IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags guardian angels

Reply
Old 17th July 2021, 03:43 PM   #41
suren
Thinker
 
suren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Armenia, Yerevan
Posts: 156
From my experience in Quora many answers have low quality and this isn't related only to supernatural...
__________________
Follow those who seek the truth, run away from those who have found it.
suren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2021, 07:10 PM   #42
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,048
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I didn't say the problem is whether or not they shut up about it. I find it offensively stupid that that kind of idiocy exists. Whether or not someone shuts up about their pet idiocy, doesn't change it being an idiocy.
It's more than a little presumptuous to conclude that only a lack of intelligence could lead to someone's value judgement about the hypothetical actions of a hypothetical construct differing from yours.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2021, 10:49 PM   #43
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 19,206
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
It's more than a little presumptuous to conclude that only a lack of intelligence could lead to someone's value judgement about the hypothetical actions of a hypothetical construct differing from yours.
1. So basically now we can add strawman to your previous running around with the goalposts*? Because I never said anything about a lack of intelligence. I said that the logic is stupid, or an idiocy, I never said anything about its causes, be it lack of intelligence or anything else.

I'm not sure why you're so dead-set on defending that nonsense, that you take detours into textbook fallacies and nonsense sophistry in its defense -- and frankly, I don't care; I'm not about to do an appeal to motives -- but it's tiresome. Address what I've actually said, or kindly find some other passtime. If you're supplying both sides of the conversation, you can do it in Notepad just as well, you know?


2. The idea that it's presumptuous to actually point out the flaws in logic, is not just stupid itself, it's about 2500 years too late. Because that's how long we've had this newfangled "logic" thing around. Which, yes, lets us say that someone's logic is broken. Thinking there's anything presumptuous about saying that, yes, someone's logic is broken, is plain old stupid.



* Because, in case you need to ask, running with the goalposts is what you've been doing in message #39. The question of whether someone will run into someone who's offended by proposition X, is an entirely different question from whether proposition X is stupid or can be reasonably considered so.

Trivial example: I could probably find an Amish village to go around proclaiming that all modern technology is evil, drives people apart, ruins communities, ends up using people instead of being used by them, etc, and never run into anyone who'll even disagree, much less be offended. In fact, probably most would be more like, "finally, an outsider that gets it." But the fact that I don't run into people who are offended, much less make me shut up about it, doesn't make it any less nonsense.

At that point the goalposts haven't even been moved just a little, they're in a whole other stadium. In the next state.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 18th July 2021 at 12:02 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2021, 12:05 AM   #44
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,048
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
2. The idea that it's presumptuous to actually point out the flaws in logic, is not just stupid itself, it's about 2500 years too late. Because that's how long we've had this newfangled "logic" thing around. Which, yes, lets us say that someone's logic is broken. Thinking there's anything presumptuous about saying that, yes, someone's logic is broken, is plain old stupid.
With respect to your sudden complaints about how your arguments have only been to criticize "the logic", I've looked back over the thread to see where I've missed you doing that. But you haven't done any logical critique at all.

Despite all the posts in this exchange you have really made one basic argument in this thread, encapsulated here:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Uncharitable, maybe, is it accurate? That IS the implication, given the reality we're talking about: an omnipotent (i.e., CAN do it) and omniscient (i.e., knows when and where it's needed) God chooses to save cats and fix football games, but also chooses not to save the 2.5 million children a year who die of preventable causes in their first month.

It seems to me like it tells you right there what that deity's priorities are. Doesn't it?
This is really just a theological complaint: the suggestion that a random cat might get a "guardian angel" while any number of people in the world whom you feel are vastly more deserving of such protection don't get it, leads to some unflattering implications about the responsible deity's moral priorities. It is, as I pointed out, a value judgment on your part. Okay, so - perhaps this "God" is simply a jerk, or arbitrary, or even just likes cats more than people; that is not a logical flaw in the person's thinking, though. Logic does not demand that this or any hypothetical deity must share your sense of moral priorities in order to exist.

So...yeah, you're calling somebody (indirectly, by applying the pejorative to their thinking or speech) "stupid" because they don't appear to be as bothered by their proposed god's moral priorities (as you have inferred them) as you feel they should be. It really is NOT a logic critique.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2021, 12:20 AM   #45
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 19,206
Mate, here's what the Merriam-Webster says about the meaning of "stupid", because apparently you don't even understand basic English if it gets in the way of your doing some sophistry:

1
a : slow of mind : obtuse
b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner
c : lacking intelligence or reason : brutish
2 : dulled in feeling or sensation : torpid
//still stupid from the sedative
3 : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : senseless
//a stupid decision
4
a : lacking interest or point
//a stupid event
b : vexatious, exasperating
//the stupid car won't start
So guess what? When you argue that yeah, but they just haven't been putting 2 and 2 together, you're actually saying it fits that part I highlighted: it's an idea that didn't exactly come out of reasoned thinking. The fact that no reasoning was involved in coming up with it, is not a defense of "God/angels/karma saved your cat" nonsense, it's actually the PROBLEM. It's what makes it be a stupid thing to say.

Also note that nowhere does it say that the person doing it needs to be generally lacking intelligence or anything even vaguely resembling your strawman. Hell, even when applied to a person -- which, again, wasn't the case here -- meaning 1.b allows it to not actually be a judgment of their actual IQ, so to speak.

