PDA

View Full Version : The dangers of a belief in a spiritual "truth"



Pages : 1 2 [3]

Rincewind
17-11-2010, 10:49 PM
Try to read a classic of English literature instead of summarily dismissing him because he happened not to support your orthodoxy.:owned:

So you think that Chesterton is correct that Christianity is the one true religion and that Jesus Christ was the saviour and son of God? :lol:

But seriously, we are supposed to be having a discussion on science here and Chesterton was not a scientist. Additionally he was writing 80+ years ago. Before the modern evolutionary synthesis. Before plate tectonics were discovered. Before radiometric dating was developed. Etc, etc, etc.

How is a Christian apologetic, writing in the 1920's claiming that common ancestry is baloney relevant in the context of what is science, and what is not by what science knows?

If fact, Chesterton does not even claim to prove that common ancestry is wrong. He only goes so far as to assert that if man is simply an animal then he is a most unusual one. I agree that we are unusual, but so are all animals each in their own particular ways.

Spiny Norman
18-11-2010, 05:23 AM
She is also helping in the search for new oil and gas reserves.

...

She is also developing tools for the oil company Chevron to help it date core samples rapidly and accurately in its search for new oil and gas reserves.
All you have to do to convince me is to show that the work she is doing to date the samples (n.b. the samples don't come with dates attached, she has to apply old-earth theory to them to get a date) is unique to old-earthers and that the same work could not be done by a YEC (who would arrive at different dates, but presumably the rocks would still be in their strata in the same relationships).

e.g.

old-earther says "I've found a likely place, because we have rock strata A at 75M years old sitting right on top of rock strata B at 90M years old ... that's where you should drill".

vs

YEC says "I've found a likely place, because we have rock strata A at 2500 years old sitting right on top of rock strata B at 2750 years old ... that's where you should drill".

You can convince me by showing:
(a) that only old-earthers can do the practical science of drilling for the rock samples (or whatever technique: magnetic variations, radioactivity detections, pick any physical technique you like); or
(b) that only when you calculate the age as "millions of years" can you find the oil/gas ... so show that the search doesn't depend on the physical techniques

If you can do that, I'm convinced; you would have an example of where old-earth beliefs are essential (not just good physical science ability).

Igor_Goldenberg
18-11-2010, 08:17 AM
So you think that Chesterton is correct that Christianity is the one true religion and that Jesus Christ was the saviour and son of God? :lol:
You are too clung to authority opinion and unable to think independently, and that's your main problem.

I quoted the part that is particularly relevant to the discussion. For you the most important thing is who said, for me what is said. It's alright to rely on other peoples brain, but sometimes you should try to use your own.


But seriously, we are supposed to be having a discussion on science here and Chesterton was not a scientist. Additionally he was writing 80+ years ago. Before the modern evolutionary synthesis. Before plate tectonics were discovered. Before radiometric dating was developed. Etc, etc, etc.

So what? He shown the mentality of darwinist apologist a century ago. Do you think the mentality changed?



If fact, Chesterton does not even claim to prove that common ancestry is wrong.
Now you starting to get it.


He only goes so far as to assert that if man is simply an animal then he is a most unusual one. I agree that we are unusual, but so are all animals each in their own particular ways.

But only partially.


What Chesterton is saying that Darwinists have very little evidence base (and even if you are right and it's considerably bigger now, it's still very small), but act with the aplomb which is not warranted.
Compare to evidence base in natural science, it's sill minuscule and still suffers from problems Chesterton (and many before and after him) highlighted.

Rincewind
18-11-2010, 09:16 AM
You can convince me by showing:
(a) that only old-earthers can do the practical science of drilling for the rock samples (or whatever technique: magnetic variations, radioactivity detections, pick any physical technique you like); or
(b) that only when you calculate the age as "millions of years" can you find the oil/gas ... so show that the search doesn't depend on the physical techniques

I'm not a geologist Spiny but there thousands of them. At least 99% working in the old earth paradigm making consistent claims about the age of the earth (all agree it is 4.5 billion year plus or minus a bit) and standard texts stating that knowledge of the age of the earth does actually matter. I even provided what I thought was plausible (although obvious inexpert) scenario as to how it could matter in the interpretation of the data to build up a picture of the geological history of an oil field. And I also posited that a young earth creationist using techniques like radiometric dating is being disingenuous in the practice of the discipline since under their paradigm such tests should show nothing.

So far your only rational is
(1) I haven't bother to read more than a few pages
(2) It is RW's responsibility to prove it to you beyond a reasonable doubt.
(3) Geologists only work by correlation of data to previous experience and a creationist can do that just as well without assigning ancient dates to strata.
(4) Since I can't imagine anything more complicated than that, the case remains unproven.

My responses are...

(1) Expert texts are available if you could be bothered to read.
(2) For me to present the case to you I would have to do everything that you would have to do, then post it on here. And then you would still reject it because you would still have unshakable faith in your a priori religious convictions.
(3) Correlating strata is a pretty crude method and if that was all that geologists did I'm sure they wouldn't get paid so much.
(4) The limited imagination of ID proponents is well known but you can always hope for more.

Rincewind
18-11-2010, 09:29 AM
You are too clung to authority opinion and unable to think independently, and that's your main problem.

:lol: Your main problem is you don't have a clue about much of what you say therefore often stating the exact opposite of the truth. Your amaturish psychoanalysis fits well within your usual operating paradigm of an almost complete evidence and truth vacuum. :lol:


I quoted the part that is particularly relevant to the discussion. For you the most important thing is who said, for me what is said. It's alright to rely on other peoples brain, but sometimes you should try to use your own.

So what you are saying is you don't believe Chesterton's conclusion?

Is that because his logic is flawed? Or is he taking on assumptions which you think are false?


So what? He shown the mentality of darwinist apologist a century ago. Do you think the mentality changed?

No. What happened is his a priori belief that the human species were somehow special and could not possibly share a common ancestry with other life forms. After all we are the children of God, aren't we? ;)


Now you starting to get it.

Yes, try to keep up.


But only partially.




What Chesterton is saying that Darwinists have very little evidence base (and even if you are right and it's considerably bigger now, it's still very small), but act with the aplomb which is not warranted.

No the evidence is overwhelming. If it wasn't then there would be valid scientific alternatives or at the very least the new evidence we have uncovered over the last 150 years would have invalidated the theory. It hasn't. We have refined the theory but science recognises that Darwin's contribution of diversity through natural selection was substantial and basically correct.


Compare to evidence base in natural science, it's sill minuscule and still suffers from problems Chesterton (and many before and after him) highlighted.

And so we return to the truth free zone. :lol:

I agree there are many things we do not know but you are not going to argue a god of the gaps in human knowledge, are you? The evidence for evolution, including common descent is overwhelming. If you actually read current science books instead of religious propaganda you might learn this.

Desmond
18-11-2010, 11:00 AM
... And then you would still reject it because you would still have unshakable faith in your a priori religious convictions.Yes, this does seem to be a recurring theme.

Rincewind
18-11-2010, 11:10 AM
Yes, this does seem to be a recurring theme.

This line that you kicked off falls nito what is called the economic argument. Which basically goes along the lines of...

If the <outrageous claims> of <crackpot theory> were true. Then they should have economic applications is <practical area>. If the don't then either they are not true or capitalism isn't really all it is stacked up to be. While it doesn't prove anything it certainly helps overcome the conspiracy theory that all scientists are feathering their nests.

A humourous comic of some of these claims is...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_economic_argument.png

Spiny Norman
18-11-2010, 03:53 PM
So far your only rational[sic] is
(1) I haven't bother to read more than a few pages
(2) It is RW's responsibility to prove it to you beyond a reasonable doubt.
(3) Geologists only work by correlation of data to previous experience and a creationist can do that just as well without assigning ancient dates to strata.
(4) Since I can't imagine anything more complicated than that, the case remains unproven.
False.
(1) I read all the material that I have access to, which included the introduction to a text that you quoted. The material you quoted was an unsupported assertion. Despite me asking repeatedly for more information which would demonstrate that the assertion was more than an opinion and actually had some real bite to it, you have either refused or been unable to provide any. That tells me that either (a) such material doesn't exist; (b) it it does exist but isn't in the book that you quoted and you don't have access to that material but are taking it on trust because it suits your particular set of beliefs; or (c) its in the book you quoted, but you don't have the book either and are just taking it on faith similarly to (b) above.

(2) You're the one making the argument that old-earthers can achieve things in exploration that YECs cannot, so the burden of proof is on you, not me. I would have thought you'd applaud be for not taking bald assertions on trust and asking for some evidence to back it up ... but I guess your skepticism is one-sided after all.

(3) I made mention of multiple practical measurement techniques on multiple occasions ... apparently you either (a) didn't bother to read what I wrote and so you've created some kind of straw man argument to beat up on; or perhaps (b) you are deliberately ignoring what I've written and are being deceitful.

(4) My ability to imagine things is obviously pitiful compared to your own giant strides in that area. I've repeatedly asked for evidence which supports your argument, but all you come up with is vague material that simply repeats your own beliefs, rather than something concrete which connects the dots.

So I reckon you've got nuthin' ... if you had something to show, you'd have shown it by now.

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2010, 04:20 PM
Wait the Christian apologetics of the present day are so bad you are having to go back to Chesterton! :lol:
This is a sad indictment on Jono and co. Chesterton!!! Seriously! :lol: :lol:
Nothing wrong with that. He showed that Darwinism's claims did not match the evidence, and were not even logical. Rather, Darwinism was not accepted because of the science, but because it became a crutch for the atheistic belief system. Many of the leading scientists of Darwin's day had no time for the theory, e.g.

Dr Johann Blasius (http://creation.com/blast-from-the-past-dr-johann-blasius), director of the Ducal Natural History Museum of Braunschweig (Brunswick), Germany:



[Interviewer]Dr Blasius, what is your first impression of Darwin’s book?
[Dr Blasius] I have seldom been so quick to buy a book. I must add to that, though, that I have also seldom read a scientific book which makes such wide-ranging conclusions with so few facts supporting them.

You hold the evolutionary theory to be unfounded?
Yes, Darwin wants to show that Arten [types, kinds, species] come from other Arten. I regard this as somewhat of a highhanded hypothesis, because he argues using unproven possibilities, without even naming a single example of the origin of a particular species.

So in your opinion Arten are immutable?
Not only according to my opinion. Zoologists who engage in empirical research would generally regard as valid only that which can be observed in an experiment or in free-living nature. And what one observes there is that the offspring of a plant or animal inevitably resembles the parents, i.e. they belong to the same Art. The immovability of the boundaries of the Arten is, for most of us, a law of nature.

Which facts could convince you of Darwin’s evolution theory?
I will only believe in it when such transmutations [as Darwin says have taken place in the remote past—i.e. fish to amphibians, etc. — Ed] can be indisputably demonstrated, either in the realm of paleontology [fossils] or in free-living organisms.

Louis Agassiz (http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/archive/resources/documents/ch21_04.htm), Harvard glaciologist:


Had Mr. Darwin or his followers furnished a single fact to show that individuals change, in the course of time, in such a manner as to produce at last species different from those known before, the state of the case might be different. But it stands recorded now as before, that the animals known to the ancients are still in existence, exhibiting to this day the characters they exhibited of old. The geological record, even with all its imperfections, exaggerated to distortion, tells now, what it has told from the beginning, that the supposed intermediate forms between the species of different geological periods are imaginary beings, called up merely in support of a fanciful theory. The origin of all the diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science.

It seems generally admitted that the work of Darwin is particularly remarkable for the fairness with which he presents the facts adverse to his views. It may be so; but I confess that it has made a very different impression upon me. I have been more forcibly struck by his inability to perceive when the facts are fatal to his argument, than by anything else in the whole work. His chapter on the Geological Record, in particular, appears to me, from beginning to end, as a series of illogical deductions and misrepresentations of the modern results of Geology and Paleontology. I do not intend to argue here, one by one, the questions he has discussed. Such arguments end too often in special pleading, and any one familiar with the subject may readily perceive where the truth lies by confronting his assertions with the geological record itself.

But since the question at issue is chiefly to be settled by paleontological evidence, and I have devoted the greater part of my life to the special study of the fossils, I wish to record my protest against his mode of treating this part of the subject. Not only does Darwin never perceive when the facts are fatal to his views, but when he has succeeded by an ingenious circumlocution in overleaping the facts, he would have us believe that he has lessened their importance or changed their meaning. He would thus have us believe that there have been periods during which all that had taken place during other periods was destroyed, and this solely to explain the absence of intermediate forms between the fossils found in successive deposits, for the origin of which he looks to those missing links; whilst every recent progress in Geology shows more and more fully how gradual and successive all the deposits have been which form the crust of our earth. . . .

He would have us believe that animals disappear gradually; when they are as common in the uppermost bed in which they occur as in the lowest, or any intermediate bed. Species appear suddenly and disappear suddenly in successive strata. That is the fact proclaimed by Paleontology; they neither increase successively in number, nor do they gradually dwindle down; none of the fossil remains thus far observed show signs of a gradual improvement or of a slow decay. . . He would also have us believe that the most perfect organs of the body of animals are the product of gradual improvement, when eyes as perfect as those of the Trilobites are preserved with the remains of these oldest animals. He would have us believe that it required millions of years to effect any one of these changes; when far more extraordinary transformations are daily going on, under our eyes, in the shortest periods of time, during the growth of animals. He would have us believe that animals acquire their instincts gradually; when even those that never see their parents, perform at birth the same acts, in the same way, as their progenitors.. . . And all these, and many other calls upon our credulity, are coolly made in the face of an amount of precise information, readily accessible, which would overwhelm any one who does not place his opinions above the records of an age eminently characterized for its industry, and during which, that information was laboriously accumulated by crowds of faithful laborers.

It would be superfluous to discuss in detail the arguments by which Mr. Darwin attempts to explain the diversity among animals. Suffice it to say, that he has lost sight of the most striking of the features, and the one which pervades the whole, namely, that there runs throughout Nature unmistakable evidence of thought, corresponding to the mental operations of our own mind, and therefore intelligible to us as thinking beings, and unaccountable on any other basis than that they owe their existence to the working of intelligence; and no theory that overlooks this element can be true to nature.

Member of the French Academy of Sciences, explaining why an application to admit Darwin in 1872 was rejected overwhelmingly, with only 15 out of 48 members voting for him:


What has closed the door of the academy to Mr. Darwin is that the science of those of his books which have made his chief title to fame — the Origin of Species and still more the Descent of Man — is not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypotheses, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body which respects itself cannot encourage.

Samuel Wilberforce (http://creation.com/wilberforce-huxley-debate), who was vice-president of the British Association, had a first-class degree in mathematics, and was an enthusiastic ornithologist, had written a carefully argued, scientific assessment of almost 19,000 words for The Quarterly Review of July 1860, pp. 225–264, in which he devoted six pages (pp. 239–245) to the absence in the geological record of any case of one species developing into another. When Darwin read Wilberforce’s Origin review, he said, “It is uncommonly clever; it picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward well all the difficulties.”

