Actress Dies During Megachurch Nativity Performance

[Phase Inverter]

CINCINNATI — A spokeswoman at a Cincinnati megachurch says a Christmas pageant actor who fell about 25 feet during the show’s opening night performance has died.

Crossroads Community Church says 23-year-old Keri Shryock died this morning at University Hospital. A church spokeswoman says Shryock was a graduate student at Xavier University.

Shryock was playing the role of a wise man in a contemporary Nativity story and was suspended by an overhead cable when she fell Wednesday night. A spokeswoman for the church says it’s not clear how the accident happened.

The church says it has canceled the 10 remaining performance of the Christmas show.


I can imagine the rationalizations for this one:

From pro-Christmas denominations: It was Satan attempting to undermine our glorious celebration of the savior.

From traditional Christmas denominations: God was not pleased with a woman portraying the flying wise man and showed His disapproval.

From anti-Christmas denominations: Participating in pagan rituals such as Christmas is an abomination unto God. Fear His wrath.


Not to make light of this tragedy. It seems that this young woman's life was cut short for no good reason.

[Basilio]

Is this the church with the "Touchdown Jebuz" statue?

[Safe-Keeper]

Don't see how this is worthy of a thread, to be honest. OK, so someone put up a nativity play and there was a fatal accident. So?

[LibraryLady]

I've seen good discussions start with less.

[AngelicAtheist333]

Its always horrible to hear about death, even though its everywhere. D:
Poor girl.... And to know that her death is going to be inturpreted different than the very real tragedy it was, angers me. A person died! And granted everyone is going to think of it as they will, its still unfair for that girl and her family to have so much judgment pointed in their direction. :[ IMO....

[The Nimble Pianist]

I can imagine the rationalizations for this one:

From pro-Christmas denominations: It was Satan attempting to undermine our glorious celebration of the savior.

From traditional Christmas denominations: God was not pleased with a woman portraying the flying wise man and showed His disapproval.

From anti-Christmas denominations: Participating in pagan rituals such as Christmas is an abomination unto God. Fear His wrath.


Not to make light of this tragedy. It seems that this young woman's life was cut short for no good reason.

... and from the Megachurch's financial board: This is a sign from Jesus that we all need to start tithing more as to purchase better stage equipment.

[Mick Houlahan]

As a member of Actors' Equity I have to wonder if the church was following safety rules, or if ultrawealthy megachurches are exempt from such concerns.
I am assuming the latter, and assuming that the performer was a volunteer. (Not that that matters.)

"It's unclear how the accident happened?" Yes, I bet it is. Every year I watch the local Catholics winch terrified little girls across a gravel path about 15 feet up so they can celebrate some dead nun's feast, and every year I cringe at the antics of the raft of untrained boobs who have been put in charge of this inherently dangerous procedure. I dearly hope the church in Cincinnati is held accountable for this tragedy.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I can imagine the rationalizations for this one:

Did she fall into the manger directly? If not, where did you get all that straw?

[Roadtoad]

Just checked the website. They're already turning this into a witnessing tool.

I'd make the usual remark about the lack of shame, but it's almost too obvious.

[a_unique_person]

Every year I watch the local Catholics winch terrified little girls across a gravel path about 15 feet up so they can celebrate some dead nun's feast, and every year I cringe at the antics of the raft of untrained boobs who seem to be in charge of this dangerous procedure.

Whisky Tango Foxtrot. I was brought up a Catholic, but I never heard of that. What's supposed to be going on?

[The Nimble Pianist]

As a member of Actors' Equity I have to wonder if the church was following safety rules, or if ultrawealthy megachurches are exempt from such concerns.
I am assuming the latter, and assuming that the performer was a volunteer.


I don't see how churches would be exempt from following legal safety protocol. It is certainly possible though that the laymen operating the equipment weren't trained properly.

Either way, this is a sad story.

[Roadtoad]

No, the giant Jesus is at the Solid Rock Church. Same town, different megachurch.

It's still offensive.

[articulett]

Heck, if Jesus died for us...

[Mick Houlahan]

Whisky Tango Foxtrot. I was brought up a Catholic, but I never heard of that. What's supposed to be going on?

They dress them up like angels, stick them in a harness, hoist them onto a loop of rope between two pulleys and then "fly" 'em for the greater glory of God. With FSM as my witness, I swear. It's for the "Feast of Maria Santissima Lauretana." :eye-poppi

[Achán hiNidráne]

... and from the Megachurch's financial board: This is a sign from Jesus that we all need to start tithing more as to purchase better stage equipment.

Of course JEEZ-us' next miracle will be to transmogrify the money in the stage equipment account into the down payment for the mega-pastor's new Ferrari.

[westprog]

Don't see how this is worthy of a thread, to be honest. OK, so someone put up a nativity play and there was a fatal accident. So?

It's an opportunity to imagine what people who we disagree with might say about it, and to be appropriately offended.

"Keep your bloody lawnmower".

[Charlie Monoxide]

I always notice whenever there is a natural disaster (ie tornado, hurricane etc.) the media seems to focus on churches that were damaged or destroyed. I recall when I lived in Orlando, an innocent driver was killed by a stray bullet from a gang shootout. The local news kept adding that "he was on his way to church" (or maybe on his way back), as if this was somewhat relevent to the killing.

Every time I see these stories on newscasts, I mentally add the following closing line "do you not see the irony?"

Charlie (seeing the irony for years) Monoxide

[Aoidoi]

I'm intrigued by the idea of a flying wise man that's actually a woman. The crossdressing (or recasting) is funny due to biblical literalists, but I have to say the flying is truly baffling. Angels flying, sure. They got all the wings and pins to dance on and whatnot. But flying wise men? Is this the Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon of Christmas Pageants?

[articulett]

I have not heard of "flying wise men" either...

Flying nuns--yes; flying wise men--no.

[Roadtoad]

Well, except THIS wise man was wearing a cape and tights, appropriate to...

SUPER SAGE!!!

[Lucky]

Just checked the website. They're already turning this into a witnessing tool.

I'd make the usual remark about the lack of shame, but it's almost too obvious.
Really?

I checked their website and found this statement (http://www.crossroads.net/about/AwaitedStatement.htm).
At approximately 7:30 p.m. last night, Keri Shryock, 23, a member of the Crossroads community, Xavier University student and cast member from the Awaited Christmas show, fell from a suspended position during the performance. She was attended to by emergency medical personnel as quickly as possible, and was then transferred to University Hospital for medical care.

We are deeply saddened to report that Ms. Shryock passed away this morning. Our prayers and heartfelt sympathies go out to her family during this incredibly difficult time.

We are shocked and deeply grieved by this tragic accident, the cause of which is currently unknown.

As of this morning, we have decided to cancel all remaining Awaited shows as they are currently planned in order to provide everyone involved with space to continue in the grieving process. However, instead of the Awaited performance originally scheduled for this evening, we will have a time of prayer, reflection and worship at 7:00 p.m at Crossroads Oakley, 3500 Madison Road, Cincinnati, 45209.

In addition, beginning this morning at 9:00 a.m., trained counselors and individuals willing to pray with or for anyone who attended last night’s performance will be available in the CSM room at Crossroads Oakley. The Chapel is also open for private prayer.

We will provide any further information regarding additional services at Crossroads, if any, to the media and the general public via our website.

Seems appropriate - what's the problem?

[Roadtoad]

Talked to Peggy.

Yeah, I spoke too soon. Wrong.

Sorry... :boxedin:

[articulett]

Well, it's changed a bit...

This is what the link says now:

Keri Shryock, 23, a member of the Crossroads community, Xavier University student and cast member from the Awaited Christmas show, passed away this morning after a fall during last night’s performance. All remaining Awaited show performances have been cancelled out of respect for all involved, and to help facilitate the grieving and recovery process.

After prayerful consideration together with Keri’s parents today, we’ve made a decision about services at Crossroads between now and Christmas. Four special services this weekend—4 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturday, and 9:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. on Sunday—will be focused on helping to process this loss in our community in a more traditional weekend format. Services will be held at Crossroads Oakley only (3500 Madison Road, Cincinnati, 45209), and free childcare will be provided for kids from birth through fourth grade.

Ms. Shryock’s parents have encouraged us to continue with a Christmas experience, so that people would be able to hear the message of Jesus, as they believe would have been Keri’s desire.

According to Keri’s parents: “We support and encourage a Christmas program to continue, because that’s the way Keri would have wanted it.”

In accordance with the family’s wishes, we’ll have two Christmas Eve services featuring traditional Christmas music and a retelling of the Nativity story at 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Dec. 24 at Crossroads Oakley only. Parents are welcome to bring their children into this family-friendly service, as no childcare will be provided.

[Piscivore]

...I have to say the flying is truly baffling. Angels flying, sure. They got all the wings and pins to dance on and whatnot. But flying wise men? Is this the Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon of Christmas Pageants?

That was my first thought too.

[NotJesus]

No, the giant Jesus is at the Solid Rock Church. Same town, different megachurch.


That one looks more like "'Save me, I'm can't swim' Jesus." (http://images23.fotki.com/v826/photos/9/936387/3954306/20070311_001-vi.jpg)

Kind of odd for a guy who walks on water.

[Pardalis]

It seems that this young woman's life was cut short for no good reason.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "no good reasons"?

Her life was cut short because of gravity, and probably incompetence or faulty design, no more no less. It has very little to do with the nature of what they were doing, if you think religion is the reason of her death. I'm not usually one to defend people of religion, but in this case I really don't see the connection. Accidents happen all the time.

Did Brandon Lee die for no good reasons? Should we blame the movie industry and the act of filmmaking for his death?

Is there even a good reason to die?

[articulett]

Well, this death happened in a place where people believe god alters physics to save people. So the elephant in the room is why he let this girl die.

[articulett]

God gets the credit when people are spared, but never any blame. And I bet the church won't be getting the lawsuit that would have happened if this was part of school play.

[Aoidoi]

That one looks more like "'Save me, I'm can't swim' Jesus." (http://images23.fotki.com/v826/photos/9/936387/3954306/20070311_001-vi.jpg)

Kind of odd for a guy who walks on water.
It is difficult to learn to swim when you're always on top of the water.

[Toke]

Well, this death happened in a place where people believe god alters physics to save people. So the elephant in the room is why he let this girl die.

That should be obvius.
He was so impressed with her that he decided to bring her in early.

[articulett]

Cool. I wonder if she gets martyr bonus points and an extra sparkly halo.

[Lucky]

Well, it's changed a bit...

This is what the link says now:
...

Yes, it has changed (had been waiting to post for several hours; forum site inaccessible). But I can't see that the new version in any way supports Roadtoad's assertion that They're already turning this into a witnessing tool.

articulett: This is the tragic death of a young woman. It is very terrible. She was not killed by religion; she was killed by an accident, a fall, the laws of physics (and biology). If there was negligence then of course the church should not get away with it for reasons of religion (or any reason).

You've made a couple of wisecracks about this girl's death. We know at least that she has parents to mourn her - so not so funny.

Is that it from you? Anything?

[Pardalis]

Well, this death happened in a place where people believe god alters physics to save people.

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.

So the elephant in the room is why he let this girl die.

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".

[articulett]

I didn't say she was killed by religion-- you're hearing things that aren't there. And RoadToad already retracted. I was just pointing out that the message keeps changing... so who knows what he first read.

It's just predictable that's all... theists bend over backwards to praise god whenever they avoid dying and never blame god when someone dies. Theists also go out of their way not to notice the harms caused by faith. I'm not blaming religion... but these people believe in a magical entity that protects them... they were negligent...

I'm not the one hoisting people in the air and making them angels... I'm not the one talking out of both sides of my mouth... I"m not the one praising god for saving my family member in front of other people whose family member god didn't save.

I'm just enjoying the irony here on my skeptics forum among other skeptics. Perhaps this makes the tragedy slightly less of a tragedy... just like the parents imagining their daughter in heaven is likely to do for them.

Your tsk-tsking the wrong people. Go tsk-tsk the people who put on this pageant where they felt it was necessary to make people "fly". I work in a school as a teacher. If I'd had let my students fly like this, you can bet, I'd be sued and so would the school. Even if the actress was playing a "wise man".

[articulett]

You are hearing things that aren't there Pardalis and Lucky.

I'm not a person who would hoist an actress in the for a pageant... and if I did... I wouldn't act like it was a tragedy that I had nothing to do with...

And if I believed in a god I wouldn't be able to do the silly gymnastics it takes to credit god for all that is good and ignore all the instances where he seems oddly absent.

This is a skeptics forum... we can discuss this here without harming anyone. You are judging the wrong people... judge those who decided flying wise men were a good idea-- not the people commenting on it!

[articulett]

And if it was my kid, I'd feel like she died for no good reason.

I would consider this negligence.

I live in Vegas... there's all sorts of flying people in acts... it's not something to do on a whim for a church group who imagines themselves protected by a higher power.

And what do the parents think when other people-- like the person whose baby was saved in a car accident on another thread --praise god for saving their loved one? I think the way people run around praising god for good and looking away when it appears that he's absent is weird myself. But I tend to keep these comments to myself except when I air them here. And I don't appreciate the apologists tsk tsking me rather than the those who are responsible for this tragedy.

[Pardalis]

Your tsk-tsking the wrong people. Go tsk-tsk the people who put on this pageant where they felt it was necessary to make people "fly". I work in a school as a teacher. If I'd had let my students fly like this, you can bet, I'd be sued and so would the school. Even if the actress was playing a "wise man".

Not that I want to have an argument with you, but I think this paragraph betrays your attempt at rationalization.

You said these people were negligent, that's probably what's at fault in this case. But they weren't negligent because they were religious and wanted to make that girl fly, they were just negligent in the way they made her fly, they were negligent in their technique, not their intention.

Again, take my Brandon Lee comparison. The armourer was negligent when he installed the blanks in the gun that killed the young actor, but would you say that the movie studio was negligent in making a movie about a dead vigilante? Would you say we should stop making movies involving stunts altogether?

No, you wouldn't. Just think about it.

[articulett]

Sorry Pardalis you're twisting this to hear what isn't there.

If this happened at a school, the staff and school would be blamed.

I said nothing about stopping anything. You have a knee jerk defense of faith and this entail a need to hear evil intent on my part so you can ignore the negligence of this Church Group.

Like many theists and apologists, your judgment is misplaced.

[Pardalis]

Sorry Pardalis you're twisting this to hear what isn't there.

If this happened at a school, the staff and school would be blamed.

I said nothing about stopping anything. You have a knee jerk defense of faith and this entail a need to hear evil intent on my part so you can ignore the negligence of this Church Group.

Like many theists and apologists, your judgment is misplaced.

Again, it has nothing to do with the religious nature of the play, or the group. You're awfully quick to jump to the "apologist" accusation, you should tamper yourself, I am far from being an apologist.

What about Peter Pan school plays? There's nothing religious in Peter Pan. Or take this other example: I've seen clips of a Superman play in America's Funniest Home videos a few years ago, the boy was hanging from a very dubious system of loose wires and he didn't land very gracefully, to say the least. It was funny but it could also have been dangerous, if he had tipped over and fallen on his head. Again, no religious intention here either.

The school should be blamed for not making sure the wires and the pulley system was functioning properly, but it shouldn't be blamed for being a Christian church.

[articulett]

Nobody is blaming the fact that it's a Christian Church...
just noting the irony...

If god was going to perform one of his miracles, you'd think he'd do it in a pageant honoring him. You'd think the faithful would be the first people he'd save since they are the ones praising god on television for everything they imagine is a a miracle. Their god gets all the credit for that which is good... and none of the blame for tragedies which he theoretically could prevent per these peoples belief system.

It's just fascinating watching the cognitive dissonance. It's like people are trained to go after anyone who notices this wacky thing about faith. I'm not blaming Christianity... but I do think this nutty notion that "faith is good" make people give god credit for all that is good and blame everyone but that same god when bad things happen.

Even you are ready to blame me for my lack of faith as if my commentary was worse than the negligence of this church.

I am amused by this irony.

Faith is protected at all costs... and if you can't blame the atheist... find a way to denigrate them or fight a straw man version of what they actually said to take the focus off the negiligent parties and the god they believe in that failed to save a believer.

[articulett]

Had the girl lived... even if she was brain damaged... they'd be touting it as a miracle.

But if it happened in a school, the school district would be paying hugely and the teacher involved would lose their job and feel guilty the rest of their life.

[Piscivore]

Had the girl lived... even if she was brain damaged... they'd be touting it as a miracle.

Isn't there a word that describes the practice of making assumptions about what someone would do or think based soley upon the social or ethnic group to which they belong?

[Pardalis]

Nobody is blaming the fact that it's a Christian Church...
just noting the irony...

There is some irony, but you are not just noting it, if you really read your posts.

Faith is protected at all costs... and if you can't blame the atheist... find a way to denigrate them or fight a straw man version of what they actually said to take the focus off the negiligent parties and the god they believe in that failed to save a believer.Do you realize what you are doing here? You are contradicting yourself. You just said at the top of your post that you didn't blame the Christianity of the group, and then you say the exact opposite at the end of your post.

If you want to talk about negligence, then talk about negligence, but their negligence has nothing to do with their religion, unless it turns out it does: if it was shown that their religious fervor was a reason why they neglected to oversee the maintenance or the safety of the wiring system, then you would have a point.

But until then , there is no connection between the two. Again, I'm not trying to have an argument with you, but your anger seems to make you blind to my point. Calm down sister. :p

[articulett]

It's based on experience...
I remember the miner with the brain damage...

In fact, I bet I ca name lots of such "miracles"...
We were just talking about a so called miracle where a baby was saved on another thread.

Are you contending that they wouldn't have called it a miracle?

[Hokulele]

That one looks more like "'Save me, I'm can't swim' Jesus." (http://images23.fotki.com/v826/photos/9/936387/3954306/20070311_001-vi.jpg)

Kind of odd for a guy who walks on water.


I was thinking more along the lines of "No one mentioned the frickin' piranhas!" Jesus.


ETA: Whoops. This thread has moved on quite a bit. Sorry.

[articulett]

I'm not angry. Heck, I was rather jovial until the holier than thou came in to moralize and protect faith by hearing things that nobody said.

The church was negligent... but the OP wasn't about that.....
I think it was more about the irony. I was enjoying that irony with my fellow skeptics.

You heard this and extrapolated it to make me into the bad guy. The only "bad guy" here is the church's negligence. Not me.
I only mentioned the negligence when you decided to tsktsk me rather than the actual group that caused the harm!

My commentary harms no one-- it might even make people laugh. The church's negligence resulted in someone's death. You are tsk-tsking the wrong people so you can feel holier-than-thou in my opinion.

[Pardalis]

I'm not angry.

Damn, I wouldn't want to see you when you are angry... :boxedin:

One, the church was negligent... but the OP wasn't about that.....
I think it was more about the irony.
It seems the OP is about a big strawman, on how the religious people would spin this story before they even spun this story, which is a little gratuitous, and given the tragic circumstances, not very nice. As I said, there are better occasions to bash the religious, this is not one.

You heard one thing and extrapolated it to make me into the bad guy. The only "bad guy" here is the church's negligence. Not me.
I never said you were a bad guy. If you re-read our exchange, you will notice I 've kept saying I don't want to have an argument with you.

I only mentioned the negligence when you decided to tsk tsk me rather than the actual group that caused the harm!Again, you don't know that it was the group that caused the harm, let alone their religious nature. All we know is that the girl fell. We can only speculate that it was negligence.

It could also have been an "act of god". ;)

[Toke]

I wonder how the church will explain this.
Writing this off to negligence and then go on preaching miracles and gods helping hand in your everyday life will look a bit odd.

[articulett]

Come on pardalis... several of us here just commented on a thread where someone's baby was saved in an accident and people were praising Jesus.

When something good happens, it's god... but when something bad happens... it's due to lack of faith or "we mustn't question god" or "god needed another angel" etc.

In this way faith is shielded from scrutiny in a way that no other institution is. If these were Scientologists doing their Xenu skit... I would be giving similar commentary. It's the spin that fascinates me. God and faith always end up the winner-- and atheists end up getting some sort of blame just for making comments! On a skeptics forum, no less!

Every criticism against faith is seen as "hate speech"...religion is coddled in a way that no other superstition is. People hear what isn't there to protect it, it seems to me.

I think it's tragic for all the people involved... but I also think it's fascinating the way people need to spin this event so that faith and god doesn't get any blame at all... yet we all know he'd be getting the credit if the girl "miraculously" survived--even though the credit would rightly belong to the doctors.

I just think that some people cast judgment to readily on those who mock religion while bending over backwards to protect religion from any scrutiny. I'm not the one that should be judged here.

[Pardalis]

Fine, but aren't you pre-empting it a bit? For all we know, this even might spring a few deconversions...

OK, OK, call me an sad optimist.

I'm just saying, are we going to have this kind of discussions and wisecracks everytime a theist dies? Why this case in particular? It all seems childish in a way, it's like saying: "Nah nah, you died because you thought you could be an angel", or "Nah nah, your god didn't save you this time!". Why not save the ammunition when theists really do go too far (examples of that shouldn't be too hard to find)?

My initial problem was with the expression "for no good reasons", which seem to me to imply that the play itself was the reason for the death. In that case, alot of people die for no good reasons, people get killed by tractors for no good reasons, people get eaten by sharks for no good reasons. That's all I was saying.

[aggle-rithm]

This all reminds me very much of the Texas A&M bonfire tragedy almost a decade ago. You remember, that horrible accident that could never have been anticipated by anyone, except maybe the engineering professors that told the school's board of directors, in no uncertain terms, that as long as they continued to allow beer-swilling college students to undertake a major construction project every year, sooner or later someone was going to die?

That was similar in that the esprit de corp in Aggieland is very much like a religion, and they circled their wagons in much the same way as this church appears to be doing.

[articulett]

Yeah... maybe it's crass... but crassness is in the eye of the beholder....

