chess123mate

1. So I can just say "You are NOT alive." and I don't have to provide evidence for that to be true? Cool! I will post no more after this. Evolution is stupidity. You believe in this yourself, though there is no proof. You claim 99% or higher of scientists believe in evolution. You are WRONG. This is not a valid fact. Maybe 99% of the scientists of YOUR DEFINITION do, but by your definition they have to meet tons of criteria that exclude many scientists. I have not done the Bible justice, and I am sorry. If you want to argue properly, go to a local Bible expert. Usually ministers/priests can help you there. I'm not the person to ask about this. Anyways, you're point doesn't make sense, about costs. You're basically saying that life costs, so don't live. Eating costs, so don't eat. That doesn't make sense, yet you are saying this. Drinking water costs, so don't drink! That's ridiculous! Not doing something because it's a living cost doesn't make sense unless you are in extreme circumstances. I have faith. I have proof. If you don't believe the Bible, that's your own undoing. There might be inconsistencies, but as I said, it WAS written by different people. To different audiences. And want to know something? It WAS guided by God. Just look in the Bible. I don't think you've done that enough. It's not enough to look at a few inconsistencies that don't make sense and say "that's it, the Bible is dumb". I know you don't know what you're talking about, because you've offered the "beginner's argument", that it could've been some high person late at night writing the Bible. Say that again, to yourself, and actually READ the Bible, and try and figure out how anyone can do that. Better yet, get an NIV version and read the sidenotes. An NIV I've got even explains a point of proof. Of course, my question is, why are you contradicting yourself? You've contradicted yourself with that argument. You've said that "the Bible is based on fact" yet "isn't possible". So, which is it? Both? Hmmm... something for anyone looking at these forums to think about. Anyways, good-bye. I'm not likely to post on these forums again.

No! You are simply trying to use my points for your own personal gain! This alone should prove how you are twisting what people say! This is my last post here, by the way. Not because I'm losing this argument, as you seem to be indicating, but because I have a life to spend doing more constructive things than wasting it discussing it with people who refuse to listen. I HAVEN'T studied much in this area. All I've heard is pieces from the media and what you guys have said. Very ironic indeed. My whole point from that was that 'I don't know enough to give you proofs that you are wrong, but I do have logic and a little knowledge to present.' You can't be proven wrong. You can't prove the other side (the point of view I'm on) wrong either. We can argue it for eternity and get nowhere. That's the thing with such issues, is that different points of views indicate different answers. Yes... I can't believe I messed that up... the 2 options part. I basically said "A" or "A"... oops... I should've said "pain" or "death". That's what I think I meant. You're wrong. I said A treatment. Not "treatment". In other words, I was saying that: "they weren't refusing A treatment, just chemotherapy, since they already tried that and want to try other methods". You might have an 85% chance of survival, but for how long? Give it a few years and it comes back. Do it again? Great! Another 85% chance. Comes back again? Who cares if you have to do this for the rest of your life if you're alive! Chemotherapy doesn't do as good as you're indicating. Ha ha. My point was "if you have to endure a longer period of intense pain, some people would prefer to die" depending on the circumstances. Some people would be scared to die, but others aren't. Segnosaur, you are under the illusion that doctors know what they're doing. Only some are like what you've said. I know from family experience. Oh, and you are also under the impression that people can't understand children. Children do know if they're dying. They might not believe what you do about an 'afterlife', but they will have at least a limited understanding. Some more than others. But they understand that they're sick and may not live. Back to doctors. Are they God? No. Are they smart? Of course. They've studied. At least from 50 years ago, if not earlier, but at least they've got that... There is something I want to introduce to you. Two things, actually: 1. Internet. Heard of it? It's where "tons" of medical information is stored among even more "tons" of information, games, sites, discussions, and forums like this. 2. Books. Books that talk about medicine. They happen to talk about other things. Especially #1, though. With the Internet, the average person, when they are compelled to (say they are sick or a family member is dying from cancer...), they can research the subject from a variety of authors (to make sure one of them isn't lying or something). They can gather a very good understanding of what's happening. Now to tell you my family's information when dealing with doctors. If you get a good doctor, they know what's happening with you (ie. sickness, etc.), and are willing to do something about it. If you get an OK doctor, they might look at you and do what a good doctor does, or maybe what a bad doctor does. If you get a bad doctor, they can look you straight in the eye and say "You're fine! Why are