Actress Dies During Megachurch Nativity Performance

[articulett]

Ugh... the false analogies to feel superior...

The inability to understand the laughing at tragedy versus the laughing at irony.

I think it was extremely immoral for my country to bomb innocent people because of disagreements with a government we had no control over. I note that it's ironic when we consider it evil when Osama Bin Laden did it to us. What a dishonest comparison to the motives of anyone here. Repulsive.

See, that's why you have to put the apologists on ignore. They are bent on hearing what isn't there and while protecting faith from scrutiny. To me they are furthering a straw man view against atheism in order to feel better about themselves. I find it more despicable then any of those expressing humor expressed here. False allegations-- bah-- let them spin their delusions of moral superiority with Claus. I consider them humorless and beneath me.

Their moral superiority rests on the lies they tell themselves. I don't care about their opinions any more than they care about mine. I think they are causing more harm than good by protecting faith from scrutiny so that more such ironic tragedies can be expected.

[bokonon]

I see them as foolish people whose beliefs are inconsistent and irrational. I feel no guilt at giggling over a tragedy that I did not cause.

I didn't cause Hiroshima or the holocaust, and I'd consider someone so devoid of empathy that he'd giggle about those events to be as disgusting as you are.

Right.. because the two tragic events are so similar it's hard to tell a difference. :rolleyes:
They differ in lots of ways, but I'm not sure how that's relevant. You only listed one condition for guilt-free giggling, and they're all identical as far as that is concerned: You didn't cause the tragedy.

I don't want to put words in your mouth here, so I'll ask. Are you saying you wouldn't giggle about Hiroshima and the holocaust the way you giggled over this girl's death? And if not, why not? Is it because more people died? It seems like there's just as much "faith-irony" in those cases as there is in this one. The Japanese were following their Emperor/God; the Jews were calling themselves "the chosen people."

Is it because their deaths were not accidental? Would you giggle over the space shuttle disasters, and the misplaced faith in technology that led to those deaths?

As far as I can tell, it was faith in technology that caused this girl's death too. And while I can't be sure, I suspect that you find it funny mostly because you dislike fundies, "foolish people whose beliefs are inconsistent and irrational," and it tickles you just a little bit to see tragedy befall them.

But I could be wrong, and I could be misreading you. Maybe you'd laugh at all those other cases too, because you simply have a bigger sense of humor than I do. Or maybe you wouldn't, and you can tell me why.

[bokonon]

See, that's why you have to put the apologists on ignore.You put me on ignore because I hold a mirror up to you, and you don't like the view.

They are bent on hearing what isn't there and while protecting faith from scrutiny.
I'm perfectly willing to hear what's there; I don't have you on ignore. What I saw there, in your own words, was Cool. I wonder if she gets martyr bonus points and an extra sparkly halo.

What I haven't heard yet is a credible case for how this accident was caused by religious faith. Without that, your allegation that what I'm doing here is "protecting faith from scrutiny" falls kind of flat.

When I scrutinize it, I don't see any bible verses which speak about flying wise men, so I'm not clear how religious beliefs contributed to this accident. The mega-churches often go for spectacle, just like Cirque du Soleil in your town goes for spectacle. It looks like they may have let amateurs design the stunts rather than get professionals, or maybe they got professionals but not the right professionals. As far as I can tell, though, it was her faith in the harness that led to the accident.

I think they are causing more harm than good by protecting faith from scrutiny so that more such ironic tragedies can be expected.
You're free to share the results of your "scrutiny" at any point, but of course you won't. You'll simply continue to chant "faith in faith meme" and "protecting faith from scrutiny" the same way the fundamentalists on the other side chant "mysterious are the ways of the lord" and "it's God's will." For them, as for you, it's a way to avoid the need to confront difficult questions which might threaten an irrational belief system.

[thaiboxerken]

It seems like there's just as much "faith-irony" in those cases as there is in this one. The Japanese were following their Emperor/God; the Jews were calling themselves "the chosen people."

You are wrong. The Japanese did not choose to be Japanese and be ruled by an Emperor. Nice try, but you fail. Care to come up with any relevant analogies?

Your nitpicking and word games are not going to trick me into feeling guilt for giggling at the irony of the situation. Why do you insist on trying to trick me into feeling how you do anyway?

[articulett]

These are much more similar, don't you think... I can't see how noting the irony or noting the involvement of faith is similar to laughing at the deaths in Hiroshima... but then I'm not an apologist with a need to shield religion from scrutiny and imagine sociopathy in others so I can feel superior.

http://killfile.newsvine.com/_news/2007/11/11/1089047-kentucky-woman-handles-rattlesnake-during-church-service-woman-dies-from-snake-bite-her-family-is-now-suing-the-hospital

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/08/22/religious-man-eaten-after-seeking-blessing-from-crocodile/

http://www.smh.com.au/news/unusual-tales/man-who-was-testing-god-killed-by-lion/2006/06/05/1149359675280.html


I would feel guilty if misplaced trust that I had encouraged resulted in a death... I would feel guilty if I protected "faith" from scrutiny... but I do not feel guilty pointing out irony, hypocrisy, humor, or absurdity.

Bokonen did his wild anlaogies on the PZ Myers cracker thread too while ignoring the much more fitting analogies like somebody desecrating Mormon Underwear or eating a cow shaped hamburger in front of a Hindu and saying "mmm, sacred cow!"

False analogies to ignore his own prejudices that he promotes on a skeptics forum.

[bokonon]

Why do you insist on trying to trick me into feeling how you do anyway?
I'm not trying to trick you. I asked if you cared to explain your position, and it appears you do not. Carry on giggling.

[CFLarsen]

The point is, "Look Ma, he did it first" is not rational argument. That's just sneering in place of rational argument.

At least some religious believers have the excuse of not knowing better. How can it be seen as productive to just emulate the very behavior that is repulsive?

We certainly won't improve how atheists are perceived by the general public if we foster such airs of superiority based on kindergarten behavior.

Neither Randi, Dawkins, Myers or Hitchens ever resort to this. They may be harsh at times, but they are never childishly petty.

[CFLarsen]

Is it moral to bomb innocent people if the US controls the government?

Why is it even thought to be OK that the US should control another country's government? What kind of thinking is that?

That's not superiority based on atheism. That's a general feeling of superiority, where atheism is just an excuse.

[Malerin]

"In 2003, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll on "religion and public life" which asked people about their attitudes towards a variety of groups, including atheists. People's opinions of atheists break down:

Very Favorable: 7%
Mostly Favorable: 27%
Mostly Unfavorable: 19%
Very Unfavorable: 33%

So, only 34% of Americans have at least a mostly favorable attitude towards atheists; 52% have a mostly unfavorable or worse attitude. Opinions about people who are not religious are better:

Very Favorable: 9%
Mostly Favorable: 41%
Mostly Unfavorable: 19%
Very Unfavorable: 14%"

So, 50% of Americans have at least a mostly favorable attitude towards the irreligious and just 33% have a mostly unfavorable (or worse) attitude towards them. Compare these figures with attitudes towards Muslims:

Very Favorable: 9%
Mostly Favorable: 38%
Mostly Unfavorable: 19%
Very Unfavorable: 12%

Muslims are thus regarded a bit worse than the non-religious, but much better than atheists."

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm

CF brought up the point how atheists are perceived. This is just some food for thought.

[articulett]

I think it accurately reflects the bias noted on this thread.

