It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Christian scientists? Who? And if you say for example Newton his faith was irrelevant to his discoveries.
You have it wrong regarding atheists trying to disprove the Bible. Research and discoveries are made irrelevant of biblical claims and sometimes they crush said claims. But it's rarely if ever the aim.
Yeah I've heard of them before. The thought of those people having kids (and then denying them treatment if they're ill) genuinely scares me to be honest.
The issue is where do I begin with nearly 2000 years of archogical discoveries pointing to Christ being the messiah and since the Son of God exists clearly the Father does too (this is just simple logic) also to make matters worse in reading this thread I see very little in terms of evidence but I see a lot of people here essentially saying
“Well I don’t believe in God because a man in a white coat told me not to and yet you believe in God because a man in a white robe told you too” ok well Lud you said if anyone gives you proof you will believe if only one of those sciency guys could somehow say Heaven is real... oh wait I have one who can
But I know that is just one person in the scientific process one would need to have repeat data of only there were a group of scientists exploring this... oh wait there is
https://iands.org/about/about-iands27/leadership.html
There are other groups but this is the most prominent and on this board I see a lot of doctors and nurses...
So let’s see there is scientific research into NDE and the above story proves it isn’t a delusion or dream or anything of that sort so suddenly it appears science is actually on my side at least in terms of heaven and an afterlife (though Wizard if you want the full Quantum Theory explanation there are full 100 page research documents on NDE and they are extremely dry and a good cure for insomnia but have at it as for the purposes of this thread I am going high level for a reason)
So let’s talk about the Bible now because I can hear you now “so there may be an afterlife but that doesn’t mean Christianity is right”
Well Wizard I hate to pick on you but 6 months ago you claimed that Christ could of survived the crucifixtion here is the issue anyone with a basic understanding of Roman punishment would laugh at you. There is simply no way anyone could of survived the torture Christ endured but even if he could how did he get out of the tomb. We are talking a tomb with a stone the weight of an Aston Martin in front of it blocking the tomb... even in full health no one could get out of there let alone a man with the amount blood loss Christ suffered...
Also again there is no copying from other religions the third and final video while numerous is essentially y views on the Christians stole from other religions
But as Christ himself said “if you will not listen to Moses and the prophets you will not believe even after seeing a man rise from the dead.
In my next post I will show you how Noah’s ark is the worst kept secret in archaeology we all know where it is and the Turkish government claimed it as a historical sight in 1989 I believe but o digress the above is enough for you all to chew on can’t wait to hear how all of you argue with a Neuroscientist who know there is a heaven and yet you all don’t have any sort of neurological scientific back ground and claim there is no heaven
Great post.
Look at stalkers who become infactuated with someone. They convince themselves that there is a relationship where there is none. They deny the reality of a situation : even when confronted by legal threats or action. Nothing will take them "off track". They have created their own version of reality that fits their own delusion.
Many religious people are in the same situation and they grasp at the weakest, thinest, tiniest fragment that fits in with their version of reality and, as with the stalker example, totally ignore the actually facts that are starring them in the face. There is zero attempt to balance the issue as the version of reality has already been decided.
But they only apply these rules to a specific belief. Any person of faith who was accused of a crime would be happy to avail themselves of the "burden of proof" defence and ulitise every piece of forensic evidence that science made available to them in order to support their case. The Police are forced to record formal interviews and the defence get a sealed copy of the interview. This is to protect the suspect as there have been cases where the suspects words were twisted etc. And yet, Christians are happy to quote Jesus word for word, going back 2000 years. Oh how useful a tape recorder would have been back then. It is this lack of consistency which is a classic symptom of delusion.
I know a guy whose pregnant wife was rushed into theatre for an emergency caesarean. Her baby's heart beat was rapid, he was in distress and needed to come out. It was 130 in the morning, the hospital all but deserted and this guy was alone in the corridor while the operation was carried out.
He was a confirmed atheist, had never been to church other than for the normal births, deaths and marriages, as we all do, but in his confused state, crying like a babe he had nothing left other than to prey to a God he didn't believe in and ask for his child to come through. So he did.
It's all he had at that moment in time.
Ultimately all was well, his wife and child were never in any real danger, but at 130am, he was tired and worried, had no one to comfort him and had nothing else open to him, other than to prey for help.
It was fraudulant because he didn't really believe, but he hedged his bets good and proper.
