tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post4826667601548414344..comments2023-11-09T02:43:59.293-08:00Comments on Christian Medical Comment: Most people with locked-in syndrome do not wish to diePeter Saundershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-16131455407334686132013-08-07T03:23:42.774-07:002013-08-07T03:23:42.774-07:00Now people having locked in syndrom can talk to ea...Now people having locked in syndrom can talk to each other. read more how<br /><br /><a href="http://www.themedguru.com/articles/pupil-dilation-paralytic-people-prompts-communication-49164.html" rel="nofollow">paralysed people can communicate</a>Aakritihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05843053280132207435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-50898627437093231462012-06-22T14:46:29.711-07:002012-06-22T14:46:29.711-07:00Lots of theists don't base their views on scri...Lots of theists don't base their views on scriptural texts.fiddlestickshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07756767401169853081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-55324102548326147782012-06-21T23:44:22.530-07:002012-06-21T23:44:22.530-07:00Any assumptions I have made are based purely on fa...Any assumptions I have made are based purely on fact.<br /><br />For example, I said I find it hard not to view theists as simpletons. Hopefully <a href="http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm" rel="nofollow">this chart will help explain it to you a little better</a>.<br /><br />If you don't want to respond to me that is your right, but please realise that I will see it as a sign of your inability to contradict what I have said using facts and logic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-39955707437876866132012-06-21T23:37:27.684-07:002012-06-21T23:37:27.684-07:001. You're backtracking. Either argue your poin...1. You're backtracking. Either argue your point or admit defeat, don't suddenly say you aren't up to the task you when you were the one who decided to try and pull me on the point. This blog quotes the bible numerous times, when anyone else does so they are told they are taking it out of context, its the same BS excuse that theists always come back to.<br /><br />2. You are redefining. It does not matter if you believe in a personal god or not. Theism is a belief in the supernatural, people who believe in the supernatural cannot be trusted to make well balanced decisions. Additionally I said 'imaginary friend' not 'invisible friend' - there is a subtle, and I feel important, difference.<br /><br />3. Backtracking again.<br /><br />You can keep changing, redefining and backtracking all you like, it wont change the fact that in almost every case: theism is belief in the supernatural based on ancient texts which were written 100's of years after the supposed incidents took place. At very best they are second or third hand accounts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-72543016949500332992012-06-21T14:51:29.303-07:002012-06-21T14:51:29.303-07:001) I'm not the best person to go into all the ...1) I'm not the best person to go into all the reasons why we don't follow all the laws of Leviticus any longer, but I think we've had this discussion on this blog before.<br /><br />2) I perhaps didn't word that very well. The reason you gave for not trusting a judge who happened to have come to the conclusion that God exists was that he had an 'invisible friend'. I was simply pointing out that not all theists believe that you can have a personal relationship with God in the same way that Christians do, so they don't have an 'invisible friend' telling them what to do. They've simply looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion from you.<br /><br />3) Again, law not really my area, but I think it depends on the area of law.fiddlestickshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07756767401169853081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-36012096102498398852012-06-21T14:43:21.028-07:002012-06-21T14:43:21.028-07:00There you go again! This isn't argument, this...There you go again! This isn't argument, this is just your own assumptions about people who believe in God.<br /><br />I really DON'T want to be patronising, newsengland, but if you continue in this manner why should any of us have a discussion with you?fiddlestickshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07756767401169853081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-65840055636841703492012-06-20T04:29:47.366-07:002012-06-20T04:29:47.366-07:00At the risk of sounding patronising...