No matter how nicely someone criticizes religion it will be perceived as hate speech-- even if the religionist criticizes other religions or jokes about them. And not matter how much faith is involved in a tragedy, people will make noise and do a semantic shuffle to blame everything but the faith.

I think those spreading this bigotry are more contemptible than those laughing at the irony.

In my experience, the atheists I know are some of the most honest, giving, heartfelt people of all. They are also often the funniest... though many people lose their sense of humor when the sacred cow they've learned to protect is threatened.

Atheists drive home the point that religious woo is as absurd as the woo religionists find absurd. They must find fault in the nonbeliever-- even if they have to make it up in order to keep from realizing this.

Religious people find religious people more moral, but like their gods, it seems to be entirely in their head. There is no evidence that this is so, and plenty of evidence to show that atheists behave even more morally-- with no threats of Hell or promises of salvation.

Plus they are more fun to be around because you don't have to walk on eggshells lest you accidentally offend someones pet delusion.

Religious people and their apologists think much more of themselves than I think of them. Give me a Randi or a Dawkins any day. Why in the world am I supposed to care what a bigot thinks of me more than they care what I think of them? I have no use for those tossing off the proverbial courtier's reply. Sure, religious people love you if they know you support the "faith in faith" meme or defer to faith. It helps them keep their delusions alive-- their favorite one being that religion makes them moral or that god alters physics for their prayers. I would need to find someone likable, respectable, and trustworthy, before I cared about their opinions about atheists in general or me in particular. And I have no doubt they feel the same way.

[Pardalis]

And not matter how much faith is involved in a tragedy,

Again and again, I keep telling you that faith has nothing to do with what happened.

Give me a Randi or a Dawkins any day.Mr. Randi and Mr. Dawkins would not have seen it appropriate or relevant to make fun of the tragedy.

[CFLarsen]

It sure does take a lot of effort to ignore religious people.

[bokonon]

It sure does take a lot of effort to ignore religious people.It takes a lot of effort to "ignore" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4291039#post4291039) atheists too.

Some people practice willful "ignore"ance, perhaps believing that such practice makes perfect.

These people are known as fundamentalists.

[Ichneumonwasp]

No matter how nicely someone criticizes religion it will be perceived as hate speech-- even if the religionist criticizes other religions or jokes about them. And not matter how much faith is involved in a tragedy, people will make noise and do a semantic shuffle to blame everything but the faith.




This situation does not reflect nicely criticizing religion. This is an entirely different scenario where anyone who mocks this girl has passed a societal line. It has nothing to do with protecting religion.

It is taboo to mock the recently dead. Any attempt to mock religion through her tragedy, even if inadvertent, mocks her death in some way. That is why it is inappropriate. This isn't the time for mockery.

Note the irony. No problem there, even though that borders on inappropriate; but any attempt to mock religion through her is just wrong. You, yourself, have admitted that the attack is tacky. If you want to break taboo, then be prepared for the fallout.

Why can't we let this go? I'm beginning to feel that even carrying on such a conversation for this length of time is inappropriate.

[westprog]

If I (as an atheist) was this girls parents, I would feel tremendous guilt for not successfully sowing the seeds of doubt and critical thinking. I would feel that my own failures to teach her reasoning skills played a role in her death. As it is, I think faith did. And I'm not going to play the silly game where we pretend the bad guys are the people who dare to point this out.


I'd like to add that Articulett thinks that I have mental health issues.

[CFLarsen]

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the works of both Randi and Dawkins would know that neither of them would feel any joy whatsoever whenever people are hurt by their faiths. On the contrary: Both have always expressed deep sadness whenever this happens. Just read Randi's "The Faith Healers": That is one long lament of all the victims of faith healers. It literally breaks your heart to read about the people who have gone through enormous agony at the hands of these crooks. Randi sure doesn't laugh at the victims.

It is a distortion and perversion of both to drag them into defending ridicule for the sake of ridiculing. It has nothing to do with skepticism, critical thinking, science or atheism. It's just narrowminded meanness.

Yes, I know this makes me an "apologist" for the religious fundamentalists... :rolleyes:

[Roadtoad]

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the works of both Randi and Dawkins would know that neither of them would feel any joy whatsoever whenever people are hurt by their faiths. On the contrary: Both have always expressed deep sadness whenever this happens. Just read Randi's "The Faith Healers": That is one long lament of all the victims of faith healers. It literally breaks your heart to read about the people who have gone through enormous agony at the hands of these crooks. Randi sure doesn't laugh at the victims.

It is a distortion and perversion of both to drag them into defending ridicule for the sake of ridiculing. It has nothing to do with skepticism, critical thinking, science or atheism. It's just narrowminded meanness.

Yes, I know this makes me an "apologist" for the religious fundamentalists... :rolleyes:

And you're doing a hell of a job, too, Claus... ;)

Actually, it's a valid point to make. I'm certainly guilty of taking pleasure in watching someone getting hoisted on their own petard, particularly after they've made my own life miserable with their activities. It's easy enough to say, "Serves you right," when they've made it clear they'll take pleasure in my misery.

Problem is, it doesn't solve anything. And if that's your goal, to solve problems rather than to perpetuate or even aggravate them, then my snickering as someone receives the consequences of their actions is probably not doing much good.

Yah. Had this one coming. :o

[articulett]

Apologists lie about what others feel and what their motives are so that they can fight the mischaracterization and feel oh so bold about themselves. I don't find good judges of irony, humor, logical fallacies, or morality-- and I think it's funny when they stop by threads to lecture people I think of as superior to them.

Yes I think it's funny. I'm not giggling at the fact that they are spreading prejudice-- that bugs me... I'm giggling at the irony. Irony is always funny to me. I'm not giggling at the way the vilify others people and misattribute motives-- I think that's dishonest. I'm giggling at the irony.

Of course they do not understand nuances... which makes me giggle all the more (I'm not giggling at their daftness, mind you, just the irony... the way they imagine themselves to be people I would take advice from-- the way they lie about the motives and attributes of people I find morally superior to them... the way they criticize others with criticism more fit for themselves-- it kind of reminds me of theism, actually!)

[articulett]

To me it was as if people were giggling over Religulous and shaking their head over the absurdity and goofing on religion... and the apologists came in and accused them on giggling at the scene where people were blown up.

It's a very dishonest way of feeling morally superior while furthering a prejudice and doing nothing to raise consciousness on any level. Moreover, it's raining on someone else's harmless parade. You've misunderstood the humor, what we were actually joking about, and mislabeled our intent.

I believe you've done this in a knee-jerk attempt to protect faith from scrutiny-- a bias that you are unaware of unwilling to admit to. And I think that prejudice and those false allegations against members are worse than anyone here has said regarding the OP.

My opinions matter more than those who would mischarachterize me to me. I find those you mischarachterize more honest than you. And they have a better sense of humor too. If you think I'm a person who laughs at tragedy, you really ought to know what I think of you.

[Pardalis]

My opinions matter more than those who would mischarachterize me to me. I find those you mischarachterize more honest than you.

Could you translate that into intelligible English? Too many you's and me's in those two sentences, it's hard to keep track of who you are talking about.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Could you translate that into intelligible English? Too many you's and me's in those two sentences, it's hard to keep track of who you are talking about.

Makes sense to me. Move the last me up in the sentence to next to 'opinions matter' and it should be clearer to you.