Igor_Goldenberg
18-11-2010, 04:31 PM
So I reckon you've got nuthin' ... if you had something to show, you'd have shown it by now.
Give him few more days. He might google research something... :doh: :doh:

Desmond
18-11-2010, 04:56 PM
While you're here Jono, how about some documentation of "kinds"...

Rincewind
18-11-2010, 06:14 PM
False.
(1) I read all the material that I have access to, which included the introduction to a text that you quoted.

Has someone bombed all the libraries in Melbourne?


The material you quoted was an unsupported assertion.

Misrepresentation!

What I quoted was exactly what I said it was: the opinion of two experts in exploration geophysics, in a book on exploration geophysics.


Despite me asking repeatedly for more information which would demonstrate that the assertion was more than an opinion and actually had some real bite to it, you have either refused or been unable to provide any.

Not at all for the reasons quoted above. I have indicated in the posts above (the parts you conveniently ignore) the the economic argument is alive and well for several reasons.

(1) Young earth geologists performing radiometric dating are being disingenuous as they hold the method to be useless.
(2) Young earth geologists are wasting resources by using old earth dating of strata. If it was a waste of money the oil companies who don't go in for that mumbo-jumbo called science would have a competitive advantage.
(3) Finally your arguments of old and young earth geologists having access to the same data and using it the same way doesn't make sense as the young earth assumes it all happened in the flood and cannot build up a picture of the history of an oil field. Real geophysics do this and it helps in the exploration of the oil field, especially finding other reserves on the route that the oil took to get to is present location.


That tells me that either (a) such material doesn't exist; (b) it it does exist but isn't in the book that you quoted and you don't have access to that material but are taking it on trust because it suits your particular set of beliefs; or (c) its in the book you quoted, but you don't have the book either and are just taking it on faith similarly to (b) above.

No it is all above and in the parts of earlier posts you conveniently ignored.


(2) You're the one making the argument that old-earthers can achieve things in exploration that YECs cannot, so the burden of proof is on you, not me. I would have thought you'd applaud be for not taking bald assertions on trust and asking for some evidence to back it up ... but I guess your skepticism is one-sided after all.

Not at all. As I outlined above (for the second time at least) the young earthers should not used radiometric dating for example and if they were true to their methodology they wouldn't as doing so would be more cost effective. The fact that all exploration geophysics enterprises do completes the economic argument.


(3) I made mention of multiple practical measurement techniques on multiple occasions ... apparently you either (a) didn't bother to read what I wrote and so you've created some kind of straw man argument to beat up on; or perhaps (b) you are deliberately ignoring what I've written and are being deceitful.

Apart for the disingenuous slur I have no idea what you are raving on about here.


(4) My ability to imagine things is obviously pitiful compared to your own giant strides in that area. I've repeatedly asked for evidence which supports your argument, but all you come up with is vague material that simply repeats your own beliefs, rather than something concrete which connects the dots.

It is the solid edifice of obtuseness which is the issue. Read it again, think and get back to me.


So I reckon you've got nuthin' ... if you had something to show, you'd have shown it by now.

Nope you have your a priori beliefs which is at odds with experts in experts in exploration geophysics.

If there are any young age exploration geophysics out there they are behaving exactly as if they are old age geophysics. Where if they actually practised what they preached they would be able to find oil just as effectively and more cheaply by not wasting money on radiometric dating.

You also have the testimony of a fully fledged young age creationist physicist who worked in geophysics and came to the slow realisation that young earth creationism was a pile to lies due to the data he was confronted with at work every day.

Against this we have Spiny saying "no, but the Bible says otherwise..." Fortunately that is still a minority interpretation of the Bible we are talking about.

Rincewind
18-11-2010, 06:15 PM
Give him few more days. He might google research something... :doh: :doh:

:lol: Talk about the master hypocrite striking again. :lol:

I suspect you have never seen the inside of a library. :eek:

It's a big building. Full of books.

Rincewind
18-11-2010, 06:19 PM
Many of the leading scientists of Darwin's day had no time for the theory

Thanks for that Jono it shows that evolution underwent and overcame a vigorous peer-review process. Any new theory will undergo the greatest scrutiny and will have to show it's scientific merit to survive. The fact that evolution became so well-established speaks volumes as to the validity of the theory.

If you come across and other evidence of evolution's good scientific credentials, please post in this thread.

antichrist
18-11-2010, 06:29 PM
The Catholics, Armenians, Greek Orthodox are also fighting for exclusionary zones in church of navitity - should be called church of naivity instead.

Talk about religion bring about disharmony - even among it's own different brands. The SDA and JW's the rest of Christianity are idol-worshippers.

Certainly dangerous in that church, you will get your blocked knocked off!

Desmond
18-11-2010, 11:14 PM
While you're here Jono, how about some documentation of "kinds"...
or not.

Oepty
19-11-2010, 02:03 AM
OK, my mistake. I still think that my response was a fairly compelling answer to the "why be curious" question. Even if you believe this existence is just a blip on the way to watching out for falling figs, why not make it a better blip.

In theory I guess there is nothing wrong with it being a better blip, although how you judge what is better might be hard in alot of cases.
From a purely personal point of view lots of things might make life better, a couple of slaves might be good, although I think you will agree with me it is not a good idea because of the effect on the slaves. So taking into account the overall effect of things is a bit more difficult. Has the internal combustion engine used in cars had an overall positive effect on the world? How about the gun, the internet, the mobile phone? I seriously doubt all technology has, although some certainly will have.
Scott

Oepty
19-11-2010, 02:08 AM
Come on Jono we are not simpletons that you can trick like you do your flock. That inventor Simpson had it wrong, the creation of Eve was before the Fall, so therefore God had not cursed them yet. So he was being un-Biblical in inventing anesthesia. An Anti-Christ that guy.


As stated from Bible stated below, God directed childbirth pain, so you and Scott are being deceptive.

Genesis 3:16 says, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain will you give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

And your sins will find you out.

I have never tried to hide what Genesis 3:16 says and was not deceptive. What I said was I was not against technology that stopped women dying in childbirth, a completely different thing to being deceptive
Scott

antichrist
19-11-2010, 05:31 AM
Originally Posted by Jono
What crap. There is a biblical principle that anything to alleviate the effects of the Curse is a blessed thing to do, e.g. saving lives, curing diseases. The inventor of modern anesthesia, James Simpson, was a devout Christian who appealed to the account of the creation of Eve from Adam's rib, pointing out that God anesthetized Adam. Queen Vic was one of the first influential users of this, referring to "the blessed chloroform" to relieve childbirth pain.

AC
But Scott, Simpson was putting himself above God by inventing anesthesia, just the same as when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. God wants man to be dumb and suffering - no knowledge no medicine and plenty of sick babies.

And would you agree with me that Jono and Simpson are wrong because God anesthesiting Adam was before the Fall and the Biblical curse I have quoted. Please be definitive about this - no maybes etc

Desmond
19-11-2010, 07:40 AM
In theory I guess there is nothing wrong with it being a better blip, although how you judge what is better might be hard in alot of cases. Irrelevant. Once we have discovered the technologies, we can decide whether or not to use them.

Oepty
20-11-2010, 12:02 AM
Originally Posted by Jono
What crap. There is a biblical principle that anything to alleviate the effects of the Curse is a blessed thing to do, e.g. saving lives, curing diseases. The inventor of modern anesthesia, James Simpson, was a devout Christian who appealed to the account of the creation of Eve from Adam's rib, pointing out that God anesthetized Adam. Queen Vic was one of the first influential users of this, referring to "the blessed chloroform" to relieve childbirth pain.

AC
But Scott, Simpson was putting himself above God by inventing anesthesia, just the same as when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. God wants man to be dumb and suffering - no knowledge no medicine and plenty of sick babies.

And would you agree with me that Jono and Simpson are wrong because God anesthesiting Adam was before the Fall and the Biblical curse I have quoted. Please be definitive about this - no maybes etc

You are talking nonsense.
Scott

Oepty
20-11-2010, 12:06 AM
Irrelevant. Once we have discovered the technologies, we can decide whether or not to use them.

That has worked well with the gun, unless you think it has actually been benifical to society. Humans cannot see the future so cannot know for sure what the long term impact of anything is going to be even if it seems benifical in the short term.
Scott

antichrist
20-11-2010, 06:31 AM
You are talking nonsense.
Scott

You have Jono's and Igor's disease - when I point out a fact I am accused of talking nonsense.

Whereas in fact it is the religious believers who talk nonsense.

Go and read your Bible, the Fall and subsesquent curse of childbirth pain is after God created Adam and Eve, so God's use of choroform on Adam became redundant with the Fall and Curse. You are not going against God's curse are you? I warn you only Hell awaits you - just like Simpson.

Desmond
20-11-2010, 08:44 AM
That has worked well with the gun, unless you think it has actually been benifical to society. Humans cannot see the future so cannot know for sure what the long term impact of anything is going to be even if it seems benifical in the short term.
Scott
If you want to volunteer to be on the side of a war that has inferior weaponry, be my guest.

Oepty
20-11-2010, 11:46 AM
If you want to volunteer to be on the side of a war that has inferior weaponry, be my guest.

This is just a silly arguement, if there were no guns neither side would have them so not having guns would not make that side inferior. Anyway I don't think this is going anywhere.
Scott

Oepty
20-11-2010, 11:49 AM
You have Jono's and Igor's disease - when I point out a fact I am accused of talking nonsense.

Whereas in fact it is the religious believers who talk nonsense.

Go and read your Bible, the Fall and subsesquent curse of childbirth pain is after God created Adam and Eve, so God's use of choroform on Adam became redundant with the Fall and Curse. You are not going against God's curse are you? I warn you only Hell awaits you - just like Simpson.

I can not see anything in the Bible that says using anesthetic is wrong, your argument makes no sense.
Scott

Desmond
20-11-2010, 01:37 PM
This is just a silly arguement, if there were no guns neither side would have them so not having guns would not make that side inferior. If one side has them, then the other side is under pressure to do the same. Otherwise they will be outmatched.

Similarly if both sides have comparable weaponry but one side has another advantage, eg fortified position or more troops, then it comes down to necessity being the mother of invention.


Anyway I don't think this is going anywhere.
ScottI agree, not one application arising from creationism yet.

Kevin Bonham
20-11-2010, 02:19 PM
So if there's a field of science where a practical outcome is that one kind of animal changes into another kind, that could be relevant. I'm not aware of any such field though.

Of course not, because baraminology is unfalsifiable quackery and would not recognise such an event as real if it occurred. There is no way to prove that any two animal species are different kinds from each other, because to do so you must prove that there is no way two individuals of these species could ever interbreed to have fertile offspring. And you can't prove such a negative - you can put cats and dogs together in cages and fail to create fertile dats as many hundred thousand times as you like, who knows, next time it might work. All you ever get is an incomplete list of things known to be the same "kind" as each other but no way of even determining for sure - by the methods of baraminology - that there is more than one "kind" of animal. Baraminologists will assume that there are many kinds, but that assumption comes from the Bible and has no secure foundation in evidence.

Oepty
20-11-2010, 02:44 PM
If one side has them, then the other side is under pressure to do the same. Otherwise they will be outmatched.

Similarly if both sides have comparable weaponry but one side has another advantage, eg fortified position or more troops, then it comes down to necessity being the mother of invention.

Better to have no wars. That would really benefit lots of lives.
Scott

Desmond
20-11-2010, 02:55 PM
Better to have no wars. That would really benefit lots of lives.
Scott
Thanks for that insight, Scott. Are you going for Miss USA 2011?

Oepty
20-11-2010, 02:57 PM
Thanks for that insight, Scott. Are you going for Miss USA 2011?

I don't think my legs are long enough
Scott

antichrist
20-11-2010, 06:34 PM
Better to have no wars. That would really benefit lots of lives.
Scott

Whilst we have over population we will have wars or socialism

Kevin Bonham
20-11-2010, 06:38 PM
Whilst we have over population we will have wars or socialism

As if cutting population would eliminate war - wars were utterly rife (perhaps even more so than now) when the world population was below two billion and even below one billion.

antichrist
20-11-2010, 06:45 PM
As if cutting population would eliminate war - wars were utterly rife (perhaps even more so than now) when the world population was below two billion and even below one billion.

I was told that Germany invaded Poland coz needed more land??

The reason Germany attacked many countries was for resources, e.g. Russia for oil, Japan wanted Australia for oil. There are other examples that I forget.

Why was Australia and USA colonised? Due to overpopulation.

If all Anglo-Saxon decendants returned to UK what would be the population and response?

Got you there Mr Know-All

Kevin Bonham
20-11-2010, 07:52 PM
I was told that Germany invaded Poland coz needed more land??

The reason Germany attacked many countries was for resources, e.g. Russia for oil, Japan wanted Australia for oil. There are other examples that I forget.

Proves my point exactly. Wars don't need overpopulation as a pretext to be started when greed will do just fine.


If all Anglo-Saxon decendants returned to UK what would be the population and response?

Got you there Mr Know-All

Explain why this is even really relevant and Dr Know-All might oblige you with an answer to your silly question.

Very big hint: it isn't.


So in your opinion Arten are immutable?

Not only according to my opinion. Zoologists who engage in empirical research would generally regard as valid only that which can be observed in an experiment or in free-living nature. And what one observes there is that the offspring of a plant or animal inevitably resembles the parents, i.e. they belong to the same Art. The immovability of the boundaries of the Arten is, for most of us, a law of nature.

Amusing to see this one for two reasons. Firstly it shows the strawmanning began early, since Darwinism did not argue that offspring would not resemble their parents - rather the original argument concerned gradual drift, such that A's offspring would resemble A, and A's offspring's offspring would also resemble A, but extend the same concept to a great many generations and the similarity may well have become lost.

Secondly because while this sort of misunderstanding of a theory may be excused among those who read it while it is fresh, there are probably still people about who fallaciously believe that the objection is a valid one.

antichrist
20-11-2010, 08:05 PM
answered in Nazi Germany thread

antichrist
21-11-2010, 06:27 PM
I can not see anything in the Bible that says using anesthetic is wrong, your argument makes no sense.
Scott

I am saying that it is against God's curse at the Fall, the curse of childbirth pain. Humans are deny God's punishment by using anesthetic etc to prevent childbirth pain.

Surely you can understand something as simple as that.

That is why Jono can't be seen for the dust, he realised that he slipped in it and just hoping that I will go away. He has left you to fight a losing battle.

Oepty
21-11-2010, 09:15 PM
I am saying that it is against God's curse at the Fall, the curse of childbirth pain. Humans are deny God's punishment by using anesthetic etc to prevent childbirth pain.

Surely you can understand something as simple as that.

That is why Jono can't be seen for the dust, he realised that he slipped in it and just hoping that I will go away. He has left you to fight a losing battle.

I understand what you are saying and I will say again I can see nothing in the Bible to say that using anesthetic is wrong, your argument is wrong.
Scott

antichrist
21-11-2010, 11:19 PM
I understand what you are saying and I will say again I can see nothing in the Bible to say that using anesthetic is wrong, your argument is wrong.
Scott

The word anesthetic is not used because it was not invented yet, but interpreting what God said it means that reducing childbirth pain is contradicting God's wishes.

