*promote to show the crazy.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, June 26th, 2011 2:40pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter DerHasisttot.

So... how many of your children have to die before you realize that prayer doesn't work?

Look, I understand that human beings will naturally turn to magical thinking in the face of overwhelming uncontrollable circumstances, but (expletive expletive) take your children to the doctor and THEN pray!

I suggest these people have a church event where they all go to a tall cliff, and jump off one by one. Pray as hard as you can on the way down. Those who survive can then have children.

See @bareboards2

This is the evidence you'll have to refute.

All the warm fuzzy "lots of people get comfort from their faith" crap ..
[again, an assumption that you can barely measure]

..can't ever seem to justify the disproportionate suffering which takes place.
[something which is demonstrable]

But you still like assert - that because humans naturally make mistake - that we should let the shit continue.

again, either stupid or insincere.

In her defense, @bareboards2 has never been afraid to call crazy religious nuts as such.

^sure. and that's great.

Too bad she enables similar & repeated behavior by being an apologist tho.

Alright..

I may have misread the title.

Were the parents denied health care for being christian, or did they deny their child health care because they thought faith would work.

I read it as the first option, and came into this thinking "Just because they were wingnuts at one time doesn't give anybody the right to deny their child health care."

then after watching the video, I think It's supposed to mean the latter.

I agree with Shepppard, the title is misleading. It should read something like 'Batshit crazy idiots think imaginary friend better than medicine for sick children'.

Here's what Christians should realize (I am an atheist). God gave us the highest functioning brains on the planet so that we could make our own decisions, come up with ideas and inventions and better ourselves in our pursuit to godliness. Therefor, God gave us the ability to both discover and engineer cures and treatments for the disorders that plague us and, shockingly, would probably want us to use this wonderful gift he has allowed us to come up with in order to prevent suffering. Idiots.

>> ^Shepppard:

Alright..
I may have misread the title.
Were the parents denied health care for being christian, or did they deny their child health care because they thought faith would work.
I read it as the first option, and came into this thinking "Just because they were wingnuts at one time doesn't give anybody the right to deny their child health care."
then after watching the video, I think It's supposed to mean the latter.


Changed the title, better?

These people should have treated their child..there was no reason to put it on God to heal the baby when the medicine was available to use. That's like asking a locksmith to open your door when you have the keys in your hand. And God does grant prayers but not every prayer. Jesus prayed to the Father asking that He would not have to go to the cross. If there was ever a prayer God would have wanted to grant, it would have been that one.

>> ^shinyblurry:

These people should have treated their child..there was no reason to put it on God to heal the baby when the medicine was available to use. That's like asking a locksmith to open your door when you have the keys in your hand. And God does grant prayers but not every prayer. Jesus prayed to the Father asking that He would not have to go to the cross. If there was ever a prayer God would have wanted to grant, it would have been that one.


So what you are saying is: 1. God answers some prayers, but those concerning whether a baby lives or dies... not.

2. That Jesus is not God. Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being pray to itself and not grant itself the thing wished for? Redundant. So Jesus is also not the holy spirit. Because the holy spirit is god. Well thanks, shiny, for destroying the holy trinity.

1, I didn't say that, or anything even close to that..all I said was that God doesn't grant every prayer
2, Jesus had a dual nature, he was both man and God. He was made a little lower than the angels for our sake, and He put aside all that was His due to suffer for us..Your understanding here is just hopelessly flawed..it's a cute little atheist meme but it has no theological basis. Jesus and the Father are not the same person..they are one in the essential nature of being God, but they are different people.

I love how all xtians have their own interpretation of their religion and they insist that their interpretation is the correct one. There are many other xtians who would call your "understanding" flawed, shinyblurry...
>> ^shinyblurry:

Jesus had a dual nature, he was both man and God. He was made a little lower than the angels for our sake, and He put aside all that was His due to suffer for us..Your understanding here is just hopelessly flawed..it's a cute little atheist meme but it has no theological basis. Jesus and the Father are not the same person..they are one in the essential nature of being God, but they are different people.

What Der said pretty much 100 percent of Christians would call flawed..what I said, not so much..most Christians believe in the trinity. I had personal revelation the trinity is truth before I ever became a Christian.

