Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: FlamingCobra on April 23, 2013, 10:34:29 pm
-
http://news.yahoo.com/2nd-child-pa-couple-dies-only-praying-111713837.html
excerpt:
A couple serving probation for the 2009 death of their toddler after they turned to prayer instead of a doctor could face new charges now that another son has died.
Herbert and Catherine Schaible belong to a fundamentalist Christian church that believes in faith healing. They lost their 8-month-old son, Brandon, last week after he suffered from diarrhea and breathing problems for at least a week, and stopped eating. Four years ago, another son died from bacterial pneumonia.
Prosecutors said Tuesday that a decision on charges will be made after they get the results of an autopsy.
-
I am quickly going to say this: There is a difference between believing in a god and hoping a god will do all the work for you. This couple clearly leans on the latter being true. This is a destructive chain of though.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to smack my head in the wall to discharge the rage that's building up. :banghead:
-
I hate to make light of the situation but I have got to ask is there a Darwin award for ensuring your offspring have next to no chance of reaching adulthood?
That being said I have long believed that the fundamentalist Christian movement that is growing in alarming popularity is just as evil as it's Islamic counterpart. Both are text book definitions of what happens when a society allows religious extremism to establish deep roots. Both promote ignorance and stupidity to epidemic proportions creating extremely volatile environments.
-
That being said I have long believed that the fundamentalist Christian movement that is growing in alarming popularity is just as evil as it's Islamic counterpart. Both are text book definitions of what happens when a society allows religious extremism to establish deep roots. Both promote ignorance and stupidity to epidemic proportions creating extremely volatile environments.
Really, where did you get that information from? If anything religion is dying in today's society.
-
That being said I have long believed that the fundamentalist Christian movement that is growing in alarming popularity is just as evil as it's Islamic counterpart. Both are text book definitions of what happens when a society allows religious extremism to establish deep roots. Both promote ignorance and stupidity to epidemic proportions creating extremely volatile environments.
did you think about that AT ALL before you posted it, or just go into knee-jerk religion bashing mode?
-
It isn't religion as a whole that is the problem it is the extreme forms of it, any way I should not of phrased it that way. Since I have had only 3 hours of sleep in the last 24 I think I'll just chalk it up to exhaustion and stress. Any way back on subject, faith healing is bad.
-
****ing Sagittarons
-
I hate to make light of the situation but I have got to ask is there a Darwin award for ensuring your offspring have next to no chance of reaching adulthood?
No award when they had 9 children. You can lose a couple and still outproduce the rest of us. Hell, having 7 children end up in care where other people have to look after them is actually a viable reproductive strategy.
-
No award when they had 9 children. You can lose a couple and still outproduce the rest of us. Hell, having 7 children end up in care where other people have to look after them is actually a viable reproductive strategy.
Like one of those lizards that lays its eggs in a birds nest, so the bird hatches the egg and then the baby lizard eats it? Wait, was that just a Simpsons episode?
Oh yeah, some birds just do that too. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brood_parasite#Parental-care_parasitism)
EDIT for on-topic-ness: This is just sad and stupid in equal measure. I'm sort of at a loss for words.
-
As a Christian myself, I do not understand these kinds of people.
I mean, if you want to believe in faith healing, fine, that's your choice. Personally I've never witnessed a successful case of it, but I'm willing to believe it could happen.
To rely wholly on faith healing and ignore doctors and hospitals completely is idiotic, however.
Let the doctors do their work, and pray for their success and the health of your loved one. Whether they are healed through the doctor's efforts, divine intervention, or some combination thereof, what does it matter so long as they are healed? That's how I see it anyway.
-
i wonder how many of these fundamentalists expect a lazaran miracle to follow.
-
Both are text book definitions of what happens when a society allows religious extremism to establish deep roots.
How does one disallow religious extremism without disallowing religion to some extent?
-
Both are text book definitions of what happens when a society allows religious extremism to establish deep roots.
How does one disallow religious extremism without disallowing religion to some extent?
Simply cut religious freedom at the point where it involves hurting other people, e.g. through outright bullying (Westboro Baptist style), terrorism (jihad style), or divine neglect (faith healing style).
-
I'll pray for the parents not getting bullied in prison. I'm 100% certain that will help them.
-
This sermon on the church's website (http://www.fcgchurch.org/Messages/Pages/Faith%20In%20God's%20Word.html) clearly wasn't written by God. Whoever wrote it doesn't know when not to use a comma.
-
You know it's stuff like that that really makes me sufficiently mad and angry against all kinds of religious bull****. OTOH, I then remind myself of *all* the other bull**** we as humans are so fond of, and I just go *sigh*.
-
That being said I have long believed that the fundamentalist Christian movement that is growing in alarming popularity is just as evil as it's Islamic counterpart. Both are text book definitions of what happens when a society allows religious extremism to establish deep roots. Both promote ignorance and stupidity to epidemic proportions creating extremely volatile environments.
I can agree with most of that, but why do you think it's growing? Our society is becoming more and more secular as time goes on.
EDIT: Although, I will say one thing: at least the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't bomb buildings.
-
Is it though?
The thing is that while society as a whole may be going that way, policy makers certainly aren't. Looking at the american situation from the outside, it seems as if fundamentalist rhetoric finds its way into politics at an increasing rate. I certainly hope that this is not an accurate reflection of the actual reality, but it's really hard to tell.
Also note that fundamentalists (on both sides of the equation) are usually much more willing to spread their message, and much more obnoxious in doing so, so they kinda dominate the discussion even if the position they take is not shared by the majority.
Another thing to consider is that our society is living in a state of future shock; Our world changes so rapidly that a desire for simpler times and simpler rules is completely understandable.
-
Yeah, but that's mainly America and it's not even quite accurate. USA is getting more and more secular if we go by sheer population. What happens in politicland is that the majorities required for having power are too dependent on lesser populated, and coincidentally, more religiously, conservative driven states. This assymetry is annoying a lot of americans already, but if we try to lean back and attempt a birds-eye-view of the situation, we would see many things:
- That the rate of americans calling themselves non-religiously affiliated (which is what matters) has been rising from less than 10% just 20 years ago to more than 20% now (and the stats for the younger generation is overwhelming);
- That the religious conservative movement is rather "young" politically (started up with the Reagan election), but many people are ****ing tired of their shenanigans already;
- That 20 years ago you'd have an american president proclaiming that atheists were not to be considered citizens and have no backlash whatsoever, while today's president acknowledges non-religious in his statements.
