Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[Chris45]

Yes, of course, correlation is not causation. But at least I have on this and several other occasions at least went to the bother of producing some data to debunk the claims made on this forum. Those making such claims never seem to feel a need to produce evidence in support of their claims. And on previous occasions the data I produced was just summarily dismissed because it came from an atheist or sceptic website, even though for some statistics they were just relaying what had been found by independent bodies.

I'm not sure which "claims made on this forum" you are referring to, but if a researcher goes to considerable effort to document a "supernatural" event, is it acceptable, in your opinion, for a skeptic to summarily dismiss his work with condescending language such as that used by skeptico in his blog?

And so another legend is born, to be added to the literature that supposedly shows reincarnation really happens, to be repeated ad nauseam by believers. Yawn.

Just because a skeptic can imagine a vaguely plausible but improbable alternative explanation, do we have to reject the original evidence as fake/fraud/etc. and accept his explanation?

My reaction to one of your posts last year may have come across as a bit strong, but I was influenced by the general hostility being expressed towards theists by some posters at the time.

 

[Julia]

Although you have expressed that it is just your opinion, I would take issue with you describing the Belgian situation as cold heartless killing.

For what I understand the legislation to encompass:

1. It must be with the full consent of the parents.
2. It must have the full consent of the child made when that child was in full control of his senses.
3. It must be consented to by 3 doctors, who not only confirm 2 above, but have also determined that the child is in excruciating pain without any chance of recovery.

I am aware that safeguards can sometimes be circumvented, but nothing would be ever legislated if that was an overriding issue.

Sometimes the heartless people are those who think others should live in excruciating pain because of their beliefs rather than those of the sufferer.

+1

Yes, lets pull the plug on everyone, its all hopeless, no fight left in you to get through and beat this illness. Lets just give them the option, get the needle its over.

Tink, you are using emotive and unreasonable language here. The topic is voluntary euthanasia. There is no suggestion that anyone happy to endure pain and loss of dignity when terminally ill should not do so.
And if - even in the face of incontrovertible medical evidence that death is inevitable and imminent - they choose to hope for recovery, then that's up to them.

This always come down to the people who are opposed to voluntary euthanasia wishing to impose their beliefs on those who do not share them. It is never, ever the other way around!

You mean to say babies and children can say what they think?

Obviously their parents will make the decision on their behalf.

Your comment seems very heartless.
I cannot think of a more difficult decision facing any parent than to see their much loved child dying, and suffering terribly in the process. Imo it would take huge courage for those parents - knowing there is no chance of recovery - to hasten the loss of such a child. Much easier to watch and mutter cliches like "God will take her when it's time for her to go" and other similar nonsense.

I've never been in such a position but well recall the agonising decision of accepting it was time to understand that one of my beloved dogs had had enough. A child must be thousands of times worse.

It's called a platitude. Try walking into a hospice and looking someone in the eye who is in constant pain with a terminal illness waiting to die so they can be put out of their misery and reciting your trite rejoinder to them.

Or try experiencing the grief when a loved person has found their pain and indignity so intolerable that they have crawled out into the sea and drowned themselves. When you identify the body you can never dispel from your mind the expression of agonised determination on their face.

Or try finding the body of another suicide, some time after she died, with the flies settling into her cold flesh.

 

[McLovin]

Or try experiencing the grief when a loved person has found their pain and indignity so intolerable that they have crawled out into the sea and drowned themselves. When you identify the body you can never dispel from your mind the expression of agonised determination on their face.

Or try finding the body of another suicide, some time after she died, with the flies settling into her cold flesh.

I don't know if you're speaking from personal experience, Julia, but that sounds awful.

I remember when my grandfather was in his last few months. Unable to do even the most basic of tasks, like go to the toilet, without assistance, downright miserable and in pain. As he said to me "I've had a good innings but I'm ready to go. I just want to die". Silly cliches ring hollow when you're watching someone you love, admire and respect lose all their dignity.

