…and this is a 
Last year, Kara Neumann died of juvenile diabetes. Her death was slow and painful, and entirely unnecessary — her parents believed in the power of prayer and allowed her obvious symptoms to go untreated except for entreaties to an invisible and inert god. They weren't opposed to technology in general, since they did sent out an email to an online ministry requesting 'emergency prayer', but they did neglect the only technology that mattered, a simple injection of insulin.
There was some concern at that time that there was actually a loophole in Wisconsin law that seems to say that Christianity was a treatment comparable to modern medicine. Fortunately, the jurors in the trial of the parents saw the neglect that led to the death of their daughter, and convicted the Neumanns of second-degree reckless homicide. I don't think the father helped his own case with his sincere testimony.
Neumann, who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister, testified Thursday that he believed God would heal his daughter and he never expected her to die. God promises in the Bible to heal, he said.
"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," Neumann testified. "I am not believing what he said he would do."
He believed. He was theologically informed. He was a member of a church (even if it is an insane organization). He was missing one important thing: the awareness to question. And for that, a young girl died. Religion matters, all right, it matters in an evil way.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Zeno | August 2, 2009 10:07 AM
How come we never got compelling Sunday morning homilies like this back in the days when I was still going to church? Monsignor could have kept our attention with stories like this (but probably not our attendance).
Posted by: RickK | August 2, 2009 10:10 AM
Idiots. The father's testimony is so aggressively ignorant that it would be funny if it didn't involve the death of a child. If he drive's to the grocery store instead of praying for food, is he putting his car before god? If he shaves in the morning instead of praying for god to groom him, is he putting his razor before god?
Not only the parents, but the church should suffer legal and financial penalty. This kind of homicidal magical thinking should be treated no differently than we treat people who buy fertilizer, fuel and detonator parts.
Posted by: charley
|
August 2, 2009 10:11 AM
Justice, yes, but it doesn't sound like it will change the minds of the faithful, if her father is any indication.
Posted by: SimonG | August 2, 2009 10:16 AM
It's such an inane argument. And one which only seems to get applied to medicine, (apart from the Amish and their like).
Posted by: Samuel | August 2, 2009 10:16 AM
I am a Type A Diabetic (sometimes called juvenile diabetes), and cheezes christ.. No Pun Intended..
Her death must have been EXTREMELY painful and horrible. If I get no insulin for one day, I will be in a very bad mood, two days, worse, 3 I will start caughting blood and after that I will most likely end in a coma or die (give it a week or so).. Her death must have been HORRIBLE, it is one of the worst feelings you could imagine having high blood sugar, your body burning every piece of fat it can find in an attempt to get suggar to the brain, which it cant as no insulin is available to use it..
Horrible horrible way to way.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 10:16 AM
This reminds me of several tragic cases of Jehovah's Witnesses denying their children life saving blood transfusions because they consider it to be equivalent to consuming the flesh of another human being. Essentially, they think it is canabalism and so they good as murder their own children. Of course, if you confront them on this they instantly say that their religous observance is a manifestation of free speach, the same free speech they would so dearly love to deny to us.
There are days when I think stupidity (and the casual cruelty that goes with it) on this scale should be a crime in its own right.
Posted by: Kathy
|
August 2, 2009 10:17 AM
We just had a case like this conclude in Oregon -- a mom and dad let their 16-month old die of pneumonia, because they were convinced that God would heal her if they just prayed hard enough.
Mom (pregnant again!) was acquitted of manslaughter, as was the dad. Dad, however, was convicted of criminal neglect, which is a %$*&^%$*& misdemeanor. He gets two months in jail.
The judge, however, did give him 5 years of probation, and as a part of his probation, requires the parents to provide regular medical care to the surviving sibling and the unborn baby.
Strangely enough, the wife's parents will be going on trial in January for the death of their 16-year-old, who died of a urinary tract blockage.
I can only hope that the jury in that trial sees it for manslaughter. That's one jury summons I wouldn't mind getting at all.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 2, 2009 10:18 AM
"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," Neumann testified. "I am not believing what he said he would do."
If anyone retells again the story about the man drowning after refusing to be rescued from a flood, I will personally hunt them down and... well, just don't, that's all.
Posted by: strangebrew | August 2, 2009 10:20 AM
#3
'but it doesn't sound like it will change the minds of the faithful'
True ...but it might change the minds of a society that traditionally allows and 'respects' fuckwits and their actions!
Posted by: SC (of the Blogger SCs), OM | August 2, 2009 10:30 AM
Wow.
"To My Beloved Enemy":
If Jim Jones and Mark Sanford had a love child.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 2, 2009 10:31 AM
Translation: "My ego, the thing that defines the universe and even the gods, is more important than my child's life."
Posted by: Alverant | August 2, 2009 10:33 AM
This is another reason why religion should never be used as an excuse to trump secular law. In our society punishment serves two purposes. First is to punish unacceptable behavior. Second is to serve as a deterrent to others. Now the second reason doesn't always work. But if word spreads among the anti-medicine crowd of this conviction it may make someone think twice. That could save the life in the future.
Posted by: Walton | August 2, 2009 10:33 AM
I would definitely contend that children who are in this position should be removed from their parents' care by court order. Unless the child, having been informed of his or her situation by doctors, chooses of his or her own free will to forgo treatment, then treatment should be provided, regardless of what the parents think.
That said, I'm not sure there's much point in prosecuting the parents after the child's death. It can't achieve anything, since the child has already died. I think we should resist the tabloid desire to impose criminal sanctions as some sort of community revenge on wrongdoers. In a free society, the state has no right to inflict "punishment". IMO, there is one legitimate justification, and only one, for depriving a person of liberty: to protect the public from force or fraud.
The US justice system uses imprisonment far too much, IMO. Imprisonment should only ever be used for violent offenders who present a continuing danger to the public. Other criminals should be fined or perform community service.
Posted by: X. Wolp | August 2, 2009 10:34 AM
#5: the blood sugar in her case probably wasn't even the worst thing, I can only imagine the agony ketoacidosis and dehydration.
Type I diabetic here too, that really makes you appreciate how sickening these parents are.
Posted by: Owen | August 2, 2009 10:36 AM
Heres hoping they have a long and unhappy life as prison bitches.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 10:39 AM
So once again it comes down to a choice between proven and verifiable scientific knowledge and the supposed 'powers' of the invisible sky fairy, and this moron chose the sky fairy?
I don't know why I am suprised any more.
Broze Dog @ 11:
Translation: "My ego, the thing that defines the universe and even the gods, is more important than my child's life."
While I suppose it is possible that this cretin is both the most epicly stupid man alive and one of the most sadistically cruel, I think you hit the nail right on the head.
Posted by: Samuel | August 2, 2009 10:40 AM
#14:
True. But I doubt the acid would bother her to much, the general pain and constant thought about the unstoppable thirst she must have had (that never ends) and her extreme weightloss.... I can only hope for an extreme and painful death to her sick and twisted parents, disgusting scum to say atleast.
I have had a 5 day streak without insulin (long story) and it was horrible horrible. I WANTED to die at the end, 'no more' I was seriously thinking, death would end it all. Cheezes, poor girl.
Posted by: Chris | August 2, 2009 10:41 AM
#9
Nope. Until those fuckwits kill someone else's kid, society generally will 'tsk tsk', talk about how tragic it is, and so on, but will otherwise ignore the problem and probably feel pity for the parents. And, frankly, were that as far as their idiocy were to go, I might agree. Like most people (I think), I'm more concerned with the ones that decide that killing other people's loved ones is a righteous cause, or that banning medical procedures that save other people's lives is necessary to remove temptation from their sight. The "keep government out of my religion but put my religion exclusively in government types" are the greatest threat all of us.
Posted by: Kausik Datta | August 2, 2009 10:44 AM
One thing I, as an atheist, never could understand. Why can't these fucked-up believers ever see the doctors as the divine answers to their prayers? Why do they always insist on the personal presence of their god, or a something-out-of-nothing type of miracle?
This always reminds me of this joke about dumb faith.
A guy’s in his house when horrendous rains come
up. The water starts rising, and before you know it, we’re talking major flood. Roads are covered. Nothing’s moving. Pretty soon, a boat comes along. Guy in the boat yells, "Come on - we’re here to save you. Get in the boat."
Guy in the house says, "No… I’ve got faith that God will save me."
The boat leaves. The water keeps rising. The guy is forced up the second floor of his house by the flood waters. Another boat comes along. The guy in the boat yells, "Come on! It’s getting worse. If you don’t get in the boat, you’re going to drown."
From the second floor window the guy says, "No… I’ll be ok. I’ve got faith in God that he’ll save me."
The boat leaves. Water’s rising. The guy’s on the roof. A helicopter hovers overhead and the pilot shouts out, "This is your last chance. Climb up the ladder. If you don’t come
now, you’re going to drown."
The guy says from the roof, "No, thanks. God will save me."
The pilot shrugs his shoulders and splits. The water rises. The guy drowns. Ascends to the pearly gates. He asks St. Peter, "What happened? I’ve been devoted to God and had absolute faith that He would save me. Why did He let me down?"
And St. Peter tells him, "What the heck do you want? God sent ya two boats and a helicopter!?"
Hell, this should be a Sunday sermon!!
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
August 2, 2009 10:47 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfWI7qVyg1M
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 10:47 AM
Walton @ no. 13:
"I would definitely contend that children who are in this position should be removed from their parents' care by court order. Unless the child, having been informed of his or her situation by doctors, chooses of his or her own free will to forgo treatment, then treatment should be provided, regardless of what the parents think."
The problem here is that the harm that parents of this type have done will likely not only be to the child's body but also to his or her mind, especially if the medical crisis befalls the child while they are still pre-teen. Most likely the child will have been so indoctrinated from birth into its parent's preferred creed that he or she will not have any free will of their own and will simply trot out whatever poison the parents have been pouring into their ear for years.
In such an instance there is a strong case that the child is no longer the best judge of its own best interests and so the medical profession ans social services should step in.
Posted by: maddogdelta | August 2, 2009 10:48 AM
[poe]
I don't know what all the fuss is about. After all, it was only a girl that died. And everyone knows girls are only worth 1/2 of a mule.
[/poe]
I hope he gets introduced to a real friendly boyfriend in prison.
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 2, 2009 10:49 AM
Ooh, you're in trouble now.
Posted by: blf | August 2, 2009 10:49 AM
For numerous reasons, the judge/jury could not actually do this, but a statement something like the following in the judgement/sentencing—or much better, when the girl was still alive and could be treated—would be nice to see:
Now if someone actually said that to me, in seriousness, I'd get rather upset. However, I'm not going to wish for a miracle when seriously unwell.
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 2, 2009 10:50 AM
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Not that god-damned flood story again!
If anyone else posts that stupid story, it will be deleted as soon as I spot it. Everytime this subject comes up, it seems like a whole bunch of people repost that inane tale over and over again.
Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 2, 2009 10:50 AM
I'm with RickK @2 on this - the church itself should be considered culpable in cases such as this. Let's put them on trial.
Posted by: Don | August 2, 2009 10:52 AM
#19
Time to light out for the Territory.
Posted by: raven | August 2, 2009 10:53 AM
All things are possible with god. Just pray for it and no one will tell the story.
Posted by: strangebrew | August 2, 2009 10:53 AM
#13
Walton...WTF...
So you think that these idiots should be allowed to do the same to other children so unlucky enough to be subsequently born to ignorant screwballs like that after they kill their first born and get a light wrap on the knuckles from society.
That is condoning child cruelty to the point of murder...matters not a flying dip shit scrotum of Beelzebub that they 'praise de lawd',...they are murderers...but in your fantasy they are just ..what?... not praying hard enough?
Ignorance is no excuse...the dipidiots around them have no excuse... they are all culpable of murdering that child in a extremely vicious and painful torture.
And you are just as culpable of murdering that kid because you see and do nothing to protect other kids in the same position...deluded fools will not think twice before trying this nonsense then cos they wont get jail time or even a criminal record...
but that is okay tis for jebus after all!
These online ministries should be
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 10:55 AM
Kausik Datta @ 19:
Pack your bags right now and start running. Run, don't try to hide, don't try to fight, just run. Knockgoats is coming for you to do unspeakable things. That probably involve a combination of hot and cold, sharp and blunt (see post no. 8).
No one can say you weren't warned.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 2, 2009 10:56 AM
This sort of reasoning is the natural consequence of deliberately confusing one's "faith" that God exists, with one's "faith" that God can be trusted. The first is an assumption: the second is a matter of loyalty.
Why doesn't God provide clear, convincing evidence of its existence, so that there is no more disagreement over whether God exists, and what God is like, and what God wants, than there is over a maple tree in the park? Why, because then it would be too easy to believe in God, and there'd be no merit in it. There'd be no merit in choosing to obey God, either. If everyone knew for sure that God existed, then they'd have no choice but to obey God.
WTF? That makes no sense at all. That kind of reasoning would never be applied to anything else, because it conflates drawing a conclusion with being loyal to a person. Would they say you have no choice to obey anyone, as long as you know for sure they really exist?
Thus the logical result of faith. The father doesn't see himself as being arrogant in thinking he knows better than anyone else, what God is like, and what God wants -- because it's not about him. It's never about him. It's only about God. He buys so completely into that sloppy blurring together of belief about and belief in that he thinks he has disappeared. He seriously thinks he has humbly taken himself completely out of the situation, and does nothing but report what God said.
Dangerous. I always get a kick out of liberal theists and their insistence that of course the only sensible way to approach God is with the assumption that God wants His followers to reason, think, and behave just like reasonable, science-oriented, secular humanists -- except in the small "religious stuff" areas where God is directly confined. There's no 'of course' about it. I don't know where the hell they got the Theological Prime Directive. There's no rule that what God is, does, and wants has to be plausible even to an atheist.
If it was, then there'd be no point -- or special brownie points -- for faith.
Posted by: Brian Rapp | August 2, 2009 10:56 AM
From the linked site:
The poor, poor oppressed Christians. And gawd speaks directly to this clown.
Posted by: Kausik Datta | August 2, 2009 10:57 AM
Sorry, major HTML fail. (I am afraid of previewing!)
Posted by: strangebrew | August 2, 2009 10:57 AM
#29
Sorry post error...
These online ministries should be relegated to being banned under the pornographic laws...trading eye and ego comfort for reality is not in the best interests of society apparently...
Posted by: blf | August 2, 2009 10:58 AM
Arrggghhhh! The last few words @24 got dropped. That last sentence should have been (missing words in italics): However, I'm not going to wish for a miracle when seriously unwell and do nothing else.
(I might “wish for a miracle” in the sense “godsdamnit, I wish this whatever would fecking go away and never return!”)
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 10:59 AM
Sorry Kausik Datta, Knockgoats and Prophet of Cthulhu PZ are gunning for you. There is nowhere to run now. Game over, man! Game over!
Posted by: raven | August 2, 2009 11:03 AM
That is another weird cult, Followers of Christ. It is believed that they have killed around 30 of their kids in the last few decades.
An article I read once about them said that rumors are that some of them cheat and do go to doctors if they have to by sneaking around. A triumph for common sense over religious kookery. I suppose if they get caught, they get shunned and excommunicated or stoned to death or something.
PS It says in the NT that prayer can move mountains. For literalists this is a problem. No one has ever done it before. And using bulldozers and dynamite is putting machinery and explosives before god.
Posted by: alloytoo | August 2, 2009 11:04 AM
These are likely to be the same people who will praise god for the artists in their congregations, recognising any number of dubious "talents", but the guys and gals who devoted their lives to healing......
No, no god given talent there.
Posted by: Brian Rapp | August 2, 2009 11:05 AM
Just curious: where are the resident trolls and why aren't they rushing to justify this? Is it me, or do they seem to hide under rocks whenever people die from real world consequences of the stupidity of their brethren? If a godbot does appear, he'll no doubt tell us how these people aren't true Christians.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 2, 2009 11:05 AM
Walton,
Now you surprise me by saying something that's worth considering - although your comment is inconsistent, because fines and community service are also punishments, so if the state has no right to impose imprisonment, it has no right to impose these either. There are actually four justifications commonly given for criminal sanctions:
Prevention of further offences
Rehabilitation
Deterrence (of the offender or others)
Retribution
In this case neither rehabilitation nor deterrence seems likely to work, and prevention of further offences can be achieved by removing any surviving children, or even placing them under court ordered supervision. Retribution is supposed to mark the community's abhorrence of the crime; but I'm unpersuaded this has any actual benefit.
Incidentally, I'm currently reading The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. Much of it is a series of review articles, considering the relationship between levels of income inequality and various social goods and ills in the areas of health, education, violence, etc., across rich countries. Very consistently, the more equal come out better, using standard tests of statistical significance. The rate at which countries imprison people is one of the topics covered, and the positive correlation between inequality and imprisonment levels is clear - although the USA is admittedly an outlier, with even higher levels of imprisonment than one would expect (the relationship remains statistically significant if the USA and Singapore, also an outlier, are excluded).
Posted by: mxh | August 2, 2009 11:07 AM
No matter what his beliefs are, the fact that he's more concerned about offending his god than saving his daughter shows a lot about how religion can poison people (or help messed up people come up with an excuse for the fuck-ups that they are).
Posted by: senecasam | August 2, 2009 11:07 AM
It is heartening to see that the pendulum of justice seems to be swinging away from granting these religious fanatics absolution for child homicide and moving toward holding them accountable for the end result of their actions. I wonder if it has a deterrent effect on others of their ilk, or serves to harden their 'us versus them' position.
You gotta be one seriously deluded god-bot to sit back and pray while your child suffers an agonizing death.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 2, 2009 11:07 AM
God drowns those who drown themselves.
Posted by: Walton | August 2, 2009 11:08 AM
No - as I said clearly, I think it would be entirely legitimate for a court to remove children from the custody of parents who deny them medical treatment. Parents don't own their children; children are independent beings with rights of their own, and if the parents' belief in nonsense is endangering their children, then the children should be removed from their custody. If the Neumanns have any other children, then those children should certainly be taken away from them.
But what I don't believe is that "society" has any moral right to inflict "punishment" merely because the baying mob finds someone's conduct morally repulsive. The State is not a moral authority. Its role should be limited to protecting the public from harm. As such, an offender should only be imprisoned if s/he poses a continuing danger to the public. And as long as the Neumanns aren't allowed to raise any more children, I don't see that they are a threat to the public.
Posted by: kingasaurus | August 2, 2009 11:08 AM
Sastra:
"Why doesn't God provide clear, convincing evidence of its existence, so that there is no more disagreement over whether God exists, and what God is like, and what God wants, than there is over a maple tree in the park? Why, because then it would be too easy to believe in God, and there'd be no merit in it. There'd be no merit in choosing to obey God, either. If everyone knew for sure that God existed, then they'd have no choice but to obey God.
WTF? That makes no sense at all. That kind of reasoning would never be applied to anything else, because it conflates drawing a conclusion with being loyal to a person. Would they say you have no choice to obey anyone, as long as you know for sure they really exist?"
Totally agree, Sastra. What's doubly maddening about it is this nonsense is belied by their own theology. Satan has verified certain knowledge that god exists, and he doesn't require faith of any kind to admit that god is real. Yet none of that stopped his free will, his rebellion, his steadfast resolve to disobey this god.
Yet these people continue to insist that god can't give incontrovertible evidence that he exists because somehow that would remove our free will or force us to worship him??? Piffle.
You know it's a bad argument when you don't even have to leave the confines of their own belief system to show a counterexample to their assertion on this matter.
Posted by: raven | August 2, 2009 11:13 AM
Ooopppsss!!! Kausik posted the story while I was typing that. So much for the power of prayer.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 2, 2009 11:14 AM
All things are possible with god. Just pray for it and no one will tell the story. - raven
*Sigh* Yes, by issuing my own threat instead of praying, I was obviously putting myself before God. Mea culpa.
PZ, when next this kind of case comes up (and we all know it will), maybe you could add a warning not to tell the flood story, to the post itself - and dungeon anyone who disobeys?
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 2, 2009 11:15 AM
Walton #13 wrote:
I disagree: in cases like this, there are two benefits. The first is deterrence. Although religious fanatics often seem to seek out ways to martyr themselves, most of the time these martyrdoms are pretty tame stuff. They renounce the dangers of Christmas presents, or suffer the pain of wearing unfashionable clothes. There are very few sects that really want their members to go to prison for their beliefs. If the secular culture is not nodding approvingly and patting people on the head for praying over their sick kids instead of taking them to the doctor, then it is far more likely that the people in charge will have a Holy Ghost-inspired "revelation" that the Bible comes right out and says that you should pray while taking your child to the doctor.
The second benefit is that it helps to give parents an 'out' when their inner doubts about the efficiency of prayer rear up. "I do believe that God will cure my child, but I'm not allowed to act on my belief: the Big Bad Government won't let me. The law is forcing me to use doctors. I feel so bad. So don't blame me, fellow church-goers. Let's all get mad at the government! Yeah."
It's a safety net, and they can not only use it to justify their "lack of faith" to their church, but to themselves. And children's lives are saved.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 2, 2009 11:19 AM
Interesting. I wonder if this tragic course of events has taught him anything about the value of God's word?
Like many other people, myself included, the Neumanns learned the hard way that prayers are useless in the face of the reality of a serious illness.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
August 2, 2009 11:19 AM
This reminds me of the story where a man in a flood is on his roof, and...
/me is killed and eaten, so delicious
Posted by: kingasaurus | August 2, 2009 11:20 AM
"I do believe that God will cure my child, but I'm not allowed to act on my belief: the Big Bad Government won't let me. The law is forcing me to use doctors. I feel so bad. So don't blame me, fellow church-goers. Let's all get mad at the government! Yeah."
LOL! Didn't Paul say that Christians should obey the government of whatever country they're in, because that government wouldn't be in power unless god wanted it that way? Sounds familiar, but I don't have chapter and verse.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 2, 2009 11:21 AM
Those adults had something that those unfortunate children did not have, freedom of action. Those adults could allow the pain they were experiencing to override their faith to the big sky daddy. Those children had adults around to make sure that their suffering and deaths brought dignity to their big sky daddy.
Posted by: raven | August 2, 2009 11:22 AM
Oddly enough, some people do leave these no medical care cults. Sometimes after a kid or two dies of some routine, easily treatable condition.
