 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.4760733a922777eb2067189c0@news.povray.org>,
nam### [at] gmail com says...
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1072
638.ece
>
> So, prayers were comissioned to pray for people they did not know and pat
ients
> were not told they were being prayed for and participating in a study by
a
> bunch of skeptics in a campaign to ridicule religion?
>
"This $2.4 million study, funded in large part by the John Templeton
Foundation, which seeks "insights at the boundary between theology and
science", was intended to cast some clear light on the matter."
The Templeton Foundation is a religious institution whose **goal** is to
try to prove that this BS you keep yammering about is real, has a
positive effect, etc. The reason this study is so damn funny to some of
us, as unfortunate as the deaths where, which where not funny, is that a
**Christian** group funded research to prove the usefulness of prayer,
and found that people died more often when prayer *for* than those left
alone.
Numerous other studies have also been done, **all** of them *also*
funded by groups like Templeton, and all of them either distort the data
to make it "look" like some benefit happened, or show no effect at all.
And, the truly stupid thing about it all is, those studies where they
intentionally distorted the data to make it look like some effect
happened only showed like a 1-2% difference. If prayers worked, then one
would expect an effect that *exceeded* what one would expect from
feeding people sugar pills. It didn't, but it was called, "miraculous
proof!".
Oh, and just to be clear, where the $#@$#@$ do you see anything
suggesting that they paid any of the participants who prayed? It
certainly says nothing of the sort. I am sure, given the number of
people that believe this stuff, that you would have had to build
barricades to "prevent" volunteers from showing up to help. And, I am
reasonably sure that some place, where I saw a more detailed report on
this study, they clearly said that all of the people doing the praying
where in fact unpaid volunteers.
Spin it all you like. It not only doesn't imply that prayer works as you
think it does, it implies a god that gets pissed off at people praying
for the impossible, and kills the dying people faster, as punishment for
it. Or, its just a statistical fluke. Either way, if god just didn't
listen to "bought prayers" as you put it, the result should have been
"no" result, not "more deaths among those who knew people prayed for
them."
Other believers, and Templeton, haven't had any more luck spinning it in
favor of belief than you do, and they don't start out denying that it
was religious people running and paying for the study.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.475fc59d922777eb5e2636760@news.povray.org>,
nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> > nemesis wrote:
> > > Maybe God has other plans for these people.
> >
> > Burning forever in eternal unbaptized unsaved torment, last I heard.
>
> baptism on Jesus time, and by evangelicals understanding, is to be taken
at a
> later age, when people are conscious of what it means.
>
Heh, here is a good one for you, what changed between say years 0-maybe
50 AD when people where *required* to be baptized in the nude, and like
51+ AD, when all of the sudden just being *seen* nude was a horrible
sin? Or, more silly, the days of the Victorian era, where so much as
showing an ankle as cause for cries of "slut!", and you couldn't swim in
a lake without being dresses almost as insanely as many Arab women are
required to be, never mind be baptised?
Surely, Jesus wouldn't have made the mistake of allowing people to be
baptized in the nude, if nudity was wrong, yet, some people, like
Texans, are so scared of it that they will pass laws, based on their
religion, to *prevent* the existence of nudist organizations, never mind
anything else, based on it being sinful.
Just wondering. Because, last I checked, Jesus didn't show up in the
last 2000 years since he supposedly died to tell people that 90% of the
crap we consider sins, dangerous and unacceptable, according to some
imaginary and undefendable reading of the Bible, where also all wrong.
Why are we not calling James the whatever number he was, the new
"messiah", because he rewrote the Bible to correct all the inadequacies
in language and understanding that got "fixed" so well by him that its
the #1 version in publication today? And if its wrong, which given James
rewrote much of it to allow him to indulge his own sins, which one of
them is right, and why would your god let that one become the most well
known and important one?
I doubt you can explain that any more than anything else, other than to
just babble about how its right, because its what you think is right.
Which, as we have pointed out, is hubris, no matter how you try to claim
otherwise.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <MPG.21ca598cd9331fe698a0ba@news.povray.org>,
sel### [at] rraznet says...
> In article <47600c7d$1@news.povray.org>, nos### [at] nospamcom says...