Rincewind
22-11-2010, 02:12 PM
You have Jono's and Igor's disease - when I point out a fact I am accused of talking nonsense.

Whereas in fact it is the religious believers who talk nonsense.

Go and read your Bible, the Fall and subsesquent curse of childbirth pain is after God created Adam and Eve, so God's use of choroform on Adam became redundant with the Fall and Curse. You are not going against God's curse are you? I warn you only Hell awaits you - just like Simpson.

This appears urban myth started by a few small minded and unimportant theologians who may have expressed some disquiet over Simpson's procedure of using chloroform to ease pain during childbirth. However, I know of no notable mainstream theological objection to maternal pain relief either in Simpson's time or since.

Surely you have better things than to smack about a strawmen. If you want to object to religion, at least object to a belief which the religious attest to. Telling them they should believe something and then admonishing them for holding such a ridiculous belief is more than a little tedious for all concerned (except you apparently).

I always thought the childbirth curse (if true) was evidence of how god has increased pain and suffering in the world in quite an arbitrary way. Also I find it difficult to understand how inherited sin (and the curse that goes along with it) is ethically justifiable. But I probably have an odd ethic where people are responsible for their actions and subject to the consequences. However, god seems to think curses on someone and all their decedents is justifiable. How very old testament.

antichrist
22-11-2010, 09:58 PM
This appears urban myth started by a few small minded and unimportant theologians who may have expressed some disquiet over Simpson's procedure of using chloroform to ease pain during childbirth. However, I know of no notable mainstream theological objection to maternal pain relief either in Simpson's time or since.

Surely you have better things than to smack about a strawmen. If you want to object to religion, at least object to a belief which the religious attest to. Telling them they should believe something and then admonishing them for holding such a ridiculous belief is more than a little tedious for all concerned (except you apparently).

I always thought the childbirth curse (if true) was evidence of how god has increased pain and suffering in the world in quite an arbitrary way. Also I find it difficult to understand how inherited sin (and the curse that goes along with it) is ethically justifiable. But I probably have an odd ethic where people are responsible for their actions and subject to the consequences. However, god seems to think curses on someone and all their decedents is justifiable. How very old testament.

Whose side are you on - have you gone soft?

I want them to realise that they are not following the Bible nor God's word - it may trigger them to actually think about attitudes for the first time in their life. But I hope they don't join my side, they are too dumb.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2010, 08:25 AM
A/C,

Even your closest like-minded ally thinks you went astray.

Rincewind
23-11-2010, 08:42 AM
Even your closest like-minded ally thinks you went astray.

Probably just lamenting the low quality of resistance put up by the young earthers. :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2010, 08:54 AM
Probably just lamenting the low quality of resistance put up by the young earthers. :lol:
I don't know the "quality of resistance put up by the young earthers", but they beat you in every debate with facts and reason.
In fact, have I based my world-view purely on this forum debates I'd be very likely to became YEC.

Rincewind
23-11-2010, 08:56 AM
I don't know the "quality of resistance put up by the young earthers", but they beat you in every debate with facts and reason.
In fact, have I based my world-view purely on this forum debates I'd be very likely to became YEC.

Given your proven lack of understanding of anything scientific, I'm not surprised.

Rincewind
23-11-2010, 09:00 AM
If young earth geology is valid and radiometric dating flawed., Why do so many geophysicists use them in the exploration of resources?

Can't the young-earthers find the oil more cheaply (and hence economically) without such mumbo-jumbo?


(This isn't the first time I've asked this, but the young earthers have always let it go through to the keeper).

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2010, 09:07 AM
If young earth geology is valid and radiometric dating flawed., Why do so many geophysicists use them in the exploration of resources?

Can't the young-earthers find the oil more cheaply (and hence economically) without such mumbo-jumbo?

(This isn't the first time I've asked this, but the young earthers have always let it go through to the keeper).
It's a valid question to ask, but if you raise the issue then you have to show the practical benefits of old-earth belief. (which you " let it go through to the keeper").

Personally I doubt that any belief has a practical benefit in resources exploration, but since old-earthers raise the issue they have to show it first.

Capablanca-Fan
23-11-2010, 09:13 AM
Given your proven lack of understanding of anything scientific, I'm not surprised.
Thus spake the ivory tower mathematician.

There are YECs involved in oil research. It's one thing to note that certain facies correlate with oil, and quite another to claim that this correlation requires an old-earth belief.

Capablanca-Fan
23-11-2010, 09:19 AM
Whose side are you on - have you gone soft?
Actually RW's response was quite honourable, not wanting to support his case with dud arguments. A creationist equivalent would be my anonymous article Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use), which even Dawkins praised.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2010, 09:23 AM
Thus spake the ivory tower mathematician.

You raised an interesting point. Generally the further area from real "natural" science, the more likely over-complication of the the simple matter by the "experts" (often self-appointed).
Yet people involved in real science are more likely to take it at face value!

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2010, 09:27 AM
Actually RW's response was quite honourable, not wanting to support his case with dud arguments. A creationist equivalent would be my anonymous article Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use), which even Dawkins praised.
It was Dawkins vicious anti-religious dogmatism that made me doubt evolutionists claims in the first instance.

Rincewind
23-11-2010, 10:22 AM
It was Dawkins vicious anti-religious dogmatism that made me doubt evolutionists claims in the first instance.

Well if that is you basis for doubting science it is not surprising you are so confused.

Rincewind
23-11-2010, 10:24 AM
There are YECs involved in oil research. It's one thing to note that certain facies correlate with oil, and quite another to claim that this correlation requires an old-earth belief.

To say oil research can be adequately undertaken by simple correlation is to make a complete mockery of the science. It is like saying a computer programmer doesn't need to understand how a computer program works (algorithms) they just note that there is a correlation between certain lines of code in certain programs and so when they need to write a certain sort of program they just include the same sorts of lines and hey presto, you get a working program.

Rincewind
23-11-2010, 10:26 AM
Personally I doubt that any belief has a practical benefit in resources exploration, but since old-earthers raise the issue they have to show it first.

I think you have again failed to understand the question. If young earthers are in the industry and using radiometric dating, the question is why, since the testing is expensive and the young earth claim is the methodology is flawed.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2010, 10:46 AM
I think you have again failed to understand the question. If young earthers are in the industry and using radiometric dating, the question is why, since the testing is expensive and the young earth claim is the methodology is flawed.
I think it was addressed by Spiny Norman in #502.
You (or any other old-earther) are yet to convincingly respond to it.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2010, 10:52 AM
Well if that is you basis for doubting science it is not surprising you are so confused.
You remind me of English baroness (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-sceptics-startle-uk-envoy-who-says-move-on-20091112-icer.html) that pouts with indignation:
''I have been surprised that the science itself is being questioned''.

Rincewind
23-11-2010, 03:32 PM
I think it was addressed by Spiny Norman in #502.
You (or any other old-earther) are yet to convincingly respond to it.

Spiny's post doesn't accurately reflect the young earth position. For starters they would not date major strata with such disparate dates (750 years) as those speculated in Spiny's example, since all the major strata was supposed laid down in the flood, within one calendar year or less.

Secondly why question was specifically regarding the use of radiometric dating techniques which the YEC say don't work.

The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods (http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-fatal-flaw)

The point is, if the dating method is fatally flawed then this represents a costly overhead in the business of exploiting oil reserves. If capitalism worked then young earth geophysicists would be in high demand as they would be more efficient in finding oil than their old earth counterparts who waste their clients' money on fatally flawed dating methods.

Rincewind
23-11-2010, 03:44 PM
Actually RW's response was quite honourable, not wanting to support his case with dud arguments. A creationist equivalent would be my anonymous article Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use), which even Dawkins praised.

It is not so much that it is in that class of argument. I think if there were some major theistic group that thought that pain management during childbirth was an edict from god then perhaps you could call them a hypocrite for using it. However, of the major christian denominations in the UK at the time people were adopting Simpson's procedure, there does not seem to have been any serious objection. Apparently there must have been some crackpot objectors since Simpson thought it necessary to provide a "theological defense" of his procedure. However, it seems to have been thought a complete non-issue by most (if not all) respected theologians from that time forward.

As I said the notion of the curse seems quite a silly thing for a god to do and inherited sin is a concept that just doesn't make sense. But I don't see the theological objection to an argument along the lines that if we can make childbirth easier, we shouldn't because it would be against god's wishes. There seems to be a rather slippery slope from that to forcing women to give birth entirely by themselves without any medical or midwifery assistance at all, which would be a rather silly (and dangerous) position for anyone to adopt.

antichrist
23-11-2010, 04:13 PM
It's a valid question to ask, but if you raise the issue then you have to show the practical benefits of old-earth belief. (which you " let it go through to the keeper").

Personally I doubt that any belief has a practical benefit in resources exploration, but since old-earthers raise the issue they have to show it first.

What about Joe Gutnik was it, who discovered dimonds or gold based on what that Rabbi told him, was it Schneerson or his representative in Australia. If you had more faith you could be rich like Joe. He could buy the whole chess world out that guy!

antichrist
23-11-2010, 04:16 PM
It is not so much that it is in that class of argument. I think if there were some major theistic group that thought that pain management during childbirth was an edict from god then perhaps you could call them a hypocrite for using it. However, of the major christian denominations in the UK at the time people were adopting Simpson's procedure, there does not seem to have been any serious objection. Apparently there must have been some crackpot objectors since Simpson thought it necessary to provide a "theological defense" of his procedure. However, it seems to have been thought a complete non-issue by most (if not all) respected theologians from that time forward.

As I said the notion of the curse seems quite a silly thing for a god to do and inherited sin is a concept that just doesn't make sense. But I don't see the theological objection to an argument along the lines that if we can make childbirth easier, we shouldn't because it would be against god's wishes. There seems to be a rather slippery slope from that to forcing women to give birth entirely by themselves without any medical or midwifery assistance at all, which would be a rather silly (and dangerous) position for anyone to adopt.

When has religion ever stopped anyone from doing things silly and dangerous - that is what religion is! Full stop.

Spiny Norman
01-12-2010, 03:44 AM
It is like saying a computer programmer doesn't need to understand how a computer program works (algorithms) they just note that there is a correlation between certain lines of code in certain programs and so when they need to write a certain sort of program they just include the same sorts of lines and hey presto, you get a working program.
Yet your position is similar to suggesting that its important to believe the age of certain lines of computer code as 'old' in order to know what outputs the program produces. That's even funnier! :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2010, 04:01 AM
When has religion ever stopped anyone from doing things silly and dangerous - that is what religion is! Full stop.
The Jewish libertarian columnist Jeff Jacoby disagrees (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/jeff-jacoby/2010/11/15/created-by-god-to-be-good/):

Can people be decent and moral without believing in a God who commands us to be good? Sure. There have always been kind and ethical nonbelievers. But how many of them reason their way to kindness and ethics, and how many simply reflect the moral expectations of the society in which they were raised?

In our culture, even the most passionate atheist cannot help having been influenced by the Judeo-Christian worldview that shaped Western civilization. …

For in a world without God, there is no obvious difference between good and evil. There is no way to prove that murder is wrong if there is no Creator who decrees “Thou shalt not murder.” It certainly cannot be proved wrong by reason alone. One might reason instead—as Lenin and Stalin and Mao reasoned—that there is nothing wrong with murdering human beings by the millions if doing so advances the Marxist cause. Or one might reason from observing nature that the way of the world is for the strong to devour the weak—or that natural selection favors the survival of the fittest by any means necessary, including the killing of the less fit.

It may seem obvious to us today that human life is precious and that the weakest among us deserve special protection. Would we think so absent a moral tradition stretching back to Sinai? It seemed obvious in classical antiquity that sickly babies should be killed. …

Reason is not enough. Only if there is a God who forbids murder is murder definitively evil.

antichrist
01-12-2010, 07:38 AM
Jono, I could answer you deeply if at different time of day, but here is a quickie.

In some Polynesian islands, in all in fact, they are only islands with limited resources etc. Of course they are tribes being that way for thousands of years.

They did have population problems and being native people could only react natively (not critising it), it would be very obvious that they would have population problems because of lack of contraception and limited space.

So what did they do?

They would deliver the baby and then take to a time and and place in the water where the current is going out, prolbably a rip, and let nature take it's course.

Shocking, horrifying ungodly, against God's will - maybe all of these things - that is survival and the moral decisions people are forced to make.

Now educated, you would have us think moral (?), eggheads (sorry) like yourself are partly and greatly responsible for bring the earth to the edge of the abyss. From which it will probably never recover and many areas will become inhabitable for centuries. That is what immorality is - only which it is united with stupidity.

These survived thousands of years on their islands without Christian immorality but they will not do so with such idiocy.

Rincewind
01-12-2010, 08:45 AM
Yet your position is similar to suggesting that its important to believe the age of certain lines of computer code as 'old' in order to know what outputs the program produces. That's even funnier! :lol:


Not at all. The age of the compiler could is the key issue and could well change the output. :owned:

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2010, 01:16 PM
I actually agree with one small part of Jacoby's argument - namely that "reason" is no guarantee of people behaving themselves; "humanists", "rationalists" and so on who argue you can base a peaceful society on a morality based on "reason" are just hopelessly naive. Hume pointed out in the late 18th century that you can't get an "ought" from an "is" and they can flounder about all they like trying but they won't get over that hurdle. That's why I don't associate with or support rationalist/humanist/Brights etc groups.

But when he says "a society bereft of [Judeo-Christian] religious heritage is one not even Speckhardt would want to live in." he's pretending that societies paying lip service to Judeo-Christian religious heritage are the only ones where people generally behave themselves, although this is not the case.

Also he says "For in a world without God, there is no obvious difference between good and evil. There is no way to prove that murder is wrong if there is no Creator who decrees "Thou shalt not murder." " But there is also no way to prove (as opposed to declare) that murder is wrong even if there is a "creator".

He also glosses over all the poor moral behaviour in Judeo-Christian societies and by professing Judeo-Christians; if you want to say that in a non-JC society people may reason that it is OK to kill infirm newborns or enemies of Marxism, then it's just as valid to hold the poor form of some self-professed Christians against Christianity.

morebeer
01-12-2010, 02:53 PM
Also he says "For in a world without God, there is no obvious difference between good and evil. There is no way to prove that murder is wrong if there is no Creator who decrees "Thou shalt not murder." " But there is also no way to prove (as opposed to declare) that murder is wrong even if there is a "creator".

In a world with God, there still may be no obvious difference between good and evil.

Let's start with God's command "you shall not commit adultery".

Now, do you follow that dictate because God commanded it or because adultery is a poor moral choice?

If you follow because you do what God commands then, if you are to maintain moral consistency, you would have to follow any command God issued. If he said infanticide was permissible, then you should have no moral qualms about killing infants. You moral direction is determined by what God commands and not the consequences of adherence to that command.

