Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Shaker

(A certain type of) religious belief in a nutshell

From CNN:

Quote:
(CNN) -- The woman who scrambled to safety after a small plane crashed into her Florida home gave thanks to God on Saturday for allowing her to escape without a scratch and for keeping her family safe.

Susan Crockett stood in front of her one-story Palm Coast home, which now has a huge black hole where the four-seater plane went down Friday afternoon, killing all three people aboard.

"God is good. He really is," Crockett told reporters. "I got out without a scratch on me. A little bruise from taking a tumble through the window, but other than that, I'm fine. I'm blessed. Truly, God was with me."

The 1957 Bonanza H35 took off from Fort Pierce, Florida, and was on its way to Knoxville when the pilot reported engine trouble, officials said.
Small plane crashes into home

"From what we've been told, the pilot was having some malfunctions in flight," said Chief Investigator Terry Duprie of the National Transportation Safety Board.

The plane was diverting to Flagler County Airport, near the coast about 30 miles north of Daytona Beach, when it crashed a mile east of the airport, Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen said.

Killed in the crash were Michael R. Anders, 57, and Duane L. Shaw, 59, both of Albany, Kentucky, and Charissee M. Peoples, 42, of Indianapolis, Indiana, according to the Florida Highway Patrol.

A preliminary NTSB report on the crash is expected in about 10 days, Duprie said, but the full investigation is expected to take many months.

Investigators will try to figure out why the plane made such a steep descent into the home and whether the weather conditions -- light rain and low clouds -- played any role, he said.

Tall pine trees surround the home, which is in a rural residential area home to many retirees.

The crash caused an intense fire that incinerated much of the plane, something that will make the investigation difficult, Duprie said. But the pilot was talking to air traffic controllers in Daytona Beach, "and I think that will help us out quite a bit down the road."

Crockett said she was getting ready to leave her house when something told her to stop. A few more feet, she said, and she would have been hit.

Her college-age daughter, Jessica, who was home for the holidays, would have been lounging on a bed that's now "charred and mangled" if she hadn't decided to head back to school a few days early, Crockett said.

Crockett's grandson often comes over to her house, where "he stands in front of the television that's now a big glob of metal," but his dad decided to take him to day care Friday, she said.

Members of Crockett's church bought her clothes and shoes to wear, since she escaped the house with next to nothing. She did manage to rescue the folded flag she received after her sister, who was in the Army, died about three years ago. It's blackened, but intact, she said.

"I'm just praising God that I'm alive," Crockett said Saturday.


Posted without comment until I've calmed down sufficiently to post without (overt) invective, save to say that it's been a while since we last heard the argument from incomplete devastation.
gone

I am probably thinking the same as you Shaker!
Ketty

The Argument from incomplete devastation is flawed.  Such human tragedies do not prove, nor disprove God.   We look at such events through our own lens and for those who do not believe that Christ Jesus is exactly who He says He is I can perfectly understand such events underpinning their (lack of) belief.
bnabernard

Having been struck by lightening do I thank God that I'm alive and thereby judge those who died, or what?

bernard (hug)
Ketty

bnabernard wrote:
Having been struck by lightening do I thank God that I'm alive and thereby judge those who died, or what?

bernard (hug)


Would you judge them Bernie?  Or rather, have an understanding that God has a Perfect Plan and we all play our part in that - and for now, in this time on this earth, for whatever the reasons, it wasn't our time to be taken Home?
bnabernard

Nah Ket, it's like me uncle George used to say, 'the devil ain't got a shovel big anough yet'.  

bernard (hug)
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
The Argument from incomplete devastation is flawed.

I can't see anything wrong with it. It seems to encapsulate perfectly 'arguments' that I've seen rehearsed a thousand times. †

Quote:
Such human tragedies do not prove, nor disprove God.

Ms. Crockett presumably thinks that it does prove exactly that, just as does every believer who has ever used some tragedy in which others were hurt and killed but from which they escaped with their lives as 'proof' that a deity exists and, often, that they specifically were sufficiently divinely favoured to be spared (the "someone up there was looking out for me" gambit). That this is a form of aberrant and maladaptive 'thinking' - the cognitive equivalent of a logical fallacy such as confirmation bias - and narcissism of a rare order indeed ought to be obvious, but sadly isn't. Not to all, anyway.

Conversely, incomplete devastation certainly comes very close to disproving some conceptions of a god - a tradtional omnimax deity for starters. We all know that the existence of disasters, tragedies, pain and suffering are incompatible with a deity who is (a) all knowing and (b) all good and (c) all powerful. This is standard, Atheism 101 stuff and doesn't really need to be gone into yet again as it's an unanswerable challenge to theism.

As with petitionary prayer, when there is absolutely no difference (and absolutely no way of being able to formulate a means or method of telling the difference) between the actions or inaction of a malevolent/incompetent/ignorant deity and the action of sheer random chance in the absence of any gods, the simpler, more parsimonious option (Occam's Razor, another basic part of every informed atheist's toolkit) is to exclude deities.

Of course, if an intermittently ignorant, downright malevolent, shockingly incompetent or bone idle deity is your thing then clearly such an ad hoc belief is not going to be swayed by anything that happens no matter how dreadful - but an utterly unfalsifiable hypothesis, impossible to verify or disprove and consistent with literally any and every state of affairs is not something that many people find persuasive or believeable. The hypothesis or theory that purports to explain everything (as mad/bad/lazy/incompetent/ignorant god purports to do, though that's a hypothesis rather than a theory) actually explains nothing. The fact that people still profess belief in a god that somehow cares for humanity after the Holocaust (to name but one example: I could adduce many, many, many, many more) is a testament to just how tenuous and reality-denying such a belief really is. This is a tragedy for the human race, though admittedly sometimes the only option, when confronted by yet another theist who presumably believes in a god powerful enough to create an entire universe from absolutely nothing but is unwilling or unable or both to steer a light aircraft five yards to one side and to land it on bare ground without hurting much less killing anyone, is to shake one's head and to smile sadly.
Powwow

Oh no! A lady thanks God that she's alive and Shaker throws a tantrum. Why target her for your venom? What about all that freedom to do and believe as one wants that you preach about?
How pathetic, to use this story to launch another one of your nasty attacks on Christians and their faith.
I can't believe that this lady got you so upset you had to wait and calm down. lol
gone

Why thank the deity, when people were killed? If it had any decency at all, assuming it exists, it wouldn't have allowed the accident to happen in the first place!
Sean

pow wow wrote:
Oh no! A lady thanks God that she's alive and Shaker throws a tantrum. Why target her for your venom? What about all that freedom to do and believe as one wants that you preach about?
How pathetic, to use this story to launch another one of your nasty attacks on Christians and their faith.
I can't believe that this lady got you so upset you had to wait and calm down. lol


Wow, who are you? You have him down to a "T" Where were you when he verbally attacked me yesterday. He probably meant that he had to calm down after verbally abusing me with some of the most vitriolic words that I have ever read from a human being. Funny thing is that nobody complained about it. You are the first that has commented on his obnoxious behavior here.