> > On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 06:16:53 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> >
> > > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > >> nemesis wrote:
> > >> > God is not hiding under X or Y, it's everywhere for people with ey
es
> > >> > to see and ears to hear.
> > >>
> > >> And if you disagree, you're stupid, ignorant, and about to be punish
ed
> > >
> > > actually, you're just blind. :)
> >
> > See, there's that hubris of which Darren referred....
> >
> Not to mention he contradicts himself. It is not ***possible*** for us
> to be blind to a thing, if it can't be seen in the first place. You
> don't get to have it both ways. God cannot be some intangible thing that
> only existing outside the universe, and apparently in the heads of
> people who think this argument makes any sense, and then insist that all
> the people that don't believe it just can't see, or hear, or recognize
> the truth, all words that imply he **must** be tangible to at least some
> sort of sense.
>
> Hubris doesn't even begin to describe how unbelievably ridiculous this
> is, though, since he is also trying to claim that only pharisee and
> bigots claim to be the ultimate authorities on what God is, yet is doing
> it himself with us.. One should add Hypocracy to the claim, since he not
> only thinks he knows better than we do about it all, he can't grasp the
> fact that claiming such makes him the same as the people he previously
> agreed where dangerous, delusional and unChristian, for making the same
> exact claims.
>
Actually, slightly misread his claim, so the first part of this is
irrelevant. Though, his claim is still absurd, in that he claims to know
that we *are* blind, and he *can* see, based solely on his belief that
this is so, and not on anything else.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>> Tell me how, in any way shape or form, a 2 year old getting cancer and
>> dying painfully fits into any plan to make the rest of the world a
>> better place.
>
> A painful departure always creates a change of heart to those who stay. It may
> also happen to those truly faithful, in which case I see it as provation.
>
>> Can God stop it if he wanted to?
>
> yes, He's God Almighty.
OK, so that answers the question. God is capable of stopping evil, but
chooses not to.
>> Why doesn't he?
>
> Maybe he wants to interfere as little in actions resulted from free will as
> possible. Who am I to answer?
Sooo..... You believe that the 2 year old child is dying of cancer
because he *wants* to?
>> Why should I worship some one/thing that wouldn't stop these things from
>> happening?
>
> Because regardless of evil I have respect for the being that created all.
>
>> Show me an actual miracle.
>
> A miracle is born everyday. Are you expecting something extraordinaire and of a
> big scale?
"""
A miracle, derived from the old Latin word miraculum meaning "something
wonderful", is a striking interposition of divine intervention by a god
in the universe by which the ordinary course and operation of Nature is
overruled, suspended, or modified.
"""
So, every birth is outside the ordinary course of Nature?
Yeah, when someone says they witnessed a miracle, I kind of expect
something extraordinaire. Sort of part-and-parcel of the definition of
the word. Not too many mundane boring miracles happening. Ho hum.
Another person rises from the dead. Getting crowded here.
> is this good enough?:
> http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap061024.html
What's miraculous about that? Wonderful, yes. Amazing, yes. Outside
the realm of ordinary operation of the universe where the operation of
nature is overruled, suspended, or modified? Doesn't look that way to me.
> thing of how many souls will die and suffer in the collision! Of course, it may
> be that such events are so slow that the intelligent beings there already
> fled...
Bwa ha ha ha. OK. You didn't actually even read the caption, let
alone understand the science behind it?
>> They were so common in the OT days, and Jesus
>> performed them on street corners.
>
> Those were the days of the covenant and God was more actively influencing the
> world. Please, respect Jesus by not comparing him to some sort of David
> Blaine.
>
>> Why, all these years later, are we
>> asked to take it on faith that one book tells the truth and other books
>> tell lies?
>
> Because it is the Word of God. Can it be all just a bunch of poems, folk tales,
> outright lies and hopes from schizoids or downright liars? Yes. How can I be
> sure it is true? I can't.
Yet you're willing to condemn people to burn in hell for an eternity for
believing something different than you. Cool.
>> And my reason for not believing in the healing power of prayer is that,
>> simply, it never worked from where I saw it. I haven't seen cancer
>> disappear from prayer alone. I never saw limbs grow back, scars
>> disappear, or painful injuries simple go away.
