A Catholic Church-affiliated hospital used a surprising argument to defend itself in a lawsuit.
I just got paid $6784 working on my laptop using these simple steps leaked on this web page. Make up to $85 per hour doing simple tasks that are so easy to do that you won't forgive yourself if you don't check it out! Payments are paid every Friday! Here is what I've been doing Rich45.ℂOM
By chance are you a Nigerian Prince?
Do you know what these are, Mary?
220.127.116.11 Niagra Falls
The first one is your place of employment; the second one, your personal computer.
You have broken both the 8th and 9th commandments; I have not falsly accused anyone.
Stop lying and stop denying who you are.
My post below is intended for Live4Him.
Gas and electric company?
Perhaps the fumes have dulled a few synapses....
Whether you are being lied to or not, you might want to watch what info you publicize.
There is nothing illegal about how I obtained my information, nor that I posted it.
It is easily available.
And she's not lying to *me*; she's lying, period.
I told you, I detest dishonesty; especially when one is proselytizing.
@Akira, what's going on here?
SOME LIFE BEGINS OUT OF LUST, INCLUDING MY, BY HINDU CAB DRIVER.
"....when life begins"...........Life began at the cross for mankind. It's a done deal. Finished.
Life begins at the beginning of your Death Cult?
That makes NO sense. So you're saying that no one, anywhere, was alive before Jesus was (supposedly) crucified?
You don't see the logical fallacy there?
Don't you just hate it fundies.
The muslims can kill anyone who goes against their sky fairy, yet you xtian fundies can't legally kill us non believers.
And you have all those guns too, which are designed to kill people.
I know that you want to use your guns to kill people you deem unworthy. It explains why you fundies are so frustrated because you can't use your guns to kill like the muslims can.
Nothing shows how much you love your god like using your gun to kill another living thing.
Not any more than a follower of hindu Judaism filthy secular ism like to kill a innocent, helpless baby.
Nice strawman. We don't want to kill you, we just want you to stop murdering children.
Back to your response to me on page 2, what eveidence of a being that exists outside of time and space am I omitting? Please share because people that are not insane or delusional would like to know?
You will never get a straight response from someone like die4him.
She has bought into the big lie and will never let go of the myth no matter how much evidence piles up to contradict it.
But the religious scammers need to eat too, and that is where the mindless sheep like die4him come in.
I know, but part of the fun is seeing the answer.
Cheesy, I wasn't part of the earlier discussion. But, if I may infer, I'm interested in the topic. There seems to be a desire on your part to review some objective evidence which would convince you of the existence of God. If that formula was applicable, you as the observer would, by scientific protocol, necessarily be isolated from the experiment. Since the God being proposed is "in all things and with all things" you cannot be a detached observer of the phenomenon. Therefore the only experiment that has any validity is the subjective. This means that one must immerse themselves in the discovery. Religious people throughout all time have teetered back and forth from certainty, to faith, to doubt but none have ever relied solely on intellectual comprehension, neither have they trusted intellectual disproofs that contradict broader spiritual revelation. The point being that, while I understand you are just making sport, you are, in fact not a genuine seeker. You are a scoffer. If you truly wanted to find God, you would set out to find him. It may take a life time and it may cost you your precious worldly view. But, I believe you would find him as I believe I will, not by parlor games of wit but by practice of his lessons.
@Bill: You are claiming your argument is valid because your premise has not been defined, and cannot be comprehended? For this position to be valid, you will need to show an example of a universe that was not created by your proposed god for comparison.
First I was responding to LiveforJim back on page 2 who complained because when I said there was no evidence for a being that exists outside space and time. She said I was omitting evidence. She was the one that was ostensibly claiming to have verifiable, scientific proof of her god. Since I know and apparently you know that is not true I was interested in her response. But as is typical in my dealing with Christians when the questions get too hard they either, cut and run, get angry, or claim the question should just be chalked up to "god is a mystery" or some such blather.
Second, as I have told you before Bill I was a Christian, I was raised Christian and I went to Christian school. As a maater of fact I was even your flavor, Catholic. I truly believed in god, in hell, in the whole thing, so for you to say I am not truly interested in finding god is wrong. I thought I found him. Now don't go and say I was "doing it wrong" because that type of tripe is highly insulting and disingenuous. The reason I FINALLY realized Christianity was false was because of all the different answers Christians give to the same questions, which would be fine if it was presented as strictly opinion, but it's not, it is this weird mixture of personal opinion and fact where it impossible to distiguish one from the other. And I am talking about the leaders.
