THIS is why I've lost my faith in religion.

[Mister Earl]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22032266/

I'm so angry, I want to rip somebody's head off. Here's a good kid with Leukemia. With treatment, he could have had a 70% chance of living to grow up. Instead, his Aunt "helped" him find god, as a Jehovah's witness, and the kid refuses a blood transfusion that would likely have saved his life on religeous grounds. Short story, the kid's dead, and the Aunt doesn't see why anyone thinks that something might have been wrong here.

Ever wonder why Churches stopped having graveyards nearby? They kept filling up too soon.

/Rant off.

~Mister Earl

[Mister Earl]

I don't know about any of you guys, but I'd rather have my kid "unclean" and alive than "clean" and dead.

[suicidesamurai]

Happens all the time. You can thank Watchtower for that.

[cloudshipsrule]

It's just as easy for me to loose faith in humanity as a whole! There are as many tragic, non-religous, tales as religious ones these days. However, I do get your point.

[ObscureReferenceMan]

Very true, Mister Earl. That bugs me too. Reminds me of a few of the Pat Condell videos I've seen lately (do a youtube search). Religion can be very harmful!

[Dumbledore]

I think a better statement would be that this particular belief of this religion was harmful in the way it was applied. Labeling all religion as harmful is a misleading generalization.

[Mister Earl]

Don't get me wrong, Dumbledore. The church I used to frequent did a lot of good in the world. I saw them transform a run-down section of town into a mural-applied, cleaned-up tourist trap. Drug dealers and misfits found other places to lurk, just by their presence alone. I liked that part. What I *didn't* like is seeing the pastor had out expired bread and old canned goods to members of the flock who had fallen on hard times. Handing them out of a brand new, $45,000 van he'd bought for private use.

[DJM]

I think a better statement would be that this particular belief of this religion was harmful in the way it was applied. Labeling all religion as harmful is a misleading generalization.

I agree. And the ironic part is that I think the unfair generalization written in the OP is harmful by itself, as it made it sound like all religious people are crazy or potentional mudreders. :rolleyes:

[ThunderFoot]

Don't loose your faith over some one elses stupitidy. God also gave us our own minds. Just to through this in, the Jehovah's witness is not of the Christian faith as they clam to be. If you will study all the Christian church is baised on the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost". The Jehovah's whitness belive that Jesus was a prophet and not the son of God. This makes them a cult and not a church of the Christian faith.

I had a good friend of mine who lost a child to cancer a few years back. As he talked to me he said he blamed God for his childs death. He said "How can a good and loving God like people say let a child suffer and let them die like God had let his child". I ask him how many time he had taken his child to church or how much he had tried to lead his child to God. He answered, none. I told him not to blame God for something that he had never allowed God to be a part of.

[Mister Earl]

I lost my faith as a direct result of church actions. My church and religeon in general. Far too often I've seen cases of "Do as I say, not as I do." Too many times I've been told "Our religeon is the only right one, and if you don't come with us right now, you are going to hell!" And way too many times have I seen people die as a direct result of the church. For that, reference my link in the OP for an example.

Religeon has done good in the world, but by my own personal count and opinion, not enough to cover the harm done.

[sinclairmcevoy]

I lost my faith as a direct result of church actions. My church and religeon in general. Far too often I've seen cases of "Do as I say, not as I do." Too many times I've been told "Our religeon is the only right one, and if you don't come with us right now, you are going to hell!" And way too many times have I seen people die as a direct result of the church. For that, reference my link in the OP for an example.

Religeon has done good in the world, but by my own personal count and opinion, not enough to cover the harm done.
May I ask what religion you belonged to?

[Susan Gerbic]

I am in the beginning planning stages of organizing a data base where non-believers could share their stories of how they lost faith in religion or woo. This would be without names and searchable for students studying the subject. Also for others who feel like they are losing their faith to kind of see what others went through.

I want to make it searchable by demographics, age, ethnicity, area of world, religion or woo past beliefs ect, this would really help social scientists and other students.

My question, do you think that this would be a valuable resource and if I made the site user friendly do you think people would really answer interview like questions about losing faith.

Also has anyone heard of this already being done anywhere?

Thanks,

Susan

[Mister Earl]

Lutheran, SinclairMcEvoy. And Susan, might be helpful, and No, I haven't heard of anyone who has done it before.

[Locknar]

I had a good friend of mine who lost a child to cancer a few years back. As he talked to me he said he blamed God for his childs death. He said "How can a good and loving God like people say let a child suffer and let them die like God had let his child". I ask him how many time he had taken his child to church or how much he had tried to lead his child to God. He answered, none. I told him not to blame God for something that he had never allowed God to be a part of.
So you in effect are blaming this child's death on being "Godless"? If so, that is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[ObscureReferenceMan]

I am in the beginning planning stages of organizing a data base where non-believers could share their stories of how they lost faith in religion or woo. This would be without names and searchable for students studying the subject. Also for others who feel like they are losing their faith to kind of see what others went through.

I want to make it searchable by demographics, age, ethnicity, area of world, religion or woo past beliefs ect, this would really help social scientists and other students.

My question, do you think that this would be a valuable resource and if I made the site user friendly do you think people would really answer interview like questions about losing faith.

Also has anyone heard of this already being done anywhere?

Thanks,

Susan

Great idea, Susan! This is the first I've heard of anyone attempting such a task. I definitely think it is a worthwhile effort. But you're right to be concerned about how people would answer interview questions. There is definitely a possibility for abuse - someone really soured on a religion might be tempted (ha!) to write up a tirade ("All Baptists suck!!!").

But still, great idea. Keep us posted!

[Mister Earl]

I also want to offer a brief counterpoint, here. There's an elderly retired pastor I know. If there is a God and there can be people who are truly holy, it is this man.

He lives, and has always lived in a tiny one room apartment. He lives off of beans and flour, and whatever vegetables he could grow. If you invite him to dinner, he politely asks you if it was okay if he sent a friend instead. His friends consist entirely of the homeless. His clothing consists entirely of old-fashioned white robes. He cuts his hair himself. His furniture consists of one mattress, located on the floor without a box spring or frame. No TV. Not even a radio. The kitchenette (if you know what these are) has only what came with it. He has no fridge (beans and flour don't spoil easily). He lives the most frugal life possible. Every single cent that was donated to his church (before he retired) went to people worse off than he, and some less so. His car was an old Toyota, sold for scrap, that he fixed up enough to barely work. At one point he even let a family that had hit some really hard times live in his apartment. During that time, he lived out of his car. I'd take a bullet for this man.

You'd think a man like that would move up the church ranks quickly. A man like that should be a Bishop, or a Cardinal. Nope. Politics run thick behind the scenes of the church. He was never one to play political games, and so never got anywhere. It's a shame, really. This man is a living saint.

[Garrette]

Don't loose your faith over some one elses stupitidy. God also gave us our own minds. Just to through this in, the Jehovah's witness is not of the Christian faith as they clam to be. If you will study all the Christian church is baised on the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost". The Jehovah's whitness belive that Jesus was a prophet and not the son of God. This makes them a cult and not a church of the Christian faith.

I had a good friend of mine who lost a child to cancer a few years back. As he talked to me he said he blamed God for his childs death. He said "How can a good and loving God like people say let a child suffer and let them die like God had let his child". I ask him how many time he had taken his child to church or how much he had tried to lead his child to God. He answered, none. I told him not to blame God for something that he had never allowed God to be a part of.In addition to Locknar's question, I have one of my own:

Why does this God kill the child because of the parent's actions?

[Mister Earl]

Also, he knows I am an atheist now. When he heard, he asked me a few questions. "You really don't believe anymore?" I told him no, I didn't. Then he asked, "Do you have a happy life?" I told him yes. Then he asked, "Do you still try to do good things?" I told him, yes, of course I did. He simply said, "You're a good man, and God will love you any way." And left it at that. He's never treated me any different.

