what's the deal with CONVERSION?

[Ellie]

There probably are decent JH's out there, and those decent people probably make up the majority of the religion, just like most groups. Unfortunately the people who come round my place aren't "decent" - they keep banging on the door if you don't answer, calling you "Godless sinners"; and if you do open the door they pretty much do exactly the same.

Idk much about the religion, but I do know my best friend nearly died because he couldn't have a blood transfusion - that he wanted - because his parents wouldn't let him. I don't know what he had, but it was something serious.

 

[moog]

There probably are decent JH's out there, and those decent people probably make up the majority of the religion, just like most groups. Unfortunately the people who come round my place aren't "decent" - they keep banging on the door if you don't answer, calling you "Godless sinners"; and if you do open the door they pretty much do exactly the same.

I will meet you half way on this. In my neighborhood, thats EXACTLY how they act and when I tell them my grandmother is already one and I am aware they are like THEN COME THE THE MEETINGS GOSH *inert hypocritical comment*

Idk much about the religion, but I do know my best friend nearly died because he couldn't have a blood transfusion - that he wanted - because his parents wouldn't let him. I don't know what he had, but it was something serious.

My grandfather died cause of this, and I dont understand it. The reason they dont do blood transfusions is because they feel blood is sacred to life or something idk maybe dadevster knows. I dont agree with it and if I was in said situation I would have the transfusion.

 

[Zethus]

or when they're giving you something with paper on... like book, magainze and whatever... tell them: Oh, now i got toiletpaper.

Stop shit spamming. If you dont have anything intelligent to add to the discussion then dont post at all. This is a warning. ~moog

 

[dadevvtsvre]

I just watched a video about blood transfusions and the Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs on it. To the Witnesses, blood is very sacred to God and is like life. In the Bible there are many quotes that have to do with not eating blood and the book as a whole forbids it, which they also interpret as including transfusions. It's a bit sad that there hae been people who have died because of it. My sister nearly did when she was five years old because my mom refused to sign the papers saying she could get a transfusion (my dad had to sign it)

In the video though it said that there were many dangers in blood transfusions like the risk of AIDS and new surgery techniques were allowing bloodless surgeries to be used, like "blood cycling" where they suck up the blood, clean it, and put it back in you. It was also going on to say that Jehovah's Witnesses were right all along and that in a few more years blood transfusions won't even be necessary. I don't know how much of it was true but it was still interesting nonetheless. Still though it's unacceptable that people have to die because of it. I can understand adults more because they should be able to make their own decisions, but to risk the life of a kid is just wrong. To them though, they'd rather die serving Jehovah than betray him and live. :/

 

[___]

Yep, so in other words, nonsense superstitions based on an awkward and frankly incorrect interpretation of a couple phrases in an old book which cannot not have had any relevance to the subject since blood transfusions didn't exist over 2000 years ago is good enough to kill your kid over.  It's not just a "shame" people have died because of this, it's institutionalized murder as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Glitchfinder]

Yep, so in other words, nonsense superstitions based on an awkward and frankly incorrect interpretation of a couple phrases in an old book which cannot not have had any relevance to the subject since blood transfusions didn't exist over 2000 years ago is good enough to kill your kid over.  It's not just a "shame" people have died because of this, it's institutionalized murder as far as I'm concerned.

You forgot to mention that the video's basis on saying that the Jehovah's Witness people were right on the subject is totally incorrect. There is such a low chance of contracting an STD thru a transfusion that it is virtually 0. (They had problems right when AIDS became common, but they have been almost entirely rectified, including requiring blood tests for the donated blood, as well as forbidding donations for a multitude of reasons, including having been to certain places where AIDS is prevalent and medical practices are not very strictly controlled) Next, although there are virtually bloodless surgeries, that is in an extreme minority, and the majority (like transplants) require large amounts of new blood) Also, blood transfusions will always be necessary (the reason they started the system was not surgery, but for replacing blood loss from injuries, usually from accidents and the like) Although they are working on "alternatives" to blood transfusions, they are all extremely short-term and rather dangerous, and none are close to being approved for human use. Finally, the "blood cycling" is completely fake. There is something similar that they can do for people who can't filter out toxins (kidney and/or liver failure), but, once again, it is an extremely short term, and rather dangerous solution that requires a large piece of rather complex equipment that is usually only found in hospitals, and costs a small fortune to use even once. It's called dialysis. In short, it was a propaganda video, meant to convince people that it's OK to commit suicide by refusing to take medical treatment, or to murder their children by doing the same. (And to convince them that it will no longer be necessary "in a few years". You may remember when they said we'd have hovercars "in a few years", or what they said we'd be able to do at the turn of the century, and which didn't come true)

