Scientific studies: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

Quote:

Neologist said: For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, (Leviticus 17:11)...Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat. (Genesis 9:3,4)

Perhaps some people were in the habit of eating animals raw, so those verses simply tell them that meat must be well cooked before eating it, in order to kill any nasty germs that might be in it.

As for blood transfusions, nobody willingly wants one because of the risk of getting a nasty disease from it, BUT if we'd die without a transfusion, we've got nothing to lose by having one, especially as the risk of contamination is pretty small nowadays.. Smile

Look, this British woman was dying anyway, but still refused a transfusion, where's the logic in that?

Jehovah's Witness mother dies after refusing blood transfusion after giving birth to twins
A young mother died hours after giving birth to twins because her faith prohibited a life-saving blood transfusion.
Emma Gough, 22, was able to hold her son and daughter after the natural delivery, but suffered a sudden haemorrhage and lost a great deal of blood.
As a Jehovah's Witness, Mrs Gough had signed a form before the birth insisting that she should not be given blood.
Staff at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital begged her husband Anthony, 24, who is also a Jehovah's Witness, and other relatives to allow the transfusion. But followers believe that blood transfusions are prohibited by the Bible and the family would not sanction the treatment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491791/Jehovahs-Witness-mother-dies-refusing-blood-transfusion-giving-birth-twins.html

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Well, medical science seems to be coming to a different conclusion; the number of hospitals and doctors practicing bloodless surgery is increasing, as are the number of non JW patients claiming to be JWs in order to avoid blood. Could be we were right all along.
Eh?

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Perhaps some people were in the habit of eating animals raw, so those verses simply tell them that meat must be well cooked before eating it, in order to kill any nasty germs that might be in it.

God was not giving cooking instructions. The blood of animals was to be poured out, not used for any purpose.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I haven't changed. You have no logical argument against what I am saying...so you are resorting to this kind of stuff.

I love it. You are a bit too easy, but I love it anyway.

It's obvious your viewpoint has changed. You first stated that disbelief and belief were the same. Now you claim they are not.

Quote:

No contradiction there. You still cannot grasp the difference between "I do not believe gods exist" and "I believe gods do not exist."

Perhaps this discussion is a bit advanced for you. You ought to start with one of the easier threads.

Now you're trying to nitpick words to attempt to avoid admitting your contradiction.

Quote:

Oh, I would never change the wording, Jimmy. That is what you do...like you did with the link for "atheist" and "atheism." In any case, you just are not able to grasp what has been said.

Like I suggested up above, perhaps you ought swim in the shallow end for a while...and leave the deep end until after you grow up a bit.

Now now, don't lie.

Quote:

When I am wrong, I acknowledge that I am wrong. You ought to give that a try yourself.

Apparently not.

Quote:

I have not changed my position, but it is a gas watching you squirm and pretend that I have so you don't have to acknowledge how wrong you have been in this thread.

By the way, you ought to stick with just one persona, Jimmy.

I'm here for ya no matter what persona you come up with, Jimmy.

It's plain to see that your position has changed, my friend.

Try to stick to one viewpoint.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Well, medical science seems to be coming to a different conclusion; the number of hospitals and doctors practicing bloodless surgery is increasing, as are the number of non JW patients claiming to be JWs in order to avoid blood. Could be we were right all along.
Eh?

No, medical science is not coming to a different conclusion. There's no way to spin this to make it anything other than stupid.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

Well, medical science seems to be coming to a different conclusion; the number of hospitals and doctors practicing bloodless surgery is increasing, as are the number of non JW patients claiming to be JWs in order to avoid blood. Could be we were right all along.
Eh?

Where are you getting your information from?

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Where are you getting your information from?

Let me know if you need more:

http://www.tripdatabase.com/doc/1073052#content

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

See above

2 Replies

@neologist,

Did you not claim that they were "more safe" than normal blood transfusion (or at least infer it in your previous post)?

The potential benefits do not outweigh the needs here.

Example: someone during surgery who has experienced a lot of blood loss but refuses blood transfusion=dead. If death is worth it to you people then by all means...

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
I haven't changed. You have no logical argument against what I am saying...so you are resorting to this kind of stuff.

I love it. You are a bit too easy, but I love it anyway.

It's obvious your viewpoint has changed. You first stated that disbelief and belief were the same. Now you claim they are not.

Keep trying, Jimmy.

Let me see a link to where I said that "belief" and "disbelief" are the same thing. I defy you to do so.

Quote:

Quote:
No contradiction there. You still cannot grasp the difference between "I do not believe gods exist" and "I believe gods do not exist."

Perhaps this discussion is a bit advanced for you. You ought to start with one of the easier threads.

Now you're trying to nitpick words to attempt to avoid admitting your contradiction.

Not attempting anything of the kind.

I've written about this extensively. Here is one thread as an example. There are many more.

http://able2know.org/topic/190405-1

Quote:

Quote:
Oh, I would never change the wording, Jimmy. That is what you do...like you did with the link for "atheist" and "atheism." In any case, you just are not able to grasp what has been said.

Like I suggested up above, perhaps you ought swim in the shallow end for a while...and leave the deep end until after you grow up a bit.

Now now, don't lie.

No problem...I won't.

Quote:

Quote:
When I am wrong, I acknowledge that I am wrong. You ought to give that a try yourself.

Apparently not.

Definitely not. You will not even give it a try.

Quote:

Quote:
I have not changed my position, but it is a gas watching you squirm and pretend that I have so you don't have to acknowledge how wrong you have been in this thread.

By the way, you ought to stick with just one persona, Jimmy.

I'm here for ya no matter what persona you come up with, Jimmy.

It's plain to see that your position has changed, my friend.

Not for the last 8 years here...and for 5 before that over at ABUZZ.

But it is cute watching you try to claim some sort of "victory" by pretending that I have changed my position. I love you for that kind of stuff. It shows desperation so nicely.

Quote:

Try to stick to one viewpoint.

That is what I am doing. Wink

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

See above

Nobody objects to someone receiving their own blood during surgery if it is a viable option. What's objectionable is people rejecting proven effective medical procedures in favor of two thousand year old mythology and risking their own (and sometimes others) lives in the process.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Keep trying, Jimmy.

Let me see a link to where I said that "belief" and "disbelief" are the same thing. I defy you to do so.

Why force me to scroll through pages of posts for your own lack of memory skills? You find it. It wasn't over one post. It was mostly inferred when you claimed that my disbelief in god was the same as not believing in god.

Quote:

Definitely not. You will not even give it a try.

I only do when I'm wrong.

Quote:

Not for the last 8 years here...and for 5 before that over at ABUZZ.

But it is cute watching you try to claim some sort of "victory" by pretending that I have changed my position. I love you for that kind of stuff. It shows desperation so nicely.

k, lets discuss one of your two contradictions in this entire discussion.

Do you do believing or do you not do believing?

1 Reply

When that 22-yr-old JW woman lay dying in hospital, the conversation must have gone something like this-
DOCTORS- "You're dying"
WOMAN- "Can nothing be done?"
DOCTORS "Yes, we can save your life with a transfusion"
WOMAN- "No thanks, I might catch a fatal disease from it"
DOCTORS -" But you'll die anyway without one"
WOMAN -"Okay i'll die rather than have one"

Where's the logic in that?
It certainly seems to indicate that this threads title - 'Religious people are less intelligent than atheists' - is true in the case of JW's.. Wink

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
Keep trying, Jimmy.

Let me see a link to where I said that "belief" and "disbelief" are the same thing. I defy you to do so.

Why force me to scroll through pages of posts for your own lack of memory skills? You find it. It wasn't over one post. It was mostly inferred when you claimed that my disbelief in god was the same as not believing in god.

That is not what I said...and I have explained that to you.

You are simply making stuff up...and then battling your concoctions. Funny to watch! I'm enjoying it.

I still defy you to link to one place where I said what you say I have said.

Quote:

Quote:
Definitely not. You will not even give it a try.

I only do when I'm wrong.

You only do what when you are wrong...which you are very often?

Quote:

Quote:
Not for the last 8 years here...and for 5 before that over at ABUZZ.

But it is cute watching you try to claim some sort of "victory" by pretending that I have changed my position. I love you for that kind of stuff. It shows desperation so nicely.

k, lets discuss one of your two contradictions in this entire discussion.

Do you do believing or do you not do believing?

I do not do "believing."

Show me the contradiction!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

That is not what I said...and I have explained that to you.

You are simply making stuff up...and then battling your concoctions. Funny to watch! I'm enjoying it.

I still defy you to link to one place where I said what you say I have said.

You did say that. I remember it was towards the beginning when I actually took you seriously and I was shocked at how silly it sounded.

Quote:

You only do what when you are wrong...which you are very often?

Quite rare, actually.

Quote:

I do not do "believing."

Show me the contradiction!

Earlier you said you do not BELIEVE that unicorns exist on Earth. Directly after that you said "I do not do believing". That is the contradiction.

I'm glad you switched back to your original view-point, though.

2 Replies

The Old T bans taking ANIMAL blood into your body-
"You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood" (Lev. 17:14)

So it's beyond me where JW's get the notion that it also means human blood?

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
That is not what I said...and I have explained that to you.

You are simply making stuff up...and then battling your concoctions. Funny to watch! I'm enjoying it.

I still defy you to link to one place where I said what you say I have said.

You did say that. I remember it was towards the beginning when I actually took you seriously and I was shocked at how silly it sounded.

I MOST ASSUREDLY NEVER SAID THAT...AND I DEFY YOU TO FIND ANYWHERE WHERE I DID. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO RESTRICT YOURSELF TO THIS THREAD...OR EVEN TO THIS FORUM.

YOU CANNOT DO IT...BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED!

Quote:

Quote:
You only do what when you are wrong...which you are very often?

Quite rare, actually.

More than you might think.

Quote:

Quote:
I do not do "believing."

Show me the contradiction!

Earlier you said you do not BELIEVE that unicorns exist on Earth. Directly after that you said "I do not do believing". That is the contradiction.

So...you are offering the fact that I said I DO NOT BELIEVE something as proof that I DO BELIEVE something.

Are you sane? Do you understand the English language?

Quote:

I'm glad you switched back to your original view-point, though.

You just do not get it, Jimmy. There is no switch...you apparently are not intellectually able to understand what is being said.

Like I told you earlier...you'd be much better off wading in the shallow end for a while...and then after you grow up, come join us here in the deeper end.

1 Reply

Even ultra-Orthodox Jews who strictly observe the Old Testament kosher laws, recognize that blood transfusions are NOT prohibited by God's command not to eat blood.. Smile

Saving a life is one of the most important Jewish mitzvot (commandments), Therefore, if a blood transfusion is deemed medically necessary, then it is not only permissible but obligatory.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/625443/jewish/Is-blood-transfusion-permissible-in-Jewish-belief.htm

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
I do not do "believing."

Show me the contradiction!

Earlier you said you do not BELIEVE that unicorns exist on Earth. Directly after that you said "I do not do believing". That is the contradiction.

I'm glad you switched back to your original view-point, though.

The more I think about this, Jimmy, the more I conclude that YOU seem to think that "believing" and "not believing" are the same thing.

The only way you can suggest that my comment "I do NOT BELIEVE that unicorns exist on Earth" is equal to "believing" (and thus a supposed contradiction to my assertion that I do not do believing)...is if you are saying that "not believing" and "believing" ARE THE SAME THING.

You apparently are guilty of the very thing you are saying that I said...which I did not...and which I STILL DEFY YOU TO GIVE A REFERENCE TO.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I MOST ASSUREDLY NEVER SAID THAT...AND I DEFY YOU TO FIND ANYWHERE WHERE I DID. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO RESTRICT YOURSELF TO THIS THREAD...OR EVEN TO THIS FORUM.

YOU CANNOT DO IT...BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED!

Then why are we having this argument? That is what started this entire thing. I told you I did not believe that gods exist. You said the burden of proof was on me to prove my belief. I said that I did not have a belief and that a lack of belief was the definition of atheism. You claimed that atheism itself is a belief.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Quote:

So...you are offering the fact that I said I DO NOT BELIEVE something as proof that I DO BELIEVE something.

Are you sane? Do you understand the English language?

You told me that not believing in god(s) was a belief, so why do the same rules not apply to you? I'm actually following your line of reasoning here.

Quote:

You just do not get it, Jimmy. There is no switch...you apparently are not intellectually able to understand what is being said.

Like I told you earlier...you'd be much better off wading in the shallow end for a while...and then after you grow up, come join us here in the deeper end.

I might not be intellectually able. However, at least I know my own view-points and don't switch from one to the other like old-man Frank Apisa.

1 Reply

Scientific studies: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know