media cases/stories where parents prayed instead of taking their kids to the doctor and the kids died

here's a non-comprehensive list of cases where parents tried praying instead of taking their kids to the doctor, then the kids died:

Schaible:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/herbert-catherine-schaible_n_3138001.html
Neumann:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html
Bellew:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205306/Russel-Brandi-Bellew-Faith-healer-parents-avoid-jail-Austin-Sprout-16-dies.html
Hickman:
http://global.christianpost.com/news/faith-healing-scandal-parents-prayed-instead-of-seeking-medical-care-as-child-slowly-died-56743/
Raffield (name of the police officer in the case since the parents were unnamed):
http://www.kltv.com/story/18648752/parents-pray-for-15-hours-over-dead-baby-before-calling-911
Swezey:
http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2012/jun/09/swezey-plea-means-no-appeal-of-faith-healing/

add more if you know of any others :)

highlights from lawrence torcello's "the trouble with pseudoskepticism"

skeptical inquirer, vol. 36, no. 3 | may/june 2012

"science advances through efforts to disprove hypotheses, even when hope is held for their confirmation. this is described well by philosopher karl popper:
whenever we propose a solution to a problem, we ought to try as hard as we can to overthrow our solution, rather than defend it. Few of us, unfortunately, practice this precept
...
criticism will be fruitful only if we state our problem as clearly as we can and put our solution in a sufficiently definite form--a form in which it can be critically discussed.
"

this makes me think of the mormon doctrine (DC 132:18):
"my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God"

is it? or is it a house of non-testable, unwarranted claims?

"The efforts Popper describes are reflected in standard scientific practices, such as repeated and controlled experimentation, the publication of findings only after peer-reviewed critique, and the requirement that such findings be presented openly so that other researchers may attempt to replicate and independently confirm or reject them under the same rigorous constraints. Indeed, all of this is a necessary prerequisite for any findings to take on a meaningful level of scientific acceptance, let alone consensus. A scientific theory becomes accepted as such only once the laws observed, findings predicted, and facts organized under that proposed theory have been so rigorously tested and confirmed over time that it becomes highly implausible (if nevertheless logically possible) that the stated theory should ever be refuted. Any scientific theory as a whole will represent the accumulated and organized explanatory force of numerous repeatedly tested data points. Thus skeptical critique is necessarily and inextricably part and parcel of the scientific process."

this made me wonder, what is a scientific law then?

"A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observation that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements
...
Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation"

back to the article:

"while scientists are busy attempting to disprove a favored hypothesis and guarding themselves against the ever-present danger of confirmation bias, pseudoscientists actively seek confirming evidence for what they have already deemed to be the case.
...
to call oneself a paranormal investigator (as opposed to an investigator of paranormal claims...is to already confess a belief that there is something paranormal to investigate; the pursuit itself begs the essential question"

"truzzi's concern was that skeptics not abandon reasonable agnosticism in favor of a dismissive cynicism. instead, truzzi would have us remain true to the spirit of scientific inquiry by proportioning our beliefs to the strength of evidence available. and when there is no supporting evidence available for a claim, truzzi would have us call that claim unwarranted, rather than disproven."

 "some types of claims, even if true, are beyond the scope of what can be scientifically supported"

"expand upon the concept of pseudoskepticism to include that well-known pseudointellectual performance that involves the rejection of assertions already firmly established through the rigorous scientific process. pseudoskepticism is a form of cynicism posturing as skepticism. it is fatuously premised on the assumption that doubt for doubt's sake is inherently rational--call this the 'cynic's fallacy'. such is obviously not the case when there is strong supporting evidence in favor of a given claim."

this made me think about people who claim things like "well even when X was unanimously accepted by scientists, it was later proven to be false" and wonder when the scientific method really was born, and is there a list of scientific theories supported by a scientific consensus that were later disproved?
yes, this is called superseded scientific theories.

"of course, this is not to argue that one cannot legitimately question scientific consensus; indeed, without constant testing and questioning, science would be in danger of stagnation. scientific inquiry flourishes in the context of open intellectual contest, as evidenced by its skeptical nature."