And afterwards he carried on as he was and carried out none of the promises he made to this God.
This is perfect evidence of how dangerous religion is. "I know a guy" etc etc,
try that in court. If it did not deal with the life of a baby, it would be laughable.Instead of "I know a guy" look at recovery rates at religeous hospitals compared to secular ones (other factors being equal), there is no difference.
Plus list deseases (we assume created by God) that modern innoculation has kiiled off (or almost) compared to prayer. Sending invisible brain wave messages to an invisible sky fairy ? Please, come on! This is the 21st Century
The "I know guy" strategy is exactly what I mentioned. Just imagine using that in court:
"Your honour, for my next piece of evidence, I know a guy who........"
It's a joke.
OK, sorry pal.
The guy was me, OK? I wasn't trying to suggest anyone was right or wrong, and have no idea why you are bringing court law into this. I certainly wasn't. And why this is proof of how dangerous religion is I also have no idea. I'm sure you will explain.
This is a religious debate thread, and my point was, I have no belief in God but at a desperate time I was willing to try anything. I wasn't about to sue the hospital for negligence and no it wasn't a joke. And I sure don't like the suggestion my story was one.
You know what @Ludovico , as I started to write I realised I had misinterpreted your comments, so I altered the reply as little to hope it came across more as curios reaction to something rather than a direct reply to your post.
And I agree 100% with your post btw.
I have a friend, a believer, had a fertility issue. When his first child was born he said it was proof of miracle. He had forgotten to mention that he had an operation that increased his chances of fertilizing by 25%.
So in sum @NicNac thank the doctors for working hard. I'm afraid your prayer did nothing, except calming you down.
Indeed, and this was my point.
In fact I have no idea why I did pray. It made no sense, other than I could do nothing else. But even then it made no sense to me as a person.
My son, ironically has autism, and I do think that the stress he went through and the 13 hours he was left in the womb may have had a part to play in that, but it's only guess work on my part, and we certainly would never have pursued the hospital over that.
Anyway, going back to the judge who made the decision about the life support machine - he should have chosen his words more carefully. Had he said 'let nature take its coarse' (which may have been what he meant) then would it have come across better?
Again, I'm only throwing it out there, it isn't necessarily my opinion.
1. It brings false hope: for every one sick kid who may have "been saved by prayer", there are thousands who die despite hours of heartfelt prayer.
2. It shifts the focus from global issues to the indidual. According to UNISEF figures, 21 kids under 5 die every minute. Just take that in. Who prays for these kids? And why has nobody answered? You have one example of "I know a guy" and I match that with 5 deaths per minute.
3. It shifts responsibility. Do we pray more (perhaps we pray to the wrong God or use the wrong words) or do we work together on providing better health care, clean water etc etc to the third World.
4. It undermines science. Why invest billions in health care when you can just pray instead.
5. It's selective. If you want to play the "I know a guy" card, then we can talk about one of my wife's best friends who worked on Malaysia teaching English. She is a devout Christian. One day, a baby was abandoned on her doorstep. She seemed very ill. After paying from scans and , ironically, bringing her to the UK to get better expert advice, she was diagnosed with severe brain damage at birth. All of the docters said that she was "life limited". Being a devout Christian, she organised prayer groups, sent cards to all friends asking to pray, e-mails asking to prayer etc, she put every effort to maximise prayer, convinced that prayer would save the girl's life. The girl died, as predicted by the finest brain experts the NHS had to offer. The reation of the adopted mum? Gods will.
6. (this is why I introduced the court scenario) it undermines what we see as genuine evidence. Just by introducing such hearsay, it ignores the common standards of evidence that centuries of cultural developement have brought us.
7. It's one sided. Imagine the reaction from the religious community if Darwin had gone down the "I know a man " route in insisting the evoluition was true rather then spend decades collecting hard evidence. Religion wants to have it's cake and eat it.
8. It ignores the cause. If God can cure the sick, why create the illness in the first place?
9. It ignores the factor of causal evidence:
Child is sick,
pray for child,
child not sick anymore,
QED it was the prayer that did the trick....
with zero causal evidence. Linking two events with no evidence is classic tactic used by the religious.
I drank coffee 20 mins ago, I now have headache, QED coffee gives you headaches. Humans are very open to this way of thinking.
It wasn't a post about the power of prayer, it wasn't a post arguing in favour of religion or the power of religion. I don't believe in God, really I don't.
