…and this is a 
Alayna Wyland is 7 months old, and she is suffering.
The area started swelling, and the fast-growing mass of blood vessels, known as a hemangioma, eventually caused her eye to swell shut and pushed the eyeball down and outward and started eroding the eye socket bone around the eye.
There are pictures at the link. It's not pretty. I know if my babies had a growth that was almost the size of a tennis ball that was destroying their face, I'd have been camped out at the hospital. But not Alayna's parents! They have a special treatment plan.
The Wylands and their church reject medical care in favor of faith-healing -- anointing with oil, laying on of hands, prayer and fasting. The parents testified at a juvenile court hearing last week that they never considered getting medical attention for Alayna.
According to court documents, Rebecca Wyland anointed Alayna with oil each time she changed the girl's diaper and wiped away the yellow discharge that seeped daily from the baby's left eye.
There they go with the magic anointing oil again! Does that stuff do anything? If we can waste time with homeopathy, maybe it's about time someone did some clinical trials with anointing oil and put that crap to rest (not that it would make a bit of difference…).
The Wylands are rather vile, but at least this is taking place in Oregon, where "it is a crime for parents to intentionally and knowingly withhold necessary and adequate medical attention from their children". Alayna has been placed in state custody for treatment, and both parents have been charged with first degree criminal mistreatment.
But wait, there's more! The father was previously married.
Wyland's first wife, Monique, died of breast cancer in 2006. She had not sought or received medical treatment for the condition, said Dr. Christopher Young, a deputy state medical examiner who signed the death certificate.
She died of untreated breast cancer? That poor woman — that's a hard death, an agonizing death, and often, an unnecessary death — can that entire wretched cult be indicted for torture-murder? They seem to be leaving quite a pile of dead women and children.
Comments
Posted by: Swampfoot
|
July 27, 2010 10:07 AM
Parents who do this ought to be put in jail, end of story. They are inflicting their death-cult beliefs on children who can make no choice.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
July 27, 2010 10:10 AM
Who the hell submitted this post for you, PZ, Rev BigDumbChimp?
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
July 27, 2010 10:12 AM
I think you might have messed up your quotes a bit there, PZ.
Stories like this are why I'm an anti-theist instead of just an atheist. Religion results in things like this. If we were to get rid of religion, occurrences of this kind of shit would decrease by a whole fucking lot.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 27, 2010 10:17 AM
Well, faith needs brakes, doesn't it? There is nothing more beautiful, virtuous, humble, and disciplined than continuing to trust in your belief in God, and hold to it firmly, no matter what the world seems to say -- except don't get carried away. The more faith, the better -- within limits.
How do you know what those "limits" are? Don't worry. God will let you know. Trust.
Posted by: monado
|
July 27, 2010 10:18 AM
When a cult is sufficiently vile, I fantasize about protecting the next generation by removing all of their children at birth and having them adopted into normal society.
Posted by: alex.asolis.net
|
July 27, 2010 10:21 AM
How is it that people still believe complete nonsense like this when time and time again it does NOTHING? This isn't just stupidity, it's insanity.
"They seem to be leaving quite a pile of dead women and children."
Do the men seek treatment, or do they just not get sick?
Posted by: johnnykaje
|
July 27, 2010 10:21 AM
I've considered renouncing my lifelong feminism, since one of the core beliefs is complete reproductive autonomy. I cannot hold such a belief in light of cases like this. Anytime a faith healer couple is caught neglecting a child in such a manner, they need to be prevented from having any more kids.
I can't think of a way to implement this without officials abusing the privilege, though. So it remains a purley impotent private rage.
Posted by: irenedelse
|
July 27, 2010 10:22 AM
At least, this time, the authorities intervened before it was too late to save the kid... But what a horrible, frightening story! This kind of slavery of the mind is one of the things that make me despair of humanity, sometimes.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 27, 2010 10:23 AM
If this was simply a mater of atheistic (i.e. non-theistically motivated) neglect, then the whole thing would have been closed down long ago - the organisation would have been destroyed by a combination of legal sanctions, social services, and the scrutiny of an outraged society.
How is it that the cult has managed to go on doing this kind of thing to children for so long?
Posted by: raven
|
July 27, 2010 10:24 AM
Sounds like the Followers of Christ cult again. They seem to kill one of their kids every year. Lately, with a new DA, they have been in court a lot.
It is estimated that over a few decades, around 30 of their children have died of medical neglect. In one case I saw, a family had lost two children to treatable medical conditions.
This is a very old religious ritual. It is called human child sacrifice.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
July 27, 2010 10:26 AM
I recall my college anthropology professor discussing the holy-ghost-speaking-in-tongues-throwing-snakes cultists. He explained that it's actually necessary for some cultists to die from snake bites now and then in order for the danger they protect themselves from to be real. If there's no real danger then there's no need for their faith to protect them. Therefore, every now and then someone must die from a snake bite to verify the reality of the danger. And the need for faith as protection. It's kind of circular.
Well, at least they do some amount of verification of reality. In this particular case I just wish they'd not use children for verification purposes.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
July 27, 2010 10:26 AM
This is the kind of story that shows the essential evil of religion.
These parents aren't using religion as an excuse for evil. They want what is best for their child and are doing evil because of their reigion.
Why can't they let the doctors loose on their kid while praying and giving God the credit, like normal religious people? Because they really believe what their religion says.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
July 27, 2010 10:27 AM
Shplane, I’m with you, except that I consider myself not an anti-theist (which would be against theists) but an anti-theism-ist (which is against theism).
(Yeah, you can argue word origins and the like, but I think my version preempts the obvious criticism. And besides, I’m not against any of the gods themselves, any more than I’m against Iago or the Baron Scarpia or Darth Vader. It’s the worship of the gods I’m against.)
Cheers,
b&
Posted by: LeAnne
|
July 27, 2010 10:31 AM
At least charges are being filed.. That poor little girl won't lead a normal life because her parents were religious wingnuts who decided "prayer" was an effective method.
Welcome to the 21st century.
Posted by: jradxit
|
July 27, 2010 10:33 AM
This is disgusting and just another of the ways religious beliefs lead to unecessary suffering and death. Shame on these people and shame on our society for tolerating them as much as we do. That children are abused so blatantly as this only highlights for me the fact that indoctrination of a child into any religion is merely a lesser form of abuse which likely condemns the child to a lifetime of delusional cognitive defects.
Posted by: ButchKitties
|
July 27, 2010 10:34 AM
Stories like this really embody that Steve Weinberg quote: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Posted by: symbiosis
|
July 27, 2010 10:35 AM
But these folks appear to have genuine, ardent faith. They have prayed fervently for an indisputable worthy outcome. What happenened?
My guess is that if this didn't involve a "matter of faith" it would be cut-and-dried both legally and in the court of public opinion. Take the kid away. Period.
Increasingly, I hear Thomas Jefferson paraphrased by soft atheists when it comes to religion: "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Here's an example of how it both picks your pocket and breaks your leg (or little Alayna's, metaphorically speaking). She will be treated for an advanced (and much more expensive) condition at public expense and she may well bare the scars for the rest of her life.
