Christianity creates violence

[PratchettFan]

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.

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.

Nope. I'm not sure what you are reading but perhaps you should respond to them. You certainly aren't responding to anything I wrote. But do let me know if you ever find an actual scientific study which supports your claims. I'd love to see it.

 

[Hollie]

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 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.

Nope. I'm not sure what you are reading but perhaps you should respond to them. You certainly aren't responding to anything I wrote. But do let me know if you ever find an actual scientific study which supports your claims. I'd love to see it.

I'm afraid that you fundamentalists will always reject the science data you've been given over your religious myths.

I just find it interesting that you identified the hopelessness of your religious beliefs vs. the disciplines of science. I thought it was comedy gold that you admitted you have no position on the subject but then continued to deny the science data supporting my position. Claiming you have no position on a subject and then railing against the evidence that refutes the position you claim not to defend is kInda' cowardly.

Why acknowledge your religious beliefs are unsupportable with the claim that you have no position and then make these desperate efforts to support your unsupportable position?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

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.

Nope. I'm not sure what you are reading but perhaps you should respond to them. You certainly aren't responding to anything I wrote. But do let me know if you ever find an actual scientific study which supports your claims. I'd love to see it.

I'm afraid that you fundamentalists will always reject the science data you've been given over your religious myths.

I just find it interesting that you identified the hopelessness of your religious beliefs vs. the disciplines of science. I thought it was comedy gold that you admitted you have no position on the subject but then continued to deny the science data supporting my position. Claiming you have no position on a subject and then railing against the evidence that refutes the position you claim not to defend is kInda' cowardly.

What acknowledge your religious beliefs are unsupportable with the claim that you have no position and then make these desperate efforts to support your unsupportable position?

I haven't rejected a thing. You have never presented anything to reject. Are you really so uninformed about science that you think you have? Do you think that just because it is your belief that it is automatically supported by science?

 

[koshergrl]

It's not just ignorance about science...these progressive dingbats have disorganized thinking patterns, and don't understand LOGIC. For the most part, they don't even use the language correctly, or understand the terms they use.

They've been taught to blab talking points, and that's all they know. They think they come off as intelligent, but they come off as vapid and ignorant.

As Hollie does, as do they all.

 

[koshergrl]

For example..not only does she not understand how to make a scientific argument...she also consistently uses the term "fundie" to represent ANYONE who is Christian. If you aren't liberal, progressive "christians" who allow gay and female clergy and embrace abortion, then you're a *fundy*.

And she acts as if that's really what the term means. I think she actually believes it! Words mean nothing to them...or at least, words mean nothing when they use them.

 

[Hollie]

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 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.

Nope. I'm not sure what you are reading but perhaps you should respond to them. You certainly aren't responding to anything I wrote. But do let me know if you ever find an actual scientific study which supports your claims. I'd love to see it.

I'm afraid that you fundamentalists will always reject the science data you've been given over your religious myths.

I just find it interesting that you identified the hopelessness of your religious beliefs vs. the disciplines of science. I thought it was comedy gold that you admitted you have no position on the subject but then continued to deny the science data supporting my position. Claiming you have no position on a subject and then railing against the evidence that refutes the position you claim not to defend is kInda' cowardly.

What acknowledge your religious beliefs are unsupportable with the claim that you have no position and then make these desperate efforts to support your unsupportable position?

I haven't rejected a thing. You have never presented anything to reject. Are you really so uninformed about science that you think you have? Do you think that just because it is your belief that it is automatically supported by science?

You have rejected the science data I provided you because science clashes with your fundamentalist beliefs.

You continue to assume the remarkable position of admitting you have no position, and no position to defend, yet you continue to be offended at the science that refutes your religious beliefs.

Science facts trump your fundamentalist beliefs. You can continue to deny that but it's obvious you're unable to refute the science data I provided you.

I can't be held responsible for your hurt feelings.

 

[Hollie]

For example..not only does she not understand how to make a scientific argument...she also consistently uses the term "fundie" to represent ANYONE who is Christian. If you aren't liberal, progressive "christians" who allow gay and female clergy and embrace abortion, then you're a *fundy*.

And she acts as if that's really what the term means. I think she actually believes it! Words mean nothing to them...or at least, words mean nothing when they use them.

