Money Can Bring Happiness

Con introduced what "he" thinks is scripture without proving their historical reliability; nor do we have reason so far in this debate to consider them the word of God in comparison to those of any other cult.? He says: "Saints don't have any misery of losing loved ones or any such kind of nonsense miseries like the one Pro may experience." Well Jesus Christ was a saint, and he experienced grief over Lazarus' death. (John 11:33-36) Unlike Con, I'm not arguing for the Bible being the word of God, I'm simply using John's gospel as a historical document, written by a contemporary and eyewitness to the life of Christ. As such, it is dated and considers fairly reliable history by historians and scholars today. Con comes to us with his pie-in-the-sky religious beliefs that are unsupported by empirical evidence as if these are authoritative in this debate. So saints don't mourn? When a female saint loses a baby, does she not grieve? What kind of loveless, detached, sick, psychopathic, heart-of-stone Jedi-Knight nonsense is this? The emotional bond between a mother and child is way to strong for any woman in her right mind not to become unhappy when she looses a baby. I am not claiming that the happiness from money can't be interrupted by sorrows, but you are the one in the extreme position of claiming that the saint's happiness is not diminished by any event at all! If that's the case, that these saint's consider grieving over a dead loved one nonsense, then their beliefs are "nonsense"! Those people are probably possessed by demons, suffering from mental illness, or severe brain-washing and indoctrination that causes them to be so detached. Grief is part of the healing process, not because some religious texts says so, but because empirical evidence as documented by experts shows it. Sociologists and psychologists describe parental grief as complex and multilayered and agree that the death of a child is an incredibly traumatic event leaving parents with overwhelming emotional needs. They also agree that this grief must be acknowledged and felt in its intensity. These experts repeatedly state that dealing with parental grief involves deep pain and ongoing work as the parents attempt to continue their "journey down the lonely road of grief" (Wisconsin Perspectives Newsletter, Milwaukee, WI: Wisconsin Sudden Infant Death Center, February 1997, 1). Grief is the natural response to any loss. Parents need to be reminded how important it is to process all feelings, thoughts, and emotions in resolving grief. They need to talk out and through their thoughts and feelings from the heart, not just from the head. Healing for bereaved parents can begin to occur by acknowledging and sharing their grief, not by saying "saints don't grieve, so get over it!" If money can't bring happiness, it sure as hell won't come from the inhumane doctrines of Con's religion or the god behind them. He says: "The principles of reincarnation and Karma are elaborately described in the scriptures billions of years before our Pro was born as Human." Really? The empirical evidence does not show the Vedas were written billions of years ago; that is just Con's religious dogma, not fact. The actual authorities in dating these things hold that the oldest Vedas were written from 1500-1000 B.C.E., not billions of years ago as Con suggests. http://www.google.com... We don't have to believe in reincarnation just because its in Con's holy book. He must first prove to us it's reliable. As this is my last post, I won't be able to rebut him if he even does present evidence in favor of its divine origin. Unless Con can show us some credible, peer-review scientific evidence for reincarnation and karma, we must dismiss it as his own religious doctrine, not some fact which holds as evidence in this debate. "So According to you do you think in India or any developing countries, we get free food and people don't go to work?" I was not talking about the general population, I was talking about the so-called "saints" you mentioned who don't have money. And you never answered my questions. Do these saints have to pay mortgages, rent, land tax, utilities? Do they have to pay for day-care when they can't be home for their kids? These are real issues in the real world, as real as sickness and death which you rant on about so often in your rebuttals. Funerals themselves are expensive, so are medical bills for sickness, so again, if these saints live happy without money, then do they have expenses or not? How easy to claim that money doesn't bring happiness when you are free from the responsibilities of the real world. But most people, both in India and worldwide, are not like those religious nuts who don't have to work everyday to feed a family. They are not like your privileged "saints" who have well-wishers to give them food and shelter for free. Con argues that money can't stop people from dying, and he trumps serving his god as the answer when millions die every day from diseases begging God (or their gods) for a cure. Six million children die every year from starvation begging God for a slice of bread. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... If money can't bring happiness for these reasons, then God can't bring happiness either for the same reasons, for neither money or God changes the fact that people will eventually die. But surely, there are more well documented reports of money affording medicine which cures or treats illness, than miraculous healings by God. So its foolish to use death as proof money can't bring happiness. "But those who have no faith in God suffer in hell and go through repeated birth and death." And the proof of this is? That its in Con's holy book? "My point is the person after getting money is in illusion that he can do anything and he is happy," One of the main quandaries facing those caught up in the superstitious belief in karma is the question of under whose control thus mythical process takes place. In other words, what is the force that decides whether a person is good or bad, or in what form he will supposedly return to life? The answers to these questions reveal that the idea of karma is hollow nonsense because, according to its adherents, the process is a totally uncontrolled one. If though, God controls it, then why does he not let the millions of people who are reincarnated remember their former lives? How can they learn from mistakes they can't remember? No, it is Con and his saints who are caught in the irrational illusion of false beliefs. "Similarly, how can one gain ultimate or permanent happiness from one's so-called home, children, relatives and domestic animals, which are all maintained by one's hard-earned money?" So now Con claims nothing else at all makes you happy, not your wife, kids, relatives, friends, or money, just because they aren't eternal. Well, Con's religion isn't eternal either; it had a beginning, it will have an end. This illusion that his saints bought into, that they are serving God, will also end when they die. Their beliefs about the afterlife, reincarnation, are just that, beliefs, not facts. "Pro also says, saints are self realized and happy and get everything for free." I never agreed that the ones "he" thinks are saints are truly happy, I think they are indoctrinated to think they are. I also think they have deep psychological problems, they don't even hurt or grieve when a loved one dies. "In the website regarding Bangladesh, it is never mentioned that Bangladeshis derive more happiness because of money." The readers of this debate can see for themselves what it says. I realize my last response was more about Con's religious beliefs than money, he didn't refute my points, and this needed to be said.