But generally, guess what? When you have to do convoluted handwaving about how yeah, but you somehow know that I was INDIRECTLY meaning something else than what I actually said, that's your clue that you're doing a strawman. Again, address what I actually wrote -- or yes, its actual implications or counter-examples or whatever, but still, based on what I actually said -- or GTHO basically. I'm not interested in what strawmen you can try to handwave instead.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 18th July 2021 at 12:55 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2021, 01:59 AM   #46
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 19,206
That said, ok, if you really want to talk the following, sure, let's talk about that too:

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
the suggestion that a random cat might get a "guardian angel" while any number of people in the world whom you feel are vastly more deserving of such protection don't get it, leads to some unflattering implications about the responsible deity's moral priorities. It is, as I pointed out, a value judgment on your part. Okay, so - perhaps this "God" is simply a jerk, or arbitrary, or even just likes cats more than people; that is not a logical flaw in the person's thinking, though. Logic does not demand that this or any hypothetical deity must share your sense of moral priorities in order to exist.
The problem there is that you've created a strawman deity in order to avoid the contradiction.

Yes, someone COULD theoretically have a coherent and self-consistent mental model, in which they're aware they're following an evil and unjust deity. Or, as you put it, a god who's a "jerk". And at that, that they too are an ass hole, just like their deity. (I guess that would be one way to be all like, "what would Jesus do?") However, in practice:

A. virtually nobody, at least not among the self-professed mainstream Christians, will actually say that they follow an evil and unjust deity, if you ask them. And that's not what the standard Christian God is presented as in any case. (Edit: unless someone is a gnostic, I guess, but then a gnostic wouldn't be thanking that evil god for anything, including saving a cat.)

and, even more importantly,

B. they have no rational reason to believe that every stranger they talk to has the same kind of mental model, in which they follow a deity they know to be evil and unjust. You know, for it to be OK to imply to them that their God cares about cats and fixing football matches, but obviously not about Aunt Maxine who died a drooling lunatic of MS, after a decade of struggling with it.


But anyway, yes, you can invent a theoretical theology that is perfectly coherent and self-consistent, and where such a proposition is perfectly logical. But that's just it: You essentially just invented yet another strawman of your own to make it work.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 18th July 2021 at 02:07 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2021, 02:34 AM   #47
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,048
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
That said, ok, if you really want to talk the following, sure, let's talk about that too:



The problem there is that you've created a strawman deity in order to avoid the contradiction.

Yes, someone COULD theoretically have a coherent and self-consistent mental model, in which they're aware they're following an evil and unjust deity. Or, as you put it, a god who's a "jerk". And at that, that they too are an ass hole, just like their deity. (I guess that would be one way to be all like, "what would Jesus do?") However, in practice:

A. virtually nobody, at least not among the self-professed Christians, will actually say that they follow an evil and unjust deity, if you ask them. And that's not what the standard Christian God is presented as in any case.

and, even more importantly,

B. they have no rational reason to believe that every stranger they talk to has the same kind of mental model, in which they follow a deity they know to be evil and unjust. You know, for it to be OK to imply to them that their God cares about cats and fixing football matches, but obviously not about Aunt Maxine who died a drooling lunatic of MS, after a decade of struggling with it.

But anyway, yes, you can invent a theoretical theology that is perfectly coherent and self-consistent, and where such a proposition is perfectly logical. But that's just it: You essentially just invented yet another strawman of your own to make it work.
Okay; but if you're working with the fixed assumption that the people making these statements were in fact Christians, then I'm sure you're also aware that Christianity's internal reasoning already accounts for such situations; it recognizes that their God will sometimes appear to make inexplicable or counterintuitive decisions because people aren't always privy to every aspect of said deity's reasoning, and they are on the whole perfectly okay with that. Just for one example, it is a very widespread belief within most religions, certainly including Christianity, that people have a "time" when God desires or has arranged for their deaths to occur, and that God (or "guardian angels", or whatever the mechanic) may shield people from dying before this "time" but will not do so once it arrives, because the person dying (and thus transitioning to the particular religion's peaceful afterlife) is the point and thus is considered at the end of the day to be for the best, however sad the temporary loss will be for those left behind.


And again - you keep pleading that your argument has identified a "logical flaw" when it has not, it is purely an emotion-based argument. You are dissatisfied that people who believe in (or at least entertain as a comforting thought the idea of) guardian angels haven't extrapolated from that belief that the god they conceptualize must be evil or immoral like you have.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2021, 06:10 AM   #48
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 19,206
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Okay; but if you're working with the fixed assumption that the people making these statements were in fact Christians,
Well, it kinda has to be one of the Abrahamic religions, or Zoroastrianism.The latter has about 100,000 followers world-wide, and most are in Iran, followed by India, so you know, probability-wise, I'd say it's unlikely that those are the bulk of those perpetuating this kind of nonsense.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
then I'm sure you're also aware that Christianity's internal reasoning already accounts for such situations; it recognizes that their God will sometimes appear to make inexplicable or counterintuitive decisions because people aren't always privy to every aspect of said deity's reasoning, and they are on the whole perfectly okay with that.
Which itself is a self-contradicting piece of nonsense that wasn't really reasoned through -- i.e., if falls squarely under definition 3 above -- since virtually always it means YOU can't know what god thinks, but the one talking to you about it CAN. Point in case, even postulating that God or an angel intervened there, presumes to have a pretty good idea of how and when God or angels decide to intervene, or at least how they did in that particular situation.

