I think Christianity may be indefensible

5wize

Well-known member
Your words:

"Atheists place hope in a better existence here and now, and that hope drives us in action towards it."

So list some of those actions you have engaged in for a "better existence."
Show me where I personally "boasted about my great deeds." Can't do that can you, loser.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Show me where I personally "boasted about my great deeds."


Your words:

"Atheists place hope in a better existence here and now, and that hope drives us in action towards it."

So list some of those actions you have boasted about engaging in for a "better existence."
 

5wize

Well-known member
So then it contains no hope.

Does septic skepticism contain any answers to anything or is it just hopelessly cynical of everything? You can supply other options if you like
Skepticism illuminates fallacy so better focus can be brought to proper solutions to human problems, like it wasn't an act of Godly disobedience that caused the nation of Israel to come under pressure from its enemies. Praying, blaming and chastising the population for things they cannot control, and not mixing fabric wasn't going to help and God is not working on a cure for cancer that we can direct.
 
Last edited:

5wize

Well-known member
Your words:

"Atheists place hope in a better existence here and now, and that hope drives us in action towards it."

So list some of those actions you have boasted about engaging in for a "better existence."
Still can't show me where I boasted about any personal actions I took can you , loser.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Still can't show me where I boasted about any personal actions I took can you , loser.

Your BOASTING words:

"Atheists place hope in a better existence here and now, and that hope drives us in action towards it."

So list some of those actions you have boasted about engaging in for a "better existence."
 

5wize

Well-known member
Your BOASTING words:

"Atheists place hope in a better existence here and now, and that hope drives us in action towards it."

So list some of those actions you have boasted about engaging in for a "better existence."
Still can't show me where I boasted about any personal actions I took can you, loser.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Still can't show me where I boasted about any personal actions I took can you, loser.

Your words:

"Atheists place hope in a better existence here and now, and that hope drives us in action towards it."

So list some of those actions you have boasted about engaging in for a "better existence."

"Us" is a pronoun denoting first person plural. When used by you it includes you.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
You're not being given information to make use of in your treatment. You're being given information to show that remission is a natural process that does not require the intervention of any supernatural beings.
Now. Yes. Not then.
The research done since then.
Because of the work done since has increased the survivability of melanoma patients, they understand more.
The survivability at the time was extremely low.

It's believed that in 1990 when I was misdiagnosed, the doctor deliberately lied to me because the only available treatment would not have given me a chance to live, and I would have died sooner than later.
In the autumn of 1998 I finished the first clinical trial I was on, and the doctors asked me to get onto a second trial, "because too many people were dying within a year after finishing the one year trial" I was on.

In late summer of 1997, when we were discussing the clinical trial options, there were 4 options. I'd preferred doing one that they were not satisfied with. Turns out that the technology dated back to 1909, or thereabouts. It was a vaccine trial that would take the tumor, create a vaccine with it, and then use it to rebuild our immune system.
They said it wasn't working yet.
The research I've read since said that the idea has been piggybacked onto some serious drugs, and it's finally showing success in increasing the longevity of patients with stage four metastatic disease.

The clinical trial I was on, the drug has taken a back seat, and is only used as an immune enhancer for people who are on chemotherapy for various cancers.

Provide research showing that what existed in my era was increasing longevity substantially to support your opinions.

Interferon showed a 10% success rate.
Interleukin 2, or IL-2 showed a 20% success rate.
The tumor vaccine was lower. I'm told it's higher now with drug enhancements.

So, from what I'm seeing, you guys are trying to figure out how to dismiss the nature of the restoration to wholeness because it doesn't fit your biases.

One of my doctors told me in 2003 that his decades of medical practice showed him that the power of Hope had a major positive impact on the lives of his patients and that he'd never seen anyone who had as much a capacity for hope as he'd seen in me.

I told him that I was just reading the bible and praying every day. That my Hope was in Jesus Christ.
He responded with the typical "scientific" statement of- well, I'ma scientist. I don't know about that. To which I recall saying-- this is all I'm doing.
I'm not eating any special diet. I'm eating what I've always eaten. I'm not doing anything other than what I've been doing for 25 years.

In Proverbs it states that "the spirit of a man will sustain him in his illness, but who can withstand a broken spirit?"

You can indeed dismiss it.
That's your problem.
I'm enjoying a new life where death was clearly stated as a result of my cancer.
"Melanoma cancer typically kills within one to two years" was a standard "mantra" I heard regularly with regards to my survival.
Can the doctors tie it back to God, specifically? The more experienced ones often made the statement-- God is the only one who can heal. We just put into place the things that allow your body to heal naturally.
They all used the word miracle.
I could easily see your arguments about this had I used the word miracle to start my recovery off.
It wasn't me. The doctors did. They continue to. Thankfully, I have now reached the point where I am seeing regular doctors once or twice a year for normal, "growing older, age-related" stuff.
We have occasional conversations about it. Yesterday morning I saw the dermatologist and the PA I saw was spooked by my history and said next time I'll be seeing a doctor, instead of them.

I get my next set of scans in '24.

I have a novel idea for you.

If you're really that interested in pumping sunshine up the derriere's of people whom you need to believe you, go talk to cancer patients who are in the middle of their treatments.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
All of this is true. However, I posted the study to emphasize the point that the medical profession does have some idea why Stage IV melanoma can spontaneously go into remission. It is not a completely inexplicable phenomenon.
Not completely.......

Do you see how you're grasping to make not completely inexplicable into, sufficiently understood as to be a non-issue?

The papers that granny and WiF posted several years ago had the statement-- not well understood-- as part of the introduction.

For some inexplicable reason, they decided to ignore that, and say that the -not completely inexplicable- actually meant that they had a great grasp on what was happening, and enough people were surviving as to make it a non-issue.

Those 17,000 (out of millions) +/- people who have survived haven't been interviewed. Nobody has talked to them.
Their lives haven't been examined to determine, what, if anything, they did to change their state, and increase their survivability.

So, I have a great idea.

Track us all down, and interview us.

I'm looking at a BBC article from 2015 right now. The header states-- a few patients have made rare and unexpected recoveries......
It seems to me that with your "arguments", you're ignoring the words--
Few
Rare
Unexpected

And turning those words into
Many/lots
Common/normal
Expected/anticipated

The patient described in the 2015 BBC report believed that God healed her cancer.
The doctor thinks that her body did it.

Another article that says that the researchers are stating that doctors should take their patients deeply held religious beliefs more seriously.

This article appears to be talking about the "hope FOR a miracle" that has yet to happen.

I wasn't in that clan. Each time I went into surgery, I committed myself to God, and said-- this would be a great time to take me home."
It was a surprise to me to wake up after all my surgeries. And disappointments.

After 2 years the doctors... not one. Not two. Not 3... all of them. 9 in total, over the course of several years, all initiated the use of the word miracle. By 2006/07, I was literally begging them to stop using it. New doctors who came into my care, I flat out states-- look. I appreciate your enthusiasm for my survival. But stop talking about my life in this way.
I'm tired of being told you don't know why I'm alive, that I should be dead, and I'm a miracle.

So, I didn't come into my cancer hoping for a miracle. Once I realized what was happening, I told my wife that I wouldn't do more than one surgery, and if it came back, I'm signing a DNR, and giving myself over to death. As you might guess, that caused a fight.

My longevity didn't come because I had such high hopes for deliverance. If anyone had hoped for my deliverance, it would have been my wife, family members, friends,...
So, to me.... when several doctors used the word miracle....

It actually means something beyond what you need to need.
 

Algor

Active member
Not completely.......

