God > CPAP

Being a member on many different forums I am faced with discussions that either bore me, aggravate me or completely disinterest me.
These discussions I skip or ignore, as a forum member I have that right. No one forces me to read something I have no interest in.

If someone quits a forum based on a few off topic discussions, or a discussion that perhaps bashes their personal beliefs or points of view,
is in my opinion irrational.

Roger2 said:

"I would like to know which medical studies you are referring to and which journal they are published in. I would really like to read them. Seems like people who refere to “medical studies” should be able to state their source and if not, quit trying to sell their point of view based upon some fictitious “study.” It would be enlightening to see the parameters of such a study such as the population sample size and demographics for the study, what is the test-retest reliability coefficient and so forth."


Roger2, I did a quick search on google and found 2 articles published int the New England Journal of Medicine. Not being a member however, I do not have
privileges to view the complete articles published, a preview is all that is available. So may I suggest obtaining a membership to view these articles.
I'm quite sure that The New England Journal Of Medicine is a reliable source and not a fictitious one. But I cannot give any evidence that they
are a reliable source, and not just a bunch of monkeys randomly typing on typewriters either. I am quite positive that the articles are not bible based, so
if biblical data is what you are looking for perhaps you should stay away from there.

tinbanger wrote:So may I suggest obtaining a membership to view these articles.
I'm quite sure that The New England Journal Of Medicine is a reliable source and not a fictitious one. But I cannot give any evidence that they
are a reliable source, and not just a bunch of monkeys randomly typing on typewriters either. I am quite positive that the articles are not bible based, so
if biblical data is what you are looking for perhaps you should stay away from there.

As most people are aware who have ever been exposed to any kind of research in college, no membership is required to read any of these journals. I can go over to DU or any other college library and read through their "stacks" any time I desire and read them there which is what most people do who read those kinds of articles.

Roger

Remember leprosy?
Back in the 'good ole days', it was a death sentence--something about divine punishment.
Thankfully, human ingenuity (or a divine flash of knowledge) has made such horrors a mere memory for most of the world's people.

Buford wrote:... I would pray that those most offended by the messenger, not also write off the message. ...

Great post, Buford. My compliments on a well thought out and politely written post. Thank you!

I also love your avatar. I assume Christopher is your service dog. ? He's got a soulful look, doesn't he.

So what's the problem, why would you demand that links to studies be posted when "most people are aware who have ever been exposed to any kind of research in college, no membership is required to read any of these journals."

Roger2 Wrote:
"I can go over to DU or any other college library and read through their "stacks" any time I desire and read them there which is what most people do who read those kinds of articles."
And from a previous post Roger2 Wrote:
"I would really like to read them"
So what's the problem?



Blackspinner Wrote:
” Statistically then you have a higher chance of dying for some god then being healed by them.”

Roger2 Wrote:
"I would like to know how that statistic was compiled, by whom and which journal it appears in, if it exists."

I believe this to be more of an observation. I have seen many documentaries on the topic, that would agree with her observations or findings.
However I agree that her statement may be more subjective. I've never personally looked into whether or not any scientific journals were written
on the subject.

Just as a side note,

if Roger2 insists that BlackSpinner provide links to medical journals to back up her posts, then...
I would insist that any speak of "god's healing power" be also backed up by medical journal findings.
And not just anecdotal "religious experience"

How one practices their religion is not an issue for me, my issue is when people try to mix
religion with science and make extraordinary claims with out any proof at all. But require
science to come up with an exorbitant amount of data and testing to prove their findings.
It's this double standard that drives me crazy.

This forum is about medical treatment (devised by science) for a physiological problem that many of us suffer from.
Let's keep Science to Scientists and anecdotal miracles for church.

tinbanger wrote:Just as a side note,

if Roger2 insists that BlackSpinner provide links to medical journals to back up her posts, then...
I would insist that any speak of "god's healing power" be also backed up by medical journal findings.
And not just anecdotal "religious experience"

Hey dude, I never insisted anything! All I did was to ask for some verification of the ridiculous claims being made. The post posited that the information stated was a fact and not just opinion so naturally, one would and should insist on seeing the alleged study used as a reference. If she could not produce that she should have stated it as her opinion, not an implied imperial fact.

Roger

Roger2 wrote:

tinbanger wrote:Just as a side note,

if Roger2 insists that BlackSpinner provide links to medical journals to back up her posts, then...
I would insist that any speak of "god's healing power" be also backed up by medical journal findings.
And not just anecdotal "religious experience"

Hey dude, I never insisted anything! All I did was to ask for some verification of the ridiculous claims being made. The post posited that the information stated was a fact and not just opinion so naturally, one would and should insist on seeing the alleged study used as a reference. If she could not produce that she should have stated it as her opinion, not an implied imperial fact.

Roger

That is a load of bull shit.

Fact - there is plenty of primary documentation as to the fact that people died in religious wars, any history book will do.
Fact - there is no primary documentation of any miracle cures, only anecdotal, no double blind studies.

So very obviously statistically it is much easier to die in a religious war then it is to be healed by religion. It doesn't need any official scientific paper to see that when you have millions of dead on one hand and maybe a dozen badly documented on the other. Oh and I have a degree in statistics but any 5 grader can tell the difference between many millions and a dozen.

