i stop taking my blood pressure meds.
the other day.
while at the dentist they took my blood pressure, 177 over 101.. i,am taking my pressure pills again.
Both 140 and 90 are viewed as borderline hypertension . . . a 90 - 100 lower end is mild stage one level, and not especially dangerous unless it persists or fluctuates.
If you've been off meds, it may take a day or two more to stabilise . . . keep a daily check if poss . . . and ensure it doesn't climb again. If it doesn't normalise in a day or two . . . you may need your GP to review the dosage.
until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
Does there need to be a term for the negative and another definition for the positive? Or is this splitting hairs.?
No, it's not splitting hairs . . . it's at the heart of the matter . . .
"There is no God" is a statement of belief.
"There is insufficient evidence for God's existence" is a suspension of belief . . . the two are actually worlds apart.
My experience is that the majority who fall under the label "atheist" are of the latter.
we should set 3 topics.
1. creation and evolution (origins of life).
2. religion.
just a bunch of people spouting out their ideas without any evidence to back them up.
There is a flip side to that . . . when you go to the trouble of providing links, vids etc., as supporting evidence . . . and it's patently obvious by the responses it's being totally ignored. The rush back into battle is just too great a calling . . . after a while you feel like an unappreciated bloody nursemaid. If you're being brickwalled . . . then everything bounces off and the evidence is irrelevant. There have to be two participants in successful communication . . . a deliverer and a willing receiver. We can each only guarantee one at best. Throwing shit at a wall just get's boring.
until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
I'm worn out by the nonsense and sarcasm that keeps coming.
...another success for our argumentative friend!
Here's some free advice . . . lighten up on the ad-hominems, they kill debate even quicker.
my wifes mother recently passed away, and it has devastated my wife.
the family, who are not witnesses, but out of respect for the deceased, and who was a jw, had the ceremony at the kingdum hell, which almost made me throw up... last time i ever step foot in that place.
i felt like a vampire on the threshold of a church, as i looked into the interior hall feeling my skin burn and start to smoke... anyways, as i have posted on here before a friend of my wife, has in the past, sent her (my wife) emails about going back to the kingdumb hell.
sinis . . . when appropriate, discuss the experience with your wife and be sure you're both on the same page. Don't just let it slide into history without understanding these "emotional ties" and why they persist. Unless you do . . . they remain ticking. Not supporting your wife if she chooses to return is understandable . . . not supporting her by failing to help her to see the cult for what it is, less so.
until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
This thread is about the behaviour, not of all atheists, but of those atheists who choose to attack and mock and scorn those who have a faith. I am very pleased that Soledad widens the discussion beyond just Christianity.
Why did it please you to also narrow the discussion to "scornful Atheists" when, as you've finally admitted, the thread is actually about behaviour.
The truth of the matter is that a faction of all interest groups that you might care to "label" . . . atheists, believers, christians, etc., display poor behaviour . . . and the ratios are exactly the same for all, as with all human behavioural traits.
In your OP you chose to ask a loaded and generalised question (it's there for all to see) which superimposes a general and common behavioural trait exclusively as the preserve of atheists . . . a perceptive bias which has been perpetuated throughout this thread in spite of it being so obviously irrational and falacious.
It's an emotional reaction bought on by what I said earlier . . . the unavailability of a reasonable and rational argument to support a view. The only option remaining is to disparage the character of the dissenting voice in an effort to have them STFU. Posters here asking simple questions quite politely, have been charged with having a bad attitude for being so arrogant as to even ask.
You can't even begin to understand your bias until you develop the ability to recognise it.
until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
I think atheist mentality is partly born from a certain arrogance, the arrogance to assert that there is definitely, absolutely no God and we know beyond any doubt that there is no God.
An example of this "atheist mentality" that asserts there is "absolutely, definitely, beyond any doubt, no God" would help . . . even one would do.
If you're wishing to assert that atheists deal in "certainties" and "absolutes" . . . then you are on dangerous ground. History will tell you that this has always been the exclusive preserve of religion . . . and, it would appear, remains so today. There are two ways you can use a label . . . either to represent something or to mis-represent it. People here are using labels to mis-represent anothers position for their own purposes, which is totally farcical btw.