I have to be careful as he only wants those on his team playing with his ball.

There are people here who do not have an answer for him as to why some die and others do not. You are of course right. She is merely thanking God. There is no hidden mystery behind it. Just life.

Why God dose not intervene to prevent deaths. It is an age old question that has been answered many, many times. The good old †Plan of Salvation. The perfect plan does not allow for intervention.

This is naivety in its full glory. I would have expected more, considering.

Quote:
Why thank the deity, when people were killed? If it had any decency at all, assuming it exists, it wouldn't have allowed the accident to happen in the first place!


Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Oh no! A lady thanks God that she's alive and Shaker throws a tantrum.

You must set the bar very very very low indeed if you think that reasoned (and, I might add, in my view unanswerable - until and unless proven otherwise) criticism of irrational non-thinking amounts to a 'tantrum.'

Quote:
Why target her for your venom?

It's a news story that I happened to come across and found worthy of comment.

I can only assume that you think it's easier to call a relatively lengthy (my post: 482 words; your response: 78 words, including the entirely predictable and ubiquitous 'lol') and fairly closely argued post full of long words that doubtless you didn't understand 'venom' - a short word that you presumably do understand - than it would have been to have answered or, moreover, refuted said post point by point. It's always easier to bitch and bleat and whine about your opponent's manner and to call it a 'tantrum' and 'venom' and 'militant' and all the rest of the absurd rhetorical smoke and mirrors than it is actually to grapple with the content and to refute it, for that takes careful and patient thought. Intelligence, in other words. 'Twas ever thus.

Quote:
What about all that freedom to do and believe as one wants that you preach about?

What about it? Where have I said anything contrary to that? People are perfectly free to believe whatever they wish, and other people are equally as free to comment upon those beliefs and also to challenge them, to critique them and to point out why/where/how they are wrong. Ms. Crockett is exercising her freedom to believe as she chooses and I am exercising my freedom to criticise those beliefs and to point out why they are foolish. One freedom (of belief) matched by another (of speech). And your problem (I'd put good money on the likelihood that you will have one) with this is what, exactly? I assume that you wouldn't have swung into action in your usual manner, with your 'tantrum' and 'venom' and 'lol' firing on all cylinders, had I been criticising some of the content of a belief system you don't share. A borderline hysterical post labelling challenge and critique as 'venom' and a 'tantrum' not only makes you look absurdly thin-skinned, it gives the distinct impression that you think your belief system is above rational criticism and beyond the reach of incisive†challenge.

Newsflash: it isn't.
Quote:
How pathetic, to use this story to launch another one of your nasty attacks on Christians and their faith.

I was tempted to say that any opportunity is as good as another, except that examples such as this are a positive gift.
Quote:
I can't believe that this lady got you so upset you had to wait and calm down. lol

Stupidity always gets me that way.
trentvoyager

Grief - now its BOGOF.
Ketty

bnabernard wrote:
Nah Ket, it's like me uncle George used to say, 'the devil ain't got a shovel big anough yet'. †

bernard (hug)


     
bnabernard

Lets stir it up a bit,

If we were meant to fly we would have wings, and, and the lady was nursing the flag which had draped her daughter coffin, she had been killed at war.

There you are this innocent woman was saved by God innit.

bernard †
Sean

trentvoyager wrote:
Grief - now its BOGOF.


Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life, define yourself.

 
trentvoyager

Sean wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
Grief - now its BOGOF.


Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life, define yourself.



Glad you are amused.
Sean

trentvoyager wrote:
Sean wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
Grief - now its BOGOF.


Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life, define yourself.



Glad you are amused.


I just find it amusing because your signature is diametrically-opposed to the content of your actual post. You do not teach what you preach, so to speak. I think that is amusingly hypocritical.

 
Shaker

Sean wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
Sean wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
Grief - now its BOGOF.


Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life, define yourself.



Glad you are amused.


I just find it amusing because your signature is diametrically-opposed to the content of your actual post. You do not teach what you preach, so to speak. I think that is amusingly hypocritical.


Irony, while religion lives your continued existence is assured.
trentvoyager

Sean wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
Sean wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
Grief - now its BOGOF.


Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life, define yourself.



Glad you are amused.


I just find it amusing because your signature is diametrically-opposed to the content of your actual post. You do not teach what you preach, so to speak. I think that is amusingly hypocritical.



In what way is my one liner in anyway trying to define you or indeed allowing you to be made a victim ?

I think to claim to be a Christian and show such contempt for others is hypocritical. But hey ho - it takes all sorts.

And I don't think you will ever be bullied into silence as your continued appearances on here prove.  
Powwow

Warning to Christians, if you thank God for granting you another day on planet Earth, this will cause Shaker to present another post of his literary diarrhea. Why? Because somebody somewhere didn't live for another day.
Quizzimodo

Okay.

If the woman in question did something right to be saved by your god, what did the people who were allowed to die (& their families who will suffer for far longer) do wrong?
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Warning to Christians, if you thank God for granting you another day on planet Earth, this will cause Shaker to present another post of his literary diarrhea. Why? Because somebody somewhere didn't live for another day.

Bzzzzt, no points.

The actual answer is: because somebody is sufficiently incapable of thinking that they imagine a completely random, chance event is an indication - confirmation, even - of conscious agency and supernatural intelligence.
bnabernard

I suppose it's a bit like walking under a bridge where pigeons roost, or standing on the front when a flock of seagulls fly over?

bernard (hug)
Shaker

bnabernard wrote:
I suppose it's a bit like walking under a bridge where pigeons roost, or standing on the front when a flock of seagulls fly over?

bernard (hug)

Not quite sure what you mean Bern?
bnabernard

Don't look up innit

bernard (hug)
cyberman

bnabernard wrote:
Don't look up innit

bernard (hug)


Blimey, Bernard. Skippy the Bush Kangaroo gave straighter answers than you.
Powwow

Really, some of you think that we believe she was spared because she did something right and the others died because they did something wrong? Really? lol So let me be clear, that woman is not perfect and sinless.
bnabernard

cyberman wrote:
bnabernard wrote:
Don't look up innit

bernard (hug)


Blimey, Bernard. Skippy the Bush Kangaroo gave straighter answers than you.


†Well (I don't believe I'm explaining this) if you ain't got a brolly and a flock of birds fly over your head, then you tend to say thank God for that, ie you escaped without getting covered in sh*te, though there is some who having got pelted would hear someone say, thats reckoned to be lucky, how they work that out I don't know, probably because they never got shat on  

As for don't look up, it certainly ain't lucky to get an eyeful,

bernard (hug)
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Really, some of you think that we believe she was spared because she did something right

I thought the point was that, based on her reported words, the woman herself gives the appearance of believing that.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
pow wow wrote:
Really, some of you think that we believe she was spared because she did something right

I thought the point was that, based on her reported words, the woman herself gives the appearance of believing that.


