The Children Of Christian Fundamentalists Are Dying ..Their Parents Think Only God Can Cure Them

[Bond27]

Another attack on white Christians, but not a single one against Jews.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Another attack on white Christians, but not a single one against Jews.

What?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bond27]

Another attack on white Christians, but not a single one against Jews.

What?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Show me one fucking article published by the Jew-owned media where Jews are attacked fucking cocksucker.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Another attack on white Christians, but not a single one against Jews.

What?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Show me one fucking article published by the Jew-owned media where Jews are attacked fucking cocksucker.

Fresh meat! Man, we can really have a fuckfest, now! We have one rabid religious nut, and another who appears to be a rabid racist, (who has stumbled on the wrong thread). While he could be protesting infant circumcision, he is actually not articulate enough for us to find out what category of nut he is!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Another attack on white Christians, but not a single one against Jews.

What?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Show me one fucking article published by the Jew-owned media where Jews are attacked fucking cocksucker.

Take your anti-sematic moronic horseshit and shove it up your ass and try not to cause brain damage in the process.Deal with the topic or get the fuck out of here.What we don't need is another zombie troll bot derailing this thread.

 

[zaangalewa]

... I hope that at least some others out there feel the outrage that I do!

No. I 'm not outraged - I'm worried. First: Yesterday for example I saw a film about a young woman in Germany who was nearly killed from the pharma industries. She thought anti-baby-pills are harmless. This pills caused in her a pulmonary embolism in both lungs. She survived with a lot of good doctors and the help of god. So: What do we know really, if we agree or do not agree to take medical drugs? Like for example an harmless anti-baby pill? In generell every medicine or drug is alway also dangerous and the standardarized procedures are sometimes not the best ways.

Second: On different reasons sometimes parents are causing the death of one of their own children. In all this cases I'm always very astonished about the reactions in the public opinions - specially about all the moralistic people, who seem to think they are able to solve such problems with punishments. What for heavens sake is a higher punishment than the death of a child as a consequence of the own wrong behavior?

I don't know in the moment why Herbert and Catherine Schaible made a wrong decision in case of health care - but I fear the formula "god wil help" is often nothing else than a lack of possibilities on reasons of money. Every Christian knows that the sentence Herbert Schaible said: "We believe in divine healing, the Jesus shed blood for our healing and that he died on the cross to break the devil’s power” has nothing to do with a concrete fight against a pulmonary inflammation - it has to do with a fight for health. Jesus was a healer - not a destructor. So Christians aer often very active in case of health care. To try to heal a concrete pulmonarry infection with some prayings would be on the other side the same as to try to heal a defect in a vaccuum cleaner by calling god to repair this vacuum cleaner. That's nonsense. Our deeds are important! Our belief is important Prayings help to find the right inspirations for the right deeds or to be patient and to give the time someone needs to be healed. And sometimes prayings help also to accept the death of a beloved person. Death will be for everyone the last consequence in this world here.

So - whatever the reasons were, why they went the wrong way when their children were sick: I'm not sure about the responsibility of this parents. They followed maybe only their trust in wrong people: charlatans. This charlatans are responsible. And don't think charlatans are not existing everywhere in every normal business too. Everywhere are charlatans. As far as I can see the parents lost two of their children and they are are arrested - but the charlatans, who caused this desaster, are still free. That's worrying.

 

[Vandalshandle]

What is worrisome is that there are adults with children who trust Bible thumpers and turn their backs on modern medicine, with predicable results. I have no sympathy for them at all. The children were the victims of their irresponsibility.

 

[zaangalewa]

What is worrisome is that there are adults with children who trust Bible thumpers and turn their backs on modern medicine, with predicable results. I have no sympathy for them at all. The children were the victims of their irresponsibility.

But why to trust in the so called "modern medicine"? In case of methylphenidate for example the use of this medicine (=drug) is in more than 95% of all cases wrong. Lots of surgeries are completly superflous or even counterproductive and so on and so on. What's your criterierion that someone earns your sympathy? What has he to do in this case? Who decides how to get "sympathy"?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What is worrisome is that there are adults with children who trust Bible thumpers and turn their backs on modern medicine, with predicable results. I have no sympathy for them at all. The children were the victims of their irresponsibility.

But why to trust in the so called "modern medicine"? In case of methylphenidate for example the use of this medicine (=drug) is in more than 95% of all cases wrong. Lots of surgeries are completly superflous or even counterproductive and so on and so on. What's your criterierion that someone earns your sympathy? What has he to do in this case? Who decides how to get "sympathy"?

I am confused as to what point you're trying to make here. No one is saying that modern medicine has all of the answers. If you are citing one problematic drug to make an argument that prayer is preferable to modern medicine, it is a miserable FAIL, wrought with logical fallacies. Here are a few:

No True Scotsman
This fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.

The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, “Well, then, he’s no true Scotsman.” In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ian’s definition of the word, “Scotsman.”

If one drug is problematic, it does not define the whole of modern medicine.

Non-Sequitur
In Latin this term translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.

That should be self explanatory

Ad ignorantiam
The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. It is therefore possible, they argue, that the brain may be capable of transmitting signals at a distance.