Sometimes I find your commentary offensive and I expect that sometimes people will find my commentary offensive.

We aren't laughing at the death... just finding black humor in the irony. And I wasn't the one who said "no good reason". I think having guns around kids is more negligent than trying to make a 23 year old woman into a flying wise man...

But if the theists are going to be noticing the hits (or miracles) than, I think it's fair for skeptics to be tallying the misses as well.

How is it different than tallying Sylvia Browne's misses? I really don't think religious woo deserves any more respect than psychic woo. I think all magical thinking is worthy of mockery on my skeptics forum. I have to bite my tongue all day. Why should I have to do it here?

[articulett]

This all reminds me very much of the Texas A&M bonfire tragedy almost a decade ago. You remember, that horrible accident that could never have been anticipated by anyone, except maybe the engineering professors that told the school's board of directors, in no uncertain terms, that as long as they continued to allow beer-swilling college students to undertake a major construction project every year, sooner or later someone was going to die?

That was similar in that the esprit de corp in Aggieland is very much like a religion, and they circled their wagons in much the same way as this church appears to be doing.

Wow, was that a decade ago?

Time flies when you get old...

Yes, it's a similar kind of thing...

It also reminds me of how the "gun nuts" start attacking anyone who comments on a gun tragedy as though commenting on the negligence of having a loaded weapon around a kid is worse than allowing a kid to have access to a gun.

I also remember a thread here about a creationist tour guide where qayak asked, "who says religion isn't child abuse?" and he the apologists jumped all over him as though he was worse than the tour guide teaching kids to be "skeptical of science".

[Pardalis]

It also reminds me of how the "gun nuts" start attacking anyone who comments on a gun tragedy as though commenting on the negligence of having a loaded weapon around a kid is worse than allowing a kid to have access to a gun.

Articulett, again, hanging someone on a wire isn't intrinsically a religious activity. The death wasn't caused by religion, as far as we can tell. As I said earlier, this could have happened at a Peter Pan School play.

[articulett]

Articulett, again, hanging someone on a wire isn't intrinsically a religious activity. The death wasn't caused by religion, as far as we can tell. As I said earlier, this could have happened at a Peter Pan School play.

I know.

I never said it was.

Nor have I made that extrapolation. Why do you keep hearing that?

On the other hand, you could say--if not for that woman's faith, she would not have died that night.

You could also conclude that if it was the school play there'd be a much louder hullabaloo about who was negligent.

You could also bet that those making commentary here would not be subject to straw man accusations if some other superstitious group was involved in the negligence... Say a Yogi trying to help people get the sense of levitation...

[articulett]

My commentary was just that, to me, some people seem to judge those making commentary on a skeptics forum when the people they are commenting about are more "deserving" of the judgment.

There is NOTHING negligent about commenting here. In the tragedies mentioned... there appears to be some degree of negligence involved... it's the forseeableness that causes one to notice the irony and comment. I'm not the one engaging in negligence, covering for negligence, praising Jesus, or looking the other way when god "fails"... Nothing I've said is as worthy as criticism as those things are from my perspective. And yet some people have chosen to criticize me rather than those who cause harm to others.

[Pardalis]

On the other hand, you could say--if not for that woman's faith, she would not have died that night.

I don't know if you remember, but a few years ago there was a fire that killed alot of people in a bar that was hosting a heavy metal gig. The fire was ignited by the pyrotechnics. Would you say that these people died because of their love for heavy metal?

Why are you always on the defensive when I'm merely trying to make a point?

[articulett]

I don't think I'm defensive... I just don't agree with your point. I think your pyrotechnic question is a straw man. As are your extrapolations about what I said.

My words stand for themselves. Were you in that one fire where the band had pyrotechnics and the people died... because if so... I'd say the band was negligent... and I believe the courts thought so too. But if I made crass jokes about it on this forum would you imagine that I was blaming the heavy metal lovers or understand that it was a sort of gallows humor?-- If there was an ironical thing about that fire... would you imagine I was blaming the heavy metal lovers if I noted the irony?? Because that is what you've done here. That would be "fighting a straw man". My commentary is harmless... the fire wasn't.

I think that you are bent on hearing my words as an attack upon the faithful... just like your straw man tries to imagine that I'd be attacking lovers of "heavy metal". Nobody likes their position represented as a straw man. I think you're doing this unwittingly-- as is Piscivore because you've learned to protect faith from scrutiny. You do this by hearing what isn't there in the words of non believers and by ignoring any ways in which faith had anything to do with anything bad that happens. You exaggerate the evils of nonbelievers (or even make them up) while ignoring the more egregious acts of believers--

I think that tons of people do this unwittingly. If this was Sylvia Browne's church it would not happen... but people have learned to protect a certain brand of "faith" and when atheists treat it the way they'd treat other similar superstitions, people get defensive. I think you are defensive and missing the point... not me.

And yes, to me that's an "apologist". You need to make me the bad guy, though nothing I've said or done is on par with causing the death of someone by making them be a flying wise man.

[The Nimble Pianist]

It's just predictable that's all... theists bend over backwards to praise god whenever they avoid dying and never blame god when someone dies. Theists also go out of their way not to notice the harms caused by faith. I'm not blaming religion... but these people believe in a magical entity that protects them... they were negligent...

I believe it's statements such as the one in red that leads Pardalis to believe you are castigating the church simply for believing in God (Pardon me Pardalis if I misspoke).

I also don't want to misunderstand you Articulett. Are you implying that the church was negligent in their execution of special effects or for merely believing in an omnipotent being?

I'm not the one hoisting people in the air and making them angels... I'm not the one talking out of both sides of my mouth... I"m not the one praising god for saving my family member in front of other people whose family member god didn't save.

I haven't read anything about these church members praising God for anything let alone saving those who didn't fall.

I'm just enjoying the irony here on my skeptics forum among other skeptics. Perhaps this makes the tragedy slightly less of a tragedy... just like the parents imagining their daughter in heaven is likely to do for them.

Surely you don't mean what you type. Irony really makes a death less tragic?

Your tsk-tsking the wrong people. Go tsk-tsk the people who put on this pageant where they felt it was necessary to make people "fly". I work in a school as a teacher. If I'd had let my students fly like this, you can bet, I'd be sued and so would the school. Even if the actress was playing a "wise man".

Who knows, the parents may still ultimately sue the church (as is their prerogative). As far as 'tsk-tsk[ing]' someone, I doubt that's appropriate. There's no reason to believe that this was anything more than an unfortunate accident due to mechanical negligence (or failure). I can't see how belief in a deity somehow serves as a malicious act worthy of moral reprimand in this case.

[articulett]

I believe it's statements such as the one in red that leads Pardalis to believe you are castigating the church simply for believing in God (Pardon me Pardalis if I misspoke).

I also don't want to misunderstand you Articulett. Are you implying that the church was negligent in their execution of special effects or for merely believing in an omnipotent being?



I haven't read anything about these church members praising God for anything let alone saving those who didn't fall.



Surely you don't mean what you type. Irony really makes a death less tragic?



Who knows, the parents may still ultimately sue the church (as is their prerogative). As far as 'tsk-tsk[ing]' someone, I doubt that's appropriate. There's no reason to believe that this was anything more than an unfortunate accident due to mechanical negligence (or failure). I can't see how belief in a deity somehow serves as a malicious act worthy of moral reprimand in this case.

Then it's a good thing that nobody is morally reprimanding these people. Yet you imagine they are.

This was a thread that I didn't start... that most people who joined in noted the irony... it was in the OP. I only noted the negligence when the "do gooders" came in to tsk-tsk those noting the irony. But I think you guys do that to feel good about yourselves... you've learned to "protect faith" without even thinking. If it was any other woo and there was a similar thread, you wouldn't be imagining intent and motives that weren't there.

Yeah, it's a tragedy. But had the girl lived-- people would be praising god... when she died, no god is mentioned. Either a god prevents deaths or he doesn't. See. That's the irony we can come to count on whenever there's a tragedy involving theists... or a near miss. God always wins. Anyone who comments on this "noticing the hits" will be judged harsher than any faith based party that was actually more involved in the bad stuff.

Just like anyone who commented on the kid who shot himself with a machine gun at a gunshow got attacked by the gun nutters who somehow think that commentary against the adults allowing a kids to have access to guns is worse than letting kids have access to guns!

You are hearing things that I did not say to feel morally superior about your judgment. That is called "fighting a straw man". It's easy to win an argument no one ever made.

I'm tired of trying to explain myself to people who seem to have a vested interest in mishearing me so as to shield faith from any scrutiny. You guys are judging the wrong people. I trust that those I want to communicate with understood me the first time. I don't think that you are going to be able to understand me if you haven't yet... I think you need me to be bad or wrong in order to protect "faith" or whatever it is you imagine you are doing.

I know you consider it the "high road"-- but I consider it an ego game for you to feel better about yourselves without having to actually further understanding in any way. I guess I find you as worthy of "judgment" on this thread as you have found me. I will not argue a position that you IMAGINE I hold.

And yes... black humor (see M*A*S*H) does make tragedy less tragic. For lots of people anyhow. No one is stopping you from feeling whatever you feel.

The church is negligent in their special effects... the irony is well understood by many on this forum and through many threads. God gets the credit when all goes well, but no one mentions his supposed powers when tragedy strikes. It makes god seem like he hands out miracles willy nilly. And that's sort of "silly". It's Ironic.

You imagine me "reprimanding others" as you are reprimanding me.

That's ironic too. But I don't think that those creating the irony are likely to understand it or appreciate it like I do.

[Marquis de Carabas]

This was a thread that I didn't start... that most people who joined in noted the irony... it was in the OP.
Re-read the OP. The simple irony you note is not what the OP proposes. Rather, it imagines that Christians will have one of three responses: one that Satan did it, and two that God actively destroyed the woman.

The altogether more likely view that most will simply fail to blame God for refusing to act to save her is entirely absent from the OP.

[Toke]

The altogether more likely view that most will simply fail to blame God for refusing to act to save her is entirely absent from the OP.

Yes, we got a flawed OP.

[articulett]

Right... but it's a take off on another thread -- actually several...

On one thread a baby fell out of a car and lived, and it was declared a miracle (though the grandmother was injured in the accident.)

I think all the first posts understood the thread as I did.

The "irony" is that faith is always the good guy and never the bad guy...

On 9-11... the hijackers believed that god answered their prayers... but the voice recordings showed the passengers were praying to land safely. God doesn't get the blame for them crashing.

Noting this irony is not blaming believers... it's noting how faith twists the way people perceive events and "good guys" and "bad guys".

Faith has a way of escaping all blame... and yet faith WAS to blame for 9-11... and the all powerful god didn't save the passengers...

Death and tragedy and coincidence is always spun so that god gets all credit but no blame-- ever. Faith is seen as "moving mountains" but never destroying trade centers.

People have a very strong bias to see things this way and they are very unaware of it. I like expressing myself here amongst people who are aware of it. Most forum members seem to "get it".

Others seem to have a biased need to protect faith that they are unwilling to even examine. But not all faith-- not Scientology or Sylvia Browne's woo-- just Christianity. It gets special coddling even from many skeptics... who are unaware that they are treating it differently than they'd treat other woo.

They often do this by imagining ill intent in nonbelievers and ignoring faiths role in any tragedy or gods complete absence in preventing it. Their miracles are "noticing the hits"-- and they learn never to associate tragedies with the omnipotent miracle working god-- to keep the faith.

Sure, faith doesn't make people deserving of tragedy... and it's not really to blame for this death-- but the negligence of the faithful in this incident is more worthy of reprimand and judgement.than anything anyone on this thread has said.

Understanding that is the key to preventing this stuff in the future... knocking down those commenting on such is not.

[The Nimble Pianist]

Then it's a good thing that nobody is morally reprimanding these people. Yet you imagine they are.

No. The post of yours that I quoted (specifically the part I copied in red font) implies that you were reprimanding these people based on their belief rather than action. Due to your extensive use of the ellipsis I understood "they believed God would save her" and "they were negligent" as complimentary statements. I thought it better that I ask you what you meant to make sure I understood correctly than to assume and argue. No need to get defensive dear. :)

[The Nimble Pianist]

Articulett:

You say the OP is a take off on another thread.

I don't frequent these fora much, so I'm not sure which one you're speaking of. What's the name?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Right... but it's a take off on another thread -- actually several...
Which is part of the problem, really. You mentioned earlier "tallying the misses', which I agree is something we shouldn't feel constrained from doing, but at the same time it is worth it to ask why are we doing it?

The fact is most readers of these boards, and this section in particular, already recognise that God gets credit for lots of good stuff and no bad stuff. Piling on thread after thread to keep making the point is preaching to the choir, and it looks like petty ridicule, even if no individual intends it that way.

Even then, at least most such threads wait to get started until after some Christian (or other believer, as pertinent to the particular incident) has said something stupid we can attack. Lacking any such rationalisation to begin with, Phase just created his own ridiculous ones*. Just as much as we should not exempt Christianity from our attacks on woo, we should not exempt skeptics from our disdain for strawmen.

*In fairness, it's quite likely that someone, somewhere will offer at least one of his proposed thoughts. None of them are likely to be widespread reaction, though.

[articulett]

This thread... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130833&highlight=hell

But we discuss this and goof on it all the time here...

And, as you see, it's also common for people to hear what isn't there.

It's hard not to get defensive when people are bent on arguing things that you never said. Some people are known for doing so. Generally I keep them on ignore. Some people only do it when it their defenses are raised to protect some brands of "faith" I think. I know they wouldn't respond the same if the woo involved was Scientology or Islam or Some other religious woo.

You cannot criticize faith in any way without people hearing it as an attack on the faithful. But I don't think there's any reason to protect religious woo any more than any other superstition. And this wasn't really a criticism of faith... it was a comment on the way people spin events so that god always gets credit, but never gets blame--

Moreover, no matter how mild the atheist commentary--someone will hear it as strident or militant--not because it is... but because they have learned to protect faith... to go along with the idea that the emperor is wearing clothes...or at least that it's good to pretend that he is.

[articulett]

I don't know if the OP was a straw man... I think seeing me as reprimanding the faithful or insinuating that the faithful deserve this is more of a straw man. This is more of one of those ironical things... like a pastor getting struck by lightening.

At least it is to me. I think it's actually horrible. But the only way for the parents to deal with this tragedy is to believe their beliefs further. And yet, their beliefs encourage the same kind of commentary the believers (in the thread I just linked) where god is praised for all miracles-- which is rubbing salt in their wounds. Their prayers weren't answered. Their daughter died this morning. I'm sure they prayed all night that she wouldn't.
Isn't the weirdness of that comment-worthy on a skeptics forum?

And the parents are in a weird position now because they would be made to feel guilty if they held the church to be negligent. And, yet, if it was a school, they'd be able to be angry and file a suit.

The other side of the irony is that they are supposed to be "happy" that their daughter is in paradise (just as the 9-11 hijacker parents were.) Right? Life is about "getting to heaven" according to their religion.

I don't think that goofing on the irony or engaging in gallows humor is more reprimand worthy than whatever negligence and so forth was involved in making flying wise men for this churches Christmas extravaganza. It was a preventable accident... and if people don't see that, then how will they learn from it? And so many things surrounding the story are just bizarre and as nonsensical as religion itself.

It reminds me of this incident... http://jonathanturley.org/2008/11/17/utah-high-school-student-dies-after-being-shot-with-blank-prop-gun/

Commenting that it was negligent to let the kid have access to a real gun is not as bad as letting the kid have access to a real gun.

And yet some people would find the former more worthy of a scolding. This thread reminds me of such a case. It might have been a poorly worded OP. But nothing in the OP should generate worse criticism than the actual events that were being commented upon. IMO

Aren't those commenting on the commenter less likely to learn from their mistakes...don't they sound like they are making the same excuses that the negligent people in the story would make?

I agree that the OP was open to misinterpretation... as were my words... but I think any time you criticize religion (or the omnipresence of weaponry) you always get such a reaction-- no matter how careful you are. The same with the Bonfire thing mentioned earlier. It seems that people would rather place the blame on the messenger rather than hear the message to me.

People who have strong biases or defensive reactions when it comes to religion or guns are often unaware of their biases and they imagine defensiveness in others while being blind to their own defensiveness and the straw men they generate which causes a defensive response.

Nobody likes it when people attack them for a position they don't hold. I feel like that was done to me on this thread.

(and my ellipses were more of a list... a continuation of "factors" like this-- not a connection as though one caused the other, but I can see how you'd misinterpret it. try it again, xixx)

[Pardalis]

The "irony" is that faith is always the good guy and never the bad guy...

Again, faith in this case is not the bad guy, nor is it the good guy. There is simply no reason to believe faith or religion has anything to do with what happened. That is my whole point.

People have a very strong bias to see things this way and they are very unaware of it. I like expressing myself here amongst people who are aware of it. Most forum members seem to "get it".

Others seem to have a biased need to protect faith that they are unwilling to even examine. It's funny that you've kept accusing me of using strawmen, which in fact weren't strawmen (like the heavy metal fire), but really comparisons to illustrate mypoint, but you keep using that old strawman of saying I apologize and "protect faith". I don't. I don' tcare for religion one way or the other. I just don't think it's at issue in this case. You are unwilling to understand my point.

You are talking about two different things, the first being that religious people have a double standard, that they can see miracles when someone survives a tragedy, and don't see the contradiction that god didn't do anything when tragedy causes deaths.

When you say things like:

They often do this by imagining ill intent in nonbelievers and ignoring faiths role in any tragedy or gods complete absence in preventing it. Their miracles are "noticing the hits"-- and they learn never to associate tragedies with the omnipotent miracle working god-- to keep the faith.I totally agree with that point. It's the other point you are making I disagree with:

When you say if not for that woman's faith, she would not have died that night., or though nothing I've said or done is on par with causing the death of someone by making them be a flying wise manYou are implying that religion is the cause of the girl's death, which it is not necessarily so. It doesnt follow.

That's not a strawman, that's exactly what you are saying.

Sure, faith doesn't make people deserving of tragedy... and it's not really to blame for this death-- but the negligence of the faithful in this incident is more worthy of reprimand and judgement.than anything anyone on this thread has said. Again, and again I keep telling you the fact that these particular people are religious has nothing to do with their negligence. They are negligent because they are negligent, religion has nothing to do with it (unless proven so). Heck, we are not even sure negligence is involved.

The same thing could have happened at a Peter Pan school play, and neither the story of Peter Pan, J.M. Barrie nor the entire kids' fantasy literature would be to blame.

Again, that's not a strawman, that's a comparison I'm using to illustrate my point.

Please understand.
Understanding that is the key to preventing this stuff in the future... knocking down those commenting on such is not.Please tell me how such tragedies could be prevented? If there is one thing you must answer in my post this is it.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Nobody likes it when people attack them for a position they don't hold.

Which is why I called the OP straw.

Seriously, how many Christians do you think hold one of the following positions in regard to this incident?

It was Satan attempting to undermine our glorious celebration of the savior.
God was not pleased with a woman portraying the flying wise man and showed His disapproval.
Participating in pagan rituals such as Christmas is an abomination unto God. Fear His wrath.

Not very bloody many, I imagine, particularly the last two. And the last two are interesting inclusions because they actually go directly against the irony that you interpret from the story, the idea that God gets credit for good stuff but not blame for bad. They are blaming God for it. But "they" in this case is not any actual Christian. It is a piece of straw.

[Roadtoad]

It also reminds me of how the "gun nuts" start attacking anyone who comments on a gun tragedy as though commenting on the negligence of having a loaded weapon around a kid is worse than allowing a kid to have access to a gun.

*Ahem*

Speaking as a "gun nut," I'm one of those who thinks that anyone who leaves a gun out in the open where a kid can get to it is not merely an idiot, but borders on being a criminal, whether it's loaded or not. I'm of the opinion that the dope who leaves his gun in the open, resulting in the death of a child, ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[Pardalis]

Who knows, the parents may still ultimately sue the church (as is their prerogative). As far as 'tsk-tsk[ing]' someone, I doubt that's appropriate. There's no reason to believe that this was anything more than an unfortunate accident due to mechanical negligence (or failure). I can't see how belief in a deity somehow serves as a malicious act worthy of moral reprimand in this case.

Thank you for understanding exactly what I've been killing myself trying to make Articulett understand.

[Roadtoad]

BTW: I got what Articulett was saying from the outset. How come so few others did?

[articulett]

Amateur shouldn't be flying people around for church extravaganzas.

But that's enough of my commentary with you on this topic. I feel like you need to find fault with my words while bending over backwards not to tie this in with religion in any way.

Yet, the church's negligence is more responsible for this tragedy than anything anyone here has said... and your tsk-tsking doesn't change that... nor does it put you on a "higher ground" morally. You are just acting like flying accidents are not preventable. They are. That's why a school would be sued if they this identical thing happened and no one would be bad mouthing those who noted their negligence.

My original comments were on irony. My noting that the church was more to blame than anything I said came after the critics decided to criticize the wrong people IMO.

And now I'm done with this topic. I just hate getting drawn into fake arguments about straw man positions I do not hold with people I see as "apologists" or "gun nutters." It makes me dislike such people probably much more even than they dislike me. I imagine that people that the church people who were negligent sound identical to the apologists, and I know it wouldn't fly if I as a teacher tried to make the same sort of smoke and mirrors argument.

But I wouldn't. If my negligence caused a persons death, I suspect I'd feel like killing myself-- not pretending like it was unforseeable or "god's will".

[Pardalis]

Which is why I called the OP straw.

It is straw simply because it assumes comments that haven't even been made yet.

I'm all for bashing the religious when they say stupid things, but at least let them say it!

[Pardalis]

Amateur shouldn't be flying people around for church extravaganzas.

So your problem is with amateurism, not religion. Good. You've finally understood my point.

[Marquis de Carabas]

It is straw simply because it assumes comments that haven't even been made yet.