Third, you say "Religious people throughout all time have teetered back and forth from certainty, to faith, to doubt but none have ever relied solely on intellectual comprehension". I agree, and that is where their problem lies. Relying on other types of comprehension, is completely unreliable. It is one of the reasons Christianity is full of frauds bilking money, it is very difficult to distinguish between what is "true" what is "false" and what are "lies" when our intellect is eskewed.
Fourth, you say "Since the God being proposed is "in all things and with all things" you cannot be a detached observer of the phenomenon." That sounds like a Pantheistic god Bill, I thought you were a Catholic, unless Catholocism is now teaching Pantheism which, quite frankly, wouldn't surprise me. But that just proves my point. Christianity and Catholocism also teach a god that is seperate from our universe and is in fact a person (three persons actually) and now you are saying god IS the universe so it is impossible to distinguish one from the other. That is the direction Catholocism seems to be going, defining god in such a way he can't be falsified (and he also can't therefore be proven), and then you just pull out the "you can't prove us wrong so it is perfectly reasonable to accept we are right" card. Except it's not. it's intellectually dishonest which is why you have to set the intellect aside to swallow your "truth".
Fifth, you say "If you truly wanted to find God, you would set out to find him."
God knows exactly what it would take for me to believe, according to you he has all the cards. The "evidence" the christians claim he has provided is terrible. Any being that would want and require our belief for our salvation could do better. Looking at the contradictory evidence, the fact that believers can't even get their stories straight he seems to WANT non-believers, a more likely answer though is it is all made up fiction.
"If that formula was applicable, you as the observer would, by scientific protocol, necessarily be isolated from the experiment. Since the God being proposed is "in all things and with all things" you cannot be a detached observer of the phenomenon. Therefore the only experiment that has any validity is the subjective."
I disagree with this assessment for the reason that, even if a supposed god were "in all things", that does not preclude an experiment where the effect of a god was isolated from the observer.
In other words, one can objectively test the effects of such a god without involving oneself. One example is the so-called intercessory prayer surveys, in which the prayer had no significant effect and the experimenters were not involved. ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567 )
I can't be the only one who understands this, right? They (the catholics) are being brought to court because of the death of a mother and the unborn child. They (the catholics) are saying they can't be charged with the death of the unborn because the LAW doesn't recognize the unborn child as a person. No where are they (the catholics) saying that the child wasn't "alive" or a person, just that the law didn't recognize them as a person.
This is the same concept behind having 'Standing' or, for those less familiar with legal terms, the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. The law doesn't even recognize the unborn child as a person and other's can not bring a lawsuit against someone who the law says doesnt exist.
I understand it completely; the Catholic Church follows God's laws, except when they find man's laws more convenient...(And twins died)
The Law says that business' that are required to provide insurance provide contraception coverage. Why doesn't the RCC just defer to mans law? Why don't ther defer to mans law when they know their preists violated man's law?
They don't give a hoot about man's law unless they directly benefit from it.
Oh, I agree; that's why I said they'll use man's laws when it is convenient for them.
I already regret my post. It is apparent that you are either blind to the truth or being willfully ignorant. Twisting this into a argument about who's law they follow over who's and when is irrelevant and nonsensical. We are talking about judicial law and whether or not they can be sued or have charges brought on them for something the judicial law has no legal defiintion for.
It doesn't matter if they are Catholic or not. If the law doesn't recognize the unborn as a person, that person can not be represented by a 3rd party. If you do not like that, let's go ahead and grant full rights to the unborn. I would love to see that happen.
The point is the church is talking out of both sides of its mouth. I do think it is a perfectly reasonable legal defense but that doesn't change the contradictory positions of the church. If this was a secular hospital this would not be interesting, it IS interesting because the RCC is making the argument.
I'm rather hungry, I will return to our discourse after consuming something with pepperoni in it. Yum maybe pizza.
THATS NOT KOSHER!!!! YOU'RE GOING TO HELL
The last time I read one of your posts you claimed you had read most of the creation myths in the world and had determined that only the Abrahamic ones begun with "the creation of matter, space and energy." You didn't provide any evidence for that statement when I asked you to. Care to try now?
I think Live4Him went to supper.
I believe it goes like this;
Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
In the beginning=time
and the earth=matter
@Robert Brown : I think Live4Him went to supper.
I spent some time with my family. And as I've been pointing out, I have a deplorable copycat who tries to denigrate my moniker. I've also reported him/her for such. But thanks for calling it out in my absence.
@Robert Brown : I believe it goes like this
Not quite. Here's the breakdown.