Oh my. Another of the really angry, self-hating crusaders has arrived.

Yet more pointless spamming with no ability to refute a single issue I've raised.

 

[Hollie]

It's not just ignorance about science...these progressive dingbats have disorganized thinking patterns, and don't understand LOGIC. For the most part, they don't even use the language correctly, or understand the terms they use.

They've been taught to blab talking points, and that's all they know. They think they come off as intelligent, but they come off as vapid and ignorant.

As Hollie does, as do they all.

It's all one, big, elaborate conspiracy of "they" who reject the fear and ignorance that you hyper-religious types wallow in.

You Pat Robertson madrassah groupies are a danger to yourselves and those unlucky enough to be around you.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

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.

Nope. I'm not sure what you are reading but perhaps you should respond to them. You certainly aren't responding to anything I wrote. But do let me know if you ever find an actual scientific study which supports your claims. I'd love to see it.

I'm afraid that you fundamentalists will always reject the science data you've been given over your religious myths.

I just find it interesting that you identified the hopelessness of your religious beliefs vs. the disciplines of science. I thought it was comedy gold that you admitted you have no position on the subject but then continued to deny the science data supporting my position. Claiming you have no position on a subject and then railing against the evidence that refutes the position you claim not to defend is kInda' cowardly.

What acknowledge your religious beliefs are unsupportable with the claim that you have no position and then make these desperate efforts to support your unsupportable position?

I haven't rejected a thing. You have never presented anything to reject. Are you really so uninformed about science that you think you have? Do you think that just because it is your belief that it is automatically supported by science?

You have rejected the science data I provided you because science clashes with your fundamentalist beliefs.

You continue to assume the remarkable position of admitting you have no position, and no position to defend, yet you continue to be offended at the science that refutes your religious beliefs.

Science facts trump your fundamentalist beliefs. You can continue to deny that but it's obvious you're unable to refute the science data I provided you.

I can't be held responsible for your hurt feelings.

Once again, you have presented nothing. Prove me wrong. Show me where you provided a link or a reference to a scientific study which supports your claim. The thread isn't that long so it should only take a couple of minutes to find it.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Nope. I'm not sure what you are reading but perhaps you should respond to them. You certainly aren't responding to anything I wrote. But do let me know if you ever find an actual scientific study which supports your claims. I'd love to see it.

I'm afraid that you fundamentalists will always reject the science data you've been given over your religious myths.

I just find it interesting that you identified the hopelessness of your religious beliefs vs. the disciplines of science. I thought it was comedy gold that you admitted you have no position on the subject but then continued to deny the science data supporting my position. Claiming you have no position on a subject and then railing against the evidence that refutes the position you claim not to defend is kInda' cowardly.

What acknowledge your religious beliefs are unsupportable with the claim that you have no position and then make these desperate efforts to support your unsupportable position?

I haven't rejected a thing. You have never presented anything to reject. Are you really so uninformed about science that you think you have? Do you think that just because it is your belief that it is automatically supported by science?

You have rejected the science data I provided you because science clashes with your fundamentalist beliefs.

You continue to assume the remarkable position of admitting you have no position, and no position to defend, yet you continue to be offended at the science that refutes your religious beliefs.

Science facts trump your fundamentalist beliefs. You can continue to deny that but it's obvious you're unable to refute the science data I provided you.

I can't be held responsible for your hurt feelings.

Once again, you have presented nothing. Prove me wrong. Show me where you provided a link or a reference to a scientific study which supports your claim. The thread isn't that long so it should only take a couple of minutes to find it.

Once again, you're angry and hurt that your religious perspectives are trumped by science. If you want data regarding medical science and it's implementation, you can do your own search for that.

As we see for someone who admits to having no position, you very much have a position. Why not just be honest and admit you're incensed at the science perspective being a valid and repeatable mechanism for gathering facts while your religious perspective leaves you angry and frustrated at your inability to defend a position you falsely claim you don't have.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm not angry. I just notice you simply won't answer the question. I presume because the answer doesn't support your position.

If you give a car a new paint job it will look different. You can put on new tires and install performance enhancers on the engine. But that does not make it a different car. You're talking about the paint while I'm talking about the car. You can have considerable damage to the brain, change the chemistry or anything else you like, but that does not make whatever the consciousness that exists within that brain a different consciousness. It may exhibit different behaviors, not remember things that had happened to it in the past, but the "me" that was there remains the same "me".