I'm all for bashing the religious when they say stupid things, but at least let them say it!
Precisely.

[articulett]

*Ahem*

Speaking as a "gun nut," I'm one of those who thinks that anyone who leaves a gun out in the open where a kid can get to it is not merely an idiot, but borders on being a criminal, whether it's loaded or not. I'm of the opinion that the dope who leaves his gun in the open, resulting in the death of a child, ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Thanks... I don't consider you a gun nut. There was a thread about an 8 year old kid who shot himself with an Uzi he was allowed to fire at a gun show (recoil)... a "gun nut" asked what I would have done to prevent it. To me it's obvious-- don't let 8 year olds fire machine guns! But I was derided more than the adults in the scenario who allowed exactly that!

And then my stomach turns, because I know the kids father and the Police chief running the gun show would make the same kind of argument. It's like they want to believe such things are "unpreventable"---when they are completely preventable.

I'd feel the same way if the church was mounting a production of Peter Pan. Making people "fly" is something for professionals--not church groups.

But that was never my original point-- it was the irony.

On the gun thread it was the horror at someone thinking it was a good idea to let an 8 year old fire an Uzi.

I get annoyed when I am treated worse than the people whose negligence caused a death.

[articulett]

So your problem is with amateurism, not religion. Good. You've finally understood my point.

Duh. Your point was straw man.

My original commentary was all about the irony.... it was only when you and piscivore decided to tsk-tsk me that I noted that others were much more worthy of tsk---in this tsking than me.

Namely the negligent party--in this case, the church!

The only commentary I have made about the faithful is the spinning they need to do to keep their faith and to ever prop up their faith. In fact, this whole Christmas extravaganza was about doing so... and now the parents are forced to play along even further with the spin of it all.

[Pardalis]

I get annoyed when I am treated worse than the people whose negligence caused a death.

Articulett, please be reasonable, haven't I been cordial from the beginning? I've never said anything wrong about you personally, while you have kept accusing me of being an apologist, which I am not.

Also, as xixxvmcm85 has noted earlier, there's really no indication that negligence is what cause the accident (even though in these sorts of incident it is usually the cause) this is only a speculation. It could be mechanical failure, or a break that no one could have foreseen, or done anything to prevent.

If negligence is found to be the cause, of course the people responsible should be reprimanded. Whether they are religious or not is beyond the point.

[articulett]

Precisely.

True, they haven't made the comments... but do you really expect them to say-- "Gee, God didn't answer our prayers?"

"Gee, our miracle worker didn't give us a miracle".

Maybe it's hasty--but theists are very predictable when it comes to tragedy and aversion of tragedy.

I think we can safely assume that no matter what is said-- god and faith will come out smelling like a rose-- meanwhile all those who note as much will be maligned worse than those who actually share more of the blame.

God gets credit for all that is good but his powers aren't mentioned when he "fails" to use them-- nothing having to do with god or faith or religion must ever be criticized or scrutinized or connected with a tragedy in any way. We've all learned to pretend to believe that the emperor is wearing clothes.

[articulett]

Articulett, please be reasonable, haven't I been cordial from the beginning? I've never said anything wrong about you personally, while you have kept accusing me of being an apologist, which I am not.

Also, as xixxvmcm85 has noted earlier, there's really no indication that negligence is what cause the accident (even though in these sorts of incident it is usually the cause) this is only a speculation. It could be mechanical failure, or a break that no one could have foreseen, or done anything to prevent.

If negligence is found to be the cause, of course the people responsible should be reprimanded. Whether they are religious or not is beyond the point.

Yes, but if it was a school, they would be sued. Period. It would not be seen as "unforseeable" and all schools would suddenly be made super aware so as to prevent such an event in the future.

It's not about your manners--it was your straw man. You heard me blaming the faithful for the tragedy. I didn't. My comment was on the irony. My tying the church to the tragedy came only after you wanted to vilify me for my comments on the irony. The churches actions are worse than anything anyone here said. And attacking people here, covers for that. If it was a school tragedy, then we all know you would see it differently.

Your straw man involving the fire showed your obvious bias. Why would anyone blame people for liking heavy metal music? And yet you imagined me as having done the equivalent here. When my posts were about the irony... and I only later mentioned that negligence when you and Piscivore tried to make me into a bad guy. Your judgment is on the wrong person. I wasn't the one who made a straw man, pretended that faith had nothing to do with it, nor was I negligent... nor do I pretend that nothing can be learned from this to prevent such things in the future.

You attempted to make me look bad so you could imagine yourself as taking some moral high ground. But I don't see you or Piscivore as taking the moral high ground. To me, you imagined motives I did not have and mitigated the role of the church group responsible for flying wise men.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I think we can safely assume that no matter what is said-- god and faith will come out smelling like a rose...
I think you're right, but go back and read the OP. Not only is it putting words in people's mouths. It's putting words that they are very unlikely to say themselves. The OP is not speculating, as you and I are, that they would duck any responsibility of God's. The OP is specualting that they will blame God directly for doing this. It is the complete opposite of what you are suggesting.

[articulett]

Which is why I called the OP straw.

Seriously, how many Christians do you think hold one of the following positions in regard to this incident?

It was Satan attempting to undermine our glorious celebration of the savior.
God was not pleased with a woman portraying the flying wise man and showed His disapproval.
Participating in pagan rituals such as Christmas is an abomination unto God. Fear His wrath.

Not very bloody many, I imagine, particularly the last two. And the last two are interesting inclusions because they actually go directly against the irony that you interpret from the story, the idea that God gets credit for good stuff but not blame for bad. They are blaming God for it. But "they" in this case is not any actual Christian. It is a piece of straw.

I'm sure Phelps will... but I'm also sure that each religion will interpret it so that their faith comes out looking grand and their god's failure to "prevent" this tragedy will be ignored.

Let's just say, I interpret the OP differently than you. It wasn't literal... it was a comment on how religionists spin the events in their life due to their viewing things through faith.

You can always explain an event through magic... you can always make your god look like the good guy and/or lack of faith the bad guy.

If some primal religionists thought you brought them misfortune and they killed you... and they didn't have that particular misfortune... they'd think their killing you worked... If they had more misfortune, they'd look for who else needed killing.

That's how confirmation bias works. The OP was a commentary on that kind of bias. No more; no less. And none of the commentary here is worse than those exhibiting that bias. None of it deserves judgment more than the bias being commented on. IMO

[articulett]

I think you're right, but go back and read the OP. Not only is it putting words in people's mouths. It's putting words that they are very unlikely to say themselves. The OP is not speculating, as you and I are, that they would duck any responsibility of God's. The OP is specualting that they will blame God directly for doing this. It is the complete opposite of what you are suggesting.

Yes, I see how you are reading it. I don't see it that way. When you believe in gods and demons then you spin everything so that it's all attributed to gods and demons. I think the OP was just a goof on the irony of someone dying in a Christmas play... and the weird way theists have of spinning things through their own indoctrination.

But I can see why you think otherwise. I can see that words are open to interpretation. I just think that no matter how you criticize or comment on theistic irony or bias-- someone is going to find fault or hear what isn't there or imagine motives you do not have. Someone here will always derail the thread to criticize the commenter while ignoring the more egregious behavior of what is being commented on.

Then the commenter gets defensive because they've been accused of having motives they don't have... but the more they try to explain, the more Clausian in gets... I just have no more patience for it.

I just make a mental note "this person is an apologist" and I learn not to read them in these kinds of threads. Some people I can ignore because they are always tossing straw men... but others only when it comes to religion--the protected woo.

They think I attack religion unfairly and I think they're apologists. That's fair. I don't like trying to re-explain myself over and over to someone who isn't really capable of understanding.

I agree... none of those religionists probably hold the views of the OP... but it was exaggeration for humor or irony I think....just like in the other thread I linked. It's just that some people are a little more touchy than they realize and lose their sense of humor when it comes to certain kinds of woo. At least that is how it appears to me.

In any case, I'm glad Road Toad understood. I understand how you could perceive it the way you did too. I just understood the OP differently. And I ended up resenting those who attributed motives or meaning to my words that are not mine.

[articulett]

And I think when the OP says she died for nothing it means she died in an effort to honor a god that doesn't exist. She was doing something for a god who didn't (or can't) do anything for her. And that's tragic... but ironically so.

It's gallows humor like the Darwin awards. You don't blame anyone, but it just highlights the doublethink of religion... and we can't talk about that in real life because people are so ready to take offense. But here we can.

[Pardalis]

They think I attack religion unfairly

[...]

I agree... none of those religionists probably hold the views of the OP...

So you were being unfair, regardless of the "I was just making a joke" cop-out?

And I ended up resenting those who attributed motives or meaning to my words that are not mine.Tell me then, what exactly did you mean by this:

if not for that woman's faith, she would not have died that night.To me, this means you are directly making a causation between her death and her belief. If that is not the case, then explain what you meant.

If someone had died the same way as the girl but in a Peter Pan play, would you have said : if not for that boy's appreciation of the Peter Pan story, he would not have died that night?

The same thing goes for my heavy metal analogy. Would you say: if not for these people's love for heavy metal, they would not have died that night?

Again, these are not a strawmen.

I'm just trying to illustrate that you have a bias, that the fact that this woman was a believer makes her death different to you, because you wouldn't be saying the same thing in the other situations.

[bokonon]

Cool. I wonder if she gets martyr bonus points and an extra sparkly halo.


articulett: You've made a couple of wisecracks about this girl's death. We know at least that she has parents to mourn her - so not so funny.

I'm just enjoying the irony here on my skeptics forum among other skeptics.

I was rather jovial until the holier than thou came in to moralize and protect faith by hearing things that nobody said.

The only "bad guy" here is the church's negligence. Not me.
There are two "bad guys" here. The church's negligence, and your "jovial enjoyment" of the circumstances of a young woman's death.

It seems the OP is about a big strawman, on how the religious people would spin this story before they even spun this story, which is a little gratuitous, and given the tragic circumstances, not very nice.
Exactly.

I think you guys do that to feel good about yourselves... you've learned to "protect faith" without even thinking.

You are hearing things that I did not say to feel morally superior about your judgment.
I heard what you said. "I wonder if she gets martyr bonus points and an extra sparkly halo." It was beyond crass.


If my negligence caused a persons death, I suspect I'd feel like killing myself-- not pretending like it was unforseeable or "god's will".

With the few facts we have available, I suspect I know what happened. The harness which was used to hoist the girl was either not designed for someone so small, or was not fitted properly when used for someone her size, and she slipped out of it.

I'm sure the people involved are devastated, and will continue to feel guilt and sorrow for the rest of their lives.

Your assumption that the believers in that church are somehow less human than you is typical of the kind of demonizing for which you're known. No one at the church has said it was "unforeseeable" or "god's will," these are just words you're putting in their mouths.

It is straw simply because it assumes comments that haven't even been made yet.

I'm all for bashing the religious when they say stupid things, but at least let them say it!

I don't think that those creating the irony are likely to understand it or appreciate it like I do.

I'd make the usual remark about the lack of shame, but it's almost too obvious.

[articulett]

I meant what I said.

And our joking causes no harm. This is a skeptics forum where like minds can joke. It certainly is not worse than theists giggling at imagining atheist in hell.

And... it is true... if not for her religious views she would not have died that night. That is not to say her religious views are to blame for her death... but they played a role in her death. Quit pretending there is no relation whatsoever.

To me, those who tsk tsk people on a skeptics forum are hypocrites in a way. They are bending over backwards to protect religious faith and are unaware of their biases. Everyone here knows that they would not do that if it was an ironical death regarding Scientologists. We make these kinds of jokes all the time about all sorts of woo... but the apologists only hear more than what is there when it comes to religious woo. And to me, I find such people far more judgment worthy than they find me.

The bad guys are those who are blind to their own biases and prejudices... to me. Nothing the others on this thread. I know you think you are taking the moral highground... all people defending faith do. But to me, you are just furthering a bias that you you refuse to acknowledge you have.

I prefer to read people like Roadtoad and the OP and the humorous people on this thread-- I think the apologists cause further this "faith is good; atheism is bad" bias while being totally unaware that they are doing so. They cannot see how they shield Christianity from scrutiny in a way they'd never do for any other woo. I find it interesting, but to me you guys are chastizing the wrong folks all so you can feel better about yourselves. You may agree with each other, but I prefer reading those you tsk-tsk. Your opinion of the situation is just your opinion. You've only made your case in your head.

You seem a little confused about what causes harm and suffering to others and what doesn't. Negligence and prejudices cause harm. Being silly or noting the irony on a skeptics forum does not. And it's one of the few places where we can express such sentiments out loud. It's a shame that the apologists feel a moral directive to weigh in as they imagine that they are furthering some sort of postive message rather than their own hypocritical biases.

You are finding fault in the wrong people folks. IMO

[Pardalis]

It certainly is not worse than theists giggling at imagining atheist in hell.

Sinking to their level is OK with you?

And... it is true... if not for her religious views she would not have died that night. That is not to say her religious views are to blame for her death... but they played a role in her death. Quit pretending there is no relation whatsoever.
Absolutely not true.

Again, you wouldn't be saying the same thing for the Peter Pan play accident, or the heavy metal concert fire.

To me, those who tsk tsk people on a skeptics forum are hypocrites in a way. They are bending over backwards to protect religious faith and are unaware of their biases. [...]
I think the apologists cause further this "faith is good; atheism is bad" bias while being totally unaware that they are doing so. Complete and utter strawman.

Care to provide a quote where I've done that?

You seem a little confused about what causes harm and suffering to others and what doesn't. Negligence and prejudices cause harm.Since we've already established that the negligence wasn't caused by religion (so we can dismiss that out of the way), then what was the religious prejudice in this case that caused harm?

[CFLarsen]

When was skepticism ever about singling out the "wrong people"?

[bokonon]

I meant what I said.
I thought you might have.

And our joking causes no harm. This is a skeptics forum where like minds can joke. It certainly is not worse than theists giggling at imagining atheist in hell.
And no better.

The bad guys are those who are blind to their own biases and prejudices.
Like the kind of prejudice that assumes churchgoers merely rationalize rather than feeling guilt and grief?

I prefer to read people like Roadtoad and the OP and the humorous people on this thread
Confirmation bias, much?

You seem a little confused about what causes harm and suffering to others and what doesn't.
Mmm hmm. Making jokes about a young woman's death causes no harm or suffering.

Negligence and prejudices cause harm.
Like the prejudice that assumes believers in Christianity or Scientology are less human than you?

Confirmation bias, prejudice, irony, no shame, rationalizing, more irony.

Classic articulett.

[Piscivore]

And our joking causes no harm. This is a skeptics forum where like minds can joke.
My commentary harms no one-- it might even make people laugh.
Is anybody laughing?

[thaiboxerken]

Is anybody laughing?

I am. I find it ironically hilarious that a person dies while performing a tribute to a god who supposedly protects those of faith.

[Piscivore]

I am. I find it ironically hilarious that a person dies while performing a tribute to a god who supposedly protects those of faith.

I see. And upon what is that supposition based? I've been a Christian, I've spoken to many Christians, and I've read the Bible many times- and I've never found any verse that promises god will "protect" you from dying in this world. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Toke]

Is anybody laughing?

Yes, see above, if you have a problem with that, that is your problem.

[Phase Inverter]

Let's just say, I interpret the OP differently than you. It wasn't literal... it was a comment on how religionists spin the events in their life due to their viewing things through faith.


Your interpretation is correct. That is what I intended.


Which is why I called the OP straw.

Seriously, how many Christians do you think hold one of the following positions in regard to this incident?

It was Satan attempting to undermine our glorious celebration of the savior.
God was not pleased with a woman portraying the flying wise man and showed His disapproval.
Participating in pagan rituals such as Christmas is an abomination unto God. Fear His wrath.


The OP says "I can imagine the rationalizations." Is it a complete straw man? I don't think so. I myself held the last position above at one time. The Bible says:

"He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

and

"Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."

I did indeed believe that Christmas and it's associated pagan rituals were an abomination unto God and that those who participated would ultimately be destroyed.

I have a relative who is firmly against women having any sort leadership role in the Church. He will tell you that the Bible says:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

So the idea of the "Contemporary Nativity" with women portraying wise men (flying or otherwise) would not set well with him.


As for Christians blaming Satan for bad things that happen, I guess that one may be full of straw.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "no good reasons"?...

Did Brandon Lee die for no good reasons? Should we blame the movie industry and the act of filmmaking for his death?The same thing could have happened at a Peter Pan school play, and neither the story of Peter Pan, J.M. Barrie nor the entire kids' fantasy literature would be to blame.


What I meant is that the reason this play was even happening, at a church with amateur actors and crew, was to honor their "God" and celebrate the birth of his supposed "son" and to display their devotion to the faith and witness that faith to others. If not for that reason there would have been no play at all and no tragic accident. I know that accidents happen where actors or stunt persons are injured or killed all the time. I think the difference is that no one performs Peter Pan as a form of worship to a deity or to secure a place in never never land after their death.

I also stated clearly that the OP was not intended to make light of the tragic death of this young woman.

[thaiboxerken]

I see. And upon what is that supposition based?

You must know different christians than I do. You've never heard the claim "have faith and all will be fine"?

There's also this:

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." -- Mark 16:17-18 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mk/16.html#17)

"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you." -- Luke 10:19 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lk/10.html#19)

[bokonon]

I know that accidents happen where actors or stunt persons are injured or killed all the time. I think the difference is that no one performs Peter Pan as a form of worship to a deity or to secure a place in never never land after their death.

I also stated clearly that the OP was not intended to make light of the tragic death of this young woman.
Performing is creating illusion. Both Peter Pan and this play attempt to create the illusion of flight, of magic. Maybe there is more irony when the people participating actually believe in the magic, but anyone who finds that irony "hilarious" (and I'm not addressing you here) is, in my opinion, vile.

I'm glad you didn't intend to make light of this tragic death, but I do think your speculations on the probable reactions of the people involved in the tragedy would have been better kept to yourself. Yes, religious people will tend to see miracles in every near-miss, and use tragic non-misses like this one as an excuse for coming together to re-affirm their faith. And yes, it looks ridiculous to those of us on the outside who don't feel the need to protect a nonsensical system of beliefs, but that doesn't mean we should take it as an opportunity to jeer from the sidelines. Everyone copes in his own way, and my compassion as an atheist (who believes this life is all we get) prevents me from adding insult to injury in cases such as this.

If one of the believers DOES offer up rationalizations such as those you listed in your OP, I'll be happy to condemn them. Putting the words in their mouths so you can condemn them ahead of time assumes too much.

[articulett]

I think most understood you, Phase Inverter...

It's just that most people have been brainwashed to protect faith even when they are no longer believers. They do this by attributing ill intent to anyone who criticizes anything having to do with faith. I just think they aren't aware of how they shield some brands of woo from scrutiny--namely Christianity.

I think they think they are doing something noble, but to me they are spreading the weird little prejudice that allows faith to go unscrutinized... and that always makes the faith critic into the bad guy.

The situation involves a lot of weird irony... a skeptics forum should be a place where one could freely comment on this irony just as the entire public feels free to comment on the "rudeness" and "strident" atheists when they are being far less rude and strident than their critics.

To me, the "apologists" are furthering a prejudice not speaking up for some noble cause or whatever it is they imagine they are doing. They feel better about themselves by criticizing others who are causing no harm while ignoring the harm that is being commented on.

Religion has a protected status that nobody gives to other woo-- it causes people to ignore or not question faith and to ignore any correlation between it and tragedy. Those who dare to voice the irony are criticized instead.

Dennett talks about this in regards to "belief in belief". The situation was tragic... but the fact that theists are too busy spinning to learn anything from it, is also tragic. But it still as a Darwin awards gallows humor... and the way people spin a story when "god" is involved is always interesting to me.

I've learned to ignore those kinds of responses for the most part, because they are straw men. They are designed to make the arguer feel noble by knocking down an argument you never made. It's easier to make you into the bad guy that to acknowledge that faith was more involved in this tragedy then any comments anyone here has made. There's truth in humor. The same people tend to have the same protective reactions when it comes to faith--learn to take them with a grain of salt. To me, they are hiding their biases from themselves. To them, I'm mean and strident and crass I guess. To me they are furthering bigotry and raining on our parade to feel good about themselves without furthering understanding on anything and while protecting faith from scrutiny. To them, we are making light of a tragedy.

To me, it's the proverbial "courtier's reply". There is no harm in noticing or laughing at the irony inherent in faith. I'm tired of pretending that it's something worth respecting or trying to make sense of. I think the whole thing is primitive and leads to some of the funniest, saddest, craziest, most ironic episodes of our species and I'm glad to be an observer rather than a participant in the craziness. I think it furthers critical thinking to talk about it and even joke about it-- and this is the forum for it. It's not like we are going into churches and calling people fools they way they readily preachers readily refer to nonbelievers. It's not like we giggle at the prospects of people suffering forever-- a common theme amongst the holier-than-thou.

Even a lot of atheists still "protect faith". They can't help but hear criticism of anything having to do with faith (or mockery of such) as an attack on the faithful--no matter how carefully you say it. They treat religious woo very differently then othe woo, and yet they deny it and can give no reason for doing so. I can only imagine that they are unaware of their prejudices and don't want to admit it--because on other threads they sound perfectly cogent to me.

They are not spokepeople for this forum... or "atheism" or "skepticism". They represent their own viewpoints, and from my perspective they are "apologists" who don't realize they are "apologists" and they bend over backwards NOT to realize it... so they are unlikely to fix it. They need us to be the bad guy, so they can feel good about their judgment of us rather then examine whether it's a prejudice in them.

Opinions aren't facts. And don't bother trying to explain yourself to someone with a vested interest in not understanding your point of view. After one or two straw men, just put them on ignore. Chances are lots of people have done so.