 

[___]

Oh yeah I didn't even want to give the AIDs thing the satisfaction of a response, I have a low tolerance for the use of pseudo scientific nonsense in propping up superstition, but thanks for the in-depth.

I would like to mention that there are some really cool prospects in artificial blood and blood surrogates that we might see in the near future, but I am not sure what the JWs think about them. Could it be... screwing with God's intent by replacing blood with some synthetic abomination of nature?!

In the meanwhile allowing oneself or one's child to die over the otherwise incredibly miniscule possibility that they could contract aids from a transfusion and thus suffer from a chronic but treatable illness, which furthermore should be covered by insurance in a situation like that or else liability, is just mind-bogglingly ignorant and/or evil.

 

[Glitchfinder]

Oh yeah I didn't even want to give the AIDs thing the satisfaction of a response, I have a low tolerance for the use of pseudo scientific nonsense in propping up superstition, but thanks for the in-depth.

I would like to mention that there are some really cool prospects in artificial blood and blood surrogates that we might see in the near future, but I am not sure what the JWs think about them. Could it be... screwing with God's intent by replacing blood with some synthetic abomination of nature?!

In the meanwhile allowing oneself or one's child to die over the otherwise incredibly miniscule possibility that they could contract aids from a transfusion and thus suffer from a chronic but treatable illness, which furthermore should be covered by insurance in a situation like that or else liability, is just mind-bogglingly ignorant and/or evil.

I certainly agree. Still, some of the most heinous acts in history were committed for religious reasons. Think of the Inquisition, the extermination of Jews in WWII (Although that was more politics disguised as religion), the Crusades, and pretty much any other war before the American Revolution, as well as many after.

Think about what religion is. It is a suspension of logical thought, with the replacement of faith. They have faith that they are serving the proper deity (Be it Christianity's God, Ancient Egypt's Ra, or any other deity that may come into play), and that, since they are serving their deity, then what they do in his (or her, depending on your religion) name is actually good, no matter how evil it really is. If you murder "sinners" in God's name, then you are doing "good" and, even if punished in the modern world, will be "rewarded" in the afterlife.

The problem is, when you replace logic with belief, you lose a lot, specifically, a set universal truths, and have those replaced with whatever truths your religion dictates. (Or cult. Some cults make suicide a good thing, although most world religions think of it as a sin. Although, the Japanese have that odd notion od sepukku, or "honorable death", where you commit suicide to prevent something about you from dishonoring your family, lord, or any other figure in your life.) When that happens, you get a lot of odd notions that logic dictates are untrue, evil, or simply just stupid. (You won't actually ascend to the mothership if you commit suicide during the solar eclipse, no matter how many times they say you will)

The problem is, some of these notions can prove dangerous to yourselves or others. (Giving all your money to the "religion", committing suicide, or killing others are just a few examples, and all religions have had major figures within them endorse one of those three at one time or another. Usually the third) Really, the thing you have to keep in mind, no matter where you put your beliefs, is that they may seem good to you, but they may be blatantly incorrect to others, and no one wants your beliefs forced down their throats.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

if you can be converted you're weak.

Now that is stupid. Most people get their religion from their parents, so it's entirely possible that later, when someone gets a chance to think on it for themselves, they find they believe something else.

 

[___]

Children are typically weak-willed, I think the assertion still works.