I have no idea whether that "me" exists independent of the brain or is a phenomenon found only within a brain. But I do know the claims you have made do not explain its existence. You are insisting that you have knowledge you don't have. What you are expressing is belief and nothing more than belief. I do not consider it any more valid than any other belief being expressed here. Of course, I only have belief as well. The difference between us is I recognize when I don't know something.

You're making the consistent error of confusing biological organisms with mechanical components. They are different, of course. Mechanical components react differently to chemical stimuli than biological organisms do.

Similarly, you're confusing your "soul" thing (newly revised to "consciousness"), with mechanical components. Cells in the brain react differently to chemical stimuli than do mechanical components. Dramatic changes in behavior can be achieved by inducement of chemicals in the brain. If you need additional information on this, you can research the medical science and confirm for yourself the advances in mind altering and mood altering drugs used in the field of psychiatry.

I don't need "belief" to understand the affects of chemical compounds in the brain. I also have no requirement for "belief" to understand your "soul" thing is completely dependent on the brain for its perception. Suffer damage or injury to the brain and this "soul" thing vanishes.

Yes, I understand what you believe. I'm not even saying you are wrong. But you have done nothing except claim knowledge you don't have. You say you don't need belief, but you cling to your belief like a non-swimmer with a life preserver.

BTW.... the " 'soul' thing" is your thing - not mine. You are the one fixated on it. Perhaps the problem is you are still dealing with being a Christian and just can't seem to understand not everyone else is. I've never been a Christian and there is no "soul" in my faith. However, my faith requires I question all of my ideas, while Christianity does not and, clearly, neither does yours. One should acknowledge their belief and recognize it for what it is, but one should not be led by it.

Actually, I've made claims to knowledge that is supported by medical science: that damage, injury or chemical inducement to the brain changes personality. Quite clearly, it was you supporting the idea of some "soul" thing when you uprooted the goal posts and revised that to "consciousness". I've tried to explain to you that biological organisms react differently to chemical stimuli than mechanical components.

It seems your fundamentalist religious views are causing you real angst when your belief in "souls" is met with skepticism.

Still, you cannot describe this "soul", thing, you cannot identify how we test for the "soul" and you cannot explain how this "soul" disappears as the result of damage or chemical imbalance in the brain.

Once again, you respond to what you believe rather than what I write. It is you who are the fundamentalist. I don't know what sect of Christianity you were raised in, but I have concluded you have yet to leave it.

I've actually responded to what you wrote. I've repeatedly asked you to identify this "soul" thing, later revised and edited to "consciousness", that you as yet, avoid addressing.

What is this "soul", thing? Can you demonstrate the "soul"? What are the properties of the "soul"?

I understand that the "soul" thing may be an important component of your fundamentalist views but I've given you a defendable, supportable case that your "soul" thing is actually a complex interaction of chemical and electro-chemical processes in the brain.

Your claims to "souls" cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus suggesting a supernatural realm. Why should anyone accept that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds? Gawds are, by definition, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an asserted immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal "souls".

Why do you suppose such gawds would make "souls" so susceptible to manipulation by a few chemical compounds?

Hi Hollie Sorry I am behind on this thread.
If you already replied to my reply I do apologize.
And BTW PratchettFan is one of the MOST reasonable articulate
bridges between secular nontheist folks and theists/religionists.

I try to translate this spiritual speak into secular terms, and believe
PF is ahead of me in some ways in processing and reconciling these.
I tend to lapse more into the religious terms which is easier for me.
It is MUCH harder to speak in PURE secular terms, so PF is your best bet.
Don't burn that bridge, PF is great, probably the best you will find
along with Inevitable who is also good at bridging these gaps and speaking both languages.

As for SOUL
I posted somewhere that Jefferson's soul or the spirit of the Founding Fathers is still with us.

When we love each other on that level,
like love of fellow countrymen -- this is carried on in our Conscience.

Just like you may carry the love, memories and laughter of your favorite
Grandparent with you after they are gone.