"pseudoskepticism, alternatively, can be understood in relation to three proppositions put forth by bertrand russell in 'on the value of skepticism':
there are matters about which those who have investigated them are agree; the dates of eclipses may serve as an illustration.
...
even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken.
...
nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. the scepticism that i advocate amounts only to this:
(1) that when the experts are agree, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain;
(2) that when they are not agree, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and
(3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment."

seems rational =)

"russell goes on to argue that if these simple propositions were to be accepted, they would have positive, even revolutionary implications for human life. russell therewith suggests that his skeptical principles have certain moral and social implications."

"[not] every appeal to expertise ought to be considered a fallacious appeal to authority. this is not to say that experts cannot be wrong, but it is always more reasonable to appeal to an expert than a nonexpert when one lacks appropriate expertise. it stands to reason that the more experts agree on a particular topic, the more cause there is for nonexperts to defer to their consensus."

"skepticism is precisely what has established the overwhelming consensus among working climatologists for anthropogenic global warming. to deny the legitimacy of this consensus while claiming to be a skeptic would require an unjustified double standard regarding one's appreciation of the scientific process."

"to call such obdurate denialism 'skepticism' is a gross misnomer that undermines science as well as the potency of genuine skepticism"

"i maintain, with (richard cameron) wilson, that pseudoskepticism is most often a product of ideological motivation rather than of balanced inquiry."

"the burden is upon the researchers to demonstrate their alternative hypothesis within the standard parameters of the scientific process (i.e. empirical research, peer-review, repeated independent replication by other researchers, etc.)"

"a good place to begin learning about anthropogenic global warming is by turning to the intergovernmental panel on climate change
...
realclimate: climate science from climate scientists
...
skeptical science: getting skeptical about global warming (pseudo-)skepticism
...
national center for science education
"

god of the gaps

a christian on talk.origins said that "god of the gaps" was offensive =) i liked this reply by "r norman":

I suppose it is also offensive to claim that the cosmos and the earth
and humanity were not created in six 24 hour periods less than ten
thousand years ago. I suppose it is also offensive to claim that a
massive flood initiated by forty days and nights of rain did not
inundate the entire earth and kill all living things (animals, at
least) except for the few occupants of one wooden boat. I suppose it
is also offensive to claim that no individual human has ever lived for
900 years, begetting a child at almost 200 years of age. I suppose it
is also offensive to claim that human languages did not originate
during the construction of a single tall building.
Science makes claims about processes in the physical world. There are
gaps in the knowledge that science has so far developed. To claim
that any or all gaps in our knowledge must be due to failures in
science and hence can only be attributed to divine action is offensive
to science. So there.

my response to a user named cats from utah about why people leave the lds church

my response:

@Cats i concluded the mormon church was false when i compared the scientific claims of the old testament with actual evidence. the first homo sapien offspring didnt appear 6-7000 years ago (adam and eve). it was more than 100,000+ years ago. i concluded the mormon church was false when i realized that all of my "spiritual" experiences could be explained by psychology and biology. i concluded that the mormon church was false when i read about cults and could quickly identify the church in at least 65 points out of a list of 100 elements of a cult.
i am also way happier now after leaving the church. i have more money, i have more time, i am less stressed and our family life is more harmonious. all the things the church promises to the faithful, but simply cant deliver...and i get it for free =)

to this user comment:

Cats | 7:43 a.m. April 4, 2011
Somewhere In Time, UT
Once again, this article is RIGHT ON TARGET.

I have seen many atheists who claim they don't believe in God because of rational or intellectual reasons. That fact is, they reject faith because they have had some bad or hurtful experiences regarding religion--i.e. they went to Catholic school and the nuns were mean....or their mother made them go to church and they resented that. The president of the American atheists said that she hated the church because her mother spent all her time there. It all involves emotion and NOT logic. The fact is, if they were being logical and rational they WOULD believe in God.

Former Mormons leave the Church because they just don't want to bother with the requirements....or they had something bad happen and just don't have the maturity to deal with it...or they've done something wrong and they don't want to repent so they try to justify themselves.

These people have the right do anything they want, but I hope no one is fooled. There's no logic or rationality involved with it and I hope everyone has the insight to see that.

on this article:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705369908/Challenging-Issues-Keeping-the-Faith-Emotion-is-part-of-testimony-2-and-decision-making.html

NOTE: my comment was not approved by deseret news. shocker.

conversation between me and my tbm mormon friend

his comments begin with ">". my response comes beneath that line.
------------

> I believe that the world is surrounded by proof that God does exist. Alma 30:44 - "...all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."

because things exist, god exists? how about the dairy cow or the dog or giant strawberries or...? these are things designed by man. because something exists doesnt equate to PROOF that there is a supernatural god, yahweh--one of a thousand different gods we have "scriptures" about.

