Jehovah's Witnesses try to murder their own son

[scaramanga]

There is zero Proof. And I mean zero. That a deity (whatever you would call that deity(s)) doesn't exist. Atheists haven't come to their conclusion because of proof or a higher understanding, it's simple opinion based on incomplete and ever changing theories.

We're not the ones suggesting that something is true, just what's the most likely.

As the ones that are making a claim, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[scaramanga]

Your choice to believe in GHod or not. Down to the individual. Neither choice should be mocked or individuals who do be called names like scara mentioned.

But we're not born believing in GHod or Santa or the Tooth Fairy. We're told these things exist and then we grow up and learn they don't.

You were born agnostic and were taught to believe in GHod - that was never your choice because it was decided for you by those who taught it.

 

[Seedy Ron]

I was listening to a report on R4 that mentioned PCC had already taken it to the courts and that the family fled before the decision came down. He may have been mistaken but it's not like R4 to get their facts wrong.

All I can find about that is that the PCC requested and got a court order, at the request of Southampton, to make him ward of court on Friday (he left hospital on the Thursday), so that he would have to be presented to a hospital for treatment:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgmen...h-city-council-v-naghmeh-king-and-brett-king/

As I said previously, if patients are already being sent when required, doesn't that back up the opinion that in this case it wouldn't help? Or did the specialists just think "fvck it, let this one die"?

Doesn't the fact that the doctors in Prague seem to think it is suitable, or that Southampton have now done a U-turn and will cooperate, suggest that it is a decent option for the boy? I don't think anyone's saying the NHS would've just let the boy die, but his family clearly think that proton beam would do less collateral damage to his brain, and Southampton didn't seem to want to look into it.

I'd be amazed if it is a financial one. Whilst I think there's space for criticism of the NHS and its spending habits on a national scale, they don't seem to be particularly spendthrift on individual decisions - especially where kids are involved.

So why would anyone ever have standard radiotherapy over this (if suitable for their type of cancer), if money is no object?

I suspect the risk of moving the kid outweighed what is probably a negligible benefit in this case. Just my opinion, obviously.

And yet they (the hospital) were perfectly happy for the boy to leave to begin with, it was only when he didn't come back they became concerned. They also only mentioned the feeding issue during his absence, there was no mention of him being in no state to be transported at all.

This of course all shifts the thread away from it's original purpose, which was you suggesting that these people being JW's had led them to take the action they have, which it has since become clear isn't the case, yet you continue to bang that particular drum.

 

[Roy1983]

But we're not born believing in GHod or Santa or the Tooth Fairy. We're told these things exist and then we grow up and learn they don't.

You were born agnostic and were taught to believe in GHod - that was never your choice because it was decided for you by those who taught it.

Not sure comparing GHod to Santa is gonna do you any favours here. I was confirmed so yes it was my choice.

If you don't wanna believe in religion then fine by me. What's not fine is you calling people names or trying to make out like those that do are believing in some kind of non entity. That's your opinion and they've got theirs.

 

[Baleforce]

That was more in relation to the second part of your statement. To put it another way just because proof of something has not been discovered YET, does not mean that it does not exist and was not always there.. Ie the atom, and it's discovery.

but there was evidence of atoms, there is stuff, you can touch it, it has to be made of something

 

[Baleforce]

Not sure comparing GHod to Santa is gonna do you any favours here. I was confirmed so yes it was my choice.

If you don't wanna believe in religion then fine by me. What's not fine is you calling people names or trying to make out like those that do are believing in some kind of non entity. That's your opinion and they've got theirs.

why were you confirmed though, what led to that decision?

 

[scaramanga]

Not sure comparing GHod to Santa is gonna do you any favours here.

Why not? Do you consider the concept of one of them existing silly? On what basis do you make that judgement?

 

[scaramanga]

All I can find about that is that the PCC requested and got a court order, at the request of Southampton, to make him ward of court on Friday (he left hospital on the Thursday), so that he would have to be presented to a hospital for treatment:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgmen...h-city-council-v-naghmeh-king-and-brett-king/

That's all I can find now too. It's not like R4 to get it wrong but I think we have to assume they did here.

Doesn't the fact that the doctors in Prague seem to think it is suitable, or that Southampton have now done a U-turn and will cooperate, suggest that it is a decent option for the boy? I don't think anyone's saying the NHS would've just let the boy die, but his family clearly think that proton beam would do less collateral damage to his brain, and Southampton didn't seem to want to look into it.

