Debating Religious Fundamentalists

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
Sothis
Bridge Officer
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:17 am
Contact:

Debating Religious Fundamentalists

Post by Sothis » Fri May 13, 2016 7:28 pm

I knew, even as I began to type, that it would be a bad idea. Fundies are not noted for listening, least of religious ones, so was I setting myself up for a fall here? Nevertheless, where the topic concerns the healthcare and well being of children, I felt I couldn't ignore this. Be warned, the page is very long:

http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/what-i-thin ... rcheology/

Sideswipe
Bridge Officer
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:51 pm

Re: Debating Religious Fundamentalists

Post by Sideswipe » Thu May 19, 2016 11:42 pm

Fundies are not known for their logic and reasoning either. Sometimes I feel a little masochistic and want to stir up some shit and post on religious youtube videos. I kind of feel you, sometimes they say stuff that absolutely needs to be responded to.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1638
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Debating Religious Fundamentalists

Post by sonofccn » Sat May 21, 2016 11:35 pm

I suppose my only advice would be to treat people as people, not cardboard villains to be shouted down or some queer tribe needing to be shown the one true way. Just people trying to get through this thing we call life with all the hopes and fears that entails. Also understand that not everyone sees the world through the same lens as you, not everyone will agree and remember you sound just as stupid, ignorant and moronic to them as you think they do. Treating each other with respect and acknowledging there are things we just have to go our own way on is only way we can go forward.

-Respectfully, Sonofccn

Sothis
Bridge Officer
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:17 am
Contact:

Re: Debating Religious Fundamentalists

Post by Sothis » Mon May 23, 2016 8:39 am

sonofccn wrote:I suppose my only advice would be to treat people as people, not cardboard villains to be shouted down or some queer tribe needing to be shown the one true way. Just people trying to get through this thing we call life with all the hopes and fears that entails. Also understand that not everyone sees the world through the same lens as you, not everyone will agree and remember you sound just as stupid, ignorant and moronic to them as you think they do. Treating each other with respect and acknowledging there are things we just have to go our own way on is only way we can go forward.

-Respectfully, Sonofccn
Whilst I don't disagree with you in principle, where the safety and well-being of children is concerned, I can't abide by what's being advocated. It's dangerous and ignorant to turn to faith healing as an adult, but that's a choice you can make for yourself. Denying access to medical care for a child... That's a different story altogether.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1638
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Debating Religious Fundamentalists

Post by sonofccn » Wed May 25, 2016 4:19 pm

Sothis wrote:
sonofccn wrote:I suppose my only advice would be to treat people as people, not cardboard villains to be shouted down or some queer tribe needing to be shown the one true way. Just people trying to get through this thing we call life with all the hopes and fears that entails. Also understand that not everyone sees the world through the same lens as you, not everyone will agree and remember you sound just as stupid, ignorant and moronic to them as you think they do. Treating each other with respect and acknowledging there are things we just have to go our own way on is only way we can go forward.

-Respectfully, Sonofccn
Whilst I don't disagree with you in principle, where the safety and well-being of children is concerned, I can't abide by what's being advocated. It's dangerous and ignorant to turn to faith healing as an adult, but that's a choice you can make for yourself. Denying access to medical care for a child... That's a different story altogether.
At issue is there is a difference of opinion regarding if it is "dangerous and ignorant". Presumed competent adults weigh their options and make their choices. That you or I may choose differently doesn't invalidate said choice. Barring evidence of deliberate, bad faith I would presume a parent has the best interest of their child at heart. If they choose faith healing as the form of treatment it would presume to follow that, per whatever evidence they had seen, they believed it offered the best chances for their situation.

-Respectfully Sonofccn

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1891
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Debating Religious Fundamentalists

Post by 2046 » Fri May 27, 2016 7:56 am

My heart is with intervening and also beating the crap out of the bad parent, but my head tells me it is a dangerous line to cross. After all, are not certain teachings as damaging as a debilitating permanent injury or risk of death? Who decides that? (We already know, here.)

