if this was addressed before, i saw some comment made in this thread that made it impossible for me to stomach the whole thing in its entirety.)

It as written by Christopher Hitchens. Yes, I have read it.

 

It is a really good book, but I think I liked "The End Of Belief" by Sam Harris best of the New Atheist books.

[Moai]

My head just exploded due to the awe!

 

 

 

Very nice! Never been able to get that out in such a concise manner. Kudos!

 

Thanks very much!

[shadowofman]

Mock the God who you do not believe exists and discredit the poster by telling him he is simple minded and doesn't understand a connection that you make.

 

He didn't mock your god at all. Moai is simply questioning your reasoning and perception of he/she/it. As he said, you cannot possibly know the plan of your god therefore you choose to have a hunch that his plan is good. You are unwilling to accept the idea that his plans maybe evil in nature, or even that its a neutral being. This is because your god exists only in your own mind. You choose to seperate the world into good and evil and then personify each into seperate beings.

 

Maybe your god is like a yin yang. Making some poor African kid starve to death today and then making it so a psychopath is born to loving wealthy parents tomorrow.

[Moose]

As he said, you cannot possibly know the plan of your god therefore you choose to have a hunch that his plan is good.

Yes we can. His Word that we Christians go by says so. The Scriptures are full of, "good" things. And it is the Scripture that we hold as absolute Truth.

 

With that said, the first chapter of the first book shows that everything God created was good. The only thing that wasn't, (in chapter 2), was that man was alone.

 

As far as this surgeon, Romans 8:28:

 

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."

[Moai]

Yes we can. His Word that we Christians go by says so. The Scriptures are full of, "good" things. And it is the Scripture that we hold as absolute Truth.

 

Believing is much different than knowing it. In point of fact, whether the Bible is true or not relies on you taking someone's word for it. As I have mentioned before, Muslims think the same of their holy book. And Hindus their holy book(s).

 

The books themselves were obviously written by men who claim to have been inspired. The Book of Mormon was written by a man who made this same claim. How can you reject one of these claims over another?

 

Mormons encourage people to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to tell them if the Book Of Mormon is true or not. IN many cases, the answer comes back "yes". How can this be? If the Holy Spirit/Jesus will not turn away from anyone who sincerely asks for salvation, how can someone get the "feeling" or "confirmation" that the Book of Mormon is true--unless in their case Satan answered them and they didn't know the difference?

 

With that said, the first chapter of the first book shows that everything God created was good. The only thing that wasn't, (in chapter 2), was that man was alone.

 

As far as this surgeon, Romans 8:28:

 

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."

 

Interesting. Certainly god can use a tool of Satan for his purposes, but it seems to me that a Muslim explaining that god--obviously not Jesus--guided his hands and accepting that as a beautiful expression of faith would be the same as accepting the claim that Cthulhu did the same and finding it beautiful. Or Vishnu, or Zeus. Islam is a false religion, no? Or is faith great no matter what it is in (that is not particularly directed at you to answer, it is just a rhetorical point)?

 

The surgeon is an excellent example of someone who has deep faith, who thinks he is doing god's work but is really a tool of Satan, is that not correct? In his mind, he is worshiping a good, fair god and living a spiritually fulfilled life, but in actuality he is as damned as I, the unbeliever. He is really worshiping Satan, is following Satan's lie of a book, and is a tool of evil.

 

And he thinks the same of you. That fact right there (and throw in the Mormons) shows that no religious person really knows if their god is good or not. No matter how firm their belief in their book, no matter how their religion makes them feel, the vast majority of religious people are obviously worshiping evil. They cannot all be right. My point is that they can CERTAINLY all be wrong.

 

I hope you had a good Xmas, bro! Get anything good? I am getting ramped up for New Year's. Working at the local bar, which means lots of dough-rey, mi!

[Moose]

In point of fact, whether the Bible is true or not relies on you taking someone's word for it.

It's not the men who wrote it that I'm relying on.

How can you reject one of these claims over another?

Christianity is rooted in history and evidence. Jesus was born during the reign of Caesar Augustus, and was put to death under Pontius Pilate during the first century of Rome.

 

The testimony of His life, death and resurrection, (God in Flesh), is validated by creditable eyewitness testimony in my mind. No other sect has this kind of evidence.

IN many cases, the answer comes back "yes". unless in their case Satan answered them and they didn't know the difference?

I have to wonder how many women who've accepted the Mormon's belief system and then decided that the answer was, "no" after their husbands insisted on having multiple wives......and how many men grabbed onto the sect just to have an excuse to practise polygamy.

 

To answer your question, I don't know if it was Satan Himself, or just individual justification to follow it, but it's either/or in my mind.