Matter: 1) God created the heavens and the earth.
Energy: 3) "Let there be light,” and there was light.
Time: 4) he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”
There is light all the time in the universe. Night on earth even has varying degrees of light.
"Creating light and dark" is pretty meaningless.
Those are all pretty nice (but baseless) interpretations of the creation story you're making there, but where's the evidence that only Abrahamic religions provide this explanation?
Oh, and this:
"he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”"
How could there have been day and night when the luminaries (and therefore, the sun) were not yet created? Where is the "light" coming from?
Also, because there was no extraterrestrial mass at the time of the creation of the "heavens and the earth," neither can account for all the matter in the Universe at that point in the creation myth.
Do you know why scientists do not dispute the existence of the Judaeo-Christian God? Genesis Chapter 1 is the answer. Look closely at it and let one of them explain.
Nll, Krauss, Hawking and Dawkins are all scientists who dispute the existence of gods – you are wrong.
@him: E=mc2 makes ANY CREATOR pointless. it explains that all matter is energy and from the understanding that energy CAN NOT be created nor destoryed, thus energy is eternal.
second part of E=mc2 covers the fact that regardless of the observer all energy remains constant.
@Observer : There is light all the time in the universe. Night on earth even has varying degrees of light.
So, why do we have Day and Night on this earth? What's the difference? Time.
@Gir : How could there have been day and night when the luminaries (and therefore, the sun) were not yet created? Where is the "light" coming from?
We get light from a fireplace, from a light bulb, fluorescent, etc. You don't need a centralized light source to have light. All you need is energy.
@WASP : all matter is energy and from the understanding that energy CAN NOT be created nor destoryed, thus energy is eternal.
The thermodynamic laws only apply to the natural world, not the supernatural.
We have time because we say we do. We have 24 hour days because we say we do. We could just as easily have 30 hr days or any amount of hours. We have day and night because the earth rotates.
But fireplaces and light bulbs ARE centralized sources of light energy, as are the sun and other stars.
@him: yeah typical christian nutter; trying to use science when it fits your needs.
it is extremely sad that you can't even use the law of thermal dynamics correctly. it only covers the KNOWN WORLD, not the supernatural world that doesn't adhere to any law of physics.
santa clause falls under the whole SUPERNATURAL catagory and we all know santa clause isn't real. he doesn't adhere to any laws of this reality, so by your logic santa clause is as powerful as your god........thanks nice to know.
Well, I'm heading out for now.
We don't blame you at all for leaving. It's expected.
Stop responding to his posts. He is clearly some sort of troll.
@Observer : We don't blame you at all for leaving. It's expected.
You should expect it when nothing is being discussed. And I'm heading out again. Bye.
Oh, there's plenty being discussed. You just don't like the direction the discussion is headed.
And TissuePaperForHim left her last two scents and scurried away again.
Check your god(S) at the cave enterance before entering.. Study begins now no god(S) required.
Ancient DNA reveals humans living 40,000 years ago in Beijing area related to present-day Asians, Native Americans January 21, 2013
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-ancient-dna-reveals-humans-years.html#jCp
Why do believers care when life begins? God never once expressed any concern for all the children, babies, and fetuses he commanded be killed.
Yep. And if life "begins" at conception then many humans are naturally aborted by the female body with not a thought towards the god that could save them.
@Observer : Why do believers care when life begins? God never once expressed any concern for all the children, babies, and fetuses he commanded be killed.
These are some good questions. Now, to you and I, our world begins at birth and ends at death. But, from God's perspective, it does not. If God commands a baby to be killed, He knows whether or not that child will follow Him. IF that child is going to refuse to follow Him, then there is no point in it living on earth – where he/she live in eternity is known.
On the other hand, if WE were to kill a baby (or fetus if you prefer), we don't know what their choice would be.
If God commands a baby to be killed, He knows whether or not that child will follow Him. IF that child is going to refuse to follow Him, then there is no point in it living on earth – where he/she live in eternity is known."
You may be the first Christian I know of that doesn't believe in Free Will. Congratulations.
To a christian, whatever god does is always right by definition. Might makes right, and morality is relative. It's not the same for a person as for god, and therefore it's relative. God can do whatever he wants and it's right, and therefore it's "might makes right."
@Observer : You may be the first Christian I know of that doesn't believe in Free Will. Congratulations.
Wrong, I believe in Free Will AND the so-called Predestination.
God is outside of time, right? If so, then God knows every action in my life from start to finish.
Think of it as a book – all history in the most minute detail is recorded in a book. The book begins with the creation of time and ends with the extinction of time. Inside that book, Live4Him choose of his/her own free will to follow Christ at age 11. He/She waviered in his/her belief at age 17 and recommited subsequently. At age ?? he/she died. That latter entry hasn't occurred yet, but it will. And God knows when.
And yours is recorded too.
So you believe in free will AND that a fetus is already PREDETERMINED for what they will do in life.
Classic! You have presented some of the most illogical and nonsensical defenses of the Bible I've ever heard. Well done.
Ok, then we can scratch from believers' list of "God's" purported characteristics:
"If God commands a baby to be killed, He knows whether or not that child will follow Him. IF that child is going to refuse to follow Him, then there is no point in it living on earth – where he/she live in eternity is known."
Are you serious?
@live4him: I think you should write a big book of religious fiction, since you obviously have no problem conjuring up silly prose.
Oh wait, it's been written – it's called... Da Babble.
live4him: you have no more authority to speak for god than anyone
" If God commands a baby to be killed, He knows whether or not that child will follow Him. IF that child is going to refuse to follow Him, then there is no point in it living on earth – where he/she live in eternity is known."
So does every person who god doesn't get rid of by the end of infancy go to heaven? This seems an inefficient system.
HUMANS, GIVE US SOME TIME AND WE'LL COME UP WITH THE RIGHT ANSWER. WE HAVE "SUCCESSFULLY" SENT A MONKEY INTO SPACE. OUR NEXT GOAL IS TO SEND HIM AGAIN, "FIND ALLAH" AND ASK HIM PERSONALLY. TILL THEN WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ACCEPT THE LIFE BEGINS AT BANG. NO BANG NO BABY.
@Akira : which just makes the hypocrisy more difficult to take. I detest hypocrites, also.
What about false accusers?
Not sure you really have a leg left to stand on, Mary.
@sam : Not sure you really have a leg left to stand on, Mary.
I have two, thank you very much.
If you detest hypocrites, you must REALLY DETEST anyone who supports the Golden Rule and yet would be horrified to be treated like a r@pe victim in the Bible.
Why do you start a new thread instead of using Reply?
@In Santa we trust : Why do you start a new thread instead of using Reply?
Convenience. And to be sure she sees the response. I don't always see the active postings due to the time I need to respond to other posts. So, I didn't respond to her post for some time and she may have thought that I was ignoring her.
Mary: what about them?
I detest liars of any sort.
And quite frankly, I couldn't care less if you ignore $e or not, but if you lie about your backround again, I will call you out again.
Maybe you missed @L4H's reply on page 2.
I don't think you have had time to make it down to NC yet.
You might be right... but then again, you might be mistaken on this.
@Akira : if you lie about your backround again, I will call you out again.
I don't lie and I don't falsely accuse others. And you obviously refused to meet, so this topic is now moot.
I didn't see page 2; I can only see the last page on my phone.
If you'd care to repeat it, I shall address it.
Do you know what these are, Mary?
18.104.22.168 Niagra Falls
The first one is your place of employment; the second one, your personal computer.
Please stop lying.
Jesus hates that.
@Richard Cranium : You clearly have not studied M theory
How do you know? I've studied the M theory and it's predecessor the String Theory. Both of them are theories which they're trying to determine a scientific experiment to validate them. And even after validation, you would need to take a hundred years or more before you could claim that it has gone through the scientific rigors to be considered a law. You ask, Why do I say that? Well, the Big Bang is about 90 years old now and its pretty universally accepted that there are serious flaws with it. So lets discuss this in 100 years – if we're still alive. See, it takes FAITH to believe in naturalism.
You can offer no proof whatsoever that the world wasn't created by the Three Stooges before they came to earth. Maybe the Big Bang resulted right after Curly said "Hey, Moe! Watch this".
Even if intelligent design turned out to be the cause, it does not in any way prove the existence of God.
Gullible4Him seems to constant avoid using Reply when he/she is have their ass handed to them in recent discussion (see previous page).
@Observer : Even if intelligent design turned out to be the cause, it does not in any way prove the existence of God.
That's correct. This is why I have addition premises. Each one addresses one part of the conclusion.
1) Natural or Supernatural
2) Monotheism or Polytheism
3-5) Judaism or Islam or Christianity
And all of those points have problems as well. I'm wondering if it would qualify for fractal wrongness.
Observer you could believe that if you wanted. That would be your religion, that God(the creator) is three stooges. You'd still be seeking God in your own way.
