Little girl chooses heaven......

[Hope]

No, they've realised it doesn't disprove their ideas, and they've held on to their faith in spite of the lack of evidence. There is no way to reason to gods, if there were evidence we'd have scientists using science to point it out rather than having to rely on William Lane Craig's attempts.

I wasn't referring to people of faith, but those who had no faith before investigating the evidence.
 

No, I can realise the evidence doesn't support the claim. I can then not believe the claim or I can believe the claim regardless - personally I'm in the former category. I don't 'realise' there's no god, I just realise there's no reason to think there is - lack of belief follows from that.

Unfortunately, 'realisation' is a rather more formal concept than 'belief', O.  To realise something is the share something with humanity as a whole.  Clearly, what you think the truth you believe you have realised, isn't agreed upon by many others across this world.

[Hope]

Good grief Hope,

Is there a fairy kingdom? Are there any unicorns?

People claim they exist and many claim they had seen them so going by your logic despite no 'scientific' evidence to support them only hearsay and ancient literature you MUST believe in both as there is no 'scientific' evidence to disprove them either! 

Gibberish I notice you never actually address this when people point it out...

Have you ever met anyone who claims to be a fairy or an animal that claims to be a unicorn?  I doubt it.  That's where your analogy breaks down.  If you're concerned with gibberish, perhaps you need to look closer to home than my posts.

[Gordon]

Neither can 'realise' anything in this respect - unless you (like Gordon the other day) have evidence that has never been published publically; the best you can claim is 'believe'.

What on earth are you on about?

What you are referring to was my comment (to Spud) that the evidence shows that the Earth is very old: and there is copious evidence for this. Don't tell me you are another one these pour souls who are so highly credulous and misguided that they actually believe that the earth is young but was created to look old (which was the point at issue in my exchange with Spud). 

[jeremyp]

There is no 'ok' in this situation. God alone knows what it must be like to see your child suffering so.

I agree and I'm not going to judge the parents; they think they are doing the best for their child and maybe they are, but they aren't telling the truth about her options.

[jeremyp]

You don't know that, it isn't your choice to make. ( that the child would definately choose hospital if she was an atheist)

You're right, I don't know that. I wouldn't dream of trying to make the choice for her. What makes you think I would? Being honest about the likelihood of heaven existing is not making the choice for her, it is giving her accurate information to work with.

Lots of adults with all their faculties choose not to have long and painful treatment when it will only extend their life by a very small amount.

If it were me in that position, I would make the same decision as this little girl even though I know it's the end and there is no heaven awaiting my presence.

So, if you faced this question by doctors, would you even give your child any choice?

Yes, of course I would. It's not for me to decide these things on behalf of another human being. But I would not tell my child that it's a choice between heaven a bit sooner and more treatment, I'd tell them it is a choice between dying a little bit sooner and more treatment.

Plus JeremyP, I see no evidence that these parents are one true waists.

I was merely echoing your own comments. They have indoctrinated her in their beliefs. They haven't told her "this is what we believe, but it is possible we are wrong". The are one true wayists in exactly the sense that you used it to refer to atheists

You've made a lot of assumptions.

What about quality of life, did you read about the likely state of the child after all these painful procedures?

I've made no assumptions at all and I think she has made the right decision. Certainly, if it were me in that position, I would make the same decision.

[jeremyp]

to convince the child that, since there is no heaven or God... she should choose between being put in a coffin and getting decomposed... or a painful treatment that would drag her life on for a few more months. Nice choice for the poor girl!

You do understand that they don't put you in a coffin until after you are dead, don't you?

[ippy]

Well, I'm not going to mince my words here. That is absolute, unmitigated rubbish. Thank goodness that Shaker and others have posted. I tried reading the woolly, sanctimonious-type posts but had to scroll past them.

So glad to see you're back, Shaker. Keep well!

Unfortunately for you, Susan, the posts you refer to are no more 'absolute, unmitigated rubbish' than the ones that Shaker, you and others post.  Over the years this and other boards havee been up and running,  have yet to see any evidence in support of your stance - or at least no support that doesn't crumble under even the most basic scrutiny.  Unfortunately, despite the claims of some here, science doesn't answer all he questions people ask, and is unlikely to do so, since it is based on only one part of reality.

So you think there is another part of reality Hope and your evidence for this is?

ippy

[Outrider]

No, they've realised it doesn't disprove their ideas, and they've held on to their faith in spite of the lack of evidence. There is no way to reason to gods, if there were evidence we'd have scientists using science to point it out rather than having to rely on William Lane Craig's attempts.

I wasn't referring to people of faith, but those who had no faith before investigating the evidence.

