Six HIV patients die after church tells them to stop taking meds

Its only been that long since medicine could be considered good. Its not until the Enlightenment that we start seeing the beneficial effects of medicine.

 

HIV is a retro virus that doesn't discriminate.. These Evangelical churches a just insane.

 

You need to calm down on the issue. Read the post, you are making assumptions. It has nothing to do with athiests being 'better' than anyone it was simply stating the logical infallacy of the this specific instance int he article. How the OP responded to the matter with the 'only religion' comment was biased to be sure but it is better to respond in a logical way explaining why truly god could niot cure HIV rather than going into defensive mode.

 

It is not Christian Dogma is it?

Is this difficult?

No, it is not.

Wisdom can come without experience or we would all be screwed. It comes from study, learning, and the application of decisions with effects and consequences in mind. Some are good at it, and others, no matter how hard they study, are not.

That is why we value the wise.

It isn't?

They why do atheists always leave it off their list of what is important, as you did, until challenged?

Why is it always an after thought? Why is it always, well, we can have that too!

If it is important, it would not be an after thought. It would be important enough to write down and adhere to as a standard. Atheists simply do not do that.

 

Really?

Define the thesis statement that we are supposed to be debating?

Funny. When you guys poke us in the eye, it is the emodiment of skepticism.

When we poke back, we are suddenly blowing our stack? So what if the OP from the poster is in line with at least a dozen similiar threads of exactly the same intent?

Must just be over reacted?

BTW - I believe I did exactly what you asked for, and have done so several times. So to did the first Christian to respond to the thread. This is not what the vast majority of us think or act upon. Such deliniations are not, and never are made, by atheists who start threads like this.

 

Wow, this is sort of like a modern Salem witch trial. They used to toss women accused of being a witch into deep water with a weight attached to them. If they were able to escape, then they were a witch. If not, then they were pure, but of course the consequence was that they drowned.

This isn't much different. Basically, if prayer doesn't cure their disease (and of course it won't), then they must not have deserved it.

How is this type of (*)(*)(*)(*) still happening??

 

Ah, denial.

And a blatant straw man, right on queue.

Obviously the Christians referenced in the story are morons - that does not mean that all Christians are.

Of course, except that religion was the catalyst for this particular stupidity. Without those religious beliefs, it wouldn't have happened.

That's the difference.

 

Difficult? You're the one putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about Christian dogma. I said dogma sucks ass.

Study, learning, and application of decisions? Sounds like logic and reason to me. Dogma is not a requirement for wisdom. That's ridiculous.

I live my life how I live my life, I really don't see your point here. Are you trying to make the case that dogma is a requirement for compassion and love? Can one believe in compassion and love without holding irrational beliefs?

 

No chit!!!! Its exactly like that.

 

You are attacking athiesm as a whole when one athiest mad a thread the showed a terrible act done in the name of god. It reflects that religion and that church. Not you. All you have to do is state that not all religions believe in such practices but instead you went into a defensive rant.

In summary you are tired of atheistic belief being generalized because of the extremists or the ones who speak loudest correct? We expect the same, just because wolverine made a thread that attacked your faith and wolverine is an athiest does mean atheists as a whole 'hate' theists. You are simply seeing the loudest ones, same as in the situation in the article.

In truth the majority of the athiest population could be said to be 'athiestic agnostic' not really believing in god but not carign one way or the other. We are not here todefame you, satanize you or tell you your an idiot for believing in god. Do some do that? Yes. Are they often louder than ones who don't? Yes. But the same could be said for institutions like the westburo baptist church or the organization depicted in this article.

 

People in Africa think you can cure AIDS by having sex with a virgin. People with diseases that kill will believe almost anything.

Besides a few fringe churches (like the ones described above), most Christians don't disregard medical science. In fact, in the U.S., a great number of hospitals were begun by Catholics and Baptists.

As a Priest once said in a homily, as Hurricane Ivan was bearing down on Pensacola---"Pray as if you haven't prepared. Prepare as if you haven't prayed. Action and prayer are both needed."

Another priest told a version of the below story in a homily (from http://www.ahajokes.com/reg28.html but I heard it about 20 yrs ago) :

 

When did the Catholic church preach that? Please give evidence of it.

Man, it's strange that about 1 in 6 patients in American hospitals are in a Catholic hospital.....

 

Reference?

 

It's ironical how this kind of belief resembles a virus

 

Agh, really? Its a strawman? Do you even know what the word means? I doubt it, because you atheists continuously toss it out, but rarely, if ever does it meet the standard of an actual strawman.

In fact, your previous post, a generalized swill if ever I saw one, ignoring every post I wrote (and others), that have already detailed how this ONE church is out of synch with the larger body of Christianity and our doctrine. But here you slam it anyway in a generalized swill, and if YOU are judge and arbitor of all.

Sure, atheists do stupid things. But when a Christian does, well, now all of religion is flawed and without it, no one would do anything stupid at all ... except we have the Darwin Awards, and plenty fo stupid people who do dumb things without the benefit of religion. A point that is apparently too hard to acknowledge for atheists?

Nope, not even fail to acknowledge - its actually a strawman arguement - why? because they say so. (And appeal to authority). Let pay no heed at ALL to the fact that this is biased sample fallacy, you know where a small sample is taken and presented as if it is accurate for a MUCH larger whole?

In short, atheism and its justification appears to be little more than a self esteem issue, a lack of objectivity, over generalization, fallacious arguementation, and mean spiritedness. Atheism.

Notice, once again, the complete lack of objectivity, rational ability, and unemtional scientific discourse.

And tehse kinds of therads are pretty much the only thing atheists can offer up in the religion section. Of course, this says nothing about atheism ...

Yep, the entire process is clearly

 

More science form atheists!

