Donegal priest claims yoga is "putting souls in jeopardy"

Brian Shanahan

lazybones32 wrote: »

I am not a medical Doctor and do not have access to people's medical records. Even if I did have such access, I don't think I would be allowed to share that information with non-professionals who have no connection. Is it against board Rules to ask you if you are a medical practitioner or someone who even knows how to interpret data correctly?

A) You don't have to be a medical doctor to show us proof of your claim. You just have to have access to said proof (even if it were a peer reviewed article behind a journal paywall we could read the abstract).
You don't need medical records of individuals to show us evidence of your claims if they are in the medical field. Most medical research is published with data from anonymised records from the patients which were subjects of that research, in order that other researchers can verify claims without breaching confidentiality.
C) Most people can interpret data correctly with a small bit of training, I do it the whole bloody time, and I was trained in accountancy.

So stop procrastinating and either put up or shut up.

RiteofPassage

Being a priest puts your soul in jeopardy.

Obliq

RiteofPassage wrote: »

Being a priest puts your soul in jeopardy.

Soul? :rolleyes: I have trouble understanding that word....

RiteofPassage

Obliq wrote: »

Soul? :rolleyes: I have trouble understanding that word....

Does soul really have a meaning, anyone really understand it?


Or is it just some abstract religious word- used in the past to collect money and control people.

My meaning for it is my spiritual being, and I don't really understand that.

Stella Virgo

maybe this is what the padre was talking about....... ye may lose yer souls looking at this......:eek:;):D
http://thechive.com/2013/12/10/lets-forget-about-the-yoga-pants-and-focus-on-the-poses-30-photos/

Obliq

RiteofPassage wrote: »

Does soul really have a meaning, anyone really understand it?


Or is it just some abstract religious word- used in the past to collect money and control people.

My meaning for it is my spiritual being, and I don't really understand that.

Well, for religious people it seems very important as it's the (unverified, seemingly nonexistent) part of being human that carries on to experience this heaven/hell/reincarnation/whateveryerhavinyerself....

"Spiritual being" would also be my understanding of what they mean by soul, but I don't actually get the difference between life (which invariably dies) and spirit. For me, it's enough to feel that MY personal version of life will end with my death.

I don't see/feel any "spirit" within myself that transcends the physical manifestation of life that is me....certainly nothing that could be affected by an outside malevolent/benign force brought to me by the "power" of yoga, ouija or mass. My own fears or expectations may be impacted, but that's about it I reckon.

RiteofPassage

Obliq wrote: »

Well, for religious people it seems very important as it's the (unverified, seemingly nonexistent) part of being human that carries on to experience this heaven/hell/reincarnation/whateveryerhavinyerself....

"Spiritual being" would also be my understanding of what they mean by soul, but I don't actually get the difference between life (which invariably dies) and spirit. For me, it's enough to feel that MY personal version of life will end with my death.

I don't see/feel any "spirit" within myself that transcends the physical manifestation of life that is me....certainly nothing that could be affected by an outside malevolent/benign force brought to me by the "power" of yoga, ouija or mass. My own fears or expectations may be impacted, but that's about it I reckon.

This is a very sane summation.

Obliq

Stella Virgo wrote: »

maybe this is what the padre was talking about....... ye may lose yer souls looking at this......:eek:;):D
http://thechive.com/2013/12/10/lets-forget-about-the-yoga-pants-and-focus-on-the-poses-30-photos/

Wrong gender for me, but this is a rather fine pose. I'm not spotting the danger though...;)

https://www.gabbyandlaird.com/sites/default/files/field/image/shutterstock_133640666.jpg

ShooterSF

Maybe we need to hit hasbro with a big fine. Toys that injure kids see fines never mind ones that result in demonic possession

Hotblack Desiato

lazybones32 wrote: »

I am not a medical Doctor and do not have access to people's medical records. Even if I did have such access, I don't think I would be allowed to share that information with non-professionals who have no connection. Is it against board Rules to ask you if you are a medical practitioner or someone who even knows how to interpret data correctly?

Well then perhaps you should refrain from making nonsense claims you can't back up.

'I have super special evidence I can't share with you' - yeah, heard that before.

realdanbreen

Obliq wrote: »

Soul? :rolleyes: I have trouble understanding that word....

I guess that sums up most atheists, they 'have trouble understanding'

Obliq

realdanbreen wrote: »

I guess that sums up most atheists, they 'have trouble understanding'

What a sh1tty thing to say. :mad:

Dades

Obliq wrote: »

What a sh1tty thing to say. :mad:

To be fair, similar accusations are casually leveled at believers here a dozen times a day.

Obliq

Dades wrote: »

To be fair, similar accusations are casually leveled at believers here a dozen times a day.

Hmm. Never said anything of the sort myself though, so not hugely thrilled about my comment being put in that context.

swampgas

realdanbreen wrote: »

I guess that sums up most atheists, they 'have trouble understanding'

Most people think the other guy must be wrong. However atheists seem to be more inclined to debate their beliefs than theists, who often seem to terminate a logical string of arguments with "and that's just what I believe because FAITH".