IIRC, half the people who join the Jehovahs Witnesses, not even close to the worst ones, drop out eventually.
Why, yes they do of course. Or change the subject. "You wouldn't be saying those things if the father had been a Moslem."
They don't hide under rocks. That is silly. They live under rocks and just don't bother to come out when Mark Sanford screws up or some xian terrorist assassinates someone again.
Posted by: Thorne | August 2, 2009 11:22 AM
@ #13
There is a very good reason for punishing the parents. While they are no longer a threat to this child, how many other children do they have, or could they have in the future. Putting them in prison will remove the children from their influence, at least for a time.
As for their threat to society, you don't think this kind of magical thinking is a threat? How many people are out there right now thinking that this little girl is dead merely because her parents didn't believe enough? How many will condemn the court for its actions rather than the parents?
IMO the court didn't go far enough. The parents weren't the only ones present for this torture. According to the article I read they had several members of their church present as well. It was only after she had stopped breathing that anyone bothered to call 911. Probably figured they couldn't pray away a dead body.
At the very least the parents should have been given life sentences, to pay for the life of the child they murdered through their stupid superstitions. Personally, I think it would be better if they could be forced to live with the same kind of torment they allowed their daughter to endure, repeatedly, for the rest of their ignorant lives. That would be true justice.
Posted by: Kausik Datta | August 2, 2009 11:23 AM
The damage is done, Knockgoats and PZ... I sincerely apologize for my unthinking retelling of the abominable flood story... I was really angry (hence, unthinking at that time) about the story of the post. I have been following these 'faith-killing' stories for a while in the newspapers. At least the jury in Wisconsin found the man guilty. The jury in Oregon all but acquitted the couple (reducing the charges to manslaughter in the second degree, IIRC) for letting their child die.
I don't understand these people at all; their hypocrisy and all-consuming egos are much more important to them than even the welfare of the people they are supposed to care for. A Jewish vegan couple I know put their little kid on such a strict vegan diet that he suffered from malnutrition; they relented only when the pediatrician threatened to call child services on them for endangering his life.
Blind belief/faith is stupid. Belief/faith sans humanity is downright dangerous.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 11:25 AM
Sastra @ 48:
'The second benefit is that it helps to give parents an 'out' when their inner doubts about the efficiency of prayer rear up. "I do believe that God will cure my child, but I'm not allowed to act on my belief: the Big Bad Government won't let me. The law is forcing me to use doctors. I feel so bad. So don't blame me, fellow church-goers. Let's all get mad at the government! Yeah."'
Sastra, I'm shocked (imagine shocked face, hands flying up to mouth or twisting rosary beads in angst) how could you possibly imply that true believers (PRAIIISEEE THE LORRRRD!!!) would ever cynically use a get out just because the law required them to save their child's life from a agonising and wholly avoidable death. You horrid, horrid person. Stop persecuting me you big atheist meanie! I'll tell god on you, and then you'll be sorry!(flounces off in floods of [crocodile] tears).
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 2, 2009 11:26 AM
in cases like this, there are two benefits. The first is deterrence. Although religious fanatics often seem to seek out ways to martyr themselves, most of the time these martyrdoms are pretty tame stuff. - Sastra
But these people don't believe the child is going to die. If they suspect it, but are not deterred, are they really foing to be deterred by the threat of prison?
The second benefit is that it helps to give parents an 'out' when their inner doubts about the efficiency of prayer rear up. "I do believe that God will cure my child, but I'm not allowed to act on my belief: the Big Bad Government won't let me. The law is forcing me to use doctors. I feel so bad. So don't blame me, fellow church-goers. Let's all get mad at the government! Yeah." - Sastra
That's a stronger argument, provided the law forbids inappropriate failure to seek medical help for a vulnerable person, not just homicide by neglect - so that the parents are already committing a crime once the child is obviously seriously ill.
Posted by: Walton | August 2, 2009 11:27 AM
I see your point. But I would argue that the revenue from fines and community service should not be kept by the State but should instead be used to compensate the victims of the crime, where this is feasible. I would argue that criminal law should be more like civil law, and the distinction between the two should be broken down; rather than "punishing" those who offend against the State's moral code, the primary aim of criminal law, like that of tort, should be to compensate victims of wrongs. The secondary aim should be to protect the public from those who are dangerous - hence why there is no feasible option other than imprisonment for violent and dangerous offenders.
I don't necessarily argue that the State has no moral authority ever to penalise "victimless" crimes; there are certain legitimate laws which are regulatory in character, such as those banning drunk driving or requiring vehicles to stop at traffic lights. A violation of such a law won't necessarily have an identifiable victim, but the law still has a legitimate purpose (in the case of my examples, allowing safe driving on public roads).
But I do oppose laws which are fundamentally paternalist in character - such as those banning the private use of marijuana, for example, or mandating the wearing of seatbelts, or banning smoking in private bars and clubs - and I don't think the State has any right to prohibit these. Nor do I think that the State has any right to give force to hysterical tabloid voices of moral outrage; the public may be screaming for certain offenders to rot in jail for ever (or to be hung, drawn and quartered, for Daily Mail readers), but this doesn't mean that their irrational feelings of rage should be given force by the legal system.
(As an aside, this need to keep criminal justice to a minimum is why, unlike many libertarians, I strongly oppose popular election of the judiciary. Judges and courts need, to a great extent, to be insulated from public opinion.)
Both the American and Singaporean legal systems (and, to a lesser extent, ours) vastly overuse imprisonment, especially for non-violent drug-related offences. It's counterproductive and ridiculous, since putting a drug addict in a prison full of other drug addicts is clearly not going to do him (or her) a lot of good. In my view, marijuana should be legalised and regulated in the same way as tobacco; and users of "harder" drugs should be offered rehabilitation, not jailed.
As to your point about socio-economic equality and imprisonment, I will take your word for it that there is a statistical relationship, but I suspect this is a correlation-cause confusion. The countries which have the most extensive welfare systems also often happen to have relatively liberal laws, especially on the use of recreational drugs. By contrast, many developing countries with high levels of income inequality (India is an example which comes to mind) also happen to have a large number of oppressive laws (homosexuality is still illegal in India and many other Asian countries, for instance). In any case, since each country and its culture is different, it's very hard to compare on a level field.
Posted by: Brian Rapp | August 2, 2009 11:27 AM
Do you seriously believe this was the lesson they learned? Given their level of disconnect from reality, I'll bet they think it was "God's will" that they go to prison, perhaps to spread the word to their fellow convicts.
Posted by: strangebrew | August 2, 2009 11:28 AM
#44
"As such, an offender should only be imprisoned if s/he poses a continuing danger to the public. And as long as the Neumanns aren't allowed to raise any more children, I don't see that they are a threat to the public."
These folk are not reasonable people...I would imagine quite a few 'normal' mentally competent Parents would be a tad concerned if these idiots lived on the same street as them...they have no responsibilities to society..let alone their closest family.
They murdered their child because they are pig ignorant and pompous with it...society does not require that arrogance in its membership...these fools have no place in society they are ipso facto a danger to society...
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
August 2, 2009 11:31 AM
I would correct you and say that perhaps he was not missing the awareness to question, but that his had been tragically misdirected to perceive questioning each action with respect to his god through years of indoctrination. That Mr. Neumann stopped to think "I'm putting a doctor before god" tells me he questioned nearly everything he did to make sure it was within the biblical worldview he's been lead to believe would keep him out of hell. Now he's destined for it. The irony should escape no one.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 11:32 AM
Naked Bunny @ 50:
"This reminds me of the story where a man in a flood is on his roof, and...
/me is killed and eaten, so delicious"
Excuse me but we atheists only eat babies. So succulent and tender, really the best kind of veal.
You'll just have to settle for discombobulation . . .
Posted by: blf | August 2, 2009 11:32 AM
Naked Bunny with a Whip @50:
Burp! I told you I was off to the boucherie to get a lapin for dinner.
Posted by: Thorne | August 2, 2009 11:34 AM
@ #61
I seriously doubt this jerk stopped to think at all. I would be willing to bet that his "I'm putting a doctor before god" defense wasn't thought out until he was arrested and put on trial.
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 2, 2009 11:36 AM
End Game religions like this should have never been allowed to end a persons life in America, The State should have stepped in to insure the Life,Liberty, and Pursuit...While the Feds should have taken the Father to a ward for examination.When in a clear dire life and death situation, our system failed this girl...Why?
Isn'T religious human sacrifice illegal in this country anymore...because that is what it boils down to.
I do not condone Government intrusion,However this was blatant.
Posted by: red rabbit | August 2, 2009 11:38 AM
What a horrid thing to do.
I wonder how long this child had diabetes.
I always worry about kids after a recent diagnosis of diabetes. There's a lot of denial out there, even amongst "normal" (non-god-soaked) parents. Kids get sick, get brought to hospital, get treated, diagnosed with diabetes and started on insulin. This causes a lot of anger, fear, denial, and blame amongst the parents.
Then they get the "honeymoon period" when their insulin needs drop dramatically, sometimes to zero. And more than a few parents stick their heads in the sand and go, "See, doc, you were wrong, she doesn't really have diabetes" (or in more extreme cases, "Thank-you JEEBUS it's a MURKIL!!").
A lot of these kids get really sick when their pancreas craps out a second time. Poor kid.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
August 2, 2009 11:39 AM
I hate you all.
Please don't stop. ^^
Posted by: AdamK | August 2, 2009 11:41 AM
Prison rape and assault is real. It's not a joke. It's not "revenge." It's not part of the sentence. Nobody ever deserves it.
Posted by: Chemist | August 2, 2009 11:42 AM
PZ never fails when he posts a link to an "insane organization"! Following such a link always opens a fl**dgate of other links, knowledge and enlightenment!
Go to that UBM site and click on "Miraculous Testamonies" then on "Testamonies of UBM" then read an account and analysis by "David" of a DREAM of "Man-child's Head Brings Word to the World". It's a FL**D story that even PZ would love!!!
Warning: it's a partial birth that should NOT be aborted! Only by such will the "world" be conquered and saved. ;-)
http://www.unleavenedbreadministries.org/?page=ubmconfirms
Posted by: Kseniya | August 2, 2009 11:43 AM
Yes, yes. I should have written that the Neumann's have "seen" it. I would hope that they have learned it, but of course I have no idea what they have and have not learned.
Posted by: CW | August 2, 2009 11:43 AM
I'd suggest that until we stop talking about (and treating) kids as the possessions of their parents instead of as the people they actually are society will generally 'tsk tsk'...Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 11:44 AM
Naked Bunny with a Whip @ 67:
"I hate you all.
Please don't stop. ^^"
Suddenly the reasoning behind the handle Naked Bunny WITH A WHIP makes perfect sense . . .
Its ok though, I'm an open minded kind of guy - for a repressed Brit that is.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 2, 2009 11:44 AM
The case out here in Oregon is an outrage as far as I'm concerned. The judge seemed to be the only person in the court room that was disgusted with the parents behavior.
It's embarrassing to live in a state that is so godsoaked that people can kill their own child and get a slap on the wrist sentence.
Posted by: Kausik Datta | August 2, 2009 11:45 AM
Gregory @36:
I am sitting tight (not on my roof, though) in the firm unflappable faith that my 330 million gods and goddesses (I was born in a Hindu family; I can still call on them... I think) shall pacify Knockgoats and PZ, and kick Cthulhu's arse... Come on, man! They have huge snakes and monkeys and hybrids (bird-man, lion-man, elephant-man and so forth)...Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | August 2, 2009 11:47 AM
Back when we knew the Old Testament God
With His fondness for family slaughter,
We wouldn't think twice about sticking a knife
In a brother, a son, or a daughter.
It's nice that a father can still show his love
For a God that compels adoration
By torturing slowly, then putting to death
His own son, through acute dehydration.
No father so loved, not his son, but his God,
With his thoughts not on Earth, but above.
The proof is a son who lies tortured to death--
Whoever could doubt, God is Love?
(Some of you may recall, CuttleSon has type 1 diabetes. Withhold insulin? I have nightmares about what would happen if supplies ever dwindled!)
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 2, 2009 11:47 AM
Knockgoats, #8
Okay...
So as the man is waiting there on his roof, and the flood waters slowly creep up past the eaves and the rain gutter, a man comes up in a boat and without saying a word pulls a shotgun from the bottom of the boat and plants a couple of rounds of buckshot in the first man's guts.
With such massive injuries it wasn't long until he was standing before the throne of God. Irate, he demanded to know, "There I was praying to you for help, and up comes this mad man who ups and slays me. What was that all about."
And God replied,"I sent him. Since you weren't about to accept any help that didn't come directly from Me, I figured I'd get the whole mess done with quick so those reading this tale wouldn't have to suffer through your massive stupidity."
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 11:48 AM
CW @ 71:
"I'd suggest that until we stop talking about (and treating) kids as the possessions of their parents instead of as the people they actually are society will generally 'tsk tsk'..."
I couldn't agree more.
Posted by: wheatdogg | August 2, 2009 11:50 AM
I visited that man's church website. If you click on the Neumann's link, you can see a wall of prose and Scriptural references arguing that the court was waaay out of line even charging the parents. You see, the prosecution argued (successfully) that the Neumanns were seclusionists and not part of an established sect, and Paul says there are no such things as sects, and so it was just so unfair and unBiblical for the court to charge, much less convict the parents for exercising their Xian beliefs.
Actually I agree. A Biblical stoning of both parents would have been a much more suitable (and poetic) punishment than merely tossing them in prison. Then again, maybe their fellow prisoners will exact additional punishment. Rumor has it that prisoners don't like child-killers.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 2, 2009 11:52 AM
Knockgoats #57 wrote:
I think that a lot of people in religious cults engage in a kind of doublethink. They will claim to be certain that a child who is properly prayed for, will not die -- unless they would have died anyway. If the child dies, though, it will look bad to outsiders, who don't have the reassurance of the Holy Spirit that prayer is more powerful than modern medicine.
One the one hand, they do not care what the world thinks: the only thing that matters is what God thinks. On the other hand, they live in the 21st century, (usually) have a lot of normal contact with secular culture, and do care what the world thinks, because they're part of it.
When they pray over the very sick, they are not claiming to be certain that the person will live. They are claiming to be sure that God will do what God will do. Dead children make the cult look bad -- even though it's not their fault. Therefore, the threat of criminal charges if the child dies will have some deterrent effect.
Of course, it won't deter the extreme fanatics. But you can't make laws for them. And even in groups of extremists, there are always some people who are more moderate, than others.
Posted by: Kausik Datta | August 2, 2009 11:52 AM
The tone is rightly poignant, Cuttlefish, but I loved the poem - your usual brilliance.
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 2, 2009 11:56 AM
Cuttlefish, OM | August 2, 2009 11:47 AM #75
Wow...just wow.
Cuttlefish, Am I mistaken, do you have a publication available? Could you be so kind as to provide the link?
Thanks
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 2, 2009 11:56 AM
I think that a lot of people in religious cults engage in a kind of doublethink. They will claim to be certain that a child who is properly prayed for, will not die -- unless they would have died anyway. If the child dies, though, it will look bad to outsiders, who don't have the reassurance of the Holy Spirit that prayer is more powerful than modern medicine. - Sastra
Good point. I'm convinced.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 11:57 AM
Kausik Datta @ 74:
"I am sitting tight (not on my roof, though) in the firm unflappable faith that my 330 million gods and goddesses (I was born in a Hindu family; I can still call on them... I think) shall pacify Knockgoats and PZ, and kick Cthulhu's arse... Come on, man! They have huge snakes and monkeys and hybrids (bird-man, lion-man, elephant-man and so forth)..."
Now that is what I call a cage match. Not so much celebrity death match as deity death match. I'm still putting my money on Cthulhu though. I mean come on. An entire race of super advanced cephalopod death gods, all lead by our favourite dead, dreaming denizen of Riyla? Has to be the winning team. I mean they have 8-10 arms each!. All we need to do now is stick the fundies in the middle and see which side dismembers/decapitates/consumes them first. We could bet on it . . . and a new pay per view sports channel is born!
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 2, 2009 12:01 PM
Kausik Datta,
OK, OK, I'm pacified! If you want to know, it was Ganesh whacking me round the head with his trunk that did it. My ears are still ringing.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 12:01 PM
Cuttlefish @ 75:
All hail Cuttlefish, the atheist bard!
Seriously my friend, you are a genius.
Posted by: Hank Fox | August 2, 2009 12:03 PM
My take on kids is that they “belong” not to their parents or their culture, but to the adults they will someday become. Everybody else along the way, parents included, are only caretakers until the adult-self shows up. If parents aren't doing a proper job of caretaking, the kids have to be removed to better care by some more responsible party.
Parents themselves purvey the idea: “They’re MY kids!” But that’s true only in the sense that you’re their primary caretaker. They don’t belong to you. They’re autonomous individuals temporarily in your care. If you starve to death a child, or deny her medical care, it’s absolutely as criminal as if you’d brought a stranger in off the street and done it to him.
Even rational people often tend to think parents "own" their children, and have the right to make extremely broad decisions as to their welfare. A lot of us shy away from making judgments based on this idea.
But I don't share it.
If you allow this children-as-the-adults-they’ll-become, part of what it means is that they’re not Jewish, or Catholic, or Jehovah's Witness children. They’re whatever THEY might become, with the broadest possible interpretation on that.
You can’t excuse certain behaviors regarding children with the statement "Well, they’re Muslim kids, or Catholic kids. It's their culture." You can’t be okay with bad education, painful or disfiguring cultural practices, all the types of abuse you wouldn't let some stranger walk up and do to your own kids.
It does seem we're becoming more aware of such things, probably thanks for the Internet, but we really need to get to a point of "This shit has got to stop." And enforce it.
Posted by: Thomas Winwood | August 2, 2009 12:11 PM
Please tell me I'm not the only one feeling distinctly uneasy at comments like #15 and #22. Yes, the neglect shown by these parents towards their daughter is horrific, but they have been punished for their crime with imprisonment, not rape. I think it's more than a little gruesome to wish such ill on them.
Prison rape isn't a light matter - it's a serious problem because it causes permanent psychological damage which inhibits their chance of being reintroduced to society when they've served time for their transgression.
I don't mind singling out ridiculous beliefs for scrutiny at all - heck, that's practically what this blog is for, and it's certainly why I keep reading - but please be the better man and keep the repulsive comments out of it.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 2, 2009 12:13 PM
Kausik Datta, I want to say, nice job. You took the threats after your faux pas and made good humor out of it.
Now we have to do something about those people who like to talk about the foot prints in the sand...
Posted by: Ray Burleigh | August 2, 2009 12:13 PM
On "putting the doctor before god":
Don't they realize that their god works through doctors? God gave man the capacity to accquire and use knowledge to separate him from the animals. And then he did everything he could to encourage man to go forth and accquire and use knowledge...
Oh, wait a minute...
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | August 2, 2009 12:13 PM
I agree, Patricia (@73), it was a shocking verdict. Given the number of children in this cult community who have died from lack of access to medical treatment, it's appalling that the members don't appear to have modified their practices in the slightest. It's just unfathomable to me that any parent would choose not to seek any and all available help when a child falls ill. More appalling still, though, is that Oregon Law continues to accommodate these casualties of faith. I guess the risk of trampling on anyone's religious freedom outweighs the lives of a few kids.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 2, 2009 12:17 PM
Thomas Winwood@87,
Yes indeed, well said.
Posted by: Miguel | August 2, 2009 12:18 PM
Sure, Kronenwetter is the defence attorney, but this apologetic respect-all-beliefs attitude really shits me. Demented fuckwits... *fumes*
Posted by: Josh | August 2, 2009 12:18 PM
Walton, While I sympathize with the anarchist view of punishment and am madly in love with William Godwin and Oscar Wilde, each of whom expressed that view eloquently, I don't like the idea of applying it selectively: it'd make sense to leave the Neumanns free only if the same reasoning was applied to all offenders. Otherwise you're a) singling out the religious for merciful treatment and b) mitigating the possible deterrent effect that's been discussed by various commenters. Plus you'd have to prohibit them from bearing or caring for any children in the future, which I don't think our legal system is equipped to do.
Posted by: peter | August 2, 2009 12:19 PM
All religion is inherently evil. If any of them get enough power they will abuse your children then lecture the world on morality, burn you at a stake, kill your daughter for going to school, invade your country on crusade and hang your president, stone you to death for driving on a Saturday, beat you to death for wearing the wrong clothes, meanwhile they steal from you like an English lord by not paying taxes and on and on.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 12:23 PM
"I guess the risk of trampling on anyone's religious freedom outweighs the lives of a few kids."
Its hard to believe that this is almost exactly the kind of sentiment that many law makers would express, without a hint of irony, in the 21st Century. Human rights? Trumped by religous freedom. Child protection laws? Trumped by religous freedom. The proper teaching of science in schools? Trumped by religous freedom. Free speech? Trumped by religous freedom (as odd as that sounds). Its the ultimate get out of jail free card; "God made me do it."
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | August 2, 2009 12:24 PM
odd... I just realized that I had substituted "son" in my verse, whereas the father in this case had tortured his daughter to death. It is my son who has diabetes... and as a parent, that is where my thoughts went.
Sphere Coupler, there is a link on the right of my blog--just click on my name here, and it should be easy to find. I am, however, revising the book (the new one will have some wonderful illustrations by the artist who did my banner art!), and so I will likely stop presses on the old one very soon. Any who want to get it, should see this as a sign to do so soon; any who want to wait for the new one should see this as a sign to wait.
Posted by: kev_s
|
August 2, 2009 12:31 PM
This study may be interesting to you lot:
"The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions"
http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP073984414.pdf
Sorry if its already been discussed here and I missed it.
Short extract:
"Because highly secular democracies are significantly and regularly outperforming the more theistic ones, the moral-creator socioeconomic hypothesis is rejected in favor of the
secular-democratic socioeconomic hypothesis A study to the contrary has yet to emerge despite the widespread
promulgation of the moral-creator socioeconomic hypothesis.
"Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions" is a nice phrase. I guess someone in that categoric could be called a 'Dypsick'. Fits with Neumann.
Posted by: Religion™ Brand Brain Staples | August 2, 2009 12:34 PM
No child deserves to suffer and die for the ignorance and irrationality of their parent(s). I can marshal no condolences to offer this man. Such a waste...
