The Ends of Religious Tolerance

[ToadBrother]

why do you all avoid my obvious central point here?

The title of the thread is "THE ENDS OF RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE", what I am deploring is the state of affairs which tolerates and even encourages attitudes such as that of the parents of Julianna Wetmore...

the growing lunacy that ordains that every human is somehow a miracle and gift of god, and that we're all the same inside, and that we should never opt for abortions.

That's what I'm attacking here... there was scarcely any talk of murdering, killing anyone... my point in creating this thread was to show what happens when fevered liberal/egalitarian minds are permitted to display their irrationality and (in this case) cruelty.

I don't know how this got twisted up into a semantics debate, in which people tried to make me call her a specific name for some random reason... or how we drifted unto me personally...

Because you're a eugenics-advocating racist. Your very nature creates the context for every post. You created this, not anyone else.

[Oleg Bach]

Because you're a eugenics-advocating racist. Your very nature creates the context for every post. You created this, not anyone else.

He's boyish in his depth when it comes to human existance and understanding that those that advocate eugenics are usually people that should be the first to go...This is always the case. Beware of anyone playing GOD. History has determined that all those that pay god have sorry endings..not one evil person has done well - all fall away in shame at the end - Hitlerism is based on simply being a mindless trouble maker.

[lictor616]

He's boyish in his depth when it comes to human existance and understanding that those that advocate eugenics are usually people that should be the first to go...This is always the case. Beware of anyone playing GOD. History has determined that all those that pay god have sorry endings..not one evil person has done well - all fall away in shame at the end - Hitlerism is based on simply being a mindless trouble maker.

isn't it the people who are artificially preserving julianna's painfilled life the ones "playing god"?

[lictor616]

And perhaps it is indeed love.

A personal story here......my sister was born VERY prematurely. Not sure exactly by how long, but the doctors told my Mom and Dad (R.I.P. to both) it would be best to leave her out of the incubator and let her pass on naturally. They said she'd likely never see her 5th birthday, may be mentally handicapped, all the bad stuff.

My Mom and Dad decided to give her a chance. They kept her in the incubator, did everything they could to keep her alive.

My sister today is 54 years old. She has 2 kids of her own, both now adults, both healthy, both wonderful people and hard workers.

She has been a registered nurse for over 30 years.

It appears that my parents, who made a decision against the doctor's advice, not only saved one little girl, but indirectly contributed to saving others via her participation in the medical trade.

Doctors are not always right. They too are only human.

Maybe Julianna's parents were simply taking the same chance my folks did, and doing so out of love.

Unless you have the ability to look inside their minds, then we cannot discard that possibility.

no way of verifying this story... perhaps doctors wereN,t as "on-the-dot" in the 50's...

this is nothing like julianna's plight though... your sister I wager can still show her face in public without making people convulse in shock and horror on the floor.

[GostHacked]

Lictor

isn't it the people who are artificially preserving julianna's painfilled life the ones "playing god"?

We play god more often than you think. Many people are brought back from the brink of death more often that we think. If god is not willing to help, some doctor will gladly step up for the challenge. Babies born with certain ailments have a better chance today than ever. Our modern medicine has advanced greatly because of people like Julianna. If we did not see this problem, there would never have been an attempt at a solution.

It's not just for Julianna, but it's also for everyone that comes after her with her condition.

[Shwa]

""The title of the thread is "THE ENDS OF RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE", what I am deploring is the state of affairs which tolerates and even encourages attitudes such as that of the parents of Julianna Wetmore..."

I don't think anyone is really avoiding your main point, but have amply voided your conclusion by proving your premises to be false or untenable. Didn't you know people debate and argue like that?

As for any eugenics comments, Melanie put that one to rest a few pages ago. Thanks Melanie!

[PocketRocket]

no way of verifying this story... perhaps doctors wereN,t as "on-the-dot" in the 50's...