Do you see how you're grasping to make not completely inexplicable into, sufficiently understood as to be a non-issue?
No. I'm saying it isn't something for which MD's "have no idea how or why (you are) still alive." or that "The statistical improbability of remission is so high as to be completely inexplicable." or any of other similar statements that you have made about it all. I'm responding to what you wrote. If you now think you were wrong, great.

The rest of your post is your usual verbal barf. Thanks. I'm uninterested in the equivocations.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
After reading what you wrote, I am assured that it is you who bends this concept with the same flair and gusto that you delude yourself with in believing Christianity is true. The force is strong with this one.

And many of them suffer psychological events such as compartmentalization, Dissociative amnesia, and immature defense fantasy to create the inner world they need to overcome reality.

Neither. I'm just on to your nonsense thinking like a pit bull on a tire.

See above.

Nope. I absolutely know what you have done to yourself internally to survive your trauma, and that internal fantasy also entails a false belief in my sinful nature and rejection of God leading me to damnation. Your fantasy beliefs spill out on others and they call that narcissistic personality disorder. One trait of that disorder tends to be that the narcissist becomes is a loner without many friends. Is this the case with you?
Why would I believe that you know?

You forget. I've been a Christian before. I know the material, and I personally went through the exercise of internalizing the message. I am not a true Scotsman I suppose.
Well, according to 1 John 2:19, if you WERE, and then you LEFT, you just show that you NEVER ACTUALLY MET JESUS.
Otherwise you would have stuck around.

So, if the argument that no true scotsman applies, then nobody is anything.
There are no true irishmen, no true Brits, no true frenchmen, no true Italians, no true Greeks, no true germans, no true atheists, no true........ pick every single nationality on earth.
In which case you're nothing but a fraud who rejects your own humanity to justify yourself.

So... congratulations. You achieved that you are no true human either.


So far you are reading someone who's been there and can shine a light on you quite accurately as a result.
So far, I'm reading a non-human, non-citizen, non-intellectual, to whom nobody is allowed to know or be anything that they themselves must be, but no longer are because they excluded themselves from knowing what they don't want anyone else to know.

I'll stick with 1 John 2:19.


I have lifted myself out of the delusion you practice.
Ironically, Pete says that you climbed back into the muck, mire, and filth of the world, making yourself worse off than you ever were before you "became what you never actually knew."

Granted, had you actually known Jesus, you would have read that in 2 Peter.

I do however have a series of question for you. Let's see how detailed you can make it.

Were you a Christian because you grew up in a Christian home, with nominally religious parents and family members, but never actually followed Jesus yourself? And by the time you became a teenager, you had spent your youth in a religious environment, not really having any other view of reality, but as you grew up you began to realize that the world you created in your own mind (as being "Christian") and the world outside your mind were different, but you didn't actually know what to think, and as you grew older still, you came to the conclusion that your parents instructions for your childhood beliefs just didn't jive, and by then, you'd realized that as much as you loved them, they were clueless about your world, and you would be out of the house soon enough to think- meh! If this is christianity, I'm out! Never really knowing what following Jesus was or consisted of....

So, just how honest about your ideas of what you think is christianity can you be?

I left my family's version of christianity 50 years ago when I was 11.
Whatever version they had, I wanted nothing to do with.
I've run across several religious variations of it, and would never choose them, even today.

I didn't become a Christian because I like religious belief. I became a follower of Jesus because of Jesus. There have been numerous times when I considered leaving. But it wasn't because of Jesus. It was because of church politics, people, those who say they follow Jesus and irritate me. I learned that my problems with christianity were people problems, not Jesus problems. I further came to understand that if people turn me off to Jesus, and I left because of their issues, or my issues with them, I wasn't following Jesus, I was following people who followed Jesus or were just being religious.


I think the others on this board are ripping this other fantasy of yours to shreds. No need for me there.
I'm sure you do.
Jesus said that people would come after his followers with a vengeance.
I find your choice of words quite apropos here.

Jesus was quite clear about this issue.

Mat 7:6 WEB “Don’t give that which is holy to the dogs, neither throw your pearls before the pigs, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.