Posted by: natural cynic | August 2, 2009 12:35 PM
Can these people actually learn from this situation? IMO, they are just as likely to feel that they still didn't pray hard enough, or weren't faithful enough. It's the ego - my actions are so important that a miracle will occur, and if a miracle doesn't occur, then I didn't try hard enough. A test of faith has failed because my faith wasn't strong enough, therefore I will suffer the consequences gladly so that I can prove my faith better than before. Or I could get rational and question the whole thing...
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 2, 2009 12:36 PM
Cuttlefish thanks for the deadline info...I see the sign.
I'm sure your son will be just fine.
Oh and a belated birthday wish to you.
Posted by: maddogdelta | August 2, 2009 12:47 PM
Oh, you want the the flood story, PZ? Well, there once was a preacher......
// ducks :)
Posted by: Didac | August 2, 2009 12:49 PM
"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," Neumann testified. "I am not believing what He said he would do."
Even from a Christian point of view, that opinion equates to tempting God.
That opinion will lead all of us to an absolute quietism. As God has testified in the Bible that He has made the World as it is, we were absolutely non-responsible of our actions and our choices. Moreover, as Salvation is purportedly a monergistic (God-only) action, we have absolutely no duties to ourselves and to other people.
Some kinds of Christianity (and other Abrahamic religions, too) can lead people to a sort of nihilistic anomy that can be truly dangerous. Because if God is the only element of existence, then there is nothing a part from Himself.
It is like Goose's creationism. As natural history contradicted a literal Bible reading, Goose imagined a "God the Liar".
James, the brother of Jesus, told that Faith without Works is Dead. Curiously enough, Luther always doubted about the canonicity of James' Epistle.
As an atheist I don't believe in God nor in the Bible nor in the James' Epistle nor in Molinism. But I cannot fail to grasp that there are some versions of "God" more dangerous than others.
Posted by: Holbach
|
August 2, 2009 12:59 PM
So if he puts the doctor before his god, that would be akin to using the same analogy for any manner of circumstances? If he went to the supermarket to buy bread and milk, would that be putting the supermarket before his god by not letting his god transform a wheat shaft into bread and water into milk, thereby exhibiting his belief and strength in his imaginary god? Only religion can produce such insane bullshit and lend credence to the strength of deranged thinking. He should have been jailed with just a pan of urine and a ginko leaf and have his god transpose those items into food and drink and prove that his god is all powerfull and can work wonders. Moron.
Posted by: tsig | August 2, 2009 1:03 PM
If his car wasn't running right would he pray for god to fix it or would he "put his mechanic above god"?
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 2, 2009 1:05 PM
If it wasn't for evolution and Drakes equation I could almost believe *sometimes* that we live on a quarentined repository planet for the insanity gene.
Where some have aclimated quite well while others...
But of course I like a little sci-fi now and again.
I want a t- shirt that says (Sanity Exist!) and on the back (Somewhere)
Posted by: george.w | August 2, 2009 1:13 PM
Nice if someone had told it to the parents, though. It sounds inane here, but from the goddy perspective says exactly what they needed to hear to keep their daughter alive.
Well even better if they'd dumped their belief but the important thing is saving the daughter, who can then grow up to reject her parents' superstition.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 1:18 PM
Shpere Coupler @ 105:
"If it wasn't for evolution and Drakes equation I could almost believe *sometimes* that we live on a quarentined repository planet for the insanity gene"
That is a fantastic premise for a sci-fi short story right there. Like you, I like a little sci-fi now and again. No, thats not true, I LOVE my sci-fi.
*thunderous sound of women running away from the geek-ness*
Posted by: xebecs | August 2, 2009 1:19 PM
Okay, so there was this guy trapped by a flood, see? And the guy prayed and prayed for rescue, but even though two boats and a helicopter came by, he drowned anyway. So he gets to heaven, asks why god didn't rescue him, etc.
God (or St. Peter, if god happened to be off playing ski-ball) says "You dumb fuck! What makes you think I give a rat's ass about an idiot like you in the first place? Did you notice the flood? Did you notice the other people who died? Why should I single you out for survival? Geez, you people irritate me. In fact, why are you even here -- I had you slated for The Hot Place. Get out of my sight, you make me sick."
There. Does that meet everyone's approval? It *does* seem a bit more plausible to me, other than the god bit.
BTW, have you ever notice it's *always* a man, a guy, a dude -- the ones with the dangly bits? Why is it that trite religious anecdotes are so predictable?
Posted by: kantalope
|
August 2, 2009 1:20 PM
Surely, Mr. Neumann's god had the power to heal his daughter. Being omnipotent and all. In fact, it was probably this same god that made the young girl sick in the first place.
If faith and prayer are effective treatments:
It was obviously Mr. Neumann's ineffective prayer and lack of faith that killed the girl. It was not negligence, it was not an accident, it was not unavoidable. The girl's death was a direct result of either praying wrong or believing badly. Neumann should just 'fess up to his failure as a believer and father and go to jail. If you are going to be a kook...be a consistent kook.
Insulin: tempting chemical of the devil?
Posted by: Hank Fox | August 2, 2009 1:25 PM
natural cynic #99: "Can these people actually learn from this situation? IMO, they are just as likely to feel that they still didn't pray hard enough, or weren't faithful enough."
They won't learn anything, because they can't. There's probably some formal term for it in psychology; I call it "nailing."
To learn anything, they have to first admit they killed their daughter. That's too high a barrier to pass; they're "nailed" in place. How could you ever admit to yourself that you essentially murdered your kids through your own stupidity?
In their minds, either everybody else is wrong, or they themselves are. Their little culture will close ranks and help them believe it's the rest of us. They'll never be able to admit they did the wrong thing, and will be even more devoutly Christian as a result.
For the same reasons, so many parents of kids who die after volunteering to serve in Iraq become hyper-patriots (and even see equally-grieving mothers like Cindy Sheehan as traitors).
Posted by: Sherry
|
August 2, 2009 1:27 PM
I grew up in Amish country.
You folks have NO IDEA what they get away with.
See, they do not live in our world.
Suicide among this group is probably higher than anyone imagines because it's handled within their own community -- as is incest, domestic violence on and on.
Police rarely contact the Amish about anything unless an "Englander" is involved.
If this cults crimes against each other were ever exposed, the world would never again say "they are an example to us all".
I have no data to support my observations due to the impenetrability of this cult. Religious "freedom" us allowing the continual assault of our fellow Americans.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 1:27 PM
Kantalope @ 109;
"Surely, Mr. Neumann's god had the power to heal his daughter. Being omnipotent and all. In fact, it was probably this same god that made the young girl sick in the first place."
Unless, of course, rather than being omnipotent the bible got it wrong and god is just impotent. There is the creator, happily thinking he has achieved immaculate conception, but while he was off down the celestial chemist getting his third refill of little blue tablets, he didn't see Joseph sneaking into Mary's bedroom . . .
Posted by: Stellar Moose | August 2, 2009 1:34 PM
@73 The case was without a doubt abhorrent.
Oregon really isn't godsoaked though, not by American standards anyway. We have a constant tug-a-war with Washington for pole position as the state with the lowest amount of church attendees per capita.
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 2, 2009 1:38 PM
Gregory
Perhaps the title of the script could be (A genetic division)sub(sci-fi for the sane and religion for everyone else.
I agree it would make a great read.
Posted by: kantalope
|
August 2, 2009 1:41 PM
I want to make no claims one way or the other for god's power or lack there of. I can only work with Mr. Neumann's point of view.
Mr Neumann and his ilk seem to want to believe certain things and then they don't want to be held responsible for the results. He said he could heal the child with prayer. He did not. He was guilty using his own rules. He should have plead guilty and demanded the harshest penalty available instead of weaseling.
Posted by: natural cynic | August 2, 2009 1:47 PM
X Wolp @14: the blood sugar in her case probably wasn't even the worst thing, I can only imagine the agony ketoacidosis and dehydration.
and Samuel @5 & 17: Her death must have been HORRIBLE, it is one of the worst feelings you could imagine having high blood sugar, your body burning every piece of fat it can find in an attempt to get suggar[sic] to the brain, which it cant as no insulin is available to use it..
Wrong, Samuel. Insulin is not needed for glucose transport into the CNS. [it is needed for most of the other body cells]. If you think about it from an evolutionary perspective, it makes some sense that the last part of the body to be protected from low blood glucose concentrations entering cells is the brain. Since the pancreas shuts down insulin production during times of fasting and hunger, the remaining blood glucose can still feed the brain, which has no significant energy storage capacity. Low blood glucose was a common threat in primitive society faced with recurring scarce food supplies.
Since I am another Type 1 here, however I
thinkknow that there are a lot of more horrible ways to die, metastatic solid tumors, chronic lung diseases and AIDS come to mind. There is not much pain involved, the most obvious symptom is thirst. This can be relieved immediately by drinking water. The only annoying thing about this is that it returns not long after you have imbibed something. If you have access to water, especially cold water, then the recurring thirst is merely annoying. No water for 2 hours does get nasty. The other really annoying thing is producing >500 ml of urine every hour, literally a case of being pissed off. The other symptoms are bothersome, but certainly really painful: weight loss and not knowing why, slow healing of injuries and a weak & sluggish feeling.A lot of the latter effects come from ketoacidosis - uncomfortable and sometimes consciousness altering, but not really painful. Why do you thing going on a prolonged fast is sometimes something that religious crazies do? You might encounter some weird shit that one might think has some significance. Prolonged hyperglycemia and ketosis will alter ionic concentrations which will have a gradually depressing effects on consciousness until coma occurs. More disconcerting than anything else, as in "WTF is happening to me?"
n.b. this is my personal experience with LADA [Latent Autoimmune Diabetes of Adulthood] where there is slowly progressing loss of beta cell function [over a few months]. YMMV with more abrupt insulin loss as was probably true in the case that brought about this discussion.
Posted by: Nap | August 2, 2009 1:50 PM
What's wrong with the flood story? I mean, why is it, you know, an unforgivable sin?
*snicker*
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | August 2, 2009 1:51 PM
..and St. Peter says "Well God thought you were a jumped up evil little shit and decided to give everybody else a break."
Hmm. This religion stuff isn't so comforting when it is mapped on to real life outcomes is it?
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 2, 2009 1:52 PM
Hank Fox #110 wrote:
Never say never: sometimes parents do change. I can't find the link right now, but there's an organization dedicated to changing the religious legal exemptions for children's health care which was founded by a mother (and father?) who was sent to prison for allowing their child to die while they prayed. The woman wrote her story, and detailed how she thought, why she continued, and how she changed. Her child's death -- and her subsequent trial and sentence -- were a major wake-up call. Maybe someone else knows the url: it's a gripping story.
As a former True Believer, she argues that, contrary to popular opinion, people in cults are still reachable, and changes in laws can help save lives. Could be.
Posted by: natural cynic | August 2, 2009 2:10 PM
@105 I want a t- shirt that says (Sanity Exist!) and on the back (Somewhere)
Been There, Done That [almost]:
"Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life here.
Posted by: Lurker Anonimous | August 2, 2009 2:13 PM
Jeanine, OMnivore:
Luckily, the nice people over at The Onion already butchered the "Footprints in the sand" inspirational for us:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34168
Cuttlefish:
I loved your poem, too. I thought you replaced the daughter for a son as a John 3:16 allusion. I mean, just look at the last two lines of the poem!
Posted by: mdh | August 2, 2009 2:23 PM
@natural cynic
NOT that I disagree with you, because you make a lot of good sense, but your choice of language says something to me.
If you think about it from an evolutionary perspective, it makes some sense that the last part of the body to be protected from low blood glucose concentrations entering cells is the brain.
if you REALLY think about it from an evolutionary perspective, then who/what is doing the "protecting" in your sentence there?
There either is, or is not, an invisible architect.
The proto-brain began to evolve before most/all of the other organs, and well before the insulin system in animals. As such, the brain and neural organs and sub-organs have evolved in an environment (a micro-climate of sorts) to interact with glucose under different circumstances than than other organs do. The brain has more commonality in micro-structure and function across species than most other organs, and this functionality (and thus the microclimate it evolved in) is conserved while other organs evolve - because the brain itself is an advantage to survival.
And in 3 billion years, when the jellyfish people rule the earth, this may be different.
Posted by: Stuart Van Onselen | August 2, 2009 2:32 PM
So there was this guy, trapped on his roof by a flood, and, well, Cectic tells it best
Posted by: raven | August 2, 2009 2:34 PM
It may well do so. A lot of these cultists were born into their cults. The Oregon one doesn't even accept converts.
Changing the laws gives the sneakers-to-doctors and the ones on the fence an out. Those mean old secular authorities are preventing us from practicing our religion. Which involves the occasional human child sacrifice.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 2, 2009 2:35 PM
"God promises in the Bible to heal, he said."
And he has kept that promise. Except for the billions of times where he didn't, of course. But as modern medicine has improved, his record has gotten better.
Posted by: October Mermaid | August 2, 2009 2:39 PM
This sort of thing happens so often, it makes me despair of the world ever changing for the better. Sure, WE'RE horrified by it, but what about average people? They'll forget about it in an hour if it registers at all. And forget about the true believers becoming introspective. If they had any kind of critical thinking skills, they wouldn't be true believers.
So I mean, what's the use? Then you've got the Grade A wacko on the ministry site PZ linked to at the bottom of this post, who is talking about weighing the benefits of another American civil war. See, that's another big and important difference between believers and people like us: if they were in our situation, their first thought would be "Holy war! Let's kill them unbelievers! Agents of Sataaaaaan!" Thankfully, none of us (I'm hoping) would come to the conclusion that violence is the answer, but what DO we do? It seems like our tactics are having little to no success. And again, I am NOT at all even remotely suggesting that there should be violence. It just seems hopeless.
Posted by: Dianne | August 2, 2009 2:40 PM
"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," Neumann testified. "I am not believing what he said he would do."
I notice that he had a lawyer. Shouldn't he have just prayed for the trial to go in his favor and refused to make any defense? Clearly this "faith" goes only when the risk is to other people, not to Neumann himself.
Posted by: spondee | August 2, 2009 2:41 PM
There was a man on a rooftop, and the flood waters washed away the sand under the foundation, and there were footprints in the sand in the shape of a fish, and God said "Wood eye! Wood eye! Harelip! Harelip!"
Posted by: Dianne | August 2, 2009 2:47 PM
Until those fuckwits kill someone else's kid,
Not even then. They're already doing it. Restrictions on abortion (particularly evil laws like parental notification), the embryonic stem cell transplant ban, vaccination refusal, bans on "human/animal hybrids" and other brainless, biologically ignorant fundie inspired laws and behaviors are killing everyone's children.
Posted by: A Touch Of Editing | August 2, 2009 2:51 PM
This guy was sitting on his porch while flood waters filled the street. A man in a boat offered to take him to safety, but the fellow said, "No thanks, the good Lord will take care of me". This was repeated two times with rising waters until the man drowned. We have no reason to believe he ever got to complain to a God which no one can prove exists.
When the neighborhood children heard about this, they came to the conclusion that said man was pretty freaking stupid, and from that point on ignored their parents' tearful pleas to go to church on Sundays. All the children would eventually grow up into well-adjusted, intelligent adults who didn't expect an invisible saviour to intervene on their behalf and who would pack up the valuables and get on the first boat the next time flood waters came to the street.
Hmmm. Some stories really do work better with a happy ending.
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 2, 2009 2:51 PM
#126
It's not hopeless, it's never hopeless, the pendulum swings,it always swings, it is mankind's endeavor to hold it to as close to vertical as possible.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 2, 2009 2:53 PM
Stellar Moose - Portland & Eugene aren't bad for godlessness, but do you honestly think the rest of Oregon isn't godsoaked?
Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 2, 2009 2:56 PM
Justice? Maybe; but the criminal law is a blunt and brutal and not always effective instrument. If sending these deluded parents to prison actually has some deterrent effect over the comparably deluded, it might (just) be worth doing. At the moment, however, we don't know that's going to be the case; and we're inflicting punishment on people who've already been horribly punished for their folly.
It reminds me of a recent news report on a man who was criminally prosecuted for inadvertently leaving his young son in a closed car too long, so that the child died. He'd already killed his own child, and knew he'd done it, and been reduced to abject misery as a result. And yet a local prosecutor (who had complete discretion not to, of course) decided that he had to be punished even further.
That prompts the further concern: since most prosecutions (and certainly prosecutions for negligent or reckless homicide) are ENTIRELY within the discretion of District and State's Attorneys to pursue or not to, rather than some consistent hard line against religious fanatics who kill their children, we're bound to have an inconsistent patchwork (some prosecuted, some not). Any deterrent effect of prosecution is no doubt impaired by this inconsistency; and it raises a very substantial issue of fairness.
I don't know about anybody else; but I await further developments with a complete lack of enthusiasm.
Posted by: Standard curve
|
August 2, 2009 3:06 PM
Another Type I diabetic here voting for ketoacidosis as the worst I have ever felt. The fun thing is it's always only a few hours away if something happens to my insulin supply.
I'm using an insulin pump with rapid acting insulin (Humalog), any insulin I give myself is pretty much gone in about two to three hours.
These "parents" should have their pancreatic beta cells confiscated along with their gametes.
On another note, I'd like to ask anyone with a few dollars to spare to donate to the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation:
http://www.jdrf.org/
Posted by: a lurker | August 2, 2009 3:09 PM
I notice that he had a lawyer. Shouldn't he have just prayed for the trial to go in his favor and refused to make any defense? Clearly this "faith" goes only when the risk is to other people, not to Neumann himself.
1) The cemeteries are loaded with people who falsely thought that their imaginary God would save them.
2) I don't know of any faith tradition that says that God will be your lawyer in court. I know of plenty that suggest that God might heal someone.
In the end though, the law is clear. He did not obey the law and now he must pay the penalty. Unfortunately his child paid an even greater penalty for his stupidity.
I wonder when some lawyer is going to try to get a similar client off the hook by an insanity plea? Imagine the circus that such a move would make. But I suspect no sane lawyer would do it as there are not too many juries which that would not anger.
Posted by: ht | August 2, 2009 3:14 PM
Unfortunately, the "evidence" for prayers' effectiveness has just been "reconfirmed" in the case of little Sequoyah Smith who returned home after several months in a coma. Ironically, CNN's video clip reporting this story ends with the young girl's elated parents saying that the doctors told them at the beginning that the only thing that would save Sequoyah, were prayers. This begs the quesion, why didn't they just send her home then to be treated by the power of prayers?
Posted by: Tom Estes | August 2, 2009 3:25 PM
Come on PZ, you blame this on relgion? This act of lunacy was the result of someone who doesn't understand the Bible. As a Christian, I look at doctors as a resource given to us by God, and thus, a resource that should be taken full advantage of. I think these nuts should be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law. I know that was pithy, I just want to inject some rational thought into the conversation.
Posted by: Reynold | August 2, 2009 3:32 PM
You want to know what's worse? There are people who support that guy! Fortunately, the other posters shoot him down.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 2, 2009 3:32 PM
He is one of yours. So, you are no True Xian™ since you think you can make that decision. If they call themselves Xian, they are. Either admit it or shut the fuck up since you are a hypocrite.Posted by: SphereCoupler | August 2, 2009 3:34 PM
OK Tom, where the hell was mainstream religion when are goverment failed to protect this little girl.
Why did they not step in and correct this issue...well they failed us too!
Mainstream Religion has lost it's balls to stand up to the lunutic fringe.
Posted by: Aquaria | August 2, 2009 3:39 PM
Walton:
The one problem with your assertion is that there are cases where the State is the best actor for social change, through its power. See: Britain and India's practice of sati. Do you think India would have banned the practice if the threat of being sent to the gallows for continuing sati hadn't hung over their heads? Or do you think it's okay to brainwash women into thinking the only way they can prove their worth to a deity is to immolate herself when her husband dies?
See also: The admission of Utah as a state. The Morons--er, Mormons, would never have given up polygamy if the US government hadn't told them, "Get rid of the polygamy, and we'll let you become a state." Of course the implied alternative was, "Keep marrying 10 women at a time, and we'll have an excuse to take your land for ourselves. Oh, and take note of all those Army troops stationed around your bordering states." Funny, the Mormons suddenly had a revelation that polygamy wasn't such a hot idea. Imagine that!
And please don't bring up the polygamy argument. The way the Mormons practiced it (as seen in the FLDS movement) was not in the best interests of women, to put it mildly.
Sometimes, the State is a good thing.
Posted by: M31 | August 2, 2009 3:43 PM
Once upon a time there was a little crab who had nothing to eat. So he prayed and prayed, and God heard his prayers and let a stupid guy drown and the crab ate him.
Posted by: Will TS | August 2, 2009 3:45 PM
Doesn't hiring a lawyer put the lawyer above god? Doesn't wearing clothes put the weaver and tailor above god? Doesn't buying food put the grocer before god? Why do they single out medicine as the only human endeavor they will reject? Shouldn't they reject all the works of man as affronts to the power of their lord? Can't prayer meet all their needs?
I have a good friend who is a Christian Scientist who explained that using faith-healing instead of medical care was a demonstration of their faith. The obvious extension of that belief is that disease is a manifestation of sin. Parents of a kid with diabetes can surely realize that their infant child is an unrepentant sinner that has been forsaken by jebus. Praying for healing, therefore, is logically a waste of perfectly good smite-requesting time.
Posted by: No Guy in the Sky
|
August 2, 2009 3:57 PM
Hey Name a Xtians first born poll.
http://billphillips.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/what-should-i-name-my-firstborn-son/
Posted by: Monado, FCD | August 2, 2009 4:01 PM
What do members of these cults do when they themselves get sick? As anti-choice people bring their pregnant daughters or selves to abortion clinics, I presume that they sneak off to doctors.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
August 2, 2009 4:09 PM
That polls several months old. Little Igor has already been born.
Posted by: Marc Abian | August 2, 2009 4:09 PM
A guy’s in his house when horrendous rains come
up. The water starts rising, and before you know it, we’re talking major flood. Roads are covered. Nothing’s moving. Pretty soon, a boat comes along. Guy in the boat yells, "Come on - we’re here to save you. Get in the boat."
Guy in the house says, "No… I’ve got faith that God will save me."
The boat moves along and the water keeps rising. The man refuses another boat, and then a helicopter. He reaffirms that he believes God will answer his prayer and save him.