And where is the medical intervention line drawn? Homeopathic remedies are as nonsensical as faith healing. Is suffering flu enough given potential complications include death?

And then we get to the anti-vaxxers, but at least there intervention is easily justified because refusing vaccines spreads the harm to others.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Debating Religious Fundamentalists

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue May 31, 2016 2:36 pm

2046 wrote:My heart is with intervening and also beating the crap out of the bad parent, but my head tells me it is a dangerous line to cross. After all, are not certain teachings as damaging as a debilitating permanent injury or risk of death? Who decides that? (We already know, here.)

And where is the medical intervention line drawn? Homeopathic remedies are as nonsensical as faith healing. Is suffering flu enough given potential complications include death?
It, indeed, gets very complicated and what is being discussed here is largely a question of culture and morals. That is the problem when you live in a country where many different types of cultures are introduced or develop in their own corners. That's perhaps why less federalism and more independance from the states allows enough groups of people to live their own ways.
And then we get to the anti-vaxxers, but at least there intervention is easily justified because refusing vaccines spreads the harm to others.
Far from it. Vaccines are, in theory, a wonderful invention, but it would be absurd to deny the long and ever expanding list of people suffering from illnesses they never had once they got a shot. Not to count the less scientifically established cases of rising rates of autism post shot-campaigns. You must have a balanced view on these. Claiming that vaccines represent no risks at all is just as silly as thinking that they're all bad.
Some people consider, and with good reasons, that the vaccines per se are not the problem, but the added elements meant to exacerbate the reaction are.
For instance, "organic" solutions might offer a median way to both sides.
There's also the point that if the vaccine works, technically, you shouldn't be afraid of someone who hadn't a shot in ages, right?
Plus some vaccines concern medical blunders which are not known to be passed to other humans; i.e., they remain personnal.
Add to that the H1N1 case and that heavy handed campaign of fear launched over all channels which proved quite detrimental to the vaccine cause, because it really made it look like it was a cooperative operation to sell vaccines to gullible people. In the end, the vaccine proved largely unnecessary and got rejected by populations at large in many countries.
I also understand, although not necessarily agree with the reasoning of parents saying they have a right to decide what's going to be put in the blood of their kids.
I guess, at best, they should be required to live in vaccine-free zones then, or something to that degree. Some kind of mild quarantine zone if they proved to be really problematic.
The vaccine case is certainly not as straight forward as you make it to be and shouldn't anyway. It's far too important to deal with it in wide strokes.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Debating Religious Fundamentalists

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue May 31, 2016 2:38 pm

Sothis wrote:I knew, even as I began to type, that it would be a bad idea. Fundies are not noted for listening, least of religious ones, so was I setting myself up for a fall here? Nevertheless, where the topic concerns the healthcare and well being of children, I felt I couldn't ignore this. Be warned, the page is very long:

http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/what-i-thin ... rcheology/
An extreme of that I had to deal with was people thinking you could not only heal with sunlight, but feed from it too, not requiring food any longer, only water.
There's even a term for that.
Even plants, which by reference are the most sunlight-dependant complex life forms, require both nutrients and water.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Debating Religious Fundamentalists

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue May 31, 2016 3:01 pm

Sothis wrote:His first reply:

Your comment demonstrates that you have a faulty idea of what faith healing entails. It is obvious that you did not read the three posts or if you did you did not grasp what was said. Your points were covered in all three posts and since God does not work the scientific way, your demand for blind studies is moot.
Typically, this means the faith cannot be measured. It's an easy cop out, an immemorial one that is, but very logical from their point of view.
The discussion would seem already closed though.