But if you then say God would never condone infanticide because it is axiomatic that killing infants is morally reprehensible then you have a problem with the omnipotent law giver paradigm.

The dictates of moral behaviour would seem to lie beyond the domain of a law giving God, rendering his status as supreme moral arbitrator redundant.

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2010, 03:49 PM
^^^
Exactly. And indeed there are no objective dictates of moral behaviour, simply preferences held by different people.

Another way of putting it is that even if the existence of a God guaranteed an extremely harsh consequence for "immoral" behaviour, all that proves is that if you violate those dictates you have to face the music. It doesn't mean it's irrational to do so, it all depends on the what the sinner values and what price they're willing to pay for it.

Another problem that I like to bring up is that there is no way of knowing an all-powerful deity's statements of intent concerning your actions are honest statements. This is particularly problematic for the Christian tradition since its own God is purported by that tradition to have made at least one clearly misleading statement and therefore, if extant, is about as trustworthy as Tony Abbott.

antichrist
01-12-2010, 09:28 PM
Morebeer
Let's start with God's command "you shall not commit adultery".

Now, do you follow that dictate because God commanded it or because adultery is a poor moral choice?

AC
I have not considered before but I can imagine there would be conditions when adultery could be a fair choice. If one partner is incapable of certain actions and the other partner still quite frisky then adultery, accepted as the lesser evil, may keep the relationship intact.

If a spouse is infertile but wants to retain the relationship and have a child, well a few night's fling to ensure pregnancy could solve their problem. The child could be raised and accepted by the infertile partner, as it guarantees him a wife and even an heir, and if was good enough for JC then good enuf for us.

Another scenario, is because of poverty and hopeless situation the wife has no choice but to sell her body, I have witnessed this in 3rd world situations. Can we judge when it means the family can eat, stay together, have money for medicines and rent?

If std are prevented then these scenarios are more acceptable and bearable.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2010, 05:30 AM
Brilliant satire on theological liberalism and the Church of England.


NzpU6SAi4vo3ZIakf5f068&feature=relatedI5h58AF_MW8&feature=related

antichrist
02-12-2010, 09:34 AM
If it was okay for the Hebrews to wipe out the innocent Canaanites on God's orders than what is wrong with murder? Bring it on God commanded and even made the sun still so they could finish the job

Rincewind
16-12-2010, 11:06 AM
'Evil spirits' child killer detained for life (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/16/3094805.htm?section=justin)

Ian Murray
17-12-2010, 11:45 PM
God Hates Fags (http://www.godhatesfags.com/) - Westboro Baptist Church, Kansas

antichrist
18-12-2010, 07:54 AM
God Hates Fags (http://www.godhatesfags.com/) - Westboro Baptist Church, Kansas

This is amazing, they claim the God is killing US troops coz USA has been turned over to the fags - now if Julian Assange came up with something like that they would want to execute him etc - but religions (are outside the anti-discrimination in Aust anyway, maybe freedom of speech law in USA anyway) can get away with almost anything.

If Obama would have made any slur on US troops they would make him a stange bag of fruit - pm me for explanation

Rincewind
18-12-2010, 08:44 AM
God Hates Fags (http://www.godhatesfags.com/) - Westboro Baptist Church, Kansas

What does he think of cigars?

antichrist
18-12-2010, 10:00 AM
What does he think of cigars?

The US president variety?

arosar
10-04-2011, 09:46 AM
I thought youse blokes might like this:

HhGuXCuDb1U&

AR

antichrist
10-04-2011, 07:12 PM
There was case in papers last week of a religious cult leader in Sydney of Greek background convicted of having sex/rape via intermediatorys having convinced a woman to do it 3rd parties to avoid bad curses

Rincewind
12-04-2011, 11:52 PM
Here is a shocking recent story from the US...

Lansdowne man stoned to death, Old Testament style (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/delco/Elderly-Lansdowne-man-stoned.html)

Not sure if this guy is on the level which his claim of old-testament justification but a pretty sickening story either way.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
13-04-2011, 11:56 PM
i love the westboro baptist church !!!

i specifically love this .........

0 - nanoseconds of sleep that WBC members lose over your opinions and feeeeellllliiiiiings.

and the .........

people whom God has cast into hell since you loaded this page meter.

so much love :D

fred phelps is awesome and so is his family !!
heres one of them !!

http://www.thenoseonyourface.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/ms-october-copy.jpg

Desmond
14-04-2011, 06:44 AM
Here is a shocking recent story from the US...

Lansdowne man stoned to death, Old Testament style (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/delco/Elderly-Lansdowne-man-stoned.html)

Not sure if this guy is on the level which his claim of old-testament justification but a pretty sickening story either way.
That anyone can use the OT as a moral compass in this day and age is pretty distrurbing, but sadly many do. I hope they never release him.

Rincewind
23-06-2011, 04:30 PM
Death Valley (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/22/james-ray-sweat-lodge-death)

Two weeks ago on a retreat with new age guru James Arthur Ray, three people died in a sweat lodge. What went wrong?

James Ray has been found guilty of negligent homicide.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/23/3251590.htm

Oepty
23-06-2011, 04:52 PM
James Ray has been found guilty of negligent homicide.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/23/3251590.htm

Never trust anyone who has two first names.

Rincewind
23-06-2011, 05:44 PM
Never trust anyone who has two first names.

Like Ron Paul?

Oepty
23-06-2011, 06:47 PM
Like Ron Paul?

Probably, I certainly don't trust him.

Lucena
27-06-2011, 08:01 AM
Never trust anyone who has two first names.

gee, thanks Scott! :D

antichrist
27-06-2011, 08:30 AM
Probably, I certainly don't trust him.

like Pope John-Paul?

Like Lady Ga GA?

Like John-Paul Wallace

Oepty
27-06-2011, 08:49 AM
gee, thanks Scott! :D

I will make an exception for you Gareth.

Rincewind
28-09-2011, 09:57 AM
A 13-year-old girl suffocated after she was strapped down and doused with water by her father and a monk who were trying to expel an "evil spirit", according to Japanese police and media reports. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-27/teenage-girl-dies-in-japan-27exorcism273a-reports/2956292)

S-word
05-11-2011, 03:18 PM
A 13-year-old girl suffocated after she was strapped down and doused with water by her father and a monk who were trying to expel an "evil spirit", according to Japanese police and media reports. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-27/teenage-girl-dies-in-japan-27exorcism273a-reports/2956292)

I realise that I'm jumping in here at the deep end, having only read the posts on page 1, and I may be asking an obvious question, which may have already been asked and dealt with. But, has anyone got the statistics of how many people MAY have died by refusing blood transfusions because one of the so-call educated authorities of their particular religious denomination had erroneously interpreted the scriptures?

Rincewind
05-11-2011, 05:01 PM
I realise that I'm jumping in here at the deep end, having only read the posts on page 1, and I may be asking an obvious question, which may have already been asked and dealt with. But, has anyone got the statistics of how many people MAY have died by refusing blood transfusions because one of the so-call educated authorities of their particular religious denomination had erroneously interpreted the scriptures?

Operating from memory here was a link posted in a thread somewhere here on a study which estimated the number of deaths from patients not receiving treatment based on religious beliefs. Again from memory I think it just estimated the deaths of minors since in those cases it was the beliefs of the parents/guardians which effectively lead to the deaths and they were not limited to the blood transfusion issue.

S-word
07-11-2011, 08:22 AM
Operating from memory here was a link posted in a thread somewhere here on a study which estimated the number of deaths from patients not receiving treatment based on religious beliefs. Again from memory I think it just estimated the deaths of minors since in those cases it was the beliefs of the parents/guardians which effectively lead to the deaths and they were not limited to the blood transfusion issue.

Thanks mate, I realise that I should do a little research myself and try to establish what is the estimated number of people who have been recorded to have died after refusing, "in accordance with their religious belief," the life saving medical aid that was available at the time. I just thought someone here might have done the research for me. Oh well, thems are the breaks.

S-word
08-11-2011, 08:02 AM
If it was okay for the Hebrews to wipe out the innocent Canaanites on God's orders than what is wrong with murder? Bring it on God commanded and even made the sun still so they could finish the job

Hi ya there antichrist, apparently Kevin Bonham has been anxious that we should meet.

In the Book of Jubilees chapter 8: it is written that Noah divided the land between his three sons, Ham the firstborn, received the land of Africa, Shem the second born received the Land from the Nile delta, north to Lebanon and east to India. While Japheth the younger brother of Shem, received all the land to the north of Lebanon, including the five great islands. And it is said there, “But the land of Japheth is cold, and the Land of Ham is hot, but the land of Shem (The Middle son) is neither hot nor cold; but it is of blended hot and cold.

It is written in Jubilees 9: 14; “And thus the sons of Noah divided unto their sons in the presence of Noah their father, and he bound them all by an oath, imprecating a curse on everyone who sought to seize the portion that had not fallen to him by lot. And they all said, ‘So be it; so be it,’ for themselves and for their sons for ever throughout their generations til the day of judgement, etc.”

Then in chapter 10: 29; we read; “And Canaan saw the land of Lebanon to the river Egypt, that it was very good, and he went not into the land of his inheritance to the west (That is to) the sea, and he dwelt in the land of Lebanon, eastward and westward from the border of the Jordan and from the border of the sea. And Ham his father, and Cush and Mizraim, his brothers said unto him: ‘Thou hast settled in a land which is not thine, and which did not fall to us by lot: do not do so; for if thou dost do so, thou and thy sons will fall in the land and be accursed through sedition; for by sedition ye have settled; and by sedition will thy children fall, and thou shalt be rooted out forever, etc.

antichrist
08-11-2011, 11:53 PM
Hi ya there antichrist, apparently Kevin Bonham has been anxious that we should meet.

In the Book of Jubilees chapter 8: it is written that Noah divided the land between his three sons, Ham the firstborn, received the land of Africa, Shem the second born received the Land from the Nile delta, north to Lebanon and east to India. While Japheth the younger brother of Shem, received all the land to the north of Lebanon, including the five great islands. And it is said there, “But the land of Japheth is cold, and the Land of Ham is hot, but the land of Shem (The Middle son) is neither hot nor cold; but it is of blended hot and cold.

It is written i..................

one part at a time.

Did ham just happen to have a large flat nose (not that there is anything wrong with that), dark skin and beautiful soft voice for singing? Did Shem have a hooked nose, only dark around the eyes and hairy backs? Did Japheth have white skin with blue eyes - and these guys were all brothers right of the same parentage? Whose leg are you trying to pull.

Was there another god and another flood for the top bit whose brothers looked like Japanese, Transilvainians and Eskimos? Another flood in the Americas blah blah blah

And you missed out explaining how the freshwater platypus swam across tumulteous salt water seas to reach the Ark? Did the kangaroos have swimming lessons as well? Did all the dinosaurs all drown coz they were too big to enter the Ark?

S-word
09-11-2011, 08:09 AM
one part at a time.

Did ham just happen to have a large flat nose (not that there is anything wrong with that), dark skin and beautiful soft voice for singing? Did Shem have a hooked nose, only dark around the eyes and hairy backs? Did Japheth have white skin with blue eyes - and these guys were all brothers right of the same parentage? Whose leg are you trying to pull.

Was there another god and another flood for the top bit whose brothers looked like Japanese, Transilvainians and Eskimos? Another flood in the Americas blah blah blah

And you missed out explaining how the freshwater platypus swam across tumulteous salt water seas to reach the Ark? Did the kangaroos have swimming lessons as well? Did all the dinosaurs all drown coz they were too big to enter the Ark?

Still waiting for you to bring something contructive to the debating table other than your usual sarcastic rubbish.

You do know of course that the Anti-christ, (and I'm talking about the real anti-chist, not his little insignificant pretenders,) did believe in Jesus Christ, in fact it was he who first brought in the teaching that Jesus did not come as a human being, but was a spirit, who just appeared and disappeared at will.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.”

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;.“Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.”

Do you also believe as did your namesake? Or did you just take on the name from a book that you have absolutely no understanding of?

Kevin Bonham
09-11-2011, 10:30 PM
Or did you just take on the name from a book that you have absolutely no understanding of?

So how's your understanding of Friedrich Nietzsche? :lol:

antichrist
09-11-2011, 10:34 PM
So how's your understanding of Friedrich Nietzsche? :lol:

I thought Neitzsche thought Judeo-Christianity the biggest blight on western civilisation - S Bends comment gave me the urge to rescue my books out of the attic. Decades ago I discussed with a Catholic priest in the Philippines and we both loved Neitzsche

Kevin Bonham
09-11-2011, 10:52 PM
I thought Neitzsche thought Judeo-Christianity the biggest blight on western civilisation

Yep. He called it the "one immortal blemish of mankind", among other things. I didn't need to look that one up! :D

Agent Smith
10-11-2011, 06:24 AM
Pharisees !
Please show some respect for our new Spiritual Omnipotence S-bend.

antichrist
10-11-2011, 09:44 AM
Pharisees !
Please show some respect for our new Spiritual Omnipotence S-bend.

Now if was P-Trap he could escape through a sidewall

Rincewind
10-11-2011, 04:11 PM
I realise that I'm jumping in here at the deep end, having only read the posts on page 1, and I may be asking an obvious question, which may have already been asked and dealt with. But, has anyone got the statistics of how many people MAY have died by refusing blood transfusions because one of the so-call educated authorities of their particular religious denomination had erroneously interpreted the scriptures?

The paper which I think has been referenced on here before is

Child Fatalities From Religion-motivated Medical Neglect
Seth M. Asser, MD, & Rita Swan, PhD
Pediatrics Vol. 101 No. 4 April 1, 1998
pp. 625 -629

Abstract as follows...


Objective. To evaluate deaths of children from families in which faith healing was practiced in lieu of medical care and to determine if such deaths were preventable.

Design. Cases of child fatality in faith-healing sects were reviewed. Probability of survival for each was then estimated based on expected survival rates for children with similar disorders who receive medical care.

Participants. One hundred seventy-two children who died between 1975 and 1995 and were identified by referral or record search. Criteria for inclusion were evidence that parents withheld medical care because of reliance on religious rituals and documentation sufficient to determine the cause of death.

Results. One hundred forty fatalities were from conditions for which survival rates with medical care would have exceeded 90%. Eighteen more had expected survival rates of >50%. All but 3 of the remainder would likely have had some benefit from clinical help.

Conclusions. When faith healing is used to the exclusion of medical treatment, the number of preventable child fatalities and the associated suffering are substantial and warrant public concern. Existing laws may be inadequate to protect children from this form of medical neglect.

Note: of the cases reviewed, the majority of deaths were from pneumonia and type 1 diabetes.

Broken down by sects, the Faith Assembly had by far the most deaths, the others being Church of the First Born, End Time Ministries, Faith Tabernacle and First Church of Christ Scientist.

Here are some articles in popular media about specific "recent" cases

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/21faith.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,100175,00.html

Adamski
10-11-2011, 09:15 PM
Hi ya there antichrist, apparently Kevin Bonham has been anxious that we should meet.

