Credit where credit is due

[Sarkus]

I can think of many illogical examples but as with all your ilk, you'll say fantasy, bullshit, lies, whatever other crap you come out with when something defies your logic.

Saying that you can does not mean you can.
Give just one.
Please.
All it will take is one.

But you can't, can you?

So pointless excercise, go play with someone else. I am not humouring you.

Is this how you concede all your arguments?

Pathetic.

 

[Godless]

Two Boxers, Both Christians. Both pray before the match, Boxer A beats the living shit out of Boxer B. Boxer A thanks god for his victory, Boxer B is sped to the hospital and dies within hours! Boxer's B wife thanks god, for being married to a guy who lost, his wife got 41million bucks for the fight despite his loss!

God works in mysterious ways. Boxer B's wife was being beat up by this guy, she prayed that he would stop, now that he is dead, no one will beat her up, and she gets a hefty paycheck as well.

Godless

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Saying that you can does not mean you can.
Give just one.
Please.
All it will take is one.

But you can't, can you?

Is this how you concede all your arguments?

Pathetic.

I'm not interested in what you think of me, hence I have no compulsion to humour you, it's a good feeling

 

[SnakeLord]

Unfortunately TOR has some serious anger issues that he needs to come to terms with - and indeed a complete lack of engaging in decent debate. As seen on this thread alone, when faced with a difficult question TOR just starts throwing out random insults and then ignores the questions.

Alas I have never met a theist that actually understands what's being asked - being forever stuck with only half the picture.

Yes James, their god would be as responsible for the miners death as he would for the other miners living. It reminds me of Dattaswami's "god made everything on this world for our enjoyment" - without taking into account pubic lice, bot flies, cancer or those curious catfish that swim up the end of your penis.

As Twain said:

'If science exterminates a disease which has been working for God, it is God that gets the credit, and all the pulpits break into grateful advertising-raptures and call attention to how good he is! Yes, he has done it. Perhaps he has waited a thousand years before doing it. That is nothing; the pulpit says he was thinking about it all the time. When exasperated men rise up and sweep away an age-long tyranny and set a nation free, the first thing the delighted pulpit does is to advertise it as God's work, and invite the people to get down on their knees and pour out their thanks to him for it. And the pulpit says with admiring emotion, "Let tyrants understand that the Eye that never sleeps is upon them; and let them remember that the Lord our God will not always be patient, but will loose the whirlwinds of his wrath upon them in his appointed day."

They forget to mention that he is the slowest mover in the universe; that his Eye that never sleeps might as well, since it takes it a century to see what any other eye would see in a week; that in all history there is not an instance where he thought of a noble deed first, but always thought of it just a little after somebody else had thought of it and done it. He arrives then, and annexes the dividend.'

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Unfortunately TOR has some serious anger issues that he needs to come to terms with - and indeed a complete lack of engaging in decent debate. As seen on this thread alone, when faced with a difficult question TOR just starts throwing out random insults and then ignores the questions.

Alas I have never met a theist that actually understands what's being asked - being forever stuck with only half the picture.

Yes James, their god would be as responsible for the miners death as he would for the other miners living. It reminds me of Dattaswami's "god made everything on this world for our enjoyment" - without taking into account pubic lice, bot flies, cancer or those curious catfish that swim up the end of your penis.

As Twain said:

'If science exterminates a disease which has been working for God, it is God that gets the credit, and all the pulpits break into grateful advertising-raptures and call attention to how good he is! Yes, he has done it. Perhaps he has waited a thousand years before doing it. That is nothing; the pulpit says he was thinking about it all the time. When exasperated men rise up and sweep away an age-long tyranny and set a nation free, the first thing the delighted pulpit does is to advertise it as God's work, and invite the people to get down on their knees and pour out their thanks to him for it. And the pulpit says with admiring emotion, "Let tyrants understand that the Eye that never sleeps is upon them; and let them remember that the Lord our God will not always be patient, but will loose the whirlwinds of his wrath upon them in his appointed day."