As to the girl, where were the angels that the bible promised would catch her up, lest she stub her toe on a rock?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Makes sense to me. Move the last me up in the sentence to next to 'opinions matter' and it should be clearer to you.

As to the girl, where were the angels that the bible promised would catch her up, lest she stub her toe on a rock?


You know you're right. I give in. You know exactly what she believed. I know exactly what she believed. It isn't like she was a real flesh and blood human anyway. Why not make her into a cartoon figure for just one more chance to giggle at Christianity? It isn't like we ever get the chance to do that anyway, so I guess we better take full advantage of the situation.

[Lucky]

Circus acrobat dies after horrifying fall (http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Circus-acrobat-dies-after-horrifying.4813099.jp)

Here is a report of a similar tragedy that occurred a few days ago. This young man was not taking part in a nativity play, it was a Christmas pantomime - does that make a difference? On the face of it (and in the absence of further facts), the fatal stunt he was performing seems at least as foolhardy as the one that killed Keri Shryock.

Perhaps the tone of my previous post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4283877#post4283877) was a bit flippant, but my intention was perfectly serious. I am trying to find out from thaiboxerken, articulett, Toke etc. why this particular death is funny. What makes one death funny and not another? I asked you to consider the "flying nuns" accident, and compare your reaction to that with your amusement at the nativity play death - but didn't receive a serious answer. But the latest death of an acrobat from a fall during a pantomime, happening within a few days of the other, is an even better example for comparison.

As bokonon and others have pointed out, you do not appear to be arguing that all accidental deaths are funny. And no-one has gone so far as to say that the young woman deserved to die (which, to me, is the only thing that would justify finding humour in the situation).

Several of us here have had the same reaction to the story:
1. Keri Shryock's death doesn't seem especially ironic, as there is absolutely nothing (so far) to suggest that it's in any way relevant to the accident that it took place in a church, or that the dead performer was (presumably) religious.
2. Even if we thought it ironic, it would be too tragic to be funny.

To us, your reaction seems irrational, and displays a lack of critical thinking. You are very eager to assume facts, events and causes in the complete absence of any evidence, if they support your p.o.v. about religion - in a way that (I guess) you wouldn't be on another issue. We have no idea whether Keri Shryock was especially religious - she was new to Cincinnati and for all we know may have become involved with the (non-denominational) church primarily for social reasons. We know nothing of the religious observance (or otherwise) of her parents, yet some posters here are happy to state it as a fact that they will not attempt to hold the church to account. We don't yet know whether there was negligence and, if so, whether it was by the church, the equipment suppliers, or the victim herself. (Perhaps the real issue is that the law needs tightening.)

So, how does the involvement, or otherwise, of religion affect your view of this kind of death (fatal accident to young person during some frivolous or non-essential activity such as a theatrical performance) - and why?

I can easily describe my p.o.v. - death isn't funny. Accidental death of a young person, and the devastating grief caused to parents, partners and others, is especially not funny. It does not become funny to me if the victim contributed in some way to their death (by carelessness, bravado, drunkenness, or even criminal activity), as is often the case with young people. (And no, I am seriously not amused by the Darwin Awards.)

I fully accept that many people have a different p.o.v. about this kind of thing (and I am probably in a minority here in finding the Darwin Awards shocking and distressing rather than funny). Most certainly, no-one is obliged to think as I do, on this issue or any other. But you have been asked to explain the logic of your thinking, and you have not done so.

Again, I am being perfectly serious. Those of you who had a laugh at Keri Shryock's death: please read the link and tell me whether you find Rafshan Alimov's death ironic and/or funny. If so, why? If not, why not?

[articulett]

Those of you who laughed at Religulous must find suicide bombers funny. You're going to hell!

[articulett]

It's flying wise men in a Christmas play by amateurs that is inappropriate...
not commenting on it here.

There are many ways to miss this point and feel oh so good about yourself doing so. But you are feeling good about yourself while imagining faults in others. Nobody is laughing at anyone's death. Those who continue to allege such are being dishonest to cover for faith. Your analogies show your biases. Own your own feelings-- you don't think it's appropriate to comment on this situation here; I don't think it's appropriate to accuse me and other members of motives or feelings that do not know we have. You don't want us to imagine what theists are thinking-- and yet you directly accuse members here of laughing at death because it "seems" that way to you in your biased minds.

We are not laughing at the death any more than people laughing at Religulous think sucide bombers are funny. Really. You are being dishonest and unfair to people here if you continue to insist otherwise--and that is more unseemly than the commentary on this incident. The high road you imagine yourself taking is imaginary.

[bokonon]

So, Lucky, did that answer your question?

[articulett]

I wonder if the self appointed critics would comment on how the xians must love gore because they were so moved by the bloody cross scene in The Passion. They glorify death by putting crosses everywhere. There think a story about a baby born to die in such a way is heartfelt and good for children to know about and associate with presents and Santa. They think the story is humbling and that there is nothing wrong with telling little kids that god killed his son because they are sinners and that said kiddies will be going to hell if they don't believe it.

"Now kiddies... be good little angels and strap yourselves into harnesses so you can show your faith-- god will protect you!"

I find the double standard ironic and funny too, but I'm sure they'll imagine that I'm really just laughing at death --it's easier to feel better than others when you attribute false conjecture from their words and then tear down the straw man you just built from scratch.

[Toke]

Perhaps the tone of my previous post was a bit flippant, but my intention was perfectly serious. I am trying to find out from thaiboxerken, articulett, Toke etc. why this particular death is funny. What makes one death funny and not another?

The death it self is not funny, its tragic.

The funny part is imagining how the church will/could explain it.
Praising god in his own house, so good a person that she was taken in early, extra sparkly halo, etc...

If you cannot abstract suffiently from the tragic death to see the jokes, then feel free not to laugh.

[Radrook]

Makes sense to me. Move the last me up in the sentence to next to 'opinions matter' and it should be clearer to you.

As to the girl, where were the angels that the bible promised would catch her up, lest she stub her toe on a rock?


Your quotation is out of context.

[Piscivore]

I wonder if they self appointed critics would comment on how the xians must love gore because they were so moved by the bloody cross scene in The Passion. They glorify death by putting crosses everywhere.

"Now kiddies... be good little angels and strap yourselves into harnesses so you can show your faith-- god will protect you!"
Apologists lie about what others feel and what their motives are so that they can fight the mischaracterization and feel oh so bold about themselves.
Yeah, now I see some irony.

[bokonon]

"Now kiddies... be good little angels and strap yourselves into harnesses so you can show your faith-- god will protect you!"
Gee, if they really thought God would protect them, wouldn't they just skip the harness and leap from the rafters? Doesn't the fact that they chose to employ a harness suggest that they weren't quite as extreme in their willingness to trust in the lord as your straw man seeks to portray them?

I'm sure they'll imagine that I'm really just laughing at death --it's easier to feel better than others when you attribute false conjecture from their words and then tear down the straw man you just built from scratch.
You said Cool. I wonder if she gets martyr bonus points and an extra sparkly halo.You are obviously not sorry you said it, since you've gone on for five pages since snarling about all the reasons the comment was justified and the wet blankets who say otherwise are wrong.

[bokonon]

Your quotation is out of context.
Psalm 91 does make that claim, and there are people who take it seriously. (http://www.graceopcmodesto.org/audio/2003/06/se060103pm.pdf) If someone was discussing the wisdom of Psalm 91, and whether it should be trusted, I think it would be fair to raise the example of this tragedy.