[ObscureReferenceMan]

Also, he knows I am an atheist now. When he heard, he asked me a few questions. "You really don't believe anymore?" I told him no, I didn't. Then he asked, "Do you have a happy life?" I told him yes. Then he asked, "Do you still try to do good things?" I told him, yes, of course I did. He simply said, "You're a good man, and God will love you any way." And left it at that. He's never treated me any different.

That's my kind of pastor!

[Mister Earl]

Yeah. He even got mugged at knifepoint once. He happily drove the guy to the bank, and handed over his meager savings. Didn't report him to the police. Later that year, he somehow found out where the man lived, and showed up Christmas day with presents for his children and food for their table. Seems the guy wasn't the bad type at all, and had just fallen on *really* hard times. I don't know how he knew. The family regularly tuned up to Sunday church after that, but left when he did. They found the new pastor kind of pretentious, I guess.

[DJM]

Sounds like we just found the real Santa!

[Mister Earl]

If guys like him ran the various religeous denominations around the world, we wouldn't be subjected to people killing each other over "insults" or insane protests during the funerals of soldiers. That's the problem, guys like him *aren't* running anything. The ones with the real power do very little with it, excepting the occasional public appearance or proclamation. There's exceptions, of course, but they are too few and far between.

[Dancing David]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22032266/

I'm so angry, I want to rip somebody's head off. Here's a good kid with Leukemia. With treatment, he could have had a 70% chance of living to grow up. Instead, his Aunt "helped" him find god, as a Jehovah's witness, and the kid refuses a blood transfusion that would likely have saved his life on religeous grounds. Short story, the kid's dead, and the Aunt doesn't see why anyone thinks that something might have been wrong here.

Ever wonder why Churches stopped having graveyards nearby? They kept filling up too soon.

/Rant off.

~Mister Earl


I don't blame my parents much anymore, but having untreated pneumonia as a child was a real thrill. I now realise the didn't know better but I hated the Curch of Christ Science for a very long time. I also have 15% hearing loss in my left ear from untreated ear infections.

[Mister Earl]

Sorry to hear that, David. Today's church is so worried about control these days that they seek to maintain it through fear. "If you don't belong to our church, you go to hell." "Scientific data showing the Earth to be more than six thousand years old was put there by Satan. Believe it and go to hell." "Modern medicine is sinful and if you use it you will go to hell." "If you insult God, in any way, shape, or form, or we find you doing anything we could possibly misconstrue into an insult, we will imprison you and lash you." "If you harm our sacred animals, you will be stoned to death."

The end result is the people who depend of faith to sustain happiness in their lives far too often end up sick, lashed, hellbound, or stoned to death, through no fault of their own.

[ObscureReferenceMan]

Just to through this in, the Jehovah's witness is not of the Christian faith as they clam to be. If you will study all the Christian church is baised on the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost". The Jehovah's whitness belive that Jesus was a prophet and not the son of God. This makes them a cult and not a church of the Christian faith.

Hmmm.... One wacko religion doesn't agree with another wacko religion. That makes them a "cult". Right.

[JoeTheJuggler]

For the record, there's no good that religion does in the world that couldn't be done by secular organizations (including by us the people--i.e. the government). Relgions have no monopoly on morality and ethics.

So saying some religions do good is simply no excuse for the many horrible things done by some religions.

I share your outrage Mr. Earl.

[Cello Man]

Don't loose your faith over some one elses stupitidy. God also gave us our own minds. Just to through this in, the Jehovah's witness is not of the Christian faith as they clam to be. If you will study all the Christian church is baised on the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost". The Jehovah's whitness belive that Jesus was a prophet and not the son of God. This makes them a cult and not a church of the Christian faith.

The only difference between a cult and a religion is about a few hundred years. Christianity was at one time an offshoot cult of Judaism.

I had a good friend of mine who lost a child to cancer a few years back. As he talked to me he said he blamed God for his childs death. He said "How can a good and loving God like people say let a child suffer and let them die like God had let his child". I ask him how many time he had taken his child to church or how much he had tried to lead his child to God. He answered, none. I told him not to blame God for something that he had never allowed God to be a part of.

You actually said that to a grieving parent, and a "good friend" at that? What kind of sick, heartless s.o.b. are you? They're trying to come to terms with the death of their own child, and you feel some sick compulsion to blame the victim. That's no different than blaming a rape victim for wearing a pretty dress.

If God doesn't exist (which seems most likely to me), then he wouldn't be able to smite you into oblivion for being so thoughtless and cruel when your friend needed support, not judgment.

If God does exist, then the fact that he either encourages you to act this way or simply allows it happen by inaction shows that he is not fit to worship in the first place. And how does not one "allow" God to do anything? If he's all powerful he'll do whatever he wants. It logically follows that if an omnipotent God did exist, he willed for that kid to die no matter whether the kid went to church or what the parent did. And all the while you insist that this cruel being is worthy of everyone's adoration.

If I were a parent in that situation and you said that to me, you could reasonably expect a severe beating at the very least. And despite me being fairly pacifistic, I think that your "good friend" was unreasonably lenient for not smashing you into a bloody pulp for that.

[X]

Mr. Earl's fellow remind me of the kind priest in Les Miserables.

Kudos to him.

However, I am afraid I'm going to have to hijack this interesting discussion and refer to the OP. :eek:

A similar thing is happening in my city. Link to CBC News article. (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2007/10/25/transfusion-scoc.html)
A Jehovah's Witness girl and her parents tried to refuse a blood transfusion. The doctors took the case to court and won, legally allowing them to force the girl to receive the life-saving transplant.
Now the girl and he parents are appealing, and taking the case to the supreme court.
It will be interesting to see what sort of standard is set.
When the papers have printed comments from the family and other JW's, they invariably come across sounding as nutty. Even taking into account the media bias, the reasoning is just weird, and it seems the girl has no conception of reality outside what she's been taught through the cult.
Sad, really.

I only mention it because it trikes me as interesting that for essentially the same case, the verdict here in Manitoba is the polar opposite of the one in the Seattle.

[AgeGap]

The BBC website had an article about the JWs having a rethink about blood. Don't if it will happen but I do hope people will become disillusioned with the faith either way.

[Fnord]

First rule of Fnordism: "You shall do no harm to others."
Second rule: "You shall serve each other."
Third rule: "Defend yourself from harm."

May Saint Isaac of Asimov be praised!

[X]

I think you oughta switch those last two, Fnord.

[Hellbound]

Second rule: "You shall serve each other."

What, no guidance on the choice of wine and side dish?!

;)

[patnray]

I had a good friend of mine who lost a child to cancer a few years back. As he talked to me he said he blamed God for his childs death. He said "How can a good and loving God like people say let a child suffer and let them die like God had let his child". I ask him how many time he had taken his child to church or how much he had tried to lead his child to God. He answered, none. I told him not to blame God for something that he had never allowed God to be a part of.
What Cello Man said. Blaming the victim - how arrogant, self righteous, and cruel. And you are so proud of it! I'll take human values over christian values any day.

[Mister Earl]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22039372/

Another event that raises my hackles. And don't think it is only Islamic extremists I'm talking about here. There are Christian extremists as well. They've been killing Muslims in Africa for many years, now.

[Fnord]

;3201282']I think you oughta switch those last two, Fnord.

Why? Fnordism leaves off the parts about "... unless doing so would conflict with ...", because sometimes self-defense involves harming others and denying them your service (e.g. "First Aid").

Hey, it makes sense to me!

[jhunter1163]

I don't understand how allowing a child to die when there's treatment available to save him isn't child abuse.

[JoeEllison]

Hey guys, don't bash ThunderFoot for being a bad guy... bash him for making up a nonsense story that never really happened. It strikes me as the sort of stupid Sunday morning sermon "lie for Jesus" that some Christians are really fond of. :rolleyes:

[Mister Earl]

Abuse is physical harm with the subject living. The kid is dead. I call that Religeon endorsed manslaughter.