Hollie "whatever you call that connection"
that is what is meant by spiritual lineage, connection or soul-mates

This transcends physical life and death.
We carry love and we also carry hatred and animosities in the Conscience
from one Generation to the next. That's part of Genocidal and Tribal warfare.

YOU can call it carried in the environment, the conditioning, the psychology that is learned.
But Hollie it is embedded so deeply,
that in order to HEAL Native Americans, African Americans, anyone who carries this generational wound of injustice
that has never been atoned for,
this takes DEEP work that is called "spiritual healing" or "generational healing"

Hollie you DON'T HAVE TO CALL IT THAT.
My atheist friends work on this level and don't worry about calling it what other people do.

But it is STILL the same process of HEALING by forgiveness.

Forgiveness changes people on so many levels,
that's why people call it Spiritual or DIVINE.

it is SO PROFOUND this level we connect on when we forgive
and decide to love each other anyway, despite rapes, despite
murders. There is a higher level, so people call it soul or spiritual.

You can say it's all chemical reactions, that's fine.

Hollie I love your honesty, that is always welcome in my book.

Inevitable, PratchettFan, these are user friendly people, not enemies.
Please feel free to hash these things out, and don't fear that any of us is trying to trip you up.

Please keep trying, and I apologize if we talk past each other
while we try to pinpoint where we can reach an understanding and agreement
what to call these things, or where we are just framing them differently and shouldn't be an issue.

Thanks Hollie
I think you are one of the best,
and can help serve as a bridge.
SO it is very important we establish
a clear connection. We can use that for great t hings
to help other people across the divide. You are great!!!

 

[PratchettFan]

Nope. I'm not sure what you are reading but perhaps you should respond to them. You certainly aren't responding to anything I wrote. But do let me know if you ever find an actual scientific study which supports your claims. I'd love to see it.

I'm afraid that you fundamentalists will always reject the science data you've been given over your religious myths.

I just find it interesting that you identified the hopelessness of your religious beliefs vs. the disciplines of science. I thought it was comedy gold that you admitted you have no position on the subject but then continued to deny the science data supporting my position. Claiming you have no position on a subject and then railing against the evidence that refutes the position you claim not to defend is kInda' cowardly.

What acknowledge your religious beliefs are unsupportable with the claim that you have no position and then make these desperate efforts to support your unsupportable position?

I haven't rejected a thing. You have never presented anything to reject. Are you really so uninformed about science that you think you have? Do you think that just because it is your belief that it is automatically supported by science?

You have rejected the science data I provided you because science clashes with your fundamentalist beliefs.

You continue to assume the remarkable position of admitting you have no position, and no position to defend, yet you continue to be offended at the science that refutes your religious beliefs.

Science facts trump your fundamentalist beliefs. You can continue to deny that but it's obvious you're unable to refute the science data I provided you.

I can't be held responsible for your hurt feelings.

Once again, you have presented nothing. Prove me wrong. Show me where you provided a link or a reference to a scientific study which supports your claim. The thread isn't that long so it should only take a couple of minutes to find it.

Once again, you're angry and hurt that your religious perspectives are trumped by science. If you want data regarding medical science and it's implementation, you can do your own search for that.

As we see for someone who admits to having no position, you very much have a position. Why not just be honest and admit you're incensed at the science perspective being a valid and repeatable mechanism for gathering facts while your religious perspective leaves you angry and frustrated at your inability to defend a position you falsely claim you don't have.

Yep. I didn't think you would.

 

[Hollie]

I'm afraid that you fundamentalists will always reject the science data you've been given over your religious myths.

I just find it interesting that you identified the hopelessness of your religious beliefs vs. the disciplines of science. I thought it was comedy gold that you admitted you have no position on the subject but then continued to deny the science data supporting my position. Claiming you have no position on a subject and then railing against the evidence that refutes the position you claim not to defend is kInda' cowardly.

What acknowledge your religious beliefs are unsupportable with the claim that you have no position and then make these desperate efforts to support your unsupportable position?

I haven't rejected a thing. You have never presented anything to reject. Are you really so uninformed about science that you think you have? Do you think that just because it is your belief that it is automatically supported by science?

You have rejected the science data I provided you because science clashes with your fundamentalist beliefs.

You continue to assume the remarkable position of admitting you have no position, and no position to defend, yet you continue to be offended at the science that refutes your religious beliefs.