It has neve...<i>At the risk of sounding patronising...</i><br />It has never stopped theists before and it hasn't stopped you now.<br /><br />Accusing someone of an ad hominem attacks on another who holds unprovable views and sticks to them like glue is foolish. It is not possible to attack the idea without an element of ad hominem when the person sticks to their ludicrous and unprovable view so closely. Therefore I reject your claim that I have made unreasonable personal attacks (feel free to quote anything I have said, in context, to prove your point)<br /><br />This is especially true in the case of theists who will continue to claim there is some man in the sky who laid out a set of rules that everyone must obey. <br /><br />I honestly don't mind if I come across as belligerent as I am not here to make friends - I am here to get the point across that religion is just a bunch of made up nonsense and anyone who believes in it is blinkered and backward thinking.<br /><br />I realise it is hard for people to escape the clutches of religion as in most cases it is something they have been brought up to believe, but it is even harder for people like me to put up with goofballs who keep trying to push our whole of our society back into the dark ages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-91343074375138208952012-06-19T23:24:07.968-07:002012-06-19T23:24:07.968-07:001. If you want your bible taken seriously then you...1. If you want your bible taken seriously then you must take it seriously. You don't because it is a load of nonsense - as shown in the verses I listed. I did not randomly pick those verses, I chose them in a deliberate effort to show just how ridiculous the bible is.<br /><br />2. Hang on, you are using the word 'creator' as if it is a given fact of who 'the creator' is or even that there is a 'creator'. It isn't a given and unless you can prove it is then you should withdraw your unprovable argument. <br /><br />You suggest that I make assumptions about the universe which lead me to a certain belief, that is not the case. I do not need to make assumptions, I rely upon the evidence that science provides and can prove. This is something that theists struggle to understand, my viewpoint is one of the natural, not the supernatural.<br /><br />3. You are mistaken, our laws are mostly derived from the ancient Greek laws. They may coincide with things the bible says, but that just proves that like minded people thought that there were general principles that should be commonplace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-16748251393064248812012-06-19T12:47:37.543-07:002012-06-19T12:47:37.543-07:00oops, that should have been 'advice on how you...oops, that should have been 'advice on how you could rephrase your argument' and 'the slim possibility that the system could be manipulated for immoral ends.'<br /><br />Typing too fast!fiddlestickshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07756767401169853081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-8267621403026219272012-06-19T12:45:45.898-07:002012-06-19T12:45:45.898-07:00At the risk of sounding patronising, let me offer ...At the risk of sounding patronising, let me offer you some advice of phrasing your arguments.<br /><br />'Peter, I appreciate your concern that a euthenasia law could be abused, however, I believe it would be possible to construct a law with adequate safe guards so that this possibility would be kept to a minimum. I believe the suffering of patients who wish to die and are denied the right is of greater concern when weighed against the slim possibility that the system.'<br /><br />Doesn't that sound better than 'Peter, you're an underdeveloped human being, incapable of empathy. You're a prejudiced religious simpleton who wants people to suffer just to appease your vicious, petulant God (otherwise known as your invisible friend).'<br /><br />This is the difference between rational discussion and ad hominem.fiddlestickshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07756767401169853081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-55763472162095524182012-06-19T12:36:55.790-07:002012-06-19T12:36:55.790-07:00I really wasn't trying to be difficult.
