Fear of western medicine claims another victim

[iNow]

There's the answer to your question right there. If religion did not exist, nutjobs like this would find other excuses to not take care of their children. Blaming it on religion is a shallow, vapid claim.

 

It was precisely her belief in god which was reinforced through her religion and lifelong indoctrination which led to her failure to care for her children (almost exactly as what happened with the parents of Kara the diabetics case we discussed earlier in the thread).

 

Explain to me how it is that you can rationalize to yourself that my claim that religion is deserving of some blame in these issues is "shallow and vapid."

 

 

I must say... You seem to have missed my larger point... Religion makes it far too easy to justify and rationalize such unreasonable acts. I would even argue that... despite the fact that stupid people will always exist... we'd likely see far fewer of these types of preventable issues if religion were not around making them think it was okay to act in the manner they do.

Edited December 5, 2009 by iNow

[A Tripolation]

Because she obviously has issues that are not the result of being religious. Are you really going to blame the thing she uses as an excuse and not her? If that's true, why stop there? Why not blame her parents for ever procreating in the first place? Why not place blame on every process that turned her into what she is?

That sort of recursive blame is ridiculous, and that is how I rationalize that your claim is shallow and vapid.

Blame the person that shot the gun, not the gun.

 

You seem to have missed my larger point... Religion makes it far too easy to justify and rationalize such unreasonable acts.

I did, and I apologize. But it seems to me they are punishing her regardless of her claim to religion.

 

we'd likely see far fewer of these types of preventable issues if religion were not around.

That's your opinion, and almost wholly false nowadays.

Why is it religion's fault that man skews what religion says and justifies their violence and hatred based on the misinterpretation of religion?

Edited December 5, 2009 by A Tripolation

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm also curious as to what kind of 16 and 18 year-olds watch their siblings starve to death. Most people have a job by the time they are fifteen, and/or the competence to find one or obtain government aid.

 

Not if raised by the kind of parents in question here.

[A Tripolation]

Not if raised by the kind of parents in question here.

 

Ah, excellent point Capn.

[Mr Skeptic]

iNow, I think the problem is not so much religion as irrationality. There are plenty of ways to be irrational that do not in any way invoke religious concepts. There are atheists that are more irrational then theists.

[iNow]

iNow, I think the problem is not so much religion as irrationality. There are plenty of ways to be irrational that do not in any way invoke religious concepts. There are atheists that are more irrational then theists.

 

Yes, I agree, and I even stipulated that in my post above. The point, however, is that religion provides a ready made rationalization and justification for these unreasonable actions. Without religion, the justification/rationalization would have to be found elsewhere, and those rationalizations found elsewhere would not carry with them the weight of society's acceptance, support, and encouragement.

[padren]

I think iNow's point is that while any manner of poor rationalization could be used, because she invoked the "sacred cow" of religion, her beliefs were respected long enough for her kids to get this bad, whereas other irrational defenses would have been quickly picked apart and she would have probably ended up getting a psych eval.

 

What if she believed the government was putting bad things in the food to poison her children, and aliens would provide for her family?

 

 

All in all though, I think it's beside the point: the fact that many people use alcohol in a responsible manner also masks and makes it harder to identify people who are genuinely destroying their health and livelihoods with the stuff, and I am willing to bet more people malnourish/neglect* their children due to alcoholism than religion. If there was no socially accepted consumption of alcohol it would be easier to protect those children, but it doesn't warrant such heavy handed policies.

 

 

*it is arguable that indoctrinating your kids to believe the world is 6000 years old and to ignore their science education etc/etc is a form of abuse/neglect, but a whole other topic

[iNow]

All in all though, I think it's beside the point: the fact that many people use alcohol in a responsible manner also masks and makes it harder to identify people who are genuinely destroying their health and livelihoods with the stuff, and I am willing to bet more people malnourish/neglect* their children due to alcoholism than religion. If there was no socially accepted consumption of alcohol it would be easier to protect those children, but it doesn't warrant such heavy handed policies.