Science facts trump your fundamentalist beliefs. You can continue to deny that but it's obvious you're unable to refute the science data I provided you.

I can't be held responsible for your hurt feelings.

Once again, you have presented nothing. Prove me wrong. Show me where you provided a link or a reference to a scientific study which supports your claim. The thread isn't that long so it should only take a couple of minutes to find it.

Once again, you're angry and hurt that your religious perspectives are trumped by science. If you want data regarding medical science and it's implementation, you can do your own search for that.

As we see for someone who admits to having no position, you very much have a position. Why not just be honest and admit you're incensed at the science perspective being a valid and repeatable mechanism for gathering facts while your religious perspective leaves you angry and frustrated at your inability to defend a position you falsely claim you don't have.

Yep. I didn't think you would.

I'm afraid that you fundamentalists will always reject the science data you've been given over your religious myths.

I just find it interesting that you identified the hopelessness of your religious beliefs vs. the disciplines of science. I thought it was comedy gold that you admitted you have no position on the subject but then continued to deny the science data supporting my position. Claiming you have no position on a subject and then railing against the evidence that refutes the position you claim not to defend is kInda' cowardly.

What acknowledge your religious beliefs are unsupportable with the claim that you have no position and then make these desperate efforts to support your unsupportable position?

I haven't rejected a thing. You have never presented anything to reject. Are you really so uninformed about science that you think you have? Do you think that just because it is your belief that it is automatically supported by science?

You have rejected the science data I provided you because science clashes with your fundamentalist beliefs.

You continue to assume the remarkable position of admitting you have no position, and no position to defend, yet you continue to be offended at the science that refutes your religious beliefs.

Science facts trump your fundamentalist beliefs. You can continue to deny that but it's obvious you're unable to refute the science data I provided you.

I can't be held responsible for your hurt feelings.

Once again, you have presented nothing. Prove me wrong. Show me where you provided a link or a reference to a scientific study which supports your claim. The thread isn't that long so it should only take a couple of minutes to find it.

Once again, you're angry and hurt that your religious perspectives are trumped by science. If you want data regarding medical science and it's implementation, you can do your own search for that.

As we see for someone who admits to having no position, you very much have a position. Why not just be honest and admit you're incensed at the science perspective being a valid and repeatable mechanism for gathering facts while your religious perspective leaves you angry and frustrated at your inability to defend a position you falsely claim you don't have.

Yep. I didn't think you would.

Yep. You abandoned your failed argument, the one you claimed to have no position on and the one you couldn't defend.

 

[emilynghiem]

I haven't rejected a thing. You have never presented anything to reject. Are you really so uninformed about science that you think you have? Do you think that just because it is your belief that it is automatically supported by science?

You have rejected the science data I provided you because science clashes with your fundamentalist beliefs.

You continue to assume the remarkable position of admitting you have no position, and no position to defend, yet you continue to be offended at the science that refutes your religious beliefs.

Science facts trump your fundamentalist beliefs. You can continue to deny that but it's obvious you're unable to refute the science data I provided you.

I can't be held responsible for your hurt feelings.

Once again, you have presented nothing. Prove me wrong. Show me where you provided a link or a reference to a scientific study which supports your claim. The thread isn't that long so it should only take a couple of minutes to find it.

Once again, you're angry and hurt that your religious perspectives are trumped by science. If you want data regarding medical science and it's implementation, you can do your own search for that.

As we see for someone who admits to having no position, you very much have a position. Why not just be honest and admit you're incensed at the science perspective being a valid and repeatable mechanism for gathering facts while your religious perspective leaves you angry and frustrated at your inability to defend a position you falsely claim you don't have.

Yep. I didn't think you would.

I haven't rejected a thing. You have never presented anything to reject. Are you really so uninformed about science that you think you have? Do you think that just because it is your belief that it is automatically supported by science?

You have rejected the science data I provided you because science clashes with your fundamentalist beliefs.

You continue to assume the remarkable position of admitting you have no position, and no position to defend, yet you continue to be offended at the science that refutes your religious beliefs.

Science facts trump your fundamentalist beliefs. You can continue to deny that but it's obvious you're unable to refute the science data I provided you.

