You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
When I go, God's going to have to give up his favourite seat.
Brian Clough
Why am I not surprised
Why are you not surprised?
Okay, so once again the ‘athiest’s’ on here have bludgeoned their point that their interpretation of God, which is based on a load of poorly translated and very old stories, does not and has not ever existed. Actual hard facts, sightings and proof of this image and interpretation of God are absent and nothing else will do, black and white and anyone who holds such a belief is, once again, being castigated as an extremist with very low intelligence. I no longer know who are more dogmatic, and dogma isn’t all that helpful. A succinct and representable summary, I think we can all agree.
It’s a big, free Universe that keeps popping up, seemingly out of very little, expanding a lot, then possibly contracting back to virtually nothing and then popping up all over again, all on its own, with maybe the will to exist being its only mandate. Not some dude in robes and long beard. Scientifically speaking, I guess it’s quite tricky to measure quantum consciousness.
The whole religion thing on here has been incredibly dull and predictable for too long, can we not explore other definitions rather than trot out the same old shite?
their interpretation of God, which is based on a load of poorly translated and very old stories,
Exactly - stories.
Surely science can only tell us about the natural world; it is a useless tool for talking about the supernatural world (if such a thing exists).
To quote Werner Heisenberg (possibly again):
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you”
In context, his definition of God is one I alluded to in my previous post ^^
“Heisenberg started by analysing spectral lines from metals, formulated a purely mathematical theory to explain them, then realised the mathematical theory had huge potential implications for the nature of reality. He apparently formed the view that physical matter takes up a definite state only when perceived by a conscious being. Once you entertain the idea that consciousness has an importance and existence that goes beyond physical matter, the idea of some sort of notion of something that could be plausibly called a God doesn't seem so ridiculous anymore.”
The bible is full of metaphors that people who typically argue vociferously against the notion of religion, tend to take way too literally without understanding the metaphor. Much like their view of God.
Opening ones mind to possibilities is much healthier than dogmatism.
IMHO of course 😉
Opening ones mind to possibilities is much healthier than dogmatism.
Whoa....hold on there !!!
Everyone has a belief whether that be science or in a God. No one should force their views on others, and everyone is entitled to their beliefs whatever they may be. You don't have to agree with someone but you should at least give others the respect for their beliefs that you would expect yourself. Unfortunately the atheists who bang on about having religion forced down their throats don't seem to realise this works both ways. Live and let live, stop judging everyone by the actions of a few.
To quote Werner Heisenberg...
Are you sure?
"...Otremba does not declare his source, and the quote per se cannot be found in Heisenberg's published works"
"Heisenberg's children, Dr. Maria Hirsch and Prof. Dr. Martin Heisenberg, did not recognize their father in this quote. Hirsch suggested that the quote and its attribution to Heisenberg may have been fabricated by a fundamentalist English-speaking Christian seeking support for his faith, and he pointed to the similar precursor remarks of Francis Bacon, in "Of Atheism"
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg
Anyway, putting falsely attributed quotes to one side, Heisenberg had a Christian faith, so God existed for him. If you don't believe, God doesn't exist for you. That's about all there is to it.
Lots of butthurt RJW (religious) snowflakes on here supporting freedom of expression being limited.
@kcr - I stand (or kneel with head bowed, ready for decapitation) corrected. Hopefully so does Quora. 😉
My point remains over there.....
Aside from this, I was merely comparing the attitudes displayed on this thread to those of Dawkins
I think the attitudes of the religious displayed on this thread are a bit terroristy....you all remind me of Abu Hamza.
Unfortunately the atheists who bang on about having religion forced down their throats don’t seem to realise this works both ways.
No, it really doesn’t work both ways. That’s a ridiculous statement, outside of this thread which you don’t ‘have’ to read.
There are no atheists appointed to the House of Lords purely because of their atheism.
There are no atheists pushing atheist agendas in law making because of what they don’t believe.
There are no atheists knocking on people’s doors to talk to people about their lack of belief.
There are no atheists standing around with megaphones in city high streets polluting the air with how they don’t believe in Allah, Jehova or any other deity.
There are no atheists holding a portion of the U.K. to ransom and enforcing a different set of human rights because of their lack of belief.
There are no atheists hacking away at non consenting, not yet indoctrinated children’s genitalia en masse because of habits and customs that they have always had. Etc, etc.
