What happens after life??

[Freethinker]

Amazingly "hink" is a word. It is a sickle. Thus my reply.

[GAHD]

wow, now this topic hasn't been derailed....

[IrishEyes]

wow, now this topic hasn't been derailed....

 

Yeah, you're right.

But then again, there is not going to be a concensus on this topic, or any other that has even a slight reference to anything religious or spiritual.

I am not aware of any scientific PROOF that ANYTHING happens after life, unless you count decomp.

However, that doesn't keep me, and millions of others, from believing that there is a Heaven. Strangely enough, even people that don't want to believe in God still want there to be a Heaven.

So what happens after life? You know, it really doesn't matter. Either you will be dead and nothing happens because there is no GOD, you will be re-incarnated as a bug or cow because Christians were wrong, or you will spend eternity in Heaven or Hell because you served or scorned God during your life. Either way, once you're dead, there is no other chance to change your personal eternity.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyesI am not aware of any scientific PROOF that ANYTHING happens after life, unless you count decomp.

 

However, that doesn't keep me, and millions of others, from believing that there is...

 

...any number of bogus and irrational things.

 

Yes. And this is the problem I keep discussing with such erroneous beliefs as Christianity. It allows one to think that accetance of things that have no reality is just fine. Children die because the parents are allowed to believe that praying will take care of it, rather than SCIENCE (medicine). Massive amounts of money and energy are wasted pretending it is not only OK, but preferable to support such antiquated superstitions.

 

3rd world countries are being over run with uncontrolled population growth. STDs including HIV is spreading like wild fire, because religious ignorace is the guiding factor for international aid, rather than REALITY. That we should pretend that "abstenance only" is actually a valid approach for these 3rd world countries, or even to stop unwanted teen preganancy and STD's in the US. FACTS and REALITY need not apply.

 

But we hear that that is OK. That even though there is not the first VALID reason to accept such superstitious nonsense, "that doesn't keep me, and millions of others, from believing that there is...". And it doesn't matter how much the world and the human race suffers because of it.

 

Strangely enough, even people that don't want to believe in God still want there to be a Heaven.

Every one? Hardly. The concept of "heaven" is an attrocity to humanity. The psychological pressure is very negative. Even most "believers" totally reject the REALITY of the concept of Heaven in order to stop from being mentally abused by it. e.g They totally ignore massive parts of the bible in order to convince themselves they are going to go to heaven. At every funeral we hear that that person is going to heaven no matter how they lived their lives. Becau8se the living want to hoep against hope that they to will not be subjected to the more obvious alternative, HELL!

 

So what happens after life? You know, it really doesn't matter.

 

Spoken like a true Christian.

 

Either you will be dead and nothing happens because there is no GOD, you will be re-incarnated as a bug or cow because Christians were wrong, or you will spend eternity in Heaven or Hell because you served or scorned God during your life. Either way, once you're dead, there is no other chance to change your personal eternity.

 

I hope my immortality will be a historical refernce to the benefits I have provided to humanity. For how ever short of time that legacy may last.

 

Meanwhile, I will live my life based on what is good for HUMANITY, rather than waste my life in the highly selfish goal of achieving heaven by pleasing the contradictory and hateful god of the bible.

[IrishEyes]

You preach more than most Christian ministers, my friend!

 

Children die because the parents are allowed to believe that praying will take care of it, rather than SCIENCE (medicine).

 

This is not true of all people that claim to be Christians, nor is it true of all religions. However, I associate with a LOT of Christians, and not a single one of them would keep medicine from one of their sick children, nor would any of them refuse medical treatment because it is based on science. You are generalizing again.

 

3rd world countries are being over run with uncontrolled population growth. STDs including HIV is spreading like wild fire, because religious ignorace is the guiding factor for international aid, rather than REALITY. That we should pretend that "abstenance only" is actually a valid approach for these 3rd world countries, or even to stop unwanted teen preganancy and STD's in the US. FACTS and REALITY need not apply.