Going the other way, though, just seems crass. There is no indication that the girl or the church was invoking Psalm 91, even indirectly, to justify acting recklessly.

[Lucky]

So, Lucky, did that answer your question?
Well, it's the nearest thing to an answer I'm likely to get. (Oops, look at me, theorising before the facts!)


... Nobody is laughing at anyone's death.
...

You keep making this claim.

Joke 1 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4280896#post4280896)
Joke 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4281226#post4281226)
Joke 3 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4281344#post4281344)
Joke 4 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4281354#post4281354)

articulett, my post wasn't directed only at you. Now, if you want to split hairs, I am happy to concede that in your case I should have said making jokes about the death, rather than laughing at it. (I can't be sure you were laughing - for all I know, you don't find your own jokes funny.)

However, thaiboxerken is laughing: here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4283144#post4283144), here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4283317#post4283317) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4289086#post4289086). So is Toke (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4283157#post4283157).

Seriously, articulett, "laughing at" is really a figure of speech. I don't actually think that anyone here (including thaiboxerken and Toke) laughed out loud at the news story, but I have no reason to doubt their claim of finding it amusing (and neither do you).

Your responses to me have ignored my questions and points - they are simply baseless assumptions about my "real" views and motives (and very, very wide of the mark).

[Toke]

This is post #278, did you read it?

The death it self is not funny, its tragic.

The funny part is imagining how the church will/could explain it.
Praising god in his own house, so good a person that she was taken in early, extra sparkly halo, etc...

If you cannot abstract suffiently from the tragic death to see the jokes, then feel free not to laugh.

I am getting a bit confused, which part of the post don´t you understand and want elaborated?

[Darth Rotor]

As to the girl, where were the angels that the bible promised would catch her up, lest she stub her toe on a rock?
In the interest of humoring me, Silly Green Monkey, can you offer me the scriptural passage that provides for an angel to catch you as you fall, or if you fall, lest ye stub thine toe upon a rock, etcetera?

Much obliged.

DR

[articulett]

This is post #278, did you read it?


I am getting a bit confused, which part of the post don´t you understand and want elaborated?


All of it... they need the atheists to be the "bad guy" in the story so they can feel righteous and avoid the role faith played.

They are dishonest-- they will continue to construe our commentary as "laughing at the death", so they can imagine themselves taking the high road while vilifying skeptics and covering for faith. Put them on ignore. The forum will seem so much smarter, I assure you. You won't have missed anything worse than Larsenesque pedantry. Let the apologists talk to each other and feel "holier than thou" for the holidays.

The ones handing out advice and casting judgment are not the people I'd consider role models or people I'd take advice from. They need to believe their straw man view rather than admit to their own biases. The more you try to explain the more they'll play semantic games to further their delusional viewpoint. There are a lot of brilliant witty people on this forum--they just aren't the people who imagine they are the brilliant witty ones.

See my sig.

[bokonon]

they need the atheists to be the "bad guy" in the story so they can feel righteous and avoid the role faith played.
Nope. I'm an atheist myself, which is why I take the time to make it clear that we aren't all like you. Just as religious people are embarrassed by and take pains to distance themselves from folks like Phelps, it's important to me to speak up when I see "one of mine" inappropriately using tragedy as an opportunity to vent.

Put them on ignore. The forum will seem so much smarter, I assure you. You won't have missed anything worse than Larsenesque pedantry. Let the apologists talk to each other and feel "holier than thou" for the holidays.
Sadly, not many people are going to follow your advice, and will continue to see the "apologists" you're "ignoring" responding cogently to you, while you stop your ears and re-post the same incoherent dishonest diatribe over and over.

See my sig.Now there's some amusing irony.

[six7s]

... can you offer me the scriptural passage that provides for an angel to catch you as you fall, or if you fall, lest ye stub thine toe upon a rock, etcetera?

Psalm 91:9-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2091:9-12;&version=9;)

9 Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation;

10 There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.

11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.

12 They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Matthew 18:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:10;&version=9;)

10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

[six7s]

Which search engine would Jesus use?

[articulett]

Plus an angel saved this girl-- fox news said so.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131317

Those angels are so willy nilly in whom they save.

[Toke]

Which search engine would Jesus use?
Betty bowers might know:D

[articulett]

I want to know how anyone who believes in angels and miracles can explain this discrepancy in "mriacles"? I want to know how people can think it's fine for Fox to publish an inane angel story that rubs salt in the wounds of the parents in this story (since they prayed for their daughter who died while "honoring" her god-)- and yet they want to tsk-tsk skeptics for noting the irony on this far less public forum-- the latter hurts no-one and may raise consciousness so there a fewer people who experience tragedies as a result of their faith!

Hey apologists, your hypocrisy is showing! I think your talents might be better spent in ensuring the faithful don't blindly praise Jesus and angels publicly rubbing salt in the wounds of those who prayed just as fervently for miracles they did not get. But the "faith in faith" meme has blinded you to this harm and allows it's tentacles to reach ever further.

I think it's much more moral to help raise consciousness so people stop this inane confirmation bias that faith forces them into. Faith is not a means of knowledge; it is not ennobling or worth protecting or shielding from mockery. Noting as much is not "laughing at death". That is the lie you tell yourself so you don't have to hear the actual message.

[bokonon]

Plus an angel saved this girl-- fox news said so.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131317

Those angels are so willy nilly in whom they save.
Have you noticed that not one of the "apologists" is over in that thread "defending faith"? Larsen himself is making jokes there.

And I see you're there too, trying to draw a parallel between that case and this one. Not getting much traction, though.

Kind of sad, really.

[bokonon]

I want to know how anyone who believes in angels and miracles can explain this discrepancy in "mriacles"?
Well why don't you ask them? You know what kind of rationalizations you'll hear.

I want to know how people can think it's fine for Fox to publish an inane angel story that rubs salt in the wounds of the parents in this story (since they prayed for their daughter who died while "honoring" her god-)- and yet they want to tsk-tsk skeptics for noting the irony on this far less public forum"-- the latter hurts no-one and may raise consciousness so there a fewer people who experience tragedies as a result of their faith!
Yeah, the "consciousness raising" was unmistakable when you said "Cool. I wonder if she gets martyr bonus points and an extra sparkly halo."

Look, who said this Fox story was "fine"? Everybody is blasting that story, and nobody is defending it. As I've said before, my wife watches "Fox & Friends" so we got to see that story over breakfast. I remarked, "Great, next time she doesn't even need to go to the hospital, they can just leave a post-it note on the door to let the angel know where to find her." She believes in angels, but she conceded I had a point.

Hey apologists, your hypocrisy is showing.No, the only thing showing here is the emptiness of your claim that the people tsk-tsking your crass comment are doing it to "defend faith," as well as the emptiness of your claim that faith caused the accident, and "less faith" might have averted the tragedy.

Oh, and the lie that your boorish blurt was "consciousness raising".

ETA: Sorry, the contents of the post I was responding to seem to have shifted during delivery. You'll just have to take my word for it that I didn't fabricate anything, because I'm not going to go back and tailor my response to the new version.

[six7s]

Which search engine would Jesus use?Betty bowers might know:DI'm glad I asked - up until now I'd never heard of 'America's Best Christian'

I think I love her almost as much as Jesus does

You'd all be in my prayers, if I only had that kind of time

:D

[Toke]

Bokonon, did you read #278/#284?
Did you understand it?
Do you want anything eleborated?

