The difficulties of cross cultural communication.

[stone space]

Lately, I've been getting the strong feeling that some of the miscommunication between religious folks and atheists may result from this.

Sometimes, cross cultural communication can be like learning a new language.

As an atheist, I try to listen to what Christians and others say in their own religious language.

For an example, I'll take a recent post of mine.

I remember a Thanksgiving story.

It was back in 2006, I believe.

A small boy was riding with his mother in a car on Thanksgiving Day, when they got into a terrible accident.

The mother was killed, and the boy survived the crash, but was stranded all alone in the Arizona desert.

At some point, an undocumented immigrant named Jesus who was crossing into this country passed by, and stayed with the boy and protected him while trying to flag down somebody to help.

Eventually, he was able to get the attention of a Border patrol agent, and the boy was saved, and Jesus was deported.

I remember the boy's Aunt on TV thanking God (and Jesus!) while calling it a miracle.

Now, you're an atheist like me, so we both have to put on our thinking caps when we hear religious language. Just like we have to do in any other sort of cross cultural communication.

What do you think the boy's Aunt was calling a miracle?

Her nephew being saved by Jesus, or her sister being killed in an accident?

Accurate cross cultural communication requires a little bit of thoughtfulness and good will.

Otherwise, one can miss-translate things very badly.

The question is in bold.

How one answers may depend on ones ability to understand and comprehend religious language. It's an exercise in cross cultural communication and language skills for us atheists.

I'll be the first to admit that, as a mathematician, this is not my specialty.

But I think I know the correct answer.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Actually, communication isn't that hard except for some at the fringes.

I don't see where the exchange you describe fit's the paradox you're talking about.

The term "miracle" almost certainly refers to the boy being saved, not the death of the mother.

That just doesn't make sense.

You might be thinking to hard about it.

[stone space]

2. Well, I've noticed that amoung some folks who call themselves atheists, ...

..the feeling would be that what I witnessed on TV was the Aunt thanking God for killing her daughter.

Now, I tend to interpret it just like you do, but some folks apparently translate religious language differently than you and I do, due to differences in how they process cross cultural communication, I suppose.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Maybe there was something about the way it came across on video...

...that doesn't come over as text, but generally one would associate surviving the wreck as the miracle, and the mother did not.

My other thought was that the woman was mystified that somebody by the name of Jesus found them.

She might not know how common that name is!

[stone space]

31. If you see a Thanksgiving Day post here titled "Thanking Jesus", ...

...it'll likely be mine.

She might not know how common that name is!

[AtheistCrusader]

17. No, that's not it at all.

We'd be witnessing her skipping merrily past the unrealized implication that god chose not to save the daughter.

God is supposedly omnipotent, so he can hardly fail, if he wants to. Right?



Saying 'god saved me' or 'thank god' is a lot like saying 'fuck you, got mine' when there are other victims involved who DID come to harm.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Not sure why it's free where you are. It isn't here.

[stone space]

39. sorry...wrong thread (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

41. uh-huh

[Leontius]

34. Take this gun crap out of the religion fourm.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. As long as your are blustering around here telling people "you're no atheist"

You are no atheist.

[stone space]

5. Thank you for your input. (nt)

[bvf]

13. Cute gimmick

completely belied by the incessant reminders.

I don't buy the profession angle, either.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Holy shit.

I JUST realized, his name is stone space.

I genuinely, truly translated, up to this point, his name into 'stoned space'. Not kidding.
And here I was giving him shit about reading comprehension.

[edhopper]

6. The aunt would of course be reffering to the boy.

But logic would dictate that if God saved the boy, he let/caused the mother to die.

This is the problem with claiming divine intervention, you can't restrict it to only the things with outcomes you like.

Now some would call pointing out the illogic of religious thinking bashing.

But I am in favor of reason and critical thinking and not giving any ideas or beliefs a special exemption from questioning.

[stone space]

7. Logic tells me that a double negative "cancels".

(And I'm a mathematical logician by profession)

My wife tells me that her language (spanish) doesn't work that way.

I could stubbornly cling to my "logic" when she used double negatives in Spanish, I suppose.

But then I would be misunderstanding what she actually means when she used a double negative.

And miscommunication will have taken place because of my cross cultural incompetence.

[edhopper]

8. Do you really think anybody wouldn't understand exactly what the aunt meant?

Do you not understand how I and others point out the logic of that claim also means that God is responsible for the mothers death?