I agree she did give that appearance, and also gave the impression that she thought all was right with the world despite three people having died. She was quite wrong to do this - however, I am inclined to put it down to her emotional state ahving just had such a near miss. If an aeroplane crashed into my house, I'd probably talk shit too.

(Well, I do usually.... sorry powwow - I'll let you say it..)
Sean

bnabernard wrote:
cyberman wrote:
bnabernard wrote:
Don't look up innit

bernard (hug)


Blimey, Bernard. Skippy the Bush Kangaroo gave straighter answers than you.


†Well (I don't believe I'm explaining this) if you ain't got a brolly and a flock of birds fly over your head, then you tend to say thank God for that, ie you escaped without getting covered in sh*te, though there is some who having got pelted would hear someone say, thats reckoned to be lucky, how they work that out I don't know, probably because they never got shat on †

As for don't look up, it certainly ain't lucky to get an eyeful,

bernard (hug)


Why would a Christian say that. I would be extremely disgruntled should a flock of birds decide to pooh all over me. I would certainly not be thinking that God just did that because I just lied to the policemen about the speed I was going. It is merely unfortunate should a flock of bird decide to pooh all over you. The last word in my mouth would be "Thanks" or "That was lucky". It is all a part of the plan.

She was probably so much over the moon about still being alive that she expressed that gratitude in a manner that made those around her think that she was thanking God for specifically saving her when she was thanking God in gratitude for still being alive. We all tend to do that. There are no atheists on the battle field. If she does think that God saved her that she is wrong. That is not what Jesus taught
Powwow

Shaker,
No, you are wrong. She simply thanks God for keeping her from harm. She makes no mention of her good or bad deeds. That is an invention of yours.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
pow wow wrote:
Really, some of you think that we believe she was spared because she did something right

I thought the point was that, based on her reported words, the woman herself gives the appearance of believing that.


I agree she did give that appearance, and also gave the impression that she thought all was right with the world despite three people having died. She was quite wrong to do this - however, I am inclined to put it down to her emotional state ahving just had such a near miss. If an aeroplane crashed into my house, I'd probably talk shit too.

Well, yes - but wholly unlike you she doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would let the nerves stop jangling, calm down, step back, look at the bigger picture and say, "OK, well that was a dumb thing to say although excusable at the time." In other words, rightly or wrongly, she strikes me as the sort of person who makes a habit of acting in the way she is on record as having acted.
Powwow

Cyber can you point out where she claims all is right with the world. She didn't say it nor insinuate such a thing.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Shaker,
No, you are wrong. She simply thanks God for keeping her from harm. She makes no mention of her good or bad deeds. That is an invention of yours.

No invention of mine - I think you'll find that I never said anything about her good or bad deeds (how the hell would I know about any of these?) being involved anywhere. Feel free to look at my posts on this thread and point out where I invented this.

My criticism of the woman concerned is based entirely on the fact that she wrongly interprets an entirely fortuitous and random occurrence as confirmation - evidence, almost - of divine providence. The plane that crashed into her house could have killed her and/or her daughter; that it didn't do so is purely accidental. That's not God; that's sheer dumb luck ... for her, but not for the three people who died prematurely or rather, as somebody else has pointed out, for their grieving friends and families. The dead are dead are dead and that's that, but there are going to be a goodly number of devastated and grieving relatives and friends. Somebody who sees conscious agency at work in the operation of blind chance and dumb physical law needs to be asking some pertinent questions, most of them running along the lines of 'Why were three people killed and I wasn't?' and vice versa.

There's a real answer - just chance, which is a fact no matter how much you dislike the concept - and then there's a fake, made-up, fallacious, narcissistic, self-aggrandizing answer (God is good and was looking out for me [with the implication that it wasn't looking out for three comparatively young people who died in a fireball]).
cyberman

pow wow wrote:
Cyber can you point out where she claims all is right with the world. She didn't say it nor insinuate such a thing.


It isn't a quote, you small-brained child, it is a paraphrase of her general feeling upon leaving the crash-site unscathed.

I have a toothache today, so as much as I usually enjoy your attempts to persuade yourself that you are somehting other than a dimwit, today I really couldn't be arsed. Don't pretend not to understand things when in fact you do, you tiresome fool.
Powwow

Shaker,
I wrote that some think we believe she was spared because of her good deeds.
You responded with
"I thought the point was that, based on her reported words, the woman herself gives the appearance of believing that."
No, she didn't give that appearance at all. You're inventing that. Tell us what words exactly did she utter that confirms that her deeds had anything to do with God keeping her safe.
Powwow

Cyber,
You are inventing/making up her feelings. She's simply thanking God for her survival. She says nothing about everything being right with the world. Nor does she make a judgement on those that did not survive. You are like Shaker, trying to add your stupid, dumb ass notions into what's not there. I bet if you contacted this lady she would confirm that all is NOT right with the world. How childish Cyber, no Christian believes all is right with the world. That notion is NOT scriptural.
cyberman

pow wow wrote:
no Christian believes all is right with the world. That notion is NOT scriptural.


These two statements don't necessarily support each other. The fact that something isn't scriptural doesn't mean that no christian believes it. The following are a sample of ideas which are not scriptural which I have heard or read Christians expressing in recent days: gay men shouldn't be bishops; Plymouth Argyll are a jolly good football team; incense in church is excellent; incense in church is horrible, etc etc.
bnabernard

Powwow

So Cyber come on man, out with it. Where does she insinuate that all is right with the world. She doesn't imply that at all. She is simply grateful for her survival. You and Shaker are just determined to twist that into something mean spirited. You do it by adding your nastiness into what is NOT there. Stop it.
Oh and feel free to quote any Christian that writes that all is right with the world. If you can do that, then I have to question what authority the scripture has in the life of this Christian.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Shaker,
I wrote that some think we believe she was spared because of her good deeds.
You responded with
"I thought the point was that, based on her reported words, the woman herself gives the appearance of believing that." No, she didn't give that appearance at all. You're inventing that. Tell us what words exactly did she utter that confirms that her deeds had anything to do with God keeping her safe.

Don't try and squirm out of it now that you've been caught out, either in a lie or in pure ignorance. You made a definite assertion - namely that I said something that I didn't in fact say - and you have absolutely zero evidence to back this up. I already know that you wrote:
Quote:
Really, some of you think that we believe she was spared because she did something right and the others died because they did something wrong? Really?


I neither know nor care to whom that was referring. Frankly I neither know nor care if somebody said, stated, or merely implied this. That's not the issue any longer. If it was implied that I was one such you were, predictably, grievously mistaken. I said nothing about her good or bad deeds and for the second time I invite you to point to the posts where I did so. The issue now is that you then wrote:
Quote:
Shaker, No, you are wrong. She simply thanks God for keeping her from harm. She makes no mention of her good or bad deeds. That is an invention of yours.

