Why Are People So Critical About Christian Beliefs

[Roman Cilicia]

Prove it. It is widely known that the most popular theories or modes of thought are generally the truest in expression.

You mean like the idea that the Sun revolved around the Earth?

Or the idea that four humors in the body caused disease?

Humourism is entirely valid and true. There has been no official scientific rejection of it; hence, it can be said that even today the scientific consensus does not wish to engage it (for they would be quickly proven wrong).

Meanwhile, it was an entirely valid belief of the time that the cosmos was geocentric. I still have not ruled it out entirely.

[Ceannairceach]

You mean like the idea that the Sun revolved around the Earth?

Or the idea that four humors in the body caused disease?

Humourism is entirely valid and true. There has been no official scientific rejection of it; hence, it can be said that even today the scientific consensus does not wish to engage it (for they would be quickly proven wrong).

Meanwhile, it was an entirely valid belief of the time that the cosmos was geocentric. I still have not ruled it out entirely.

Source that they don't wish to/haven't engaged it?

You may not have, but the majority of the world has. Popularity = truthfulness, no?

[Orcoa]

For which I'm very sorry for...I wish my fellow christians would not do this

No need to apologize; you're not the one doing it. Just generally speaking.

I know...but if no one will apologize for the few being stupid..who will?

[Ceannairceach]

No need to apologize; you're not the one doing it. Just generally speaking.

I know...but if no one will apologize for the few being stupid..who will?

Preferably no one, then; I'd rather those who didn't do something stupid actively work against the stupid, but this is obviously not within the realm of possibility for everyone.

[Coccygia]

Or the idea that four humors in the body caused disease?

Humourism is entirely valid and true. There has been no official scientific rejection of it; hence, it can be said that even today the scientific consensus does not wish to engage it (for they would be quickly proven wrong).

Leeches! Stat!

[Conserative Morality]

Humourism is entirely valid and true. There has been no official scientific rejection of it; hence, it can be said that even today the scientific consensus does not wish to engage it (for they would be quickly proven wrong).

Meanwhile, it was an entirely valid belief of the time that the cosmos was geocentric. I still have not ruled it out entirely.

Popular opinion currently is that aristocratic blood gives no benefits when compared to commoner blood.

True?

[Roman Cilicia]

Humourism is entirely valid and true. There has been no official scientific rejection of it; hence, it can be said that even today the scientific consensus does not wish to engage it (for they would be quickly proven wrong).

Meanwhile, it was an entirely valid belief of the time that the cosmos was geocentric. I still have not ruled it out entirely.

Source that they don't wish to/haven't engaged it?

You may not have, but the majority of the world has. Popularity = truthfulness, no?

Yes. But generally, the farther back you go along hte historical spectrum, the more "right" people were. The best days of the Earth were the early 1200s, definitely. If only Chenkhis' Khan and Subotay had decided to invade the Caliphate, Egypt, and thence Africa with all their might, instead of Europe.

Wait, you're asking me for a source? You're the one who claimed it was not a valid theory and that the scientists rejected it. The burden on proof's on you to find a source.

I note that the "Google" analytical search engine is well-suited to such an endeavor; I recommend using it.

[Roman Cilicia]

Humourism is entirely valid and true. There has been no official scientific rejection of it; hence, it can be said that even today the scientific consensus does not wish to engage it (for they would be quickly proven wrong).

Meanwhile, it was an entirely valid belief of the time that the cosmos was geocentric. I still have not ruled it out entirely.

Popular opinion currently is that aristocratic blood gives no benefits when compared to commoner blood.

True?

Once again I must say that the popular opinion of the middle ages was far more correct than that of the modern brainwashed populace.

Back then they recognized the innate skill of the nobility.

[Farnhamia]

No, it's just... that's a big word. Hey, big words for a big guy.

Sado: Beating; Necro: Dead; Bestiality:Horses.

More like mortuequinicide. "Sado" isn't derived from a word meaning "to beat," it's from the Marquis de Sade's name.

[Ceannairceach]

Source that they don't wish to/haven't engaged it?

You may not have, but the majority of the world has. Popularity = truthfulness, no?

Yes. But generally, the farther back you go along hte historical spectrum, the more "right" people were. The best days of the Earth were the early 1200s, definitely. If only Chenkhis' Khan and Subotay had decided to invade the Caliphate, Egypt, and thence Africa with all their might, instead of Europe.

Wait, you're asking me for a source? You're the one who claimed it was not a valid theory and that the scientists rejected it. The burden on proof's on you to find a source.

I note that the "Google" analytical search engine is well-suited to such an endeavor; I recommend using it.

I did, despite the fact that the burden of proof lays on the shoulders of someone claiming something to be, not the one claiming something to not be. It says its a discredited theory. Of course, I didn't need it to come to the conclusion that bleeding and leeches aren't going to help much.

[Ceannairceach]

Popular opinion currently is that aristocratic blood gives no benefits when compared to commoner blood.