We can argue whether if the "new-atheists"' arguments are good or bad or whatever, but the movement has made a serious dent in the younger generations, and so I'm quite positive that the next generation of americans will vote overwhelmingly for a secular nation in all respects.
-
Yeah, but that's mainly America and it's not even quite accurate. USA is getting more and more secular if we go by sheer population. What happens in politicland is that the majorities required for having power are too dependent on lesser populated, and coincidentally, more religiously, conservative driven states. This assymetry is annoying a lot of americans already, but if we try to lean back and attempt a birds-eye-view of the situation, we would see many things:
- That the rate of americans calling themselves non-religiously affiliated (which is what matters) has been rising from less than 10% just 20 years ago to more than 20% now (and the stats for the younger generation is overwhelming);
- That the religious conservative movement is rather "young" politically (started up with the Reagan election), but many people are ****ing tired of their shenanigans already;
- That 20 years ago you'd have an american president proclaiming that atheists were not to be considered citizens and have no backlash whatsoever, while today's president acknowledges non-religious in his statements.
We can argue whether if the "new-atheists"' arguments are good or bad or whatever, but the movement has made a serious dent in the younger generations, and so I'm quite positive that the next generation of americans will vote overwhelmingly for a secular nation in all respects.
It really depends on what state you're in, to be honest. Even with a quarter "unaffiliated" population, my own state of Colorado occasionally feels the need to do something stupid, like a public prayer. That is, in all honesty, becoming less common.
EDIT: What I'm saying is that how religious the policy that is in power in the US is largely local, the Feds are probably less religious than almost any state. Simply looking at them would ignore where the biggest problems lie.
-
Regardless of the 'fundamental Christian' vs 'secular popularity' debate... the Bible, in no way, shape, or form, teaches to wait for God to heal you and not use medications available. I suspect these loonies get this idea from the teaching about Jesus' healings during his life... but the idea still stands on iffy ground. They are probably coming from the stories where whomever was healed by Jesus usually comes with a line about how medicines weren't working. Even with that it's still a loooooong shot to go from there to not using medicine and just waiting on God.
Essentially, these people should not be the norm in Christianity as their beliefs are pretty highly unfounded.
-
Exactly. What this comes down to is ultimately bad parenting. No matter what excuse these morons put forth, at the end of the day, they did nothing while their children (plural, even!) suffered. That is more reprehensible to me than anything else they might believe in.
-
Exactly. What this comes down to is ultimately bad parenting. No matter what excuse these morons put forth, at the end of the day, they did nothing while their children (plural, even!) suffered. That is more reprehensible to me than anything else they might believe in.
Speaking as a father of 2... All of my yes.
-
I really don't give a rat's ass on what "the bible" teaches. Clearly, these folks think differently and I don't think they are any less christian than any other people, any indications otherwise seem obnoxious and silly to me. The problem is giving too much credit to spooky **** and none to actually do something about it. If mainstream christianity solves this connundrum by saying "God won't help who won't help themselves" then that's fine I guess. I also couldn't give a rat's ass about mainstream christianity's tropes, moralities, metaphysics, if at least they do what every sensible being will do in those situations.
Secularism is what is really important here, and probably you misunderstood my point. I don't care if people are "atheists". Those 20%+ of people I referenced do not claim to be atheists. Most likely, the majority of those folks do believe in some spooky thing. They just don't subscribe to any particular religion, and I think we are way better off as a civilization if our religious inclinations are at a minimum.
-
Another one of these.
But this time it's different, this is the first time I've seen it happen twice with the same family.
Why were their kids not removed from their "care" after the first death?
-
After that first death, they were on probation, with mandatory exams and all that. Without knowing anything else about these people, it is perfectly possible that they were good parents in other respects; Separating a family is not a step that should be taken lightly (One that, in light of this tragedy, has been taken).
-
Or why did they stick with the same solution if it failed so miserably and heart-wrenchingly for the first time?
-
Or why did they stick with the same solution if it failed so miserably and heart-wrenchingly for the first time?
"Their faith wasn't strong enough, they were being tested."
I just made that up, but it stands to reason as well as anything else. You can't attribute rationality to people who behave completely irrationally.
-
After that first death, they were on probation, with mandatory exams and all that. Without knowing anything else about these people, it is perfectly possible that they were good parents in other respects; Separating a family is not a step that should be taken lightly (One that, in light of this tragedy, has been taken).
I suppose these "exams" must have involved basically asking them if they won't do this again. If they lied, what can you do? You would think people would see they were wrong when the faith healing didn't work the first time. But then, it doesn't really work like that with religious extremists.
Or why did they stick with the same solution if it failed so miserably and heart-wrenchingly for the first time?
I thought about asking this too, but the answer probably isn't worth asking the question for. It would probably be something like "It is a test from God!" Or "We obviously didn't pray hard enough the first time." or "This is punishment for our sins." Something like that I imagine.
I see MP-Ryan got in with basically 2 of my 3 answers :D
-
After that first death, they were on probation, with mandatory exams and all that. Without knowing anything else about these people, it is perfectly possible that they were good parents in other respects; Separating a family is not a step that should be taken lightly (One that, in light of this tragedy, has been taken).
I suppose these "exams" must have involved basically asking them if they won't do this again. If they lied, what can you do? You would think people would see they were wrong when the faith healing didn't work the first time. But then, it doesn't really work like that with religious extremists.
Sorry, poor wording on my part. "Exam" in this case refers to mandatory medical examinations for the children.
-
After that first death, they were on probation, with mandatory exams and all that. Without knowing anything else about these people, it is perfectly possible that they were good parents in other respects; Separating a family is not a step that should be taken lightly (One that, in light of this tragedy, has been taken).
I suppose these "exams" must have involved basically asking them if they won't do this again. If they lied, what can you do? You would think people would see they were wrong when the faith healing didn't work the first time. But then, it doesn't really work like that with religious extremists.
Sorry, poor wording on my part. "Exam" in this case refers to mandatory medical examinations for the children.
And there's me thinking they might have at least something which sounds like a good idea. Educate these people on how the World works.
If a check on the wellbeing of the children is all it took, of course they're going to pass. They will take care of their children in all things but seeking the aid of medical professionals. If this is the procedure for dealing with the safety of children under parents who believe in faith healing, the system is useless, unless the believers happen to be bad parents in other areas of care as well.
