You won't be surprised to know I've engaged in yet another "conversation" with people who seem not to like logic or facts.
Despite the discussion having launched over this (IMO) really exploitive and non-scientific (that part isn't my opinion) book, it rapidly went to "everyone has the right to their beliefs."
I will ask you right now, dear reader, to think for a second what that statement really means. EVERYONE. Has the RIGHT to their BELIEFS. EVERYONE necessarily, then, includes every crazy person who as done any horrifying, terrifying, brutal, murderous thing because of their beliefs. Everyone. Parents who choose prayer over medicine and allow their children to die whilst waiting for 'god'; men who stone to death the women they have raped, and cut the hands of starving cildren accused of theft when they attempt to feed themselves, because their prophet says it is the right thing to do; priests who rape children.... EVERYONE
However, there was, later, a pronouncement that I did NOT have the right to my beliefs - pink unicorns, for which there are many drawings and stories and even effigies and images - because MY beliefs are insulting, rude and assaultive. Hm. So NOT everyone.
I've cleaned up the grammatical and spelling errors everywhere (that I noticed them).
JK shared a video.
Wow....this
film looks incredible...
SK I read the book about all of the
things this little boy saw. There's no way I could deny life after our time on
earth. Such an amazing thing we have is knowledge of god and that there's
someone looking out for us.
ME Yeah, except for the extensive, faulty
premises and the idea of relying on a child's experience in a coma. There is
NOTHING the least scientific in this disaster.
SK You have
your beliefs, and I have mine. (well, no, I have evidence the writer
ignored good science, which is not a belief) That's what is great about
this world! I don't need scientific facts to prove to me that god is real (oh
dear...). I have faith. If you need science to believe in things then
that is totally fine! But as for me, sometimes I believe in things that science
can't explain, and it's helped me see life in a beautiful way. If you're
beliefs make you happy, that is awesome! But mine make me happy too, and that's
also awesome! :)
(1. what things can't science explain, or at least make a decent stab at explaining? 2. Atheists do not have beliefs. A-theism is "without beliefs" or without gods. Our sole premise the lack of evidence for any god(s) makes bowing down to it/them ridiculous. 3. Heroin, which also helps people believe in things that aren't real, also makes some people very happy, and like religion, addicted and dependent)
(1. what things can't science explain, or at least make a decent stab at explaining? 2. Atheists do not have beliefs. A-theism is "without beliefs" or without gods. Our sole premise the lack of evidence for any god(s) makes bowing down to it/them ridiculous. 3. Heroin, which also helps people believe in things that aren't real, also makes some people very happy, and like religion, addicted and dependent)
Book
Review: “Heaven is for Real” by Todd Burpo
ME So, if I have faith I will see a pink
unicorn this year, real, true faith, you say that is fine and normal?
JK I would
appreciate if you guys don't do this kind of insulting/antagonistic debating on
my page. (Ok, so I am not allowed to clarify this person's statement. Got it. Also, that is bullshit)
I'm
not saying anything about whether its right, wrong, true or untrue. It looks
like an interesting film and could be very positively inspiring to many in a
day and age that hope is hard to come by. Take it all for what you will, but
please don't be antagonistic. Thank you.
(I just want to point out here that I
have been asking questions up to this point, with the exception of my pointed
statement about the film, which I followed with a review of the film. This
allegation I'm insulting and antagonistic and rude continues as does this
suggestion I "have to be right." It is ridiculous. I am trying to
understand these people and their position on "live and let live" by
asking what they mean and how what they mean applies.)
SK Why does it matter so much that you
have to be right and I have to be wrong? We both have different opinions about
religion and faith. Who cares? You don't have to be right. I'm not wrong,
you're not wrong. Let's leave it at that.(Um. when did this I'm right, you're wrong thing happen, exactly? Oh... right now... I see)
ME Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (In
case it isn't obvious to all, this is a statement and it is not aimed at
anyone, and doesn't criticize anyone)
JK For you they do, and that's
fine....for others they do not.