So, anyway, adding one more logical contradiction isn't actually making it any better. This isn't Newtonian mechanics, you know. Adding an equal and opposite stupidity doesn't cancel the first one out, but just makes the whole thing even more stupid.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Just for one example, it is a very widespread belief within most religions, certainly including Christianity, that people have a "time" when God desires or has arranged for their deaths to occur, and that God (or "guardian angels", or whatever the mechanic) may shield people from dying before this "time" but will not do so once it arrives, because the person dying (and thus transitioning to the particular religion's peaceful afterlife) is the point
Yes, it's one more piece of nonsense added to the pile, in that it's a complete non-sequitur. When the question is why didn't God save some baby, just saying some form of "because that's when God decided they should die" isn't even addressing the question, much less provide a logical explanation.

I mean, that some decision by God was involved (even if it's a decision to not intervene), is very much a given. The question is WHY did God decide that. Just handwaving some version of "because he decided to", isn't even an answer, or really adding anything. It's at best just empty, meaningless filler, and at worst circular logic, which is to say, fundamentally broken reasoning.

So again, all you're effectively saying is "yeah, but they have some more meaningless nonsense to handwave about that." That however isn't making anything more logical. Adding more nonsense to the pile isn't cancelling the other nonsense. It only does just that: add even more nonsense to the pile.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
And again - you keep pleading that your argument has identified a "logical flaw" when it has not, it is purely an emotion-based argument. You are dissatisfied that people who believe in (or at least entertain as a comforting thought the idea of) guardian angels haven't extrapolated from that belief that the god they conceptualize must be evil or immoral like you have.
Uh, sorry to break it to you, but pointing out that some explanation doesn't make sense of all the data is how we've been doing science for the last couple of centuries. Not to mention that in logic it's how counter-examples or the ad-absurdum work. The whole POINT of the latter is, yes, to extrapolate (validly) from the proposition and any other data you have, in some way that produces a contradiction.

And for all your empty sophistry in defense of the poor believers, you haven't actually shown any of that to be actually invalid. Your argument -- including explicitly above -- just says they haven't done that extrapolation, not that the extrapolation is wrong. And "but they just haven't thought it through" isn't a saving grace. A stupid proposition doesn't become sound because someone didn't think it through to see the contradiction in their model. Far from being a saving grace, it's the underlying problem.

But generally, that's all you've been doing: some nonsense sophistry, plus a pinch of Bulverism fallacy now. Which, to quote Shania Twain, "it don't impress me much."
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 18th July 2021 at 06:13 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2021, 09:12 AM   #49
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,355
I did not really feel any anger (or relief) with that story of the surviving cat when just reading about it in the opening post (although I am probably one of the worlds biggest cat lovers). And I suppose that's because it's a short bit of a story from a country far from the UK (where I am) and part of a much wider US news story that I have not read about (there's a lot of very serious stuff to read in the news at present). But …

… what has often annoyed me in recent years is the number of cases is the UK news where medics have cured some very young child from some life threatening condition/accident where the anguished parents had expected the child to die, but where the BBC showed them giving gushing thanks not to the doctors and medical staff who actually saved/cured their child, but to God … I mean they were really going overboard on the “praise be to God/Allah" stuff, and in some of those interviews they had to be gently reminded to also thank the medical staff!
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2021, 01:02 PM   #50
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,048
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Which itself is a self-contradicting piece of nonsense that wasn't really reasoned through -- i.e., if falls squarely under definition 3 above -- since virtually always it means YOU can't know what god thinks, but the one talking to you about it CAN. Point in case, even postulating that God or an angel intervened there, presumes to have a pretty good idea of how and when God or angels decide to intervene, or at least how they did in that particular situation.
This explanation is not "self-contradicting", and it's not a logical contradiction. It's just an extension of a commonly-observed truth about the world - Abrahamic religions believe in a personal god after all, and it's just a fact that sometimes we don't fully understand why people do the things they do if they haven't explicitly told us, as we can't read minds. We can speculate, but that speculation will always be based on incomplete information and therefore it can always be wrong.

It is not a logical contradiction in the least to speculate that "maybe this person did this thing" but also confess to not knowing what their thinking was while they were doing it, because the doing of something and an actor's motivation for doing it are two different things. That's why a motive doesn't necessarily have to be established or even proposed in order to charge, try, and convict a person of a crime for instance.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Yes, it's one more piece of nonsense added to the pile, in that it's a complete non-sequitur. When the question is why didn't God save some baby, just saying some form of "because that's when God decided they should die" isn't even addressing the question, much less provide a logical explanation.