>> ^schlub:
I love how all xtians have their own interpretation of their religion and they insist that their interpretation is the correct one. There are many other xtians who would call your "understanding" flawed, shinyblurry...
>> ^shinyblurry:
Jesus had a dual nature, he was both man and God. He was made a little lower than the angels for our sake, and He put aside all that was His due to suffer for us..Your understanding here is just hopelessly flawed..it's a cute little atheist meme but it has no theological basis. Jesus and the Father are not the same person..they are one in the essential nature of being God, but they are different people.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What Der said pretty much 100 percent of Christians would call flawed..what I said, not so much..most Christians believe in the trinity. I had personal revelation the trinity is truth before I ever became a Christian.
>> ^schlub:
I love how all xtians have their own interpretation of their religion and they insist that their interpretation is the correct one. There are many other xtians who would call your "understanding" flawed, shinyblurry...
>> ^shinyblurry:
Jesus had a dual nature, he was both man and God. He was made a little lower than the angels for our sake, and He put aside all that was His due to suffer for us..Your understanding here is just hopelessly flawed..it's a cute little atheist meme but it has no theological basis. Jesus and the Father are not the same person..they are one in the essential nature of being God, but they are different people.




Well aaaactually your viewpoint would be Nontrinitarian by definition. So according to this, my view of Trinity is correct:

According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.[4] Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.[4] "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."

And almost nothing concerning human beings' opinions is ever pretty much 100%. not even in dogmatic subgroups.

You said "Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being pray to itself and not grant itself the thing wished for

Jesus wasn't praying to Himself, He was praying to the Father..they're different people. Therefore, your view is not trinitarian.

My viewpoint is that Jesus was and is fully God, which is the trinitarian view. That He took on the nature of man for our sake does not diminish His divine nature, which is affirmed in the nicean creed. It would be helpful in this discussion if you actually knew what you were talking about. Here are some resources:

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/chphnwr.htm
http://www.gci.org/Jesus/dualnature


>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What Der said pretty much 100 percent of Christians would call flawed..what I said, not so much..most Christians believe in the trinity. I had personal revelation the trinity is truth before I ever became a Christian.
>> ^schlub:
I love how all xtians have their own interpretation of their religion and they insist that their interpretation is the correct one. There are many other xtians who would call your "understanding" flawed, shinyblurry...
>> ^shinyblurry:
Jesus had a dual nature, he was both man and God. He was made a little lower than the angels for our sake, and He put aside all that was His due to suffer for us..Your understanding here is just hopelessly flawed..it's a cute little atheist meme but it has no theological basis. Jesus and the Father are not the same person..they are one in the essential nature of being God, but they are different people.



Well aaaactually your viewpoint would be Nontrinitarian by definition. So according to this, my view of Trinity is correct:
According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.[4] Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.[4] "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."

>> ^shinyblurry:

You said "Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being pray to itself and not grant itself the thing wished for
Jesus wasn't praying to Himself, He was praying to the Father..they're different people. Therefore, your view is not trinitarian.
My viewpoint is that Jesus was and is fully God, which is the trinitarian view. That He took on the nature of man for our sake does not diminish His divine nature, which is affirmed in the nicean creed. It would be helpful in this discussion if you actually knew what you were talking about. Here is a resource:
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/chphnwr.htm
http://www.gci.org/Jesus/dualnature

>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What Der said pretty much 100 percent of Christians would call flawed..what I said, not so much..most Christians believe in the trinity. I had personal revelation the trinity is truth before I ever became a Christian.
>> ^schlub:
I love how all xtians have their own interpretation of their religion and they insist that their interpretation is the correct one. There are many other xtians who would call your "understanding" flawed, shinyblurry...
>> ^shinyblurry:
Jesus had a dual nature, he was both man and God. He was made a little lower than the angels for our sake, and He put aside all that was His due to suffer for us..Your understanding here is just hopelessly flawed..it's a cute little atheist meme but it has no theological basis. Jesus and the Father are not the same person..they are one in the essential nature of being God, but they are different people.



Well aaaactually your viewpoint would be Nontrinitarian by definition. So according to this, my view of Trinity is correct:
According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.[4] Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.[4] "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."



