Christianity creates violence

[Hollie]

Right. There is no scientific data for psychiatric medicine. It's all a conspiracy.

There is lots of scientific data for psychiatric medicine. Which does not change the simple fact that you have no scientific data at all. All you have is belief.

Ah. You accept my premise that there is scientific data for psychiatric medicine. There is then an absence of belief. You're still entitled to other conspiracy theories.

No. I agree there is scientific data for psychiatric medicine. I do not accept your suggestion that your premise has anything at all to do with psychiatric medicine. You have presented no data, made no such connection and have just made claims I am supposed to accept on faith. All you have is belief. You're still entitled to believe that it is more than belief, just don't try to sell it to a psychiatrist.

There is no faith required to accept the data regarding medicine for psychiatric care.

You can refuse to accept the data but your religion of disbelief in science is refuted by fact.

There is no faith required to accept the data for thermodynamics either. However, that too has absolutely nothing to do with your premise. When you have data which does, please do let me know. I would love to see it.

Laziness on you part is no excuse for denial of the facts. You can choose to have faith in conspiracy theories but that won't make them true.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is lots of scientific data for psychiatric medicine. Which does not change the simple fact that you have no scientific data at all. All you have is belief.

Ah. You accept my premise that there is scientific data for psychiatric medicine. There is then an absence of belief. You're still entitled to other conspiracy theories.

No. I agree there is scientific data for psychiatric medicine. I do not accept your suggestion that your premise has anything at all to do with psychiatric medicine. You have presented no data, made no such connection and have just made claims I am supposed to accept on faith. All you have is belief. You're still entitled to believe that it is more than belief, just don't try to sell it to a psychiatrist.

There is no faith required to accept the data regarding medicine for psychiatric care.

You can refuse to accept the data but your religion of disbelief in science is refuted by fact.

There is no faith required to accept the data for thermodynamics either. However, that too has absolutely nothing to do with your premise. When you have data which does, please do let me know. I would love to see it.

Laziness on you part is no excuse for denial of the facts. You can choose to have faith in conspiracy theories but that won't make them true.

You haven't presented any facts. You have just repeatedly invoked the name of science without reference to a single study to support your claims. Really, Hollie, science makes a lousy religion. You shouldn't attempt to treat it as one.

 

[Hollie]

Ah. You accept my premise that there is scientific data for psychiatric medicine. There is then an absence of belief. You're still entitled to other conspiracy theories.

No. I agree there is scientific data for psychiatric medicine. I do not accept your suggestion that your premise has anything at all to do with psychiatric medicine. You have presented no data, made no such connection and have just made claims I am supposed to accept on faith. All you have is belief. You're still entitled to believe that it is more than belief, just don't try to sell it to a psychiatrist.

There is no faith required to accept the data regarding medicine for psychiatric care.

You can refuse to accept the data but your religion of disbelief in science is refuted by fact.

There is no faith required to accept the data for thermodynamics either. However, that too has absolutely nothing to do with your premise. When you have data which does, please do let me know. I would love to see it.

Laziness on you part is no excuse for denial of the facts. You can choose to have faith in conspiracy theories but that won't make them true.

You haven't presented any facts. You have just repeatedly invoked the name of science without reference to a single study to support your claims. Really, Hollie, science makes a lousy religion. You shouldn't attempt to treat it as one.

You're being needlessly antagonistic to the disciplines of science and medicine. While I understand those disciplines tend to chafe at the beliefs and traditions of you believers, the facts presented to you won't disappear in spite of your most closely held conspiracy theories.