I'd wager there are vanishingly few of those, and I'd be suspicious of any claim that they'd come to faith through evidence.
 

Unfortunately, 'realisation' is a rather more formal concept than 'belief', O.  To realise something is the share something with humanity as a whole.

Not really. Evolution and man-made climate change are both manifestly real, but there are still deniers out there. To realise something is to come to the only possible conclusion via logical or deductive means - that some people are incapable of that degree of critical thinking doesn't stop it being a realisation. The first person to realise something still realises it, even before the rest of the world even knows there's a debate.

Clearly, what you think the truth you believe you have realised, isn't agreed upon by many others across this world.

I have my beliefs - and lack of beliefs. I've realised that my lack of belief in a god is justified by the absolute absence of any credible evidence.

O.

[jeremyp]

I wouldn't want to ram any beliefs down her throat, that's the point.

If this was your case, I think you would find it very difficult to change the habit of a lifetime - a least the habit according to your lifetime on this board, jeremy.

That's utter nonsense.

You do love this term 'one-true wayists' don't you. 

You really are a piece of work.

Read the damn thread, then you'll find out that I wasn't the first person to use that term, I was merely echoing the person who did use it first.

[ProfessorDavey]

If faced with the same situation...atheists would perhaps choose...

to convince the child that, since there is no heaven or God... she should choose between being put in a coffin and getting decomposed... or a painful treatment that would drag her life on for a few more months. Nice choice for the poor girl!

And its not as if they really KNOW that there is no heaven and God!  Its just their juvenile belief....in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary!

Firstly there is no 'evidence to the contrary' so lets close down that line of discussion shall we.

And without doubt in this case the parents have convinced the child that there is a god and a heaven, whether or not that it the case.

In reality, without that view being promulgated by adults I doubt very much that a 4 or 5 year child is mature enough to espouse the concept of god and/or heaven anyway.

Getting back to the actual case - this is without doubt a tragic situation and regardless of the religious or otherwise view of the parents the decision to continue with treatment that may be painful but futile or decide to discontinue treatment must be just about the most awful thing a parent may have to do. But I do think that the parents with the clinical team have to take that decision in the best interests of the child. I don't think a 4 or 5 year child is mature enough to make those decisions, nor is it fair to transfer decision making on to that child. Perhaps age 10 or 11, maybe, but not 4-5.

To my mind the parents (with support of the clinical team) need to decide and then support their child completely through the consequences of their decision, where that be the withdrawal of treatment and death or the continuation of perhaps painful treatment and maybe extended life.

[Udayana]

Yes, agree with this. The issue of whether there is an actual god or heaven is, as usual, a complete irrelevancy.

[SusanDoris]

If the parents did indeed give the burden of responsibility of deciding her future to the child, then it could well be considered an abdication of responsibility by the parents.

[Outrider]

If the parents did indeed give the burden of responsibility of deciding her future to the child, then it could well be considered an abdication of responsibility by the parents.

I think it really rather depends on the four year old, and I'd imagine that dealing with a lethal condition probably forces you to grow up quicker than anyone would have wanted. Ultimately, if they think she's got some sort of grasp of the situation - and I'd imagine she does - then she deserves to have her say. For all that her parents face losing their child, which is in itself an horrific thing for anyone, it's ultimately her life, not theirs. They're responsible for keeping her safe so far as they can, but this isn't something they can fight on her behalf.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

If the parents did indeed give the burden of responsibility of deciding her future to the child, then it could well be considered an abdication of responsibility by the parents.

I think if you read the article it does appear that the parents were effectively leaving the decision to the child, and also in a way transferring responsibility for their grief onto the child due to her decision. This is how the conversation is reported in the article between Michelle (the mother) and Julianna (her 5 year old daughter).

'Michelle: Julianna, if you get sick again, do you want to go to the hospital again or stay home?

Julianna: Not the hospital.

Michelle: Even if that means that you will go to heaven if you stay home?

Julianna: Yes.

Michelle: And you know that mommy and daddy won't come with you right away? You'll go by yourself first.

Julianna: Don't worry. God will take care of me.

Michelle: And if you go to the hospital, it may help you get better and let you come home again and spend more time with us. I need to make sure that you understand that. Hospital may let you have more time with mommy and daddy.

Julianna: I understand.

Michelle: (crying) - I'm sorry, Julianna. I know you don't like it when I cry. It's just that I will miss you so much.

Julianna: That's OK. God will take care of me. He's in my heart.'

Now I'm not sure I am really convinced this is a true reflection of the conversation as the daughter's responses seem a touch contrived and not quite the words a 5 year old would chose. But of this is a true reflection I do think the parents are abrogating their responsibility for taking such important decisions as there is no way that a 5 year old has (to use medical ethics terminology) the capacity to consent in such an important decision.