If you're claiming that prayer works because we don't know that it doesn't work, this is what your doing. This is a slight variation on the appeal to ignorance where one is saying that it is true because I said that it's true while offering no evidence for it.

The criteria for sympathy? How about acting responsible in accordance with scientific knowledge instead of superstition and made up religious doctrine. Then, if your child dies anyway, you would have my sympathy.

 

[zaangalewa]

What is worrisome is that there are adults with children who trust Bible thumpers and turn their backs on modern medicine, with predicable results. I have no sympathy for them at all. The children were the victims of their irresponsibility.

But why to trust in the so called "modern medicine"? In case of methylphenidate for example the use of this medicine (=drug) is in more than 95% of all cases wrong. Lots of surgeries are completly superflous or even counterproductive and so on and so on. What's your criterierion that someone earns your sympathy? What has he to do in this case? Who decides how to get "sympathy"?

I am confused as to what point you're trying to make here. No one is saying that modern medicine has all of the answers. If you are citing one problematic drug to make an argument that prayer is preferable to modern medicine, it is a miserable FAIL, wrought with logical fallacies. Here are a few:

No True Scotsman
This fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.

The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, “Well, then, he’s no true Scotsman.” In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ian’s definition of the word, “Scotsman.”

If one drug is problematic, it does not define the whole of modern medicine.

Non-Sequitur
In Latin this term translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.

That should be self explanatory

Ad ignorantiam
The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. It is therefore possible, they argue, that the brain may be capable of transmitting signals at a distance.

If you're claiming that prayer works because we don't know that it doesn't work, this is what your doing. This is a slight variation on the appeal to ignorance where one is saying that it is true because I said that it's true while offering no evidence for it.

The criteria for sympathy? How about acting responsible in accordance with scientific knowledge instead of superstition and made up religious doctrine. Then, if your child dies anyway, you would have my sympathy.

I'm a German. As far as I know in the moment was Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) the last German who wrote a funny book about "Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten"(=my translation: "The art to be tricky enough to be right"). Unfortunatelly it's a serios theme here. So tell me please concrete how to force someone to have to trust in this what you call "modern medicine" - and if this should be possible, how you would justify this force although it is evident that "modern medicine" makes heavy mistakes too.

 

[Vandalshandle]

What is worrisome is that there are adults with children who trust Bible thumpers and turn their backs on modern medicine, with predicable results. I have no sympathy for them at all. The children were the victims of their irresponsibility.

But why to trust in the so called "modern medicine"? In case of methylphenidate for example the use of this medicine (=drug) is in more than 95% of all cases wrong. Lots of surgeries are completly superflous or even counterproductive and so on and so on. What's your criterierion that someone earns your sympathy? What has he to do in this case? Who decides how to get "sympathy"?

I am confused as to what point you're trying to make here. No one is saying that modern medicine has all of the answers. If you are citing one problematic drug to make an argument that prayer is preferable to modern medicine, it is a miserable FAIL, wrought with logical fallacies. Here are a few:

No True Scotsman
This fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.

The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, “Well, then, he’s no true Scotsman.” In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ian’s definition of the word, “Scotsman.”

If one drug is problematic, it does not define the whole of modern medicine.

Non-Sequitur
In Latin this term translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.

That should be self explanatory

Ad ignorantiam
The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. It is therefore possible, they argue, that the brain may be capable of transmitting signals at a distance.

If you're claiming that prayer works because we don't know that it doesn't work, this is what your doing. This is a slight variation on the appeal to ignorance where one is saying that it is true because I said that it's true while offering no evidence for it.

The criteria for sympathy? How about acting responsible in accordance with scientific knowledge instead of superstition and made up religious doctrine. Then, if your child dies anyway, you would have my sympathy.

I'm a German. As far as I know in the moment was Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) the last German who wrote a funny book about "Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten"(=my translation: "The art to be tricky enough to be right"). Unfortunatelly it's a serios theme here. So tell me please concrete how to force someone to have to trust in this what you call "modern medicine" - and if this should be possible, how you would justify this force although it is evident that "modern medicine" makes heavy mistakes too.

I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying, but it is not my job to convince anyone that modern medicine rather than superstition is the best solution to medical issues. I have plenty of other things on my plate. I depend on the law to do that for me. If one lives in the USA, they will prosecute for child neglect, should one act irresponsibly. That is enough for me.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What is worrisome is that there are adults with children who trust Bible thumpers and turn their backs on modern medicine, with predicable results. I have no sympathy for them at all. The children were the victims of their irresponsibility.

But why to trust in the so called "modern medicine"? In case of methylphenidate for example the use of this medicine (=drug) is in more than 95% of all cases wrong. Lots of surgeries are completly superflous or even counterproductive and so on and so on. What's your criterierion that someone earns your sympathy? What has he to do in this case? Who decides how to get "sympathy"?

I am confused as to what point you're trying to make here. No one is saying that modern medicine has all of the answers. If you are citing one problematic drug to make an argument that prayer is preferable to modern medicine, it is a miserable FAIL, wrought with logical fallacies. Here are a few:

No True Scotsman
This fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.