[Toke]

I think I love her almost as much as Jesus does
:D Nice one, so true

(I have infortunately been unable to locate laughing dog:o)

[Roadtoad]

Are you sure the Betty Bowers site is a parody?

[bokonon]

Bokonon, did you read #278/#284?
I did. I appreciate having your permission not to laugh, and I guess this is as good a place as any to thank you for that.

Did you understand it?
I think I understood them.

Do you want anything eleborated?
Uh, no?

[Toke]

Are you sure the Betty Bowers site is a parody?

Well, it says so in the book that goes with it, "Welcome to Jesusland".

[articulett]

Are you sure the Betty Bowers site is a parody?
It is... and a longtime favorite.

[Toke]

I did. I appreciate having your permission not to laugh, and I guess this is as good a place as any to thank you for that.
I think I understood them.
Uh, no?

Ok, no misunderstandings then, so I can safely write the last 6-7 pages off to hypersensitivity on your and Articulett´s part?

[bokonon]

Ok, no misunderstandings then, so I can safely write the last 6-7 pages off to hypersensitivity on your and Articulett´s part?
Yeah, probably.

[articulett]

:D Nice one, so true

(I have infortunately been unable to locate laughing dog:o)

the symbol is "dl" (for "dog laughing) surrounded by colons... like this except in reverse: :ld:


You can see it below if you quote this post

:dl:

[Toke]

Are you sure the Betty Bowers site is a parody?

I must admit that some of the posters on jref have made me less sure of what is parodi and what is meant seriusly.
Some poster with a possible 12000 year old meteor strike for the flood have made me belive in creationists.

[Toke]

:dl:

Thanks

[articulett]

Ok, no misunderstandings then, so I can safely write the last 6-7 pages off to hypersensitivity on your and Articulett´s part?

My "hypersensitivity" has to do with people misattributing motives to me, and then continuing to do so even after repeatedly corrected.

I think it's more insensitive and wrong then any fault they sought to point out in me.

[articulett]

:dl:

Thanks

Merry Christmas!

And it's Poe's law which states that it's hard to tell a real fundamentalist Christian from a parody of one...

If the spelling and grammar are accurate--bet on the latter.

[articulett]

all the smilies are here: http://forums.randi.org/misc.php?do=showsmilies

This one is pretty cool-- it's just a k (for knight) surrounded by colons

:k:

[Toke]

Nice, thanks again, only downside is that the ships satelitelink takes forever to open the page.

I will get around to it eventually, and use the ones I know so far in the meantime.

[six7s]

This one is pretty cool-- it's just a k (for knight) surrounded by colons

:k:This one can be apt -- it's just hb (for hell bound) surrounded by *********

:hb:

[articulett]

the colon ends in the ********

[Lucky]

This is post #278, did you read it?
The death it self is not funny, its tragic.

The funny part is imagining how the church will/could explain it.
Praising god in his own house, so good a person that she was taken in early, extra sparkly halo, etc...

If you cannot abstract suffiently from the tragic death to see the jokes, then feel free not to laugh.
I am getting a bit confused, which part of the post don´t you understand and want elaborated?

Toke, my posting rate is 0.53 per day! It is quite unusual that I have time to answer any post within a few days (so I generally can't keep up with discussions here any more), but I'll make an exception for you. (My post #283 was a response to articulett, btw.)

As I pointed out, Rafshan Alimov (http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Circus-acrobat-dies-after-horrifying.4813099.jp) was killed performing in a pantomime. His intention was to give enjoyment to the audience (mostly children), to thrill and amuse them (I remember hating this type of performance as a child, because of my terror of something going wrong). Instead, they have suffered a most terrible, traumatising experience, which may cause lasting psychological harm (as for the nativity death audience). He demonstrated a misplaced faith - in this case, in the infallibility of his and his team's gravity-defying skills and training (actually, for all we know he fully understood the risk but had fair reasons for choosing to accept it - however, this could apply equally to Keri Shryock).

And ... the cause was probably not worth it. I do think there is a justifiable case for putting an end to this type of acrobatic performance (not saying I'd support it). We don't have to go on accepting that level of risk in the name of entertainment, just because it was acceptable centuries or millennia ago. But people with a vested interest (financial, traditional or emotional) in circus acrobatics are inevitably going to excuse, rationalise, evade and obstruct all discussion of this question (just like people with a similar vested interest in religion).

Here (http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/blackpoolnews/Blackpool-Tower-acrobat-Tearful-tribute.4821841.jp) are a couple of early tributes:
Everyone in the industry is thinking of Rafshan's family.
...
I've worked in the industry for 50 years and can count on one hand terrible tragedies like this.

and

All the children loved it, it was a breathtaking display of daring and bravery.

It is absolutely tragic that this should happen.
Every bit as trite as anything I've seen in response to the nativity play death. And, so what? That's how people tend to respond to tragedies - and do you have a better suggestion?

This is the question I'd like an answer to: How are the two incidents fundamentally different (if they are)? How does the religious connection make the horror more ironic, or funnier (if it does)?

This is what I think has happened here: A quick glance at the story suggests there ought to be some irony - faith ... attempt to fly ... consequent death ... formulaic religious excuses - and you overlooked that the facts don't really fit.

Several posters have said that the irony consists in the young woman's (and perhaps the church's) misplaced faith in their God's protection (can't be bothered trawling the thread again to find quotes) - though no-one has provided any evidence of this faith, and its role in the accident. On the other hand, you said "The funny part is imagining how the church will/could explain it." One could easily imagine (or invent) an abundance of blameworthy remarks along these lines - but in order to find such remarks ironic or amusing, wouldn't someone have to have made them?

As to the jokes, they miss the mark for me, because they are illogical. There is no ironic connection (as far as we know) between the young woman's faith and her death. No-one (in 300 posts) has managed to quote a single example of an inappropriate, religion-promoting remark by the church, her family etc. All that is left is her tragic death as an acrobatic performer in a nativity play.

So, whatever the intent, the jokes come across as nothing but a heartless mocking of a young woman's death. (And I fully understand gallows humour, but this isn't it.)

[six7s]

the colon ends in the arseholeWhilst the ********* (or the supplies thereof) are seemingly without end

[articulett]

Yep.

[bokonon]

Several posters have said that the irony consists in the young woman's (and perhaps the church's) misplaced faith in their God's protection (can't be bothered trawling the thread again to find quotes) - though no-one has provided any evidence of this faith, and its role in the accident. On the other hand, you said "The funny part is imagining how the church will/could explain it." One could easily imagine (or invent) an abundance of blameworthy remarks along these lines - but in order to find such remarks ironic or amusing, wouldn't someone have to have made them?
Which gets to the real difference between this incident and the Russian acrobat's, as well as the real difference between this incident and the "angel in the hospital".

The skeptics here don't have an ax to grind with Russian acrobats, so they don't feel the need to imagine things the acrobats might say that would be mockworthy.

With the "angel in the hospital," people are actually saying mockworthy things. Plus, the girl is recovering.

Religious people say plenty of things to mock, so if that's what you want to do (and, despite accusations to the contrary, I'm not so "holier than thou" that I often refrain from taking a shot when someone sticks his chin out) there is ample opportunity.

Trying to shoehorn THIS incident into such an opportunity is unnecessary, unwarranted, and a bit tasteless.