My screen name appears at the beginning of this post of yours therefore, perfectly reasonably, I take it that you are addressing yourself directly and specifically to me (i.e. that "That is an invention of yours" refers directly to me specifically) and therefore that you are accusing me of inventing any mention of her good and bad deeds. I invented no such thing and you know it perfectly well. If I invented it you will be able to link directly to the posts on this thread - not a long one with very many posts, so hardly a difficult task - exactly where I have done so. For the second time I invite you to do so.
cyberman

pow wow wrote:
Oh and feel free to quote any Christian that writes that all is right with the world. If you can do that, then I have to question what authority the scripture has in the life of this Christian.


Well, Browning himself was a Christian on and off - though to be honest I don't know whether he was when he wrote Pippa Passes. The point is that all Christians say things from time to time which are not strictly informed by Christian doctrine. Obviously.

What construction do you place on the words "God is good" in this particular context. She obviosuly wasn't uttering a general point, but a specific reflection upon what had just happened.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
pow wow wrote:
Oh and feel free to quote any Christian that writes that all is right with the world. If you can do that, then I have to question what authority the scripture has in the life of this Christian.


Well, Browning himself was a Christian on and off - though to be honest I don't know whether he was when he wrote Pippa Passes. The point is that all Christians say things from time to time which are not strictly informed by Christian doctrine. Obviously.

'God's in his heaven and all's right with the world.' Bloody hell cybers, that was a sharp recollection/reference of yours. If you didn't have toothache I'd say have a cigar.

Quote:
What construction do you place on the words "God is good" in this particular context. She obviosuly wasn't uttering a general point, but a specific reflection upon what had just happened.


Moreover - based on her quoted words from the original news report referenced in the OP, which is after all, all we have to go on - she actually said [no wording changed in the slightest but bold type added for emphasis]:

Quote:
God is good. He really is," Crockett told reporters. "I got out without a scratch on me. A little bruise from taking a tumble through the window, but other than that, I'm fine. I'm blessed. Truly, God was with me.


Much as we're on different sides of the theistic coin I suspect that both cyberman and I (he will of course correct me if I'm wrong) are drawing particular attention to the "Truly, God was with me" bit.

P.S. Toothache is a miserable and draining ailment. I hope it rectifies itself soon.

P.P.S. As a not entirely informed outsider I would also say that what counts as Christian doctrine (whose?) ["all Christians say things from time to time which are not strictly informed by Christian doctrine"] is an entirely arbitrary, partial, partisan and party political matter. But we'll leave that to another day  
Powwow

Cyber,
I didn't see the quote that all is right with the world. lol
cyberman

pow wow wrote:
Cyber,
I didn't see the quote that all is right with the world. lol


Oh well. lol.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
pow wow wrote:
Oh and feel free to quote any Christian that writes that all is right with the world. If you can do that, then I have to question what authority the scripture has in the life of this Christian.


Well, Browning himself was a Christian on and off - though to be honest I don't know whether he was when he wrote Pippa Passes. The point is that all Christians say things from time to time which are not strictly informed by Christian doctrine. Obviously.

'God's in his heaven and all's right with the world.' Bloody hell cybers, that was a sharp recollection/reference of yours. If you didn't have toothache I'd say have a cigar.

Quote:
What construction do you place on the words "God is good" in this particular context. She obviosuly wasn't uttering a general point, but a specific reflection upon what had just happened.


Moreover - based on her quoted words from the original news report referenced in the OP, which is after all, all we have to go on - she actually said [no wording changed in the slightest but bold type added for emphasis]:

Quote:
God is good. He really is," Crockett told reporters. "I got out without a scratch on me. A little bruise from taking a tumble through the window, but other than that, I'm fine. I'm blessed. Truly, God was with me.


Much as we're on different sides of the theistic coin I suspect that both cyberman and I (he will of course correct me if I'm wrong) are drawing particular attention to the "Truly, God was with me" bit.

P.S. Toothache is a miserable and draining ailment. I hope it rectifies itself soon.

P.P.S. As a not entirely informed outsider I would also say that what counts as Christian doctrine (whose?) ["all Christians say things from time to time which are not strictly informed by Christian doctrine"] is an entirely arbitrary, partial, partisan and party political matter. But we'll leave that to another day †


Thanks Shaker - yes her use of "me" is problematic, as by implication it would suggest that he wasn't "with" others. However, as I said, I'm inclined to dismiss her words as shock/relief/bewilderment etc having just discovered a fast moving aircraft in her living room.

A dentist on Thursday will be hacking away at the problem to make it go away. Yikes.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Thanks Shaker - yes her use of "me" is problematic, as by implication it would suggest that he wasn't "with" others. However, as I said, I'm inclined to dismiss her words as shock/relief/bewilderment etc having just discovered a fast moving aircraft in her living room.

You may well be right. Personally I doubt it, but you may well have the right of it rather than me

Quote:
A dentist on Thursday will be hacking away at the problem to make it go away. Yikes.

Ouch I can feel it from here, and that's quite some distance. Please keep me abreast. I feel your pain [touchy feely huggy carey sharey] Well actually no I don't, not really, but I don't like to see anybody suffering. Personally I blame it on several hundred thousand years of central-eastern African primate evolutionary heritage, but that's only evidence and that's just me †Please let me know how it goes †
Powwow

Try and think seriously for a moment Cyber. A simple little and comical poem by Browning hardly represents his view on what was going on in the world. I take from that little poem that Browning recognizes the authority and supremacy of God. Let's be grown up Cyber, do you honestly believe that if Browning were alive today, and you asked him if indeed all is well with the world, that he would tell you there is nothing wrong going on in the world? I mean come on really now. lol
cyberman

pow wow wrote:
Try and think seriously for a moment Cyber. A simple little and comical poem by Browning hardly represents his view on what was going on in the world. I take from that little poem that Browning recognizes the authority and supremacy of God. Let's be grown up Cyber, do you honestly believe that if Browning were alive today, and you asked him if indeed all is well with the world, that he would tell you there is nothing wrong going on in the world? I mean come on really now. lol


No he wouldn't - and neither would that woman if you asked her now in the cold light of day. But that was the emotion which she was feeling at that moment. Quite understandably, I suppose. I don't think she was expressing a theology - I think her judgement was clouded in her emotional state and she said something without thinking through the implications. That doesn't mean she didn't say it, and it doesn't mean the implications aren't there - I'm just inclined to forgive her for it. It was a daft and potentially offensive idea which she expressed - I just reckon (hope) that on reflection she doesn't really mean it.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Thanks Shaker - yes her use of "me" is problematic, as by implication it would suggest that he wasn't "with" others. However, as I said, I'm inclined to dismiss her words as shock/relief/bewilderment etc having just discovered a fast moving aircraft in her living room.