Why would an omniscient and omnipotent being need to pray? "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient." ... which is still trinitarian. Just not your personal definition of it.

Again, they're not the same person. Jesus wasn't praying to Himself, He was praying to His Father. When He became human, He took on our nature and weaknesses..it was necessarily for Him to pray for the same reasons it is necessary for us to pray. Your view point is not only not trinitarian, because you're saying there is no difference between Jesus and the Father, it is just completely ignorant of basic theology.

>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You said "Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being pray to itself and not grant itself the thing wished for
Jesus wasn't praying to Himself, He was praying to the Father..they're different people. Therefore, your view is not trinitarian.
My viewpoint is that Jesus was and is fully God, which is the trinitarian view. That He took on the nature of man for our sake does not diminish His divine nature, which is affirmed in the nicean creed. It would be helpful in this discussion if you actually knew what you were talking about. Here is a resource:
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/chphnwr.htm
http://www.gci.org/Jesus/dualnature
>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What Der said pretty much 100 percent of Christians would call flawed..what I said, not so much..most Christians believe in the trinity. I had personal revelation the trinity is truth before I ever became a Christian.
>> ^schlub:
I love how all xtians have their own interpretation of their religion and they insist that their interpretation is the correct one. There are many other xtians who would call your "understanding" flawed, shinyblurry...
>> ^shinyblurry:
Jesus had a dual nature, he was both man and God. He was made a little lower than the angels for our sake, and He put aside all that was His due to suffer for us..Your understanding here is just hopelessly flawed..it's a cute little atheist meme but it has no theological basis. Jesus and the Father are not the same person..they are one in the essential nature of being God, but they are different people.



Well aaaactually your viewpoint would be Nontrinitarian by definition. So according to this, my view of Trinity is correct:
According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.[4] Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.[4] "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."


Why would an omniscient and omnipotent being need to pray? "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient." ... which is still trinitarian. Just not your personal definition of it.

God = all-powerful. God = Father. God = Son. God = Ghost;

then: Father = all-powerful. Son = all-powerful. Ghost = all-powerful.

All powerful = No need; therefore: Son = No need.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Again, they're not the same people. Jesus wasn't praying to Himself, He was praying to His Father. When He became human, He took on our nature and weaknesses..it was necessarily for Him to pray for the same reasons it is necessary for us to pray. Your view point is not only not trinitarian, because you're implying there is no difference between Jesus and the Father, it is completely ignorant of basic theology.

Well, that was a completely pointless derail there, thanks guys...

Back OT, mebbe they should deny the parents food and water for a week and see if mana falls from heaven..?

ps. Title still seems wonky, the major story covered here was they denied healthcare and their child went blind (the picture of the poor bub with the huge swelling over the left eye). They led in with stories of infants who had died previously.

*eia

Adding video to channels (Eia) - requested by ponceleon.

>> ^Asmo:

ps. Title still seems wonky, the major story covered here was they denied healthcare and their child went blind (the picture of the poor bub with the huge swelling over the left eye). They led in with stories of infants who had died previously.


"Christian Parents Denied Health Care to their Sickened Baby"

Give it up, @DerHasisttot, logic does not work here...

Everything's italic now.

All those equal signs in DerHas's post has befuddled siftbot into thinking everything should be emphatic. Kind of like religion.

>> ^shuac:

Everything's italic now.
All those equal signs in DerHas's post has befuddled siftbot into thinking everything should be emphatic. Kind of like religion.


How can this be reversed?

Edit: It stopped. For now...

Another edit: Spoke too soon

As a christian myself I want to emphatically disown these kinds of people. Their crazed opposition to doctors is no more a Christian value or teaching than it is a value of white people or Americans. You simply can not find a single scriptural basis for refusing medical care. Sure there are plenty of miraculous healings in the Bible, but nowhere are there any examples of refusing any other forms of more basic assistance.

Almost every christian church has read out the following parable:
A man is in house as a flood comes sweeping in. A truck from the fire dept. comes by and asks him if he needs a ride out, and he refuses insisting that God will provide. The dikes break and as the flood waters come in he has to climb onto his roof. While there, a rescue boat comes by and tries to rescue him, but again he refuses insisting God will provide. As his roof is almost covered, a rescue chopper comes in and pleads for him to climb up, but yet again he insists that God will provide. The water then covers the roof and he drowns. When he gets to heaven he asks God why he never answered his prayers. God answers, well I sent a truck, a boat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?