What double negative are you referring to?

[stone space]

9. I think that you can't understand what gun victims say.

What double negative are you referring to?

Two negations in a sentence.

[edhopper]

11. Could you point mine out

I am not above grammatical error.

[stone space]

16. Your what? (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

18. You are adorable.

[edhopper]

19. Could you explain what "double negative"

Has in relation to my post?

I am at a lost at why you talked about it.

[stone space]

28. I'll pass on the double negative thingie.

I'm getting weary.

[edhopper]

32. Okay

I also sometimes post things that don't make sense.
No prob.

[Igel]

77. The post in question is pointing out that how you approach a text influences you're interpretation.

If he approaches something like "no hice nada" (my example, not his) it looks like a double negative.

As a formal logician, he could draw the conclusion that the predicate "did nothing" is being denied. In other words, it wasn't nothing that I did--which entails that I did something. Hence a double negative. It's a show of ill-will, because the context would clearly imply that the speaker was saying that nothing was precisely what I did do.


It's the same with cross-cultural communication. If you take your presuppositions and ways on interpreting things with you and insist that what they say meet your assumptions and criteria for parsing, you commit an act of ill will. You are intentionally denying the other's frame of reference as a valid starting point even for understanding what the other person meant. "Hubris" is the word that comes to mind, but since nobody ever bothers to double check it means the ignorance self-inflicted by a subset of self-proclaimed enlightened ones continues. It really is all about the self.


(The linguist in me sticks with something like a more traditional view--in Spanish, as in many other languages, you get either words like "nada" and "ningun" being redundant intensifiers, simply making clear that it really is a negative that's being said; or when I put on my theoretician's cap you have a kind of feature checking and negative concord, so that negation is redundantly marked on multiple words that are controlled by negation. In Russian, "Nikto moei komandy nikogda nichego ne delal plokhogo" with all those negative ni- and that ne can only mean "Nobody on my team ever did anything bad," even if it looks like "nobody on my team never didn't do nothing bad". Notice in standard American English you only get one negation, and the usual constraint was that it was raised as early in the sentence as possible. "Everybody didn't understand this" to my ears can only mean "nobody understood this" while for most of the teens I know it means "Not everybody understood this." Language changes.)

[cbayer]

80. Thanks so much for taking the time to do this

It confirms my basic take on this, but you did it with so much more knowledge. I particularly like the third paragraph.

[edhopper]

92. We really don't have any idea what the aunt meant

And we actually only have the OP's account of it.
But given the context of why he posted it and what he was reacting to (he posted the same thing in the other thread)
I responded with the thought we were talking about people invoking miracles.
He even asked the question of what miracle was she referring to, which seemed obvious.
If he had a different pur[owe to the thread, it was poorly explained and he never made it clearer.
So do I know what the aunt meant of if the story is accurate, of course not.
Do I sometimes assume things based on cultural bias, of course.
But both these statements in the two threads were used to discuss the broader ideas of what the implications are when people say and mean them.

[cbayer]

48. I am going to help out here.

His point was that his logic and knowledge of his language informs him that a double negative cancels itself out and becomes a positive statement.

His wife, who speaks spanish, tells him that that is not the case in Spanish.

But he insists that he is correct.

In doing so, he fails to understand what his wife is saying at times.

So the point is that if you fail to listen to what others are saying or reject what they are saying because you insist that the way you say it is the only correct way, there will be a failure in communication.

Make sense?

[edhopper]

52. I see

but does he really think we did not know exactly what the aunt meant?

Does he think we are incapable of comprehending it just because she was Latino?

Does he think that just because she meant one thing, it is wrong for us to extrapolate the larger implications of God saving someone with direct intervention.

I find it very condescending to assume we are not intelligent enough to understand her just because her culture is different in some ways.

[cbayer]

53. I can't speak for him, but I think his point is

that it is important to ask others what they mean instead of assuming that you know what they mean. Those assumptions are based on your own knowledge and experience. They are also based on your own prejudices, which can be particularly blinding.

It's not because she was latino, it is because she is a person of faith. And yes, I think you might at times be incapable comprehending what people of faith may be saying because you are blinding by your own prejudice.

It is not surprising that you would reject that and your insistence that is ok for you to extrapolate to some larger implication really makes his point for him.

I find it also very condescending for you to say that religions believers are stupid just because they are religious. Do you really think your offense has more merit than those you offend by saying that?