You may well be right. Personally I doubt it, but you may well have the right of it rather than me

Quote:
A dentist on Thursday will be hacking away at the problem to make it go away. Yikes.

Ouch I can feel it from here, and that's quite some distance. Please keep me abreast. I feel your pain [touchy feely huggy carey sharey] Well actually no I don't, not really, but I don't like to see anybody suffering. Personally I blame it on several hundred thousand years of central-eastern African primate evolutionary heritage, but that's only evidence and that's just me †Please let me know how it goes †


Thanks Shaker! I will let you know - but thinking about it I will be afk after the dentist until next Monday, so if you don't hear it doesn't mean the dentist has accidentally decapitated me. Not necessarily, anyway. I do appreciate your good wishes.
Powwow

Cyber,
The lady didn't say anything like all is well in the world. She thanked God for her survival. How on earth can you twist that into anything but? Please give me the quote from her that makes you think she was saying all is well with the world. She said no such a thing.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Cyber,
The lady didn't say anything like all is well in the world. She thanked God for her survival. How on earth can you twist that into anything but? Please give me the quote from her that makes you think she was saying all is well with the world. She said no such a thing.


Please give me the quote from me that makes you think I was saying

Quote:
Shaker, No, you are wrong. She simply thanks God for keeping her from harm. She makes no mention of her good or bad deeds. That is an invention of yours.


I said no such thing.
Powwow

Too funny old Shaker,
I wrote that some think that she believes she was spared because of her good deeds.

And Shaker, you replied with
"I thought the point was that, based on her reported words, the woman herself gives the appearance of believing that."
So Shake, you said no such thing, ok what the heck did you mean with your reply to what I wrote? LOL

Please provide those specific words that makes you think she believes or gives that appearance that she believes, she was spared because of her good deeds.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Too funny old Shaker,
I wrote that some think that she believes she was spared because of her good deeds.

Yes you did. But you did more than that - you specifically accused me of having said that, to wit:

Quote:
Shaker, No, you are wrong. She simply thanks God for keeping her from harm. She makes no mention of her good or bad deeds. That is an invention of yours.


So for the third time of asking, where did I invent this?

Quote:
Please provide those specific words that makes you think she believes or gives that appearance that she believes, she was spared because of her good deeds.


You forget that I never said anything about being spared because of her good deeds. I never mentioned any deeds of hers, good or otherwise. For the fourth time, provide direct links to the posts on this thread where I mentioned the woman's deeds, good or otherwise, as a reason for her having been spared. It's not a long thread and it has relatively few posts on it. Fewer still by me. If I had said what you claimed I had said it shouldn't be difficult.

Of course, the fact that I never said this at all will prove to be problematic.

It's a very very simple matter and not, on its face, difficult. You wrote:

Quote:
Shaker, No, you are wrong. She simply thanks God for keeping her from harm. She makes no mention of her good or bad deeds. That is an invention of yours.


The challenge is to provide evidence for those posts of mine where I invented this supposed statement of hers that her being spared death in a light aircraft crash into her house was as the result of her deeds. That's what you accused me of having said; you've made a positive assertion and therefore you bear the burden of proof. Provide the evidence that supports your assertion or have the balls just this once to retract it and admit that you alleged I said something that I never in fact actually said.
Powwow

You're lying Shaker. I have posted twice your response to me and I note your evasion both times.

What do you mean by, "I thought the point was that, based on her reported words, THE WOMAN GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF BELIEVING THAT"?

That was your reply to my comment about some people thinking that she believes she was spared because of her good deeds. She never even said such a thing herself.
I do note you have a long history of being incapable of admitting you're wrong. Ugly trait indeed.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
You're lying Shaker. I have posted twice your response to me and I note your evasion both times.

What do you mean by, "I thought the point was that, based on her reported words, THE WOMAN GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF BELIEVING THAT"?

Nothing to do with any good deeds. The woman gives the appearance of believing that her life was spared because God is good and God was with her (and yet, fairly obviously, this presumably same God wasn't good to and wasn't with the three people whose lives ended prematurely in tragic circumstances). That is drawn entirely from her own words, which you can read again in the news report I supplied in the OP.

Quote:
That was your reply to my comment about some people thinking that she believes she was spared because of her good deeds. She never even said such a thing herself.

I know she didn't. And nor did anybody else - not until, as far as I can see, you brought it up here, twenty-seven posts into this thread.
Quote:
I do note you have a long history of being incapable of admitting you're wrong. Ugly trait indeed.

For the fifth time, demonstrate where I invented - your word - anything about the woman's supposed good deeds.

In the absence of a retraction of your false claim that I invented any mention of this woman's supposed good deeds as a reason for her being spared, another evasion will confirm - to me and doubtless to everyone else - that you shot your mouth off, accused me of having said something I never said and haven't got the plums to put your hands up and say 'OK, fair enough, so you never actually said that.'

From my previous post:

Quote:
The challenge is to provide evidence for those posts of mine where I invented this supposed statement of hers that her being spared death in a light aircraft crash into her house was as the result of her deeds. That's what you accused me of having said; you've made a positive assertion and therefore you bear the burden of proof. Provide the evidence that supports your assertion or have the balls just this once to retract it and admit that you alleged I said something that I never in fact actually said.
Powwow

Good grief Shaker,
I mentioned that some think that we think she was spared because she did something good. That was a reply to Quizzi's false notion in his post. But you replied to the good deed thingy with, and again, "...the woman herself gives the appearance of believing that."
That was your reply to it. So why would you reply with that statement to my comment on good deeds? What exactly did you mean with that statement? You say it isn't about the lady thinking she was spared because of good deeds, yet, there remains your reply to my post on good deeds.
"..the woman herself gives the appearance of believing that."
So I'm quite right, aren't I, you claim the lady gives the appearance of believing God spared her because of good deeds.
Honey 56

Sean wrote:
pow wow wrote:
Oh no! A lady thanks God that she's alive and Shaker throws a tantrum. Why target her for your venom? What about all that freedom to do and believe as one wants that you preach about?
How pathetic, to use this story to launch another one of your nasty attacks on Christians and their faith.
I can't believe that this lady got you so upset you had to wait and calm down. lol


Wow, who are you? You have him down to a "T" Where were you when he verbally attacked me yesterday. He probably meant that he had to calm down after verbally abusing me with some of the most vitriolic words that I have ever read from a human being. Funny thing is that nobody complained about it. You are the first that has commented on his obnoxious behavior here.

I have to be careful as he only wants those on his team playing with his ball.

There are people here who do not have an answer for him as to why some die and others do not. You are of course right. She is merely thanking God. There is no hidden mystery behind it. Just life.

Why God dose not intervene to prevent deaths. It is an age old question that has been answered many, many times. The good old †Plan of Salvation. The perfect plan does not allow for intervention.

This is naivety in its full glory. I would have expected more, considering.

Quote:
Why thank the deity, when people were killed? If it had any decency at all, assuming it exists, it wouldn't have allowed the accident to happen in the first place!