They forget to mention that he is the slowest mover in the universe; that his Eye that never sleeps might as well, since it takes it a century to see what any other eye would see in a week; that in all history there is not an instance where he thought of a noble deed first, but always thought of it just a little after somebody else had thought of it and done it. He arrives then, and annexes the dividend.'

blah blah blah whiney blah, you can't cope with the fact that my ego is not interested in the 'small talk' of certain individuals and don't feel the need to 'humour' said individuals.

Some facts:
I am a girl (on the goat to be precise)
I am not a theist

I am NOT fooled by the likes of you and Q who insult posters from the off, then WHINE when you receive the same in return.

 

[cato]

I am sorry TOR, but you are way off base. firstly, an atheist blaming (or thanking) god is paradoxical. either they are not an atheists, or they didn't blame god. you are probably just referring to the attempts of atheists to point out the hypocrisy of theist.

one of the basic points of this thread is saying that if god has the power to save the 2 miners, why didn't he just stop the collapse in the first place? did this god want the one miner to die? the Christian god is thought by most to be omnipotent so the only remaining possibility is that god wanted that one miner to die, or simply chose not to have him.

either way, why is this god given credit for the saving of lives in nearly every situation, while you rarely here someone thank or blame god for killing someone they love. its religious inconsistency.

I, personally, give a lot of credit to radical Islamic suicide bombers. at least they are consistent in their beliefs. too bad religion is such a fucked up thing.

 

[SnakeLord]

blah blah blah whiney blah, you can't cope with the fact that my ego is not interested in the 'small talk' of certain individuals and don't feel the need to 'humour' said individuals.

A mature high quality response. Thank you.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

A mature high quality response. Thank you.

as always!

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I am sorry TOR, but you are way off base. firstly, an atheist blaming (or thanking) god is paradoxical. either they are not an atheists, or they didn't blame god. you are probably just referring to the attempts of atheists to point out the hypocrisy of theist.

one of the basic points of this thread is saying that if god has the power to save the 2 miners, why didn't he just stop the collapse in the first place? did this god want the one miner to die? the Christian god is thought by most to be omnipotent so the only remaining possibility is that god wanted that one miner to die, or simply chose not to have him.

either way, why is this god given credit for the saving of lives in nearly every situation, while you rarely here someone thank or blame god for killing someone they love. its religious inconsistency.

I, personally, give a lot of credit to radical Islamic suicide bombers. at least they are consistent in their beliefs. too bad religion is such a fucked up thing.

'NEVER BLAMED? James R? Well that is 100% incorrect statement now isn't it?

Firstly, God is blamed frequently when things go wrong, especially by atheists interestingly, the question is always being asked by atheists, the above is a good example I wouldn't ask why pink unicaorns can only fly forwards instead of backwards? I don't believe pink unicorns exist so cannot argue about the 'nature' of that unicorn. I know the simple logic of this point will be lost on the great mass minds of sci forums as every religious thread is testiony to the fact this simple point cannot be grasped. Moving on.......

Previous believers in god will reject god when things go wrong that they didn't anticipate, this is common.

So why is God not blamed when things go wrong, well he is. End of... no doubt the family of the dead man aren't raving about the miracle the way everyone else is.

However, generally people who believe in god believe that eveything has its purpose. There is the belief that those that die young have fulfilled their purpose on this plane of existance, their journey (or whatever) is complete and are thus being moved onto something else. It's not neccessarily a 'bad' thing as you say.

Meanwhile blaming God for different things depends on what you presume to know about God. Do you presume he was directly responsible for the naturally occurring and NOT logic defying tunnel collapse and the death of the man, or do you consider this was as stated a naturally occurring event. It may be the case that the mens survival was unexpected and unnatural in that it defied logic hence was deemed a miracle. A tunnel collapsing is not a 'miracle', the men being found alive after 2 days would not have been considered a miracle either. It is the fact they were found alive after two weeks that makes it appear like a miracle and hence Gods intervention is being credited for this 'miracle'.

Again incase anyone misses this simple point, a very simple analogy follows:

When I make a cake, if my oven conks out and the cake is ruined, it is NOT directly my fault. I was not responsible for my oven conking out. But if the cake rises despite the oven not working, well then...something odd is happenning there that may or may not be attribuable to me. Maybe this is why when things go unexpectabdly (against all the odds) well, then God is thanked, but not balmed for all the things that go 'naturally' wrong.