In the Book of Jubilees chapter 8: it is written that Noah divided the land between his three sons, Ham the firstborn, received the land of Africa, Shem the second born received the Land from the Nile delta, north to Lebanon and east to India. While Japheth the younger brother of Shem, received all the land to the north of Lebanon, including the five great islands. And it is said there, “But the land of Japheth is cold, and the Land of Ham is hot, but the land of Shem (The Middle son) is neither hot nor cold; but it is of blended hot and cold.

It is written in Jubilees 9: 14; “And thus the sons of Noah divided unto their sons in the presence of Noah their father, and he bound them all by an oath, imprecating a curse on everyone who sought to seize the portion that had not fallen to him by lot. And they all said, ‘So be it; so be it,’ for themselves and for their sons for ever throughout their generations til the day of judgement, etc.”

Then in chapter 10: 29; we read; “And Canaan saw the land of Lebanon to the river Egypt, that it was very good, and he went not into the land of his inheritance to the west (That is to) the sea, and he dwelt in the land of Lebanon, eastward and westward from the border of the Jordan and from the border of the sea. And Ham his father, and Cush and Mizraim, his brothers said unto him: ‘Thou hast settled in a land which is not thine, and which did not fall to us by lot: do not do so; for if thou dost do so, thou and thy sons will fall in the land and be accursed through sedition; for by sedition ye have settled; and by sedition will thy children fall, and thou shalt be rooted out forever, etc.
Was interested in your ref to the Book of Jubilees so looked it up in the fount of all wisdom (LOL) wikipedia. Inter alia it says: The Book of Jubilees (Hebrew: ספר היובלים Sepher hayYobhelim), sometimes called Lesser Genesis (Leptogenesis), is an ancient Jewish religious work, considered one of the pseudepigrapha by Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Churches.[1] However, Jubilees is considered canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church as well as Ethiopian Jews, where it is known as the Book of Division (Ge'ez: Mets'hafe Kufale). I am a Protestant Christian and I see it as part of the pseudepigrapha and thus not part of inspired Scripture. But is of historical interest.

Rincewind
17-11-2011, 09:29 AM
Here is a bizarre story from Indonesia...

Doctors pull 28 nails from girl's body (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-16/doctors-pull-28-nails-from-girl27s-body/3675784)


The governor of South Sulawesi province, Syahrul Yasin Limpo, visited the victim and said he believed witchcraft was to blame.

"Believe it or not, in South Sulawesi it is possible for these sorts of things to happen," Mr Syahrul was quoted as saying by local media.

"We have often heard about people whose heads suddenly go soft and medics have no idea what the cause is. It's called magic and it's explained in the Koran."

Right...

Desmond
19-11-2011, 07:24 AM
Here is a bizarre story from Indonesia...

Doctors pull 28 nails from girl's body (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-16/doctors-pull-28-nails-from-girl27s-body/3675784)


The governor of South Sulawesi province, Syahrul Yasin Limpo, visited the victim and said he believed witchcraft was to blame.

"Believe it or not, in South Sulawesi it is possible for these sorts of things to happen," Mr Syahrul was quoted as saying by local media.

"We have often heard about people whose heads suddenly go soft and medics have no idea what the cause is. It's called magic and it's explained in the Koran."

Right...A 3-year-old, and she lived. Horrific.

Rincewind
19-11-2011, 09:32 AM
A 3-year-old, and she lived. Horrific.

Yes and with "witchcraft" as a believable scapegoat the people responsible and her parents are not held to account.

Desmond
15-09-2012, 11:23 AM
Operator - 911, what's your emergency?
Caller - Am I speaking with a living human being?
Operator - Pardon?
Caller- Am I speaking with a living human being?
Operator - Yes ma'am, what's your emergency?

Phoenix man dies in home of 'living beings' (http://www.kpho.com/story/19518275/phoenix-man-dies-in-home-of-living-beings)


CONGRESS, AZ (CBS5) -
The body of a Phoenix man was found at a home in Congress where he apparently had gone to learn about spiritual healing, the Yavapai County Sheriff's Office said.
...
The occupants of the home - a man and three women - explained that Fitzpatrick had arrived on July 20 to learn about spiritual healing with the group who identified themselves as "living beings," sheriff's investigators said.

Fitzpatrick appeared a little ill to the group because of a preexisting medical condition, YCSO said. On July 21, Fitzpatrick declined to return to Phoenix to see a doctor, deputies said.

According to sheriff's deputies, Fitzpatrick later excused himself from a group meeting to use the bathroom. When he did not return, his body was discovered on the floor by a bedroom. No one in the home notified medical personnel, according to YCSO.

Deputies said they found no initial indications that actions of the "living beings" were a factor in the man's death. The group was interviewed but refused to provide full legal names.

Detectives from the Criminal Investigations Bureau are handling the case to determine if there is any culpability or involvement on the part of those inside the home where Fitzpatrick died.
...

Mrs Jono
17-09-2012, 11:08 PM
Operator - 911, what's your emergency?
Caller - Am I speaking with a living human being?
Operator - Pardon?
Caller- Am I speaking with a living human being?
Operator - Yes ma'am, what's your emergency?

Reading this far, I thought this was going to be something about automated phone service, which is not usual for 911, AFAIK, but found everywhere else anymore. I thought 'Caller' was too upset to ascertain the difference at first.

That was before I read on, and realised she was just a nut. :doh:

Igor_Goldenberg
18-09-2012, 12:05 PM
Sydney protest last weekend belongs to this thread.

morebeer
22-10-2012, 12:06 PM
The Louis Theroux documentary on ABC2 last night, "The Most Hated Family in America" is probably worth a look on iview for regular readers of this thread.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/abc2/201210/programs/ZX6357A001D2012-10-21T212249.htm

Rincewind
22-10-2012, 01:50 PM
The Louis Theroux documentary on ABC2 last night, "The Most Hated Family in America" is probably worth a look on iview for regular readers of this thread.

Thanks for the tip. I'll look for it.

antichrist
22-03-2013, 11:10 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlT3ARuUSGc

if they would only listen to Lennon's words in Imagine song

antichrist
26-03-2013, 02:25 AM
well that video linked in above post seemed to quiten the Israeli lobby

antichrist
30-03-2013, 10:23 AM
those Hazaris in Pakistan, being Shite Moslem seem to be getting a rough going over for being the wrong brand of Islam

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
01-04-2013, 07:42 PM
those Hazaris in Pakistan, being Shite Moslem seem to be getting a rough going over for being the wrong brand of Islam

im going to guess that the "i" left out was not an intentional act.

antichrist
04-04-2013, 09:31 PM
Abusive priests prey on the devout: expert

Children of devout religious families are an attractive target for pedophile priests because they are less likely to report abuse, a parliamentary inquiry has heard.
Exposing an abusive religious leader puts such a child at risk of isolation from their community, their peers and their family, experts said.
Even if children do muster the courage to tell their mother or father that a priest has abused them, there is a chance they won't be believed.
This hsd happened in the past, Professor Caroline Taylor told the Victorian inquiry into the handling of child abuse by religious and other organisations.
Pedophile priests know this and they exploit their position of power in the community to get away with their crimes, she said.
"Non-disclosure and delayed disclosure are the key features needed by offenders in order to both avoid detection and to continue with the abuse," Prof Taylor said.
"They targeted families that were particularly devout.
"They felt that it would offer protection."
The word of a priest carried considerable power and fear for a child, she said.
"The offender ... is often viewed by the child as a representation of God and therefore often the offender has omniscient power."
Experts also said these children's relationship with God meant the damage inflicted by an abusive clergyman was far deeper than other types of abuse.
"Many child victims felt the abuse was an indicator that they were unloved by God," Prof Taylor said.
"Disclosure would further bring on the wrath of God should they tell anyone."
South Australian academic Professor Freda Briggs said this sort of abuse made priests' actions particularly damaging.
"It involves not only the child taking on the guilt for the priest, but it also involves spiritual abuse because they usually bring God into it," Prof Briggs said.
"God chose you to do this for me."
Prof Taylor said priests exerted influence on the wider community to foster a hostile environment for victims.
In small rural communities, priests used their social standing to make reporting difficult for victims, she said.
She told of one priest who used his church service to make comments in support of another priest who had recently been found guilty of abuse and sent to jail.
This led to a punch-up between the priest and a relative of the victim.
In other cases, members of the clergy made negative comments about disclosing abuse to the broader community, she said.
The inquiry continues.
---------------------------------------------------
I have mates who were abused by Catholic priests in an orphanage and received $25,000 compo but are unhappy due to confidentiality agreement they had to sign.

antichrist
17-08-2013, 01:37 PM
in today's news from UK that born agains are advising AIDS patients to pray for God's healing and stop their medicine. So some poor suckers are taking it on and becoming seriously sick. It shows what type of people are attracted to believe in absurdities, a common thread.

Desmond
01-10-2013, 08:08 PM
He’s not the son of God (http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/08/atheism-india)


INDIA is so crammed with colourful “godmen”, quacks hawking dodgy medicines and palmists to trace your fate, it is easy to miss the mild-mannered rationalists in the scrum. Extreme followers of Kali, the goddess of power, occasionally still leave a decapitated human sacrifice at one of her temples, provoking a storm of attention and debate. But when a group of unbelievers organised a “hug an atheist day” on June 7th nobody noticed.

It took the murder on August 20th of an anti-superstition campaigner to remind India of the lot of its faithless. Narendra Dabholkar was on a regular morning stroll, in Pune, Maharashtra, when a pair of hitmen parked their motorbike and shot him dead (mourners paid their respects in traditional fashion, pictured above). He had campaigned for 18 years against those who pretend to use, or offer protection from, the arts of black magic or other religious or mystical harassment. He wanted a law to prosecute such con artists and to protect their victims from extortion and bullying.

A local sect and assorted Hindu right-wingers opposed his law, which Maharashtra’s state government finally agreed to enact, in Mr Dabholkar’s memory, on August 21st. He had received death threats before. The chief minister, Prithviraj Chavan, compared the killing of the rationalist to the murder of India’s most revered figure, saying that “just as Gandhi was killed by those who could not digest his thoughts…[Mr Dabholkar] too was eliminated”.
...

antichrist
02-10-2013, 04:07 PM
He’s not the son of God (http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/08/atheism-india)


INDIA is so crammed with colourful “godmen”, quacks hawking dodgy medicines and palmists to trace your fate, it is easy to miss the mild-mannered rationalists in the scrum. Extreme followers of Kali, the goddess of power, occasionally still leave a decapitated human sacrifice at one of her temples, provoking a storm of attention and debate. But when a group of unbelievers organised a “hug an atheist day” on June 7th nobody noticed.

It took the murder on August 20th of an anti-superstition campaigner to remind India of the lot of its faithless. Narendra Dabholkar was on a regular morning stroll, in Pune, Maharashtra, when a pair of hitmen parked their motorbike and shot him dead (mourners paid their respects in traditional fashion, pictured above). He had campaigned for 18 years against those who pretend to use, or offer protection from, the arts of black magic or other religious or mystical harassment. He wanted a law to prosecute such con artists and to protect their victims from extortion and bullying.

A local sect and assorted Hindu right-wingers opposed his law, which Maharashtra’s state government finally agreed to enact, in Mr Dabholkar’s memory, on August 21st. He had received death threats before. The chief minister, Prithviraj Chavan, compared the killing of the rationalist to the murder of India’s most revered figure, saying that “just as Gandhi was killed by those who could not digest his thoughts…[Mr Dabholkar] too was eliminated”.
...

Rationalists there used to do martial arts courses and campaign in groups only. And yet gullible westerners go there and pay homage??? even some chess players I know.

Capablanca-Fan
03-10-2013, 07:05 AM
Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet) (http://wellspentjourney.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/devastating-arguments-against-christianity-courtesy-of-the-internet/)
[Refuting many atheopathic arguments against Christianity]

The Claim: “Religion has been the primary cause of war and oppression throughout the history of mankind.”
The Truth: In their comprehensive Encyclopedia of Wars, Phillips and Axelrod document the recorded history of warfare. Of the 1,763 wars presented, a mere 7% involved a religious cause. When Islam is subtracted from the equation, that number drops to 3.2%. [See also Christian vs. evolutionary atrocities (http://creation.com/christian-vs-evolutionary-atrocities).]

The Claim: “Thanks to modern science, the days of religion are numbered. Humanity’s superstitious belief in miracles and sky gods will soon be replaced by an era of atheism and rationalism.”
The Truth: [theistic religions are gaining followers worldwide, while atheism and agnosticism are losing grounds]

The Claim: “The dark ages were a time of ignorance and superstition, thanks to religion’s negative influence on scientific progress.”
The Truth: [Refers to an atheist's favorable review of God's Philosophers by James Hannam (http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/), who earned a doctorate from Cambridge on the history of science:


I love to totally stump these propagators by asking them to present me with the name of one—just one—scientist burned, persecuted, or oppressed for their science in the Middle Ages. They always fail to come up with any.
[Giordiano Bruno was no scientist but an "irritating mystical New Age kook", Hypatia was not a martyr to science but much admired by Christians and killed for political reasons, and many great scientists practised very safely in the Middle Ages such as John Buridan, Nicole Oresme, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Bradwardine and the other Merton Calculators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merton_Calculators), and of course Galileo's debate was more science vs. science than science vs. religion (http://creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial).

The Claim: “Jesus was a mythical figure. The New Testament stole most of its stories from other ancient sources.”
The Truth: These claims gained a lot of popularity thanks to the 2007 propaganda film “Zeitgeist” and its articulation of the Jesus myth hypothesis.
It turns out that the “facts” presented in the image above are almost entirely fabricated. [Total nonsense is fabricated about Horus, Mithra, Krishna, Dionysus.]

Desmond
03-10-2013, 07:45 AM
Sounds more like Dangers of a Belief in Creationist Blogs

Rincewind
03-10-2013, 07:17 PM
Sounds more like Dangers of a Belief in Creationist Blogs

I'd say you are only in danger if you are made of straw.

antichrist
03-10-2013, 07:31 PM
what about the 30 Years War, what was that about? what about all those English leaders changing religion for their country and lopping heads off that did not change with them? what about the Catholic paedophile war against children? what about the Catholic wars against homosexuals? The wars against women, helping barring medical abortions resulting in backyard abortions with many ten thousands dying over the centuries.

antichrist
03-10-2013, 08:46 PM
as well, often the churches used civil authorities to carry out their dirty work of executions and amputations of "sinners"

Capablanca-Fan
09-10-2013, 08:35 AM
Sounds more like Dangers of a Belief in Creationist Blogs

There is no evidence that this was even from a creationist blog. Indeed, it quoted extensively from an atheistic blog. But when it comes to danger, there is evidently no danger of atheopaths like you and RW abandoning long-discredited arguments against Christianity.

Desmond
09-10-2013, 09:35 AM
There is no evidence that this was even from a creationist blog. Indeed, it quoted extensively from an atheistic blog. But when it comes to danger, there is evidently no danger of atheopaths like you and RW abandoning long-discredited arguments against Christianity.
Translation: if youse guys don't defend the strawman I made, I'll throw in some personal attacks.