 

First, at what point did teaching people the only way to prevent the spread of STDs 100%become 'religious ignorance'? FACTS and REALITY both dictate that having only one sexual partner will all but eliminate your chances of contracting HIV, and will also reduce your chances of catching many other STDs to almost nothing. Yes, you can probably always come up with a case where someone has caught something from a toilet seat, or something similar. However, the TRUTH is that if ONE GENERATION in this country made it a goal to abstain from sex before marriage, and then stayed in a monogamous relationship for their entire lives, the spread of STDs would virtually stop in this country. It may be an antiquated idea, but monogomy is really not a bad idea. Just because you don't like the solution doesn't mean that it's not a good solution.

 

Do you have any other suggestions for 3rd world countries? Pass out condoms on every street corner in Africa? Weekly antibiotics shots for every person in Singapore? Mandatory periodic testing with 'ok cards' for all those in South America? And as for this country...WHY is it wrong to teach our young people that sex at a young age with multiple partners is dangerous? My teenaged daughters have been taught since they were very young that there are potential consequences to sex, such as STDs, pregnancy, and possibly death (with HIV). They know that the only way to be 100% safe is to abstain 100%. They also understand that sex is not a dirty thing, but a wonderful thing, but it should be enjoyed by people old enough and mature enough to handle the physical and emotional changes that it causes in every relationship. How is that unrealistic?

 

Every one? Hardly.

I did not say EVERY one. Don't exaggerate my statements.

 

The concept of "heaven" is an attrocity to humanity. The psychological pressure is very negative.

This is totally NOT true. I feel NO negative psychological pressure at all associated with Heaven.

 

Even most "believers" totally reject the REALITY of the concept of Heaven in order to stop from being mentally abused by it.

Ok, gonna have to throw the "PROOF" flag at this one. Where in the world do you get these ideas?

 

e.g They totally ignore massive parts of the bible in order to convince themselves they are going to go to heaven.

My King James Version of the Bible is very clear that eternal life/Heaven is a gift from God (John 3:16), and all I have to do is believe in Christ to get there (Acts 16:31). There is nothing to ignore in the Bible to fool myself that I'll get to Heaven. No place in my Bible does it say or even imply that it takes more than that to get to Heaven.

 

At every funeral we hear that that person is going to heaven no matter how they lived their lives. Becau8se the li

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyesYou preach more than most Christian ministers, my friend!

 

I just don't promote ignorancec sucker people out of their money, nor rob taxes from the public coffers the way Ministers.

 

Besides, someone complained that the thread had lost it. So I thought I'd stir the pot some! :-)

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Children die because the parents are allowed to believe that praying will take care of it, rather than SCIENCE (medicine).

 

This is not true of all people that claim to be Christians, nor is it true of all religions. However, I associate with a LOT of Christians, and not a single one of them would keep medicine from one of their sick children, nor would any of them refuse medical treatment because it is based on science. You are generalizing again.

 

I stated a fact. I stated it correctly.

 

Research was done on 172 child fatalities among faith healing sects, 140 of them would have survival rates of better than 95%, 18 additional children would have had better than 50/50.

 

In 1972, there was an outbreak of polio at a Christian Science boarding school in Connecticut. Eleven children were paralyzed before an outsider notified state health officials. (24) In 1985, there was an outbreak of measles at Principia College, the Christian Science college mentioned above. Most of the 700 students there had not been vaccinated; about 120 students became ill, and three died. This is more than twenty times higher than the death rate from measles in the general population.

 

A subsequent study of both measles and pertussis outbreaks in Colorado showed that day care and elementary age children who were exempted for religious or philosophical reasons were sixty-two times more likely to become infected with measles and sixteen times more likely to become infected with pertussis than children who were vaccinated.