Please note that I advocated no policy, but with that said I also think that calling attention to the negative aspects of alcoholism and drawing attention to those acts of "abuse" resulting from said alcoholism is not only perfectly acceptable, but a requirement for people with any integrity. I don't see why religion should be any different, and I'll continue raping sacred cows until people wake the hell up from the spell so many of them are under.

 

Were these parents morons? Yes. Would they have gotten away with their ridiculous acts of unreason were it not for those actions being cloaked in the taint which is religious belief? No. They most certainly would not have.

[A Tripolation]

Would they have gotten away with their ridiculous acts of unreason were it not for those actions being cloaked in the taint which is religious belief? No. They most certainly would not have.

 

Oh...I guess I must read English differently than you...I could've sworn that the woman was facing up to 10 years for each account of neglect...but that can't be true because she got away with it.

[walkntune]

This is an interesting link and shows the other side of the equation with medicines.

 

http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2003/10/29/medical_system_is_leading_cause_of_death_and_injury_in_us.htm

Edited December 6, 2009 by walkntune

[iNow]

Oh...I guess I must read English differently than you...I could've sworn that the woman was facing up to 10 years for each account of neglect...but that can't be true because she got away with it.

 

You obviously DO read english differently than I do, as your argument is completely moot until she actually IS convicted for 10 years for each count of neglect. Since no convictions have yet been handed out, your criticism of my point is (at present) without merit.

 

Either way, you seem to be ignoring my broader context in hopes of scoring a cheap point... essentially playing "gotcha" instead of countering my core premise. The fact remains that the likelihood of somebody taking action sooner to help those children... and the likelihood that somebody would have called this woman out as a loon for her failure to feed her kids or look for a source of income/resources... would have been assuredly and inescapably higher were it not for her couching her actions/decisions in terms of "god"... were it not for the acceptance her non-empirical, completely vacuous, faith-based beliefs hold within our society.

 

Now, we'll have to wait and see if her beliefs will be enough to prevent her from being sentenced. That remains to be seen, but the worst part is that it's even under question whether or not she'll get off for this due merely to the fact that her actions were motivated by her religious beliefs.

Edited December 6, 2009 by iNow

[A Tripolation]

The fact remains that the likelihood of somebody taking action sooner to help those children... and the likelihood that somebody would have called this woman out as a loon for her failure to feed her kids or look for a source of income/resources were it not for her couching her actions/decisions in terms of "god"... would have been assuredly and inescapably higher were it not for the acceptance her non-empirical, completely vacuous, faith-based beliefs hold within our society.

 

No sane theist I know would have ever let anything go that far. So I call BS on your statement, which is just your opinion, and not a fact. No normal christian honestly believes in such tangible intervention, and thus, wouldn't let a woman starve her kids.

And I was simply saying that your "she got away" was wrong. If it's such a cheap point then maybe you should try and clarify next time. But IIRC, getting CAUGHT and going to JAIL is NOT getting away with it.

 

And if anything, she won't go to jail due to an insanity plea, not because of religion.

 

Oh dam. "..." is the one logic structure I can't counter. Props on that awesome display right there.

Edited December 6, 2009 by A Tripolation

[iNow]

...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Oh dam. "..." is the one logic structure I can't counter. Props on that awesome display right there.

Get a grip, A_Trip. I had posted a response which was more personal and mocking than I felt was appropriate, and so I came back to delete it... hence, my ellipsis. The ellipsis was merely to overwrite the previous text, and satisfy the requirement vbulletin has of a post containing at least three characters prior to allowing submission. Unfortunately, non-staff at SFN don't have the option to delete a post, even when others have not yet responded to it.

 

So, as I said at the start, get a grip. And, btw... It's spelled "Damn"... There are no spinning turbines to be found in this context, Hoover or otherwise.

Edited December 6, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Why should trip have to "get a grip" because he didn't know why your post apparently consisted of only an ellipsis?