-
I am not sure I understand your reasoning here.
After the first child died, the parents were found guilty of negligence and sentenced, albeit on probationary terms. Those terms included mandatory checkups for their other children, done in regular intervals. Until this tragedy happened, they apparently complied with those. It is unknown (and really not relevant) whether or not their children were sick in that time, or how those sicknesses were dealt with. The point is that the health of those children was checked and that they didn't suffer neglect.
Apparently, those checks went by without complaint (given that the probation was not deemed to be violated).
So, the children did have the attention of medical professionals. If something came up, it was probably dealt with (see also: Terms of probation).
-
I am not sure I understand your reasoning here.
After the first child died, the parents were found guilty of negligence and sentenced, albeit on probationary terms. Those terms included mandatory checkups for their other children, done in regular intervals. Until this tragedy happened, they apparently complied with those. It is unknown (and really not relevant) whether or not their children were sick in that time, or how those sicknesses were dealt with. The point is that the health of those children was checked and that they didn't suffer neglect.
Apparently, those checks went by without complaint (given that the probation was not deemed to be violated).
So, the children did have the attention of medical professionals. If something came up, it was probably dealt with (see also: Terms of probation).
But it is children receiving medical treatment that faith healers object to. Merely checking the children over wouldn't violate that.
Now if they actually did receive some actual medical treatment, that's different, and you'd wonder why they let this happen if they'd changed their ways.
If they won't see their children get real healing, then it's a massive and unacceptable risk factor.
-
Now if they actually did receive some actual medical treatment, that's different, and you'd wonder why they let this happen if they'd changed their ways.
We don't have anywhere near enough information on that subject to make a determination either way. Getting outraged at hypotheticals is a silly thing to do.
-
Now if they actually did receive some actual medical treatment, that's different, and you'd wonder why they let this happen if they'd changed their ways.
We don't have anywhere near enough information on that subject to make a determination either way. Getting outraged at hypotheticals is a silly thing to do.
Well, while I don't know what they did, this sounds like a cookie cutter solution to childcare problems which is simply useless to this situation.
The problem is faith healing. They should be working to solve that problem, but as society has a way of tiptoeing around religion, I can imagine them not doing that.
-
There are a lot of things about tolerance and respect that a lot of people on HLP could stand to learn from society....
-
There are a lot of things about tolerance and respect that a lot of people on HLP could stand to learn from society....
What are you referring to?
-
You seem a little annoyed, so let me rephrase. (1) This is clearly an outlier situation, although not unique; (2) While not catholics, these are christians and I do not think that saying they aren't is either "tolerant" or "respectful" either, they say they are and thus I believe them full stop; (3) Mainstream branches of Christianity do not suffer from this overall malaise of being "anti-medicine" and so on.
(4) When I said cilization should minimize its religiosity, I should be more precise. I'll rephrase it thus: We should minimize Woo-thinking, Magical-Thinking. If mainstream Christianity does this sufficiently well, my gripes with it are near zero.
Is this enough, Mjn, or am I still out of line...?
-
Well, I think there's something wrong with accepting someone as self-proclaimed part of a group in general if their belief system doesn't line up.... But in modern america whee everyone is a 'christian' this becomes much more difficult. If they are clearly a bunch of loonies, then I'll consider them pretty definitely not christian. I can't believe one thing and then call myself a Buddhist and expect you all to play along with it.
My comment about people at HLP learning from society was directed at Lorric's comment. Society 'tiptoes' around religion because it's an extremely difficult topic that divides the entire world. However there are people that post here with all their 'answers' and opinions calling out different belief systems without any sort of respect, remorse or care about others. If that's what their world view teaches about living with others who think differently, I think they could learn something about tolerance and respect from a non-digital community where comments like that can't be made behind a wall of anonymity.
-
Well, I think there's something wrong with accepting someone as self-proclaimed part of a group in general if their belief system doesn't line up.... But in modern america whee everyone is a 'christian' this becomes much more difficult. If they are clearly a bunch of loonies, then I'll consider them pretty definitely not christian. I can't believe one thing and then call myself a Buddhist and expect you all to play along with it.
My comment about people at HLP learning from society was directed at Lorric's comment. Society 'tiptoes' around religion because it's an extremely difficult topic that divides the entire world. However there are people that post here with all their 'answers' and opinions calling out different belief systems without any sort of respect, remorse or care about others. If that's what their world view teaches about living with others who think differently, I think they could learn something about tolerance and respect from a non-digital community where comments like that can't be made behind a wall of anonymity.
Perhaps you took the comment the wrong way. I think people should be able to be free to believe whatever they want. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone besides them. And society has a tendancy to let go things that would never be let go if not done in the name of religion.
This one doesn't even fall into the stalemate where you cannot prove or disprove something. Faith healing is proven to be completely useless. The concept of faith healing is something that should be taken head on by society and eradicated imo. It just means people die needlessly.
EDIT: If an adult makes the choice not to seek medical attention, that is their choice to make. But they should not be making it for others.
-
Well, I think there's something wrong with accepting someone as self-proclaimed part of a group in general if their belief system doesn't line up.... But in modern america whee everyone is a 'christian' this becomes much more difficult. If they are clearly a bunch of loonies, then I'll consider them pretty definitely not christian. I can't believe one thing and then call myself a Buddhist and expect you all to play along with it.
But how does their belief not line up? Seems like you're basing them not being Christians on a very small subset of their belief system. In terms of the most important beliefs, they're probably indistinguishable from people you would call Christian.
So if these guys aren't Christians, who else isn't? Mormons? Jehovah's witnesses? Catholics? Where do you draw the line?
-
He can draw the line wherever he wants, however we should also be aware that he does not have any zilch of an authority to do so for others (this has been a traditional problem inside major religions, the discrediting of variations of the same religion, which can take the form of excomunnication and so on). If they call themselves christians and if they seem to be honest about their intentions, then they are so, period. That's almost like a brute fact. If they are following Christ in a completely different manner than other people, then that's just another fact.
To me, that's somewhat besides the point. What matters is that people become aware of what happens when you start taking woo too seriously and disregard actual scientific medicine: you let your own children die and then lose the rights to be parents of your other children.
-
I've already said it's a complicated issue that divides the world and so you guys have, naturally, asked me to give a blanket statement that would work in all cases. Sounds like you are trying to argue me into a corner.
