Yet another phony religious study "proving" religion works
bg1...@apexmail.com
produced a paper claiming that attending church causes people to
live longer.
What the paper does not tell is:
1) Who are the study groups? Only the wealthy (thus those with
access to better medical care), or the poor as well?
2) The paper provided no evidence that church attendance caused
better health; rather, it claims two unrelated factors had
cause and effect.
3) Who funded the study?
The study was commissioned in the past three years, likely in
tandem with the laughable "study" on the efficacy of prayer.
Bob Dog
Atheist #153 = 1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3
-----
"You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among
sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an
exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which
unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the
United States."
- Richard Dawkins
Jim07D5
>A phony study by a "doctor" at Rush Medical Center in Chicago
>produced a paper claiming that attending church causes people to
>live longer.
>
>What the paper does not tell is:
>
>1) Who are the study groups? Only the wealthy (thus those with
> access to better medical care), or the poor as well?
>
>2) The paper provided no evidence that church attendance caused
> better health; rather, it claims two unrelated factors had
> cause and effect.
>
>3) Who funded the study?
>
>
>The study was commissioned in the past three years, likely in
>tandem with the laughable "study" on the efficacy of prayer.
It could be that the social and life-structuring aspects of church
attendance, getting together with the same people at least once a
week, putting on "Sunday (or Sabbath) Clothes", having things to look
forward to and reflect on, etc. are good for you.
Even Michael Medved's biased opinion, stated here, admits that.:
"Doubters, like Professor Emilia Bagiella of Columbia, insist that
beneficial results of church attendance could be replicated by
regularly participating in ``a bingo club or socializing at a local
library.'' But no bingo club can provide the same basis for a
structured, obligatory schedule of communal activity, even when it's
inconvenient."
http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/207029
Jim07D5
MarkA
> A phony study by a "doctor" at Rush Medical Center in Chicago produced a
> paper claiming that attending church causes people to live longer.
>
> What the paper does not tell is:
>
> 1) Who are the study groups? Only the wealthy (thus those with
> access to better medical care), or the poor as well?
>
> 2) The paper provided no evidence that church attendance caused
> better health; rather, it claims two unrelated factors had cause and
> effect.
>
> 3) Who funded the study?
>
>
> The study was commissioned in the past three years, likely in tandem with
> the laughable "study" on the efficacy of prayer.
>
>
> Bob Dog
> Atheist #153 = 1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3
>
> -----
I find it very believable that regular church attendance is good for you,
as long as you exercise some skepticism WRT what is being preached. It
has more to do with psychology and social interaction than any divine
favor from above.
>
> "You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among
> sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly
> retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at
> present undergoing an epidemic in the United States."
> - Richard Dawkins
VERY NICE quote. I had not heard that one before. Has anyone lined up
the "Red" states against a list of the average SAT scores in the USA? I
would bet there is a pretty tight correlation.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> A phony study by a "doctor" at Rush Medical Center in Chicago
> produced a paper claiming that attending church causes people to
> live longer.
Maybe it just seems longer. Particularly if you're the sort of person
who thinks convenience is clever.
But, rather than posting complaints, why not try to understand that
mindless conformity to societal values is the path of the idiot? Why
not think for yourself?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
dgillesp
MarkA wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 08:12:21 -0700, bg12345 wrote:
>
> > A phony study by a "doctor" at Rush Medical Center in Chicago produced a
> > paper claiming that attending church causes people to live longer.
> >
> > What the paper does not tell is:
> >
> > 1) Who are the study groups? Only the wealthy (thus those with
> > access to better medical care), or the poor as well?
> >
> > 2) The paper provided no evidence that church attendance caused
> > better health; rather, it claims two unrelated factors had cause and
> > effect.
> >
> > 3) Who funded the study?
> >
> >
> > The study was commissioned in the past three years, likely in tandem with
> > the laughable "study" on the efficacy of prayer.
> >
> >
> > Bob Dog
> > Atheist #153 = 1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3
> >
> > -----
>
> I find it very believable that regular church attendance is good for you,
> as long as you exercise some skepticism WRT what is being preached. It
> has more to do with psychology and social interaction than any divine
> favor from above.
If we are "created" with particular psychological and social needs, and
we live in accord with those needs and are benefited by doing so, why
can't that be seen as an expression of divine favor? Do we require
divinity always to step in from outside creation in order bestow favor
on human actions? I don't think so.
>
> >
> > "You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among
> > sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly
> > retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at
> > present undergoing an epidemic in the United States."
> > - Richard Dawkins
Unfortunately true.
>
> VERY NICE quote. I had not heard that one before. Has anyone lined up
> the "Red" states against a list of the average SAT scores in the USA? I
> would bet there is a pretty tight correlation.
My guess is the correlation has more to do profits and losses than with
SAT scores, though that also figures into the picture.
Denny
Dubh Ghall
>It could be that the social and life-structuring aspects of church
>attendance, getting together with the same people at least once a
>week, putting on "Sunday (or Sabbath) Clothes", having things to look
>forward to and reflect on, etc. are good for you.