Desmond
09-01-2014, 08:46 PM
0wXkNmQkjnc

And those are really the real words kids.

anattaman
12-01-2014, 05:32 PM
On spiritual truths we can agree that removed from dogma and ideology a lot of religions claim to have life changing experiences of bliss. I have no doubt that they achieve these states of consciousness, the problem however is when these experiences are filtered through the context in which they came. What i mean is that praying for salvation in front of the cross of jesus, one falls victim to confirmation bias and believes he has been touched by the hand of god. Likewise with all other religions and their warm and fuzzy states their beleivers claim as empiracle evidence.

So I believe this can be a spritual truth. Altered states of consciousness; ie, bliss, love, equanimity etc can be achieved with certain techniques. But long distance runners claim to reach similar experiences in what is called "The runners' high". the common denominater in achieving these states seems to be controled focus on an object allowing one to let go of his or her worries that were once causing stress, or in other states such as love when someone selflessly preys for another the love they have for them wells up.

These states are being studied by Neuroscience and are incredibly interesting but of course it is a complete non sequiter to claim that a certain religion is true given a life changing experience within that religions context, alas, they all seem to make this claim.

Desmond
15-06-2014, 10:47 AM
Jenny McCarthy Bodycount: Anti-Vaccine Bodycount (http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html)

Number of preventable illnesses (June 3 2007 - June 7 2014): 134,405
Number of preventable deaths (June 3 2007 - June 7 2014): 1,393
Number of autism diagnoses scientifically linked to vaccinations (June 3 2007 - June 7 2014): 0

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2014, 09:17 AM
Jenny McCarthy Bodycount: Anti-Vaccine Bodycount (http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html)

Number of preventable illnesses (June 3 2007 - June 7 2014): 134,405
Number of preventable deaths (June 3 2007 - June 7 2014): 1,393
Number of autism diagnoses scientifically linked to vaccinations (June 3 2007 - June 7 2014): 0
As strange as it may seem, Mrs and I totally agree with rr on this. We are both very vocal opponents of anti-vax agitprop.

Desmond
08-07-2014, 08:57 PM
jxDEBOi0F3o

Rincewind
08-07-2014, 09:54 PM
I'm not seeing the danger. Is it that you will make corny videos which are uploaded to youtube and that you eventually regret to the core of your soul?

Desmond
08-07-2014, 10:10 PM
I'm not seeing the danger. Is it that you will make corny videos which are uploaded to youtube and that you eventually regret to the core of your soul?
That and a cricked neck.

Rincewind
09-07-2014, 01:15 AM
That and a cricked neck.

Looks like the Helmet of Salvation was on a little too tight.

antichrist
22-08-2014, 06:07 PM
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/regions/08/21/14/man-dies-after-teeth-pulled-faith-healer
Home › Regions ›
Man dies after teeth pulled by faith healer

ABS-CBNnews.com
Posted at 08/21/2014 6:21 PM | Updated as of 08/21/2014 11:15 PM
MANILA (UPDATED) - A man died after he went to a faith healer to have his teeth extracted, police said Thursday.

The victim was identified as Jerry Aguirre, 28, a resident of Manapla, Negros Occidental.

His sister, Joane dela Cruz, said Aguirre went out to have his teeth pulled.

She thought her brother went to a doctor but it turned out that sought a faith healer's help.

Dela Cruz said her brother was weak when he arrived home.

He went to sleep, and they found him dead on his bed the following day.

Based on his death certificate, signed by Dr. Eriberto Jayme, Municipal Health Officer, Aguirre died of septic embolism, secondary to dental foci, which was caused by bacterial infection.

Authorities said the faith healer involved in the incident may face charges of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.

Meanwhile, the faith healer admitted that it was his first time to actually extract a tooth from a person, as he usually only performs rituals and prayers on his patients.

He has asked forgiveness from the victim's family, but they have decided to file charges against him. -- report from Romeo Subaldo, ABS-CBN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hope this fits the threads intention
I have hada friend also go to a faith healer over there for tooth problems, and was later night screaming out in pain after visiting such. So I gave her a few bucks to go to proper dentist.

antichrist
22-08-2014, 06:13 PM
https://www.facebook.com/thepeoplesvoicetv/photos/a.219297491551033.1073741826.219195584894557/359209897559791/?type=1&theater

Capablanca-Fan
16-09-2014, 11:30 AM
Pew survey: evangelical Christians least likely to believe superstitious nonsense (http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/pew-survey-evangelical-christians-least-likely-to-believe-superstitious-nonsense/)

Notice the numbers for Republicans vs Democrats, conservatives vs. liberals, and church-attending vs non church-attending. The least superstitious people are conservative evangelical Republicans, while the most superstitious people are Democrat liberals who don’t attend church. (Wintery Knight)

The WSJ article Look Who's Irrational Now (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122178219865054585) comments:


"The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did.
Even among Christians, there were disparities. While 36% of those belonging to the United Church of Christ, Sen. Barack Obama’s former denomination, expressed strong beliefs in the paranormal, only 14% of those belonging to the Assemblies of God, Sarah Palin’s former denomination, did. In fact, the more traditional and evangelical the respondent, the less likely he was to believe in, for instance, the possibility of communicating with people who are dead."

pax
16-09-2014, 01:49 PM
Pew survey: evangelical Christians least likely to believe superstitious nonsense (http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/pew-survey-evangelical-christians-least-likely-to-believe-superstitious-nonsense/)

Notice the numbers for Republicans vs Democrats, conservatives vs. liberals, and church-attending vs non church-attending. The least superstitious people are conservative evangelical Republicans, while the most superstitious people are Democrat liberals who don’t attend church. (Wintery Knight)

The WSJ article Look Who's Irrational Now (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122178219865054585) comments:


"The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did.
Even among Christians, there were disparities. While 36% of those belonging to the United Church of Christ, Sen. Barack Obama’s former denomination, expressed strong beliefs in the paranormal, only 14% of those belonging to the Assemblies of God, Sarah Palin’s former denomination, did. In fact, the more traditional and evangelical the respondent, the less likely he was to believe in, for instance, the possibility of communicating with people who are dead."


In other breaking news, only 2% of evangelical Christians were reported to be practicing Muslims...

Rincewind
16-09-2014, 03:12 PM
Hilarious. Believers in the invisible sky god are those least likely to believe in "the occult", many because their imaginary friend in the sky told them so.

Well if the researchers define "superstitious nonsense" to exclude "their superstitious nonsense" what can you expect?

Kevin Bonham
16-09-2014, 05:51 PM
So what proportion of all believers do attend church more than once a week?

My main (and it's a major) complaint with the WSJ article is that it does not compare like with like. For instance a comparison between those who worship more than once a week and those who never worship most likely pits those very familiar with a certain doctrine (the first case) against a group defined not by its involvement level in atheism but by its lack of involvement in organised religion. So a better comparison might be to compare those who attend church very often with those who are actively atheist (as defined, say, by membership of an atheist society or atheistic participation in public debate.) However because of the scarcity of atheists in the USA a proper study of this would not have been possible with that survey's sample size.

I also note that What Americans Really Believe is based on a total sample of only 1648. Drawing conclusions from relatively small subsamples of such a sample size is generally risky.

The summary here: http://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=52815 does not speak well for the USA. Americans are much too prone to believe in ludicrous nonsense including the existence of Hell.

Desmond
16-09-2014, 06:17 PM
Religious Websites More Likely to Give You a Virus Than Pornographic Pages (http://www.christianpost.com/news/religious-websites-more-likely-to-give-you-a-virus-than-pornographic-pages-74307/)

Religious websites might now actually be more of a threat to believers than pornographic pages.

Well, at least for their computers.

Internet surfers viewing websites with religious content are more likely to receive a virus from a religious page than they would from looking at a site with pornographic material, according to a recent study by U.S.-based anti-virus vendor Symantec.

The company reported that hackers perform "drive-by attacks" on religious websites where they booby-trap them with malicious code.

These faith-based sites were found to have triple the average number of "threats" than those with pornographic content, according to Symantec's data.

...

antichrist
16-09-2014, 07:04 PM
A guy I know is up for child porno his case was today but delayed. He never complained re virus, but he does believe in conspiracies and is anti-Semitic. The crazy thing was he had a beautiful wife. So she left him when he was paying money for his illegal pleasures

antichrist
22-09-2014, 05:27 PM
VERSE OF THE DAY: “You must kill them all - every man, woman, and child - except the young virgin girls. Keep the virgins for yourselves.” - Numbers 31:15-41 No, no - of course... It wasn't religion that called for the killing of all …

Desmond
23-09-2014, 07:20 PM
VERSE OF THE DAY: “You must kill them all - every man, woman, and child - except the young virgin girls. Keep the virgins for yourselves.” - Numbers 31:15-41 No, no - of course... It wasn't religion that called for the killing of all …Isn't a young girl a child, or are there some specific age demarcations?

antichrist
30-09-2014, 06:19 PM
Isn't a young girl a child, or are there some specific age demarcations?

Maybe a young virgin girl refers to when they begin menstruation thereby having the choice or capability of full sexual activity. Prior to menstruation could be a child. We all know too well my grandmothers case when married between 12-14 but wasn't touched for years. In some countries the age of consent has been ridiculously low.

antichrist
20-12-2014, 02:54 AM
'She was saying stuff about God and other stuff,' she told AAP near the crime scene on Friday afternoon.

'She said: Papa God gave me the power to do anything'.'

- See more at: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2014/12/19/eight-children-dead-after-cairns-stabbing.html?cid=BP_RSS_sn-topstories_3_eight-children-dead-after-cairns-stabbing_191214#sthash.oru0fbdF.dpuf

The poor children and relatives. An inquiry should be into the God delusion as well.

What is that saying about that people who believe in absurdities commit atrocities?

Adamski
22-12-2014, 11:36 PM
Mad people can have all sorts of beliefs. Monis is another example.

Then fact that a mad person has certain beliefs does not of itself say anything about the rationality or truth of those beliefs.

MichaelBaron
25-12-2014, 12:13 AM
'She was saying stuff about God and other stuff,' she told AAP near the crime scene on Friday afternoon.

'She said: Papa God gave me the power to do anything'.'

- See more at: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2014/12/19/eight-children-dead-after-cairns-stabbing.html?cid=BP_RSS_sn-topstories_3_eight-children-dead-after-cairns-stabbing_191214#sthash.oru0fbdF.dpuf

The poor children and relatives. An inquiry should be into the God delusion as well.

What is that saying about that people who believe in absurdities commit atrocities?

She is simply crazy!

Capablanca-Fan
06-03-2015, 12:59 AM
Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts
(http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinionator/2015/03/02/why-our-children-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/)
By JUSTIN P. MCBRAYER, associate professor of philosophy at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colo. He works in ethics and philosophy of religion.
New York Times 2 MARCH 2015

What would you say if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests? Would you be surprised?

I was. As a philosopher, I already knew that many college-aged students don’t believe in moral facts. While there are no national surveys quantifying this phenomenon, philosophy professors with whom I have spoken suggest that the overwhelming majority of college freshmen in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture.

What I didn’t know was where this attitude came from. Given the presence of moral relativism in some academic circles (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/372-moral-relativism-and-the-crisis-of-contemporary-education), some people might naturally assume that philosophers themselves are to blame. But they aren’t. There are historical examples of philosophers who endorse a kind of moral relativism, dating back at least to Protagoras who declared that “man is the measure of all things,” and several who deny that there are any moral facts whatsoever. But such creatures are rare. Besides, if students are already showing up to college with this view of morality, it’s very unlikely that it’s the result of what professional philosophers are teaching. So where is the view coming from?

A few weeks ago, I learned that students are exposed to this sort of thinking well before crossing the threshold of higher education. When I went to visit my son’s second grade open house, I found a troubling pair of signs hanging over the bulletin board. They read:


Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.

Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes.

So what’s wrong with this distinction and how does it undermine the view that there are objective moral facts?

But second, and worse, students are taught that claims are either facts or opinions. They are given quizzes in which they must sort claims into one camp or the other but not both. But if a fact is something that is true and an opinion is something that is believed, then many claims will obviously be both. For example, I asked my son about this distinction after his open house. He confidently explained that facts were things that were true whereas opinions are things that are believed. We then had this conversation:

Me: “I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?”

Him: “It’s a fact.”

Me: “But I believe it, and you said that what someone believes is an opinion.”

Him: “Yeah, but it’s true.”

Me: “So it’s both a fact and an opinion?”

The blank stare on his face said it all.

Kevin Bonham
06-03-2015, 09:51 AM
Article is mostly rubbish. It's true that a fact can also be an opinion but that doesn't mean that an opinion on moral issues can also be a fact. Philosophy has been bashing its head against trying to establish "moral facts" since Hume or before and it's grossly disingenuous (to put it kindly) for an associate prof to be implying that sceptical or relativist moral philosophers are "rare".

If the rise of awareness that there are no moral facts has really led to an increase in cheating then that is not an argument against that fact, but simply a consequence of awareness of it, or perhaps more accurately mismanagement of that awareness. I am deeply sceptical that that is the real cause. Indeed if he read the Boston Globe article he linked to more carefully he'd see that it argues that cheating rates are stable.

Having lived the philosophy this moralist fossil complains about for decades, I have no problem being outraged by things like the Hebdo killings; just because an Islamist terrorist might disagree with my subjective disgust at his actions doesn't make me feel any less disgusted about them.

There is however one valid issue. In the list of statements from the fact v opinion workshop, this one sticks out like a sore thumb:


Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat.

Unlike the others, which are all moral opinions, this one is an opinion that is also a putative claim of fact. Depending on the definition of "healthier" employed, it is a testable proposition that is either (on average) true or false. It is an inappropriate example for such a worksheet.

Incidentally the ereading site he points to is an extreme embarrassment whatever its background. It argues that a false factual claim is still a fact. This is rubbish; a claim like "there are 10,000 feet in a mile" is a claim of fact that is false; a fact is a claim of fact that is true.

Patrick Byrom
06-03-2015, 02:38 PM
Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts
(http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinionator/2015/03/02/why-our-children-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/)
By JUSTIN P. MCBRAYER, associate professor of philosophy at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colo. He works in ethics and philosophy of religion.
New York Times 2 MARCH 2015


But second, and worse, students are taught that claims are either facts or opinions. They are given quizzes in which they must sort claims into one camp or the other but not both. But if a fact is something that is true and an opinion is something that is believed, then many claims will obviously be both. For example, I asked my son about this distinction after his open house. He confidently explained that facts were things that were true whereas opinions are things that are believed. We then had this conversation:
Me: “I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?”
Him: “It’s a fact.”
Me: “But I believe it, and you said that what someone believes is an opinion.”
Him: “Yeah, but it’s true.”
Me: “So it’s both a fact and an opinion?”

The blank stare on his face said it all.

I'm not surprised that his son had a blank stare, as the initial statement: “I believe that George Washington was the first president" is not an opinion at all but a factual claim about a belief, which would be a fact if it was true - which it presumably is. On the other hand, “George Washington was the first president" is a true factual claim.