[articulett]

For the irony impaired:

I don't think it's funny to lace cookies and milk with sleeping pills-- I DO think this cartoon is funny. If you don't, it's not a reflection on my "evil ways"... it's a reflection on you and you, alone.

Please do not post copyrighted materials in their entirety. Thank you.

[Toke]

Here is the misunderstanding.

One could easily imagine (or invent) an abundance of blameworthy remarks along these lines - but in order to find such remarks ironic or amusing, wouldn't someone have to have made them? No

The funny part is imagining how the church will/could explain it.

I do not need the megachurch in question to say anything.
There are plenty of general churchly rationalisations/statements/scripture/BS/etc... to inspire me and others to invent specific ones for this.

[bokonon]

I do not need the megachurch in question to say anything.
There are plenty of general churchly rationalisations/statements/scripture/BS/etc... to inspire me and others to invent specific ones for this.
Which is nothing more than straw-manning and stereotyping, and hardly worthy of defense on a skeptical website.

[articulett]

No santa needs to really be poisoned for there to be humor in the cartoon above...

Nothing needs to be directly said to find endless amusement in the way religion associates all "good things" with god-- and no tragedies with anything to do with faith. There's no reference to the miracles that should have been (if faith were true or valuable) during Christmas tragedies, but tons of exclamations over assorted so-called miracles more attributable to doctors and circumstance than prayers..

It's the hypocrisy that is so amusing and ironic. Even the hypocrisy of so-called skeptics-- the apologist crowd-- who can't imagine that they have a bias!

People are loading up baby Jesus (in nativity scenes) with GPS devices to prevent theft.... see, that's funny... if Jesus was real, he could prevent his own damn thefts of his icons, right? He does miracles on occasion? It's the bad- mouthing of science (which could have flown the girl in the OP much more successfully, btw) coupled with the endless protection of faith that makes these tragio-comic situation so very predictable and so absurd and so fun to comment upon. Satire. See Colbert. It's often the very best way to raise consciousness.

Multiple biblical quotes were provided about supposed angels preventing people from being "fallen"-- and Radrook said death is due to people being "fallen"-- that's ironic... it's funny... it's absurd-- black humor. Noting that does not mean anyone here takes delight in other peoples' death--even if someone is bent on seeing such. It truly doesn't. It's a lie to keep insisting that it does. Moreover, it's arrogant for you to presume you know what others think while lecturing others for supposedly claiming to know what theists think. I think what theists think is absurd and ever changing (when they can be said to actually "think")-- like the apologist, they must always put faith in a good light and irreverence in a bad light so that they may feel "righteous" and imagine themselves humble for believing whatever magical story they've come to believe in.

You can bet that if it happened at a school, the lack of scientific rigor in flying people around the room would be at issue. The parents wouldn't be saying, "she died doing what she loved and making deferential moves to protect those who encouraged their daughters "faith" (unwarranted credulity)." Yep, that's worth noticing and commenting on to me.

Asserting that this means I'm "laughing at death" makes the asserter a liar for faith. They prop up a paradigm that continues to cause harm to people all over the world and make them feel special for engaging in magical childish thinking. The real shame should be on those who'd use this tragedy to lie about the motives of others to feel good about their lack of humor-- in my opinion.

[Toke]

Which is nothing more than straw-manning and stereotyping, and hardly worthy of defense on a skeptical website.

You don´t read the humor section much, do you?

[bokonon]

You don´t read the humor section much, do you?
No, I've never visited the humor section. It's too bad this wasn't posted there; you could have been spared 7 pages of me beating up a girl.

[articulett]

I doubt the parents of this girl (the truest victims here --since the church members don't seem to be taking responsibility or feeling guilt) will be reading our words. They will, no doubt, see the Fox news story about the supposed "angel miracle" and the myriad of people thanking Jesus for their football wins and wonder why their prayers weren't good enough to be answered similarly.

That's disturbing to me.

[articulett]

Bokonen mistakes his lack of humor and his biases for the moral high road.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2428/sarcasm-useful-detecting-dementia

[bokonon]

Where's the "yawn" smilie?

[articulett]

We're not "allowed" to discuss the various spin religionists will put on this tragedy so that they might "keep the faith"-- but the apologists are allowed to imagine dark motives in us and insist that their imagination is right despite repeated clarification.

Tis the season for hypocrisy, fa la la la la la la la la...

[bokonon]

We're not "allowed" to discuss the various spin religionists will put on this tragedy so that they might "keep the faith"-- but the apologists are allowed to imagine dark motives in us and insist that their imagination is right despite repeated clarification.

Tis the season for hypocrisy, fa la la la la la la la la...
Guess so.

'Cause, you know, since you have us apologists on "ignore," you have no clue what we're imagining, or whether you've clarified any of the questions raised in the posts you've avoided.

For the record, you have not. You have not clarified how "faith" caused the accident, or how your "consciousness raising" will help to prevent such tragedies in the future.

Oh, and your pretense at concern for the possibility that the parents will have their trauma deepened by seeing a Fox news report about an imaginary angel in a hospital? Rank and reeking hypocrisy.

But hey, keep bellowing up your backside, I know it's keeping me entertained.

[Roadtoad]

You know, the one thing I like about the upcoming downtime for the Forum is that it will give everyone a chance to cool off, and we won't need to read any more about this.

This has been a tragic loss for this woman's family. Sorry it happened, but if someone had just taken some basic precautions, it might not have.

As I said before, I tell Christian truckers "Even Jesus would rock the hood."

I'm sorry this discussion led to some rifts here. It's not necessary.

Anyway, Happy Holidays, folks. Maybe we can forget this thread when we're back online. What say?

[articulett]

Well, it seems that some folks like to go to other threads and spread their false allegations-- but I have them on ignore, so I think it will all be okay. I don't mind them talking to each other. I just wish they'd put me on ignore rather than promulgating lies about me and posters I like.

Maybe they'll learn to own their own feelings instead imagining dark motives in others and examine whether they have biases they may not be aware of causing them to defend faith in a way they would defend other woo. If so, someone may quote their more intelligent responses, and I can see if they have anything worth saying.

If someone wishes to express their opinions of me or my motives, then I would hope they'd be eager to hear my opinion of their opinion. I blame the ones who came to this thread to criticize forum members, and it's up to them to come up with a better method of expressing their viewpoints. I was one of those people criticized. I was judged by someone whom I would not seek moral, humor, or social advice from.

I only respond when the nuttery is quoted-- so don't quote the apologists if you don't want to see my response. For the record, the "apologists" would be all those who imagined that people here were laughing at the girl's death as opposed to commenting on the irony of the situation and who made false analogies to further that self-serving delusion. Frankly, I think they owe all such people an apology, and they really need to examine whether they could have a bias that they are unaware of that says "protect faith" at all costs.

[bokonon]

Roadtoad, sounds good.

Some people can see when they made a mistake and apologize, some can see they made a mistake but can't bring themselves to "lose face" by apologizing, and some can't even face the possibility that they might have been wrong.

You showed a lot of humanity in this thread, and that's to be commended.

[Ichneumonwasp]

You know, the one thing I like about the upcoming downtime for the Forum is that it will give everyone a chance to cool off, and we won't need to read any more about this.

This has been a tragic loss for this woman's family. Sorry it happened, but if someone had just taken some basic precautions, it might not have.

As I said before, I tell Christian truckers "Even Jesus would rock the hood."

