I would say “good for you” - but I doubt the parents or the grandparents would ‘feel’ better overall - they still have a loss to deal with and pretending the child is still alive ‘somewhere else’ is only hiding the facts. And if ‘Gods plan’ requires killing children - he is a sadist - plain and simple.
Think of something more compassionate to say. This is a pretty clueless, unsympathetic thing to say to someone who has just suffered a tragic loss.
I missed the part where you get to play the grandfather. 
But say you are the grieving grandfather. You’d be offended if an atheist offered his/her sincere sympaties with an, “I’m deeply sorry for your loss”, because in your view, their only moral action would be to remain silent?
There’s times and places for abstract religious arguments, and that generally isn’t one of them.
And you don’t seem to understand what atheism is, as others have pointed out. Atheists consider God to a fictional character*. We aren’t worried about their nonexistent god torturing the kid’s nonexistent soul. The only reason to bring up the evil nature of the god they follow while they are grieving would be if they are about to do something ruinously stupid like donate all their money to the church to help their kid in the afterlife, and telling them that their god is evil will stop them. But that’s not a likely scenario.
*Which is why I called it an abstract religious argument; except for all the people who take it dead seriously, debating God’s morality is like debating the character flaws of Darth Vader. I wouldn’t feel obligated to point out to some parents that Darth Vader is evil when their kid is dead either.
The point is I won’t be debating with them, because I’m convinced that God is not a sadist and they are convinced that God is not a sadist. They simply want to be consoled that their son did not die in vain.
So what? An atheist wouldn’t debate with them either. A bunch of posters have already explained this.
It should be noted that this doesn’t require an afterlife. In fact, life has value and is worth cherishing precisely because it is finite.
I love the assumption that atheists, in general, are just itching to have a confrontation with theists, no matter how inappropriate the situation.
And that atheists believe that god exists, but is a sadist.
You guys may not believe it, but I use to be a lefty. For those not familiar with the term it refers to the radical left in the U.S., my hair went down to my shoulders. And then my parents died back to back within a short span of time.
I basically believed what the lefties believed back at CAL. All that Marxist garbage about, “religion being the opiate of the masses.” They didn’t mention that Marx never said that.
30 years later I turned around 180 degrees. Give me some of that opiate.
Or that atheists hate God…which I have to admit is true, but not as much as I hate Lex Luthor.
“Atheist” =/= “Lefty”. There are plenty of conservative atheists (I can name several just from the general Doper population). I’m not one, but they exist in fairly large numbers.
Also, “Lefty” =/= “Marxist”. Or “Communist” or “socialist” or “Maoist”. I’d be willing to bet that the number of non-Communist leftists in the US is MUCH larger than the number of Communist leftists.
I was wondering when you would pull this hoary old cliche out of the closet. Where on earth did you dig up that vision of what a “lefty” is-an old episode of “Dragnet”?
I believe you and I’m sorry about your parents, but I don’t understand why this matters in the context of this discussion. You used to think one thing, now you think another. Many atheists had that experience, too. Are you referring back to your unfounded presumption that you have more life experience than nonbelievers? [I’ll ask again, by the way: if you encountered or heard about people who worshiped a god that, according to them, supported killing nonbelievers and degenerates and oppressed women, what would you say about the god they believed in?]
He said something very similar, and for that matter others expressed the same general idea. I do think the quote is badly misunderstood.
Uhm, I don’t know who told you that he didn’t but I wouldn’t trust them any further.
[QUOTE=Karl Marx]
Die Religion ist der Seufzer der bedrängten Kreatur, das Gemüt einer herzlosen Welt, wie sie der Geist geistloser Zustände ist. Sie ist das Opium des Volkes.
[/QUOTE]
From “Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie. Einleitung”
It’s not a direct quote of Marx. It is a paraphrase of something he wrote. It is also a translation of something he wrote in German.
Here’s the point I’m trying to make. Christianity goes back thousands of years…and their moral and ethical system may have some holes in it. But it is rational and makes sense and the atheists, Marxists, existentialists…whatever do not have anything comparable.
Also, I’m willing to give Christians a break because the NT was written by dozens of scholars. So of course, we’re going to see divergent views in the Bible.
Are you changing the subject because you’re uncomfortable talking about some of the issues you’re being asked about?
Yes. You’ll note I said “he said something very similar.” His exact words were “It is the opium of the people.” I have heard much worse paraphrases.
Of course he wrote in German- he was German. What difference is that supposed to make? Does translation make a comment less trustworthy? Because the Bible wasn’t written in English.
It does, yes. Some huge ones.
Once again I have no idea what this is supposed to have to do with anything. There are parts of the Christian ethical system that make sense, but then again, some of those parts predate Christianity (Jesus didn’t invent kindness or charity) and other parts aren’t rational at all.
I use logic and rational in a different manner than most people. A proposition is logical if most people believe it. A proposition is rational if fewer people believe it. To the degree that some people believe it, the NT is rational.
The distinction is important because what is logical changes over a period of time. For instance before Copernicus and Columbus, it was logical that an educated man would say the earth was flat. Afterwards, it became irrational for educated people to believe that the earth was flat.
I do not believe any number of doctrines, objectivism, existentialism, atheism, marxism etc. are logical because they have not withstood the test of time. Some people believe Christianity is logical because a lot of people believe in it. To me that’s not enough, but it is enough for me to consider it rational and coherent.
Izzat you, Mr. Dumpty?
That’s not “different”; that’s just wrong. Logical and rationality have nothing whatsoever to do with popularity.
People already knew the Earth was round before Columbus, and Copernicus postulated that the Sun is at the center of the solar system; the Earth being flat was long discredited by his period.