ME Extraordinary
claims always require extraordinary evidence or they have absolutely no
credibility. (sorry, I personified...)
This particular book - its story and contents have been scrutinized
- properly - with the lens of neuroscience and have come up severely lacking. I
appreciate this story makes people feel good - but so does chocolate, which is
also dangerous if over-consumed.
The phenomenon of people "seeing heaven"
as a result of major trauma is world wide. HOWEVER, the visions people have in
that state are decidedly NOT uniform; they are heavily dependent on the
person's culture, religion (if they have one) and ethnicity.
The simple fact these experiences differ
specifically along religious paradigms must be enough for an intelligent person
to question the validity of such a story.
(Sorry for again pointing out the
obvious, but I am making a statement here, again, not aimed at anyone in
particular - although obviously for the consumption of those participating - and
am not making a criticism of anyone. I am making points about the film and what
it seeks to say)
ME But, if
extraordinary claims do NOT require evidence, then we are free to make any
claim at all and expect others to accept that claim - and to see any questions
about such a claim as "antagonistic?" I don't think so. If that's the
case, then we must accept ever crazy serial killer who claims "god"
spoke to them and they were just doing "god's" bidding.
JK Well, I don't
know how it is in Canada
Is it interesting? You betcha! But I don't appreciate the blatant attack on an
individual's level of intelligence just because they don't agree with what you
are saying or the research you are providing as reference though... (I
was substantiating THEIR statement with that link.... not everyone reading,
myself included, was familiar with this alleged mathematical "proof"
of god) so can we please ease off that particular tone?
(WHAT
blatant attack on WHICH individual??? WHEN did I mention ANYONE'S intelligence??
I just used my word processor's "find" option and there is no mention
of "intelligence" anywhere before this poster writes the word and
makes the allegation. I SAID, "The simple fact these experiences differ specifically along religious paradigms must MUST BE ENOUGH FOR AN INTELLIGENT PERSON TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF SUCH A STORY)
ME No, it is
not true. There is endless science - good, fact-based, falsifiable, verifiable,
observable, repeatable science on both these subjects. One (One. Not you. ONE; general) need only have the courage to expose
their "beliefs" to research and knowledge.
I made no "blatant attack" on anyone's
intelligence. I don't care whether anyone agrees or not. My point is one - anyone, nobody in particular -
must be intelligent enough to acknowledge all religions and all these
experiences people claim to be true and to be proof of their version of heaven
cannot actually be true.
I asked a valid question up there. If we must accept
other people's faith, then people must accept mine - that there are pink unicorns,
and I am sure of this because I feel it, I have seen pictures of them and read
stories of them and I know in my heart they are real. My faith cannot be
attacked either, because faith somehow sits outside intelligence and to ask any
questions that might rock my faith are to blatantly attack me.
Right? (later, someone threw this example back at me as being rude and in their face.... Oh, hello wall, meet back)
CR Gödel’s Ontological Proof.
This is mathematical proof that God exists. German mathematician Kurt Gödel
proposed this theory that a higher power must exist. Christoph Benzmüller and
Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo have proven that Gödel’s theory is mathematically
correct. There for it is a scientifically provable fact.
JK Oh Hell (exasperated sigh).....you two
have fun with this....
CR No I
believe the argument has ended before it begins. I accept her belief in
science. (Just so it is clear, one does not "believe" in science. One
can rely on science becasuse science specifically seeks to DISprove itself. The
goal of all scientific research is to find the holes in current understandings
in order that scientific understanding can improve. This is not what belief is.
Belief exists regardless of fact and contrary to fact)
ME Here's the background on Charles's
information:
Two scientists have formalized a theorem regarding the existence of God penned by mathematician Kurt Gödel. But the God angle is somewhat of a red herring -- the real step forward is the example it sets of how computers can make scientific progress simpler.