 

[Ellie]

If you can be converted, then either your belief in said thing, or by extension yourself, is "weak". Maybe it could have been worded differently, but essentially, if you like hotdogs then you would be weak to let the Anti-Hotdog-League take that away from you. All the same, what this topic was based on is, why would the (fictional) Anti-Hotdog-League need, or want, to convert other people? How does it affect them whether someone eats hotdogs or not?

 

[Cruelty]

people who are trying to 'convert' you are just trying to share something which has been good to them, given them love and fulfillment. they're, essentially, just trying to share this goodness with you.

if i find a neat chinese restaurant with really badass peanutbutter-fried chicken (which i have <3), and i tell my friend and he goes "What the FUCK i hate chicken fuck you quit trying to make me eat things i dont like!!". i'd be thinking 'i was trying to share a cool experience with you'. i didn't know this hypothetical dude hates chinese food. you can't assume everybody who tries to share their religion with you will assume you're an atheist. theres a lot of people out there who simply haven't thought much about it, and ultimately find happiness in religion. i mean, if it NEVER worked, i doubt they'd be spending so much time dedicated to these practices.

btw, i dont see how this is such a problem, yet almost nobody has a problem with the fact that we are required by law to be taught the arguably questionable western scientific world-view from the first day we enter elementary school, which undeniably breeds such strong bias against 'mystical' holistic worldviews and beliefs. talk about pushing your beliefs onto others!


pps., changing your beliefs doesn't make you weak-willed, or anything. its possible to be faced with a piece of information that makes you think "well, i never thought of it like that! that makes a lot of sense." there's nothing weak about considering an opposing, or at least different point of view.

 

[___]

btw, i dont see how this is such a problem, yet almost nobody has a problem with the fact that we are required by law to be taught the arguably questionable western scientific world-view from the first day we enter elementary school, which undeniably breeds such strong bias against 'mystical' holistic worldviews and beliefs. talk about pushing your beliefs onto others!

The "scientific worldview" is a way of thinking which puts forth theories on how the world works based on verifiable facts and evidence, not what some guy claims was related to him by a supernatural source. It's built around the concept that every idea is 'questionable', and is open to rigorous evaluation and verification - things are only true unless falsified and falsifiable. Faith is built around the concept that what some guy says is undeniably, unquestionably true, that the consequences of questioning what some guy says are dire, and that verifying what some guy says would in any case be futile as it belongs to some realm of understanding outside the reach of anything except some guy's supernatural source, which only some guy has access to until you start doing what some guy says. If you're not doing what some guy says, and you fail to draw the same conclusions as some guy, you are de facto incorrect, morally failing both for trying to evaluate some guy's claims and for coming to a different conclusion, and a criminal because in the "faith-based worldview" immoral=criminal.

You can see, I hope, how the "scientific worldview" is the clearly superior alternative to others presented when it comes to societies interested in the progress of knowledge and personal freedom such as ours rather than the progress of mysticism, superstition and totalitarian authority such as that of the dark ages or religious dictatorships.

In any case, science isn't a belief system. A belief system relies on faith. Science is a system of evaluating whether or not a hypothesis is true. For instance, if a religious authority says "the sky is blue becaue blue is God's favorite color" that's it, there's your solution. There is no "how do you know blue is God's favorite color?" or "how do you know he made it blue for that reason?" or worse yet "how do you know God had anything to do with coloring the sky?". If a respected scientist says "I hypothesize that the sky is blue because it's full of shiny blue beetles" his scientist friends don't say, "oh, wow, what an elegant solution, now we know, let's move on to more important questions", they go on to evaluate that idea and reject it when it turns out to be nonsensical, because there are no beetles to be found (as does the original scientist if he is worth his salt). Faith requires you to believe in spite of doubt or lack of evidence, science requires you to be skeptical until evidence is provided, and be willing to change your mind if that evidence turns out to be invalid. Science never requires you to believe anything just because some scientist says so.

 

[Glitchfinder]

In any case, science isn't a belief system. A belief system relies on faith.