you in here?" and you could have infection in your ears, throat, and anywhere else. You could be feeling nauseous, dizzy, and they wouldn't do anything. Why? Who knows? They don't know why or just aren't good doctors. My source? Myself. I've gone through this. My family's gone through this. You tell me doctors are so smart, etc. Yah right. Only some. Oh, I forgot. Bad doctors often think they're giving you the right medicine, the right treatment, etc. Want to know what? They're not only wrong, they may also be hindering your health. Not often does this happen, but it happens. My mom is smarter than some of these doctors. She might not know some complex names for diseases, but she's smarter than they are. No, she hasn't studied medicine. "Uhh... no. that's not the way chemotherapy works. The cancer doesn't "think". It doesn't do anything to "abandon" the body" I don't think the point was that the cancer "thinks". This is called imagery. It's how some people communicate when they aren't into science. Just to let you know. "Not exactly a good analogy. Hundreds of years ago (when they were bleeding patients) we weren't really using the scientific method... our medical treatments were wrapped up in various superstitions. Its only been in the past hundred years or so that we've actually been using things like double blind studies and proper statistics to actually determine the effectiveness of certain treatments." You think we're so smart. Pathetic. We have "scientific method". Do you think back then you could say this... "Hey, you know you're really wrong because you haven't done anything to prove what you're talking about?!" and they would say this? "Yah, you're right. Too bad we don't have SCIENTIFIC METHOD... that'd be so much better." or if you want to be realistic, saying "Yah, I know, but we don't have the intelligence to do better". They'd be more likely to say "Are you crazy? Of course this is true!" "But that doesn't mean that using chemo today is wrong... it is (in many cases) the best course of cancer treatment that we have today." WRONG!!!!!!!!! They have better treatments in the US. Ones that work a lot better. Only problem is that either Canada refuses to look at it, or the US refuses to give it out. I think it's the first one, though. After all, "us doctors are smarter than everybody else, so go take a hike with your new meds and treatments". You know, you think you're picking apart everybody's arguments by pointing out grammar mistakes. "Doctors are not gods. In fact over 50% of the graduated in the lower half of their class. They know nothing about quality of life except what they may experience - often from rich and sheltered families. That isn't quality of life. It is quantity." I don't know about the math, I agree, but the rest of it I agree with. They only know what THEY know. They don't necessarily understand what other people want. I could go on and on. But I'm tired of this. We aren't slaves, we shouldn't be able to control other people, or vice versa. They have. Period. Is it right to be able to control other people? Of course it is right to intervene if someone is hurting another person. But is it right to rip a child from the parent saying "You are too stupid to know what you're doing, let us deal with it you bad decision-maker", given the very understandable possibility that they DONT' want to go through more pain?

I'm not going to comment on all your arguing/discussing/insulting of proofs, I'm just going to give my bit (and my family's view) on the boy based on the personal experiences of my parents. I haven't studied much in this area. I don't have any proof. I have logic. Here's what I see: --A family who had taken chemo before and failed decided that it wasn't worth the pain for the slight chance of minor success --The family decided to take other actions that they believed would (or might) do something to help. --The state/government/whoever's involved overruled it. So the thing is basically a question of what's better -- pain, or life? It's down to the question, would you rather go through a year of feeling terrible pain, or die? Some stories my parents know of from real life. I just hope they don't mind me sharing them. Of course, I won't be mentioning any major details. XD A friend spent his whole life active; eventually was forced to take this chemo at a fairly older age (like 50 to 60 some area). Not asked, he was forced. He didn't want it. He was going to die in roughly a week from the cancer. 2 (and a half?) years later, he finally died. 2 years. What was better? 2 years of survival (in pain), or a week or two in peace? If you choose 2 years of survival... what type of person are you? Someone who must enjoy burning themselves ( ) I doubt this is true, so why would you want to survive with terrible pain (like keeping your hand on a burning hot stove for 2 years). Anyways, who says the father's decision was soley based on his child's decision? Were YOU the father? Even if it was, wasn't that HIS choice to make? It wasn't like he was killing his child, or refusing a treatment... When it comes right down to it, your arguments are saying "The father was wrong because the child is stupid". I don't care who you are, but 99.9% (not an official number) + of the world's people DON'T LIKE PAIN. Most would prefer death. I included. Who is ANYONE to say that they must endure it if they'd prefer to take their chances with something that might work? (Even if scientifically there is no evidence supporting that).