 

All you are proving is that Christians can not agree on what Christianity IS. That this supposed absolute perfect word of the all powerful and ONLY god is so convoluted that no one can understand what it is. These Christian parents/ child abusers are able to stand toe to toe with any other Christian (or non-) and PROVE they are following the SAME perfect word of god as every other Christian. And that THEY are the ones that are doing it correctly, to the same extent as every other Christian.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

3rd world countries are being over run with uncontrolled population growth. STDs including HIV is spreading like wild fire, because religious ignorace is the guiding factor for international aid, rather than REALITY. That we should pretend that "abstenance only" is actually a valid approach for these 3rd world countries, or even to stop unwanted teen preganancy and STD's in the US. FACTS and REALITY need not apply.

 

First, at what point did teaching people the only way to prevent the spread of STDs 100%become 'religious ignorance'?

 

1) I SPECIFICALLY posted "abstenance only", not abstenence as one personal option.

 

2) a personal choice of abstenence is NOT a 100% preventitive measure. Regardless of an individual's choice, there is still rape. While if it is known that a condom is almost 100% protect, even a rapist may use one for self protection. Thus condom education can actually be MORE effective than some bogus "abstenance only" program

 

3) 3rd world societies are not going to stop having sex because of some outside religious authority wants to stop more effective educational efforts that better fit the REALITY of human sexuality.

 

4) "abstenance only" education in the US has been PROVEN to be less effective in US schools at reducing pregnancies and STD's.

 

5) there is not a single group promoting "abstenance only" except religious groups.

 

Thus YES it IS "religious ignorance"!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyesHowever, the TRUTH is that if ONE GENERATION in this country made it a goal to abstain from sex before marriage,

 

And this is where this fallacy breaks down. Even amoungst teens that take a PLEDGE of Abstenence, STD's and pregnancies occur. And these teens are the least prepared when NATURE takes over.

 

The excuse is always "Abstenence is 100% effective! They just didn't use it!"

 

Reminds me of a report from the Catholic Church showing that the Rhythm method is 100% effective for birth control. They simply removed any subjects that got pregnant and claimed those couples didn't do it right!

 

and then stayed in a monogamous relationship for their entire lives, the spread of STDs would virtually stop in this country. It may be an antiquated idea, but monogomy is really not a bad idea. Just because you don't like the solution doesn't mean that it's not a good solution.

 

To claim that human nature can be totally changed in one generation is not only ludicrous, it is wrong to even assert that just because YOU don't like something EVERYONE should abide by YOUR rules.

 

Typical selfrighteous Christian philosophy.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyesDo you have any other suggestions for 3rd world countries? Pass out condoms on every street corner in Africa?

 

That would be one of the greatest things we could do for those countries YES!

 

And as for this country...WHY is it wrong to teach our young people that sex at a young age with multiple partners is dangerous?

 

Please show us all where *I* said that. Once more you twist what I DID say in order to pretend to disprove me. STRAW MAN! In FACT, the reason that teems are NOT taught to make INFORMED decisions is BECAUSE of the currently enforeced FEDERAL REQUIREMENT to teach Abstenence only. No matter how HARMFUL it is! But once more the decision is being made between CHRISTIAN philosphy and REALITY. Once more when Christianity wins, soceity LOSES!

 

{q]My teenaged daughters have been taught since they were very young that there are potential consequences to sex, such as STDs, pregnancy, and possibly death (with HIV). They know that the only way to be 100% safe is to abstain 100%

 

So you do LIE to your children!

 

They also understand that sex is not a dirty thing, but a wonderful thing, but it should be enjoyed by people old enough and mature enough to handle the physical and emotional changes that it causes in every relationship. How is that unrealistic?

 

I never said it was! I said "Abstenence ONLY" is not only unrealistic, but HARMFUL!

[IrishEyes]

Besides, someone complained that the thread had lost it. So I thought I'd stir the pot some! :-)

 

Boil, boil, toil and trouble, huh? Yeah, I'm ok with that. ;>P

[IrishEyes]

I stated a fact. I stated it correctly.