However, I will say this. I'll start asking questions when people inside the religion start dying or getting hurt in ways not related to outside forces or martyrdom. In general that's when religions start becoming cults.
EDIT: To note, that's what the authorities have done with this family.
-
You're right about that, I don't think you should be "argued into a corner" here. There's always magical woo inside every major religion (even budhism), but as long as most people do not live by it* and think that by any reason they should neglect basic concerns and duties because their deity will provide for them, it's absolutely fine and should be absolutely tolerated and respected**.
* I mean things like exorcism, magical healing, and so on;
** By respected I do not mean being free from occasional derision and comedy, as anything else in life.
-
You're right about that, I don't think you should be "argued into a corner" here. There's always magical woo inside every major religion (even budhism)
What about Battutism :colbert:
-
We train rigorously to meet and kill the phantom enemy, Sire.
-
Battutism is just intolerable.
-
You're right about that, I don't think you should be "argued into a corner" here. There's always magical woo inside every major religion (even budhism)
What about Battutism :colbert:
And the Mighty Battuta spake all these words, saying,
I am thy Doctor-General, which have engineered the greatest feats of writing and game design in all the history of man. I command thee to observe my laws to the best of they ability, and any who dost not follow them shall be struck down with malaria.
- Thou shalt place no men before the Doctor-General.
- Thou shalt not make unto thee any shoddy imitations and treat them as the Doctor-General.
- Thou shalt not take the name of thy Holy Doctor in vain; for the Doctor-General will not grant him passage to his libraries.
- Remember the day of the Doctor-General's inauguration, for it is a holy day.
- Treat thy brother scholars with respect.
- An eye for an eye is the Holy Doctor's way.
- Asexuality is the Holy Doctor's way.
- Honesty is also the Holy Doctor's way.
- Thou shalt always keep a thesaurus at hand to better comprehend the Doctor-General's terrifying vocabulary.
- Thou shall not covet the work of any brother scholar, lest thou suffer from a malaria of unspeakable potency and duration.
-
you can't preach in here, this is Nukelear land!
-
Somebody better redact #7
-
Somebody better redact #7
The Doctor-General has spoken. Thy will be done.
-
And the Mighty Battuta spake all these words, saying,
I am thy Doctor-General, which have engineered the greatest feats of writing and game design in all the history of man. I command thee to observe my laws to the best of they ability, and any who dost not follow them shall be struck down with malaria.
- Thou shalt place no men before the Doctor-General.
- Thou shalt not make unto thee any shoddy imitations and treat them as the Doctor-General.
- Thou shalt not take the name of thy Holy Doctor in vain; for the Doctor-General will not grant him passage to his libraries.
- Remember the day of the Doctor-General's inauguration, for it is a holy day.
- Treat thy brother scholars with respect.
- An eye for an eye is the Holy Doctor's way.
- Asexuality is the Holy Doctor's way.
- Honesty is also the Holy Doctor's way.
- Thou shalt always keep a thesaurus at hand to better comprehend the Doctor-General's terrifying vocabulary.
- Thou shall not covet the work of any brother scholar, lest thou suffer from a malaria of unspeakable potency and duration.
As I said, intolerable.
-
Somebody better redact #7
The Doctor-General has spoken. Thy will be done.
Anyone else think about Cave Story here?
-
the what?
-
*confused*
-
Somebody better redact #7
The Doctor-General has spoken. Thy will be done.
Anyone else think about Cave Story here?
Not until you pointed it out. :D
-
No award when they had 9 children. You can lose a couple and still outproduce the rest of us. Hell, having 7 children end up in care where other people have to look after them is actually a viable reproductive strategy.
I disagree. It's not the middle ages or something where survival is cut throat and nasty to get by on needing to have a bunch of kids to make sure your blood line survives (nor are they living in a third world country).
It's the modern day, where you can have 20 kids and maintain all of them in good health. Your pocket book and tax payers won't like you. But, if half your brood die out due to parental stupidity (when we live in a day and age where we can do a lot for sick people in hospitals), you'll probably end up in jail on several charges for a long time with one of the lesser being negligence.
Darwin award because stupidity is leading to ineffectual parenting.
-
Well they can "outproduce" the rest of us, but sure as hell I'm betting 90% of those survivors are probably ending up being full blown atheists for sheer fear of survival. "Wait a second mom, I heard this prayer **** before, I'm gonna try my luck with the medic, mkay?"
-
Well they can "outproduce" the rest of us, but sure as hell I'm betting 90% of those survivors are probably ending up being full blown atheists for sheer fear of survival. "Wait a second mom, I heard this prayer **** before, I'm gonna try my luck with the medic, mkay?"
Medics are not doctors
Doctors fix you
Medics comfort you while you die
/Red vs Blue reference
-
I disagree. It's not the middle ages or something where survival is cut throat and nasty to get by on needing to have a bunch of kids to make sure your blood line survives (nor are they living in a third world country).
It's the modern day, where you can have 20 kids and maintain all of them in good health. Your pocket book and tax payers won't like you. But, if half your brood die out due to parental stupidity (when we live in a day and age where we can do a lot for sick people in hospitals), you'll probably end up in jail on several charges for a long time with one of the lesser being negligence.
Darwin award because stupidity is leading to ineffectual parenting.
You don't seem to understand how the Darwin Award works. The Darwin Award is granted for stupidity that results in you removing yourself from the gene pool, either by death or giving yourself the inability to have children. It's not granted to people who caused someone else's death through their stupidity. If some people have another definition, it's not the one used by the people who came up with the idea of having a Darwin Award.
But even if you don't use the official definition, even if we strip the Darwin Award down to its bare minimum, you're still wrong. The basic point of the Darwin Award is that their stupidity is meant to result in them having less children and thereby result in a selection pressure against them and people like them. As time goes on, they weed themselves out of the human race and their stupid genes are not passed on. If they still have 7 children, their genes are passed on. Whatever selection pressure exists from them going to jail for being bad parents is going to be fairly small in comparison to the sheer number of children they have.
Arguing that what they've done is not a viable strategy is like arguing that cuckoos must be extinct cause they are also bad parents.
-
You're forgetting that the parents who didn't let their own child die but are otherwise the same are going to outcompete these people.