True?

Once again I must say that the popular opinion of the middle ages was far more correct than that of the modern brainwashed populace.

Back then they recognized the innate skill of the nobility.

Because the nobility survived the French Revolution intact, right?

[Roman Cilicia]

Once again I must say that the popular opinion of the middle ages was far more correct than that of the modern brainwashed populace.

Back then they recognized the innate skill of the nobility.

Because the nobility survived the French Revolution intact, right?

What is your point? The 1700s were hardly "medieval" in any sense of the term.

And by then, the French aristocracy had become mixed of blood, complacent of temperance, and obsessed entirely with the modes and fashions of the time. If such a thing had happened in Eastern Europe at the time, the nobility would have easily triumphed.

[Roman Cilicia]

I did, despite the fact that the burden of proof lays on the shoulders of someone claiming something to be, not the one claiming something to not be. It says its a discredited theory. Of course, I didn't need it to come to the conclusion that bleeding and leeches aren't going to help much.

Point me to a reliable scientific article or journal proving this.

[Farnhamia]

I did, despite the fact that the burden of proof lays on the shoulders of someone claiming something to be, not the one claiming something to not be. It says its a discredited theory. Of course, I didn't need it to come to the conclusion that bleeding and leeches aren't going to help much.

Point me to a reliable scientific article or journal proving this.

It's not really matter of proof. Humorism was made obsolete as an explanation (theory) of how the human body works, and of what causes disease. It was superseded by more modern theories (explanations) based in science. If evidence were to come along that humorism to be valid, then it might revive as a basis for diagnosing illness.

[Roman Cilicia]

Point me to a reliable scientific article or journal proving this.

It's not really matter of proof. Humorism was made obsolete as an explanation (theory) of how the human body works, and of what causes disease. It was superseded by more modern theories (explanations) based in science.

Then show proof of it! Do you understand my point? I desire a scholarly piece refuting humourism in its entirety.

[Seperates]

I did, despite the fact that the burden of proof lays on the shoulders of someone claiming something to be, not the one claiming something to not be. It says its a discredited theory. Of course, I didn't need it to come to the conclusion that bleeding and leeches aren't going to help much.

Point me to a reliable scientific article or journal proving this.

I'm pretty sure if it worked better, the medical community would use it, as it would be cheaper.

[Seperates]

It's not really matter of proof. Humorism was made obsolete as an explanation (theory) of how the human body works, and of what causes disease. It was superseded by more modern theories (explanations) based in science.

Then show proof of it! Do you understand my point? I desire a scholarly piece refuting humourism in its entirety.

The reason the scientific community doesn't address it is because it's comparable to writing a piece refuting alchemy. Sure, some of the principles were accurate, however, it was not and is not, comparable to modern medicine.

[Seperates]

Source that they don't wish to/haven't engaged it?

You may not have, but the majority of the world has. Popularity = truthfulness, no?

Yes. But generally, the farther back you go along hte historical spectrum, the more "right" people were. The best days of the Earth were the early 1200s, definitely. If only Chenkhis' Khan and Subotay had decided to invade the Caliphate, Egypt, and thence Africa with all their might, instead of Europe.

Wait, you're asking me for a source? You're the one who claimed it was not a valid theory and that the scientists rejected it. The burden on proof's on you to find a source.

I note that the "Google" analytical search engine is well-suited to such an endeavor; I recommend using it.

Wikipedia states that it is a psuedoscience. And then fucking links it. Find me a legitamite practicing M.D. who uses humorism or other such nonsense.

[Big Jim P]

Sado: Beating; Necro: Dead; Bestiality:Horses.

More like mortuequinicide. "Sado" isn't derived from a word meaning "to beat," it's from the Marquis de Sade's name.

Via "Sadism" or a sexual fetish for pain, popularly envisioned as being inflicted with whips.

[New Alaxia]

More like mortuequinicide. "Sado" isn't derived from a word meaning "to beat," it's from the Marquis de Sade's name.

Via "Sadism" or a sexual fetish for pain, popularly envisioned as being inflicted with whips.

What is going on? How did the forum get so off topic?

[Big Jim P]

Via "Sadism" or a sexual fetish for pain, popularly envisioned as being inflicted with whips.

What is going on? How did the forum get so off topic?

Gods Will.

[Farnhamia]

Via "Sadism" or a sexual fetish for pain, popularly envisioned as being inflicted with whips.

What is going on? How did the forum get so off topic?

Welcome to NSG!

And yeah, refuting the theory of humors is a threadjack.

@Cilicia: Refutation of Galens' Theory of Humors goes back to the 9th and 10th century physician Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi's Doubts About Galen (Shukuk 'ala alinusor). Razi "criticized moreover Galen's theory that the body possessed four separate "humors" (liquid substances), whose balance are the key to health and a natural body-temperature. A sure way to upset such a system was to insert a liquid with a different temperature into the body resulting in an increase or decrease of bodily heat, which resembled the temperature of that particular fluid. Razi noted that a warm drink would heat up the body to a degree much higher than its own natural temperature. Thus the drink would trigger a response from the body, rather than transferring only its own warmth or coldness to it."