Ahh, but you missed the point. Science is a belief system because people choose to have faith in facts, theories and knowledge instead of the unproveable. People who "believe" in science are just as religious as anybody who puts their faith in a major religion, it's just that instead of rituals involving the classic methods, your "rituals" are experiments, tests, and the acquiring of more knowledge. The faith people put in sceince is faith that everything in the universe can be explained if you know where to look, and that there is nothing that happens outside the realm of possibility. People who are devout believers in science are the students and scientists, while the "prophets" of science are people like Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. Those who preach science are the faculty of schools and universities across the globe, and their congregations are their students. Science even has its own version of a "holy book" (Scientific journals, textbooks, etc.) which, unlike most religions, is constantly updated as the core of the scientific religion. (Actually, I'd be more accurate if I said that it is like early forms of modern religions, in that their "holy book" is being updated) In reality, Science is as much of a religion as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, or any other religion that has ever existed. And, most of science relies on people believing something just because they're told to. Yes, you can question it, but you're expected to let them feed you the answers instead of discovering everything on your own. In an earth science class, did they take you to an earthquake fault to show you the foot wall and the hanging wall, of did they just give you a cartoony diagram and some old photos?

That being said, I'm agnostic.

 

[Dissonance]

In any case, science isn't a belief system. A belief system relies on faith.

Ahh, but you missed the point. Science is a belief system because people choose to have faith in facts, theories and knowledge instead of the unproveable. People who "believe" in science are just as religious as anybody who puts their faith in a major religion, it's just that instead of rituals involving the classic methods, your "rituals" are experiments, tests, and the acquiring of more knowledge. The faith people put in sceince is faith that everything in the universe can be explained if you know where to look, and that there is nothing that happens outside the realm of possibility. People who are devout believers in science are the students and scientists, while the "prophets" of science are people like Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. Those who preach science are the faculty of schools and universities across the globe, and their congregations are their students. Science even has its own version of a "holy book" (Scientific journals, textbooks, etc.) which, unlike most religions, is constantly updated as the core of the scientific religion. (Actually, I'd be more accurate if I said that it is like early forms of modern religions, in that their "holy book" is being updated) In reality, Science is as much of a religion as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, or any other religion that has ever existed. And, most of science relies on people believing something just because they're told to. Yes, you can question it, but you're expected to let them feed you the answers instead of discovering everything on your own. In an earth science class, did they take you to an earthquake fault to show you the foot wall and the hanging wall, of did they just give you a cartoony diagram and some old photos?

That being said, I'm agnostic.

Yes, but who ends up being right?

Science has bested faith (or if you prefer, 'other faiths') at every single turn since the dawn of time.  The only thing science will probably never find an answer for is where our consciousness goes after we die and even then that's not a given.

 

[Cruelty]

Jölnir , i'm not trying to say western science is just totally wrong, or that it only acts as a belief system; but that it does act as a belief system. most people simply hold faith that all scientific knowledge is fact. we know that this isn't always true; just look at the leap from classical science to modern science. we thought we had all kinds of stuff figured out. these things were scientific fact. then a bunch of other guys swoop in and just say "wait, this is actually totally wrong, we just found this, this, and this. he have radioactivity now, and we got quite a few textbooks to re-write!". because as soon as something viable is theorized, and there is no visible alternative, it's just presumed 'fact'. then we further build off of these ideas, and don't assume anything anywhere was wrong. people are anything but perfect, and i think its safe to say somebody, somewhere probably screwed something up which we never realized.

i think that science requires faith, we just choose not to think of it that way, or even believe it (some of us). maybe its not as much faith as believing an old man build a giant boat and lived for 900 years, but it's still there. science does more to prove it's facts, but as long as humans with limited mental capacity are trying to figure out the infinitely complicated things around us, there's always a little bit of a chance that we're totally wrong.

for all we know, there could be a second paradigm shift in the scientific community on the horizon to render any amount of our current scientific factual knowledge totally wrong.

btw, this area of discussion isn't really my forte, please excuse any ignorance.

 

[Dissonance]

IMO what makes science not just 'another faith' is that it has absolutely no problem with completely reinventing itself if something in the world is discovered that proves it wrong.

 

[Doctor]

People wish to convert others because anyone who is different is instinctively perceived as an outsider and is therefore dangerous. It is something that dates back to our animal roots (And I am basing this on absolutely nothing).