"Genesis? The flood? Both contradict our knowledge of the origin of the universe and evolution. Exodus? No proof (outside the bible) of the Jews being significant slave labour in Egypt. " Evolution has been proven to be wrong. The origin of the universe is a UNPROVEN THEORY!!! For your information, many books have been written on the subject, proving it wrong (evolution). That proves that even today's scientists have errors. They can only prove what is based on observations and testing, but not all of it is accurate. If it was, we wouldn't have disputes about global warming. Different scientists are saying different things, so don't try and say "they're perfect". They're not. Evolution. What in the world is it again? Belief that humans came from apes? From monkeys? From (...) single-celled organisms? Why then do we find no evidence of this transition? Why didn't all the single-celled organisms evolve into more sentient beings? Why do apes still exist? Genesis indeed indicates how the universe came to existance. But you'll never accept that so long as you're holding on to science, which explains practically nothing compared to what is out there. They have only theories. Some laws, like gravity, sure, but we don't even know what's on our Earth right now, how can we think we know what existed billions of years ago? That's plain stupidity to think humans are that smart. The flood -- what evidence is against that? It's not like a flood is going to leave a mark that'll last years... "Which still causes wear and tear on your shoes, causing them to wear out faster." So? Someone else might decide to go jogging in the morning, and then they'll have to replace their shoes that much more! Does that stop them? Not at all! Your arguments are kind of stupid. Walking is a bad thing? Consider it exercise, if nothing else. Sleep or a soul-refreshing hour? Hmm... I'd go for a soul-refreshing hour, myself. "sleeping in, or just spending the time talking with your family, neither of which has any cost, and both of which can be very rewarding. The fact that you're getting up early to go listen to someone talk about god means that you miss out on those other possibilities." Sleep in on a Saturday, or go to a service that isn't in the morning. Talk to your family before and after; go to church with your family. That's more rewarding than ONLY talking to your family anyway. "For example, how does Judas die? In Mathew 27, he hung himself. In Acts 1, he tripped and fell. And here's an exercise... go through the 4 gospels of the bible, and try to come up with a consistent (and coherent) account of the resurrection. In some of the stories, when people go to the tomb its empty; in others there is an angle or 2 there. Sometimes one person goes to the tomb first, sometimes its a group. You'd think that, given the importance of the resurrection story that they could at least get it right." You do realize that all these accounts are technically written by people? Yes, I'm sure God did have a major influence on it all, but still... This has been said before, to me, and likely to you. Take a group of people (say 10) and have them watch something they've never seen before, and write down what they see in as much detail as possible. Likelihood is, you're going to get 10 different accounts. If anything, that proves that this is real. That there are a few details they didn't remember perfectly, or perhaps they just omitted it. Why would they omit it? Easy! They were writing to a certain group of people! It was meant for a specific audience. If you're talking to a group of people who like cheese, you're going to emphasize as many incidents of what you're talking about to cheese, not ham! Talking about ham all day isn't going to get through to them as well as if you related all your stories to cheese. "In some of the stories, when people go to the tomb its empty; in others there is an angle or 2 there" The tomb was empty. There were angels there, too. But Jesus' body wasn't there, (thus it was empty). If you stand in an empty closet, you don't consider yourself an object in the closet, you still believe that the closet is empty. "Well, this is how the system works... in the vast majority of cases, children inherit the religion of their parents. End of story." If that was true, then everyone would have one religion -- Christianity (or perhaps