vardar wrote:Maybe you do not understand how much religion means to some people? It is a very very big deal to some. Religion, to some, is not some fun game you have or some ideology that doesnt mean much.
vardar wrote:@oxaloacetate this is where I have a hard time drawing the line. I used to be very Christian, as my parents are. But I am not so much anymore and it has changed my views on religion. To be honest, I am actually quite skeptical of religion now.
But to answer your question: most of me wants to say, it is a parent's right to refuse the treatment based on their religious views. If they are considered mentally sound anyways. When we begin to take away parent's and individual's rights of what to do with their lives, their children's lives, it is not a good spot to be in. Just because something is to be considered the newest way, does not mean it can be forced upon others. Let them decide. Educate and if the majority of people find it safe and the best for themselves and their children, great. But that doesnt mean you can force this upon everyone, even if it is a small minority.
Saying this, I do believe there are incidences where there is no say. Such as car insurance, where it has nothing to do with one's direct heath or well-being. If you want to own a car, be prepared to have extra costs via insurance. The biggest example of this would be taxes, no one really wants to pay, but you have to.
This makes it seem like I am all for the parent's choice in regards to your question. But really, I'm not. I definitely lean that way but still have some uncertainty
Life-saving medical treatment for a child should be subservient to parents' religious views but car insurance... wew lad, now that's mandatory.
I'm for respecting peoples' rights as you seem to be too. In the case of the dying child that is to serve his right to life, not a supposed right another person (even a biological parent) has over him. How cruel is everyone's god if they damn a damn kid anyways.
EDIT: this just came to me. What if somebody's core religious beliefs were to sacrifice their 10 year old child in the name of their god? Makes it much different. Do we let them? I would say no.
Or, let's just stop legitimizing religion by taking it seriously. Arguing with religious people about religion, is worse than arguing with Garja. There's generally no point in trying to convince someone who has been brainwashed from the beginning of their life otherwise.
@deleted_user4 I like your response, it is pretty close to what I believe in as far as my religious position.
But believing in no religion is no different than believing in a religion. You believe in something, which happens to be believing in nothing. Who is to say what is right? Based off of your moral intuition?
If this child's salvation is "corrupted" because of his blood transfusion, according to his parents. Wouldnt his "eternal" life after be gone, which is very important to a devote follower.
Not that I agree with this decision but it is something to think about. How far do we take the seperation of Church and State?
This is a life and death situation, yes, which makes a big difference. But do you really think these parents want their child to die? Maybe this is a situation where parents have no choice because preserving life takes precedence over beliefs but I guess preserving life in a sense is a belief. If that makes sense ahha
zoom wrote:Or, let's just stop legitimizing religion by taking it seriously. Arguing with religious people about religion, is worse than arguing with Garja. There's generally no point in trying to convince someone who has been brainwashed from the beginning of their life otherwise.
Like I said, your lack of religion is no different than someone's faith in religion. You both believe in something. They just happen to be different. You are no different than the Christians who claim atheists are dumb, brainwashed, immoral, etc.
zoom wrote:Or, let's just stop legitimizing religion by taking it seriously. Arguing with religious people about religion, is worse than arguing with Garja. There's generally no point in trying to convince someone who has been brainwashed from the beginning of their life otherwise.
Like I said, your lack of religion is no different than someone's faith in religion. You both believe in something. They just happen to be different. You are no different than the Christians who claim atheists are dumb, brainwashed, immoral, etc.
if you discount the fact that One belief is drawn from what humans have observed to be true from the world while the other is drawn from several different cultures myths and historical stories than yes they are no different
@gibson once again there needs to be a line drawn. Maybe that line is drawn when a life is on the line but you cannot dictate what people do based on one's own individual principles. The child should probably be saved in regards to the blood transfusion case, because the child has no ability to consent so who is to say what this child wants?
We cant disregard religion just because you think it is "phony." Why do you think billions of people believe in some form of religion? They are ignorant? They are "phony."