I mean, that some decision by God was involved (even if it's a decision to not intervene), is very much a given. The question is WHY did God decide that. Just handwaving some version of "because he decided to", isn't even an answer, or really adding anything. It's at best just empty, meaningless filler, and at worst circular logic, which is to say, fundamentally broken reasoning.
"I don't know" - whatever form used to convey that expression - isn't really an attempt to "provide a logical explanation" though, it's an admission that one is unable to. If you ask someone to climb a tree, and they forthrightly tell you they can't because they have a bad back or whatever and walk away, it's not really accurate to characterize that as a failed attempt to climb the tree.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Uh, sorry to break it to you, but pointing out that some explanation doesn't make sense of all the data is how we've been doing science for the last couple of centuries.
Expressing empathetic happiness that somebody's cat survived a disaster isn't "doing science". I would say that you're "hung up" on treating it that way but it's not so much an involuntary thing as you just steadfastly holding onto it with both hands and refusing to let go.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2021, 06:50 PM   #51
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 19,206
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
This explanation is not "self-contradicting", and it's not a logical contradiction. It's just an extension of a commonly-observed truth about the world - Abrahamic religions believe in a personal god after all, and it's just a fact that sometimes we don't fully understand why people do the things they do if they haven't explicitly told us, as we can't read minds. We can speculate, but that speculation will always be based on incomplete information and therefore it can always be wrong.
It's not itself a logical contradiction, but how it is applied may contradict other pieces of the model. Especially when the whole reason for using it is to try to handwave over other contradictions in the model. In fact, 99% of its use seems to just boil down to handwaving the implication "and that's why YOU can't point out contradictions in MY model."

And in fact, that's how you use it too, frankly. Just like the rest of the nonsense handwaving that's been your whole contribution to this thread.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
It is not a logical contradiction in the least to speculate that "maybe this person did this thing" but also confess to not knowing what their thinking was while they were doing it, because the doing of something and an actor's motivation for doing it are two different things. That's why a motive doesn't necessarily have to be established or even proposed in order to charge, try, and convict a person of a crime for instance.
Except that's not what the faithful almost invariably say, so again you're just building your own strawman. You seem to sure love those, huh?

I've yet to hear someone say that MAYBE God saved their cat or helped them score a goal in the soccer cup or win a music award... or maybe He didn't, they don't know. No, they invariably thank him as if they know it as hard fact that he did.

So, yeah, if you just pull your own distorted version out of your own ass, then yeah, you can pull a version that isn't contradictory. But again: that's just addressing your own strawman.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
"I don't know" - whatever form used to convey that expression - isn't really an attempt to "provide a logical explanation" though, it's an admission that one is unable to. If you ask someone to climb a tree, and they forthrightly tell you they can't because they have a bad back or whatever and walk away, it's not really accurate to characterize that as a failed attempt to climb the tree.
What I was answering to, and is quoted on the same page, was a completely different thing from admitting "I don't know."

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Expressing empathetic happiness that somebody's cat survived a disaster isn't "doing science".
Motte-and-bailey fallacy. The question never was whether it's ok to be happy that someone's cat lived, but whether certain things said on that occasion are stupid.

So again, do try to address what was actually said, instead of just distorting everything into whatever strawman is easier for you to address.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I would say that you're "hung up" on treating it that way but it's not so much an involuntary thing as you just steadfastly holding onto it with both hands and refusing to let go.
So, bulverism fallacy again?

Plus, honestly, it's kinda rich to complain that I don't just let go, when you haven't given one single sound reason why I'm wrong. You've just done the dumbest collection of fallacies, handwaving and outright dishonest arguing I've seen outside actual apologetics threads. Including, yes, the complaint about what's wrong with whoever don't just accept the nonsense handwaving. That's an apologist standard too.

Here's an idea: maybe try actually having a point and an argument, instead of complaining about why I don't just accept your empty handwaving. THAT might convince me. Just adding more fallacies to the pile won't.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 18th July 2021 at 06:51 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2021, 10:46 PM   #52
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 13,900
One of my earliest pushes towards atheism came when I saw the film A Night To Remember on TV when I was about ten. At the end the Titanic survivors gather in a church to thank God for sparing them from the fate of their fellow passengers, and even my childish mind could see that was bonkers. If ever a disaster qualified as an act of God the Titanic encountering an iceberg that big, in those waters, and hitting at at an angle where it did enough damage to sink it, was it. If an event as unlikely as that, but which resulted in something good, happened the religious would be claiming it as a miracle. But here they were, thanking God for not killing every single one of them. WTF?

But there's no point pointing out the bonkersness of such responses to small amounts of good luck amidst large amounts of bad. The couple of times I've tried to do so, tentatively and politely, the reaction was fury.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 18th July 2021 at 10:47 PM.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2021, 04:57 AM   #53
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,949
As Bertrand Russell wrote in "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish":

Originally Posted by Russell
Sometimes, if pious men are to be believed, God's mercies are curiously selective. Toplady, the author of "Rock of Ages," moved from one vicarage to another; a week after the move, the vicarage he had formerly occupied burnt down, with great loss to the new vicar. Thereupon Toplady thanked God; but what the new vicar did is not known. Borrow, in his "Bible in Spain," records how without mishap he crossed a mountain pass infested by bandits. The next party to cross, however, were set upon, robbed, and some of them murdered; when Borrow heard of this, he, like Toplady, thanked God.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2021, 07:20 AM   #54
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 19,206
Yeah, that's kinda the thing. And obviously Bertrand Russel put it better than I did, but then I guess that's why he's a well known author and I'm not.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2021, 10:39 AM   #55
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 32,383
I was relieved to find our missing cat last night, but Big G had nothing to do with it.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2021, 11:51 AM   #56
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,358
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
I was on another forum, either Quora or Reddit, and was reading comments about the condo collapse. Someone posted that she had located her cat after several days, and had already given up looking for him. When she found him, he had crawled into a small space that wound up protecting him. Lots of tears when she and the cat were reunited. OK.