Hello Sean,
Haven't been around lately to post, but this thread caught my eye, it is good to see you here.

Many athiests do not understand that we should give thanks in all circumstances.........


16Be joyful always; 17pray continually; 18give thanks in all circumstances, for this is Godís will for you in Christ Jesus.
1 Thessalonians 5.


To give thanks to YHWH in good circumstances when ones life is going well and we are in good health, safe and happy is one thing, but, He calls us to give thanks in every circumstance, and this is not so easy.
But we know, don't we, that there are many Christians all over the world who are suffering each day the harshest of hardships and are still able to trust in YHWH and still have an attitude of gratitude no matter what life throws at them, these are the ones that are largely ignored by the world, but none the less Our Messiah Yeshua sees their plight, their faith and their love, and He intercedes on their behalf.

Nice 'meeting' you.

Honey
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Good grief Shaker,
I mentioned that some think that we think she was spared because she did something good.

Right. So who was that referring to? Who are these people you had in mind who think that some Christians think the woman narrowly cheated the death that three others suffered because of her good deeds? I personally never saw anybody raise this before you did, in the twenty-seventh post on this thread. You must have got it from somewhere.

Quote:
That was a reply to Quizzi's false notion in his post. But you replied to the good deed thingy with, and again, "...the woman herself gives the appearance of believing that."
That was your reply to it. So why would you reply with that statement to my comment on good deeds? What exactly did you mean with that statement? You say it isn't about the lady thinking she was spared because of good deeds, yet, there remains your reply to my post on good deeds.
"..the woman herself gives the appearance of believing that."
So I'm quite right, aren't I, you claim the lady gives the appearance of believing God spared her because of good deeds.

No. Yet again, I never even mentioned anything to do with her good deeds. She herself claimed that she cheated death because God is good and God was with her - in other words that she was special enough to be spared death by, or because of, her God, when three people died at comparatively young ages in a horrendous fireball yards away.

These ('God is good; God was with me') are her own words, as reported in the news article in the OP. That article reported nothing about her own words on her supposed good deeds. Nobody mentioned this (to my knowledge) until you did so. You claimed that I invented the 'good deeds' comment. I did not do so and it's immediately noticeable to uncle Tom Cobley and all that yet again you still cannot provide a scrap of evidence that I did so. If I had, it wouldn't be hard - a copy and paste, a link to the relevant post, the usual jazz.

If you have any comment to make on the actual subject of the thread - which you can find by going back to the OP - excellent, make your comments and we'll discuss things. But you've derailed this thread for long enough with your unsupported and unsupportable allegations and mendacious assertions.
Sean

Honey 56 wrote:
Sean wrote:
pow wow wrote:
Oh no! A lady thanks God that she's alive and Shaker throws a tantrum. Why target her for your venom? What about all that freedom to do and believe as one wants that you preach about?
How pathetic, to use this story to launch another one of your nasty attacks on Christians and their faith.
I can't believe that this lady got you so upset you had to wait and calm down. lol


Wow, who are you? You have him down to a "T" Where were you when he verbally attacked me yesterday. He probably meant that he had to calm down after verbally abusing me with some of the most vitriolic words that I have ever read from a human being. Funny thing is that nobody complained about it. You are the first that has commented on his obnoxious behavior here.

I have to be careful as he only wants those on his team playing with his ball.

There are people here who do not have an answer for him as to why some die and others do not. You are of course right. She is merely thanking God. There is no hidden mystery behind it. Just life.

Why God dose not intervene to prevent deaths. It is an age old question that has been answered many, many times. The good old †Plan of Salvation. The perfect plan does not allow for intervention.

This is naivety in its full glory. I would have expected more, considering.

Quote:
Why thank the deity, when people were killed? If it had any decency at all, assuming it exists, it wouldn't have allowed the accident to happen in the first place!




Hello Sean,
Haven't been around lately to post, but this thread caught my eye, it is good to see you here.

Many athiests do not understand that we should give thanks in all circumstances.........


16Be joyful always; 17pray continually; 18give thanks in all circumstances, for this is Godís will for you in Christ Jesus.
1 Thessalonians 5.


To give thanks to YHWH in good circumstances when ones life is going well and we are in good health, safe and happy is one thing, but, He calls us to give thanks in every circumstance, and this is not so easy.
But we know, don't we, that there are many Christians all over the world who are suffering each day the harshest of hardships and are still able to trust in YHWH and still have an attitude of gratitude no matter what life throws at them, these are the ones that are largely ignored by the world, but none the less Our Messiah Yeshua sees their plight, their faith and their love, and He intercedes on their behalf.

Nice 'meeting' you.

Honey


Hi Honey,

It is good to meet you as well. I love your post, however, I am not sure whether you believe in an interventionary god or not. My reasoning is that we are all a part of the plan of Salvation, therefore, it would be a travasty to that plan should god intervene. It would distroy free agency and may introduce predestination. Predestination takes away free agency as what we are going to do has already been determined. Indeed, why should we bother taking descision when we have no say in them anyway. That is my belief. I am always willing to listen to different opinions so please tell me yours.

Quote:
Ms. Crockett presumably thinks that it does prove exactly that, just as does every believer who has ever used some tragedy in which others were hurt and killed but from which they escaped with their lives as 'proof' that a deity exists and, often, that they specifically were sufficiently divinely favoured to be spared (the "someone up there was looking out for me" gambit). That this is a form of aberrant and maladaptive 'thinking' - the cognitive equivalent of a logical fallacy such as confirmation bias - and narcissism of a rare order indeed ought to be obvious, but sadly isn't. Not to all, anyway.


This paragraph shows that Shaker is tarring the whole Christian community on one woman who is grateful for her life. It is typical of those who want to distract the righteous from the straight and narrow path that leads to eternal life. He has produced no corroboratory evidence other than his own biased and bigoted opinions. Just another one of his attempts to discredit Christianity.

I watched the film "The Impossible" last night. A true story about a family of five who were separated by the tsunami in Thailand and went through hell before they were eventually reunited. An amazing story in which you would think that they had protection from an almighty God. They did not thank God as they did not appear to be religious. At the end of the day it was circumstance that saved their lives and brought them back together. †To add God to the equation complicates the whole story beyond comprehension. If one why not another etc etc...

Honey, one of the reasons that I have come on here is because I expected to find you here. I respect your views and opinions so I will not be falling out with you on any of them. We can still debate though.

Gospel Love

Sean
Shaker

Honey 56 wrote:
Many athiests do not understand that we should give thanks in all circumstances.........