[edhopper]

54. Did I say that

Or did I say that the FSU student said something stupid?

Do you see the difference?

I perfectly understand what she said and where that came from.

I then asked the next logical question that her statement implied. It is called critical thinking.

You think we must completely respect everyone of faith and not question their beliefs, if not, what is wrong with discussing the implications of what she said. What is wrong with pointing out why saying God saved one person but not another is problematic.

What is wrong with seeing what one person of faith sees as a miracle is really easily explained.

Sorry if you have a problem with all that, but that is the way I address the topic.

[cbayer]

55. Oh, so saying that someone says something that you consider stupid

and repeating it multiple times is not saying that person is stupid.

But someone implying, in your opinion, that you might not be able to understand something is different. Not only different, but much worse.

OK. Do you see how hypocritical that is?

You only think you perfectly understand it, but you don't. It has nothing to do with critical thinking. It has to do with your personal prejudices creating filters which change things to suit your own agenda.

Please do not tell me what I think. It's irritating as hell.

Let me be clear. I do not think that we must completely respect everyone of faith and not question their beliefs. I have never said that and I do not believe that. You have made that up. You have just provided additional proof of the OP's point. You hear what you want to hear not what was said.

And that happens to everyone…. every single human on earth. It's illogical and it has zero to do with critical thinking.

I do have a problem with that. You are not smarter or more rational or better due to your "critical thinking". It fails you at times, just like it fails everyone. You have not discovered the one way and your saving people by showing them the faults in their beliefs is no different than others who are into salvation.

That is exactly the way you address the topic.

[edhopper]

56. You are infuriated at

my perceived "telling you what you think"

And then tell me what I think.

hmmmm?

[cbayer]

58. Now you are telling me what I feel as well.

Read it again. I repeat what you said, which I am assuming is either what you think or is an overt lie, and telling you that I think you are wrong.

You only think you perfectly understand it, but you don't.

At no point did I tell you what you think. I told you that what you think is wrong.

But nice way to dodge everything else I said.

I am far from infuriated. If you infuriate me, you will have successfully pushed my buttons and I will retreat.

[edhopper]

59. Sure you didn't

I do have a problem with that. You are not smarter or more rational or better due to your "critical thinking". It fails you at times, just like it fails everyone. You have not discovered the one way and your saving people by showing them the faults in their beliefs is no different than others who are into salvation.

Just own up to it.

[cbayer]

60. I am telling you that I think you are wrong.

I do not think that your "critical thinking" makes you smarter or more rational or more right. I believe that it fails you at times, as can be shown by your false assumptions about what I think or what I feel. This is not telling you what you think. This is me telling you that what you think, based on what you say, is wrong, imo.

It is grossly apparent in some of your assumptions about what religious people mean when they say certain things. But, hey, if what they say can be dismissed as "stupid", that's easy points. And if we can use one who just went through a traumatic experience that we can't even imagine to make even more points, even better. Love that low hanging fruit.

[bvf]

25. That wouldn't be due to "cross-cultural incompetence"

so much as your failure to understand that linguistic syntax has little to do with mathematical logic. Ever hear of idiom?

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. Are you saying that the idea of what 'God' is thought to be like is being miscommunicated?

edhopper was clear that "The aunt would of course be reffering to the boy". Are you saying we (he, I and, I think, the others who have replied to you) have got that wrong, and that the aunt was saying the death of her sister was a miracle too?

[stone space]

50. I'm saying that the answer is obvious...

... to any human being of ordinary intelligence with even an ounce of human compassion and understanding.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. So why did you start this sub-thread about double negatives and miscommunication?

edhopper's remark about the logic of the situation wasn't about what the sister wanted to communicate. It was about the abilities of 'Go'd, and doesn't speak to what she meant (he dealt with that in his post title). Why did you link a problem of logic to miscommunication?

[Prophet 451]

10. Pointing out illogic is not bashing

It's only the sneering condescension of some (not all, by any stretch) atheists towards religion and people of faith that is "bashing".

[edhopper]

12. What if the condescension isn't sneering

Like pointing out the stupidity of claiming a miracle where none occur.

[Prophet 451]

24. That's not the problem

You want to point out the stupidity there, go ahead. I'm referring to the kind of post that assumes all people of faith are stupid or mentally ill (I actually am mentally ill, by coincidence) and/or that our beliefs can be equated to Santa, the Tooth Fairy, etc. Hitchens was especially bad for being a prick about things. Whether our beliefs are factually real or not, we live our lives as if they are and thus, they should be accorded a trifle of respect on those grounds. If not as a existing reality, then as a belief system we live by.

[edhopper]

30. Okay

I don't think your beliefs deserve respect. You do. And calling out the problems of your beliefs is not in and of itself, disrespectful.
Depending on the individual, the believer deserves respect. But erroneous beliefs can be challenged without hesitation.
And if that belief is stupid or hateful, the response should be commensurate.

[Prophet 451]

37. I'm obviously not explaing myself well

and, at 4:30am here, I can't be bothered to try and explain again. Sorry. I'm off to get some kip.

[edhopper]

45. I'll try it this way

you have the right to any beliefs you wish.
But when you come to a forum like this and talk about them, those beliefs are open to discussion and criticism.

[Prophet 451]

73. OK, let me try it again

I presume you've been in love sometime in your life. Well, to us, that's how our relationship with our deity is. I'm not suggesting that our beliefs aren't open to criticism. Just that there should be a modicum of respect for us as believers, in much teh same way as there would be for someone in love.

That still didn't explain my thoughts very well. I'll keep thinking on it.

[edhopper]

74. Okay

but realize than disparaging a believe isn't the same as disrespecting the believer.

[Prophet 451]

75. Fair point

I think some of my fellow theists often forget that. Me, I got the other theists don't like me because I worship the devil and the atheists think we're all nuts.

[stone space]

81. If you want to see the difference, I suggest...

...that you review some of the comments made in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218164055

but realize than disparaging a believe isn't the same as disrespecting the believer

[edhopper]

84. This was about interactions within this forum.

Sometimes dismissal of q belief is seen as an insult to the believer, when the comment is about the belief not the person.
On the other hand posts are placed about people in the news who say some stupid and/or harmful shit.
Sometimes disparaging the speaker is called for.
In this case I said what he said is stupid, I still hold with that and explained why. Sorry if you have a problem with it,

[stone space]

85. Why do you think so many insulted the gun victim so severely? (nt)

[edhopper]

86. I don't see that they did

They called what he said idiotic, and pointed out that what that could mean to the victims that were hurt. You might think the way he was talked about is more important than looking at what he said. I think what he said is the point of the discussion, so that's what I am talking about, I don't really concern myself with the feelings of someone who will never see this. But if you think others were insulting, you would have to take it up with them.

[stone space]

88. There are many folks here...

...whose lives have been impacted by guns.

When we see how so-called atheists react to gun violence by bashing the victims, it hurts us.

As atheists, we need to find better ways of responding to these shootings.

We alienate not only others with such bizarre reactions, but ourselves as well.

Authentic atheism should involve compassion for the victims of guns, not insults towards the victims and their beliefs.

Sometimes I feel like the atheism brand name has been hijacked by fundamentalists.

This isn't what atheism is all about.

[edhopper]

89. On the other hand

Many of the commenters pointed out how insulting what this man said was to the ones that were actually hurt in this shooting.
I see nothing wrong as using this story as an example to talk about this kind of belief.
we aren't discussing it with the victim, we are talking about the implications of his statement.

[stone space]

91. The same folks who think...

...that the Aunt in the OP insulted herself as the sister, no doubt.

Many of the commenters pointed out how insulting what this man said was to the ones that were actually hurt in this shooting.

But of course they are being disingenuous.

Either that or they truly suck at cross cultural communication in a really, really big way.

[edhopper]

93. I am still not sure what the point of this thread was

I took it as a further discussion of the FSU student thread.

Perhaps we are talking about two different things.

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. Who "think(s) that the Aunt in the OP insulted herself as the sister"?

"But of course they are being disingenuous. "

Why do you think that? I don't see that.

Talking of sucking at cross cultural communication, you have confused people by talking about double negatives, and then refusing to explain. I get the feeling you think there is a cross cultural communication problem here on DU, but you don't seem to want to be explicit about what it is. Perhaps you could be more straight-forward?

[bvf]

33. Interesting.

"Whether our beliefs are factually real or not, we live our lives as if they are and thus, they should be accorded a trifle of respect on those grounds. If not as a existing reality, then as a belief system we live by."

You have my undying respect as a fellow human being. It doesn't follow that I have slightest obligation to respect your beliefs.

[Prophet 451]

36. I'm not explaining myself well

and it's too late (4:30am here) for me to bother explaining it further. Sorry.

[cbayer]

43. This is a common refrain with which I take issue.

If someone thanks god when something good happens that does not necessarily mean that they think god made it happen. Perhaps they just feel like they had some good fortune and want to thank their god for the opportunity to live another day or just say how appreciative they are that they have the chance to spend more time on this beautiful earth they feel was provided to them by their god in some way.

The easy, but very erroneous, argument is that if they do that, they are hypocritical because they only give their god credit for the good things and not responsibility for the bad.

Or perhaps they do think god is directly responsible for the good things and the bad things, but they curse their god for the bad things in private.

There is always this gotcha game where some try to corner a person into saying that what they believe is bullshit. Belief and faith are not logical and attempts to destroy them with logic is tilting at windmills. Your "reason and critical" thing are pieces of wet spaghetti when it comes to religious beliefs.

You may feel you have won, but all you have really accomplished is making yourself feel smarter than them. You are not smarter, you just feel smarter.

Congrats.

[edhopper]

44. What do you think of this woman

and the FSU student from the other post who called these things a divine miracle?

Not all the people who may thank God in the course of the day, but these specific instances.

You don't see the logical conclusion of what they say about divine intervention?

And what do you think of the OP who thinks we are too stupid or culturally ignorant to understand what the woman meant?

[cbayer]

46. I could not care less whether they call something a divine miracle.

Could not care less.

I could not care less about the "logical conclusion".

As for the OP, I am not clear on his point, but if you feel that his thinking you are too stupid or culturally ignorant is insulting, why do you persist in trying to make other people look stupid or logically ignorant.

They believe in god. So what? They believe that god watches out for them. So what?

Like I said,the only reason for you to "win" this argument is to feel somehow superior, but you are not.

The unbelievable amount of judgmentalism, hatred and bigotry being aimed at some people based solely on their religious beliefs is appalling. It is probably the biggest source of embarrassment on this site.

Your fly paper thread was extremely effective, but the ugliness contained in it is just gross.

But hooray for all the superior people of logic and reason!!!

[stone space]

47. I think the Aunt was glad to see her Nephew alive.

What do you think of this woman and the FSU student from the other post who called these things a divine miracle?

Not all the people who may thank God in the course of the day, but these specific instances.

For the student who got shot, he was glad to be alive.

Really, sometimes interpreting religious language really isn't all that hard if people use their heads a little.

It might help if folks open their hearts a little, also.

The increased blood flow to the brain caused by the open heart could have a beneficial effect on the ability to reason.

[edhopper]

57. Do you actually think

we don't understand that?

Do you think some of us that dense.

Why can't you understand that we are talking about the larger implications of what they said.

I'll make it simple, we are not saying these individuals are thankful or even thinking about God's actions and the other victims.
But we are looking at their statements ans making some logical conclusions about them. Argue the theology of what we said if you want, but to think we don't understand their statements or motivation is befuddling.

[cbayer]

61. Who is we? You don't speak for anyone but yourself.

You are really missing the point here.

You make huge assumptions about what religious people mean when they say something. By your own admission, you extrapolate from their statements that they actually mean or imply other things. You even say right here that you then draw conclusions about the larger implications of what they say.

This has nothing to do with you being dense and it's certainly not about you being logical, because it's not driven by logic at all. Your own experiences, perspective and prejudices may prevent you from truly understanding what someone is saying to you at times. Because of that your interpretations, assumptions and extrapolations may be completely wrong.

This is not unique to you, it's true for everyone.

The only thing is has to do with theology is that you may not understand the language.

[edhopper]

62. They mean exactly what they say

they have no intention to imply God is responsible for the harm to others.

That doesn't prevent to logical conclusion that the claim of God's intervention brings the questions of what his role is in the bad consequences.

You can debate that question or not, but thinking I do not understand the motivation of the speaker and reading my mind as to why I address this issue is useless (not to mention wrong).

Or you can dismiss it all as just "religion bashing".

[cbayer]

63. You are interpreting a language you don't understand.

You are only hearing it through your own filters. You are making assumption that are not necessarily accurate.

You think I am reading minds? That is really ironic, you know.

Why are you so intent on proving them wrong, even though you clearly don't really understand their language? What do you win?

Ok, I am going to dismiss this as religion bashing, because that is about the depth and nuance that it has.

[edhopper]

64. What don't i understand about thier language?

What am I missing when they say things like:

He can do all things, but to physically witness the impossible and to be surrounded by such grace is indescribable

(FSU student)

Now as to this story, we only have stone's retelling of it.

So I have no way of knowing if the woman just meant a kind man with the common name of Jesus helped, and she meant miracle in the broad general way, (as in miracle cure or miracle on ice) not an act of Godly intervention.

But I did assume given the forum of the post and what other thread he was responding to, that we are talking about the latter.

But either way it seems most here are talking about the larger issue of people invoking God for events.

[cbayer]

65. When you are not part of a group that speaks a certain language,

you are at high risk of misinterpreting what they are saying or drawing conclusion based on parts that you do not understand.

The boy who had come as close to being killed as one can possibly get was saved because he had a book bag with big books in it on his back.

He is a religious believer.

Now you or I might say, "i can't believe my luck". We might say, "This is unbelievable". Some might even say, "The star must have been aligned" or "What amazing karma" or "Today must not have been the day I was meant to go".

We might think about the decisions we made that led up to having things turn out just this way.

At any rate, I would bet that we are going to be numb, overwhelmed and extremely grateful to be alive.

But grateful to what? If one is a believer, they may be grateful to their god. They may or may not believe in direct intervention, but they may feel spared.

In this case of the boy who was almost killed, what do you think he meant by "do all things", "impossible", "surrounded by grace"?

It is you that assumes to know what that means and who extrapolates from that something very negative. And you got lots of pats on the back for it, so it's reinforced, but anyone should be able to see how horribly ugly that thread is.

There are times when I think invoking god should be challenged, particularly when it is used to condemn or attack people just because they are gay or female or muslim.

But to condemn or attack someone who invokes god because he feels his god had a role in his not being killed is just petty. It's easy points, but it is petty.

[edhopper]

66. Not how I see it.

He did not just thank God or thank him for his good fortune.
He made a claim that God accomplished the impossible.
You are unable to separate the logical criticism of that statement and this being a personal attack on someone not taken part in this discussion.
Sorry you find my comments of someone in absentia, with no expectations that the person will ever see them so infuriating.
I will continue to discuss religious ideas here, no matter whom they come from.
You continuingly attribute motives to the participants without real knowledge of those involved.

[cbayer]

67. Oh, don't say fail. It's so judgmental and takes the position that you are

absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong, when we simply disagree.

Imagine saying that in a real live discussion. Fail. It's a sure conversation stopped.

So what if he made the claim that god accomplished the impossible. I don't think that's true, but I don't have any facts to counter him with.

Your thread is a personal attack from the get go. You called his beliefs stupid. It gets worse from there, as there are many, as you have noted, who will get uglier than that.

You are again saying how I feel. I am far from infuriated. That word has no resemblance to what I feel about this conversation. None. I would suggest that your critical thinking has let you down again, as you have reached an incorrect conclusion.

This is not about whether the target of your derision and disdain will ever see what you wrote. I hope that he does not, though I suspect the internet is full of hateful things pointed towards him. It's about kindness, empathy, compassion, tolerance.

I don't wish to shut you down, though I would like to see your better parts take the lead more often. If you went away, I would miss out on the conversations we have which tend to be civil and adult….

unlike much of what is contained in that thread. I couldn't help but stoop down to that level, though. It was just too easy.

Do you think I misread your motives? If so, please clarify.

[edhopper]

68. I removed "fail"

I think we understand each others position. And disagree.
Why not leave it at that instead of continue to just reiterate.

[cbayer]

69. Agree. See you next time.

I really do enjoy talking to you, even if we strongly disagree.

[stone space]

71. By a guy who was nearly killed.

logical criticism of that statement

I don't know what "logical criticism" of statements made at such a time would even mean.

[edhopper]

78. Well

if we want to say he was just blathering something at the time because of the intense emotional situation. That he didn't really mean God did the impossible and directly saved him. That in the cool light of day he would say, "I am just happy to be unhurt and am just grateful, I know I said some wacky thing about a divine miracle, but it was the just the emotions talking." Then what he said could be dismissed. But I am taking it at face value and questioning the implications.
And in the end it doesn't matter what this one man really was thinking, because this type of statement is made often by people, you showed an illustration of it yourself.
So logically looking at such a statement seems apropos. Using this story to look at the idea of God directly intervening in the lives of some, while allow others to suffer is a big question.

[stone space]

79. If a Christian says "Bless you"...

...to the guy sitting next to you when he sneezes, do you extrapolate the obvious logical implications that pop up in your mind that the Christian feels that you are somehow unworthy and unblessed simply because you didn't sneeze.

I mean, what do those Christians have against folks who don't sneeze, anyway?

What makes them unblessed?

And they don't even have stress as an excuse.

Don't taze me, bro!

[edhopper]

82. Like I said

Is this just the run of the mill reflexive talk about thanking God, or a true, deep belief that God actually saved him?
I don't see the point of figuring out which, since absent an answer from the man, we don't know.

But using this statement to discuss the similar things often said by believers, who truly believe in miracles and divine intervention, is worthwhile.

You might not think so, but then you don't have to discuss it. But you really don't have a say other people looking at the logical consequences of such statements.

[stone space]

83. How do you feel about the extreme hatred expressed...

...towards the gun victim in your thread simply for thanking God to be alive?

What do you think causes such hate?

[edhopper]

87. Extreme hatred is your interpretation

I saw people examining his statement and seeing it's logical conclusions.
How extreme was the hatred. Westboro BC hatred? ISIS hatred? KKK hatred?
Whatblevel of hatred do you call extreme?

[stone space]

90. Those "logical conclusions" involved a merging...

...of the beliefs of the commenter with the beliefs of the gun victim, and were not based upon the gun victim's own statements.

I saw people examining his statement and seeing it's logical conclusions.

As for the insults and hatred expressed towards the gun victim, the posts are still there for you to review.

How extreme was the hatred. Westboro BC hatred? ISIS hatred? KKK hatred?
Whatblevel of hatred do you call extreme?

When atheists seek to compare our own words with those of Phelps of the KKK, that's generally enough for me to make a judgment.

In that case, I don't even need to see the comments in question. It's enough to know who they want their comments compared with.

[edhopper]

94. If you exchange opinion or thoughts

With beliefs in the first sentence. I'll go along with that.

The comparison was for contrast, giving real examples of hatred compared to what you see here. Did you not really get that?

[AtheistCrusader]

14. It's very simple.

If it is a miracle, that means divine intervention. With two requisite conditions; god was willing to intervene, and able to intervene.

If god is willing and able to intervene for victim B, why not victim A?

And this is further modified by the general precept held by most people who believe in god; god is omnipotent, so he cannot fail to be ABLE to intervene.

Leaving the unwilling bit the only possible answer. (Well, that and 'god ain't real, man')


In thanking god for the survival of the child, it raises the question why the mother wasn't worth saving too.

I'm not sure why I'm extending you the benefit of the doubt that you really, genuinely don't get it, but there it is.

[edhopper]

20. Or why we would

Have a problem figuring out what the aunt meant.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Honestly, I think he's fishing for someone to lose their temper at this point.

[Prophet 451]

26. There is an easy solution to this

God is a sadistic bastard who saves and condemns people on a whim, because it amuses him.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. That is a possibility, however

it requires more evidence than is presently available to support.

but I fully agree, there are a range of possibilities, including god saying 'fuck you, that's why'.

[Prophet 451]

35. That's the problem with the evidence

Those of us who believe feel the presence of our deity when we pray. But this gnosis is inherently and completely personal. And so, by definition, cannot be shared with anyone else and would be meaningless if it was. My personal belief system is that god is a capricious and sadistic prick. Which is why I worship Father Lucifer, whose presence I feel when I pray. But, by definition, that experience cannot be shared with others.

I suspect this is the main cause of theist/atheist argument.

[trotsky]

42. I'll disagree with you a bit here.

Do we have evidence to support a capricious, vengeful god? Not really. The evidence supports a cold, uncaring, neutral universe.

But is the evidence COMPATIBLE with the notion of a capricious, vengeful god? I'd say yes.

[Prophet 451]

72. Yes, that's better n/t

[bvf]

40. l feel a song coming on . . .

m.

[Prophet 451]

27. The aunt was referring to the boy's survival

A "miracle" is something extremely unlikely or impossible but virtually no-one (except Satanists like me) holds god responsible for the bad shit he allows to happen.

[libodem]

70. .

[img][/img]

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

76. The aunt was a Tea Partier,

and was pointing out how God works in mysterious ways, killing the mother as a miracle in order to get Jesus to stay where he could be deported by the border agent?