[JoeEllison]

I don't understand how allowing a child to die when there's treatment available to save him isn't child abuse.

This is the sort of automatic and unthinking "respect" for religion that people like Richard Dawkins are always complaining about. If you refuse medical treatment because of aliens or the CIA, they call you stupid and nuts. If you claim "God", even though you are being just as stupid and nuts, your claim is respected.

[Fnord]

I don't understand how allowing a child to die when there's treatment available to save him isn't child abuse.


Because secular authority gives legal precedence to religious preference, that's how.

[rcronk]

Why do some people attack other people and claim to be attacking God? It seems strawman-ish and many times hypocritical. "This person was selfish, stupid, or mistaken about God, therefore there is no God!" Have the accusers never been selfish or mistaken or even hypocritical?

As has been pointed out, the OP contains an association fallacy too - "This person was wrong and therefore everyone in the same group as that person ('religious' people) is wrong." And this on a skeptic forum where rigorous logic is supposed to trump emotional and logical fallacies?

Isn't it also possible for an atheist to be wrong, and from that incorrect belief (or lack thereof) make decisions that end up hurting, abusing, or even killing people? Just some random thoughts.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why do some people attack other people and claim to be attacking God? It seems strawman-ish and many times hypocritical. "This person was selfish, stupid, or mistaken about God, therefore there is no God!" Have the accusers never been selfish or mistaken or even hypocritical?

As has been pointed out, the OP contains an association fallacy too - "This person was wrong and therefore everyone in the same group as that person ('religious' people) is wrong." And this on a skeptic forum where rigorous logic is supposed to trump emotional fallacies?

Isn't it also possible for an atheist to be wrong, and from that incorrect belief (or lack thereof) make decisions that end up hurting or even killing people? Just some random thoughts.
Where did this occur in this thread? If I'm not mistaken the criticism is against religion, not "attacking God".

You want to debate the existence of God, fine (I suggest you start a new thread, though)--the ball's in your court. What's your definition of God and what's your evidence for its existence?

Your statement about "attacking God" assumes that God exists. That's the fallacy of begging the question (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html) (the very thing you're attempting to argue is assumed as a premise--a type of circular reasoning).

BTW, shouldn't this thread be in the "religion & philosophy" subforum?

[Mister Earl]

Why do some people attack other people and claim to be attacking God? It seems strawman-ish and many times hypocritical. "This person was selfish, stupid, or mistaken about God, therefore there is no God!" Have the accusers never been selfish or mistaken or even hypocritical?

As has been pointed out, the OP contains an association fallacy too - "This person was wrong and therefore everyone in the same group as that person ('religious' people) is wrong." And this on a skeptic forum where rigorous logic is supposed to trump emotional fallacies?

Isn't it also possible for an atheist to be wrong, and from that incorrect belief (or lack thereof) make decisions that end up hurting, abusing, or even killing people? Just some random thoughts.

Please point out, specifically, where I stated in my first post, or any supplementary post, where I stated that the actions of one person were the direct representation of everyone in that group, without exception. Also point out, if you would, where I said that the actions of the people whose stories I've linked to in any way prove the existance or nonexistance of any supreme being. You accuse me of strawman attacks, yet your own post, referenced above, seems to be making grave assumptions about my statement, frame of mind, and intentions.

[LibraryLady]

Don't loose your faith over some one elses stupitidy. God also gave us our own minds. Just to through this in, the Jehovah's witness is not of the Christian faith as they clam to be. If you will study all the Christian church is baised on the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost". The Jehovah's whitness belive that Jesus was a prophet and not the son of God. This makes them a cult and not a church of the Christian faith.

I had a good friend of mine who lost a child to cancer a few years back. As he talked to me he said he blamed God for his childs death. He said "How can a good and loving God like people say let a child suffer and let them die like God had let his child". I ask him how many time he had taken his child to church or how much he had tried to lead his child to God. He answered, none. I told him not to blame God for something that he had never allowed God to be a part of.

Please, please, please, please tell me this story isn't true. I am part of a family that lost a child, my nephew. The kind of numbing grief that goes with this is so terrible to bear that the support of friends makes it barely survivable. I remember at one point hurting so badly that it felt like I was inside of the pain, instead of the pain being inside of me. And it wasn't my child, just someone I loved more than life itself.

If you really said that to someone mourning a child, it only shows that you are entirely without empathy, one of the hallmarks of a sociopath.

I hope it isn't true.

[rcronk]

Where did this occur in this thread? If I'm not mistaken the criticism is against religion, not "attacking God".

You want to debate the existence of God, fine (I suggest you start a new thread, though)--the ball's in your court. What's your definition of God and what's your evidence for its existence?

Your statement about "attacking God" assumes that God exists. That's the fallacy of begging the question (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html) (the very thing you're attempting to argue is assumed as a premise--a type of circular reasoning).

BTW, shouldn't this thread be in the "religion & philosophy" subforum?

Religions are just groups of people who agree more than disagree about spiritual things. Some people on the thread have challenged the incorrect ideas of religions (and extended that assertion to all religious people) and some have pretended to attack the existence of God by attacking the problems with people's ideas (strawman).

Atheists "attack God" all the time (e.g. God didn't smite you into oblivion for being so cruel, therefore there's no God. God drowned babies in Noah's flood, therefore there's no God. God allows X, and X is bad, therefore there's no God.). That doesn't mean they are assuming He exists. They are trying to support their lack of belief in Him through picking apart the logic of imperfect people. That's a strawman tactic. And that has been done on this very thread.

Yes, I think this should be in the religion & philosophy subforum.

The title of this thread is "THIS is why I've lost my faith in religion." Who ever asked anyone to have faith in "religion"? I thought God asked us to have faith in Him, not have faith in a group of imperfect people.

[Mister Earl]

I can't help but notice that you evaded and did not answer either of my questions. You've made accusations toward me, and I request you cite specifically what I did.

EDIT#: Also, I provided my initial point of view, and even offered my own counterpoint. Are you open-minded enough to offer your own counterpoint towards your own view, stated prior? Notice I cite specific examples, not gross generalizations.

[rcronk]

Please point out, specifically, where I stated in my first post, or any supplementary post, where I stated that the actions of one person were the direct representation of everyone in that group, without exception. Also point out, if you would, where I said that the actions of the people whose stories I've linked to in any way prove the existance or nonexistance of any supreme being. You accuse me of strawman attacks, yet your own post, referenced above, seems to be making grave assumptions about my statement, frame of mind, and intentions.

The title of your thread is "THIS is why I've lost my faith in religion." not "THIS is why I'm not a Jehovah's Witness who doesn't believe in blood transfusions." The very title of your thread is an association fallacy.

Other people in the thread have been talking about God's existence based on imperfect people. I didn't accuse you of strawman attacks, I accused other people on this thread and atheists in general that I've interacted with. I accused you of an association fallacy.

ETA: Don't be so defensive, I like atheists. :) I used to be one myself.
ETA: Whoops, maybe you're not an atheist, maybe you're just an areligionist. In that case, I like areligionists too.

[Garrette]

The title of your thread is "THIS is why I've lost my faith in religion." not "THIS is why I'm not a Jehovah's Witness who doesn't believe in blood transfusions." The very title of your thread is an association fallacy.There is some merit to this, but only if you read the title without looking at the OP for context, sort of liking reading a newspaper headline and accusing the author of a fallacy when you've never read the article.


Other people in the thread have been talking about God's existence based on imperfect people.No. We have been demonstrating at least these three things:

1. God has not been shown to exist
2. If God does exist, the things attributed to him are inconsistent with the all powerful, all knowing, all loving god he is normally painted as
3. The imperfect actions of imperfect people are not only imperfect but in the cases cited in this thread are reprehensible (I'm talking about thunderfoot here)

I'm sure you can see the distinction.


I didn't accuse you of strawman attacks, I accused other people on this threadI second the request that you be specific in pointing out where this happened.


and atheists in general that I've interacted with.To what end? Are you trying to associate all atheists based on the actions of a few?



ETA: Don't be so defensive, I like atheists. :) I used to be one myself.[/quote]

[Mister Earl]

I cited specific examples as to why I had lost my faith in religeon in this thread, thus supporting the title of this thread. I fail to see how this is in any way dishonest or sneaky. Have you read all my comments in this thread, in full?

[rcronk]

I cited specific examples as to why I had lost my faith in religeon in this thread, thus supporting the title of this thread. I fail to see how this is in any way dishonest or sneaky. Have you read all my comments in this thread, in full?

I don't remember calling you dishonest or sneaky. I said that you were resorting to an association fallacy by using the word "religion" and losing faith in all religion based on this specific incident that doesn't represent the other 99% of religious belief in the world. That's all. Nothing sneaky. Nothing dishonest. Just an association fallacy.

I would hope you would thank people for challenging you when it appears that you're resorting to a logical fallacy. I'm glad when people call me on mine - it makes me a better person, you know?

[Mister Earl]

I think there would be better understanding with what you've believe I've done if you would define "Association fallacy" as it means to you.

[JoeEllison]

All religious belief is harmful by definition. There, I attacked religion, I'm sure you're glad to be back in your "persecuted Christian happy place"... :cool:

[Blue Mountain]

I am in the beginning planning stages of organizing a data base where non-believers could share their stories of how they lost faith in religion or woo. This would be without names and searchable for students studying the subject. Also for others who feel like they are losing their faith to kind of see what others went through.

I want to make it searchable by demographics, age, ethnicity, area of world, religion or woo past beliefs ect, this would really help social scientists and other students.
(trailing part snipped)

Consider adding sexual orientation to the list. I suspect quite a few people lose their faith when their church calls them on being gay.

[rcronk]

Here are some of the requested posts that deal with God strawmen attacks. Less than I thought - my bad - but there were a couple.

In addition to Locknar's question, I have one of my own:

Why does this God kill the child because of the parent's actions?

If God doesn't exist (which seems most likely to me), then he wouldn't be able to smite you into oblivion for being so thoughtless and cruel when your friend needed support, not judgment.

If God does exist, then the fact that he either encourages you to act this way or simply allows it happen by inaction shows that he is not fit to worship in the first place. And how does not one "allow" God to do anything? If he's all powerful he'll do whatever he wants. It logically follows that if an omnipotent God did exist, he willed for that kid to die no matter whether the kid went to church or what the parent did. And all the while you insist that this cruel being is worthy of everyone's adoration.

I think there would be better understanding with what you've believe I've done if you would define "Association fallacy" as it means to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

ETA: Just to be fair, there was a bit of appeal to spite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_spite) in your OP in the part about ripping someone's head off too.

[Mister Earl]

According to the specifics of the definition for Wikipedia, I am not guilty of any association fallacy that I can see. Can you quote the specific sentence where I committed this fallacy? And regarding the cranial severance claim, I claim no shame whatsoever in feeling that way. The death of an innocent child should raise anyone's ire.

I have some questions for you as well, RCronk, since we are moving into the realm of Theological debate. What denomination are you, if I may ask? If you are a Christian or a derivative thereof, do you consider the contents of the Bible completely factual? Do you follow it verbatim, or do you adjust its recommendations for the change in today's situation and values?

[Cello Man]

rcronk: What you think I said:

Atheists "attack God" all the time (e.g. God didn't smite you into oblivion for being so cruel, therefore there's no God. God drowned babies in Noah's flood, therefore there's no God. God allows X, and X is bad, therefore there's no God.).

What I actually said:

If God doesn't exist (which seems most likely to me), then he wouldn't be able to smite you into oblivion for being so thoughtless and cruel when your friend needed support, not judgment.

At no point did I say "therefore there's no God." I made a parenthetical aside about the probability of God's existence but not a definite assertion. So you're seeing a blanket statement where in fact only a hypothetical if/then statement exists.

But hey, if dishonesty and putting words in my mouth makes you feel better about yourself, I can't really stop you. Maybe it gives you the warm fuzzies and lets you sleep at night. But on a public forum where your thoughts are laid bare for all to see, be aware that I will call shenanigans on you when I see it.

[Garrette]

Here are some of the requested posts that deal with God strawmen attacks. Less than I thought - my bad - but there were a couple.I fail to see how these represent straw man attacks.

Why does this God kill the child because of the parent's actions? I present no false argument to attack. thunderfoot's post implied quite clearly that the child would not be dead if the parent had taken him to church. You might argue that it is an unreasonable leap to suggest that a failure on god's part to save a child is not equivalent to god actively killing that child, but to do so you must abandon any pretense to an all-powerful, all-loving god, and even so you are left with the fact that a child suffers because god has no relationship with the parent.


If God doesn't exist (which seems most likely to me), then he wouldn't be able to smite you into oblivion for being so thoughtless and cruel when your friend needed support, not judgment.

If God does exist, then the fact that he either encourages you to act this way or simply allows it happen by inaction shows that he is not fit to worship in the first place. And how does not one "allow" God to do anything? If he's all powerful he'll do whatever he wants. It logically follows that if an omnipotent God did exist, he willed for that kid to die no matter whether the kid went to church or what the parent did. And all the while you insist that this cruel being is worthy of everyone's adoration The first paragraph is not attacking a straw man; it is not attacking an argument at all; it is characterizing the behavior that thunderfoot himself described.

The rest is an exercise in logic and does not present a position claimed to represent thunderfoot's thought.


I think there would be better understanding with what you've believe I've done if you would define "Association fallacy" as it means to you. He asks you to back up your assertions. How on earth is this even remotely a straw man?


I begin to think you may not understand what a straw man fallacy is.

[Mister Earl]

As has been pointed out, the OP contains an association fallacy too - "This person was wrong and therefore everyone in the same group as that person ('religious' people) is wrong." And this on a skeptic forum where rigorous logic is supposed to trump emotional and logical fallacies?

From this quote, it seems quite clear to me that you are saying that I've somehow claimed that the actions of that Jehovah Witness Aunt are somehow indicative of the Jehovah Witnesses, or all religious groups. And here's my original statement, in its entirety:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22032266/

I'm so angry, I want to rip somebody's head off. Here's a good kid with Leukemia. With treatment, he could have had a 70% chance of living to grow up. Instead, his Aunt "helped" him find god, as a Jehovah's witness, and the kid refuses a blood transfusion that would likely have saved his life on religeous grounds. Short story, the kid's dead, and the Aunt doesn't see why anyone thinks that something might have been wrong here.

Ever wonder why Churches stopped having graveyards nearby? They kept filling up too soon.

/Rant off.

~Mister Earl

I've gone over every sentance, one by one, and I can't seem to fit any of them into your statement of "Logical Fallacy". I no sentance did I claim "If A=B, and B=C, then all A = all C!"

#EDIT: Maybe my church graveyard crack was out of order, but that came out of anger after reading that article. I'll retract that. But I still do not see this fallacy I should be looking for.

[Dancing David]

Don't loose your faith over some one elses stupitidy. God also gave us our own minds. Just to through this in, the Jehovah's witness is not of the Christian faith as they clam to be. If you will study all the Christian church is baised on the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost". The Jehovah's whitness belive that Jesus was a prophet and not the son of God. This makes them a cult and not a church of the Christian faith.

That is the lamest argument I have ever read.

I can give a long laundry list of alll the stupidity worked by the mainstream Xian churches if you want.


I had a good friend of mine who lost a child to cancer a few years back. As he talked to me he said he blamed God for his childs death. He said "How can a good and loving God like people say let a child suffer and let them die like God had let his child". I ask him how many time he had taken his child to church or how much he had tried to lead his child to God. He answered, none. I told him not to blame God for something that he had never allowed God to be a part of.


Thanks I will remember to tell my 'uncle' Saul that , he faught in WWII , he raised a good familiy in the Catholic faith and when his son died an early death he felt abandoned by god.

I wonder why.

You lack any sort of civility or compassion, I assume that you are a Xian?

[Fnord]

Since WWI was mentioned, the invocation of Godwin's Law must follow...

Golly, wasn't religious persecution one of the pillars of Hitler's Nazi regime?

(You'll thank me later...)

[Garrette]

Since WWI was mentioned, the invocation of Godwin's Law must follow...

Golly, wasn't religious persecution one of the pillars of Hitler's Nazi regime?

(You'll thank me later...)Hitler was an atheist.

The Roman Catholic kind.

[Mister Earl]

Hrm. I hope I hear from RCronk soon. I hate losing contact in the middle of an interesting debate!

[rcronk]

According to the specifics of the definition for Wikipedia, I am not guilty of any association fallacy that I can see. Can you quote the specific sentence where I committed this fallacy? And regarding the cranial severance claim, I claim no shame whatsoever in feeling that way. The death of an innocent child should raise anyone's ire.

I have some questions for you as well, RCronk, since we are moving into the realm of Theological debate. What denomination are you, if I may ask? If you are a Christian or a derivative thereof, do you consider the contents of the Bible completely factual? Do you follow it verbatim, or do you adjust its recommendations for the change in today's situation and values?

"THIS is why I've lost my faith in religion", "Ever wonder why Churches stopped having graveyards nearby? They kept filling up too soon."

At no point did I say "therefore there's no God." I made a parenthetical aside about the probability of God's existence but not a definite assertion. So you're seeing a blanket statement where in fact only a hypothetical if/then statement exists.

But hey, if dishonesty and putting words in my mouth makes you feel better about yourself, I can't really stop you. Maybe it gives you the warm fuzzies and lets you sleep at night. But on a public forum where your thoughts are laid bare for all to see, be aware that I will call shenanigans on you when I see it.

I appreciate you calling me on this - I was a bit sloppy - hey it's Friday. Don't be so defensive, I'm not here to fight. The strawman you used was that an all powerful God would strike someone down who is being cruel.

I fail to see how these represent straw man attacks.

I present no false argument to attack. thunderfoot's post implied quite clearly that the child would not be dead if the parent had taken him to church. You might argue that it is an unreasonable leap to suggest that a failure on god's part to save a child is not equivalent to god actively killing that child, but to do so you must abandon any pretense to an all-powerful, all-loving god, and even so you are left with the fact that a child suffers because god has no relationship with the parent.


The first paragraph is not attacking a straw man; it is not attacking an argument at all; it is characterizing the behavior that thunderfoot himself described.

The rest is an exercise in logic and does not present a position claimed to represent thunderfoot's thought.


He asks you to back up your assertions. How on earth is this even remotely a straw man?


I begin to think you may not understand what a straw man fallacy is.

Same as above for you. Your strawman argument is that an "all-powerful, all-loving god" must act a certain way and therefore, since He didn't act the way I or others say He should, there is no God. "To 'set up a straw man' or 'set up a straw man argument' is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent." If you set up how God should act, then you're guilty of the strawman argument, if it's some religion or other person who set it up, then they're guilty of it but you're guilty of it as you knock down the strawman they set up.

Is that a different fallacy - knocking down a strawman that someone else accidentally set up out of ignorance? If so, then I stand corrected and please tell me what it is.

From this quote, it seems quite clear to me that you are saying that I've somehow claimed that the actions of that Jehovah Witness Aunt are somehow indicative of the Jehovah Witnesses, or all religious groups. And here's my original statement, in its entirety:

I've gone over every sentance, one by one, and I can't seem to fit any of them into your statement of "Logical Fallacy". I no sentance did I claim "If A=B, and B=C, then all A = all C!"

#EDIT: Maybe my church graveyard crack was out of order, but that came out of anger after reading that article. I'll retract that. But I still do not see this fallacy I should be looking for.

See above.

[LibraryLady]

Where'd Thunderfoot go? :confused:

[Tanstaafl]

I begin to think you may not understand what a straw man fallacy is.


I think you may have the issue nailed here.

I have spent a fair bit of time in theological arguments with rcronk. While we disagreed more than we agreed, he has always been an honest debater. If he is using a logical fallacy, I would bet real money that he honestly doesn't see the fallacy.

[Mister Earl]

So let me get this straight. The examples I pointed out that I reguard as the causes for me losing my faith are somehow an Association Fallacy? Are you saying that the reasons I lost my faith over differ from what I've stated? Feel free to correct me. If my opinion as to why I lost faith are incorrect, by all means tell me what the correct ones are, RCronk.

[Locknar]

Where'd Thunderfoot go? :confused:
If we have correctly interpreted what he wrote...hopefully he crawled under the nearest rock.

[Mister Earl]

Where'd Thunderfoot go? :confused:

I'd like to think he reread his statement, and realized exactly what it is he said for the first time, and is hiding in shame.

[FSM]

Don't loose your faith over some one elses stupitidy. God also gave us our own minds. Just to through this in, the Jehovah's witness is not of the Christian faith as they clam to be. If you will study all the Christian church is baised on the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost". The Jehovah's whitness belive that Jesus was a prophet and not the son of God. This makes them a cult and not a church of the Christian faith.

I had a good friend of mine who lost a child to cancer a few years back. As he talked to me he said he blamed God for his childs death. He said "How can a good and loving God like people say let a child suffer and let them die like God had let his child". I ask him how many time he had taken his child to church or how much he had tried to lead his child to God. He answered, none. I told him not to blame God for something that he had never allowed God to be a part of.

ETA:

Duh, posted before I read everyone else's response to ThunderFoot. That'll teach me to give my indignation a moment to digest while reading ALL of a thread before posting my own response. I'd still like a response from him, though. Or my forum pal rcronk could do me the honor of answering the questions if he'd like: (Hey rcronk!:))
So God was punishing your 'good friend' by killing his child because he never brought him to church? If the child was led to church he'd still be alive?

Or is it your honest belief that the child would have been killed anyway but that your friend would have fair and sensible grounds to complain about his child being killed if they HAD gone to church?

Or are you saying that if you take your kid to church he won't be killed? That we live in a world where good Christian children aren't hurt or killed?

Most important of all: Did you think it comforting, this response to your 'good friend' who had just suffered the loss of a child?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Religions are just groups of people who agree more than disagree about spiritual things. Some people on the thread have challenged the incorrect ideas of religions (and extended that assertion to all religious people) and some have pretended to attack the existence of God by attacking the problems with people's ideas (strawman).

Atheists "attack God" all the time (e.g. God didn't smite you into oblivion for being so cruel, therefore there's no God. God drowned babies in Noah's flood, therefore there's no God. God allows X, and X is bad, therefore there's no God.). That doesn't mean they are assuming He exists. They are trying to support their lack of belief in Him through picking apart the logic of imperfect people. That's a strawman tactic. And that has been done on this very thread.

Yes, I think this should be in the religion & philosophy subforum.

The title of this thread is "THIS is why I've lost my faith in religion." Who ever asked anyone to have faith in "religion"? I thought God asked us to have faith in Him, not have faith in a group of imperfect people.

Everything you say still depends on the assumption that God exists.

God never asked me (or anyone else) anything.

No, atheists do not attack God. We don't believe in God. We frequently argue against belief in God (or gods) and criticize outrageous things done in the name of this belief.

[rcronk]

So let me get this straight. The examples I pointed out that I reguard as the causes for me losing my faith are somehow an Association Fallacy? Are you saying that the reasons I lost my faith over differ from what I've stated? Feel free to correct me. If my opinion as to why I lost faith are incorrect, by all means tell me what the correct ones are, RCronk.

I guess the association fallacy I'm talking about here is that you, (according to the thread title) because of this event, lost your faith in religion. Could it be that some people are just wrong and all religion in general shouldn't be held guilty for that one person or subset of people?

It's like saying that because a man of race X mugged my sister, I now hate all people of race X, or I now hate all men or whatever association you want to make.