 

Research was done on 172 child fatalities among faith healing sects,

 

You should have stopped after your first sentence. That would not have shown your obvious bias, as evidenced by your second sentence beginning "Research was done...faith healing sects". Again, I ask - WHERE do you find these bizarre research results? And WHO pays for these studies?

 

Does your reasoning also apply to parents of *any* religious background that make the decision NOT to have their children immunized after the rash of recent reports linking certain immunizations with childhood autism, among other things?

 

I mean, you claim *I* live by a "Typical selfrighteous Christian philosophy", but I think you have it backwards! Should we take away all children born to any religion that does not agree with YOUR ideas, and have these children raised by more 'intelligent' people that are not restricted by their religious dogmas? What complete arrogance!! (That is my self-righteously indignant tone of voice, btw! :>O)

 

Look, I don't agree with the idea of withholding medical services to ANYONE, especially children. But to call a group of people "Christian parents/ child abusers" because you can't see the validity of their beliefs is really unfair! Talk about hypocrisy!!

[IrishEyes]

2) a personal choice of abstenence is NOT a 100% preventitive measure. Regardless of an individual's choice, there is still rape. While if it is known that a condom is almost 100% protect, even a rapist may use one for self protection. Thus condom education can actually be MORE effective than some bogus "abstenance only" program

 

Yes, there is still rape. You are right. And assuming that the rest of the country of the Ivory Coast (no particular reson, just that i've been there, so i chose this one) were actively abstaining unless in a sexually monogomous relationship, how many new cases of HIV would be introduced on a yearly basis due to rape? Would the country still be overrun with children that are HIV-orphans? No!! Rape is a tragedy, and it would still account for a VERY minute percentage of new infections, but abstinence and monogomy could still VIRTUALLY eliminate the spread of HIV, and many other STDs.

 

And just to play DA here, your fictional rapist is going to use a condom to keep himself from getting HIV, right? So he's raping someone that could be infected, right? So the person being raped has already had sex, correct? So how does this disprove a stance on abstinence? He's sexually active, and so is your victim, otherwise your rapist wouldn't even think of wearing a condom. All the condom has done is give your rapist a guilt-free pass to rape, as his condom use won't cause HIV. And no, I'm not condoning rape, nor am I saying it never happens or that the victims somehow deserve it. All I'm saying is that your example has its own set of holes.

 

3) 3rd world societies are not going to stop having sex because of some outside religious authority wants to stop more effective educational efforts that better fit the REALITY of human sexuality.

 

What is that - the REALITY of human sexuality?

 

Religious authorities are not going into these countries and forcing conversion to Christianity as a way to cure HIV infection. However, if people in these 3rd World countries are properly educated on ways to PREVENT HIV infection, what is the problem? As the most effective way to prevent infection includes abstinence and monogomy, how is that religious ignorance?!?

 

4) "abstenance only" education in the US has been PROVEN to be less effective in US schools at reducing pregnancies and STD's.

Less effective than what? And WHY is this failure put on the schools? It's NOT a religious thing, or at least it shouldn't be! Education should always begin in the home. If PARENTS make it a priority to teach their children that abstinence and monogomy is key in virtually eliminating the spread of STDs and HIV, instead of accepting the societal view of 'well, kids will be kids, so why bother', change COULD happen. I find it very disturbing that in another thread you were all for initiating a change in attitude towards *religions*, starting with educating our children, and you blasted me for my 'it would be too difficult' attitude. You said that it not only could be done, but SHOULd be done. Why is your attitude SO different on this topic?

[IrishEyes]

And this is where this fallacy breaks down. Even amoungst teens that take a PLEDGE of Abstenence, STD's and pregnancies occur. And these teens are the least prepared when NATURE takes over.

 

The excuse is always "Abstenence is 100% effective! They just didn't use it!"