Anyone would think you haven't even grasped the most elementary of facts, viz., that atheists by virtue of the fact of being atheists don't believe that there's a god of any kind to give thanks to. There are many real people in life and in the world to be thankful to - medical people; the farmers who grow our food; the people who produce, pack, ship, store and supply it; the people who work every hour of every day to keep our homes supplied with heat and power to name but a few examples. These people really exist, though; atheists don't believe in being thankful to any gods because atheists don't believe that any gods exist. That's what atheism means.
Shaker

Sean wrote:

Quote:
Ms. Crockett presumably thinks that it does prove exactly that, just as does every believer who has ever used some tragedy in which others were hurt and killed but from which they escaped with their lives as 'proof' that a deity exists and, often, that they specifically were sufficiently divinely favoured to be spared (the "someone up there was looking out for me" gambit). That this is a form of aberrant and maladaptive 'thinking' - the cognitive equivalent of a logical fallacy such as confirmation bias - and narcissism of a rare order indeed ought to be obvious, but sadly isn't. Not to all, anyway.


This paragraph shows that Shaker is tarring the whole Christian community on one woman who is grateful for her life.

Provide your evidence as to where I have said this this one woman is representative of all Christians everywhere.

Quote:
He has produced no corroboratory evidence

Corroboratory evidence of what? That some people are witless? Well, Ms. Crockett provides evidence of that all on her own. At no point however did I follow inductive reasoning and generalise from the specific (one Christian) to the general (all Christians). You have made a positive assertion that I did this, so provide your evidence for this assertion or retract it.

What is it with you lot? If it's not pow wow, it's you - making assertions up out of thin air relating to things which were never said. It must be catching or something.

Quote:
other than his own biased and bigoted opinions.


There goes another military spec irony meter ...
northernstar

Shaker wrote:
Honey 56 wrote:
Many athiests do not understand that we should give thanks in all circumstances.........

Anyone would think you haven't even grasped the most elementary of facts, viz., that atheists by virtue of the fact of being atheists don't believe that there's a god of any kind to give thanks to. There are many real people in life and in the world to be thankful to - medical people; the farmers who grow our food; the people who produce, pack, ship, store and supply it; the people who work every hour of every day to keep our homes supplied with heat and power to name but a few examples. These people really exist, though; atheists don't believe in being thankful to any gods because atheists don't believe that any gods exist. That's what atheism means.



I agree wholeheartedly, strange how Christians don't blame their god for all the bad things that happen.
cyberman

northernstar wrote:
strange how Christians don't blame their god for all the bad things that happen.


Actually a lot of Christians do just that, don't they? The predestination types, the Phelps types - those who tend to ascribe all events to God often include the bad events too. They tend not to use the word 'blame', of course, but some do ascribe 'bad things' to God as well as good ones.
Quizzimodo

cyberman wrote:
northernstar wrote:
strange how Christians don't blame their god for all the bad things that happen.


Actually a lot of Christians do just that, don't they? The predestination types, the Phelps types - those who tend to ascribe all events to God often include the bad events too. They tend not to use the word 'blame', of course, but some do ascribe 'bad things' to God as well as good ones.


Interesting idea
Phelps believes bad things happen to OTHER people because god wills it

I agree very few christians say that god is willing bad things on THEM
cyberman

Quizzimodo wrote:
cyberman wrote:
northernstar wrote:
strange how Christians don't blame their god for all the bad things that happen.


Actually a lot of Christians do just that, don't they? The predestination types, the Phelps types - those who tend to ascribe all events to God often include the bad events too. They tend not to use the word 'blame', of course, but some do ascribe 'bad things' to God as well as good ones.


Interesting idea
Phelps believes bad things happen to OTHER people because god wills it

I agree very few christians say that god is willing bad things on THEM


Yes - but also less malicious Christians than Phelps might, when something bad happens to them, say words to the effect of "well this is rotten - but I guess it's all part of God's plan so I mustn't grumble".
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
northernstar wrote:
strange how Christians don't blame their god for all the bad things that happen.


Actually a lot of Christians do just that, don't they?


Unless you were being ironical I think the word 'some' is more applicable than 'a lot.'

Quote:
The predestination types, the Phelps types - those who tend to ascribe all events to God often include the bad events too. They tend not to use the word 'blame', of course, but some do ascribe 'bad things' to God as well as good ones.


It could be argued that they have Biblical support in this - Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Lamentations 3:38 and so forth. They would certainly argue along such lines.
Shaker

Quizzimodo wrote:
cyberman wrote:
northernstar wrote:
strange how Christians don't blame their god for all the bad things that happen.


Actually a lot of Christians do just that, don't they? The predestination types, the Phelps types - those who tend to ascribe all events to God often include the bad events too. They tend not to use the word 'blame', of course, but some do ascribe 'bad things' to God as well as good ones.


Interesting idea
Phelps believes bad things happen to OTHER people because god wills it

I agree very few christians say that god is willing bad things on THEM


Perhaps I'm not fully acquainted with this, for want of a better word, family, but the Phelpses have always struck me as the type who would quite willingly, voluntarily and furthermore almost joyfully accept negative events in their lives - anything unhappy, unpleasant, calamitous, disastrous - as being visited upon them by their God. They just strike me as that type - which is surely what cybers was driving at with his post:

Quote:
Yes - but also less malicious Christians than Phelps might, when something bad happens to them, say words to the effect of "well this is rotten - but I guess it's all part of God's plan so I mustn't grumble"
.

You don't have to be malicious to believe this: surely you only have to be afflicted with a sense of your own miserable unworthiness, or in Christian terms conviction of sin, to believe that everything that happens, good and bad alike, is directly at the behest of an omnipotent deity in control of absolutely everything. I'm far from being any kind of expert in such matters but surely this in essence is Calvinism, isn't it? From an unbelieving perspective this is more a matter of aberrant psychology than anything else, of course. For a prime example of what I mean, on this very thread we have one poster saying:
Quote:
Why God dose not intervene to prevent deaths. It is an age old question that has been answered many, many times. The good old †Plan of Salvation. The perfect plan does not allow for intervention.
Shaker

Sean wrote:
There are no atheists on the battle field.

Wrong.
trentvoyager

Shaker wrote:
Sean wrote:
There are no atheists on the battle field.

Wrong.


When I first saw this I was going to post something similar - but then thought oh what's the fucking point because poster in question won't listen, and will argue black is white to maintain his ludicrous positions.

My father who saw active service during WW2 went from what we would now call a wishy-washy cofe christianity to a strong atheist position based purely on what he saw and experienced during that war.

That was the way it was for him - I daresay others had their faith strengthened - but that is not the point of my post. The point of my post is that as usual sean is posting totally untrue nonsense.*

* That was me being polite and trying to stick within board rules.
Lexilogio

I think it is quite typical for a Christian to express gratefulness to God when things go well.
Farmer Geddon

I think it is quite typical for anyone to exclaim "thank god for that" or "Jesus' that was close" when things go better than expected.

We have many expletives invoking the god(s) when it all goes wrong as well..

What's your point?
Shaker

Lexilogio wrote:
I think it is quite typical for a Christian to express gratefulness to God when things go well.

Yes indeed - no argument there, of course.