And I'm not sure what you mean "observed to be true." Human knowledge has constantly changed so much. Why do you think people like Galileo were considered heretics? Blood drawing was considered the cure to many diseases. People had no idea lead causes many problems. Tobacco was never thought of as bad.
Numerous drugs are consistently taken off the market because of new discoveries in which propose these drugs cause terrible problems. The same goes for oils or any "natural" form of healthcare. Stuff is constantly changing. Why it's important always be open minded. This is quite off-topic, just like this thread has gotten but who cares.
@gibson One belief is drawn from what humans allegedly have observed to be true, while the other is drawn from what humans allegedly have observed to be true. Don't try to tell me you've skeptically fact-checked most of your scientific beliefs.
There are plenty of strongly religious people that are far less brainwashed than the vast majority of the pseudointellectual antitheist science lovers. You are merely unaware of their existence since they do not engage in this type of discussions (since, as stated, there's generally no point in trying to convince someone who has been brainwashed from the beginning of their life) and/or dwell in your social circlesâin person or on the internet.
Well much of what I belief is based off of personal experience, but yes, much of what I believe is because other humans claim to be true. However itâs not fair to equate the statement of a PhD physicist with that of say John the Baptist.
Also my father has a PhD in engineering from a top 10 engineering school in the world, and is also very religious so I would say I have engaged with the scientific religious community, and I know for a fact that my father is brainwashed in reguards to religion in that he doesnât apply the same standards and rules to religion as he does to everything else in his life, he himself admits that.
zoom wrote:Or, let's just stop legitimizing religion by taking it seriously. Arguing with religious people about religion, is worse than arguing with Garja. There's generally no point in trying to convince someone who has been brainwashed from the beginning of their life otherwise.
Like I said, your lack of religion is no different than someone's faith in religion. You both believe in something. They just happen to be different. You are no different than the Christians who claim atheists are dumb, brainwashed, immoral, etc.
Surely you're just baiting at this point. An atheist doesn't believe in god or religion. That is not a belief. That is the absence of a belief. I do believe in Garja, though, so you might have a point after all.
zoom wrote:Or, let's just stop legitimizing religion by taking it seriously. Arguing with religious people about religion, is worse than arguing with Garja. There's generally no point in trying to convince someone who has been brainwashed from the beginning of their life otherwise.
What about a discussion with someone that was an athiest for the first 25 years of their life and are now religious. Is that ok?
And other people have exact opposite opinions that they learn from what other humans claim to be true. It's like my grandfather when he tells me, "I have been around for a while, I have lived through a lot so you should believe me." Well, the same goes for all the other older people who have opposite views of his and claim they have been around for a while. I dont think science is as objective as we think it is. There is a lot of manipulation and subjectivity to it.
I guess the moral is to be critical but respectful of other's opinions instead of being like InsectPoison and bashing someone for their differences.
zoom wrote:Or, let's just stop legitimizing religion by taking it seriously. Arguing with religious people about religion, is worse than arguing with Garja. There's generally no point in trying to convince someone who has been brainwashed from the beginning of their life otherwise.
What about a discussion with someone that was an athiest for the first 25 years of their life and are now religious. Is that ok?
That's generally fine. I'm not exactly overinvested in this thread, though, so find someone else to discuss with.
vardar wrote:@zoom you do not believe in a god, yes? If so, you believe there is no god. C'mon man xD
It's a non-belief. It's very simple. I don't believe in anything in particular (except Garja). Some people believe in religion and (other) deities. I don't. That's it. Semantically I believe there is no other god, true, but logically, that is not a belief in something; that is a dissenting position towards a belief in god.
zoom wrote:Or, let's just stop legitimizing religion by taking it seriously. Arguing with religious people about religion, is worse than arguing with Garja. There's generally no point in trying to convince someone who has been brainwashed from the beginning of their life otherwise.
What about a discussion with someone that was an athiest for the first 25 years of their life and are now religious. Is that ok?
That's generally fine. I'm not exactly overinvested in this thread, though, so find someone else to discuss with.
I agree. I dont think I've ever seen a online discussion on religion without the saltiness.