I am a teacher, and I would expect nothing less than massive criticism and tons of commentary involving irony if I decided to fly students around for seemingly frivolous reasons without taking the utmost precautions to make sure that nothing like this could happen. I would be expected to understand that this is forseeable. I would not have the shield of faith to keep people from scrutinizing my poor judgement. I doubt anyone commenting on such a tragedy in the secular world or how it was spun would ever be subject to such self righteous attacks that we are subject to here so that people are blinded to the fact that faith played a role here. Mockery did not and does not.

[westprog]

I find it ironically hilarious that a person dies

[irrelevant reasons snipped]


It's worth remembering that this was an actual real person who is really dead, with real friends and relations who are devastated right this second. For all we know, some of them might read this forum.

I suppose it might be some comfort that they are generating ironic hilarity. Every cloud has a silver lining.

I wonder what Rev Phelps thinks about it.

[articulett]

Bokonen, I think your comments to Phase Inverter would have been better kept to yourself.

Opinions. Everyone has them.

No one is asking you to condemn religious people or anyone.

You have chosen to condemn certain posters yourself, however.

It's interesting to note that which you find worthy of your judgment. I think your apologetics causes more harm than anything phase inverter said... and nothing compares to the negligence that lead to this tragedy which you are noticably avoiding commenting on in an attempt to make it seem like it was "beyond human control".

[articulett]

Sinking to their level is OK with you?

Absolutely not true.

Again, you wouldn't be saying the same thing for the Peter Pan play accident, or the heavy metal concert fire.

Complete and utter strawman.

Care to provide a quote where I've done that?

Since we've already established that the negligence wasn't caused by religion (so we can dismiss that out of the way), then what was the religious prejudice in this case that caused harm?


I don't consider myself as sinking to any level... I most certainly would not want to sink to the level of apologist who perpetuates this idea that criticizing religion is more harmful than harms actually far more related to religion.

The negligence wasn't cause by religion... however, faith sure didn't protect them or make them wiser... it certainly played a role in their decision to fly wise men around... so quit pretending commentary is more negligent or bad then the actual stuff that lead to a womans death! I feel sorry for the people involved... I feel bad that this womans faith caused her to take a risk to honor someone who doesn't exist and that her parents have got to try to make sense of this in light of the benevolent god they supposedly believe in. I feel bad that skeptics attack people who comment on this to go out of their way to make the commenter the bad guy-- and make sure that no one associates religion or faith or pageantry to a god that doesn't exist--to the tragedy.

No one here has caused the harm that the church pagaent caused. And your covering that up and making someone else the bad guy doesn't change it.

I couldn't live with myself if I did something so stupid and it resulted in someone's death. But religionists can because they've learned to put responsibility on everything except where it belongs-- and you encourage that.

And it's funny in the same way Darwin Awards are funny. And tragic and ironic too.

[Roadtoad]

Thanks... I don't consider you a gun nut. There was a thread about an 8 year old kid who shot himself with an Uzi he was allowed to fire at a gun show (recoil)... a "gun nut" asked what I would have done to prevent it. To me it's obvious-- don't let 8 year olds fire machine guns! But I was derided more than the adults in the scenario who allowed exactly that!

And then my stomach turns, because I know the kids father and the Police chief running the gun show would make the same kind of argument. It's like they want to believe such things are "unpreventable"---when they are completely preventable.

I'd feel the same way if the church was mounting a production of Peter Pan. Making people "fly" is something for professionals--not church groups.

But that was never my original point-- it was the irony.

On the gun thread it was the horror at someone thinking it was a good idea to let an 8 year old fire an Uzi.

I get annoyed when I am treated worse than the people whose negligence caused a death.

Wait, wait, wait....

This might be slightly OT, here, but let me get this one straight...

Some adult actually thought it was okay for an EIGHT YEAR OLD to shoot a frigging UZI!?!? Seriously? Was someone on crack?

Someone "flying" was stupid enough. And I agree, you want professionals handling that. But putting a firearm with the rate of fire of an Uzi into the hands of a child...

God, I need a drink....

[bokonon]

nothing compares to the negligence that lead to this tragedy which you are noticably avoiding commenting on in an attempt to make it seem like it was "beyond human control".
There are two "bad guys" here. The church's negligence, and your "jovial enjoyment" of the circumstances of a young woman's death.
More irony from the lass who chides others for "seeing what isn't there." I never said or hinted that this was "beyond human control." I even speculated on the probable nature of the negligence that led to the accident (I think it's an ill-fitting harness).

I think your apologetics causes more harm than anything phase inverter said
And I think you toss the term "apologist" around like a racist uses "****** lover." Pardon me for recognizing that even those who subscribe to absurd religious beliefs are still human beings with feelings very much like my own.

[thaiboxerken]

It's worth remembering that this was an actual real person who is really dead,

It still gets a giggle from me.

[westprog]

faith... certainly played a role in their decision to fly wise men around



Well obviously. If a Christian double parks it's because he thinks God says it's all right.

I wonder how many religious believers have the same kind of blind faith Articulett has.

[articulett]

Wait, wait, wait....

This might be slightly OT, here, but let me get this one straight...

Some adult actually thought it was okay for an EIGHT YEAR OLD to shoot a frigging UZI!?!? Seriously? Was someone on crack?

Someone "flying" was stupid enough. And I agree, you want professionals handling that. But putting a firearm with the rate of fire of an Uzi into the hands of a child...

God, I need a drink....

Yes. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130230

And the father who took his kid to a gun show to do this was an Emergency Room Doctor... and the guy running the show and encouraging this was a Police chief. I had to unsubscribe from the thread because I started to feel revulsion towards those who were attacking the critics who were appalled that someone was so cavalier about letting an 8 year old shoot an uzi rather than being appalled that someone would let an 8 year old shoot an uzi.

To me, their words ring out as the same words of the adults responsible for the negligence... I can't help but think the father and police chief would make the same excuses and turn the same people into the "bad guys" in order to blind themselves to their own nuttiness.

That's how I kind of feel here too. I don't think commenting on this is harmful or even "disrespectful"-- I think it's much worse to cover for the ways religions and stuplidity were involved in this tragedy. It's inane to think that it wasn't preventable or that we we can't use this to prevent such things in the future. If nothing else, I hope others contemplating such things give pause as they realize that they are not as "protected" as they imagine themselves every time they thank god for a "miracle".

It just begs the question so much... if god performs miracles or helps people win foot ball games or saves babies-- what about all the times when he doesn't? Why some babies and some believers and not others. The whole thing must cause bizarre cognitive dissonance in the faithful as they desperately spin to keep the faith so that the goodies aren't taken away.

If you can't learn something from tragedies to prevent such tragedies in the future--then the tragedy is a worse tragedy. Apologetics makes such learning less likely. It sounds like excuses to me. To me, everyone should learn that you don't let 8 year olds shoot Uzis and you don't let amateurs fly people around from great heights-- even if you think you have Jesus and guardian angels watching over you and ready to perform miracles at your request.

[articulett]

Whatever Bokonen. You know I think you are an apologist and that you sound like westprog. I think I would rather sound like those you find fault with... though I thought you had made great progress on the FFRF sign thread-- In fact, I took you off ignore after seeing you quoted in some great commentary from you.

But back on ignore you go. I don't consider you a worthy critic of me. I find the people you criticise more emulation worthy and worth reading than you. You need to see bad that isn't there in others so you can feel moderate and noble as you "defend the faith" and imagine the non-apologists as "strident" and "militant" and unlike the "diplomatic" Bokonen. 3 straw men and you win "cflarsen" status in my book.

Oh, and atheists are human beings with feelings just like your own. Your criticism of others is more fitting of you and those you run around protecting.

Good bye.

[articulett]

And, yes, I know theists have feelings... which is why I'd never hoist someone in the air in some amateur way in a show of pageantry. And I'd never praise god for a miracle knowing that some people didn't get their miracle despite praising god regularly... and I'd never pretend that faith was noble or worthy or worth protecting... or say inane things like "god has his reasons" or bend over backwards to silence those who question faith.

I also know that atheists have feelings-- but a lot people seem to forget that. The critics are the ones who hurt peoples feelings here... not the ones commenting on the story or making light or joking. Those people didn't hurt anyone at all. The apologists imagined some others who could take offense or something-- and then chastized others so that they could feel better about themselves for not participating.

You could have just "not participated" in this thread... but instead you wanted to feel "holier than thou" by putting down those who weren't hurting anyone in any way... people who were doing the equivalent of joshing about a Darwin Award and shaking their head and man's inanity.

[bokonon]

But back on ignore you go. I don't consider you a worthy critic of me.
Good bye.
That's cool. I'll simply note the additional irony that you employ the same tactic as the most brittle fundamentalists when your beliefs are challenged. Venomfangx censors critical comments, as do you and Radrook. The fact that you fancy yourself a critical thinker is what I find hilarious. I consider it a very minor achievement to be steadfastly ignored by all of you.

[bokonon]

You could have just "not participated" in this thread... but instead you wanted to feel "holier than thou" by putting down those who weren't hurting anyone in any way
No, I don't feel holier than anyone. I wanted to offer what I regard as constructive feedback. Maybe someone will consider what I said and think a second time before doing the same thing again. Not you, of course, but someone. You already have all the answers, just like Falwell and Phelps and Radrook.

"Bla bla bla, apologist, bla bla bla, religion's protected status, bla bla bla Scientologists, they can't see, theists are worse, I ignore these and prefer those, bla de bla blind hypocrites."

Honestly, I could cut and paste any one of your replies from a dozen different threads, and no one would be able to detect the substitution. That's how much actual thought goes into your rants.

... people who were doing the equivalent of joshing about a Darwin Award and shaking their head and man's inanity.
Well, no, see a Darwin award is when someone dies doing something stupid. This girl made the mistake of trusting people and equipment that, in retrospect, she shouldn't have trusted. This is no more "Darwin award" material than Vic Morrow and the kids who were killed filming The Twilight Zone Movie when a helicopter fell on them. I'll bet ThaiBoxerKen giggled himself silly over that one.

[Piscivore]

You must know different christians than I do. You've never heard the claim "have faith and all will be fine"?

There's also this:

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." -- Mark 16:17-18 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mk/16.html#17)

"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you." -- Luke 10:19 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lk/10.html#19)

And do you think these verses sum up the actual beliefs of all Christians? Do you have some evidence that this accurately reflects the beliefs of the young woman who died, or her parents, or her congregation? Or is this just what they should believe, in your opinion?

[Piscivore]

And I think you toss the term "apologist" around like a racist uses "****** lover."
Thank you. On the f[rule X]g nose.

[Roadtoad]

Stop. Just everyone stop.

I'm sorry, but this is getting to be too much. Just take folks off ignore for a few moments and listen.

1.) This is a tragic accident. It was forseeable, it was wrong. A young woman's life is lost because someone who shouldn't have been doing what they were doing made a serious mistake. I doubt anyone will be held to account for this, though in my mind, they should.

2.) Churches have traditionally cheaped out, and they have, for the most part, managed to get away with it, even when someone has been hurt. I know this. Been there. They prey upon people's good nature and willingness to do good. It's unfortunate, but there it is.

3.) I have a hard time thinking that anyone on this board is getting a laugh out of this. I have never known anyone on this board, with the exception of maybe SunniMan or some of the other religious trolls (note that) to take pleasure in the death of anyone, particularly Articulett or ThaiBoxerKen.

4.) OTOH, there's a real irony here, in that the Churches I know have tended to toss safety concerns to the wind, with a mindless "We'll just trust in the Lord." Sorry: If Jesus drove a truck, even Jesus would rock the hood. I find the whole attitude regarding safety in most churches to be contemptible. IF there's anything to laugh at in this, it's that carelessness justified by "faith." A woman is dead because of this, and as I said, it's unlikely that anyone will ever be held accountable for that.

We now return you to your Flame War. Carry on.

[westprog]

No, I don't feel holier than anyone. I wanted to offer what I regard as constructive feedback. Maybe someone will consider what I said and think a second time before doing the same thing again. Not you, of course, but someone. You already have all the answers, just like Falwell and Phelps and Radrook.

"Bla bla bla, apologist, bla bla bla, religion's protected status, bla bla bla Scientologists, they can't see, theists are worse, I ignore these and prefer those, bla de bla blind hypocrites."

Honestly, I could cut and paste any one of your replies from a dozen different threads, and no one would be able to detect the substitution. That's how much actual thought goes into your rants.


There's not a smidgeon of evidence apart from pure bigotry that this accident had anything to do with religion, apart from this particular performance. And yet there's the scenario all constructed where the people responsible don't bother to check the wires because Jesus will look after it. There is absolutely no evidence beyond the voices in her head.


Well, no, see a Darwin award is when someone dies doing something stupid. This girl made the mistake of trusting people and equipment that, in retrospect, she shouldn't have trusted. This is no more "Darwin award" material than Vic Morrow and the kids who were killed filming The Twilight Zone Movie when a helicopter fell on them. I'll bet ThaiBoxerKen giggled himself silly over that one.

It might be that somebody did something stupidly reckless. Or it might be that it was a freak accident that could not have been foreseen. Never mind the facts though. It's like Falwell talking about 911. Terrible tragedy, but hey, I warned you what this kind of thing would lead to.

[Bri]

Is this the church with the "Touchdown Jebuz" statue?

Are you thinking of Notre Dame (Ft Wayne, Indiana)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre_Dame_Stadium#.22Touchdown_Jesus.22

-Bri

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think you're talking about Notre Dame (Ft Wayne, Indiana):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre_Dame_Stadium#.22Touchdown_Jesus.22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ndstadium_basilica_dome_tdjesus.jpg

-Bri



Nah, Solid Rock Church on I-75 between Middletown and Hamilton and just down the road from Trader's Village and the Hustler Super Store (and further down I-75 is the Creation Museum). There is a huge statue of Jesus with his arms raised (like he's signalling a touchdown), but just the torso, head and arms.

As to the thread, this is a tragedy. There is nothing funny in it.

[Roadtoad]

"Near the Hustler Super Store."

Wow.

Reminds me of driving up I-35. Lots of porno stores along the sides of that road while running through Texas.

[Bri]

Nah, Solid Rock Church on I-75 between Middletown and Hamilton and just down the road from Trader's Village and the Hustler Super Store (and further down I-75 is the Creation Museum). There is a huge statue of Jesus with his arms raised (like he's signalling a touchdown), but just the torso, head and arms.

Ah, this one:

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/9786

The REAL touchdown Jesus is the Notre Dame one since it's directly in line with the football goal posts (see picture in the previously-posted link).

-Bri

[bokonon]

Good God, that looks EXACTLY like the other one. Is Sears selling Super Savior construction kits?

ETA: Never mind, that IS the other one. I guess they built it, and THEN dumped it into the lake.

[thaiboxerken]

And do you think these verses sum up the actual beliefs of all Christians?

First, you ask for evidence that such verses exist. Now you move the goal post to having to show evidence that ALL christians believe this nonsense. I can't give you that because it's an unreasonably silly request. I can only offer that most christians I've talked to actually pay lip service to this kind of belief, that their god will protect them and, with faith, everything will be ok.

Do you have some evidence that this accurately reflects the beliefs of the young woman who died, or her parents, or her congregation?I don't know that I care. I find the situation ironic. Perhaps I should've called it a miracle instead.

Or is this just what they should believe, in your opinion?I think they SHOULD not believe that there are gods.

[articulett]

Yes, the apologist uses the flimsiest of evidence to judge the words of atheists, and all the evidence in the world cannot be used to say anything bad about theists... because NOT ALL of them believe the same thing (and they will endlessly derail to tell you this). But apparently all those who comment on this story are doing something worse and vile even though there is no evidence of any harm and lots of evidence of irony.

The apologists have no qualms about their own judgment and straw men, but they'll chastize you for lesser judgments and imagined straw men and feel like they are doing something "righteous" as they rant.

"Faith in faith"-- they must protect the faith! Typical "courtier's reply". How dare you laugh at the emperor and call him naked, Thaiboxerken! Those are such nice people who believe he's wearing clothes--how dare you insinuate that they are deluded and that harm might come from this delusion. How dare you note the irony and suffering caused by this supposed magical gift!

Anything that is seen as a criticism of faith will be blown up to extraordinary proportions so the apologists can tell you how bad you are--but all the harms caused by anything having to do with faith will be swept aside as they remind you again and again that not all believers believe the same thing and not all religions are harmful.

The situation is ironic... it's Darwin Award ironic. And our noting it causes no harm. Protecting faith from scrutiny and spreading bigotry against those bold and honest enough to say the emperor is naked causes far more harm in my opinion.

[Toke]

Of course her death is tragic, that is not the point here.

The point is that a so dramatic death during a celebration of almighty god in his own house leads to some very entertaining speculation on the spiritual explanation.

Why not poke fun at faith?
Most of it is ridiculous.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ah, this one:

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/9786

The REAL touchdown Jesus is the Notre Dame one since it's directly in line with the football goal posts (see picture in the previously-posted link).

-Bri



That's it!

Gotta pass it everytime we go to Cincinnati. Also known as Cheesy Jesus -- looks like it's made of cheese and, um, the other reference I guess is self-explanatory -- and Giant Jesus.

And, yes, at the next exit on the right (going toward Cincinnati from the Dayton area) is the Hustler Superstore. It really pisses off the pastor at Solid Rock, which is kind of a good thing I guess..............................

[articulett]

Of course her death is tragic, that is not the point here.

The point is that a so dramatic death during a celebration of almighty god in his own house leads to some very entertaining speculation on the spiritual explanation.

Why not poke fun at faith?
Most of it is ridiculous.

That was my take.

And this is the forum for it.

And why not celebrate the fact that we are not out risking out lives to please an imaginary being?

I feel horrified for her parents... but nothing about religion lessens the horror and you can't help but notice that it played at least a partial role in what happened.

It's just interesting to note the irony... they say "god works in mysterious ways"-- I'll say!

[Ichneumonwasp]

Of course her death is tragic, that is not the point here.

The point is that a so dramatic death during a celebration of almighty god in his own house leads to some very entertaining speculation on the spiritual explanation.

Why not poke fun at faith?
Most of it is ridiculous.


Neighbor of mine just died of pancreatic cancer. He worked for a candy maker locally. Candy making is a seriously ridiculous job for a grown man. Should I poke fun at candy making through his death, especially after seeing him whithering away in the hospital?

Look, it's easy to make fun of people when you don't know them, but I live in the general area, so the fact that she was a graduate student at Xavier means something to me. I think what happened was horrible, and yes I see the irony in it. But I can't bring myself to feel anything but sad. Maybe it's also because my oldest is a senior in high school and applying to college, but this girl was just too young to die.

[articulett]

It's not the same... you don't expect miracles from candy making... you don't credit miracles to candy making...

We aren't talking to the women or the church... we are doing the equivalent of enjoying the Darwin awards.

Nobody is forced to partipate. But if you want to lessen the tragedy, then tsk-tsking the commentators doesn't do it... it just makes you feel good because you imagine yourself "better than that". But being critical of "crass humor" seems to be an attempt for not criticizing the more salient harm and negligence in the case.

It hurts no one to appreciate the irony on a skeptics forum. But the negligence and magical thinking of these theists is somewhat involved in this tragedy... and covering for that fact doesn't change it--nor does admonishing those who notice the irony? Pancreatic cancer is not forseeable.. let's not pretend that this tragedy wasn't. If it happened at a school, then nobody would think it was "just an accident"--people would demand to know how someone could be negligent. And if it happened with a kid who was a wee bit over confident or aiming for a Darwin award, then people might enjoy gallows humor-- that harms no one... and might even serve as a cautionary tale.

What is more worthy of your judgment-- the commentary here (which harm no one) or the negligence and "faith in faith" that played a role in this tragedy. That is something that really lead to harm. And if people can't realize that, then they are more likely to repeat the mistake. Why berate the messenger or humorist who merely comments about this on a skeptics forum. That's what I don't understand. The criticism just seems misplaced to me. The girl was too young to die. But she didn't die because of anyone here! And it begs the question... if Jesus saved the baby in the case of the other thread where Jesus was thanked... why didn't Jesus save this girl? And why don't theists think of this when they are praising Jesus for miracles? Aren't those praising Jesus for miracles giving the parents a real slap in the face? They prayed for their daughter... their daughter was doing something to honor Jesus? But they will spin this as a test of their faith and become more faithful even though their faith was involved in this tragedy.

They will think it's a tragedy even though they supposeldy believe their daughter is now living happily ever after. There's a lot of irony to comment on. It doesn't mean that anyone thinks the death itself i s funny-- and it's wrong to accuse anyone of such. If you or someone is offended that's your personal feeling. It's not right to extrapolate that as evil intent in others. If you've read or enjoyed the Darwin Awards, then you are as guilty as anyone on this thread is-- it's just that you've learned to take greater offense when faith is involved.

I understand why people might be offended. I was brought up to protect faith. But why don't people care that I'm offended by the way apologists are attributing motives to some atheists that those atheists don't have... why don't the apologists examine themselves for bias the way they want to force others to admit to malicious intent they don't have? Why am I supposed to worry about offending others when they don't seem to feel my feelings are worth protecting-- they are too busy building themselves up and protecting the faithful who aren't even reading these words!. They are protecting faith in faith even though that faith leads to all sorts of harms. They are raining on others parade so that they can feel morally superior--they imagine they are spreading moderation and understanding while being unwilling to look at their own biases and the ways they may, in fact, be furthering a straw man-- a prejudice-- a view of atheist that is not based in anything anyone actually said or intended.

[Lucky]

I have not heard of "flying wise men" either...

Flying nuns--yes; flying wise men--no.


Articulett, here are some flying nuns (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1507199/Firms-admit-safety-breach-after-nuns-fell-through-stage.html) for your amusement (OK, so plummeting nuns):Fifteen theatregoers dressed as nuns crashed into an orchestra pit after a stage collapsed, a court heard yesterday.

Some suffered serious fractures, while others escaped with cuts and bruises.

They were among 40 members of the audience invited on stage at the Alexandra Theatre in Birmingham during a Sound of Music tribute show.