The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, “Well, then, he’s no true Scotsman.” In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ian’s definition of the word, “Scotsman.”

If one drug is problematic, it does not define the whole of modern medicine.

Non-Sequitur
In Latin this term translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.

That should be self explanatory

Ad ignorantiam
The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. It is therefore possible, they argue, that the brain may be capable of transmitting signals at a distance.

If you're claiming that prayer works because we don't know that it doesn't work, this is what your doing. This is a slight variation on the appeal to ignorance where one is saying that it is true because I said that it's true while offering no evidence for it.

The criteria for sympathy? How about acting responsible in accordance with scientific knowledge instead of superstition and made up religious doctrine. Then, if your child dies anyway, you would have my sympathy.

I'm a German. As far as I know in the moment was Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) the last German who wrote a funny book about "Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten"(=my translation: "The art to be tricky enough to be right"). Unfortunatelly it's a serios theme here. So tell me please concrete how to force someone to have to trust in this what you call "modern medicine" - and if this should be possible, how you would justify this force although it is evident that "modern medicine" makes heavy mistakes too.

You are not even trying to construct a logical argument because I think that you know that there is no logical argument to justify what these parents did.

I don't want to force anyone to have trust or faith in anything . I don't have complete faith in medicine or anything else. No thinking person should have complete trust in anything. However, there is a vast body of scientific evidence that medicine works. As for faith healing, not so much. Yes, I am aware of the fact that there is some anecdotal and quasi scientific evidence for "the power of prayer but that is nothing to what we know that medicine can do. I attribute it to the effects of positive thinking which can help with an illness.

Parents can believe in prayer and employ it if they wish. However, I maintain that it is cruel and in fact criminal to withhold proven medical care from a child who does not yet understand what he or she believes and is unable to make a choice. It is unimaginable how a parent would not use EVERY means at there disposal to help a sick child whether they believe in it or not.

There is overwhelming evidence that medicine is much more likely to help than to hurt. and in most cases, even if not effective does no harm, despite your hand picked horror stories . To say that "only god can heal" and that only god can chose who lives and dies is stupid and despicable. These parents are the same kind of idiots that think that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that humans co-existed with dinosaurs

That is my final word.

 

[zaangalewa]

What is worrisome is that there are adults with children who trust Bible thumpers and turn their backs on modern medicine, with predicable results. I have no sympathy for them at all. The children were the victims of their irresponsibility.

But why to trust in the so called "modern medicine"? In case of methylphenidate for example the use of this medicine (=drug) is in more than 95% of all cases wrong. Lots of surgeries are completly superflous or even counterproductive and so on and so on. What's your criterierion that someone earns your sympathy? What has he to do in this case? Who decides how to get "sympathy"?

I am confused as to what point you're trying to make here. No one is saying that modern medicine has all of the answers. If you are citing one problematic drug to make an argument that prayer is preferable to modern medicine, it is a miserable FAIL, wrought with logical fallacies. Here are a few:

No True Scotsman
This fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.

The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, “Well, then, he’s no true Scotsman.” In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ian’s definition of the word, “Scotsman.”

If one drug is problematic, it does not define the whole of modern medicine.

Non-Sequitur
In Latin this term translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.

That should be self explanatory

Ad ignorantiam
The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. It is therefore possible, they argue, that the brain may be capable of transmitting signals at a distance.

If you're claiming that prayer works because we don't know that it doesn't work, this is what your doing. This is a slight variation on the appeal to ignorance where one is saying that it is true because I said that it's true while offering no evidence for it.

The criteria for sympathy? How about acting responsible in accordance with scientific knowledge instead of superstition and made up religious doctrine. Then, if your child dies anyway, you would have my sympathy.

I'm a German. As far as I know in the moment was Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) the last German who wrote a funny book about "Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten"(=my translation: "The art to be tricky enough to be right"). Unfortunatelly it's a serios theme here. So tell me please concrete how to force someone to have to trust in this what you call "modern medicine" - and if this should be possible, how you would justify this force although it is evident that "modern medicine" makes heavy mistakes too.

I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying,

I doubt about that you did not understand what I said to you.

but it is not my job to convince anyone that modern medicine rather than superstition is the best solution to medical issues. I have plenty of other things on my plate. I depend on the law to do that for me. If one lives in the USA, they will prosecute for child neglect, should one act irresponsibly. That is enough for me.

My scenario in the moment: Mindmanipulating charlatans manipulated with brainwashing methods parents to make wrong decisions in case of the health care for their own children. Basing on the incompetence of this brainwashing mindmanipulators two of their children died. Now this parents are arrested and Americans think: "This is justice". But still there is a danger that such things will happen again. And your solution for this problem is it now to make a law what forces everyone to do what a doctor or the pharmaceutical industry says. Besides that I think pharmaceutical industries are mindmanipulating brainwashers - and sometimes even charlatans too - I fear I can tell you what the pharmaceutical industry will say to the people: "Gimme your money!" - without gun but with your laws in their hands. And they will say so to all people worldwide!