Non-religious/atheist/agnostic Doctors and Religious Patients

[thamsenman]

That is incorrect. If there is anything approaching a central dogma, it is that there is no EVIDENCE supporting the existence of a god. No responsible atheist will claim that he knows with ABSOLUTE certainty what the reality is, because that kind of certainty is reserved for the religious.

Actually, I don't think that's correct. I've seen many atheists (not myself) mirror the certainty of religious groups.There are many atheists who do not believe in God not only because they don't believe there is no evidence but are against the idea completely.

The idea: There is no God.

includes 1. People who don't believe there is evidence, and are humble enough to think that because there is no evidence there is no reason to believe in a God.

and 2. People who are certain (at least to themselves) there is no God.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mdschlmyb]

Really? Is it due to your "philosophical side and love for the humanities"? I think anyone who has debated with christians for even one week knows how they think on the level you described.

I would never say anything that i didn't believe. Pretending to be of their faith and saying something like "god is testing your faith," is flat-out immoral, imo. I would leave the room and let them do what they're going to do, or if they insist that the physician be involved, they can find another one.

Also, it's important not to equate atheists with theists as "believers," who have "faith" in their model of reality. Observational science is completely different than any faith-based religion. If a theist argues with you and gets you to admit you have faith in science like they have faith in their religion, you've lost and have done a great disservice to the world (by justifying the complete irrational belief in a nonsensical, non-disprovable, unfounded model of reality).

Atheists do not have to disprove anything to give science credibility. Based on observation, we start out with credibility. Just the same, we do not have to prove any theory or explain any phenomenon (doing so or failing to do so would not affect the credibility of religion, making this argument a straw man). Theists are the ones with the burden of proof before they have any credibility, and should be treated as such.

a+

 

[mdschlmyb]

Actually, I don't think that's correct. I've seen many atheists (not myself) mirror the certainty of religious groups.There are many atheists who do not believe in God not only because they don't believe there is no evidence but are against the idea completely.

The idea: There is no God.

includes 1. People who don't believe there is evidence, and are humble enough to think that because there is no evidence there is no reason to believe in a God.

and 2. People who are certain (at least to themselves) there is no God.

Right, but as we all know, absolute certainty in anything is ridiculous. Science will probably never PROVE that there is no god, but that doesn't change the fact that there is still no evidence SUPPORTING a god. I guess there may be some atheists who are religious in their proclaiming that they KNOW that there is NO god, but they are just as flawed as any religious person in logic...

P.S. Being "against an idea" really doesn't lend any validity to that opposition. I don't say that because I am "against" the idea of Jesus being resurrected that THAT is why it didn't happen. That would be really illogical. Rather, I say that we have no evidence for that. (Just an example! I myself was raised Jewish...)

 

[thamsenman]

Really? Is it due to your "philosophical side and love for the humanities"? I think anyone who has debated with Christians for even one week knows how they think on the level you described.

I would never say anything that I didn't believe. Pretending to be of their faith and saying something like "god is testing your faith," is flat-out immoral, IMO. I would leave the room and let them do what they're going to do, or if they insist that the physician be involved, they can find another one.

Also, it's important not to equate atheists with theists as "believers," who have "faith" in their model of reality. Observational science is completely different than any faith-based religion. If a theist argues with you and gets you to admit you have faith in science like they have faith in their religion, you've lost and have done a great disservice to the world (by justifying the complete irrational belief in a nonsensical, non-disprovable, unfounded model of reality).

Atheists do not have to disprove anything to give science credibility. Based on observation, we start out with credibility. Just the same, we do not have to prove any theory or explain any phenomenon (doing so or failing to do so would NOT affect the credibility of religion, making this argument a straw man). Theists are the ones with the burden of proof before they have any credibility, and should be treated as such.

Right, but as we all know, absolute certainty in anything is ridiculous. Science will probably never PROVE that there is no god, but that doesn't change the fact that there is still no evidence SUPPORTING a god. I guess there may be some atheists who are religious in their proclaiming that they KNOW that there is NO god, but they are just as flawed as any religious person in logic...

You know it's funny. I hear atheists characterized as these faithful people by their detractors all the time, but the vast majority of them are not arrogant enough to think they know anything. However, they know they do not know the answers.

 

[SparkleMotion]

I would never say anything that I didn't believe. Pretending to be of their faith .... is flat-out immoral

^

 

[UAAWolf]

Hilarious things in this thread.

You don't know how to deal with a patient who believes in something different than you? Seriously? I suggest you get some empathy otherwise good luck with a career in medicine...or perhaps only treat patients who believe the same thing as you?

I feel like you guys are making this a much bigger deal than it is.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

lol this thread is slowly changed from how to help people..
into a spaghetti platter which praises the lord -.-

 

[JonathanMD]

I know there are a ton of doctors out there who aren't believers.