Then again, it could just be the half mile walk, each way, that does the job.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
Ike
<bg1...@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116601941.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>A phony study by a "doctor" at Rush Medical Center in Chicago
> produced a paper claiming that attending church causes people to
> live longer.
>
> What the paper does not tell is:
>
> 1) Who are the study groups? Only the wealthy (thus those with
> access to better medical care), or the poor as well?
>
> 2) The paper provided no evidence that church attendance caused
> better health; rather, it claims two unrelated factors had
> cause and effect.
>
> 3) Who funded the study?
>
>
> The study was commissioned in the past three years, likely in
> tandem with the laughable "study" on the efficacy of prayer.
>
>
> Bob Dog
> Atheist #153 = 1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3
>
a psychological aphrodisiac, and the sexual stimulation makes the difference
in health.
Emma Pease
> bg1...@apexmail.com said:
>
>>A phony study by a "doctor" at Rush Medical Center in Chicago
>>produced a paper claiming that attending church causes people to
>>live longer.
>>
>>What the paper does not tell is:
>>
>>1) Who are the study groups? Only the wealthy (thus those with
>> access to better medical care), or the poor as well?
>>
>>2) The paper provided no evidence that church attendance caused
>> better health; rather, it claims two unrelated factors had
>> cause and effect.
>>
>>3) Who funded the study?
>>
>>
>>The study was commissioned in the past three years, likely in
>>tandem with the laughable "study" on the efficacy of prayer.
>
> It could be that the social and life-structuring aspects of church
> attendance, getting together with the same people at least once a
> week, putting on "Sunday (or Sabbath) Clothes", having things to look
> forward to and reflect on, etc. are good for you.
It was a review of the literature commissioned by the National
Institute of Health in 2001 and published in 2003.
None of the researchers seem to think 'god did it'.
The published paper seems to be
http://content.apa.org/journals/amp/58/1/36
(but may not be accessible to everyone)
"Religion and spirituality, Linkages to physical health"
Powell, L.H., Shahabi, L., Thoresen, CE
Am. Psychol. 2003 Jan:58(1):36-52
"Evidence is presented that bears on 9 hypotheses about the link
between religion or spirituality and mortality, morbidity, disability,
or recovery from illness. In healthy participants, there is a strong,
consistent, prospective, and often graded reduction in risk of
mortality in church/service attenders. This reduction is approximately
25% after adjustment for confounders. Religion or spirituality
protects against cardiovascular disease, largely mediated by the
healthy lifestyle it encourages. Evidence fails to support a link
between depth of religiousness and physical health. In patients, there
are consistent failures to support the hypotheses that religion or
spirituality slows the progression of cancer or improves recovery from
acute illness but some evidence that religion or spirituality impedes
recovery from acute illness. The authors conclude that church/service
attendance protects healthy people against death. More
methodologically sound studies are needed. "
Also see
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600131186,00.html
giving a Wall Street Journal Article
Note this is a study of studies on the question.
Note also the authors state that the studies show it doesn't
apparently slow cancer or improve recovery from acute illnesses (and
may actually impede recovery from acute illnesses).
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
unrestra...@hotmail.com
This seems to be true; but there are many differences between those
folks who attend church regularly and those who don't, on the average.
There is no need to panic yet, and claim medical researchers have gone
over to the Dark Side.
One, this group is self-selecting. Therefore, it may be a marker for a
number of differences rather than a causal effect alone. Folks who are
prone to prolonged deep depression, or are serious alcoholics, would be
less likely to attend regularly, and would also have a shorter life
expectancy. This alone would produce a measureable difference. But
wait! There's more!
A close social structure produces the social support needed to avoid or
ameliorate many problems:
"You look awful, why don't you go see a doctor?"
"I just heard about it, dear, that's terrible! Is there anything I can
do to help?"
"You really have to pull yourself together and stop all of that
drinking, brother."
It provides a socially acceptable large pool of easily accessible
potential spouses. Many a nerd got married because he or she attended
church, who would not have otherwise. Trust me.
I have seen at least one study (I have no cite on hand, sorry) which
showed that mere *believing doesn't count; the extended lifespan only
shows in those who actually attend church. In other words, the benefits
(whatever their mechanism) are from the social circle, and not the
beliefs.
Folks who have pets also live longer than those who don't.
Old men who are married live longer than those who aren't. (Curiously,
old women do not live longer if married. I find this baffling) :P
We are social animals; it is no wonder that we do better in social
circles.
Kermit
bg1...@apexmail.com
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 08:12:21 -0700, bg12345 wrote:
>
> > A phony study by a "doctor" at Rush Medical Center in Chicago
produced a
> > paper claiming that attending church causes people to live longer.
> >
> > What the paper does not tell is:
> >
> > 1) Who are the study groups? Only the wealthy (thus those with
> > access to better medical care), or the poor as well?
> >
> > 2) The paper provided no evidence that church attendance caused
> > better health; rather, it claims two unrelated factors had cause
and
> > effect.
> >
> > 3) Who funded the study?
> >
> > The study was commissioned in the past three years, likely in
tandem with
> > the laughable "study" on the efficacy of prayer.