Then a man with a robe and beard appears in a flash of light, but it's not a man at all, it's Jesus
"Jesus, you've come to save me" says the man tearfully, joyfully.
"Yes, I have" replies Jesus, smiling and nodding his head.
At this point Jesus puts some spikes through his eyes and elocutes himself using the satelite dish and the rapidly rising water, crying out in agony. After this torture is finished Jesus takes some cyanide and dies.
The man is distraught.
"WTF, how does this help anyone?" he asks "Was all that pain really needed? Why did he kill himself? This is fucking insane. Fuck. What kind of useless saviour..but..seriously? Man, this is totally fucked up."
The water continues to rise and the man drowns. With his last breath he curses Zoidberg.
Posted by: Brachinus | August 2, 2009 4:11 PM
God answers all prayers ... but sometimes the answer is "Rot in jail, you scumbag!"
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
August 2, 2009 4:12 PM
I'm going to try Neumann's system the next time my car needs gasoline. I'll pray really, really, really hard for a full tank of gas.
Posted by: MelM | August 2, 2009 4:16 PM
I hope that several ideas would sink into pious heads or any heads that believe that intentions can substitute for results:
. We have a right to think what we want but not a right to do anything we want. A person's rights end at the point where the rights of others are violated.
. The parents have obligations derived from a child's rights--rights which a child is unable to exercise. A court's getting into the act is not tyranny but is it's basic function of protecting rights.
. Parents' obligation to provide medical care can't be satisfied by whatever idiotic quack remedies the parents may believe in. It has to be rational (based on facts). This is crucial. Although not a lawyer, I would think there would need to be some tests that a court could apply so that it's not the court's quack ideas that rule and the decision is objective. The obligation is to do something real--not just to intend to do something; there's a huge difference.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 2, 2009 4:19 PM
Dear Brother Tom Estes @137
Thank you for injecting some rational thought into this hellish blog. I've always thought that atheists were far too credulous when it comes to right, wrong and reality. I myself am also a Christian, and I find your pithy admonition to the demon Professor Myers to be a timely tonic. And I agree with you entirely that of course God gave us doctors as a resource, just as (praise his holy name) he gave us faith healing, the rainbow as a sign that there would be no more floods, the marvelous ability to cast out demons, the ability to facilitate the transubstantiation of fermented grape juice and crackers into the divine blood and body of Christ, speaking in tongues and various other gifts of the Holy Spirit, and commandments to mutilate our genitals. Like you I am a Christian who knows God's mind completely (even when his infallible divine Word is completely bonkers) and it always mystifies me why other Christians should take literally things the Bible promises that are clearly fucking stupid. It makes you wonder, doesn't it Tom, why God didn't bless those daughter-slaughtering parents with the same ability to discriminate between true Biblical stupidity and false Biblical stupidity, with which he blessed you and I.
I know! Why don't you write a book? I've got a great title for you: "TOM ESTES GUIDE TO STUFF GOD SAYS THAT IT'S SAFE TO BELIEVE WITHOUT KILLING YOURSELF OR YOUR CHILDREN: A HANDBOOK FOR THE LITERAL CHRISTIAN, BY ONE BLESSED WITH ENOUGH BRAIN TO SPOT THE REALLY STUPID AND DANGEROUS SHIT"!
Praise the Lord, I'd buy a copy.
Yours in Christian commonsense
Smoggy
Posted by: truebutnotuseful | August 2, 2009 4:21 PM
Tom Estes @ #137 wrote:
And how exactly do you know that *your* interpretation of the Bible is correct and *his* is wrong?
Let us know when you get around to doing that.
Posted by: one of the many dogs | August 2, 2009 4:31 PM
'Tis Himself, your full tank of petrol shall be delivered. By aerial drop. Be advised not to smoke.
Posted by: AdamK | August 2, 2009 4:35 PM
"This act of lunacy was the result of someone who doesn't understand the Bible."
You know that "faith the size of a mustard seed" part? And the "ask and it shall be given" part? And that line about "moving mountains"?
Well, never mind. That was all some kind of elaborate typo.
Any idiot can find anything he wants in the Bible, and call whatever he believes "Christianity." It's true, he can! It says so, right there in the Bible! Someplace.
Posted by: Reynold | August 2, 2009 4:41 PM
In regards to my post at #138, apparently the guy was being sarcastic.
Posted by: Rick R | August 2, 2009 4:49 PM
#99- "Can these people actually learn from this situation? IMO, they are just as likely to feel that they still didn't pray hard enough, or weren't faithful enough. It's the ego - my actions are so important that a miracle will occur, and if a miracle doesn't occur, then I didn't try hard enough. A test of faith has failed because my faith wasn't strong enough, therefore I will suffer the consequences gladly so that I can prove my faith better than before. Or I could get rational and question the whole thing..."
This seems entirely plausible, given the religious compunction to view everything in terms of themselves.
I didn't notice a single thought for the dead daughter in that paragraph. Fitting.
Posted by: 2 cents | August 2, 2009 4:52 PM
Wonder what would happen if, instead of a diabetic problem, Kara had been severely injured in a car accident with her parents. Would they refuse to let the paramedics treat and stabilize her? Would they refuse to allow her to be transported to the hospital?
I'm sure the rescue squad wouldn't buy any bullshit when someone needs help. Saving someone's life or health has precedence over the parent's wacky beliefs. Remember young Daniel and his Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Kara's death is such a FUCKING unnecessary loss. May they be haunted by it forever.
Posted by: rufustfirefly | August 2, 2009 4:57 PM
@ Sherry - 111:
Some years ago I saw a news story on one of ABC's news magazine shows about an Amish girl who had left. She had been sexually abused by her older brother. Their way of dealing with it was for the brother to admit he did it, and apologize, I think, and that was it. The abuse continued, of course. When the girl told her mother, the mother told the girl she wasn't praying hard enough. When the girl's younger sister began to physically mature, and she watched her brother watching the younger sister, she decided to go to the local authorities. Eventually the brother was tried and convicted and sent to prison.
People don't want to believe that kind of thing because they have such a romantic idea of the Amish. I told the mother of one of my friends about it. She has a real thing about the Amish. She hasn't spoken to me in years.
Posted by: Heidi | August 2, 2009 5:00 PM
@Aaron Baker #133:
The difference is that I bet the guy whose kid died in the car would be damned sure not to do it again. Dale Neumann would just pray harder next time.
Posted by: Pharyngulette | August 2, 2009 5:27 PM
Smoggy @ 151:
Such wisdom with the Word O' God! You're my kinda xtian and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Posted by: Carlie | August 2, 2009 5:29 PM
As a Christian, I look at doctors as a resource given to us by God, and thus, a resource that should be taken full advantage of
That's awfully nice. Where does it say that in the Bible? I can find lots of verses about God healing the sick, and how faith in God can make one whole, but I've never come across anything that says that we should turn to doctors when we're sick because we're a good resource.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | August 2, 2009 5:31 PM
This reminds me of a story.
There once was a time of terrible localized famine. A man living at that time had every faith that God would get him through it.
One day, a pretzel vendor came by his house and offered the man a pretzel. The man said, "No thank you, the Lord will provide."
The next day, a chestnut vendor was bringing his cart by and offered the man a bag of hot, roasted chestnuts. The man said, "No thank you, The Lord will provide."
The day after that, a hot dog vendor was wheeling by and offered the man a hot dog. The man said, "No thank you, the Lord will provide."
The following day, no vendors came by and the man was starting to feel weak. He saw some light peeking out from behind the clouds, rose to his feet, and exclaimed, "Screw this. I'm going down to the church and I'm going to eat me some Jesus!"
Posted by: Carlie | August 2, 2009 5:31 PM
Sigh. "because THEY'RE a good resource."
Posted by: Martin_z | August 2, 2009 5:33 PM
There's just one thing that worries me.
Assuming that that bizarre web-site is actually quoting the law correctly, it looks to me (though IANOL) as if the parents really did have a defence that what they did (praying for the child's recovery) might truly not be illegal. Immoral, stupid and obscene, yes - but not illegal.
So don't be surprised if there is a successful appeal against conviction here.
Posted by: GlenInBrooklyn | August 2, 2009 5:41 PM
Though a minor point in the story, I found it pretty horrifying on its own. The jury took 15 hours to convict? It would have taken me 15 seconds.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 2, 2009 5:44 PM
Dear Sister Pharyngulette @160,
Of course, you are most welcome to subscribe to my Godly newsletter. The latest issue includes such articles as:
--"The Kama Sutra for Abstinence Pledgers."
--"Communion for Vegans: Don't Eat Jesus, Just Blow Him"
and
--"What the Bible say about Hemorrhoids".
There is also a tasteful centrefold featuring my ex-convict friend Floyd Rubber with his body lubricated with holy oil and 2 lb crosses attached to his nipple and penis rings.
You'll also receive a free sample of BIBLE™ and your very own ARMOUR OF GOD.
Yours in Christian erotica
Smoggy
Posted by: Kseniya | August 2, 2009 5:46 PM
t.estes wrote:
Day saved! :-D
Posted by: blf | August 2, 2009 5:51 PM
In 2 Chronicles 16:12 it implies the opposite, you should not go to a doctor:
I suppose that's because in Exodus 15:26 becoming ill is punishment for not blindly obeying teh big bad magic sky dog:
An important thing to do, when you are sick, according to James 5:14–15 is to spread the infection or be treated by know-nothings:
Obey this time-proven principles, for the drunken Bronze Age shepherds have spoken!
Posted by: blf | August 2, 2009 5:54 PM
Gakkk! Obey these time-proven principles, for the drunken Bronze Age shepherds have spoken!
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | August 2, 2009 5:55 PM
A guy lives his whole life as a self-centered, stingy and colorless individual. Nasty motherfucker.
One day he is struck with a case of conscience and suffers severe regret, He promises that he will be more human and charitable. That Christmas he went down to the mall and placed, with a deep sense of wonder and thankfulness, one dollar in the Salvation Army kettle. He did so for the next two Christmases and the delight of giving and sharing was sufficient for the balance of the year. The guy had learned the inner joy and confirmation that accompanies an act of charity. He had never been happier nor felt more fully human.
He dies and finds himself at the legendary gates. Gives his name. St. Peter looks up and with a frowns says, "Sorry, son. Your name does not appear in my book."
The guy breaks down and confesses his nearly lifelong self obsession while taking great pains to point out his three consecutive acts of charity. His passion is enough to persuade Peter to seek further counsel.
In a large space full of light Pete presents the guy's case. "Miserable sumbitch except for his last three years during which he delighted himself by giving a dollar to the Sally each winter solstice and therefor begs your indulgence and mercy."
A voice, not shaking the air in Pete's ears but rather disturbing the brain between them gave solemn judgment. "Tell you what, Pete. Cut him a check for three dollars and tell him to go to hell."
Posted by: Terry
|
August 2, 2009 6:11 PM
I would like to see this guys medical records, from birth to present.
I wonder if he ever forsook medical care for himself like he did for his daughter.
Posted by: bilbo | August 2, 2009 6:18 PM
I'm absolutely overwhelmed at the amount of posters who seem to believe the majority of theists follow this kind of thinking. Neumann is from an incredibly fundamentalist part of the Christian faith and acted in a stupid manner that few members of even his fundamentalist sect would follow. There are plenty of reasons to criticize religion as a whole, but extrapolating this to all of religion is a cheap cop-out.
I guess bigotry is a two-way street, isn't it? This blog is a beautiful, elegant example.
Posted by: Steve | August 2, 2009 6:21 PM
Well, here are some genes that aren't going to be passed along. Too bad for the kid, but the parents are, I hope, in the throes of well deserved pain over the loss of a child.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 2, 2009 6:21 PM
I'm absolutely overwhelmed at the amount of posters who seem to believe the majority of theists follow this kind of thinking. - bilbo
Can you give some specific examples? Should be easy to give lots if what you say is true.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | August 2, 2009 6:23 PM
At that UMB site they are selling videos that explain what to do when the Endtimes happen, and I found this joke.
http://www.unleavenedbreadministries.org/?page=hmpc2
Sure would love to have that source of gasoline.
But who or what is Godís?
Posted by: BlueMonday | August 2, 2009 6:32 PM
I'm curious, would it be possible to pursue practicing medicine without a license in cases like these? I mean, they are claiming they are offering the cure, after all.
@69
Yikes. Aside from the content insanity, they seemed to suffer from the common ailment of the crazies: unmitigated font formatting. Red sometimes; underline sometimes; maybe throw in some all-caps. Also, it's a good thing they told us what "microcosm" means in the Greek because apparently it doesn't already mean something in English.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | August 2, 2009 6:32 PM
Off-topic, but wanna see a nekkid coon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdpWlZz2W_4&feature=related
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 2, 2009 6:34 PM
Dear Bilbo,
What a pleasure to have you interrupt your quest to admonish the atheists on this blog. I didn't realize that in addition to your many other accomplishments stealing dragon treasure and fighting orcs, you were also a pronouncer of sweeping generalizations on behalf of wider Christianity. Does Gandalf know this? He may be concerned if he discovers you reading verses like "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
My worry, from personal experience of seeing Christians time and again abusing their nearest and dearest in the name of Jesus, is that you are talking like someone with terminal constipation. Why don't you let Gollum stick his finger up your ring and see if he can work out the blockage for you. Don't worry, no one will see him, the moment he's breached the point of entry he'll turn invisible. Just like God!
Yours in Tolkeinism
Smoggy
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 2, 2009 6:37 PM
This should have never reached the courts.
It should never be public policy for the government to preempt by intrusion unless it is a dire last resort.
In the beginning of this fiasco mainstream religion should have publicly condemned the care givers actions.
Thus giving goverment the go ahead for intervention and the human support to pick up the pieces.
Posted by: Eidolon
|
August 2, 2009 6:46 PM
Bilbo, you fatuous git:
I did a quick look back and I don't see the sweeping generalizations you refer to. In the unlikely event you are not a drive by troll, why not list, by number only, say 20 or so posts that have made that leap. Should not be an issue, given the number of posts on this thread. Otherwise, you sound just like any other godbot who does not like this blog.
Sphere:
Why should it be necessary for mainstream religion to condemn and thus give permission? Would you not say that denying vital medical treatment is a dire situation? You have placed religion in the position of controlling the actions of the gov't.
Posted by: Hugo | August 2, 2009 6:47 PM
No surprise the bloggers here would pounce on this story - although can't blame PZ for posting this, as it is newsworthy, and the poor child's parents did invoke religious belief in their actions. This is a horrible, disturbing tragedy. Obviously the vast majority of the population, both religious or atheist, would find the parent's actions criminal. I think it's clear that most believers are of the belief that an omniscient God can choose to intervene miraculously in our time-space, but that intervention and/or healing in every unfavorable circumstance is a silly notion. Friends of ours had a son who battled leukemia for 7 years and he died at age 9. They prayed fervently for many reasons/needs, and their faith in God has not been changed by their loss, despite the grief that goes on. Their faith did not rest on the outcome of their son's treatment. They also had faith that modern science and doctors provided the best chance for his recovery. They explored every possible avenue for treatment, and their son was treated by top physicians throughout the entire ordeal and they felt God's presence and support throughout. They also believed that God could have healed their son but did not expect nor demand it and did not change their medical approach because of their faith.
There are whacked-out people in both religious and atheistic circles. People of faith struggle with the same issues as non-believers. In the debate over the existence of God, the fact that a percentage of people of faith are criminal, either through ignorance or by choice, does not weaken the believer's case. The case for the existence of God is strong on many fronts, but that's for another debate.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 6:49 PM
Smoggy Batzrubble @ 178;
Smoggy strikes again! Seriously, if I keep laughing at these posts this hard I am going to bust something! Tell me, does Bible(tm) have any properties pertaining to the treatment of ruptured internal organs? Or over stressed diaphrams? How quickly can I expect delivery of this wonderful snakeoi . . . err, I mean cure all?
Posted by: Gilgamesh | August 2, 2009 6:52 PM
I see a similarity between the parents allowing their daughter to die in great pain and the actions of Mother Teresa.
Good old mom, even though she had million$ to to alleviate the suffering of Calcutta, she refused to help those with even one family member alive. Those she took in were warehoused in a dank small building sleeping on thin mats on the floor. Choosing to to spend the money donated to relieve the poor on edifices to her ego, building convents of her new order, medical supplies were in short supply. Syringes were used over and over rinsed in tap water between use.
Pain medicine was not allowed as that would deny her Jesus the sweet pleasure of experiencing the agony of others.
When Mother Teresa was ill, no expense was spared in transporting her to the best medical care in the world to ease her fevered brow.
Almost no one saw her for the hypocrite she was, instead she was venerated as a living saint.
The lesson here is; if you are going to use religion to trump medical care, do it in a large way and the world will agree with you.
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 2, 2009 6:54 PM
Hugo, #181: There are whacked-out people in both religious and atheistic circles.
Just out of curiosity, do these "whacked out atheists" cause problems for other people due to their "whacked out atheist" beliefs?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 2, 2009 6:56 PM
Dear Hugo
Praise the Lord for your enticingly cryptic assertion: "The case for the existence of God is strong on many fronts, but that's for another debate." The way you dropped that into this satanic little sea like so much chum will have the atheist sharks circling your superior little ark in no time. Best not dangle your faith too far over the side if you're hoping to keep it intact.
Your concerned fellow fisher of men
Smoggy
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 2, 2009 6:57 PM
Ok, Hugo. I'm game for actual discussion of the case for God. Where should we begin?
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 6:58 PM
Gilgamesh @ 183;
At least Penn and Teller outed her for the sadistic monster she was, along with Mahatma Ghandi's youthful forays into rascism in South Africa and his liking for performing enemas on young girls and the fact that under the Dalai Lama the justice system in Tibet employed torture and even disembowlment of its opponents (not that this is any justifications for China's subsequent annexation).
God is love indeed.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 2, 2009 7:00 PM
Hugo,
God can choose to intervene miraculously in our time-space, but that intervention and/or healing in every unfavorable circumstance is a silly notion.
Why? If he's omnipotent, he could; if he's benevolent, he would. In particular, what has he got against amputees?
People of faith struggle with the same issues as non-believers.
Some of the same ones, certainly. But not all: there is no philosophical problem of evil for atheists for example - as opposed to practical problems of what to do about it.
In the debate over the existence of God, the fact that a percentage of people of faith are criminal, either through ignorance or by choice, does not weaken the believer's case.
Agreed. But it does weaken the case for "belief in belief" - the claim that belief in God is a good thing, whether or not it is true.
The case for the existence of God is strong on many fronts
No, it really isn't. In over a year following this blog, I have not seen one good argument for the existence of God.
Posted by: speedweasel | August 2, 2009 7:01 PM
@mxh (way back at #41)
"No matter what his beliefs are, the fact that he's more concerned about offending his god than saving his daughter shows a lot about how religion can poison people (or help messed up people come up with an excuse for the fuck-ups that they are)."
Dylan Moran said, "You will notice that the kind of people who turn to Jesus tend to be the sort of people who haven't done that well with everybody else."
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 2, 2009 7:02 PM
#180
I am not giving mainstream religion supreme authority to decide this issue.
Ultimately(our slow) government intervention may come to slow (as it did in this case)
Both tools of mankind failed to act with compassion.
I fault government and religion equally in this matter.
Posted by: Iris | August 2, 2009 7:03 PM
TE:
Yes, yes he does. Perhaps more specifically, on the self-evidently false idea that Christian faith is implicitly moral, or in any way necessary for the well-being of humans.
Seems to me the Neumanns understood the bible perfectly well, and certainly at least as well as you do: treacherous tests of faith and killing children with the Lord's blessing are both frequent themes.
Unless I have an unwanted pregnancy, of course. Then in that case I should definitely NOT take full advantage of that particular resource, right?
Oh, yes, those Christians are nuts and lunatics - but not you. Is the difference that your delusional beliefs haven't caused the deaths of any kids yet? That doesn't make you any less amoral, or less insane.
It's admirable that you have enough of a vestigial conscience to actually detect the injustice here, but as I understand it Wisconsin law actually gives Christians (like you) an out for their murderously insane beliefs (like yours, for example, if you're anti-choice) simply because Christians have sincerely held religious beliefs, no matter how destructive to others. I suspect that's why it took the jury fifteen hours to convict, and as noted above, the verdict may well be overturned on appeal.
Then come back when you have a rational thought.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 7:04 PM
Err, Hugo? What case for god? To the best of my knowledge no actual proof for God has ever been presented. Just the whole inaccurate all-this-could-not-have-happened-by-accident line that makes no scientific sense. I am curious. If you have actual, hard, reproducable scientific evidence for the existence of a paranormal deity I think I may speak for all the atheists on this blog when I say we would very much like to hear it. Just don't expect us not to criticise your argument if it is manifestly flawed.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 2, 2009 7:08 PM
Hugo #181 wrote:
Not quite. Non-believers do not struggle over the question "what does God want me to do?"
The fact that good, loving people become criminal not in spite of, but because of, properly following the dictates of their faith, is a reasonable argument against using faith over reason. Weakening the case for faith seems very likely to weaken the believer's case.
Posted by: amphiox | August 2, 2009 7:15 PM
"We have a right to think what we want"
Actually, per the bible, we don't.
Commandment no. 1: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Commandment no. 9: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house."
Commandment no. 10: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife."
And then several New Testament section where Jesus says a man who looks at a woman with lust in his heart has already committed adultery with her in the eyes of god.
All purely crimes of thought. All mortal sins.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 2, 2009 7:17 PM
The case for the existence of god is strong on many fronts.
Great beelzebubs bollocks! Finally we have a true christian show up, lay it on us brother we've been waiting for this opportunity to learn.Posted by: speedweasel | August 2, 2009 7:23 PM
@hugo
"The case for the existence of God is strong on many fronts"
You can create a 'case' for a lot of things. Hell, someone presented a case that resulted in OJ Simpson getting off, but in scientific/skeptic circles we like to deal in *evidence*.
Feel free to present your evidence for the existence of a god.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 2, 2009 7:25 PM
Gee, whenever I ask a godbot for physical evidence, they run like cowards from a death match. No proper evidence has ever been presented.Posted by: Iris | August 2, 2009 7:29 PM
bilbo:
What kind of thinking, exactly, would it be erroneous to impute to the "majority of theists"? Belief in supernatural intervention in earthly affairs, like the Neumanns? Because that belief is, in fact, what defines a "theist." That you'd be overwhelmed that anyone might point this out says more about you than the posters on this blog.