Birmingham magistrates' court heard that during the show in September 2003 the compere, Deborah King, asked for volunteers for a fancy dress competition.

More than 40 people dashed up, uncontrolled, and she moved some of them on to plywood boarding attached to the main stage.

Barry Berlin, prosecuting, said: "The cover was painted black, the same colour as the stage, and was not load-bearing. It gave way, plunging them six feet on to the concrete floor."
...
" As they fell down, poles and hoardings fell on top of them as well as other people"
...
Yesterday two companies, Clear Channel, which manages the theatre, and Sing A Long Productions, which staged the show, admitted they failed to ensure the safety of the theatregoers.

Mr Berlin said that Clean Channel had been convicted over a similar incident in 1999.


Sounds rather similar to the wise man incident, yes? - people dressed as nuns (in this case) badly injured by falling several feet onto a concrete floor, during a theatrical performance.

This is a very clear case of serious negligence (and gross stupidity) by the theatre management - as it's a secular commercial organisation I very much doubt they were inspired to neglect the most obvious and elementary safety precautions because they "believe in a magical entity that protects them". And anyone who enjoys a giggle at the thought of serious accidents happening in a religious dramatisation may want to consider that large, bearded men dressed as nuns are probably not especially devout. (And yes I was amused, until I read about the serious fractures - wiped the smile off my face.)

Hang on, though ...

If not for religion, no-one would dress as a nun (there'd be no nuns), The Sound of Music wouldn't have been written, and the show wouldn't have taken place.

"Quit pretending there is no relation whatsoever."

Religion is to blame!

Harmed by their faith!

(Did I get that right?)

[Toke]

Look, it's easy to make fun of people when you don't know them, but I live in the general area, so the fact that she was a graduate student at Xavier means something to me. I think what happened was horrible, and yes I see the irony in it. But I can't bring myself to feel anything but sad. Maybe it's also because my oldest is a senior in high school and applying to college, but this girl was just too young to die.
My bolding

Easy now, you are not forced to laugh.
I keep the religius jokes under wraps around my godmother, my uncles wife, and the other priests in her family. They would not appreciate it, don´t preach to me, and I see no reason to hurt them.
This forum is something else.

[bokonon]

Maybe it's also because my oldest is a senior in high school and applying to college, but this girl was just too young to die.
I would venture a guess that most of those chortling don't have children of their own.

[Toke]

(Did I get that right?)

No

The point is that a so dramatic death during a celebration of almighty god in his own house leads to some very entertaining speculation on the spiritual explanation.

[Ichneumonwasp]

My bolding

Easy now, you are not forced to laugh.
I keep the religius jokes under wraps around my godmother, my uncles wife, and the other priests in her family. They would not appreciate it, don´t preach to me, and I see no reason to hurt them.
This forum is something else.


I'm not preaching, just explaining why some people might find the levity offensive.

Yes, it is highly ironic from a particular perspective. Ironic doesn't necessarily mean funny for everyone concerned. I don't have any particular problem with people seeing the funny in it, but I don't think everyone shares the same feeling; and a young girl died. You asked the question "why not poke fun at faith?" and I don't have any problem with doing that. But I do think that there is a time and a place for it.

Yes, this is one place for it. I'm not so sure that this is the time. But, yes, I have a personal stake in it because I live in the general area so it strikes closer to home and I have kids (both girls) in the general age range. You'll have to excuse me from finding the funny in the death of a young girl with so much potential.

[articulett]

No lucky... you didn't get it right... you are bending over backwards to miss the point.

The original comment was about irony-- the same as the Darwin Awards. Religion is rife with irony. It was a continuation of a thread where a saved baby was called a "miracle". It's all about theists noticing the hits... and the apologists running to cover for the misses.

The negligence factor came in only when the apologists tried to make the commenter the "bad guys" so they could feel good about themselves, I guess. You could have said, "I"m offended" or avoid the thread... but instead you decided to put others down...

The people you put down did not cause anyone's death... and your putting them down covers for the things that did--negligence, over confidence, a trust in and worship of a god that doesn't exist, a noticing of the hits, a failure to take responsibility for one's own failures, criticism of the wrong things, etc.

You can bet there won't be people covering for the theatre the way people covered for the church. You can bet the spin will be different. There sure isn't the same irony. People dressed as nuns are not the same as people doing stunts because they believe in a magical story and a magical man and they are trying to recreate that story in all it's pagaentry without really thinking things through.

I don't think you are a capable of understanding, Lucky. You have a bias... you are protecting faith even when no one is harming faith or the faithful. At the same time you are excusing the role of church and religion in this incident... as if a Christmas play with flying wise men isn't specifically tied to church and pageantry and faith! It's a sad commentary that people trust their religious leaders who are not trustworthy... while denigrating scientists and no doubt suing businesses whom are apparently far more trustworthy. And insured. And concerned with such risks.

You judge me and others here, Lucky-- but I would never do anything so foolish as what that church did... nor would I act like the consequences were unforseeable nor would I make bad guys out of forum members so I could avoid the fact that faith played a role-- nor would I imagine malicious intent of forum members so I could feel holier than thou by passing judgment. In that way, I feel superior to you. I don't consider you a person I'd take advice or criticism from. I don't want to be like you. I dont' see you as moral as you imagine yourself. And I think you are bending over backwards to criticize others to avoid noticing the bias in yourself.

You need others to be the bad guy so that you don't have to examine the role of faith in this story. But no one commenting on the story has caused any harm. Your criticism spreads straw men and bigotry and makes you feel better, but it doesn't enlighten or amuse. I want to be like the people you criticize--not like you nor the faithful you protect. Your allegations about me or more offensive to me than anything I have said.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Try passing your judgment on people who find you a role model. I don't.

[articulett]

Yeah, Ich-- some might find the levity offensive... and some might find others criticizing the levity offensive. Some might find the way people cover for faith offensive.

Those are all opinions. And I think those who are offended are showing a knee-jerk reaction to protect faith-- they are hearing things that aren't intended and imagining motives in others that aren't there while ignoring the role that religion played in this tragedy.

What is worse-- doing a magical Christmas play without taking the proper precautions for your actresses or commenting on the irony of the whole thing? What is worse-- gallows humor or accusing people of malice they do not have? What is worse--mocking faith or covering for it? No one here is seeking to hurt those who have already suffered from this tragedy-- but some self appointed imagined moderates are trying to silence and chastize those who have cause no harm at all because they've found humor in the story. It's those who excuse the real negligent party who are a bigger factor in stuff like this happening again--not those who highlight the absurdity inherent in the situation.

People aren't laughing at the tragedy--it's the irony... the same as laughing at the Darwin Awards... the same thing Jon Stewart does every night--

[Ichneumonwasp]

Nobody is forced to partipate. But if you want to lessen the tragedy, then tsk-tsking the commentators doesn't do it... it just makes you feel good because you imagine yourself "better than that". But being critical of "crass humor" seems to be an attempt for not criticizing the more salient harm and negligence in the case.


OK, so now people commenting on their feelings when they live in the area and can imagine someone they love in the same situation are just trying to imagine that "they are better than others"? Give me a break Arti. I'm sorry, but that crosses the line.


It hurts no one to appreciate the irony on a skeptics forum. But the negligence and magical thinking of these theists is somewhat involved in this tragedy... and covering for that fact doesn't change it--nor does admonishing those who notice the irony. Pancreatic cancer is not forseeable.. let's not pretend that this tragedy wasn't. If it happened at a school, then nobody would think it was "just an accident"--people would demand to know how someone could be negligent. And if it happened with a kid who was a wee bit over confident or aiming for a Darwin award, then people might enjoy gallows humor-- that harms no one... and might even serve as a cautionary tale.

Where have I not seen the irony? There is a difference between seeing irony and jumping into levity over someone dying. As to whether or not this was preventable, I would like to wait and see what the investigation shows rather than jumping to conclusions.

My oldest daughter just happens to be at a Muse Machine practice -- she works behing the stage and not in the air -- but the fact that this girl died in a stage production hits home for that reason too.

I'm not telling you to feel the same. I am explaining why I feel as I do. Please extend the same courtesy.


What is more worthy of your judgment-- the commentary here (which harm no one) or the negligence and "faith in faith" that played a role in this tragedy. That is something that really lead to harm. And if people can't realize that, then they are more likely to repeat the mistake. Why berate the messenger or humorist who merely comments about this on a skeptics forum. That's what I don't understand. The criticism just seems misplaced to me. The girl was too young to die. But she didn't die because of anyone here! And it begs the question... if Jesus saved the baby in the case of the other thread where Jesus was thanked... why didn't Jesus save this girl? And why don't theists think of this when they are praising Jesus for miracles? Aren't those praising Jesus for miracles giving the parents a real slap in the face? They prayed for their daughter... their daughter was doing something to honor Jesus? But they will spin this as a test of their faith and become more faithful even though their faith was involved in this tragedy.


I don't know that "faith in faith" creating negligence did play into this tragedy. I know a young girl died trying to participate in a stage production. Such things happen and it is always a tragedy when it does.

Please, let's not assume what anyone in that particular church believed. I have no idea what that girl believed or what her parents believe. I suspect they believe a lot of things that I would find ridiculous and probably somewhat offensive. But I know they are grieving just as her friends are grieving. Just that. There just isn't anything else for me to say. I dont want to create "them" as the "other", as beings unworthy of sadness or grief.

Saying that this was ironic is one thing. But others have said that they find it funny. That is why I responded in the first place. I don't find it funny.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yeah, Ich-- some might find the levity offensive... and some might find others criticizing the levity offensive. Some might find the way people cover for faith offensive.

Those are all opinions. And I think those who are offended are showing a knee-jerk reaction to protect faith-- they are hearing things that aren't intended and imagining motives in others that aren't there while ignoring the role that religion played in this tragedy.

What is worse-- doing a magical Christmas play without taking the proper precautions for your actresses or commenting on the irony of the whole thing? What is worse-- gallows humor or accusing people of malice they do not have? What is worse--mocking faith or covering for it? No one here is seeking to hurt those who have already suffered from this tragedy-- but some self appointed imagined moderates are trying to silence and chastize those who have cause no harm at all because they've found humor in the story. It's those who excuse the real negligent party who are a bigger factor in stuff like this happening again--not those who highlight the absurdity inherent in the situation.

People aren't laughing at the tragedy--it's the irony... the same as laughing at the Darwin Awards... the same thing Jon Stewart does every night--


Are you seriously telling me that you find criticism of people laughing at someone dying like this funny a problem? Ken said he found this funny. I don't. So sue me.

How the **** can you possibly think that I am covering for faith because a girl died and I find it tragic? You're a teacher. Surely you realize that tragedy works off irony? Irony is not necessarily funny.

If you don't find it funny, then why are you responding to me, since what I initially responded simply that I did not find it funny?

[articulett]

I think you are hearing it as people "laughing at someone dying" when they were originally commenting on the irony. They were doing no more than someone would do who comments on the Darwin awards. I would never laugh at someone's tragedy as I have lost people close to me. I am horrified for this girls parents. I would never wish this on anyone. I feel horrified and sorry for parents who trust faith and their kid dies because they prayed instead of getting a medical transfusion. I don't think there is anything wrong with the faithful... I just think that their trust has been abused-- and abused in a way that they are never allowed to even question. I think people cover for anyone who dares to question those who propagate "faith". So don't accuse me or anyone of laughing at this tragedy. It was the irony we were laughing at.

My husband died of cancer. We'd joke about how he would haunt people when he died if they weren't nice to him. Gallows humor. But I wasn't laughing at his death. It was the tragedy of my life. I couldn't bear the thought of losing a kid. And if I was the one with the bright idea of making a flying wise man and that person died-- I'd probably kill myself-- This is not an unforseeable tragedy. This is negligence. But that was not what this story was about. The comment was on the irony. And people are free to be offended-- just as I am free to find them biased and apologietic and exaggerating the words of others in order to take offense. I'm offended by people who seem to always find something wrong with anyone who dares to criticize religion--even if they have to make it up--while at the same time bending over backwards to keep from noticing the role faith and "faith in faith" plays in tragedies. The way people blind themselves to the irony and arrogance and stupidity induced by faith. The way faith causes people to judge others as being "judgmental" while they are being more judgmental but imagining themselves humble.

To me, those who are tsk-tsking others here are blaming those others for themselves feeling offended. They are hearing those others say things they did not say and imagining them laughing at tragedy-- when they are really noting the irony! Moreover, they are bending over backwards not to blame the real cause of the tragedy... so that faith is always protected and no one can ever say that maybe people shouldn't be so stupid as to make flying wise men and trust that Jesus will take care of their safety.

A school would be negligent.

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.

Big deal.. people are offended that we'd laugh at the irony-- I'm offended that on a skeptics forum, the apologists protect religious faith from scrutiny in a way that they do not protect other woo-- and the main way they do it is by hearing what isn't there in the words of critics and blinding themselves to any correlation between faith and harms caused in relation to that faith.

I think it would be a better world if all people questioned faith as a means of knowledge. I think it's wrong to shut up the critics. The critics are the ones who will lead us away from superstitious thinking and this inane idea that "faith" is ennobling or that religion deserves special respect or coddling or deference--not the apologists and their "courtier's reply".

The church is as negligent as a school would be. No one is laughing at the death. We are laughing at the irony-- the same as with the Darwin Awards. If you don't see this or imagine a difference it's because you've learned to "protect faith" and aren't aware that you are doing it. It's not because we are malicious and cruel and making light of someone's death. We are not responsible for the death. You are criticizing the wrong people. We didn't cause the harm, and we are even less likely to cause such harm than those you protect by claiming malicious motives on our part.

I wouldn't accuse anyone of laughing at someone's death unless they were actually doing so. I can accuse Ann Coulter of giggling at the though of Dawkins suffering forever because she has said as much. That's malicious. I don't get enjoyment out of anyone's suffering. Not even my enemies. I do, however, appreciate irony. I learn from it. I think others do too. M*A*S*H wasn't laughing about war, and nobody is laughing at the horror or death just because they found M*A*S*H amusing. It would be twisted to accuse someone who laughed at M*A*S*H to be laughing at death--offensive even. It's the irony... gallows humor... a silver lining... a way of coping or making sense out of the craziness of human absurdity.

[articulett]

Are you seriously telling me that you find criticism of people laughing at someone dying like this funny a problem? Ken said he found this funny. I don't. So sue me.

How the **** can you possibly think that I am covering for faith because a girl died and I find it tragic? You're a teacher. Surely you realize that tragedy works off irony? Irony is not necessarily funny.

If you don't find it funny, then why are you responding to me, since what I initially responded simply that I did not find it funny?

I don't think the death is funny. I think the situation is ironic. I think I"d feel horrible if I accidentally ran over an animal. I swerve for pigeons. So it's not that the death is funny. The irony is striking. When that priest thought he could walk on water and he drowned, the death wasn't funny-- but the irony was. This idea that "faith is great" is twisted. The girl is dead, she can't feel anything. The people who are negligent are apparently not going to be taking any responsibility. And her parents' lives are destroyed-- but not because of anything Ken said or did. He doesn't know them, and I doubt he'd hurt them or say anything insensitive in front of them. It's their church that has hurt them and would make them feel guilty if they sought redress or got angry. It's the situation--the irony of it all that is darkly amusing to me... in the same way the Darwin Awards are... And Ken finding it funny is not as offensive as negligently causing this girls death... the church did that... Her faith has done more to hurt her and her family than anything Ken has said or done. Admonishing people here for their expressions doesn't change that or fix that.

You might be hurt or offended... but it's not Ken's noticing the irony that is the offensive thing here... it's a church that decided that amateur dangerous special effects would make for a decent Christmas Extravaganza. Your criticism is misplaced. The humor wasn't in the death... it was in the absurdity-- the irony... just like Jon Stewart's comments about the war and such-- nobody is laughing at death!. Why don't you understand that this is akin to laughing at the Darwin Awards. You can find Ken Crass... but that's just an opinion. Nobody is asking you to participate.

To me, it just seems that people are hypersensitive to taking offense when religion is involved. I think they've learned to protect faith and not realize it. And when it's pointed out, they would rather make the person pointing it out the bad guy instead of realizing it might be true.

You came up with a false analogy just as Lucky did that showed that you "didn't see it like the Darwin awards'--your analogy had no irony. It's like you totally missed the irony and heard something that wasn't there. That happens all the time when it comes to protecting the faith. Christianity is carefully protected from any scrutiny and the main way people do it is by imagining motives in the critics just as has been done on this thread.

To me, the critics of Ken are more offensive then Ken. They exaggerated his words and the words of others while protecting those who are far more responsible for this tragedy. Some did that when Falwell died too. According to these peoples beliefs, they are in heaven-- a better place.

I've never hurt anyone purposely nor do I laugh at others' suffering. I suffer just knowing about other peoples suffering. But I readily note the irony and joke about this situation on this thread in this forum. I'd never strap a young person in a harness with imagined expertise on the subject... I think it's weird to worship such a capricious god or one that created hell or demands to be worshiped and holds "faith" above all else.

Snarkiness doesn't hurt anyone. But false allegations about peoples motives and intent does. Covering for faith does. I don't like feeling judged by people that I don't want to be like. To me, Lucky and Piscivore, and Bokonen are such people. I think they cause more harm then people like Ken or Toke or the people they criticize.... because they spread a false view of others in order to feel good about themselves and to protect faith. But their battles are straw. I think Ken is funny. And Toke and Road Toad and Phase Inverter. I think Hitchens and Colbert and Dr Adequate are funny too-- in a similar way. But I don't for one second imagine that they are malicious or take pleasure in the suffering of others. I understand that the humor is in the irony-- not the tragedy. I think the critics are a bit humorless myself. And I think they have a bias they aren't aware of and they are defensive when I say so, so how can they fix it-- and why should I care if they are offended; they don't care about how they offend me.

It's just my perception. But my view is as valid as theirs--that's for sure. Those who imagine themselves taking the moral high ground are not taking the moral high ground to me. They are making others look bad and then fighting those straw men version so they can feel morally superior.

I understand that you are offended and others are too. But do you understand why I am offended? Do you understand that I'm offended because I see you as bending over backwards to find fault in religions critics while also bending over backwards to protect faith from the same sort of scrutiny? I can try to walk on eggshells around such people... I HAVE to in my RL--but I don't see them examining their own personality flaws to make me or Ken or Toke feel less offended. They seem bent on proving to themselves that we are "bad guys" while seemingly unable to see the irony that provoked this thread-- nor the faith influences that are more to blame for this tragedy than anyone goofing at the irony. They want understanding and respect from us that they are not willing to give back at all.

Ken might be laughing at the irony, but he's not strapping people into harnesses to make them fly for Jesus... nor is he pretending that such foolish thinking had nothing to do with the tragedy. Nor is he imagining evil motives in others so he can feel morally superior by knocking down straw man. The latter deserves the criticism in my book--not Ken's words. Not my words. Not Toke's words. Not Road Toads words. Not Phase Inverter's Words. And yet... some people find our words much more worthy of criticism. I judge them the with the same disdain that they judge me and others here. I find them more moral and moderate in their own minds than in actuality.

[articulett]

I get it... you want us to understand why people would feel offended.

But do you understand why it would be offensive to claim that those laughing at an episode of M*A*S*H were laughing at the tragedy of war?

Because that's the straw man I see here. If you laugh at the Adams Family does that mean that you giggle at tragedy? I think when faith is involved, people readily miss the point and make leaps like the straw man I just illustrated.

They end up criticizing the innocent and erecting smoke and mirrors in front of the more egregious offenders and offenses.

[Roadtoad]

You know, I'm not sure what I find more offensive here. The strawmen burning all around me, the continued defense of what wasn't supposed to be offensive, or the fact that I called attention to this and it was ignored.

Screw it.

[bokonon]

You know, I'm not sure what I find more offensive here. The strawmen burning all around me, the continued defense of what wasn't supposed to be offensive, or the fact that I called attention to this and it was ignored.

Screw it.
I'm sorry, you've lost me. I think "the continued defense of what wasn't supposed to be offensive" is telling (methinks the lady doth protest), and gives me hope that even arti may have learned something from this exchange, but what "this" is it that you called attention to and were ignored?

For what it's worth, it's looking more and more likely that negligence (ignorance) is the cause of the accident. The young lady was hoisted in something called a "sit harness," so named because you're supposed to SIT in it as you rappel down a cliff. This picture (http://celebrity.rightpundits.com/wp-content/photos/Keri_Shryock_1.jpg) seems to suggest that it was not being used that way. It's possible that a D-ring clamp which is designed to work in a vertical orientation was twisted sideways and came open.

[Vox Humana]

That's it!

Gotta pass it everytime we go to Cincinnati. Also known as Cheesy Jesus -- looks like it's made of cheese and, um, the other reference I guess is self-explanatory -- and Giant Jesus.

And, yes, at the next exit on the right (going toward Cincinnati from the Dayton area) is the Hustler Superstore. It really pisses off the pastor at Solid Rock, which is kind of a good thing I guess..............................

_-ksuOaI61g

Big Butter Jesus!

[bokonon]

A lefty guitar player. Love 'em.

[charles brough]

I can imagine the rationalizations for this one:

From pro-Christmas denominations: It was Satan attempting to undermine our glorious celebration of the savior.

From traditional Christmas denominations: God was not pleased with a woman portraying the flying wise man and showed His disapproval.

From anti-Christmas denominations: Participating in pagan rituals such as Christmas is an abomination unto God. Fear His wrath.


Not to make light of this tragedy. It seems that this young woman's life was cut short for no good reason.

This sort of thing happens often. I once read about a statue of the "Holy Mother" falling over on a little girl and killing her. I have read several instances in the newspapers of men who have died of a heart attack while praying in church. In still another instance I read of two men living in IndoChina who got angry with each other. One threw a Bible at the other. It hit him in the head and killed him.