So what exactly do you do when you have a particularly religious patient? I mean, I'm not stupid I know you don't contradict their beliefs purposefully because it may be very important for your patients well being (and their continued participation in medical treatment), but certainly if a patient wants you to take part in a religious ceremony (such as appealing to their god(s)) I could see it being a very awkward situation. I would see it as even being a bit dishonest to agree with a patient that praying or some other religious ceremony could change an outcome.

And I know they probably do some kind of spiritual respect type training, but I think the problem with non-believing doctors is unique. As a non-believer, I honestly cannot understand praying or religious thought. I think it would be far easier for a believer, say a Muslim, to understand why a Hindu is praying to his god/gods.

Anyone ever think about this? And how much do medical schools address these problems?

I think this falls squarely under the realm of a patient's will to live (which actually does effect their physiology). And if the patient will fight harder to live because of it and if your participation means a lot to them, I think you take it on the chin and do whatever they ask to the best of your ability (and schedule). Of course, nothing too crazy.

And you don't have to pretend to believe (I don't think they're attempting to convert you overnight), you just have to participate respectfully. It's not about you. In the moment, it's about them.

 

[strummin]

I think this falls squarely under the realm of a patient's will to live (which actually does effect their physiology). And if the patient will fight harder to live because of it and if your participation means a lot to them, I think you take it on the chin and do whatever they ask to the best of your ability (and schedule). Of course, nothing too crazy.

And you don't have to pretend to believe (I don't think they're attempting to convert you overnight), you just have to participate respectfully. It's not about you. In the moment, it's about them.

I disagree with your "do whatever you have to do" argument. Dawkins talks a lot about how religion gets such a free ride. How we're all supposed to respect other people's faith and religion - we can criticize people's political beliefs and their choice of fashion to an extent but in many cases criticizing religion is completely off limits. I can't imagine Evangelical Christians ever giving atheists the same level of respect (in participation of their "rituals" - although atheists don't really have any) that you're suggesting atheist doctors give religious people.

I go with the politely decline to participate approach. Take a stand. Just because you're a doctor doesn't mean you have to appease everyone.

 

[JonathanMD]

I disagree with your "do whatever you have to do" argument. Dawkins talks a lot about how religion gets such a free ride. How we're all supposed to respect other people's faith and religion - we can criticize people's political beliefs and their choice of fashion to an extent but in many cases criticizing religion is completely off limits. I can't imagine Evangelical Christians ever giving atheists the same level of respect (in participation of their "rituals" - although atheists don't really have any) that you're suggesting atheist doctors give religious people.

I go with the politely decline to participate approach. Take a stand. Just because you're a doctor doesn't mean you have to appease everyone.

It's a good argument but I think the difference is between people who are openly or actively against religion and those who are just neutral towards it. Politely declining is a reasonable way to go.

Again, I'm not going to participate while pretending to believe in their faith no more than I think they're expecting me to be converted. But if taking a minute or two out of your regular routine will actually help them, I say you do it.

"Drawing a line in sand" is for doctors who are offended by the notion of religion (which is fair). As if you say, if you give in to it, you're sacrificing a little of your own personal integrity towards the subject.

I'm not offended by religion. I just don't believe. I'm not sacrificing anything by participating.

If you feel like you're sacrificing your integrity by participating, by all means, politely decline.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

It's a good argument but I think the difference is between people who are openly or actively against religion and those who are just neutral towards it. Politely declining is a reasonable way to go.

Again, I'm not going to participate and pretend that I believe in their faith no more than I think they're expecting me to be converted. But if taking a minute or two out of your regular routine will actually help them, I say you do it.

"Drawing a line in sand" is for doctors who are offended by the notion of religion (which is fair). As if you say, if you give in to it, you're sacrificing a little of your own personal integrity towards the subject.

I'm not offended by religion. I just don't believe. I'm not sacrificing anything by participating.

If you feel like you're sacrificing your integrity by participating, by all means, politely decline.

, but I doubt many of the Dawkinsites in this thread will be inclined to agree with you.

 

[teenmachinery1]

You don't know how to deal with a patient who believes in something different than you?

I feel like you guys are making this a much bigger deal than it is.

You feel this because you're ignorant.

You should join 7starmantis in the straw-man argument club.

"GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY!!"

 

[teenmachinery1]

What kind of creature doesn't like spaghetti? I find the possibility of said creature's existence highly offensive.

Edit: And I know what is for dinner tonight

I had spaghetti last night (seriously), and OMG.

Delicious City, Population: teenmachinery1

 

[teenmachinery1]

Atheism has a central dogma.

Here it is: There is no God.

Should we have used the flying spaghetti monster to unify us instead? I don't think we all like spaghetti.

Hi Thamsenman,

the quoted assertion above isn't true.

There is no consensus on what atheism means.

