I was asked for my religion today..

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

Its derived not from standard English but from dialects.

Eh... No it's not. It first appeared in middle English back around Shakespeare's time in (You guessed it) England. The land of English. Hardly a dialect. The only reason it doesn't see widespread use in spoken English is because of the two consonants in the middle amn't

We all know you haven't got a clue about medicine and religion. Let's not add English to the mix (You're very nearly there in any case).

Very believable

I haven't set foot in a Catholic church since early primary school. I'm a Christian alright but not a Catholic. If you want to keep rolling your eyes and making things up (Like you've done throughout this thread) then please do but you're only embarrassing yourself further.

More BS. What are you ranting on about now?

Learn how to read. It's quite coherent unlike 90% of your posts. You're the one who keeps going off on little rants that that make little sense.

You 100% fully back the Catholic religion countless times hence you are a deeply religious person.

I 100% fully back the Catholic religion? Never knew I did. When did you make that one up? I haven't even defended Catholicism once throughout this thread.

I should be your English teacher. Whats wrong with monstrosity oh wise one?

OH GOD NO. Gives me chills just even thinking about it. I want to do well, not fail.

As for my problem with that particular post my problem wasn't with monstrosity. Re-read the chain of posts.

gurramok

farna_boy wrote: »

I have never nor would I ever say that for the reasons I outlined above. Prove that I have, or admit you are wrong.

God, I have to outline what you clearly cannot see. You said..

"I have not or have I ever dismissed lung cancer as being critical care "
then
"Provide proof that someone has been denied critical or emergency care in Ireland due to their religion"

Yet you were provided proof via the lung cancer patients who were denied a portion of their care because of religious beliefs hence you dismiss lung cancer as critical.

farna_boy wrote: »

You clearly haven't done enough research. If you had we wouldn't be having this conversation. Keep dodging and googling.

When you can't, come back, change the goal posts and accuse me of something else.

On what basis? You hide behind the pretence that you are involved in a trial without any foundation whatsoever and you want to be taken seriously?

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Eh... No it's not. It first appeared in middle English back around Shakespeare's time in (You guessed it) England. The land of English. Hardly a dialect. The only reason it doesn't see widespread use in spoken English is because of the two consonants in the middle amn't

We all know you haven't got a clue about medicine and religion. Let's not add English to the mix (You're very nearly there in any case).

Keep digging that hole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amn't
"Amn't is a standard contraction of am not in some dialects of mainly Scottish English and Hiberno-English." Knew I was right.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I haven't set foot in a Catholic church since early primary school. I'm a Christian alright but not a Catholic. If you want to keep rolling your eyes and making things up (Like you've done throughout this thread) then
please do but you're only embarrassing yourself further.

I 100% fully back the Catholic religion? Never knew I did. When did you make that one up? I haven't even defended Catholicism once throughout this thread.

Yeh right:rolleyes:

When's your next standup comedy performance? I'd pay top dollar to see you!:D

partyatmygaff wrote: »

As for my problem with that particular post my problem wasn't with monstrosity. Re-read the chain of posts.

So you agree it was a monstrosity?!

sparks1234

gurramok wrote: »

Effect if successful after one trial or many equals the development of a new drug.

Exactly, I'm glad to see you get my point, and that a lowly 1 poster (now 2!) can be the one to bring sanity to the thread. The word "if" is so important here and I'm glad you used it. "if" means that it is not known without a doubt that the drug works and that a decision to withdraw it does not come with an implication of suffering for those involved in the cancelled trial.

Besides which, the burden of proof is very high for medicines. Unless the drug is some wonderdrug then a single trial may not be enough to prove that it is effective. There are many many variables to be taken into account when designing a trial and also when analysing the results that it may take more than one trial or even meta-analyses of all the available data from many trials before a trend appears. Of course we all like to hope that doctors and chemists can design a chemical to cure something and distributing it to a few people will prove beyond a doubt if it works without causing other illnesses,side-effects, but life isn't like that and not everything is cut and dry.

Sardonicat

gurramok wrote: »

God, I have to outline what you clearly cannot see. You said..
QUOTE]
:eek:

"I was blind,
but now I see
You made a believer
outta meeee

I was blind
Now I seeeee....."

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

I've done enough research thank you. Have you?

