| ponytayne |
| ||
I get your point here, but let me correct you just a little bit. This girl likely did not have the disease for years. Otherwise she would have been a very very sick child, and would have died sooner with unchecked diabetes. Diabetes can come on in a matter of weeks, usually following some kind of viral infection. Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disorder, meaning your own immune system kills the beta cells in the pancreas that respond to elevations in blood glucose and secrete insulin. For some reason, in some people, a viral infection or something similar can cause the immune system to recognize these cells (and the insulin peptide in particular) as some foreign invader and attack. In a very short time (a matter of just a few weeks in some cases), insulin production in response to glucose can go from normal to non-existent. Therefore, it could be that the father truly did not know the girl had diabetes. However, as I said before in an earlier post, seeing what was happening to her should have scared him to death and he should have had 911 on the phone when his daughter's speech started to slur, or at very latest when she couldn't stand up without support. It is truly scary watching someone go into even the earliest stages of sugar overload. I can't imagine what watching someone go into sugar coma must be like. Especially your own child. |
| FC30A |
| ||
Hmmm....looks like God and the Bible lied to him. Therefore, he should sue God.[/quote] God didn’t lie to him, he just misinterpreted scripture "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." - John 16:33 |
| dose of reality |
| ||
god, i hope your kidding. outlaw religion? religious freedom is one of the pillars of our democracy. i am not religious, spiritual, or even agnostic. I am not atheist either because i can't prove god(s) doesn't exist. I simply don't know. Since I know i don't know, I will never commit to a single philosophy, because I don't want to force my (non)belief on others. Please explain to me why we should outlaw religion? It worked out very well for those in the USSR. |
| abusive father |
| ||
|
From Google: ~~~~~~~ Dale Neumann, a former police officer, has said he has friends who are doctors. He started CPR "as soon as the breath of life left" his daughter's body, he said. Madeline, a straight-A student who was being home-schooled, was in good health until she started getting tired about two weeks before she died, her mother has said. When the situation got worse over Easter weekend, "we stayed fast in prayer then," Leilani Neumann said. "We believed that she would recover." http://www.truth-saves.com/articles.php?id=26 ~~~~~~ The Dad is a former police officer! And homeschooling kids.... Can you say CONTROLLING NUTJOB? Guilty without a doubt. I'm Catholic, but this has nothing to do with religion. This is extreme controlling behavior and abuse. |
| Brad ONeil - SR - Coe College |
| ||
Doesn't that mean you ARE agnostic? |
| i like my country |
| ||
North Korea? |
| i like my country |
| ||
|
Fat "Doughy" Boy = Kim Jung Il |
| on the runs |
| ||
|
Tell me what exactly you can prove doesn't exist. I'll tell you: NOTHING. It's impossible to prove that lightning doesn't come from Zeus, so does that make it worth considering?
god, i hope your kidding. outlaw religion? religious freedom is one of the pillars of our democracy. i am not religious, spiritual, or even agnostic. I am not atheist either because i can't prove god(s) doesn't exist. I simply don't know. Since I know i don't know, I will never commit to a single philosophy, because I don't want to force my (non)belief on others. Please explain to me why we should outlaw religion? It worked out very well for those in the USSR.[/quote] |
| jester |
| ||
Doesn't that mean you ARE agnostic?[/quote] THANK YOU, i'm glad someone picked up on this nonsense. |
| Fat Boy |
| ||
|
I never said that we should outlaw religion. I said that it would be outlawed eventually. This will be done by mutual consent among a vast majority of the people. We first have to evolve to that point. I will not see it in my lifetime. In the current situation, to outlaw religion, would serve to propagate it, just as making, let's say christianity for example, the state religion would effectively end it in the United States.
