Topic: Health and Religion - page 95. (Read 210871 times)

Icons full of all sorts of images. You believe them? For you this proof? Other evidence of the believers there. They are stupid people and take away useless to argue. They have no arguments. Their argument alone. There is a God because there is.

BS DECKER,

Can you post a picture of your God?

Believers themselves are liars. How can you prove that God exists? No way! Then why you don't consider yourself a liar? No, that is not confirmed to me. This in my opinion is more logical. And don't you think?

Atheists can be as real as they want about fairy tales, religious or otherwise. But they are absolutely NOT being real when the suggest that God does not exist. Why not? Because they do not know it for a fact, yet state it as a fact. In this way atheists are liars.

Atheists are realists. They don't believe in fairy tales and do not like when they are used for their own purposes. All religions are looking for their supporters among the people with disabilities education. These people are becoming fewer so the fight for the minds of believers escalates.

Set the Bible idea aside for a moment. Look at the existence of God idea.

The definition of atheism from Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism?s=t:
Evidence and scientific proof for the existence of God:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380.

To state that God does not exist goes against a lot of proof and evidence, and against common sense. Why? Nobody knows that God could absolutely not exist in some way... some way that he has not thought of yet. To think this is to say that one has all knowledge in the universe, so that he absolutely can tell, factually, that God does not exist. The ironic thing about this is, for one to have even a majority of the knowledge in the universe, would essentially make him to be a god.

Atheists are ignorant, or liars. There is no other way.

I'm an atheist and I see that in the Bible is just fairy stories. I don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that this is nonsense. Believers deny even what is officially confirmed by scientific studies. This is for me a confirmation that boa no

atheism
[ey-thee-iz-uh m]

noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

One of two things. Either you are ignorant and think you are an atheist, or you are a liar. Why? Because an atheists says that there is no God. But no atheist has absolute proof that there is no God. The best he can say is that it isn't apparent to him that there is a God. This means that even the atheist knows that there might be a God. Then, when you add all the evidence and the scientific proofs for God, it seems to even the atheist that God exists.

If the atheist had said, "There might be a God, but we just can't tell," then he would be more truthful. As it is, he is either ignorant or a liar.

I am also an atheist and don't believe in God. Human health depends, first and foremost from himself. The Bible does not prohibit the purchase but this bad habit leads to death. Who is responsible for this?

Secular atheism, when lived out with intellectual honestly, leads to nihilism. Why is this? Because there is ultimately no objective basis for purposeful meaning in life for the secular atheist. Inventing meaning is neither rational nor logical. For example,  a sign that states “Dead End” would offer an incoherent and false meaning if placed alongside a continuous superhighway. A sign, or anything in life that conveys meaning, only has valid and coherent meaning when it is linked to a corresponding reality in some type of logical manner. Many atheists are confused on this point. Richard Dawkins. for example, has claimed that an “adult” view of life is to subjectively “make” meaning in your life, in whatever manner you may wish to do this. In reality, this is a childish and superficial approach to a deep subject. Children, not adults, are fond of creating make-believe worlds. The following is a quote of Richard Dawkins from the God Delusion:

“The truly adult view [...] is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it. And we can make it very wonderful indeed.”

Unlike Dawkins' make-believe meaning in life, Christian debaters, such as William Lane Craig, have  demonstrated that a rational and logical worldview is possible only when it is based on logically framed precepts arranged in a logical syntax, and not merely based on pretentious whims.

Why Richard Dawkins' View of Meaning is Absurd...

1.  Valid and coherent meaning in life must be somehow verifiable with objective logical principles.
2. Any proposed meaning that is not verifiable with objective logical principles is irrational and ultimately absurd.
3.  Richard Dawkins offers that we should subjectively “make”meaning in life.
4. Therefore, Richard Dawkins' concept of meaning in life is irrational and absurd.
 
Richard Dawkins' concept of meaning in life seems to consist of an existential secular Spaghetti Monster dressed up in a cheap tuxedo. You can call invented and make-believe meaning in life “adult” or “wonderful” or even “very wonderful” - but it's still seems to be absurd to live life based upon make-believe meaning. What do you personally believe about the concept of meaning?

A. Meaning is an objective facet of life.
B. Meaning is arbitrary according to your whims.
C. Neither A nor B.
D. Both A and B.

