You can be skeptical and friendly at the same time.
Follow Patheos Atheist:
(via The Atheist Pig)
Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.
So I assume the answer to the question is yes, it is always insensitive to bring theological debate into a situation of grieving?
You’re a damn fool. You effect an air of objectivity, but you’re just another apologist. Nothing you say can be taken seriously.
Toddle off and pray for our eternal damnation.
Is it always insensitive to saddle the grieving with wank and nuttery? Good question.
Is it equally insensitive to assume theological opinions are welcome so long as they are “pro”?
Well, yeah, except cartoons don’t have feelings. Many things are expressed in art that if they were expressed in reality would be inappropriate; that’s one of major utilities of art, to say what needs to be said without there necessarily being a real-world target who might otherwise be injured by the expression. If someone told this joke to an actually grieving person, they would be a dick to do so. But a cartoon pig saying it to a cartoon woman? It’s just funny, and makes a sharp point besides (that the reflexive things we say, if thought about for a minute, actually tend not to make much sense). in order to be offended by it, a person actually has to project themselves onto one of the cartoon characters, which is emphatically their problem.
A religionist always thinks they are in the right to do so.
And from what I understand, they don’t care if it’s insensitive because they believe it’s true and their obligation to assure the grieving that everything happens for a reason and their loved one is in heaven. They don’t actually care how the person they’re talking to feels about hearing that.
And yet not one reply deals with the opposite question: because religious individuals do it, does that suddenly make it right for non-religious to do it? I think the answer is no. Though with the evasions in these responses, I’m not sure it’s a view shared.
You do understand the difference between a cartoon and real life, right?
I understand that you’re probably saying that one wrong doesn’t deserve another wrong. In general principle, I agree. I don’t think these wrongs have equivalent gravity though.
Whether consciously or otherwise, those posing the religious “god’s plan” answer would then be using the tragedy as a shield from criticism. Which becomes an exploitation of the tragedy on the part of the religious.
Are you seriously wondering aloud why people didn’t answer a question that was never asked?
FWIW, if you were looking for an answer to whether this is wrong to do to an actual grieving person, I answered it nonetheless in my original reply. You should read more carefully.
The FIRST PERSON TO RESPOND SPOKE ABOUT THAT. Does all caps help?
You’re a pathetic liar or an ignoramus.
Is it insensitive to talk about how it’s all part of “god’s plan” when there is a horrible tragedy? “Your child is going to die of this incredibly painful disease, but don’t fret, it’s part of god’s plan”.
That’s something I always want to ask whenever someone brings up “The Plan.” What kind of shitty, misguided, broken, bad-trip-induced plan includes rape and senseless murder of innocent people every day? Why should anyone respect, let alone worship, an entity effecting such a plan?
Yeah, God’s plan sucks ass. My family endured a tragedy a couple of years ago. I got real tired of that shit.
Tell that to the people who always feel the need to tell grieving people that their dead loved ones are “in a better place” and/or that “God decided they were needed more in Heaven than on Earth”. What a tacky way to invalidate the pain of the grieving person.
I often thought about that as a believer. If heaven’s so great, why try to preserve life while we’re here in this shitty place?
This is the reason I have no patience with their attitude toward abortion. They think the zygote is endowed with an immortal soul. It’s a one-way ticket to heaven, without running the risk of hell.
I think they’re pissed off because they didn’t get that deal, and they’re scared to death – that, and rank sentimentality.
It goes hand-in-hand with the accusations that gays and liberals and social progressives are “destroying” society and hastening the fall of civilization… accusations which come from people who are supposedly WAITING for the end of the world to get here! Shouldn’t they be EXCITED that we are bringing about the Apocalypse? Why prevent and delay it?
Oh, who knows how their minds work? These are the same people who believe Jesus had to die to save them from hell, but blame the Jews for killing him and despise them for it.
It’s in the rules. Suicide and murder are sins because… Cults that promote such things don’t last long. Or another way of looking at it, dead people don’t put much on the collection plate.
This place might not be so shitty if more people were working to make it better while they are here rather than trying to get forgiven so things will be better for them when they are dead.
Why Evolution Is True is having fun analyzing the unbelievable amount of crap sophisticated theologians make up to explain things like this.
Sophisticated theologians? Ha! I’ll add that to my list of extreme oxymorons.
Theistic theologians are, perhaps without exception, nothing but mental masturbators.
In that case I think you’ll enjoy Jerry Coyne’s blog:
Now, let’s all have more shark fin soup.
That was mean, mean, mean!
*snicker, snicker, snicker*
The pig is a poopyhead.
The nun was telling us that we each have a guardian angel. I thought, why do we need to look before crossing the street to the church. Even in first grade the holes in their dogma were beginning to appear.
I wonder how guardian angels feel when they see the person they were guarding starting to go bad or ultimately not make it to heaven.
I’m sure the rationalization is that they rejoice that God’s will is being done.
In any case, it can’t look good on a resumé.
Clearly the optimum strategy is to let an ‘accident’ happen to them while they still have a positive balance on their ledger.
This can be applied in many situations, including a zygote whose attached soul is doomed to hell unless it dies before it can sin.
Maybe it’s like a game show where the guardian angels want to get the oldest good person or younger but then more saintly person they can into heaven. One of the those “should I risk going on? is there hope for a lucky win?” type game shows. ”Here are his/her upcoming temptations. Do you want let this accident kill him, or stop the accident and let him be tested?” They also get points for creative ways of preventing the accident.
I thought it was funny. I’m so going to Hell… no, hang on, there is no Hell. WIN!
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2013, Patheos. All rights reserved.