-
You don't seem to understand how the Darwin Award works. The Darwin Award is granted for stupidity that results in you removing yourself from the gene pool, either by death or giving yourself the inability to have children. It's not granted to people who caused someone else's death through their stupidity. If some people have another definition, it's not the one used by the people who came up with the idea of having a Darwin Award.
But even if you don't use the official definition, even if we strip the Darwin Award down to its bare minimum, you're still wrong. The basic point of the Darwin Award is that their stupidity is meant to result in them having less children and thereby result in a selection pressure against them and people like them. As time goes on, they weed themselves out of the human race and their stupid genes are not passed on. If they still have 7 children, their genes are passed on. Whatever selection pressure exists from them going to jail for being bad parents is going to be fairly small in comparison to the sheer number of children they have.
Arguing that what they've done is not a viable strategy is like arguing that cuckoos must be extinct cause they are also bad parents.
Yeah i forgot the meaning of the darwin awards. In retrospect, we will wait and see them hopefully weed themselves out kids and all :nod:
-
- That the religious conservative movement is rather "young" politically (started up with the Reagan election), but many people are ****ing tired of their shenanigans already;
I mean, yes, it was with the 1980 election that American politicians started going crazy proclaiming themselves born again Christians, but the reason it took off in the first place was that they saw the numbers President Carter (who was almost certainly a sincere believer) took in from religious conservatives in 1976 and realized that there was a massive untapped supply of cheap votes from that demographic.
-
Somebody better redact #7
The Doctor-General has spoken. Thy will be done.
For serious though, Battutism was a thought experiment about how to devise a religion that consistently reinforces, rather than departs from, what we consider secular norms of progress and rational thought. Naturally it owned
-
i thought it was the one with the invisible time ninjas
-
I'm still waiting for the Javarian (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=24944.msg500321#msg500321) movement to pick up.
karajorma, when are we going to invade France the holy land? :p
-
Has there been a follow-up on this, yet?
I'd kinda like to know if the thread title is accurate. :P
-
Yeah i forgot the meaning of the darwin awards. In retrospect, we will wait and see them hopefully weed themselves out kids and all :nod:
Well their kids have first-hand evidence now that PRAYER DOESN'T WORK. Might help them out in the long run.
-
Yeah i forgot the meaning of the darwin awards. In retrospect, we will wait and see them hopefully weed themselves out kids and all :nod:
Well their kids have first-hand evidence now that PRAYER DOESN'T WORK. Might help them out in the long run.
Aaaaaaand that's the kind of lack of respect I was referring to on page 2... :yes:
-
You're expecting respect for religious belief on HLP? :wtf:
-
Yeah i forgot the meaning of the darwin awards. In retrospect, we will wait and see them hopefully weed themselves out kids and all :nod:
Well their kids have first-hand evidence now that PRAYER DOESN'T WORK. Might help them out in the long run.
Aaaaaaand that's the kind of lack of respect I was referring to on page 2... :yes:
Why should we respect a myth? A myth which kills people. Faith healing is 100% ineffective.
-
Nobody is saying that the parents of this unfortunate child are anything other than complete and total idiots. The vast majority of Christians, even those who believe in faith healing, would still take their children to a doctor rather than rely entirely on faith healing.
However, comments like this:
Well their kids have first-hand evidence now that PRAYER DOESN'T WORK. Might help them out in the long run.
...cannot be called anything other than disrespectful.
It's actually kind of hilarious how such people will call out Christianity and its ilk for being "intolerant" and then say things like that unironically.
-
Well, work for what? The question of whether prayer works in any empirical domain is a testable proposition, and saying so isn't inherently disrespectful. The question of whether prayer builds a stronger relationship with God, or otherwise improves spiritual life, is not testable.
-
It was disrespectful. I don't respect things that don't deserve respect. At least, not on the internet.
-
I'm perfectly okay with people doing prayer. I am even okay with them practicing faith healing or whatever spiritual activity they prefer. However, belief that faith-healing is a magical cure-all and a substitute for doctor-recommended treatment is another matter entirely.
Let us please not confuse these things and turn this into an unnecessary bash of religion in general.
-
Too late for that, it's already gone there.
-
Then it that case, let's pull the discussion back from that.
-
It was disrespectful. I don't respect things that don't deserve respect. At least, not on the internet.
I would think one who is so enlightened as you could take a higher road. Which was my point back on page 2. If your non-religious worldview leads to treating people in that way.. I don't want any part of it. Why should I renounce my faith to become a grand troll of the religious on the internet?
-
You're forgetting that the parents who didn't let their own child die but are otherwise the same are going to outcompete these people.
Mightn't reliance on faith healing cull disease-prone genes and leave more resources for disease-resistant individuals?
-
You're forgetting that the parents who didn't let their own child die but are otherwise the same are going to outcompete these people.
Mightn't reliance on faith healing cull disease-prone genes and leave more resources for disease-resistant individuals?
No. The selective process isn't this simple.
-
Another one of these silly stories? I already heard quite a few outside the internet. Sure faith the most important thing, but that doesn't mean you don't have to see a doctor. God give you that brain not for you to turn it into white elephant.
By the way, it is not right to say a prayer does not 'work'. It is more appropriate to say God just said no to it, after all, God is not a vending machine that you can just anything out of your 'favor points'.
-
So, nothing new on this at all? There was supposed to be an autopsy.
-
By the way, it is not right to say a prayer does not 'work'. It is more appropriate to say God just said no to it, after all, God is not a vending machine that you can just anything out of your 'favor points'.
This is absolutely fine as long as you recognize that it is not a testable statement.
I'm glad for those who believe that prayer isn't a "get what you want when you want it" type of thing. Pray for good things to happen, pray for happiness and a good life and afterlife, etc, but real-world problems such as what happened in this story should be solved by people being responsible and not depending on their local deity to save the day for them.
-
So, nothing new on this at all? There was supposed to be an autopsy.
Its only been two days. Why should it be done?
e: and if this doesn't go through I give up: A finalized autopsy report (which the prosecutor probably needs in this case before filing charges) usually takes weeks or months, because they have to send blood/etc samples out to a lab, which undoubtedly has a backlog, have them tested and returned before a medical examiner can file a report.
-
It was disrespectful. I don't respect things that don't deserve respect. At least, not on the internet.
I would think one who is so enlightened as you could take a higher road. Which was my point back on page 2. If your non-religious worldview leads to treating people in that way.. I don't want any part of it. Why should I renounce my faith to become a grand troll of the religious on the internet?