Your belief in supernatural realms is standard fare for those who, for whatever reasons, are intimidate by science as science does tend to clash with your belief. As we've seen, your religious beliefs, absent support or validation are subordinate to the demonstration of science.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Religious Roots

The origins of the fundamental reciprocal relationship between physical violence and physical pleasure can be traced to philosophical dualism and to the theology of body/soul relationships. In Western philosophical thought man was not a unitary being but was divided into two parts, body and soul. The Greek philosophical conception of the relationship between body and soul was quite different than the Judeo-Christian concept which posited a state of war between the body and soul. Within Judeo-Christian thought the purpose of human life was to save the soul, and the body was seen as an impediment to achieving this objective. Consequently, the body must be punished and deprived. In St. Paul's words: "Put to death the base pursuits of the body—for if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live" (Romans 8:13). St. Paul clearly advocated somatosensory pleasure deprivation and enhancement of painful somatosensory stimulation as essential prerequisites for saving the soul.

"Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Corinthians, 7:1).

Aristotle did not view a state of war between the body and soul, but rather envisioned a complimentary relationship in which the state of the soul or mind was dependent on the state of the body. In fact he stated that "the care of the body ought to precede that of the soul." (Politica)

Aristotle also appreciated the reciprocal relationship between pleasure and pain, and recognized that a compulsive search for bodily pleasure originates from a state of bodily discomfort and pain:

Now, excess is possible in the case of the goods of the body, and it is the pursuit of excess, but not the pursuit of necessary pleasures, that makes a man bad. For all men get some kind of enjoyment from good food, wine, and sexual relations, but not everyone enjoys these things in the proper way. The reverse is true of pain: a bad person does not avoid an excess of it, but he avoids it altogether. For the opposite of an excess is pain only for the man who pursues the excess. . . .

Accordingly, we must now explain why the pleasures of the body appear to be more desirable. The first reason, then, is that pleasure drives out pain. When men experience an excess of pain, they pursue excessive pleasure and bodily pleasure in general, in the belief that it will remedy the pain. These remedial (pleasures) become very intense—and that is the very reason why they are pursued because they are experienced in contrast with their opposite. (Nichomachean Ethics, Book 7)

In his discussion of the highest good, Aristotle was quite explicit:

"Therefore, the highest good is some sort of pleasure, despite the fact that most pleasures are bad, and, if you like, bad in the unqualified sense of the word." (Nichomachean Ethics, Book 7)

It is evident that the Judeo-Christian concept of body pleasure is quite the opposite of that outlined by Aristotle, particularly, the relief of body pain and discomfort through somatosensory pleasure. This denial of somatosensory pleasure in Pauline Christian doctrine has led to alternative forms of 'relief' through such painful stimulations as hair-shirts, self-scourgings, self-mutilations, physical violence against others, and in the non-sensory pleasures of drugs.

Experimental animal studies have documented counterparts to these phenomena. For example, animals deprived of somatosensory stimulation will engage in mutilations of their own bodies. Animals deprived of touching early in life develop impaired pain perception and an aversion to being touched by others. They are thus blocked from experiencing the body-pleasure therapy that they need for rehabilitation. In this condition, they have few alternatives but physical violence, where pain-oriented touching and body contact is facilitated by their impaired ability to experience pain. Thus, physical violence and physical pain become therapies of choice for those deprived of physical pleasure.

The question arises as to how Christian philosophy and theology, which borrowed heavily from Aristotle, managed to avoid, if not outright reject, Aristotle's teachings regarding the morality of pleasure. The roots to this question can be found throughout the Old Testament, beginning with the account in Genesis of the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. The first consequence of Eve's transgression was that nudity became shameful. This even may well be the beginning of man's hostility toward women and the equating of woman with evil, particularly the evils of the body. This is vividly portrayed in Zechariah (5:5-8) in an angel's description of the flying bushel:

"This is a bushel container coming. This is their guilt in all the land." Then a leaden cover was lifted and there was a woman sitting inside the bushel. "This is wickedness, he said, and he thrust her inside the bushel, pushing the leaden cover into the opening."

Violence against sexuality and the use of sexuality for violence, particularly against women, has very deep roots in Biblical tradition, and is spelled out very early. The nineteenth chapter of Genesis (19:1-11), the first book of the Old Testament, holds that the rape of woman is acceptable but the rape of man is "a wicked thing." This chapter about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah describes Lot's hospitality to two male travelers (actually two angels) who were housed with him. "
Article Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence

Bit of a read, and this is just the excerpt, but worth-while.