Somethings are outside of our control but naturally occurring, somethings are outside our control but NOT naturally occurring. I think this is what makes the difference as to where blame is being laid.

I think there are definately confused atheists as there are confused religious, we are all human and no one group is any more or less human than the other. Anyway, of course I was being inflamatory, the likes of Q and Snake eat this stuff up! makes their day.

 

[Dravyga]

You may have heard that in Australia two miners have recently been rescued after being trapped 1 km underground for two weeks. Three miners were caught in the collapse of a tunnel. Two survived to be rescued; the other was killed in the collapse.

When the miners walked out of the mine a couple of days ago, there was much talk (and headlines) of a "miracle". People gathered in churches and thanked God that their prayers had been answered and the miners rescued.

But what about the "miracle" of the miner who was killed? If you're going to say that the rescue happened because of God, then surely God must have intended that the third miner would die, too. Was the third miner being punished by God, by this "miracle" of a rock fall?

Why is God always thanked when something goes right, but never blamed when things go wrong? If the rescue of two miners was a miracle, then let's also give God the credit for killing the third miner.

What do you think?

It's funny, me thinks. Jumping to conclusion without evidence to support it, lol.

 

[Godless]

*Some facts:
I am a girl (on the goat to be precise)
I am not a theist*

That explains it!

 

[KennyJC]

Unfortunately TOR has some serious anger issues that he needs to come to terms with - and indeed a complete lack of engaging in decent debate. As seen on this thread alone, when faced with a difficult question TOR just starts throwing out random insults and then ignores the questions.

You noticed?

 

[(Q)]

Why is God always thanked when something goes right, but never blamed when things go wrong? If the rescue of two miners was a miracle, then let's also give God the credit for killing the third miner.

What do you think?

I agree, it's as silly as the woman who was rescued under a pile of debris, part of which killed thousands of others, and claimed it was a miracle from god that she was saved.

But I suspect that even those simple concepts of others dying while some are saved are well understood by the theist when he concludes that, "God works in mysterious ways."

What I wonder is why theists won't question beyond that and why they would be satisfied with that logic?

 

[(Q)]

Believing in God doesn't make one an authority on the subject. Most people, theists and atheists alike, have a poor understanding of what the concept of "God" really entails. I would agree with the atheist that most things people say about God are nonsense, with the only difference that I wouldn't make an exception for atheists.

The concept of god is different for each person, as it is for you. You'll find that only too evident after asking any theist.

That said, I don't think the atheist really understands the mind of the theist. He certainly doesn't understand why the theist thanks God. The essential problem is that the theist understands that nothing good can happen if there is no God. The atheist puts himself in a contradictory position when he thinks something is good but fails to see that his philosophy implies good does not exist. (or evil, for that matter)

Good and evil are concepts only relevant to the observer or more precisely with the theist observer. And yes, it is very difficult to understand the mind of the theist, who so easily,readily, and willfully accept good and evil as a way of life.

So when the theist says, "thank you God for saving that person", he's really saying "thank you God for making the survival of that person be a good thing".

Somewhat simple when you think about it.

Then, what of the dead miner? Is it a good or evil thing that he died?

 

[Confutatis]

The concept of god is different for each person, as it is for you. You'll find that only too evident after asking any theist.

That's right, but why should that be a problem? My brother and I have completely different opinions about my mother, yet somehow our disagreement doesn't make my mother vanish into thin air.

Good and evil are concepts only relevant to the observer...

Do you know of any concepts that are relevant to anything but an observer? What kind of silliness is that?

or more precisely with the theist observer.

Nonsense. Atheists believe in good and evil just like everybody else. No atheist in his right mind would say all moral actions are equivalent.

Then, what of the dead miner? Is it a good or evil thing that he died?

This is taking it too far. The central issue here is something quite simple: a person survived an accident and feels thankful for that. What is wrong with feeling thankful? Of course it's really difficult to understand who or what the person should be thankful to, so the easiest thing to do is follow tradition and thank God. To think a person should engage in deep philosophy and solve the problems of free will or human suffering just because they are extremely happy they survived an accident is ridiculous.