If you see someone who has a different opinion, that means that there exists a chance that your opinion is wrong, and this notion strikes fear in people's heart. Depending on how much you value your opinion, you will then go out of your way to break the opposition to strengthen your own belief.

You may also want to add some other Freudian crap about feelings of inadequacy and unresolved daddy issues.

About religions, though, I believe that the Gods of all major religions are playing a game of "who can collect the most souls", which will come to an end in 2012. When the game ends, the God with the most souls will destroy all the unbelievers and install a paradise for his followers...

I hope the atheist God wins.

 

[___]

In any case, science isn't a belief system. A belief system relies on faith.

Ahh, but you missed the point. Science is a belief system because people choose to have faith in facts, theories and knowledge instead of the unproveable. ...

You can't have faith in a fact. That is nonsensical. Faith is the belief in something without fact or evidence (or in spite of fact and evidence). If God flew down on a flaming chariot, knocked on the door of every atheist home, greeted them kindly and took the time to prove his omnipotence and omnipresence through supernatural feats, the atheists would not need religion and would not require faith, because they'd have fact. The point that you have missed is that in science there is no such thing as an inviolable Theory. The practice of science does not demand that you take anything on faith. If you have cause to disbelieve anything you are welcome to attempt to invalidate it, and if you succeed other people are obligated to throw out the idea, even if they deeply cherished it. In faith, you are required to believe everything told you without question, and if fact and evidence suggest that something you are required to believe is incorrect you are required to spit vigorously in the face of reason. This is why the things that we know through modern science are different from what people thought they knew two hundred years ago - science changes over time as new evidence is presented - and why religions remain largely unchanged over hundreds or thousands of years, only going through cycles of popular interpretation and suffering the occasional schism as some new point of faith is introduced and becomes popular to some sect.

Treating science with faith is an error of the individual, not an error of the practice. The intellectually lazy may take what a trusted source tells them without curiosity, but it takes the true, wanton ignorance to believe something you've been told by someone you like when it's constantly and consistently invalidated by every scrap of hard evidence presented to you. This kind of ignorance doesn't exist in professional science because it serves no purpose; science profits from being right about how something works and putting that knowledge to practical use, not from being seen as being right so that it may exercise authority to demand obedience and sacrifice - which is the only way faith can spread and profit.

 

[Glitchfinder]

Ypu're wrong, though. You can have faith in a fact. You put your faith in the truth, instead of in the unproveable. Although, instead of saying the you have faith in facts, you should actually be saying that you have faith that there is a logical, reasonable explanation for everything, and that there is nothing outside the bounds of reason, despite the obvious shortcomings of even modern science. (So, light has an immutable, unchangeable speed, right? WRONG! Scientists have managed to stop light and freeze it in place, at least temporarily. Did you know that science can't explain why the universe is behaving the way it is? As in, they can't explain why ther universe is expanding at it's current speed without hypothetical "dark matter" or "god particles" that may never be able to be proven to exist, and could very well be just as mythical as Zeus.) To see one reason why some people have trouble believing that science is everything, look up the golden ratio and related material, and see just how often it shows up in nature, from every proportion of the human body to the shape of pinecones to seashells to where on a tree the branches are. It's things like that that make people believe that there may actually be a higher power, despite science. Not only that, but there are seven some who theorize that the universe is just a giant math equation, and that Einstein found a small piece of the whole equation. Imagine that. We could just be numbers in a bigger picture. Also, I've personally wondered if, in reality, your own beliefs shape what happen to you when you die. If you think you're going to heaven, you go there. If you think you'll disappear, poof, you're gone. If you think that you're going to the mothership, you'll have some fun with loopy aliens. Also, the most accurate calendar ever devised (before the atomic clock, anyway) was the Aztec calendar. Their calculations of time are only a couple of seconds off now when compared to when they first met the Spanish, several hundred years ago. Did you know that they predicted the world would end December 12, 2012? That doesn't mean it will, but it shows that science and math, though different, are still much the same then and now. (As in, they may be very accurate, but they are most certainly not infallible)