I can't be held responsible for your hurt feelings.

Once again, you have presented nothing. Prove me wrong. Show me where you provided a link or a reference to a scientific study which supports your claim. The thread isn't that long so it should only take a couple of minutes to find it.

Once again, you're angry and hurt that your religious perspectives are trumped by science. If you want data regarding medical science and it's implementation, you can do your own search for that.

As we see for someone who admits to having no position, you very much have a position. Why not just be honest and admit you're incensed at the science perspective being a valid and repeatable mechanism for gathering facts while your religious perspective leaves you angry and frustrated at your inability to defend a position you falsely claim you don't have.

Yep. I didn't think you would.

Yep. You abandoned your failed argument, the one you claimed to have no position on and the one you couldn't defend.

Dear Hollie and PratchettFan
Can we please try approaching this from another angle.

Imagine if Hollie had never gone into sleep or REM stages. But half the ppl around her swore they had dreams at night. And they shared these visions to interpret them. If they started judging ppl who never dreamed and didnt believe this was real, wouldnt those rejecting dreams as made up feel they were also being rejected unfairly.

What if yoy cant understand what dreams are unless you go to sleep and have them.

What if you cant understand what spiritual visions are if your brain never goes there.

Wouldnt you freak out that others call you the freak for not seeing these things

 

[PratchettFan]

You have rejected the science data I provided you because science clashes with your fundamentalist beliefs.

You continue to assume the remarkable position of admitting you have no position, and no position to defend, yet you continue to be offended at the science that refutes your religious beliefs.

Science facts trump your fundamentalist beliefs. You can continue to deny that but it's obvious you're unable to refute the science data I provided you.

I can't be held responsible for your hurt feelings.

Once again, you have presented nothing. Prove me wrong. Show me where you provided a link or a reference to a scientific study which supports your claim. The thread isn't that long so it should only take a couple of minutes to find it.

Once again, you're angry and hurt that your religious perspectives are trumped by science. If you want data regarding medical science and it's implementation, you can do your own search for that.

As we see for someone who admits to having no position, you very much have a position. Why not just be honest and admit you're incensed at the science perspective being a valid and repeatable mechanism for gathering facts while your religious perspective leaves you angry and frustrated at your inability to defend a position you falsely claim you don't have.

Yep. I didn't think you would.

You have rejected the science data I provided you because science clashes with your fundamentalist beliefs.

You continue to assume the remarkable position of admitting you have no position, and no position to defend, yet you continue to be offended at the science that refutes your religious beliefs.

Science facts trump your fundamentalist beliefs. You can continue to deny that but it's obvious you're unable to refute the science data I provided you.

I can't be held responsible for your hurt feelings.

Once again, you have presented nothing. Prove me wrong. Show me where you provided a link or a reference to a scientific study which supports your claim. The thread isn't that long so it should only take a couple of minutes to find it.

Once again, you're angry and hurt that your religious perspectives are trumped by science. If you want data regarding medical science and it's implementation, you can do your own search for that.

As we see for someone who admits to having no position, you very much have a position. Why not just be honest and admit you're incensed at the science perspective being a valid and repeatable mechanism for gathering facts while your religious perspective leaves you angry and frustrated at your inability to defend a position you falsely claim you don't have.

Yep. I didn't think you would.

Yep. You abandoned your failed argument, the one you claimed to have no position on and the one you couldn't defend.

Dear Hollie and PratchettFan
Can we please try approaching this from another angle.

Imagine if Hollie had never gone into sleep or REM stages. But half the ppl around her swore they had dreams at night. And they shared these visions to interpret them. If they started judging ppl who never dreamed and didnt believe this was real, wouldnt those rejecting dreams as made up feel they were also being rejected unfairly.

What if yoy cant understand what dreams are unless you go to sleep and have them.

What if you cant understand what spiritual visions are if your brain never goes there.

Wouldnt you freak out that others call you the freak for not seeing these things

I don't think this covers my end of the issue. I am not questioning the "visions". I have no idea if there is such a thing that Hollie calls a "soul" and I really don't much care whether there is or not. I am questioning the claim of knowledge based upon scientific evidence.

 

[emilynghiem]

Once again, you have presented nothing. Prove me wrong. Show me where you provided a link or a reference to a scientific study which supports your claim. The thread isn't that long so it should only take a couple of minutes to find it.