The nutty crazy folks like in this video need to recognize that, if they really do believe in God, modern medicine and doctors are a way for God to answer yes to their prayers for healing. Anything more and they are DIRECTLY contradicting the teachings they claim to hold to by making demands that God give them the answer they want, rather than just accepting his perfectly good but less flashy answer.

Pains me to do it - but I am going to agree with ShinyBlurry in that he has a correct conception of how many Christians view the situation and that that view is not internally inconsistent. There are, of course, Christians who view it a bit differently in one way or another, but those differences don't really impact the question we started with here.

In general, the starting point question is "why is this baby dying, while God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?" This is a good question: shouldn't God, being omnipotent, should be able to realize all his goals (including this baby surviving, since he's benevolent) without compromising any other principles or goals?

It depends on what kind of definition you have for "omnipotent". Is it "the ability to make true anything that can be stated?" (ie. He can make 2+2=7). Is it the weaker "he can, without limits, control physical and spiritual reality" (ie. he can make gravity go backwards and make electrons "more wet")?. Is it the weaker "limitless control over the physical configuration of the universe" (ie. he can turn the universe into a pretzel, but gravity will still work the same)? One can make similar distinctions about His omniscience, how it extends into the future, how it interacts with free will, and how it extends into paradox.

It also depends on self or otherwise imposed limits. Does He have bounds in terms of what He can and/or will do? Does He mess with "free will"? Can he create and/or destroy "souls"? Did he create "Satan" or evil or good or law, and what is his relationship with the law?

How you (or an individual Christian) answers the above question dictates, to an extent, how they resolve the question. However, for most Christian groups that I'm familiar with, the presence of evil and bad outcomes in the world is (one way or another) the result of God's unwillingness or inability to limit free will, and the cascade of related mishaps ever since the fall of Adam. The flip side is, for a dead baby like this, that they'll get a good go of it in heaven (or Paradise Earth, or whatever).

The specifics of how this is resolved and stated varies with Christian groups and people, but the overall point is usually pretty similar and, as before, I don't think it's internally inconsistent.

Similarly, the oddity of Jesus (being God) praying to the Father (also God) is resolved in a few different ways (all of which restore consistency in one way or another). Sometimes it is, as sb points out, the idea that though the same in many ways, Jesus was a separate being and was legitimately asking (or sometimes just communicating, with no real desire to be spared). Or you can see it as an instructive, rhetorical thing - demonstrating how normal people are supposed to deal with God (even though Jesus didn't need to communicate or deal in that way). Or there's probably 10 other resolutions that are internally consistent, again depending on exact definitions of God's nature and what not.

All in all, it's natural that Christians are going to have a lot of leeway on something like this. The Bible doesn't spend a lot of time nailing down the properties of God (and it only spends a few chapters literally nailing Him anywhere) - so complaining about it is kind of like complaining about the magic in Lord of the Rings.

Nope, two posts of lots of /i markup and the bastard is still emphatic.

Oh good lord! Everything's sideways!

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

See @bareboards2
This is the evidence you'll have to refute.
All the warm fuzzy "lots of people get comfort from their faith" crap ..
[again, an assumption that you can barely measure]
..can't ever seem to justify the disproportionate suffering which takes place.
[something which is demonstrable]
But you still like assert - that because humans naturally make mistake - that we should let the shit continue.
again, either stupid or insincere.

@GenjiKilpatrick, SHUT THE FUCK UP!


Seriously, I'm so tired of going to watch a video and seeing comments from your dumb ass attacking another member of the sift, unprovoked, in an open thread. I don't care what your opinion is; I don't care what hers is. If you have a beef, settle it away from everyone else so we can stop having to see your relentless bullsit.

Now if you want to throw out an opinion on the video at hand, feel free to do so. Half the people here are whack jobs and I'll gladly listen to any opinion they have as long as they aren't attacking someone else while trying to share it. (even @shinyblurry )

Don't break the sift with errant em tags.

There, I kludged it for you.

When you realize that faith healing is utter nonsense and delusional, you find out just how dangerous the world is for babies who can't do anything for themselves.

