Greedy mother abandons children for God

[Myles]

For a scientist, you have the confidence of a fanatic religionist.

Has it occured to you that he may be one of the chosen and ought to be listened to with respect and admiration.

You may be one of the non-chosen by virtue of which you will be unaware that you are non-chosen and, in consequence ofwhich , you will regard the chosen as non- chosen.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should spend the rest of out "MORTAL" lives sitting on a metaphysical fence ?

 

[greenberg]

I'm confident in what can be demonstrated or exemplified. I stand by my statements because they are accurate. Moreover, you've done nothing to dispel their accuracy with your posts that say nothing more substantive than, "oh yeah?"

The sort of confidence that you have - I suspect that even months of intense study and discussion of the inherent problems of the Scientific Method could not make the tiniest dent into it.

Not because the SM would be so good and flawless. But because what is at stake for you in these discussions is not science and its methods, but something else, something which you defend with all powers.

 

[Laser Eyes]

However, the decision we are considering presumes that there is an immortal soul that does eventually find judgment, and either goes on to Heaven or else burns forever or is annihilated, or any number of variations on condemnation, punishment, and Hell. Pick one. I don't care which. But the fact you assert, and which I am more than simply willing to agree with, is irrelevant to the ideas and decision we are considering.

If you are still talking about Ms Gough then your presumption is incorrect and irrelevant. Although I'm not a Jehovah's Witness I do know what they beleive. They take the view that there is no immortal soul that goes to heaven or burns forever or whatever. When Ms Gough chose to refuse a blood transfusion she did it believing that she was in fact saving her life for herself and for her children.

 

[Myles]

Once upon a time people knew what was at stake if they dared question the "certainties" of religion. Our world was ruled by the superstitious for the superstitious. Then came the ENLIGHTENMENT for a very small minority who chose to think for themselves . The rest of humankind have chosen to cling to their superstition bcause thinking for oneself is a hard business; much easier to leave it to someone else who can tell us what to believe.

What problems have you with the scientific method ?

 

[Myles]

Your opinions on life are not completely alien to me, but the above statement is. I live in the U.K. where I feel more persecuted by atheists. Dawkins carries on like some pontificating Bishop over here encouraging more corrosive individualism when what our country needs is something which will bring people together and create safe communities and social responsibility. O.K... blah, blah, blah.... it's not relevant to the discussion but it is to the U.K. We may actually need more religion (err...but not Christianity ironically).

Who persecutes you and in what manner ?

I accept your point about Dawkins. His presentation gets in the way of his message but,he can offer some serious evidence to support his views.I am not aware that he persecutes anyone. In fact, he has calmed down lately . He is much less strident nowadays than he was in the past

We may get more religion than we bargained for if we get the faith schools currently under discussion. As you well know there are deep divisions within society here because of religion. I believe faith schools should be resisted because they will only make matters worse.

 

[Tiassa]

Although I'm not a Jehovah's Witness I do know what they beleive. They take the view that there is no immortal soul that goes to heaven or burns forever or whatever.

Thank you, Laser Eyes. I had not realized that minor theological point. Okay, it's not minor in the comparative, but it is for our purposes here.

Whatsoever we do or do not do: Regardless of what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe about the final nature of redemption, though, we do have as clear a guide as we're going to get from the Bible about how to earn redemption: Whatsoever we do (or do not do) unto the least of His brethren, so also we do unto him.

As many Christians remind themselves on a regular basis, Jesus Christ went to Hell for people. Returning to the central question: Ms. Gough would not so much as risk that for her children. She pursued exclusively her reward.

What would Jesus do? We already know. Jesus would go to Hell.

 

[SkinWalker]

The sort of confidence that you have - I suspect that even months of intense study and discussion of the inherent problems of the Scientific Method could not make the tiniest dent into it.

Not because the SM would be so good and flawless. But because what is at stake for you in these discussions is not science and its methods, but something else, something which you defend with all powers.

It's interesting that my points are so flawed that the best you can muster to counter them are ad hominem ripostes rather than responses that address the points themselves. Where are they flawed? What is the mistake I've made in my assessment? Your implication is that flaws and mistakes exist, yet you avoid addressing this and seek only to insult my understanding of science and the methods used?

This is the case often, however, when rational thought is met with irrational beliefs.