> God does exist. My belief in Him does not take away freedom or pursuit of happiness. My belief system does not infringe on others ability to believe how they wish. I believe that others have the God given right to believe and worship how they choose. My understanding doesn't remove or impose upon the free will of others.

one word: prop8

> God does exist

stating something as a fact doesnt make it true, even though boyd packer tells you so:
"A testimony is found in the bearing of it." (from "The Candle of the Lord," Ensign, Jan. 1983, pp. 54-55)

this implies:
If you don't know whether something [we Mormons teach] is true, just bear your testimony of it anyway, as if you knew it, and eventually you will come to find that you 'know' it.

this is called self-brainwashing.

> The creation of life cannot be explained by science. Sure, there might be a process explained through the use of combining DNA from a man and DNA from a woman. Chromosomal Pairs from each combining to form a new entity that then begins to replicate and "create" a new human. But how does science explain how each individual body part is created through that replication process.

science can sure explain A LOT about the creation of life and is finding out new information all the time. what is religion doing: god created life. period.? doctors and scientists know how to clone biological organisms, regrow tissue and manipulate the human body in many ways. you can technically choose the gender of your baby these days. geneticists KNOW how cells reproduce based on genetic encoding.

> Science does explain some things, but it has the inability to explain all things. That is why both Science and Faith are important.

you keep trying to marginalize science, when religion explains nothing. saying "a miracle happened" explains NOTHING. saying "god created the universe" explains NOTHING. every comfort and technology you have is the product of the scientific process.

> I take that same understanding through science, combine it with my faith and knowledge of God, and increase my peace and understanding.

sorry, but this sounds really pompous.

> I do not impose my belief system on others.

missionary work, temple ordinances for the dead, indoctrination of children. can your kids stay home from church whenever they want to?

> Neither of us will ever be persuaded by the other.

tell me something persuasive =)

my response to "No one has all the answers, and the world is surrounded by contradictions."

my mormon friend wrote to me in a mail recently:

So now that you have found a new way of life, tell me what your purpose is. Do you now intend on trying to contradict all religions, or just the LDS Faith? No one has all the answers, and the world is surrounded by contradictions.

my response:

well, i don't have a purpose, i simply exist, but isn't everybody's *real* desire to do things that make them happy/give them pleasure?
i enjoy discovering and uncovering logical fallacies, yes, especially when they are a part of a belief/political system that tries to take away people's freedoms and pursuit of happiness, as long as THAT pursuit of happiness doesn't infringe upon others, etc.

> No one has all the answers, and the world is surrounded by contradictions.

this is exactly how religions full of cognitive dissonance want their believers to respond to things they are taught that are contradictory or things they don't understand:
"well, god understands it. he'll sort it out in the eternities. it's not relevant to my salvation."
"if it can't be explained then god must have done it"
"no one will ever be able to understand/explain that. god's ways are not our ways, his ways are higher than our ways"
etc...

on the contrary, science can explain A LOT of things; science has A LOT of answers. it's the BEST tool we have to understand the world around us. like i've mentioned before, just look at all that science ALREADY has given us answers to. we have, e.g.:
* microwave ovens
* atom smashers
* lasers
* virtual reality
* computers and the www
* organ transplants
* we've been to the moon

the list goes on and on.

there's a really cool debate between sam harris and michael shermer vs. deepak chopra about "the future of god". a really cool opening remark by shermer was that "we're only really talking about the future of the *belief* in god. belief in belief."

i know the church teaches you that you can only know REAL truth by "the testimony of the holy ghost", but when you think rationally about it, this is absolutely untrue, and the REAL world doesn't work that way. testable, reproducible and peer-reviewed scientific data is the only way people in the real world establish "truth". the FDA requires this in order to legalize medicine.
the only way poor kids get into ivy league colleges is a scholarship, granted on the basis of perfect grades and the highest test scores. and so on and so on.

when you look e.g. at the old testament's teachings, you can see that these were based on the knowledge (science) that they had at that time in the bronze age. we know that the earth revolves around the sun. we know the earth is not flat. we know there wasn't a global flood. we know that homo sapiens have existed for at least 100,000 years. we know what epilepsi is--we take our child to a doctor when he starts seizing, not a priest because we think he's possessed of the devil or a demon. we know that you don't stone your child if he doesn't obey you. we know you don't stone a woman if she commits adultery.