[westprog]

Neighbor of mine just died of pancreatic cancer. He worked for a candy maker locally. Candy making is a seriously ridiculous job for a grown man. Should I poke fun at candy making through his death, especially after seeing him whithering away in the hospital?

Look, it's easy to make fun of people when you don't know them, but I live in the general area, so the fact that she was a graduate student at Xavier means something to me. I think what happened was horrible, and yes I see the irony in it. But I can't bring myself to feel anything but sad. Maybe it's also because my oldest is a senior in high school and applying to college, but this girl was just too young to die.

It's one of those ironies that is only ironic from the outside. Who are these Christians who think that faith means they don't have accidents? I've been in a church when someone dropped dead. Nobody thought "How ironic". They thought she had a heart attack.

The girl died, so let's find a way to show how much better we are than these hicks. And it's a chance for Articulett to wallow in self-pity again.

[westprog]

My bolding

Easy now, you are not forced to laugh.
I keep the religius jokes under wraps around my godmother, my uncles wife, and the other priests in her family. They would not appreciate it, don´t preach to me, and I see no reason to hurt them.
This forum is something else.

It's a public forum, accessible to everybody. It's no different to writing on a wall. It's unlikely that anyone close to this girl is reading this, but it's perfectly possible.

[Toke]

It's unlikely that anyone close to this girl is reading this, but it's perfectly possible.
Making jokes on JREF and to her parents face IS two different things.
(basicaly it is further away from them.)

Besides there are not that many jokes that would not be insulting to SOMEBODY.
They are not forced to laugh.
And as I mentioned before, if you have a problem with that that is your problem.

[Undesired Walrus]

But back on ignore you go. I don't consider you a worthy critic of me.

A shame. As bokonon mentioned, you are behaving exactly how an 'offended' fundamentalist does.

To consistently portray Pardalis as an apologist for religion is to not know him on this forum. He simply wishes to skeptically comment on this particular case.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think you are hearing it as people "laughing at someone dying" when they were originally commenting on the irony. They were doing no more than someone would do who comments on the Darwin awards. I would never laugh at someone's tragedy as I have lost people close to me. I am horrified for this girls parents. I would never wish this on anyone. I feel horrified and sorry for parents who trust faith and their kid dies because they prayed instead of getting a medical transfusion. I don't think there is anything wrong with the faithful... I just think that their trust has been abused-- and abused in a way that they are never allowed to even question. I think people cover for anyone who dares to question those who propagate "faith". So don't accuse me or anyone of laughing at this tragedy. It was the irony we were laughing at.

My husband died of cancer. We'd joke about how he would haunt people when he died if they weren't nice to him. Gallows humor. But I wasn't laughing at his death. It was the tragedy of my life. I couldn't bear the thought of losing a kid. And if I was the one with the bright idea of making a flying wise man and that person died-- I'd probably kill myself-- This is not an unforseeable tragedy. This is negligence. But that was not what this story was about. The comment was on the irony. And people are free to be offended-- just as I am free to find them biased and apologietic and exaggerating the words of others in order to take offense. I'm offended by people who seem to always find something wrong with anyone who dares to criticize religion--even if they have to make it up--while at the same time bending over backwards to keep from noticing the role faith and "faith in faith" plays in tragedies. The way people blind themselves to the irony and arrogance and stupidity induced by faith. The way faith causes people to judge others as being "judgmental" while they are being more judgmental but imagining themselves humble.

To me, those who are tsk-tsking others here are blaming those others for themselves feeling offended. They are hearing those others say things they did not say and imagining them laughing at tragedy-- when they are really noting the irony! Moreover, they are bending over backwards not to blame the real cause of the tragedy... so that faith is always protected and no one can ever say that maybe people shouldn't be so stupid as to make flying wise men and trust that Jesus will take care of their safety.

A school would be negligent.

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.

Big deal.. people are offended that we'd laugh at the irony-- I'm offended that on a skeptics forum, the apologists protect religious faith from scrutiny in a way that they do not protect other woo-- and the main way they do it is by hearing what isn't there in the words of critics and blinding themselves to any correlation between faith and harms caused in relation to that faith.

I think it would be a better world if all people questioned faith as a means of knowledge. I think it's wrong to shut up the critics. The critics are the ones who will lead us away from superstitious thinking and this inane idea that "faith" is ennobling or that religion deserves special respect or coddling or deference--not the apologists and their "courtier's reply".

The church is as negligent as a school would be. No one is laughing at the death. We are laughing at the irony-- the same as with the Darwin Awards. If you don't see this or imagine a difference it's because you've learned to "protect faith" and aren't aware that you are doing it. It's not because we are malicious and cruel and making light of someone's death. We are not responsible for the death. You are criticizing the wrong people. We didn't cause the harm, and we are even less likely to cause such harm than those you protect by claiming malicious motives on our part.

I wouldn't accuse anyone of laughing at someone's death unless they were actually doing so. I can accuse Ann Coulter of giggling at the though of Dawkins suffering forever because she has said as much. That's malicious. I don't get enjoyment out of anyone's suffering. Not even my enemies. I do, however, appreciate irony. I learn from it. I think others do too. M*A*S*H wasn't laughing about war, and nobody is laughing at the horror or death just because they found M*A*S*H amusing. It would be twisted to accuse someone who laughed at M*A*S*H to be laughing at death--offensive even. It's the irony... gallows humor... a silver lining... a way of coping or making sense out of the craziness of human absurdity.



Arti, please go back and look at this exchange. You started it by assuming something that I do not feel and never said.

I am not offended. I never claimed to be offended. I corrected Bri's assumption about touchdown Jesus and made an off-hand comment that I didn't think this situation was funny in response to Ken saying that he thought it was funny. Toke asked "can't we poke fun at religion?", and I responded by essentially saying "this isn't the time for it."

Then you started jumping down my throat for some perceived offense that I still cannot fathom. You are honestly offended by someone saying "This isn't funny"?

And I'm terrribly sorry, but M*A*S*H? A book/movie/TV show? The humor in M*A*S*H arose from human beings caught in a terrible situation and trying to survive it. The humor did not arise directly from humans dying. The humor did not arise from outsiders laughing at the tragedy of some other group of people (and I am not saying that you, or anyone else, are laughing at these people -- I am explaining why you have chosen a particularly inept analogy). Hell, I don't think for an instant that Ken is laughing about this. He made an off-hand comment bordering on a bad joke.

What I don't understand is why you are making such a big ******* deal out of this.

Nothing I have said has anything to do about religion or protecting religion. I simply recognize the tragedy and think this girl deserves some respect, whatever her beliefs.

For the love of Ed read what I wrote not what you seem to think I wrote.

[articulett]

It's not you,Ich... it's this thread where people jump on others every time they criticize religion as though the critic is worse than what they are criticizing... or as if they are laughing at the tragedy and not the irony.

It's a straw man. I see it as an attempt to vilify the messenger rather than the actual people responsible for the tragedy. I prefer my atheists uppity and outspoken... I don't want them to be more like those who imagine themselves as moderate. What they see as moderate, I see as the expression of a bias that they are unwilling to examine.

Let us enjoy our irreverence on a skeptics forum!

[bokonon]

I prefer my atheists uppity and outspoken.
"Uppity and outspoken" atheists who disagree with you are obviously more than you can take. Hey, look at that. You and Scientology have something in common!

[Phase Inverter]

I think it furthers critical thinking to talk about it and even joke about it-- and this is the forum for it.


I actually meant to post this on RichardDawkins.net (http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=3) :blush:

[articulett]

I post my more irreverent thoughts there too, as well.

[westprog]

Making jokes on JREF and to her parents face IS two different things.
(basicaly it is further away from them.)


Yes, it is. Making jokes on JREF is also different from telling them personally to a friend.


Besides there are not that many jokes that would not be insulting to SOMEBODY.
They are not forced to laugh.
And as I mentioned before, if you have a problem with that that is your problem.

I have less of a problem with the jokes than with the assumptions that go with them. Articulett has written a story in her head where the girl died because Christians don't take the kind of sensible precautions that atheists do. She's made up a little fable which is entirely unsupported by anything but her own deep faith. When this is pointed out to her, she's been flailing around and ignoring the point, which she always does. She's in fact claimed to be quite certain that this girl died because of the flaws of Christianity.

I don't think we have the right to just make up suppositions about specific cases. And this applies whatever the facts turn out to be.

[Toke]

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=65473

I just found some chrismas jokes, enjoy.

[thaiboxerken]

Articulett has written a story in her head where the girl died because Christians don't take the kind of sensible precautions that atheists do..

Wrong.

[Pardalis]

Performing is creating illusion. Both Peter Pan and this play attempt to create the illusion of flight, of magic. Maybe there is more irony when the people participating actually believe in the magic, but anyone who finds that irony "hilarious" (and I'm not addressing you here) is, in my opinion, vile.

I'm glad you didn't intend to make light of this tragic death, but I do think your speculations on the probable reactions of the people involved in the tragedy would have been better kept to yourself. Yes, religious people will tend to see miracles in every near-miss, and use tragic non-misses like this one as an excuse for coming together to re-affirm their faith. And yes, it looks ridiculous to those of us on the outside who don't feel the need to protect a nonsensical system of beliefs, but that doesn't mean we should take it as an opportunity to jeer from the sidelines. Everyone copes in his own way, and my compassion as an atheist (who believes this life is all we get) prevents me from adding insult to injury in cases such as this.

If one of the believers DOES offer up rationalizations such as those you listed in your OP, I'll be happy to condemn them. Putting the words in their mouths so you can condemn them ahead of time assumes too much.

I agree 100%

[Pardalis]

I most certainly would not want to sink to the level of apologist who perpetuates this idea that criticizing religion is more harmful than harms actually far more related to religion.

Again, show me an example and quote where I've ever done that.

You keep accusing me of using strawmen while you revel in them.

however, faith sure didn't protect them or make them wiser... it certainly played a role in their decision to fly wise men around...

Yet it has nothing to do with what happened. As I keep saying, this sort of tragedy could have happened at a play that wasn't religious.

Negligence is negligence, and again, we're not sure what exactly happened here.

womans faith caused her to take a risk to honor someone who doesn't exist

Again, would you say the same if this happened to a boy playing Peter Pan at a school play? Would you say that Brandon Lee took an unnecessary risk playing a dead vigilante in a movie?

I know you keep avoiding this question, but you're gonna have to answer it one way or the other.

and that her parents have got to try to make sense of this in light of the benevolent god they supposedly believe in.

I'm sure they'l do whatever they feel they can do to cope with their loss, it is really none of your business at this point.

and make sure that no one associates religion or faith or pageantry to a god that doesn't exist--to the tragedy.

It simply doesn't. There's no connection between their beliefs and what happened.

I'm not upset that you are attacking religion, I'm upset that you are abusing reason and logic. I don't give a f about religion itself, so quit accusing me of apologizing for it.

You haven't answered my other question, BTW, you said this earlier:

You seem a little confused about what causes harm and suffering to others and what doesn't. Negligence and prejudices cause harm.

Again, since we've already ruled out that religion caused the negligence (if there was negligence), then what pregudice caused what harm in this case?

[Pardalis]

To consistently portray Pardalis as an apologist for religion is to not know him on this forum. He simply wishes to skeptically comment on this particular case.

Thanks mate. :)

[articulett]

A shame. As bokonon mentioned, you are behaving exactly how an 'offended' fundamentalist does.

To consistently portray Pardalis as an apologist for religion is to not know him on this forum. He simply wishes to skeptically comment on this particular case.

It was Bokonen I was commenting on--read my words... not Pardalis...

However, on this thread Pardalis has attempted to attribute motives to me that I do not have. I consider this behavior more offensive than any of the behavior he is criticizing. I can see why you'd get the two confused.

I've been more than clear, but the misunderstanding belongs to those bent on finding fault in the motives of those who find humorous irony in the story.

The irony was akin to this: http://www.geekscribe.com/2006/09/01/priest-tries-to-walk-on-water-and-dies/

The tragedy is akin to this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,453884,00.html

Finding faulty motives in someone joking at the irony is akin to accusing someone of making light of the tragedy by asking what the hell they needed a real gun for in a school play.

The confusion is in the mind of those who have a biased need to protect faith from the scrutiny that will be given to the school by hearing false motives in those noting the similarity in irony in the previous story.

If this confuses you, then perhaps you are one of those people. It's worse to vilify someone with straw men then to goof at religious irony in my book. It's not my fault if people don't "get it" or have learned to protect faith from such joking.

You are furthering a prejudice--a straw man view of others--which is worse than someone having a laugh at something that irreverently ironical. I don't know if such people are purposefully or accidentally misunderstanding-- but they seem unwilling to consider whether the motives they attribute to others are imaginary.

Moreover, I see this thread is, in a sense, a continuation of a similar thread... where you may or may not get the humor. Theist spin based on how tragedies turn out is, indeed, humorous.

A persons inability to understand does not make me or anyone else into the people that are laughing at the tragedy... it just makes the reader into a person who needs to put others down to feel morally superior as far as I can tell.

Such people are more deserving of scorn than the people they attempted to put down in my book. They spread a prejudice so that people continue to imagine all sorts of evil intent in order to everlastingly protect "faith" or something as they imagine themselves models or moderation and morality. I disagree with their self-assessment as well as their assessment of others.

Of course, I'm not asking anyone else to join in...the joking... everyone else is free to kiss as much theist ass as they wish... I just they wouldn't derail a joke thread so they can feel super duper for doing so. I do not find them superior to the people they are criticizing-- I, however, would never stoop so low as to accuse them of sociopathic tendencies the way they have insinuated about me and others. I don't think their prejudices are worse than the negligence they are covering for. But I don't find such people worth reading on threads like this.

They don't "get it". It's not my problem; it's theirs. I do "get it". So I step in to defend myself and those they put down so that they may feel "righteous". If they had no need to put me or others down, this thread would have been fun. I consider myself morally superior to those who dropped in to pass their sanctimonious judgment on me and others here.

People here joke about having sex with goats... it would be equally smarmy for someone to accuse them of endorsing bestiality or advocating rape of livestock. Some people have learned to check their humor when it comes to religion or confirms a bias they've been indoctrinated with.

[Radrook]

I can imagine the rationalizations for this one:

From pro-Christmas denominations: It was Satan attempting to undermine our glorious celebration of the savior.

From traditional Christmas denominations: God was not pleased with a woman portraying the flying wise man and showed His disapproval.

From anti-Christmas denominations: Participating in pagan rituals such as Christmas is an abomination unto God. Fear His wrath.


Not to make light of this tragedy. It seems that this young woman's life was cut short for no good reason.

Seems you aren't familiar with Christian doctrine and are therefore presenting ideas erroneously.

Christians consider death a natural occurrence due to our fallen condition. Anyone saying otherwise isn't basing it on the Bible. Furthermore, Satan is a mere fallen angel and cannot do more than he is allowed to do. So depicting him as having full reign to do as he wishes isn't a Christian teaching either. Additionally, God's wrath is said to be for the coming war off Armageddon where Satan demons and governments under his influence are removed by force and not for visitation on people who make mistakes based on ignorance. True, such people are said to reap what they sow. But that's a mechanism and not God personally attacking the offender. So all your suggestions are nonbiblical, and if ever put forth by a Christian it had to be due to his ignorance.

As for sudden death, people die because unforeseen occurrences in the present situation of inherited sin befall us all. That's stated in Ecclesiastics. Furthermore for Christians, death is a mere transition to heavenly life. Calling them home as they express it. So there is both sadness and a joy involved when the Christian is certain that the person is finally in a better condition than before.


BTW

People unfamiliar with Christian doctrine shouldn't venture on misrepresenting it. Can you explain why you do?

[articulett]

Seems you aren't familiar with Christian doctrine and are therefore presenting ideas erroneously.

Christians consider death a natural occurrence due to our fallen condition.

Yes, I'm evil... but I am giggling madly over the irony (see bold). So sue me.

[articulett]

(and if you chastize me, I'll think you're "worse than" Radrook.)

[bokonon]

The irony was akin to this: http://www.geekscribe.com/2006/09/01/priest-tries-to-walk-on-water-and-dies/
It's really fascinating to observe how much twisting and dancing and ducking and dodging you're doing in this thread. "It's like M*A*S*H. It's like this priest who tried to walk on water. It's like a Darwin award." It's like this, it's like that, it's like anything to divert attention, to avoid taking a good hard look at what it is: A young woman fell to her death, and you said "Cool."

It's not my fault if people don't "get it" or have learned to protect faith from such joking.And always your favorite strawman, "protecting faith." The only way faith comes into it, as far as I can see, is that the woman who died had faith that the equipment she wore would support her safely.

A persons inability to understand does not make me or anyone else into the people that are laughing at the tragedy.

No, the fact that a woman died, and you said
Cool. I wonder if she gets martyr bonus points and an extra sparkly halo.is what makes you into the person who is laughing at the tragedy.

everyone else is free to kiss as much theist ass as they wish
Because that's all it is. If someone says it's poor taste to mock a woman who died just as her life as an adult was beginning, they're just kissing theist ass.

I, however, would never stoop so low as to accuse them of sociopathic tendencies the way they have insinuated about me and others.
So you draw the line at making jokes. I'll bet that'll put some sparkle in YOUR halo.

I consider myself morally superior to those who dropped in to pass their sanctimonious judgment on me and others here.Whatever bloats your faux.

Some people have learned to check their humor when it comes to religion or confirms a bias they've been indoctrinated with.
I expect I've made more jokes, and funnier jokes, about religion in my short time here on the forum than you've made in your whole life. In most cases, I've learned to check my humor when people die tragically. You don't see a problem with what you said, and don't want to hear any criticism; I think you went too far, and don't mind saying so.

[Darth Rotor]

... and every year I cringe at the antics of the raft of untrained boobs ...

I'd be pleased to train some boobs for a reasonable fee. I can train them to do this:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1096247be67360b3cc.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10947)

[Undesired Walrus]

I've been more than clear, but the misunderstanding belongs to those bent on finding fault in the motives of those who find humorous irony in the story.

The irony was akin to this: http://www.geekscribe.com/2006/09/01/priest-tries-to-walk-on-water-and-dies/

The tragedy is akin to this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,453884,00.html

I wouldn't be so sure. You keep repeating the statement that she was up there because she was attempting to please her God. You don't know that.

I don't know if you were ever brought up in a religous community. I was born in a fairly Catholic area of London, and people would perform in a school nativity to please their parents and relatives far more than some obligation toward a God. Nobody really I admit this is some distance from America, but it is worth mentioning nonetheless. Are you confident that the primary reason the Phelps children hold up their signs is because of their feelings about God, and not their feelings of obligation to the family?

If that be apologism, so be it. But if you search my posts here, you will see that I frequently make posts or threads about freedom to ridicule, deride and laugh at religion. Hell, I even started a thread recently about the absurdity of taking that computer game off the shelves because it had a verse that 'offended' Muslims. You search Pardalis's posts, and you will see a similar (yet unique) pattern. An apologist is -in my opinion- somebody who makes up excuses for violent scripture and/or somebody who stresses that the world needs religion, people need religion, the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by injustice not faith etc. It isn't someone who makes a point that there is flimsy evidence that this tragedy was a result of religion rather than a product of the grey areas in life.

Also, articulett, what is up with your habit of leaving three full stops after almost every sentence? It reads like you are consistently insinuating something.

[Darth Rotor]

I meant what I said.
With a bullhorn. No surprise.
You are finding fault in the wrong people folks. IMO
Nobody is blaming you for this person's death. You are being taken task for being crass, and being in denial on that score despite some polite feedback There is no federal case here. I grok crass. I has an appeal. I even do it now and again. (Or a lot.)

The denial isn't putting any gold stars on your skeptic name tag.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Bokonen, I think your comments to Phase Inverter would have been better kept to yourself.
And your wall of text in this thread was somehow worth posting?

And you tell him to stuff a sock in it?

Yet I don't laugh. You are an adult and a teacher. :( Sad, I am.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "no good reasons"?

Her life was cut short because of gravity, and probably incompetence or faulty design, no more no less. It has very little to do with the nature of what they were doing, if you think religion is the reason of her death. I'm not usually one to defend people of religion, but in this case I really don't see the connection. Accidents happen all the time.


And people die because of others incompetence all the time too. But it is much easier to pass it off as an unforeseeable accident than hold anyone responsible for their incompetence.

[ponderingturtle]

Again, take my Brandon Lee comparison. The armourer was negligent when he installed the blanks in the gun that killed the young actor, but would you say that the movie studio was negligent in making a movie about a dead vigilante? Would you say we should stop making movies involving stunts altogether?


Don't you understand this was an accident, no one is responcible for an accident.

[ponderingturtle]

Isn't there a word that describes the practice of making assumptions about what someone would do or think based soley upon the social or ethnic group to which they belong?

Yes, the word is statistics.

[ponderingturtle]

It's worth remembering that this was an actual real person who is really dead, with real friends and relations who are devastated right this second. For all we know, some of them might read this forum.

Here is the real question, does she qualify for a darwin award?

[ponderingturtle]

Stop. Just everyone stop.

I'm sorry, but this is getting to be too much. Just take folks off ignore for a few moments and listen.

1.) This is a tragic accident. It was forseeable, it was wrong. A young woman's life is lost because someone who shouldn't have been doing what they were doing made a serious mistake. I doubt anyone will be held to account for this, though in my mind, they should.

2.) Churches have traditionally cheaped out, and they have, for the most part, managed to get away with it, even when someone has been hurt. I know this. Been there. They prey upon people's good nature and willingness to do good. It's unfortunate, but there it is.

3.) I have a hard time thinking that anyone on this board is getting a laugh out of this. I have never known anyone on this board, with the exception of maybe SunniMan or some of the other religious trolls (note that) to take pleasure in the death of anyone, particularly Articulett or ThaiBoxerKen.