From whence does evil come?
Posted by: monado
|
July 27, 2010 10:35 AM
They're not consistent. It's the usual story of SOME people dictating the suffering of others. The maternal mortality rate in the community is 900 times the Oregon average, yet people go to the dentist and wear glasses. Surely if God wanted people to have perfect sight, he'd heal them? Why are the men shaving? If God wanted them beardless, he'd keep them that way.
Why do women and children get to bear the burden of religious dogma? If I'm reading the linked article correctly, since 1955 this community, currently 1200 people, has had 78 child deaths and 15 stillbirths. Almost half of the children died before 1 year old. And 21 of the deaths were obviously preventable--perhaps more if their cases were looked at closely.
By their fruits you shall know them.
Posted by: johnnykaje
|
July 27, 2010 10:36 AM
Steve Dunlap- that makes me think of a TV special on the snake cults iIwatched when I was younger. It was one of those woonagrie shows a la "Sightings" and "Into the Unknown. "
The narrator stated that since the church was founded a century ago, "only" 100 people had died. Talk about framing-in other words they kill once every year. It's almost like a series of killings, one could describe it as "serial".
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 27, 2010 10:37 AM
I had the most blessed salad last night...
Posted by: Doug Little
|
July 27, 2010 10:42 AM
Queue the no true Scotsman in 5, 4, 3....
This is one of of the many reasons why I would consider myself anti-theist as well. I'm all for actively campaigning for the abolition of theism in general because of shit like this. Until it is eradicated theism will always be the proverbial albatross around the neck of humanity.
Posted by: monado
|
July 27, 2010 10:42 AM
"Whence comes evil?" Whence means "from where", so unless you want the Department of Redundancy Department after you, drop the "from".
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/084SzO4Lo.EHQlTMacnJmTsZxw--#36bf3
|
July 27, 2010 10:43 AM
Perhaps we can start a synthetic vs dino anointing oil debate, as is popular on myriad automotive forums? Synthetic anointing oil provides better healing when the temperatures get down to -40, and I don't need change it nearly as often. And my magic MLM synthetic oil is so good, it doesn't need to be certified.
Besides, dinosaurs are a myth. Dino anointing oil is scam designed to trick people into believing the earth is older than the 6000 years it is.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
July 27, 2010 10:44 AM
Yet another indication of the need to have people get licenses before they're allowed to procreate.
Said with only the slightest, merest, barest whisper of a hint of sarcasm.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/084SzO4Lo.EHQlTMacnJmTsZxw--#36bf3
|
July 27, 2010 10:56 AM
Tiny teflon valves installed at birth in the fallopian tubes and vasa deferentia and closed.
Only after the person passes some sort of test demonstrating fitness for parenthood will the valves be opened in a simple outpatient procedure.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/K2PNji0at.txAjzTShOlxwLuFcVVFwbnng--#bd813
|
July 27, 2010 11:01 AM
But it is perfectly logical for Christians to refuse medical treatment. The outcome will be according to God's will, so what good is medical treatment? That's according to Catholic belief about women dieing in childbirth.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 27, 2010 11:03 AM
Abdul Alhazred #12 wrote:
Exactly. And this is a major point of contention with not just people of faith, but accomodationists.
The problem isn't supposed to be with religion. There's not supposed to be anything wrong with faith. Those are good things -- or, at least, they are neutral, and can be used for good or evil. The problem is supposed to be the extremists -- the bad people who hijack a perfectly fine thing like religion, with its special revelations, mysticism, insider knowledge of higher truths, and distort it to bad ends. People are the problem. They have bad hearts, cruel natures, selfish goals. They make their religion bad.
Bullshit. You can't separate human personalities into the "good" people who choose to make their religion reasonable, and the "bad" people who choose to make their religion unreasonable. Religion, and faith, by their very nature have to be unreasonable. If they make perfect sense from a secular standpoint, then we're talking secular philosophy. They are grounded in the acceptance of a reality only knowable to insiders. "We know more than what can be known by studying the world: we go beyond the world, and seek transcendence."
What the fuck do they think is going to happen, with a system like that? That the brakes are going to be obvious? That evil people will choose to place the brakes in an unreasonable place, and the good, reasonable people with good intentions will just instinctively know not to get too extreme? Those good, reasonable people will also apparently know how to avoid being born into a bad religion.
Religion is not neutral, so that, like government, it can be a good one, or bad one. Sure, some religions are better than others. But the system itself is screwed up. Religion is more like a Divine Right of Kings government, with the king having total power. Just because a generation gets lucky with a kind, reasonable king, doesn't mean that the set up is now neutral, and we can't say it's necessarily a bad one. Yes we can, because it's a recipe for disaster. It goes wrong from the beginning, for it assumes people can handle that kind of absolute power.
Faith is power. It's a commitment to hold to a belief, the way you would remain loyal to a friend. It takes away a person's ability to know they are wrong: hell, it takes away their ability to be wrong. Faith takes the believer out of the belief, and makes them think this makes them humble. Without checks against error, it only turns them into the God they think they are worshiping.
This story isn't some strange distortion of true religion. These people have a consuming, heartfelt faith that would be envied if it wasn't taking a form which clashes just a little too obviously with reality for most people's modern taste. Faith-based beliefs are a recipe for disaster. Moderate religion is religion moderated by worldly wisdom, and there is no rule that says religion ought to make sense to an atheist. On the contrary, the rule is that it better not make complete sense to an atheist, or it's not "special" enough, high enough, transcendent enough, spiritual enough.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
July 27, 2010 11:04 AM
The fact that states have laws that provide the religious with immunity is frustrating, to say the least. I understand that children cannot be granted exactly equal rights to adults (voting would be a disaster...more of a disaster), but this tendency for people to view them as their parents' property is disgusting. Children are autonomous people in need of protection. Their parents do not deserve to inflict their whims upon them. How hard is it to recognize and implement laws accordingly?
Posted by: Matthew_
|
July 27, 2010 11:08 AM
PZ,
My daughter has a hemangioma, although much less severe than this and in a place which is normally covered by clothing.
I am not a physician, but my understanding is that they are not usually treated. This was communicated to me by two pediatricians and a specialist dermatologist.
I have read that when the growth interferes with vital functions that it may be addressed surgically, which seems to be the case here. However, it was also my impression that surgery during the growth phase was relatively ineffective.
I am not defending the parents in question; Although my child's hemangioma was tiny compared to this infant I still took her for a first, second, and specialist opinion. However, I know from reading the experiences of parents whose children suffered from large and obvious growths that they dreaded being accused of neglecting their child.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 27, 2010 11:15 AM
In reaction to this religious child torture horrorshow, Shplane @ 3 and Ben Goren @ 13 debate the merits of antitheist vs. Anthitheism. I prefer: Anti-Clerical.
