God Helps Widdlest Sniper Victim Recover

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
141

The main reason I am in this thread is because of the attitude of the OP and subsequent posters towards the kid. As I said to Ogre, you’re welcome to debate the issue of whether faith and prayer can affect physical health all you want. I’ve taken a stand on that in this thread; nobody’s responded to it. Until someone does, I don’t see the point in adding to or clarifying my position there.

However, you, Ogre, and others are responding to my remarks in the matter of posters’ ridicule of Iran Brown. I suppose I could go debate with Harvey the Invisible Six-Foot Rabbit over the more general issue, but that seems kinda pointless. In the meantime, I think you’re wrong about the kid, and have no problem arguing my side there.

To someone who doesn’t believe in God. And that’s exactly it: you’re attacking him for believing the wrong things, ultimately.

If he’d said that, I don’t think you’d be jumping on him in the first place. And I don’t see you jumping on posters here - who are fair game - who use “thank Goddess” in their posts.

But they’re Wiccans or whatever, so that’s OK. See? PC in a nutshell.

142

Wow. Nice straw man.

Try reading what I said.

Specifically, I was responding to grendels’ assertion that …

I listed your response (among several others) as examples of posters who were criticizing what the boy said. I never claimed that you felt he "should not have been allowed to say it.

Got it now? :rolleyes:

143

Sure, but the fact is that the person who attributes the boy’s survival to the surgery is surely standing on surer ground. The faith might be the source of his positive attitude, but the surgery surely was the primary factor.

Well, with all the threads that have plucked a quote from the news and disputed it, or made fun of someone’s statement overheard at work, etc. etc. I have never seen you say “it is unseemly to criticize / ridicule a person based on just one statement, please respect them.;” Does this mean that you only defend Christians and are, what’s the word, anti-PC? reactionary?

144

Thanks for telling me what I meant by my own words.
What I meant, and what I have a feeling others meant, is that the media coverage of this “miracle” is idiotic, mush headed, and in the end mean spirited. I think the boy made a statement that wasn’t thought out, and the media fell all over themselves (as they always do with mush headed “human interest” stories) to report it with no thought given to what the statement really says.
The title of this thread read to me like a very slight exaggeration of the words of the reporter on 20/20 Thursday night, not like belittling the victim of an attack.

145

Huh?

You said

I provided the quotes of several posters in this thread who DID have a problem with what the boy said or didn’t say. One poster called the 13 year old boy “rude”.

The posters I quoted were directing their remarks to what the boy said (or didn’t say).

Will you admit that some posters in this thread did find something “wrong” with what the boy said (or didn’t say?)

Will you admit that your statement that… “There is nothing wrong with the boy saying what he said, nobody has said there is.” was demonstrably false?

146

Arnold wrote (referencing RT in second person):

God knows that I am no lap dog of RT, and he will be the first to tell you that he and I seldom get along (probably mostly because we’re both rather bull-headed).

But I have to say that I have seen him defend people of all kinds. He has taken the side of atheists against Christians many times in matters from evolution to theology. He is always fair and measured in his dispensations, and is an equal opportunity ankle nipper.

RT might be exasperating, but he most definitely is intellectually honest and morally consistent.

This whole thing isn’t about God, though some of you are trying to spin it that way. It’s about the boy. We certainly understand when you cut God no slack; after all, you’ve not yet experienced Him subjectively. But it is the way that you’re treating the little boy — expecting him to be a theologian, logician, and ethicist at thirteen years old — that has thoroughly confounded so many of us.

147

It’s not about God, or the boy. It’s about simpleminded platitudes being reported as news.

148

The story reported on the boy’s recovery from sniper wounds, which is news a lot of the country is curious about. The article mentioned what the boy told reporters, and Eve made all of that bold and started a wild binge of hand stabbing over it.

And incidentally, the “simpleminded platitudes” are seen positively by an overwhelming majority of Americans, so that could be of interest to them to. Your complaints come off as sour grapes and party pooping.

149

I’ve seen him argue the pros and cons of may different types of statements on the SDMB. But here what he’s saying is different: it is wrong to bring up the statements made up by this person as a subject of discussion on the SDMB, or judge the person on the basis of those statements. Which is a first for him as far as I remember.
In any case I’ve said all I have to say in this discussion.

150

Hmm. Eve’s reaction to the beliefs of the unwashed masses. Eve’s violent reaction to anything that reminds her of children.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

151

I think anyone who has been with a seriously ill or injured person knows that the patients attitude, optimism, and faith have a lot to do with a successful recovery…often it may even make the difference between life and death. If you want to label that force “God” or something else; that is a personal matter.

152

I am all of the people involved are pleased the child survived. As an atheist, I find the tone of the OP quite arrogant.

153

No, I’m still not getting it, let me check my reception. You were responding to the assertion:

And then used a quote from me to illustrate that the assertion was incorrect.

Sorry, I never said there was anything wrong with the boy saying what he said (that is, the action of saying what he said) - I did say that WHAT he said was wrong (i.e. irrational). Thus, my words are not a refutation of the assertion that the boy was wrong to say what he did.

So, you’re still wrong in what you said, but not in your saying it.

154

No, I think Wiccans are equally irrational.

Happy now?