 

[Myles]

as clear a guide as we're going to get from the Bible about how to earn redemption: Whatsoever we do (or do not do) unto the least of His brethren, so also[/COLOR

What would Jesus do? We already know. Jesus would go to Hell.

If that's as clear a guide as we can get from the Bible why limit ourselves. Therte are lots of other holy books we could consult.

You may already know that Jesus would go to Hell. I don't. I don't believe he went in the first place.

 

[Tiassa]

If that's as clear a guide as we can get from the Bible why limit ourselves. Therte are lots of other holy books we could consult.

Yes, indeed. But the Bible is the holy book most relevant to this issue.

 

[greenberg]

It's interesting that my points are so flawed that the best you can muster to counter them are ad hominem ripostes rather than responses that address the points themselves. Where are they flawed? What is the mistake I've made in my assessment? Your implication is that flaws and mistakes exist, yet you avoid addressing this and seek only to insult my understanding of science and the methods used?

This is the case often, however, when rational thought is met with irrational beliefs.

You called that woman:

Any time the supernatural (i.e. fantasy and delusion) are chosen over flesh and blood, then the one choosing the supernatural can be said to be completely and utterly batshit.

But, assuming that we accept that she truly believed that her "eternal soul" (whatever that is) was at stake, she was, indeed, greedy since she chose something that has no evidence to support over raising her own children and ensuring their survival. She was a greedy bitch.

A "greedy bitch"?

And a scientist who says that is to be taken seriously?
And a moderator, to boot?

By calling her a "greedy bitch" you have shown what your scope is.
This might be SciForums and a "rough place" and all that. But I would expect better from a scientist and a moderator.

I'm not going to discuss this any further with you, because in my estimation, someone who uses terms like "greedy bitch" cannot be reasonably discussed with.

 

[SkinWalker]

That's all you have. For all your ad hominem protestations; for all your attempts to rebuke me without substance, the best you can muster is that I expressed an opinion that the woman in question was a greedy bitch to be the sole point that proves I have no understanding of science and its methods?

I would say that with such an assessment, you'll have difficulty finding reasonable discussion with anyone.

What this really boils down to is that you haven't a single rational point to make, so you chose ad hominem responses and contrived affrontment to escape rational discourse. What if I deleted those five words? What if they were never uttered? Would you then be in agreeance with me? Would you have suddenly had an epiphany of rational thought and made a real response in stead of ad hominem remarks? I doubt it.

You aren't refusing to discuss this any further with me because of those five words; you're refusing to discuss it further because you haven't any rational means. Stick with fallacy pal. I'm sure it'll get you were you want to go.

 

[Baron Max]

...; for all your attempts to rebuke me without substance, the best you can muster is that I expressed an opinion that the woman in question was a greedy bitch to be the sole point that proves I have no understanding of science and its methods?

No, it proves that you've already made up your mind and aren't willing to listen to any reasonable discussion on the matter.

If you hadn't already condemnded the woman for her actions, then you wouldn't have called her a "greedy bitch" ...proof positive that you have a closed mind to the subject at hand.

Baron Max

 

[SkinWalker]

Why should one have an open mind about superstitions that disallow you from accepting proven and effective medical care that saves lives. Had she done so, her children would still have a mother. Her husband would still have a wife. Her parents would still have a daughter. Instead, she allowed her greed to override her decisions. Greed is an excessive and uncontrolled desire for money, wealth, status, etc. In this case she desired the status provided by an excessive display of piety.

Paranormalists are always trying to criticize rationalists for not having minds open to stupidity and superstition.

 

[Myles]

Paranormalists are always trying to criticize rationalists for not having minds open to stupidity and superstition

The problem in having an open mind, especially in children, is that someone may fill it full of shit.

 

[ashura]

Paranormalists are always trying to criticize rationalists for not having minds open to stupidity and superstition

The problem in having an open mind, especially in children, is that someone may fill it full of shit.

Hey Miles, what's up with all your quotes being messed up? I think you're missing the [/quote] tag somewhere. Maybe you change it to [/color]?

 

[Baron Max]

Why should one have an open mind about superstitions that disallow you from accepting proven and effective medical care that saves lives.

Because that was her belief. Why are you so set on telling others what to believe and what not to believe? Is that, somehow, your role in the world? And worse, you're calling someone else's beliefs "superstitions" when you don't know that it is. You and Tiassa are just terribly intolerant of others, of their beliefs, of the way they wish to run their lives, etc. Why?

What else do you think that "we, the peope" should force all others to do or to think or to believe? And if they don't, what would you do with them?

Her husband would still have a wife. Her parents would still have a daughter.

And yet they aren't the ones complaining about it ....you are! Why?

And please don't bring up the bullshit about "rational" this and that ...because when you do, it sounds like your religion, the "Religion of Rational Thinking" ...and more to the point, it sounds like you're preaching ...which is apparently what you and Tiassa both hate.

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

You know, Max, there is a solution here: Just tell yourself that unmitigated self interest is the purpose of life and society. So maybe Skin and I disagree with the assertion, but if you don't like that common point of our outlook, are you then arguing that unmitigated self-interest is a good thing?

Or would you be arguing something more along the lines that pursuit of one's own salvation above all else isn't selfish? Like Laser Eyes' assertion: he's tried to turn that self-interest into a form of generosity for which the Gough twins ought to be grateful. I might disagree with that notion, but at that point we're wrangling more over theological outcomes than anything else.

Or are you just arguing because you don't like the people who make certain points?

 

[Baron Max]

You know, Max, there is a solution here: Just tell yourself that unmitigated self interest is the purpose of life and society. So maybe Skin and I disagree with the assertion, but if you don't like that common point of our outlook, are you then arguing that unmitigated self-interest is a good thing?

I have no idea what that means. Can you re-type it and use little, tiny words, and small sentences like those used in "See Spot Run"?

Or would you be arguing something more along the lines that pursuit of one's own salvation above all else isn't selfish?

But if that was her belief, then who are you to tell her what to believe and what not to believe? See? That's what I don't get with you ...you're basically trying to run everyone else's life, yet you can't see that that's "preaching" in the very same way that you claim to hate when preachers "preach".

I can understand, for example, that you would not choose the way she chose. I get it that you even don't "approve" of it. But to constantly denigrate the woman and her beliefs is just ....nasty and mean and intolerant and ....all those other similar words. It reminds me, for example, of how racists speak ...hateful, mean, nasty, ....just like you're doing against people who believe differently than you.

Baron Max

 

[Grantywanty]

Greed is an excessive and uncontrolled desire for money, wealth, status, etc. In this case she desired the status provided by an excessive display of piety.

Really. Is that your psychoanalysis? I really don't know how you are so certain she was being greedy.

Couldn't she be gullible and scared to disobey an authority? (an authority who she has been trained to think is loving and so will in some way take care of her children. And there is no need to point out the problems in her logic. I agree with you. But your analysis of what her internal attitude MUST have been seems like an unnecessary hallucination on your part. She CAN'T be simply gullible and foolish; she MUST also be mean spirited.)

Are you sure she died rubbing her hands, expectant and optimistic?

I can't see any reason to assume her attitude was so mercenary.

Why are you so confident in your ability to read her mind?

Honestly, to be so sure that her internal state was one of greed after status makes me wonder how many different kinds of people you have come in contact with.

 

[greenberg]

You know, Max, there is a solution here: Just tell yourself that unmitigated self interest is the purpose of life and society.

But is it really serving your unmitigated self-interest to criticize some other people the way you do?

Criticizing some other people the way you criticize the woman in the OP and those like her - is this really serving your unmitigated self-interest in the best way possible?


I feel with everyone who suffers under Christian oppression in one way or another.

But so many people are attempting to get from under that oppression in ways where they end up harming themselves and others, and often making the oppression even worse.
So many people are swallowing poison - in the hopes that the other person will get hurt.

Seeking to figure out rational arguments against Christianity takes enormous amounts of time and energy. And the Christians don't care about those arguments anyway.
Don't you think there is a better way to spend that time and energy?


It seems to me that the main fear or problem that many atheists and rationalists have is that if they don't actively disagree with and disprove the theist and irrational claims, that this will imply that they support those claims or that those claims are true.
And of course, many theists will jump in and say "If you atheists and rationalists don't have good arguments against ours, this means that our arguments are true and you are obligated to accept them!" Unfortunately, many atheists and rationalists bite into that bait.

But it is not necessary to bite into that bait. And it's not necessary to feel bad if one doesn't have convicning arguments for or against every claim ever made.