You call the rubbish you've posted research? I'd call it having a quick Google and then copying and pasting random bits of information together.

gurramok wrote: »

Are you trying to be a Proefssor (sic) of English now?(which you will fail) Thought you were studying medicine?

I love English more so than any of my three other languages. You claimed earlier that you write "Quite excellent English". What I've seen throughout this thread is English worthy of a ten year old. I don't mean to insult you but you're asking for people to be critical of you.

Effect (What?) if successful after one trial or many equals the development of a new drug.

Or it may equal the death of all the test subjects. Nobody can fully predict the results. As an aside, that sentence I just quoted makes no sense as well but at least the meaning is somewhat clear.

Which religious poster sent you?

*facepalm*

pete2009 wrote: »

It will be decades before Ireland enters into the 21st century....

Get out of the DeLorean, we're already a decade in

farna_boy wrote: »

So if someone disagrees with you they are religious?

If someone posts accurate information but their post count is low, it's not a valid argument?

How many posts do you need to have a valid argument or accurate information.

More accusations, more dodging. I think I am seeing a pattern.

A succinct summary of the OP.

gurramok

farna_boy wrote: »

So if someone disagrees with you they are religious?
If someone posts accurate information but their post count is low, it's not a valid argument?
How many posts do you need to have a valid argument or accurate information.
More accusations, more dodging. I think I am seeing a pattern.

Accurate? You having a laugh? :rolleyes:

Where is there a shred of accuracy to support the Catholic Churches position of discrimination against non-Catholic patients?

You expecting a string of new accounts to support the religious position? It seems very odd how random posters just appear with accusations(remember the ones who on their first post accused me of trolling and promptly disappeared, of course they post in the Christianity forums now and then)

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

Keep digging that hole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amn't
"Amn't is a standard contraction of am not in some dialects of mainly Scottish English and Hiberno-English." Knew I was right.

That's what we're speaking now genius

Even at that, Shakespeare even made use of the contraction. It's been in use since at least the early 1600s if not earlier.

And on an added note stop talking nonsense. You are quite honestly the most ignorant person that i've ever seen on the boards. You know nothing of anything.

Yeh right

When's your next standup comedy performance? I'd pay top dollar to see you!

I don't give a flying if you believe me. Keep making things up and living in your own little dream world.

So you agree it was a monstrosity?!

Yes I quite agree your standard of English is a monstrosity of the English language. Thank you for finally realising it.

The OP's either a troll or on a waiting list for an asylum.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You call the rubbish you've posted research? I'd call it having a quick Google and then copying and pasting random bits of information together.

Huh? You posted wrong info about the word 'amn't' and you were proved incorrect. Bad marks for you

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I love English more so than any of my three other languages. You claimed earlier that you write "Quite excellent English". What I've seen throughout this thread is English worthy of a ten year old. I don't mean to insult you but you're asking for people to be critical of you.

That word you highlight is a typo, they happen just like in plenty of your posts but I suspect yours are not typos at all. Do you want me to go like a spelling Nazi to your posts to embarrass you?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Or it may equal the death of all the test subjects. Nobody can fully predict the results. As an aside, that sentence I just quoted makes no sense as well but at least the meaning is somewhat clear.

Its perfectly clear to the other poster, perhaps you have issues?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

*facepalm*

Stop hitting your face. Men in white coats may pick you up if you keep doing that!

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Get out of the DeLorean, we're already a decade in

Not so according to this thread. Religious posters of the Catholic kind are seething with rage that their control over the vast majority of our populace has been lost.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That's what we're speaking now genius

That's quite flattering thank you. If you need grinds give me a shout

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Even at that, Shakespeare even made use of the contraction. It's been in use since at least the early 1600s if not earlier.

And on an added note stop talking nonsense. You are quite honestly the most ignorant person that i've ever seen on the boards. You know nothing of anything.

I don't give a flying if you believe me. Keep making things up and living in your own little dream world.

Yes I quite agree your standard of English is a monstrosity of the English language. Thank you for finally realising it.

The OP's either a troll or on a waiting list for an asylum.

Crazy talk. As you have trouble with English speaking posts, perhaps start a thread in the English forum to help you.

You still agree that the monstrosity of denying cancer patients a glimmer of hope was after all nothing to you. I'm astounded that you condone that despicable behaviour by the clergy. :mad:

farna_boy

gurramok wrote: »

God, I have to outline what you clearly cannot see. You said..