[Mister Earl]

No, atheists do not attack God. We don't believe in God. We frequently argue against belief in God (or gods) and criticize outrageous things done in the name of this belief.

Aye. And we also fend off accusations that lack of belief in a supreme being somehow makes us immoral people. As I say, "I'd rather do good because I WANT to, not because I HAVE to."

[Tanstaafl]

Indeed, I think the person who does the right thing because it is the right thing, is far more moral than the person who does the right thing because he fears divine punishment.

[Mister Earl]

I guess the association fallacy I'm talking about here is that you, (according to the thread title) because of this event, lost your faith in religion. Could it be that some people are just wrong and all religion in general shouldn't be held guilty for that one person or subset of people?

It's like saying that because a man of race X mugged my sister, I now hate all people of race X, or I now hate all men or whatever association you want to make.

Now you are making assumptions of the worst kind! It is now evident that you did not read every post I've in this thread, I've expanded greatly upon my original post. You assume that just because I became an athiest, that somehow I consider religion guilty of something somehow. NO! I posted about my own personal decisions and beliefs, NOT the quality of people belonging to said religions. The fact that you accuse me of such without reading into detail my statements pretty much shows us what your intentions here are. You apparently are out to make me look like some kind of anti-religious crusader. I am NOT. I even offered a counterpoint to my own initial statement, which probably would have taught you much about my frame of mind and willingness to look at the other side of things.

I even took several posts talking about one of the people I admire most, an elderly retired pastor I consider a living saint.

I urge you again to read all posts by myself in this thread before we take this Theological discussion further.

[JoeEllison]

Could it be that some people are just wrong and all religion in general shouldn't be held guilty for that one person or subset of people?



Could be that the religious mindset, the way of looking at the world that religion causes, is inherently flawed, and leads directly to these sorts of things. As a matter of fact, I'm convinced that it is. :)

[fishbob]

I had a good friend of mine who lost a child to cancer a few years back. As he talked to me he said he blamed God for his childs death. He said "How can a good and loving God like people say let a child suffer and let them die like God had let his child". I ask him how many time he had taken his child to church or how much he had tried to lead his child to God. He answered, none. I told him not to blame God for something that he had never allowed God to be a part of.

So, if you stay away from church you are safe from God's will?
Cool.

[Garrette]

Same as above for you. I've committed many logical fallacies here, but you haven't demonstrated that I am guilty of it in this instance.


Your strawman argument is that an "all-powerful, all-loving god" must act a certain wayAlmost but not quite. My argument is that an all-powerful, all-loving god by definition would not act in the manner thunderfoot attributed to him, thereby pointing out the flaw in thunderfoot's actual argument, not a straw man.


and therefore, since He didn't act the way I or others say He should, there is no God.While it is true that I do not believe in god, I did not claim this line of reasoning demonstrated such. The straw man is still yours.


"To 'set up a straw man' or 'set up a straw man argument' is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."I'm glad to see that you do understand what a straw man argument is. I hope now for you to apply this knowledge accurately in your analysis. So far you have not.


If you set up how God should act,I didn't. I addressed how an all-loving, all-powerful god would act by definition. The difference is crucial.


then you're guilty of the strawman argument,I didn't so I'm not.


if it's some religion or other person who set it up, then they're guilty of it but you're guilty of it as you knock down the strawman they set up.That last bit doesn't follow. If they set up an argument as their argument, it is not a strawman regardless if it's a dumb argument.


Is that a different fallacy - knocking down a strawman that someone else accidentally set up out of ignorance?See above.

If a poorly informed person makes Weak Claim A and supports it with Highly Flawed Argument B, there is no strawman; there are only weak claims and highly flawed arguments. Subsequently, if a skeptic Points Out Flaws In Argument B and thereby shows that Weak Claim A is unfounded, it is no strawman; it is logical, accurate argument.





See above.[/quote]

[Garrette]

I have spent a fair bit of time in theological arguments with rcronk. While we disagreed more than we agreed, he has always been an honest debater. If he is using a logical fallacy, I would bet real money that he honestly doesn't see the fallacy.I'll tentatively accept your analysis. So far I have seen nothing to indicate that rcronk is dishonest. Of course, this is my first time debating him, so I may change my mind. He may change his mind about me in a similar fashion, though.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I guess the association fallacy I'm talking about here is that you, (according to the thread title) because of this event, lost your faith in religion. Could it be that some people are just wrong and all religion in general shouldn't be held guilty for that one person or subset of people?

It's like saying that because a man of race X mugged my sister, I now hate all people of race X, or I now hate all men or whatever association you want to make.

I agree with your mugging example, but it doesn't fit his OP statement. For that to be an example of association fallacy, he'd have had to've said something like, "Because of this horrendous act done by some Jehovah's Witnesses, I now despise all religious people and hold them as culpable as the people who did this act."

In fact, from what I've read, he's really saying something like, "I had already rejected religious beliefs (for myself), and reading this story makes me glad I did."

[rcronk]

Now you are making assumptions of the worst kind! It is now evident that you did not read every post I've in this thread, I've expanded greatly upon my original post. You assume that just because I became an athiest, that somehow I consider religion guilty of something somehow. NO! I posted about my own personal decisions and beliefs, NOT the quality of people belonging to said religions. The fact that you accuse me of such without reading into detail my statements pretty much shows us what your intentions here are. You apparently are out to make me look like some kind of anti-religious crusader. I am NOT. I even offered a counterpoint to my own initial statement, which probably would have taught you much about my frame of mind and willingness to look at the other side of things.

I even took several posts talking about one of the people I admire most, an elderly retired pastor I consider a living saint.

I urge you again to read all posts by myself in this thread before we take this Theological discussion further.

I think you misunderstood my analogy . See my response below.

Or my forum pal rcronk could do me the honor of answering the questions if he'd like: (Hey rcronk!:))

Hey FSM. How's the spaghetti? :)

Could be that the religious mindset, the way of looking at the world that religion causes, is inherently flawed, and leads directly to these sorts of things. As a matter of fact, I'm convinced that it is. :)

Argh. Through a browser problem, I lost my long eloquent post and you'll have to be OK with this instead.

I think Joe hit it on the head. Earl, was it that you've lost faith in the "mindset" of religion in general? If so, then I apologize for the misunderstanding - interesting as it was.

[rcronk]

If a poorly informed person makes Weak Claim A and supports it with Highly Flawed Argument B, there is no strawman; there are only weak claims and highly flawed arguments. Subsequently, if a skeptic Points Out Flaws In Argument B and thereby shows that Weak Claim A is unfounded, it is no strawman; it is logical, accurate argument.

Point taken. My bad. Your description here is correct. I think my mistake was that it wasn't a strawman but an incorrect argument - it wasn't purposefully set up to be knocked down, it was just wrong in the first place and you were knocking it down. I was seeing some similarities between the situation and a strawman, but am not experienced enough to easily discern the difference and then I jumped on it instead of asking questions for clarification. Thanks for calling me on it.

[rcronk]

I agree with your mugging example, but it doesn't fit his OP statement. For that to be an example of association fallacy, he'd have had to've said something like, "Because of this horrendous act done by some Jehovah's Witnesses, I now despise all religious people and hold them as culpable as the people who did this act."

In fact, from what I've read, he's really saying something like, "I had already rejected religious beliefs (for myself), and reading this story makes me glad I did."

Agreed. I think I was acting mainly on the title of the thread and splitting hairs. I apologize to the thread participants and Earl. Man, I suck. :)

[Garrette]

Point taken. My bad. Your description here is correct. I think my mistake was that it wasn't a strawman but an incorrect argument - it wasn't purposefully set up to be knocked down, it was just wrong in the first place and you were knocking it down. I was seeing some similarities between the situation and a strawman, but am not experienced enough to easily discern the difference and then I jumped on it instead of asking questions for clarification. Thanks for calling me on it.This is highly refreshing. Thank you.