Guess who seems to have the bigger problem with understanding?

Nevermind, I fully expect the real dan breen to be a hit and run merchant.

Obliq

swampgas wrote: »

Nevermind, I fully expect the real dan breen to be a hit and run merchant.

He's jumped in here before from time to time. Left rather hurriedly as I recall...

lazybones32

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A) You don't have to be a medical doctor to show us proof of your claim. You just have to have access to said proof (even if it were a peer reviewed article behind a journal paywall we could read the abstract).
You don't need medical records of individuals to show us evidence of your claims if they are in the medical field. Most medical research is published with data from anonymised records from the patients which were subjects of that research, in order that other researchers can verify claims without breaching confidentiality.
C) Most people can interpret data correctly with a small bit of training, I do it the whole bloody time, and I was trained in accountancy.

So stop procrastinating and either put up or shut up.

Ahem. Like I wrote previously, the patients are referred first to psychiatric institutions. Psychiatric Institutions do not post patients files on-line or publish them in Journals unless there is a specific reason to do so.
Secondly, if the psychiatric Institution cannot find a reasonable cause for the malady, they will class it as inexplicable or some other term that basically says 'we don't know what is causing this' (the medical documents of people who were miraculously cured at Fatima/Lourdes are available for inspection by registered Doctors and they all have the same conclusion for the occurrence "medically inexplicable" - a Doctor is hardly going to write 'Goddidit', are they?)

Can most people interpret data correctly? Would you submit a psychiatric or medical file to A/A for analysis? (been sipping from the bottle?)
As for me putting up or shutting up: I will shut up. I answered the OP's query as to why the Donegal Priest claimed Yoga is putting souls in jeopardy and now I must supply medical records to substantiate the spiritual or else I'm considered wrong and defeated.

swampgas

lazybones32 wrote: »

Ahem. Like I wrote previously, the patients are referred first to psychiatric institutions. Psychiatric Institutions do not post patients files on-line or publish them in Journals unless there is a specific reason to do so.
Secondly, if the psychiatric Institution cannot find a reasonable cause for the malady, they will class it as inexplicable or some other term that basically says 'we don't know what is causing this' (the medical documents of people who were miraculously cured at Fatima/Lourdes are available for inspection by registered Doctors and they all have the same conclusion for the occurrence "medically inexplicable" - a Doctor is hardly going to write 'Goddidit', are they?)

Can most people interpret data correctly? Would you submit a psychiatric or medical file to A/A for analysis? (been sipping from the bottle?)
As for me putting up or shutting up: I will shut up. I answered the OP's query as to why the Donegal Priest claimed Yoga is putting souls in jeopardy and now I must supply medical records to substantiate the spiritual or else I'm considered wrong and defeated.

It's an interesting point (IMO) that, as a gross generalization, atheist science-oriented people are a bit more happy with ambiguity and unknowns that theists seem to be. Science is not about definite answers, it's about probable answers. Scientists are often drawn to weird inexplicable phenomena because they believe that with enough digging and cleverness they might eventually figure it out (and maybe get a Nobel while they're at it). However they certainly don't think - "Hmmm, that's a strange phenomenon, inexplicable by current theories, so science must be wrong and God must exist" - which is kinda where some theists seem to be coming from.

So if there are inexplicable medical cases, I see it as simply the case that medical science has a long way to go, given the incredible complexity of the human body. I don't see it as a failing in medical science itself, nor do I see it as a gap where demonic possession can be inserted.

As for the Donegal priest, his position on yoga is, as you have said, in line with religious dogma; what is interesting is that his position sheds a rather unflattering light on that dogma for most normal people, who will simply think he is a bit of a crackpot.

Brian Shanahan

realdanbreen wrote: »

I guess that sums up most atheists, they 'have trouble understanding'

Dan as you full well know, but are too afraid to acknowledge, if we atheists lacked understanding we wouldn't be atheists.

It is very hard indeed to remain a theist if you are capable of understanding even the most basic facts about reality, without lying to yourself.

Brian Shanahan

lazybones32 wrote: »

<snipping the "goddit" nonsense>

So basically because a) you don't understand something, and b) because someone dependant on the organisation pushing the line you accept is pushing the line you accept, therefore god?

That is really horrible reasoning, the kind of stuff that has people getting behind the car with 20 pints in them, and saying "ah, sure, I'll drive slowly. No harm will come of this" and wrapping their car around the rear wheels of an artic.

Edit: It is obvious that you cannot interpret data correctly. Otherwise you wouldn't be on here trying to convince us of demon possesion, or that lourdes &c. miraculously cure people.

realdanbreen

Obliq wrote: »

He's jumped in here before from time to time. Left rather hurriedly as I recall...

Thats because 'he' has a days work to do and doesn't have time for all this naval gazing, pontificating, lookatmeI'mcool,green tea drinking, calorie watching,D4 accent, never played hurling,lovesthe soundof his ownvoice, horseshyte!