god, i hope your kidding. outlaw religion? religious freedom is one of the pillars of our democracy. i am not religious, spiritual, or even agnostic. I am not atheist either because i can't prove god(s) doesn't exist. I simply don't know. Since I know i don't know, I will never commit to a single philosophy, because I don't want to force my (non)belief on others. Please explain to me why we should outlaw religion? It worked out very well for those in the USSR.[/quote][/quote] |
| on the runs |
| ||
|
There's no point to outlaw it. The Flat Earth Society isn't outlawed and everyone with even four brain cells knows they're a joke. Once you outlaw something, you add a forbidden mystique and give its supporters a platform to say, "this is the truth, and they don't want you to have it!" if you want to help the world by ridding it of an archaic and flawed ideology, then allow a free discussion of ideas, and make a convincing argument as to why you're right and the others are backwards. |
| Fat Boy |
| ||
|
You would outlaw it because as was stated earlier, it is the province of the mentally ill. I would also remind you that there are religious sects in this country that have been outlawed. Sects of the Mormons for example. Look what happened to the Koresh group. So there already is precedent for not allowing people to practice whatever religion they desire. Remember the guys who committed suicide so they could catch a ride on the Hale-Bopp comet? Eventually, and I mean decades, perhaps hundreds of years, all(most) religions will be outlawed. The malevolence far outweighs any perceived benefit. |
| Adam Smith |
| ||
|
http://news.aol.com/article/wisconsin-man-dale-neumann-guilty-in/496034 AP: "Dale Neumann, 47, was convicted in the March 23, 2008, death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes. Prosecutors contended he should have rushed the girl to a hospital because she couldn't walk, talk, eat or speak. Instead, Madeline died on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded her and prayed. Someone called 911 when she stopped breathing." As someone who has studied both science and religion, one of my first questions is: who long did he pray over his daughter? Did this man kneel with his wife over his daughter and pray for 5 minutes only to find her dying? An ambulance would not likely have found her and escorted her to help in that time. Did he pray over her with friends for an hour? That would seem like a bad decision. "Doctors testified that Madeline would have had a good chance of survival if she received medical care, including insulin and fluids, before she stopped breathing. They said the 911 call came too late." |
| on the runs |
| ||
|
Those groups aren't targeted for their beliefs. They're targeted for their actions. Are you going to outlaw racism, too? If I want to be a stupid, ignorant asshole, it's my right to do so as long as I don't harm anyone else. Outlawing ideas will only give fodder to their proponents. Let people be stupid and discredit their claims as bunk. No one is outlawing the Flat Earth Society. You don't have to. Maybe, one day, it will be the same with religion. But banning ideas is woefully ineffective, short-sighted and its a violation of our belief in the free exchange of ideas. Christians use their persecution in North Korea as evidence to their righteousness. It happens whenever something is banned. |
| Mr. Obvious |
| ||
|
Somebody mentioned it earlier but a far more effective way to kill religion would be to make it state sponsored. The state sponsored churches of Europe are completely dead. |
| thinkcentre |
| ||
no. but that's just a specific silly example. it is NOT unreasonable to think that there is some type of intelligence or power that put everything in motion. i'm agnostic because i understand that this stuff is beyond our comprehension. well, mine anyway. if you really can sit there and attempt to think backwards infinitely in time, or infinitely out in space, and you still come to the conclusion that there is a simple physical explanation for everything....you're not thinking hard enough. |
| dose of reality |
| ||
Doesn't that mean you ARE agnostic?[/quote] THANK YOU, i'm glad someone picked up on this nonsense.[/quote] let me clarify i am not an agnostic theist/atheist. |
| GET_ALONG |
| ||
|
its really shocking reading a thread like this, you band of atheist fundamentalists are just as bad as the people you criticize. theres just an astounding feeling of elitist disrespect coming off your posts. your beliefs might be right, they very well could be wrong, so as long as nobody can be 100% sure either way (will always be the case), lets all just all get along and be respectful. I'll believe what I want, you can believe what you want, It's like some of you need to go back to kindergarden and learn how to share and be nice again. |
| edumacator |
| ||
no. but that's just a specific silly example. it is NOT unreasonable to think that there is some type of intelligence or power that put everything in motion. i'm agnostic because i understand that this stuff is beyond our comprehension. well, mine anyway. if you really can sit there and attempt to think backwards infinitely in time, or infinitely out in space, and you still come to the conclusion that there is a simple physical explanation for everything....you're not thinking hard enough.[/quote] Fair enough, if you want to be non-specific (ie a power or force, rather than a specific capital 'G' God). But I think the previous poster was replying to the person who said he didn't know because he couldn't prove there was no God. The poster was simply pointing out that it is logically impossible to prove any negative, whether it be "there is no God" or "there isn't an invisible, undetectable magical unicorn orbiting the sun". The onus is always on the person making the claim, not on the people who say "where's the proof"? |
| American Way |
| ||
|
I am a Christian but also a science major. Its tough to reconcile some times but here is the scientifically backed logic I use. 1)It took me years to learn fundamental physics 2)Thus, it would take me many more years to learn advanced physics 3)It follows that it would take me more than a lifetime to learn physics that haven't even been properly researched yet 4)It would take the smartest physicist in the history of the world longer than a lifetime to learn/research some aspects of physics 5)There are parts of this universe that would take longer than all of human history to understand. 6)Therefore, the way God works around us may be impossible for humans to comprehend and it may be impossible for us to ever perceive such occurrences. To say definitely that you are atheist is suggesting that we as human beings have advanced far enough technologically and in knowledge that we understand all of reality. I'd argue that we only understand a small fraction of reality. We are only 60 some years removed from discovering DNA and computers and now we think we know it all. Also, the last time I checked, we can't perceive anything outside of the visual spectrum of light without equipment, we can't travel at any significant speeds, we can't effectively capture cosmic rays, etc. etc. Science is an exciting field because of how little we actually know. Back to the original story, I believe there is a passage in the Bible when Jesus is being tempted in the desert that says something along the lines of "Don't test the Lord your God". I think that fits with this story. God gave us the tools to maintain health and we should not rely on miracles when easier solutions are available. |