I've read this thread; no one, as far as I recall, said or even implied that the "majority of theists" would engage in the type of stupid, morally depraved behavior the Neumanns did. So you can take this as a compliment: the majority of theists are in all likelihood not as stupid and/or morally depraved as the Neumanns.
Posted by: John78 | August 2, 2009 7:30 PM
Chiroptera 183
Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind, if you consider murdering 30 million or so "causing problems". No doubt many in pursuit of religion have also been responsible for killing of innocent people - so it cuts both ways, as Hugo said. The notion that whacked-out atheists don't cause problems for others seems unlikely. It seems like your position is that religion is at the root of all/most problems and that atheism stands as a bastion of reason and good behavior for all to look up to. I don't buy it. I know people in both categories atheist and believer, they all have their struggles, and both categories have people with good and bad behavior.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 2, 2009 7:30 PM
Now, now Nerd, a True Christian takes a few minutes to get the spirit.
Posted by: amphiox | August 2, 2009 7:34 PM
"The proto-brain began to evolve before most/all of the other organs, and well before the insulin system in animals"
Are you so certain about this? The insulin system controls the biological switch between devoting resources for growth/bodily maintenance and devoting resources for reproduction.
I wouldn't be surprised if the proto-insulin system is just as old, or older, than the proto-nervous system.
Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 2, 2009 7:38 PM
John78 - Really, do you think we haven't heard that one before? Stalin, Pol Pot etc. - sure they were evil, but were they evil because of their atheism? Did they commit mass murder in the name of atheism?.
People can do horrendous things in the name of religion, but I have never heard of any evil act done in the name of atheism. You might as well try and prove that Stalin was evil because he had a bushy moustache.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 2, 2009 7:39 PM
Just so no more daughters need die, I'd like to take a moment to remind the godly of the standard rules of being godly:
a) There really is no need to pretend you really believe the silliness your sect seems to imply it believes when your kid's life is on the line. The requirements are: in the presence of ministers officiating at your marriage, in front of potentially rival sects, and during internet debates with the ungodly, you are expected to insist you're certain your god exists, or at least that no one can prove it does not--hedging, as is customary, about the precise definitions of the words 'certain', 'your', 'god', and 'exists', should there be anyone likely to give you trouble present, and if you feel this gives your meagre intellect room to maneuver. Note that it is also acceptable as a substitute to make vague mumbling noises about 'god is within us all' or 'god is what I say it is' or even 'my god is actually a radish, but I'm not telling you which one'... and note also that some mainstream sects will also accept 'I don't really believe but my golf club expects me to pretend'... but consult the club handbook, for that last one; it's not always exactly spelled out...)
But again, anyway, point is: note that this is an exclusive list. Outside these situations, whatever, wherever, ya nutter, honestly, no one really cares that much whatinhell you believe, anyway*, long as you get to the fucking hospital. Elvis is alive and well and living in St. Petersburg with the ghost of Ezra Pound? Sure, whatever, babe--the important thing is: yer kid's not dead. So see again the first sentence of rule (a). That one's kinda key.
b) If your child is actually dying during an internet debate with the ungodly, you are permitted to tell little white lies about why you're leaving. Instead of saying 'shit, my kid is dying, I'm off to the emergency room as I know perfectly well my ineffable god isn't gonna do an effing thing', if it saves a life, it's perfectly acceptable to say 'I'm off to pray' or even 'I need to go to the bathroom'. We're happy to let those ones go if, in fact, we're getting to the point where a defibrillator and/or a shot of adrenaline straight into the heart muscle is pretty much mandatory. To make this clear this is the situation, you may use the safeword. Which, conveniently enough, is 'undefinable'..
No, the safeword isn't undefinable. Nor undefined. Nor deliberately undefined so as to avoid being too much of an embarrassment to you. That's your god. The safeword is 'undefinable'. Without the quotes...
(Oh, fuck it. You're not getting this, are you? Screw the safeword. Just go.)
c) Remember again that vague handwaving non-disprovable bumpf like 'my deity wants me to go to emerge because he's testing my faith and/or my driving skills' can and will save you from having to acknowledge (at least to yourself) you're full of it even after they've patched your offspring up and sent 'em back home for you to fuck with their head further. (But, for obvious reasons, tho' we encourage you to indulge in meaningless shit about boats and floods at least within your inner monologue--at least if it helps you rationalize what's already actually perfectly rational within a mind that probably generally finds the actually perfectly rational disturbingly foreign, thereby saving your offspring from a slow, miserable, painful, wretched death due to you being a total fucking idiot who just can't let go of an incredibly old and stupid superstition you probably should be embarrassed still to be professing, make sure you keep that 'lil gem about boats et al in your inner monologue, at least at this site, if you please. Insofar as failing to do so may require that you visit the hospital as well.
Thanks all, and let's all work at keeping our iron-age mythologies in the 'annoyingly silly but generally non-lethal' category of stupid...
(Tips hat...)
This has been a public service announcement. Evening, all.
*Yes, we may occasionally feel the need to make fun of you for it. Or even frequently. We may even point, shake our heads, and walk away laughing... But I, for one, promise not to do this in the emergency room. Or at least not while you're looking.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 2, 2009 7:41 PM
Oh, the TC™ must be thinking in Methuselah minutes. Now, what was the conversion factor? One human year is seven dog year..oops, wrong dog. Where's my CRC?Posted by: Sastra
|
August 2, 2009 7:46 PM
JOhn78 #199 wrote:
No. Religion is at the root of only a few problems (such as faith healing): when added to other problems, though, it has a tendency to make them intractable. You are no longer their enemy: you are God's enemy -- and they are on God's side.
Scientific humanists don't promote atheism for itself, but as a byproduct of science, reason, and human rights. As Sam Harris said, "No society in human history has ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."
Others here will of course point out that the Communists killed people because of the ideology of their brand of Communism. There are tyrants who happen to be Christian: this differs from those tyrants who specifically see themselves as the messengers and tools of God, spreading the faith, or eliminating the damned. I wouldn't blame religion for the first type (though it's perhaps a rebuttal to those few who claim that religion invariably leads people towards modest forbearance.)
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 2, 2009 7:59 PM
John78, #199: Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind, if you consider murdering 30 million or so "causing problems".
Except that neither Stalin nor Pol Pot said, "Since there is no god, I am going to cause the deaths of millions." The Neumanns said, "Since God who heals children miraculously, we will withhold modern, professional medical treatment from our child."
The comparison is not really apt; in the one case, atheism is merely incidental to the overall ideology. In the other, the belief in an interventionist god forms the actual foundation of the actions.
Perhaps there is a better example?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 2, 2009 8:01 PM
Come on Hugo. We can only hold our booze baited breath for so long.
Give us the answer, and I promise to put in a good word for you towards a fun filled weekend romp with Floyd Rubber. :)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
August 2, 2009 8:04 PM
John78 #199
Oh jeez, not this shit again.
Stalin and Pol Pot were not killing people in the name of atheism. That's in differentiation to folks like Torquemada and Hassan-i Sabbah who did kill people in the name of religion.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 2, 2009 8:04 PM
The Bible are the works of Man. All scriptures are the works of Man. They are legends and homilies, and tales of yore. Not one came from the mouth of God.
The Bible is not an opus, the Bible is an opera. A collection of works dealing with a variety of subjects from a variety of viewpoints. Some are songs of joy, others rants of despair. And then you have all the punditry and political observations. It's a badly edited compilation of hero tales, just so stories, and bog standard philosophy. What was once included gives a much different picture than what is included now, and how canon is interpreted tells us a lot more.
Religion, any religion consists of our ideas of what we think God should be like. Our ideas of God exhibit our hopes, fears, and prejudices. What we hate our God hates; what we desire our God desires. In neither case are we really speaking of how God actually feels about things, for in reality we can't know what God wants because we haven't that capability.
The best I can come up with is; to be honest in your dealings with others; treat others with respect, unless they show you they do not deserve that respect; to accept the world as it is, especially when it contradicts what you learned before. This is why I support science and those who work in science, because for all their flaws scientists do more for humanity in the long term than any other part of society.
We all make damn stupid mistakes. Science seeks to correct those mistakes instead of reinforcing them. I'd much rather live in a world where error is remedied than one where error is supported.
Then again, I don't think Patty had to be human, so take what I've just said with whatever amount of salt you find necessary. :)
Posted by: RickK | August 2, 2009 8:05 PM
Religion gives people unearned power, undeserved legitimacy, and irrational confidence. It removes the need to rationally justify beliefs or actions.
Like kerosene for a fire, religion may not be the cause of the damage caused by ignorance, but it is an incredibly efficient accelerant.
Posted by: another lurker | August 2, 2009 8:08 PM
I followed the link in #97. Seems interesting, though basically a longer, statistically and survey-supported version of what's been said here at Pharyngula many times. The writing style is a little convoluted in places and could use some compacting, but it is at least jargon-free. I was a little puzzled why it was published in "Evolutionary Psychology", but I figured it's because one of their points was that religion is *not* a driving and innate universal (genetic?) need, as long as your socioeconomic surroundings are good enough.
I'm interested to hear what others here think about it. Some quotes (citations removed for space and readability):
"...[the U.S.] scores the most dysfunctional in homicide, incarceration, juvenile mortality, gonorrhea and syphilis infections, abortions, adolescent pregnancies, marriage duration, income disparity, poverty, work hours, and resource exploitation base. The level of relative and absolute societal pathology in the U.S. is often so severe that it is repeatedly an outlier that strongly reinforces the correlation between high levels of poor societal conditions and popular religiosity."
"The relationship of religion to these patterns appears to be both passive and active. Starting with the passive, the middle class majorities of western Europe, Canada, Austro-Zealand and Japan apparently feel sufficiently secure in their lives that increasingly few citizens feel a need to seek the aid and protection of a supernatural creator, resulting in dramatic drops in religious belief and activity."
"Turning to the active role played by religion, politically powerful elements of the American religious right have preferred to focus on promoting a series of ideology based and socioeconomically problematic wedge issues rather than addressing social ills ...As an adjunct to privatization, religious conservatives are promoting the displacement of government services with faithbased charities that increase outreach into the general population, even though data showing that faith-based charities are more effective than government alternatives has not been produced, and charities lack the enormous financial resources and infrastructure needed to provide the comprehensive assistance that the government can offer. America’s high levels of adult and especially juvenile mortality are probably partly due to the lack of the comprehensive medical system that is opposed by most elements of the creationist right....Psychological experimentation suggests that exposure to scriptural violence can significantly increase the propensity towards aggressive actions, especially among believers ... higher levels of conservative religious practice are associated with elevated levels of racial and ethnic prejudice. ... America’s high level of social ills vis-à-vis other prosperous democracies are to a large extent due to the pathologies being elevated within those regions and populations of the U.S. that exhibit high levels of theoconservative opinion and practice."
"[popular religious devotion] is not as universal as other human attributes, consistently being far more easily abandoned within the context of a secure environment than are materialism and language whose neurological foundations are apparently much more strongly genetically preprogrammed. It follows that all hypotheses that religious belief and practice are the normal, deeply set human mental state that is highly resistant to conversion to nontheism are unverified. Instead popular religion is in the main a superficial psychological response that seeks the daily aid and protection of supernatural entities to alleviate the stress and anxiety created by a sufficiently dysfunctional social and especially economic environment."
Posted by: RickK | August 2, 2009 8:13 PM
Hugo said: "Friends of ours had a son who battled leukemia for 7 years and he died at age 9. They prayed fervently for many reasons/needs, and their faith in God has not been changed by their loss, despite the grief that goes on. "
Any belief held in the face of contradicting evidence or exactly zero confirming evidence is, by definition, irrational. How ineffective must your god prove to be for you to question your blind faith?
Posted by: wòÓ† | August 2, 2009 8:21 PM
I've been praying daily for God to get rid of the batholiths, but they're still out there.
Posted by: E.V. | August 2, 2009 8:26 PM
Is this blue booby wòÓ†?
Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 2, 2009 8:27 PM
You know you've created God in your own image when you realize he hates the same people that you do.
Posted by: Clifford Pickard | August 2, 2009 8:31 PM
If you live in Wisconsin and you want to end this type of religiously motivated-abuse and restore access to health care for these children whose parents are unfortunately sincere in their beliefs like the Neumanns, please contact your state legislator and ask them to support LRB-2190.
Posted by: bilbo | August 2, 2009 8:33 PM
Eidolon:
The fact that you apparently consider me a Christian attests to the sweeping generalizations that are the very essence of many atheists' arguments. That's not to say criticisms of theists aren't warranted, mind you, but there's an overwhelming trend for many atheists (myself included occasionally) to lump theists into some religious stereotype while ignoring the variation present in theistic "thought" (quotes added for a sarcastic reason). That is incredibly true with the news article even being an issue; yes, faith played a role here and yes, it's digusting, but to project this idiot's actions and thoughts onto anyone holding religious belief (or to say that theists would condone this and defend it) is mind-numbingly ignorant. And it's just a cheap tactic used by PZ as fodder for a crusade (pun intended) against theism.
Many atheists, including myself, often get inflamed when a theist lumps us into some all-inclusive group with labels and stereotypes. Turning face and doing it to a theist honestly isn't any more intelligent. It's stooping to their level and is a general cop-out. We can do much, much better.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
August 2, 2009 8:35 PM
Elwood Herring #215
Of course God has the same prejudices as you do. If you hated things he liked, or vice versa, he'd tell you.
Posted by: JackC
|
August 2, 2009 8:36 PM
... oh - and be ready to be taken apart piece by piece when you do. Also be ready to go off in a huff. It seems par around here.
Wonder why that is?
JC
Posted by: Holbach
|
August 2, 2009 8:42 PM
Hugo @ 181
No, the case for the existence of a god is as strong as the weak human mind will allow, and that is the seat of the will for an imaginary god. An imaginary god exists in your head but not mine. I can imagine life on other planets in the Andromeda Galaxy, and taking as an example our own planet in this galaxy, the chances are much better for similiar life in Andromeda or any other galaxy in this vast universe. But your god will never be found, as it will never be found in my own head. How do you account for this? Your brain can equate matters of many kinds as is my brain able to do likewise, yet an imaginary god exists only in your head. Can you equate the difference in the state of mind?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
August 2, 2009 8:44 PM
bilbo #217
Concern troll is concerned.
Posted by: tomh | August 2, 2009 8:54 PM
@ #90
More appalling still, though, is that Oregon Law continues to accommodate these casualties of faith. I guess the risk of trampling on anyone's religious freedom outweighs the lives of a few kids.
Well, I'm from Oregon also and I'm afraid we can't blame the law for this one, just the people on the jury. In 1999 the law in Oregon was changed to preclude the use of a religious defense in manslaughter cases, and it wasn't allowed in this case. The law was changed in response to this Church, the Fellowship of Christ, when it came out that large numbers of children, whose parents followed the Church, had died in the past 40 years, and dozens were buried in the church cemetary. Before 1999 charges could not even be brought in cases like this.
The problem, as anyone with any experience with law knows, is that lawyers will always find ways to bring facts that bear on the case, such as religious beliefs, out where the jury can see them. That's what happened in this case, enough religion seeped through that the jury felt the parents thought they were doing the right thing and that exonerated them. So changing the law is not enough - things won't change until the church is gone.
It will be interesting to see if there is any different result when the wife's parents, also members of this church, go on trial in January, for allowing their 16 year old son to die of an easily treatable urinary tract infection. The prosecution has upped the ante and is charging them with negligent homicide.
Posted by: Coragyps | August 2, 2009 8:54 PM
A sweet lady I know is trying to die at this moment over in the Intensive Care Unit in Abilene. She's only 51, and part of why she's dying is her own superstition - that herbs from down home in Coahuila would cure the lump in her breast. She never went to an MD until it was stage 4.
But that aside, I write this to bitch about a cruel bit of scripture in a frame on the wall there in the friggin' ICU waiting room! Something to the effect of god saying "I will cure your illness and heal your wounds." Lidia can't be cured. A huge proportion of people that go to the ICU won't get cured.
It made me mad.....
Posted by: Holbach
|
August 2, 2009 8:58 PM
bilbo @ 217
No matter how you lump religious stereotypes, either by degree or type of belief, they all have an irrational belief in something that does not exist. With all the lack of evidence for the existence of a god, and that very god formed in the brains of humans which gave rise to every conceivable association with that belief, and the very presence of sound minds who do not believe such nonsense, you wonder why the perpetuation of imaginary gods could persist for so long and endure with such vigor in those very same minds. I still maintain a clear and rational mind will have no room for such nonsense, and should always question those minds who insist on maintaining such absurd beliefs.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 2, 2009 9:03 PM
bilbo #217 wrote:
It depends. Most Christians would not forgo a doctor in favor of faith healing, and most would condemn it: Neumann and his sect are not mainstream in how they interpret their faith. They're not representative of Christians today.
But most theists do promote the view that one can know and understand God through humble prayer, miracles do happen, prayer works, and that a strong faith in God is something to be cherished and encouraged. They simply insist that, though this is certainly true, there are brakes. There's a reasonable way to have faith, and an unreasonable way to have faith. The Neumanns crossed the line.
A line that's pretty much invisible. We don't see a clear place to apply those brakes, given the method they're following, and the basic assumptions they're making. It's not that Christians don't usually do a good job of not being too extreme. They usually do okay. But I think they're inconsistent -- and unrealistic -- when they praise the concept of a faith that elevates Man above the world, and then expect that it not be taken too far.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 2, 2009 9:08 PM
Bilbo, the message here is not that "All theists think and act like the Neumanns," because of course they do not. The message is that religion enables, encourages, and in more concentrated forms demands the kind of thought and behavior exhibited by the Neumanns.
Therefore, this:
is a strawman, for reasons I've just stated.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 2, 2009 9:11 PM
Coragyps #223 wrote:
In the heads-I-win, tails-you-lose world of religious-speak, all the sign means is that your illness won't last forever. You'll either be cured on earth -- or in heaven. I'm going to guess that virtually everyone in the ICU waiting room who believes in God reads it this way. It's a platitude that means anything, and nothing.
But I don't know. Abilene? Maybe you're right.
Posted by: Eidolon
|
August 2, 2009 9:15 PM
Bilbo:
My point remains that if there are many posts on this thread that have lumped all theists with this wackaloon sect, please cite them.
"I'm absolutely overwhelmed at the amount of posters who seem to believe the majority of theists follow this kind of thinking."
As far as I can tell - and the tread grows by the minute - nobody has said that all theists are this deranged. Adept at avoiding the multiple contradictions to their belief systems, but not as far gone as these folks. You made the generalization, I simply asked for supporting citations.
Posted by: raven | August 2, 2009 9:27 PM
Translated from Fundiespeak to English this means:
"There is no proof of the existence of god despite millenia of looking. So I will just lie and run off."
It is true that most xians don't kill their kids. There might be a few that don't lie but you would have to look real hard. And maybe pray for a miracle.
Posted by: wheatdogg | August 2, 2009 9:43 PM
The BBC's North American editor, Justin Webb, tells it like it is. (Excerpt below)
Posted by: Hugo | August 2, 2009 10:51 PM
RickK 212:
Based on your logic any believer who has lost a loved one in this manner has no basis for faith. My friends do not find God inneffective, despite the fact their son died. This event was not contradicting to their faith. No Christian expects every prayer to be answered, and all Christians anticipate bad things can happen to anyone. If all 6 of my grandkids were run over by a truck tomorrow that would not change my belief in God, no more so than the hundreds of children dying every day in all manner of accidents, and tragic circumstances. Like most believers, my particular story can't be summed up in a short paragraph in terms of why I believe in God. I have found enough evidence to be satisfied through the writings of several. Rather than debate I can simply point out a couple of books that are persuasive - Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, and The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. If not wanting to debate here is considered cowardly, so be it. Most people of both sides of the debate have references to support a position, ie Dawkins, Gould, Morris, McDowell etc. Raven 229; calling me a lying fruitbat troll - pretty much sums up how most here feel about anyone who believes differently than themselves, but thanks as it is slightly entertaining, I may use that one....
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 2, 2009 10:56 PM
It may be persuasive to your weak godbesotted mind, but you need good hard physical evidence like an eternally burning bush for this crowd. Which is why godbots like you fail every time. We don't need any words from the other side, Dawkins, etc., just the lack of physical evidence for dog. End of story. Dog doesn't exist except between your ears as a delusion.Posted by: Kagato | August 2, 2009 11:11 PM
...so the man drowns in the flood and dies, and finds himself standing before the throne of God.
He pleads to God, "I prayed and I prayed, but I drowned anyway! Why didn't you save me?"
And God looks at the man. A long, penetrating stare, as if the man were not a person but something... less. Then God slowly gets up from His throne, and steps toward the man. He leans in close, uncomfortably close, His nose an inch from the man's, all the while continuing to stare at the him -- into him -- until a pathetic whimper escapes the man's lips.
Finally, God speaks. Barely more than a whisper, but with the power of an earthquake rolling through the man's mind:
"Who do you think sent the flood?"
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 2, 2009 11:21 PM
Actually, I think you'll find, based on logic full stop no-one has a basis for faith. If there were a basis for it, it wouldn't be faith.
Posted by: Cowcakes | August 2, 2009 11:32 PM
This batshit crazy child abuser should be crucified. After all he should be happy to be killed the same way as his idol.
Posted by: truthspeaker | August 3, 2009 12:02 AM
The Germanic peoples of Europe used this method for a long time. The concept was called "weregild", the money a killer owed to his victim's family. What happened was wealthy and powerful people had more resources to pursue legal action against those who committed crimes against them. This seems to fit in with the kind of society you admire, so I'm not surprised you support it. You were born many centuries too late, Walton. The libertarian paradise you envision existed in pre-Christian Europe, and I think you would have enjoyed tilling its fields.
Posted by: WotWot | August 3, 2009 12:14 AM
@150
We have a right to think what we want...
We have no right to hold false beliefs.
Otherwise, we get small innocent children dying very unpleasant and totally unnecessary deaths from easily treatable conditions.
An abomination in God's eyes, if ever there was.