Don't argue about the trinity with Cristians unless you want a fight to see which explanation makes the least amount of sense. It cannot be explained with logic, therefor you will hear nothing but babbling.

Essentially, they are all the same entity, except for the times when the story needs them to be different entities.

@MaxWilder: "Essentially, they are all the same entity, except for the times when the story needs them to be different entities."

BEST. TRINITY EXPLANATION. EVAR. (The theologians can pack their books and do something meaningful at last )

Prayer has been statistically shown to have no effect on healing. Of course, I'm sure the Christians in this story would probably say that those studies weren't being done with "true" Christians.

This is absolutely disgusting. I just wish things like this could be prevented before they happen.

>> ^MaxWilder:
So... how many of your children have to die before you realize that prayer doesn't work?
Look, I understand that human beings will naturally turn to magical thinking in the face of overwhelming uncontrollable circumstances, but (expletive expletive) take your children to the doctor and THEN pray!
I suggest these people have a church event where they all go to a tall cliff, and jump off one by one. Pray as hard as you can on the way down. Those who survive can then have children.


Even Aethists turn to the magical way of thinking--we just don't like to admit it. Good comment Max.

"why is this baby dying, while God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?"

Not a hard question. If you look at our ability to grasp concepts, we tend to compare things only in contrasts.

Today is cold--because we know what hot (Or warm) is.

Think of a child born without a nerves to feel pain without even knowing it is doing so. The child will gauge its eyes out if left to itself. You know love because you know pain, happiness because you know sadness, life because you know death.

If I was God, I would do things exactly the same way He supposedly did things. Of course, I don't believe in God, so the point is moot.

And as a last joke, I would burn in hell all the sick Christians and save all the good aethists.

>> ^jmzero:
Pains me to do it - but I am going to agree with ShinyBlurry in that he has a correct conception of how many Christians view the situation and that that view is not internally inconsistent. There are, of course, Christians who view it a bit differently in one way or another, but those differences don't really impact the question we started with here.
In general, the starting point question is "why is this baby dying, while God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?" This is a good question: shouldn't God, being omnipotent, should be able to realize all his goals (including this baby surviving, since he's benevolent) without compromising any other principles or goals?
It depends on what kind of definition you have for "omnipotent". Is it "the ability to make true anything that can be stated?" (ie. He can make 2+2=7). Is it the weaker "he can, without limits, control physical and spiritual reality" (ie. he can make gravity go backwards and make electrons "more wet")?. Is it the weaker "limitless control over the physical configuration of the universe" (ie. he can turn the universe into a pretzel, but gravity will still work the same)? One can make similar distinctions about His omniscience, how it extends into the future, how it interacts with free will, and how it extends into paradox.
It also depends on self or otherwise imposed limits. Does He have bounds in terms of what He can and/or will do? Does He mess with "free will"? Can he create and/or destroy "souls"? Did he create "Satan" or evil or good or law, and what is his relationship with the law?
How you (or an individual Christian) answers the above question dictates, to an extent, how they resolve the question. However, for most Christian groups that I'm familiar with, the presence of evil and bad outcomes in the world is (one way or another) the result of God's unwillingness or inability to limit free will, and the cascade of related mishaps ever since the fall of Adam. The flip side is, for a dead baby like this, that they'll get a good go of it in heaven (or Paradise Earth, or whatever).
The specifics of how this is resolved and stated varies with Christian groups and people, but the overall point is usually pretty similar and, as before, I don't think it's internally inconsistent.
Similarly, the oddity of Jesus (being God) praying to the Father (also God) is resolved in a few different ways (all of which restore consistency in one way or another). Sometimes it is, as sb points out, the idea that though the same in many ways, Jesus was a separate being and was legitimately asking (or sometimes just communicating, with no real desire to be spared). Or you can see it as an instructive, rhetorical thing - demonstrating how normal people are supposed to deal with God (even though Jesus didn't need to communicate or deal in that way). Or there's probably 10 other resolutions that are internally consistent, again depending on exact definitions of God's nature and what not.
All in all, it's natural that Christians are going to have a lot of leeway on something like this. The Bible doesn't spend a lot of time nailing down the properties of God (and it only spends a few chapters literally nailing Him anywhere) - so complaining about it is kind of like complaining about the magic in Lord of the Rings.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Even Aethists turn to the magical way of thinking--we just don't like to admit it.