>
you,
> as long as you exercise some skepticism WRT what is being preached.
It
> has more to do with psychology and social interaction than any divine
> favor from above.
My guess is this was done with the same mindset as the "social
Darwinism" of the early 20th century, attempt by a select few
to justify their narrow and self-centered "thinking".
Then the view was "the rich were fit to live, and poor are
not", except religion is now the "standard" of such bigoted
thinking: "the religious are fit to live, and the secularists
are not".
> > "You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among
> > sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly
> > retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at
> > present undergoing an epidemic in the United States."
> > - Richard Dawkins
>
> VERY NICE quote. I had not heard that one before. Has anyone lined
up
> the "Red" states against a list of the average SAT scores in the USA?
I
> would bet there is a pretty tight correlation.
It's not surprising you haven't. He only said it two weeks
ago in an interview. O_-
Bob Dog
Atheist #153 = 1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3
-----
"You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among
The Great Hairy One
Gidday Denny,
> If we are "created" with particular psychological and social needs, and
> we live in accord with those needs and are benefited by doing so, why
> can't that be seen as an expression of divine favor?
Because those "needs" can be shown to help humans evolutionarily - those
who are more happy and more content produce more offspring. And a
society which functions together, works together and is supportive of
the individuals within it, is more successful than one that doesn't.
Furthermore, those "needs" can be met by any sort of religion, not just
christianity.
> Do we require
> divinity always to step in from outside creation in order bestow favor
> on human actions? I don't think so.
Agreed,
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
BAAWA all night long
SMASHing it to the masses
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
Roleplay. Just do it.
The Great Hairy One
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk says...
Gidday Roger,
> But, rather than posting complaints, why not try to understand that
> mindless conformity to societal values is the path of the idiot? Why
> not think for yourself?
That's why I'm an atheist. ;)
Mark Stahl
> produced a paper claiming that attending church causes people to
> live longer.
I have absolutely no trouble believing that attending church causes people
to live longer.
>
> What the paper does not tell is:
>
> 1) Who are the study groups? Only the wealthy (thus those with
> access to better medical care), or the poor as well?
Are you sure it doesn't describe the study groups? I believe it does,
although that might be indirect since IIRC, this is a meta-analysis of
previous studies.
>
> 2) The paper provided no evidence that church attendance caused
> better health; rather, it claims two unrelated factors had
> cause and effect.
>
> 3) Who funded the study?
>
>
> The study was commissioned in the past three years, likely in
> tandem with the laughable "study" on the efficacy of prayer.
>
>
> Bob Dog
> Atheist #153 = 1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3
There are any number of possible explanations as to why church attendance
would improve health and longevity. None of the authors, to my knowledge,
attribute the observation to divine intervention; more to the nature of the
social and other benefits of churchgoing. Either way, it's clearly
worthwhile to a) know about the effect and b) study what causes it, so we
can incorporate such benefits into more peoples' lives. Why not?
Mark Stahl
<roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1116674986.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The Great Hairy One wrote:
>> In article <1116604728....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> roger_...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>>
>> > mindless conformity to societal values is the path of the idiot?
> Why
>> > not think for yourself?
>>
>> That's why I'm an atheist. ;)
>
>
> Most atheists online merely repeat phrases without thinking, never
> check their facts, and go around demanding others prove things to them
> and then rubbish the evidence.
That pretty well sums up virtually *everyone* online, my friend.
> *That* is why you're an atheist.
Well, no, he's an athiest because he lacks belief in gods. Looks like you
fall into that "unthinking" category you just mentioned, doesn't it?
Kathy
"Enkidu the Atheist" <Enkidu.th...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns965CB4E8...@130.133.1.4...
> MarkA <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote in
> news:pan.2005.05.20....@stopspam.net:
>
> > On Fri, 20 May 2005 08:12:21 -0700, bg12345 wrote:
> >
> >> A phony study by a "doctor" at Rush Medical Center in Chicago
> >> produced a paper claiming that attending church causes people to live
> >> longer.
>
Unless they can prove it causes eternal life the study is meaningless.
Meditating regularly probably also increases life span due to the calming
effect of the quiet thought process - similar to praying in many ways. But
without the nasty side effects.
Kathy aa #1802
dgillesp
The Great Hairy One wrote:
>
> In article <428E26AC...@nospam.net>, dgil...@nospam.net says...
>
> Gidday Denny,
>
> > If we are "created" with particular psychological and social needs, and
> > we live in accord with those needs and are benefited by doing so, why
> > can't that be seen as an expression of divine favor?
>
> Because those "needs" can be shown to help humans evolutionarily - those
> who are more happy and more content produce more offspring. And a
> society which functions together, works together and is supportive of
> the individuals within it, is more successful than one that doesn't.
Providence working in, with and under the evolutionary process may well
be the source of such positive results rather than a strictly unexpected
outcome of stone-blind, utterly indifferent and completely unconscious
chance.
> Furthermore, those "needs" can be met by any sort of religion, not just
> christianity.
But why travel on foot when you can ride a donkey? You'll get there a
lot sooner and avoid blisters on your feet as well as other untoward
side effects.