It was just me doing something against type in an extreme situation and mentioning it because it was so not me.
I don't need a lecture, because I'm already on your side, and totally agree with your points. I always have.
Somehow I feel like I didn't explain myself properly here...
Yeah we all laughed uproariously last time you posted that too. But there's nothing like classic comedy. And that was... etc you can work the rest out for yourself.
What is this supposed to proving exactly? One guy's anecdotal evidence when he was in a coma? This is somehow proof of an afterlife because he was a neurologist? I don't have any reason to doubt that this guy 'believes' what he experienced is enough to him to prove the existence of God but to suggest it constitutes unassailable evidence is thinner than Posh Spice after a month lost in the desert.
These are the people I see on the board:
Bob Frank (President) - http://bobfranksite.com/index.html (hypnoterapist and author of books on past life regressions)
Sandra Martin (Vice President) - http://www.sandramartinwrites.com/ (author of a book on making the best choices on approaching death - which I suppose is fair enough)
Beverly Byers - https://www.facebook.com/beverly.k.byers (graduated from a 'Christian' university and currently runs a massage and nail bar)
Delaine Deal - https://www.linkedin.com/in/delaine-deal-8403636b (works in a coffee shop)
Rebecca Valla - http://www.rebeccasvallamd.com/
Susan Amsden - http://fellowshipoftheinnerlight.com/events/sunday-speaker-susan-amsden/
Not to mention board member Linda Truax, the first speaker in this video:
I'm sure there are exceptions but as a general rule of thumb when determining the scientific credibility of a speaker, if you can answer 'yes' to the question 'Do they turn up to a symposium dressed in a stetson and a stars and stripes t-shirt?' they probably aren't a Nobel prize winner.
Despite your assertions to the contrary I would hardly say this collection of cranks, alternative therapists and people with books to flog can be said to be conducting research on a par with CERN.
Despite the questionable credentials of the IANDS board I'm not about to ridicule NDEs as this is a well documented phenomenon (even had an out of body floating experience once myself under anaesthetic) but as usual with the religious mind you've assumed a hole in science's knowledge means your crackpot theories must therefore be true. To say on the strength of one bloke's anecdote (but Wizard he's a neurologist so he must know what he's talking about right?) and the 'scientific' research by IANDS constitutes science being 'actually on your side in terms of heaven and an afterlife' is a statement of presumptuous chutzpah that only the truly desperate would attempt to hang their argument on.
You didnt hear me say that, but at least there is a rare semblance of critical thinking about the above statement.
I think @thelivingroyale and @Ludovico addressed this above.
I'm sure I speak for everyone here when I say we await said post with baited breath.
Basically a normal guy in Manchester gets lost after a night out and thinks he's the second coming of Jesus. But it turns out he actually is, he turns night into day over Maine Road to prove it. And he has to find out what the third testament of the bible is before judgement day. He refuses to use his powers for anything drastic because all he knows is humanity have to sort things for themselves this time, and he tells the Christians that it doesn't matter that they were right. Judgement day comes and it turns out the testament is about the end of all religion, because of all the violence and suffering that arguing about it has caused. It's judgement day but for God not for humanity, that's what it's been leading up to. He has to die and then let himself cease to exist instead of going to heaven, to kill God and the Devil and destroy the afterlife, so that humanity can get on with things without religion dictating what they should and shouldn't do and causing more wars and violence.
Someone sent me some collected (non-scientific) thoughts of Albert Einstein this morning, he starts out by saying this...
"What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer
this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in
putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his
fellow-creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost
disqualified for life."
Disagree with this completely. Life's what you make of it, and I'd rather give it meaning by living it the best I can, achieving as many of my personal hopes, dreams and wants as possible with friends and family, rather than let a book from thousands of years ago dictate what I can and can't do, who I should like and who I should shun, in the hope that I get into heaven.
I don't think life is meaningless. In fact I think genuinely believing that we've only got one go round gives us a higher regard for life than the average religious person right? Because if you believe in an afterlife you don't really have to worry, it'll be alright in the end. But if you're an atheist life suddenly becomes a whole lot special, because it's your lot, and you don't want to squander it.
Science does not exist in order to give our lives purpose so I dont think it will ever help in that way. Religion, although not true, does give a purpose if you buy into it so, from that perspective, I can see it can help those who struggle with the big issues of life.
But, lets face it, if we all died tomorrow, would the rest of the universe blink or care in anyway. No.