Catholic, but regardless it would've been different than any religion today). No one would've invented other religions. If it wasn't Christianity, then it'd still be the same religion, whatever that was. "Actually, Christmas was celebrated in many pagan cultures long before Christ was born... it was a mid-winter festival involving the solstice. The early Christian church likely adopted the holiday season as a way to convince the pagans to convert." Yes.. I've heard that technically Jesus was born in mid-September, so they believe. I guess it doesn't matter, that's the day we choose to celebrate His birth on Earth. However, your statement supports the concept that there was an "early Christian church", which could only have been formed after Jesus came. "Of course, it also says in Malachi 4 "Remember ye the law of Moses". It also says in Psalm 19 "every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Or in Luke 16: "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Of course, I'm sure that you'll use the excuse "Oh, you're not interpreting it correctly". But the problem is, when you start trying to interpret a "Holy book" then you can no longer say that its the inerrant word of god; after all, you are putting your own spin on things, and involving whatever attitudes and morality you have. (If there were some masterful god, couldn't he write a book that had no such flaws?)" Junk. Your first quote is in and referring to the Old Testament. And as for your 2nd quote, judgments refer to Judgement Day, when God judges everyone, and as far as we know that's the point at which you find out whether you are going to Heaven or Hell. Of course, we should know that beforehand, but anyways... "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Yep. That's true. "But the problem is, when you start trying to interpret a "Holy book" then you can no longer say that its the inerrant word of god; after all, you are putting your own spin on things, and involving whatever attitudes and morality you have. (If there were some masterful god, couldn't he write a book that had no such flaws?)" More junk. Are you not already interpreting it for your own purposes? You've been interpreting it every time you quote. That's like if I said "It's best to write a book when you're up to it", and one person interprets it one way, and another guy thinks I'm saying something else. I know that's not the best example, but hopefully you understand my point. It's also like me saying something in French, and French-English translator translates it, and then you read it. Will it be perfect? No. After 2000 years of translations, will it be in perfect word-for-word condition? No! "(If there were some masterful god, couldn't he write a book that had no such flaws?)" I'm sure he could. He already led people to write something, though. If that's not good enough for you, then no one can help you. It's your future you're dooming. Of course, you wouldn't believe me if I forecasted the future minute-for-minute (not that I could, of course). You wouldn't believe me if you saw an angel tomorrow! You might consider yourself crazy, but you'd never believe. Would you? Just because science can't prove something, does that mean you want to bet your soul on it? ["Oh, I don't have a soul".] Of course not.. you wouldn't want to admit to having anything that would indicate you're wrong, after all. Maybe I'm wrong, and you believe you do have a soul. Wonderful! What do you believe is going to happen to it after you die? "First of all, what 'scientists' actually threatened to kill anyone? (That sounds more like the act of the religious rather than science.)" I don't know the details, I never studied it. I'm not going to bother, either. But I do know people would kill you back then for trying to contradict scientific facts, or their beliefs, or whatever you want. If not kill, then at least look down upon you like you're crazy or something. As I said, I don't know the details, I've just heard scraps of information. Maybe you'd like to look it up or something? You seem very knowledgeable. What do you believe in, anyway? Nothing? The funny thing about believing in nothing is that you believe that the universe is formed on chance. Take a look at science. How can you explain the intricacy of it? Was it chance that made our life? What made that chance in the first place?

