Happiness and God? part 1
*The post that started it all :) I've copied it from from my friend's blog sohbear:
Some people say as long as you are happy with life, nothing else really matters...
Some people say as long as you are happy with life, nothing else really matters...
A lot of people think that people only really find 'god' when they're down, when they're experiencing some really bad things in their lives, or when they just don't know who else to turn to for answers - that's when people believe there is a 'god', and hence the notion of 'believing in god' is nothing more than trying to find something, or someone, to depend on when there is no one / nothing else... Thus a 'god' is really born of imagination, and people who believe - well, let's just say they're imagining things too... This argument stands for those who do not believe a 'god' exists
Others may believe that there exists a higher being, but it really doesn't matter who that higher being is - whether it's the Christian God, the Hindu one, or whichever religion's one - it's all the same... People only go to religion when life ain't going so well
So, the argument is, as long as I am happy, I don't need to believe in a 'god'... Do you agree?
(To be continued...)
posted by chronicblogger @ 1:51 AM
5 Comments:
To the author,
something you should know about doctor-patient relationship (not that i really like to continue with the analogy), patients have such a thing called "autonomy" with regard to their decision to choose to take the doc's suggestions or to refuse treatments, or even find another doc that will suit their needs best.
what i am trying to say is, doctors do their part, and patients make a choice. I am sure you understand what i mean
Take care with your health :)
Yes, patients get the final say in what they want to do and there are many good doctors out there which I am sure you(Irene) will be one of them =).
In a perfect world, doctor and patients always have "autonomy". But in reality, this just doesn't happen for everyone. There are a lot of patients out there who would just blindly accept everything their doctor tells them. And there are also doctors out there who push/persuade treatments onto patients againest their wishes.
Why else would there be so many doctors being sued for abusing doctor-patient relationships.
Claiming to be the only doctor a patient need, or that the medicine that s/he gives is the best, and that other doctors are rubbish/not professional is not exactly right.
Sohbear's analogy might have been flawed (and you are right, maybe we shouldn't continue with this analogy), but at least Unconvinced have analysed what Sohbear said and posted questions, rather than blindly agreeing to what has been said without thinking.
Irene yeh I understand perfectly what u mean, but I don't understand how follows from the topic. Please, can you explain how you progressed from 'do you need a doctor, and do u need the 1 doctor' to 'autonomy in doctor-patient relationships'?
And 'take care of your health' - is that a threat?!?! aahahaaha kidding ;)
I'm finding it hard to write a rebuttal based to your comment on my post because it's gotten me saying 'huh?' hahaa
Off-topic as your reply may be, I do agree with what Lina+Friend said. And I'll just add this to her already good post (though I may end up repeating a few things cos she's got heaps of good points):
Autonomy is all good and well when people exercise it, or when people are actually conscious that they possess it when they make their decisions. It will work when everyone has perfect information, everyone possesses the same amount of information at the same time as everyone else.
Will a sick person immediately question their doctor/s' opinion if they think they don't know as much as their doctors? Will a doctor not use their medical degree, years of experience and seniority to convince a patient about 1 treatment vs another? Possession of knowledge and information is very powerful - someone less informed than you will believe what you say since they think you know more and hence know better.
So although you give people autonomy in a relationship they cannot realistically exercise this right all the time since they won't know all the consequences and possibilities as well as say, their doctor. They may rethink whether to refuse treatments or find another doc, as you said, because they don't know as much as their doctor. The relationship isn't as straightforward and cleancut as you describe it. A degree of trust is necessary. This is where Lina+Friend's comments come in - she brings in a couple of good points where that trust is violated or taken advantage of.
Even if the sick person thinks to exercise their autonomy, sometimes because they:
1. don't know better or
2. they can't because the doctor pressures/influences them or
3. they can't because others pressure/influence them
they eventually choose not to.
So I don't think you can just say that "doctors do their part, and patients make a choice". I think it's better off saying "doctors do their part in the most honest, unbiased, manner, and patients make an informed choice".
That does happen, but does it happen all the time? I think not.
Alright... I should clarify, Irene's comment was for me, not for unconvinced... So the 'take care of your health' was for me, not a threat! :P As you all know I've been sick mah, and I still am... so hence I've been asked to take care :P I hate getting sick >< i had fever again last night... so annoying ><
anyway, back to the topic...