 

[bellenuit]

Tink, you are using emotive and unreasonable language here. The topic is voluntary euthanasia. There is no suggestion that anyone happy to endure pain and loss of dignity when terminally ill should not do so. And if - even in the face of incontrovertible medical evidence that death is inevitable and imminent - they choose to hope for recovery, then that's up to them.

Good point Julia. A very important point I missed.

And to suggest that parents who might arrive at such a heartbreaking decision are "heartless" and "murderers" would be so distressing to them, compounding their pain.

 

[Tink]

So what do you say to the ones that beat the odds, and make it through?
Thank God you didn't live in Belgium.

Euthanasia for children

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/miss-judgement/

 

[Tink]

As said, you have your views and that's fine, but I don't like the idea of anyone feeling pressured that they are a burden in society.

 

[Julia]

I don't know if you're speaking from personal experience, Julia, but that sounds awful.

Yes, in both instances. Preceded, also in both instances, by months of pleading from each person to help him/her to die, wanting to do anything I could to relieve the intense suffering, but too cowardly to face the prospect of going to jail for assisting suicide.

I remember when my grandfather was in his last few months. Unable to do even the most basic of tasks, like go to the toilet, without assistance, downright miserable and in pain. As he said to me "I've had a good innings but I'm ready to go. I just want to die". Silly cliches ring hollow when you're watching someone you love, admire and respect lose all their dignity.

Yes. When the platitudes are trotted out about "palliative care can take much of the pain away" etc., the self righteous conveniently ignore the humiliation of a once independent person being dependent on some anonymous carer for the most intimate of personal functions.

As said, you have your views and that's fine, but I don't like the idea of anyone feeling pressured that they are a burden in society.

The above shows how utterly you do not get what we are even saying.

You trot out the same platitudes with apparently no understanding whatsoever of the suffering of individuals.
So much for religion.

 

[McLovin]

Yes, in both instances. Preceded, also in both instances, by months of pleading from each person to help him/her to die, wanting to do anything I could to relieve the intense suffering, but too cowardly to face the prospect of going to jail for assisting suicide.

Very sorry to hear that, Julia. That must have been such a terrible time for you and your family.

When the platitudes are trotted out about "palliative care can take much of the pain away" etc.the self righteous conveniently ignore the humiliation of a once independent person being dependent on some anonymous carer for the most intimate of personal functions

My word they do. For most people, living is more than just waking up in the morning and breathing in and out, it's about having a life. I remember when I was very young (under 5) we lived in a block of apartments. In the penthouse was this old lady, Sylvia, who would have been well in to her 80's but had a busier social life than most 20 year olds. Every Sunday she would invite the neighbours over for cocktails (fire engine for me) and she'd always have a glass of Scotch in one hand and a cigar in the other. She was the life of the party. One morning she fell over on her morning walk and broke her hip. The doctors said she would be confined to a wheelchair and would need to go into a nursing home, or have a full time nurse. Apart from that she was physically and mentally healthy. She died within three months.

The above shows how utterly you do not get what we are even saying.

You trot out the same platitudes with apparently no understanding whatsoever of the suffering of individuals.
So much for religion.

+1

It almost reads as though it was posted in the wrong thread.

 

[Tink]

It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with humanity, not being happy with asking for just one thing, they have to ask for more, and now bring in the children, then start abusing the system.
How much power do you want to give to these doctors and politicians.

The figures in Belgium are appalling. The world is shocked at the attitude they have taken.
You say history doesn't repeat, I am starting to wonder.

I am sorry if I sound insensitive, but you mention children, and that's it for me.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with humanity, not being happy with asking for just one thing, they have to ask for more, and now bring in the children, then start abusing the system.
How much power do you want to give to these doctors and politicians.

The figures in Belgium are appalling. The world is shocked at the attitude they have taken.
You say history doesn't repeat, I am starting to wonder.

I am sorry if I sound insensitive, but you mention children, and that's it for me.

I must admit, Tink and all, that whenever a government, basically a collection of large bellied villagers, decides for all men and women, I retreat to that great Roman Senator , Cicero.

On Law

True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application…

The welfare of the people is the ultimate law.

The precepts of the law are these: to live honestly, to injure no one, and to give everyone else his due.

According to the law of nature it is only fair that no one should become richer through damages and injuries suffered by another.

The strictest law often causes the most serious wrong.

The more laws, the less justice.

…the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled…

The administration of government, like a guardianship, ought to be directed to the good of those who confer, not of those who receive the trust.

When a government becomes powerful…it is an usurper which takes bread from innocent mouths and deprives honorable men of their substance for votes with which to perpetuate itself.

gg

 

[Tink]

The above shows how utterly you do not get what we are even saying.

You trot out the same platitudes with apparently no understanding whatsoever of the suffering of individuals.
So much for religion.

Julia, I do understand what you are saying, but I also see the problems associated with opening that door, as stated above.

 

[DocK]

This always come down to the people who are opposed to voluntary euthanasia wishing to impose their beliefs on those who do not share them. It is never, ever the other way around!

This is the guts of the issue for me, and what annoys me the most about a lot of "religious people". We have laws, which have been arrived at via a democratically (at least in our country) elected govt. Why then do I have to be subjected to those who think their particular beliefs take precedence over the law when it comes to issues such as abortion, pre-marital sex, contraception, divorce, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, whether I should bare my flesh/eat what I like etc etc. I know not all of those issues are yet legal in Australia, but I firmly feel that if left to our democratic process - where we all get an equal say - they may very well be. The point is that we should all have a say in what becomes legal and acceptable, and not be forced into acceding to the wishes of those who have particular religious beliefs. Nobody is seeking to make any of these things compulsory!

I have no desire to persuade anyone to undertake any action that goes against their personal beliefs, and would not support any govt that did. Why then must I put up with doorknockers and sermonisers who seek to impose their beliefs on the community at large? It's frustrating that most non-believers seem quite content to let others follow whatever religious beliefs they choose, no matter how bizarre or illogical we may consider them to be, but this consideration is not reciprocated. Indeed the opposite seems to be the norm - with the faithful determined to either convert or dominate those that don't share their beliefs and values.

 

[McLovin]

This is the guts of the issue for me, and what annoys me the most about a lot of "religious people". We have laws, which have been arrived at via a democratically (at least in our country) elected govt. Why then do I have to be subjected to those who think their particular beliefs take precedence over the law when it comes to issues such as abortion, pre-marital sex, contraception, divorce, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, whether I should bare my flesh/eat what I like etc etc. I know not all of those issues are yet legal in Australia, but I firmly feel that if left to our democratic process - where we all get an equal say - they may very well be. The point is that we should all have a say in what becomes legal and acceptable, and not be forced into acceding to the wishes of those who have particular religious beliefs. Nobody is seeking to make any of these things compulsory!

I have no desire to persuade anyone to undertake any action that goes against their personal beliefs, and would not support any govt that did. Why then must I put up with doorknockers and sermonisers who seek to impose their beliefs on the community at large? It's frustrating that most non-believers seem quite content to let others follow whatever religious beliefs they choose, no matter how bizarre or illogical we may consider them to be, but this consideration is not reciprocated. Indeed the opposite seems to be the norm - with the faithful determined to either convert or dominate those that don't share their beliefs and values.

Great post DocK. I've said plenty of times that I don't care what someone chooses to believe in, frankly it's none of my business. For most of us who are not religious, it's when the Bible/Koran/Torah bashers start telling the rest of us that unless we live to their dogmatic set of beliefs society will/is fall/ing apart. Of course the reality is that society is not falling apart, they just don't like that they're becoming increasingly irrelevant.

It seems that the less religious we become as a society, the more hysterical the warnings become. I don't doubt that in a few hundred years today's religions will be viewed in the same way we view paganism.

 

[pavilion103]

As a Christian, I agree that people are free to act within the law. We introduce laws by a democratic process. Society then has the freedom to act within them. I can vote against certain laws but in the end the majority will have the say and they may agree it disagree with my view on a certain law.

At the same time, I feel strongly to communicate my view to others. Much in the same way that I would to an alcoholic father and husband who, legally, can drink himself stupid each night at the expense of his family. There is no legal issue. But I would still speak against it to him and then acknowledge that it is his choice to continue to love a drunken life or not.

There is no doubt that the moral standard of society have decayed badly. Look no further than the crap in movies and songs. The goal posts have shifted so much. Divorce and broken families too; there is no incentive to "work out" a marriage. Depression is an ever increasing epidemic in this world. Sexual disease etc. This isn't a matter of opinion. It is plain to see for those who open their eyes.

As for the church.... It has withstood intense persecution for 2000 years. Much more in many places than it is experiencing now. It seems to be the one thing that remains standing as everything else shifts. Just because a few western cultures are adopting atheistic views, won't change one little thing in the course of history. Especially if counties like China (more Christians than anywhere else) and India (spiritual nation) emerge and countries like the US are no longer the power they once were.

 

[McLovin]

There is no doubt that the moral standard of society have decayed badly. Look no further than the crap in movies and songs.

The old video games, movies and music. Let's forget about how aboriginals were considered fauna not so long ago, or that Asians were considered some disease that needed to be kept out of Australia, or that being gay was a criminal offence. Where women were considered chattel property, and a blind eye was turned to domestic violence. Yeah, what a morally retrograde society we find ourselves in today. If only we could go back to those days of wholesome music and movies, we can just forget about all the other stuff.

This isn't a matter of opinion. It is plain to see for those who open their eyes.

Actually it is. And it's so blissfully removed from reality.

As for the church.... It has withstood intense persecution for 2000 years.

That's a new one. 2,000 years of persecution by the church or of the church?

 

[CanOz]

Great Sunday entertainment you too are!

 

[DocK]

As a Christian, I agree that people are free to act within the law. We introduce laws by a democratic process. Society then has the freedom to act within them. I can vote against certain laws but in the end the majority will have the say and they may agree it disagree with my view on a certain law.

At the same time, I feel strongly to communicate my view to others. Much in the same way that I would to an alcoholic father and husband who, legally, can drink himself stupid each night at the expense of his family. There is no legal issue. But I would still speak against it to him and then acknowledge that it is his choice to continue to love a drunken life or not.

I'm not just having a go here - but would seriously like to know, why? Why do "people of faith" feel they must communicate their views to others? Why can't they/you just let us be? Most people that you would label atheist don't feel the need to communicate our disbelief of your views to you and others, but are content to live and let live. If we are uneasy or unhappy about some aspects of our society, such as alcoholism, we do some volunteer work and offer our help where it is wanted - we mostly don't go sticking our noses into other people's business and insist they mend their ways to our liking. Of course I don't think alcoholic fathers and husbands are a good thing - but I'd rather focus on education and support programs for their families than preach to the alcoholic that doesn't want my help. I grew up in a catholic community, and find the idea of the church lecturing about alcoholism hypocritical in the extreme. My experience was that the catholic church, in particular, would rather see a woman and children endure a miserable life with an alcoholic than allow that divorce is a better alternative in a lot of cases. Indeed, one of my biggest issues with religion is the misogyny at the heart of most of it - it seems to me that the church has been determined over the years to strip away any power or rights that women once had. Perhaps there has been some attempt to "get with the times" over recent years, but I recall (as a girl who attended a convent school) being taught by the nuns that I must never refuse my husband his rights, but must not use contraception no matter how a pregnancy would affect my health or my ability to feed the children I may already have. I could not leave or divorce my husband no matter whether he beat me or mistreated my children, or drank or gambled away our income - but must pray for his soul instead! I often used to wonder how a bible written by the women of the time, rather than by the men, might read. It's too bad that the fear of being accused a witch was probably enough to convince most rebellious women to keep their heads down.

There is no doubt that the moral standard of society have decayed badly. Look no further than the crap in movies and songs. The goal posts have shifted so much. Divorce and broken families too; there is no incentive to "work out" a marriage. Depression is an ever increasing epidemic in this world. Sexual disease etc. This isn't a matter of opinion. It is plain to see for those who open their eyes.