Once again, you're angry and hurt that your religious perspectives are trumped by science. If you want data regarding medical science and it's implementation, you can do your own search for that.

As we see for someone who admits to having no position, you very much have a position. Why not just be honest and admit you're incensed at the science perspective being a valid and repeatable mechanism for gathering facts while your religious perspective leaves you angry and frustrated at your inability to defend a position you falsely claim you don't have.

Yep. I didn't think you would.

Once again, you have presented nothing. Prove me wrong. Show me where you provided a link or a reference to a scientific study which supports your claim. The thread isn't that long so it should only take a couple of minutes to find it.

Once again, you're angry and hurt that your religious perspectives are trumped by science. If you want data regarding medical science and it's implementation, you can do your own search for that.

As we see for someone who admits to having no position, you very much have a position. Why not just be honest and admit you're incensed at the science perspective being a valid and repeatable mechanism for gathering facts while your religious perspective leaves you angry and frustrated at your inability to defend a position you falsely claim you don't have.

Yep. I didn't think you would.

Yep. You abandoned your failed argument, the one you claimed to have no position on and the one you couldn't defend.

Dear Hollie and PratchettFan
Can we please try approaching this from another angle.

Imagine if Hollie had never gone into sleep or REM stages. But half the ppl around her swore they had dreams at night. And they shared these visions to interpret them. If they started judging ppl who never dreamed and didnt believe this was real, wouldnt those rejecting dreams as made up feel they were also being rejected unfairly.

What if yoy cant understand what dreams are unless you go to sleep and have them.

What if you cant understand what spiritual visions are if your brain never goes there.

Wouldnt you freak out that others call you the freak for not seeing these things

I don't think this covers my end of the issue. I am not questioning the "visions". I have no idea if there is such a thing that Hollie calls a "soul" and I really don't much care whether there is or not. I am questioning the claim of knowledge based upon scientific evidence.

Yes, and what I'm saying is
People don't takes sides and argue "what is knowledge" or "what has science proven" when it comes to things like dreams!

We take it for granted that when you or I talk about what we dreamed last night we believe it.

We don't question, demand that someone prove it or refrain from claiming they dreamed or not.

In fact we Know it can't be proven, and accept it is taken for granted on faith.
We are okay with it, knowing it can't be proven.

We agree what we're talking about and don't demand or refute conditions either way. So why can't we do that with other things?

 

[Mindlight]

You both didn't read the material clearly.

There is a Gnostic misreading of Christianity in the whole discussion of dualism. Christians do not set body and soul against each other they oppose the world , the flesh and the devil which is entirely different. So the argument did not make your point since it was from false premises.

Given that more Christians have been martyred for their faith in the last hundred years than in just about all the previous years it is both insulting and inaccurate to describe Christianity as the major source of violence. Surely the murderer is the guilty one rather than his victim.

Now if you want to pick on Communist atheists or Muslims you might have more credibility as they were/are doing the murdering or are IS , al Queada , Chinese Communists et al Christians?

 

[emilynghiem]

Amen to Mindlight! And Challenge to Delta4Embassy and also David Spetch:
to either go after the Chinese and Korean govt for punishing people for their faith in worse ways than Christians impose on others peacefully in comparison, or admit you side with these totalitarian regimes in persecuting Christians because you blame them as a Group, secretly or openly condone such torture and imprisonment of Christians, and are thus a hypocrite for supporting oppression while complaining that Christians are oppressing people. Do you or do you not support religious freedom, or only for nonChristians? Or do you believe everyone should be forced to abandon their beliefs, and if so does this rule apply to you? Or just everyone else you don't agree with, while those who agree with you are allowed to keep their beliefs?

You both didn't read the material clearly.

There is a Gnostic misreading of Christianity in the whole discussion of dualism. Christians do not set body and s

Given that more Christians have been martyred for their faith in the last hundred years than in just about all the previous years it is both insulting and inaccurate to describe Christianity as the major source of violence. Surely the murderer is the guilty one rather than his victim.

Now if you want to pick on Communist atheists or Muslims you might have more credibility as they were/are doing the murdering or are IS , al Queada , Chinese Communists et al Christians?