 

 

Ok, these paragraphs don't make sense at all. A group of kids take a Pledge of Abstinence, yet still end up pregnant or with an STD, and you're saying "Abstenence is 100% effective! They just didn't use it!" is an EXCUSE???!!!???

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

What part of getting pregnant or being infected with an STD indicates that they were actually abstaining from sex?

And HOW does this indicate that these teens are the least prepared when NATURE takes over?

 

 

Reminds me of a report from the Catholic Church showing that the Rhythm method is 100% effective for birth control. They simply removed any subjects that got pregnant and claimed those couples didn't do it right!

 

Well, DUH! Obviously they did it, RIGHT!!! (Sorry, couldn't help myself, that was just too blatant!)

 

To claim that human nature can be totally changed in one generation is not only ludicrous, it is wrong to even assert that just because YOU don't like something EVERYONE should abide by YOUR rules.

 

Typical selfrighteous Christian philosophy.

 

To claim that human nature can be totally changed in one generation - I didn't claim that HUMAN NATURE could be changed in one generation. I was speaking specifically about the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, not HUMAN NATURE.

 

just because YOU don't like something EVERYONE should abide by YOUR rules - This made me laugh, especially after reading your attack of the 'child abusers' in an earlier post! I NEVER said that everyone should abide by MY rules. I said that it shouldn't be considered 'religious ignorance' to teach that HIV infection can be prevented by abstaining from sex outside of a monogomous relationship. I also said that there will always be exceptions, and I used the toliet seat as an example, while you said 'rape'. There ae more, i know. But the exceptions still do not invalidate the FACT that abstinence and monogomy could virtually eliminate HIV/STDs.

 

Condoms do work, most of the time. And I realize that when used correctly, their failure rate is VERY low, I will readily admit that. However, even when used correctly, they still have a failure rate. So where is your study showing that the number of people in Africa infected with HIV due to failed condoms is less than the number of people infected because of rape after abstinence?

 

And that begs another question - Are condoms your answer? Should we just pass out condoms to everyone, and feel better that we've 'educated' everyone on safe sex? "here, take this condom, and use it properly, and you can have all the sex with as many different people as you want!" That may be acceptable to you, but I want a LOT better for my children!! I'm not saying I want to stick my head in the sand and pretend that saying "Just DON'T do it" will cure all of the problems. However, there has to be a balance. I have a balance in my home, and will gladly share my ideas, but still would not presume to try to foist it on anyone that didn't want to hear it!

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

To claim that human nature can be totally changed in one generation is not only ludicrous, it is wrong to even assert that just because YOU don't like something EVERYONE should abide by YOUR rules.

Typical selfrighteous Christian philosophy.

 

Last I checked polygamy was Illegal, Seems like the Gov. Is doing just that....

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Ok, these paragraphs don't make sense at all. ....

 

Actually they do make sence, you just have to make the logical connection between the statements;

1)the children vowed to abstain.

2)STD's and pregnancies occur.

3)these teens are the least prepared when NATURE takes over.

 

thusly; 1) some teens lied, intentionally ort not.

2)Some had sex weather willingly or not

3)"Nature" being the hormonal changes associated with teenage behaviour. These hormonal changes are linked to the need to procreate(IE have sex) THease children were stretched to the breaking point, and did not know of the alternate means to prevent pregnacy/STDs.

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Condoms do work, most of the time. And I realize that when used correctly, their failure rate is VERY low.....and you can have all the sex with as many different people as you want!

Actually the Japanese vievpoint on sex is precisely that, condoms just make it cleaner, safer, and more pleasureable(depending on the condom) on occasion. As you said earlyer " sex is not a dirty thing, but a wonderful thing". however, there should be no limitations on who can have it should they feel the urge. This leads to a buildup of stress which we know to be unhealthy.

 

Perhapse in the infinate God-driven orgy of heaven(in cheek) everyone will rejoice in HIS creations of Herpies, AIDS, etc...but here on earth a man made barrier seems as good a recourse as any.

