15
   

Scientific studies: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 01:06 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
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.
Are you saying Orthodox Jews are still in a favorable position with God?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 01:07 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
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?
So humans are not creatures?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 01:09 pm
@JimmyJ,
JimmyJ wrote:

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.


I said that if you make an assertion...you bear the burden of proof for that assertion.

If you said, "I do not believe in gods"...I would not touch that. I do not believe in gods either.

What you must have said is, "I believe there are no gods"...which is a different thing.

But I am not sure.

Go back and find whatever it is you think was said...and link to it and we can discuss it that way.

Quote:
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,


I NEVER TOLD YOU THAT!

Not sure how many times I have to say that...BUT I NEVER TOLD YOU THAT.



Quote:
so why do the same rules not apply to you? I'm actually following your line of reasoning here.


You are not even coming close.

Quote:
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.


There has been no switching on my side at all, Jimmy. You are trying to handle arguments you are not equipped for . If you want to continue doing it...along with the snideness...just do so. I'll be here for ya.

neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 01:10 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
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
The highlighted passage would not be the words of a Jehovah's Witness, though perhaps an educated non believer. The Witness would object because it is a violation of God's law.

Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 01:10 pm
Another puzzling thing about JW's is that although they claim the OT bans blood transfusions, they choose to ignore this OT verse and are happy to eat sausages and bacon etc..Smile
"The pig...is unclean for you..You must not eat their meat" (Lev 11:7/8)
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 01:26 pm
@rosborne979,
You may appreciate this:

"Bloodless surgery—operations performed without the use of donated blood—has been done for years on patients with religious objections to transfusions. Now, hospitals are embracing the practice more widely, saying it is cheaper and better for patients to avoid transfusions whenever possible".

Found here: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323494504578340962879110432

Or this:

"'Bloodless' surgery avoids risks of transfusion
Techniques first used for Jehovah's Witnesses gaining popularity"

Found here:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12466831#.UrXp0G2oi4w

And, yes. Many operations do not require recycled blood.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 01:30 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
Another puzzling thing about JW's is that although they claim the OT bans blood transfusions, they choose to ignore this OT verse and are happy to eat sausages and bacon etc..Smile
"The pig...is unclean for you..You must not eat their meat" (Lev 11:7/8)
Shame on you Romeo:
You stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed. . . (Acts 10:15)
0 Replies
 
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 02:01 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I said that if you make an assertion...you bear the burden of proof for that assertion.

If you said, "I do not believe in gods"...I would not touch that. I do not believe in gods either.

What you must have said is, "I believe there are no gods"...which is a different thing.

But I am not sure.

Go back and find whatever it is you think was said...and link to it and we can discuss it that way.


I would never word it that way. That doesn't even sound good when spoken aloud.

Perhaps you weren't wearing your bifocals when you read it.

Quote:
I NEVER TOLD YOU THAT!

Not sure how many times I have to say that...BUT I NEVER TOLD YOU THAT.


You did.

Quote:
There has been no switching on my side at all, Jimmy. You are trying to handle arguments you are not equipped for . If you want to continue doing it...along with the snideness...just do so. I'll be here for ya.


You've switched a total of 2 times now. We'll see if you make it to 3 or if you stick to it this time.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 02:07 pm
Quote:
Neologist said:
1-Are you saying Orthodox Jews are still in a favorable position with God?
2- So humans are not creatures?
3- The Witness would object because it is a violation of God's law.
4- You stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed. . . (Acts 10:15)


1- Jews don't let themselves or their kids die for want of a transfusion, so we'd better let God decide which group he favours.
2- Leviticus says don't take ANIMAL blood into your body, it says nothing about human blood (transfusions)
3- Is God going to send everybody who has a transfusion to hell?
4- Why quote Acts 10? It seems to undermine the JW's case because God says- “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat” (all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds)
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 02:29 pm
@JimmyJ,
JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
I said that if you make an assertion...you bear the burden of proof for that assertion.

If you said, "I do not believe in gods"...I would not touch that. I do not believe in gods either.