An atheist writer posted an article at Dawkins' website, the Richard Dawkins Foundation, which outlines a view of meaning that seems to be a bit more objective than Dawkins' own view of meaning. The post is titled, "Why identify as atheist and not nihilist?" and the author states, "If logical, rational thinking is used then I fail to see how nihilism cannot be the conclusion." and, furthermore, "If you don't believe in a creator or divine plan and you understand how our minds and emotions have evolved as chemical signals and electrical pulses then where do you fit the meaning in to this? I enjoy being alive and live as hedonistic lifestyle as possible yet I am under no illusion that this has any meaning outside of my own mind." It's not surprising that Dawkins' own website offers views that contradict and oppose his own views on meaning. The New Atheists have not offered anything in the way of valid logical arguments to support their position.

Secular Atheists Have no Logical Basis to Affirm Purposeful Meaning in Life

William Lane Craig posted an article at his website entitled, The Absurdity of Life without God, postulating, "Why on atheism life has no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose, and why this view is unlivable."
  
"The fundamental problem with this solution, however, is that it is impossible to live consistently and happily within such a world view. If one lives consistently, he will not be happy; if one lives happily, it is only because he is not consistent. Francis Schaeffer has explained this point well. Modern man, says Schaeffer, resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd, as we have seen. In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God. But he cannot live happily in such an absurd world; therefore, he continually makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm meaning, value, and purpose, even though he has no right to, since he does not believe in God."

Rational Secular Atheists Admit that their Atheism Leads to Nihilism
  
A self-confessed atheist, Adam, who is quoted at Craig's website, declares that he has come to hate his secular atheism due to its ultimate and undeniable nihilistic philosophical connection.

"This theme came to my attention when I saw an atheist post a long comment for William Lane Craig to address. Adam, the atheist, described why, "There is no escaping the nihilism as an atheist." He wrote to Craig, "After reading your paper on the absurdity of life without God, I soon realized that I had to become a nihilist." and he continued, "Let me mention here that I was a huge fan of the New Atheists, but I always sensed something was askew with them. Something seemed off about them because whenever they were talking about meaning, value, or purpose, they answered in such ways that only a person ignorant of the objections in your paper could respond. In short (too late), your paper never left my mind, even years after I wrote a "response" to it. I knew, deep down, that not only did I not, but could not answer your objections to atheism. What you say the atheistic worldview entails is true. There is no escaping the nihilism as an atheist."

John Piippo's blog outlines an argument William Lane Craig presented on this subject:

1) If theism is true, then we have a solid basis for morality.
2) If theism is false, then we do not have a solid basis for morality.
3) If 2 is true, then atheism does not lead to humanism, but to nihilism.

Dr. Craig states, "If theism is false, you've got to ask yourself, Why wouldn't nihilism be true? What proof do you have that nihilism is not the correct remaining alternative?" and, "Thus, if atheism is true, it becomes impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, or love as good. It doesn't matter what you do - for there is no right and wrong; good and evil does not exist."

The typical reply by atheists is that, "Atheism does not lead to anything, it's just a lack of belief in God." But this is a glib answer that sidesteps the fact that atheism, when taken as a precept for life, is lived out in a very definite context. Any belief lived out in a context has implications. If you believe that atheism does not lead to nihilism in a philosophical context, I would be curious to see your reasoning in a comment of this post. I've found some sample atheist websites that deny (or avoid) this fact in their simplistic and / or vague summaries:  
...
The question of the meaning and purpose of life is logically an urgent one because it informs all the other decisions in life. This can be outlined in a logical deductive argument, which leads to another argument that supports the logical necessity of God's existence:

Arguments for God from Metalogical Necessities

After seeing a spike in hospital-acquired infections, leaders at Nationwide Children's Hospital decided they needed to take drastic action.

The 604-bed pediatric hospital in Columbus, Ohio, had excellent hand hygiene, according to self-reported surveys. But when leaders installed observers to covertly monitor handwashing and hand sanitization habits, compliance was less than 60%.
...
Dirty hands are linked with healthcare-acquired infections, which are both deadly and costly. In 2011, nearly 722,000 such infections occurred in hospitals, and about 75,000 patients with those infections died.
...
the average healthcare provider cleans his or her hands less than half the number of times they ought to, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
...
To effectively draw its staff's attention to hand hygiene, Nationwide Children's ultimately decided on a stand-down, an intervention borrowed from the military. In the 15-minute drill, which took place twice—once in the morning and once in the evening—on a single day in spring 2010, everyone and everything except essential patient care ground to a halt.
...
And if they, as units and as individuals, did not meet 90% compliance rates or were caught failing to comply, they would have to meet with the chief medical officer or chief nursing officer, or their designates, to explain why.
...
“We didn't know how effective that would be,” Davis said. “It turns out it's pretty embarrassing to be called to the principal's office to explain why you're not doing your job.”