Anti-Clericalism has a long and proud history dating back to teh French Revolution. Sure, there were some excesses but given the choice between clerics and their institutions suffering instead of innocent children, I know which way I want the excesses to be squewed.
Posted by: irenedelse
|
July 27, 2010 11:24 AM
@ Matthew_: But in the case of your child, it was a small hemangioma, apparently. And it probably didn't threaten to disfigure or impair function, as in the case of this little girl, since the tumor is huge and growing over her eye. And the article says that it was seeping pus, so it must have been ulcerating, which means a risk of infection, and probably some pain. This seems clearly a case which warranted treatment.
Posted by: P_Smith
|
July 27, 2010 11:25 AM
If the cult demanded that children who reach puberty be starved of food for a month, it would be called abuse and the child taken into custody, even though a month's starvation would likely not kill a kid.
And yet rabid godbots will deny medical care, guaranteeing that the child will die, and nobody does anything about it, because it's called "religious freedom".
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 27, 2010 11:27 AM
Do they ever just take notice that despite their belief that disease aren't real, they get a LOT more deaths and diseases than the hethans who are getting treatment? Doesn't that cause confusion? If our faith protects us why are the faithless BETTER protected?
Posted by: jradxit
|
July 27, 2010 11:29 AM
Matthew @29,
You are correct in that most hemangiomata are not treated and that parents are sometimes viewed as neglectful. However, those affecting functional structures negatively can and should be addressed. There are options including steroids, lasers, surgery, and endovascular treatments (sclerosis, embolization) which can all be considered. In this particular case, I suspect a steroid regimen during the growth phase would have been the first thing to try.
Posted by: CW
|
July 27, 2010 11:32 AM
You must be using completely different definitions of beauty, virtue and humility than I am. As to discipline, well, maybe. Maybe it's discipline that keeps you clinging to your faith or maybe it's arrogance, inertia, stubbornness, stupidity or fear. Even if it is discipline though, so what? Since when is discipline a virtue in and of itself? Death by anorexia takes a lot of discipline too but, you know, I really don't admire that either.Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
July 27, 2010 11:36 AM
But this is unpossible! Faith is a force for good, not evil. Belief in God is only a good thing, and stridently bad-mouthing faith like this is bad!
You are all just a bunch of meanies. Don't you understand that the big horrific lump of puss-oozing malformed tissue that turns this young toddler's face into a hideous bundle of joy is a mark of God's Grace(tm)(r)(c)? Why do you have to bad-mouth her parents' death-cult so?
Posted by: Saul Adrem
|
July 27, 2010 11:38 AM
“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest” - Denis Diderot
Posted by: BioBeing
|
July 27, 2010 11:40 AM
My eldest daughter was born with a very prominent vein in her eyelid that we were afraid was going to turn into a hemangioma. Turns out (after many trips to an eye lid specialist) it was just a prominent vein. But surgery was definitely an option if it had turned out to be more.
Posted by: gadow
|
July 27, 2010 11:42 AM
I think we need seriously to reconsider the Free Excercise clause of the First Amendment, as it seems any kind of child abuse, no matter how horrific, can be justified in the name of religion.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
July 27, 2010 11:47 AM
P_Smith @ # 32: ... a month's starvation would likely not kill a kid.
[citation needed]
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 27, 2010 11:51 AM
re 35:
It seems you are unfamiliar with Sastra's writing style.
Posted by: James Sweet
|
July 27, 2010 12:06 PM
Lock 'em up and throw away the key. Heartless abusive fuckers...
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 27, 2010 12:07 PM
CW, Sastra's snark is very subtle. She is not saying what you think she is.
Behold yet an other example the beauty that faith provides for people. It is not often that I want a government agency to interfere with a person's life but I hope that young Alayna is never given back to her parents. It is best that she gets treated and that she has no memories of her parents.
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 12:09 PM
Stories like this really embody that Steve Weinberg quote: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Oh, not Steven Windbag! This quote implies that people are born good or bad. Hello, Calvin? But the only environmental factor that could change someone is... religion?
And religion always makes people bad??? Nuh-huh!
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 12:14 PM
Anyway, of course some people have silly religious beliefs. There are silly religions (and good ones!) But if you get rid of religion as the aggressive anti-theists want, you'll just have new waves of peopel beliving that vaccines cause more problems than they fix or alternative medicine is better than real medicine. That crap. Much of those are actually atheists by the way.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 27, 2010 12:17 PM
I had a hemangioma behind the retina in my left eye about 5 years ago. Silly me, instead of praying, I went to an ocular oncologist. Sure, I can still see, but is it worth the price of eternal damnation?
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 27, 2010 12:21 PM
There are silly religions (and good ones!)
Pray tell, Buster. Please give us an example of a good religion.
As for the rest of your silly example, most of the anti-vaxxer tend to be very woo ridden.
Posted by: Voss
|
July 27, 2010 12:22 PM
I live in Portland and have been following this cult's activities for years. The real heroes of this story are the District Attorneys of Clackamas County (Oregon City) and Multnomah County (Portland). They have been working tirelessly for more than a decade to help pass legislation to prosecute these criminals.
Once the laws were in place, these prosecuters enlisted the help of the Police and Family Services to form a small group of informants from inside the Followers Of Christ Church. In the past two years, the negligent parents have been reported to the Police and were arrested under these recently passed laws. I am writing about the last two cases where the children died. The prosecuters then found that juries were quite willing to find these defendants guilty. Everything seemed to be working.
Then the judges, using a religious exemption for sentencing, gave the parents a few months in prison, or no prison time. The crimes carry a maximum penalty of six years (light, in my opinion).
It appears we still have some work to do to overcome the insidious and pervasive influence of religion in our state. We will continue to work one small step at a time.
A small side note. The informants mentioned earlier have also reported that the adults in this cult have visited eye doctors for glasses and dentists (using pain killers). Draw your own conclusions from this.
Posted by: CW
|
July 27, 2010 12:23 PM
I'll adopt the Nathan Poe defence.
Posted by: bionode
|
July 27, 2010 12:25 PM
Eh, the child is probably better off dead than being brought up by parents who believe in magical healing techniques administered by a man in the sky.
Posted by: landanimal
|
July 27, 2010 12:25 PM
Oh my PZ Myers*. I won't even bother to comment on the stupidity and the cruelty of this, I am just thankful for state intervention. I am glad this little girl is getting the treatment she needs. I hope she is already doing better.
*I have taken to saying this in place of "Oh my God" as I myself am a wretched little nonbeliever of an agnostic.
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 12:28 PM
Pray tell, Buster. Please give us an example of a good religion.
As for the rest of your silly example, most of the anti-vaxxer tend to be very woo ridden.
My favourites are Catholicism, Caodaism and Budddhism.
And the anti-vaccine lot are sometimes atheists actually.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 27, 2010 12:32 PM
Eh, the child is probably better off dead than being brought up by parents who believe in magical healing techniques administered by a man in the sky.
Um, Alayna will be dead if she is raised in accordance to the cult. The point is this, she should not be allowed to die. And the next point is this, she should not be raised by the cult.