The high road means that kids keep dying because people keep subscribing to these silly beliefs. Since religions contain directives for breeding and for believing in the face of evidence, we're not going to get rid of them by turning our noses up and walking away. Religion needs to be torn down so we can move forward.
-
I am not sure if that is the first case in the US. But I have already heard multiple cases around my area, though not all of them ended in death (but some relatives managed to beat some sense into them). I am in a third world country that doesn't look like one anyway. Trust me however, this is Christians' problem more than anyone else's. Those idiots need to be straightened up and returned to the right path. To be a proper Christian is to give our hearts to God, not to become idiots who just want God to obey our wishes, that would be Karl Marx' 'prophecy' of people using religion as drugs.
-
You're forgetting that the parents who didn't let their own child die but are otherwise the same are going to outcompete these people.
I'm not forgetting it. I just don't think it's the slightest bit relevant to the subject at hand. If it is, kindly explain how that fact in any way prevents this from being a viable strategy.
As far as I can tell you're trying to argue that you can't become rich selling silver because you'll become richer selling gold.
-
I am not sure if that is the first case in the US. But I have already heard multiple cases around my area, though not all of them ended in death (but some relatives managed to beat some sense into them). I am in a third world country that doesn't look like one anyway. Trust me however, this is Christians' problem more than anyone else's. Those idiots need to be straightened up and returned to the right path. To be a proper Christian is to give our hearts to God, not to become idiots who just want God to obey our wishes, that would be Karl Marx' 'prophecy' of people using religion as drugs.
It's a semi-regular thing to see on the news. Probably about as regular as a family murder/suicide as a rough estimate.
-
I'm not really religious, but even I know the old postulate that "God helps those who help themselves". If you're going to be a religious fanatic, at least know the material and stop selective reading of the Bible.
-
The high road means that kids keep dying because people keep subscribing to these silly beliefs. Since religions contain directives for breeding and for believing in the face of evidence, we're not going to get rid of them by turning our noses up and walking away. Religion needs to be torn down so we can move forward.
Please explain to the class how your view is better than or different to that of a religious fundamentalist. Extra points awarded for explaining why using the same rhetoric does not put you on the same level.
-
The high road means that kids keep dying because people keep subscribing to these silly beliefs. Since religions contain directives for breeding and for believing in the face of evidence, we're not going to get rid of them by turning our noses up and walking away. Religion needs to be torn down so we can move forward.
That's a rather destructive view imo. Needs to be torn down? You can't tell people what they are allowed to believe and what not, at least not in the kind of society i want to live in.
Besides that, i'd highly doubt it would change anything at all. With religion or without, condemnable things will happen again and again, just as they did before. Religion is often blamed for causing all kind of misdoings in history and the present, and has become some sort of red rag to a bull for some people. I don't see the point of that, because humans aren't dependant on religion to behave like morons.
-
Nobody is saying that the parents of this unfortunate child are anything other than complete and total idiots. The vast majority of Christians, even those who believe in faith healing, would still take their children to a doctor rather than rely entirely on faith healing.
However, comments like this:
Well their kids have first-hand evidence now that PRAYER DOESN'T WORK. Might help them out in the long run.
...cannot be called anything other than disrespectful.
It's actually kind of hilarious how such people will call out Christianity and its ilk for being "intolerant" and then say things like that unironically.
I really don't understand how making the obvious point that prayer doesn't work, which in this context means it's not a ****ing substitute for getting your own child to the damn doctor, is "disrespecful".
Really. This kind of nonsense has to go. I'm sympathetic to religious people who feel offended and disrespected, but to a point. I really couldn't give a damn if they feel "disrespected" if someone makes the ****ing obvious empirical statement. Get a thicker skin.
By all means, believe what you want, and pray what you want. As long as you take your child to the damned doctor too.
Edit: About the torn down religion, come on, we had the experience of oppressing religion. Wasn't fun. At. All.
Edit2:
... that would be Karl Marx' 'prophecy' of people using religion as drugs.
Just to clarify the worst misquotation of history. Karl Marx didn't say what you think he said. Here's the full quote, and it's ****ing brilliant and beautiful:
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.
-
It is more appropriate to say God just said no to it, after all, God is not a vending machine that you can just anything out of your 'favor points'.
This pretty much means it doesn't work, i.e. it does not produce consistent and useful results.
-
Actually I mixed that up with Nietzsche's words.
Nevermind that. I do agree what the other guy said. By not taking the child to the doctor, they are in a manner disrespecting God, by neglecting their own responsibility as parents. After all, in Christianity, parents are supposed to be something of an extension of God's hands for their children.
The high road means that kids keep dying because people keep subscribing to these silly beliefs. Since religions contain directives for breeding and for believing in the face of evidence, we're not going to get rid of them by turning our noses up and walking away. Religion needs to be torn down so we can move forward.
That's a rather destructive view imo. Needs to be torn down? You can't tell people what they are allowed to believe and what not, at least not in the kind of society i want to live in.
Besides that, i'd highly doubt it would change anything at all. With religion or without, condemnable things will happen again and again, just as they did before. Religion is often blamed for causing all kind of misdoings in history and the present, and has become some sort of red rag to a bull for some people. I don't see the point of that, because humans aren't dependant on religion to behave like morons.
That reminds me of one of John Lennon's song. I know many religious people's ears get hot it says 'Imagine no religion', thinking of it of a pagan thought or something. But I do understand what he meant by that. Perhaps it can be a warning for all to take a look at ourselves and stop using religion as an excuse to commit atrocities.
-
Aaaaaaand that's the kind of lack of respect I was referring to on page 2... :yes:
why should anyone respect that which causes the preventable and curable slow and painful death of children?
should we be respecting pedophiles too? define for me, please, what it is exactly that should entitle a belief/worldview/lifestyle to respect.
I'll start! I give things respect in proportion to how much suffering and death they remove from the world. things that have a proven track record of making people live longer, and having less laborious/more enjoyable life.
I would think one who is so enlightened as you could take a higher road.
define 'higher'. do you mean less confrontational/more submissive?
Why should I renounce my faith to become a grand troll of the religious on the internet?
I assume, because you do not want your children to die slowly and painfully from some easily curable ailment?
