Happy Blasphemy Day

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

AZMike writes:

Ultimately, yes, deferring to religion - that is, accepting its premises on some level - is the only way to be opposed.

 

Nope. Sorry, you can't claim that, because a religion does X, that X is dependent in any way on that religion. That's a non-sequitur.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

AZMike writes:

But ultimately, arguing from religion isn't the only way to be a quack.

 

You seem to have totally missed my point.

 

I didn't say religion is the only way to be a quack, I said religion is the only way someone can get away with ridiculous things like rubbing water on someone and praying and successfully defend their assertion that they have provided medical care.

 

One only has to look at those who vehemently oppose the vaccination of children, which includes a good number of secularists

 

But LOOK AT WHO CAN REFRAIN FROM HAVING THEIR CHILDREN VACCINATED: the religious. There are religious exemptions in all states except California, Mississippi and West Virginia. Only about 20 states allow some kind of nonreligious exemption. This religious-only exemption is probably unconstitutional, by the way (see Welsh v. United States).

 

why should I have to defend the beliefs of a denomination that is not my own (and I'm not sure to which religious practice you make reference above - Christian Science?) I don't argue for the claims or practices of Islam, or Scientology, or Buddhism, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, just my own, although I defend the right of others to believe what they want, with an obvious exception of placing a child in harm, as you offered in your example.

 

Well, my original statement was "I think stupid ideas (and particularly stupid ideas that are dangerous) should be pointed out as being stupid, whether they are religious ideas or not. Deferring to religion gets you things like dead kids who were prayed over instead of taken to a doctor."

 

Notice I'm arguing against ALL stupid ideas; I'm pointing out that stupid RELIGIOUS ideas are often deferred to (for no reason). There are still states that have religious exemptions for treating sick children just with faith healing. I don't know of any states that have similar exemptions for quack medicine.

[acco40 95]

Flesh-bags of chemical reactions don't care about other flesh-bags full of chemical reactions.

 

I tend to disagree. So do you feel that non-religious folks can't experience sympathy, empathy, guilt, etc.?

[AZMike 173]

"Flesh-bags of chemical reactions don't care about other flesh-bags full of chemical reactions.

 

I tend to disagree. So do you feel that non-religious folks can't experience sympathy, empathy, guilt, etc.? "

 

I hope you do more than tend to disagree, but you misunderstood. Even if non-religious (which is not the same as atheist or agnostic), you do experience sympathy, empathy, guilt, etc., BECAUSE you are something more than what a materialist, non-religious POV posits you are, i.e., a flesh-bag of chemical reactions.

[AZMike 173]

AZMike writes:

Ultimately, yes, deferring to religion - that is, accepting its premises on some level - is the only way to be opposed.

 

Merlyn: Nope. Sorry, you can't claim that, because a religion does X, that X is dependent in any way on that religion. That's a non-sequitur.

 

I'm pretty sure God would like you to read the lines below what I wrote instead of taking the comment out of context, Merlyn...

 

You are claiming a right to a worldview that requires certain postulates that only make sense if one accepts a non-materialist world-vew. Can't have it both ways, Merl.

 

Moreover, the claim that you can assess or profess your arguments as objectively "true" is not possible, based on a materialist worldview, as Plantinga showed. Ultimately, a non-religious argument claiming for itself "truth" must be self-defeating.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

[AZMike 173]

"But LOOK AT WHO CAN REFRAIN FROM HAVING THEIR CHILDREN VACCINATED: the religious. There are religious exemptions in all states except California, Mississippi and West Virginia. Only about 20 states allow some kind of nonreligious exemption. This religious-only exemption is probably unconstitutional, by the way (see Welsh v. United States)."

 

Looking at this map, I see numerous examples of non-religious (philosophical and medical) exemptions. So even an atheist goofball who doesn't want his kid vaccinated can find a way. If we look at some of the loudest proponents of non-vaccination, they include people who are not religious, unless you define religion as self-obsession (which would make Hollywood the most religious city on earth), or other goofy philosophical ideas - although probably no more goofy than Sam Harris's attempts at "philosophy." You don't have to be religious to have nutball ideas.

 

I note that the BSA also provides an exception for anyone whose religious beliefs do not provide for vaccination (it is right there in the Personal Fitness Merit Badge Book: If meeting any of the requirements for this merit badge is against the Scouts religious convictions, the requirement does not have to be done if the Scouts parents and the proper religious advisors state in writing that to do so would be against religious convictions.) Maybe they should an exception for those who are non-religious but also ninnies, like Jenny McCarthy.

 

Kind of a side-issue, though. As I said, there are numerous other stupid beliefs held by atheists and secularists in general which don't require religion, and many of those are deferred to for no reason, like the many academics who still hold with Marxism.

 

"Notice I'm arguing against ALL stupid ideas; I'm pointing out that stupid RELIGIOUS ideas are often deferred to (for no reason). There are still states that have religious exemptions for treating sick children just with faith healing. I don't know of any states that have similar exemptions for quack medicine. "

 

If you take a look through your phone book, you can probably find any number of ads for Chiropractic medicine, which is recognized by most state medical regulatory agencies, despite a clear lack of 1) acceptable scientific evidence, or 2) any religious connection.

 

I think I can safely make the same claims for homeopathy.

 

Your point again?

[AZMike 173]

Sorry, forgot to post the map to which I referred. It's late and I'm tired.

 

http://www.nvic.org/vaccine-laws/state-vaccine-requirements.aspx

[Peregrinator 85]

I said religion is the only way someone can get away with ridiculous things like rubbing water on someone and praying and successfully defend their assertion that they have provided medical care.