If you actually believe this then you must also believe that Islam is a lot more dangerous because of its teachings. Remind us if that is true?

 

[PratchettFan]

No. I agree there is scientific data for psychiatric medicine. I do not accept your suggestion that your premise has anything at all to do with psychiatric medicine. You have presented no data, made no such connection and have just made claims I am supposed to accept on faith. All you have is belief. You're still entitled to believe that it is more than belief, just don't try to sell it to a psychiatrist.

There is no faith required to accept the data regarding medicine for psychiatric care.

You can refuse to accept the data but your religion of disbelief in science is refuted by fact.

There is no faith required to accept the data for thermodynamics either. However, that too has absolutely nothing to do with your premise. When you have data which does, please do let me know. I would love to see it.

Laziness on you part is no excuse for denial of the facts. You can choose to have faith in conspiracy theories but that won't make them true.

You haven't presented any facts. You have just repeatedly invoked the name of science without reference to a single study to support your claims. Really, Hollie, science makes a lousy religion. You shouldn't attempt to treat it as one.

You're being needlessly antagonistic to the disciplines of science and medicine. While I understand those disciplines tend to chafe at the beliefs and traditions of you believers, the facts presented to you won't disappear in spite of your most closely held conspiracy theories.

Your belief in supernatural realms is standard fare for those who, for whatever reasons, are intimidate by science as science does tend to clash with your belief. As we've seen, your religious beliefs, absent support or validation are subordinate to the demonstration of science.

I am not antagonistic to them at all. I am pointing out you are not using science or medicine. You are just invoking them, as if just saying it is science makes it science. I repeat, science makes a lousy religion and you should not use it as one.

 

[Hollie]

There is no faith required to accept the data regarding medicine for psychiatric care.

You can refuse to accept the data but your religion of disbelief in science is refuted by fact.

There is no faith required to accept the data for thermodynamics either. However, that too has absolutely nothing to do with your premise. When you have data which does, please do let me know. I would love to see it.

Laziness on you part is no excuse for denial of the facts. You can choose to have faith in conspiracy theories but that won't make them true.

You haven't presented any facts. You have just repeatedly invoked the name of science without reference to a single study to support your claims. Really, Hollie, science makes a lousy religion. You shouldn't attempt to treat it as one.

You're being needlessly antagonistic to the disciplines of science and medicine. While I understand those disciplines tend to chafe at the beliefs and traditions of you believers, the facts presented to you won't disappear in spite of your most closely held conspiracy theories.

Your belief in supernatural realms is standard fare for those who, for whatever reasons, are intimidate by science as science does tend to clash with your belief. As we've seen, your religious beliefs, absent support or validation are subordinate to the demonstration of science.

I am not antagonistic to them at all. I am pointing out you are not using science or medicine. You are just invoking them, as if just saying it is science makes it science. I repeat, science makes a lousy religion and you should not use it as one.

You can repeat falsehoods all you wish. I understand your religious sensibilities are bruised but your lack of ability to assemble a coherent argument is not the fault of mine.

If you had a coherent counter argument you could have presented it. Throughout this thread, you have offered nothing but badgering and appeals to your tender religious sensibilities as excuses for your lack of a countering argument.

If you have such an issue with the science data presented to you, that might provide an opportunity for you to actually study the data and educate yourself.

Your science loathing agenda is pretty typical for religious extremists.

Religion makes for lousy science.

 

[koshergrl]

What a load of tripe, lol.

"Science science blah blah blah".

You wouldn't know science if it sat on your face and wiggled, Hollie.

 

[Hollie]

What a load of tripe, lol.

"Science science blah blah blah".

You wouldn't know science if it sat on your face and wiggled, Hollie.

The usual prattle from the extremist xtian kook.