[ProfessorDavey]

http://www.smh.com.au/world/terminally-ill-julianna-snow-5-wants-to-go-to-heaven-not-hospital-20151030-gkmtys.html

How is giving that child the cold and hopeless view of the atheist truthful? They have no proof that their view is true. Shaker and Jeremy's god is atheism and that would override allowing the child a belief that heaven awaits. Shaker and Jeremy would insist that it is true that heaven is not there but for this cold atheist view they have no proof.
Jeremy tells us that the parents are not being truthful, the girls doesn't know her real options. That's a pile BS to swallow. The little girl's mom is a neurologist, Jeremy is a? I think the girl knows her real options Jeremy. Atheism has nothing for the dying and scared.

"Heaven Are You Ready"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6twEXynopo

Moving aside from this particular issue, do you really think that a 5 year old child is really mature enough to fully understand the consequences of such a decision and therefore give genuine consent. I don't. If you do then necessarily you must think that a 5 year old is able to (and should) make all decisions for themselves, given that very few would be as critical as this one.

[Outrider]

How is giving that child the cold and hopeless view of the atheist truthful?

How is it 'cold'? It's only cold if you depict this life as somehow worthless - we focus on what we can do in this life. That her life is destined to be short is a tragedy, but it doesn't become less of a tragedy by pretending something else is coming. As to how it's truthful - because it's based on the best available evidence.

They have no proof that their view is true.

She's four or five, and isn't going to last much longer. There isn't time to tell her about the Seedhie Court, Heaven, Nirvana, Purgatory, Hades, Valhalla and who knows how many other unevidenced by unfalsifiable afterlife claims. There is no proof that there's no afterlife, but there's no reason to think there is.

Shaker and Jeremy's god is atheism and that would override allowing the child a belief that heaven awaits.

So she should be lied to? Give the child false hope that they'll meet again that might lead an impressionable mind to not make the most of the time she has left because she doesn't realise that it's all the time she has left?

Shaker and Jeremy would insist that it is true that heaven is not there but for this cold atheist view they have no proof. Jeremy tells us that the parents are not being truthful, the girls doesn't know her real options. That's a pile BS to swallow. The little girl's mom is a neurologist, Jeremy is a? I think the girl knows her real options Jeremy. Atheism has nothing for the dying and scared.

Atheism doesn't, no, but atheists (mostly) do. Similarly, religion doesn't actually have anything for the dying and the scared, it just pretends that it does: thankfully, the religious despite their religion do as well.

It's compassion, and whilst you might look at the responses here and think them cold and hopeless, formally presented in a debate fasion, do you think that's how they'd be put across to a scared, pained four year old?

O.

"Heaven Are You Ready"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6twEXynopo
[/quote]

[Udayana]

I have to ask ... why is this even being reported in the media? Surely only to spin it one way or another?

[Shaker]

Well, I'm not going to mince my words here. That is absolute, unmitigated rubbish. Thank goodness that Shaker and others have posted. I tried reading the woolly, sanctimonious-type posts but had to scroll past them.

So glad to see you're back, Shaker. Keep well!

Unfortunately for you, Susan, the posts you refer to are no more 'absolute, unmitigated rubbish' than the ones that Shaker, you and others post.  Over the years this and other boards havee been up and running,  have yet to see any evidence in support of your stance - or at least no support that doesn't crumble under even the most basic scrutiny.  Unfortunately, despite the claims of some here, science doesn't answer all he questions people ask, and is unlikely to do so, since it is based on only one part of reality.

So you think there is another part of reality Hope and your evidence for this is?

ippy

Good luck!

[Outrider]

This is a very intelligent dying little girl. Heaven hasn't just been sprung on her. She is a Christian with Christian parents. Heaven is something we believe to exist. I can't recall ever not knowing about heaven.

I get that. I'm not suggesting that she should, because she's in an unfortunate situation, suddenly have her entire world-view ripped asunder and be told that it's all a lie. I'd prefer a world where she hadn't been brought up being told that these things were true, but that's an hypothetical, it's not about this situation.

You, like Jeremy and Shaker, offer nothing but the coldness of your atheism.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I can see how the idea of heaven might be a personal comfort at times like these, but I also see that it's a comfort to the sort of idiot in the US that votes against climate change legislation because it doesn't matter, he'll be in heaven soon and heaven's perfect. That the idea might be comforting doesn't make it true, and doesn't stop the belief having consequences as well as benefits.

You say it's true but you have no proof.