I wouldn't describe a belief that George Washington was the first president as an opinion - "belief" is a better word. But I can see why the school might be doing this. To say that someone's belief that the Earth is 6000 years old (for example) is just wrong could upset parents; it is much safer to describe it as an opinion, which is then neither right nor wrong.

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2015, 12:47 PM
What scares the new atheists (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/what-scares-the-new-atheists)
The vocal fervour of today’s missionary atheism conceals a panic that religion is not only refusing to decline – but in fact flourishing
Philosopher John Gray (himself an atheist), Guardian, 3 March 2015


It’s probably just as well that the current generation of atheists seems to know so little of the longer history of atheist movements. When they assert that science can bridge fact and value, they overlook the many incompatible value-systems that have been defended in this way. There is no more reason to think science can determine human values today than there was at the time of Haeckel or Huxley. None of the divergent values that atheists have from time to time promoted has any essential connection with atheism, or with science. How could any increase in scientific knowledge validate values such as human equality and personal autonomy? The source of these values is not science. In fact, as the most widely-read atheist thinker of all time argued, these quintessential liberal values have their origins in monotheism.…

The trouble is that it’s hard to make any sense of the idea of a universal morality without invoking an understanding of what it is to be human that has been borrowed from theism. The belief that the human species is a moral agent struggling to realise its inherent possibilities – the narrative of redemption that sustains secular humanists everywhere – is a hollowed-out version of a theistic myth.

antichrist
15-03-2015, 01:34 PM
What scares the new atheists (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/what-scares-the-new-atheists)
The vocal fervour of today’s missionary atheism conceals a panic that religion is not only refusing to decline – but in fact flourishing
Philosopher John Gray (himself an atheist), Guardian, 3 March 2015


It’s probably just as well that the current generation of atheists seems to know so little of the longer history of atheist movements. When they assert that science can bridge fact and value, they overlook the many incompatible value-systems that have been defended in this way. There is no more reason to think science can determine human values today than there was at the time of Haeckel or Huxley. None of the divergent values that atheists have from time to time promoted has any essential connection with atheism, or with science. How could any increase in scientific knowledge validate values such as human equality and personal autonomy? The source of these values is not science. In fact, as the most widely-read atheist thinker of all time argued, these quintessential liberal values have their origins in monotheism.…

The trouble is that it’s hard to make any sense of the idea of a universal morality without invoking an understanding of what it is to be human that has been borrowed from theism. The belief that the human species is a moral agent struggling to realise its inherent possibilities – the narrative of redemption that sustains secular humanists everywhere – is a hollowed-out version of a theistic myth.


has this guy been in a cocoon for the past 50 years - we have even found the God spot

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2015, 01:36 PM
has this guy been in a cocoon for the past 50 years - we have even found the God spot

Not at all (http://creation.com/god-spot).

antichrist
15-03-2015, 01:43 PM
...........these quintessential liberal values have their origins in monotheism.…- Jono from above

AC: liberalism and any theism are a contradiction of terms. Back in early days of Rationalism bods were often afraid to speak what they thought so they had to include the extra unnecessary ingredient of God. But as Jean Meslier in his book Superstition Through in all Ages states, it was all bulldust. This was written in darken times to be released after his death. Even Adam thought religion was rubbish, that's why he ate the apple



http://www.bookworld.com.au/books/superstition-in-all-ages-jean-meslier/p/9781483703442?gclid=CIex7-e6qcQCFUYIvAodxIIAvg
Synopsis

"This work of the honest pastor is the most curious and the most powerful thing of the kind which the last century produced. . . . . Paine and Voltaire had reserves, but Jean Meslier had none. He keeps nothing back; and yet, after all, the wonder is not that there should have been one priest who left that testimony at his death, but that all priests do not. True, there is a great deal more to be said about religion, which I believe to be an eternal necessity of human nature, but no man has uttered the negative side of the matter with so much candor and completeness as Jean Meslier." Jean Meslier was a French Catholic priest was to all appearances generally unremarkable, and he performed his office without complaint or problem for 40 years. He lived like a pauper, and every penny left over was donated to the poor. Upon his death it was discovered that he had written a book-length philosophical essay promoting atheism.

Kevin Bonham
15-03-2015, 05:46 PM
I actually agree with several parts of Gray's essay. He is completely right that atheism does not generate liberal values and that science doesn't either. What he is ignoring there is that atheism overcomes one of the reasons why people are illiberal (the belief that God is telling them to paternalistically interfere in the lives of others). That is no obstacle to atheists being illiberal for other reasons, primarily economic ones, but the failure of state communism should teach those with brains that you can only take that so far.

In similar vein, he's also missing one of the reasons why some atheists are so vociferous about Christianity: that beliefs that are patently absurd are used to justify illiberal morals politics and also interference in scientific education.

He's right about Nietzsche pinpointing liberalism as inherited from certain strands of Christianity (credit should really be given to Stirner who had much the same idea first) but overlooks the extent to which it seeks to reconcile Christianity's imperfect realisation of that project - again, Christianity's long-running problem with the liberalisation of sexual politics is the big issue here.

He's wrong in seeking to pinpoint support for liberalism as arising from belief in a "single moral code", and he certainly knows better since he coined the term "agonistic liberalism" for Isaiah Berlin's position, which was essentially a liberalism founded in value pluralism. That said, that most of the more strident popular atheists have probably never read Berlin and think they are on the path to a single rationalisation of good and bad is probably right.

Overall Gray's position is his usual pessimism about liberalism's prospects, but that's not surprising since he wants it dead because it is in the way of his preferred view that seems to be a kind of green communitarianism. To see greens and Christians united against atheistic liberalism is an experience that is quite familiar to me. :lol:

Desmond
21-03-2015, 02:27 PM
t-gxtwv7_a4&t=264

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2015, 05:35 AM
The Christian West: A Superior Culture (http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0315-scambray)
By Terry Scambray, New Oxford Book Reviews, March 2015
The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization. By Vishal Mangalwadi. Thomas Nelson.

Consider these points: The Arabs, with their streamlined “Arabic numbers,” copied from India, failed to develop double-entry bookkeeping, a credit and debit system “vital not just for entrepreneurs, but crucial for the wealth of a nation.” So too the Greeks had the world’s first democracy, and the Romans had a gilded republic, yet neither survived for long. China had gunpowder and more and better ships earlier than the Europeans. Amazingly, China also had a printing press hundreds of years before the West, and “by A.D. 972 had printed 130,000 pages of the sacred Buddhist writings, the Tripitaka.” For that matter, “Korean printers invented moveable metal fonts at least two centuries before Gutenberg invented them in 1450.” Why, then, didn’t printing have the momentous effect in China or Korea that it had in the West?

Mangalwadi writes, “Printing and books did not reform my continent because our religious philosophies undermined reason.” As other historians, philosophers, and anthropologists have noted, none of these cultures had a god like the God of the Bible, who is interested in human destiny. By contrast, the Greek and Roman gods were frivolous and capricious, and Buddhism offers awe and silence in the face of the unknowable. Neither picture of the cosmos affirms that men have inherent value. Christianity certifies this with the doctrine of the Incarnation, in which God’s Son deigned to become a man for the salvation of mankind.
The Judeo-Christian God is also a creator, a maker. This gave license for Western man, in imitation of his God, to make things. Mangalwadi quotes medieval historian Ernst Benz to the effect that “Christian beliefs provided the rationale, and faith the motive energy for Western technology.”

Science flourished in the fertile ground of Christendom because Christians saw that their rational God had made a universe of uniform laws on which men with their own rational minds — again in imitation of the mind of the super-intending God — could rely. Mangalwadi quotes Augustine, who wrote that we could not understand and believe in Christianity “unless we possessed rational souls.” Logic and reason are thought to be a contribution of the Greeks, but Mangalwadi argues that they forfeited that contribution because logic and reason in classical Greece descended into sophistry and from there into cynicism about its capacity to discover the truth. Thus, a proliferation of cults and mysticism followed the decline of Greece and continued into the rise of Rome.

For all the revealing history in The Book that Made Your World, language is its real subject. Mangalwadi’s view is that God spoke to mankind in the Bible, though the Bible’s impact was limited at first because it was written in Latin. Later, Bibles were translated into the vernacular. Leaders like King Henry VIII thought that “reading the Bible would make Englishmen docile and obedient.” It did the opposite. People began insisting that the Word of God was a higher authority than the Church or the crown. This change had an explosive effect in the West, leading to the development of constitutional republics modeled on the distribution of power in the Old Testament, when Moses ruled with the guidance of the elders who themselves were bound by the Ten Commandments.

Mangalwadi relies on respected science historian Edward Grant to support his contention that European medieval society, with its moorings in the Bible, was unique in its creation of a particular religious person, “the medieval schoolman,” who used logic as a primary tool to study divinity. No earlier culture had created such a rational person with the intellectual “capacity for establishing the foundations of the nation-state, parliaments, democracy, commerce, banking and higher education and various literary forms, such as novels and history.

Rincewind
23-03-2015, 12:03 PM
It is interesting how these religious authors try to rewrite history without training in history and without publishing their work in outlets that historians will see. Mangalwadi's book will no doubt resonate with protestant fundamentalists but re-writing history is not what is happening. It is simply preaching to the choir.

antichrist
24-03-2015, 07:05 PM
It is interesting how these religious authors try to rewrite history without training in history and without publishing their work in outlets that historians will see. Mangalwadi's book will no doubt resonate with protestant fundamentalists but re-writing history is not what is happening. It is simply preaching to the choir.

A friend of mine was studying medicine and also performing in the choir on weekends, and in the breaks between singing she was doing assignment sketches if the male's private parts - I don't think she heard much preaching

antichrist
11-04-2015, 11:56 PM
Recently a Jehovah Witness and her foetus died due to illness that could have been prevented with a blood transfusion - it has made people like Fred Nile want to make it illegal for such to happen to foetus

Capablanca-Fan
12-04-2015, 02:04 PM
Recently a Jehovah Witness and her foetus died due to illness that could have been prevented with a blood transfusion - it has made people like Fred Nile want to make it illegal for such to happen to foetus

Sensible man, as usual.

Capablanca-Fan
12-04-2015, 02:05 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d4FHHf00pY&feature=youtu.be

Kevin Bonham
12-04-2015, 02:36 PM
Recently a Jehovah Witness and her foetus died due to illness that could have been prevented with a blood transfusion - it has made people like Fred Nile want to make it illegal for such to happen to foetus

Which means that while the woman is not pregnant her body is hers, but if she becomes pregnant the State can apprehend her and perform surgery on her against her will and her beliefs because the unborn fetus comes first.

Of course if Nile succeeds in arguing that a woman should be forced to undergo blood transfusion to save the unborn fetus then it is easy for him to argue that a woman should be forced to stay away from abortion clinics for the same reason. He may as well then go on to arguing that pregnant women should be kept in solitary confinement in padded cells and fed a regulated diet.

While I find the views of the Jehovah's Witnesses absolutely ludicrous (ie on the same level as Nile's) I do not agree with the State operating on a woman against her will and religion in order to use her as a baby factory simply because she is pregnant. If the Jehovah's Witnesses are so keen on becoming extinct then let them.

It is very unfortunate that Nile and his comrades will hold the balance of power in NSW over the next four years, especially as their co-holders will be vetoing Baird's electricity sale plan, making Nile more powerful.

antichrist
14-04-2015, 09:07 AM
Which means that while the woman is not pregnant her body is hers, but if she becomes pregnant the State can apprehend her and perform surgery on her against her will and her beliefs because the unborn fetus comes first.

Of course if Nile succeeds in arguing that a woman should be forced to undergo blood transfusion to save the unborn fetus then it is easy for him to argue that a woman should be forced to stay away from abortion clinics for the same reason. He may as well then go on to arguing that pregnant women should be kept in solitary confinement in padded cells and fed a regulated diet.

While I find the views of the Jehovah's Witnesses absolutely ludicrous (ie on the same level as Nile's) I do not agree with the State operating on a woman against her will and religion in order to use her as a baby factory simply because she is pregnant. If the Jehovah's Witnesses are so keen on becoming extinct then let them................

The Jehovah Witnesses could say exactly the same about yourself re extinction if you are not against all killing in wars as they are - so in this manner their spiritual belief is a safety not a danger

Kevin Bonham
14-04-2015, 11:52 AM
The Jehovah Witnesses could say exactly the same about yourself re extinction if you are not against all killing in wars as they are - so in this manner their spiritual belief is a safety not a danger

They could say anything they like but it wouldn't necessarily follow. It is not clearcut that a refusal to ever engage in war under any circumstance would be in the interests of the species in the long-term.

antichrist
14-04-2015, 06:02 PM
They could say anything they like but it wouldn't necessarily follow. It is not clearcut that a refusal to ever engage in war under any circumstance would be in the interests of the species in the long-term.

If the tens of thousands of nuke warheads in store ever rained down on us the species could be severely shaken. As Uncle Albert Einstein stated: with the splitting of the atom everything has changed except our mode of thinking

Kevin Bonham
14-04-2015, 08:16 PM
If the tens of thousands of nuke warheads in store ever rained down on us the species could be severely shaken.

Indeed, and in some scenarios it may alas be necessary to go to war to prevent some maniac from being in a position to do just that. But that's too complex for the JWits or for you.

antichrist
14-04-2015, 09:12 PM
Indeed, and in some scenarios it may alas be necessary to go to war to prevent some maniac from being in a position to do just that. But that's too complex for the JWits or for you.

Especially if the suspect was Uncle Saddam, he would be a cert to have them - just ask Honest John, Hanging Tag George and Dick's Your Uncle, so you got sucked in by them did you?

As I told Bro Jammo - it was a very dangerous precedent for USA to use atoms when not one little yellow foot on their territory. Now other countries must obtain them as the USA was so maniac in throwing them about. What goes round comes round

Kevin Bonham
15-04-2015, 12:32 AM
Especially if the suspect was Uncle Saddam, he would be a cert to have them - just ask Honest John, Hanging Tag George and Dick's Your Uncle, so you got sucked in by them did you?

I don't recall anyone saying Saddam had nukes but in any case I didn't support that war.

antichrist
15-04-2015, 07:47 AM
I don't recall anyone saying Saddam had nukes but in any case I didn't support that war.

Whether you support it or not, it was on the basis of supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction and now about 13 years later we are still forking out billions of dollars for the quagmire we helped create. Plus set off spiralling contagious and violent episodes of dangers of belief in a spiritual being. We know only too well how the Jews have suffered from dangers of a spiritual belief yet they now have nuke weapons that indeed create a scenarios where it may alas be necessary to go to war to prevent some maniac Israeli president from using them. But that's too complex for the Jewish Ortho rednecks or for you.

antichrist
15-04-2015, 07:49 AM
Whether you support it or not, it was on the basis of supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction and now about 13 years later we are still forking out billions of dollars for the quagmire we helped create. Plus set off spiralling contagious and violent episodes of dangers of belief in a spiritual being. We know only too well how the Jews have suffered from dangers of a spiritual belief yet they now have nuke weapons that indeed create a scenarios where it may alas be necessary to go to war to prevent some maniac Israeli president from using them. But that's too complex for the Jewish Ortho rednecks or for you.