The surgeon is an excellent example of someone who has deep faith, who thinks he is doing god's work but is really a tool of Satan, is that not correct?

Whoa, now....hold on....I think you may be confused. My point was:

 

The surgeon may have deep faith, and may think he's doing, "god's" work, BUT, the surgeon wouldn't be a surgeon at all had it not been God's will.

 

Therefore, that makes the surgeon a tool of God and not of Satan. Furthermore, if it's not God's will that the surgeon's patient survives, no matter how well the surgeon's abilities are, or how spiritual his/her life is, that patient will pass on regardless.

He is really worshiping Satan, is following Satan's lie of a book, and is a tool of evil.

Really, I think he may be looking for the same God. I don't believe he's worshipping Satan at all. It's just that he's chosen a path that was available to him.

 

How do we know if he has or hasn't explored other avenues?

 

If he does the research, and study.....who knows....he may change his entire belief system.

They cannot all be right. My point is that they can CERTAINLY all be wrong.

Yep, there's always that probability isn't there? I'll continue to adhere to what I know so far, and keep picking away at it....(I'm sure you'll help me out there).

I hope you had a good Xmas, bro! Get anything good?

I had a great time!! Thanks!

 

I was able to pull a couple of surprises on all sides of the family this year.....it was great!! I got smiles, laughter, hugs and shock values....

I am getting ramped up for New Year's. Working at the local bar, which means lots of dough-rey, mi!

Be safe would you??!!

[JamesM]

Sorry it took so long to get back. Another week of vacation and holidays.

 

BTW, this thread is still based on an article that we have never been able to read. For a guy, Moai, who feels that any assertions worth making should have links attached, I expected that at this point, you would have done so. Is any of the articles on Ms Phillips website similar to this article? It would be helpful top me if I could at least see this article in its entirety. You have now quoted it but have not presented a link. Is there one?

 

I googled your quote...is THIS where you get all of your accurate information for this thread?

 

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/johann_hari/article3239355.ece

 

Pardon me for being underwhelmed, but it appears that THIS is your basis for this thread...not the original article. I see that the story of the mullahs is here, too. In fact, if I read your thread and his article, I think it is hard to see much difference. Now, why did you not link us to his article in the first place?

 

Why did he wait SEVEN years before he raised this alarm about this raving lunatic?

 

All of his comments are still being made about an article that not only I have not seen, I am guessing that YOU have not seen either. This man seems to have raised your anger with nothing more than an editorial. Wonder what HIS credentials are?

 

In your zeal to defend Creationism you missed that simple point.

 

In your zeal, to belittle creationism, you seem to have used an editorial rather than link to credible sources. I could easily argue that Hari is as biased to the left as he says Phillips is to the right.

 

 

 

Oh, and as a help to you, here is HIS website...

http://www.johannhari.com/about.php

 

It appears he wrote a wonderful book showing what awful people the Windsors are.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1840464011/

 

Who gets to decide which Christians are "fringe" and which are not? Catholics? Mormons? You? Are they fringe just because YOU happen to think that their brand of faith is a little nutty--but your faith is totally common-sensical and rational?

 

I gave this one to you, because I was trying not to derail this thread. Notice how often I said this would make a good thread. On another thread you blasted me for attempting too derail and end a thread. I tried not to do this to your thread. However, the definition of Christians usually refers to those who belief that Jesus Christ is God and the Salvation of all mankind.

 

Jehovahs Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ was a perfect man, and that He is a person distinct from God the Father. According to John 1:1 in their Bible, The New World Translation, Christ is “a god,” but not “the God.” They teach that Jesus “was and is and always will be beneath Jehovah” and that “Christ and God are not coequal”. This means that they are not technically Christians...even if they call themselves such.

 

Christian Scientists believe that sin and death are false notions (illusions). Therefore, salvation comes through understanding and overcoming these false beliefs and recognizing that humans are divine spirit and mind. They do not believe that Jesus is God nor do they belief He is their Salvation into eternal life. Again by definition, they are not Christians...even if they call themselves such.

 

This is why I do not think they are good examples for you to use as Christians. They do fit your definition of religion...that is why I gave it to you.

 

In reality, it isn't that the subject of this thread is complex, it is that it is so simple.

 

I agree...it is based on an editorial from one man. But I think it has been shown that while it may be a possibility/probability that some people will be swayed or children may die, it has not been statistically shown to be true.

 

Moreover, why can't I insult god? If he/she/it exists, can't he/she/it handle it?