I think the issue that some of us have is that there's a corresponding lack of blame directed against God when things don't go well - and when things don't go well, my goodness, things can go very, very, very, very badly indeed.

It's the fallaciousness, the willingly blind selectiveness of it, the confirmation bias, the willingness to ascribe all the good to God and not to impute the bad to the same, that's the issue.
Shaker

trentvoyager wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Sean wrote:
There are no atheists on the battle field.

Wrong.


When I first saw this I was going to post something similar - but then thought oh what's the fucking point because poster in question won't listen, and will argue black is white to maintain his ludicrous positions.

But for the record my father who saw active service during WW2 went from what we would now call a wishy-washy cofe christianity to a strong atheist position based purely on what he saw and experienced during that war.

That was the way it was for him - I daresay others had their faith strengthened - but that is not the point of my post.

For everyone who had a prior faith bolstered I suspect you could, without a very great deal of effort, find abundant evidence of those who had a prior faith weakened or even shattered by the experience of war. For everyone who has faced a desperate, shattering and heart-breaking tragedy - such as war and/or (which is included) the loss, by death or by physical removal, of a loved one - who has had their previous faith strengthened, there's somebody else, like Charles Darwin, who has found it the very last straw which has broken the camel's back of their religious committment.

There's a good argument to be had as to whether this emotional rejection of theism constitutes a sufficiently rational ground for a rejection of god belief. It would be a rhetorical flourish and not a closely-argued evidence-heavy argument (not one that I personally would use as a stand-alone argument at any rate) to say that the Second World War generally and the Holocaust specifically (or the bombings of Dresden/Coventry/Hamburg/Plymouth, or Aberfan, or the 1985-5 Ethiopian famine, or the Boxing Day tsunami, or 9/11, or ...) did more to advance atheism than any amount of paperbacks sold by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. What this says about religious belief is a deeply complex, multifaceted and highly interesting issue. But I'm also sure that what it says will not ultimately be to the credit much less the liking of posters on this forum such as Sean and some others.

Quote:
The point of my post is that as usual sean is posting totally untrue nonsense.*

* That was me being polite and trying to stick within board rules.

You have the advantage of me there. My admiration for your restraint and self-control, in this instance, knows no bounds.
Lexilogio

Shaker wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
I think it is quite typical for a Christian to express gratefulness to God when things go well.

Yes indeed - no argument there, of course.

I think the issue that some of us have is that there's a corresponding lack of blame directed against God when things don't go well - and when things don't go well, my goodness, things can go very, very, very, very badly indeed.

It's the fallaciousness, the willingly blind selectiveness of it, the confirmation bias, the willingness to ascribe all the good to God and not to impute the bad to the same, that's the issue.



I agree - there is also the corresponding other side of the balance. But those who have just been through trauma often have a tunnel vision, and do not consider the other side.
bnabernard

This is a blooming big nutshell innit  
bernard (hug)
Jim

Shaker:
You think we Christians don't have a moan at God?
Some don't - if that's the case, they are either over confident, heading for a fall, or haven't read the scriptures.
The Psalms - one of my favourate books - are chock full of rants against perceived injustice, horror, fear - and God causing them. I could quote umpteen examples, but the point is that, through it all, the writer still had confidence that, no matter how things happened - even IF God 'let them happen', He was in control and He knew that however it seemed, things had to be that way in order to acheive His long term purpose.
It isn't a great explanation as to why 'bad things happen to good people'.
But it is at least a partial explanation.
gone

The idea that the deity always knows best and lets bad things happen for a purpose, is the cop position, imo.
Jim

One glance at the history of God's dealings with Israel may give a different view. floo.
Shaker

Lexilogio wrote:
I agree - there is also the corresponding other side of the balance. But those who have just been through trauma often have a tunnel vision, and do not consider the other side.


Well, yes - cyberman said as much.

On the other hand I wonder just how many people who make the sort of statements found in the OP do consider the event from any other angle.
gone

Jim wrote:
One glance at the history of God's dealings with Israel may give a different view. floo.


One can only hope the deity, if it exists, is absolutely NOTHING like the character featured in the Bible. Its supposed deeds are dastardly, and that is putting it mildly!
Lexilogio

Shaker wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
I agree - there is also the corresponding other side of the balance. But those who have just been through trauma often have a tunnel vision, and do not consider the other side.


Well, yes - cyberman said as much.

On the other hand I wonder just how many people who make the sort of statements found in the OP do consider the event from any other angle.


Hmm. I'm trying to think if I do.

I think I do - but there are probably times when my thought responses are entirely selfish, and I thank God for my fortune, while ignoring the outcome for others. But this isn't a very Christian approach. I think a Christian should both thank God and then consider the outcome and support they can offer to others who have been less fortunate.

Do I think about why they had a different outcome? Sometimes. But I guess I consider it unanswerable. I cannot truly answer if God intervened, on either behest, but it is normal behaviour to be grateful for good fortune. But I don't assume that God had given the other party less fortune - merely that there hand had been subject to the vagaries of life. Possibly a slightly solipsist approach, in some ways, but I think its more a part of cultural response - that we thank for fortune but consider misfortune to be largely coincidental.
bnabernard

Fortune good or bad is linked to luck and luck in turn linked to a god,
I struggle to find a way of saying that I got out of a situation unscathed without attributing it so a third party, the thing is, as the individual has not contributed to the outcome a third party it seems automaticly gets credit  

bernard (hug)
Shaker

Lexilogio wrote:


Do I think about why they had a different outcome? Sometimes. But I guess I consider it unanswerable.

Might that be because, rather than being unanswerable the actual answer is unpleasant and unwanted, that's to say, that so much of our everyday lives is in fact ruled by randomness, sheer chance - some things happen and other things don't, etc? Most people like to feel that they're in control of their lives as far as humanly possible: most people are extremely uncomfortable with the fact that to a very great extent a lot of the time we're not in control at all and at the mercy of random happenings and chance events. As I say, I suspect that the great majority of people are made very uneasy indeed by acknowledging this and want something or someone to be in control of their lives even if they themselves are not - someone has to know what's actually going on even if they don't. Hence the perennial human need to invent the guiding hand of providence, God's plan, fate, destiny, karma and so on and so forth. How often do you hear people who aren't believers and would pooh-pooh the idea of a personal god talk about fate and say things like 'It wasn't meant to be.' It seems to be a case, for many, of believe anything but admit the prevalence of random chance and arbitrary events in human life.

Humans intrinsically seem to need to find a rationale to impose meaning and significance on life: a few years ago a psychologist (can't remember his name off the top of my head) introduced the term hyperactive agency detection for the innate human need to impose conscious intelligence to the universe where there is none - to ascribe human-like qualities to blind matter in motion. Agency detection is the ascribing of intelligence, will and intent to non-intelligence bit so it's part of, or an adjunct to, the theory of mind: the hyperactivity part stems from it going into overdrive and seeing it everywhere.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum