• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Wildswanderer said:
Proper sources equal ones you agree with.
Click to expand...

That would be self defeating if you want to examine things objectively, or with anything approaching objectivity. So I suppose it depends how one is defining proper here. It might be easy to find sources that agree with you, but objectively validating them might not be so easy, and how hard this is to do should give one pause.
 
Last edited:
W

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
No. Proper sources are ones that are not excessively biased. When it comes to the news one can use various sources to see how a source rates. When they say that a source is "right wing" or "left wing" they will have examples why.
Click to expand...
Lol, so you depend on these anonymous sources to be correct. And you can't see the contradiction in that.
 
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said: ↑
No. Proper sources are ones that are not excessively biased. When it comes to the news one can use various sources to see how a source rates. When they say that a source is "right wing" or "left wing" they will have examples why.
Click to expand...
Wildswanderer said:
Lol, so you depend on these anonymous sources to be correct. And you can't see the contradiction in that.
Click to expand...

I don't believe he said they were anonymous, and you will need to explain the contradiction, as I don't see that either?
 
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Wildswanderer said:
You depend on anonymous so called fact checkers and then claim your sources are correct.
If this is incorrect name the fact checkers.
Click to expand...

He never said they were anonymous, why do you keep saying that? The point of finding reliable sources is to properly validate claims, you're not making much sense. Name what fact checkers, he never mentioned any so how could I possibly name them?
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Sheldon said:
This is not an argument against people having the right to end their life with dignity and without unnecessary suffering and pain. You are simply conflating the fact that such laws might be open to abuse or misuse if they don't include proper safe guards, with not having them at all, but we could simply include such safeguards then, problem solved, and no histrionics required.

You have also not offered anything to support your claimed stat, search the paper online and the story try and fact check it, only the claims seems extremely dubious. All you have is an anecdotal claim, you do see how that looks in the context of a debate?
Click to expand...

Not sure if you read this as I added it later to my post.
Why Assisted Suicide Must Not Be Legalized (dredf.org)
Moreover, there is a significant danger that many people would choose assisted suicide due to external pressure. Elderly individuals who don’t want to be a financial or caretaking burden on their families might take this escape. In fact, the percentage of reported Oregon cases attributed to patients’ reluctance to burden their families has risen alarmingly. It totaled 12 percent in 1998, but increased to 26 percent in 1999, then 42 percent in 2005, and 45 percent in 2007.[32] Nothing in the Oregon law will protect patients when there are family pressures, whether financial or emotional, which distort patient choice.

Yes, abuse is the second issue after the general philosophy of euthenasia/abortion/welfar/trans gender
But the euthenasia movement spoke along these lines at the inception of the debate. '"Thou shalt not kill" is a goal firmly anchored in Western medicine. But we would like to shift that goal post to a new spot and firmly anchor it again with legislation stating that only people who are terminally ill, near death and in untreatable pain, can be euthenased.'
The liars then 'demanded reform' to that very legislation, putting the goal posts on wheels.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
So no valid sources.
Click to expand...


[32] Trend noted by Licia Corbella, “If Doctors Who Won’t Kill Are Wicked, the World Is Sick: In Jurisdictions Where Euthanasia Is Allowed, A Loss of Choice Has Followed,” Vancouver Sun, January 14, 2009. See also Oregon Public Health Division, Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act: The First Year’s Experience, 1999, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year1.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009); Oregon’s Public Health Division, Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act: The Second Year’s Experiences, 2000, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year2.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009); and Oregon Public Health Division, Eighth Annual Report on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, 2006, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year8.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009).
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Sheldon said:
That's just a repetition of the claim, no citation though, or any context for this?
Click to expand...


[32] Trend noted by Licia Corbella, “If Doctors Who Won’t Kill Are Wicked, the World Is Sick: In Jurisdictions Where Euthanasia Is Allowed, A Loss of Choice Has Followed,” Vancouver Sun, January 14, 2009. See also Oregon Public Health Division, Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act: The First Year’s Experience, 1999, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year1.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009); Oregon’s Public Health Division, Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act: The Second Year’s Experiences, 2000, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year2.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009); and Oregon Public Health Division, Eighth Annual Report on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, 2006, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year8.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009).
 