>
> Man is not a reptile to have his limbs grown back. Praying that much won't
> change God's laws ruling over physical matters, unless you're Jesus or another
> anointed one.
OK, so prayer doesn't work after all. OK.
>> while I disagree with your belief and simply don't agree with it, the
>> few quirky statements offering to pray for the 'non-believers' shows
>> that you don't really respect those who don't share your belief.
>
> sorry about the offer for pray. It clearly generated more evil than good.
> fucked up world...
Only in some places.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Just wondering.
I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with nudity, considering being
embarrassed of being nude is what got Adam and Eve ratted out in the
first place.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
For no particular reason, I ran across this and just had to laugh, too.
http://www.evilmilk.com/pictures/Abstinence.jpg
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:476031bb@news.povray.org...
> Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> Who has the right to define what is evil?
>
> Those who have eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
>
Wrong. They have knowledge of good and evil. The Creator of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil is the one who defines good and evil.
> And this is not evil? To drag off two thirds of the human population and
> burn them forever? Damn, I must have missed my bit of original sin.
>
Would you let someone live in your house that you know has bad intentions
toward you?
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nekar Xenos wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:476031bb@news.povray.org...
>> Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>> Who has the right to define what is evil?
>> Those who have eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
>>
> Wrong. They have knowledge of good and evil. The Creator of the tree of
> knowledge of good and evil is the one who defines good and evil.
So, when God told Moses to commit genocide, killing everyone in an
entire city except the virgin girls, which he should rape, that was by
definition good?
Funny, that.
>> And this is not evil? To drag off two thirds of the human population and
>> burn them forever? Damn, I must have missed my bit of original sin.
>>
> Would you let someone live in your house that you know has bad intentions
> toward you?
If I was omnipotent and all-loving, sure. Why not? Why wouldn't you,
other than fear? Are you saying God doesn't *like* people who don't
worship him?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:34:54 -0000, nemesis
<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> So either God's a 'Worship Me or I'll beat you up' bully or a 'I'll help
>> the tribe who showers Me with the most faith' mercenary (or both)?
>
> Faith, love, respect and fear are to be expected from those who devote
> their lifes to God's will.
Except I'd put faith and love, and respect and fear in two entirely
seperate categories otherwise we end up with the conclusions that...
> Fear not of God, but of His mighty. Those who have no fear, respect,
> love of faith for God may view it under any light they want.
Ah so God's a wife-beater and we're the wife. 'We' still love Him despite
the fact He sometimes goes off his head and smacks us around for our
transgressions from His rules, but that's okay because He's doing it out
of love for us.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 04:54:35 -0000, Patrick Elliott
<sel### [at] rraznet> did spake, saying:
> In article <op.t2791mncc3xi7v@news.povray.org>,
> phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk says...
>> And lo on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:51:07 -0000, nemesis
>> <nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:07:12 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>> >> > the pagans just didn't know any better.
>> >>
>> >> Um, excuse me, used to be a practicing Pagan here. Raised Lutheran
>> >> first, opted for Paganism, now closer to atheism.
>> >>
>> >> Don't presume to tell me I don't know any better, please.
>> >
>> > That's your problem. I was talking about the pagan peoples from
>> before
>> > the covenant and the Word being spread: they couldn't know it better.
>>
>> Wasn't that the same argument that the Christians used against the Jews?
>> Oh and the same one used by Muslims against Christians (and Jews)?
>>
> Yeah. Pretty much. Understanding of the word of the magic sky fairy
> grows, but only through ***our*** belief system, so all you other rag
> heads, beany tops, and tree huggers are now going to burn in hell,
> because, well... you wouldn't listen when we told you about these great
> improvements in understanding.
>
> Or, as one American Indian was supposed to have said, more or less, "So,
> before you told me about your great god, his word and all the rules I am
> supposed to follow, I would have been saved anyway, but now that I do
> know, if I make the slightest mistake I am doomed? Why did you tell me
> then!?"
Ah no see that's one of the best bits of religion it can be retrospective.
So all those American Indians were already doomed because they didn't know
the 'true' way. Don't argue that there was no way they could know, if they
were worth saving they'd have come to the same conclusions as the correct
religion and thus not require converting; you know through a vision of
Jesus or something.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