"Even if you didn't donate to your church, that does not mean your beliefs are without costs. You still likely pay for transportation to get to church. The fact that you have to wake up early on Sunday morning means that its costing you an extra few hours that you could be sleeping in. At the very least it indicates an impairment of reasoning, if you're willing to believe in something with absolutely no evidence. " I could walk. An impairment of reasoning is thinking that "because scientists, who once that the earth was flat and would kill anyone who thought differently, don't have any scientific proof for or against, believe that God doesn't exist, I will whole heartedly listen to them". And it costs less to go to church than it does to go to a hockey game, or play hockey, or play any other sport. It costs less than to go to the local coffee shop. It costs less than eating. Why don't you stop living, because it costs too much! Besides, they've proven that the Bible is true in many accounts. And prove to me where the Bible contradicts itself. I'll prove to you you're wrong (or my dad will ) ""there will be trouble...." What do you mean by this statement?" I mean that Christians won't sit around and let their religion fall if it's forbidden. They'll fight. Many will die for it. I suppose that is a cost, but it's worth it. Wouldn't you die for your children (or family or friends or whatever you have), if it was for the better? If it saved their life from a horrible thing? " think this is indicative of the thought process of many believers. They become convinced that theirs is the 'right' belief not because they've actually made a rational decision based on all facts, but because of the way they were raised, and the fact that they were never exposed to other belief systems. (Had you been raised in 9th century scandinavia, you would have been just as convinced in the existence of Thor as you are in your current christian god.)" Yes, I've often feared that to be true. I don't know how the system works, but I do know this. There are miracles done for me that wouldn't have happened if I weren't Christian. They've proven the Bible to be true. I've had spiritual feelings that I can't explain, not because I made them up, but because God was with me. I am not saying that "schools are not allowing different religions", but they aren't accompanying for them, are they? "My coworker prays before she eats her lunch. She sits quietly in her cubicle with her eyes closed. Most of the time, no one even notices. Imagine if all those she works with were forced to bow their heads with her? How pathetic would that be? Once again, freedom of religion is the freedom to practice no religion, to hold no beliefs." Once again, I totally agree with that. DO YOU HEAR ME? I AGREE!!! My statement is that freedom of religion should accompany for as many religions as possible without forcing them to conflict. "The invisible entity (sorry but I refuse to call it a name as it is not real) apparently has lots of patience... can't it wait for the child to go home?" According to Christianity, The Lord is always listening, extremely patient, slow to anger, etc. (I'm sure you've heard it somewhere). Also, He does not force anyone to follow Him, he wants only those who are willing. If only I could convince you! But of course, this statement alone will be quoted by someone and certainly used against me. Also, you have no proof that God DOESN'T exist. Want to know what I find interesting? I find it interesting that we have a whole bunch of Holidays: Christmas, Easter, etc. based on Jesus' human life. Yet no one believes where it came from. Of course, many people saw Jesus' miracles and still didn't believe. There are miracles happening today, yet everyone turns a blind eye to it, saying "they made it up" or "they staged it" or "that's pure fiction". Here's one; I heard it from my dad a while ago, but it was perfectly true. The general story was "A man was on a plane, the plane crashed, it was on fire" etc. until he was trying to figure out how to get out, when "he saw a hole" and he was able to escape through that. He explained his story to the authorities, who were amazed, because when the plane was examined afterwards (the wreckage, obviously) there was no hole where he claimed to jump through it. Yet his story was believed because many others on that same plane had the same story. Call it what you will, I call that a miracle. I have a relative who took a picture and when it was developed, somehow pictures of angels appeared around her. Call it a glitch of technology, or a trick of the light. I call it evidence. "the idea that prayer has somehow been banned from schools circulates merely because it feeds the persecution complex of a certain (primarily fundamentalist) demographic." I didn't say this, I believe I indicated that I feared this could happen, not that it has. "God also doesn't want you to eat shrimp and lobster. http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/" Wrong, as it says in the New Testament, He allows all of His food to be eaten, including all forms of meat. Some branches of Christianity are confused by what the Bible says. But the rules changed; before, it was a sign of faith (and for their protection) that they weren't supposed to eat meat. In the New Testament, that changed. It was NEW. Not OLD. I've got to go for lunch, please provide evidence against all this in the mean time. chess123mate

My Christian religion has absolutely no cost. None. If I went to church and never donated a penny, that'd be fine with them. The church might suffer financially, but I could still be part of the church. As for your other arguments, I've never heard of those cults (alright, they're just religions, but they anger me the same way), though I had just made my point earlier about the concept of praying to different 'gods' being negative if you believe in just one. The God that does exist is very jealous indeed, as the Holy Bible indicates -- he doesn't want people praying and sacrificing to other gods, which don't exist. 1. If someone has to pray out loud, then is their religion really worth it? That indicates that their "god" is so pitiful and dumb it can't even hear your thoughts. 2. If you weren't praying, then as it was said, read a book. At current, you'll be singling out all the people who pray by forbidding them to do so! 3. I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT: People should be forced to pray. The whole idea is that YOU ARE FORCING (theoretically) PEOPLE TO NOT pray! Forcing people to pray is stupid. Forcing people to not pray is just as stupid. So why are schools doing the latter? 4. Christians shouldn't be harassing anyone like that. I've heard a lot of true stories about that, and I agree that they shouldn't be doing that. However, the opposite is also true. People shouldn't be forbidding people to follow their religious beliefs, as long as it isn't against safety rules or against other people's beliefs (under the condition their belief doesn't limit everyone else's) "As long as there is freedom OF religion, there is freedom FROM religion." I agree with you 100%. But, don't try and wreck the first part of the sentence by saying people can't pray in schools. "Religion has no place in the public arena. If you want your child to have a religious education send them to a religious school" That is simply not true. Obviously there are times to pray, and times when you can't, say, if you're driving and you need every ounce of brain power to concentrate. However, there should be no time or location that forbids you to pray. How would you like it if you were forced to go to a CHRISTIAN school or else your family has to PAY for a non-religious school? The current problem with Christian or other religious schools is that they (at least in Canada) don't get funding from the government and so have to require others to pay instead. Of course, with a low budget, they can't fund the proper education, meaning that it is better to go to a public school. Seriously, how would you like it if every time you had to go to a MALL, you had to pray a prayer that you disagree with? You were forced to do this in every public place, or else you'd be jailed? Don't like it? Nor do we Christians like the concept that we aren't allowed to pray in schools. Freedom of religion applies everywhere. If it doesn't, then there will be trouble, because it needs to be.

What? Are you joking? A moment of silence is fair, that means you can do whatever is proper to your religion. But unless I'm mistaken, almost all faiths would dictate that if you were given a choice to pray to another "god" or not pray at all, you'd choose to not pray. (Of course, it'd be more likely you'd simply keep praying to the "god" you want to anyway) And, "prayer belongs in schools"? It's not that prayer specifically "belongs" in schools, but that prayer belongs in life! As long as there is freedom of religions, there must be an allowance for religions in schools. "Luigi has, I suspect, raised 4 children, had a fine career, and retired to Muskoka since this thread was last posted in. Necrothreadia -- ick." Hmm... rats... forgot to check the date Still, it's a current issue if you ask me.

"It seems around where I live (Knoxville, TN), there are a lot of people who think that there isn't freedom of religion in public schools. I just want these "people" to know that, at least in my school district, PRAYER IS ALLOWED IN SCHOOL. Another thing they don't realize is that FREEDOM OF RELIGION APPLIES TO EVERYONE, not just themselves, but the Islamic and Jewish kids in my school as well." Hmm. First of all, I want to say that as-of-now, at least in Canada where I live, I haven't encountered anyone telling me I can't practice my religion. How long will that last? I hear not long. Anyways, Luigi71585, you seem to have summed up everything else I wanted to say after I signed up and started typing, then realized there were 3 pages not 2 However, I disagree with all your posting Cameron, up until the last one on the 2nd page, and I think you guys have already covered that. Just I'll point out these things... "I don't waste a Sunday supporting other forms of cults" "Cults" are different than "faiths". "Religion is a virus, separating the human species, causing problems rather than solving them. You can have your religion if you want to, but I pay taxes to a government, not a church. Keep religion and government separate, that includes SCHOOLS! " "Religion isn't a virus, it's a freedom. It's quite wonderful. It does separate humans, and the differences cause problems. But is that religion, or people? It isn't religion that's causing these problems! I literally just spent an hour debating stuff about global warming. You know something? There was no religion in that, yet humans still found out how to make a mess of the world. And make lots of disagreements and problems. Humans are the problem, not religion. Our attitudes are the problem. The belief you are suggesting, that people should all be the same -- that's the problem!" That quote is from myself from before I read the 2nd+3rd pages, and sorry, I'm not up to rewriting it. Anyways, a moment of silence would be awesome. The thing that would mess up the system is if they put into place the law that has been suggested that "you aren't allowed to pray in class". To my knowledge, this isn't in place, but how long will that last? Prayer in schools to no prayer to ___. The blank (representing a future possibility), logically, would be filled with "prayer banned". Don't like that at all... Oh, and Luigi "They have no laws bogging down their systems. They can say whatever they want on whatever issue (1st Amendment). " I go to church, and it's got lots of laws bogging it down. I wish the law would go "take a hike", but it doesn't, and it's being oppressed. Silently.