 

Despite your best efforts, you have still made this too personal for reasonable argument to survive.

[iNow]

Why should trip have to "get a grip" because he didn't know why your post apparently consisted of only an ellipsis?

If he truly did not know why my post consisted only of an ellipsis, then he shouldn't have responded in the manner which he did, Cap'n (or he should not have responded at all to the ellipsis, or should have made his response an inquiry instead of an attack if he truly felt compelled to respond). He did, however, respond, and he chose to respond in a very specific way and with a very specific tone. The fact is that your assertion that he responded the way he did due to "an uncertainty" simply does not hold up to even remedial scrutiny. It seems painfully obvious that he responded that way because he desired to attack me, a desire stemming from the fact that I openly challenged one of his sacred cows. Since he did respond, I addressed said response calmly and accurately, and I might add that your admonishing me now for it seems rather inappropriate, biased, and lacking in balance and objectivity. You enjoy your night, now.

Edited December 6, 2009 by iNow

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Further proof that assuming you know exactly what motivates someone to post something merely leads to in-thread conflict, personal attacks, and argument. It has never actually contributed to an argument or convinced the other party in a debate.

 

I refer you to this post, section "Nobody is evil", and Hanlon's Razor.

 

And if you really want to argue about this, well, don't.

 

Now, could this thread get back on topic, please?

[iNow]

Further proof that assuming you know exactly what motivates someone to post something

If you disagree with my interpretation, then fine. However, it's very likely accurate, so there's always that to consider.

 

Now, could this thread get back on topic, please?

 

Yeah, I'd love to. I was just responding to what I perceived as a personal attack. If someone punches me in the face, I tend to respond forcefully. If you're unprepared for a forceful response, then don't punch me in the face.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If you disagree with my interpretation, then fine. However, it's very likely accurate, so there's always that to consider.

 

Regardless of its accuracy, it is still pointless and disruptive. You might be right, in which case you just helped derail the thread further; you might be wrong, in which case you insulted someone and helped derail the thread further.

 

But anyway... are there any good examples of parents justifying their terrible child care through reasons other than religion? Or do parents who treat kids terribly and don't use religion as their excuse just use no excuse at all?

 

I mean, look how many people there are who abuse their children just, well, because. Can we establish religion leads people to neglect their kids' safety, or do they pick it up as an excuse for a pre-existing behavior?

[iNow]

are there any good examples of parents justifying their terrible child care through reasons other than religion?

 

One example which immediately springs to mind is the refusal to offer their children vaccinations... like even flu vaccines. That (IMO) constitutes terrible child care (especially for folks like myself who are immunocompromised), and they justify it (oddly enough) through a desire to protect their children. When you break it down, though, it has zero to do with religious belief... so seems to meet your criteria. How these parents justify it seems (in my mind) more related to ignorance, misunderstanding, and the acceptance of half-truths than anything else.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Can we establish religion leads people to neglect their kids' safety

 

Hasn't this already been established from the case of Kara the diabetic girl, and these kids in the story I just recently shared who went malnourished and without food for 11 days because their mom didn't do anything to find work or food since "god would provide for them?" I'm not saying that this occurs in all cases... That would be both unfair to most theists and also plainly untrue. However, it can lead to such unreasonable choices/decisions, and often does, so can't we accept that premise as valid and discuss it as given?

Edited December 6, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

But was that "religion leading to neglect" or "religion providing a means for idiocy to manifest itself"?

 

I mean, consider the parents. There are two options (at least):

• They were intelligent, normal folks who were so caught up in their religion they thought it was best not to treat their daughter, because God would handle it.
  
• They were already the sort of people who would not give their kids vaccinations because they "cause autism", withdraw them from public school because of the evils of teaching evolution, and so on, and this religious belief was a natural extension from that.
  

 

In other words: does religion make stupid, or does religion + pre-existing stupid = bad things?