So, yet again you perfectly demonstrate the truth of the bible.... by doing nothing more than being you.

You think believing in a spiritual Santa figure is reflecting maturity from you?
Nope. Sounds like you're the one who believes in Santa claus. I stopped believing in Santa claus by the time I was in my early teens. Too much disappointment and losses of close relationships with family members.
As I said, the version of christianity I grew up with I quit at 11 yrs old. That was 50 years ago.

More delusion with a self invented apologetic.
Well, so far, the only delusions are yours. And you keep imposing them on me.

Your belief in my bias is your bias.
Ditto.
They are tearing that fantasy apart on these pages. I'm surprised you still present this angle.
Your biases imposed on others are still your biases. And considering that you and those whom you believe are "tearing apart" what you believe are fantasies, only prove the veracity of what Jesus said.

Mat 7:6 WEB “Don’t give that which is holy to the dogs, neither throw your pearls before the pigs, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.




I have confronted a far wider range of spiritual experience than you will ever be able to pack into your remaining years - including Christianity. I am light years ahead of you on this.
If you trashed Jesus, what you believe is superior, I'm quite satisfied not knowing.
As YHVH holds the entirety of the cosmos in the span of his hand, and has promised to reveal everything to us in eternity, I've come to the place in my life where I'm content with waiting a few more decades to see what he has in store.
Especially when he states--
Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man the things God has prepared for those who love him. But he has given them to us,
As well as numerous points which he's stated that he gave us a downpayment, deposit and guarantee of our inheritance in Christ.
So, whatever you think you have, you have no idea what you're missing out on.

As Jesus said, what does it profit you if you gain the whole world and lose your soul.


You have done a fantastic job of covering old stale religious ground to someone who's been there years ago and is way ahead of you on how this actually works.
Well, as YHVH said,

Jer 6:16 WEB Yahweh says, “Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, ‘Where is the good way?’ and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’

And Jesus reiterates the statement

Mat 11:28-30 WEB 28 “Come to me, all you who labor and are heavily burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

I rather like what YHVH gives his adopted children.

Isa 26:3-7 WEB 3 You will keep whoever’s mind is steadfast in perfect peace, because he trusts in you. 4 Trust in Yahweh forever; for in Yah, Yahweh, is an everlasting Rock. 5 For he has brought down those who dwell on high, the lofty city. He lays it low. He lays it low even to the ground. He brings it even to the dust. 6 The foot shall tread it down, even the feet of the poor and the steps of the needy.” 7 The way of the just is uprightness. You who are upright make the path of the righteous level.

Isa 30:15 WEB For thus said the Lord Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel, “You will be saved in returning and rest. Your strength will be in quietness and in confidence.” You refused,

And
Isa 32:17 WEB The work of righteousness will be peace, and the effect of righteousness, quietness and confidence forever.

Phi 1:6 WEB being confident of this very thing, that he who began a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.

YHVH finishes what he starts.

Psa 138:8 WEB Yahweh will fulfill that which concerns me. Your loving kindness, Yahweh, endures forever. Don’t forsake the works of your own hands.

So, while I'm sure you are confident in what you think you know, we who follow Jesus are confident in YHVH, who knows us, and still loves us enough to follow through to the end.
 

Algor

Active member
You've given nothing to believe you are right, so why would I believe I'm wrong?
Because it is objectively false to say that MD's "have no idea how or why (you are) still alive." or that "The statistical improbability of remission is so high as to be completely inexplicable."

I've explained that at length. If you wish to continue to say things that you know are obviously false, go ahead. Do it in the name of Jesus. You won't be the first, and you won't be the last.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Because it is objectively false to say that MD's "have no idea how or why (you are) still alive." or that "The statistical improbability of remission is so high as to be completely inexplicable."

