Tuesday, 16 July 2013
Friday, 12 July 2013
Wednesday, 19 June 2013
Tuesday, 18 June 2013
Why I'm not a believer
How much longer, how many more generation needs there to be for mankind to think differently and NOT to believe and repeat what was said and believed thousands of years ago by just one man without any credible proofs what so ever?
Wise Words
"Reading is thinking with someone else's head instead of one's own.
Arthur Schopenhauer
(February 22, 1788 - September 21, 1860)
Result of Strong Faith?
...............
Faith-healing couple ordered to stand trial for son's 'murder'
IN THE days leading up to Brandon Schaible's April 18 death from bacterial pneumonia and dehydration, the nearly 8-month-old boy suffered through spells of vomiting, diarrhea, breathing difficulty, irritability and a decreased appetite, his parents told homicide detectives.
Herbert and Catherine Schaible, of Rhawnhurst, also spoke of their devout belief in the healing powers of Jesus, and of how they prayed that Brandon's ravaged 14 1/2-pound body would be healed without doctors or medicine.
"Psalms 100:3 says, 'I am the God that heals you.' And another verse says that God does not ever change. So, I believe that he is still the God that heals,' " Catherine, 43, said hours after Brandon's death, according to a statement read yesterday by Detective James Crone at the couple's preliminary hearing.
"It's against our religious beliefs - we believe in divine healing," Herbert, 44, said when asked why they didn't get their baby to a doctor, Detective Brian Peters said, reading from Herbert's statement.
Herbert also said that he had "no regrets" about not seeking medical care, Peters said.
Municipal Judge Charles Hayden then ordered the Schaibles - high-school dropouts and lifelong members of First Century Gospel Church in Juniata Park - to stand trial for third-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and related counts.
The Schaibles, who have seven living children, have been down this road before.
They were convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2011 for the 2009 death of son Kent, 2, who also died of bacterial pneumonia after not receiving medical care.
The couple was sentenced to 10 years' probation and ordered to provide their remaining children with annual medical checkups and medical care when needed.
The fact that they did not do that for Brandon amounts to malice and third-degree murder, said Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore, who also prosecuted the first case.
"They knew. They were on notice. You couldn't be more clear. These are parents who are on probation for doing the same exact thing to a child . . . and they did it once again," Pescatore said after the hearing.
But defense lawyers Mythri Jayaraman, for Catherine, and Bobby Hoof, for Herbert, argued that the charges should be dismissed because their clients had no way of knowing Brandon was so sick that he would die.
They noted that Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Gary Collins testified that the child's symptoms were the same as those caused by the flu or a cold, and he could not say how long the child showed symptoms.
Saturday, 12 January 2013
Let's Think, January 12, 2013
Pascal's Wager
Is it Safer to Bet on God than Not?
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
Someone who offers Pascal’s Wager is arguing that to believe in God is a better bet than not believing in God. If you believe and God exists, you’ll go to heaven and avoid hell; if you believe and are wrong, you lose nothing. If you don’t believe in God and God does exist, you’ll lose heaven and go to hell; if you’re right, then you gain nothing. There are a lot of problems with this argument.
The first problem lies in the implicit yet unstated assumption that we already know which god we should believe in. That assumption, however, is not necessary to the argument, and thus the argument itself does not explain which religion a person should follow. This can be described as the “avoiding the wrong hell” dilemma. If you happen to follow the right religion, you may indeed “go to heaven and avoid hell.” However, if you choose the wrong religion, you’ll still go to hell.
The thing missed by so many who use this argument is that you cannot “bet” on the general concept of “theism.” You have to pick specific doctrines. Theism is just a broad construct which includes all possible god-beliefs and, as such, does not exist absent specific theologies. If you are going to really believe in a god, you have to believe in something — which means picking something. If you pick nothing, then your “belief” is literally empty and you remain an atheist. So, a person who picks risks picking the wrong god and avoiding the wrong hell.
A second problem is that it isn’t actually true that the person who bets loses nothing. If a person bets on the wrong god, then the True God (tm) just might punish them for their foolish behavior. What’s more, the True God (tm) might not mind that people don’t bother believing in it when they use rational reasons — thus, not picking at all might be the safest bet. You just cannot know.
Also, some choices do indeed come with large risks. Many have died because they trusted in prayer rather than medicine. Others have perished due to the handling of poisonous snakes and the drinking of lethal liquids because Jesus said they would be able to do so without harm. Thus, the choice of pseudoscientific and mystical beliefs can carry very negative consequences.
A third problem is the unstated premise that the two choices presented are equally likely. It is only when two choices are equal in probability that it makes sense to go with the allegedly “safe bet.” However, if the choice of a god is revealed to be a great deal less likely than the choice of no god, then god ceases to be the “safe bet.” Or, if both are equally likely, then neither is actually a “safe bet.”
One final problem is the conclusion of the argument, where a person decides to believe in a god because it is the choice that offers the most benefits and least dangers. However, this requires that the god in question not mind that you believe in it merely in order to gain entrance to heaven and/or to avoid punishment in hell.
But this means that this god isn’t actually a just or fair god, since a person’s eternal fate is not being decided upon based on their actions, but merely on their decision to make a pragmatic and selfish choice. I don’t know about you, but that certainly isn’t the sort of god I would ever consider worshipping.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)