Posted by: Volant Proboscidian
|
July 27, 2010 12:34 PM
Q.E.D. @ 30:
Assuming you mean to emphasize that religion is a greater evil than belief in god in and of itself, I'm very much in agreement. I've known many people who largely reject religion, but nevertheless believe there must be some kind of god, and while I think the latter judgement misguided, I certainly consider this view more reasonable and benign than adherence to organized religion. What really bothers me is when people claim to KNOW not only that god exists, but the will of god. It's that kind of mindset that leads to things like this, with people putting their faith ahead of the lives of their children.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 27, 2010 12:34 PM
Which has absolute nothing to do with anything else they believe. They are just woo infested idjits, and god/religion woo is just one possible form of the infestation, just like anti-vax or homeopathy.Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 27, 2010 12:35 PM
My favourites are Catholicism, Caodaism and Budddhism.
I see that you are an authoritarian. It is good to know.
Posted by: bionode
|
July 27, 2010 12:36 PM
#53
Tongue in cheek?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 27, 2010 12:36 PM
1. Citation
2. And so what?
Atheism is only a non-belief in gods.
Period.
It says nothing about someone's skepticism in other areas, though it tends to suggest that they are skeptics, just not always.
Religions on the other hand say a lot about someone's skepticism and willingness to believe a sorts of bullshit despite the evidence against it.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
July 27, 2010 12:36 PM
In what fucked up, mind-altered state of being would anyone consider Catholicism "good religion"? There may be no greater organization of pure, concentrated evil on the planet.
This may be true, but is the exception more than the rule, and in no way refutes Janine's point that on the whole, the anti-vax crowd tends to be on the woo-addled side... all your statement indicates is that one can be an atheist and still be an idiot. No shit.
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 12:42 PM
I see that you are an authoritarian. It is good to know.
Yes, I believe the state should take this baby out of this harmful family's crazy cult. And so do you. We are both authoritarian. Nothing wrong with that.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 27, 2010 12:42 PM
Buster @ 52 re examples of "Good Religions"
Oh please explain how Catholicism is a "good religion" making sure to adress
the following:
-- RCC Bigotry against LGBT people
-- RCC Actively fighting against sex education, reproductive health services and condom use in the AIDS ridden developping world
-- RCC running the world's largest internatioonal paedophile ring of rapist priests, abetting their crimes and obstructing justice.
Good luck with that
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 12:46 PM
This may be true, but is the exception more than the rule, and in no way refutes Janine's point that on the whole, the anti-vax crowd tends to be on the woo-addled side.
I don't even know what this word "woo" means. It sounds like you just use it for people who don't agree with you. Anti-vaccine people are weirdos, yes, but they aren't religious and maybe that is true for homeopathy too although I don't know.
And look, enough with the anti-Catholic bigotry please. This is the wrong thread.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
July 27, 2010 12:49 PM
So the state removing the child from harm is actually a product of authoritarianism?
I need to find the thread where someone mentioned hearing the stupidest thing they'd heard all day, but that the day was still young... and point them to this comment...
Posted by: Arancaytar
|
July 27, 2010 12:50 PM
If they were only killing themselves, that'd be just fine. But the kids shouldn't have to suffer for being born into a cult of murderers and savages through no fault of their own.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 27, 2010 12:51 PM
And look, enough with the anti-Catholic bigotry please. This is the wrong thread.
Buster, do you not realize where you are at? One clue; cracker.
Most of us are very anti-catholic but it is not bigotry. It is because the RCC is one of the most distasteful things in this world. And you do not get to dictate how the conversation will turn.
Please let us know about the good that catholicism does. Many here will love the laughs.
Posted by: Snoof
|
July 27, 2010 12:52 PM
I don't really think Buddhism's all that harmless a believe system, really. The concept of karma, for example, seems to be directly opposed to the notion of a modern justice system - if you believe the universe is karmic, then there's no point, say, gaoling murderers, because that would harm _your_ karma, and they'll be punished for their acts by the universe. I also note said justice takes place "offscreen", outside of human perception, so we can't even tell it's taking place, which I cynically note plays perfectly into the hands of those who would harm others for their own benefit. Plus, there's the frankly revolting sentiment (although I've mostly seen this crop up more in Hinduism rather than Buddhism) hat one shouldn't help the unfortunate, because they've brought it on themselves due to their own actions.
Also, the concept of "detachment", the idea that things in this world are ephemeral and unimportant compared with achieving Enlightenment. Seems to me like this is the perfect way to keep the masses quiet and prevent them from agitating for change - convince them that their suffering isn't "real", isn't "important" and that their true reward lies later on.
So, yeah. Buddhism, to me, seems to be another method of keeping the proles quiet and obedient while the ruling classes go on doing what it is they've always done.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
July 27, 2010 12:56 PM
Why wasn't "this is the wrong thread" your answer when asked the question about what are "good religions" in the first place? Interesting your timing to decide when to tell us what's appropriate to discuss in this thread.
Seems like you were happy to talk about catholicism until it started being "bashed". How predictable.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 27, 2010 12:56 PM
Buster, I am indeed anti-catholic but sometimes even your enemies are right(note this is not the same as bigotry becausse unlike bigotry there are good reasons to be anti catholic which is not true about being anti gay or anti asian or anti semitic).
My list @ 61 are statements of fact that you are going to have to explain away before your claim that catholicism is a "good religion" can even get started.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 27, 2010 12:58 PM
Thank you, Snoof. I neglected to point out how Buddhism can be used to justify why the underclass deserves to be the underclass.
But it would seem that some of these "karmic" ideals can be found in the "like attracts like" toxic woo of The Secret.
Posted by: ButchKitties
|
July 27, 2010 1:01 PM
I always thought that "good" and "bad" were meant to describe intent and behavior rather than inborn nature. Good people are people who are trying to avoid causing harm. Bad people are people who are not trying to avoid causing harm. Good people with religion would normally try to avoid causing harm, but don't recognize the harm they cause because their faith teaches them that disregarding evidence is a virtue.
I would have vastly preferred it if Weinberg had said "dogma" or "faith" instead of religion. Anti-vaxxers ignore evidence as a matter of faith, but not as a matter of religion.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
July 27, 2010 1:02 PM
That doesn't say much about your reading comprehension skills, then... "woo" is a well known, often used slang term encompassing all things anti-science.
Anti-vax propaganda: woo
Creationism: woo
Ghost hunting: woo
Astrology: woo
Psychic powers: woo
Homeopathy: woo
Religion: woo
etc, etc...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 27, 2010 1:04 PM
Definition #3. Woo also applies to the whole god concept. No evidence for one. Makes the holy books then pure fiction/mythology.Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 27, 2010 1:05 PM
ButchKitties, I am beginning to think that Buster's misreading of Steve Weinberg is typical of his world view. I am also beginning to think that I could have a better conversation with Buster from Mythbusters.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 27, 2010 1:10 PM
If God had wanted the baby to suffer, he wouldn't have given the state of Oregon the power to take her from her parents.