I've explained that at length. If you wish to continue to say things that you know are obviously false, go ahead. Do it in the name of Jesus. You won't be the first, and you won't be the last.
According to your bias.




https://www.healio.com/news/hematol...gent&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=hematology oncology news&m_bt=271612875455
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
According to your bias.




https://www.healio.com/news/hematol...gent&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=hematology oncology news&m_bt=271612875455
I am baffled at you posting these links. Here is a clip from the first talking about spontaneous remissions...…

.Still, the phenomenon has been reported with virtually all kinds of cancer, more frequently in some types than others. Kidney, brain, uterine and skin cancer (melanoma) were the four most common types, according to a review of 176 published cases from 1900 to 1960 by University of Illinois College of Medicine surgeons Tilden Everson and Warren Cole.

This does not help you.

You have a history of not reading the articles you post, or not understanding them, it seems you've done the same here.
 

Algor

Active member
According to your bias.

What a pathetic own goal. "No idea" means the absence of any idea. "Completely inexplicable" means without any explanation available at all. I showed you an idea that is in the literature. I showed you that some people thought they might have an explanation. That isn't my bias :that's objective fact.

Your second link actually says, in the introduction "This article peeks into the history of immunostimulation and the role of innate immunity in inducing a cure even in advanced stages of malignancy." and the very first line of the discussion says "Spontaneous regression is a well-authenticated and natural phenomenon."


Got that? Natural phenomenon. Figure 1 actually gives a schematic of what they are thinking about, and the whole paper is a long argument for stimulating the immune system to take care of cancer because the authors feel that spontaneous remission is an example of the body doing just that, in response to natural immune stimulation. Did you read the Forbes article? "A spontaneous remission is "either divine intervention or the immune system,says Jedd D. Wolchok, an oncologist"" LOL. So much for oncologists having "no idea" and it being "completely inexplicable"......You can find a million people who want to call it a miracle, and you can call it a miracle yourself. I don't care. But what you can't say with honesty is that people have "no idea" (your phrase) how it happens, or that it is "completely inexplicable" (your words), because you have just supplied people saying that they have an idea, and people giving an explanation. I'm not saying they are right or wrong. I'm saying that they have a reasonable idea, and an explanation. That isn't my "bias": that's an objective fact. Deal with it and stop saying things that you now know are completely untrue. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Algor

Active member
I am baffled at you posting these links. Here is a clip from the first talking about spontaneous remissions...…



This does not help you.

You have a history of not reading the articles you post, or not understanding them, it seems you've done the same here.
It's amazing. How he thinks this helps his case is....mind boggling. Parenthetically, the 176 number is a bit high. Some of those cases are....dubious. But whatever. I didn't know about the 32 cases of breast ca. That's interesting.
 
Last edited:

Nouveau

Well-known member
Now. Yes. Not then.
The research done since then.
Because of the work done since has increased the survivability of melanoma patients, they understand more.
The survivability at the time was extremely low.
The information you were given was not about advances in treatment that can increase survivability. It was about advances in understanding how spontaneous natural remissions can occur, despite being rare. So the date of the article is not relevant.

Provide research showing that what existed in my era was increasing longevity substantially to support your opinions.
Again, treatment isn't even the topic here. You've completely missed the point.

I told him that I was just reading the bible and praying every day. That my Hope was in Jesus Christ.
He responded with the typical "scientific" statement of- well, I'm a scientist. I don't know about that.
Exactly our point. Your doctors did not necessarily share your religious interpretation of your recovery.

"Melanoma cancer typically kills within one to two years" was a standard "mantra" I heard regularly with regards to my survival.
Typically =/= always.

Can the doctors tie it back to God, specifically? The more experienced ones often made the statement-- God is the only one who can heal. We just put into place the things that allow your body to heal naturally.
And yet you disagree with them that your body healed naturally.

They all used the word miracle.
To mean a rare and not fully understood event. As you note above, their area of expertise is medical science, not the supernatural. They did not mean what you mean when you speak of a 'miracle'.

I have a novel idea for you.
You really don't.
 
Top