1) pi...I really wasn't trying to be difficult.<br /><br />1) picking random verses out of a holy book without trying to make any sense of them is a pretty narrow sense of religious. If that's what you mean by religious, then I certainly am NOT 'religious' and neither is this blog.<br /><br />2) a theist may not believe that it is possible for a human being to have a personal relationship with the creator, so why do you assume that one view of the universe is more reliable than the other?<br /><br />3) I believe quite a lot of our laws, morals, constitution are derived from scriptural principles.fiddlestickshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07756767401169853081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-70913340236270315052012-06-19T11:35:05.111-07:002012-06-19T11:35:05.111-07:001) I'm not sure how realistic or desirable it ...<i>1) I'm not sure how realistic or desirable it would be to have a long drawn out court case for everyone who wished to die.</i><br /><br />Why should it be long or drawn out - do you foresee batches of lawyers fighting for and against each case ? I don't.<br /><br /><i>What do you mean by 'influenced by religion'? ... I'm not sure that one position is any more neutral than the other, and I'm not sure I would trust an atheist law maker more than a theist one...</i><br /><br />I think you know what I mean by 'influenced by religion' I think you are just trying to be difficult, I shall however explain it:<br />Religious texts, ie thou shalt, thou shalt not, should have no influence over the laws of the land. <br />We already manage to ignore such nonsense from the bible as "selling our daughters into slavery" (Exodus 21:7) and we don't "kill people who choose to work on the Sabbath" (Exodus 35:2) and we don't "stone to death those who choose to plant two different crops in one field" or "those who wear clothes made of two different fabrics" (Lev.19:19)<br /><br />As for whether you would trust a theist or atheist lawmaker the choice should be obvious, one of them has one less imaginary friend than the other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-91986446155653935682012-06-19T11:22:24.169-07:002012-06-19T11:22:24.169-07:00It should be plainly obvious why I say religious v...It should be plainly obvious why I say religious views aren't based on logic, I am not going to draw you a map.<br /><br />I am not making assertions based on a lack of evidence, I am making assertions based on the way the law in the UK works. <br /><br />To clarify: religious people = theists (I thought this was obvious)<br /><br />It may well be that my view of theists is prejudice, I struggle not to view them as simpletons, I don't always succeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-17225787236420613012012-06-19T11:02:01.630-07:002012-06-19T11:02:01.630-07:00'As I already said, it should be down to the c...'As I already said, it should be down to the courts to decide on a case by case basis, but they should not overrule a persons wishes if said person is of sound mind. Additionally they should not be influenced by religion.'<br /><br />1) I'm not sure how realistic or desirable it would be to have a long drawn out court case for everyone who wished to die.<br /><br />2) What do you mean by 'influenced by religion'? As far as I understand it, a court should only be influenced by the law, but what influences the law? Some people might say 'all human life is precious because it is made in the image of God' and some might say 'the value of life is contingent on circumstances because there is no God and we're only a clump of cells (though a more sophisticated clump of cells than a fetus).' I'm not sure that one position is any more neutral than the other, and I'm not sure I would trust an atheist law maker more than a theist one.fiddlestickshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07756767401169853081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-66183157805577272342012-06-19T10:54:16.251-07:002012-06-19T10:54:16.251-07:00Newsengland, I'm finding it more and more diff...Newsengland, I'm finding it more and more difficult to follow what you're saying. As far as I can see, Peter is not dismissive of your views. He responds to many of your comments, and always using logic. If you take Bible verses out of context, he explains the context. If you come up with an argument for euthenasia, he explains where he sees the problems. If he were dismissive of your opinions, he wouldn't even post them!<br /><br />With regard to euthenasia, you seem to be stating the same thing over and over again - that it's the individual's choice, that the courts should make a decision on a case-by-case basis, and that those doctors and nurses willing to assist in suicide should be allowed to do so. You keep asserting, as a matter of faith, without any evidence or basis, that there would not, and could not, be any abuse of the system if assisted dying were made lawful. This is despite many people (whether of faith or not) posting on this blog evidence of where there has been abuse in countries where euthenasia is lawful, and parallel examples of abuses of conscience in cases of abortion.<br /><br />How can you claim that it's religious views aren't based on logic of any sort when it is you that continually makes assertions based on your own convictions without any evidence? If I'm being really honest, your view of 'religious people' (and I'm not even sure what you mean by that) is based entirely in prejudice, which is ironic considering that what you keep accusing Peter of is prejudice.fiddlestickshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07756767401169853081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-1765752764041422992012-06-19T10:47:02.923-07:002012-06-19T10:47:02.923-07:00Sorry, I cant edit...