At the same time I recognise the fallacy involved in condoms; the transfer of fluids and hormones involved in sex is mostly stopped by condoms; the end result being more like masterbation than sex itself.

Studies were launched not too long ago that indicated women who had a regular "intake" of testosterone(ie were sexualy active in a heterosexual manner) were less nervous, had lessened 'cramps' during menstration, were less likely to be depressed, etc...

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

I stated a fact. I stated it correctly.

 

Research was done on 172 child fatalities among faith healing sects,

 

You should have stopped after your first sentence. That would not have shown your obvious bias, as evidenced by your second sentence beginning "Research was done...faith healing sects". Again, I ask - WHERE do you find these bizarre research results? And WHO pays for these studies?

 

Yes, I do use heavily biased anti-Christian resources. The information for this was found at:

 

American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics

which publishes

American Journal of Law & Medicine

in which the first specific study was originally published.

http://www.aslme.org/pub_ajlm/29.2_3f.php

 

The American Cancer Society

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Faith_Healing.asp?sitearea=ETO

 

Religious Tolerance Org

http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical3.htm

 

People united for Religious Freedom

http://www.peopleunitedforreligiousfreedom.org/thoughts.htm

 

Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD, Inc.)

http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/legal.htm

 

Quackwatch

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/faith.html

 

I guess I need to find less biased sources in the future? I'd bet there are at least a few non-biased CHRISTIAN sites that have funded massive studies to show this information to be incorrect? Rather than rely on these heavily biased SECULAR Orgs. Never did trust that Atheist oriented America Cancer Society! And the last place we can trust to promote religious tolerance would be Religious Tolerance Org.

 

Does your reasoning also apply to parents of *any* religious background that make the decision NOT to have their children immunized after the rash of recent reports linking certain immunizations with childhood autism, among other things?

 

Making a SCIENTIFICALLY INFORMED decision negates ANY religious bias. If however a person REJECTS factual science based medical knowlege and allows thier child to die because of RELIGIOUS beliefs, then yes my REASONING applies no matter WHICH religious belief was the cause of that extreme example of child abuse.

 

It is quite telling that you work so hard to validate the decision of these child killers.

 

Should we take away all children born to any religion that does not agree with YOUR ideas, and have these children raised by more 'intelligent' people that are not restricted by their religious dogmas? What complete arrogance!! (That is my self-righteously indignant tone of voice, btw! :>O)

 

If it keeps these children from suffering and dying at the hands of parents who's religious beliefs disagree with mine, YES. Not BECAUSE they disagree with my views. But because THEIR views, which just HAPPEN to disagree with mine, KILLS CHILDREN!

 

And that is MY " self-righteously indignant tone of voice". I will not apoligize for being selfrighteous when it comes to protecting the lives of innocent children who suffer and die because of religious beliefs of their parents. And the FACT that Christianity is the top of the list is not my fault either.

 

Look, I don't agree with the idea of withholding medical services to ANYONE, especially children. But to call a group of people "Christian parents/ child abusers" because you can't see the validity of their beliefs is really unfair! Talk about hypocrisy!!

 

The 'validity' of their beliefs is well established by the likes of your continued acknowledgement of YOUR inability to provide VALID proof for your god myth. The REALITY of the application of their beliefs, Christianity, is shown by the dead children left in their wake.

[IrishEyes]

by Gahd...

Actually the Japanese vievpoint on sex is precisely that, condoms just make it cleaner, safer, and more pleasureable(depending on the condom) on occasion. As you said earlyer " sex is not a dirty thing, but a wonderful thing". however, there should be no limitations on who can have it should they feel the urge. This leads to a buildup of stress which we know to be unhealthy.

 

Ok, I am not familiar with the Japanese culture. Anyone else care to ring in on this?

 

So you are saying that it doesn't matter who wants to have sex, they should be able to have it when they feel the urge, in order to stop a buildup of stress, which is unhealthy?

 

Anyone should be able to have sex whenever they want????