This is ontological "proof," that does not address WHICH god, nor
does it provide a means to disprove all the 4000 or so "gods"
proposed by humans.
(Just to simplify, this mathematical
theory does not prove 'god' exists necessarily. It would be more apt to say
'gods,' plural. There is a clue in "formalised a theorem...".)
CR Sorry Julie but I will not debate you
for no amount of proof would be sufficient and for me no amount of proof is
needed.
ME I wasn't inviting you to debate. I
posted background on your proposal.
SK Look, the
bottom line is we all believe different things. Julie, if you believe in a pink
unicorn, go right ahead! I appreciate your opinion but I stated mine as well. I
don't care if you think you're right, I don't care what science says. (This
is very sad in 2013/2014)
To me, I've experienced things that make it so I could/would never
deny God or life after our life on earth ends. If I believe stories like this
like many others do, leave us be! We all have beliefs. Like I said earlier,
let's leave it at that!
(Just to clarify the definition of what a miracle is:
A miracle is an event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency.[1]
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say there is NO possibility this person's experiences of "things that make it so I could/would never deny god or life after our life on earth ends," qualify as "Not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature," and ARE, consequently, easily attributed to HUMAN intervention and help.)
ME Well, I'd
leave it alone if "leave us be" didn't also apply to those who
believe it is right to stone a woman to death for the crime of being raped, or
to those who believe it is right to mutilate little girls' genitals, or to
those who believe it is right to pray over their sick and dying children rather
than take them to the doctor, or to those who believe it is right to forcibly
marry off girls to men who already have five or eight other wives AND kick the
young boys out of the colony to fend for themselves rather than those boys
being competition to group abuse and child rape.
ME And for the
record, I would absolutely accept the proof of god - any of them - doing what
it/he/she is alleged to be able to do and rearranging the stars into a pattern
that says "I am your god."
JK Okay...I am
putting my foot down. Enough is enough. Back down. Julie you are bringing up so
many completely unrelated topics its is ridiculous. (Which topics are unrelated? I've
been asking questions and responding to what others have written).
There are heinous issues with our world today and the people in
it. That is not being disputed. Nor is it being disputed that many people do
horrible things in the name of "God(s)"...but that is NOT the root of
what this film or book is trying to give people. It is a message of hope.
Nothing more.
Stop turning anything spiritually based and intriguing that I may post onto MY
TIMELINE into a "pro-heinous
religious acts" accusation (Well,
actually, I ASKED if these people actually believe what they are saying, when
they say everyone has the right to believe what they will. I didn't accuse
anyone of anything; I asked them to clarify what they meant. I do realise this
is the portion of the program where they have got themselves uncomfortably
lodged up against a corner....) on my page. None of us (that have
spoken on this thread) are supporting those things and I'd appreciate it if you
all knock it off....
ME As always, I am bemused by the
termination of this subject when the realities of "Live and let live"
invade.
JK Its being terminated because Im now
annoyed at the fact that you won't just get off it. You all believe
differently. Just get off it already and leave the goddamned bone alone.
This is the private continuation of this discussion:
I'm not
happy to argue but I AM very put off by being told to shut up when my
well-researched opinions happen not to be popular.
I
appreciate you weren't looking for a discussion. However, discussions are
important, particularly when the subject at hand has a very solid, scientific
explanation. It is not intelligent to shut down a discussion because the
information is counter to what one currently possesses.
JK I will take a look at that. I don't have a problem
with your well thought out research. I do have a problem that you were actively
on the war path and determined to fight.
Sometimes
its best to just back off. (AKA, shut up when you make points that
shine a light on the posters' inability to support their arguments).
I didnt
mean to be as harsh as I was...but you kinda walked right into it by willfully
refusing to ease up.... (Pretty sure -
almost positive - the other parties in this discussion did NOT get the same
message).