I said you posted about tha...Sorry, I cant edit...<br /><br />I said you posted about that (about the 1930's) last week, it was actually last year. I realised just after I posted, I was thinking it was last week as I replied to it recently, its <a href="http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/twenty-facts-we-are-unlikely-to-learn.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-46088466436969100062012-06-19T10:37:01.297-07:002012-06-19T10:37:01.297-07:00@ Peter
With respect to abortion who does the body...@ Peter<br /><i>With respect to abortion who does the body of the baby belong to and who therefore has a right to kill it?</i><br /><br />There is no baby, there is only an embryo or foetus, it is part of the mother, her rights trump that of anything growing within her.<br /><br /><i>This is primarily a discussion not about religion but about public safety. </i><br /><br />As I already said, it should be down to the courts to decide on a case by case basis, but they should not overrule a persons wishes if said person is of sound mind. Additionally they should not be influenced by religion.<br /><br /><i>The parliamentarians who on three occasions in the last six years in Britain have rejected bills aimed at legalising assisted suicide have not done so on religious grounds.</i><br /><br />It doesn't matter if they have rejected it every day for the last hundred years, it should still be the right of any person to die if they so wish, who are you or I to say that a persons life has quality or not.<br /><br />@fiddlesticks<br /><br /><i>It seems like you're saying 'you people are religious, therefore your views aren't based on logic, therefore I don't have to engage with them'. Is that what you think?</i><br /><br />Religious views aren't based on any sort of logic, you are correct. I am as dismissive of religious views as the author of this blog is of my views, it is a two way street - for example: the author posted tracts from the bible in a recent post, I posted tracts from the same bible and got accused of cherry picking verses. Its true I did cherry pick them, but so had the author when he posted his. The author was upset that I had pulled the exact same stunt as him, but the verses I chose made him or his religion look silly. It isn't my fault that the bible is so contradictory and easy to use against religious folks, I didn't write it (but then neither did some god)<br /><br />Back on topic.<br />I believe I am engaging, I have already explained that it should be the right for anyone to die if they so choose, unfortunately you may not have seen all the posts I have made responding to this topic as Peter has decided to post about it several times within just the last week. <br /><br />As I have said before, I am sure that if a law was passed which legalised assisted suicide (with the condition that each case was decided upon by a judge) then there would be plenty of doctors and nurses who would be willing to work in centres that specialised in helping people to die. No, it wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea and I wouldn't expect it to be, but if it helped relieve suffering I am sure there would be plenty of doctors who would be willing to to work there.<br /><br />@Peter<br /><i>With regard to euthanasia one of the main groups opposing change in the law is the disability rights lobby of whom only a small proportion are religious. </i><br /><br />Why do you think that is? I would suggest it is because of a lack of trust between those disabled people and the rest of society, many of them have spent their lives being discriminated against - so we shouldn't be surprised that they feel threatened by any such law, especially when we have people like you suggesting that any euthanasia law would be like the Nazis in the 1930's and would result in the disabled being killed (which if you remember you said last week when you posted about euthanasia)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-66305514980712922682012-06-19T10:19:49.466-07:002012-06-19T10:19:49.466-07:00Oh dear. Embarrassing typo but I will let it stand...Oh dear. Embarrassing typo but I will let it stand.Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-87333997442317846782012-06-19T08:37:13.295-07:002012-06-19T08:37:13.295-07:00Hilarious typo Peter - we no longer have plain old...Hilarious typo Peter - we no longer have plain old years in Britain, but 'sex years' - absolutely everything is about sex!<br /><br />Newsengland, I appreciate your concerns about religion, but you're not engaging with the arguments. I agree that 'religion' in the sense of picking random verses out of a holy book and turning them into laws imposed on other people is a bad thing. That's not what I'm doing, and that's not what I see Peter doing in these posts.<br /><br />I also agree with you that spending all your time finding things to criticise in other people because you're not at peace within yourself is a bad thing. That's called 'being judgemental' and is not a healthy attitude to others. I can't guess Peter's motivations for writing this blog, but he doesn't come across as being full of bitterness with life to me. Some of your posts, however, can sometimes be a bit judgemental of people who disagree with you. (The Bible, incidentally, is very against both 'religion' and judgementalism).