Atheists get stroppy because they see other people beliefs thrust upon them in a myriad of both insignificant and significant ways, and it’s deemed acceptable because it always been that way. It not right and it shouldn’t happen. By all means believe what you want, but keep it to yourself please.
God is a gas.
There are no atheists appointed to the House of Lords purely because of their atheism.
There are no atheists pushing atheist agendas in law making because of what they don’t believe.
There are no atheists knocking on people’s doors to talk to people about their lack of belief.
There are no atheists standing around with megaphones in city high streets polluting the air with how they don’t believe in Allah, Jehova or any other deity.
There are no atheists holding a portion of the U.K. to ransom and enforcing a different set of human rights because of their lack of belief.
There are no atheists hacking away at non consenting, not yet indoctrinated children’s genitalia en masse because of habits and customs that they have always had. Etc, etc.
No one from the Church of Scotland, which is my denomination of choice, is doing any of these things either.
This is the danger of lumping all religious people together and making sweeping statements about them.
This is the danger of lumping all religious people together and making sweeping statements about them.
Agreed. I presume that puts you in the ‘keeping it to yourself’ camp, and that’s great with me. I’d happily do the same with my atheism; my vocal objections are not aimed at religion per se, just the behaviour of a sizeable, and vocal, minority.
I’ve said this many times before, but with any demographic it’s a shouty extremist minority that give the rest a bad name.
False equivalence.
Here is an 'extremist' atheist
having a drink and lecturing you.
Here is a religious extremist having lectured you and then exploded.
Agreed. I presume that puts you in the ‘keeping it to yourself’ camp, and that’s great with me. I’d happily do the same with my atheism; my vocal objections are not aimed at religion per se, just the behaviour of a sizeable, and vocal, minority.
Don't be coming on here being all reasonable!!
I might be wrong, but society seems to have gone in general down a bit of dangerous route - whether religion/atheism, left/right political leanings, etc etc, the ability to engage, listen to, discuss politely and accept (and hopefully try to understand) differences of opinion/belief as part of civilised interaction seems to have been lost.
Instead it's about who can shout loudest from the polar opposite ends, gammons, snowflakes, fairies, and other attempts to demean the other.
I'm sure 99.9999% of religious and non religious people all get along with each other just fine. It's that tiny percentage who need to be dicks to each other and try to "prove" their point in an absolutist way that ruin it. Don't be that 0.0001% or whatever.
The bible is full of metaphors that people who typically argue vociferously against the notion of religion, tend to take way too literally without understanding the metaphor
Could you point out which bits are metaphor and which bits are real please? That'd save a lot of time.
This is where it all falls down for me. As recently as when I was at school, we were still taught in RE that the bible is literally true. As soon as you go "well, some of it is a metaphor" it throws the entire work into question. Is the good Samaritan a metaphor? Is Genesis? Is Jesus? Is god? How do you know what you're supposed to believe?
Everyone has a belief whether that be science or in a God.
Science does not require belief, quite the opposite.
The whole religion thing on here has been incredibly dull and predictable for too long, can we not explore other definitions rather than trot out the same old shite?
Ok let's do that. You start.
Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of 'intelligent design', for example – for whom Hart reserves plenty of scorn – and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, too. But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very different version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums up this second version better than I can:
… according to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God "exists" in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all.
The one theology book all atheists really should read
@perchypanther The Church of Scotland has a huge influence on our government and how it affects our lives "Religious representatives currently enjoy a legal right to places on council education committees in Scotland. At least three places on each council are reserved for religious nominees, under legislation dating back to 1929 and beyond. In most parts of Scotland this includes at least one Catholic and one representative of the Church of Scotland."
They influence other agencies too
Science does not require belief, quite the opposite.
Maybe I should have been clearer unless you can prove that a God doesn't exist then you are choosing to believe that they don't exist. You may say you know that God doesn't exist but given how little we know about the universe you can't categorically rule out the possibility of the existence of a God, (although you can choose to believe based on what you understand that he doesn't exist) You could legitimately counter this argument by saying you also can't prove God exists hence you have to accept the possibility that he doesn't exist, but this is where in faith a relationship with God comes in, which again you could argue is made up or nonsense (sometimes it is, we have all seen how some extremists/nut jobs commit atrocities in the name of their "religion")
There are no atheists appointed to the House of Lords purely because of their atheism.