And now I'm off.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Indeed, I think the person who does the right thing because it is the right thing, is far more moral than the person who does the right thing because he fears divine punishment.
I agree.

I'd even go so far as to say that doing the right thing because it's the right thing is the only kind of moral behavior.

This reminds me of something I think I ran across in a Vonnegut work--that Hitler can be considered the highest saint because he sacrificed his own immortal soul in order to victimize so many innocents, guaranteeing them a place in heaven. ;)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Man, I suck. :)
Not at all. (And cheers for your graciousness!)

Don't feel bad--I've put my foot in my mouth so many times I've got "athlete's tongue".

[JoeEllison]

Argh. Through a browser problem, I lost my long eloquent post and you'll have to be OK with this instead.

Nope, best get re-typing... :D

[Mister Earl]

Small correction: Seeing what happened to that poor JW kid didn't make me glad to be an athiest. What DID make me glad I am an athiest was the actions of the Aunt herself. In one hand, she had her faith as a Jehovah's witness, and her responsibility to recruit/indoctrinate/spread the faith to her nephew. In the other hand, her nephew's very life. I think she chose wrong.

Having strong faith, either in god or your own abilities, is a very good thing. Knowing that your faith may take the life of someone you care about, and then doing nothing is not.

[FSM]

Agreed. I think I was acting mainly on the title of the thread and splitting hairs. I apologize to the thread participants and Earl. Man, I suck. :)

This is why I will always really really like rcronk. :)





(No matter how wrong I think he is...)

[Cello Man]

I appreciate you calling me on this - I was a bit sloppy - hey it's Friday. Don't be so defensive, I'm not here to fight.

Fair enough. I'm was riled up over what ThunderFoot said and you were the next person to post a dissenting viewpoint, so I projected a bit of anger your way. My apologies.

The strawman you used was that an all powerful God would strike someone down who is being cruel.

Garrette summed up what I was trying to say more eloquently:

...My argument is that an all-powerful, all-loving god by definition would not act in the manner thunderfoot attributed to him, thereby pointing out the flaw in thunderfoot's actual argument, not a straw man.

[EatatJoes]

Yeah. He even got mugged at knifepoint once. He happily drove the guy to the bank, and handed over his meager savings. Didn't report him to the police. Later that year, he somehow found out where the man lived, and showed up Christmas day with presents for his children and food for their table. Seems the guy wasn't the bad type at all, and had just fallen on *really* hard times. I don't know how he knew. The family regularly tuned up to Sunday church after that, but left when he did. They found the new pastor kind of pretentious, I guess.

That brought tears to my eyes. Wow!

[Mister Earl]

No need to apologize, RCronk. Automatically accepted. The point of these forums, I think, is to engage in enlightened debate with all sides. I had a skeptic uncle who used to lure me into a debate of one kind or another, then immediately switch sides and argue that way. A bit unnerving at times, but a wonderful way to learn how different people see the same thing different ways. He had me do the same as well, but I usually didn't do too well. I'd get so wrapped up in my own arguments that my bias usually overcame my attempts at equality.

[Susan Gerbic]

Consider adding sexual orientation to the list. I suspect quite a few people lose their faith when their church calls them on being gay.

Excellent idea! I would think in the interview this would come up and could be a "tag" for searchability.

My problem at the moment is finding a database program/site that will allow me to build up interviews, interactive and searchable.

Any help?

Susan

[Autolite]

I ask him how many time he had taken his child to church or how much he had tried to lead his child to God. He answered, none. I told him not to blame God for something that he had never allowed God to be a part of.

That's a rather interesting viewpoint. It sort of reminds me of this.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29133

[Olowkow]

Want to get that happy fuzzy feeling about religion? Check out Pat Condell or Robert Green Ingersoll, and he felt this way before it was ok to feel this way, 1870's and on.

Religion is fine with me as long as it does no harm, which is too seldom.

[solas]

thought you folks would be happy knowing people of religious persuasion are keen on killing themselves off quicker..

[Olowkow]

thought you folks would be happy knowing people of religious persuasion are keen on killing themselves off quicker..

I take no joy in that. Just don't want them in my face.

[Olowkow]

Don't loose your faith over some one elses stupitidy. .... I told him not to blame God for something that he had never allowed God to be a part of.

That is hideous! No it is criminal! I hope you just made this up in some sort of sick way to try to impress us. You couldn't have actually said such a thing to another suffering human being.....

[solas]

why don't you just tell them to ***** off, takes a whole lot less energy

[Olowkow]

Don't like the word.

[solas]

it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside

[-Fran-]

So you in effect are blaming this child's death on being "Godless"? If so, that is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Not to mention that an omnipotent god are surely able to know about a poor deathly sick child, and, if he can cure and cares, will actually do so anyway, and simply override the fact that the kid and his parents were rejecting him, as people not knowing their own good... But it seems now he just didn't know that the kid was sick, or if he did, he was kinda all sulky about being rejected so decided to just let the little imp die!

[Olowkow]

That's a rather interesting viewpoint. It sort of reminds me of this.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29133

Oh, man......wow! But not funny.

[solas]

seriously if it's just a case of sitting around waiting for religion to die then why not let it happen and be done with it?
I don't understand the mentality which preaches the non essential nature of religious belief and then criticizes it when it seems to be working out as planned. Its a little like Nazi's getting upset at prisoners committing suicide in internment camps... are they disappointed because they didn't get to inflict it themselves personally?

[articulett]

Not to mention that an omnipotent god are surely able to know about a poor deathly sick child, and, if he can cure and cares, will actually do so anyway, and simply override the fact that the kid and his parents were rejecting him, as people not knowing their own good... But it seems now he just didn't know that the kid was sick, or if he did, he was kinda all sulky about being rejected so decided to just let the little imp die!

God was calling yet another one of his children home, silly. Jesus needs a playmate, and why not let the kid start his "happily ever after" early and bypass the whole "temptation/hell" scenario altogether? You forget that god works in mysterious ways beyond your simple understanding.

God never takes the blame for his premeditated murders. The Jews get blamed when he whips up the plan to kill his favorite spawn... and now religion gets blamed when he called this less favorite spawn home. But hey, it's not really death-- it's happily ever after with parties and presents and goodies galore in magic land of rainbows and roller coasters. Why can't people just be happy at all the everlasting good news?

[Olowkow]

Solas:
I see your point, but I don't agree with the analogy.

In this particular case, the premise of the thread, the child is an innocent victim whose only mistake was being born to parents who had been brainwashed by scam artists. Now, let's assume there could have been some intervention before it went this far, and the child winds up in terrific foster care, somehow permanently separated from these abusive parents and becomes another Richard Dawkins, or ________ (fill in your name of choice). Wouldn't that be at least kind of cool?

[solas]

I lost a schoolfriend of mine at 14 in a car accident, she also happened to be Jehovah's Witness and there was an amount of media that followed the story claiming she was refused blood transfusion, even though technically it was stated that she was considered 'brain dead' on arrival.
I also grew up in a country where religious hatred has been venomous vicious and brutal, children have been maimed and killed for belonging to particular beliefs.
It doesn't take long when you live in that environment to realise that verbal assaults (not to mention murder and physical punishments) only prove people will be ignorant no matter what it is they chose to believe, skeptic or believer, atheist or theist and all have an equally capacity to preach their own BS for their own ends.

[-Fran-]

God was calling yet another one of his children home, silly. Jesus needs a playmate, and why not let the kid start his "happily ever after" early and bypass the whole "temptation/hell" scenario altogether? You forget that god works in mysterious ways beyond your simple understanding.

God never takes the blame for his premeditated murders. The Jews get blamed when he whips up the plan to kill his favorite spawn... and now religion gets blamed when he called this less favorite spawn home. But hey, it's not really death-- it's happily ever after with parties and presents and goodies galore in magic land of rainbows and roller coasters. Why can't people just be happy at all the everlasting good news?

Yeah, it is all quite sick, really. I just don't understand how their minds work! And I guess I never will.