You know
me well enough now to know that I am always open to a private message
conversation (I've highlighted this because it becomes important shortly)
about such things, nothing irritates me more than public comments that are
easily misinterpreted as aggressive and confrontational...because , as youve
seen, it turns into arguments.
ME Why is it a
"warpath" or a "fight" when someone like me, with a
lifetime of engagement in an evangelical family, spends more than seven years
understanding that paradigm, comes to a very researched and substantiated
conclusion that paradigm and all others like it are false, and on that wealth
of experience and research, asks a person making a statement to substantiate
what they've said?
Here's the
thing JK: no person should "ease up" when they see information that
is FALSE being presented as true.
I know
you. I know you would NOT stand by or ease up in the face of something you know
was wrong.
JK I post things that are interesting to me onto
my wall, as is my right, I in no way say I believe every single thing 100%. (Ok,
so why so disturbed by the conversation?)
(Except that neuroscience has excellent,
science-based, observable theories for what happens in an NDE and why those
vary so widely, dependent on culture, language and religion). There was
once a time when using leeches and bleeding people was
"scientifically" supported as the best way to treat certain
illnesses....we NOW know differently....
JK ....so yeah....Im sorry if I upset you with
how I shut down the conversation....but Im so done with that whole conversation....
ME Fine. But if they're posted
publicly, you might anticipate comments.
I did NOT
accuse anyone of blanketly "supporting of all the heinous things done in
the name of religion and God."
I ASKED
them if they REALLY believe that statement (the one about "everyone has
the right to their beliefs).
One cannot
say, "live and let live," but engage in wars, or call out parents who
allow their children to die (by relying on prayer) rather than
seek medical attention.
I asked
your poster to state whether he/she ACTUALLY meant what they said - because I
KNOW, if they really thought about it, they do NOT. What they mean is
"don't point out the fallacies of my statements; it pisses me off."
By the
way, leeches are still used, very successfully, in many hospitals to treat
flesh that has necrotised. Leeches are a common treatment for people suffering
diabetes and whose skin tends to die off. Leeches are very effective in
removing the dead flesh and, thanks to their saliva, very effectively and in a
sterile manner, keep the wound from bleeding.
JK Dude...you are drawing so many false
conclusions from everything they said...
they
simply were saying they DO believe in a God....THAT IS ALL....the fact that you
feel its your right to railroad people that matter to me all because they
believe in a God is what pisses me off (I don't "feel it is my right to
railroad people... because they believe in god," but I do KNOW it is my
responsibility to ask questions when people say things that will lead them to a
much different logical conclusion than they mean, if they were to actually
THINK about what they said/wrote)
ME There are some really
excellent researched, peer-reviewed articles on the phenomenon of near death
experiences (NDE).
There are
also some very good reviews of that book - those reviewing it from a scientific
standpoint and from an ethical standpoint where it concerns capitalising on the
experience of a four-year-old who, seven years previously, had a pretty
significant medical event.
ME I'm not drawing ANY
conclusions. None of my questions were answered.
JK and no, leeches are not effective treatment
for 90% of the ailments we USED TO use them to treat....so that counterargument
you present is splitting hairs and a weak argument at best
ME I have no issue with their
belief in god. I have an issue with people having no means of substantiating
"god" and being angry when someone says, "How did you come to
that conclusion?
About the leeches: http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/modern-leeching/
I also have a big issue with
people who say everyone has the right to their beliefs but won't follow that
through to the logical conclusion, which, in our recent past, (referring to
9/11) MUST include very religious people who are convinced of their version of
heaven, flying airplanes into buildings.
Answer
this: If it is true we all have the right to our beliefs, then why the hell is
the US still in the Middle East and why the hell is TSA presuming we are all
terrorists?
If one has
the right to their beliefs, then we cannot, to use your term, split hairs:
either beliefs are without consequence or they are not.