I think you have to look at the reason for not doing this initially. If it were and issue of cost then nobody would get sent for treatment. If they were to send anyone for treatment it would be children for whom it is likely to be beneficial don't you think?

So why would anyone ever have standard radiotherapy over this (if suitable for their type of cancer), if money is no object?

As I understand it, it's not always a better option. Some people prefer more time-proven measures. If you have to travel and that's a risk, then any potential benefit could be outweighed by the risk.

And yet they (the hospital) were perfectly happy for the boy to leave to begin with, it was only when he didn't come back they became concerned. They also only mentioned the feeding issue during his absence, there was no mention of him being in no state to be transported at all.

There's a whole world of difference between leaving a hospital bed and travelling across a continent.

This of course all shifts the thread away from it's original purpose, which was you suggesting that these people being JW's had led them to take the action they have, which it has since become clear isn't the case, yet you continue to bang that particular drum.

I still think it has everything to do with it.

A prerequisite of religion is the complete ignorance of logic. If that religion is also one that tells its sheep to refuse medical treatment then you have the perfect conditions for a person to ignore the advice of a doctor.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

The father himself - the quote's in this thread somewhere.





Not my conclusion, that would be silly as I'm not an expert. It was the conclusion of the experts in Southampton.

I heard today that he will need to be stabilised again because of complications (Independant article) before moving again. So there will still be a massive risk, I suspect that the risk is now somewhat diminished seeing as the kid was luckily able to be moved without expertise.



In which case, wouldn't that suggest to you that our system is capable of sending those who can benefit and can safely travel? That just goes to back up the fact that if the rewards outstripped the risks it would have happened.



Have a look at the question posed by braineclipse earlier in the thread. He the NHS tried to move the boy in anything like the conditions the parents did, people would be calling for sackings at least, probably imprisonment if the kid had died.

The best precaution non-qualified people can take is to leave it in the hands of qualified professionals.



It's absolutely not their right.

They do not own their child, he isn't their property. He is a person and entitled to the same treatment as anyone else no matter what his parents think.

As recent cases in Australia and the US have shown, if you refuse medical treatment because you think you know better, the state will hold you liable for the consequences.

Of course it is their right. They are legally responsible for him and his treatment until he is old enough to make those decision for himself. The fact that there are consequences to their actions does not stop it from being their right, otherwise the children you refer to in USA and Australia would have been forcefully taken from the parents and treated before passing away. Yes, they are macarons who let their child die, but it's still their right to make the decision.

Your other points could be debated either way dependent on your view point/the information you read.

You seem to now be arguing with people over whether or not the decision to move the child was the right or wrong one. I don't think anyone can answer that right now. The point I think most people have an issue with is your absolute certainty that this was done because they are JW's.

Lets face it. You read the story as it broke and without waiting for the facts jumped on here to start a thread equivalent to something seen in a tabloid newspaper. The headline was 'Jehovah's Witnesses try to murder their own son' and you assumed these people were taking the child to some 'holy room' somewhere where 'GHod would save him' with no treatment at all. The facts then came out, and you now look a tw*t but aren't willing to hold your hands up and say 'OK, I was wrong'.

 

[Roy1983]

why were you confirmed though, what led to that decision?

Because baptism wasn't my choice. Confirmation was.

 

[Roy1983]

Why not? Do you consider the concept of one of them existing silly? On what basis do you make that judgement?

I really don't want to go into this on a forum. Bottom line I believe in GHod. You don't. Both opinions no right or wrong.

 

[DTA]

We're not the ones suggesting that something is true, just what's the most likely.

As the ones that are making a claim, the burden of proof is on you.

Oh but you are, if you an atheist (or if you like 'strong atheist' - which is a bull**** term used to blur the distinction between the term atheist and agnostics - and therefore enable mere 'atheists' to use the burden of proof argument which only is a suitable response for agnostics within the framework of this topic).... any way if you are an atheist you don't believe in a deity/creator and therefore believe in chance as the 'creator' the burden of proof lies as much with you as it does with those that believe.. So prove it?

 

[DTA]

but there was evidence of atoms, there is stuff, you can touch it, it has to be made of something

There is only evidence of atoms because we discovered (or more accurately 'worked out') the evidence, but atoms existed (obviously) before we had the knowledge to prove they existed. They didn't come in to existence only when we discovered them.