This is easy to verify, you're using the internet right...... now.

For instance:

I think (and I think many would agree), that the dogma statement should be something like:

There is insufficient evidence to believe in a god(s).

But again... this is just my interpretation of what atheism means and there are many interpretations.

So... CAN WE STOP PRETENDING TO KNOW WHAT ATHEISM REALLY MEANS?

thanks, and amen.

edit: Oh yeah, so to illustrate my point somewhat: Are babies born atheist?

 

[teenmachinery1]

Sure, there are conflicting studies. But all that matters is that any evidence for the efficacy of prayer is not necessarily a threat to atheistic beliefs. So, if a patient asks you if he should pray, you can just tell them "yes" (thinking in your mind placebo effect), not "I don't think it would work" (or you can call the chaplain if you are perplexed and stuck in a trance ).

I said specifically, I have no qualms whatsoever with praying with a patient in my previous post.

Attributing a successful outcome to God is not contradictory to science.

at a loss for words.

 

[thamsenman]

Hi Thamsenman,

the quoted assertion above isn't true.

There is no consensus on what atheism means.

This is easy to verify, you're using the internet right...... now.

For instance:

I think (and I think many would agree), that the dogma statement should be something like:

There is insufficient evidence to believe in a god(s).

But again... this is just my interpretation of what atheism means and there are many interpretations.

So... CAN WE STOP PRETENDING TO KNOW WHAT ATHEISM REALLY MEANS?

thanks, and amen.

edit: Oh yeah, so to illustrate my point somewhat: Are babies born atheist?

What have I gotten myself into?

Okay, what about the people who believe there is evidence that there is no God. In their own mind they have concluded that. What are they?

 

[mdschlmyb]

It just occurred to me that this whole thread is kinda missing the point. I understand the question that the OP had that basically pointed out a cultural difference between the religious patient and the atheist doctor. But wouldn't this question be equally valid, for example, with a doctor of one faith and a patient with a different faith? I'm sure that SOME doctors would be ok with just going along with the patient's wishes, just as some atheist doctors would (probably myself included). But wouldn't there also be a whole bunch of doctors that feel that perhaps their own religion forbids them from participating in whatever it is the patient may want? There's a lot of religions out there, and I don't know the specifics of all of them, but I'm pretty sure that there are quite a number of religious people out there who will absolutely not partake in the religious observance of another religion.
So yeah, this thread points out a potential dilemma, but it isn't just a problem for atheists and agnostics, it's a problem for any doctor of any faith or non-faith that feels he or she can't participate in whatever this patient may desire. Limiting the scope of the issue to atheists and agnostics doesn't really seem to fully address the heart of the matter.

 

[mdschlmyb]

I said specifically, I have no qualms whatsoever with praying with a patient.



at a loss for words.

lol agreed...

 

[JonathanMD]

It just occurred to me that this whole thread is kinda missing the point. I understand the question that the OP had that basically pointed out a cultural difference between the religious patient and the atheist doctor. But wouldn't this question be equally valid, for example, with a doctor of one faith and a patient with a different faith? I'm sure that SOME doctors would be ok with just going along with the patient's wishes, just as some atheist doctors would (probably myself included). But wouldn't there also be a whole bunch of doctors that feel that perhaps their own religion forbids them from participating in whatever it is the patient may want? There's a lot of religions out there, and I don't know the specifics of all of them, but I'm pretty sure that there are quite a number of religious people out there who will absolutely not partake in the religious observance of another religion.
So yeah, this thread points out a potential dilemma, but it isn't just a problem for atheists and agnostics, it's a problem for any doctor of any faith or non-faith that feels he or she can't participate in whatever this patient may desire. Limiting the scope of the issue to atheists and agnostics doesn't really seem to fully address the heart of the matter.

I think this also calls for reason to politely decline.

Like I said earlier about non-believers, "If you feel like you're sacrificing your integrity by participating, by all means, politely decline."

I think this also holds true for people with differing faiths. In fact, expand it even further beyond the borders of religion. If you're doing something as a doctor for a patient that threatens (or shatters) your integrity as a professional... why not decline?

You would be doing more harm that good in the long run.

 

[mdschlmyb]

What have I gotten myself into?

Okay, what about the people who believe there is evidence that there is no God. In their own mind they have concluded that. What are they?

They are pretty misguided and are not following the principles of good science. one can't really have evidence for a negative. No one can prove that fairies DON'T exist, atheist or believer...I have a feeling, though, that these people who have 'evidence' that god doesn't exist are probably referring to the 'absence of evidence= evidence of absence' theory, which I myself think is rather weak, but unnecessary at the same time. Just as a side point that sorta has relevance, when Richard Dawkins participate in the atheistic-ad-on-the-side-of-the-bus campaign, the ad said "There's Probably No God...etc etc"...