JK but ultimately Julie I feel like you are hell
bent on a fight. I really dont have time or energy for this. . . AND further
more...I DO NOT post them publically. I post them only so my "friends"
can see them if they so choose to subscribe to me. I do anticipate
comments...not harsh debates and blatant attacks on what is clearly intended to
be a positive thing.... (well, I am an accepted "friend"
of this poster, so um, they might expect comments on that basis)
ME I'm not bent on a fight but
I am very interested in statements being followed to their logical conclusion.
JK No....it is pretty clear you aren't just bent
on a fight but "Hell-bent" on one.... (Ok... has devolve to ad hominem, meaning now going after my character and my motivations - which is to say presuming motivation - rather than sticking to the points of the discussion... but back against the wall requires alternative measures, apparently)
ME I realise this is a
difficult subject for you, JK. I get it. But difficulty aside, as you are not
unintelligent or dishonest, you must at least think about what it all means.
I realise
there is pushback from some of your friends and family but that isn't any real,
or honest, impediment to really understanding what it means to say "we all
have the right to our beliefs." I say it is critical to understand why
that simply is not right and cannot be right.
If it is
right, there are sure a lot of dead American soldiers fighting against people
who should, by that statement, have the right to their beliefs.
ME Do you understand why this
is important?
JK They have a right to believe in God....that
is ALL that was said or implied...really bottom line. That's all anyone is
saying. You are giving far too much implication to their words where NOTHING
was actually said to support those accusation. They can believe
(Ok.
I'm frustrated now. Belief in 'god,' whichever one chooses to believe in, is
usually not a benign thing, and when it is, the people who have such benign
beliefs call themselves "spiritual." For most people, belief in 'god'
comes with a certain code and dogma, so that belief is not "all.")
ME Yes, you do. (I
meant "they")
So do
those members of the Taliban. They believe in what they want. It does hurt
people.
So do
people who are prayer-only fundamentalists; their children die. Does their
right to their beliefs override morality?
JK Its not their BELIEF that hurts people....its
what they DO about it. TWO completely different things. People can believe in a
God and have all kinds of "logical conclusions" and not all of them
are bad....you are just hyper focusing on those people who DO bad things in the
name of their God....even in spite of it, they still have the right to believe
it....not so cool for them to act on it the way they CHOOSE to....
ME Like I say, I realise this
is an immensely challenging subject and I am not a stranger at all to your
point of view. I was once a very believing person who was challenged and was
hell bent on proving non-believers wrong. I get it. I was raised in that
environment and stayed in it voluntarily until I was 35. I am no stranger to
scripture. Not at all.
Ok. Let's
go there. It is not their belief that hurts people, it's what they do about it.
OK. How does one divorce themselves from their beliefs, if their belief is god
will heal their dying child. What action does that parent take?
JK the problem isn't with believing in good
things...its when anyone becomes such an extremist about anything that they
become intolerant and cruel. (There's a veiled allegation here... I see it but I didn't rise to it, and this poster did not make the same suggestion to the other participants)
ME I agree.
It is not extreme
to ask questions. It IS extreme to be a prayer-based fundamentalist and allow
your child to die.
JK So why the hell are you attacking people on
my wall for simply BELIEVING in something good and better than themselves?
NO ONE
SAID THEY DID THAT
WTH? NOR did ANYONE say they believe and support
that
ME Who did I attack? Please
will you copy and paste what I said that was an attack?
(One of the reasons I'm editing
and posting this conversation is to read through it again to see if/where I
actually did attack a specific person. So far, nope)
ME They said - and you have
said - people have the right to their beliefs.
Who does
that apply to? Just christians? Just muslims? Who?
JK Everyone! But a belief in something does not
mean someone has the ethic right to damage and destroy ourselves as a people
because of it. Ethics and religious beliefs are two different creatures
ME I absolutely agree with
that. Religious belief and morals have zero to do with each other.
So I'll
ask you this again: Does it apply to everyone that they have the right to their
beliefs?