Some of your most coherent work to date: "blah blah blah"

Stick with what you know, which Is nothing.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is no faith required to accept the data for thermodynamics either. However, that too has absolutely nothing to do with your premise. When you have data which does, please do let me know. I would love to see it.

Laziness on you part is no excuse for denial of the facts. You can choose to have faith in conspiracy theories but that won't make them true.

You haven't presented any facts. You have just repeatedly invoked the name of science without reference to a single study to support your claims. Really, Hollie, science makes a lousy religion. You shouldn't attempt to treat it as one.

You're being needlessly antagonistic to the disciplines of science and medicine. While I understand those disciplines tend to chafe at the beliefs and traditions of you believers, the facts presented to you won't disappear in spite of your most closely held conspiracy theories.

Your belief in supernatural realms is standard fare for those who, for whatever reasons, are intimidate by science as science does tend to clash with your belief. As we've seen, your religious beliefs, absent support or validation are subordinate to the demonstration of science.

I am not antagonistic to them at all. I am pointing out you are not using science or medicine. You are just invoking them, as if just saying it is science makes it science. I repeat, science makes a lousy religion and you should not use it as one.

You can repeat falsehoods all you wish. I understand your religious sensibilities are bruised but your lack of ability to assemble a coherent argument is not the fault of mine.

If you had a coherent counter argument you could have presented it. Throughout this thread, you have offered nothing but badgering and appeals to your tender religious sensibilities as excuses for your lack of a countering argument.

If you have such an issue with the science data presented to you, that might provide an opportunity for you to actually study the data and educate yourself.

Your science loathing agenda is pretty typical for religious extremists.

Religion makes for lousy science.

I don't have a counter argument. I have made no claims on the subject. I have told you, I don't know if such a thing exists or not, nor would I know how to test for it. I don't make claims I can't support. You have claimed you do know and all I have asked from you is to support that claim with something more than the insistence that you know. So far, you haven't presented a single scientific study which supports your claim. I just have to accept it on faith. I do not accept that your belief constitutes knowledge, nor do I accept that your invoking the word "science" changes the facts - or rather lack of facts.

I agree religion makes lousy science. But that does not change the fact that science makes a lousy religion. Stop treating it as one.

 

[Hollie]

Laziness on you part is no excuse for denial of the facts. You can choose to have faith in conspiracy theories but that won't make them true.

You haven't presented any facts. You have just repeatedly invoked the name of science without reference to a single study to support your claims. Really, Hollie, science makes a lousy religion. You shouldn't attempt to treat it as one.

You're being needlessly antagonistic to the disciplines of science and medicine. While I understand those disciplines tend to chafe at the beliefs and traditions of you believers, the facts presented to you won't disappear in spite of your most closely held conspiracy theories.

Your belief in supernatural realms is standard fare for those who, for whatever reasons, are intimidate by science as science does tend to clash with your belief. As we've seen, your religious beliefs, absent support or validation are subordinate to the demonstration of science.

I am not antagonistic to them at all. I am pointing out you are not using science or medicine. You are just invoking them, as if just saying it is science makes it science. I repeat, science makes a lousy religion and you should not use it as one.

You can repeat falsehoods all you wish. I understand your religious sensibilities are bruised but your lack of ability to assemble a coherent argument is not the fault of mine.

If you had a coherent counter argument you could have presented it. Throughout this thread, you have offered nothing but badgering and appeals to your tender religious sensibilities as excuses for your lack of a countering argument.

If you have such an issue with the science data presented to you, that might provide an opportunity for you to actually study the data and educate yourself.

Your science loathing agenda is pretty typical for religious extremists.

Religion makes for lousy science.

I don't have a counter argument. I have made no claims on the subject. I have told you, I don't know if such a thing exists or not, nor would I know how to test for it. I don't make claims I can't support. You have claimed you do know and all I have asked from you is to support that claim with something more than the insistence that you know. So far, you haven't presented a single scientific study which supports your claim. I just have to accept it on faith. I do not accept that your belief constitutes knowledge, nor do I accept that your invoking the word "science" changes the facts - or rather lack of facts.