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Sheldon said: ↑
This is not an argument against people having the right to end their life with dignity and without unnecessary suffering and pain. You are simply conflating the fact that such laws might be open to abuse or misuse if they don't include proper safe guards, with not having them at all, but we could simply include such safeguards then, problem solved, and no histrionics required.

You have also not offered anything to support your claimed stat, search the paper online and the story try and fact check it, only the claims seems extremely dubious. All you have is an anecdotal claim, you do see how that looks in the context of a debate?
Click to expand...
PruePhillip said:
Not sure if you read this as I added it later to my post.
Why Assisted Suicide Must Not Be Legalized (dredf.org)
Moreover, there is a significant danger that many people would choose assisted suicide due to external pressure. Elderly individuals who don’t want to be a financial or caretaking burden on their families might take this escape. In fact, the percentage of reported Oregon cases attributed to patients’ reluctance to burden their families has risen alarmingly. It totaled 12 percent in 1998, but increased to 26 percent in 1999, then 42 percent in 2005, and 45 percent in 2007.[32] Nothing in the Oregon law will protect patients when there are family pressures, whether financial or emotional, which distort patient choice.

Yes, abuse is the second issue after the general philosophy of euthenasia/abortion/welfar/trans gender
But the euthenasia movement spoke along these lines at the inception of the debate. '"Thou shalt not kill" is a goal firmly anchored in Western medicine. But we would like to shift that goal post to a new spot and firmly anchor it again with legislation stating that only people who are terminally ill, near death and in untreatable pain, can be euthenased.'
The liars then 'demanded reform' to that very legislation, putting the goal posts on wheels.
Click to expand...

This is still not an argument against people having the right to end their life with dignity and without unnecessary suffering and pain. It is necessary to have proper safeguards in place in the legislation.

Still no citation for your earlier stat, and a rather glaring slippery slope fallacy in there as well.
 
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
PruePhillip said:
[32] Trend noted by Licia Corbella, “If Doctors Who Won’t Kill Are Wicked, the World Is Sick: In Jurisdictions Where Euthanasia Is Allowed, A Loss of Choice Has Followed,” Vancouver Sun, January 14, 2009. See also Oregon Public Health Division, Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act: The First Year’s Experience, 1999, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year1.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009); Oregon’s Public Health Division, Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act: The Second Year’s Experiences, 2000, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year2.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009); and Oregon Public Health Division, Eighth Annual Report on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, 2006, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year8.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009).
Click to expand...

None of those links are working?
 
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
PruePhillip said:
[32] Trend noted by Licia Corbella, “If Doctors Who Won’t Kill Are Wicked, the World Is Sick: In Jurisdictions Where Euthanasia Is Allowed, A Loss of Choice Has Followed,” Vancouver Sun, January 14, 2009. See also Oregon Public Health Division, Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act: The First Year’s Experience, 1999, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year1.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009); Oregon’s Public Health Division, Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act: The Second Year’s Experiences, 2000, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year2.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009); and Oregon Public Health Division, Eighth Annual Report on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, 2006, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year8.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009).
Click to expand...
The links don't work.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
PruePhillip said:
[32] Trend noted by Licia Corbella, “If Doctors Who Won’t Kill Are Wicked, the World Is Sick: In Jurisdictions Where Euthanasia Is Allowed, A Loss of Choice Has Followed,” Vancouver Sun, January 14, 2009. See also Oregon Public Health Division, Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act: The First Year’s Experience, 1999, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year1.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009); Oregon’s Public Health Division, Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act: The Second Year’s Experiences, 2000, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year2.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009); and Oregon Public Health Division, Eighth Annual Report on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, 2006, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year8.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009).
Click to expand...
How is that supposed to help you? Did you even read them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top