Of course not, at least not without me trying to dig up medical records which are over 50 years old (which I'm not sure would even be possible due to the confidential nature of medical information), that's why I stated it's a personal story. I am sure, however, that there are other stories of people who survived against the medical odds.

this is nothing like julianna's plight though... your sister I wager can still show her face in public without making people convulse in shock and horror on the floor.

Also true, but the point is that the parents MAY (note the indefinite nature of the statement) have thought that the doctor COULD HAVE (indefinite again) been mistaken. I can see someone rolling against long odds with love as their sole motivation.

Bottom line, though, is that the call was theirs to make, not yours or mine.

As Julianna grows up, they'll continue to bear their own pain based on how well she integrates.

I envy neither her nor them.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Lictor you going to keep ignoring me? guess I'll post it again.

Just because this family is religous doesn't mean that there aren't families out there that do the same thing regardless of religon. Having your child or not is not a religous issue, while religon might factor in some case it is not the decideing factor. Chalking this situation, and by extension all situations like this, up to religon is moronic.

You are an idiot, show me were I called you gay, and show me where I said your were worthy of death (I probably did say it just can't remember where).

[lictor616]

Lictor you going to keep ignoring me? guess I'll post it again.

Just because this family is religous doesn't mean that there aren't families out there that do the same thing regardless of religon. Having your child or not is not a religous issue, while religon might factor in some case it is not the decideing factor. Chalking this situation, and by extension all situations like this, up to religon is moronic.

You are an idiot, show me were I called you gay, and show me where I said your were worthy of death (I probably did say it just can't remember where).

Well that's hardly an excuse is it?! Because some other families impose nonsense decisions on their children... taht makes Julianna story's A-ok?!

and please no... the defining factor ABSOLUTELY IS religion in this case... the parents were pretty clear in explaining that their opposition to abortion is based on the bible (hence based on faith not reason or intellect)... again i'm not sure if you are agreeing with julianna's parents... or like rational most humans deplore their decision.

and I'm not going to trace back taht comment.. however ToadBrother was the one who called me gay in another post..

you did say something to the effect that I deserve death... but that's thread drift.

[Thomas Kwon]

Why do people still believe in god(s) when scientific facts and theory shows no "god" in explaining everything.

As far as Julianna's story is concerned, she should not have been kept alive. She cost millions of tax dollar money on her surgical procedures, and she will cost the taxpayers more should she be kept alive. Also, do we really have the right to "fix" the hypothetical god's plan with man-made technology? Do we really have the right to keep alive a suffereing individual despite the burden on the taxpayers?

All that taxpayer's money spent on Julianna's surgeries could have gone to people that could have used it, like affordable housing, public shelters, schools, and foreign aids.

Religion is !@#$%^&^&*

[Shwa]

"Why do people still believe in god(s) when scientific facts and theory shows no "god" in explaining everything."

What "scientific facts and theory" are you talking about exactly?

[Guest TrueMetis]

"Why do people still believe in god(s) when scientific facts and theory shows no "god" in explaining everything."

What "scientific facts and theory" are you talking about exactly?

The facts of morons who make me ashamed to be an athiest.

[lictor616]

"Why do people still believe in god(s) when scientific facts and theory shows no "god" in explaining everything."

What "scientific facts and theory" are you talking about exactly?

if I may answer for the gentleman.... geology, archeology and astronomy.... all are fields that can verify that the age of the earth its mechanism is much older then anything any sacred text ever asserted....

Edited November 1, 2009 by lictor616

[Guest American Woman]

if I may answer for the gentleman.... geology, archeology and astronomy.... all are fields that can verify that the age of the earth its mechanism is much older then anything any sacred text ever asserted....

That proves nothing, other than that "sacred text," written by humans, is evidently wrong. That isn't proof that there wasn't/isn't a higher power in existence; it's just proof of man's limitations.

[Thomas Kwon]

That proves nothing, other than that "sacred text," written by humans, is evidently wrong. That isn't proof that there wasn't/isn't a higher power in existence; it's just proof of man's limitations.