You cannot deny the survivor's feeling of gratitude without denying his or her sense of humanity, and you cannot offer an alternative object for their thankfulness. What is all the fuss about? Do you think they should not feel grateful, or do you think they should thank the laws of physics?

 

[(Q)]

That's right, but why should that be a problem? My brother and I have completely different opinions about my mother, yet somehow our disagreement doesn't make my mother vanish into thin air.

You're comparing apples to oranges, the physical to the supernatural, the visible to the non-existent. Can you both see and interact with your Mother? Can you agree the exact words that come from her mouth are the same for both of you, regardless of your opinion?

Do you know of any concepts that are relevant to anything but an observer? What kind of silliness is that?

I know many concepts of relativity, however, good and evil are considered absolute by the theist, based on what is told to them in scriptures.

They believe, for example, that their god is just and righteous when he murdered the entire population of the planet, save all but Noah and his entourage, or how god treated Job to make his point.

They are completely numb to the relative observer.

Nonsense. Atheists believe in good and evil just like everybody else. No atheist in his right mind would say all moral actions are equivalent.

Atheists understand the theists notion of good and evil, but that's about it. Their moral actions are not dependent on scriptures.

This is taking it too far. The central issue here is something quite simple: a person survived an accident and feels thankful for that. What is wrong with feeling thankful? Of course it's really difficult to understand who or what the person should be thankful to, so the easiest thing to do is follow tradition and thank God. To think a person should engage in deep philosophy and solve the problems of free will or human suffering just because they are extremely happy they survived an accident is ridiculous.

Why not then, just thank Chaos Theory? Or kneel down and give thanks to the boulder that didn't crush the surviving miner? Perhaps the thanks should be given to the individual who constructed that part of the mine shaft in which the survivors were when the accident happened?

Why thank an imaginary being? Give credit where credit is due.

You cannot deny the survivor's feeling of gratitude without denying his or her sense of humanity, and you cannot offer an alternative object for their thankfulness. What is all the fuss about? Do you think they should not feel grateful, or do you think they should thank the laws of physics?

Yes, thank the laws of physics if you wish, that would be giving credit where credit is due, not to some cruel immoral god who was impotent to do anything for the dead miner.

 

[SnakeLord]

Of course it's really difficult to understand who or what the person should be thankful to, so the easiest thing to do is follow tradition and thank God.

I've always noticed that on those life saving programmes, (emergency 911 etc). The people get out of their predicament and instantly thank the clouds instead of thanking all of the men and women that worked their nuts off for hours/days to save them. Surely they're the ones that the person should be thankful to?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I've always noticed that on those life saving programmes, (emergency 911 etc). The people get out of their predicament and instantly thank the clouds instead of thanking all of the men and women that worked their nuts off for hours/days to save them. Surely they're the ones that the person should be thankful to?

Another one who never leaves the house.
When I was in hopsital all the 100's of cards were to staff NOT to God. Get out more. Maybe you and Q could go have a beer?

 

[SnakeLord]

Another one who never leaves the house.

I could debate the issue, but I personally fail to see the relevance. Did you actually have some rebuttal or debate to the post that I made or are you still suffering from those anger issues?

When I was in hopsital all the 100's of cards were to staff NOT to God.

So then you're saying that these people clearly agree that it's the humans that should be thanked? In that case, my point is made with concerns to the post I was responding to. Still, what has the hospital you were in got to do with all the life saving programmes I watched?

Get out more

Again I fail to see the relevance. Any chance you could debate/discuss like a grown up for a while?

Maybe you and Q could go have a beer?

Perhaps. Something wrong with beer?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I could debate the issue, but I personally fail to see the relevance. Did you actually have some rebuttal or debate to the post that I made or are you still suffering from those anger issues?



So then you're saying that these people clearly agree that it's the humans that should be thanked? In that case, my point is made with concerns to the post I was responding to. Still, what has the hospital you were in got to do with all the life saving programmes I watched?



Again I fail to see the relevance. Any chance you could debate/discuss like a grown up for a while?



Perhaps. Something wrong with beer?

Snake, there is no point me debating with the likes of you and Q, you both make it up as you go along, If your best source of reference is TV and Wikipedia then YES you do need to get out more, or just live more...how old are you?