I'm sorry this discussion led to some rifts here. It's not necessary.

Anyway, Happy Holidays, folks. Maybe we can forget this thread when we're back online. What say?



Amen, brother, amen.

[articulett]

Ramen

[Lucky]

Which gets to the real difference between this incident and the Russian acrobat's, as well as the real difference between this incident and the "angel in the hospital".

The skeptics here don't have an ax to grind with Russian acrobats, so they don't feel the need to imagine things the acrobats might say that would be mockworthy.

With the "angel in the hospital," people are actually saying mockworthy things. Plus, the girl is recovering.

Religious people say plenty of things to mock, so if that's what you want to do (and, despite accusations to the contrary, I'm not so "holier than thou" that I often refrain from taking a shot when someone sticks his chin out) there is ample opportunity.

Trying to shoehorn THIS incident into such an opportunity is unnecessary, unwarranted, and a bit tasteless.

Thing is, if there were any evidence for the version of events from the (self-described) skeptics, it would be readily available on the internet, and they could simply link to it and shut us up.

I doubt the parents of this girl (the truest victims here --since the church members don't seem to be taking responsibility or feeling guilt) will be reading our words. They will, no doubt, see the fox news story and the myriad of people thanking Jesus for their football wins and such and wonder why their prayers weren't good enough to be answered similarly.

That's disturbing to me.

articulett, unless you have some sources you are withholding, this seems to be more of your inventions.

Now, you have said:
1. "The church members don't seem to be taking responsibility".
Well, we don't know that the church was responsible. We are awaiting more information. If they have denied responsibility then that is certainly premature and unjustified, and they should not be allowed to get away with it.

2. They are not "feeling guilt".
Kindly link to even one statement, by even one church member, that suggests they don't feel guilty. People generally do, you know, in this type of situation - whether justified or not.

3. The victim's parents will "wonder why their prayers weren't good enough to be answered ".
You know as much as I do (i.e. precisely nothing) of the victim's parents' religious pracices and beliefs. I wish them anything, anything at all, that will help them through this nightmare - whether religious belief, non-belief or surpassingly barmy belief - I don't mind.

Why do you think you are entitled to make up history, and present it - and (most bizarrely) emotionally respond to it - as fact? Seriously, seriously strange.

Toke: I took you seriously (as I always will in the absence of the most compelling reasons to doubt a poster's sincerity). I answered your questions at face value to the best of my ability. You have ignored most of mine.

[Toke]

Here (http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/blackpoolnews/Blackpool-Tower-acrobat-Tearful-tribute.4821841.jp) are a couple of early tributes:


and

Every bit as trite as anything I've seen in response to the nativity play death. And, so what? That's how people tend to respond to tragedies - and do you have a better suggestion?
No not really.

This is the question I'd like an answer to: How are the two incidents fundamentally different (if they are)? How does the religious connection make the horror more ironic, or funnier (if it does)?
He was performing his job, which was resonably safe and with a well known risk. It is just a work accident and not the least amusing.

Her death show the stark contrast between the world where god hold his protecting hand over (under) the faithfull, and reality where a fault in harness or use of it can be lethal no matter how much you are praising god.

This is what I think has happened here: A quick glance at the story suggests there ought to be some irony - faith ... attempt to fly ... consequent death ... formulaic religious excuses - and you overlooked that the facts don't really fit.
I did notice that there were no religius exuses from the church. That is why I invented some. (that was the whole point of the tread, what exuses could the church make.

Several posters have said that the irony consists in the young woman's (and perhaps the church's) misplaced faith in their God's protection (can't be bothered trawling the thread again to find quotes) - though no-one has provided any evidence of this faith, and its role in the accident. On the other hand, you said "The funny part is imagining how the church will/could explain it." One could easily imagine (or invent) an abundance of blameworthy remarks along these lines - but in order to find such remarks ironic or amusing, wouldn't someone have to have made them? No

As to the jokes, they miss the mark for me, because they are illogical. There is no ironic connection (as far as we know) between the young woman's faith and her death. No-one (in 300 posts) has managed to quote a single example of an inappropriate, religion-promoting remark by the church, her family etc. All that is left is her tragic death as an acrobatic performer in a nativity play.

So, whatever the intent, the jokes come across as nothing but a heartless mocking of a young woman's death. (And I fully understand gallows humour, but this isn't it.)

I am not mocking her death, but the churchs general attitude of a protecting god.
You did hide your questions in a rather long post.

[articulett]

I liked this article by comedian Jimmy Carr, and I concur. Plus, I think he's hysterical.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3443,Jimmy-Carr-on-Richard-Dawkins,Psychologies-Magazine

[Safe-Keeper]

And when someone makes a Darwin Award comment--nobody accuses them of laughing at someone's death. It's the irony--the abusurdity that makes us laugh.The Darwin Award? That thing you give as a thank-you to people who are kind enough to clean the gene pool by dying in a stupid way?

Right, that's seriously not offensive or sick the slightest and I'd love it if I lost a loved one and Darwin Award posts sprung up around the Intertubes.

[articulett]

I would assume that people don't go looking for such things...

Like that guy in Washington who had the "mishap" with the horse. I'm sure his family was aware of the discussion that ensued including much hilarity-- though I don't think that anybody thinks that a perforated bowel is funny. However, laughing about it is not wrong. It's not something you'd want to do in front of the wife and kids, but hopefully they won't be reading the limerick section at JREF to get over their grief.

Some people are able to discern the difference between the ironic or comical part and the tragedy. If one can't, one should avoid such conversations lest they imagine people are laughing at the tragic part rather than the comic part.

[westprog]

Thing is, if there were any evidence for the version of events from the (self-described) skeptics, it would be readily available on the internet, and they could simply link to it and shut us up.

articulett, unless you have some sources you are withholding, this seems to be more of your inventions.

Now, you have said:
1. "The church members don't seem to be taking responsibility".
Well, we don't know that the church was responsible. We are awaiting more information. If they have denied responsibility then that is certainly premature and unjustified, and they should not be allowed to get away with it.

2. They are not "feeling guilt".
Kindly link to even one statement, by even one church member, that suggests they don't feel guilty. People generally do, you know, in this type of situation - whether justified or not.

3. The victim's parents will "wonder why their prayers weren't good enough to be answered ".
You know as much as I do (i.e. precisely nothing) of the victim's parents' religious pracices and beliefs. I wish them anything, anything at all, that will help them through this nightmare - whether religious belief, non-belief or surpassingly barmy belief - I don't mind.

Why do you think you are entitled to make up history, and present it - and (most bizarrely) emotionally respond to it - as fact? Seriously, seriously strange.

Toke: I took you seriously (as I always will in the absence of the most compelling reasons to doubt a poster's sincerity). I answered your questions at face value to the best of my ability. You have ignored most of mine.

I'm not sure what a rigourous definition of skepticism would be, but I'd imagine it would include some kind of verification procedure. A skeptic would look at assertions, and say "You know that you are assuming X, Y and Z, and you have no evidence for them."

Articulett seems to think that skepticism involves making assumptions about people who don't agree with her, and putting anyone who disagrees on ignore. She finds doubt offensive. You're with her or against her. Skepticism is just a label, not an approach - and it's a label that's to be identified exclusively with her branch of atheism.