No, I don't, pay attention. I say that there are innumerable claims about possible afterlives out there, some still believed and some not, and all with exactly the same evidence: none. In the absence of any substantiation for the idea of an afterlife I'd rather we concentrated on what's demonstrably real: how about focussing on this life rather than the next.

She knows her time is short staying at home or going for more painful treatments and I thank God she knows Heaven awaits her.

The point is, though, that if Heaven isn't real she's making that 'informed' decision based on faulty information. She's forgoing spending time with her parents, albeit in pain, because she thinks she's going to get another chance to see them. If she new this was all the time she had, would she make the same decision? Would I? Would you? I'm not sure, until we're there, any of us know.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Outrider,
This is a very intelligent dying little girl. Heaven hasn't just been sprung on her. She is a Christian with Christian parents. Heaven is something we believe to exist. I can't recall ever not knowing about heaven. You, like Jeremy and Shaker, offer nothing but the coldness of your atheism. You say it's true but you have no proof. She knows her time is short staying at home or going for more painful treatments and I thank God she knows Heaven awaits her.

We know nothing about her intelligence, nor her maturity.

I ask again do you belief a 5 year old girl (any 5 year old girl) has the maturity to fully understand the consequences of the decisions she takes, particularly on matters as critical and complicated as medical decisions that may result in life or death. I don't.

And surely if a 5 year old is mature enough to make such (literally life and death) decisions she must be mature enough to take decisions with much more trivial consequences - such as whether to go to school or play all day, whether to eat only pizza rather than a balanced diet, what time to go to bed etc etc.

Parents have parental responsibility and that involves making decisions for their children in the best interests of the child when that child does not have the maturity (capacity to consent in ethics terms) to take that decision for themselves). Fundamentally this isn't a religion/non religion issue for me (although it gets wrapped up in that) but fundamentally one of responsibilities and obligations of the parents.

[Sriram]

The point is, though, that if Heaven isn't real she's making that 'informed' decision based on faulty information. She's forgoing spending time with her parents, albeit in pain, because she thinks she's going to get another chance to see them. If she new this was all the time she had, would she make the same decision? Would I? Would you? I'm not sure, until we're there, any of us know.

O.

IF heaven is real....then what?  Then...the child has made the best decision possible.   And since no one else KNOWS to the contrary...and merely believe so...the parents have a right to tell her what they believe.

[Shaker]

Why are the hard of thinking so desperately wedded to the negative proof fallacy? Why?

[Outrider]

IF heaven is real....then what?

And if Valhalla is real and she hasn't chosen to fight? And if Nirvana is right and in giving in to pain she's doomed to go down the chain? And if Hades is the reality... and so on. Why single out one unevidenced afterlife claim?

Then...the child has made the best decision possible.

Unless the 'life is sacred' interpretation is that in choosing not to keep trying she's committed suicide, in which case it's hell for her. Unless she's not old enough to genuinely accept Jesus into her life, in which case it's purgatory for her... and so on.

And since no one else KNOWS to the contrary...and merely believe so...the parents have a right to tell her what they believe.

I've not said they don't have that right. I'm not advocating banning religion. I just wish people were bright enough that they didn't need the fairy tales. If there is this loving god, the question isn't should she stay home or should she have the treatment, the question is 'Why the hell does a four year old have to deal with this in the first place?'.

How can you read about this girl and still think that there's something all-powerful up there looking out for us? Utter nonsense.

O.

[SusanDoris]

I ask again do you belief a 5 year old girl (any 5 year old girl) has the maturity to fully understand the consequences of the decisions she takes, particularly on matters as critical and complicated as medical decisions that may result in life or death. I don't.

And surely if a 5 year old is mature enough to make such (literally life and death) decisions she must be mature enough to take decisions with much more trivial consequences - such as whether to go to school or play all day, whether to eat only pizza rather than a balanced diet, what time to go to bed etc etc.

Parents have parental responsibility and that involves making decisions for their children in the best interests of the child when that child does not have the maturity (capacity to consent in ethics terms) to take that decision for themselves). Fundamentally this isn't a religion/non religion issue for me (although it gets wrapped up in that) but fundamentally one of responsibilities and obligations of the parents.

Exactly.

[Sriram]

Outrider....you are again starting with the same premise and expecting everyone to go along with you. When you agree that you have no proof against heaven don't expect everyone to accept your logic and abandon all belief in a heaven. Its as simple as that.

What you say may sound logical to you but not to someone who accepts heaven and God as real.  Your arguments about unicorns and fairies don't wash because these are not within the purview of logic in the first place. 

As Niels Bohr said...'no..no...you are not thinking...you are just being logical'.