4.) OTOH, there's a real irony here, in that the Churches I know have tended to toss safety concerns to the wind, with a mindless "We'll just trust in the Lord." Sorry: If Jesus drove a truck, even Jesus would rock the hood. I find the whole attitude regarding safety in most churches to be contemptible. IF there's anything to laugh at in this, it's that carelessness justified by "faith." A woman is dead because of this, and as I said, it's unlikely that anyone will ever be held accountable for that.

We now return you to your Flame War. Carry on.

THis is the internet stop trying to be reasonable.

And look at all the assumptions you are makeing with out evidence about this church.

But this does show why people here who are critics of religion think that this shows against religion. A school play would have been very unlikely to try to fly someone 25' off the ground at all, and would likely have called profeshionals if they did. But people hold schools responcible for their actions in a way that they don't for churches.

[ponderingturtle]

"Near the Hustler Super Store."

Wow.

Reminds me of driving up I-35. Lots of porno stores along the sides of that road while running through Texas.

Driving I-95 there do seem to be more strip clubs the further south you go.

[ponderingturtle]

Sounds rather similar to the wise man incident, yes? - people dressed as nuns (in this case) badly injured by falling several feet onto a concrete floor, during a theatrical performance.

So you actualy think that someone will hold the church responcible for its negligence? You think someone will honestly sue the church?

[ponderingturtle]

You know, I'm not sure what I find more offensive here. The strawmen burning all around me, the continued defense of what wasn't supposed to be offensive, or the fact that I called attention to this and it was ignored.

Screw it.

I find it interesting that in your post explaining why religion was responcible for this, yet it has drawn no comment from those determined to deny any connection between this event and religion.

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's not you,Ich... it's this thread where people jump on others every time they criticize religion as though the critic is worse than what they are criticizing... or as if they are laughing at the tragedy and not the irony.

It's a straw man. I see it as an attempt to vilify the messenger rather than the actual people responsible for the tragedy. I prefer my atheists uppity and outspoken... I don't want them to be more like those who imagine themselves as moderate. What they see as moderate, I see as the expression of a bias that they are unwilling to examine.

Let us enjoy our irreverence on a skeptics forum!



Um, OK. But I don't think people are criticizing you or anyone for criticizing religion. Bokonon criticizes religions fairly regularly as does Pardalis.

They are responding to the timing of the attack and the fact that it is tied to a young girl's death. It's fine to criticize religion -- it's ripe for it; but there is a time and place for it. Yes, this is the place; but this is not the time. Some actions cross social lines.

Be irreverent all you want, but it is too much to expect that others will not criticize you for it. If you want to criticize religion, then you are going to be held to task over your criticism. To suggest that you should be immune to criticism is wrong and clearly hypocritical, I'm afraid, when you've just been engaged in the process. Part of irreverence is accepting the fallout from it. If you're not willing to take the heat...........

You can always say, "So what?" to any critic. It uses less bandwidth if nothing else.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Here is the real question, does she qualify for a darwin award?


It's awfully close jsut because of the ironic circumstances, but I would have to say no. Too many other people have gotten away with those sorts of harnesses in stage productions that she probably had every right to expect that she would be safe.

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, this is the place; but this is not the time. Some actions cross social lines.

I couldn't agree anymore. By which I mean, I disagree. The irony of a person dying while trying to please her god is ripe for comment. How do I know she was trying to please her god? I don't, but the fact that she was in a play about that nativity shows it extremely likely.

[bokonon]

Here is the real question, does she qualify for a darwin award?
Not in my opinion. The Darwin award is awarded for "a phenomenal failure of common sense." This girl took a risk, but on the face of it what she did was probably less risky than bungee jumping at the Queen Mary, and lots of people do that every day. You can always nominate her and see where it goes, but I suspect it will go nowhere.

On the other hand, for those who want a fix for their "religion is crazy" jones, the far-and-away leading contender for the 2008 Darwin award is "The Balloon Priest" (http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2008-16.html):
Catholic priest recently ascended towards heaven on a host of helium party balloons. Adelir Antonio de Carli, 41, was attempting to set the world record for clustered balloon flight to publicize his plan to build a spiritual rest stop for truckers.
Let's laugh at this guy instead. He's far more deserving of ridicule.

So you actualy think that someone will hold the church responcible for its negligence? You think someone will honestly sue the church?
I don't know whether they will or not. Some people will sue at the drop of a hat, and others will simply forgive with "it won't bring anybody back to life."

Human psychology may make many people less likely to sue if a loved one dies in an activity that the survivors perceive as "noble," whether that's religious pageantry, exploring the unknown, or making the world safe for democracy. Did the families of the Apollo 1 astronauts sue NASA when their relatives died in the fire? I found one story that said Betty Grissom sued Rockwell several years after the tragedy. What about the others?

I find it interesting that in your post explaining why religion was responcible for this, yet it has drawn no comment from those determined to deny any connection between this event and religion.I assume you mean this:
Churches I know have tended to toss safety concerns to the wind, with a mindless "We'll just trust in the Lord." Sorry: If Jesus drove a truck, even Jesus would rock the hood. I find the whole attitude regarding safety in most churches to be contemptible. IF there's anything to laugh at in this, it's that carelessness justified by "faith." A woman is dead because of this, and as I said, it's unlikely that anyone will ever be held accountable for that.
We don't really know that there was carelessness justified by faith.

Two twenty somethings died in these two separate accidents. (http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Student-dies-in-human-catapult.2381065.jp) Was "faith" involved in either of them? One of them even involved a safety clip attached to a rope that came open, which seems likely to be what caused this woman's fall as well. Were there lawsuits? I can't find any evidence of them.

People are making a LOT of assumptions here. They're assuming the church was negligent (I'm assuming they are as well). They're assuming that if there was negligence, the negligent parties will not be held accountable. That may turn out to be the case, but we certainly don't know at this point. They're assuming that if there is negligence and the responsible parties are not held accountable, it's because they'll get a special pass simply because religion is involved. I don't think that final assumption is justified at all. A lawsuit is NOT inevitable, even in cases of negligence. Some people sue without justification, and some people with justification choose not to sue. While "it's the church" may make a decision not to sue more likely, I don't think at this point it's the foregone conclusion that many seem to assume.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I couldn't agree anymore. By which I mean, I disagree. The irony of a person dying while trying to please her god is ripe for comment. How do I know she was trying to please her god? I don't, but the fact that she was in a play about that nativity shows it extremely likely.


Really? The fact that my daughter is working behind stage in a play about a cockney who inherits money shows that she has a thing for cockneys because she is participating in that musical?

It shows that she wanted to be a part of her community and participate. Anything else is speculation on your part.

But assume that you are correct. The objection is not against the irony, but against people who seem to find this girl's death funny (because at least one commentor said as much). I don't find it funny. Ironic or not, it is tragic.

[thaiboxerken]

She wanted to be a part of her CHURCH community in the joint effort to praise their gods.

[Ichneumonwasp]

She wanted to be a part of her CHURCH community in the joint effort to praise their gods.


Possibly. Even probably. What difference does that make? That somehow makes the death of a young girl funny?

If some guy also views his work on top of a building placing beams during construction as a way to get closer to God, then its funny when he falls to his death leaving behind a grieving family?

Sorry, I'm not getting the joke.

[articulett]

I'm still giggling because Radrook said "Christians consider death a natural occurrence due to our fallen condition" in a thread about a Christian who is dead because of her "fallen" condition.

I guess humor doesn't always translate; or people can't hear it when religion is involved.

The death is tragic; the unintentional irony of religion, faith, and the religious never fails to amuse me.

And yes, people are free to judge others here as inappropriate for their gallows humor just as I am free to find them humorless apologists with biases they refuse to examine.

The false analogies and refusal to allow for correction are an effort to make the commenter feel bad for doing nothing harmful, while at the same time, shielding faith from scrutiny even though faith inspired the irony that is being commented upon.

[thaiboxerken]

Possibly. Even probably. What difference does that make? That somehow makes the death of a young girl funny?

It makes it ironic. Tragic, perhaps, but still ironic.


If some guy also views his work on top of a building placing beams during construction as a way to get closer to God, then its funny when he falls to his death leaving behind a grieving family?


Now THAT would be funny!

[Ichneumonwasp]

It makes it ironic. Tragic, perhaps, but still ironic.

That's all I'm sayin'. Irony is the basis for tragedy as it is for much comedy.



Now THAT would be funny!


If it were Fred Phelps, yeah. Or poetic justice. Or something.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't know whether they will or not. Some people will sue at the drop of a hat, and others will simply forgive with "it won't bring anybody back to life."

Human psychology may make many people less likely to sue if a loved one dies in an activity that the survivors perceive as "noble," whether that's religious pageantry, exploring the unknown, or making the world safe for democracy. Did the families of the Apollo 1 astronauts sue NASA when their relatives died in the fire? I found one story that said Betty Grissom sued Rockwell several years after the tragedy. What about the others?


It is the only way to hold organizations responcible for their actions.

People are making a LOT of assumptions here. They're assuming the church was negligent (I'm assuming they are as well). They're assuming that if there was negligence, the negligent parties will not be held accountable. That may turn out to be the case, but we certainly don't know at this point. They're assuming that if there is negligence and the responsible parties are not held accountable, it's because they'll get a special pass simply because religion is involved. I don't think that final assumption is justified at all. A lawsuit is NOT inevitable, even in cases of negligence. Some people sue without justification, and some people with justification choose not to sue. While "it's the church" may make a decision not to sue more likely, I don't think at this point it's the foregone conclusion that many seem to assume.

And I see you wanting there to be no lawsuit so no one ever gets held accountable.

[bokonon]

I see you wanting there to be no lawsuit so no one ever gets held accountable.
You're seeing something that isn't there. I have no dog in that fight; if the girl's family decides to sue the church, I wish them all the best, and may justice prevail.

ETA: And if the church decides to lay a load of cash in front of the family without a lawsuit, I have no problem with that either. Congress voted to give the families of the Challenger astronauts $20-something million without being compelled to do so by a court ruling.

[thaiboxerken]

That's all I'm sayin'. Irony is the basis for tragedy as it is for much comedy.

Can not a situation be both tragic and comic?

[articulett]

And why should anyone be eager to shield a church from scrutiny or claims of negligence--when they wouldn't be as eager to shield a school or theater from their role in such a tragedy?

Are the Darwin Awards funny? If it's a non faith related Darwin Award joke thread, do you have the same responses where you accuse joksters of laughing at death? Do you miss the point to lecture such folks about how evil they are to giggle over death?

If you are going to comment on one thing or another, why isn't the negligence of the church more worth commenting on than the Darwin Award giggles this gives some atheists?

[bokonon]

Are the Darwin Awards funny?
You wouldn't be nearly as funny if you ever took your thumbs out of your earse. You're beautiful, I love you, don't ever change.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Can not a situation be both tragic and comic?


Of course. I'm saying that, for me, this ain't one of them. I gave my reasons earlier.

[ponderingturtle]

You're seeing something that isn't there. I have no dog in that fight; if the girl's family decides to sue the church, I wish them all the best, and may justice prevail.

You were arguing against suing as the result of such incompetence. It is one of the few ways of making organizations think. I know that they are a church so thought does not come easy, but this was an activity by and for the church so the church is responcible.

And NASA examples are very very poor analogy, as this is a common situation, there is nothing cutting edge about properly managing the rigging to fly a college girl.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Are the Darwin Awards funny? If it's a non faith related Darwin Award joke thread, do you have the same responses where you accuse joksters of laughing at deat?


Usually not, not very. In my profession I don't laugh much at death -- see it too often. But the Darwin awards are for people who commit such idiotic travesties that it seems almost poetic that they died doing it. This isn't one of those situations. Lots of shows have flying characters, pulled off without a hitch. This was a horrible accident.

As to negligence, if the church was negligent, and I bet they were, I hope her parents sue their asses off.

[bokonon]

You were arguing against suing as the result of such incompetence.
I was arguing that people often choose not to sue, even when negligence is demonstrated. I was not arguing that the parties in this case should choose not to sue.

And NASA examples are very very poor analogy, as this is a common situation, there is nothing cutting edge about properly managing the rigging to fly a college girl.
Once again, you've missed the point, which was this: One reason people might choose not to sue is that they perceive some "higher purpose" in the activity that led to the tragedy. That was my reason for offering the NASA examples, as completely secular cases in which people died as a result of negligence and foreseeable consequences, yet people who might have been justified in bringing lawsuits did not.

It was nothing more than a response to those who are hop-skip-jumping to one conclusion after another -
1. There was negligence
2. There will be no lawsuit
3. Simply because the "responsible party" is a church

At this point, NONE of these conclusions is a demonstrable fact.

[ponderingturtle]

Usually not, not very. In my profession I don't laugh much at death -- see it too often. But the Darwin awards are for people who commit such idiotic travesties that it seems almost poetic that they died doing it. This isn't one of those situations. Lots of shows have flying characters, pulled off without a hitch. This was a horrible accident.


And people fly in planes and gliders every day, but that does not mean someone who builds his own glider in his garage and jumps off a very tall bridge with it is not a good candidate for a darwin award.

There are remarkable feats of engineering done regularly, but that does not mean that people with out the proper training.

If this would qualify for a darwin award would be if she designed the rig or not, and the specifics of the rig. If the rig was designed by someone else, well others incompetence does not make something a darwin award.

[articulett]

Theoretically, this story should serve as a cautionary tale and cause church members to question their faith-- but the "faith in faith" meme will ensure that, instead, they will become more faithful because now they have suffered for their "faith". It's a well documented phenomenon -- discussed in the book When Prophesy Fails....

Once people learn to respect and shield faith they do it without thinking, they do it again and again and explain all tragedies as a test of their faith or some other related spin... and all near-misses as a miracle from god.

And you can't note this in public because you will immediately be demonized for daring to point out that the emperor is naked... the woman, in a sense, did die for a delusion-- a death where faith will never ever be blamed... because we've all learned to protect faith from such scrutiny by criticizing those who dare to point out the obvious. Her Savior supposedly did the same thing to erase sins or whatever.

I think dark humor and satire may be the very best way to raise consciousness on this subject and create just enough cognitive dissonance that people become aware of their biases. I like this forum because it gives me a place to practice saying what I think when I have to hold my tongue all day or wish the reprisal of those ever vigilant to protect the faith which will necessitate them hearing things that are not there to turn me into a bad guy.

I cherish having that right online, so if I react defensively, it may well be because I feel people are attempting to use emotional manipulation to deny me that right and to feel better about what I see as a lack of humor and they see as "the moral high ground".

People don't like to be called "apologists"... but isn't it way worse to insinuate that someone here is a sociopath just because you don't share their sense of humorous irony? The apologists might pretend they haven't done so, but their failure to let others correct their perceptions belies the fact that they have.

So of course I put such people on ignore. Nothing can change their mind about me-- they NEED me to be a bad guy-- and the more they talk, the more I think their double standards are glaring-- the more "apologetic" I see them as.

I want to read and converse with posters I like-- not posters bent on telling me how bad I and other posters I like are. Why should I care about such peoples opinion more than they care about mine?

I don't think our humor here hurts anyone... it may, in fact, raise consciousness and lessen the zeitgeist where faith is protected at all costs.

[Ichneumonwasp]

And people fly in planes and gliders every day, but that does not mean someone who builds his own glider in his garage and jumps off a very tall bridge with it is not a good candidate for a darwin award.

There are remarkable feats of engineering done regularly, but that does not mean that people with out the proper training.

If this would qualify for a darwin award would be if she designed the rig or not, and the specifics of the rig. If the rig was designed by someone else, well others incompetence does not make something a darwin award.


Yes, if she designed it and the design was shoddy, then she would be a candidate for the award; but that is not my understanding of what happened.

My guess is that everyone was improperly trained and they didn't give gravity the respect it deserves.

[Toke]

Yes, if she designed it and the design was shoddy, then she would be a candidate for the award; but that is not my understanding of what happened.

My guess is that everyone was improperly trained and they didn't give gravity the respect it deserves

Agree.
And pulling such a stunt without proper training is if not a crime then at least suable.

Guessing at what went wrong is difficult without more information and is not as entertaining as making guesses at the spiritual explanation.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I cherish having that right online, so if I react defensively, it may well be because I feel people are attempting to use emotional manipulation to deny me that right and to feel better about what I see as a lack of humor and they see as "the moral high ground".




But that's what I don't understand. I support your right to try out new ways of expressing yourself to see how others will take it. But you cannot decide how they should or will react to what you say. No one can remove your right to say what you want. Do it to your heart's content. But just as you are trying out different ways of saying things, you might realize that those ways offend some people. You can do whatever you want with that information. Telling other people that they shouldn't have negative feelings about it or that they shouldn't respond or that they should just keep their mouths shut isn't part of the deal, though. There are all sorts here. Someone is going to be offended by almost everything we say and do.

[Lonewulf]

I've lost interest in the Darwin Awards when they praised (as an honorable mention) someone sticking his son with a poison, praising "ending the genetic line". The only reason it was "only" an honorable mention, is because the poison didn't actually kill either the son or the father.

I find the Darwin Awards distasteful when they openly support killing children.

[articulett]

I don't think that the parents will sue...
They now need to believe in god (and that their daughter is in heaven) more than ever.

They will have to step up their emotional biases shielding faith from scrutiny.

No atheist would dare to speak up and invade their grief (Though I'm sure Fred Phelps would)....

but here we can laugh and joke and shake our heads and be glad not to be stuck in some faith any longer.

To me, she did die for "nothing" in the same way a virgin sacrifice to a volcano god does.

The macabre jokes are they only way we have of dealing with this situation-- of taking some lessons or some laughter from something that is just sooo freakishly tragic.

I don't care if the parents sue or not-- they can't bring back their daughter... I hope someone somewhere is getting the idea that it's a bad idea to for churches to mount stage productions where people fly. I understand why people don't think it's funny-- there are a lot of things that people laugh at that I find positively banal or bigoted or just not funny. But I don't think that finding it funny is as much of a "character flaw" as protecting others from learning lessons from this story.

I'm not sure faith is good for anything... or worth protecting. As long as we live in a society where people have a knee jerk reaction to protecting faith, then the "faith in faith" meme will stay put. Humor may be our best weapon.

[Pardalis]

The false analogies and refusal to allow for correction are an effort to make the commenter feel bad for doing nothing harmful,

You have yet to explain how my analogies are false, all you've done so far is dismiss them offhand in an attempt to avoid facing my point.

while at the same time, shielding faith from scrutiny even though faith inspired the irony that is being commented upon.I haven't done that, that is your strawman. Show me where I've done that, with quote.

And why should anyone be eager to shield a church from scrutiny or claims of negligence--when they wouldn't be as eager to shield a school or theater from their role in such a tragedy?

First of all, we don't even know there was negligence involved, secondly, who ever said they wouldn't be reprimanded if it turns out they were negligent?

You're trying to invent a problem that doesn't even exist yet. If the Church or the school isn't properly reprimanded (again, if it turns out that they were at fault), then I'll gladly support your point. But the thing is, IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET, AND PROBABLY WON'T.

Theoretically, this story should serve as a cautionary tale and cause church members to question their faith

Again, how is their faith at issue in this case?

Once people learn to respect and shield faith they do it without thinking, Again, nobody is "shielding" religion, READ CAREFULLY:

I just don't think it has anything to do with the fact that this young woman fell.

the woman, in a sense, did die for a delusion-- a death where faith will never ever be blamed... because we've all learned to protect faith from such scrutiny by criticizing those who dare to point out the obvious. Her Savior supposedly did the same thing to erase sins or whatever.No, no, no, no. When you say "in a sense" it is only in a very convoluted one, your "sense". I don't see it that way. Again, take my Peter Pan analogy, would Peter Pan, J.M. Barrie or the entire Kid's fantasy literature be to blame? Answer this time.

People don't like to be called "apologists"... but isn't it way worse to insinuate that someone here is a sociopath just because you don't share their sense of humorous irony? I've never insinuated anything, I've been more than cordial with you. We're just having a difference of opinion.

I hope someone somewhere is getting the idea that it's a bad idea to for churches to mount stage productions where people fly.

So we can ban plays about Peter Pan, Superman, ban movies altogether?

Should we ban bungee jumping while we're at it?

Is your problem with hanging people on wires, or really with religion? Think about it.

[articulett]

But that's what I don't understand. I support your right to try out new ways of expressing yourself to see how others will take it. But you cannot decide how they should or will react to what you say. No one can remove your right to say what you want. Do it to your heart's content. But just as you are trying out different ways of saying things, you might realize that those ways offend some people. You can do whatever you want with that information. Telling other people that they shouldn't have negative feelings about it or that they shouldn't respond or that they should just keep their mouths shut isn't part of the deal, though. There are all sorts here. Someone is going to be offended by almost everything we say and do.

I'm not telling people not to express their opinions or that they shouldn't have negative feelings or keep their mouths shut. I consider that a straw man characterization of my words and motives.

I'm telling my own opinions of their expression of their opinions.

From my perspective, they are blaming the "messenger" while blatantly ignoring those who might actually benefit from a scolding-- namely the more responsible parties in this tragedy-- not the people deriving amusement from the irony. The humor may be the only good that can come from this story unless someone deigns to learn by accepting responsibility for negligence or starts to wonder if "faith" is as ennobling as they've imagined. That rarely happens-- the need to protect faith from scrutiny just becomes more ingrained when tragedy strikes. It's the panacea they've all come to believe in and that even atheists have learned to protect.

Humor and taste are subjective. Finding irony in tragedy is not a sign of lower moral character. Commenting on it might make the commentator feel better, but the comments cause me to judge the critic as being more worthy of criticism than the person that he is putting down. When people stop by a joke thread to cast unsavory implication about the character of the jokesters, then the critics ought to exhibit the same respect for the responses they generate as they expected for their original criticizing post. It seems that many people are all for freedom of expressions until you say something they don't like.