As for the church.... It has withstood intense persecution for 2000 years. Much more in many places than it is experiencing now. It seems to be the one thing that remains standing as everything else shifts. Just because a few western cultures are adopting atheistic views, won't change one little thing in the course of history. Especially if counties like China (more Christians than anywhere else) and India (spiritual nation) emerge and countries like the US are no longer the power they once were.

Some of the issues you cite as decaying moral standards, such as depression and sexual disease, are made worse by religion. Many young people are made to feel outcasts or inferior because of a sexual orientation that doesn't fit with the religious views of their family/school etc. If some religions had their way condoms would not be readily available, sex-ed would not be held in schools, and teenage pregnancy rates would be even higher. Some of the countries in the world with the highest rates of sexual disease are those that missionaries converted and then largely deserted. You mentioned the US - isn't it one of the most religious of the Christian countries? Doesn't it also have amongst the worst rates of all those examples of decaying moral standards

 

[Chris45]

Why then must I put up with doorknockers and sermonisers who seek to impose their beliefs on the community at large? It's frustrating that most non-believers seem quite content to let others follow whatever religious beliefs they choose, no matter how bizarre or illogical we may consider them to be, but this consideration is not reciprocated. Indeed the opposite seems to be the norm - with the faithful determined to either convert or dominate those that don't share their beliefs and values.

I'm not just having a go here - but would seriously like to know, why? Why do "people of faith" feel they must communicate their views to others? Why can't they/you just let us be? Most people that you would label atheist don't feel the need to communicate our disbelief of your views to you and others, but are content to live and let live.

I'm sick to death of "believers" knocking on my door and phoning me at all hours trying to convert me to their "beliefs", and trying to extract money from me.

The big difference is that these people have nothing to do with any religion!!!

 

[bellenuit]

I'm not just having a go here - but would seriously like to know, why? Why do "people of faith" feel they must communicate their views to others? Why can't they/you just let us be?

DocK, I agree with almost everything in your post except that part. I think Christians and other religions have as much right to express their views as anyone else. I suppose a lot depends on what we mean by "communicate" and so long as it is within the bounds of the law, then so be it. That is what democracy is about. But democracy also requires a level playing field and IMO religious institutions should not get special tax advantages not available to others. I resent the fact that my tax may be used by them to promote ideas that I do not hold.

I am aware that in some cases religions provide needed services to society, such as schools and hospitals, and I am not against them receiving some compensation for those services, perhaps an amount commensurate with the burden they have removed from the state. However, there must be strict conditions to such compensation, such as not being allowed to reject those of another religion and prevent (in the case of hospitals) women receiving proper family planning guidance. Compensation for services rendered is a controversial subject in its own right.

I think what you are getting at is when they try to stick their noses into others' private lives and I would agree with you there. What gets me is when they want to control what others do in their own bedrooms, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual. Stephen Fry said on a TV show that the Catholic Church is obsessed with sex and this is so true when one considers the issues that it seems most up in arms about. They like to stay on the pulpit that sex is a gift from God, but whether one wants to see it that way or as a product of evolution, one thing is clear in my mind and that is it is they who have turned this most natural of functions into something dirty.

 

[Chris45]

DocK, I agree with almost everything in your post except that part. I think Christians and other religions have as much right to express their views as anyone else. I suppose a lot depends on what we mean by "communicate" and so long as it is within the bounds of the law, then so be it. That is what democracy is about.

I agree and I don't know exactly where DocK lives and why s/he feels so strongly about religious doorknockers. I'm only 5km from Surfers and I've found that religious doorknockers have considerably more respect for my "Do Not Knock" sign than non-religious, and probably atheist, doorknockers such as electricity company doorknockers, solar panel doorknockers, political doorknockers, etc. etc.

I haven't had a religious doorknocker bother me for about twenty years but I've had plenty of the others so I wonder why DocK singles out religious doorknockers as if there's a constant stream of them knocking on her/his door, but doesn't seem to be bothered by any of the others? Sounds a little bit hypocritical to me.