 

[strummin]

But wouldn't this question be equally valid, for example, with a doctor of one faith and a patient with a different faith?

Did you read the OP's entire post?

"...but I think the problem with non-believing doctors is unique. As a non-believer, I honestly cannot understand praying or religious thought. I think it would be far easier for a believer, say a Muslim, to understand why a Hindu is praying to his god/gods."

 

[TooMuchResearch]

Hi Thamsenman,

the quoted assertion above isn't true.

There is no consensus on what atheism means.

This is easy to verify, you're using the internet right...... now.

For instance:

I think (and I think many would agree), that the dogma statement should be something like:

There is insufficient evidence to believe in a god(s).

But again... this is just my interpretation of what atheism means and there are many interpretations.

So... CAN WE STOP PRETENDING TO KNOW WHAT ATHEISM REALLY MEANS?

thanks, and amen.

edit: Oh yeah, so to illustrate my point somewhat: Are babies born atheist?

No, babies are born sinners. Filthy, filthy babies.

 

[teenmachinery1]

What have I gotten myself into?

Okay, what about the people who believe there is evidence that there is no God. In their own mind they have concluded that. What are they?

They're atheists too. The term means so many different things to so many diff. people...

Here's a book that claims that the claim that a god exists can be positively, conclusively, disproven. I don't necessarily agree, I'm just sayin'..

I forgot the title of the book. :/

edit:

God: The failed hypothesis: How science shows that god does not exist, by Victor Stenger. Adjunct professor of philosophy at U. Colorado, Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy U. Hawaii.

 

[mdschlmyb]

Did you read the OP's entire post?

"...but I think the problem with non-believing doctors is unique. As a non-believer, I honestly cannot understand praying or religious thought. I think it would be far easier for a believer, say a Muslim, to understand why a Hindu is praying to his god/gods."

Did you read the subsequent post by a muslim who said that, no, he would NOT understand the patient's desire to pray to the gods of hinduism?
I don't think that he/she is representative if the entire Muslem population, but it does show that what i said was accurate.

LOL. I'm muslim, and, as muslims are monotheists who, religiously, have absolutely nothing in common with hindus, I would not find it any easier to pray to hindu gods for my patient.

I think what you are expected to do is just be a doctor. Do your job; give the patient the facts, tell them what they need to do to stay healthy, and encourage them to seek strength and optimism in whatever way works best for them. I highly doubt you would be asked to pray for them...that simply isn't your role. They'll pray for themselves; most reasonable people realize that the chances that you share their exact same religious beliefs is not too likely and will not ask you to do such a thing.

If, strangely, a patient keeps insisting that you pray with his/her family, then you need to decide which is more important to you: how much you believe in your patient's prayers or the comfort of your patient. If they're not asking you to leave the hospital and it's not interfering with your other duties, consider it just another a way of making your patient more comfortable if/when they are about to die. In such a situation, all sorts of accommodations are made: last wishes are granted, pain killers are administered, so consider this another aspect to that level of patient care and go with it.

I actually think this poster was quite thoughtful...

 

[UAAWolf]

You feel this because you're ignorant.

You should join 7starmantis in the straw-man argument club.

"GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY!!"

Excuse me? You disagree that doctors should be empathetic and respect those with different beliefs?

Or is it just that you respect their beliefs just as long as they are the same as yours? \

 

[UAAWolf]

This thread reminds me of one of my favorite south park episodes.

Even in a world where there is no religiom, different types of Athiests still fight and kill each other over their differences.

That show made such a good point IMO...

 

[thamsenman]

We're not killing each other We're just trying to find out what our common ground is

 

[strummin]

Did you read the subsequent post by a muslim who said that, no, he would NOT understand the patient's desire to pray to the gods of hinduism?
I don't think that he/she is representative if the entire Muslem population, but it does show that what i said was accurate.

I actually think this poster was quite thoughtful...

Yes, but Hinduism is somewhat different. I'm assuming members of the Abrahamic religions would be able to understand each other much better.

And btw, in countries like India, I believe Hindus and Muslims have been living together (fairly peacefully) for centuries. (Of course, until the colonialists started interfering and forced Partition). I'm sure there would be mutual understanding of religions there.

I'm assuming the Muslim poster was Arab, who might not have had that much exposure to Hinduism.

 

[UAAWolf]

We're not killing each other We're just trying to find out what our common ground is

May I ask you what athiests major problem with the religious are?

I'm a pretty laid back Catholic..go to church now and then, have my fun, etc. I never bring up religion to people or shout against their believes- in fact the funny thing is I far more often see athiests try to pick fights with religious people who don't really care to do so.

Either way- is it the extremists such as radical muslims and the very socially conservative right that bug you? That 1% of people may stand out and annoy the hell out of everyone but its not the majority...just like I assume most athiests are not arrogant and likely keep to themselves. Just curious

 

[thamsenman]

May I ask you what athiests major problem with the religious are?

