Crazy people. Let their kid die.

[darin]

Notes:

Crazy people believe "If God doesn't miraculously heal our son, it means God wants him to die." The boy, a teenager, is reported to have Refused Treatment, anyway. So...he got what was coming to him, I suppose. And death isn't the worst outcome I can imagine, assuming the boy's faith saved his soul. Still...blah.

IMO, here's the deal. When you're sick, go to a doctor. If you die, you die, but at least you didn't waste your life waiting for Miraculous help, when the help was right down the street. Know what I mean?


http://www.komonews.com/news/local/20461264.html



GLADSTONE, Ore. - A 16-year-old boy who, along with his parents, believed in faith healing died as a result of an inflammation in his urinary system that is treatable, a deputy medical examiner said Wednesday.

The boy, identified by authorities as Neil Beagley, was suffering from an inflammation in a tube leading from his bladder - the urethra - that made him unable to urinate, according to Dr. Clifford Nelson, a deputy state medical examiner.

Beagley filled up with urine, and that eventually ruined his bladder and kidneys and resulted in heart failure, said Nelson, who called it "an absolutely horrible way to die."

Such a condition could have been treated with the use of a catheter, Nelson said.

[crin63]

IMO, here's the deal. When you're sick, go to a doctor. If you die, you die, but at least you didn't waste your life waiting for Miraculous help, when the help was right down the street. Know what I mean?

This is where wisdom comes into play. If God was gonna do everything for you there would be no need of wisdom. Yet God said to ask for him for wisdom.

Foolish people.

[Hagbard Celine]

It's the classic joke about the guy who stands on his roof during a flood praying for God to save him. As the flood begins, the guy's neighbors drive by and offer him a ride but he says, "No thanks, God will save me." The next day, the water is eight feet high and the sheriff comes by in a row boat and offers to save the guy. "No thanks, God will save me." On the third day, the water is cresting over the top of the house and it's all the guy can do to reach the roof of his house with his tip-toes--he's basically treading water. That day, a helicopter flies over him and the national guard troops inside offer to save him. "No thanks, God will deliver me from this!" So naturally, the guy drowns and when he gets to heaven, he asks God, "Why didn't you save me lord?" And God replies, "You idiot, I sent you a car, a boat and helicopter!"

[midcan5]

Battleground God - but if this is my belief why is it wrong? Could it be that your politics are wrong too as we have been trying to show you? Take the first test.

Can your beliefs about religion make it across our intellectual battleground?

http://www.philosophyquotes.net/cgi-bin/god_game1.cgi?num=0&hits=0&bullets=0&bulletcount=0&hitcount=0

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

[darin]

Here's where that test is bullshit:


But in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it. Of course, many creationists claim that the evidential case for evolution is by no means conclusive. But in doing so, they go against scientific orthodoxy. So you've got to make a choice:

Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say.

Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.



That's a crock. Macro evolution does NOT have GOOD or even Mediocre Physical evidence. It has speculation and the desire of the researcher to find alternatives to God.

Here's Another:


Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.



God existence DOES have physical and real evidence. Nessy, does not.


Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.


The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.


Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

[glockmail]

More bullshit:
You have claimed that God exists, that she knows about suffering, wants to reduce it and can reduce it. But now you say you don't think that there is any higher purpose which explains why people die horribly of painful diseases. Why then does God allow it? Surely, a God which knows about, wants to stop and can stop suffering would put an end to pointless suffering.

Suffering is just part of the human condition.

[glockmail]

More bullshit:
You claimed earlier that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist. But now you say that if God does exist, she cannot make what is sinful good and vice-versa. But if this is true, it means that God cannot be the basis of morality. If God were the basis of morality, then she could decide what is good and what is bad. The fact that you think that God cannot do this shows that things must be right or wrong independently of what God decides. In other words, God chooses what is right because it is right; things are not right just because God chooses them.

God is the basis of morality but that basis cannot be changed.

[glockmail]

More bullshit:
You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.

Calling a square a circle and 1+1=72 are simple lies, and such have no basis in reality.

[Hagbard Celine]

Seems the things you guys are calling "bullsh*t" are things that you believe, which cannot be proven or disproven due to their supernatural nature. It's all well and good to say that "physical evidence exists" to support God's existence, but really it doesn't. I challenge you list one iota of evidence. There's nothing that even hints at God's existence other than of course, the Bible, which tells us he exists. The problem that will always plague your argument is that everything, even the Bible has a natural explanation. Anything supernatural is left in the realm of faith.
And if you can't prove God exists, then you certainly can't claim that morality is born from him. Morality is a concept invented by humans. A social construct used to delineate between behavior society has deemed good and/or evil--there's nothing supernatural about it.

[Hagbard Celine]

More bullshit:

Calling a square a circle and 1+1=72 are simple lies, and such have no basis in reality.

According to your logic, God created reality, so God can decide what is or isn't possible. Can't get your mind around that? To say otherwise is to restrict God's omipotence.

[glockmail]

Seems the things you guys are calling "bullsh*t" are things that you believe, which cannot be proven or disproven due to their supernatural nature. It's all well and good to say that "physical evidence exists" to support God's existence, but really it doesn't. I challenge you list one iota of evidence. There's nothing that even hints at God's existence other than of course, the Bible, which tells us he exists. The problem that will always plague your argument is that everything, even the Bible has a natural explanation. Anything supernatural is left in the realm of faith.
And if you can't prove God exists, then you certainly can't claim that morality is born from him. Morality is a concept invented by humans. A social construct used to delineate between behavior society has deemed good and/or evil--there's nothing supernatural about it.


Human existence is possible because the constants of physics and the parameters for the universe and for planet Earth lie within certain highly restricted ranges. John Wheeler and others interpret these amazing "coincidences" as proof that human existence somehow determines the design of the universe. Drawing an illogical parallel with delayed-choice experiments in quantum mechanics, they say that observations by humans influence the design of the universe, not only now, but back to the beginning. Such versions of what is called the "anthropic principle" reflect current philosophical and religious leanings towards the deification of man. They produce no evidence to support the notion that man's present acts can influence past events. Furthermore, their analogies with quantum mechanics break down on this point. The "coincidental" values of the constants of physics and the parameters of the universe point, rather, to a designer who transcends the dimensions and limits of the physical universe. http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design.shtml?main

[glockmail]

According to your logic, God created reality, so God can decide what is or isn't possible. Can't get your mind around that? To say otherwise is to restrict God's omipotence. I think omipotence is a relative term. God created reality with physical laws that cannot now be broken.

[Hagbard Celine]

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design.shtml?main

You can't be seriously trying to claim that the fact that our planet supports life if proof that God exists. If it didn't support life, we wouldn't be here to argue about it in the first place. Life on Earth is adapted to Earth, not the other way around. Nice try.


We shouldn't be surprised that conditions in the universe are suitable for life, but this is not evidence that the universe was designed to allow for life.
-Stephen Hawking

[Hagbard Celine]

I think omipotence is a relative term. God created reality with physical laws that cannot now be broken.

So you think God can't break his own laws? Then what is a miracle?

[glockmail]

You can't be seriously trying to claim that the fact that our planet supports life if proof that God exists. If it didn't support life, we wouldn't be here to argue about it in the first place. Life on Earth is adapted to Earth, not the other way around. Nice try. The argument is that in order for the universe to exist in its present form, many physical laws have to be in balance, and the chances of that occurring "by chance" is an infinitesimally small number. For example:

Dirac noted that the number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) in the universe is the square of the gravitational constant as well as the square of the age of the universe (both expressed as dimensionless numbers). Dicke discerned that with a slight change in either of these relationships life could not exist. Stars of the right type for sustaining life supportable planets only can occur during a certain range of ages for the universe. Similarly, stars of the right type only can form for a narrow range of values of the gravitational constant.

[darin]

Seems the things you guys are calling "bullsh*t" are things that you believe, which cannot be proven or disproven due to their supernatural nature. It's all well and good to say that "physical evidence exists" to support God's existence, but really it doesn't. I challenge you list one iota of evidence. There's nothing that even hints at God's existence other than of course, the Bible, which tells us he exists. The problem that will always plague your argument is that everything, even the Bible has a natural explanation. Anything supernatural is left in the realm of faith.
And if you can't prove God exists, then you certainly can't claim that morality is born from him. Morality is a concept invented by humans. A social construct used to delineate between behavior society has deemed good and/or evil--there's nothing supernatural about it.


Not so much - I'm saying the test is flawed because it values "macro evolution" as FACT. It's flawed because it presumes there isn't logical, rational evidence of God's existence.

[glockmail]

So you think God can't break his own laws? Then what is a miracle?
You'll have to be specific. Many people describe, say, not getting killed when a building collapses on them, as a miracle. Perhaps it was, but it can be explained by that person being in just the exact right spot at the exact time. No physical laws were broken for that to occur.

[Yurt]

i don't think the state should have jurisdiction to interfere with the family's faith...

[Hagbard Celine]

Not so much - I'm saying the test is flawed because it values "macro evolution" as FACT. It's flawed because it presumes there isn't logical, rational evidence of God's existence.

There isn't. Am I missing something?

[My Winter Storm]

Seeing child is a minor, he cannot refuse treatment. Technically, the parents refused him medical treatment, and they should be charged with his murder, as well as being fucking idiots.

Why do people believe this faith healing shit? It's a load of crap and there are too many idiots out there who believe God will save them when really God doesn't give a flying fuck about them.

[My Winter Storm]

i don't think the state should have jurisdiction to interfere with the family's faith...

Neithor do I. However, the State should have the right to interfere when parents choose to allow their child to rely on so called 'faith healing' than take that child to hospital.

If we allow these people to escape all charges, we must allow everyone else to escape justice too. We cannot have parents preventing their own children from seeing a doctor because they believe God will heal them.

These people took their beliefs too far.

[Missileman]

God existence DOES have physical and real evidence. Nessy, does not.

There isn't even ONE piece of evidence that points to God and at the same time also doesn't have a reasonable natural explanation.