i know it might be hard to swallow (for me it was the opposite, i was excited when i understood all of this), and the natural reaction is to fall back on feelings you get, feelings/impressions you think come from god or the holy ghost, but like i've said before, suicide bombers believe in their cause even MORE than you believe in yours, because they LITERALLY believe that they will enter paradise and meet muhammad and receive their virgins enough to actually kill themselves (and others). most people in other religions have the exact same feelings/impressions that you have experienced. the simple explanation for this is psychology. and again thinking rationally about it, feelings and the supernatural never trump scientific facts. that's why no one has ever taken james randi's 1 million dollar prize for anyone who can prove he has supernatural abilities

how to argue against the theist claim that "god gives scientists their knowledge and ideas"

my theist pharm rep friend says:
claim 1
> Chemical Engineers are using the scientific method to develop the drugs I sell, but I do believe the intelligence and ideas they are given come from God.

then he tries to downplay science ("god" in his previous statement):
claim 2
> Science is a constantly changing set of theories. What is "known and true" today, may be different in ten years, and then change back ten years later.

-------

"skunk puppet" makes a good response to the first claim:
mankind's steps in science and medicine been so slow and painstaking with advances usually opposed and blocked by religious leaders (e.g., Galileo).

"Jon" responds to the first claim as well:
Which scientists does god give ideas to? Just the ones whose findings support your religion or all of them?

where i then add:
"god" did not inspire nazi doctors to perform human torture experiments on jews during WW2 so that we could learn what they learned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation

"
Contemporary knowledge concerning the manner in which the human body reacts to freezing is based almost exclusively on these Nazi experiments.
"

and my response to the second claim is this:
eventually things in science stick, otherwise we wouldnt have airplanes making transatlantic flights or supercomputers or satellites if theories were constantly changing and flip-flopping like you suggest.

in conclusion, when put together, these two poor, theistic claims/arguments contradict themselves:
* god gives science its knowledge
* science is wishywashy and cant be trusted because its truths change all the time and change from true to false and then back to true

and there's not much more to the argument when you look at science's *knowledge* about how long homo sapiens have lived: at least 100,000 years

compared to the old testament's claim of about 6-7000 years.

theists reaction to a friend saying he wrote himself out of the mormon church

here's the facebook conversation so far:

"Atheist A"
Da er det gjort:))
January 25 at 9:15pm · · Comment · Share

*
*
You, "Theist LW" and "Person B" like this.
*
o
"Person C" Flott;)
January 25 at 9:16pm ·
o
"Person D" what?? :)
January 25 at 9:25pm ·
o
"Person E" Hva har du gjort nå....?
January 25 at 9:25pm ·
o
"Theist LW" I det stadiet du har vært den siste tiden, så er nok dette for tiden kanskje det beste for deg. Men på lang sikt så er jeg lei meg for denne avgjørelsen din. Evigheten er myyyye lengre enn den lille tiden vi flyr rundt her på jorda å virrer rundt som bortkommne insekt.
Sunday at 8:28pm ·
o
"Atheist A" Hva har du fått i deg "Theist LW" ??;))
Sunday at 8:37pm ·
o
"Theist LW" Litt cola bare ; ) he he he
Sunday at 10:14pm ·
o
Nicholas Christian Humphrey da er det gjort her også =)
Sunday at 10:27pm ·
o
Nicholas Christian Humphrey "Theist LW", you are stating a belief as a fact: that the soul exists eternally. there is no scientific and testable proof of anything other than the fact that we are primates.
Sunday at 10:30pm ·
o
"Person E" Fortiden og fremtiden er bare en illusjon, det eneste vi vet helt sikkert er at vi lever her og nå!
Sunday at 10:34pm · · 1 personLoading...
o
"Theist LW"
I am not one who needs scientific proofs. I Get my answers, I have found peace, and Need no DNA proof, that is written on a piece of paper. Verry scientific by the way.....
And i already knew that you wrote yourself out. I guess I can refe...r to a great Metallica song, "sad but true" ; ) Wich also leads me to another great song by Whitney Houston " I will always love you" : DSee More
Sunday at 10:45pm ·
o
"Person D" geez!!!!
Sunday at 11:08pm ·
o
"Theist LW" Jeg er veldig nysgjerrig på hvordan du får fortiden til å bli en illusjon. Sier du da at jeg egentlig ikke var på Kongsberg skisenter på lørdag ???? Og at jeg ikke hadde taco til middag igår ???? Veldig interresant tanke......
Yesterday at 8:37am ·
o
Nicholas Christian Humphrey
"Theist LW", listen to yourself. these are the classic words of what is called "a science denier". dont you want scientific proof that a medicine works and doesnt have dangerous side effects before you take it? dont you want scientific proof that... a new airplane model has been thoroughly tested before you get on it for a transatlantic flight? if you were accused of rape, wouldnt you demand scientific (dna) evidence and rely on that evidence to get you acquitted? did religion make your video camera or your computer? no, it was made using the scientific process. did religion make your car or your clothes or the birth control you use? religion only takes people's money, tells them to be nice while at the same time telling them to hate certain people and gives people false hope. homo sapiens have existed for at least 100,000 years. the bible claims the first offspring (cain) was born around 6000-7000 years ago.
"Theist LW", can i suggest a video for you?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQorzOS-F6wSee More
23 hours ago ·
o
"Person D" Nicholas: Signerer innlegget ditt!!! ;)
23 hours ago · · 1 personLoading...
o
"Theist LW"
NO NICK, you listen to yourself. Three years ago you where preaching this stuff that you are now in total denial of, 15 years ago you knocked down thousands of doors in Norway for two years and spent either your or the Church`s money to sha...re the Gosspel. I gotta say, you`ve come a looooong way since that. Until last year, And unfortunatly I feel it`s the wrong way since then. Money will always be a temporary state of luck, and the past year or so, that`s been your quest, to see how "gold diggin" the lds church is. And how much money you`ve "lost".
I could share tons of links to proove you wrong, but you can search em up, just like you search for everything else ; ) www.google.com
True happyness, comes without the dough $$$$
And I know this, since I`ve experienced both sides of good and bad economics. True happyness is something you gotta earn spritualy. Not with your wallet.See More
23 hours ago ·
o
Nicholas Christian Humphrey
exactly "Theist LW". i was raised in a cult that told me NOT to think outside the box, i.e. church, who controlled what information i had about them by telling me NOT to read anything contrary to their teachings, who told me what to think and wha...t NOT to think, what to feel and what NOT to feel. i was brainwashed by a cult.

> you`ve come a looooong way since that

no shit =) thank science and reasoning for that!

> True happyness, comes without the dough $$$$

and who do you think taught you that "Theist LW"? this is EXACTLY the kind of shit they WANT you to believe.

> True happyness is something you gotta earn spritualy. Not with your wallet.

true happiness starts with financial independence: the ability to do what you want, when you want and not be under the control of anyone else. true happiness ends with/is completed by doing what makes you most happy.

> Money will always be a temporary state of luck

have you heard of economics? fiscal responsibility? controlling spending? investing? education? do you think the church just "got lucky" with their money? no, they implemented a law requiring people to pay them 10% of the income in order to be saved. you can't NOT pay tithing and be "saved in the highest celestial kingdom".

listen to what hinckley says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxClKTZj5Fg

(in any other context this would be considered a threat and extortion)

you still haven't responded to the science denying and i hope you watch that video i suggested.See More
22 hours ago ·
o
"Person D" And what are members of the church doing on the internet anyway??
members of that church really needs a wake-up call!!!!!
22 hours ago ·
o
Nicholas Christian Humphrey
sorry "Theist LW", but its easier for me to type on my keyboard than an sms so i'll post the argument you just send me on my phone. you wrote:
> "if anyone is in denial it would be you. reason number one: you keep calling me a denier"

i fail to see... your logic.

> "reason number two: if you never had a doubt about god or his existence, you would never choose to walk the path you are now on."

i dont have a doubt that god (YHWH, the god of the old testament) doesnt exist. i want my friends and family to realize this too and stop letting themselves be controlled by a corporation pretending to be a church. and what can i say? i was raised to tell others about my "beliefs". who can blame me? =)

> "which leads on to reason 3: your constant need to "prove" that you are right"

it's my need to destroy organizations who control and rob people of their freedom, joy and money. see also my response to "reason 2".

> "the fact that you wrote yourself out of the church was wise though. this means that there's still hope, after this life at the latest"

by baptizing me for the dead? =) i'll pass. i hereby deny god/elohim/yhwh, jesus and the holy ghost as false, monstrous idols. see, nothing really happens "Theist LW" =) all the church's threats are empty =) the godhead can suck my dick =) see? god's not striking me down =)

> "hugs and squeeze"

the same to you =)See More
22 hours ago ·
o
"Theist LW"
So just live it up then, and leave the rest of us LDS in peace. You have no power over my beliefs, even with your links and "proofs". I just gotta wish you the best of Luck. ; )
Post one of my personal SMS messages out on FB again, and we'l...l just close our friendshipp with that.See More
22 hours ago ·
o
"Theist LW" And where would we get that wake up call ???
22 hours ago ·
o
Nicholas Christian Humphrey
‎> leave the rest of us LDS in peace.

if i'm not mistaken "Theist LW", you commented on bårds status on his own page. the fact is that LDS and other religions dont let the rest of US live in peace. they're out there proselyting and meddling with p...olitical affairs, e.g. Prop 8, lobbying for teaching of ID in schools, trying to stop non-believers from living the way THEY want to live, trying to take away THEIR joy. reread your 11th article of faith:
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

hugs and squeezes =)

> "Post one of my personal SMS messages out on FB again, and we'l...l just close our friendshipp with that."

goddamn your love runs deep =) sorry "Theist LW", wont happen again.See More
21 hours ago ·
o
Nicholas Christian Humphrey i love you "Theist LW" despite our differences in opinion =)
21 hours ago ·
o
"Theist CL"
Your arguments are horribly framed "Theist LW". As someone that is LDS I'm asking you to please give independent thought to what it is Nick and everyone is saying. Faith is not something that can be explained. There is no "proof" we can offer.... If people are better w/out their faith, let them be and be happy that they are "better". All of your post make you seem so threatened by what other people are doing with their lives. Let your faith in God give you comfort that his plan includes what Bard and Nick do with their lives and let it support you in your endeavors to better your own.See More
9 hours ago ·
o
"Theist LW"
You are right "Theist CL", and I suck at anything that has to do with explaining, it is not ment as judgmental or anything, I am actually trying to tell them to leave us LDS in peace as well, but as long as I see a fist, I guess I suck at turnin...g the other cheek. But yeah I do it wrong, and it always ends up looking like a mess. But thanks for the heads up l ; )
Pluss I love these guys like they where my own brothers, so it gets complicated realy fast.See More
7 hours ago ·
o
"Theist CL"
I agree about the brothers thing but your ARE making judgments left and right (both sides are btw). I just don't know what you mean about being "left alone". Athiest have an agenda just as valid as any religion does. If they feel they're... making the world better by helping people think a different way then great. No different than what we did for two years in Norge...right? Like me I assume you still support the LDS missionary program because you believe in what it has to offer. You can't be "left in peace" unless you tell your sons and daughters to let people be "left in peace" regarding the LDS missionaries. Do you watch the stuff Nick posts? It's actually quite interesting. Food for thought and such.See More
7 hours ago ·
o
"Person TKP"
It's great to see that there finally has come some sense to this discussion.

A religion (or the lack of it) should tolerate critisicm, so a discussion is sometimes good. I just felt that this one wasn't a constructive one, so I didn't want t...o participate.

We should all respect each others standpoints, either way.

Scientific evidence does exist, but is man-made and hence a good, but artificial one. Absolute evidence cannot be communicated because all our information comes through our senses, meaning they are all illusions one way or another. And even if The Holy Spirit did exist and did speak to us, without our normal senses, we wouldn't be able to prove it. So it all boils down to beliefs.

I think Bård is brave to make his standpoint clear, the same way he was brave to make his standpoint when he attended the church earlier.See More
7 hours ago · · 1 personLoading...
o
"Theist LW"
"Person TKP" I am glad you joined this little debate here, cause what you say, is pretty much what I think, but like I said earlier, I suck at getting this right. And having a strong belief in one thing and seeing great friends such as Nick and Bå...rd, take a stand like this is a great mixture of feelings. But it all comes down to Respect. And I do respect the choice they made. I will work at the Judgmental part, and show some love : )
Peace out for now ; )See More
6 hours ago ·
o
"Person TKP" Peace :)
6 hours ago ·
o
Nicholas Christian Humphrey
‎@"Person TKP"

> It's great to see that there finally has come some sense to this discussion.

please point out the things that i wrote that DONT make sense.
...
> We should all respect each others standpoints, either way.

religion deserves NO respect. it is dangerous and counterproductive to progress, understanding of the universe and all that humanism stands for; teaching people:

* that it is a good thing to believe in things they cant see or prove (funny how believers dont apply this principle to any OTHER part of their life like buying a house, car, stocks, legal matters, flying airplanes, taking medicine or medical procedures. for all those things they want evidence that their decision is correct and safe and guaranteed. but if a guy comes and says give me your money and let me dictate exactly how you should live your life and in return i'll give you eternal life, then suddenly they DONT NEED evidence!)