<br /><br />It seems like you're saying 'you people are religious, therefore your views aren't based on logic, therefore I don't have to engage with them'. Is that what you think?<br /><br />You're not engaging with the point that's being made, which is that any death other than suicide involves at least two people. Therefore, this NOT about one individual and their own body, but and issue about the responsibilities of the medical profession, the family, caring professions such as old people's homes and disability charities, and society in general. In what ways do you envisage them being involved in another's death?fiddlestickshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07756767401169853081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-39243337614145201012012-06-19T05:56:11.516-07:002012-06-19T05:56:11.516-07:00With respect to abortion who does the body of the ...With respect to abortion who does the body of the baby belong to and who therefore has a right to kill it?<br /><br />With regard to euthanasia one of the main groups opposing change in the law is the disability rights lobby of whom only a small proportion are religious. <br /><br />This is primarily a discussion not about religion but about public safety. <br /><br />The parliamentarians who on three occasions in the last sex years in Britain have rejected bills aimed at legalising assisted suicide have not done so on religious grounds.Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-81299763464171162752012-06-19T04:38:06.101-07:002012-06-19T04:38:06.101-07:00They are very nice, thank you for your concern ;o)...They are very nice, thank you for your concern ;o)<br /><br />wrt abortion - even if there were no deaths or injuries from badly performed back street abortions I would still be pro-choice. For me that issue comes down to one thing only, whose body is it - the rest of the arguments are just window dressing.<br /><br />I have the same stance with regard to euthanasia / assisted dying / mercy killings. If it isn't your body, you shouldn't have a say - however, the god squad insist that we must do things their way. This is what annoys me most about religion, the religious aren't happy with their own lives so they have to interfere with others and start telling them how to live their lives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-86149585304236964262012-06-19T04:17:14.513-07:002012-06-19T04:17:14.513-07:00PS are the paragraphs short enough for you, newsen...PS are the paragraphs short enough for you, newsengland ;)fiddlestickshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07756767401169853081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-2973500934908694632012-06-19T04:15:54.827-07:002012-06-19T04:15:54.827-07:00Basically, he's saying that the problem with a...Basically, he's saying that the problem with assisted dying is that it isn't the 'right to die' but 'the right to have somebody else kill you' (It's not against the law to kill yourself, and those who assist in 'mercy killings' normally get let off in court). This will lead to violations of conscience as we've seen with nurses and abortion - 'assist in killing what your conscience tells you is a human baby or lose your job'.fiddlestickshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07756767401169853081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-64497411081533818242012-06-19T04:07:57.767-07:002012-06-19T04:07:57.767-07:00Thank you Peter for providing this much needed per...Thank you Peter for providing this much needed perspective. Newsengland, with respect, I think you're missing the point. The point is not that some people are more empathetic than others, but that we're all capable of empathy and that empathy can be manipulated if we're not given all the information. It happened with abortion. We were all manipulated by the horror stories of women dying in backstreet abortions and the guilt that we would be responsible. Nobody wants to be heartless, but what our concern for these women has led to is a very high figure of abortion, many mothers (and fathers) put under pressure to do the 'responsible' thing, and Orwellian slogans like 'every child a wanted child'.<br /><br />We've become so dissensitised we can't see how chilling the implications of slogans like this are. It wouldn't surprise me if in my lifetime we were to see slogans like 'every life a wanted life' promoted by 'societies for the care of the elderly'. It seems that more and more the 'humane' thing to do in a difficult situation is to end life.<br /><br />This is CRAZY when you consider the resources that we have around us and the access to medical care that our ancestors couldn't have dreamed of. See my comment on 'How many women really died from abortions ...' - think about the risks our great-grandparents and great-great-great-great grandparents took to preserve the life of a child that quite possibly wouldn't live past a year old. Look at how they respected and cared for the elderly. If they hadn't done that, we wouldn't be here! When life was less certain, life was more precious.fiddlestickshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07756767401169853081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-26129884601115878442012-06-19T04:00:47.951-07:002012-06-19T04:00:47.951-07:00I am not going to read that wall of text, try para...I am not going to read that wall of text, try paragraphs, they are your friend.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com