There is also the strong fact that mind and body are connected more than people tend to think, with psychosomatosis being only one aspect of it.
So, if faith could bring peace of mind and joy to a person, chances are, clearly, that the overall health of said individual would improve to some degree.
But I highly doubt it would reach the levels of a lvl 10 magical potion. :)

Christians of that sort have a very alienated view of the universe and staunchly reject anything that may have them provide more fundamental attention to the material world rather than their speculation-prone divine one.

Thing is, act of God or not, science can measure the health of an individual. So somehow, it wouldn't matter if the healing came by medicine or faith, because we could say that for person A, she was formerly ill and is now healed.
Again, the effects can be measured. What this TA is claiming is silly; that once a person is faith-healed, for some reason scientific tools would stop working on her so there would be no way to if the illness were gone or not!
This person cannot evade that logic (you didn't mention it in your post, perhaps you should add it through another reply... he won't add).
Then since faith healers do not keep records, no one knows the total amount of people who were healed by legitimate faith healers. Keep in mind, I am not pointing people to preachers like Benny Hinn and others like him. There are frauds in the faith healing arena just like there are quacks permeating the modern medical realm.
The real question is to know out of those who seeked healing from a legitimate healer, how many were actually ill and how many of them were healed.
His next post:

If you had read my posts you would see that I encourage people to use doctors and hospitals, it is not a sin to do so.

Faith healing is the use of divine power given to humans by the Holy Spirit for the purpose of miraculous healing. I have not heard of a failed true and legitimate faith healing case. The latitude you give medical science needs to be applied to faith healing as well as medical care is up to the individual not you or people who oppose faith healing.
He defines what the process entails then provides the statistics: 100% success. Of course, unverified yet. But anonymous medical reports could cover that, especially since seeing a doctor is apparently recommended anyway!
The fact is, it would be trivial to prove the faith healing: simply have people go to hospitals, officially reject any medicine and stipulate they choose the faith healing, and observe them over the course of, say, five years, perhaps ten.

But...
Faith healing depends upon many factors and since it is done for the glory of God we do not need to keep track or create statistics. we do not answer to humans, science or modern medical practitioners.
In other words, F U and ur statishtix. Never gonna happen. Because we do that for God's Glory gauge so it can be charged up ultra fast.
Good luck with that fella, because last I heard, everything about him is infinite and something tells me that it may take quite some time to fill that one up!
Given that all people who use medical science for their ills still die, I wouldn’t promote it over faith healing if I were you. Science and medical science still cannot stop death from happening so it is not as grand as you make it.
People who pray still die too. Or did he just brush away the positive numbers with the back of his hand?
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Tue May 31, 2016 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Debating Religious Fundamentalists

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue May 31, 2016 4:46 pm

Do you see a problem? The faith healing statistics covered a 20 year span and only had 172 deaths (that was reported to this study) while modern medicine had 600,000 deaths approx. in 3 years.
This man doesn't understand the principle of percentages I'm afraid.
So if changes were made to some practices of modern medicine, 120,000 people could possibly still be alive today. yet no one is demanding that the modern doctors and nurses be sent to prison for murder like they do for those involved in faith healing.
As you pointed out, science is constantly evolving, sometimes in wrong directions, but evolving nonetheless.