Please explain to the class how your view is better than or different to that of a religious fundamentalist. Extra points awarded for explaining why using the same rhetoric does not put you on the same level.
because his view, or more accurately what he would like to see the world move towards, has been materially shown to result in less misery and death. this assumes one values happiness and life to qualify as 'better'.
the rhetoric has proven quite effective on the target demographic, seems silly to not use such a demonstrably effective tool. in addition to that it just feels good to get that pent up frustration of dealing with the religious off of ones back.
-
It's pretty bigoted though to blame every single person who is religious for the actions of two parents.
You're ascribing the stupid actions of those people to religion rather than stupidity. While I also have issues with religion, I think that trying to say that all religious people can be tarred with the same brush is pretty intolerant.
-
Please explain to the class how your view is better than or different to that of a religious fundamentalist. Extra points awarded for explaining why using the same rhetoric does not put you on the same level.
because his view, or more accurately what he would like to see the world move towards, has been materially shown to result in less misery and death.
because his view [...] has been materially shown to result in less [...] death.
Holy **** did I miss something important in the last few years! :drevil:
-
You're ascribing the stupid actions of those people to religion rather than stupidity.
why are these people stupid? are these people stupid? maybe it is just they accept a different model of reality and in that model they were making the best possible decision. unfortunately their model turned out to be inaccurate, to disastrous effect. even more unfortunate this model has mechanisms built into it to take into account it's own failure "it's a test of faith", "it was our fault because we were not faithful enough". rather than blaming their model they blame themselves for not following it strictly enough, and disaster strikes again. I cannot feel anything other than pity and sorrow for these people, and contempt for the parasite in their minds that led them and their children to this fate.
Holy **** did I miss something important in the last few years! :drevil:
yes, you apparently missed the industrial revolution, the agricultural revolution, and modern medicine.
-
You're ascribing the stupid actions of those people to religion rather than stupidity.
why are these people stupid? are these people stupid? maybe it is just they accept a different model of reality and in that model they were making the best possible decision. unfortunately their model turned out to be inaccurate, to disastrous effect. even more unfortunate this model has mechanisms built into it to take into account it's own failure "it's a test of faith", "it was our fault because we were not faithful enough". rather than blaming their model they blame themselves for not following it strictly enough, and disaster strikes again. I cannot feel anything other than pity and sorrow for these people, and contempt for the parasite in their minds that led them and their children to this fate.
Weren't there a bunch of non-religious people who boycotted vaccinations because of some news fear-mongering, a while back?
These types people will find a reason to be stupid and get someone killed, religion is not required.
Holy **** did I miss something important in the last few years! :drevil:
yes, you apparently missed the industrial revolution, the agricultural revolution, and modern medicine.
I was unaware that the serum for immortality and invulnerability had finally been discovered / created.
Where can one pick up a vial of this?
-
Weren't there a bunch of non-religious people who boycotted vaccinations because of some news fear-mongering, a while back?
This is slightly different in that it is something learned later in life, rather than ingrained from birth. But ultimately it boils down to the same thing, person making the right choice for a reality they do not actually live in.
-
Yeah i forgot the meaning of the darwin awards. In retrospect, we will wait and see them hopefully weed themselves out kids and all :nod:
Well their kids have first-hand evidence now that PRAYER DOESN'T WORK. Might help them out in the long run.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect that what you mean it that "faith healing doesn't work", a unanimous agreement from all present, but I interpret your sentence as "your (all people who pray) religion is bogus". My interpretation of your sentence is one which is highly disrespectful.
e. I also suspect (hope) that it is the different interpretations of this statement which are giving rise to a lot of the tension in this discussion.
-
To be fair, the Bible says that prayer works.
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
So when prayer doesn't work, that can mean one of several things:
Primarily of all, god doesn't exist, god does not care, or they were not "real" Christians. That last one is problematic because they all say that about each other, no matter how buddy-buddy they act when talking to each other when they do that "interfaith" stuff. That is to say, they each believe that the other part is going to hell. In the end, it's just a book that has no evidence of its claims of god and all that that people believe because of indoctrination. Also, god can't stop iron chariots (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iron.html).
-
I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect that what you mean it that "faith healing doesn't work", a unanimous agreement from all present, but I interpret your sentence as "your (all people who pray) religion is bogus". My interpretation of your sentence is one which is highly disrespectful.
e. I also suspect (hope) that it is the different interpretations of this statement which are giving rise to a lot of the tension in this discussion.
Is religion owed more respect than any other idea? If I say "Soviet economic policies don't work", am I being highly disrespectful? Should I be more considerate of people who are, in my view, deluded?
And if these aren't the same, why not?
-
If you say that Soviet policy does not work, you can make an argument for why it doesn't.
What you can't do is extrapolate from this one example that prayer doesn't work. I don't believe it does, but the logic in the argument presented here is faulty.
Let me give you an alternative scenario though. Let's say that these guys instead of believing in faith healing did something far more moderate, let's say they voted Republican. Their kid becomes sick and when they get to the hospital their insurance won't cover treatment, a week later the kid dies of unforseen complications which would have been caught had he been treated.
Someone who comes onto the thead and says "See what happens when you don't vote for Obama!" Is quite obviously a hooting dickhole.
Even if you can make an argument that the lack of Obamacare is what doomed the kid, reducing the entire issue of who to vote for down to a single death and then using that issue to beat every single Republican over the head with it makes you disrespectful.
-
Heh... what's funny is Bobboau was one of the ones I had in mind when writing my previous posts. :yes:
because his view, or more accurately what he would like to see the world move towards, has been materially shown to result in less misery and death. this assumes one values happiness and life to qualify as 'better'.
Dunno man... your attitude seems to making the world a worse place to be... at least, I don't want to be around a world filled with guys like you.
Now, I've seen how these arguments go with you and I'm just going to step out. You have a track record of being disrespectful of differing viewpoints and being proud of it...
-
If you say that Soviet policy does not work, you can make an argument for why it doesn't.
What you can't do is extrapolate from this one example that prayer doesn't work. I don't believe it does, but the logic in the argument presented here is faulty.
Let me give you an alternative scenario though. Let's say that these guys instead of believing in faith healing did something far more moderate, let's say they voted Republican. Their kid becomes sick and when they get to the hospital their insurance won't cover treatment, a week later the kid dies of unforseen complications which would have been caught had he been treated.
Someone who comes onto the thead and says "See what happens when you don't vote for Obama!" Is quite obviously a hooting dickhole.