@hawaiiguest : And all of those points have problems as well. I'm wondering if it would qualify for fractal wrongness
So you say. But, the question is Which is most plausible? Which takes the least faith to believe in? When I gamble, I prefer the odds in my favor. And life is a gamble.
The big bang is not a theory, it is fact, accepted as such since 2006. The cause is still in debate.
If you have studied, you have not comprehended. Go back and study.
"You'd still be seeking God in your own way"
You have thoroughly confused looking for the souce of life with "seeking God". You are claiming that the search is for God when it isn't.Your use of the phrase "The search for God" is nothing more than trying to prove your hypothesis is correct to you. You have missed the point.
@Richard Cranium : The big bang is not a theory, it is fact, accepted as such since 2006. The cause is still in debate.
If there is still doubt (ie. cause) then it is a theory. Only those who don't understand science will claim such a position.
It does not take "faith" to believe in "naturalism." There's simply no reason to assume anything else. If you're considering other, nonnatural options, you're assuming something that you don't need to assume, and that's stupid, as Occam pointed out.
It does not take faith to assume that my computer works as it was designed with no supernatural forces. It DOES take faith to assume that my computer works WITH the aid of supernatural forces. See how that works?
@Moby Schtick : It does not take "faith" to believe in "naturalism."
Okay, how did we get here (i.e. origins of matter, energy and time)?
The Believers' View of Life:
(1) Atheists are wrong because for something to exist, something must have created it.
(2) God exists and came from nothing.
(3) God created the universe from nothing.
@Observer : God exists and came from nothing.
If you made a religion in which the Stooges created the world, you declared them gods not a "source of life". Wheres the confusion? I'm not a literalist when it comes to creation stories.
Lie4Him, Who or what created your god? Whatever your answer, why do you feel that the universe could not have been created the same way?
@In Santa we trust : Who or what created your god?
This is the logic fallacy of ad infinitum. There cannot be an infinite series of beginnings. At some point, the "Unmoved Mover" has to exist (according to Aristotle). Regardless of what or who this Unmoved Mover is, it/he/she must exist.
How did we get here? I have no idea.
No, there does not have to be one ultimate uncaused cause. Logic fail. Infinite regression and eternal existence are equally unfathomable by the human mind and there is no reason to assume one over the other or that perhaps our minds are too limited to conceive of whatever the truth may be. YOU can't conceive of an infinite regress because YOU already believe in an eternal existence. Just because you've determined your faith doesn't mean that there's no other option.
Explain how "god exists and came from nothing" is a strawman. (I'm not saying that I disagree, but I want to witness YOUR rationale in making your determination).
Lie4Him. So why do you believe that your god is the first mover? Instead of the universe being infinite and not needing a creator.
Infinite, logically inconsistent, transcendent, unknown being is one of the least plausible assertions made. You also talk about gambling, so you think you can believe just in case. Apparently works mean absolutely nothing, which merely goes to show the immorality of that doctrine.
Why do you people keep responding to this troll's copy-and-paste posts?
"There cannot be an infinite series of beginnings."
A second causal agent proposed to account for a first is hardly "an infinite series of beginnings." Maybe the chain of causality stops at the SuperGod (the one who must have created your god). Or the SuperDuperGod, who may have created SuperGod.
Live4Him "But, the question is Which is most plausible? Which takes the least faith to believe in? When I gamble, I prefer the odds in my favor."
Religion has so often been wrong (witch burnings, interracial marriage) and science has so often been right (antibiotics ). Which has the most evidence in its favor?
@him: "When I gamble, I prefer the odds in my favor. And life is a gamble."
life isn't a gamble, it isn't a game, or a test; life doesn't exsist because it has to, life exsists because it can.
it is truly that simple.as long as earth is "habitable" there will always be life here, regardless of single celled organisms or extremely coMplex larger life forms.
LIFE WILL PREVAIL.
NO CREATOR REQUIRED:
simple answer, E=MC2.
if everything in the universe is constructed from energy, and energy can not be created nor destroyed but merely changes form then the universe has always exsisted and always will.
as the cycle of conversion from matter to energy happens the universe sort of does like the seasons, birth leading to demise then back again.
if you require futher explaination, merely ask and i will answer you..............................unlike your "god". lmfao
Tim is the Destroyer of Worlds. He cares not about social issues. But, Tim often makes fun of those who spin archaic religious doctrine into agendas of intolerance or ignorance. Ferretianism is the one true religion. Repent! (banjoferret d c)
Lohan, Destroyer of Probation, could kick Tim's tiny derriere any drunken night of the week, bub!
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.