There are no atheists pushing atheist agendas in law making because of what they don’t believe.
There are no atheists knocking on people’s doors to talk to people about their lack of belief.
There are no atheists standing around with megaphones in city high streets polluting the air with how they don’t believe in Allah, Jehova or any other deity.
Fair enough I will accept that in a general sense as you have described but not everyone believes everything that current scienctific thinking tells us, which is pushed as fact through schools and the media when much of what we supposedly "know" is based on fairly large assumptions being correct, radio carbon dating is a good example of this, which if wrong totally changes the timeline of "evolution" and the coming about of the planet we live on. I am all for well balanced debate and critical thinking that allows people to make up their own minds and agree that one group shouldn't seek have its views forced on everyone, but getting back to my point I stand by my statement that ultimately everyone has a faith whether that be for or against God.
Sure that looks like an interesting philosophical debate and all. But if god is ‘the light of being itself’ (and he/she may be, and I have no issue with people believing so at all) why does that make it okay for believers of such to enforce rules based on their impossible to evidence opinions on people who don’t believe such, or believe a different version of such. And why should such beliefs qualify for tax breaks? Ie; why am I subsidising them just because they believe something? I believe that they should subsidise me because I believe in Odin, but I’m peeing in the wind I think...
God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality.
Ah the Higg's Boson.
V8ninety you raise a very interesting point here.
It's too easy to lump "religious people" or "people with faith" into the same camp as the more organised/institutional arm of the belief structure they hold. And as we've seen, often it's the "organisation" that is the facilitator (or at least blind eye turner) to misuse for power/money/status or other gain.
Sure that looks like an interesting philosophical debate and all
It looks like a variant on deism. So, unsprisingly, is something which has been considered by atheists through the ages. It is just that since it is completely unprovable one way or another the real world relevance is limited.
Plus, as you allude to, it quickly becomes apparently that very few religious people actually believe in this. Pretty much all the major religions are interventionist gods.
An interesting test as to whether it is worth engaging with would be to have his book handed out to some average church/mosque goers and see if they agree with it.
Maybe I should have been clearer unless you can prove that a God doesn’t exist then you are choosing to believe that they don’t exist.
So basically kick it down the road and put the emphasis on other people to prove a negative....
Fair enough I will accept that in a general sense as you have described but not everyone believes everything that current scienctific thinking tells us, which is pushed as fact through schools and the media when much of what we supposedly “know” is based on fairly large assumptions being correct, radio carbon dating is a good example of this, which if wrong totally changes the timeline of “evolution” and the coming about of the planet we live on.
OK, until you stop mixing up the meanings of things the debate will go nowhere. Science presents it's facts, shows it's working and then takes you along for the ride. It does all the hard work and has all of it's homework done. It's not a matter of believe it's a matter of understanding.
Nice attempt there to call into question Radio Carbon dating - what are the flaws in it? What are the reasons you think it might not be true?
With science you can choose to ignore the evidence etc. not believing it is more like ignoring it - like the climate change deniers who provide no evidence but use the pah - experts what would they know my mate down the pub thinks....
I am all for well balanced debate and critical thinking that allows people to make up their own minds and agree that one group shouldn’t seek have its views forced on everyone, but getting back to my point I stand by my statement that ultimately everyone has a faith whether that be for or against God.
The strange bit there is your suggesting that somebody having faith in something means others have a faith against it? What is this faith is in the woods and nobody sees it?
Again it's a mixing up of words - a faith in science is not the same as faith in a god.
Even scientific facts have a half life
Ok let’s do that. You start.
I did, you missed it, I tried redefining God.
Ah the Higg’s Boson.
Nearly but not quite
Could you point out which bits are metaphor and which bits are real please? That’d save a lot of time.
Dude, seriously? You’re taking the piss right? At least I hope you are.
Where’s the face palm emoji?
Y’all seem a bit frightened to think away from the doctrines and their interpretation and personification of God...
I stand by my statement that ultimately everyone has a faith whether that be for or against God.
Amen to that.
Again it’s a mixing up of words – a faith in science is not the same as faith in a god.
And yet you have faith in our contemporary illusion of money. If we didn’t have that, the bits of paper and numbers on a spreadsheet are valueless.