Within a month of the stand-down, compliance rates hit 90%, and they've stayed that way for six years. Davis and his colleagues published the results of their intervention in the Journal of Patient Safety. Davis said separately that healthcare-acquired infection rates had dropped significantly in several categories, including surgical site infections and central line infections.

hospitals that employ private cleaners are associated with a higher incidence of MRSA, a 'superbug' that causes life-threatening infection and has previously been linked with a lack of cleanliness.

The superbug is becoming increasingly difficult to treat. As from 2005, trusts have been required to regularly report incidents of MRSA, which has enabled researchers to produce empirical evidence for the first time that compares the rates of infection in hospitals that outsource cleaning with those using in-house cleaners. They calculate that, on average, the incidence of MRSA infection between 2005 and 2009 was 2.28 in every 100,000 bed days in trusts that outsourced their cleaning, compared with 1.46 bed days in trusts that used in-house cleaners –.a difference of almost 50 per cent. However, the research also highlights that trusts which used outsourced cleaners did save money.

What? Trying to cast doubt in his mind? For a joker who admits to accepting fictional science theory, rather than factual science law, you sure are an outspoken little ding-dong.

Which funny farm are you at again?

Oh really, CoinCube?

Does the Bible ever say that circumcision has health benefits?

No. The Bible never makes such a claim. Jewish authorities hesitate to circumcise a baby if two previous sons had died from circumcision. Even today, circumcisions lead to haemorrhages, infections and sometimes even death.

There is NO "proven" link between circumcision and better health. In fact, cutting a baby boy's genitals creates immediate health risks.

Jesus contrasted circumcision (cutting off foreskins) with his own healing, which made a man 'whole and complete.' Jesus' conclusion, not to judge by appearances, also hit the mark, for his critics rejected those who were not circumcised.

http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass2/

Another reason for the 8th day deals with blood clotting. Blood clotting is dependent on 3 factors: platelets, prothrombin, and vitamin K (which is responsible for prothrombin production and is produced by bacteria in the intestinal tract). Holt and McIntosh, in their classic work, Holt Pediatrics, observed that a newborn infant has “peculiar susceptibility to bleeding between the second and fifth days of life. … Hemorrhages at this time, though often inconsequential, are sometimes extensive; they may produce serious damage to internal organs, especially to the brain, and cause death from shock and exsanguination” (1953, pp. 125-126).

It has been shown that it is on the fifth through the seventh days of the newborn male’s life that vitamin K is present in adequate quantities for blood clotting.

On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present is above one-hundred percent of normal (the only day in the male’s life in which this will be normally be the case). Therefore, the 8th day is the perfect day to do the circumcision … when the Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

It was not done for health or sanitary reasons, but to appease what they perceived to be an angry, bloodthirsty god.

The mutilation that occurs today involves ripping away and cutting off the entire foreskin – a skinning of about half of the penis – and exposing what was intended to be an internal organ. This method began about 150 years after Jesus’ death in an effort by Jewish authorities to further distinguish Jews from uncircumcised Greeks.

The really creepy stuff started happening after 500 C.E. when a creepy book called the Talmud essentially replaced the Torah. I haven’t had the fortitude to look into this thoroughly yet, but apparently it is tradition for the Jewish mohels or “circumcisers” to suck the infant’s wounded, bloody penis after mutilating it without anesthesia. This is not a joke. This is a real practice that happens every day in America. You can even read about it in the New York Times.

The good news is not all Jews are sick, sadistic pedophiles. There is a growing movement of “Jews Against Circumcision.”

“Do not be afraid of divine punishment,” their website says. “God did not mandate circumcision. In the original version of the Torah, the book of J, circumcision is not even mentioned. Fallible men devised circumcision as a way to curb masturbation. Even Rabbi Maimonides acknowledged this fact.”

I haven’t had a chance to look into Islamic circumcision – but here is a website saying circumcision has nothing to do with the Quran, and that Allah hates such wickedness.

The bottom line is I don’t believe in a god who commands people to torture their children, steal their body parts or deny them the ability to experience pleasure. If you do, fine. But keep your sick beliefs in your head, because if you act on them – even after knowing the harm you’re causing – you should go to jail for life.

The American Academy of Pediatrics announced its first major shift on circumcision in more than a decade, concluding that the health benefits of the procedure clearly outweigh any risks.