[iNow]

They are not mutually exclusive, but my own (rather biased and insensitive) interpretation is that religious belief tends to attract more stupid people than educated/critical thinkers. There are, of course, outliers, but I'm speaking of the mean population.

 

This would suggest that stupid comes first, and when coupled with religion, it can very often lead to bad things... But... as I said... not mutually exclusive. Religion rather often does make stupid people who would otherwise be pretty bright. I work with several people like that.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What do you mean "attract"? Most people are either raised religious or not. There's not much choice involved.

 

As for making people stupid... what do you mean? Is this "evolution is wrong, God speaks to me at night" sort of stuff or "Where's the 'any key'?" stupid? Or, in other words, is it a total lack of critical thinking ability or merely the bypass of that ability for certain core beliefs installed by religion?

[Mr Skeptic]

Unfortunately, non-staff at SFN don't have the option to delete a post, even when others have not yet responded to it.

 

Well for one thing, there is no way to know if someone is in the process of responding to a post.

 

Also, you can give a reason for editing, or edit to post to say "deleted". A response of "..." is hardly ever a deleted post, so why would you expect people to guess that it is?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Hasn't this already been established from the case of Kara the diabetic girl, and these kids in the story I just recently shared who went malnourished and without food for 11 days because their mom didn't do anything to find work or food since "god would provide for them?" I'm not saying that this occurs in all cases... That would be both unfair to most theists and also plainly untrue. However, it can lead to such unreasonable choices/decisions, and often does, so can't we accept that premise as valid and discuss it as given?

 

But is there any way to tell whether it was religion that lead to the neglect, or that religion was just a convenient excuse for the neglect? Consider we have just had an example in this thread involving you, of what can happen when you assume things you don't know about the intentions of other people.

[padren]

Firstly: She is on trial and even if she hasn't been convicted yet, she is "being held to account" for her irrational actions. Her children have been getting fed since authorities determined their condition (thank god ) and she is on track to account for her unacceptable behavior. Being charged with a crime and standing trial is not the same as "getting away with" as her freedom is being inhibited.

 

Secondly, she had gotten away with it right up until the time she was charged. I think this was iNow's main point. However, if I read things right the main issue is she got away with it for so long because it's taboo to interfere with someone's religious convictions unless the situation gets very well out of hand, and the concern is in her case it was allowed to get out of hand for this reason.

 

If that is so, I am not certain of this. I think if it was known she made no effort to feed her kids even after one or two days she would have been reported regardless of her reasons. The cabin that is described sounds rather isolated and I have no idea to what degree the church officials that were helping her stay there discussed their food situation. It's been stated that she did not try to obtain food from them and I seriously doubt they were aware her kids were starving.

 

I don't think anyone was aware until authorities interviewed the children at the cabin. From what I can tell in the story, it was dealt with immediately.

 

 

All I see that is relevant is that (1) she is a complete loon who (2) used religion to justify her loony and harmful actions to herself. I don't see any evidence any of her abusive behavior was tolerated by anyone at anytime for any reason.

 

I will say though, she probably exhibited signs of being a complete nutter, that were indistinguishable from signs of being "a very religious person" that if caught early, would have helped her children avoid all that hardship. I have to agree that mental illness is much harder to identify when the sufferer obsesses on religion, because is not subject to reason. When someone is scared of aliens living in the trees it's easy to red flag. When they are scared of an immortal entity living under the dirt it's not paranoia, it's religion.

 

In a world with no religion, she would probably have failed a mental health evaluation (become irrational about something else) and her kids would not have been in harms way. However, I doubt her actions were tolerated by anyone with any clue about the manner of her children's suffering.

[swansont]

Yeah, I'd love to. I was just responding to what I perceived as a personal attack. If someone punches me in the face, I tend to respond forcefully. If you're unprepared for a forceful response, then don't punch me in the face.

 

I think the staff have been pretty consistent in saying that this is precisely what we don't want people to do. Personal attacks are not acceptable. That they are in response to a (perceived) personal attack is not justification for one.