[JoeEllison]

God was calling yet another one of his children home, silly. Jesus needs a playmate, and why not let the kid start his "happily ever after" early and bypass the whole "temptation/hell" scenario altogether? You forget that god works in mysterious ways beyond your simple understanding.

God never takes the blame for his premeditated murders. The Jews get blamed when he whips up the plan to kill his favorite spawn... and now religion gets blamed when he called this less favorite spawn home. But hey, it's not really death-- it's happily ever after with parties and presents and goodies galore in magic land of rainbows and roller coasters. Why can't people just be happy at all the everlasting good news?
Cripes... I just had a David Cross flashback. Nasty stuff. He advances the notion that Catholic priests are often pedophiles, and they are God's representatives on earth, and therefore... I can't even bring myself to type it, but it explains why God needs to call so many young children home... :jaw-dropp

[Olowkow]

The following quotation from the Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg has become well known, but it is so devastatingly true that it is worth quoting again and again: “With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”

Richard Dawkins

[suicidesamurai]

First rule of Fnordism: "You shall do no harm to others."
Second rule: "You shall serve each other."
Third rule: "Defend yourself from harm."

May Saint Isaac of Asimov be praised!Clearly your teachings stand in contradiction to the teachings of the Cult of Suicide Samurai. 'Suicide' is a mistranslation of the ancient Japanese word for murder, that was Master Woo's fault, but we decided not to change it. But anyway, we murder people. Specifically people who have teachings that contradict ours. So...that's gonna be a problem for you.

But hey, we are having a barbecue this weekend and would love it if you could come. Just don't bring anyone with you, and don't tell anyone where you will be going. Also if you could bring some bleach, some rags, a chainsaw or machete, and some gasoline and matches that would be great. Ohh yeah, and some potato salad. *BYOB*

[donq]

I thought God asked us to have faith in Him, not have faith in a group of imperfect people.

Ah, yes, but which god, and which religion?

[solas]

The following quotation from the Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg has become well known, but it is so devastatingly true that it is worth quoting again and again: “With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”

Richard Dawkins

like I said, all preach their own BS to serve their own ends.

[mayday]

I grew up a JW. On the nursing board I frequent there was an article posted a couple of weeks ago about a young mother (who was a JW) who died because she refused a blood transfusion.

I would do anything to save my children, on the other hand, blood transfusions are not to be taken lightly. They supposedly test for hepatitis and HIV, etc. but you still have people contracting these diseases from blood transfusions because the tests for them are not always accurate and the diseases may be dormant and do not read on a test.

I would never refuse a medical treatment for religious purposes, though.

[CFLarsen]

I grew up a JW. On the nursing board I frequent there was an article posted a couple of weeks ago about a young mother (who was a JW) who died because she refused a blood transfusion.

I would do anything to save my children, on the other hand, blood transfusions are not to be taken lightly. They supposedly test for hepatitis and HIV, etc. but you still have people contracting these diseases from blood transfusions because the tests for them are not always accurate and the diseases may be dormant and do not read on a test.

I would never refuse a medical treatment for religious purposes, though.

If you would do anything to save your children, why did you come close to killing your unborn child, because you followed the advice of a quack?

Why don't you tell that story for the newcomers?

[Mister Earl]

Generally speaking, if you need a blood transfusion, then worries about hepatitis and HIV are minor at best.

[mayday]

If you would do anything to save your children, why did you come close to killing your unborn child, because you followed the advice of a quack?

Why don't you tell that story for the newcomers?

I'll say, I may not be who I should be, but I'm not who I used to be, either.

I never would have tried to induce labor on a baby I didn't realize was not ready to be born yet. Yes, it was a what was I thinking?! moment. Looking back, I believe that midwife was a bit nutty. Plus, I paid her $1200 and STILL ended up going to the hospital. I didn't get a refund, either.
I recently gave birth to my fourth child. This time, I contemplated unassisted childbirth, but I have become so obese I was considered high risk so I went to a regular OB/GYN this time and had a plain old hospital birth (again).

I was immature back then, but I'm different now.

[CFLarsen]

I'll say, I may not be who I should be, but I'm not who I used to be, either.

I never would have tried to induce labor on a baby I didn't realize was not ready to be born yet. Yes, it was a what was I thinking?! moment. Looking back, I believe that midwife was a bit nutty. Plus, I paid her $1200 and STILL ended up going to the hospital. I didn't get a refund, either.
I recently gave birth to my fourth child. This time, I contemplated unassisted childbirth, but I have become so obese I was considered high risk so I went to a regular OB/GYN this time and had a plain old hospital birth (again).

I was immature back then, but I'm different now.

Really?

Which of your wacky ideas have you given up on?

[mayday]

Really?

Which of your wacky ideas have you given up on?

You shouldn't talk to me with such disrespect.

I know you aren't really asking a "question" but I'll answer anyway...I no longer trust lay midwives anymore.

[ponderingturtle]

So you in effect are blaming this child's death on being "Godless"? If so, that is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Look you fail to tow the party line, fail to show sufficient glory to the great leader and don't expect retribution? That is not how god works people!

[Mister Earl]

Another thing I've never figured out I'd like to ask the religious. Belief in an all-powerful, supernatural being and dedication to the aforementioned is a major life choice. Your life will pretty much, due to modern established religion, revolve around the belief structure laid out by the church. You will live according to their guidelines.

What I suppose I am not getting is why anyone would accept such guidelines, and take as fact the existence of this supernatural being based off of a fifteen-hundred year old document and other people's say-so? I personally would want more information before dedicated anything as the focus and purpose of my life. After all, it is a pretty serious matter!

[ObscureReferenceMan]

Another thing I've never figured out I'd like to ask the religious. Belief in an all-powerful, supernatural being and dedication to the aforementioned is a major life choice. Your life will pretty much, due to modern established religion, revolve around the belief structure laid out by the church. You will live according to their guidelines.

Not to get too cynical, but I think for most people, they are a particular religion by sheer inertia. If parents are, say, Catholic, in general, the children are raised Catholic. At least, brought (dragged) to church for some amount of time. Definitely baptised, probably confirmed. And in general, they don't question it until the teen years, or later. And even the majority who don't question (what I call "arm-chair Catholics") very often have a very "flexible" view of their religion (e.g. Catholics who use birth control). Many of the religious people I know do this kind of "pick and choose" thing when it comes to the tenets of their faith. And they think nothing of it. I see it as being hypocritical. If you're a Catholic, follow the rules! If you pick which commandments you're going to skip, then you're not a Catholic (or going to hell - take your pick).

Sorry, got a little ranty there....

[baby_tee]

i dont understnad why peoplel nowadays refuse 2 have a blood transfusion because of their faith
it happen recently 2 someone else, she gave birth to her child, and needed to have a blood transfusion but she refused then she died

[Susan Gerbic]

Another thing I've never figured out I'd like to ask the religious. Belief in an all-powerful, supernatural being and dedication to the aforementioned is a major life choice. Your life will pretty much, due to modern established religion, revolve around the belief structure laid out by the church. You will live according to their guidelines.

What I suppose I am not getting is why anyone would accept such guidelines, and take as fact the existence of this supernatural being based off of a fifteen-hundred year old document and other people's say-so? I personally would want more information before dedicated anything as the focus and purpose of my life. After all, it is a pretty serious matter!

But you are claiming that people make the choice to follow a specific religion. In most peoples cases, they grow up in a religion, they aren't given a choice what religion they want.

To an adult, your reasoning is sound, why would someone with all their faculties choose to believe in crazy stuff. I would think the answer is because they were looking for something to give them a sense of community, safety, strength? They don't think they need the truth, but would rather live in a fantasy world.

Susan

[CFLarsen]

I'll say, I may not be who I should be, but I'm not who I used to be, either.
...
I was immature back then, but I'm different now.

From another thread:

I believe we were once slaves to aliens but we have been freed and they put us on this planet to carry on.