Pherekydes

realdanbreen wrote: »

Thats because 'he' has a days work to do and doesn't have time for all this naval gazing, pontificating, lookatmeI'mcool,green tea drinking, calorie watching,D4 accent, never played hurling,lovesthe soundof his ownvoice, horseshyte!

Ah, who does? I can't even see the sea from here.

robindch

realdanbreen wrote: »

Thats because 'he' has a days work to do and doesn't have time for all this naval gazing, pontificating, lookatmeI'mcool,green tea drinking, calorie watching,D4 accent, never played hurling,lovesthe soundof his ownvoice, horseshyte!

Can atheists truly "pontificate"? Many posters here are girls, btw...

realdanbreen

robindch wrote: »

Many posters here are girls, btw...

Ain't that the truth!

magicbastarder

the 'never played hurling' jibe hurt me hard. there's no call for that sort of abuse.

Ash.J.Williams

and that's why catholics have bad backs

Dades

realdanbreen wrote: »

Thats because 'he' has a days work to do and doesn't have time for all this naval gazing, pontificating, lookatmeI'mcool,green tea drinking, calorie watching,D4 accent, never played hurling,lovesthe soundof his ownvoice, horseshyte!

Jeez, get over Garth Brooks already.

Czarcasm

swampgas wrote: »

Most people think the other guy must be wrong. However atheists seem to be more inclined to debate their beliefs than theists, who often seem to terminate a logical string of arguments with "and that's just what I believe because FAITH".

Tell me I'm reading that wrong?

I think, if I understand you correctly, that it's not a question of whether a person is atheist or theist that inclines them to debate their belief, or indeed lack thereof. I think it's more a question of who actually cares more, and really, there's only a small minority of either atheist or theists that seem inclined to either -

a) lord it over people

b) play the victim card

And both sides only see logic from their own side, and refuse to see the other sides point of view. Both sides will have a tendency to view their particular brand of logic as objective, when it's actually the complete opposite, it's subjective, and that's why both sides will accuse the other of fallacies and this sort of thing -

Guess who seems to have the bigger problem with understanding?

Because neither side is making any attempt to understand the other. They're all just talking over each other using their own subjective logic as the basis for their arguments -


"I'm right, you're wrong, and I have no interest in trying to understand where you're coming from".

swampgas

Czarcasm wrote: »

Tell me I'm reading that wrong?

I think, if I understand you correctly, that it's not a question of whether a person is atheist or theist that inclines them to debate their belief, or indeed lack thereof. I think it's more a question of who actually cares more, and really, there's only a small minority of either atheist or theists that seem inclined to either -

a) lord it over people

b) play the victim card

And both sides only see logic from their own side, and refuse to see the other sides point of view. Both sides will have a tendency to view their particular brand of logic as objective, when it's actually the complete opposite, it's subjective, and that's why both sides will accuse the other of fallacies and this sort of thing -

Because neither side is making any attempt to understand the other. They're all just talking over each other using their own subjective logic as the basis for their arguments -

"I'm right, you're wrong, and I have no interest in trying to understand where you're coming from".

A number of fair points there.

I guess what I'm trying to say (having had to rethink a bit) is that, from my experience of having being religious and atheist, is that there is a disconnect in theist thinking that does not appear in atheist thinking.

With theism and faith, there seems to be an assumption of some unprovable position, of the existence of God say, and the logic starts from there. (Theology seems to work that way anyhow.) From my perspective, if you start from a false premise all the logic in the world won't get you anywhere.

From a more materialist or atheist perspective, there is only the material evidence of the world about us that can be used as a starting point. No supernatural assumptions are permitted.

It seems to me in debates with theists that you can start a debate and unravel the principles in which a theistic position is made, until eventually you get back to a position of faith, and that is usually the end of the road for the discussion.

Hope that clarifies my position somewhat.

lazybones32

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So basically because a) you don't understand something, and b) because someone dependant on the organisation pushing the line you accept is pushing the line you accept, therefore god?

That is really horrible reasoning, the kind of stuff that has people getting behind the car with 20 pints in them, and saying "ah, sure, I'll drive slowly. No harm will come of this" and wrapping their car around the rear wheels of an artic.

Edit: It is obvious that you cannot interpret data correctly. Otherwise you wouldn't be on here trying to convince us of demon possesion, or that lourdes &c. miraculously cure people.

I know I said I'd leave it but some people...
I have no idea what you are trying to convey in your first 2 paragraphs -it makes no sense and doesn't appear relevant to the thread but that doesn't matter anymore because I've done what I came to do.

Do people using A/A suffer reading difficulties? I didn't raise the subject of demonic possession: I was asked a Q and the rest of you jumped on board. I never raised the subject of empirically proving demonic possession and neither did I say that Lourdes cured a person; I think I wrote people were cured at Lourdes- and medical certificates exist which prove the fact that a medically inexplicable healing/cure occurred there.

Kudos and congratulations on your own fine analysis of the data in front of you. Whoever you do the accounts for is a fortunate business... you're not with Anglo, are you?