 

I was not defending God, I was noticing that how once again you resorted to mockery and insults when we get to this point. It is an excellent way to "win" a debate, but here on LS, it is a way to end a thread. I really mean it nicely when I say (once again) that it is detrimental to your intelligence and excellent points that you make. If you want a good discussion, then this will not be the way.

 

Can God handle it? I have not doubts.

 

The surgeon you quoted is a Muslim. He does not believe in the divinity of Jesus. Therefore, he is going to Hell. Not only that, he is worshiping a false god. All false gods are really just lies told by Satan, no? Since you must believe this as a Christian, how is it that a false god (Satan) guided his hand?

 

Now we get to an interesting question. Please note that I am answering this off topic questions posed by you

 

While some evangelicals may say that Muslims worship a false god, I think it can be better said that they worship God falsely. I do not believe that they worship Satan, so I guess that leaves your question unanswered. NO, neither he nor I believe that Satan guided his hand.

 

Besides, I like how Moose answered this.

 

It is just that most of the facts that you posted are not germane.

 

And you based this thread on an editorial. I apologize if you thought some comments were not related to the topic.

 

"Britain's chief scientist, Sir David King, warned last week that it is now probable fifty to one hundred kids will die of measles because of the disinformation campaign spearheaded by the Mail. It's rare a newspaper actually manages to kill people, but Sir David King believes they may pull it off."

(bold mine)

 

Since you said this article is from the year 2000, has any statistics been shown to prove this warning to be true? Certainly someone must know.

 

This is about a specific instance of vaccine paranoia that stemmed from one woman and her religious agenda.

 

Okay, THIS premise I can agree with...based on this editorial. And only here. Is there any other source that could perhaps show us whether this all actually happened as written?

 

but the fact remains that your argument is essentially "other people are irrational too". And that is meaningless.

 

It seems to me if I read correctly this complex subject that your premise is that in these instances so written by Jonathn Hari, it appears that religion is harmful. And I cannot argue...based on how Hari wrote his article.

 

Not much to argue or discuss anymore. From some of his other articles he has written, I am guessing that I would not agree with most of what he has written. But that is okay...that is what free speech is about.

 

Sorry that I hurt your feelings

 

Actually, you didn't. But What I felt was that you took some incidents and seemed to imply that this is how all Christians and creationists felt. And it seemed that as you stated so succinctly....

The fact is that the autism scare WAS started by one religious person with a Creationist agenda. And that's it.

 

While it may have started a local scare (as alleged by Mr Hari), it didn't have an effect on my wife and I in our research...two years prior to that article.

 

I did not see anything listed that showed the "scare" to exist before her column, nor did I find anything compelling on the sites that you linked.

 

If anything, you could at least blame Dr Wakefield and his staff of researchers for this scare. His study was quoted in other papers in England and around the world. He started the scare with his study of 12 children. Again, remember, I am not in agreement with his findings at all. I find the risk of autism much much less than the benefits of the vaccinations.

 

And that is meaningless.

So seems this.

[shadowofman]

It's not the men who wrote it that I'm relying on.

 

Then I assume you are relying on your heart, which tells you that these men were truthful in their divine inspiration. If not, what are you relying on?

 

Christianity is rooted in history and evidence. Jesus was born during the reign of Caesar Augustus, and was put to death under Pontius Pilate during the first century of Rome.

 

The testimony of His life, death and resurrection, (God in Flesh), is validated by creditable eyewitness testimony in my mind. No other sect has this kind of evidence.

 

The history of the Christian religion is very well documented, true. But eyewitness testimony of the life of Jesus exists only in your mind, and minds of other uninformed Christians. Supposed eyewitness testimony dates only to 60 AD. For centuries, Christian theologians have known that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but by supposed students of them left unnamed.

 

No other sect of what has this kind of evidence? And what kind of evidence? Islam is a sect that has tons of evidence for an actual Mohammad (not for his accent into heaven mind you, but of the actual life of the man). Mormonism relies on the testimony of John Smith and we have evidence of him. Again, if you choose not to believe their testimoies, it is your heart which which guides you to distrust them. It is not lack of evidence. You clearly have faith in someone's testimony, and that is believe without evidence.

[JamesM]

 

 

 

The history of the Christian religion is very well documented, true. But eyewitness testimony of the life of Jesus exists only in your mind, and minds of other uninformed Christians. Supposed eyewitness testimony dates only to 60 AD. For centuries, Christian theologians have known that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but by supposed students of them left unnamed.

 

 

I am not sure where you get your information, but when you make such assertions as this, could you link us to some site(s) that backs up your assertions?

 

As I have been told, anyone can make assertions, but it certainly would be nice to have some way of verifying them.

 

Please link us to some sites. I am not either agreeing or disagreeing with you assertions.