Even if you can make an argument that the lack of Obamacare is what doomed the kid, reducing the entire issue of who to vote for down to a single death and then using that issue to beat every single Republican over the head with it makes you disrespectful.
I think the strong response here is precisely because this faith healing thing is extreme. I don't think you'd get a reaction like this in a moderate case like you describe. Say, if they'd gotten their child real medical care, prayed too, and the child died anyway. These parents are overwhelmingly responsible for their child's death, and their religion was a big part of their decision.
I'm not saying this single incident is enough to prove anything one way or the other. But this isn't the only incident of prayer doing nothing. What I'm saying is that even on the off-chance it does work, prayer is as likely to give you concrete solutions to problems as buying a lottery ticket is to help you with financial difficulties. Saying so in a discussion on the topic is not disrespectful.
I personally don't think saying "I think your religion is bull****" is disrespectful either. It just doesn't need to be brought up all the time. But again, since this is a thread about religion, I wouldn't say it's the wrong place to say it.
-
I personally don't think saying "I think your religion is bull****" is disrespectful either. It just doesn't need to be brought up all the time. But again, since this is a thread about religion, I wouldn't say it's the wrong place to say it.
Of course it is. You'd also be disrespectful if you said "soviet economic policy doesn't work", but virtually no-one would care or be indignant. Blatantly not showing respect for something is being disrespectful of it, but how much people will care or call you out on it varies from subject to subject.
Is it "owed more respect?" Well that's entirely subjective. In my view yes. Hence I call people out (people I care about) on being disrespectful to religion, particularly mine (I'm NOT saying I'm a faith healer, jeez), because I expect them to be respectful to me. However, it is an effective way of starting a discussion, if a little too likely to lead to an argument. That said, this is indeed now a religious discussion, and such a statement would now fit, but commencing it with such a statement is a little jarring.
-
So let's ban religion because a world in which we are told what to think is so much better than exercising our free will to think for ourselves. :rolleyes:
I am in a great deal of pain today, so my thoughts are a bit jumbled.
The problem isn't religion, the problem is man's interpretation of words written by another man. Actually that isn't even the core of the problem. The core of the problem is vanity. Vanity says "I am right, therefore you must believe as I do." Showing someone your beliefs is a much stronger argument than forcing them on someone. I for instance have always believed that you will never believe in something more deeply than when you are forced to defend it. Case in point...read this thread.
We as humans often cross the line between teaching our children and forcing our beliefs on them by what we subject them to. My lady for instance is a devout democrat. She watches MSNBC because the views presented there coincide with hers. Those are the only views that my children get subjected to most times. I've taken to turning on Fox News, not because they are impartial, we all know better than that, but so that my children can hear an opposing viewpoint, and then ask questions and formulate an opinion different from that of mine or my wife. Note, I am purposely leaving my political beliefs out.
The thing is, I want my children to be informed, and not base what they believe on any one side of the coin. It also teaches them to be tolerant of an opposing viewpoint, while going against it.
I already told you guys that I am in a great deal of pain. My "faith healing" is simple. I am seeing myself healed. Seeing the little construction workers in my back healing me. I have faith that sending these positive energies is helping. You can send all of the positive energies that you want, but it won't help. It isn't your mind helping your body. It would be your mind helping mine, and i just don't think it works like that. So it won't. (read about this in Zen and the Martial Arts by Joe Hyam) Are these energies stemming from an untapped potential of the human mind the end all be all of healing? Hell no, not in book anyway. Do they supplement conventional forms....I believe so.
Anyway, when the child was that sick and no one took him to the doctor, why did no one think to call CPS, or the Police? When our beliefs endanger a helpless being, we are doing something wrong.
Banning things isn't the answer. Educating in such a way that people don't have to defend, and are therefore more open to an opposing viewpoint is.
-
Of course it is. You'd also be disrespectful if you said "soviet economic policy doesn't work", but virtually no-one would care or be indignant. Blatantly not showing respect for something is being disrespectful of it, but how much people will care or call you out on it varies from subject to subject.
Is it "owed more respect?" Well that's entirely subjective. In my view yes. Hence I call people out (people I care about) on being disrespectful to religion, particularly mine (I'm NOT saying I'm a faith healer, jeez), because I expect them to be respectful to me. However, it is an effective way of starting a discussion, if a little too likely to lead to an argument. That said, this is indeed now a religious discussion, and such a statement would now fit, but commencing it with such a statement is a little jarring.
Wouldn't that mean that, by that standard, any opinion is disrespectful if there are people who disagree?
If you're secure in your beliefs, then it shouldn't matter to you if there are people who think your religion is bull****. You could tell me atheism is bull****, and if you didn't feel like having a reasonable discussion about it, I'd respond with a simple "Good for you. I don't give a ****". So no, I don't think anyone has any duty to be respectful to a belief or institution they have no respect for. However, that does not mean one shouldn't be civil. You can dislike a person's beliefs without purposefully insulting them.
I don't think any beliefs are due respect. If you're unable or unwilling to defend yours, that isn't my problem. If you are, great, we can have a civil discussion on the subject. Maybe you can change my mind, or I can change yours.
-
What you can't do is extrapolate from this one example that prayer doesn't work.
I don't think anyone making an argument prayer does not work has a single example in mind. The assertion is not made using this single example, but many examples of which this is confirmation.
Although, again, its failure to produce consistent results is indeed a fair sign of it not working.
That last one is problematic because they all say that about each other, no matter how buddy-buddy they act when talking to each other when they do that "interfaith" stuff. That is to say, they each believe that the other part is going to hell.
Fascinatingly wrong; fairly large cross-sect groups of Christianity right now allow that they will not. (c.f. Roman Catholic vs. Orthodox vs. Lutheran; anywhere you can go to Mass and it counts in the eyes of your parent church is not a group bound for hell.) Of course you have a habit of taking about Real, True Christians who are typically right-wing Protestant as if they compose the majority of Christians, which they don't.
-
Heh... what's funny is Bobboau was one of the ones I had in mind when writing my previous posts. :yes:
because his view, or more accurately what he would like to see the world move towards, has been materially shown to result in less misery and death. this assumes one values happiness and life to qualify as 'better'.
Dunno man... your attitude seems to making the world a worse place to be... at least, I don't want to be around a world filled with guys like you.
Now, I've seen how these arguments go with you and I'm just going to step out. You have a track record of being disrespectful of differing viewpoints and being proud of it...
glad to see I've rubbed off on you.