I agree religion makes lousy science. But that does not change the fact that science makes a lousy religion. Stop treating it as one.

You don't have a counter argument. That's correct. It does seem odd that you're arguing from a position on which you have no position and no argument.

As you have no position, I have no need to spend any bandwidth with posting data on the facts of medical science and it's positive impact on humanity. You seem convinced that your conspiracy theories are true and that your religious beliefs supersede the facts of science. As I've described to you and as history has shown, religion makes for lousy science. You shouldn't confuse your religious beliefs as superseding the facts I've delivered to you.

 

[Newby]

Told you that you're wasting your time PF, she's just a troll, it's the same post over and over and over ad nauseum..

 

[Hollie]

Told you that you're wasting your time PF, she's just a troll, it's the same post over and over and over ad nauseum..

Im just trying to help educate you angry, self-hating fundamentalists who can't refute the science, thus are left to spam the thread.

Your post was yet again an example of you angry, self-haters using your religion as a vehicle of hate.

 

[Newby]

Told you that you're wasting your time PF, she's just a troll, it's the same post over and over and over ad nauseum..

Im just trying to help educate you angry, self-hating fundamentalists who can't refute the science, thus are left to spam the thread.

Your post was yet again an example of you angry, self-haters using your religion as a vehicle of hate.

You couldn't teach a bear to shit in the woods, but the fact that you think that's what you're doing is very amusing. Legend in your own mind, are you? lol

 

[Hollie]

Told you that you're wasting your time PF, she's just a troll, it's the same post over and over and over ad nauseum..

Im just trying to help educate you angry, self-hating fundamentalists who can't refute the science, thus are left to spam the thread.

Your post was yet again an example of you angry, self-haters using your religion as a vehicle of hate.

You couldn't teach a bear to shit in the woods, but the fact that you think that's what you're doing is very amusing. Legend in your own mind, are you? lol

Just more of you angry, self-hating fundies seeking attention.

Pretty typical for you Christians to spew vulgarities and sink to the lowest level.

 

[Newby]

Told you that you're wasting your time PF, she's just a troll, it's the same post over and over and over ad nauseum..

Im just trying to help educate you angry, self-hating fundamentalists who can't refute the science, thus are left to spam the thread.

Your post was yet again an example of you angry, self-haters using your religion as a vehicle of hate.

You couldn't teach a bear to shit in the woods, but the fact that you think that's what you're doing is very amusing. Legend in your own mind, are you? lol

Just more of you angry, self-hating fundies seeking attention.

Pretty typical for you Christians to spew vulgarities and sink to the lowest level.

There is no lower level than the one you're on, I've never seen a more hateful and ignorant person than you, the self hatred must be strong, and that's because you fight against yourself and deny God. Do you know the definition of insanity Hollie, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? Why do you continue to hate against Christians in here, it gains you nothing? Are you insane? I'm pretty much convinced you must be. Have a nice day!

 

[Hollie]

Told you that you're wasting your time PF, she's just a troll, it's the same post over and over and over ad nauseum..

Im just trying to help educate you angry, self-hating fundamentalists who can't refute the science, thus are left to spam the thread.

Your post was yet again an example of you angry, self-haters using your religion as a vehicle of hate.

You couldn't teach a bear to shit in the woods, but the fact that you think that's what you're doing is very amusing. Legend in your own mind, are you? lol

Just more of you angry, self-hating fundies seeking attention.

Pretty typical for you Christians to spew vulgarities and sink to the lowest level.

There is no lower level than the one you're on, I've never seen a more hateful and ignorant person than you, the self hatred must be strong, and that's because you fight against yourself and deny God. Do you know the definition of insanity Hollie, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? Why do you continue to hate against Christians in here, it gains you nothing? Are you insane? I'm pretty much convinced you must be. Have a nice day!

Hate, hate, hate. It's all about hate with you hyper-religious Christians.

You hate yourselves, you hate each other and you hate your miserable lives. You hate so passionately that you enter threads for no other purpose than to promote your hate.

 

[Newby]

lol

 

[PratchettFan]

You haven't presented any facts. You have just repeatedly invoked the name of science without reference to a single study to support your claims. Really, Hollie, science makes a lousy religion. You shouldn't attempt to treat it as one.

You're being needlessly antagonistic to the disciplines of science and medicine. While I understand those disciplines tend to chafe at the beliefs and traditions of you believers, the facts presented to you won't disappear in spite of your most closely held conspiracy theories.

Your belief in supernatural realms is standard fare for those who, for whatever reasons, are intimidate by science as science does tend to clash with your belief. As we've seen, your religious beliefs, absent support or validation are subordinate to the demonstration of science.

I am not antagonistic to them at all. I am pointing out you are not using science or medicine. You are just invoking them, as if just saying it is science makes it science. I repeat, science makes a lousy religion and you should not use it as one.

You can repeat falsehoods all you wish. I understand your religious sensibilities are bruised but your lack of ability to assemble a coherent argument is not the fault of mine.

If you had a coherent counter argument you could have presented it. Throughout this thread, you have offered nothing but badgering and appeals to your tender religious sensibilities as excuses for your lack of a countering argument.

If you have such an issue with the science data presented to you, that might provide an opportunity for you to actually study the data and educate yourself.

Your science loathing agenda is pretty typical for religious extremists.

Religion makes for lousy science.

I don't have a counter argument. I have made no claims on the subject. I have told you, I don't know if such a thing exists or not, nor would I know how to test for it. I don't make claims I can't support. You have claimed you do know and all I have asked from you is to support that claim with something more than the insistence that you know. So far, you haven't presented a single scientific study which supports your claim. I just have to accept it on faith. I do not accept that your belief constitutes knowledge, nor do I accept that your invoking the word "science" changes the facts - or rather lack of facts.

I agree religion makes lousy science. But that does not change the fact that science makes a lousy religion. Stop treating it as one.

You don't have a counter argument. That's correct. It does seem odd that you're arguing from a position on which you have no position and no argument.

As you have no position, I have no need to spend any bandwidth with posting data on the facts of medical science and it's positive impact on humanity. You seem convinced that your conspiracy theories are true and that your religious beliefs supersede the facts of science. As I've described to you and as history has shown, religion makes for lousy science. You shouldn't confuse your religious beliefs as superseding the facts I've delivered to you.

You are not going to waste your time posting it because you have none. Don't blame me for it.

 

[Bonita Louise]

Christianity is no more the cause of violence than any other human belief..when present it is but another symptom of man kinds selfish, greedy. grasping and controlling nature. The dualistic mind set and reasoning is found in much more than religions that hold that view.
The OP points to some valid psychological issues in the human condition but blaming it on Christianity is illogical and just more self serving delusions of elitism.

 

[Hollie]

You're being needlessly antagonistic to the disciplines of science and medicine. While I understand those disciplines tend to chafe at the beliefs and traditions of you believers, the facts presented to you won't disappear in spite of your most closely held conspiracy theories.

Your belief in supernatural realms is standard fare for those who, for whatever reasons, are intimidate by science as science does tend to clash with your belief. As we've seen, your religious beliefs, absent support or validation are subordinate to the demonstration of science.

I am not antagonistic to them at all. I am pointing out you are not using science or medicine. You are just invoking them, as if just saying it is science makes it science. I repeat, science makes a lousy religion and you should not use it as one.

You can repeat falsehoods all you wish. I understand your religious sensibilities are bruised but your lack of ability to assemble a coherent argument is not the fault of mine.

If you had a coherent counter argument you could have presented it. Throughout this thread, you have offered nothing but badgering and appeals to your tender religious sensibilities as excuses for your lack of a countering argument.

If you have such an issue with the science data presented to you, that might provide an opportunity for you to actually study the data and educate yourself.

