Granted these people are stupid but even stupid people don't ignore practical medical treatment for their daughter without the ignorance of religion...

Summary: Parents choose prayer of medical treatment and allow girl to die of diabetes...

It seems for this family faith in God killed their daughter...

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2008/03/27/grace.girl.pray.cnn

"Before they call, I will answer; and while they are speaking, I will hear".
Isaiah 65:24

Whatever happened to that? Guess God either doesn't A.) Give a fuck B.) Doesn't exist

Deism or Atheism or GTFO.

I guess this could also go into the "Does faith healing exist" thread here.

I guess this could also go into the "Does faith healing exist" thread here.

Is praying actually faith healing? I thought faith healing was more screaming tongues and smacking someone on the head after claiming to be possessed with the power of christ.

This is more a bunch of brainwashed theists believing an invisible man in the sky will answer their prayers.

Negligent Homicide. If we let people get away with this heinous bullshit, we might as well allow Honour Killings

Negligent Homicide. If we let people get away with this heinous bullshit, we might as well allow Honour Killings

well judging by the police they're going to take them to court and charge them with some degree of manslaughter...

Doesn't give a fuck, ftw.

Now hold on, because, a religious family believed in prayer over medicine does not mean all religious people neglect medicine over prayer. Even though they had no religious affiliation with any church or what not, I know of one religious denomination that says its wrong to take meds and that is Christian Science.

Nonetheless, I would say go for BOTH, science can touch on the Physical aspects while religion can touch on the psycho-spiritual aspects.

But, you see one family and think the whole bushel is bad! Grow up...

Now hold on, because, a religious family believed in prayer over medicine does not mean all religious people neglect medicine over prayer. Even though they had no religious affiliation with any church or what not, I know of one religious denomination that says its wrong to take meds and that is Christian Science.

Nonetheless, I would say go for BOTH, science can touch on the Physical aspects while religion can touch on the psycho-spiritual aspects.

But, you see one family and think the whole bushel is bad! Grow up...

I didn't say any of that. I am simply saying that religious ignorance has lead to yet, another death. If religion did not exist, this girl would still be alive.

your implying... religion is evil... perhaps if the parents where less ignorant there child would still be living too right... Like I said grow up...

your implying... religion is evil... perhaps if the parents where less ignorant there child would still be living too right... Like I said grow up...

This. It's like finding an article about a white person who went into a house, raped everyone then burned it down.

Using your logic, the conclusion would be: If white people did not exist, this would never have happened. Fucking white devils! :mad:

I suppose the point is that you're overgeneralizing about faith and religion. Not everyone takes it to extremes; just because a few people mess something up does not alone justify its complete eradication. The positives and negatives of faith and spirituality must be carefully weighed up before such a decision could ever be made

This. It's like finding an article about a white person who went into a house, raped everyone then burned it down.

Using your logic, the conclusion would be: If white people did not exist, this would never have happened. Fucking white devils! :mad:

I suppose the point is that you're overgeneralizing about faith and religion. Not everyone takes it to extremes; just because a few people mess something up does not alone justify its complete eradication. The positives and negatives of faith and spirituality must be carefully weighed up before such a decision could ever be made

I never said that everyone takes religion to an extreme.

However, you cannot argue that if religion did not exist this girl would still alive...I don't think religion is evil, I just think it leads to ignorance and further hinders the development of the human mind. This is only an example of such, it is not meant to define all aspects of religion or religious people...I was just showing an example of the problems of religion, never did I say this one example should represent everything about religion...

stuff

Comparing this scenario to the extermination of white people simply because one comitted a crime NOT AT ALL related to anything having to do with race is laughable. Religion directly enabled these people to (more or less) kill their daughter. Religion completely rationalized that act in their eyes.

If your analogy rang true then we would be exterminating all people's since plenty of people from every race have broken the rules plenty of times. There's a difference between irrelevant info (race) and a tool that allowed the parents to kill their child without any malice intended (religion).

Natural selection.

Comparing this scenario to the extermination of white people simply because one comitted a crime NOT AT ALL related to anything having to do with race is laughable. Religion directly enabled these people to (more or less) kill their daughter. Religion completely rationalized that act in their eyes.

If your analogy rang true then we would be exterminating all people's since plenty of people from every race have broken the rules plenty of times. There's a difference between irrelevant info (race) and a tool that allowed the parents to kill their child without any malice intended (religion).

In my hypothetical scenario white people are regarded as the 'tool' itself; the cause of many of the worlds problems. Their mere existence makes them a tool; if they didn't exist it wouldn't have happened and that house would not have been burned down.

Yes, mentioning race is pretty irrelevent; it was a loose analogy. I wanted to target a specific group, but I suppose you could just say "humanity in general". If white people didn't exist, then that particular white person wouldn't exist, then that particular crime would not have been committed.

So then we eliminate all white people as a solution. And what will it do? Nothing. There may even be more crime as other races which tend towards lower socioeconomic status (a predictor of crime) move in to fill the gap. A lot of good white people will have been eliminated; these good white people may have more than made up for the actions of the minority 'bad' ones. It's the same with religion. So we eliminate religion thinking the world will be so much better off! At first it seems that way. Then we notice that many people's sense of morality is helped to develop by religion as they grow up; and a lot of people in the world who were once stopped from doing bad things by "fear of God" are now all of a sudden being selfish and cruel bastards. The dam of religion has broken and now we are flooded with a lot of people with a poor and relatively undeveloped sense of morality; thus causing even more suffering in the world than there was before, when religion existed. Just one example. The actions of a minority of white people or religious people do not alone justify labelling either of them 'evil' or 'bad'



So anyway let's change the scenario to humanity in general, since the race scenario is a bit loose. Humanity's existence has enabled us to cause so much harm to animals and the environment, in the same way that religion's existence has caused so much harm to many people. Humanity is the tool that has hammered so much suffering into the world.

Religion has been responsible for a number of harmful things happening, such as that girl dying from diabetes. But doesn't this happen with any organization or group when it gets large enough? Does it automatically make religion in general "bad" or "evil" and even, not worthy of existence? Some people think so.

Humanity has also been responsbile for a number of harmful things happening, such as the destruction of the environment and the wiping out of other sentient life. Does it automatically make all of humanity "bad" or "evil" and not worthy of existence?

The point is that the positives and negatives must be carefully weighed up before any sort of conclusion could be made for either of these, and aims must also be considered. For example: the main priority of eliminating religion may be to eliminate suffering, or it may be to eliminate ignorance.

This girl dying because of religion does not alone make religion a bad thing or mean that the world would be a better place if religion didn't exist. 'Bad' things have happened because of the existence of humanity; does it mean the world would be a better place if humanity didn't exist?

Many factors must be considered, such as the numerous positive effects of religousity and whether they outweigh the negative. I take a utilitarian view on it



Another thing: You could say that humanity is not to blame for the effects our species has had on the environment because we are not responsible for our species' existence, evolution is. Evolution is the tool which created humanity, which subsequently led to humanity wiping out entire species and messing with the environment. and so on and so forth..

Although you pinpoint the blame directly on religion without looking back into the "chain of causality" (ie. what are the factors to blame behind the development/existence of harmful religious sects?)

I never said that everyone takes religion to an extreme.

However, you cannot argue that if religion did not exist this girl would still alive...

Blaming religion in its entireity is almost as overgeneralized as blaming all of humanity for the actions of a few of its members.

Maybe try targeting specific religious groups or beliefs that you think are the most f'd up

ie. the fundamentalist beliefs behind this girls death (note: i havent watched the video so this is only an assumption)

. Religion directly enabled these people to (more or less) kill their daughter. Religion completely rationalized that act in their eyes.


You see religion in general as being directly responsible, wheras I see ignorance and fundamentalism as being responsible.

In my hypothetical scenario white people are regarded as the 'tool' itself; the cause of many of the worlds problems. Their mere existence makes them a tool; if they didn't exist it wouldn't have happened and that house would not have been burned down.

No, in your hypothetical scenario the man's race was not a tool, it was completely irrelevant to the crime. The man's crime would not have been different in any way had he been black, Mexican, or what-have-you. I understand the point you're trying to make, but I feel I need to point out that your original comparison to the person's religion to the race of a random criminal was erroneous at best and intentionally misleading at worst.

Yes, mentioning race is pretty irrelevent; it was a loose analogy. I wanted to target a specific group, but I suppose you could just say "humanity in general". If white people didn't exist, then that particular white person wouldn't exist, then that particular crime would not have been committed.Ah. Saying humanity in general is, indeed, at least somewhat, comparative to the religion of the parents. Had humanity never existed the rape wouldn't have taken place, obviously.

So then we eliminate all white people as a solution. And what will it do? Nothing. There may even be more crime as other races which tend towards lower socioeconomic status (a predictor of crime) move in to fill the gap.I will not respond to this since you have returned to the race scenario which I have already shown as having a false premise (i.e. the race of the individual was irrelevant where the religion of the parents allowed the death of the girl to take place).


A lot of good white people will have been eliminated; these good white people may have more than made up for the actions of the minority 'bad' ones. It's the same with religion. So we eliminate religion thinking the world will be so much better off!
Jesus, where did I recommend we exterminate all religious folk? Killing a majority of the populace simply because of one person dying from negligence is absurd? Nooooo...

Nonetheless, it is important to note that this will happen again unless we do something. Further education or government oversight on religious fanaticism or something different entirely.

The point is, claiming that Christianity and faith healing (a term used loosely) had nothing to do with the girls death is ridiculous.

At first it seems that way. Then we notice that many people's sense of morality is helped to develop by religion as they grow up; and a lot of people in the world who were once stopped from doing bad things by "fear of God" are now all of a sudden being selfish and cruel bastards. The dam of religion has broken and now we are flooded with a lot of people with a poor and relatively undeveloped sense of morality; thus causing even more suffering in the world than there was before, when religion existed. Just one example. The actions of a minority of white people or religious people do not alone justify labelling either of them 'evil' or 'bad'So your point is that religion has done more good than harm? That is debatable. In is also irrelevant since I am not an advocate of the forceful removal of religion or religious people. Transcending religion would be a nice alternative, though.

So anyway let's change the scenario to humanity in general, since the race scenario is a bit loose. I agree as long as "loose" is synonymous with "wrong" ;).

Humanity's existence has enabled us to cause so much harm to animals and the environment, in the same way that religion's existence has caused so much harm to many people. Humanity is the tool that has hammered so much suffering into the world. Yes it is, and there is substantial debate about whether or not we are beneficial to the world but in that particular scenario it is not of much importance since I doubt that humanity is at a level to where it would get rid of itself for the benefit of everything else. We are simply too selfish.

Religion has been responsible for a number of harmful things happening. Are you now admitting that religion was in part responsible for this death?

But doesn't this happen with any organization or group when it gets large enough? Does it automatically make religion in general "bad" or "evil" and even, not worthy of existence? Some people think so.
Humanity has also been responsbile for a number of harmful things happening. Does it automatically make all of humanity "bad" or "evil" and not worthy of existence?If religion could go away with no significant negative consequence and the positive consequences are lives spared then yes, yes it does make it "not worthy of existence".


This girl dying because of religion does not alone make religion a bad thing or mean that the world would be a better place if religion didn't exist. 'Bad' things have happened because of the existence of humanity; does it mean the world would be a better place if humanity didn't exist?Because this girls life was the only one religion has ruined :rolleyes:

Many factors must be considered, such as the numerous positive effects of religousity and whether they outweigh the negative. I take a utilitarian view on itRight. So take a nice deep look into all the effects of religion and have it to me, 10 font, double spaced, by tomorrow morning.



Another thing: You could say that humanity is not to blame for the effects our species has had on the environment because we are not responsible for our species' existence, evolution is. Evolution is the tool which created humanity, which subsequently led to humanity wiping out entire species and messing with the environment. and so on and so forth..You're arguing that the people responsible for the deaths at Virginia Tech were not the perpetrators (Cho Seung) but rather the one's responsible for his existance (his parents)? I hope you see how inane and retarded this is...

Although you pinpoint the blame directly on religion without looking back into the "chain of causality" (ie. what are the factors to blame behind the development/existence of harmful religious sects?)One does not have to know the reason for the existence of something to know that it is bad. And I would venture that the factors to blame for the existence of religion do nothing to mitigate the responsibility it holds in the death of this girl.

You see religion in general as being directly responsible, wheras I see ignorance and fundamentalism as being responsible.


Hint: fundamentalism is a form of religion.

Natural selection.

I concur.

Jesus, where did I recommend we exterminate all religious folk?

Well the OP is basically saying that because of this girl dying, religion sucks and atheism/deism FTW! Naturally if you think something is bad and harmful, why would you still desire for it to exist in an ideal world? I moreso meant religion itself rather than religious folk. And the OP seems to think it will be a better world without religion.

To quote him: If religion did not exist, this girl would still be alive. So, he passively recommended it as some sort of solution. Or at least I interpreted it that way, and responded so


So your point is that religion has done more good than harm? That is debatable.

No, I think it must be weighed up carefully and one bad thing happening (this girls's death) means almost nothing; and should not be the basis for an outright blanket condemnation of religion as a whole, or saying that If religion did not exist, this girl would still be alive. such as what's happening in this thread.


Are you now admitting that religion was in part responsible for this death?

No, I was just using your viewpoint for my analogy between religion and humanity. I don't regard religion as a whole responsible, only parts of it. If some guy punched me in the face, would I hold all of humanity responsible? No, only 1 part of it. Some religious beliefs do unfortunately seem to have a moral incompatibility with mainstream western society - in which case what do we hold dearer? Freedom of religion or our morals? Generally, our morals when religion starts to impact on others freedom. Like those murdering cults

Anyway, it's like this: One human punches you in the face. Do you blame all of humanity simply for existing which indirectly allowed this to happen? One girl dies. Do you blame all of religion for that death? I don't see religion itself as directly responsible, only indirectly. And even then, the factors behind the existence of religion are also indirectly responsible and, like Cho's parents, not really to blame. and so on and so forth right up to the big bang or whatever.. To me, fundamentalism and human ignorance are more directly responsible. I condemn a part of religion with extreme literalist beliefs, not religion as a whole

You're arguing that the people responsible for the deaths at Virginia Tech were not the perpetrators (Cho Seung) but rather the one's responsible for his existance (his parents)? I hope you see how inane and retarded this is...

In regard to your V-tech thing: Cho Seung Hui is like the fundamentalism, and the parents are like religion. Religion is indirectly and not really responsible for this girls death; these people probably had a number of factors which predisposed them to doing this sort of thing eg. rigid thought patterns and a tendency to see things in black and white. Fundamentalism (cho) is more directly responsible; religion (his parents) is not.

You're only looking one step back in the chain of causality by blaming the parents, and yes that is retarded. You'd have to go the full way back.. and we have no idea what is that far back ie. the origins of the universe. I have a deterministic view of the universe and thus there are causal factors behind everything; there is no free will and thus no moral responsibility. At least, that is one of the reasons why I think there is no moral responsibility. There are a few others and I'm aware of the implications of these beliefs and solutions to them. I'm not sure about this, but didn't Marx have a causal interpretation of history? eh, whatever. Much like belief in God, a complete determinism might produce an infinite regression so I believe in dependent origination as a working hypothesis.

If religion could go away with no significant negative consequence and the positive consequences are lives spared then yes, yes it does make it "not worthy of existence".

That's a bit too idealistic, and obviously if religion could go away with no negative consequences but positve consequences happened when it went away, then that is the best thing. It's unrealistic and not compatible with real life. Somewhere near the top of my other post; I queried whether the world would be any better off without religion - maybe worse off. No religion would inevitably have some negative consequences, like people losing hope or that psychological boost they get from having an invisible friend. Or humans with a poorly-developed sense of morality because religion was a major institution in our society in which a sense of morality is helped to develop. In a modern capitalistic society like ours, a lot of people need religion as a coping mechanism.


Because this girls life was the only one religion has ruined :rolleyes:

To quote myself from above: (this girls's death) means almost nothing in the big picture; and should not be the basis for an outright blanket condemnation of religion as a whole, or saying that If religion did not exist, this girl would still be alive. such as what's happening in this thread.

You're certainly right that religion has harmed plenty, but that wasn't the point. It still is debatable as to whether religion has ultimately done more harm than good.



Right. So take a nice deep look into all the effects of religion and have it to me, 10 font, double spaced, by tomorrow morning.

haha, fuck off. Although I will try and find some of them

Hint: fundamentalism is a form of religion.

So if I get punched in the face, I can blame all of humanity for existing (which allowed this event to occur) rather than the specific human who punched me and is more directly responsible?

For metaphorical purposes: Religion is humanity, and fundamentalism is the specific human who "punched" that girl.

That's as bad as condemning Cho's parents or even, great-grandparents for V-tech.

By blaming religion as a whole for this girls death, you're blaming even the most peaceable, open-minded religious sects who would never perpetrate anything like this. By targeting radical fundamentalism and some pentecostals, you're targeting the people who are much, much more likely to do this sort of thing. I watch American fundamentalists on TV sometimes.. they often advocate prayer or faith healing as a miracle cure over doctors. Blame fundamentalist literalism, not religion as a whole.

So if I get punched in the face, I can blame all of humanity for existing (which allowed this event to occur) rather than the specific human who punched me and is more directly responsible?



No, but if humans did not exist, you would not be punched.

If religion did not exist, this girl would be here today.

As a result religion is indirectly responsible for her death, obviously her parents perpetuated it but religion is what made them do so.

thats my only point.

No, but if humans did not exist, you would not be punched.

If religion did not exist, this girl would be here today.

As a result religion is indirectly responsible for her death, obviously her parents perpetuated it but religion is what made them do so.

thats my only point.

You could also say,

"Homo sapiens are indirectly responsible for her death"

"The existence of the planet Earth is indirectly responsibly for her death"

"The environment the parents grew up in is responsible for her death because it indirectly made such ignorant humans"

"The sun, water and nutrients are responsible for her death, it allowed humans to grow crops which fed the parents and allowed them to live long enough to have a child and do this to them"

There are an infinite of things you could blame her death on. You pick religion and in this thead condemn it on that basis, which means you still do see it as being very much directly responsible for her death even if you aren't quite aware of that.

I see religion as too indirectly responsible to place the blame on - it'd be ridiculous to me. Like blaming the existence of the the planet earth for her death.

Edit: Fucking earth! :mad:

People are always looking for something to point their finger at.

I see religion as too indirectly responsible to place the blame on - it'd be ridiculous to me. Like blaming the existence of the the planet earth for her death.

Edit: Fucking earth! :mad:

I think what you mean by "indirectly responsible" the OP (and I) sees as "not at all responsible" -- things such as photosynthesis, the start of the universe, etc are not responsible for her death in any meaningful or relevant fashion. Religion, on the other hand, is relevant since - in this case - it distinguishes the parent's intents between murder, to simple ignorance/negligance. They were deluded to the point where they believed what they were doing was for the benefit of their daughter. Why? BECAUSE THE RELIGION ENABLED THEM TO DO SO.

Why you refuse to see this I can only imagine :rolleyes:

Well the OP is basically saying that because of this girl dying, religion sucks and atheism/deism FTW! Naturally if you think something is bad and harmful, why would you still desire for it to exist in an ideal world? I moreso meant religion itself rather than religious folk. And the OP seems to think it will be a better world without religion.

The OP has an opinion, so what?

You compared the elimination of religion to "killing off all the white people" in your stupid race analogy.

If he thought that extermination en masse of religious folk would have saved the life of the girl he would have said so himself. Did he say so? No, no he didn't.



No, I think it must be weighed up carefully and one bad thing happening (this girls's death) means almost nothing; and should not be the basis for an outright blanket condemnation of religion as a whole, or saying that If religion did not exist, this girl would still be alive. such as what's happening in this thread.You said

At first it seems that way. Then we notice that many people's sense of morality is helped to develop by religion as they grow up; and a lot of people in the world who were once stopped from doing bad things by "fear of God" are now all of a sudden being selfish and cruel bastards. The dam of religion has broken and now we are flooded with a lot of people with a poor and relatively undeveloped sense of morality; thus causing even more suffering in the world than there was before, when religion existed. Just one example. The actions of a minority of white people or religious people do not alone justify labelling either of them 'evil' or 'bad'That sounds a lot like you were an advocate for religion since the good outweighs the bad that has been mentioned previously in this thread. In any case, if that isn't what you meant then never mind. I agree that the utilitarian view should be taken.


No, I was just using your viewpoint for my analogy between religion and humanity. I don't regard religion as a whole responsible, only parts of it.The problem is that those parts are indistinguishable from the whole and, in most cases, can't just been done away with. Like it or not you cannot just selectively remove the tenets of religion that you feel are bad without affecting the whole. An attack on fundamentalist Christianity is an attack on Christianity.

If some guy punched me in the face, would I hold all of humanity responsible? No, only 1 part of it. Some religious beliefs do unfortunately seem to have a moral incompatibility with mainstream western society - in which case what do we hold dearer? Freedom of religion or our morals? Generally, our morals when religion starts to impact on others freedom. Like those murdering cults See my response to your last quote.

Anyway, it's like this: One human punches you in the face. Do you blame all of humanity simply for existing which indirectly allowed this to happen?No, I blame that one person. In this case that person according to you is fundamentalist Christianity, which is a form of Christianity, which is a religion. I thought it was obvious that in this case we were arguing against the tenets of Christianity and "faith healing". It would be silly to claim that all religions are to blame for this particular death. The problem is that most, if not all, have blood on their hands so your utilitarian view should be taken upon them all individually and, of course, you will realize that none of them have a net good impact on humanity which can not be obtained by other, more peaceful and logical, means. This allows one to treat all religions the same since they are all responsible for foolishness such as fundamentalist Christianity is in this thread.

One girl dies. Do you blame all of religion for that death? See previous.

And even then, the factors behind the existence of religion are also indirectly responsible and, like Cho's parents, not really to blame. and so on and so forth right up to the big bang or whatever..The things responsible for the existence of religion are not responsible for the death of this girl? Really? My, how you are a beacon of knowledge and understanding :rolleyes:


To me, fundamentalism and human ignorance are more directly responsible. I condemn a part of religion with extreme literalist beliefs, not religion as a wholeSome aspects are more to blame than others, yes, but you cannot condemn fundamentalist Christianity without, largely, condemning Christianity as a whole.


In regard to your V-tech thing: Cho Seung Hui is like the fundamentalism, and the parents are like religion. Religion is indirectly and not really responsible for this girls death; these people probably had a number of factors which predisposed them to doing this sort of thing eg. rigid thought patterns and a tendency to see things in black and white. Fundamentalism (cho) is more directly responsible; religion (his parents) is not.Already addressed.

-meaningless blather.-

I have a deterministic view of the universe and thus there are causal factors behind everything; there is no free will and thus no moral responsibility. At least, that is one of the reasons why I think there is no moral responsibility. There are a few others and I'm aware of the implications of these beliefs and solutions to them. Good that you know the implications of complete determinism being adopted in all aspects of human thinking. Do you also know that this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand since if you really believed that you would have no place in a debate forum other than saying no one is responsible for anything, ever!



That's a bit too idealistic, and obviously if religion could go away with no negative consequences but positve consequences happened when it went away, then that is the best thing. It's unrealistic and not compatible with real life. Somewhere near the top of my other post; I queried whether the world would be any better off without religion - maybe worse off. No religion would inevitably have some negative consequences, like people losing hope or that psychological boost they get from having an invisible friend. Or humans with a poorly-developed sense of morality because religion was a major institution in our society in which a sense of morality is helped to develop.Like stonings! God, those are fun!

In a modern capitalistic society like ours, a lot of people need religion as a coping mechanism.
But does that outweigh the negatives?


You're certainly right that religion has harmed plenty, but that wasn't the point. It still is debatable as to whether religion has ultimately done more harm than good.The two things you argue for which are the biggest proponents of the positive effects of religion are morality (which exists not from religion, but from such things as the social contract and human altruism etc.) and a sense of hope. The latter is an irrational view to have. I am much happier drunk than I am sober, that does not make being drunk worth it. Hope is nice, but not when it comes to the point of infringing on other's lives and livelihoods.



haha, fuck off. Although I will try and find some of themGood luck :)



All in all, it sounds like what you are arguing for now is that religion is not responsible for the death of this girl, but fundamentalist Christianity is. I think that is what the OP meant when he railed against what he called religion. OP feel free to correct me.

:)!!!!!!!!!!!!

I suppose the point is that you're overgeneralizing about faith and religion. Not everyone takes it to extremes; just because a few people mess something up does not alone justify its complete eradication. The positives and negatives of faith and spirituality must be carefully weighed up before such a decision could ever be made

Yep, thats what I meant to say... Thoughts dont come out on keyboard... correctly sometimes.. :-p

So if I get punched in the face, I can blame all of humanity for existing (which allowed this event to occur) rather than the specific human who punched me and is more directly responsible?

For metaphorical purposes: Religion is humanity, and fundamentalism is the specific human who "punched" that girl.


I dont understand that logic... Fundamentalism to a religious person is like nihilism to an existentialist, it is an extreme that should not be taken, it makes the point to something purposeless.

People are always looking for something to point their finger at.

Here Here... I agree...

I concur.

Except, of course, since 'utter ignorance of Science in favor of ridiculous religious belief' isn't a genetic trait that we know of, and since you have no clue whether that child would have grown up to believe that nonsense...

What exactly was selected?

People are always looking for something to point their finger at.

So we shouldn't point our fingers at "ridiculous religious beliefs that hold modern medicine below prayer" when that's precisely why the parents didn't give their child the help she needed?

So anyway let's change the scenario to humanity in general, since the race scenario is a bit loose. Humanity's existence has enabled us to cause so much harm to animals and the environment, in the same way that religion's existence has caused so much harm to many people. Humanity is the tool that has hammered so much suffering into the world.


Except "humanity's existence" is inescapable from humans. Religion isn't. We can be irreligious. We can choose not to believe in these nonsensical beliefs that allow parents to effectively kill their child.

The two aren't really analogous.

So we shouldn't point our fingers at "ridiculous religious beliefs that hold modern medicine below prayer" when that's precisely why the parents didn't give their child the help she needed?

Just to clarify, when you say "religious beliefs" are you using the words interchangeably with "spiritual beliefs?" If you are I would like to say that I take medicine whenever I am sick, I get vaccinated and all that, yet I am a spiritual person.

Just to clarify, when you say "religious beliefs" are you using the words interchangeably with "spiritual beliefs?" If you are I would like to say that I take medicine whenever I am sick, I get vaccinated and all that, yet I am a spiritual person.

I really meant any belief that holds modern medicine below prayer is ridiculous.

There might be "spiritual beliefs" that don't hold modern medicine to be below prayer; you might hold one of those. Fantastic! Though I would argue that they are still needless and ridiculous in their own way, it's a step in the right direction.

I will accept your compliment even if from my perspective was half-assed... ;)

Dumbasses.

This right here and other examples just like it are merely applied superstition.

It's what happens in the real world when people's irrational beliefs slam up against the wall of hard, unambiguous, empirical reality.

You shouldn't "believe" in anything, but rather let what the evidence shows be indicative of what is correct and go with that. By entrusting onesself to that which can be reasonably established rather than getting caught up in an endless swamp of religious/superstitious/occult presuppositions and irrational notions, one can have as accurate an understanding of the world for themselves as possible.

Except, of course, since 'utter ignorance of Science in favor of ridiculous religious belief' isn't a genetic trait that we know of, and since you have no clue whether that child would have grown up to believe that nonsense...

What exactly was selected?

Apparently an over-reaction to jest...

Talk about overreaction!

Can do, buddy.

An over-reaction occurs when one's prejudice of a subject results in him missing subtle, or even blatant indifference or jest from another to the subject.

Say, for example, you hate avocados. Someone sets a table for you, containing all your favorite foods except for a bowl of avocados. As a result, you start screaming bloody murder.

That, too, would be over-reaction, although quite an extreme case.

I'm glad you got so excited about the topic of over-reaction, Rust. It's one of my favorites.

Very informative! One question: Is claiming simple questions were overreactions, an overreaction itself? Or is that just an exaggeration? :confused:

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/4812/014va6.png

Exaggeration is a form of over-reaction, so both.

I'm not sure if you've come to this yet, but I just don't take you serious. I don't think I ever have, I'm certainly not right now, and most likely never will.

An Update for those who are still interested:

"Two parents who prayed as their 11-year-old daughter died of untreated diabetes were charged Monday with second-degree reckless homicide."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/28/prayer.death.ap/index.html

Amen.


It seems the Lord answered my prayers! ;)

Believing in inane, childish and utterly fictitious bullshit is never a good idea, it's a shame that child had to die for it.

"Two parents who prayed as their 11-year-old daughter died of untreated diabetes were charged Monday with second-degree reckless homicide."

They probably don't even understand the charges brought against them. They'll still believe the devil is just intervening to prevent them from spreading their ministry.

Oh well, at least justice was served.