Posted by: truthspeaker | August 3, 2009 12:23 AM
If you accept that the first notion isn't silly, how can you possibly say that the second one is?
Posted by: Dan W | August 3, 2009 12:30 AM
I hope those two parents get locked up for the full sentence. Maybe that'll be an example to other religious folk, to actually think and take your kid to a doctor when he or she is sick, instead of praying for them, which won't help the kid one bit. For the obvious reason that prayer doesn't work.
Posted by: raven | August 3, 2009 12:43 AM
I was being kind and tactful.
You have no evidence or proof. So called modern proofs of god fall into two categories.
1. God is hiding because he wants us to believe rather than know. If his existence was as tangible as my cat, there would be no belief, no faith, and no religion. We would know.
This is an unprovable assertion. And as someone once said, it is impossible to differentiate between the invisible and the nonexistent.
2. Voices in my head tell me that that he exists.
When you hear that, you know they have nothing. No one can know what those voices really say or if they are real. To make matters worse, the voices say lots of things. Watch my kid die of diabetes. Allah wants me to hijack an airplane and fly it into a skyscraper. That person is a witch, let's kill her. The CIA is following me.
You fall into the voices in my head categoy. Big deal, no one considers that evidence.
No one has ever been able to prove the existence of a god or gods much less of the xian god, according to most philosophers and many theologans. Most of the attempts are pathetic.
You've got nothing, make wild claims, and wonder why people far more honest, educated, and intelligent think you are a wacko. Just another Liar for jesus, as common as dirt.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 3, 2009 12:49 AM
Silly? You think pointing out that an infinitely powerful being with the power prevent such suffering chose not to save the life of a young girl despite her parents' devotion and faith and years of worship and obedience to that being is silly?
Fields full of deluded religidiots praying for rain is silly. The unnecessary death of a young girl? Not so much. It's not even slightly silly. If the god her parents were depending on exists and chose to do nothing then fucking monstrous is a more apt description.
And, because there's no reason in this day and age to believe in such nonsense, it means that it was a monstrous act on the parents' part - and for which they should be dealt with accordingly.
Posted by: Kagato | August 3, 2009 1:26 AM
What? Of course you do.
You can hold whatever ridiculous crazy whackjob psychotic beliefs you like, and nobody need even know, unless you voice them.
However, you don't have the right to act on your batshit insanity if it would cause harm or otherwise impact on the rights of another person.
(Or in this case, withhold action that would normally be obligated by ethics and law.)
Posted by: Susan Silberstein
|
August 3, 2009 2:28 AM
#22, what is it with people like you, that you want offenders punished with rape while in prison? How does that make you any better than those you despise? Would you do it yourself, personally make sure they get what you think they deserve?
Posted by: Samuel | August 3, 2009 4:40 AM
# natural cynic
I have a hard time believing/understanding your a Type A diabetic and do not think it is a paoinful death. Obviously you seem to think that having low bloodsugar is the same as having no bloodsugar and no insulin in your body. You should stop taking insulin for a week buddy, and see how you feel after that (depending on own insulin production, you will die or end up in hospital).
She will first feel extreme amount of thirsts which she CAN NOT stop, whatever she drinks she will be equally thirsty asnd obviously piss all the time.
And then her body will use anything that exist to get sugar, which she cant be given as no insulin exist to use it, her own body will kill herself.
Then the blood comes.....
You need to understand, without insulin in your body, you die very very fast and painful.
Posted by: Dianne | August 3, 2009 5:03 AM
Based on your logic any believer who has lost a loved one in this manner has no basis for faith. My friends do not find God inneffective, despite the fact their son died. This event was not contradicting to their faith. No Christian expects every prayer to be answered, and all Christians anticipate bad things can happen to anyone.
Why not? When I treat patients (fortunately adults, not children-I don't think I could stand pediatric oncology) I expect the treatment I give to work. I know that sometimes it will fail, we certainly don't know everything there is to know about cancer, etc. However, if I saw a treatment repeatedly not working in the same way that prayer repeatedly fails to work I'd start to get pretty suspicious that it was a crappy treatment and something else should be used. Especially for a disease that has a 90+% cure rate like ALL in a 2 year old.
The case for prayer is even worse: God presumably DOES know everything there is to know about cancer, the human body, and biology in general. If S/He doesn't cure then it is because S/He wants the person to die. Why would a loving god want that? (I suppose if one looks at life as but a short interlude in the eternal existence of the soul then maybe the death isn't so important, but what good could the suffering and trauma possibly do?)
Posted by: Eidolon | August 3, 2009 6:43 AM
I have always been filled with a sense of wonder at the ability of xians to keep believing in prayer. Like calling someone and all you get is the answering machine, done repeatedly, I may conclude they are not there. Period.
If there were a dog that responds to prayers, how does dog decide which to answer? There must have been a shit storm of prayer on Sept. 11, but dog said "Tough!" Oh - I forgot - we cannot know dog's plan. But...if dog has a plan, why should he/she/it decide to change it because of the requests of beings that admit they are unworthy in the first place?
The whole prayer business is a great exercise in confirmation bias.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 3, 2009 7:18 AM
@236 and also Walton: there's an interesting example of this in Njal's Saga, one of the greatest Icelandic sagas, tenth century CE IIRC. The Njal of the title is Iceland's greatest lawyer- no, seriously- so he has to sort out the legal tangles while everyone else is whacking each other with cutlery. There's a major plot section involving a conflict between two households- the leading men of the two are friends, but their wives are enemies, and every so often one of them suborns a servant to go and kill someone from the other household in one of those ongoing irresolvable revenge sequences. Then, the men get together and agree compensation. After a while the _same purse of coins_ has passed each way several times- it's the designated blood money and they keep it handy for next time.
For added comedy it appears that in Iceland at the time it was considered perfectly understandable that you might need to kill people on occasion and when you did so you should immediately report it at the nearest household. There was, however, a specific crime of "secret murder"; if you killed someone and concealed the body, failing to report what you'd done, _then_ you were in serious trouble.
Walton, you might find it helpful whenever you propose a libertitbit to ask yourself: how closely does my proposal resemble something that's actually been tried, and how did it work out in the Middle Ages?
Posted by: Coragyps | August 3, 2009 7:33 AM
"There must have been a shit storm of prayer on Sept. 11,"
The prayers to Allah won that day, obviously.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 3, 2009 7:38 AM
If it so so strong on many fronts, please enlighten us.
Posted by: Tom | August 3, 2009 8:01 AM
Although Pentecostals don't have access to God, and this family's decision may have been foolish, it is impossible( however outrage people might be) to prove that the child would have lived if she had been taken to the doctor.
I know it is now very fashionable, for those who have been bewitched by science, to poke fun at those who dare to believe in God. But if science is our new saviour, why are we building more hospitals every year, rather than knocking them down? All that medicine may have done, is to allow some people to live much longer, while enduring the endless sufferings that come from the side-effects of synthetic drugs.
However, God has promised to heal his people and forgive their sins when they are sick. Atheists and scoffers are obviously ignorant of God promise, and its fulfilment in the lives of many of his people. So they continue to churn out much insane vitriol against those who dare to put their confidence in God's healing power.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 3, 2009 8:04 AM
"Bewitched by science"
That's priceless.
Might as well say: "Bewitched by evidence and facts"
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 8:14 AM
Bullshit. Diabetes is well known and very treatable, but insulin is required. What you said is a deliberate lie. A insane rationalization that should be stomped into the ground. On a 1 to 10 scale, this is a minus 20.Translation, those of you who require evidence laugh at us who insanely believe in imaginary deities, and a book of myths. You are meanies. WWWAAAAHHHHHHow can something that doesn't exist offer promise? There's your problem. The evidence is against you, and your beliefs are irrelevant compared to the facts. What part of that don't you understand. Right, evidence, you have no idea of what it is. And it isn't your faith. That is just delusions.Posted by: Steve_C | August 3, 2009 8:24 AM
Tom. That's some grade A stupid shit you are pimping. Prayer doesn't work. It never has. We are vitriolic because of your arrogance and lack of honesty. Fuck off.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 3, 2009 8:26 AM
If your god would actually make good on these promises then perhaps we might be inclined to listen to you - rather than dismiss you as the deluded loon you are.
Er, what? That makes absolutely no sense. Do it occur to you that the number of hospitals might be proportional to the increasing population? And, more importantly, if your god can heal people when prayed to, why doesn't he heal everybody? That way we wouldn't need hospitals at all, only churches.
What makes you think anyone here is 'ignorant of God's promise'? The majority of posters here are ex-Christians (myself excluded) and I can say with some certainty that the rest of the regulars have at least a passing familiarity with the claims the religious make.
Er, 'insane vitriol'? Do you know what either of those words mean?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 3, 2009 8:26 AM
Actually it's pretty damn sure she would have if she had been treated as is normal for diabetes.
Bewitched by science? That's hilarious. How do you suppose you are reading this blog? Magic?
Only because many of them make it so easy. You being an example.
We had an old saviour? No science is a tool. Period. A very very useful tool that has done wonders for us.
WTF? Non-sequitur much? I'm not sure you can even back that statement with anything beyond some slightly unhinged rantings.
Um, yeah
You're an idiot. Seriously, an incredible idiot. ONce you remove those blinders, and see the world for what it is you're going to be really upset that you've wasted your life believing in strawmen and fairy tales.
So what happened to Kara Neumann?
No we are fullly aware of it and how it fail to live up to the promise, constantly.
Why not all of his people?
When it costs the lives of those powerless to help themselves, yes. If you as an adult want to refuse medical help that can actually help you, please knock yourself out (literally). But when you thrust your insanity on children who put their trust in your to protect them, you'll feel the full force of my anger.
Child abusers, the whole lot of you.
Posted by: strangebrew | August 3, 2009 8:41 AM
#250
"Although Pentecostals don't have access to God"
They might beg to differ the point Tom...
"it is impossible( however outrage people might be) to prove that the child would have lived if she had been taken to the doctor."
Weak as watered down water...
Diabetes is a disease that is very controllable.
"for those who have been bewitched by science"
As opposed to those bewitched by a fairy story...imbecilic nonsense does not become you preacher...the baby jebus will surely cry at your lack of humility.
"But if science is our new saviour, why are we building more hospitals every year, rather than knocking them down?"
Because population growth demands it and your lazy git of a god cannot be bothered to raise so much as a middle finger to help in the health of a nation...
Stop being ridiculous you are embarrassing the trolls!
"All that medicine may have done, is to allow some people to live much longer, while enduring the endless sufferings that come from the side-effects of synthetic drugs"
In that case do not bother your doctor the local hospital or any health clinic in the future to help either you your family or your congregation in their health needs...you pompous ignorant dick head!
"So they continue to churn out much insane vitriol against those who dare to put their confidence in God's healing power."
When it ends in the totally unneeded and tragic death of a child...or anyone else for that matter...you betcha hotshot...and you have the bare faced audacity to label us insane..."Heal thyself Preacher"
"However, God has promised to heal his people and forgive their sins when they are sick"
So doing a sterling bit of work there is he not...
Stop lying...we are not gullible here...just realistic.
Posted by: Dania
|
August 3, 2009 9:10 AM
Why? And how do you know that?
So why does he always fail? It's almost as if he was not there. No, wait. It's exactly as if he was not there. Because he isn't.
Posted by: memyselfi | August 3, 2009 9:11 AM
And how many people has science killed, you ignorant, lying, hypocritical jackass? How many people who were promised "wonder drugs" to fix their minor ailments are now rotting six feet under? It seems like every time I turn on the TV, there's another new ad announcing another new class-action lawsuit against another drug company whose FDA approved "wonder drug" seriously injured or killed a bunch of people. (I really love the recent one about the drug that caused people to attempt or successfully commit suicide.) You can point out one or two people like this every year. I can point to a whole lot more people who are dead now because the medicine - produced by scientists using science no less! - that they were told would cure them ended up killing them. You don't mention that, of course, because it embarrasses you and destroys your moronic, hypocritical arguments against the "evil" of religion.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 3, 2009 9:19 AM
How many people have hammers killed every year?
Hammers are evil!
Posted by: memyselfi | August 3, 2009 9:24 AM
More than those who have died because they did not seek medical treatment because of their religious beliefs.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 3, 2009 9:24 AM
Early entry for dumbest comment of the day.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 3, 2009 9:26 AM
memyselfi,
You are, to put it plainly, a liar. While people are sometimes killed by scientifically developed drugs, life expectancy is increasing all the time. This is happening over most of the world, and has gone furthest in a country where almost no-one believes in your god (such as Japan), and places where religious observance has declined enormously (western Europe), so we know this has absolutely nothing to do with prayer. It is, plainly, the result of science and technology. For that matter, you are a stinking hypocrite to use the computer and internet developed by those you slander - or did you just pray for your lies to appear on this thread?
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 9:32 AM
Awwww, Memyselfi is angry and stupid and deluded. That's just so gol'durned cute. C'mon Memyselfi, dazzle us again with your witty reparte', please, pretty please!
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 9:37 AM
I am wowed by Memyselfi. I find it hard to believe he/she is even bright enough to turn on the computer, much less type if I go by his/her grasp of logic. Amazing...
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 3, 2009 9:45 AM
I was thinking that there could be a form of operant conditioning behind the religious need to pray. Perhaps it is like winning the jackpot. Slot machines are based on randomly scheduled positive reinforcement where you never know when you are going to win but you could win on the next pull of the lever, so you keep trying. But if you don't win after pulling the lever of a slot machine, nothing bad happens.
With prayer, you still have the random schedule because the next prayer might be answered (it could even be the same prayer said over and over like Hail Marys), but the consequences for the prayer not being answered (the default occurrence) are often not good and at the very least more uncomfortable than losing a quarter, which moves it into the negative reinforcement (removing a bad thing instead of adding a good thing) territory.
Sheer speculation on my part, but Jesus may act like a personal slot machine (he even takes cash!) with greater penalties and rewards than money, and perhaps asking him for favors is slightly addictive.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 9:51 AM
As usual, the godbot gets it wrong. Lets compare the survival of those who get sepsis, with the comparison being prayers versus and antibiotics, and length of life as the result. Do the same for heart attacks, strokes, broken bones, appendicitis, gall bladder disease, and diabetes. Modern medical treatment versus prayer. Lets get real evidence, not your lying testament. Guess what, prayer doesn't do squat, and there are studies to back this up. Modern medical treatment can.Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 10:00 AM
The Godders seem to think the role of science is to cure death, which not only exposes their lack of any sense of reality but their fetish for an eternal life utopian ideal inanity. Utter mindless twaddle.
Posted by: Dania
|
August 3, 2009 10:01 AM
And I can point to a whole lot more people who would be dead now if it wasn't for medicine. Medicine saves lives. Everyday. Prayer doesn't.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 3, 2009 10:06 AM
How many people does physics kill every year?
How about math?
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 3, 2009 10:10 AM
Yours truly is one of the people who'd be dead right now. I had acute appendicitis when I was 9 -- I was saved by emergency surgery and antibiotics.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | August 3, 2009 10:14 AM
Gregory Greenwood #187:
under the Dalai Lama the justice system in Tibet employed torture and even disembowlment of its opponents (not that this is any justifications for China's subsequent annexation).
I'd just like to point out that the Dalai Lama was fifteen when he was enthroned, and twenty-four when he fled to India. He recognized that Tibet was a feudal theocracy, and wanted very much to change it. He has said repeatedly that he wants a free, antonymous Tibet to be a Western-style democracy; he has no interest in being head of state.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 3, 2009 10:17 AM
Yep, while not life threatening, I'm glad there was a hospital near by when I destroyed my shoulder skiing. All that evil science and medicine sure did help me get back to the point where I can actually use my left arm. And the painkillers weren't too shabby either.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 10:20 AM
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 10:22 AM
Fellow Texan Ben: Um, that's actually what kills everyone eventually.Posted by: strangebrew | August 3, 2009 10:25 AM
"March 31, 2006, the New York Times published a front page article under the headline, “Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer.” The article reported the results of a multiyear study designed to determine whether prayers offered by strangers influenced the recovery of people undergoing heart surgery...they did not."
Says it all really!
It is true that other studies...mainly from religiously affiliated reviews tend to gloss the figures to the point of massage...but one thing is certain...there is no significant statistical advantage that enforces the claims and boasts of folks like Preacher man...or maybe the Robin to his Batman...Memyselfi
In other words they are lying their raggety bums off and hope that nobody notices!
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 3, 2009 10:26 AM
EV, exactly! Damn those physicists who use physics!
Posted by: raven | August 3, 2009 10:28 AM
Bullshit lies Tom. The girl was a type 1 diabetic. There are millions of them alive in this country right now. As long as they get their insulin.
Tom we don't make fun of mentally ill people who are evil like you. It is more like complete contempt mixed with anger. We arrest, trial, and lock them up in prisons when they commit crimes.
BTW, Tom the Death worshipper. Science is the basis of our 21st century civilization. The Dark Ages are over except for you and a few of your fellow wackos. And average lifespans have increased in the USA in a century. Not because people pray more. Blame modern medicine.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 3, 2009 10:30 AM
Don't use a spellchecker.
I repeat: don't.
Posted by: Stellar Moose | August 3, 2009 10:38 AM
@ #132 Patricia
Touche. It's easy to forget how deep red rural Oregon is.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | August 3, 2009 10:38 AM
Don't use a spellchecker.
I repeat: don't.
Sorry. I usually catch them!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 3, 2009 10:39 AM
"If you want to do evil, science provides the most powerful weapons to do evil; but equally, if you want to do good, science puts into your hands the most powerful tools to do so. The trick is to want the right things, then science will provide you with the most effective methods of achieving them."
– Richard Dawkins
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 10:42 AM
Kill all the physicists!!
Materialism and rationalism are so depressing to people who want to live forever and never grow old and decrepit or suffer from any diseases or heartache or... Wait! I know, let's tell everyone a story about a paradise you can only get to after you're dead! It's a world that has all the trappings of our basic physical world but without any of the consequences. Physical laws don't apply! You eat the most delicious things but you never poop. You are
stuckunited with all your family members and even though the climate is always perfect, you never get bored or feel anguish for those who get the eternal punishment phase of everlasting life. Now, if you try a shortcut to this promised paradise by killing yourself, you get the eternal punishment plan from an all loving benefactor because this life is just a testing ground to determine if you'll go to paradise or hell which is determined by a deity that already knows the outcome.Gee! Gosh! Golly! It's perfect! Where do I sign up?!!
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | August 3, 2009 10:47 AM
Tom #277 said:
So they continue to churn out much insane vitriol against those who dare to put their confidence in God's healing power.
If Tom is Tom Estes from above, check out his blog:
http://hardtruth.squarespace.com/
He's a fan of Ken Ham, and has drawn a little cartoon showing PZ getting his ass handed to him at the creation museum.
He also has a fondness for dismissing atheists as "insane". One of the examples of "insanity" he cites is that of an atheist demanding proof.
Tom, have you ever heard of something called a mirror?
Posted by: strangebrew | August 3, 2009 10:49 AM
# 270
An echo to that one....I collapsed in gym one day when I was 10 years old with excruciating gut pain...I had had a couple of weeks of gut rot...this was by far the worst....I was rushed to hospital where an emergency appendectomy saved my life...
I was apparently a few hours short of Peritonitis...
Medical science saved my life...I was in no fit state to pray anyway...I was absolutely petrified and so in pain...it was a toss up which was worse.
Posted by: raven | August 3, 2009 10:55 AM
Posted by: Dianne | August 3, 2009 10:59 AM
I'm yet another person who would be dead without medical science. I made it 35 years without* requiring intervention, but the first time I tried to reproduce...it turned out not to be such a good idea. Thanks to quick surgery both the critter and I are alive and well. I've got one little slice that I refer to as my dueling scar. I didn't pray when going through the pain of obstructed labor either. Or even curse. Just screamed a lot.
*As far as I know anyway. Who knows but that I might have died of measles or polio if I hadn't been vaccinated against them? Or died of rheumatic fever as a consequence of strep infection without antibiotic treatment. Or...you get the idea.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 11:08 AM
Join our Deathcult&trade!
And if anyone mocks you or demands proof - label them heretics and blasphemers and then condemn them to death; after all, when your only evidence is Bronze Age texts and anecdotal stories that openly contradict the laws of physics as we in the modern age understand them, what choice do you have? Leave it to God? He's such a slacker these days. No, no you have to take matters into your own hands and smite these infidels yourself (or incite others to do so so you don't have to actually face punishment from secular heathen laws), after all, you know The Real Truth&trade!
Remeber our motto: We don't think - we believe!
Posted by: robinsrule | August 3, 2009 11:12 AM
Hugo:
Why aren't your friends happy that their son died? Presumably he's in heaven, the best place to be in the whole universe. And his death must be their god's will, so it's all in a good cause, right? They should be celebrating his "passing on," and eagerly looking forward to their own deaths, after which they will be with their son again. Right?
Posted by: raven | August 3, 2009 11:13 AM
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 3, 2009 11:14 AM
Tom's a liar too (shocking I know)
That was August 2nd.
Assuming it's the same tom.
Posted by: BK | August 3, 2009 11:17 AM
I'm assuming you are talking about Chantix? I tried that one, and I became absolutely batty on it. BUT, the great thing about doctors, is that I could go back to them, tell them what was happening, and the did something about it. They didn't tell me to blindly keep taking Chantix (but a church certainly would have told me to just keep praying). What they did is put an additional prescription with it, and it instantly fixed the issue, I continued with my quit smoking program, and all was wonderful. Many people don't get the concept of telling their doctor that something isn't working quite right for them. A doctor is nothing magical. They are a person that needs information from a patient to fix what is going on. It's a bit like calling your mechanic, telling him or her to repair your car, but not telling that person what your car is doing that isn't right. The mechanic isn't psychic and neither is a doctor.Not all people react the same to medications. Never, never, never has a doctor ever claimed a drug would magically fix anything or everything, but with good communication with your doctor and keeping him or her informed, they can do many wonderful things to help a person out.
Anything can be used incorrectly to the point where it kills a person. If you're severely allergic to broccoli, but someone tells you that broccoli is good for you, are you stupid enough to keep eating broccoli until you die from the allergic reaction? Broccoli IS good for you, but if you don't say anything about being allergic to it, how is the person who gave the advice supposed to know it would kill you?
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | August 3, 2009 11:17 AM
Many, not all, but many of the people on this site are insane.
As I said above, he has a penchant for calling atheists insane. Translation: he's terrified that we may be right.
Posted by: Rev. Barky | August 3, 2009 11:36 AM
I noticed that Dale Neumann took a non-god oath when he took the box. Probably because he doesn't want to mix his delusionary god-law with real law.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 3, 2009 11:43 AM
Oh my
I just read this at Tom's blog. um...
post hoc ergo propter hoc in action.
And the last paragraph is especially funny.
Posted by: raven | August 3, 2009 11:46 AM
Posted by: Coragyps | August 3, 2009 11:56 AM
"However, God has promised to heal his people and forgive their sins when they are sick."
See my post 223 above.
He didn't do shit for mi amiga Lidia. She died yesterday evening, cruel "promises" on the wall to the contrary notwithstanding.
Posted by: memyselfi | August 3, 2009 11:58 AM
You fools bloviate about reason and logic, yet you take a handful of incidents like this and blow them up to condemn everyone who prays. Then when someone comes along and sarcastically does the same thing to you, you get all indignant and defensive. Hilarious! You clowns are hypocrites of the worst order.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 3, 2009 11:59 AM
You sir or madam have a serious reading comprehension problem.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 12:15 PM
Boy, what an illiterate ignoramous. Our whole topic has been on people who pray as a cure, versus seeking medical help and also praying for a cure. Nobody is saying anthing about the latter (other than prayer still doesn't do anything). God must be a sick, deaf, cruel being, since he doesn't seem to answer prayers alone. But those who get medical attention seem to do the same with or without prayers. I guess that must be your real problem. Reality doesn't support your delusions.Posted by: strangebrew | August 3, 2009 12:20 PM
#294
"Renaissance of Rational Thinking"
Never in the annals of bigoted bloggatory has any site been so ineptly named.
By the way apparently their 'side' is the 'good' side....go figure?
As for memyselfi...methinks his/hers/its huff is no worse then his/hers/its puff...long may he/she/it blow hard...with such succinct poisonous diatribe as to send pillars of salt to sleep!
Posted by: raven | August 3, 2009 12:38 PM
Another Death Cultist. A murderer this time. Me has set up a strawman. And then savagely killed it.
No one cares if people pray. We condemn people who sit around and pray while their little kid dies of a condition curable with $5 worth of insulin. So does the vast majority of the US population, mostly other xians. The father was convicted after all.
There are several million type 1 diabetics in the USA using insulin to stay alive. . 76% of them call themselves .....xians. Many are even fundies death cultists who just decided they would rather live another 5 decades by injecting insulin so they could babble on the internet about the power of prayer.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 12:49 PM
Oh you so told us off because we care so much for your wit and superior logical prowess not to mentiontion your masterful use of bloviate and hilarious or your unintentional irony in the use of hypocrite. I, for one, am chastened, CHASTENED I tell you.Pffffft.
(perhaps you should pray for your delusional thinking to go away)
Posted by: Tom | August 3, 2009 12:52 PM
Tom>>it is impossible( however outrage people might be) to prove that the child would have lived if she had been taken to the doctor.
>>Bullshit. Diabetes is well known and very treatable, but insulin is required.
Is this the proof that the child would have lived if had gone to the doctor, or just an irrational outburst?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 3, 2009 12:57 PM
It's proof that the child would have had a chance, a very good one at that, of living a mostly normal and a much longer life than the one she ended up with had she been treated correctly from the get go.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | August 3, 2009 1:00 PM
The Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 294
Yep, just spent a few minutes going through his blog.
Yes, he's your usual homophopic, anti-abortionist, anti-catholic, anti Obama, anti-evolutionist keeper of the one true christianity.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 1:03 PM
No sir, -didn't see that one coming. He sounded so rational and accommodating.Posted by: Watchman | August 3, 2009 1:08 PM
Translation:
"My name is Tom, and I am a fucking lunatic!!!!!!"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 3, 2009 1:08 PM
We're assuming Tom posting above is Tom Estes.
Either way, both are unhinged.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 1:10 PM
Compared to anything you have said, it is totally rational. But then, delusional fools like yourself are immune to rationality. Wiki and NIH on diabetes. Now, either show the empirical peer reviewed evidence like what I cited that your prayers work to cure type 1 diabetes (no anecdotes allowed) or apologize for being a stupid fool.Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 1:12 PM
Tom's one more tic mark in the people who are TSTKTS ledger.
Posted by: Watchman | August 3, 2009 1:18 PM
Tom The Lunatic responded to this:
with this:
Listen up, Tom, you homicidal, child-hating, shit-for-brains dingbat troll:
There exists no absolute, incontrovertible proof of what would have happened - after all, they entire family could have been killed in an auto accident on the way to the hospital - but any person who is a) even remotely honest and b) trivially sane would recognize and admit that if she'd been treated for the symptoms of her distress in a timely fashion, she would very likely have survived the episode, just as many others in her condition have survived.
You blame everyone except those who are most at fault. Screw you and everyone who thinks like you. You're delusional. You're part of the problem. I fear for the well-being of any child under your guardianship.
Any questions?
Posted by: bilbo | August 3, 2009 1:23 PM
E.V.'s reply:
E.V.'s assumption that someone is a theist simply for disagreeing with the comments of an atheist shows how much he/she has personally let logic and reason fly out the window by using religion as a simple label for something you dislike. (Read: you exemplify the post you were criticizing perfectly.)
I see a lot less of the atheism that is truly BETTER than religion on this site and more of a bunch of self-righteous, loudmouthed bigots just wanting to be heard. Ah, if only atheism really DID lead one to a more mature, free view of the world. From this site, all I see is that it takes religious idiocy/self-righteousness and slaps a shiny, god-free label on it. What a fucking joke.
Posted by: raven | August 3, 2009 1:31 PM
No. Banting and Best won the Nobel prize a century ago for the discovery of insulin. Millions of people are alive today in the USA because they inject insulin. Mostly xians, some of the fundie perversion.
The canadians tested insulin on a ward of comatose children who were dying, the standard treatment for type 1 diabetes at the time being to watch them fall into a coma and die (and prayer of course which never worked).. By the time they reached the last kid, the first kids were waking up. That little girl would have lived up until a day or even a few hours before she died with an injection of insulin and supportive care. This is very old and simple science and medicine, that stuff you hate.
The father was convicted in court of law by a jury that was mostly or all xians. There is proof enough, not that reality and you have ever met.
Keep worshipping death and doing evil tom. It is a free country. Xianity is losing between 1 and 2 million members every year in the USA. It's mental defectives like you who are partially responsible. "When xian becomes synonymous with Liar, Crazy, Ignorant, Stupid, and sometimes Killer, who wants to be one?"
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 3, 2009 1:33 PM
Fascinating. You know this ... because?
But Pentecostals are not God's people, so they won't be healed by God, nor their sins forgiven. Right?
But Pentecostals are not! Yet God rejects them anyway, right?
But you just said that Pentecostals are wrong to "put their confidence in God's healing power" -- they don't have access to it!
Make up your mind -- if you can.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 1:33 PM
Oh, blow me Dildo; you typify the compartmentalized "have it both ways thinking" with your own hyocritcal vitriolic name-calling and arrogant attitude. I simply flamed Memyselfi for his/her brand of insipidity. I bid you a, "...and the horse you rode in in on" and "have a nice day!"
Posted by: strangebrew | August 3, 2009 1:34 PM
bilbo..
go on a quest to find ya ass then stick ya head up it...there's a good troll!
Posted by: Tom | August 3, 2009 1:36 PM
Tom>>However, God has promised to heal his people and forgive their sins when they are sick.
Wowbagger said..
"If your god would actually make good on these promises then perhaps we might be inclined to listen to you - rather than dismiss you as the deluded loon you are."
Reply...How would you know whether he "actually make good," to use your rather imprecise phrase?
Tom>>But if science is our new saviour, why are we building more hospitals every year, rather than knocking them down?
WB "Er, what? That makes absolutely no sense. Do it occur to you that the number of hospitals might be proportional to the increasing population?"
Reply...People who are hostile to God tend to be illogical, so I am not surprised that the process of deduction escapes you. But as I am instructed to be patient with all men, I will explain. Simply put, if medicine was responsible for improving the health of the population, less people would be in hospitals. Civic authorities would knocking down the unused ones, or using them for some other purpose.
However, it is not medicine that is responsible for longevity of life in most developed countries, it is hygiene, you may be shocked to learn!
Wowb "And, more importantly, if your god can heal people when prayed to, why doesn't he heal everybody?"
Reply...Permit me to suggest that it is important to think before typing. It should be evident, even to you, that everyone doesn't pray to God for healing, so how can he heal everybody?
BTW, if you want to engage in a meaningful discussion about the merits of genuine Christianity and the demerits of science, it would be necessary for you to be able to string together a coherent argument. Otherwise, I have no intention of wasting my time replying to illogical "sound bites."
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 3, 2009 1:37 PM
Coraygyps #296 wrote:
Ah, that's sad -- my condolences.
One of the strongest memes which religion has to offer is the one that says "nothing bad ever really happens." If you only see the Big Picture, you would realize that everything is for the best. It all works out -- due to what only looks like unnecessary, pointless pain and suffering. Every cloud doesn't just have a silver lining -- it's a silver lining in disguise!
It's not just Christianity which does this: they all do, including those individualistic versions of pop spirituality which claim that everyone deliberately chose what happens to them on earth while they were off in some Higher Realm, so that they might help along the common good. People who die of cancer did so as a voluntary sacrifice, so that something really bad didn't happen to someone else. Or, perhaps, they or someone else is made stronger and better by adversity.
"Everything happens for a reason."
They think this approach is sooo positive. We think it's damn creepy.
I'd rather think that bad things happen to good people as a result of unplanned, unguided chance and circumstance, than believe that they were set up on purpose by Someone or some Force which loves me, and is doing it for some secret good that will just tickle me with delight when I find out what it is later on. I think a happy, self-absorbed approach like that will have some unpleasant side effects in the character department.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 1:38 PM
Bilbo the brainless
Guess what, we are people too. But we aren't deluded by believing in imaginary deities and fictional holy books. Many people, and apparently you, see mature as being sedate, stodgy, and overly polite. That really doesn't apply to people who tend toward the higher end of the IQ and education range who are most likely to be atheists, and also have other enthusiasms. There is also the fun we have poking at the twits like yourself who come here to troll. By being racous and mean, they don't stick around and bore us to death, which is the habit of some trolls.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 3, 2009 1:41 PM
Tom, "illogic" and "logic". I do not think these words mean what you think they do because your entire history of posts here screams of not having a clue.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 1:42 PM
BTW Bilbo, Memyselfi established his/herself as a theist in the comments above. Ya got any more straw men?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 1:45 PM
There is no genuine merit to being delusional fools, like all believers in imaginary deities and fictional holy books. Tom, you have to show physical evidence for your deity, evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural, origin, even to get into a discussion. Since we know you have no evidence, like every other godbot to troll here, you have nothing but your delusions. Just keep your delusions to yourself, unless you are ready to show (not talk, show) the proper evidence for your deity.Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 1:46 PM
I repeat: Tom's one more tic mark in "the people who are TSTKTS" ledger.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 3, 2009 1:46 PM
Tom #317 wrote:
No, that I think is what would happen if medicine was currently perfecting the health of the population, and eliminating not only disease and accident, but death.
It's not, and it can't. Most people who go into hospitals emerge the better for it. But not always. Mortality rate is still 100%.
We don't really think of modern medicine as a "savior," you know. That bit of hyperbole may be religious projection on your part.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 1:57 PM
Again I repeat myself: Most theists think the purpose of science is to cure all diseases and unlimited longevity and when it fails at that impossible task, to use this seeming failure as proof that science can't provide what their God&trade provides (even though God&trade rarely seems to cure anyone and doesn't give anyone any actual empirical evidence of the Everlasting Life&trade permanent vacation plan.)
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 3, 2009 1:58 PM
Tom #317 wrote:
I'm curious: why did you modify the word "Christianity" with the adjective "genuine" -- but not do the same for the word "science?"
We have several ways to distinguish science from pseudoscience (though there's no clear demarkation at the edges), but how does one distinguish genuine Christianity from Christianity which is not 'genuine.' Sincerity?
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 1:59 PM
And "provide" unlimited...
Posted by: Kemist | August 3, 2009 1:59 PM
Creepy and disastrous for some people.
I have experienced minor depression because of my thyroid disease, and many of my friends tried to cheer me up using those inane platitudes (and other things such as "when god closes a door, he opens a window" and "you're only depressed because you think you're depressed").
Somehow after each and every one of these conversations, I found myself thinking about my death. How it would stop the pain of being such a whining loser. That's when I got scared and went to the doctor.
I can only imagine what such thinking can do to someone suffering from major depression.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 3, 2009 2:04 PM
Easy: True Christians -- whatever a "true Christian is" -- would not get sick, or die from illness. Over the course of the past ~2000 years that Christianity has been in existence, Christians get sick and die in the exact same rates as everyone else, proving that God does nothing for them.
No, that's what would happen if God cured every Christian completely. Since it does not happen, obviously God is not healing Christians.
However, the real world --the one where God is just your imagination -- is complex, and diseases are living organisms that have evolved and continue to evolve. We don't have cures for everything, and we acknowledge that research into analyzing disease and injury and healing is an ongoing process, not a miracle that waves its wand and fixes everything by magic -- like you claim God does.
Hygiene is an outgrowth of medical research and scientific understanding, you may be shocked to learn!
You are claiming that God is not omnipotent, or not omniscient, or not omnibenevolent?
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 2:08 PM
Funny you should mention that...Posted by: Injun Trouble | August 3, 2009 2:10 PM
"I can point to a whole lot more people who are dead now because the medicine - produced by scientists using science no less!"
Sorry, religion still wins that tally. Crusades and Inquisitions, anyone??
Posted by: strangebrew | August 3, 2009 2:35 PM
#329
"You are claiming that God is not omnipotent, or not omniscient, or not omnibenevolent?"
Methinks Tom is not claiming that...just that god only pulls his devine finger out when only the truly god-smittened deluded praise his holy moniker fit ta rapture...
But that would make sense cos only the truly barkingly deluded would claim that a mythological invisible sky fairy had actually cured them...but then again that ain't quite right either...cos a truly deluded all stops out head banger to tha lawd... couple of dingbats tried that recently and it did not work quite so well...maybe they were not quite christian enough...tis a puzzle!
As for...
"However, it is not medicine that is responsible for longevity of life in most developed countries, it is hygiene, you may be shocked to learn!"
You might very well be shocked to know that the practice of hygiene was first introduced in the Crimean War...that's in Europe by the way...I do not expect you to know that of course...
By ...gasp! ...a Woman ...oh no the painted jezebel interfered with gods plans for injured cavalry and infantry men...what a shocker...
Her name was Florence Nightingale and she was also a fantastic keeper of records that paved the way for the modern study of statistics...She was of course a Nurse...and a Christian...although you would of course disagree Tom... after all a christian can only be a christian when you say they are a christian...so she was not a christian then by your infallible logic!
I do stand corrected...
Oh and Tom ...as anyone told you lately that you are a fucking imbecile?
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 2:50 PM
*raises hand*Posted by: memyselfi | August 3, 2009 2:52 PM
Change of subject noted.
Posted by: memyselfi | August 3, 2009 2:59 PM
Odd. I thought the whole topic was about how all of religion is evil because a TINY HANDFUL of people have allowed their children to die because they didn't seek out any medical treatment. (Unless, of course, you can provide an alternate interpretation of PZ's last paragraph.) I turned the argument around and, predictably, you all fell for it. And your responses? Nothing rational. Just ad hominem after ad hominem. Again, predictable.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 3:01 PM
memyselfi, still no hard evidence presented for your imaginary deity, which means you are essentially acknowledging you are a delusional fool. All you have to do is to show some hard physical evidence your dog exists. But nothing. One might think you know you have nothing, so you must be overly aggressive to compensate for your lack of intelligence and honesty. Which you are doing very poorly at in any case.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 3:09 PM
Memyselfi is the victim of persecution, y'all. He's wants everyone to know he's mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore.
Does anyone here really care?
*cricket* *cricket*
' thought not...
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 3, 2009 3:12 PM
memyselfi #335 wrote:
No, the topic was about how religion is dangerous because its methods of faith and division -- if taken seriously -- not only allow, but encourage this human tendency towards superstition, certainty, and tribalism. There is no way to recognize worldly error.
The methods of science -- which would include scientific medicine -- do not encourage these traits, but try to eliminate them as much as possible.
The problem isn't in the results, it's in the method. The fact that the same method can as easily yield good results, as bad, doesn't mean that the method is therefore either benign, or neutral. These were good people who loved their child. What they did, made sense, within their system. They took religion too seriously. They had too much faith. They rejected too much of the world.
You're supposed to do all that, but in moderation.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 3, 2009 3:13 PM
Tom the arrogant cultist @ #250:
And how do you know that? The sworn testimony of the voices in your head?
Tom the irrational nutcase:
If your god is supposed to be our saviour, why has your cult been building more churches for two thousand years, rather than knocking them down?
Tom, worshipper of lies and death:
So you think your god promised to heal this girl? Well, she was not healed, she is dead. So your god failed. Completely. Abjectly. Your god is either nonexistent, incompetent, or a liar. In any case, how could it possibly be worthy of worship?
Tom the lying sack of shit:
Your god is imaginary. Those who put their confidence in a delusion are idiots, and they deserve to be called idiots. Even if your god existed, the facts of this case would make it obvious it is either incompetent to heal anyone, or unwilling to keep its promises. A fraud, an oathbreaker, a liar, an incompetent, a fool, such a being is not worthy of trust. You and your cult are delusional, and this girl's blood is on your hands.
Posted by: raven | August 3, 2009 3:17 PM
Naw, all you can do is lie like a xian and babble like a crezy troll.
Before modern medicine, everyone used to get smallpox. 1 out of 3 died from it. Smallpox is now extinct. Millions had TB, with no treatment. etc..
The average lifespan a century ago was 47 in the USA. It is now 78, 3 decades longer. Blame modern medicine.
No one forces adults to seek medical care in the USA., it is illegal to do so for anyone over 18. But we spend 20% of our GDP on ....medical care. The vast majority of the population wants to live to 78 rather than 47. It's a normal person thing that me wouldn't understand.
Posted by: Tom | August 3, 2009 3:20 PM
Sastra asked...
>>I'm curious: why did you modify the word "Christianity" with the adjective "genuine" -- but not do the same for the word "science?"
Because 99.9% of the people who called themselves Christians are not. On the other hand, all science, perhaps with the exception technology, is pseudo.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 3:28 PM
Well Tom the idiot, with them odds, you aren't a real Xian. But we knew that anyway. Welcome to the real world. Show us your authority to make such a decision for the 99.9% percent.Oh yes, science wins again. Evidence versus stupidsticion. Evidence will win every time.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 3, 2009 3:32 PM
So 99.9% of people who put their faith in God are wrong to put their faith in God -- according to you, anyway. God won't answer them or heal them or forgive their sins, because they are not "real" Christians.
All real science works the same way: testing against the real world. Do you really think that things like transistors would possibly work if quantum mechanics was not real? Do you think that plastics technology could possibly work if organic chemistry was not real?
What is wrong with your brain, that you think that all science is "pseudo"?
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 3, 2009 3:39 PM
Tom #341 wrote:
In that post (#326) I asked how one distinguishes genuine Christianity from Christianity which is not 'genuine.' Do you know?
This doesn't make a lot of sense. If all science is 'pseudo' or pretend science, then what is pseudoscience being compared to?
The merits of 'genuine' Christianity vs. the demerits of science. Can you give a list, so I know what you're talking about. Reason vs. revelation?
Science is a bottom-up method which tries to come up with explanations. Technology can in theory be done without any understanding of why something works -- though, to get better technology, you will find yourself discovering a connection of underlying causes.
Basically, the scientific method has to do with striving for objectivity, and cross-checking and testing conclusions. When you reject science, are you rejecting experiment, replication, test, and so forth? Are you rejecting the method? Are you throwing out the idea that we always might be mistaken, and that our biases often lead us astray?
Or are you just saying that scientific conclusions today are wrong -- but soon better conclusions will be reached, when more scientists learn to follow their perfectly fine objective methods?
Posted by: Dania | August 3, 2009 3:42 PM
Yeah, because technology would totally exist without real science...
Posted by: Watchman | August 3, 2009 3:52 PM
Citation please?
Posted by: Watchman | August 3, 2009 3:57 PM
Tom, you've outdone yourself. This is the stupidest thing I've read in a month. And yet, earlier, you had the nerve to write this gem:
You're leading the league in illogical sound bites, you tool.
This is your cue to start blaming everyone except yourself for the unfortunate fact that you're a blithing idiot. Go ahead, go for it. Blame me. Blame your parents. Blame "science". Play the victim. It's what you're best at. Go ahead. Do it. DO IT.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 4:04 PM
This is why memyselfi's sensibilities have been so insulted. He thinks he is a reasonable rational person unlike those zealots who let their little girl die, he just believes in the moderate magic of prayer, that's all, not the wholesale God makes the tumor vanish/instantaneous sight for a blind person/automatic cure of diabetes ostentatious miracle. He wants to have his take and tweet it too.How dare we point out that even being a only somewhat irrational is still being irrational.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 3, 2009 4:05 PM
Tom the delusional crackpot @ #341:
Hey, look everyone! Tom just declared himself The World's One And Only True Christian™!
Amazing, everyone else in the history of the fucking planet got it wrong, but Tom, The Great and Mighty Tom, and no other, magically knows what it means to be a True Christian™!
Is it even humanly possible to be more arrogant than this asshat?
Tom the reality-denying solipsist:
Wow, how convenient, absolutely everything in the world magically becoems not real if The Great and Mighty Tom, Only True Christian™ In All The World finds it troublesome! Gravity is just a theory! All the fossils were planted by Satan! Insulin doesn't exist! All you have to do is close your eyes and eays and mind and reality goes away completely! All those icky icky facts mean nothing!
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 3, 2009 4:12 PM
In college, I took a course called Abnormal Psychology. We used to watch taped interviews with schizophrenics. A roomful of 200 students would be perfectly quiet and still, because listening to the schizophrenics was so oddly intriguing and (not saying this to be mean) just plain weird.
Today's trolls remind me of those classes. I keep thinking, "Surely they can't really think that way. Not without some sort of illness."
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 4:13 PM
No, ol'Tom's sure his biases are correct. He does not understand the difference between deriving knowledge from empirical data and the scientific method versus good ol' theological dogma as well as the dogmatic/rote way kids are taught history, literature, etc., in school. He's assuming science is as dogmatic as his theology; to him Science = opinion/common sense that can be trumped by his faith in a collection of archaic texts. Isn't that right Tom?Posted by: Watchman | August 3, 2009 4:26 PM
That means there are only around 1.8 million REAL Christians on the face of the earth. Hardly a threat to global rationality, are they?
I guess it's all over, then. We can all go home.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 4:31 PM
Oops, his math was wrong. It was supposed to come out that only 144,000 are REAL Christians at any given time (as per the Revelation).
Posted by: strangebrew | August 3, 2009 4:37 PM
Tom...you require a quite and calm evaluation at the nearest mental hospital...they will not give you drugs you do not want...but reserve the right to deploy restraints to the limbs...we do not want you hurting yourself or others now do we...that would not be christian...or would it?...your call Tom!
99.9 % of Christians are not christian...what are they then Tom...do tell...are they atheists?...are they Satanists?...who do they worship then?...Is the pope a non-christian?...or the Archbishop of Canterbury?...
Do they not believe in Christ then?...or the holy brats daddy?
They are not christian by your standard...who are these interlopers that are not christian?
What about Kent Hovind...now methinks he is a baptist is he not?...he is one of yours then?...is he a christian?
I notice your somewhat terse replies in the last few posts from you...a sure sign you are rattled...maybe tis time for a laydown in a darkened room...a prayer or two will be totally useless but full kudos for the effort....
The arrogance is a sign that you are losing the plot..the stupidity is the belief in ridiculous sky fairies...now't to be done about that...to late your brain has rotted away...but the hatred of atheism and science...well now...not so much a gift from god more a curse I would hazard...but it will get you into trouble one day hot shot...when standing before your imagined pearly gates St. Pete will not know what to do with a preacher that hates others especially the ones that disagree with the lawd' god Tom......goes against Christianity you see...but I suppose Pete will work with it...but methinks you might lose your frequent dumbass club card..to be downgraded to raving homophobic infanticide excuser dipshit of the third kind ...still a good result for a life full of lies and pomposity!
Posted by: raven | August 3, 2009 4:41 PM
Well, tom has now shown that he is insane. Thahks Tom, but we already had guessed that. I seriously doubt that he running around loose but rather posting from a mental hospital or old age home for early Alzheimers.
I certainly wouldn't let him near my rutabaga or dog much less my kids.
But as the bible says, everything happens for a reason. Tom's existence is to show people what happens to malfunctioning brains poisoned by toxic religion. And to provide light warmups for the troll kicking team.
Posted by: raven | August 3, 2009 4:48 PM
Many of the weirder, irrational trolls are schizophrenics. SZ isn't rare, 1% or 3 million in the USA. They tend to have lots and lots of free time and spend it on the internet.
Tom is deep into abnormal psych territory but really, boring to the point where it isn't worth it to try for a diagnosis. Anyone who cares, get out the DSM-IV
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 3, 2009 4:53 PM
raven, that's right--I remember that 1% statistic from college. Imagine a roomful of students realizing that two of us would likely end up schizophrenic. Then when you add in the odds of being bipolar, etc...there were a lot of nervous faces in that class, thinking about the future. I guess Tom was one of the unlucky.
Posted by: strangebrew | August 3, 2009 4:58 PM
# 350
"Today's trolls remind me of those classes. I keep thinking, "Surely they can't really think that way. Not without some sort of illness.""
Never mind the trolls check out Tom and his so called non- Christians....and even the point one that are christian according to his grace...
"Delusions can be described as beliefs which are simply not true and which are not based on any fact or real evidence. For example a common type of delusion in people with schizophrenia is a feeling of being persecuted, in other words paranoid schizophrenia. The individual may falsely believe that another person or persons sometimes close family members are conspiring against them. They may believe that voices on the radio or people on the television are speaking directly to them giving them personal messages."
Now that is pretty darn close to some of the behaviorism we experience from the godbots that visit here is it not?...as I have said and will say again this nonsense about supernatural woo lubbin creotards... is a mental illness...no doubt at all!
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 3, 2009 5:06 PM
strangebrew, that pretty much nails it.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 3, 2009 5:11 PM
Strangebrew #354 wrote:
Tom Estes has said he is a Baptist preacher -- but I think the 'Tom' of posts #317, #341, etc. is someone different. He's not a Pentecost -- perhaps a JW? They usually don't come on these sorts of forums (at least, they're not supposed to.)
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 5:12 PM
Naw, Tom's not crazy; he just keeps drinking the Kool-Ade from his indoctrination as a child. Everyone he looks up to believes the same crap and to divorce himself from that deluded, magical way of thinking would really cause his world, as he's been brainwashed to see it, turned upside down and rocked to it's very core; so he keeps spouting inanities without ever really examining how mind-bogglingly stupid it all really is.OctoberMaid came up with the best analogy; he's just talking out loud to convince himself. He just hopes we'll be magically convinced too.
Posted by: InjunTrouble | August 3, 2009 5:28 PM
Memyselfandi "Change of subject noted"
We WERE talking about which has taken more lives, correct? Is that all you've got? Waiting for the apologist argument.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 3, 2009 5:30 PM
Yes this is another saved by science story.
In March of 2005 I had a stroke; it would later be diagnosed as a minor transient ischemic event. Caused by a clot, and dealt with by a clot buster.
I received the clot buster in the emergency department, and by the time I was sent upstairs for observation---and to await the MRI---I had pretty much regained use of my right side. I was supposed to spend three days there, but my scan got preempted by nasty multi-vehicle accidents two days in a row. If not for the clot buster the damage done could've been a lot worse.
About the same time I had my stroke an LA area science fiction fan I knew as Tom had a stroke of his own. Also, technically speaking, a minor transient ischemic event, his was located in his hind brain, and effectively knocked out some rather important autonomic functions. As any decent demolition expert will tell you, it's not the amount of explosive you use, it's how you use the explosive you have. Tom eventually died because of what his stroke damaged. So I'm doubly fourtunate to have survived, and survived with little apparent damage.
And for all those "God doesn't listen to..." types out there. God hears all petitions, He just doesn't take all of them seriously. Look at it this way, if the request would make your dad bust a gut, it'll likely do the same for God.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 3, 2009 5:43 PM
I know I've come to this late, but I really had to say something about this:
Prior to the development of effective antibiotic treatment for tuberculosis, sanatoria existed all over the developed world. After the development of real, scientific, medical treatment almost all of the sanatoria were closed and most have been subsequently demolished. Those that still stand serve other functions. One back in a friend's hometown is now an inpatient mental health center.
So, there's the perfect example of modern medicine making a specific kind of hospital obsolete and the subsequent demolition of said hospital type.
Posted by: strangebrew | August 3, 2009 5:49 PM
# 360
Sastra...your point is a possibility...the mind set is identical...methinks Estes realized his tag was red rag stuff and tried to be clever...well as clever as a idiot can get anyways...but okay tis of course possible it is another delusional...no matter...sauce for the Estes and all that...!
Lot of teh stuupid around tonite...must be a moon phase or summat!
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 3, 2009 6:06 PM
strangebrew #365 wrote:
I'm not sure, but as I read it the mindset isn't actually identical, nor is the style: Tom Estes was actually more reasonable -- or, at least, less unreasonable. And I think it very unlikely that a Baptist preacher -- even a Southern Baptist preacher -- would say that 99.9% of all the people who claim to be Christians, are not. Unless he's making some hyper-modest theological point ('we all come short of the glory of God'), that's incredibly high.
If I had to, I would guess that Tom #2 belongs to an independent, unaffiliated Christian church or sect -- probably meeting in members' homes. But that's mostly a wild guess. If he comes back, he can probably delight in telling me I'm wrong.
Posted by: strangebrew | August 3, 2009 6:25 PM
# 366
Sastra....Not that I am sweating this but...
TE posts 137 using full tag...after that Tom appears but the core of the conversation is the same...check it out in a linear list....
137
250
303
317
341
Now I might have missed a post or two but the point is 'Tom' takes up where 'Tom Estes' leaves off seemingly..it is almost seamless...like a tag team...
Just odd methinks.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 3, 2009 6:34 PM
Oh nice! A late entry in the stupid comment of the day contest.
Posted by: Susan Silberstein
|
August 3, 2009 6:35 PM
I have not fallen victim to what they used to call "the suicide disease" because of white coat nerds like my cousin, who toils in a lab at Bayer. Modern medicine has saved my life more than once.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 3, 2009 6:37 PM
strangebrew #367:
Hm. I missed Estes' post at #137, but reading them in sequence it still sounds to me as if Tom is a different guy. The style and even the arguments don't quite match. I suppose we could go to 'Hard Truth' and ask, but it's probably not that important.
Posted by: strangebrew | August 3, 2009 6:44 PM
# 370
Nah your right...no sweat...!
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | August 3, 2009 6:47 PM
Tom #317: People who are hostile to God tend to be illogical, so I am not surprised that the process of deduction escapes you.
Oh, my. We're hostile to God, whom we consider to be fictional, because we're hostile to you? You narcissistic, ignorant sack. You wouldn't understand deductive reasoning if it bit you on the ass.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 6:49 PM
Kind of like Walton when he started...Posted by: Watchman | August 3, 2009 6:58 PM
I agree that "Tom Estes" and "Tom" do not seem to be the same person.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 3, 2009 7:04 PM
How about regrowing the limbs of amputees? That would constitute a miracle of healing for which there would be no other possible explanation beyond divine intervention. Got any examples of of that?
Oh, and there was nothing imprecise about that phrase when it was used in context. Your reading comprehension is as poor as your logic.
Really? Good health ≠ immortality. People will eventually die and many of them die in hospitals. If the population has increased then - logically - the number of people who die must also increase.
And what about accidents? Do you believe people are claiming that medical research will prevent those?
Oh, and for your elucidation - the correct phrase would be 'fewer people', not 'less people'.
For someone who claims to be on of the 0.01% of True Christians™, I'm a little surprised that you'd be unaware the many Christians pray for everyone who's sick to be healed. All it takes is one Christian somewhere to pray to the Christian god to heal everyone and your theory goes out the window.
But let me anticipate your retort - the Christians who pray for everyone's health aren't True Christians™, right?
I'm sorry you were unable to discern the points raised; I guess having your head firmly placed in your ass will do that. Would you like me to use smaller words next time? If you haven't run away, crapping yourself in fear like a typical Christian coward troll, that is.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | August 3, 2009 7:05 PM
Interesting, though - they both seem to enjoy calling atheists "insane".
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 3, 2009 7:31 PM
The point that I was trying to raise was that of theodicy.
If God only responds to the proper prayers of "true Christians", then it certainly cannot be claimed that God is omnibenevolent. A God who forces people to jump through hoops and submit themselves in worship in order to be healthy is not acting with the generosity of even an ordinary human philanthropist.
Posted by: Iris | August 3, 2009 7:31 PM
...only if you think projection is interesting.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | August 3, 2009 7:34 PM
only if you think projection is interesting.
I just meant that it leads one to think they may be the same person.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 3, 2009 7:37 PM
But that would make Holbach and raven the same person.
Wait ... could it be?? ;)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
August 3, 2009 7:43 PM
Sastra,
Have you ever seen the two of them together in the same room?
Posted by: bilbo | August 3, 2009 8:49 PM
So...a THEIST being raucous and mean is stupid and moronic. An ATHEIST being raucous and mean is mature and intelligent. Brilliant 'reasoning,' moron.
And so, by this point ("Guess what, we are people too. But we aren't deluded by believing in imaginary deities and fictional holy books."), an ATHEIST refusing medical care for a child is just being a person. Wow - I'd say the delusion runs deep in any belief/non-belief system when ANYONE thinks they've got it "all figured out."
P.S. - Do you really think you're going to offend me by calling me a troll? What do you tihnk I'm coming here to do- change minds? You guys lack the ability to apply critical reasoning to atheism just as much or more than the most ardent theist does. It's more about bashing religion than promoting atheism here, anyway!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
August 3, 2009 9:01 PM
Okay, bilbo, we get it. You don't like us being noisy, blatant, and in your face. Thank you for telling us about your concern. We will take it under advisement. Now please, as a special favor, fuck off.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 3, 2009 9:02 PM
bilbo #382 wrote:
Well, yes -- inflexible dogma is not a good idea in general, religion aside. And on Pharyngula there's been a lot of discussion of -- and condemnation for -- alternative medicine advocates who push quack cures for cancers and other diseases which are otherwise curable. The problems are very similar to problems with faith healing. Atheists are not exempt from being anti-science, and anti-reason.
(I won't address the rest, because I forget what started the ruckus.)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
August 3, 2009 9:03 PM
Upon further consideration, I withdraw my request in #383 for bilbo to fuck off. I should have asked him to fuck off and die.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 3, 2009 9:19 PM
Dildo Bugger decided he would characterize everybody at pharyngula by erecting a straw-atheist @312:
It's more about bashing religion than promoting atheism here, anyway!
I fail to see the conflict between these two goals, especially when religion has such execrably inane proponents. However, since there are obviously honest and dishonest atheists, honest atheists never have to resort to making shit up about stupid-ass things people do as a result of their religious belief. Bilbo here is forced to make shit up in order to justify his little halfling Brooks Brothers riot about how evil we atheists here all are. PZ had a recent post up reiterating that while he's happy to see Bill Maher being out as an atheist, he hates the fact that Maher is also an anti-vaccination fuckwit. Nobody here gets a pass for saying stupid shit, just because they're an atheist. Bilbo is not getting a pass from anybody, even if he's an atheist. If the point Bilbo is trying to make is that you don't have to be a theist to be a douche, he has clearly demonstrated the truth of the proposition.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 9:30 PM
Ah, bilbo, nowhere near as logical and heroic as your namesake. *cue the troll music*
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 3, 2009 9:43 PM
People keep coming here complaining about how we bash religion. Well, religion sucks! So yes, we'll bash it. I bash it very roughly, about the face!
Posted by: bilbo | August 3, 2009 9:49 PM
Sastra, thank you for showing some common-sense in this issue! You're the first person I've seen say one critical thing about an atheist on this blog. Kudos.
Tis Himself, by saying "fuck off and die," you epitomize the lack of morality and maturity I was referring to in New Atheists earlier. Thanks for supporting my argument!
Ken, that was exactly the point I was aiming for ("If the point Bilbo is trying to make is that you don't have to be a theist to be a douche, he has clearly demonstrated the truth of the proposition.") But another of my points is that by simply disagreeing with anyone here, one like myself becomes a moron or idiot or troll and must "fuck off and die." THAT'S the lack of critical reasoning I'm talking about with respect to New Atheism: any argument against it is stupidity. No ability to critically think about this worldview at all...
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 3, 2009 9:56 PM
bilbo #389 wrote:
Are you arguing against the lack of critical reasoning in what you're calling 'New Atheism' -- or against the general tone of the Pharyngula blog comments? I don't think they're the same thing.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 3, 2009 10:07 PM
Ken, that was exactly the point I was aiming for ("If the point Bilbo is trying to make is that you don't have to be a theist to be a douche, he has clearly demonstrated the truth of the proposition.") But another of my points is that by simply disagreeing with anyone here, one like myself becomes a moron or idiot or troll and must "fuck off and die." THAT'S the lack of critical reasoning I'm talking about with respect to New Atheism: any argument against it is stupidity. No ability to critically think about this worldview at all...
Bilbo, you have insulted your namesake and made me proud to piss you off, you unbelievably senseless and pointless waste of life. Fuck off and die.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 3, 2009 10:14 PM
One parting remark, Dildo Bugger: atheism is not a worldview. It is the lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more, nor less. Just because a demented fuckwit like yourself also withholds a belief in a god or gods does not necessarily imply that you have any sensible contribution to make to intelligent conversation, nor is it any reason for sensible people to pretend your opinions are worth anything, just because you slap the label of "atheist" upon them, and then squat on PZ's bandwidth in order to insult anybody who isn't you. Now just piss right off, will you, please?
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 4, 2009 12:22 AM
Bilbo,
That's demonstrably untrue. I've disagreed with any number of people on this blog about numerous things, like veganism vs. omnivory and Pro-choice vs. anti-choice. No one has ever told me to "fuck off and die." Of course, I don't behave like an arrogant prick either.
Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | August 4, 2009 1:18 AM
Re. Tom vs. Tom Estes, today's loony did leave a name-link on one of his posts to what is apparently his blog, http://www.againsthirelings.blogspot.com/
Twice is coincidence, Mr Bond, not enemy action. No conspiracy of the Toms should be inferred. Anyway, this one's not a US Baptist but something to do with a WCG (World Cyber Games? Wholesale Communications Group? Hmm, probably Worldwide Church of God, see here for a catalogue of weapons-grade insanity and exploitation) and from the UK.
Posted by: bilbo | August 4, 2009 5:34 AM
Ah, so Ken believes I'm a theist simply because I disagree with him - an atheist! Again, my point is supported.
Of course I'm not saying all atheists/New Atheists are bad, foul-mouthed, or immature. I'm just saying that you can always tell when one is using a belief system (or lack thereof) as a simple, worthless pulpit for bigotry when they talk less of its merits and more of the wrongs of others.
This blog is a shining example.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 4, 2009 7:00 AM
I realized that this was a fundamental problem when I was reading the reviews of a book by Carl Sagan on Amazon. He absolutely tore apart religion, but so many comments were about his kindly approach. If you're polite (either because you are simply that way naturally, like Sastra or Zeno or Sagan, or because you're trying to avoid being labeled a Nasty New Atheist and having that whole discussion), these jokers will focus on the politeness, usually comparing you to other "mean" atheists. If you're anything other than extraodinarily patient and gentle, they'll focus on that. They just want to avoid the substance because they can't compete on that field.
It's sad, really.
***
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 4, 2009 7:44 AM
Good catch, John Scanlon! Tom might be one of the faith hornets stirred up by Those awful ads where we were encouraged to sign up for free literature from a WCG branch so we could offer a thorough critique. Tom (friend of Armstrong) is probably shaking in his pants knowing that day will soon come.
Posted by: strangebrew | August 4, 2009 8:04 AM
#394
Tom Mahon..Bizzyness consultant in bizzyness finance!
Hmm...what about "neither a lender nor a borrower be"?
Oh yea...forgot he is a christian...he can do what he wants!
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 4, 2009 2:12 PM
Hey, Dildo "shit-for-brains" Bugger, you've just shown that you have no capacity to read for content or reason. How you could possibly take my sentence in #392,"Just because a demented fuckwit like yourself also withholds a belief in a god or gods does not necessarily imply that you have any sensible contribution to make to intelligent conversation, nor is it any reason for sensible people to pretend your opinions are worth anything, just because you slap the label of "atheist" upon them, and then squat on PZ's bandwidth in order to insult anybody who isn't you," and then proceed to claim, "Ah, so Ken believes I'm a theist simply because I disagree with him - an atheist! Again, my point is supported." supports only the point that you are nothing more than a demented fuckwit who needs a two by four upside the head--at least such an event couldn't possibly make you any less stupid than you are already.
Posted by: anti_supernaturalist | August 4, 2009 4:58 PM
Secular Law (the State) trumps religious ideology for now
In that "Christ-centered" dystopia which millions of fundies across the US would support, health care could return to those happy times around 1900 when the state of medicine and the "will of God" were virtually indistinguishable. (Take a look at the 1899 Merck Manual -- reprinted for Merck's 100th anniversary.)
One reason separation of state from religion remains so vital resides in the power of the state to intervene in cases of religiously motivated child abuse.
The perverse notion that the US is "a xian nation" provides cover for a far right ideology, Dominionism. And while so-called fringe xian groups appear too demented to become popular, Dominionism embraced by members of Congress and millions of true believers, continues its program of overthrowing our secular republic. (The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power by Jeff Sharlet)
In a faith-based Ameristan, you could enjoy all the benefits of modern Iran or modern Saudi Arabia without having to leave home or learn a foreign language.
The de-deification of western culture (including the sciences) is our task for the next 100 years.
anti_supernaturalist
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 4, 2009 5:19 PM
Tom Mahon..Bizzyness consultant in bizzyness finance!
Hmm...what about "neither a lender nor a borrower be"?
Oh yea...forgot he is a christian...he can do what he wants!
Every once in a while my ipod will play a random clip from my collection of spoken-word albums, and your post reminded me of this recent heartwarming bit of advice for young people, spoken in that gravelly junkie's voice:
"Never do business with a religious son-of-a-bitch. His word ain't worth a shit -- not with the Good Lord telling him how to fuck you on the deal." — William S. Burroughs
Posted by: half-wit | August 5, 2009 4:21 PM
rufustfirefly #158:
“Amish girl...had been sexually abused by her older brother...When the girl told her mother, the mother told the girl she wasn't praying hard enough. When the girl's younger sister began to physically mature, and she watched her brother watching the younger sister, she decided to go to the local authorities.”
Jealousy among the Amish? Who knew?
Neumann should have been convicted of pre-meditated murder, because he must have prayed for his daughter to die, and he must have caused it. Here's why. Neumann testifies that he is a true believer and that the prayers of true believers are granted. He further testifies he prayed over his daughter's condition, and she then died. These are _admissions_. Why would he want his daughter dead? Maybe he got her pregnant and she had an abortion? Remember the Catholic who locked his daughter in a basement, fathered a whole second family of (grand)children with her, but no abortions? http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3306627,00.html)
Once convicted, the appropriate Biblical sentence is "a life for a life." Just convene the local militiamen, armed with AK-47's like God intended. (Where the Bible appears to say "axes," that's a typo, the prophets really said AK's.) Invite the Amish boy and arrange the firing squad in a circle (blindfolded first, let God guide their aim), put Neumann in the center, and the problem solves itself.
Posted by: head | August 28, 2009 3:47 AM
YOU`LL LOVE THIS, WHY NOT TAKE THIS NOW!
Super
Supra Shoes Skateboarding Men's
Mens Supra Strapped Shoes Hot White