Then I started to read the comments. Several people told her that it was "proof" that "everyone has a "guardian angel"! And it was the guardian angel that reunited the cat with his owner.

I think I had steam coming out of my nostrils. So, apparently all of the other pets and people that did die, or the people who were never reunited with their pets, begs the question - where were their guardian angels? Tied up in traffic? Taking a day off?

OK, I have vented. Thanks!
It's not evidence of a guardian angel or the existence of God. It is, however, solid evidence in favor of the proposition that cats have nine lives. The cat may have used more than one in this instance.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2021, 12:19 PM   #57
Planigale
Philosopher
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 5,101
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
My other problem with this is it is not theologically consistent.

Bible says God gave us free will. That means we're on our own. That apartment building you're living in is structurally unsound? That's your problem.

The Old Testament was clear about who does the killing: God.

And if it was a big killing job, like Sodom and Gomorrah, God sent angles to level the place and kill everyone. If an angel did step in it was usually to warn someone, but what happened next was up to them (that whole free-will thing again). If God didn't intervene to save Jesus directly or by sending avenging angels then God sure as hell isn't going to save a cat.

Not to say that God flattened the building, just to say God didn't stop it, or wake everyone up to get them out.

Technically intervention is blasphemy, but a certain unnamed church based in Rome made a lot of money with their whole Saints intervening on your behalf with God. So they back off from doing their job and shutting this nonsense down.
Yet another anti-English rant. Ango-Saxons are not responsible for all the bad things that happen! I know that it is fashionable to blame the English and the British Empire and colonialism for the sins of the world, but invading Angles were not responsible for the devastation of either sodom or Gomorah.

As a great man said 'Non Angli sed Angeli'.

(I have problems with knowing which Emojis (or emotions) are appropriate so apologies if this is the wrong one)
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2021, 06:33 PM   #58
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,048
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
It's not itself a logical contradiction, but how it is applied may contradict other pieces of the model. Especially when the whole reason for using it is to try to handwave over other contradictions in the model. In fact, 99% of its use seems to just boil down to handwaving the implication "and that's why YOU can't point out contradictions in MY model."
Except that - again, you're not pointing out "contradictions". You might think the idea of a god that saves some people but not others is lousy but that doesn't make it some kind of contradiction or logical flaw. You might think the admission that people can't know why their believed-in god makes the decisions he/she/it does is a cheap cop-out, but it doesn't actually "contradict" anything.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Except that's not what the faithful almost invariably say, so again you're just building your own strawman.
Uh - no? Who's actually building the strawman here. Who cares what "the faithful" "almost invariably" say? Did the person suggesting a guardian angel saved the cat, say that? If not, then the strawman is yours. In fact a whole lot of what you're raging about are statements, beliefs, and implications that cat-angel-person never themselves said, but which you simply assert they MUST believe, imply, or intend to convey apparently because you have either extrapolated them purely on your own from "cat guardian-angel" and genuinely believe there is no possibility that legitimate alternate takes exist (all of those are just "handwaving"; only YOUR interpretation is intellectually honest), or other people who have nothing to do with the present incident or conversation have said such things to you in the past. You're not asking cat-angel-person what all they actually believe, you're just personally deciding what all they believe and then railing at them for having the nerve to believe those things.

Or, it isn't about this particular person and what they actually said at all beyond that they've said enough to indicate that they believe in a deity of some kind, and now they're really just a symbolic proxy for you to vent your anger at about any dumb thing that any other religious person has ever said to you.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I've yet to hear someone say that MAYBE God saved their cat or helped them score a goal in the soccer cup or win a music award... or maybe He didn't, they don't know. No, they invariably thank him as if they know it as hard fact that he did.

So, yeah, if you just pull your own distorted version out of your own ass, then yeah, you can pull a version that isn't contradictory. But again: that's just addressing your own strawman.
This is a weird tangent? When somebody is charged with a crime, that's not a "maybe", either; that's a positive finger-point. Still, again, knowing the motive behind a crime for certain - or even proposing a guess at one - isn't always necessary for a conviction. You can be utterly convinced that somebody did something, while having no solid idea why they did it. That's not some kind of contradiction.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
What I was answering to, and is quoted on the same page, was a completely different thing from admitting "I don't know."
Nope - that is the actual message being conveyed by those kinds of statements. Sure the words used are different; but that's what they're effectively saying. The oft-parroted cliche' that "God works in mysterious ways" and its many variations are all communicating the idea that the person just doesn't know the reason why "God" presumably did a thing and also isn't particularly distressed by the fact that they don't know.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Motte-and-bailey fallacy. The question never was whether it's ok to be happy that someone's cat lived, but whether certain things said on that occasion are stupid.
I never said the question was about whether they were happy. Your problem is with how they chose to express that happiness; i.e., what they said. It's right there in the sentence of mine that you've just quoted. So oddly you've just self-identified your own fallacy?

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
So again, do try to address what was actually said, instead of just distorting everything into whatever strawman is easier for you to address.
Here's an idea: why don't you settle on what you are actually "saying"?

First it's

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I still don't feel any particular shame about expecting people to make sure the brain is engaged before throwing the mouth into gear.
But then suddenly it's

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I didn't say the problem is whether or not they shut up about it. I find it offensively stupid that that kind of idiocy exists.
And now it's back to

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The question never was whether it's ok to be happy that someone's cat lived, but whether certain things said on that occasion are stupid.
Your problem was they said something stupid; but then it doesn't matter whether they said anything, you're still offended even if they're just silently thinking it; and now it's back again to because they said something stupid.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
So, bulverism fallacy again?

Plus, honestly, it's kinda rich to complain that I don't just let go, when you haven't given one single sound reason why I'm wrong.
Every single post of mine has pointed out at least once that you're describing something as "logically flawed" when it isn't, it's just something you disagree with or personally think is distasteful - like the idea of an arbitrarily protective deity. I'm beginning to wonder if your understanding of logic is limited to a cheatsheet list of named fallacies that you can just randomly throw at people and claim that's what they're doing.

Once again: someone on the internet, as an expression of shared joy and empathy, proposed that a "guardian angel" saved this person's cat, and that's it. There's nothing in evidence to suggest the cat's owner feels particularly offended by the suggestion; but here comes you, getting offended on their behalf because you've decided the statement disrespects the cat owner's dying grandmother that you don't even know whether she exists or not by implying she along with a thousand sub-saharan babies weren't "worthy" of being saved by guardian angels and by golly you're not gonna stand for that kind of talk, even if it was completely made up and put into the platitude-speaker's mouth by you.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2021, 09:50 PM   #59
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 19,206
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Here's an idea: why don't you settle on what you are actually "saying"?

First it's



But then suddenly it's



And now it's back to



Your problem was they said something stupid; but then it doesn't matter whether they said anything, you're still offended even if they're just silently thinking it; and now it's back again to because they said something stupid.
So now you're at distorting and misunderstanding even plain English, if you can't get your idiotic handwaving through otherwise? Because all that isn't my contradiction, it's just your pretending to even be unable to parse elementary English, if you can't try to sound smart otherwise.

The main clause in "certain things said on that occasion are stupid" according to standard English grammar is "certain things are stupid", NOT something like "saying those things is stupid". The "said on that occasion" is just an attribute clause, specifying WHICH things are meant. It doesn't parse to "saying them is stupid" to anyone who has even basic English comprehension skills. And it doesn't in any way contradict the statement that they'd be stupid even if they weren't said.

So there is no going back and forth on my part. That's just you arguing dishonestly, if pushing your own stupid strawmen otherwise failed.

But frankly, if by now your trying to even sound like you have a point hinges on pretending to be unable to even parse simple English syntax right, then just come back when you've learned to read and comprehend. There's no such thing as being right by virtue of being too intellectually unequipped to even understand what is actually being said. In fact, too unequipped to even parse the grammar of what's being said, apparently. Sorry, that's not some winning move.

And the same goes for the rest of your message. It's one big collection of essentially dishonest arguing at its finest.

But to address this too:

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Every single post of mine has pointed out at least once that you're describing something as "logically flawed" when it isn't, it's just something you disagree with or personally think is distasteful
"Pointed out" is worthless if all you can provide as support is your own opinion, a bunch of fallacies, and some emotional hand-wringing, silly. I mean, the moon-landing CT-ers can "point out" that the flag is wavy, and the flat-earthers can point out that a spirit level stays level on a plane, but that doesn't mean that their "pointing out" makes it so. "Pointing out" without any logical support is worthless.

And frankly even the CT-ers and flat-earthers in that analogy are in fact doing a better job than you did. They can at least offer SOME support (flawed in that it doesn't actually reach all the way to the conclusion, but at least they tried) whereas the only support you offered for that was some empty handwaving. That's not even remotely the same thing as having a logical argument.

Again, come back when you have a logical ARGUMENT, not when you can flail around and wring your hands about why don't people accept your fallacies and empty handwaving.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I'm beginning to wonder if your understanding of logic is limited to a cheatsheet list of named fallacies that you can just randomly throw at people and claim that's what they're doing.
Ah yes, the standard complaint of the... *ahem* logic-challenged: there's something wrong with people calling out textbook fallacies in his nonsense

Yeah, given your contribution to the thread, I was wondering when you'd get to that complaint. Now it makes the edifice of empty nonsense complete
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 19th July 2021 at 10:10 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2021, 03:30 AM   #60
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,048
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Your problem was they said something stupid
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The main clause in "certain things said on that occasion are stupid" according to standard English grammar is "certain things are stupid", NOT something like "saying those things is stupid". The "said on that occasion" is just an attribute clause, specifying WHICH things are meant. It doesn't parse to "saying them is stupid" to anyone who has even basic English comprehension skills.
Yes. My post did, in fact, specify that the "something stupid" was WHAT they said, not the act of saying it. You're forcefully, insult-ladenly reiterating exactly what I said, and you can't even see it because of how agitated you are.

In fact, given every other thing you type now is a pejorative or an attempt at an insult, you're clearly too emotionally agitated for this conversation to ever return to a useful exchange of ideas. I've been, I think, reasonably patient and civil, but all I'm getting in return is "stupid this, idiotic that, you're too intellectually unequipped to have this conversation", etc etc and it's clearly only going to escalate; so it's really best if we just end this here.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2021, 04:34 AM   #61
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 19,206
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Yes. My post did, in fact, specify that the "something stupid" was WHAT they said, not the act of saying it. You're forcefully, insult-ladenly reiterating exactly what I said, and you can't even see it because of how agitated you are.
Yet you manage to deliberately mis-interpret it as if the saying was the subject, and not a qualifier in a subordinate clause:

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Your problem was they said something stupid; but then it doesn't matter whether they said anything, you're still offended even if they're just silently thinking it; and now it's back again to because they said something stupid.
So which is it? Oh, right, as I suspected, you could in fact parse it, you were just lying about what it "means" so you can pretend you found a "contradiction". Again.

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
In fact, given every other thing you type now is a pejorative or an attempt at an insult, you're clearly too emotionally agitated for this conversation to ever return to a useful exchange of ideas. I've been, I think, reasonably patient and civil, but all I'm getting in return is "stupid this, idiotic that, you're too intellectually unequipped to have this conversation", etc etc and it's clearly only going to escalate; so it's really best if we just end this here.
I could say more, starting with the fact that even above you add a partial quoting out of context and a bulverism as a parting shot, because, I guess, it would have been a shame to leave without completing the set of empty sophistry techniques

But ok, I'm not gonna ask you to continue. Fare thee well
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2021, 12:54 AM   #62
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,551
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
It does make me angry.
Me too.

All this thanking God for things He couldn't have had anything to do with (because He doesn't exist) is really getting up my nose. Not just 'guardian angels' but all the other phrases religious people use to credit their imaginary deities for mundane events - "Thank goodness for...", "Luckily...", "Jesus Christ on a Pogostick!" - no opportunity is wasted to remind us that God is responsible for everything good that happens the Universe (according to them).

Last week I attended the funeral of my friend's mother, a deeply religious woman who turned even more to God in her last few years suffering from motor neuron disease. My friend asked me to come because they might need an extra person to be a pallbearer - and he was right - man that casket was heavy!

But as the pastor delivered his usual spiel about how all things come from God and life isn't worth living without faith I had steam coming out of my nostrils. Then the family members each recited a prepared speech telling us how religion had enriched her life and helped get her through and I realized that I was in the presence of a bunch of nutters. I didn't think my friend was religious, but hearing him almost choke up as he described his mother's faith in glowing terms made me so angry my sunglasses started fogging up. Finally the pastor asked if anyone else had something to say. "As a matter of fact", I said...

Or perhaps I stood silent with my head bowed and hands clasped in front of me, trying to hide the tears streaming down my face. Perhaps the pastor stumbled over his lines going through a ritual that even he didn't believe in, but did so to help us through a time of grief. Perhaps everyone there knew deep down that there was nothing left but a dead body down in that hole, but they needed something to counter the utter futility of it all, a harmless fantasy to make the pain and suffering of an uncaring universe bearable. And perhaps their 'god' is really just a personification of the kindness we give to others and and hope to receive ourselves.

I felt God at that funeral. He was a very small god, hiding in that grave waiting to collect her soul. He didn't get much though, because she was in us. And even though I know we are all just subatomic particles whizzing around aimlessly following the laws of quantum physics, I still enjoy the fantasy of imagining that people are more than that - a fantasy that somehow manages to make for better relationships and a brighter outlook on life than being a supercilious materialistic dick whose need to be right overrides any empathy they might have.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 21st July 2021 at 12:59 AM.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2021, 11:33 AM   #63
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 17,816
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
I was on another forum, either Quora or Reddit, and was reading comments about the condo collapse. Someone posted that she had located her cat after several days, and had already given up looking for him. When she found him, he had crawled into a small space that wound up protecting him. Lots of tears when she and the cat were reunited. OK.
What a fantastic good news story! Random events really favoured her this time. I hope you didn't read any further.

Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
Then I started to read the comments.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2021, 01:10 PM   #64
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sorth Dakonsin
Posts: 25,625
I just received a sympathy card from the staff at the clinic that handled my cat's final procedure, signed by all. Very kind. But they also included a little card with the "Rainbow Bridge" BS on it.

I'd considered how I was going to react if one of my friends or relatives brought that **** up on my Facebook post or elsewhere, but I didn't think I'd be getting it from the animal hospital. I just threw it away.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2021, 02:47 PM   #65
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 15,838
What's the problem? I'm saved, you're not. That's on you. My sins are forgiven, yours are motive for hellfire. This is no lottery; tough not being chosen, isn't it, punk?

Think I'll mosey on over to my neighbor's to practice some love. Hubby's away, thank god for small miracles.
__________________
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2021, 03:04 PM   #66
Carlotta
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 611
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
I just received a sympathy card from the staff at the clinic that handled my cat's final procedure, signed by all. Very kind. But they also included a little card with the "Rainbow Bridge" BS on it.

I'd considered how I was going to react if one of my friends or relatives brought that **** up on my Facebook post or elsewhere, but I didn't think I'd be getting it from the animal hospital. I just threw it away.
The day after one of my cats died, I was headed home from work and saw a rainbow apparently curving toward my house. I mumbled "yeah, you're a day late."
Carlotta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2021, 04:29 AM   #67
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 25,707
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
That's rather obtuse. Did God go off on a tangent? And did Jesus cosine that order?
They're probably rouge angles...
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2021, 01:39 PM   #68
Caroline13
Suspended
 
Caroline13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: So Calif.
Posts: 1,299
OP: what's to get angry, people believe what they believe.

So so much Horrid stuff in the world to really get angry about.
Caroline13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2021, 02:33 PM   #69
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,869
Originally Posted by Caroline13 View Post
OP: what's to get angry, people believe what they believe.