 

Well, of course. Since only people who follow a religion (to a greater or lesser degree) pray, this is a tautology. But if you take out the "and praying" clause --

 

I said religion is the only way someone can get away with ridiculous things like rubbing water on someone and successfully defend their assertion that they have provided medical care.

 

-- then you are quite wrong. Do you earnestly believe that medical quackery is the sole province of religion? Snake oil -- was that religious? Radiothor?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

AZMike writes:

You are claiming a right to a worldview that requires certain postulates that only make sense if one accepts a non-materialist world-vew.

 

No, I'm not. I'm saying stupid ideas should be pointed out as stupid, even if they're religious ideas. Religious people can (and do) this also (but typically only about other religions, not their own).

 

Moreover, the claim that you can assess or profess your arguments as objectively "true" is not possible, based on a materialist worldview, as Plantinga showed.

 

Platinga's attempt at sleight-of-hand regarding 'truth' is certainly not convincing to me.

 

you do experience sympathy, empathy, guilt, etc., BECAUSE you are something more than what a materialist, non-religious POV posits you are, i.e., a flesh-bag of chemical reactions.

 

Cite.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Peregrinator writes:

I said religion is the only way someone can get away with ridiculous things like rubbing water on someone and praying and successfully defend their assertion that they have provided medical care.

 

Well, of course. Since only people who follow a religion (to a greater or lesser degree) pray, this is a tautology. But if you take out the "and praying" clause --

 

Then what? Are you saying that, if parents of a sick child just rub water on him/her, that this would be regarded as sufficient medical care? Where?

 

Add the "praying" part, and, in most US states, the answer is "yes". But where is the answer "yes" without it?

 

I said religion is the only way someone can get away with ridiculous things like rubbing water on someone and successfully defend their assertion that they have provided medical care.

 

-- then you are quite wrong. Do you earnestly believe that medical quackery is the sole province of religion?

 

No. Re-read what I wrote.

 

"I said religion is the only way someone can get away with ridiculous things like rubbing water on someone and successfully defend their assertion that they have provided medical care."

 

Where is a successful non-religious defense of something so stupid?

[packsaddle 753]

"Are you asking if I believe the government should provide some share of the health care for certain specified groups?"

An answer to that question would be OK, especially if you explain how the groups are defined and how much of a share. Or it could include government paying the cost...it doesn't have to be a government doctor or clinic.

[Peregrinator 85]

Then what? Are you saying that, if parents of a sick child just rub water on him/her, that this would be regarded as sufficient medical care? Where?

 

I took "rubbing water" as an example. Did you mean it to be specific? History is rife with other examples, such as patent medicines to help your kids sleep which contained alcohol and opium.

 

Do you know of many examples in which religious people merely "rub water" on their children, pray, and do nothing else? I'm not terribly familiar with this phenomenon.

 

Where is a successful non-religious defense of something so stupid?

 

Surely you're familiar with the proliferation of alternative medicine practitioners? There are even people who take their children to the chiropractor when their children are ill. Do you regard that as religious? How about pediatric reflexology? There are even insurance companies that will pay for alternative medicine treatments -- I don't know of any that will pay for water to be rubbed on oneself.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Peregrinator writes:

I took "rubbing water" as an example. Did you mean it to be specific?

 

No.

 

History is rife with other examples, such as patent medicines to help your kids sleep which contained alcohol and opium.

 

You still aren't addressing my point. I'm not merely referring to quack medicine.

 

I'm referring to quack medicine + successfully arguing that sufficient medical care was applied.

 

Do you know of many examples in which religious people merely "rub water" on their children, pray, and do nothing else? I'm not terribly familiar with this phenomenon.

 

Oregon only recently changed their laws so they can start prosecuting deaths like this:

http://www.examiner.com/article/faith-healing-trial-begins-another-dead-child-oregon

...

The Hickmans are members of the notorious Followers of Christ, a faith-healing church located in Oregon City, Oregon. The church preaches faith-healing and rejects modern medicine in favor of prayer and other spiritual practices such as anointing the sick with oil.

...

Church members have a lengthy history of unnecessary childhood deaths resulting from a lack of medical care. The state medical examiner's office has estimated that in the past 30 years, more than 20 children of church members have died of preventable or curable conditions.

...

 

It only took a lot of dead kids for Oregon to finally change the law:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/susan_nielsen/index.ssf/2011/05/faith_healing_finally_oregon_l.html

 

Where is a successful non-religious defense of something so stupid?

 

Surely you're familiar with the proliferation of alternative medicine practitioners?

 

Where is a successful non-religious defense of something so stupid?

As in:

Parent treats ill child using X

child dies

Parent is NOT convicted of child neglect (or similar) because they used treatment X

 

I'm asking for an example where they were acquitted (or even never charged) in the death of their child. Do you have any examples of parents using alternative medicine, their child dies, and they get off scot-free? I can find quite a few if religion is involved.

[Peregrinator 85]

I'm referring to quack medicine + successfully arguing that sufficient medical care was applied.

 

And your theory is that only religious people do this?

 

Where is a successful non-religious defense of something so stupid?

 

http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2011/06/hlaw1-1106.html

 

Scroll down to the story of Joseph Hofbauer.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Peregrinator writes:

And your theory is that only religious people do this?

 

No.

 

Scroll down to the story of Joseph Hofbauer.

...

"The court ruled, based upon expert testimony, that Josephs parents had chosen treatment for their son that was not completely rejected by all responsible medical authorities and had sought accredited medical opinions when making their decision. Several studies have proven that the metabolic treatment Joseph received could control his disease and is not as toxic as conventional treatment."

 

They went to trial, but the court ruled that their medical treatment had some validity.

 

 

PS: to clarify what I mean, you'd need a court to agree that such-and-such a treatment was essentially useless, but the parents got off anyway.

 

(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)