And btw, it was not sufficient for just not to support that war - responsible, intelligent people like yourself should have been out demonstrating at such murderous stupidity - like less intelligent folk like I was.

Kevin Bonham
15-04-2015, 11:17 AM
And btw, it was not sufficient for just not to support that war - responsible, intelligent people like yourself should have been out demonstrating at such murderous stupidity - like less intelligent folk like I was.

This is straying off topic but who said I was "responsible" in that sense? Can't even remember if I attended any rallies on that issue or not. In general I am not mad keen on rallies as they often contain riffraff such as Resistance who I do not care to mix with even when I partly agree with them.


We know only too well how the Jews have suffered from dangers of a spiritual belief yet they now have nuke weapons that indeed create a scenarios where it may alas be necessary to go to war to prevent some maniac Israeli president from using them.

In the unlikely case that this really is a problem then it is a bit late for that now - I was talking about pre-emptively discouraging a rogue country from acquiring a nuclear programme. Anyway you seem to be again trying to smuggle your Israel rants into multiple threads so any further discussion on that can be had on the I-P thread.

MichaelBaron
18-04-2015, 12:04 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d4FHHf00pY&feature=youtu.be

Nothing can make theological debate more enjoyable than cartoons :)

Desmond
18-04-2015, 12:37 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d4FHHf00pY&feature=youtu.be

Amusing but most of the arguments are horrible.

antichrist
21-05-2015, 05:46 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/world/africa/after-ebola-outbreak-liberian-churches-confront-crisis-of-faith.html

antichrist
25-09-2015, 11:09 AM
It is certainly a danger in Saudi where hundreds killed during the Hag whilst stoning the Devil, depicted in stone columns. When will they ever learn...

Desmond
04-03-2018, 08:24 AM
Yesterday arvo, a few hours hours before the mardi gras parade in Sydney, I saw a skywriter above the CBD with the words Jesus Saves. Pretty sad to use that message to spread a message of hate.

Rincewind
04-03-2018, 09:23 PM
Jesus Saves.

That's why the church has so much money.

Desmond
06-06-2018, 05:04 PM
Crocodile kills pastor during mass baptism in Ethiopian lake (https://www.smh.com.au/environment/sustainability/crocodile-kills-pastor-during-mass-baptism-in-ethiopian-lake-20180606-p4zjpk.html)

A Protestant pastor has been killed by a crocodile during a baptism ceremony in an Ethiopian lake, the BBC has reported. ...

"He baptised the first person and he passed on to another one," a resident of the nearby town of Arba Minch told the BBC's Amharic language service.

"All of a sudden, a crocodile jumped out of the lake and grabbed the pastor." ...

Ultimately, they only managed to save his body from the crocodile - dragging it from the lake with fishing nets as the crocodile disappeared into the water. ...

antichrist
09-07-2018, 01:47 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg

pass the loot amazing

Desmond
03-02-2019, 02:07 PM
Charges Filed In Hypothermia Death Of Boy Following Brutal Punishment For Failure To Learn Bible Verses (https://www.inquisitr.com/5277995/charges-filed-in-hypothermia-death-of-boy-following-brutal-punishment-for-failure-to-learn-bible-verses/)

A seven-year-old Wisconsin boy, Ethan Hauschultz, died last year after being forced to carry a 44-pound log for two hours in cold temperatures before being buried under snow for more than 20 minutes, Fox 11 News reports. He was allegedly struck around 100 times during the ordeal, which was a punishment for failure to learn 13 Bible verses. ...

According to the criminal complaint, [15-year-old] Damian Hauschultz was ordered [by his parents] to supervise a punishment that included carrying the log along a snowy pathway in the family’s yard. During that time, it is alleged that Damian repeatedly hit the boy, including with various objects. Ethan Hauschultz was also subjected to having the log rolled across his chest and being stood on before ultimately being buried in a snowbank without a boots or a coat. ...

In addition to hypothermia, the technical cause of death, Ethan suffered injuries including blunt force trauma to the head, chest, and abdomen, plus a rib fracture, according to the medical examiner.

In an interview with police, Damian Hauschultz said he “didn’t do anything that would have hurt” the boy, but also described the variety of physical punishments in the criminal complaint, including covering him in “his own little coffin of snow.”

The punishment was intended to include one week of daily log carrying for two hours per day. Timothy Hauschultz dictated the punishment and picked out the logs for the twin boys and Damian was instructed to supervise the punishment. ...

Adamski
06-02-2019, 03:51 PM
Some horrendous stories here, but they are isolated incidents and do not reflect standard Christian beliefs.

MichaelBaron
10-02-2019, 02:28 PM
Some horrendous stories here, but they are isolated incidents and do not reflect standard Christian beliefs.

One challenge today is to be able to identify what a ''standard'' Christian/Muslim/Hindu etc belief is. Within every religion there are many interpretations and movements.

E.g. Who is more ''standard'' - Greek Ortodox or Catholic?

Desmond
20-07-2019, 07:18 PM
Pastor accused of sexually assaulting parishioners said he was ‘sucking’ demons out of them (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pastor-sucking-demons-sex-assault-william-weaver-new-jersey-church-a9011761.html)

A pastor accused of sexually assaulting three male parishioners told them he needed to “suck” the demons out of their bodies, according to court documents.

Rev Dr William Weaver, a Presbyterian minister working in Linden, New Jersey, is said to have performed sex acts on the men under the guise of exorcising evil spirits.

The 69-year-old ordered his victims to place “angel coins” on their head and balance stones on their hands before he got to work extracting demons through their semen, it is said. ...

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2019, 11:45 PM
One challenge today is to be able to identify what a ''standard'' Christian/Muslim/Hindu etc belief is. Within every religion there are many interpretations and movements.

E.g. Who is more ''standard'' - Greek Ortodox or Catholic?

For what Adamski is talking about, this is not an issue: neither Orthodox, Catholic, nor Protestant beliefs teach these things; rather, they are opposed.

Desmond
04-09-2019, 12:50 PM
American With No Medical Training Ran Center For Malnourished Ugandan Kids. 105 Died (https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/09/749005287/american-with-no-medical-training-ran-center-for-malnourished-ugandan-kids-105-d)

... Except Bach was not a doctor. She was a 20-year-old high school graduate with no medical training. And not only was her center not a hospital — at the time it didn't employ a single doctor. ...

In an interview with NPR, Bach says it felt like a calling from God.

"It was a very, very profound feeling and experience. It's kind of hard to even describe in words," she says. "Like there was something that I was supposed to do."

At first Bach wasn't sure what that was, beyond a sense that it should address some need that wasn't already being met by existing charities.

Funded by money raised through church circles back home, Bach rented a large house in one of Jinja's poorer districts, called Masese, and began testing out options, including starting a program to serve a free hot meal to neighborhood children. Twice a week about 1,000 of them would line up by Bach's house to receive a bowl of food. Bach named her charity "Serving His Children."

According to Bach, word of her feeding program spread through Jinja. In the fall of 2009, she says, she got a call from a staffer at the local children's hospital asking if she could help out with several severely malnourished children.

Bach says the staffer told her that from a medical standpoint, these kids had been stabilized. They just needed to be fed back to health. Could Bach take them in?

Bach says seeing a child in this state — impossibly thin arms, ribs poking out, sunken eyes — "was almost an out-of-body experience. And a sense of, 'Oh my goodness, this isn't right. This needs to stop.' "

She says she agreed to help the children. And before long she came to feel that this was God's plan for her: turn the house into a center where malnourished children and their mothers could live while the youngsters recuperated — complete with free rations of the special foods they would need, the medicines doctors had prescribed and lessons for the mothers on nutrition ... and the Bible. ...

antichrist
04-09-2019, 11:23 PM
I have a similar tale about unqualified teachers (Catholic nuns) failing to teach me decent English language. I recently seen the local public school's English course and was pleasantly amazed. Of course it only sixty years different era.

Desmond
12-10-2019, 04:53 PM
POLITICIAN WANTS CATHOLIC CHURCHES TO POST SIGNS WARNING CHILDREN OF DANGER (https://www.newsweek.com/politician-catholic-church-abuse-warning-signs-1464619)
Newsweek, 11 Oct 2019

Melbourne City Council member Nic Frances Gilley has introduced a proposal to require Catholic churches to comply with the province of Victoria's new mandatory abuse reporting laws or have signs posted outside warning parents that the houses of worship might pose a danger to children.

The Age reports that Gilley is requesting the state "write to all churches and places of worship requesting assurances that all staff and associates will abide by the law of mandatory reporting," and if they do not provide those assurances the state should erect appropriate signage.

In September, Victoria passed the Children Legislation Amendment Act 2019, which added religious leaders to the list of individuals who are legally mandated to report child abuse to the authorities when they learn about it. That list already included police, teachers, nurses, midwives and other occupations. ...

Gilley said it was the government's responsibility to "clearly advise people of the risks of using such institutions." ...

Mother of two sexual assault victims Chrissie Foster had stern words for church leadership, telling The Age, "Archbishop Comensoli says quite proudly that he'd rather go to jail than break the seal of confession. He's chosen to protect paedophiles instead of children. That's business as usual for the church." ...

antichrist
12-10-2019, 05:01 PM
POLITICIAN WANTS CATHOLIC CHURCHES TO POST SIGNS WARNING CHILDREN OF DANGER (https://www.newsweek.com/politician-catholic-church-abuse-warning-signs-1464619)
Newsweek, 11 Oct 2019

Melbourne City Council member Nic Frances Gilley has introduced a proposal to require Catholic churches to comply with the province of Victoria's new mandatory abuse reporting laws or have signs posted outside warning parents that the houses of worship might pose a danger to children.

The Age reports that Gilley is requesting the state "write to all churches and places of worship requesting assurances that all staff and associates will abide by the law of mandatory reporting," and if they do not provide those assurances the state should erect appropriate signage.

In September, Victoria passed the Children Legislation Amendment Act 2019, which added religious leaders to the list of individuals who are legally mandated to report child abuse to the authorities when they learn about it. That list already included police, teachers, nurses, midwives and other occupations. ...

Gilley said it was the government's responsibility to "clearly advise people of the risks of using such institutions." ...

Mother of two sexual assault victims Chrissie Foster had stern words for church leadership, telling The Age, "Archbishop Comensoli says quite proudly that he'd rather go to jail than break the seal of confession. He's chosen to protect paedophiles instead of children. That's business as usual for the church." ...

Considering that registered clubs must have signs warning about poker machines and offering help it is only fair that churches are also required to do so.

Desmond
09-11-2019, 08:53 AM
Paralyzed in a car crash, then nearly killed by lightning, he counts himself lucky (https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-ne-lightning-strike-survivor-twice-unlucky-or-twice-lucky-20191107-ljgew2rasvdwroizji7ieiyce4-story.html)

...The 28-year-old Pompano Beach motivational speaker suffered crippling injuries in a 2008 car accident that left him paralyzed from the waist down. And in August this year he was nearly killed in a lightning strike. ...

Williams was sitting in his wheelchair under a mango tree, reading the Bible on his iPhone, when he was struck by lightning. The bolt of electricity lit his wheelchair on fire, burned his skin, and knocked him unconscious. ...

“It can’t be a coincidence,” said Williams’ mother, Donna Pappas, of her son’s peculiar luck. “Twice in our lives we’ve had doctors tell us ‘It’s not looking good.’"

“I know that he’s blessed,” Pappas said, putting an arm on her son. ...

Ian Murray
10-11-2019, 07:13 PM
...

...The 28-year-old Pompano Beach motivational speaker suffered crippling injuries in a 2008 car accident that left him paralyzed from the waist down. And in August this year he was nearly killed in a lightning strike. ...

Three strikes and you're out

antichrist
10-11-2019, 08:17 PM
Three strikes and you're out

My phone on the desk immediately near me got struck. I saw it coming from a distance from miles away. Amongst the most terrifying experience ever. I let out the biggest loudest swear word and aged ten years. I thought I was dead.

antichrist
12-11-2019, 01:20 AM
Nine members of the Mormons living on USA -Mexican border killed by drug cartel. The unfortunate Mormons only knew of and possessed 18 century muskets.

ER
12-11-2019, 03:30 AM
My phone on the desk immediately near me got struck. I saw it coming from a distance from miles away. Amongst the most terrifying experience ever. I let out the biggest loudest swear word and aged ten years. I thought I was dead.

talking about warnings... the Almighty has varying symbolic ways to communicate His messages, well after all in the olden times players used to announce (warn) their opponents of the inevitable! (mate in (1, 2, 3 … n) moves!

antichrist
12-11-2019, 05:12 AM
talking about warnings... the Almighty has varying symbolic ways to communicate His messages, well after all in the olden times players used to announce (warn) their opponents of the inevitable! (mate in (1, 2, 3 … n) moves!

The lightning came down from the sky at about Brunswick Heads then travelled horizontally to land and was about 30 metres deep. Straight at me and real fast like 2 seconds from Brunswick Heads. Then you know it's over and you scream. Then you learn to turn appliances off when lightning is around.

Desmond
08-07-2020, 12:27 PM
Non-believers less likely to die from Covid-19, research finds (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/atheists-less-likely-to-die-from-covid-19-than-believers-research-finds-x869p0mw8)
thetimes.co.uk

People without religious faith are less likely to die from Covid-19 than believers, according to the first analysis of its kind from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). ...

MichaelBaron
08-07-2020, 12:33 PM
Non-believers less likely to die from Covid-19, research finds (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/atheists-less-likely-to-die-from-covid-19-than-believers-research-finds-x869p0mw8)
thetimes.co.uk

People without religious faith are less likely to die from Covid-19 than believers, according to the first analysis of its kind from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). ...

Can we take such studies seriously?

ER
08-07-2020, 02:09 PM
The lightning came down from the sky at about Brunswick Heads then travelled horizontally to land and was about 30 metres deep. Straight at me and real fast like 2 seconds from Brunswick Heads. Then you know it's over and you scream. Then you learn to turn appliances off when lightning is around.

I'd pay mega bucks to have witnessed that! :D :P What an effective (yet lenient) warning by the Almighty!

Desmond
21-04-2021, 03:02 PM
The Satanic Temple Sues Texas Over Abortion Regulations It Argues Infringe On Members' Religious Beliefs (https://www.kut.org/politics/2021-02-19/the-satanic-temple-sues-texas-over-abortion-regulations-it-argues-infringe-on-members-religious-beliefs)

An anonymous member of The Satanic Temple, which is a self-described national atheistic religious group based in Massachusetts, recently sued Texas health officials in federal court.

The plaintiff, who according to the lawsuit lives “at least 100 miles from the nearest abortion clinic” in Houston, is challenging the state’s mandatory sonogram requirement for an abortion, as well as the mandatory 24-hour waiting period following the sonogram. ...

Greaves said the state’s laws also run afoul of two of The Satanic Temple’s seven tenets, which include that “one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone,” and “beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world [and] one should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.” ...