Denny
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1116674986.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > The Great Hairy One wrote:
> >> In article <1116604728....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> roger_...@yahoo.co.uk says...
> >>
> >> > But, rather than posting complaints, why not try to understand
that
> >> > mindless conformity to societal values is the path of the idiot?
> > Why
> >> > not think for yourself?
> >>
> >> That's why I'm an atheist. ;)
> >
> > Conformity is convenient, indeed.
> >
> > Most atheists online merely repeat phrases without thinking, never
> > check their facts, and go around demanding others prove things to
them
> > and then rubbish the evidence.
>
> That pretty well sums up virtually *everyone* online, my friend.
Rats. You're right! Except me, of course. And evidently you too, if
you realised that.
> > *That* is why you're an atheist.
>
> Well, no, he's an athiest because he lacks belief in gods. Looks like
you
> fall into that "unthinking" category you just mentioned, doesn't it?
All the atheists I meet online are peddling a set of values; they're
just too ashamed to discuss them in public, and prefer instead to
demand proof of others -- proof they have already determined not to
accept. But I think people with an agenda should at the very least
have something rational to say for it. The sort of atheism we're
discussing is the convenient refuge of the intellectually lazy.
Richard Smol
> A phony study by a "doctor" at Rush Medical Center in Chicago
> produced a paper claiming that attending church causes people to
> live longer.
>
> What the paper does not tell is:
>
> 1) Who are the study groups? Only the wealthy (thus those with
> access to better medical care), or the poor as well?
>
> 2) The paper provided no evidence that church attendance caused
> better health; rather, it claims two unrelated factors had
> cause and effect.
>
> 3) Who funded the study?
>
>
> The study was commissioned in the past three years, likely in
> tandem with the laughable "study" on the efficacy of prayer.
Even *if* church attendance would prolongue life, it still
would not be any evidence for the validity of religious claims.
RS
Les Hellawell
>All the atheists I meet online are peddling a set of values; they're
>just too ashamed to discuss them in public, and prefer instead to
>demand proof of others -- proof they have already determined not to
>accept. But I think people with an agenda should at the very least
>have something rational to say for it. The sort of atheism we're
>discussing is the convenient refuge of the intellectually lazy.
How is it possible to peddle something whilst at the same time
not peddle them? Either we are peddling (discussing them) or
we arn't. You are wanting it both ways in the same sentence!
It would of course be interesting to know what it is we are
supposed to be peddling. I for one have always made it clear
that I am not a theist (believe in the existence of god or gods).
That's all there is, why must you demand more, when there is
no more to demand? As to our agenda, well this is a newsgroup
for atheists to discuss matters relating to atheism though
we are constantly interrupted by people like you fulminating
because we do not accept your belief system without question.
That's our agenda here. Sorry you take exception to it but you
know how to unsubscribe. We don't need you here , do you need
us?
Of course if you wish me to share your beliefs then of course
the onus is on you to give me some reason why I should or
stop pestering us. What's your agenda, what are you seeking
to peddle by coming here if you yourself are not atheist?
You claim I demand proof but are determined not to accept
it. On the contrary I do not even demand proof just a good
reason for me to believe your god exists. (If you were to
actually provide proof this god existed I would not even
need to believe would I? I would know for certain there is a god!).
So all I ask is reason to believe but it seems you are not even
willing to provide that but just demand we believe. Sorry but I
think that just aint good enough for anybody with any kind of
intellectual credibility to accept.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Walter Bushell
Richard Smol <jazzcat@_NOSPAM_dds.nl> wrote:
Well it would make life *seem* longer, for sure. I spent an eternity
many Sunday mornings listening to the sermon.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
wcb
THAT'S BAD! Only superstitous christians are allowed to peddle values
on the net.
Yes, only christians have real vallues. Like those christian creationists
in Kansas. Now THERE'S some values for you.
And all those christians in America who mindlessly went into kneejerk
convulsions at the idea that there are homosexuals peddling a homosexual
agenda, VOTE GOP!, while ignoring such things
as GOP support for genocidal maniacs including Pol Pot.
Tell me why you refuse to discuss THESE christian values which I have thrown
in your face repeatedly?
All of a sudden then you don't want to discuss values.
I note that even today US federal prison studies show
Atheists are conspicious in US federal pemiteniarioes by their absense.
That most scientists are stil Atheists after a century of
such studies.
Barna research and others keep showing us things like Atheists
being the least prone to divorce as a group.
But you never want to discuss values as actually lived by
many Atheisst.
Yoi screech and rant avbout Atheist values, but its sort
of like America xian on the right screeching mindlessly about the
"homosexual agenda". A buzz phrase with nothing
behind it.
> they're
> just too ashamed to discuss them in public, and prefer instead to
> demand proof of others
I keep thrusting proof in your ugly, lying face.
YOU REFUSE TO DEBATE ISSUES!
Your god is impossible. I prove it.
You refuse to discuss the issue. Much like
Virgil. You run from me and keep repeating the
same old lies.
You and Virgil and Duke.
I show you that your specific bibliclal god is debunked
on numerous levels, including archaeology.