What you must have said is, "I believe there are no gods"...which is a different thing.

But I am not sure.

Go back and find whatever it is you think was said...and link to it and we can discuss it that way.


I would never word it that way. That doesn't even sound good when spoken aloud.

Perhaps you weren't wearing your bifocals when you read it.

Quote:
I NEVER TOLD YOU THAT!

Not sure how many times I have to say that...BUT I NEVER TOLD YOU THAT.


You did.

Quote:
There has been no switching on my side at all, Jimmy. You are trying to handle arguments you are not equipped for . If you want to continue doing it...along with the snideness...just do so. I'll be here for ya.


You've switched a total of 2 times now. We'll see if you make it to 3 or if you stick to it this time.


I have never said anything of the sort...but I can see that the only way you can find peace with yourself is to pretend that I did.

So have a blast. No skin off my nose.

And no switching on my part.

You are a joy, Jimmy. I love ya, Buddy. Wink
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 03:24 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
You may appreciate this:

No I don't appreciate that, and nobody should. You are trying to twist the use of a functional medical technique into justification for a self destructive course of action in deference to an ancient fairy tale. There is no defending such a stance.

In general, I believe people should be able to choose their own fates even to the point of self-destruction regardless of how stupid their rationale. But some religions use this type of argument to neglect others, including their own children, to the point of death. And in my eyes, that is heinous beyond all defense.

So no, I don't appreciate your attempt to twist the value of functional medical procedures into some type of defense of this type of barbarism.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 03:34 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Romeo Fabulini wrote:
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
The highlighted passage would not be the words of a Jehovah's Witness, though perhaps an educated non believer. The Witness would object because it is a violation of God's law.

So you're proposing he change it to this:
WOMAN- "No thanks, I'm delusional and believe an ancient fairy tale prohibits it"
DOCTORS -" But you'll die anyway without one"
WOMAN -"Okay i'll die rather than have one"


Much better...
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 03:57 pm
There's also the "Satan factor" to be considered, namely that he must have poisoned JW's mind to make them think transfusions are evil, it's what he DOES!
Jesus said:-"The devil.. was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44)

Paul said (Re those in Satan's grip)- "..hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will." (2 Tim 2:26)

PS- here's another question for JW's-
Would JW's accept another JW's blood for a transfusion?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 04:29 pm
@rosborne979,
The idea that ros can improve a Romeo post must be some kind of joke.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 05:44 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
3- Is God going to send everybody who has a transfusion to hell?
Of course not.
He won't even send you to hell.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 05:49 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
WOMAN- "No thanks, I'm delusional and believe an ancient fairy tale prohibits it". . . Much better...
spendius wrote:
The idea that ros can improve a Romeo post must be some kind of joke.
The idea that ros agrees with Romeo comes as no surprise.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 06:15 pm
Quote:
Romeo asked: Is God going to send everybody who has a transfusion to hell?
Neologist replied: Of course not...

In that case why did the young JW woman refuse a transfusion and die if she'd have had nothing to lose by having one?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 06:27 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Quote:
Romeo asked: Is God going to send everybody who has a transfusion to hell?
Neologist replied: Of course not...
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
In that case why did the young JW woman refuse a transfusion and die if she'd have had nothing to lose by having one?
I'm going to let you stew on that one while I participate in my life.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 07:45 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
The idea that ros agrees with Romeo comes as no surprise.

I even agree with Gunga on a few things too. I recognize that people have complex personalities and that they are not always wrong about everything. I probably even agree with you on a few things, but I'll never agree to sacrificing people's lives based on religious dogma and ancient myths. It doesn't matter how you spin it, that's just mental illness run amok.
0 Replies
 
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2013 10:23 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I have never said anything of the sort...but I can see that the only way you can find peace with yourself is to pretend that I did.

So have a blast. No skin off my nose.

And no switching on my part.

You are a joy, Jimmy. I love ya, Buddy.


Denial at its finest.

I'm sorry. I only like the girls.
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 08:24:37