 AtlLiberal says: More bone headed tales of misguided cult followers believing muttering pleas to their invisible friend will magically cure disease. Unfortunately, in this case, the recipient of the "prayer treatment" died for no reason. And because of religious brainwashing the 16 year old agreed to this non-treatment. Sad indeed. James 5:15-16 Jesus says "And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven." John 14:12-14 Jesus says "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do [it]." ----- So in a sense... every time prayer doesn't work, it's a failed prophesy. That or every single person involved, the teen, the parents, the church memb... The ease by which people can be duped never ceases to astound me. The reasoning I hear the most often concerning prayer is there are three possible outcomes: 1. The prayer is answered 2. The prayer is not answered 3. The prayer will be answered at a later time. Kind of makes you wonder if these sheep have ever heard of flipping a coin? Tuesday's death of 16-year-old Neil Beagley, however, may not be a crime because Oregon law allows minors 14 and older to decide for themselves whether to accept medical treatment "All of the interviews from last night are that he did in fact refuse treatment," police Sgt. Lynne Benton said Wednesday. "Unless we can disprove that, charges probably won't be filed in this case."Just thought your clip could use a little balance  . And because of religious brainwashing the 16 year old agreed to this non-treatment.Religious brainwashing... This is a sad case indeed, but I'm not sure you can claim he was brainwashed. Just becase he belived this doesn't make him brainwashed. Quite frankly I don't know where to start. First off, balance is probably not the correct way to characterize this situation when you imply that because this was not against the law that morally or ethically it was correct. All the boy needed was a catheter and some antibiotic to clear up an infection but they refused this on religioius grounds! You're good with that? Religious brainwashing... This is a sad case indeed, but I'm not sureOK, I'll bite. How would you characterize this? How do you explain telling someone that if only they "believe" they will be magically cured. And the... Quite frankly I don't know where to start. First off, balance is probably not the correct way to characterize this situation when you imply that because this was not against the law that morally or ethically it was correct. All the boy needed was a catheter and some antibiotic to clear up an infection but they refused this on religioius grounds! You're good with that?"They" didn't refuse anything. The boy did. That's what I meant when I said "balance". If the boy refused the treatment on religous grounds, then sadly that was his own (albeit obviously misguided) decision. I will say that it is sad that no one at least suggested he go to see the doctor (I am assuming that no on... OK, I'll bite. How would you characterize this? How do you explain telling someone that if only they "believe" they will be magically cured. And they believe this until it kills him. Now I don't know what your background is but in my universe if a doctor tells me if I don't undergo a simple procedure that will cure me I will die and someone else tells me to pray to his sky buddy and everything will be ok I think I'll go with the doc. To take this approach with a CHILD is abuse. Either that or his guardians are so stupid that the child should be taken from them and placed with someone competent enough to take care of him.First you're assuming that he went to a doctor at all. I... Well, it seems that you're determined to defend the actions of this dangerous cult. Whatever. Oh, and from the article: In March, the boy's 15-month-old cousin Ava Worthington died at home from bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection.Hmmm, how many deaths does it take before one is convinced that these religious nuts are abusing their children. Certainly a 15-month-old is not capable of determining their own treatment. We tiptoe around religion as though it is a subject that can't be subjected to scrutiny and debate. This attitude is wrong headed and ignorant. Secondly you're assuming that they "told him" to do anything.I would think that like most rel... Atl if this religious sect is encouraging its members not to seek any kind of medical treatment, I certainly do not defend that. But the fact is that its members are intelligent human beings capable of making their own choices. He was obviously a minor, maybe it's a mistake that Oregon allows minors to make their own medical desicions? But the fact is that they do. Now, in the case of Ava Worthington, this was a young girl who could not have possibly made any kind of descision for herself. The parents should have taken her in for medical treatment. I understand where you're coming from in thinking that this sect's beliefs are harmful, they certainly do seem to be, but people have the right t... We tiptoe around religion as though it is a subject that can't be subjected to scrutiny and debate. This attitude is wrong headed and ignorant.Yes, this is a result of religious extremism. Secular extremism is no different on the subject of science. Both are stooped in ignorance and stupidity, and they should both be rebuked by society. As far as religious people "indoctrinating their offspring", I think this statement is absurd. Everyone parent on the face of the planet teaches their children their beliefs, secular and religious alike.Comment pop. but people have the right to believe as they wish, even if it is harmful to themselves (as long as it is not harmful to others).Uh, death seems pretty harmful if you ask me. Of course, I believe this is the only go around we get so make the best of it. Everyone parent on the face of the planet teaches their children their beliefs, secular and religious alike.Religious beliefs I certainly can comprehend. What exactly do you mean by "secular beliefs"? I missed the secular belief talking points meeting. When these children become adults, they have the freedom to make their own choices.jmjoness, we can agree on some things. Secula... Uh, death seems pretty harmful if you ask me. Of course, I believe this is the only go around we get so make the best of it.Yes this young man's beliefs were harmful, to