I found the on-line encyclopedia WIkipedia quite helpful in researching this, as well as the internet search engine you recommended. I'm sure there are more such articles to be found, of more recent date, but again, it's a threadjack.

[/threadjack]

[Freelanderness]

Oh sorry. I thought we were talking about religion, not science.

So you're arguing that atheists interpret parts of their world using religion? And I said no, they use science. Then you ask why I'm talking about science. Talking with no-minds is tiring dude. Seriously. Why can't you just answer my statement without a non sequitur?

No, I am not arguing that atheists MUST interpret their world through religion, but I am also not denying it.
Here are two definitions you might find useful: (both from the google dictionary if you require a source)
sci·ence/ˈsīəns/Noun
1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Religion
noun /riˈlijən/ 
religions, plural
1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods

Are you trying to imply that religious people don't use science?
Because if you really are going to argue that, then I will gladly prove you wrong.


Since I already have a dictionary open, here is one more definition:
non se·qui·tur
noun /ˌnän ˈsekwitər/ 
non sequiturs, plural
1. A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement

You specifically mentioned science, on the topic of religion, I used sarcasm to imply difference between the two words.

At first I interpreted your statement "Talking with no-minds is tiring dude" as an offensive implication that I had no cognitive abilities. Then I realized that just couldn't be the case, since it's rather clear that I at least have the basis of intellect, in my ability to assemble enough sentient thoughts to respond to you. Therefore, I had to make a guess on what you meant. Apologies, but I was unable to find a definition for "no-mind" so I had to conclude that it was an abbreviation for not-minding. Thusly I inferred that your statement "Talking with no-minds is tiring dude" meant that you were making a third person reference to yourself, stating that "tiring dude" (yourself) is talking with people who are laid-back. Although I would not deny that taking the time to type up these responses is somewhat tiring, I wouldn't go so far as to call you a tiring person. Really you shouldn't be so hard on yourself

It's ok, not all of us can be geniuses <3

[Greater Stolichnaya]

So you're arguing that atheists interpret parts of their world using religion? And I said no, they use science. Then you ask why I'm talking about science. Talking with no-minds is tiring dude. Seriously. Why can't you just answer my statement without a non sequitur?

No, I am not arguing that atheists MUST interpret their world through religion, but I am also not denying it. Are you trying to imply that religious people don't use science? Because if you really are going to argue that, then I will gladly prove you wrong.

Uh, yeah, show me where I said that. What I said about religious people is that they tend to draw from perception based on their religion. Some say homosexuality is bad because it says so in the Bible. Case in point. However, I never argued that they DIDN'T use science. On the other hand, most scientists (I forget the actual percentage but I know it's in the upward of the 95% range) are atheists, ergo we can conclude that people who draw mostly from science instead of faith will tend to be atheist. But, Christians, which I was until I reached the age of reason, often do use science to explain many things. Save for how the universe was created.

You specifically mentioned science, on the topic of religion, I used sarcasm to imply difference between the two words.

Well, excuse me, but sarcasm is very challenging to portray over the internet.

At first I interpreted your statement "Talking with no-minds is tiring dude" as an offensive implication that I had no cognitive abilities. Then I realized that just couldn't be the case, since it's rather clear that I at least have the basis of intellect, in my ability to assemble enough sentient thoughts to respond to you. Therefore, I had to make a guess on what you meant. Apologies, but I was unable to find a definition for "no-mind" so I had to conclude that it was an abbreviation for not-minding. Thusly I inferred that your statement "Talking with no-minds is tiring dude" meant that you were making a third person reference to yourself, stating that "tiring dude" (yourself) is talking with people who are laid-back. Although I would not deny that taking the time to type up these responses is somewhat tiring, I wouldn't go so far as to call you a tiring person. Really you shouldn't be so hard on yourself

It's ok, not all of us can be geniuses <3

That was just... unnecessary. You must be really desperate for humor to jokingly come to the conclusion that because I excluded a comma, I was speaking about myself, and not in second person. If that was the case, the "d" in "dude" would be capitalized, and I would have been saying "Dude" instead of I this entire time. On the definition of no-mind... well, mind is here used as a synonym for brain, and no is used in the sense that you don't have one, so a lesser form of that would be lame, i.e. disabled or literally retarded. Here we have the much more common insult to cognitive abilities, lamebrain, and it's funny how someone who implies he is a genius couldn't infer that the two words were synonymous.

[Beldonia]

Yeah.

Lol @ Sense of entitlement.

Yeah, it is sort of funny. It's not a pissed off sort of complaining, it's more of a "Oh golly gee, I wish things would go more my way."