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 1:11 PM
I always thought that "good" and "bad" were meant to describe intent and behavior rather than inborn nature. Good people are people who are trying to avoid causing harm. Bad people are people who are not trying to avoid causing harm.
What? No, this is silly. "Good people" do "Good things" and "evil people" do "evil things" (come on, already you know it's dumb, right?). We're talking about a disposition. Where did it come from? Inheritance? What could alter "Good people's" disposition to do "good things"? Religion? Right? Of course! Not poverty! Or orders from the military! Or alcoholism! Or mental illness! Or other forms of desparation! Oh no! says the smug atheist! Only religion can change a person's nature. Good people are incapable of evil things unless religion comes along.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 27, 2010 1:19 PM
Buster, it takes a religion to try to force a nine year old girl to carry to term twins that were the result of the girl being raped by her step father. It also takes religion to try to punish the mother and the medical team that preformed the life saving abortion.
Wait, am I showing my anti-catholic bigotry here?
Here is a clue for you, religion is but one way to get people to act against their own ethics. (Please notice that I used the word "ethics", not "morals".)
Posted by: Dianne
|
July 27, 2010 1:22 PM
Yet another indication of the need to have people get licenses before they're allowed to procreate.
Yeah, right. What licensing agency in the US would have refused this nice, middle class, married, church going couple a license to reproduce?
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
July 27, 2010 1:26 PM
Freedom of religion does not include the freedom to deny children healthcare.
People think freedom of religion gives them a free pass on all sorts of evil and crazy things. It's simply not true.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
July 27, 2010 1:29 PM
What bigotry? All I see is people pointing out the facts of the vile things that the Catholic church does in the world.
"How is it that people still believe complete nonsense like this when time and time again it does NOTHING?"
You assume that they are aware of all the cases in which it does "nothing". These people are generally very cloistered in these cults, of course they are not going to be privvy to all the times that faith-based neglect has killed. And they still have the excuse that maybe those victims and their families weren't strong enough in their faith, or "mysterious ways" or any other such blame deflectors.
Steven Dunlap's comment #11 about snake-handlers provides another interesting look at how successful faith-healing has to be.
Posted by: mechanoid
|
July 27, 2010 1:30 PM
@ Voss #48
I also live in Portland and have been paying attention to the Follower's of Christ with disgust for some while. They seem to pop up in the news with alarming frequency.
I absolutely agree with your assessment of who the real heroes are.
Most of me (~95%) thinks that the ethical protection of minors from people such as this is desireable and necessary.
A very small part of me muses on letting them select themselves out with their belief. Seems like an obvious evolutionary disadvantage...
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 27, 2010 1:32 PM
Here is one proposed religious cure for LGBT marriage. But I think this person would be unethical even if he was an atheist. But his religion is but an attempt to dress up his murderous rage in something "respectable".
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
July 27, 2010 1:33 PM
Hey, I won't argue at all against you comparing religion to mental illness, debilitating disease, forced coercion under penalty of severe retribution (military orders), or desperation.
Well done... I couldn't have said it better myself.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 27, 2010 1:46 PM
Hasty and stupid generalizations for 1000 Alex.
This is a statement born of either pure stupidity, pure ignorance or both.
Being anti-vaccine and being religious are two separate issues.
Are you really this incapable of using even the basic tenets of logic when forming an argument?
Posted by: druidbros
|
July 27, 2010 1:47 PM
Dog, I mean God is sooooooo mean.
Posted by: Acronym Jim
|
July 27, 2010 1:53 PM
Actually, I hear this more often from religious people.
And Celtic Evolution@82: Word, dude.
Posted by: mechanoid
|
July 27, 2010 2:00 PM
src: wikipediaAnd...
Unfortunately, some societal changes seem to proceed at the rate of attrition.
Posted by: ButchKitties
|
July 27, 2010 2:07 PM
The whole point is that religion can alter a person's behavior without altering "disposition." Disposition doesn't matter when a person's ability to evaluate how well his actions coincide with his intent has been hobbled by faith.
Other influences might do the same, but society generally recognizes them as detrimental. Nobody thinks that alcoholism makes one a better parent. Nobody (except maybe liberation theologists & right-wing reactionaries) thinks that poverty is a good thing.
Lots of people do think that valuing faith in God over evidence is a good thing.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
July 27, 2010 2:13 PM
I thought this was a thread about how destructive religious belief can be? If so, it seems like the perfect thread to remind folks how evil the Catholic Church is.
I actually don't see any distinction between this poor child and all those people who are now HIV positive because the Catholic Church campaigns against the use of condoms. But I'm kinda silly that way.
Posted by: Nebula99
|
July 27, 2010 2:21 PM
I definitely hope she never goes back to her would-be killers. I can all too easily see her going back to be raised by them, and then to someday mortally neglect her own daughter.
Posted by: hkdharmon
|
July 27, 2010 2:22 PM
1200 women died. Roughly 900 times the Oregon average for death in childbirth! 900x?!?
That would make the average somewhere around 1.5 women in a 10 year period.
That's 898 women that did not have to die. Ted Bundy only killed around 35.
Posted by: hkdharmon
|
July 27, 2010 2:26 PM
Oops, I totally misread the article. My BAD! That is still 2 women and a number of children who did not have to die.
Please disregard my previous post, I don't see a delete button, ARGGGH!
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
July 27, 2010 3:35 PM
It looks like these people never learn that faith healing and anointing with oil does not work!
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlZ5SUf0_EmBhfJBKb8y48djZ8Xyyzo3_Y
|
July 27, 2010 3:48 PM
I apologize for the googlemess above, as scienceblogs will not allow me to sign in via livejournal.
Anyway, as it states in the article, they will probably not get their child back into custody. I hope it will be possible for the child to sue them further as soon as she's 16 or 18, since she will likely lose sight completely on that eye. A sum of $8,000 per month until death should be adequate.
It's sad that such cults apparently can't be RICO'd to pay collectively for nurturing and encouraging insane, abusive and murderous behavior.
Why not?
Posted by: Robert H
|
July 27, 2010 3:56 PM
Snoof @66
Buddhism stood (and still stands) in opposition to the Hindu caste system. That it discusses the concept of karma does not lead to its putative support of the repression of the underclasses. Simply, karma in the buddhist sense means that you are responsible for your actions, that all actions have inevitable consequences. This does not necessarily imply that if you are in the lower classes you were naughty the last time around; the same goes for congenital diseases. Obviously, if one smokes one increases the risk of getting lung cancer-that's karma. Is the concept used to justify social inequality? Hell yes! Is that its purpose? Hell no! People will use whatever tools are at hand to oppress and harm, including science (if you don't believe me ask the people of Hiroshima about nuclear physics).
