Martin, it's an interesting topic to bring up. I recall a similar case where a couple of extreme vegans (Americans again) tried to bring up an infant on apple juice instead of milk. It dies of malnutrition. I don't see that as an argument against veganism, and I don't see this equally tragic incident as something to condemn religion with. Many things taken to an extreme are dangerous. Any priest who would advise prayer over medicine for a sick child should be... what? I'm not sure. I believe in free speach. Maybe this is social darwinism at play. No, I guess I don't believe that - the infant deserved better.
Anyone else think that the parents should be not merely jailed but neutered too? I can think of no reason to trust them with a child ever again.
EDIT: Martin, I've just read your posts on how you feel the nature of religion - believe without seeing - is behind this. I think there's a subtle difference. To believe in God is to believe in something for which there is no evidence. To believe in prayer over medicine for your child is to believe in something for which there is evidence against.
Eℓvin;1834095 said:
Hey look at me, I'm atheist, I think I'm smarter than most people, I have no life, and am lonely and depressed %90 of the time.
Someone once wrote that it was a terrible thing that religions had been allowed to claim a monopoly on morality. (The phrase seems to have become popular, so my Google-fu is insufficient to find the original source.) How horrible that it's now the only source of humility, normality, companionship and happiness too.
it's not about whether he exists or not. if god did exist, he would have to follows the fundamental laws of the universe, which means that there isn't much he can do, which leads to the conclusion that essentially i doesn't matter if he exists or not which ends with the assumption, for sake of elegance and easiness, he don't exist.
Arthur C Clarke wrote a very neat essay on that once called, "God and Einstein". It's well worth a read. You can find it in
this thread at the end of the 4th last post, or if you search for the title of the piece.
Elvin, you objected to Bes' use of "have to". Clarke does not make this assumption. He was one smart mo-fo.
The only thing worse than a closed minded theist is a closed minded atheist. Labelling believers as idiots and atheists as intelligent people is just as absurd as labelling a certain race, culture, sex as smart or stupid.
Tell that to a gay couple who can't get married because... why is that exactly?
However, it is simply out of experience and I may be wrong here that atheists often tend to be more mocking, provocative, spiteful, unpleasant more often than not. That is only why I said they would be worse.
In internet discussions on religion, I'd tend to agree. In real life, not so much.
Several people made the point that not all consequences of religion are negative. This is true. It doesn't give religion licence to shrug off all evil done in its name as just the work of flawed human beings. Or at least, if it does, God has the best PR guy I've ever heard of. Maybe this guy:
I'll just quote Martin on this one:
So no, because religion is by definition exonerated of all blame by the religious apologists. According to them, because there were non-religious motives to a war as well, it means the war had nothing to do with religion. Just like Northern Ireland, nothing to do with religion whaaaatsoever. It's just a fantastic coincidence that the warring factions are divided by religious lines.
Northern Ireland is an interesting one: the true roots of the conflict were in imperialism, colonialism and racism. That religion became a factor is almost a coincidence. England invaded Ireland in 1169. Most colonists became naturalised. Northern Ireland was colonised in 1609 in a methodical and large scale way (c.f. "Plantation of Ulster" if you'd like to read about that). The colonists retained a British mentality, and when Ireland finally broke from British rule in 1921, Northern Ireland remained in the union. It had perhaps 60% or so unionists, mostly Protestant, and 40% of Irish nationalists, mostly Catholic. The majority discriminated against the minority and the failures of a civil rights movement resulted in widescale paramilitary violence from both sides.
Religion was not to blame for the demarcation of these people, though it helped maintain a distinction, and even now Catholic/Nationalist(Republican) and Protestent(Anglican or Methodist)/Unionist are essentially interchangable terms. What really shines out for me is this: these people could spit bile at the mention of the other religion, completely in contradiction with the teachings of their own churches. Religion was subsumed as a tool of hatred, and the message of the religions completely unheeded. I watched people throw stones at children walking to school in the Ardoyne. Catholic children walking to a Catholic school. Along a Protestent road. How sad.
This is hilarious:
And this is very interesting:
Greek philosophy in a modern meme.
Buy on AliExpress.com