 

[Baleforce]

Because baptism wasn't my choice. Confirmation was.

yep, do you think that your decision to be confirmed was in anyway guided by your family/friends/surroundings?

do you think that you would still have chosen confirmation at that time of life had you been raised in India as a Hindu?

 

[Baleforce]

There is only evidence of atoms because we discovered (or more accurately 'worked out') the evidence, but atoms existed (obviously) before we had the knowledge to prove they existed. They didn't come in to existence only when we discovered them.

yes, but there was stuff, and it was a pretty good bet that it was made of other smaller stuff jammed together, i'm not sure how the analogy of stuff existing proving smaller stuff exits tally's with there is no stuff but we think there is magic stuff anyway?

 

[Roy1983]

yep, do you think that your decision to be confirmed was in anyway guided by your family/friends/surroundings?

do you think that you would still have chosen confirmation at that time of life had you been raised in India as a Hindu?

No it wasn't it was what I wanted. No idea.

 

[braineclipse]

I find them some of the least offensive of all the godtards - I quite like Mormons too, they're funny. Not so keen on the whole racism aspect though, but what's a religion without a bit of unfounded hatred?

Your most shocking statement in this thread.

There's a reason why reporters jumped to the conclusions they did, because "the witnesses" have previous for stuff like that. Those conclusions were premature in this case, but there's a reason why they were made.

That was more in relation to the second part of your statement. To put it another way just because proof of something has not been discovered YET, does not mean that it does not exist and was not always there.. Ie the atom, and it's discovery.

And before the evidence for the atom was there believing in it for no reason would be irrational.

Either provide evidence or accept that there is no evidence.

Your choice to believe in GHod or not. Down to the individual. Neither choice should be mocked or individuals who do be called names like scara mentioned.

Why should religious belief be protected from mockery?

 

[braineclipse]

Oh but you are, if you an atheist (or if you like 'strong atheist' - which is a bull**** term used to blur the distinction between the term atheist and agnostics - and therefore enable mere 'atheists' to use the burden of proof argument which only is a suitable response for agnostics within the framework of this topic).... any way if you are an atheist you don't believe in a deity/creator and therefore believe in chance as the 'creator' the burden of proof lies as much with you as it does with those that believe.. So prove it?

False dichotomy.

I don't have to believe in any story of creation. I can accept that I live in a world that I don't fully understand the creation of. A lot of it is known as it is, was worked out by people who accepted that they didn't already have the answers by the way. But even without a single shred of evidence about the origins of life, the earth or our universe I could be an atheist by simply rejecting the existing GHod claims.

The knowledge we have just makes it a lot easier. Or as Dawkins said it somewhat simplified: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

I think I know why religious people get so hung up in the creation bit of atheism and theism. It's because it's one of the gaps of science that is most obvious, and so one where it's easy to insert GHod. And it's all within a scientific discipline where most people are completely ignorant, so it's easy to make all kinds of claims. But the creation issue is just one rather small portion of the atheism/theism discussion. In fact, if the only disagreement was about the origin of the universe and someone like yourself presented the deistic argument of a "prime mover", that then no longer interfered in this universe I would have very little argument with you. I think the same is true for most atheists, I know it was true for Hitchens just to mention someone who was very outspoken and critical.

The real problems start when you move from deism to theism. When it's not just a prime mover, but a GHod who cares how we act and think, who has written or influenced holy texts, who supposedly communicates with people on earth and who has a whole organization working for him and his ideas with real humans in positions of power and influence.

 

[scaramanga]

Oh but you are, if you an atheist (or if you like 'strong atheist' - which is a bull**** term used to blur the distinction between the term atheist and agnostics - and therefore enable mere 'atheists' to use the burden of proof argument which only is a suitable response for agnostics within the framework of this topic).... any way if you are an atheist you don't believe in a deity/creator and therefore believe in chance as the 'creator' the burden of proof lies as much with you as it does with those that believe.. So prove it?

I describe myself as an atheist because most people don't properly understand agnostic.

I'm almost 100% sure there's no GHod, but if you can provide some evidence then I'll immediately believe.

 

[scaramanga]

I really don't want to go into this on a forum. Bottom line I believe in GHod. You don't. Both opinions no right or wrong.

Ah, go on. It's just beginning to get interesting.