"I have not or have I ever dismissed lung cancer as being critical care "
then
"Provide proof that someone has been denied critical or emergency care in Ireland due to their religion"

Yet you were provided proof via the lung cancer patients who were denied a portion of their care because of religious beliefs hence you dismiss lung cancer as critical.



On what basis? You hide behind the pretence that you are involved in a trial without any foundation whatsoever and you want to be taken seriously?

Maybe you should read your own link again. The religion of the patients was never mentioned. The ethos of the hospital is what stopped the trials. No one was discriminated against because of their religion.

gurramok wrote: »

Accurate? You having a laugh? :rolleyes:

Where is there a shred of accuracy to support the Catholic Churches position of discrimination against non-Catholic patients?

You expecting a string of new accounts to support the religious position? It seems very odd how random posters just appear with accusations(remember the ones who on their first post accused me of trolling and promptly disappeared, of course they post in the Christianity forums now and then)

You still haven't provided any proof that this has happened.

There is no religious position here, atheists, agnostics and theists have all shown you to be wrong.

Provide proof, even in your own link, that it was the religion of the patients involved that stopped the trial.

Then when you can't, concede the point and find proof that someone has been denied critical or emergency care due to their religion in Ireland.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

Huh? You posted wrong info about the word 'amn't' and you were proved incorrect. Bad marks for you

No I just have other sources of information barring badly formatted Wikipedia pages. Believe they're called books. Ever heard of them? Bet not.

That word you highlight is a typo, they happen just like in plenty of your posts but I suspect yours are not typos at all. Do you want me to go like a spelling Nazi to your posts to embarrass you?

LOL, Typos indeed. Stop blatantly lying. Spelling mistakes are hardly the biggest issue with your posts.

Its perfectly clear to the other poster, perhaps you have issues?

You're the one with a poor grasp of English. Retake your JC and work back up.

Stop hitting your face. Men in white coats may pick you up if you keep doing that!

Only someone with profound mental retardation would hit their face. It's called self-harm. I dunno about you but when I *facepalm* I don't hit myself in the face.

Not so according to this thread. Religious posters of the Catholic kind are seething with rage that their control over the vast majority of our populace has been lost.

Oh those nasty evil intolerant Catholics. "DURR DA PROBLAM WIV IRLAND, DOSE EVIL CATHERLICKS" - Gurramok, 2010.

:pac:

gurramok

farna_boy wrote: »

Maybe you should read your own link again. The religion of the patients was never mentioned. The ethos of the hospital is what stopped the trials. No one was discriminated against because of their religion.

You still haven't provided any proof that this has happened.

There is no religious position here, atheists, agnostics and theists have all shown you to be wrong.

Provide proof, even in your own link, that it was the religion of the patients involved that stopped the trial.

Then when you can't, concede the point and find proof that someone has been denied critical or emergency care due to their religion in Ireland.

Double *facepalm*

They were denied the treatment because of Catholic teachings, the hospital enforced said teachings through its Catholic Ethos. They could of been me, you or Johnny Taliban. Please keep up, where have you been?

sparks1234

gurramok wrote: »

Double *facepalm*

They were denied the treatment because of Catholic teachings, the hospital enforced said teachings through its Catholic Ethos. They could of been me, you or Johnny Taliban. Please keep up, where have you been?

I seriously doubt that they were sent on their merry way and told never to return. I would be very surprised if the trial subjects were were not offered alternative treatments, ones that are actually proven & have documented success. From this one could argue that, as a result of cancelling the trial, the subjects involved received a higher level of care as any subsequent treatment would have had a proven track record, unlike the drug that was still only in trial stage.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

You still agree that the monstrosity of denying cancer patients a glimmer of hope was after all nothing to you. I'm astounded that you condone that despicable behaviour by the clergy. :mad:

Of course I do gurramok. I thought you knew that? All of us evil "Catherlicks" would love nothing more but to watch all non-Catholics suffer. :rolleyes:

/Check the dictionary for a word called sarcasm. Then ask someone to read it for you

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Oh those nasty evil intolerant Catholics. "DURR DA PROBLAM WIV IRLAND, DOSE EVIL CATHERLICKS" - Gurramok, 2010.