I’ll also add that your belief that there is no human like God is in many ways a faith
….you all remind me of Abu Hamza
A hook for a hand and burning hatred of the west?
its ALL about faith, some have faith in a creator and others have Faith in what a scientist has told them. Faith.
Maybe I should have been clearer unless you can prove that a God doesn’t exist then you are choosing to believe that they don’t exist
No, using all known facts show there is no god (any of the 3000 or so that have been worshiped) where as the is not one single fact that suggests there is one.
its ALL about faith, some have faith in a creator and others have Faith in what a scientist has told them. Faith.
You have trust not faith in what a scientist will say. This will be backed up by research that is peer reviewed. It isn’t remotely the same thing.
I’ll also add that your belief that there is no human like God is in many ways a faith
OK, so as many groups of people have come up with numerous gods to believe in and explain things they could not at the time. They contradict each other and overlap in so many ways but none have any proof in any way that they exist but I have to believe that they don't exist?
its ALL about faith, some have faith in a creator and others have Faith in what a scientist has told them. Faith.
All right George Michael, calm down. You’re wrong by the way. There is NO place for faith where science, and evidence is concerned. It’s the absence of evidence that requires faith.
yea, like people have Trust that man has walked on the moon when there is a ton of evidence that says he has not. its Still believed by many to be true though
but none have any proof in any way that they exist but I have to believe that they don’t exist?
Or hope, you decide
George michael?
Or hope, you decide
Nope neither required, do you have faith Odin isn't about? What about Zues?
I know the weather has been a little changeable today, but that was a cracking ride. A little spot of lunch en famille, and time to light the fire and settle down in front of the rugby.
I wonder what other folks on STW have been up to today....
Oh. I see.
😂😂😂🤗
I did, you missed it, I tried redefining God.
Yes I did, unless it was that stuff about the universe expanding and contracting.
I know the weather has been a little changeable today, but that was a cracking ride. A little spot of lunch en famille, and time to light the fire and settle down in front of the rugby.
I wonder what other folks on STW have been up to today….
Oh. I see.
lol
is based on fairly large assumptions being correct, radio carbon dating is a good example of this,
carbon dating doesn't actually work on an assumption.
I think it's more like this Bigyan especially for the OP.
And yet you have faith in our contemporary illusion of money. If we didn’t have that, the bits of paper and numbers on a spreadsheet are valueless.
No they aren't. Values are real - this is easily verifiable - hold a pair of balls in your hand, do you have two or one? If one, please explain why two equals one.
Values are real – this is easily verifiable
Tell that to the Venezuelans
hold a pair of balls in your hand
Sounds like catholic priest training to me
Scout Master Kevin?
No they aren’t. Values are real – this is easily verifiable – hold a pair of balls in your hand, do you have two or one? If one, please explain why two equals one.
They're dough arghhhh plasticine balls and I've squeezed them together to make one.
yea, like people have Trust that man has walked on the moon when there is a ton of evidence that says he has not. its Still believed by many to be true though
Ok, I’ll bite. Show us the factual evidence that man has not, in fact, traveled to and landed and walked on the moon.
And no, YouTube video from some self-appointed expert will not be accepted as evidence.
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/
Just in case we head off on the diversion......
It's interesting to spot the #FakeNews tricks in plane sight though - the "What if Carbon Dating is wrong" then head off to say how that could easily mean evolution didn't happen. So we sow some seeds of doubt that we can work with now - cause it's just a theory, I mean you need to have some faith to believe all this stuff....
… according to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God “exists” in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all.
Or in other words, God is a philosophical construct, created by humans.
If there is a "condition of the possibility of anything existing at all", why do you have to call it God?
I had a very nice cycle today.
George michael
Second highest ranked search on Google after faith in a religious context being top prize on google
Ah the faith we hold that Google is correct
Or in other words, God is a philosophical construct, created by humans.
Maybe I should have been clearer unless you can prove that a God doesn’t exist then you are choosing to believe that they don’t exist.
Yeah, no. One cannot disprove a negative. If you're asserting that something exists then the burden of proof lies with you.
To put that another way, unless you can prove that Santa Claus / the Tooth Fairy / invisible unicorns / Batman don't exist then you are choosing to believe that they don’t exist.