The thing is . . . if you present an argument in a debate, then it will be attacked. If there is no attack, then there is no debate. We all agree . . . yay . . . group hug . . . new thread . . . new debate. You should expect to have your posts scrutinised, questioned, ridiculed, yes, even scorned. You see your own presidential candidates do it FFS! . . . it's the nature of debate! If you are sound in your argument, you want it to prevail and will attack the flaws in opposing arguments . . . sarcasm and ridicule included. (sarcasm gets a bad rap, and is often a good point-maker IMO).
I honestly believe we're all too thin skinned. Free speech means listening to stuff you may not want to hear . . and having to explain yourself when asked difficult questions. Being wrong. Not really knowing. Maybe even ignoring some of the silly stuff. Putting up with stupidity. You have to do it in life . . . why not in a debate?
If you spend page after page defending a weak argument with poor logic and evasiveness . . . are you really being attacked? . . . or is your argument simply getting the treatment it deserves? "Oh, I'm getting ganged up on . . . poor me" . . . when maybe it's just that your argument is so full of holes it's bleeding all over the thread.
Christ Alone post #732 is worth a 2nd read . . . promoting a belief on an open forum is never going to be easy, because it is essentially preaching. The height of the challenge itself demands that you use sound reasoning, logic, and a worthy argument, even if there are remaining points of difference. The realisation for some, that they don't have that compelling argument, is a very tender spot, and that's probably a good time to go for a walk.
If you accept the fact that they are going to defend no matter what, that will help increase the quality of the conversation or debate. . . . sab
What you are describing is a tightly closed mind. True . . . recognising that helps. The natural reaction however, is to prise it open by attacking it's ideas through reasoned argument. Those ideas will be challenged ("attacked" if you like drama) . . . unless you have the powers of King Canute. I'm personally very grateful to all those who "attacked" my beliefs thoroughly and mercilessly . . . I learned how to think instead of what to think . . . I owe them plenty.
until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
Atheists would do well to understand WHY Christian's will defend their faith when an atheist challenges them. It's PART of their faith!
I think many already understand that . . . as another pointed out, most have been believers. Although, I don't think that's the full answer.
Understanding a persons motivation can be helpful . . . also their prejudices, fears, background etc . . . but ultimately that's all mental clutter that can serve to muddy the waters of the actual issue . . . when defending any position, the critical factor is the content of your argument . . . not your motivations for holding to it.
my wifes mother recently passed away, and it has devastated my wife.
the family, who are not witnesses, but out of respect for the deceased, and who was a jw, had the ceremony at the kingdum hell, which almost made me throw up... last time i ever step foot in that place.
i felt like a vampire on the threshold of a church, as i looked into the interior hall feeling my skin burn and start to smoke... anyways, as i have posted on here before a friend of my wife, has in the past, sent her (my wife) emails about going back to the kingdumb hell.
If she still thinks there might be the tiniest chance that the WT might be Jehovah's channel, she is not entirely free. That is what you need to clear up. . . . Black Sheep
If you have thoroughly deconstructed the "cult experience" . . . there is no way the temptation to return can impose itself. If your wife is "mostly" out, then she's only a whisper away from mostly in. You need to finish the job . . . and now may not be the best time, but the sooner the better.
our family has come to believe that god really wants each individual to personally and independently seek, find and walk with him - quite apart from what other humans say, think, believe or do.. we believe we were created as semi-autonomous beings.
when our inner compass is recalibrated, and we then self-direct, the outcomes seem best.. when we are instead led by humans, their hierarchies, organisations and ideas, the outcomes on the whole seem unfavourable.
legalism (rules), moralism (a moral code), ethnocentrism (doctrine), and gnosticism (knowledge) may seem meritorious.. yet these do not seem to lead to the deep inner transformation needed.
If you believe God exists, what are your thoughts on what pleases him most?
Whatever it is . . . he isn't getting enough of it.