155

Also, if you notice, RTF, there was no “jumping on other posters” at all. There was a debate on a viewpoint. There was a statement of opinion that someone who credits God with their recovery(which can’t be verified,) rather than the efforts of common, fallible, compassionate humans(which can,) is overlooking the obvious. But there was no attack on any poster.

I do not have to respect beliefs. Beliefs are changeable, ethereal, and transient. I respect people. I respect someone for their ability to express themselves, for their dedication to their work, for their compassion, for a whole host of other things. But why should I respect something I find no inherent validity in? I respect their right to believe and say whatever they wish, but it doesn’t mean it makes any sense.

As for your bizarre assertion of “political correctness,” I do not find any belief system any more rational or acceptable to me than Christianity. Whether you worship God, Allah, Papa Legba, Osiris, Zeus, Thor, Shiva, Quetzalcoatl, the Raven, Mithra, or the Goddess is of little concern to me. I find all of them just as ridiculous as “Binky the Space Clown,” and with precisely the same amount of evidence to back them up.

So yes…it’s roughly analogous to me with someone falling on their face in the street, and a stranger running up to them and helping them to their feet, upon which the first person raises their face to the sky and yells, “Thank you Lord ArgleBargle, for lifting me to my feet!”

“Dude, I don’t know who this Lord Whatzit is, but I’m the one that picked your dusty butt up.”

156

Hey, perhaps the child is really a pantheist, and “God” IS simply his way of succintly and inclusively summing up all the people that helped him (as well as the sniper not being a good enough shot, etc.)

—Trained surgeons make no claim to omnipotence, of course - but while God’s press releases hint at omnipotence, they also are clear that God works in mysterious ways not clear to man.—

If so, it would probably be hard to say whether god was involved at all, and even if so, how and for what purpose. Mystery cuts every which way. But if anyone is qualified know to whom he feels thankful, its the person feeling thankful. If someone isn’t thankful for efforts I make on their behalf, I’m not going to worry about it. I, I hope, never make efforts on someone’s behalf in order to make them feel thankful: if I’m doing something for someone as an exchange, I let them know what the terms are.

That said, I do think there is something iffy about charities which are happy to take my dirty non-believer money, but then use my efforts to promote themselves and their beliefs as the ultimate source of all and any charity. One reason I’m highly suspicious of efforts to start “atheist” charities in order to show that athiests care too, is precisely because I can’t see why one would start a charity just to shill for point of view, instead of to help someone. Plenty of charities are non-religious already.

However, that doesn’t even remotely fit what the boy said, even if he is some sort of genius theologian. He isn’t shilling for anything: he’s sincerely thankful to God.

Interesting thing, being thankful. When something good happens that isn’t anyone’s fault, I am just plain thankful: it doesn’t have to be TO anyone. If I were a believer, the language might change, but the sentiment is no stranger to me.

157

This is a very sad thread. It reveals a lot about the way some people think. For instance, it is apparently very common for people to hoard gratitude jealously.

The more you love God, the more love you have for everyone else.

The more you thank God, the more thanks you have for those who help you.

The kid is probably more thankful to the surgeons than any of you would be.

But, by all means continue to reveal your own views on gratitude, about how it should be hoarded, and about how any expression of gratitude to something other than you devalues and offends you. Continue to show your tragic belief that gratitude is easily depleted and cannot be given freely. Continue to mock people who give gratitude freely and more generously than you would ever be capable of. Apparently it is all you can do.

158

That explains much of religious history and the current war of Islamists against the West. Wait, I know, they don’t REALLY love their god.

Why not just thank the people who actually help you and cut out the middleman?

Cite?

I’m an atheist - if someone were to tap me in the back with a sniper rifle, and surgeons work around the clock to save my life, there is NOTHING I can do to begin to repay them except offer them my complete gratitude. To thank some unknown entity instead of them would be to LESSEN the thanks I give them - in other words, I’m saying “Yes, doctor, you saved me, but without GOD you couldn’t have done it.” Some thanks!

Give gratitude where gratitude is due, that’s all we’re asking. You can couch your self-righteous assumptions of how we feel anyway you like, but it doesn’t make you right.

159

A few nuggets:

I’m a guy on a message board who is pretty much a firm rationalist, who sees no reason for mysticism, and who doesn’t mind sharing his opinion.

Nonsense. It is impossible to “hold someone responsible” for anything when one is powerless to make that person physically answer for it. In other words, what we’re doing is discussing the implications of his assertion, not holding his feet to the fire. As far as anyone knows, he’s not a poster or a reader here, so how can we “hold him responsible” for anything?

Thus, your conclusion that it is wrong to discuss his words is based on a faulty assumption.

Why? Do you often only argue specific cases here on SDMB, or do you indulge in a little discussion of principle as well? super_head said it well: it was a jumping-off point.

Perhaps…but then maybe you expected me to agree with an idea I find no merit in? Huh?

And I respect that. Everything I’ve said comes from my own honest interpretation of events. I’ve engaged in no intellectual chicanery or moralistic double-dealing. This is how I see things. Have you no respect for that?

160

Nice non-sequitur. I ain’t a surgeon.

Hey, if you bought me a beer, I’d thank you, not the almighty lord of the Sith. If you saved me from drowning, I’d thank you, not the Great Flutterby.

<shrug> Makes sense to me.