"There is clear evidence that supports the health benefits of circumcision," said Susan Blank, who led the 14-member task force that formulated the new policy being published in the journal Pediatrics.

The statement, and accompanying technical report, marks the first revision of the organization's position since 1999, when the academy backed away from circumcision. At that time, the group, which represents about 60,000 pediatricians nationwide, concluded that there was no clear evidence for or against circumcising newborns. The group affirmed that position in 2005.

Since then, the popularity of circumcision in the United States has declined. Only about 56 percent of newborn males are circumcised.

The academy's task force spent seven years combing through the latest research, analyzing more than a thousand studies. Their conclusion?

For starters, Blank says, circumcision helps baby boys pretty much immediately.

"The health benefits of male circumcision include a drop in the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life by up to 90 percent," she says.

But there's a much bigger reason to do it, Blank said. Circumcised males are far less likely to get infected with a long list of sexually transmitted diseases.

"It drops the risk of heterosexual HIV acquisition by about 60 percent. It drops the risk of human papillomavirus [HPV], herpes virus and other infectious genital ulcers," she says.

It also reduces the chances that men will spread HPV to their wives and girlfriends, protecting them from getting cervical cancer.

"We've reviewed the data and, you know, we have gone through them with a fine-tooth comb, and the data are pretty convincing," she says.

Critics, however, were not convinced. They liken the procedure to female genital mutilation.

"We have no right as parents or as physicians or adults to strap them down and chop off a normal part of their body. To do that is a human rights violation and an ethical travesty," says Georgeanne Chapin of the anti-circumcision group Intact America.

Chapin and other critics argue that the scientific evidence is questionable. For one thing, the studies about HIV have only been done in Africa, where AIDS is much more common among heterosexuals.

"They're cherry-picking their evidence," she says. "They act as though there's this huge body of literature. It's all the same couple of studies that have been regurgitated and reprogrammed. Over the past 150 years, all kinds of medical benefits have been proposed as resulting from cutting off the foreskin, and they have all been disproven."

Critics also question the safety of the procedure, saying too many boys are damaged for life by botched circumcisions.

But many experts say the academy is making the right call. They dismiss any comparison to female genital mutilation as grossly misleading and say male circumcision is about as safe as any procedure could be.

Some think the academy's position is long overdue, and that the group should have gone even further and more forcefully recommended circumcision.

"I think that all healthy newborn babies should be circumcised," says Edgar Schoen, a professor emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco. "I feel about newborn circumcision the way I do about immunization: It's a potent preventive health procedure that gives you a health advantage."

For its part, the pediatricians group hopes the new recommendations will encourage more parents to circumcise their sons — and more insurance plans to pay for it. As Shots reported last week, a lot of state Medicaid programs have stopped covering circumcision.

"Those families who choose circumcision should have access to circumcision. Cost should not be a barrier," Blank says.

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been promising for years now to issue the government's first guidelines about circumcision. But the CDC keeps delaying it and still has not said when that will happen.

And you think they had this knowledge from God, right?  The same God who told them how to properly beat slaves and how to treat gentiles?

You are scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

Holy books my ass.

• One should not walk more then four cubits from his bed before washing his hands upon arising in the morning (Netilat Yadayim or Negel Vasser)3. Many have the custom not to touch their clothes or walk even the four cubits from their bed. To be able to do this, many prepare on the side of their beds water in a cup and basin prior to retiring at night. The Alter Rebbe writes that one who is G‑d fearing should follow the directives of the Zohar.

• Prior to washing one's hands in the morning one should not touch the following with his hands: His mouth, eyes, nose, ears or any other part of the body which has openings. Neither should one touch food or drink and clothing. Women in particular must be careful in regard to touching food prior to washing their hands, since they handle most of the food at home. Likewise, one must be very cautious not to dip his fingers inadvertently into the water he will be using for the washing of their hands, because by dipping the unwashed finger into the water he has made the water unclean and unfit for washing4.

You guys are funny.  Taking your dietary recommendations from bronze age book.

What is next? Are you going to perform some old fashioned blood letting on your kids when they will get a common cold?

Bronze age Jews knew very little so stop this nonsense.

The Healthy Jew traces the culturally revealing story of how Moses, the rabbis, and other Jewish thinkers came to be understood as medical authorities in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Such a radically different interpretation, by scholars and popular writers alike, resulted in new, widespread views on the salubrious effects of, for example, circumcision, Jewish sexual purity laws, and kosher foods. The Healthy Jew explores this interpretative tradition in the light of a number of broader debates over 'civilization' and 'culture,'