People refuse procedures all the time for personal beliefs that are not religious.
I can't believe I have to repeat this again, but, here goes: Yes, but I'm not talking about those people.
A child starved to death in his mother’s arms because the mother wanted the child to eat a vegan diet.
Perhaps, but I'm not talking about that mother.
People don’t listen to alcoholics?
Seriously? You seriously can't tell the difference between "alcoholics" (what you said) and "drunk people" (what I said). Seriously?
The Bell Curve is a book that breaks down and utilizes statistical information on IQ testing.
Whatever. I'm not talking about the people that wrote that book.
By far though, religion and faith are not the only villains in the room.
I never claimed that they were. If anyone did, you did. (You might want to look up what a "straw man argument" is. It's when you take someone's sane position and distort it to something ridiculous, then argue that
position. For example, when you take someone saying "religion/faith is A
villain" and distort that to "religion/faith is THE ONLY
I understand what Saria is posting, but she is failing to exhibit how faith based poor judgment is worse than any other poor judgment.
And the surprising reason that I seem to be "failing" to do that is because that's not what I'm trying to do. Really, if you're going to keep making up my arguments, I should be getting royalties or something on them.
Simply because someone doesn’t like “faith” is not reason to say that faith needs to be taken off the table when faith is no more dangerous or misleading than any other type of bad judgment. That is where the contention, so far as I can tell, is coming from in our line of discussion. We are looking at a batch of oranges and she is saying, in my eyes, that this company needs theirs thrown out when their oranges are just like the rest.
Even when you try to describe what you think your point is, it's incoherent. Here's a more coherent description.Me:
Company X is bad because they are selling tainted oranges.You:
But company Y sells tainted oranges.Me:
Yes, but I'm not talking about company Y.You:
Lots of companies sell tainted oranges.Me:
Perhaps, but I'm not talking about those companies.You:
There are companies that sell more tainted oranges than company X.Me:
Maybe, but I'm not talking about those companies.You:
You just don't like company X, so that's why you're picking on it instead of company Y, Z, etc.Me:
How I 'feel' about company X is irrelevant to the fact of what it is: a company selling tainted oranges, which is bad.
To show you how absurd what you're saying is, let's put it in a different context.Me:
Smoking is unhealthy because it causes cancer.You:
Asbestos causes cancer, too.Me:
Yes, but I'm not talking about asbestos, I'm talking about smoking.You:
Lots of things cause cancer.Me:
Perhaps, but I'm not talking about those things, I'm talking about smoking.You:
There are things that cause cancer much more readily than smoking.Me:
Maybe, but I'm not talking about those things, I'm talking about smoking.You:
You just don't like smoking, so that's why you're picking on it instead of asbestos, and everything else that causes cancer.Me:
How I 'feel' about smoking is irrelevant to the facts: smoking causes cancer, therefore it is unhealthy.
And then to cap off the bizarre and incoherent argument you're making, you say "simply because someone doesn't like smoking that is not reason to say that smoking is unhealthy, because there are other things just as unhealthy." So... what? You think that we shouldn't
try to get people to quit smoking just because other things are unhealthy too? You think that just because tap-dancing on an asbestos floor is probably going to cause cancer quicker than smoking that we should just... forget that smoking causes cancer, too? Seriously, what's your point? Just that you're pissed off that I fingered faith as something bad? What is your point, really: explain coherently what you think you're doing by countering "faith is bad because it causes bad judgement" with "alcohol also causes bad judgement". What exactly
is your point by saying that?
I should point out that never once have you actually bothered to address the point I actually made: that faith is bad. Instead all you've tried to do is say "there are other bad things, so why are you picking on faith"? The answer to that question would be: because faith, and whether it's good or bad, is on topic in this thread; drunk driving and all that other crap isn't. That's why I'm not talking about those things, bad as they are; that's why I'm talking about faith.
If you want to spend your time listing everything in the world that is bad, you go nuts, I won't stop you. If you want to try and find things in the world that you think are worse
than faith, again, have at it, and enjoy yourself. But do realize that you'll just be wasting your time, and everyone else's here, because none of that will do anything to make a coherent point against the claim that faith is bad and causes problems. No one has said - other than you - that there are no other causes of bad judgement in the world, or that faith is the "worst" cause of it... but the fact that there are other things that cause bad judgement doesn't mean we should excuse this
cause of bad judgement, just like the fact that there are other things besides smoking that cause cancer doesn't mean we should excuse that
cause of cancer, just like the fact that other companies sell tainted oranges doesn't mean we should excuse company X for doing it.
Honestly, if I ever get into legal trouble, I hope you're the judge presiding over my case. So when the prosecution says, "Saria murdered a baby", my defence could be, "other people have murdered babies, and some people have probably murdered far more babies than me... I'm not the only
baby murderer in the world, and some of them have gotten off scot free", because apparently that's all it will take to get me off scot free, too.