But speaking to closed minds is a bore.

Prosthelytizing, is a funny thing, some folks prosthelytize for Chevy or Ford. My first experience with my first Cpap machine a dozen years ago was almost instantaneous and very positive. For the first time in decades I woke up refreshed and alert. I have had 100% compliance ever since.

So when the occasion seems appropriate I'll plead guilty to prosthelytizing for sleep labs. Some folks are receptive, some folks less so. I never push it too hard, I respect every persons free will.

Xpap machines when used as prescribed are never used as a as a suppository. The same can be said of the Cross, Star of David, or little statues of Buddha. The first rule of any prosthelytizing is a sincere and profound respect for the other person. So when a person tells me: "I'd rather die than sleep with a Xpap machine" I just smile and move on. (It has happened, often)

In the same way many folks will tell you "I'd rather be my own god than worship another God", again I also just move on. No need to argue or discuss proofs. My quality of life is so much better with my Bipap I don't need a double blind study with 100,000 patients.

And I would say the same thing about my faith.

And those interested in neither, I hope I left them as friends.

.....and then there is:

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" - Mark 16:15 KJV

> So very obviously statistically it is much easier to die in a religious war then it is to be healed by religion.

I don't want to beat this to death, I don't know that physical healing is the primary purpose of any of the worlds major religions. So I just don't understand what the purpose of this statement is. I do know that religious charities spend far more money on alleviating suffering than all non religious charities and governmental institutions combined. And I know that the issue of "Religious Wars" is often a popular topic for those prosthelytizing atheistism.

But to get some grasp of "more people" this or that let's remember that there are more people alive on earth now than all who have ever lived before. John Paul II said that more people were martyred for the Christian faith in the 20th Century than all other centuries combined.

That would not include Jews who died in the Holocaust since they did not die for Christianity. To get a total for Jewish and Christian martyrs the numbers would have to be added.

Using the same 20th century as an example, since that is the bulk of humanity and also provides the most accurate numbers. About 60 million people died prematurely and violently during WWII, because of the war. Of those about half died in USSR. Russia during WWII lost about 15 million do to enemy action, and another 15 million due to purges.

While it is true that Hitler was born into a Catholic family, no one could rightfully call him Catholic based on his beliefs and actions. While the Nazis were murdering 9 million Jews they also murdered all the Christian Clergy they could. In Poland alone the Nazis killed 3,000 or 18% of the Catholic Clergy. They also killed, for example 2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses.

So I lay the bodies of 60 million men women and children at the feet of those two atheists, (Hitler and Stalin) and nothing else in the first 100,000 years of could remotely compare because there just were not enough people on earth even if ALL of them were murdered in religious wars.

So I lay the bodies of 60 million men women and children at the feet of those two atheists, (Hitler and Stalin) and nothing else in the first 100,000 years of could remotely compare because there just were not enough people on earth even if ALL of them were murdered in religious wars.

ROFLMAO

Bufert Wrote:

"So I lay the bodies of 60 million men women and children at the feet of those two atheists, (Hitler and Stalin) and nothing else in the first 100,000 years of could remotely compare because there just were not enough people on earth even if ALL of them were murdered in religious wars." And by the way Stalin helped the western world rid the world of Hitler's ideology.

So automatically because he was a "bad christian" that makes him an atheist. I've done a few searches on google and could not find anything saying Hitler
claimed to be an atheist. I did see a few quotes that he thought he was doing the christian god's work, in cleansing the world of the Jews that did not believe in christ.
Hitler was not practicing evolution, he was practicing eugenics, (Racial Cleansing) The two are quite different. But often get lumped together by christians to
make their point.

And here lies the whole problem of god or god's. If truly there was a single deity, would the whole world not worship the same god? Many different faiths claim
that they communicate with their god or god's. So either thereis one or there are many or none. judaism, islam, and christianity all worship the same god, However
the interpretation's are quite different, so different in fact, that these three groups don't get along all that well. Each of these groups claim that they practice
the proper religion. Fact is the Jews created the god christianity and islam worship.

Religion has evolved and will continue to evolve to meet the needs of a certain culture at a certain point in time. Slavery was once justified by religious
pundits of their time. How many gay marriages were there 75 years ago sanctified by religion, compared to today? Been to any witch trials lately?
chances are you have not, and that is because society and law simply don't allow it any more, not because religion has changed. Religion reflects the views
of society. In a 100 years from now do you think christianity will be exactly the same it is today? Will it even exist in a 100 years?

What would christians from even just 100 years ago think of christianity today. I'm not talking about individual beliefs but christianity as a whole.

I have said everything I have to say on this,

Blessings on Blessings

Timothy

Christians believe that it is up to God, ultimately, to convince people to follow him (John 6:44, 16:13).

Most atheists have been prayed at by many people. They tend to find it extremely annoying and presumptuous.

In fact, ending a failed attempt to conversion with: "I will pray for you," is often seen as an ugly attempt to get a last dig in--to use your God as an insult. That only hurts your goals.

... not meant to be directed to anyone posting here.