:pac:

Now, you are beginning a cop out of a mocking as you've lost the argument. You won't control my thoughts young man

Just deal with it that the clergy do not rule this country anymore.

farna_boy

gurramok wrote: »

Double *facepalm*

They were denied the treatment because of Catholic teachings, the hospital enforced said teachings through its Catholic Ethos. They could of been me, you or Johnny Taliban. Please keep up, where have you been?

That is what I have been saying, it was the ethos of the hospital that stopped the trial not discrimination against the patients due to their religion.

Read the question carefully.

Can you provide any proof that someone has been denied emergency or critical care in Ireland due to their religion?

HarryPotter41

gurramok wrote: »

Now, you are beginning a cop out of a mocking as you've lost the argument. You won't control my thoughts young man

Just deal with it that the clergy do not rule this country anymore.

To lose an argument would suggest there was someone making valid logical points to argue with. Sadly you weren't gurramok. Your bitterness suggests you tried to join the priesthood but got botted out of the seminary. Thats a shame but no need to go on a rant like this because of it.

ArtSmart

gurramok wrote: »

Yes, I was visiting a clinic at the Mater Hospital and upon regging ya wan behind the counter went through my details and landed me with this bomb of 'what religion I am'.

I just went 'wtf' in my head and after an awkward slience said 'err no religion'. Then she just wobbled her head and promptly kept typing into her pc.

Now, what frigging relevance is my religion in order to get treatment in a hospital?:mad:

Thought Ireland was in the 21st century and why would a hospital care about my religious beliefs?

it's only in case you die - the nurse has to inform God of any non-believers in case they get into heaven by accident (she's gets a kick-back, but hey, that's no biggie)

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Of course I do gurramok. I thought you knew that? All of us evil "Catherlicks" would love nothing more but to watch all non-Catholics suffer. :rolleyes:

/Check the dictionary for a word called sarcasm. Then ask someone to read it for you

Oh a sense of humour! I'll be first in the queue to see your comedy act at Vicar St

farna_boy wrote: »

That is what I have been saying, it was the ethos of the hospital that stopped the trial not discrimination against the patients due to their religion.

Read the question carefully.

Can you provide any proof that someone has been denied emergency or critical care in Ireland due to their religion?

Religion prevented critical care as a result of the ethos and also prevented urgent treatment in Kerry. Oh and they butchered women for 40+yrs at the Mater.

HarryPotter41

ArtSmart wrote: »

it's only in case you die - the nurse has to inform God of any non-believers in case they get into heaven by accident (she's gets a kick-back, but hey, that's no biggie)

hahahahah, thats good

lapsed

farna_boy wrote: »

That is what I have been saying, it was the ethos of the hospital that stopped the trial not discrimination against the patients due to their religion.

Read the question carefully.

Can you provide any proof that someone has been denied emergency or critical care in Ireland due to their religion?

Not quite the same thing, but my wife asked for aminiocentes testing, and was informed in no uncertain terms that "we don't do it , and in any case there's nothing you could do about it "
Don't be fooled by the apparent symbols of modernity you see around you... this is still a Catholic country.

XxMCRxBabyxX

gurramok wrote: »

Very believable:rolleyes:

You're doing it again. You're auto-assumong that partyatmygaff is catholic despite him stating that he isn't. That's WORSE than your big issue with being asked your religion

gurramok

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

To lose an argument would suggest there was someone making valid logical points to argue with. Sadly you weren't gurramok. Your bitterness suggests you tried to join the priesthood but got botted out of the seminary. Thats a shame but no need to go on a rant like this because of it.

The religious posters here(nearly 10 of them and mostly youngsters) should go into the priesthood as they are perfect candidates apart from some who have an attitude problem towards non-Catholics.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

Now, you are beginning a cop out of a mocking as you've lost the argument. You won't control my thoughts young man

I lost an argument? When was this?
If I had full access to your "thoughts" i'd end up in an asylum. Insanity breeds insanity.

Just deal with it that the clergy do not rule this country anymore.

Too bad I'm not Catholic to care.

farna_boy

gurramok wrote: »

Oh a sense of humour! I'll be first in the queue to see your comedy act at Vicar St



Religion prevented critical care as a result of the ethos and also prevented urgent treatment in Kerry. Oh and they butchered women for 40+yrs at the Mater.

You have dodged the question again.

Why won't you answer the question?

