Does Childhood Religiosity Delay Death?

[Electric Skeptic]

Then change the manner you use to explain your points.

There's nothing wrong with the manner I use to explain my points - you've long ago demonstrated you take no notice of what others say, you just make up something that suits you and throw it out there, as you have this time.

Because I'm using what you say, and the world view I have to interpret what you say.

No, you are not using what I say. You are using your world view, which says that nothing atheists say could possibly be of worth or true, so you can safely ignore it and post what you like.

I'm not making things up at all.

You do it constantly.

I use the words you post, and the world view I have to understand what you say, and then state it back to you.

That is blatantly false. You invent something I never said and state that back to me. We call that 'making stuff up'. You do it constantly. Not just to me - to all the atheists on here. Many of them have remarked on it. You , of course, continue to ignore them because you're incapable of actually communicating with atheists.

Apparently it's your problem because you keep trying to accuse me of changing what you claim to be saying. And contrary to your opinion, I'm not changing it at all.

No, it's your problem, because you do it to all of the atheists on here, as many of them note. You constantly ignore what they actually say and 'reply' to something that nowhere said, suggested or implied.

 

[SteveB]

There's nothing wrong with the manner I use to explain my points - you've long ago demonstrated you take no notice of what others say, you just make up something that suits you and throw it out there, as you have this time.

Well, as long as you don't think that you have any responsibility to this conversation, then your complaints lack any validity and I can dismiss them.

There. That was easily resolved.

No, you are not using what I say. You are using your world view, which says that nothing atheists say could possibly be of worth or true, so you can safely ignore it and post what you like.

Well, you can indeed claim that. It just means that you're choosing the cowards way out.
I can continue with my methods and ignore your complaints.

There. That's easier than I thought.

You do it constantly.

Well, according to your complaints above, it doesn't actually matter.

That is blatantly false.

Again, according to your complaints above and in previous posts, it doesn't actually matter what you think.
You want it your way, and mutual understanding be damned!

You invent something I never said and state that back to me. We call that 'making stuff up'. You do it constantly. Not just to me - to all the atheists on here. Many of them have remarked on it. You , of course, continue to ignore them because you're incapable of actually communicating with atheists.

Waaa waaa waaa...
It must really suck to be so tightly wound. Edit

No, it's your problem, because you do it to all of the atheists on here, as many of them note. You constantly ignore what they actually say and 'reply' to something that nowhere said, suggested or implied.

I'm not the one who needs to win arguments.

My questions aren't answered in any coherent manner, so you get what you want. Someone whom you view as an edit because they actually tried taking you seriously, and that terrified you, so you ran scrambling back into your cave.

Congratulations! This must make you feel so much better.

 

[Nouveau]

I can continue with my methods and ignore your complaints.

Please consider improving your methods.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

In general, religiosity is associated with consistent health benefits, so the authors I think were surprised to find the statistical increase in death rate in children from religious households. That increased death was associated with a loss of religiosity brings a chicken and egg question. Do people lose religiosity, and thus get sick and die more easily, or is the loss of religiosity because of illness and/or acts as an independant stressor?

Noah lived 950 years.

The anti-religious drowned.

 

[Algor]

Noah lived 950 years.

The anti-religious drowned.

🤦‍♂️

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Well, as long as you don't think that you have any responsibility to this conversation, then your complaints lack any validity and I can dismiss them.

There. That was easily resolved.

Well, you can indeed claim that. It just means that you're choosing the cowards way out.
I can continue with my methods and ignore your complaints.

There. That's easier than I thought.

Well, according to your complaints above, it doesn't actually matter.

Again, according to your complaints above and in previous posts, it doesn't actually matter what you think.
You want it your way, and mutual understanding be damned!
Waaa waaa waaa...
It must really suck to be so tightly wound. Edit

I'm not the one who needs to win arguments.

My questions aren't answered in any coherent manner, so you get what you want. Someone whom you view as an edit because they actually tried taking you seriously, and that terrified you, so you ran scrambling back into your cave.

Congratulations! This must make you feel so much better.

More ad hominem, falsehoods, irrelevancies. Will you ever learn to communicate with atheists?

 

[SteveB]

More ad hominem, falsehoods, irrelevancies. Will you ever learn to communicate with atheists?

When they actually answer questions that I ask, instead of telling me they are loaded, irrelevant, strawmen, etc..

I'm not talking about philosophy.
If I was, then I could easily see such excuses as being valid. But as the topic of God and Jesus and your eternity are not matters of philosophy, it's not possible to learn anything from atheists, except that they are cowardly people who are too afraid of the truth to engage in honest dialogue about uncomfortable and inconvenient topics.

So, when you're man enough to own it, and show your fellow atheists how it's done, we can continue.

 

[Nouveau]

When they actually answer questions that I ask, instead of telling me they are loaded, irrelevant, strawmen, etc.

When you ask loaded, irrelevant, strawmanning questions, pointing this out is a perfectly legitimate answer.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

When they actually answer questions that I ask, instead of telling me they are loaded, irrelevant, strawmen, etc..

I'm not talking about philosophy.
If I was, then I could easily see such excuses as being valid. But as the topic of God and Jesus and your eternity are not matters of philosophy, it's not possible to learn anything from atheists, except that they are cowardly people who are too afraid of the truth to engage in honest dialogue about uncomfortable and inconvenient topics.