As far as suffering goes, the concept of suffering is central to buddhism. The whole path revolves around suffering's elimination (the Four Noble Truths). Buddhism isn't about fatalism, though it often is perceived that way by Westerners whose collective awareness of buddhism usually goes no farther than the Smiling Fat Bald Guy statue they run into in Chinese restaurants (who isn't the Buddha anyway). Again, I will agree that what you propose often is the case, but it is not the intent of buddhism and ultimately runs orthogonal to the teachings. People will use whatever tools are at hand to oppress and enslave; it's not (necessarily) the fault of the tool, it's the user.
Posted by: eyespy
|
July 27, 2010 4:22 PM
The funny thing is, anointing with oil was probably an effective means of preventing infection back in the Bronze Age.
You flush the wound with a sterile substance that also acts as a protectant. Not a bad idea for a head injury in AD 33.
Hemangiomas and breast cancer, not so much.
Posted by: The Countess
|
July 27, 2010 6:32 PM
My mother is a fundy Christian and she used to splash me with holy water when she and my dad went away on long trips, leaving me and my sister behind (we were in high school and college). One year she used holy water and holy magic anointing oil. Keep in mind she did this at about 4 am, waking us up and scaring the holy bejesus out of us. I figured we must have been especially bad that year since she used both water and oil. I was sorely tempted to writhe about in the bed yelling "It burns! It burns!" but I wanted to stay alive.
I don't get what's supposed to be so special about the oil. It doesn't do anything except give me a greasy forehead. Let her keep her delusions. At least my son is an atheist. I raised him well.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 27, 2010 7:01 PM
After reading the article I got the idea that if Dad got a severe belly ache coupled with a fever he'd be in the emergency room being checked out for appendicitis.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 27, 2010 7:17 PM
I must have an anointing forelock then! I'm God (or my hair is)!
"Our Father,
Who hath a cowlick,
Double be thy crown.
Thy left may part,
As with thy right,
Or both when thou wisheth a faux-hawk.
Grayeth be thy temples.
Washeth thy hair but twice a week,
and conditioneth after,
But cut it no morst than bi-monthly,
Unlesseth a sale be-eth at Supercuts.
Amen."
Posted by: Archie
|
July 27, 2010 7:55 PM
Here's a great way to validate their world view. Mark 16: "...they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." Care for a venti iced hemlock, Mr/Mrs Wylands?
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray
|
July 27, 2010 8:04 PM
With any luck, this bunch of ignorant torturers will rapidly go the way of the Shakers.
Posted by: Not Guilty
|
July 27, 2010 8:57 PM
I wonder if this special oil is reserved just for the women and the men are stuck with conventional medicine...
Posted by: Peter H
|
July 27, 2010 9:02 PM
Shakers : kittens
The child's parents : wolves
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 10:48 PM
"The whole point is that religion can alter a person's behavior without altering "disposition." Disposition doesn't matter when a person's ability to evaluate how well his actions coincide with his intent has been hobbled by faith.
Other influences might do the same, but society generally recognizes them as detrimental. Nobody thinks that alcoholism makes one a better parent. Nobody (except maybe liberation theologists & right-wing reactionaries) thinks that poverty is a good thing.
Lots of people do think that valuing faith in God over evidence is a good thing."
This is NOT what Windbag said, okay? Windbag said a very illogical and beastly thing that no one can really defend here without pretending he was saying something completely different with lots of suppressed caveats all over the place. Face it, it's a piece of dogma just like a lot of other pieces of dogma that the self-satisfied spout to show how righteous they are.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 27, 2010 11:19 PM
Yes Windbag? You are gassing us.Religion is for delusional fools like yourself. Since it is based on lies, you get used to the lies and fail to look at the facts. Facts like there is no conclusive physical evidence for your deity, or that your holy book isn't mythology/fiction. You are used to obeying authority. If that authority behaves badly, you don't question it. So religion can make decent people do bad things because they don't question authority. Just look at your bad and idiotic behavior here. For example, holding the RCC as a model of good. Never mind their trusted employees rape kids, and then the RCC hierarchy hide the perps from the civil authorities. Not what any sane person would consider moral behavior. They are doing bad.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 27, 2010 11:27 PM
Bluster wrote:
Gee, that sounds familiar - kind of like how the religious talk about the bible...
Posted by: Usagichan
|
July 27, 2010 11:40 PM
Buster @ 104
I think the Weinberg quote is perfectly reasonable. It simply highlights the dangers of accepting moral values from authority. Once authority is accepted, from the point of view of the subject of that authority, any action consistent (or more dangerously prescribed) by that authority becomes, by definition 'good'. Therefore even though a 'moral' position taken by that authority is in an objective sense 'evil', a good person will accept that it is 'good' by authority and will act in accordance with it.
Authority gets unquestioning obedience, individuals get excused of personal responsibility - win win, and the good man does evil in Faith's name. Seems reasonable to me.
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 11:52 PM
You are used to obeying authority. If that authority behaves badly, you don't question it. So religion can make decent people do bad things because they don't question authority. Just look at your bad and idiotic behavior here. For example, holding the RCC as a model of good. Never mind their trusted employees rape kids, and then the RCC hierarchy hide the perps from the civil authorities. Not what any sane person would consider moral behavior. They are doing bad.
You still don't get it. Windbag is saying "religion" exclusively does this. He forgets nationalism, other forms of ideology, bigotry, mental illness, etc... etc...
Yet, time and again the self-professed free-thinkers wheel out Windbag's quote without the slightest analysis of it to prove some "point". When they are shown it is wrong they resort to obfuscation and reformulating it.
God, why don't atheists get some new material. Try thinking for yourselves for once instead of all this "flying spagetti monster", "Poe", "woo", "Good people do good things" claptrap dogma.
The Roman Catholic Church has many problems and I am always the first to criticize it when I disagree with it. But you dogmatists of the Extreme Atheist Cult believe that only you can be free thinkers. You're so narrow-minded you could slide your minds down a doorway to break in and burgle the place just as you purloin the fruits of Western society raised at the breast of Judeo-Christian values.
Gee, that sounds familiar - kind of like how the religious talk about the bible...
Well then, don't do it yourselves...
Posted by: DLC
|
July 27, 2010 11:53 PM
Child Abuse is never good.
kicking these religious zealots into the bottomless pit of eternity would be too good for them.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 28, 2010 12:09 AM
Bluster wrote:
Says the guy living his life based on folk stories from 2000+ years ago, cherry-picked for political reasons by self-serving tyrants intent on ruling the world and spoon-fed to the witless masses in order to keep them compliant.
That you're a member of one of the Holy Roman church, one of the least progressive of all the hateful cults, makes this irony into almost intolerable levels of deliciousness.
Why do we need new material when you and your delusional pals haven't managed to rebuild after our old material cut your legs out from under you? You were citing Aquinas on another thread for crying out loud, and wondering why we were laughing at you.
Posted by: Usagichan
|
July 28, 2010 12:17 AM
Buster @ 108
Posted by: Usagichan
|
July 28, 2010 12:21 AM
Argh, blockquote fail in #111 (missed the "/" in the closing tag) - the inner blockquote is mine, not a quote at all :(
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 28, 2010 12:22 AM
Bluster: rapeing children and protecting the rapists is all right, but don't you dare over generalize!
Posted by: Buster
|
July 28, 2010 12:25 AM
Not quite as catchy, but I'll go with it - how about you?
Yeah, okay Usagichan. I like that. Good to see there is a freethinker around here. Looks like we're the only ones though.
I think you make a good point of saying that people do things they are otherwise opposed to when they obey authority. Yes, this is quite probably true and Stanley Milgram did experiments to show this. But, Milgram's experiments absolutely did not show that religion was the decisive factor in having people doing things they otherwise wouldn't.
Posted by: Buster
|
July 28, 2010 12:33 AM
Bluster: rapeing children and protecting the rapists is all right, but don't you dare over generalize!
No, it is NOT okay and I never said that. Your just throwing that one in there as a way of deflecting attention away from that crappy bit of dogma you keep spouting.
A lot of atheists go round with this blinkered hypothesis and a confirmation bias to boot so that wherever they find something bad they look around for a bit of religion to blame it on. As soon as they find any hint of religion they hold the religion responsible. This is *not* science, folks!
Now, obviously there are times when the fault should aquarely fall on religious views such as the example in the OP and there are times when the blame rests on all-too-human institutional protection of people behaving badly such as in the Catholic church now where priests have actually been protected institutionally by other fallen human beings despite having committed crimes which are AGAINST Catholic teaching.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 28, 2010 12:42 AM
Buster, if you're gonna try to chop logic, you need a sharpish instrument rather than a club.
PS You might want to look up the difference between dogma and opinion, too.
Posted by: Buster
|
July 28, 2010 12:50 AM
Buster, if you're gonna try to chop logic, you need a sharpish instrument rather than a club.
So, you think Weinberg is right?!?!?!?
Unbelievable.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 28, 2010 12:52 AM
Bluster wrote:
Er, the descriptions of 'freethinker' and 'member of a dogmatic religion' are mutually exclusive by definition.
So, you claim to know how to apply science. Say, how many of your churches purported 'miracles' have been substantiated by science? How about the efficacy of prayer?
But you're still a member of the Holy Roman church, aren't you? If you are then that means you don't consider what they've done to protect child-rapists to bad enough to leave the church to demonstrate your unhappiness with their actions; i.e. you are okay with it.
Posted by: Usagichan
|
July 28, 2010 12:56 AM
Buster @ 114
I think the main point about religion is that it exerts unquestioning explicit authority - and has a long history in doing so. It was only in the 20th Century that non-religious analogs (mainly the Communist governments that developed the cult of personality with regards to their leaders), that the degree of authority associated with religion was even approached, and most of these examples have collapsed.
It is also important that we don't fall into the trap of assuming all religion only promotes evil behaviour. It does seem however to be the most potent form for the assumption of moral authority, and one of the most prone to abuse. In the case of the Judeo-Christian religions, I would also say that the system of morality developed is some 3,000 years out of date (The amendments 2,000 years ago were supplementary and almost certainly manipulated to minimise their effects) - what may have been morally apt for a society of bronze age sheep farmers, may not be the best model for a modern pluralistic culture.
Posted by: P_Smith
|
July 28, 2010 1:01 AM
Morons who go around correcting grammar are termed "grammar nazis".
Morons like pierce butler should be called exception nazis. Such imbeciles "think" that single exceptions counter an argument when a generalization was never made.
.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 28, 2010 1:03 AM
Bluster, Catholic freethinker, asked (of John Morales):
Try reading John's post again, this time for comprehension. Your frantic overuse of punctuation in no way makes up for your poor perception - or is it integrity you lack?
Posted by: Usagichan
|
July 28, 2010 1:10 AM
Buster @115
So I take it you condemn all of the abuse and institutional protection, by all members of the Church hierarchy responsible for it? Explicit condemnation would be a most unusual (and welcome) response compared to most of those that post here claiming membership of the Catholic Faith... There are still many aspects of that organisation which I find repellent, but any movement towards reality has to be a welcome one.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 28, 2010 1:31 AM
[OT]
Buster, do you know who wrote this?
What about this?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 28, 2010 1:43 AM
Bluster wrote:
A system of government founded on democracy is an integral part of modern, Western society, Buster - so, as I asked you once before (and which you evaded), in which chapters of the bible is the concept of representation via elections endorsed, and by whom?
Did Moses favour it, or Abraham? How about Jesus? Surely if Judeo-Christianity is responsible for everything in our society then there would be no shortage of documentation to support it.
Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing
|
July 28, 2010 1:45 AM
Usagichan:
It has been my experience (and that of everyone I know who, like me, used to be a member of the RCC) that any movement towards reality tends to be like moving from one end of a see-saw to the other; at first, there is a real uphill struggle towards sanity, with much backsliding. But at the moment one reaches the tipping-point, there is a rapid and happy slide into atheism!
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 28, 2010 2:02 AM
Tigger_the_wing wrote:
Glad you made it out okay!
Fortunately (for me) I was never indoctrinated (willingly or unwillingly) so I've never had to experience deconversion back to atheism.
I don't consider it a bad thing except that I have absolutely no frame of reference for understanding how people believe the crazy stuff they claim to believe*, or what it must be like to spend some of your life mired in a delusion before somehow finding the means to cast it off and live a woo-free life.
*I say 'claim' because - probably because I've never experienced it - I can't begin to understand how people can genuineley believe in stuff like gods and therefore suspect that many - if not most - don't actually believe it any more than I do, but cling to the pretence of believing for emotional and/or sociocultural reasons.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 28, 2010 2:07 AM
[SIWOTI]
P_Smith @120,
1. How is not "a month's starvation would likely not kill a kid" a generalisation?
2. To what exceptions do you refer?
3. Why did you evade the request for a citation for your exceedingly implausible claim?
4. Why did you use scare quotes on the term 'think'?
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 28, 2010 2:11 AM
Wowbagger, subtle but real is the difference between believing oneself believes something and believing that something.
Posted by: Peter H
|
July 28, 2010 8:50 AM
Buster. Isn't he the guy who takes all the hits on "Myth-Busters"?
Posted by: John Scanlon FCD
|
July 28, 2010 9:22 AM
Religious belief is mistaken if the believer has been persuaded by 'evidence', and otherwise pretended belief. If there were a god, he'd notice the difference, but both kinds are curable without much pain.
The big problem is professed belief, because then if you come to your senses you have to retract claims and promises and renegotiate any personal relationships mediated through shared delusion. Luckily most born-Catholics are spared ever having to pretend to much sincerity, so only the lunatic fringe has this problem.
Who is this Buster moron?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 28, 2010 9:52 AM
Yep, the crash test dummy on Mythbusters is named Buster. Definitely smart enough to know when to keep quiet.A catholic apologist with the mental acuity of a mosquito. For example, he thinks Aquinas and his well refuted philosophy arguments for dog are convincing. Doesn't comprehend what atheism is. Seems to think there is also a political/moral agenda behind the statement "we don't believe in your deity". In short, an idjit ignorant troll.Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 28, 2010 10:05 AM
here's what I can't get with Buster type people.
With catholocism we have
*unknown origins
*offical religion, pagen persecution
*dark ages
*crusades
*inquisition*
*giving consent to the slave trade
*anti-semetism
*witch trials
*Supporting the baddies WWII
*Kidnapping Jewish children in the wake of WWII
*Pedophilia ring
*thwarting efforts to help AIDS programs
*Bigotry towards gays, women, lesbians, TGs, etc
*Insistence that women should die in childbirth rather than have an abortion...even if she's 9
*overall insistence that "everyone but us deserves to be tortured for all eternity
At WHAT point was this church EVER in line with moral teaching. How can you be so consistently wrong and corrupt and still claim to have the line to the source of Good and Light?
Also I give 10/1 bets in favor that he responds with "WHAT ABOUT STALIN!?"
Even if Buster thinks the Church was wrong in those cases, he defends it...so he must believe the underlying faith is true (despite the Long history of lies). So he thinks that non-believers are going to be tortured forever and this is justice.
Basically that Anne Frank after dying was thrown into an even worse rape camp than she was in, and this is a GOOD thing.
Posted by: raven
|
July 28, 2010 10:52 AM
Good question. I don't have an answer. You left off one key and heinious sin, opposition to birth control. This isn't even biblical, something a pope made up a few decades ago. As a practical matter, everyone just ignores it. If humans bred to their maximum capacity, the world would overpopulate and die off in a matter of decades.
What keeps the RCC in check these days is....Catholics. There is a huge gap between the fossilized, supposed virgin old men of the clergy and the members and they just don't pay any attention to the priests anymore.
The RCC for much of history seems to have been a homeostatic organization. That is, it exists to keep itself existing. That is mission One.
A lot of the fundie xian cults are just as bad or worse.
Posted by: squid
|
July 28, 2010 10:59 AM
As an atheist and dermatologist i felt it was time to finally post a comment!
The most likely (not definite) diagnosis is of "Infantile Haemangioma". These are very very common - particularly in pre-term baby girls. They grow quite dramatically in the first few weeks of life, remain stable for several years then usually regress spontaneously and completely without the aid of prayer. They do often leave a bit of excess skin and plastic surgery may be required.
Laser treatment is really only useful if the lesions ulcerate - as it only penetrates a few mm at best.
The standard treatment - provided the lesion is caught in the growth phase- has been reasonably high dose oral glucocorticoids (e.g. prednisolone). This was never particularly effective if the lesion had already finished growing.
More recently (only in the last 2 years), it has been discovered that B-blockers such as propranolol can help switch off the growth phase- and this has now become standard treatment.
The discovery was serendipitous: A French team treating a patient with the steroids (which cause hypertension) commenced propranolol to treat the high blood pressure - and noted rapid shrinkage of the tumor!
In any case, if the tumor was obstructing vision (which can lead to permanent visual problems), feeding etc and medical therapy didn't rapidly shrink it- then surgery would be advised
good (non-technical) article here: http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/200558271.html
Posted by: raven
|
July 28, 2010 11:22 AM
Propranolol is a 50 year old, well tolerated drug.
The hemangioma wasn't the main problem for this unfortunate little girl.
Posted by: raven
|
July 28, 2010 11:28 AM
If the authorities keep pushing this dying cult, it may just adapt or die.
FoC seems to be badly divided with many members either ignoring their rules or leaving.
They can always blame the secular government for preventing them from following suicidal, homicidal, and plain silly rules to kill their kids and die young themselves.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 28, 2010 11:34 AM
If you evaluate a situation without having accurate information, then you're more likely to think you're doing the right thing, even when you're not. You agree that yes, you would choose to do otherwise, if you understood the situation in a different light. Therefore, on this level, it's not a matter of virtue, good will, or commitment -- that's all off the table. I think this is the basic common ground assumption we're all starting off with.
So I don't interpret this quote as saying or implying that only religion will allow "good people" (that is, people with noble intentions) to do evil willingly. I see it as pointing out that the easiest way to have an intractable, unquestioned, and unquestionable wrong-fact -- one which then justifies subsequent wrongful actions -- is to make this fact, a religious fact. Make belief in this fact not a matter of reason and evidence, but of faith.
If your belief is based on evidence, you can at least in theory be lead to change your mind, given new evidence. But if it's a matter of faith, you wouldn't be admitting error and changing your mind: you'd be "losing your faith," and guilty of pride, disloyalty, and poverty of spirit. The evidence is secondary, if not irrelevant. The whole issue is reframed as a test of steadfast character.
This is dangerous, when those facts from which you begin your moral deliberation matter. Meaning, they would make a difference to anyone who had them, and justify what otherwise might look like an atrocity, or bigotry, or murder. Religion doesn't deal with objective facts, available to everyone: they give the believer subjective facts, special facts, secret facts, surprise facts, that make little to no sense to rational people in the "world" -- but make perfect sense to the initiate of other worlds.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 28, 2010 12:28 PM
It occurs to me that Buster is technically right that the statement is inaccurate...but it's inaccurate because it isn't inclusive enough, not because it's claims about religion are incorrect.
Replace religion with dogma and it's very very accurate.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 28, 2010 12:32 PM
HEY! I missed that.
And I'm HIGHLY offended, sir.
Highly offended.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 28, 2010 12:47 PM
FoC seems to be badly divided with many members either ignoring their rules or leaving.
They can always blame the secular government for preventing them from following suicidal, homicidal, and plain silly rules to kill their kids and die young themselves."
If we're lucky we can cross this meme with anti-vaxers and then both will be evolutionarily selected against!
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
July 28, 2010 1:11 PM
Everything good that is truly unique to Western societies is a result of secular philosophy, and religion has just been dragged kicking and screaming behind it.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
July 28, 2010 3:17 PM
#139
I HIGHLY doubt that, sir.
Oh wait... you did know that the OP originally had a major blockquote fail in it, right?
Posted by: friendthegirl
|
July 28, 2010 5:06 PM
I'm in Portland, and have been following this story. It made me want to spit when I read that these people have a lawyer. Why is God good enough for their daughter, but not good enough for them? Why isn't God representing them in court? Hmm?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkZT7IfLkJ1OzQTk6Ws_3UXSoRUBXWibUg
|
August 19, 2010 7:31 AM
Wow! maybe there really is a devil and it's asking for child sacrifices and the father of lies is disguising itself as "god" and they think they really are doing the right thing.
Oh Mr. King I have a story plot for you...
Posted by: Tawnytiger
|
October 14, 2010 7:27 PM
I am not familiar enough with the Bible; can someone tell me where I can find the scriptures that involve refusing medical treatment? It is hard for me to believe that God wants this after creating humans to have a brain, think & evolve. If he didnt want this, then why do we have a brain? Seems ignorant to me to watch your child or anyone dye or whatever when we have such wonderful medical choices.