I'm a pretty laid back Catholic..go to church now and then, have my fun, etc. I never bring up religion to people or shout against their believes- in fact the funny thing is I far more often see athiests try to pick fights with religious people who don't really care to do so.

Either way- is it the extremists such as radical muslims and the very socially conservative right that bug you? That 1% of people may stand out and annoy the hell out of everyone but its not the majority...just like I assume most athiests are not arrogant and likely keep to themselves. Just curious

Well, the radical muslims and social conservatives bug me because I am insanely liberal on social issues. I don't really have a problem with religion, I think it can give people a code of conduct to behave in ways that advance society and provide mutual happiness....and that is always good.


But..I just don't believe moral actions have any influence on physical reality. I think too much of morality as human-centric and fundamentally, relative. So basically, I don't really think any religion is true. Yet again, I see no evidence. But beyond that, I don't have really any problem with religion.

 

[strummin]

Excuse me? You disagree that doctors should be empathetic and respect those with different beliefs?

Or is it just that you respect their beliefs just as long as they are the same as yours? \

Empathetic? Yes.
Respect? Eh... let's clarify:

Respect their right to believe in whatever they choose to believe? Sure.
Respect the fact that they may choose to express their faith in a hospital environment? Sure.
Respect the fact that they will (probably) refer to their belief system when making decisions about their treatment? Sure.

Respect their actual beliefs? I don't think it should be required of doctors. But, of course, doctors must be polite in (for example) declining an invitation to pray with the patient.

I hope this doesn't launch a debate on semantics.. but perhaps I have a different definition or understanding of respect than some people here?

 

[UAAWolf]

Well, the radical muslims and social conservatives bug me because I am insanely liberal on social issues. I don't really have a problem with religion, I think it can give people a code of conduct to behave in ways that advance society and provide mutual happiness....and that is always good.


But..I just don't believe moral actions have any influence on physical reality. I think too much of morality as human-centric and fundamentally, relative. So basically, I don't really think any religion to be is true. Yet again, I see no evidence. But beyond that, I don't have really any problem with religion.

I definitely agree with you that the people on the extremes don't do much good..if anything they just make this world more violent. As someone religious, I hate the fact they give ALL religious people a bad reputation.

And despite our different beliefs- I think we see eye to eye on the fact that both athiests and religious can (and SHOULD) coexist. For example- I would never ask you to pray or anything that goes against your beliefs- and I assume you would do the same for me etc. Ok whew..common ground for the win

Empathetic? Yes.
Respect? Eh... let's clarify:

Respect their right to believe in whatever they choose to believe? Sure.
Respect the fact that they may choose to express their faith in a hospital environment? Sure.
Respect the fact that they will (probably) refer to their belief system when making decisions about their treatment? Sure.

Respect their actual beliefs? I don't think it should be required of doctors. But, of course, doctors must be polite in (for example) declining an invitation to pray with the patient.

I hope this doesn't launch a debate on semantics.. but perhaps I have a different definition or understanding of respect than some people here?

You are right. I apologize dude...because I just thought of an example.

Lets say a friend of mine gets abortion..I would be there for her and stuff..but I might not respect or agree with her decision. At the same time, I would be supportive and empathetic...and I would certainly not try to guilt trip them or anything.

So perhaps I should change that to being respectful to patients...but you don't have to respect them- because we'll obviously run into patients we don't respect at some point.

Sorry for being unreasonable...

 

[thamsenman]

Maybe we should distinguish between atheists and anti-theists

Christopher Hitchens writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."[2]

 

[mdschlmyb]

May I ask you what athiests major problem with the religious are?

I think that a big problem that many atheists have with religion is that religion can be used to justify some pretty awful things. Of course YOU may not believe that the bible literally meant you should stone homosexuals or sabbath transgressors, but what about the people who do think that? Their entire basis for this is solely religious, and you can't really say that they are the radicals, because it says these commandments straight out in the bible in simple...hebrew(lol)... These are just two examples, but I'm sure you can think of many more. I don't remember where this quote is from but I think it sums up this position pretty well. "Good people do good things and bad people do bad things. But for GOOD people to do BAD things, you need religion." No atheist has an issue with religious things like, lets say, charity. (Though do we really need Jesus or Mohammed or whoever to tell us to be charitable?) The problem is that too often along with whatever good may come, there are many negative effects too. And the good effects are often not specifically religious in nature. Christ might have taught forgiveness for example, but do we NEED christ to know that it's a virtue? I don't think so...And at the same time, look at the negatives that are ONLY justified through religious reasoning. If AIDS is spreading like wildfire in Africa, and various health organizations have determined that condom usage would be a big help, then isn't it a shame that the vatican wouldn't support a solution like that? And why? only because of religion.
So to religious folk out there who do not impose their religion on others and don't feel that everyone MUST practice what they practice, most atheists probably don't have much of a problem with you, and nor should you with them.
There is also another issue that atheists may have with religion, as possibly being anti-intellectual but...these kinds of convos are really not meant for online forums lol...