Your science loathing agenda is pretty typical for religious extremists.

Religion makes for lousy science.

I don't have a counter argument. I have made no claims on the subject. I have told you, I don't know if such a thing exists or not, nor would I know how to test for it. I don't make claims I can't support. You have claimed you do know and all I have asked from you is to support that claim with something more than the insistence that you know. So far, you haven't presented a single scientific study which supports your claim. I just have to accept it on faith. I do not accept that your belief constitutes knowledge, nor do I accept that your invoking the word "science" changes the facts - or rather lack of facts.

I agree religion makes lousy science. But that does not change the fact that science makes a lousy religion. Stop treating it as one.

You don't have a counter argument. That's correct. It does seem odd that you're arguing from a position on which you have no position and no argument.

As you have no position, I have no need to spend any bandwidth with posting data on the facts of medical science and it's positive impact on humanity. You seem convinced that your conspiracy theories are true and that your religious beliefs supersede the facts of science. As I've described to you and as history has shown, religion makes for lousy science. You shouldn't confuse your religious beliefs as superseding the facts I've delivered to you.

You are not going to waste your time posting it because you have none. Don't blame me for it.

You're being needlessly antagonistic to the disciplines of science and medicine. While I understand those disciplines tend to chafe at the beliefs and traditions of you believers, the facts presented to you won't disappear in spite of your most closely held conspiracy theories.

Your belief in supernatural realms is standard fare for those who, for whatever reasons, are intimidate by science as science does tend to clash with your belief. As we've seen, your religious beliefs, absent support or validation are subordinate to the demonstration of science.

I am not antagonistic to them at all. I am pointing out you are not using science or medicine. You are just invoking them, as if just saying it is science makes it science. I repeat, science makes a lousy religion and you should not use it as one.

You can repeat falsehoods all you wish. I understand your religious sensibilities are bruised but your lack of ability to assemble a coherent argument is not the fault of mine.

If you had a coherent counter argument you could have presented it. Throughout this thread, you have offered nothing but badgering and appeals to your tender religious sensibilities as excuses for your lack of a countering argument.

If you have such an issue with the science data presented to you, that might provide an opportunity for you to actually study the data and educate yourself.

Your science loathing agenda is pretty typical for religious extremists.

Religion makes for lousy science.

I don't have a counter argument. I have made no claims on the subject. I have told you, I don't know if such a thing exists or not, nor would I know how to test for it. I don't make claims I can't support. You have claimed you do know and all I have asked from you is to support that claim with something more than the insistence that you know. So far, you haven't presented a single scientific study which supports your claim. I just have to accept it on faith. I do not accept that your belief constitutes knowledge, nor do I accept that your invoking the word "science" changes the facts - or rather lack of facts.

I agree religion makes lousy science. But that does not change the fact that science makes a lousy religion. Stop treating it as one.

You don't have a counter argument. That's correct. It does seem odd that you're arguing from a position on which you have no position and no argument.

As you have no position, I have no need to spend any bandwidth with posting data on the facts of medical science and it's positive impact on humanity. You seem convinced that your conspiracy theories are true and that your religious beliefs supersede the facts of science. As I've described to you and as history has shown, religion makes for lousy science. You shouldn't confuse your religious beliefs as superseding the facts I've delivered to you.

You are not going to waste your time posting it because you have none. Don't blame me for it.

You're just incensed at your own inability to reconcile the disciplines of science vs. your fundamentalist religious beliefs. You're convinced that medical science amounts to some vast conspiracy. It's a delusion that is not uncommon to religious fundamentalists. Your inability to support some "soul" thing you want to believe in vs. the successes of modern medical science in the treatment of disease (mental and physical), doesn't require religious belief.

For someone who announces to have no position and no argument on the subject, you do spend inordinate amounts of time making faith claims.

You're entitled to your religious beliefs. Just don't continue to confuse your religious affiliations with the objective standards and disciplines of science.