himself. Now, in the case of Ava Worthington's parents, their beliefs were harmful to Ava, so their actions were wrong, and unlawful. What exactly do you mean by "secular beliefs"?That there is no God, that the universe came into existence randomly, that science is flawless, etc etc... I'm a little unclear on what this secular extremism is. Could this have anything to do with living in a reality based world? Believing too much in reality? Help me out here.Ah, I'm glad to hear that you admit this is a belief. Anyway, secular extremists want to claim that science is flawless, they ignore things that science cannot possible answer or explain, and they deny that there is any "existence" other then a secular existence. Yes this young man's beliefs were harmful, to himself.True. And his parents beliefs which they taught to their son, were what killed him. That there is no God, that the universe came into existence randomly, that science is flawless, etc etc...Not all secularists (if there is such a thing) don't believe in a diety. Diests for example. Buddhists sometimes believe in a diety and sometimes don't. Maybe you're thinking of atheists which hold no belief in a diety. Do you believe that Thor exists? If you don't then you're atheistic towards Thor. I suppose the universe could have come into existence randomly. I suspect it followed natural laws that we'r... Your statement that science is flawless tells me more about your level of knowledge than anything you've said so far. Science never has claimed to be flawless. This is a typical fiction used by religionists as a red herring. As I said earlier, study a bit about what science is and we'll have a further conversation about it. Flawless! That's a good one.Atl, if scientists don't claim that science is flawless, then why do they teach evolution like it is flawless??? Why do they refuse to allow opposing points of view?? I find it unbelievable the things I hear people chalked up to evolution, it's as rediculous as the infamous "goddidit" notion. True. And his parents beliefs which they taught to their son, were what killed him.But he had the mental capacity to choose for himself Atl. He had the ability to choose whether or not his parent's teachings made since. If he believed they they made since, that was his choice, not anyone else's. I guess the biggest difference in our points of view is that I find the notion of "brainwashing" to be absurd. If this notion were true then the majority of our society would still be conservative religious extremists and we'd be running around claiming the Earth is the center of the universe. If we don't now the answer for something God did it? Seems kind of lazy to me but that's my opiinion.Atl, I believe that a simple "We don't know" would suffice. It would suffice because that is the simple, God honest truth. It seems equally as lazy to me to assume that God didn't do it just because we don't have the answer for it. So, you don't believe in reality. That must hinder your life. Or do you wish to engage in sophmoric semantic discussions?What is reality? There's your reality, there's my reality, there really is no difnitive answer. It really depends on what your notion of it is. I'm just pointing out that your unwavering belief that evolution, random universe and non existence of God as "reality" is just that, a belief. There's a big difference between denial and holding no belief in something that there is no evidence of. Do you believe in gravity fairies?I would say that to hold no belief in something you would have to ignore the notion of it... But that's a pointless argument. I am merely pointing out that human reasoning is far from flawless. We cannot disprove even the most absurd notions. To base your entire existence on human reasoning, well, it just seems baseless to me. Atl, if scientists don't claim that science is flawless, then why do they teach evolution like it is flawless???They don't. Why do they refuse to allow opposing points of view??Because they are religious views and not scientific views and have no business in a science class. I find it unbelievable the things I hear people chalked up to evolution, it's as rediculous as the infamous "goddidit" notion.Like what. Perhaps it's the people you're talking to. If this notion were true then the majority of our society would still Damn word limit. continue to belief it exists is rather strange. I am merely pointing out that human reasoning is far from flawless.You're really hung up on this flawless idea. We cannot disprove even the most absurd notions.Don't have to. The person holding the absurd notion is in the position to offer proof. To base your entire existence on human reasoning, well, it just seems baseless to me.So I see. You don't appear to be a big fan of reasoning. They don't.So you're admitting that the theory of evolution could be false (macro evolution mind you)? You're saying that evolutionists regularly admit this, even in the classroom? Again, those people have the ability to choose whether or not that makes since to them. If it does, that is their choice. The point I'm making is that a person does not have to follow what they've been taught, they can choose to discontinue that belief if it no longer makes since to them. The idea of "brainwashing" implies "programming", a person can't change their beliefs if it's programmed. agree. Show me the evidence and Ill change my tune*Sigh*, show me some evidence that the universe was random chance, show me evidence that it was not created, and I'll change my tune. But please don't forget the first half of the comment that you disected: I believe that a simple "We don't know" would suffice. It would suffice because it is the simple, God honest truth. So show me evidence to the contrary. If you claim god exists you are making the claim. Back it up. Until you do I'll stick to what we have evidence of. And evolution is backed up with reams of evidence. I've earlier given you a suggestion of a place to start educating yourself about it but you've chosen to ignore it. Too bad.Hmm, as we've said before the lack of evidence does not disprove the existence of something. Evidence used to support evolution did not exist until recently. The same for gravity, and the universe, and the shape of the earth, etc etc.. I am not implying that it is impossible for evolution to have occured, btw. I still think you misunderstand my position.... That's not true. I can have a notion of something without believing in it's existence because of lack of evidence. I can believe that there is an invisable boa constrictor in my bed but without evidence for it's existence to continue to belief it exists is rather strange.Yes but does lack of evidence render it non existent? Let's say for example there was a boa constrictor under your bed, but it was under the floor board. Periodically throughout the night you hear hissing sounds, but every time you look under your bed you don't see it. Let's assume you're a child, and you tell your parents. Your parents look under your bed, but assume you're imagining things when they don'... So I see. You don't appear to be a big fan of reasoningI use my reasoning with the understanding that it is faulty. I don't base my existence on it, and I don't try to prove or disprove things that cannot be proven or disproven. If I don't know the answer to something, I'll admit it and move on with my life. Here is a link to an article that discusses the objectivity that should be allowed in schools. http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf
Atheistic evolution should not be protected by government. It does notOh my. Now you're driven to using links to the Intelligent Design Network to back up your "argument". If you had simply admitted right out that you were a creationist and believed the earth is 6,000 years old and that man and dinosaurs existed together and the Grand Canyon is the result of Noah's flood and evolution can't be true because of that pesky 747 being blown together by chance.... What's the use. I'll make a deal. Keep your religion out of the classroom and we'll keep education out of your church. Fair enough... Good bye! LOL!!!! Again your obvious biasness against ID is impeding you from any sort of debate on the subject. If it weren't you would have seen that I have been advocating OBJECTIVITY in the classroom. And how bias is it that I can't use a link to an ID network (which only discusses the objectivity that should be allowed in a classroom), but you think you can use a link to an evolutionist site to "cure" my ignorance of science. Aparrently both of us want to ignore the facts. If evolutionists are hell bent on never allowing a discussion it only proves that their afraid of ID, and any other theory that opposes evolution. TY If evolutionists are hell bent on never allowing a discussion it onlySo, now that you've made your true self evident, why don't you saddle up your faithful Jesus pony, T. rex, and gallop off into the sunset.And don't forget to lock those doors lest the evil atheist scientists will barge into your home and convert all your kids to left wing, evolutionist, homosexuals. Your ignorance is truly astounding! @AtlLiberal Your ignorance is truly astounding!He hasn't been rude to you personally (unless I overlooked something). You know I respect and almost always agree with your views. But I hope you don't become a Wilhelm, attacking the "person" instead of their argument. I've tried to be patient with him, explaining in detail what science is and is not. He continues to repeat over and over his same tired rhetoric and then sends me links to the Discovery Institute. He's already admitted his ignorance of evolution and science. I merely am agreeing with his own view. There comes a time when beating your head against a dogma reinforced stone wall gets you nowhere. I've said goodbye to him several times and he keeps returning with the same old arguments. See his other posts on his insistence that science claims to be flawless. All I've done is stated the obvious (which he's already admitted to). I don't feel any apology is needed on my part and none will be forth... and then sends me links to the Discovery Institute.Yeah, that made me smile. There comes a time when beating your head against a dogma reinforced stone wall gets you nowhere.I agree. But if you put yourself in the position of educator, and the other person doesn't agree or doesn't understand what you're communicating, ... the fault is not with the other person. See his other posts on his insistence that science claims to be flawless.Yeah, I saw those. Again I smiled. Science prides itself on built-in self correction mechanisms. It's consistent geometric growth in understanding is BASED on those error correction mechanisms. How, then, ... I agree. But if you put yourself in the position of educator, and theGood point. But while I choose to try to explain my position I haven't ever described myself as an educator. I remember commenting on a few of the clips you've commented on that I was impressed with your patience in dealing with people. I will go so far but when I present arguments and they're ignored I do sometimes become impatient and resort to less effective tactics. Is it the most effective way to deal with these folks? Probably not. But then I imagine that there is very little I cou... So, now that you've made your true self evident, why don't you saddle up your faithful Jesus pony, T. rex, and gallop off into the sunset.And don't forget to lock those doors lest the evil atheist scientists will barge into your home and convert all your kids to left wing, evolutionist, homosexuals. Your ignorance is truly astounding!I've made myself evident from the beginning, the fact that you haven't seen this already is extremely irrittating. I find you ignorance of your own biasness astounding (or maybe you're not so ignorant of it?) Anyway, I feel I've proven my point. Please, Jesus. Protect me from your followers. Sounds like you need protection from yourself... Oh I forgot this was the clip about the boy.. Nvm then, add a prayer for the both of us. Anyway, secular extremists want to claim that science is flawless, theyScience (as an institution) admits that it has limitations as to what it can explain and what it can't. However, instead of chalking it up to a deus ex machina, it simply admits that its understanding has not reached that level of comprehension. Case in point: in the early nineteenth century, when railroads were in their infancy, scientific experts predicted that trains could never exceed 35 MPH because the air would get sucked out of the cars and the passengers would ... |
View the Top Clips from June 20, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