Faith healing, on ther other hand, has little chance to improve unless some stash of arcane scrolls is unsealed and the new prayers prove to be 500% more efficient (you can picture the ad).
But considering the tone of your contradictor, it's rather clear that there won't be any evolution on his side.
Everything you have mentioned is basically answered in my posts. The deception in you blinds you to the points being made. One point you raised– 98.4% were not harmed– how do you know that they were not harmed? The reports I used focused only on deaths, not other injuries suffered by patients to the hands of medical professionals
That is, however, a fair point. Not dying wouldn't automatically imply complete recovery.
Faith healing is’t denying life saving medicine to anyone there is no guarantee that modern medicine would heal those people. Medical science is not God yet you treat it like it was. It has no control over who lives or dies.
Thereare lots of strawmen arguments coming from this TA fella.
And by definition, control not being absolute, medical science does enjoy some control over the lives of people simply because they can be saved from death.
I love it when you say the doctor made an ‘honest but tragic mistake’ when a patient dies yet do not pass that courtesy on to parents who use faith healing. Your words continue to prove me correct
That's another fair point, since their point of view is one based on a honest belief.
Then, it comes down to who scores the less 'honest but tragic mistakes'; in which case, he'd probably lose again.
#2. Percentages mean nothing
Idiocy redefined.
#3. Studying bones does not discover mitigating factors, which I have already mentioned, Your point also assumes that the parents of those 172 people could actually afford treatment. I already know what ideas anthropologists say about dead bodies but that doesn’t make their analysis correct.
That is an amusing point in fact. If one cannot afford a treatment alloting a +98% of survival, it would come to logic to use the lesser method that offers a chance of survival out of five.
But you can also ask if we don't find such similar numbers amongst tragically ill patients who sort of "miraculously" recovered without any intervention, medical or religious.
If the numbers were to be similar, one could honestly ask if those supposedly faith-induced recoveries had anything to do with faith at all.
#4.I am tired of people who say I do not understand something then proceed to tell me what I already know and have analyzed. The weaknesses of both undermine your argument as you assume those two concepts are perfect and produce the exact reason something took place in history.
Well, since he said percentages mean nothing...
They're not perfect either and it's always a good thing to know how they were fabricated, yet they still do hold a noticeable analytical value.
This is a point D misses or ignores on purpose. Parents are instructed to follow God’ leading not D’s or other parents’. D continued to use the words ‘unproven and unverified’ when referring to faith healing. He does so even though we told him that faith healing has gone on for over 5,000 years and has been proven effective and it is verifiable. Jesus sent some he healed to the priests to show them what took place; being given healing miracles have gone to doctors to show them what God did.
Full throttle!
That jeebus figure has been cobbled some seventeen centuries ago for the sake of establishing a new imperial religion. No such miracle happened by the hand of this mythical figure and can hardly be verified, since the textual reference needs to be taken at face value!
This guy is so dishonest. God wouldn't like that. One time, things can be proven and verified (read measured objectively by any qualified doctor), the next paragraph nothing can.
Oh, btw, Jeebus wasn't just a mere mortal, so taking his achievements as proof of something any mortal could complete is not going to fly. For one, I'm pretty sure no human will bleed water if stabbed by a lance in the flank. Now to say that being full of water was more valuable than being full of hot air... or something else.
Now we will allow D to make comments in reply to this post. If his comments are honest, logical, as well as a few other positive characteristics we will make an exception to our refusal to publish his comments. He has the right to defend his position and respond to what we just wrote.
So sayeth the Inquisition. Or any other comical tribunal as a matter of fact.
we are not going to respond to the above comment. Our silence is not an indication that D is right but that it does no good to continue to talk to an unbeliever who will not believe no matter what you say.
Priceless.
Ain't asking for miracles but verifiable facts. Ultimately it does not matter if God intervenes by moving the atoms himself and rearranging stuff or something else, since in the end the result would be a cured human, which science can analyze fairly well and more than objectively.
P.S. just because children are involved does not mean that God’s rules change, that God’s directions change or that people are given authority to meddle in other parent’s business. Children are not an excuse to force your ways upon others nor interfere with their parental rights and authority. Unless the parents are doing something illegal, disagreeing with them is not justification to meddle in other people’s affairs.

And by illegal i do not mean trumped up laws that target christians and faith healing.
Considering that children care naught about religion and develop their own imaginary world until taught what to believe, his "God" that he loves to shove here and there is nothing more than a concept for adults, by adults.
In fact, it's immensely dishonest of him because it's fairly known that children cannot think completely until they're fairly mature. Although TA's sick religion loves to make everybody sinful right since the foetus stage, children are totally oblivious to moral values the way adults are. Let's not talk of babies here either!

Post Reply