She seems to have no idea what real Christians actually do in the wild. She could ask a local Christian what their approach to health and safety is. She might, if she looked long enough, find someone who says "I never wear my seatbelt - the Lord will look after me" but she won't find many. But the Christians in her head are far more satisfying than the ones living next door.

I wonder what kind of Amish Atheist group she lives among?

[CFLarsen]

Playing fast and loose with the facts is one of the staples of propaganda.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Playing fast and loose with the facts is one of the staples of propaganda.

Not true. Falsehoods can be a part of propaganda. Being 100% factual can also be. Propaganda is neutral - it can be positive or negative.

[Phase Inverter]

OK, here's another story. Nobody died in this one and the reactions of the believers and the pastor are not straw men.

I did not laugh when I read this nor do I think loss or damage of property is funny.

The issue here is how believers will/could/do rationalize a just and loving God that would allow a church to burn down on Christmas day. Same as the OP.



Christmas Morning Fire Destroys Church (http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/18357517/detail.html)

DETROIT -- An early Christmas morning fire destroyed a church on Detroit's northwest side.

The fire started at about 3:30 a.m. Thursday at the Detroit Free United Methodist Church.

Fire crews battled winter winds to put out the two-alarm fire, using three aerial ladders to get water into the building. They were able to contain the fire after about an hour.

"I saw it this morning. I saw pastor Bill and it just affected me deep," said church member Matthew Rosemond, who watched the church go up in flames during a Local 4 news report.

"I just heard about it so I flew here just to see," said member Dawnette Perine. "I thought maybe it would be a little bit of damage but this looks like it's irreparable."

Despite the loss, the congregation and neighborhood remain positive.

"God hasn't stopped being God just because the building caught on fire," said the church's pastor, William Mulwee.

"We all have faith, good faith, that pastor Bill has taught us. So we know good things will come," said Rosemond.

The church building was also used for a day care and food pantry.

Fire investigators said the cause of the fire is undetermined, but not suspicious.

The building is insured, but Mulwee said it is because of the membership that the church's spirit will continue.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I would assume that people don't go looking for such things...

Like that guy in Washington who had the "mishap" with the horse. I'm sure his family was aware of the discussion that ensued including much hilarity-- though I don't think that anybody thinks that a perforated bowel is funny. However, laughing about it is not wrong. It's not something you'd want to do in front of the wife and kids, but hopefully they won't be reading the limerick section at JREF to get over their grief.

Some people are able to discern the difference between the ironic or comical part and the tragedy. If one can't, one should avoid such conversations lest they imagine people are laughing at the tragic part rather than the comic part.



Arti, are you honestly suggesting that the people you discuss this with don't have the ability to see the irony? Isn't it at least possible that what they are telling you is that these jokes are in poor taste and that's all they are saying? You've already admitted that you think it's tacky. I don't see people saying much else than that.

[Ichneumonwasp]

OK, here's another story. Nobody died in this one and the reactions of the believers and the pastor are not straw men.

I did not laugh when I read this nor do I think loss or damage of property is funny.

The issue here is how believers will/could/do rationalize a just and loving God that would allow a church to burn down on Christmas day. Same as the OP.


I don't think anyone here argues that religionists don't say wacky ****. The only criticism is that discussing this when a girl dies so tragically is in poor taste. Why not concentrate on that church and the wacky things they actually said about it and let her rest in peace?

[plumjam]

18 pages. That`s some encore.

[articulett]

Arti, are you honestly suggesting that the people you discuss this with don't have the ability to see the irony? Isn't it at least possible that what they are telling you is that these jokes are in poor taste and that's all they are saying? You've already admitted that you think it's tacky. I don't see people saying much else than that.


I think it's fine to think it's tacky. I think a lot of people here are tacky. But that is not what they said. They accused others of laughing at the tragedy. Yes, I think they didn't see the irony-- specifically because they've learned to shield religion from scrutiny. I think they would have not made that error if people were goofing on the guy who died from horse sex even though it's much worse for his family should they run across the words. If it was a Scientology pageant recreating the birth of thetans or whatever, I don't think they'd be so quick to pretend Scientology played no role.

I think there is a meme which causes people to lose their sense of humor when it comes to faith, imagine evil intent in others, hear what wasn't said, and dismiss any of the ways that faith played a role. I think this thread just highlights that fact.

It doesn't take many words to say, "I don't see the humor" or "I find laughing at this tacky". Instead they accused people on this thread of laughing at death. That is a lie in my opinion meant to vilify others so that the speaker could feel "holier than thou".

You don't get this weirdness when the subject is other than religion--but with religion you can count on it, because even skeptics are often unwilling to imagine they have a bias which protects faith.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think it's fine to think it's tacky. I think a lot of people here are tacky. But that is not what they said. They accused others of laughing at the tragedy. Yes, I think they didn't see the irony-- specifically because they've learned to shield religion from scrutiny. I think they would have not made that error if people were goofing on the guy who died from horse sex even though it's much worse for his family should they run across the words. If it was a Scientology pageant recreating the birth of thetans or whatever, I don't think they'd be so quick to pretend Scientology played no role.

I think there is a meme which causes people to lose their sense of humor when it comes to faith, imagine evil intent in others, hear what wasn't said, and dismiss any of the ways that faith played a role. I think this thread just highlights that fact.

It doesn't take many words to say, "I don't see the humor" or "I find laughing at this tacky". Instead they accused people on this thread of laughing at death. That is a lie in my opinion meant to vilify others so that the speaker could feel "holier than thou".

You don't get this weirdness when the subject is other than religion--but with religion you can count on it, because even skeptics are often unwilling to imagine they have a bias which protects faith.


OK, I guess I read them differently, but I can't really answer for others.

[Pardalis]

I think it's fine to think it's tacky. I think a lot of people here are tacky. But that is not what they said. They accused others of laughing at the tragedy. Yes, I think they didn't see the irony-- specifically because they've learned to shield religion from scrutiny.

Again, no one is defending religion, that's solely in your head.

I think there is a meme which causes people to lose their sense of humor when it comes to faith, imagine evil intent in others, hear what wasn't said, and dismiss any of the ways that faith played a role. I think this thread just highlights that fact.
My only point is that I think faith played no role in what happened, I think it's a fair and reasoned point, but you have chosen to ignore it and be belligerent against your strawman of me instead.

It doesn't take many words to say, "I don't see the humor" or "I find laughing at this tacky". Instead they accused people on this thread of laughing at death. That is a lie in my opinion meant to vilify others so that the speaker could feel "holier than thou".
My first response to you in this thread:
I don't think what they beleive has anything to do with what ultimately happened. Everytime we jump on a airplane we are going against the law of gravity by stressing other laws like momentum and aerodynamics, and we think we can get away with it, until we crash. But the act of flying, the airplanes themselves (unless they are faulty) or the reason why we fly are not to blame.

I just find it a little unsettling that some have taken this local tragedy to make somekind of a point against religion. We Atheists can do better than that, there are better occasions to do that than here.

Often people say a good way to die is by doing something you love, and that's probably what this girl was doing right before she fell, so I wouldn't necessarily say she died "for no good reasons".

I think it speaks for itself. I did not make any accusations, I only expressed my opinion.

You don't get this weirdness when the subject is other than religion--but with religion you can count on it, because even skeptics are often unwilling to imagine they have a bias which protects faith.How many pages are you going to go on with this strawman, Christophera?

[Toke]

Whatever.

[Pardalis]

Whatever.

Great argument. Any more of these?