You refuse to debate issue.
I show you the gospels contradict each other fatally
on key issues.
You pretend to not see my posts.
I show you Jesus prophecied he'd preside over the end of
teh world and judgment day itself not man years later, but
then and there in his own day and time.
He did not, thereby mooting the whole NT and claims about Jesus.
He was just another failed religous kook.
I show you al lthe outrageous claims Jesus made aboit working trather grand
miracles are not true, thereby showing us Jesus was a kook.
You refuse to even show you care about any of teh claims I make.
Less discusss your lack of values.
You don't care for facts. That'd a bad value.
You are a loud mouthed lout who can't won't shut up
and won't debate issues.
That's a bad value. Hypocricy and dishonesty.
You pretend to value reason but do not when push comes to shove.
Carping hypocricy is not a good value.
You do not value reason.
You do not value rationality.
You do not value obvious facts.
You do not value logic.
> -- proof they have already determined not to
> accept.
Proof of what? You aren't any better than the more
ignorant and loutish village atheist types and you are
more dishonest.
> But I think people with an agenda should at the very least
> have something rational to say for it. The sort of atheism we're
> discussing is the convenient refuge of the intellectually lazy.
And your agenda is the same old propaganda, lies and avoidance of
important issues.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
The Great Hairy One
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk says...
Gidday Roger,
> Conformity is convenient, indeed.
Good thing I'm not a conformist, then!
> Most atheists online merely repeat phrases without thinking, never
> check their facts, and go around demanding others prove things to them
> and then rubbish the evidence. *That* is why you're an atheist.
Ah, no. Y'see I'm an atheist because it is rather obvious that no
gods/deities/angels/demons/spirits, etc. actually exist. If you want to
believe that I am an atheist for whatever reason you want to impose, go
ahead. You're already deluding yourself on so many other issues, may as
well add one more, it won't make a difference! ;)
As for the "evidence" - I'm still waiting for you to present any! Any at
all. The most minor skerrick. Still waiting. Trying not to clock-watch.
Take your time, I'm sure you'll find *something*. Eventually. One day.
The Great Hairy One
Gidday Denny,
> Providence working in, with and under the evolutionary process may well
> be the source of such positive results rather than a strictly unexpected
> outcome of stone-blind, utterly indifferent and completely unconscious
> chance.
You know that evolution is not solely based on random chance, right?
That there are limits and defining boundaries?
> But why travel on foot when you can ride a donkey? You'll get there a
> lot sooner and avoid blisters on your feet as well as other untoward
> side effects.
If christianity is a donkey, then hinduism is a lamborgini, considering
it has a lot more gods (better chance of getting to their version of
heaven), a lot less "sin", and is a lot more fun. ;)
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> The Great Hairy One wrote:
...
> Providence working in, with and under the evolutionary process may well
> be the source of such positive results rather than a strictly unexpected
> outcome of stone-blind, utterly indifferent and completely unconscious
> chance.
No doubt. Just about anything would work better than one of your straw
men.
> > Furthermore, those "needs" can be met by any sort of religion, not just
> > christianity.
>
> But why travel on foot when you can ride a donkey? You'll get there a
> lot sooner and avoid blisters on your feet as well as other untoward
> side effects.
Interesting choice of symbolism, when you consider the synonyms for
"donkey".
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=donkey
Your skill at detecting hidden meaning certainly failed you on this one.
No doubt you can produce an amusing rationalization.
It's also interesting that you would choose a donkey in an era of air
travel, rocket ships and speed-of-light global communication. Another
example of appropriate symbolism.
I have seen plenty of pictures of humans walking along side of donkeys.
http://images.google.ca/images?q=donkey+walking&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en
Donkeys appear to be quite content moving at human walking speed. What
makes you think that a donkey is a particularly swift mode of transport?
And considering that the donkey has primarily been employed as a beast
of burden, I would think that speed is not one of it's main attributes.
Regards,
Josef
Christ rode on an ass, but now asses ride on Christ.
-- Heinrich Heine
Walter Bushell
wcb <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Yes, only christians have real vallues. Like those christian creationists
> in Kansas. Now THERE'S some values for you.
True values, especially if you are a cheap labour Republican.
skyeyes
>Folks who have pets also live longer than those who don't.
Since I have six cats, will I live six times longer than someone who
has none? </silly mode>
>Old men who are married live longer than those who aren't. (Curiously,
>old women do not live longer if married. I find this baffling) :P
I don't. <Grin> Being married (twice) has, I suspect, shortened my
life considerably.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
dgillesp
Josef Balluch wrote:
>
> In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
> with the following:
>
> > The Great Hairy One wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Providence working in, with and under the evolutionary process may well
> > be the source of such positive results rather than a strictly unexpected
> > outcome of stone-blind, utterly indifferent and completely unconscious
> > chance.
>
> No doubt. Just about anything would work better than one of your straw
> men.
Methinks you perhaps have much in common with those who invariably see a
straw man under every rock and behind every tree. But then, when the
only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.
>
> > > Furthermore, those "needs" can be met by any sort of religion, not just
> > > christianity.
> >
> > But why travel on foot when you can ride a donkey? You'll get there a
> > lot sooner and avoid blisters on your feet as well as other untoward
> > side effects.
>
> Interesting choice of symbolism, when you consider the synonyms for
> "donkey".
>
> http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=donkey
>
> Your skill at detecting hidden meaning certainly failed you on this one.
> No doubt you can produce an amusing rationalization.
Trying to head me off at the pass, I see.
>
> It's also interesting that you would choose a donkey in an era of air
> travel, rocket ships and speed-of-light global communication. Another
> example of appropriate symbolism.
You get my drift whatever the symbol. Jesus rose an ass into Jerusalem,
finally making public his claim to messiahship. If a humble ass was
good enough for Jesus, what better symbol could a Christian choose?
> I have seen plenty of pictures of humans walking along side of donkeys.
> http://images.google.ca/images?q=donkey+walking&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en
>
> Donkeys appear to be quite content moving at human walking speed. What
> makes you think that a donkey is a particularly swift mode of transport?
I was under the impression the donkey has much greater strength and
stamina, and can keep moving when exhaustion requires a foot-sore
traveler to rest and recoup.
> And considering that the donkey has primarily been employed as a beast
> of burden, I would think that speed is not one of it's main attributes.
>
> Regards,
>
> Josef
>
> Christ rode on an ass, but now asses ride on Christ.
When properly understood, there's more truth than fiction in Heine's
cynical quip.
>
> -- Heinrich Heine
Denny
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> Josef Balluch wrote:
> >
> > In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
> > with the following:
> >
> > > The Great Hairy One wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > Providence working in, with and under the evolutionary process may well
> > > be the source of such positive results rather than a strictly unexpected
> > > outcome of stone-blind, utterly indifferent and completely unconscious
> > > chance.
> >
> > No doubt. Just about anything would work better than one of your straw
> > men.
>
> Methinks you perhaps have much in common with those who invariably see a
> straw man under every rock and behind every tree.
Hardly. I find them in your posts, much more so than in the posts of
others.
> But then, when the
> only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.
Very clever. And rather ironic, since "christianity" seems to be your
solution to so many problems.
...
> > Your skill at detecting hidden meaning certainly failed you on this one.
> > No doubt you can produce an amusing rationalization.
>
> Trying to head me off at the pass, I see.
Ummmm, ... no. I was hoping for a good laugh.
> > It's also interesting that you would choose a donkey in an era of air
> > travel, rocket ships and speed-of-light global communication. Another
> > example of appropriate symbolism.
>
> You get my drift whatever the symbol. Jesus rose an ass into Jerusalem,
> finally making public his claim to messiahship. If a humble ass was
> good enough for Jesus, what better symbol could a Christian choose?
If you say so. Have you made any plans to emulate your hero's
crucifixion?
> > I have seen plenty of pictures of humans walking along side of donkeys.
>
> > http://images.google.ca/images?q=donkey+walking&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en
> >
> > Donkeys appear to be quite content moving at human walking speed. What
> > makes you think that a donkey is a particularly swift mode of transport?
>
> I was under the impression the donkey has much greater strength and
> stamina, and can keep moving when exhaustion requires a foot-sore
> traveler to rest and recoup.
Riding on a donkey means that you exchange sore feet for a sore
posterior.
...
> > Christ rode on an ass, but now asses ride on Christ.
>
> When properly understood, there's more truth than fiction in Heine's
> cynical quip.
Can't say as how I disagree.
Regards,
Josef
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance. It is the illusion
of knowledge.
-- Daniel Boorstin
stoney
wrote:
Including the hefty financial drain.
>Kathy aa #1802
>
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
thomas p
>On Sat, 21 May 2005 10:52:17 -0400, "Kathy" <k.kn...@rogers.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Enkidu the Atheist" <Enkidu.th...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns965CB4E8...@130.133.1.4...
>>> MarkA <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote in
>>> news:pan.2005.05.20....@stopspam.net:
>>>
>>> > On Fri, 20 May 2005 08:12:21 -0700, bg12345 wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> A phony study by a "doctor" at Rush Medical Center in Chicago
>>> >> produced a paper claiming that attending church causes people to live
>>> >> longer.
>
>>Unless they can prove it causes eternal life the study is meaningless.
>>Meditating regularly probably also increases life span due to the calming
>>effect of the quiet thought process - similar to praying in many ways. But
>>without the nasty side effects.
>
>Including the hefty financial drain.
I seem to remember a study of many years ago that found that people
who play Bingo regularly have longer lives. Obviously social activity
is healthy. I would not be surprised to learn that people who go to a
bar once a week are healthier that those who stay home every night.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
stoney
Indeed.
Therion Ware
On Wed, 25 May 2005 08:56:41 -0700 in alt.atheism, stoney (stoney
<sto...@the.net>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
>On Tue, 24 May 2005 20:46:06 +0200, thomas p
><tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 May 2005 07:56:59 -0700, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 May 2005 10:52:17 -0400, "Kathy" <k.kn...@rogers.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Enkidu the Atheist" <Enkidu.th...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:Xns965CB4E8...@130.133.1.4...
>>>>> MarkA <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:pan.2005.05.20....@stopspam.net:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Fri, 20 May 2005 08:12:21 -0700, bg12345 wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> A phony study by a "doctor" at Rush Medical Center in Chicago
>>>>> >> produced a paper claiming that attending church causes people to live
>>>>> >> longer.
>>>
>>>>Unless they can prove it causes eternal life the study is meaningless.
>>>>Meditating regularly probably also increases life span due to the calming
>>>>effect of the quiet thought process - similar to praying in many ways. But
>>>>without the nasty side effects.
>>>
>>>Including the hefty financial drain.
>>
>>I seem to remember a study of many years ago that found that people
>>who play Bingo regularly have longer lives. Obviously social activity
>>is healthy. I would not be surprised to learn that people who go to a
>>bar once a week are healthier that those who stay home every night.
>
>Indeed.
Oh I dunno. I tend to find that while going to a bar keeps me healthy,
coming home can sometimes be a different story.
thomas p
Obviously you need to spend more time in bars to offset the negative
effects of going home.
Therion Ware
On Wed, 25 May 2005 21:43:04 +0200 in alt.atheism, thomas p (thomas p
<tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Heh. You'd think that'd work, wouldn't you? But many experiments have
confirmed that in fact the reverse is the case....
thomas p
<autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 21:43:04 +0200 in alt.atheism, thomas p (thomas p
><tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk>) said, directing the reply to
>alt.atheism
>
>
>
>>On Wed, 25 May 2005 16:00:41 GMT, Therion Ware
>><autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2005 08:56:41 -0700 in alt.atheism, stoney (stoney
>>><sto...@the.net>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
snip
>>>
>>>Oh I dunno. I tend to find that while going to a bar keeps me healthy,
>>>coming home can sometimes be a different story.
>>
>>Obviously you need to spend more time in bars to offset the negative
>>effects of going home.
>
>Heh. You'd think that'd work, wouldn't you? But many experiments have
>confirmed that in fact the reverse is the case....
>
One of the mysteries of life! Order another beer and we can talk
about it.
stoney
<autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Rolling pins, frying pans are definately hazardous. ;)
stoney
I do hope everyone's brought their darts.
Walter Bushell
thomas p <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
<Snip>
> I seem to remember a study of many years ago that found that people
> who play Bingo regularly have longer lives. Obviously social activity
> is healthy. I would not be surprised to learn that people who go to a
> bar once a week are healthier that those who stay home every night.
>
>
>
> Thomas P.
>
> "Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
>
> (Kierkegaard)
Ah, people who attend church are more likely to play bingo, hence the
life extension.
thomas p
wrote:
Just don't sit next to an old lady who is working 20 cards.
thomas p
>On Thu, 26 May 2005 12:07:49 +0200, thomas p
><tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:41:56 GMT, Therion Ware
>><autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>
snip
>>>>>Oh I dunno. I tend to find that while going to a bar keeps me healthy,
>>>>>coming home can sometimes be a different story.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously you need to spend more time in bars to offset the negative
>>>>effects of going home.
>>>
>>>Heh. You'd think that'd work, wouldn't you? But many experiments have
>>>confirmed that in fact the reverse is the case....
>
>>One of the mysteries of life! Order another beer and we can talk
>>about it.
>
>I do hope everyone's brought their darts.
Did you say tarts?
stoney
<tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 May 2005 10:42:17 -0700, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 May 2005 12:07:49 +0200, thomas p
>><tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:41:56 GMT, Therion Ware
>>><autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>>
>snip
>>>>>>Oh I dunno. I tend to find that while going to a bar keeps me healthy,
>>>>>>coming home can sometimes be a different story.
>>>>>Obviously you need to spend more time in bars to offset the negative
>>>>>effects of going home.
>>>>Heh. You'd think that'd work, wouldn't you? But many experiments have
>>>>confirmed that in fact the reverse is the case....
>>>One of the mysteries of life! Order another beer and we can talk
>>>about it.
>>I do hope everyone's brought their darts.
>
>Did you say tarts?
Them too.... :)
dgillesp
Josef Balluch wrote:
>
> In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
> with the following:
>
> > Josef Balluch wrote:
> > >
> > > In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
> > > with the following:
> > >
> > > > The Great Hairy One wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > Providence working in, with and under the evolutionary process may well
> > > > be the source of such positive results rather than a strictly unexpected
> > > > outcome of stone-blind, utterly indifferent and completely unconscious
> > > > chance.
> > >
> > > No doubt. Just about anything would work better than one of your straw
> > > men.
> >
> > Methinks you perhaps have much in common with those who invariably see a
> > straw man under every rock and behind every tree.
>
> Hardly. I find them in your posts, much more so than in the posts of
> others.
>
> > But then, when the
> > only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.
>
> Very clever. And rather ironic, since "christianity" seems to be your
> solution to so many problems.
Christianity is the source of many problems when it remains true to its
very nature. Unfortunately as Chesterton pointed out, "Christianity has
not been found wanting, but rather found too difficult, and therefore
never tried."
> ...