So so much Horrid stuff in the world to really get angry about.

Feel free to get angry about stuff that turns you on, but let wasapi have her own gripes also.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2021, 02:36 PM   #70
lobosrul5
Master Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,397
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
I was on another forum, either Quora or Reddit, and was reading comments about the condo collapse. Someone posted that she had located her cat after several days, and had already given up looking for him. When she found him, he had crawled into a small space that wound up protecting him. Lots of tears when she and the cat were reunited. OK.

Then I started to read the comments. Several people told her that it was "proof" that "everyone has a "guardian angel"! And it was the guardian angel that reunited the cat with his owner.

I think I had steam coming out of my nostrils. So, apparently all of the other pets and people that did die, or the people who were never reunited with their pets, begs the question - where were their guardian angels? Tied up in traffic? Taking a day off?

OK, I have vented. Thanks!
Seriously stay far far away from that "thing". Its mostly just people asking themselves a question and then answering it themselves. They don't want an argument, they want validation. Some other posts are an excuse to post horrible "joke" pictures.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2021, 05:40 AM   #71
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,406
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Feel free to get angry about stuff that turns you on, but let wasapi have her own gripes also.
Also, it's perfectly possible to be irate about more than one thing at once. The way the Taliban are taking over Afghanistan makes me angry. I can still agree with Wasapi's analysis in the OP.
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2021, 08:48 AM   #72
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 7,591
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Seriously stay far far away from that "thing". Its mostly just people asking themselves a question and then answering it themselves. They don't want an argument, they want validation. Some other posts are an excuse to post horrible "joke" pictures.
Quora is such a strange site sometimes.

Question - Is it true that birds cannot consciously control their breathing?

Answer 1 - Birds are such amazing creatures in so many ways! It is truly a wonder that we are so blessed to share this earth with them, and peek into just a little corner of their miraculous world. My husband and I have raised birds for many years, and in fact, we just opened our own parrot sanctuary last year! It is disgusting how many people abandon their sweet birds when owning them is no longer convenient.

The respiratory system of birds is no exception to their myriad miracles. It is true that birds do not have a diaphragm, which is probably the info that is the source of your question. Instead, the air is moved through their breathing system via air sacs. Muscles regularly contract, putting pressure on the air sacs, and forcing the air back out. So as you can see, that is very different than mammals! Blah, blah, blah...


Answer 2 - When fresh air is first inhaled through a bird’s nares (nostrils), it travels through the trachea (a large tube extending from the throat), which splits into left and right primary bronchi (a.k.a. mesobronchi, with each bronchus leading to a lung). The inhaled air travels down each primary bronchus and then divides: some air enters the lungs where gas exchange occurs, while the remaining air fills the posterior (rear) air sacs. Then, during the first exhalation, the fresh air in the posterior sacs enters the lungs and undergoes gas exchange. The spent air in the lungs is displaced by this incoming air and flows out the body through the trachea. During the second inhalation, fresh air again enters both the posterior sacs and the lungs. Spent air in the lungs is again displaced by incoming air, but it cannot exit through the trachea because fresh air is flowing inward. Instead, the spent air from the lungs enters anterior (forward) air sacs. Then, during the second exhalation, the spent air in the anterior sacs and in the lungs flows out through the trachea, and fresh air in the posterior sacs enters the lungs for gas exchange.

Source - https://asknature.org/strategy/respi...-gas-exchange/


Answer 3 - I'm skeptical why you asked this question. It shouldn't matter if birds can control their breathing if you're not squeezing or hurting them. Birds can be suffocated soooooo easily. I honestly wish people like you would just stay away from them!


Answer 4 - Look to the birds of the air - they do not sow, or reap. Yet, your heavenly FATHER feeds them. Matthew 6:26


Answer 5 - I don't really know if you could say birds are conchuss of their breathing because i don't really think birds are conchuss the way people are either way but yeah i am sure they know they are breathing

...

OP - WTF?????????!!!!!
__________________
Get these tribbles off the bridge

Last edited by Butter!; 19th August 2021 at 08:50 AM.
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2021, 10:51 AM   #73
wasapi
Penultimate Amazing
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 13,948
Originally Posted by Caroline13 View Post
OP: what's to get angry, people believe what they believe.

So so much Horrid stuff in the world to really get angry about.
You seem to be saying I should not feel angry about something that steams my pea's. My OP was a reflection of how annoying ignorance (*cough*cough*) can be. Deal with it.
__________________
Julia
wasapi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2021, 11:57 AM   #74
lobosrul5
Master Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,397
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
You seem to be saying I should not feel angry about something that steams my pea's. My OP was a reflection of how annoying ignorance (*cough*cough*) can be. Deal with it.
You're allowed to get angry over anything you choose to. However, and please know I speak from personal experience, you'll be much happier accepting the fact that there are billions of moronic people in this world, and to stop being bothered by the idiotic opinions (or made up facts) of people you've never even met. It can be tough to do that sometimes, I know (that sounds kinda like a snarky sarcastic sentence, but its not how I mean it).
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2021, 07:32 PM   #75
8enotto
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 2,227
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
You seem to be saying I should not feel angry about something that steams my pea's. My OP was a reflection of how annoying ignorance (*cough*cough*) can be. Deal with it.
I find the irony of this little exchange kind of humorous however.
8enotto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.