 

[shiftingmirage]

May I ask you what athiests major problem with the religious are?

Note: 'you' refers to a general person, not you, UAAWolf.

Can't speak for everyone, but my two cents.

I don't dislike all religious people, but there are a few bad apples/encounters that rub me the wrong way. I live in the city, and I've had several encounters over the years where someone is on the train/bus passing out pamphlets, or singing loudly the word of God. LEAVE ME ALONE PLEASE! All I want to do is get from point A to B, and not be bothered in between. Some times they say things like, homosexuals can't get into heavan. What did the gay people do to you? I absolutely despise when religion is used to promote hatred. Then there are the exremes. My cousin got caught cheating on her hw. My aunt said the girl she cheated off was possessed by the devil. Seriously? Maybe your kid was just lazy/procrastinated/whatever and just didn't do her hw, and hit up a friend. Doesn't mean the other girl was possessed by the devil.

Some minor things:

Another pet peeve, everytime something good happens (ok, not every) it's, 'by the grace of god, I was so lucky.' If god is responsible for all the good things in life, isn't he responsible for all the bad? He is almighty, right? So if he is responsible for you winning the lotto, he's also responsible for all those people that died in Katrina. If you're going to apply it, apply it evenly. Good and bad.

People that are just...maybe ignorant is the best word. If people start talking about religion, I have no problem stating I'm an anteist. 99% of people are like, hey if it works for you, cool. Then there are the few. You're going to go to hell. God wont save you. Um....I don't believe in hell, or god, so what am I supossed to be scared of? And should fear of future persecution be the motive for me to join a religions sect? I would think it would be because I agree with the founding beliefs, etc., not fear.

I would also say that although I'm a non-believer, I'm more moral than some of really religious people. Instead of judging me for my religion, how about judging me for my actions? Some of the pushers of religion/those that praise it up and down are the biggest sinners and are so clueless. Or all their sins were before they found god. Well, I've been without god all my life and managed to keep myself out of trouble. Why don't you focus on fixing you, and I'll take care of me?

 

[IDoIt4Love]

Agree.

Whatever. I guess I will have no integrity as a future physician for taking the patient's psychological well-being into account, beyond the simple physiology of the disease.

yeah, I think I'm just gonna have to do the same LOL

 

[rockaction]

stephen fry, take it away:

[YOUTUBE]oR5hWbfZsYs[/YOUTUBE]

his point starting a 1:20 should be very troubling for theists

 

[rmbsstock]

out

 

[IDoIt4Love]

Yes, but Hinduism is somewhat different. I'm assuming members of the Abrahamic religions would be able to understand each other much better.

And btw, in countries like India, I believe Hindus and Muslims have been living together (fairly peacefully) for centuries. (Of course, until the colonialists started interfering and forced Partition). I'm sure there would be mutual understanding of religions there.

I'm assuming the Muslim poster was Arab, who might not have had that much exposure to Hinduism.

honey, I took an entire class on Indian culture and traditions, and am, myself, partially Indian. But praying to hindu Gods is definitely foreign to me and specifically against my beliefs so no, I would feel no more comfortable praying to Hindu gods on behalf of my patients. Oh, and Muslims can come from all over the world; not just arab countries

 

[IDoIt4Love]

Did you read the subsequent post by a muslim who said that, no, he would NOT understand the patient's desire to pray to the gods of hinduism?
I don't think that he/she is representative if the entire Muslem population, but it does show that what i said was accurate.



I actually think this poster was quite thoughtful...

I would *understand* the patient's desire to pray (as I feel the vast majority of the population can understand that), but, like I said, I would not find it any easier to pray to hindu gods with them. basically, it's not a "unique problem for non-believers." It's just not really a big problem in general. If you have any sympathy, you'll try to make them feel better. Of course, you won't LIE to them, but bowing your head and letting them do their thing isn't lying. You're not telling them that "yes, prayer will help your outcome," nor are you telling them that "yes, I am a hindu/muslim/christian/etc like you." You're HUMORING them and showing some sympathy. What on Earth is so wrong with that?

 

[mdschlmyb]

I would *understand* the patient's desire to pray (as I feel the vast majority of the population can understand that), but, like I said, I would not find it any easier to pray to hindu gods with them. basically, it's not a "unique problem for non-believers." It's just not really a big problem in general. If you have any sympathy, you'll try to make them feel better. Of course, you won't LIE to them, but bowing your head and letting them do their thing isn't lying. You're not telling them that "yes, prayer will help your outcome," nor are you telling them that "yes, I am a hindu/muslim/christian/etc like you." You're HUMORING them and showing some sympathy. What on Earth is so wrong with that?

I don't think there is ANYthing wrong with that - I am totally ok with that...After all, like you say, it is mainly to humor the patient and show sympathy, which is good in my book....

 

[strummin]

Why politely decline when their mental health is part of their treatment, and you are not jeoperdizing yours? I believe that NOT all patients are all the same, and some their mental health gives them more willingness to fight and go through tough procedures.
I will bow my head and let them pray except for the Devil Worshipers. And I am not kidding, I a met some of them, and our agency banned them from practicing their faith.

Again - the appeasement argument. Yes, praying might work for some people (kind of like the placebo effect) - and perhaps, if I (as the doctor) joined in, it would be even better for their mental health (I doubt by much though). And if you, as a doctor, would like to do that, by all means - go ahead!

I'm just saying that I am not a fan of appeasing religious people by joining in their prayers. Just because my praying with them might give them a better chance of survival, does not mean that I should forsake my own personal beliefs (opinions, rather) about organized religion. That, in my mind, does not serve as a justification. And particularly because I do not expect many religious people doing the same for atheists (forsaking their own beliefs for the appeasement of atheists)

More interestingly, why not devil worshippers? What makes them different? If you're willing to do it for all religions, then why should you discriminate?

 

[rmbsstock]

out

 

[TooMuchResearch]

I have all the respect for your opinion, but let me add this: I think the idea of having you as the doctor/healer joining in in their support is really powerful.
Sometimes, as a doctor you have to save the lives of rapists, child molesters, and POWs from other armies. You do NOT believe in anything they believe in, but as a doctor you have to serve them as your patients. (I think this point apply here)

I fixed it for you.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I have all the respect for your opinion, but let me add this: I think the idea of having you as the doctor/healer joining in in their support is really powerful.
Sometimes, as a doctor you have to save the lives of rapists, child molesters, and POWs from other armies. You do NOT believe in anything they believe in, but as a doctor you have to serve them as your patients. (I think this point apply here)
As for the Devil worshipers, my understanding is that they fight the healing powers and the powers of good to serve the powers of evil. So in a way, they are fighting you as a healer or a positive influence.

most devil worshipers are levrey satanists and they're mostly just goths who dont like the sun.
i.e not really satanists..

 

[thamsenman]

Again - the appeasement argument.

You sure you were meant to be a doctor?

 

[mdschlmyb]

most devil worshipers are levrey satanists and they're mostly just goths who dont like the sun.
i.e not really satanists..

Ya, and I mean obviously if someone is there and calls him or herself a Satanist, then the specifics of their beliefs really shouldn't matter, as clearly they want to get better just like any other patient. As such, if they want you to participate in whatever type of prayers, then I really don't see why any religious person should have the right to refuse that, but at the same time demand that SOME religions (Christian, Muslem...) are "ok" to pray along with 'just to make the patient happy.' If you think that making the patient happy is important then it makes no difference which religion the patient identifies with - you can't pick and choose which to 'give in' to and which to ignore.

Of course for an atheist, since all religions have about the same (in)validity, there is really no question about discriminating amongst patients of varying religions...

 

[UAAWolf]

I think that a big problem that many atheists have with religion is that religion can be used to justify some pretty awful things. Of course YOU may not believe that the bible literally meant you should stone homosexuals or sabbath transgressors, but what about the people who do think that? Their entire basis for this is solely religious, and you can't really say that they are the radicals, because it says these commandments straight out in the bible in simple...hebrew(lol)... These are just two examples, but I'm sure you can think of many more. I don't remember where this quote is from but I think it sums up this position pretty well. "Good people do good things and bad people do bad things. But for GOOD people to do BAD things, you need religion." No atheist has an issue with religious things like, lets say, charity. (Though do we really need Jesus or Mohammed or whoever to tell us to be charitable?) The problem is that too often along with whatever good may come, there are many negative effects too. And the good effects are often not specifically religious in nature. Christ might have taught forgiveness for example, but do we NEED christ to know that it's a virtue? I don't think so...And at the same time, look at the negatives that are ONLY justified through religious reasoning. If AIDS is spreading like wildfire in Africa, and various health organizations have determined that condom usage would be a big help, then isn't it a shame that the vatican wouldn't support a solution like that? And why? only because of religion.
So to religious folk out there who do not impose their religion on others and don't feel that everyone MUST practice what they practice, most atheists probably don't have much of a problem with you, and nor should you with them.
There is also another issue that atheists may have with religion, as possibly being anti-intellectual but...these kinds of convos are really not meant for online forums lol...

To be honest- your problems with religion are the same as mine- even though I'm Catholic! Let me say a few things..

-It's the EXTREME religious who ruin it for me. For example...I mentioned extremist muslims and the bible thumping baptists who take EVERY WORD of the bible literally. I consider the bible a book of stories and lessons that were obviously exaggerated. You can interpret the bible as anything you want...so idiots who think it means we have to kill the gays or be racist or not use birth control and totally missing the entire point!! I agree with you BIG TIME!!

-Why the Vatican doesn't push birth control has always bothered me tremendously. They say to just wait til marriage and even then never use a condom. Um what? Trust me, NO catholics do this...at least I don't know any. To me- what kind of God would say "Ok well you were a good person all your life but YOU USED CONDOMS!! GO TO HELL!!" Ridiculous- I agree dude.

-Perhaps it's not that religion or God is bad, but its just that people pushing a certain agenda such as this are more prone to corruption? I don't know...but trust me- I am not a blind follower of the church. I go against some of the teachings and NEVER feel guilty about it because I know I'm doing my best to live a good life.

The way I see it- I use religion to live a good life and be a good person. Certain aspects of it guide me in the right directions and I like it. If I am right about there being a God, awesome!!! If I'm wrong, I'll never know since I'll just see black when I die anyways, so who cares?

Note: 'you' refers to a general person, not you, UAAWolf.

Can't speak for everyone, but my two cents.

I don't dislike all religious people, but there are a few bad apples/encounters that rub me the wrong way. I live in the city, and I've had several encounters over the years where someone is on the train/bus passing out pamphlets, or singing loudly the word of God. LEAVE ME ALONE PLEASE! All I want to do is get from point A to B, and not be bothered in between. Some times they say things like, homosexuals can't get into heavan. What did the gay people do to you? I absolutely despise when religion is used to promote hatred. Then there are the exremes. My cousin got caught cheating on her hw. My aunt said the girl she cheated off was possessed by the devil. Seriously? Maybe your kid was just lazy/procrastinated/whatever and just didn't do her hw, and hit up a friend. Doesn't mean the other girl was possessed by the devil.

Some minor things:

Another pet peeve, everytime something good happens (ok, not every) it's, 'by the grace of god, I was so lucky.' If god is responsible for all the good things in life, isn't he responsible for all the bad? He is almighty, right? So if he is responsible for you winning the lotto, he's also responsible for all those people that died in Katrina. If you're going to apply it, apply it evenly. Good and bad.

People that are just...maybe ignorant is the best word. If people start talking about religion, I have no problem stating I'm an anteist. 99% of people are like, hey if it works for you, cool. Then there are the few. You're going to go to hell. God wont save you. Um....I don't believe in hell, or god, so what am I supossed to be scared of? And should fear of future persecution be the motive for me to join a religions sect? I would think it would be because I agree with the founding beliefs, etc., not fear.

I would also say that although I'm a non-believer, I'm more moral than some of really religious people. Instead of judging me for my religion, how about judging me for my actions? Some of the pushers of religion/those that praise it up and down are the biggest sinners and are so clueless. Or all their sins were before they found god. Well, I've been without god all my life and managed to keep myself out of trouble. Why don't you focus on fixing you, and I'll take care of me?

Once again- we share much common ground. I also hate when people try to FORCE religion on people. It should never ever be forced...if it's not for you that's FINE!

And you also bring up a great point- I don't think God is responsible for every good thing in the world. I also don't think he's responsible for the bad stuff...I like to think that were not puppets and that life just happens. I still haven't decided what I believe in how God controls our life..but I know I DO NOT think he causes everything in the world and that were merely his puppets.

And finally- the religious people who get upset at you for being an atheist are out of line. The ONLY time I get upset is when an athiest tells me I'm an idiot for believing and that he is so much smarter than me etc. Other than that, I respect everyones right to believe in what they want.

I think it comes down to this- we're all people. There are good and bad theists, good and bad atheists etc.

stephen fry, take it away:

[YOUTUBE]oR5hWbfZsYs[/YOUTUBE]

his point starting a 1:20 should be very troubling for theists

For extreme religious this may be a problem, but trust me, I've never thought that. I laughed when he mentioned it because I always considered that a pretty naive statement myself- so he brings up a good point. But for me, the beauty and ugliness of nature has nothing to do with whether of not I believe in God.

 

[JonathanMD]

Again - the appeasement argument.

"Again?" I assume you're talking about me.

I put in plain English why I didn't consider it appeasement. You chose to ignore everything I wrote... to be able to point it out again and again when other people brought up something similar?

More interestingly, why not devil worshippers? What makes them different? If you're willing to do it for all religions, then why should you discriminate?

Of course not. I consider myself a good person even though I'm a non-believer. Why would I participate in that? It's not enough a choice.

You're taking the "appeasement" argument (which isn't there) and twisting it into an extreme.

 

[rmbsstock]

Thank you, I truly mean it.

I fixed it for you.