You may say you know that God doesn’t exist but given how little we know about the universe you can’t categorically rule out the possibility of the existence of a God
You are correct that I cannot "categorically rule out the possibility of the existence of a God." However it is so astonishingly unlikely and there is precisely zero evidence to suggest otherwise beyond a 1500 year old book and a lot of people really really wanting it to be true a lot that I am comfortable in being atheist rather than agnostic and saying that there is no god / gods beyond reasonable doubt. Totally happy to be proved wrong (and in fact I'd *love* to be proved wrong).
Dude, seriously? You’re taking the piss right? At least I hope you are.
Where’s the face palm emoji?Y’all seem a bit frightened to think away from the doctrines and their interpretation and personification of God…
Sorry mate, I don't follow any of that. I've obviously missed something somewhere. Could you elaborate please?
cougar - its not just one god and one old book. If the Christian God is real then what about Hindu ones etc?
like people have Trust that man has walked on the moon when there is a ton of evidence that says he has not.
There's a ton of wildly debunked conspiracy theories, sure.
If you have any doubts whatsoever that man landed on the moon, I would ask you one question: in 1969 at the height of the Cold War, would the USSR have let the USA get away with faking it?
Case closed. Now, about that flat Earth...
its not just one god and one old book. If the Christian God is real then what about Hindu ones etc?
As Dire Straits once sang, "two men say they're Jesus... one of them must be wrong."
Ok, I’ll bite. Show us the factual evidence that man has not, in fact, traveled to and landed and walked on the moon.
And no, YouTube video from some self-appointed expert will not be accepted as evidence.
.
.
.
well, not Exactly self apointed experts BUT i think you might just know a few of em, Lol
Wow I am sold, I mean all that other stuff about being able to see the landing sites with actual telescopes etc. that must be rubbish cause a badly edited series of out of context clips has been used to persuade me. Praise Be the LORD!
What the hell was that?
What the hell was that?
Worth adding to the text book of fake news, this one takes the obviously simple route that Ninfan used to use of finding a quote or clip from people you respect and have them deliver your message, with the availability of decent cheap near pro level video editing it can look quite slick.
well, not Exactly self apointed experts BUT i think you might just know a few of em, Lol
Please, tell me you're not serious.
It all goes back to the point I made earlier. Practice your religion if you want. I don't care. But don't try to make me and those I love follow your beliefs.
I am very angry and with good reason about this - again the point I made earlier about the theists interference in how others die. Its disgraceful, unforgivable and makes for a huge amount of suffering.
Let me tell you some stories. Unpleasant and upsetting - be warned.
An old lady I looked after many years ago. Losing her senses, control of her bladder and bowels and ability to walk. She wanted to die. Her life was over. She still had all her marbles but had no ability to take her own life. She was not depressed or otherwise incapacitated by mental illness She decided the only way she could end her miserable existence was to stop eating and starve herself to death. So she did. She would still accept fluids ( including whisky) but no food. It took her 6 weeks to die. She was not in pain so we could not give analgesia. She was not overtly distressed so we could not sedate her ( until the last few days) She remained lucid and coherent until the last couple of weeks. I have seen old women do this numerous times.
Or a family member. He had a number of physical ailments that made his life miserable and full of chronic pain but none of those were terminal. He was housebound and his wife had died a couple of years earlier. he still had all his mental facilities but he knew his life was over and he had had enough. One day he took an overdose fully intending to die. He lay unconscious for 24 hours ( attended to by his family and the gp). It became obvious he was not going to die there and then so was admitted to hospital where he recovered Like all suicides he was seen by a psychiatrist before discharge and the psychiatrist said " this man has capacity, he is presently sane and has a rational desire to die" He was sent home without his strong painkillers to an existence that was even more miserable as a result. 6 months later his GP gave him a prescription for strong painkillers. 2 days later he took the lot. Again he failed to die and was admitted to hospital. He never really recovered from this, was unable to drink and slowly died of dehydration and malnutrition complicated by pressure sores. At one point he woke up a bit and set to another family member who was with him " all wanted to do was go to sleep, why won't they let me" It took him two weeks in hospital to die.
Or a man I looked after - a younger man. Slowly dying of kidney failure. It took weeks and weeks under my care for this man to die. Again he did not have any symptoms we could manage with sedatives or painkillers for many of those weeks. His death was inevitable, his suffering awful. Our ability to alleviate his suffering minimal
. Some consultants and gps will push the boundaries more than others but it is very much a lottery. We are allowed legally to give painkillers and sedatives to relieve symptoms and to be reckless (in its legal definition)i in doing this with regard to its effect on the length of life in terminal cases but we can only use these tools where there is a symptom we can define ie pain or distress. None of these 3 cases ( and many more I have experience of ) was there such a symptom but in all of these cases the suffering still existed and was prolonged.