>
> > > Your skill at detecting hidden meaning certainly failed you on this one.
> > > No doubt you can produce an amusing rationalization.
> >
> > Trying to head me off at the pass, I see.
>
> Ummmm, ... no. I was hoping for a good laugh.
>
> > > It's also interesting that you would choose a donkey in an era of air
> > > travel, rocket ships and speed-of-light global communication. Another
> > > example of appropriate symbolism.
> >
> > You get my drift whatever the symbol. Jesus rose an ass into Jerusalem,
> > finally making public his claim to messiahship. If a humble ass was
> > good enough for Jesus, what better symbol could a Christian choose?
>
> If you say so. Have you made any plans to emulate your hero's
> crucifixion?
Well He did specify clearly, "If any man would come after me, let him
deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." (Lk 9.23) He
never said, "Come follow me and I'll make it real easy for you."
>
> > > I have seen plenty of pictures of humans walking along side of donkeys.
> >
> > > http://images.google.ca/images?q=donkey+walking&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en
> > >
> > > Donkeys appear to be quite content moving at human walking speed. What
> > > makes you think that a donkey is a particularly swift mode of transport?
> >
> > I was under the impression the donkey has much greater strength and
> > stamina, and can keep moving when exhaustion requires a foot-sore
> > traveler to rest and recoup.
>
> Riding on a donkey means that you exchange sore feet for a sore
> posterior.
"You pays your money and you takes your pick."
>
> ...
>
>
> > > Christ rode on an ass, but now asses ride on Christ.
> >
> > When properly understood, there's more truth than fiction in Heine's
> > cynical quip.
>
> Can't say as how I disagree.
>
> Regards,
>
> Josef
>
> The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance. It is the illusion
> of knowledge.
>
> -- Daniel Boorstin
"Ignorance, like a false tooth, is easier to detect when the mouth is
open." -- Anonymous
Denny
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> Josef Balluch wrote:
> >
> > In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
> > with the following:
...
> Christianity is the source of many problems when it remains true to its
> very nature.
Not sure if you made a typo here, but I certainly agree with this
statement.
> Unfortunately as Chesterton pointed out, "Christianity has
> not been found wanting, but rather found too difficult, and therefore
> never tried."
So why are you peddling something that has never been tried?
...
> > If you say so. Have you made any plans to emulate your hero's
> > crucifixion?
>
> Well He did specify clearly, "If any man would come after me, let him
> deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." (Lk 9.23) He
> never said, "Come follow me and I'll make it real easy for you."
That's the spirit! Please be sure to post the photos.
...
> > > I was under the impression the donkey has much greater strength and
> > > stamina, and can keep moving when exhaustion requires a foot-sore
> > > traveler to rest and recoup.
> >
> > Riding on a donkey means that you exchange sore feet for a sore
> > posterior.
>
> "You pays your money and you takes your pick."
It went right over your head, once again. Whether the traveler has sore
feet or a sore posterior, he needs to "rest and recoup".
...
> "Ignorance, like a false tooth, is easier to detect when the mouth is
> open." -- Anonymous
< chuckle! > Shot yourself in the foot once again!
Regards,
Josef
Man is without doubt the most interesting fool there is.
-- Mark Twain
thomas p
>On Fri, 27 May 2005 08:51:31 +0200, thomas p
><tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 May 2005 10:42:17 -0700, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 26 May 2005 12:07:49 +0200, thomas p
>>><tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:41:56 GMT, Therion Ware
>>>><autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>snip
>>>>>>>Oh I dunno. I tend to find that while going to a bar keeps me healthy,
>>>>>>>coming home can sometimes be a different story.
>
>>>>>>Obviously you need to spend more time in bars to offset the negative
>>>>>>effects of going home.
>
>>>>>Heh. You'd think that'd work, wouldn't you? But many experiments have
>>>>>confirmed that in fact the reverse is the case....
>
>>>>One of the mysteries of life! Order another beer and we can talk
>>>>about it.
>
>>>I do hope everyone's brought their darts.
>>
>>Did you say tarts?
>
>Them too.... :)
That's good. It's beginning to sound like a very healthy event.
stoney
<tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 May 2005 11:38:03 -0700, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 May 2005 08:51:31 +0200, thomas p
>><tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 26 May 2005 10:42:17 -0700, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 26 May 2005 12:07:49 +0200, thomas p
>>>><tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:41:56 GMT, Therion Ware
>>>>><autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>snip
>>>>>>>>Oh I dunno. I tend to find that while going to a bar keeps me healthy,
>>>>>>>>coming home can sometimes be a different story.
>>
>>>>>>>Obviously you need to spend more time in bars to offset the negative
>>>>>>>effects of going home.
>>
>>>>>>Heh. You'd think that'd work, wouldn't you? But many experiments have
>>>>>>confirmed that in fact the reverse is the case....
>>
>>>>>One of the mysteries of life! Order another beer and we can talk
>>>>>about it.
>>
>>>>I do hope everyone's brought their darts.
>>>
>>>Did you say tarts?
>>
>>Them too.... :)
>That's good. It's beginning to sound like a very healthy event.
Bon appetit` :)