Quite true. It's a deep emotional response to feelings of disempowerment. But the atheist will recognize it as such.

But the magic in the LOTR made more sense.>> ^jmzero:

- so complaining about it is kind of like complaining about the magic in Lord of the Rings.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Even Aethists turn to the magical way of thinking--we just don't like to admit it.

Quite true. It's a deep emotional response to feelings of disempowerment. But the atheist will recognize it as such.


Insisting that atheists are unique and special is an example of the pseudo-magical way of thinking you claim will be recognized for what it is...

Do we have recognition???

This should actually be renamed to "Dumbass Couple Denied Health Care to their Sickened Baby" and then the whole point is mute.

To all the people who are taking this as conclusive proof of the evil of religion - these parents are inbred retards, just like all the people taking this as conclusive proof of the evil of religion.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Even Aethists turn to the magical way of thinking--we just don't like to admit it.

Quite true. It's a deep emotional response to feelings of disempowerment. But the atheist will recognize it as such.

Insisting that atheists are unique and special is an example of the pseudo-magical way of thinking you claim will be recognized for what it is...
Do we have recognition???


I suppose you are right. Not all atheists will recognize their own magical thinking when it happens. Atheism is too broad a category, and includes some who are still considering the possibility of supernatural influence on the real world. Rather I should say that those people who do recognize the absurdity of magical thinking are atheists (or perhaps deists), therefor it is more likely that they will recognize it, depending on what kind of philosophy they hold.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Even Aethists turn to the magical way of thinking--we just don't like to admit it.

Quite true. It's a deep emotional response to feelings of disempowerment. But the atheist will recognize it as such.

Insisting that atheists are unique and special is an example of the pseudo-magical way of thinking you claim will be recognized for what it is...
Do we have recognition???

I suppose you are right. Not all atheists will recognize their own magical thinking when it happens. Atheism is too broad a category, and includes some who are still considering the possibility of supernatural influence on the real world. Rather I should say that those people who do recognize the absurdity of magical thinking are atheists (or perhaps deists), therefor it is more likely that they will recognize it, depending on what kind of philosophy they hold.


Of course, that doesn't really roll of the tongue quite as well.

If someone puts themselves out there, they are fair game for counter arguments. You may not see it, since it has taken place in talk posts and the lounge, but there's more to that discussion than what meets the eyes. "Unprovoked" is false. They've been going at it for a while. Like rabbits. Say no more say no more, dip dip cherrio.
>> ^CelebrateApathy:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
See @bareboards2
This is the evidence you'll have to refute.
All the warm fuzzy "lots of people get comfort from their faith" crap ..
[again, an assumption that you can barely measure]
..can't ever seem to justify the disproportionate suffering which takes place.
[something which is demonstrable]
But you still like assert - that because humans naturally make mistake - that we should let the shit continue.
again, either stupid or insincere.

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GenjiKilpatrick" title="member since March 14th, 2009" class="profilelink">GenjiKilpatrick, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Seriously, I'm so tired of going to watch a video and seeing comments from your dumb ass attacking another member of the sift, unprovoked, in an open thread. I don't care what your opinion is; I don't care what hers is. If you have a beef, settle it away from everyone else so we can stop having to see your relentless bullsit.
Now if you want to throw out an opinion on the video at hand, feel free to do so. Half the people here are whack jobs and I'll gladly listen to any opinion they have as long as they aren't attacking someone else while trying to share it. (even @shinyblurry )

About the title, any title with "denied" can be read as "were denied", which is the problem.

A clear title would be, "Christian Parents Deny their Dying Baby Heathcare".

Based just on the comments here, God does not exist, but if He does, He's a monster.

Either way, I can't be bothered with Him.

so...in the thread of this video, we've had two different people say first that christians should jump off a high cliff, and second, christians should be denied food and water. am i reading that right? you guys said that, right?

are you fucking kidding me? "i don't agree with christians. I WISH THEY WERE ALL DEAD."

what happened to you, videosift? you used to be open-minded.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by critical_d.