Can you provide any proof that someone has been denied emergency or critical care in Ireland due to their religion?

HarryPotter41

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

You're doing it again. You're auto-assumong that partyatmygaff is catholic despite him stating that he isn't. That's WORSE than your big issue with being asked your religion

Very true Xx, partyatmygaff has said hes not catholic and I believe him totally. Sadly because it doesn't suit some people they won't believe him. Dumbledore would be very disappointed in you garramok, you'bve gone completely over to Lord Voldemort

philologos

gurramok wrote: »

Firstly, I was not asked if I had a religion. It was auto assumed I had a religion. That answers your archaic question.

OK - but you do realise that in any hospital whether or not it has an ethos you'd be asked this question. More likely than not in any country as well.

gurramok wrote: »

Thirdly, as I said..I want religious control removed from from all hospitals(like the Catholic Ethos hospital), all schools, all universities, and society at large because I believe Ireland is a secular society. Religion can still stay for those that worship religion, like a chaplin in the hospital, religion as a subject in schools and universities.

OK - I have to ask a bit more in depth then.

As for religious control or not, I couldn't care less provided that I can have access to people from church, or a spiritual advisor. I don't mind if they do or do not have an ethos.

Carrying on to all schools - this would bring up the argument of choice for parents to decide how best to raise their own children. This is another thread.

Universities - This is where I am interested to hear your thoughts. You say there should be no faith control in universities, but even in secular universities faith plays a role through faith societies. For example, in Ireland right now (North and South - 7 in North) there are over 25 Christian Unions. Many of these are funded by their Students Union through the Registration fee / Government if you think about where the funding generally comes from. Do you think that it is acceptable for such societies to exist?

gurramok wrote: »

Fourthly, religion should never hold back modern science. This directly relates to the cancer trials and the Kerry contraception scandal. It just so happens doctors practice a part of that science where their religious beliefs conflict with science and its the patients that lose out like in Kerry.
Yes, I believe that advances in science will erode religion over time, thats my belief.

I find this view very foreign. As someone who would believe that science and religion go hand in hand that is. I don't see them as enemies.

However, I do think that science has to have ethical restrictions of some form otherwise we could be led to practicing things such as eugenics. There has to be a line.

As for contraceptives, I can see the argument for encouraging terminally ill patients, say with cancer to abstain from sexual relations especially failure in contraceptives would no doubt involve an abortion and stress on the patient. That makes logical sense.

In general, I don't see the issue as long as people are willing to accept and deal in a moral manner with the consequences of failure should it arise. Personally I am not opposed to contraceptives.

gurramok wrote: »

And back to the question, yes it was offensive for a Catholic run hospital to assume I was religious without asking if I had a religion at all. For this position I was attacked by Catholic posters which does not bode well for tolerance.

OK, see my first point.

ntlbell wrote: »

Religion has no place in a hospital, what difference does it make what his belif's are? he required medical treatment not a an exercisit.

ntlbell: I'm evidently trying to understand where gurramok is coming from. I think this is a better approach to a failed thread.

ntlbell wrote: »

It has no place in any of the above places.

In that case I'd be interested to hear your stance on faith societies operating in universities. (N.B - this happens in at least 150 countries).

ntlbell wrote: »

Asking such a question in 2010 i find more embarassing than offensive.
It's like asking a paitent do they belive in Santa before giving treatment.

Making such a statement is embarrassing in any era! :pac:

gurramok wrote: »

You missed a smiley there! So the founder of Christianity is not Christian!:rolleyes:

Yes, Jesus was Jewish. This isn't surprising as Jesus was called to fulfil the Jewish Scriptures which promised that followers of God would be called by a new name, that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, that He would ride on a donkey through the streets of Jerusalem, that he would be pierced for our sins, that He would rise from the dead three days after He was buried and that He would be buried in a rich mans grave. These are all essential teachings in the Jewish Scriptures. Christianity is merely the fulfillment of Judaism.

HarryPotter41

gurramok wrote: »

The religious posters here(nearly 10 of them and mostly youngsters) should go into the priesthood as they are perfect candidates apart from some who have an attitude problem towards non-Catholics.

Ahhh, no denial, I was right. Well, while I feel sorry for you not achieving your dream its just as well, you'd have been such a crap priest.

coffee_cake

22 pages over one question