Why, I think we should start a thread that compares atheists to monkey crap. I am sure that would appreciated and found to be valid, scientific arguementation.

Atheism: a religion of malcontents.

 

For the record I am not rolling all Christians into the OP.

This is painfully obvious.

The hackles can be at rest now.

 

You are simply being dishonest.

The article clearly refers to Christianity and its doctrine, only the interpretation of doctrine in that church stands in stark comparison to what is taught by almost ALL churches save a small and largely rejected churches - for reasons I believe I was explaining.

The OP is not about your particular procivilities regarding dogma. Quite frankly, I have little interest is the continuously meandering definitions of subjects from atheists who simply appear to want to disagree for disagreements sake.

The point, this church is well outside the norm of Christians doctrine.

Feel free to disagree with something besides your subjective opinion.

Logic is a method of thinking through a problem set. Tell me, should we go to war? Should I fall in love with person X or person Y? Will a cost benefits analysis always produce the right answer? How is this so in increasingly complex situations? It is better to afford fishing rights to fisherman in New England or sports anglers who feed the region with tourist dollars? What is the correct balance? Wisdom is seeing solutions that are not always logically definable.

Tell me, if someone commits a crimes, logically, they deserve punishment correct? So how do you factor in compassion? Forgiveness? Allow for repentence and humbleness? Logic without humanity is pointless.

And finally, doctrine is indeed necessary to learn wisdom. What do you think the Bible is about? Full of apparent contradictions? Full of rules like thou shalt not lie? And yet we know that, over time, a reputation of honesty and honor is invaluable. We know that over time, logic (which dictates hard and fast rules), must be termpered by context. Our jurisprudence bears this out. Everyone who commits the same crime does not get the same sentence - because context and circumstances are taken into account in judgement.

Tell me atheist. How do atheists learn this? How do they seek it? You have no doctrine, no definied standards, and as we see above, a procilivity to change goal posts rather than acknowledge a simple point. Is wisdom just winged for atheists?

Yes, imparting what you think is important into yoru standards is critically important. Otherwise, they are not important.

If you wife is important, you make time for her. If your job is important, you make time for that. If you tell your wife she is important, but spend all your time at work? You are really telling your wife she is not important.

The same applies to atheism. If you only talk about logic and reason, put all your efforts into it, and then only ackowlegde things like compassion and reason by saying, "Well, we can get that our own way!" You can indeed, but what I do not see, like the wife you never sees her husband, is any sor of methology by which atheists make these human imperatives important.

A lack of standards, a lack of goals, a loack of accountabiliy are not good things.

Finally, take a look at the bolded part above, and see why theologians consider atheism to be self worship. That is, after all, what is really important to you is it not?

Why else would it be so hard for you simply acknowledge that what happened in this church is a the result of a small, doctrinally unsound church? It shouldn't be hard at all should it?

 

Are you also unable to comprehend what you read? I specifically said, "the Christians referenced in the story are morons - that does not mean that all Christians are". That is the opposite of "generalized swill".

Surprise surprise, another (*)(*)(*)(*)ing straw man. You're horrible at this whole debating thing.

No where did I say that all of religion is flawed or that no one would do anything stupid without it. In fact, I agreed with you to the contrary when I said "of course" in response to your respective statements.

How ironic. Add "abject hypocrisy" and "blatant pathological lying" to the list and you just described yourself.

 

So obvious you failed to spell it out until confronted ... again.

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/217164-i-would-do-again-100-times.html

Oh look, you failed to it there.

http://www.politicalforum.com/humor-satire/218382-if-god-could-see-us-now.html

Oh look, you failed to do it there too!

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/207508-doctrine-fear.html

Or there.

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/211582-why-do-people-laugh-creationists.html

Or there.

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/210437-man-pulls-his-eyes-out-his-head.html

Not only failing to make any delineations, but ripping scripture out of context to offend all.

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/209729-concept-hell-pagan.html

Nor there, where once again, you fail to acknowlegde that the concept of hell you screech about comes from Dante.

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/199603-cost-intolerance.html

Exactly which delineatons are you makiung there?

Right, right, you wait until called on your generalized rants - and then you simply lie about your intent - which is readily on display.

 

Well, some atheist didn't eat his wheaties this morning.

I am Christian, so OBVIOUSLY, I can't read or write.

There is what you wrote, and I guess you missed the plain English where I refer to the previous post you made?

Of course, since I cannot read or write, obviously these words are not there at all.

Bull.

All this is the standard atheist flame bait.

You could simply acknowledge that these are a fringe element at best, instead you use terms like 'those Christians', sortta like - those black men - and of course, such sly antics are actually about the standard atheist ploy of invective and denial.

Its all about putting others down. When called - you are Bambi.

Oh look, an ad homimem. What a shock.

Yep, clearly my analysis is wrong about the intent of the whack holes of atheism. You are clearly respectful and your intent is to disagree with honor. Why castigating everyone who points out the weaknesses of yoru arguement can neother argue and is clearly a pathological liar who cannot read or write.

More objective scientific analysis from rational atheists?

Or just more mean spirited swill from a group of posters who have nothing to offer save anger and derision?

Let me guess, you are putting Billy Joel's "I am an innocent man" on, to pump yourself up for your hysterical defense of you honor? Shocked. Never seen that before for an atheist.

 

Now, why o why do the atheists, apparently intent on debate, skip over posts like these and offer no rebuttal whatsoever?

I AMMMMMMM AN INNOCENT MAAANNNN

 

Obsess much?

 

lol

I just clicked through the threads and none of them refer to what you are implying.

Lie much?

 

Nope, just check readily displayed facts.

Now tell me, as you engage repeatedly like this, who is obsessed?

Project much? Rationalize and castigate much?