So, when you're man enough to own it, and show your fellow atheists how it's done, we can continue.

More ad hominem and insults. When you're able to talk to atheists, let me know.

 

[SteveB]

More ad hominem and insults. When you're able to talk to atheists, let me know.

Curious...
I've been talking to atheists for over 2 decades.

When you're able to listen, and learn, you're more than welcome to come.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Curious...
I've been talking to atheists for over 2 decades.

No, you haven't. You've been talking at them.

 

[SteveB]

EDITED

To people who are perishing and have no interest in knowing God, yes. I would indeed be perceived that way.

As the saying goes,

To those who hate the truth, the truth is viewed as hateful.

So, no problem whatsoever.

 

[Algor]

To people who are perishing and have no interest in knowing God, yes. I would indeed be perceived that way.

Do you think all Christians who encounter and try to talk to atheists regarding the idea that Jesus died and rose again to give them eternal life will invariably leave them with the same impression?

 

[Whatsisface]

Curious...
I've been talking to atheists for over 2 decades.

When you're able to listen, and learn, you're more than welcome to come.

No, you've been talking at them. Huge difference.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

You are indeed entitled to your opinion on the matter.

If that's the dog you want to walk, you have been talking AT, PAST, and beyond Jesus followers since you arrived here.

No, I've been talked at by you. Don't try to bundle all the other Christians in here into your basket.

You're malicious, malevolent, rude, self-righteous and reprehensible in your posts towards people who are seeking to reason with you regarding the fact that Jesus died and rose again to give you eternal life.

Still not interested in your insults.

 

[SteveB]

Do you think all Christians who encounter and try to talk to atheists regarding the idea that Jesus died and rose again to give them eternal life will invariably leave them with the same impression?

Nope.
I'm acutely aware that there are many different types of interactions, dialogue styles and how people are perceived.

And after decades of talking with people, online and face to face, I'm no longer bothered with these differences.

Atheists clearly believe that they are right, and don't have to take the time to learn the truth until an argument arises that "convinces" them that they are wrong.

Numerous book titles have been posted on this forum and they've been summarily dismissed as irrelevant.

The problem here is that you're hoping that you don't have to decide based on your own beliefs.

You're on an internet forum which by the very concept that only 7% of any message you read is limited to 7% of the entire content of the message.

You have no way to get the 55% of body language, or the 38% of vocal intonation.

So, the lack of these two other components, which are the balance of the message, you impose your own bias, preconceptions, perhaps previous experiences from TV, or a church you may have attended at some point before.

So, since we're both limited, and you want to argue, instead of simply taking the time, you're placing yourself in the worst position.

 

[SteveB]

No, I've been talked at by you. Don't try to bundle all the other Christians in here into your basket.

Still not interested in your insults.

Why are you still talking if all this is true?
For someone who doesn't want me talking at them, you sure suck at walking away.

 

[Whatsisface]

And after decades of talking with people, online and face to face, I'm no longer bothered with these differences.

No, decades of talking at people.

Atheists clearly believe that they are right, and don't have to take the time to learn the truth until an argument arises that "convinces" them that they are wrong.

You don't understand what atheists think nor why they think it.

Numerous book titles have been posted on this forum and they've been summarily dismissed as irrelevant.

They have been critiqued in a rational manner, and instead of answering said criticisms, you run away.

The problem here is that you're hoping that you don't have to decide based on your own beliefs.

You're on an internet forum which by the very concept that only 7% of any message you read is limited to 7% of the entire content of the message.

You have no way to get the 55% of body language, or the 38% of vocal intonation.

So, the lack of these two other components, which are the balance of the message, you impose your own bias, preconceptions, perhaps previous experiences from TV, or a church you may have attended at some point before.

So, since we're both limited, and you want to argue, instead of simply taking the time, you're placing yourself in the worst position.

You're displaying yet again that you have no idea what atheists think and why they think it.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Why are you still talking if all this is true?

Because it's a site for discussion/argument/debate and like many other atheists, I'd like to see you start talking to them, instead of at them.

For someone who doesn't want me talking at them, you sure suck at walking away.

For someone who doesn't want you insulting and attacking me, I'm very good at pointing out where you do it.

 

[Algor]

Nope.
I'm acutely aware that there are many different types of interactions, dialogue styles and how people are perceived.

And after decades of talking with people, online and face to face, I'm no longer bothered with these differences.

Atheists clearly believe that they are right, and don't have to take the time to learn the truth until an argument arises that "convinces" them that they are wrong.

Numerous book titles have been posted on this forum and they've been summarily dismissed as irrelevant.

The problem here is that you're hoping that you don't have to decide based on your own beliefs.

You're on an internet forum which by the very concept that only 7% of any message you read is limited to 7% of the entire content of the message.

You have no way to get the 55% of body language, or the 38% of vocal intonation.

So, the lack of these two other components, which are the balance of the message, you impose your own bias, preconceptions, perhaps previous experiences from TV, or a church you may have attended at some point before.

So, since we're both limited, and you want to argue, instead of simply taking the time, you're placing yourself in the worst position.

It is your business, but no matter my abundant faults or the limitations of the media, if you are not trying to communicate rather forcefully the negative attributes ES describes, and you are aware that other Christians do not, I’d suggest that maybe you, like everyone else on the planet, including myself, might still be able to learn something from those other Christians.
Cheerio