As we all know, the analogy is flawed, so it's best we do not continue on using it hey? Otherwise we'll continue running around in circles... Analogies always come with different interpretations, so we all have a point here, however we wish to interpret it. What irene said wasn't wrong, but neither was Lina's or Chocolate's comments wrong.
You see... I've never been good at debating, so don't count on me to give 'good points', especially when you guys don't agree with me in the first place. Funny thing is, in my post I haven't even mentioned who I thought the true God was yet, but because you guys have known me already you jumped straight into the conclusion for me! I was asking the question "Who", I did not give the answer. So wasn't it just a tiny winy little bit unfair that you said I was being intolerant and close-minded when I haven't even yet drawn the conclusion? And since you acknowledged the fact that I was a Christian, and that I believed that the Christian 'god' was the one true God, that's why my last post continued on from there - to acknowledge yes that is what I believe in. However I was not imposing it, nor did I intend to, on anyone!
Many people have been asking for decades and centuries this question, and I was just trying to use an analogy to express my thoughts (flawed as it may be :P). "With so many different religions, how do we know who is the real God?" Some would argue that are the same God in the first place, just people's different interpretation of the divine being. Some would argue that none of them are real, but only the result of human weakness and seeking some higher power in their lives. Some would argue that one particular one is true (okay I belong to this category). I believe in something, you believe in another. Ultimately, it's a choice that you and I have to make.
ahh I was just kidding abt that threat ahha ;) get well soon ! get more rest!
Yep well I think that there's nothing wrong with different interpretations - that is what you wanted on your blog anyway more comments right? Now there's heaps of comments on it hahaha I think it's good that we actually disagree with each other sometimes, otherwise think of how boring the world would be. The best group of friends are those who can discuss amicably and maturely about issues, regardless of how unresolvable these issues are. If people were open to debate and discussion and having their views challenged we would learn more from each other.
It's not a matter of whether you're good at debating or not - it's what you believe in and how you describe it that will help u make 'good points' as you put it.
You said: "Funny thing is, in my post I haven't even mentioned who I thought the true God was yet, but because you guys have known me already you jumped straight into the conclusion for me! ... So wasn't it just a tiny winy little bit unfair that you said I was being intolerant and close-minded when I haven't even yet drawn the conclusion?"
Can I just say that I never said YOU were intolerant or narrow-minded, I said those comments breed intolerance and narrow-mindedness. Don't you think it's unfair that you're drawing out a conclusion that I'm saying you're intolerant and narrow-minded when I only referred to your comments and results it may have? I meant that saying things like that breed intolerance and narrow-mindedness among others who choose to follow comments and don't question it themselves. But if you choose to think that you are, what can I do hahahaah kidding ;)
Are you also saying then that in part 3 of your post or your 'to unconvinced' post, you didn't say that you thought true God is your God? I don't understand how it's unfair or why you think there's something wrong with it when it's quite clear what you wanted to say. I quote: "and yes that He is the one true God," (to unconvinced post) and "there is only one true God" (part 3 post). I don't think drew the conclusion out for you exactly - you were already subtly hinting at the conclusion.
You also said: "yes, i have jumped a huge step to come to the argument that there is only one God of all...)" - who else would you be referring to? ;) I would be surprised and shocked if you suddenly turned around and in the next post said: Buddha!... I mean that would be totally illogical and out of character given the other posts in your blog hahaha
I actually agree with your argument that people take things for granted (including religion or God) when things are going ok. But I don't agree with how you suddenly took that to conclude: here is the one true God to believe in. And if you don't want to impose that on other people, well a few other posts and comments have already said something about that so I'm not going to bother repeating it here.
I think if people respected everyone else's choices we would be a lot happier, the world would be a lot more peaceful and we wouldn't have blood shed in the name of religion. This probably belongs in another post but respect for other religions is important. That's why I don't particularly support plays or talks or meetings where the ultimate aim is to convert people to one religion or another. It's not limited to Christian ones mind you, all religions do it but so far I've only had experiences with Christian ones. But I guess that's a topic for another post. And finally - yup no problems, you and I have a choice and we respect each other's choices. I hope we learned from each other whilst having this debate.
Nothing wrong with a friendly debate right :)
Post a Comment
<< Home