A humane society would not allow this suffering. It should be a human right to have a dignified death at a time and place of your choosing. The main obstacle to a change in the law is religious groups and people and their influence on our political system. Make no mistake - its been well researched and the vast majority of objections to dignity in death ( an umbrella term for a range of laws, situations and actions) are religious based even tho these are often hidden behind other supposed reasons
Its vile that these people have this ability to use their faith to impose their beliefs upon others and to cause such suffering. I am very angry about this.
Further to my above rant - lets be very clear about this. I have NO desire to impose my strong views on others. I am very aware my views on this are polarised and strong. I will and have fought for people whose known wishes are to fight every step of the way to have what I consider to be futile treatment. I recently had to advise someone who is close to me who has been put in the position of making end of life decisions for someone who is currently unable to take these decisions themselves. I asked " what is their wish? would they want to fight on or would they say enough is enough". The answer was " they would always want to fight on" My reply was that as that is their known view then your duty is to make sure that wish is respected.
Thats the difference. I respect other wishes even when its against my philosophy. Some religious folk do not and their influence causes intolerable amounts of suffering by attempting or succeeding in imposing their views on others
Totally understand why people object to and want to change the presence of religion in education, justice, government etc... I’m not keen on it myself and would gladly vote to remove it.
Let’s be honest though - many have already made what I would see as the main point. So much of this is covered by the majority of people with a belief or no belief being largely reasonable. Why on Earth are we letting a minority of dickheads divide us..?
So much heat and bluster and for what end? As long as people don’t inflict their view on others - who cares and what business is it of anyone else. By all means kick it out of our institutions, I’d sign up for that - as I suspect would many, but let’s be reasonable to each other.
I am very angry and with good reason about this – again the point I made earlier about the theists interference in how others die. Its disgraceful, unforgivable and makes for a huge amount of suffering.
Actually, I think theists have next to nothing to do with this TJ. The widespread support in the UK for pro-choice in abortion makes it fairly unlikely.
As for being angry about the failure of enabling dignity in death - we haven’t got enough anger about giving people dignity in life. We’re all part of a ****ed-up society that gives dignity to people only if they have money. Maybe we could start doing more about that...?
Its well proven that the theists are the major obstacle to dignity in death. Much research done on it. Medical consultants split almost entirely along lines of religious or not for example.
I am angry about it because of what I have seen professionally and amongst my family and friends.
Its well proven that the theists are the major obstacle to dignity in death. Much research done on it. Medical consultants split almost entirely along lines of religious or not for example.
I am angry about it because of what I have seen professionally and amongst my family and friends.
I’d be glad to see the research. I meet a lot of clinical people - largely through my wife and religious or not most seem pro-dignity in death. That’s across nurses, medics and allied professions.
Having watched people I love die in pain and suffering - you have my empathy.
Its a role I have chosen and when it goes well I get a lot out of it personally - its not altuistic
The worst thing about religion in general is the shit music. Hymns, that Buddhist warbling, Christian rock etc. Gospel is just the exception that proves the rule.
Tell that to the Venezuelans
The Venezuelans had Schroedingers balls, that were both being paraded and not being paraded on instagram by corrupt politicians who had embezzled balls that both did not and did exist.
Its a role I have chosen and when it goes well I get a lot out of it personally – its not altuistic
If I read this correctly - i.e you don’t continue your career in nursing with a degree of altruism, I think in the nicest possible way that is at least partly bullshit. One of the things about you that comes across clearly to me is that you are a decent and compassionate man. I don’t doubt you get a strong sense of job satisfaction - but I would be very confident that you have a drive to do good for your fellow humans - simply because it is right, not just because it is rewarding.
Your not making christianity any better, your just making roll and roll worse.
King of the Hill.
I know guys on crack make more sense that you.
Dr Evil
Actually some great music has been written due to the influence of religion. Perhaps you have heard of JS Bach? There have been many others plus there has been a great deal of extraordinary art and architecture, going back many thousands of years, well before Abrahamic religions.