JK Yeas
everyone has the right to their BELIEF. "So, if I have faith I will see a
pink unicorn this year, real, true faith, you say that is fine and normal
?" <----very a="" amp="" attack="" b="" distatefully="" form="" insulting="" is="" of="" patronizing="" which=""> (what??? How is my statement of belief in pink unicorns
an attack???)
ME JK, you've just said people
have the right to believe what they will, and then posted here my belief in
pink unicorns is NOT ok and to state it is somehow an attack.
JK People of no ethical integrity have no right
to ACT on their beliefs (um, yeah, they do. Just because I don't
agree with another person's ethics or beliefs, doesn't mean I get to bring the
hammer down on those beliefs. OH/ WAIT!! This is EXACTLY the point I've been
trying to make with this person. HOLY CONTRADICTION, BATMAN!)
Because
you are being sarcastic and rude. I'm not saying you don't have a right to it. I'm
saying you are being an ass by throwing that in someone's face...just to
somehow prove your point....
(The poster is referring her to my belief in
pink unicorns and suggesting that my asking if I have the right to my beliefs
as per their "Live/Let live" statements).
ME Ok. Everyone has the right
to their beliefs.
Some
muslim people really, truly, honestly believe they will see the kingdom of god
if they kill infidels. This is the foundation for the attacks in NYC.
Do those
people have a right to that belief?
Why is my
belief "rude"?
JK the way you present it is rude....not the
belief itself
ME JK. C'mon. Seriously?
JK and hell yeah they have the right to believe
what they believe, its not my place or right to say they cant, it DOES NOT mean
they had any ethical right to act on it in the way they did. I don't believe
they should have DONE what they did. (So they DON'T have the right to their
beliefs??? THEY BELIEVE THE ATTACKS WERE GOD'S WILL. How do they divorce
themselves from their beliefs in this instance? This poster is completely
missing the logical dilemma they have walked themselves into.)
yeah
seriously
ME But they DO believe they were
doing their god's will.
If we say
everyone has the right to their beliefs, we cannot judge those acts by OUR
beliefs. Either your statement applies across the board or it doesn't
JK your entire tone when you write is full of
insult and disdain that someone could even possibly believe in a god despite
all your "evidence" against it....its arrogant, and honestly that's
what has put me off the most. What right do you have to tell someone that their
innocent belief in something that makes them strive to be a better person is
somehow bad.
(At no point did I say any such thing. I believe this person is now spilling
something of their own)
ME I'm not telling anyone
anything, JK. I am ASKING QUESTIONS
JK sure you are....in a very aggressively
intolerant manner
ME I am asking you if you
really do believe everyone has the right to belief what they
JK to which I have answered you, but not in a
way you like
ME I'm sorry you are getting
aggression and intolerance. I'm having a really tough time understanding how
you mean for it to apply.
We cannot
say everyone has the right to their beliefs but sanction them when they do what
they think is right based on those beliefs.
JK I don't based on MY BELIEFS....I
base it off of an unrelated code of ethical conduct based upon the whole human
race finding a way to co-exist and thrive together....NOT based upon religion.
ME I KNOW you do. Which
is exactly what I meant when I said religion and morals have zero to do with
each other/.
ME I'm not sure why you understand me as being
intolerant when I'm just asking questions. I'm trying to understand how it
works to say everyone has the right to their beliefs when some of those beliefs
are frankly horrifying.
But what do we do when someone really truly believes, based on their interpretation of their holy book and the counsel of their religious leader, that it is right to stone a woman to death for being the victim of a rape?
What do we
do then? They have the right to their beliefs and they really believe they are
doing the right thing - the moral thing - based on their dearly-held beliefs.
What do we do with that?
ME And
to be clear, we're not talking about you here. The subject is
"everyone," and yes, you're included but this is not specifically
about you or me.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You are welcome to leave your comments on the SUBJECT here; personal attacks and insults will be deleted.
Please feel free to discuss the issues. The stability or mental health of the blog writer is not considered a discussion issue....