I cannot recaull the source, but from one of many books sitting on my shelf, it said something along the lines of

"no current scientific theories need 'god' to be functional. there is a logical and scientific explanation for every step of the way. in no way is this entity of god required to exist in order for what we have today to exist"

something along those lines.

[Guest American Woman]

I cannot recaull the source, but from one of many books sitting on my shelf, it said something along the lines of

"no current scientific theories need 'god' to be functional. there is a logical and scientific explanation for every step of the way. in no way is this entity of god required to exist in order for what we have today to exist"

something along those lines.

That's someone's opinion, because science can't, and doesn't, always explain the intangible; and I'm assuming the "what we have today to exist" is the tangible. Otherwise that statement is false.

[lictor616]

That proves nothing, other than that "sacred text," written by humans, is evidently wrong. That isn't proof that there wasn't/isn't a higher power in existence; it's just proof of man's limitations.

well you already concede that the silly collection of dreary nonsense called the bible is "evidently wrong" and hence... worthless... which is mainly what concerns us here... yet you would defend people who would order their lives on it and make decisions based on the flawed book...

There is a complete absence of proof for any god... logically, there is no evidence against it... since god doesn't exist he can't be disproven.

negative evidence is not evidence...

[Guest American Woman]

well you already concede that the silly collection of dreary nonsense called the bible is "evidently wrong" and hence... worthless...

Science has been wrong about things in the past, too, but that doesn't make science worthless, does it?

which is mainly what concerns us here... yet you would defend people who would order their lives on it and make decisions based on the flawed book...

I'm not "defending" their decision, and I can't believe you didn't get that from my posts; and the Bible has nothing to do with my beliefs about it. You say they made their choice simply because they are religious, but maybe they are religious because of the kind of people they are. You don't know which is the cause and which is the effect.

There is a complete absence of proof for any god... logically, there is no evidence against it... since god doesn't exist he can't be disproven.

Since he can't be disproved, you can't say he doesn't exist. All you can say is you don't believe he exists.

negative evidence is not evidence...

Nor is no evidence that there is a god "evidence" that there isn't. Best we can do is believe what we believe. No one has the answers, we just all have our beliefs.

[dre]

The crux of this case seems to be the cost... In order for any medical system to work there has to be some level of rationing. Unfortunately at some point cost has to be a factor, and its probably just a matter of the threshhold.

This project cost 5 million so far.... Would you be ok with ten million? what about 100 million? What about a billion?

So people trott out the usual "I dont want forced government abortions!" argument, as if the only two choices are spending utterly limitless ammounts of money on cases like this, or sending government "death squads" down to the hospital each time a child is born to assess their potential healthcare costs throughout their lives.

Thats a bullshit choice. A false choice.

But the government HAS to ration healthcare, and EVERY healthcare system does. So its just a matter of deciding how and when. In cases where theres zero chances of a person ever being able to live unplugged from the system sometimes tough choices should be made. We already discontinue treatment for cost reasons all the time.

[lictor616]

Science has been wrong about things in the past, too, but that doesn't make science worthless, does it?

no science, has a far far far better record then religion... hugely better actually. It is an infinitely better "truth tool" then any of the religions combined. and what a ridiculous comment btw...

[lictor616]

I'm not "defending" their decision, and I can't believe you didn't get that from my posts; and the Bible has nothing to do with my beliefs about it. You say they made their choice simply because they are religious

thats what they affirmed themselves... the bottom line is that 99% of non religious people would have opted for abortion... and this tragedy could have been avoided. You know, and I know and you know that I know that you know that's a fact.

[lictor616]

Since he can't be disproved, you can't say he doesn't exist. All you can say is you don't believe he exists.

Nor is no evidence that there is a god "evidence" that there isn't. Best we can do is believe what we believe. No one has the answers, we just all have our beliefs.

why "he"?

And no, thats a logical fallacy, there is no evidence that pixies exist... or flying macaroni dragons in space for that matter... therefore we understand people who want to believe in them? without a shred of palpable evidence?

belief should be at least based on SOME evidence... not lack of it...

If I say that I went skiing on Saturn's rings last night... or jogged on Pluto... would you say that well... "you can't be sure" since you cannot verify my claim? Nonsense! Lack of evidence is not evidence. and should be treated as such...

a claim that a god exists should be given no amount of credibility until suitable evidence is offered. Small claims require small evidence. BIG claims require BIGGER evidence.

[Shwa]

"no current scientific theories need 'god' to be functional"

You could also say that no current scientific theories need 'morality' to be functional. But that does not prove that morality does not exist or that people should not be moral or that science does not need morality. Something along those lines. However I am hoping that at least some scientists have good morals.

[Guest American Woman]

why "he"?

I was responding to your post, where you had said "he," so I guess you best ask yourself that question.

And no, thats a logical fallacy, there is no evidence that pixies exist... or flying macaroni dragons in space for that matter... therefore we understand people who want to believe in them? without a shred of palpable evidence?

I think some would argue that there's no "palpable evidence" of the existence of a higher being.

As for Pixies or flying macaroni dragons in space, who knows what exists in space? Some believe in life on other planets, some don't. Again, that's something we have no evidence of, so if you want to believe there are pixies and flying macaroni dragons, go for it.

belief should be at least based on SOME evidence... not lack of it...

And those who believe do base it on evidence. It may not be the kind of scientific evidence you would like to see, but again, we don't have "scientific" answers to everything. We don't have proof that there is life on other planets, but that doesn't mean that their isn't. We know we die, but no one knows what happens after. Some believe in life after death, some don't. Some believe in reincarnation, some don't. The only fact regarding death is that we have no scientific proof as to what happens after. Only beliefs.

If I say that I went skiing on Saturn's rings last night... or jogged on Pluto... would you say that well... "you can't be sure" since you cannot verify my claim?

That claim would be very easy to verify and disprove, but I think you already know that.

Nonsense! Lack of evidence is not evidence. and should be treated as such...

What it should be treated as is exactly what it is: lack of proof. An unknown. Something that can't be proven or disproved.

a claim that a god exists should be given no amount of credibility until suitable evidence is offered. Small claims require small evidence. BIG claims require BIGGER evidence.

I disagree. I don't give the idea of life on other planets "no amount of credibility" just because no "suitable evidence" has been offered. And again, it depends on what one sees as "suitable evidence." Those who believe do see "suitable evidence."

[GostHacked]

Science has been wrong about things in the past, too, but that doesn't make science worthless, does it?

Yes science has been wrong in the past. Because when you find new kinds of evidence, you may have to revisit and redo the working theory, or abandon it alltogether and start over. But that is how science works. You must be prepared for all your findings to be scrutinized and or debunked. If you trust your work, then it will stand up. Scientists are prepared for just that. Religion on the whole works exactly the opposite.

I'm not "defending" their decision, and I can't believe you didn't get that from my posts; and the Bible has nothing to do with my beliefs about it. You say they made their choice simply because they are religious, but maybe they are religious because of the kind of people they are. You don't know which is the cause and which is the effect.

Agreed. We are not entirely sure of the parents motivation for taking the actions they did. I will say whatever they are doing, they are doing it because they do love their child, regardless of the state Julianna is in.

Since he can't be disproved, you can't say he doesn't exist. All you can say is you don't believe he exists.

He cannot be proved and he cannot be disproved. This is why science can't deal with the god question. Where in science do you start if you are going to attempt the god question?

Nor is no evidence that there is a god "evidence" that there isn't. Best we can do is believe what we believe. No one has the answers, we just all have our beliefs.

This is why I am agnostic. Because I don't know either way, nor will I attempt to know. The only time I will know is when I am dead, and at that time I won't be able to share my knowledge with anyone else.