* to hate, kill, and judge others who dont share the same beliefs and lifestyles. e.g. issues like homosexuals and marriage, suicide bombers killing infidels, killing abortion doctors, hating jews

* to accept non-answers about our existence like "if it can't be explained, god must have done it" and "his ways are higher than our ways, we can never possibly understand why". we would still be living in the stone age with no computers, no medicine, no machines, no advanced technology whatsoever if everyone still thought like that.

> Scientific evidence does exist, but is man-made and hence a good, but artificial one. Absolute evidence cannot be communicated because all our information comes through our senses, meaning they are all illusions one way or another.

"Person TKP", is it an illusion that you are a man? that you have a penis? is it an illusion that somebody raping your sister is a bad thing? is it an illusion that the world trade center was destroyed along with thousands of lives? is it an illusion that surgeons can give women artificially larger breasts? is it an illusion that you can open a web browser and talk with someone on the other side of the planet in real time?

scientific claims CAN be tested and PROVED with a high level of accuracy by several independent parties. this is HOW we have the technology that we do: medicine, computers, skyscrapers, telecommunications, etc! some religions make scientific claims and can be disproved using the scientific method, religions like christianity, islam, judaism, all based on the old testament which claims that homo sapiens began 6-7000 years ago and that there was a global flood that wiped out every living thing except some people on a boat about 4-5000 years ago.

the old testament also teaches such irrational, inhumane and destructive and, in religious terms, "evil" things like that homosexuals are evil, that genocide, stoning children and raping women is justifiable.

science denier statement + my rebuttal

my friend, the science denying mormon:

I am not one who needs scientific proofs. I Get my answers, I have found peace, and Need no DNA proof, that is written on a piece of paper. Verry scientific by the way.....
And i already knew that you wrote yourself out. I guess I can refe...r to a great Metallica song, "sad but true" ; ) Wich also leads me to another great song by Whitney Houston " I will always love you" : D

my response:

listen to yourself. these are the classic words of what is called "a science denier". dont you want scientific proof that a medicine works and doesnt have dangerous side effects before you take it? dont you want scientific proof that... a new airplane model has been thoroughly tested before you get on it for a transatlantic flight? if you were accused of rape, wouldnt you demand scientific (dna) evidence and rely on that evidence to get you acquitted? did religion make your video camera or your computer? no, it was made using the scientific process. did religion make your car or your clothes or the birth control you use? religion only takes people's money, tells them to be nice while at the same time telling them to hate certain people and gives people false hope. homo sapiens have existed for at least 100,000 years. the bible claims the first offspring (cain) was born around 6000-7000 years ago.
can i suggest a video for you by christopher hitchens (the best of the hitchslap)?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQorzOS-F6w

do you "believe in science"?

i was asked today if i now am "one of those people who believes in science" =)

OF COURSE i "believe in science"! all technology, innovation, medicine, etc is a product of the scientific method =)

mormonism and the age of the earth

an interesting article about different possibilities for the age of the earth according to scripture and science.

particularly interesting is the multiple uses of the number 1000 (one thousand) in hebrew:

This follows the Hebrew use of "thousand" ('elef), which sometimes meant a literal one thousand, and other times was more generically used to indicate "a large amount."

it would be cool to see examples of both in use somewhere.

atheism - unseen god is foolish, unseen atoms/protons is sane

an interesting quote i found by Rev. John D. Allee:

Atheists, sad to say, take a black and white approach. You either believe in the existence of a deity, be it Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu or Ganesha, in which case you're delusional or, you believe in the existence of scientific things you can't see with the naked eye, like photons, atoms and molecules, in which case you are considered sane. Just because a person believes in the existence of a form or deity does not necessarily mean the relationship with said form or deity is delusional, fraudulent, deceptive or useless.

we can see atoms today, but before they were just believed to exist.