All people are free to criticize, and I'm free to criticize back, judge them unworthy of a reply, think of them as apologists, mock them, or put them on ignore. Yes, there are all sorts of ways to say things. That is as true for the critics as it is for the jokesters. Unfortunately, the critics seem to want the jokesters to tailor their joking with their opinions in mind, but they don't seem willing to tailor their criticisms or examine whether they might, in fact, have biases.

Far be it for me to stop opinion expressing... but I hope that those expressing their opinions will be modeling the respect they want for their opinions as they read my responses. Or they should put me on ignore. I might have a much harsher opinion of them than they have of me, and I might feel compelled to express it once they've opened the door of opportunity. I might even conclude (gasp!) that they are an apologist in denial! Once someone has accused me of not caring about the feelings of others, I'm glad to confirm their biases. I often think they are projecting their own character flaws on me--that is, they don't care about MY opinion... but they expect to care about theirs.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm not telling people not to express their opinions or that they shouldn't have negative feelings or keep their mouths shut. I consider that a straw man characterization of my words and motives.




I'll give you a chance to retract that statement before I quote you directly. You suggested that some people should keep their opinion to themselves more than once in this thread.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't think that the parents will sue...
They now need to believe in god (and that their daughter is in heaven) more than ever.

I don't know about that. If they were members of that church I'm sure they would think twice about it, but she was from Sylvania, not Cincinnati. I doubt her parents have any relationship with that church. One of the primary motivators decided for against a lawsuit concerns one's emotional attachment to the party being sued. A lot will depend on the investigation as to whether or not there was any negligence on the church's part.


To me, she did die for "nothing" in the same way a virgin sacrifice to a volcano god does.


If she believed, as many of you guys have argued, that she was in that show for the glory of her God, then she did die for something. She took a chance on her life for God. She died for an idea/ideal. If you take the approach that people die for nothing if there is no reality behind it, then everyone who has ever lived died for nothing. Justice and freedom are not constituents of the universe, they are what we make them.

[Pardalis]

All people are free to criticize, and I'm free to criticize back, judge them unworthy of a reply, think of them as apologists, mock them, or put them on ignore.

I guess I am on ignore, you haven't answered any of my points. :(

You forgot something about discussion forums, they're about discussions.

[Nogbad]

**** happens no matter what you believe or don't believe. She died doing something she was happy doing what more can one say? Very sad for her family who must be devastated.

[thaiboxerken]

Why should they be devastated? Shouldn't the girl now be in heaven according to their beliefs?

[Nogbad]

Why should they be devastated? Shouldn't the girl now be in heaven according to their beliefs?

Perhaps - my experience though is that people are just devastated. They may do the heaven thing on and off during it all but they will still feel like crap.

[Phase Inverter]

Seems you aren't familiar with Christian doctrine and are therefore presenting ideas erroneously....People unfamiliar with Christian doctrine shouldn't venture on misrepresenting it. Can you explain why you do?


Are you referring to True Christiantm doctrine? If that's the case most Christians are unfamiliar with it. As for what the average Christian actually believes, that varies widely depending on who you ask.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Are you referring to True Christiantm doctrine? If that's the case most Christians are unfamiliar with it. As for what the average Christian actually believes, that varies widely depending on who you ask.


But it would make for a great boardgame. You could change the rules anytime you wanted.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, if she designed it and the design was shoddy, then she would be a candidate for the award; but that is not my understanding of what happened.

My guess is that everyone was improperly trained and they didn't give gravity the respect it deserves.

Not giving some force the respect it deserves is a feature of many darwin awards though.

[Undesired Walrus]

Can not a situation be both tragic and comic?

'Comedy is tragedy plus time'- Alan Alda

[ponderingturtle]

I've lost interest in the Darwin Awards when they praised (as an honorable mention) someone sticking his son with a poison, praising "ending the genetic line". The only reason it was "only" an honorable mention, is because the poison didn't actually kill either the son or the father.

I find the Darwin Awards distasteful when they openly support killing children.

Where did you see that? By the rules that would not be elligible. The only one I can remember that involved a child was were a man challaged a child to stab him, and then when the child put the knife down put it back into his hand.

[ponderingturtle]

'Comedy is tragedy plus time'- Alan Alda

I prefer

Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die.-Mel Brooks

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'll give you a chance to retract that statement before I quote you directly. You suggested that some people should keep their opinion to themselves more than once in this thread.


Sorry, I'll retract what I said, since the only instance I can see now -- I remembered the statement as stronger for some reason -- is that you told Bokonon that he could have just not participated in the thread, which is nowhere close to telling him to keep quiet. So, my apoogies.

[articulett]

I'll give you a chance to retract that statement before I quote you directly. You suggested that some people should keep their opinion to themselves more than once in this thread.

You can quote me directly. I consider my opinions as valid as the opinions I'm responding to.

Surely the insinuation by the critics is that we shouldn't joke about this situation or that it's wrong to comment on the irony. I'd say I have an equal opinion of their commentary. Tit for tat. If people wish to express their opinions of other peoples' taste in humor, I will express my opinion of why they are stating their opinion on this thread.

To me, it's because they don't understand the humor, and they want to put the jokester down to feel good about themselves... they are attempting to silence the jokester or mischarachterize their motives... and I think they are doing it because they have biases they are unaware of-- biases that cause them to imagine motives that aren't there in the outspoken atheist, and cover for the role that faith played in this incident.

They are free to give their opinions, and I'm free to deduce that their opinions are due to their biases and inability to see the humor.

I think they'd be much more honest if they said, "that makes me uncomfortable" or "I don't think it's funny"-- instead, they imply that the jokesters are being prejudiced against religion, while they are blindly encouraging a prejudice against atheists. They posted here to put others down... not merely express their opinions. And when it came back they took offense... as though the responses were not warranted, but their own commentary was.

The implication from the critics is that the jokesters should shut up. And my opinion is that I'd rather read the jokesters than the critics. I think the jokesters raise consciousness and the critics are furthering a bias they don't realize they have.

[Silly Green Monkey]

she was from Sylvania

Wait what? My parents could have been there? Or do you mean she grew up there and moved elsewhere and died?

[articulett]

Sorry, I'll retract what I said, since the only instance I can see now -- I remembered the statement as stronger for some reason -- is that you told Bokonon that he could have just not participated in the thread, which is nowhere close to telling him to keep quiet. So, my apoogies.

No problem...

but that's what I mean...

Some things are heard or read with an implication of ill intent... no matter how carefully it is said... and it's always the words of the atheist...

The person protecting religion or decrying the words of the atheist might be far more offensive... the reaction of the church or faith might be fare more dishonest or irresponsible... but the bad guy is always the atheist. Always.

In my opinion, people bend over backwards to hear what isn't there in the words of the critics of religion... while ignoring the more egregious judgments, criticism, and actions of themselves, religion, and faith. They are protecting faith unknowingly and spreading a prejudice.

If people are going to hear what isn't there no matter how you say it due to their own prejudices which they refuse to examine-- then my position is to give them exactly what they ask for and put them on ignore.

If I cannot correct someone's straw man view of me or or the motives they attribute to others-- then I presume it's because they "need" to believe in the wrongness of others to hide something from themselves. It's what drives me crazy about Claus. It doesn't become a conversation where understanding is furthered... it becomes a conversation where someone is spent on spinning me (or the outspoken atheist) as some sort of bad guy.

I think they should talk to each other. They aren't engaging in dialogue, they are seeking to prove that someone else is beneath them through straw men and spin. It's not fixable. To me, they have a bias they refuse to examine and they will spin as much of a delusion as possible about the evilness of others in order to keep from examining whether they are more worthy of criticism than those they imagine themselves above.

Those calling others inappropriate seem unaware of the ways that others might find them inappropriate and not a good judge of propriety. People are free to find this kind of humor offensive, and I'm free to draw whatever impressions I choose from their commentary. Finding someone biased is not nearly so harsh a judgment as insinuating they are laughing at the tragedy. The humor is in the irony--not the tragedy. If people don't understand that, then perhaps they don't have the same humor or they may be protecting faith in a way that they are unaware of. Either way, why should their opinion of me or others matter more than my opinion of them?

Nobody here is doing the moronic equivalent of flying people around the room in amateur pageantry for the celebration of mythology. That is more worth scorn in my opinion than any jokes someone might make about it.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Surely the insinuation by the critics is that we shouldn't joke about this situation or that it's wrong to comment on the irony. I'd say I have an equal opinion of their commentary. Tit for tat. If people wish to express their opinions of other peoples' taste in humor, I will express my opinion of why they are stating their opinion on this thread.





I can't speak for others, as I said, I have no problem with pointing out the irony. I just don't think it funny when someone that young dies tragically, which is why I don't think this is the time to say that it is funny.

Ironic, sure. But saying "isn't that ironic?" doesn't take up much space.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Wait what? My parents could have been there? Or do you mean she grew up there and moved elsewhere and died?


My understanding is that she was from Sylvania, OH (outside Toledo), went to college at Bowling Green and had just entered graduate school at Xavier (in Cincinnati) -- I think she was in a computer science program. The megachurch is in Cincinnati I believe, but I don't know if it is in the city proper or one of the many suburbs. She was taken to University Hospital, so it must have been near or in the city itself.

[articulett]

Nor does saying "I don't think it's funny".

[articulett]

I think the diatribes came from the critics first...

And then I followed with attempts to explain... but the explanations fell on deaf ears. The critics wished to have their opinions unchallenged. They are the ones trying to limit other peoples speech while imagining that I'm trying to limit theirs.

[Pardalis]

I think they'd be much more honest if they said, "that makes me uncomfortable" or "I don't think it's funny"-- instead, they imply that the jokesters are being prejudiced against religion, while they are blindly encouraging a prejudice against atheists. They posted here to put others down... not merely express their opinions. And when it came back they took offense... as though the responses were not warranted, but their own commentary was.

I guess this is aimed at me. Why not talk to me directly, are you afraid of something? It's kind of dishonest to address and attack me in such an intermediate way, it only makes you look like an immature child.

All of what you said never happened in this thread, so I'll keep asking you to back it up. Where have I ever done what you accuse me of doing? Prove it.

Are you going to do it?

BTW, could someone quote me? Articulett seems to have me on ignore.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Nor does saying "I don't think it's funny".


Yes, it took up exactly one line at the end of my first post. All the rest was an attempt to defend this simple opinion and the fallout from it.

[articulett]

I know... I wasn't responding to you. Nor the Marquis... you were very short...

It was Lucky and Bokonen and Pardalis that I was responding to.

I also didn't feel that Thaiboxerken was more inappropriate than them... and certainly not more worthy of chastizement then the silly folks who decided to let the girl fly around.

I'm sorry if I made you defensive. I guess I felt defensive about engaging in silly humor. It might be tacky. But tacky isn't evil. And joking at the irony does not mean that people aren't aware of the horror of the death. I think this thread highlights the way people hear what isn't there to protect faith from scrutiny.

Not you, Ich. Just the people who dropped in and gave some rather long diatribes tsk-tsking people for their laughing at tragedy. That's a straw man. It was the irony that was being laughed at and some people just didn't find it funny. I believe Lucky was the first to derail with a comment towards Roadtoad.. and then he aimed his judgment at me. But I find him more worthy of scorn for his clear "protect the faith" biases". I like the people he chose to criticize far better than I like him and his silly straw man. That is true of all of those who chose to use this thread as a talking point to preach their holier than thou viewpoint on the subject. I think it's obvious who those people are. It's obvious to me anyhow.

I don't deny them their right to comment. I just put them on ignore because I don't care about their opinions any more than they care about mine.

I'm sorry if you thought it was directed at you. It was my defensive reaction to those who imagine dark motives in me that I do not have and continued with that false assessment despite my attempts at correction. They do not like it when I call them apologists, and yet what they infer about me is much, much worse. I judge them as people I'd never take advice or admonishment from.

Oh, and I don't think of Ken like you characterized him. I think the critics in general were finding faults that weren't there and unwilling to consider whether the fault was in a biased interpretation of the words. I don't see myself or the jokesters as being the ones taking the "low road" so to speak, nor do I see the critics as taking the "high road".

[Pardalis]

Where have I insinuated that you had "dark motives"?

[bokonon]

Why not talk to me directly, are you afraid of something?
Of course she is. She's afraid to have her views challenged. Just like any other fundamentalist.

It's kind of dishonest to address and attack me in such an intermediate way, it only makes you look like an immature child.She's that too.

All of what you said never happened in this thread, so I'll keep asking you to back it up. Where have I ever done what you accuse me of doing? Prove it.
She won't, because she can't. Like some of the other fundamentalists here (DOC, yrreg) she operates mostly in write-only mode. Like just about any fundamentalist, she can't handle criticism, can't even bear to let it register. As soon as she sees something critical, the shields go up, the one who was critical goes in the box, and she begins bleating "Four legs good, two legs baaaaaad" to drown out any suggestion that there might be shades of grey in the world.

BTW, could someone quote me? Articulett seems to have me on ignore.
It doesn't matter. Even if she read what you wrote, all you'd get is the standard chant, "Protecting faith, faith in faith, apologists, they'll do anything to defend the faithful, they don't hear what I'm saying, they're biased and can't see it" etc etc etc. It is ALWAYS the same thing, and almost never has any connection to what she claims to be addressing.

She's really a classic case in the power of projection, right down to the "The incompetent are the least likely to know it, and the ones who feel most confident in their abilities. It's true!" in her signature line. You weren't doing what she accuses you of doing, and almost anyone who reads the thread can see that. Articulett herself will NEVER see it, because she's a fundamentalist locked into an "us vs them" view that she can't break out of and can't see beyond.

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps - my experience though is that people are just devastated. They may do the heaven thing on and off during it all but they will still feel like crap.

Wow. So it seems that you claim that most believers in heaven are hypocrites? Or are they selfish beings that only want their loved ones to be with them?

[bokonon]

Wow. So it seems that you claim that most believers in heaven are hypocrites? Or are they selfish beings that only want their loved ones to be with them?
Most of them are human beings with human emotions. Maybe they believe the "heaven" tale they tell each other all the way down to their bones, and maybe they don't. Either way, it's natural to feel a sense of loss, knowing that you'll be living the rest of your life without being able to hold, see, or have a conversation with someone you love.

I guess it's easier to see them as monsters who don't feel human emotions the same way a sensitive guy like you would, especially if you want to giggle guiltlessly at their tragedies.

[Pardalis]

We should attack the fundies who push for bad laws which hurt people, not the regular folks who are greaving, if they are deluding themselves into believing in a deity or the after-life that's their right, it's their way to cope with the senselessness of death.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Oh, and I don't think of Ken like you characterized him. I think the critics in general were finding faults that weren't there and unwilling to consider whether the fault was in a biased interpretation of the words. I don't see myself or the jokesters as being the ones taking the "low road" so to speak, nor do I see the critics as taking the "high road".


How did I characterized Ken? I said that he said that he thought it was funny (because he did) and that I didn't. I further said that I didn't think that he thought it was laugh out loud funny but that he only made what amounted to a bad joke -- as you say yourself that it is tacky to discuss her like this -- the reason being that we must speak of this girl when talking about the irony and to speak ill of the recently dead is a minor taboo in our society. Ken and I had a perfectly polite exchange about it as did Ponderingturtle and I.

[Radrook]

Are you referring to True Christiantm doctrine? If that's the case most Christians are unfamiliar with it. As for what the average Christian actually believes, that varies widely depending on who you ask.

I understand that presently there are variations of beliefs all claiming to be Christian beliefs.
So when I refer to Christian beliefs, I am referring to what was originally taught during the first century as explained in the NT. No belief that goes contrary to what was originally taught by Jesus and his Apostles deserves to be called a Christian teaching since Jesus and his Apostles would not view such teachings as Christian. The teachings described in the OPED do not have scriptural support. So they cannot really be said to be Christian teachings. Much more accurate to say that they are ideas held by people who think they are Christian teachings. But their belief does not make them so. Otherwise skinning people alive, ripping out their tongues, and plucking out their eyes would also qualify if we use that criterion.

[Phase Inverter]

I understand that presently there are variations of beliefs all claiming to be Christian beliefs.
So when I refer to Christian beliefs, I am referring to what was originally taught during the first century as explained in the NT. No belief that goes contrary to what was originally taught by Jesus and his Apostles deserves to be called a Christian teaching since Jesus and his Apostles would not view such teachings as Christian.


Having been raised Catholic, I came to the realization one day that the only source for knowledge of God was the Holy Scripture. I decided to take on the principle of sola scriptura and began rejecting many teachings of the "Church", their rituals and traditions, as unbiblical.

The teachings described in the OPED do not have scriptural support. So they cannot really be said to be Christian teachings.


As I posted earlier in this thread (see my quote below), I personally held one of the positions described on the OP. It was devastating to my family when I told them that was no longer a member of the "Church" and I would not be participating in such traditions as Easter and Christmas. But, I had scripture to back up my position and was convinced that I was practicing Christianity the way it was intended to be. When I received a lot of grief from friends and family, I was comforted by the following words of Jesus:

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

I myself held the last position above at one time. The Bible says:

"He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

and

"Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."

I did indeed believe that Christmas and it's associated pagan rituals were an abomination unto God and that those who participated would ultimately be destroyed.


Unfortunately for me, I started with the presumption that the Holy Bible is indeed the word of God and therefore is 100% true and inerrant. I then proceeded to cherry-pick the good parts to believe in as well as cherry-picking other parts to condemn the many beliefs and practices of your average Christian.

Then along came the much publicized debate over creation vs. evolution. I decided to give the book of Genesis a thorough read, but this time with no presumptions. What I found there was totally (and literally) unbelievable. For me, Genesis, and the rest of the Holy Bible, has been relegated to the same status as all the other ancient mythologies, creation stories, and various other creator gods.

[thaiboxerken]

I guess it's easier to see them as monsters who don't feel human emotions the same way a sensitive guy like you would, especially if you want to giggle guiltlessly at their tragedies.

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.

[thaiboxerken]

We should attack the fundies who push for bad laws ....


Megachurch = full of fundies.

[articulett]

How did I characterized Ken? I said that he said that he thought it was funny (because he did) and that I didn't. I further said that I didn't think that he thought it was laugh out loud funny but that he only made what amounted to a bad joke -- as you say yourself that it is tacky to discuss her like this -- the reason being that we must speak of this girl when talking about the irony and to speak ill of the recently dead is a minor taboo in our society. Ken and I had a perfectly polite exchange about it as did Ponderingturtle and I.

You're right... I thought you had concluded that he thought the tragedy was funny rather than the irony... that he was laughing at her death rather than the bizarreness that surrounds it.

In that church, people are told that those who don't believe are going to hell... that means that they are "coerced" into believing this and paying homage to faith... and forced to look the other way and spin to avoid seeing the harms that can come from the faith they believe will save them.

[articulett]

Megachurch = full of fundies.

Indeed. These churches are the ones turning kids into trusting robots with threats of hell.

These churches are the ones putting down science while encouraging people to trust liars.

These churches are the ones telling people to put faith in a supposedly "loving" god who would create life with the possibility it could suffer for eternity for the finite "crime" of not believing the right story with enough zeal.

These churches are the ones that will try to pass off this death as "god's will" and assure the believers that she's in heaven watching over them!

It's all ridiculously horrible-- and faith is supposed to be good and wonderful and make people moral and responsible--

It does none of that. It just makes them blind to glaring hypocrisy and their inane doublethink.

And it causes others to rush in and defend faith at every opportunity by imagining evil in anyone who dares to point this out.

The way these stories are spin so that faith is never impeached and the critics of religion are made into "bad guys" never ceases to amaze me.

I was raised Catholic like Phase Inverter. I am well aware of the "protect the faith" at all costs meme. I once had that bias and would deny that I had it. But now it seems like just another mental manipulation to keep the faithful from questioning faith. It's wrong. The girl in the accident should have been questioning her faith long ago. Covering for faith makes it so seeds of doubt are less likely to take root.

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.

[articulett]

Like Phase Inverter, I was raised Catholic... it gives me joy to laugh at the superstitions which once bound me. I'm glad that I am no longer afflicted and I get a special thrill out of irreverence-- a victimless crime.

The "faith in faith" meme has many victims.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Like Phase Inverter, I was raised Catholic... it gives me joy to laugh at the superstitions which once bound me. I'm glad that I am no longer afflicted and I get a special thrill out of irreverence-- a victimless crime.

The "faith in faith" meme has many victims.


Oh, sure, it starts victimless, but then you're repeating Spanish Inquistion sketches and calling Dimsdale's name in a whiny hedgehog voice before the whole thing careens out of control................................

[Roadtoad]

No one expects the spanish inquisition....!!!!

[articulett]

My voice is not whiny or hedgehog like--

It's bold and resonant (if I do say so myself).

And sultry too.

[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.

[bokonon]

These churches are the ones turning kids into trusting robots with threats of hell.
Yeah, they're all robots, not really people, almost insects actually, bees or ants the way they scurry about without thinking or feeling. No need to have any more compassion for their suffering than you would for a family of cockroaches.

And it causes others to rush in and defend faith at every opportunity by imagining evil in anyone who dares to point this out.
I am not defending their faith. I am defending their humanity. People are imperfect and flawed, and some of them believe things that make life less rational than it could be. Fortunately, there's nobody like that around here, they're all in "these churches" so we know who's worth caring about and who is not.

The girl in the accident should have been questioning her faith long ago.Yes, that would have kept her safe.

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.
Her beliefs had nothing to do with the cause of the accident, and your continued insistence that dogma caused her death is absurd. There are dozens of reasons to attack the dogma, but this really isn't one of them.

[CFLarsen]

"But, Ma! He did it first!"

Is that supposed to justify bad behavior?

[Roadtoad]

"But, Ma! He did it first!"

Is that supposed to justify bad behavior?

You have no idea how often that line is used for just such an excuse. And, no, it's not right.

[Lonewulf]

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.

I agree with you.

And I think disgusting is just the right word to use, if not strong enough.

[thaiboxerken]

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: