logo Sign In

Ask the godless heathen - AKA Ask An Atheist — Page 4

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

Indeed.

If God were to ignore my actions in this world and cast me to hell simply because I didn't worship him...I submit that he/she is a god not worthy of worship.

 So you want to worship a God you don't believe in for all eternity rather than be rid of him forever? The first option is what I call heaven, the second is what I call hell.

What you are unintentionally saying is "if God decided that I wouldn't have to worship him for eternity because I didn't worship him on earth, I wouldn't want to worship him."

 I'm saying a perfect being does not require worship.  Worship is a human invention.

 The Bible points out that worship is not for his benefit, but for ours.

 So there's no reason for God to judge our lack of worship if we've led a good life.

Author
Time

Leonardo said:

TV's Frink said:

Since I attack religion for "knowing" I have to do the same on the other side.

Leo, what makes you so sure there isn't a God?

 My own, personal, complete rejection of anything metaphysical. I even go as far as rarely using the verb "believe", and never using the word "soul" because it has no meaning for me.
The two worlds, the physical and the metaphysical, by definition should be totally and utterly separated. There could never be any contact between the two.

Also, while on one hand I do love and participate in humanity's quest for knowledge, on the other hand I do not agree to the postulate that every creation must have a Creator.

Did that answer your question? Any follow ups?

 I'm not sure it did.  Don't you think there is a possibility, no matter how small, that you are wrong and that there is a God?

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

Leonardo said:

TV's Frink said:

Since I attack religion for "knowing" I have to do the same on the other side.

Leo, what makes you so sure there isn't a God?

 My own, personal, complete rejection of anything metaphysical. I even go as far as rarely using the verb "believe", and never using the word "soul" because it has no meaning for me.
The two worlds, the physical and the metaphysical, by definition should be totally and utterly separated. There could never be any contact between the two.

Also, while on one hand I do love and participate in humanity's quest for knowledge, on the other hand I do not agree to the postulate that every creation must have a Creator.

Did that answer your question? Any follow ups?

 I'm not sure it did.  Don't you think there is a possibility, no matter how small, that you are wrong and that there is a God?

 I don't think there is. What I've postulated pretty much excludes it. If I have to admit the possibility that there is a God, then I have to do the same for unicorns, fairies, comic book characters, Santa Clause and so on...
I don't see it as "being wrong" or "being right", I've been accused of arrogance but I don't think that's it. Theists and atheists come from opposite postulates, that's all.

Author
Time

Leonardo said: If I have to admit the possibility that there is a God, then I have to do the same for unicorns.

 It's alright Unicorns don't exist, they were just a memory implant from the Tyrell corporation.

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

Ryan McAvoy said:

Leonardo said: If I have to admit the possibility that there is a God, then I have to do the same for unicorns.

 It's alright Unicorns don't exist, they were just a memory implant from the Tyrell corporation.

 Actual the Tyrell corporation doesn't exist it's just a memory implant from PKD.

Author
Time

Is that a memory of not seeing it or a lack of a memory of seeing it?

Either way your mind is an illusion don't trust it.

Author
Time

Leonardo said:

If I have to admit the possibility that there is a God, then I have to do the same for unicorns, fairies, comic book characters, Santa Clause and so on.

If this universe is only one amongst an infinite number of others, then it's likely that there are unicorns, fairies, comic book characters, Santa Clauses, etc. somewhere out there.

Author
Time

But then again, same problem arises, even assuming infinite universes, can a finite mind possibly know them? The answer is of course no.

Author
Time

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

You are, whether intentionally or not, avoiding my main question. How can you be sure that murder is wrong if it can have practical benefits for society in some cases? What are your reasons for thinking that empathy is not a weakness and a fault itself? Is survival of the fittest, the most cooperative, or the competitive cooperative the way to go and what makes you think that instead of something else? If someone disagreed with you why are you so sure you would be right?

I wasn't trying to avoid it, I just thought I'd answered it already. But anyway murder does not "have practical benefits for society in some cases" because the family of the murdered person would be harmed, the person themselves would be harmed (They are part of society) and society would be less-rich to the tune of one life. If a percentage of the population were happy about the murder then those people lack empathy (As I've already said). For the record I'm against the Death-Penalty in all cases (Except littering and talking/texting in a f*cking cinema!).

"What are your reasons for thinking that empathy is not a weakness and a fault itself?" Fairly abstract question but my sense of empathy is directly derived from my own sense of self-preservtion and well being (As I've also already said) or to use a quote I read somewhere (I forget where) "Do unto to others as you would have done unto you".

"Survival of the fittest" only applies in pure terms to animals as they lack a sense of empathy. Empathy is what makes us uniquely human. Sure in most human contexts the "fittest" will win but they had a choice to concede or to never compete... an animal does not. For example, my cat derives pleasure from toying with a mouse, torturing it and then ripping it's head off and giving it to me as a present. My cat isn't evil, it just lacks a sense of empathy for the mouse. But my cat still has emotions and feelings however and would be hurt if I treated it in the same way as it treated the mouse but that would never change it's behaviour. That's only something we humans have evolved.

It's a shame when religous people choose to ignore this sense of empathy and instead choose to act against their own nature to follow the commandments in a book. e.g. "Homosexuality is wrong because my religion says it is, despite the evidence of my feelings of empathy for them (Because I'm a good person) and them being happy that way, them doing no harm to anyone else and me knowing that gay guy at work that is actually really nice etc etc".

 I must admit I'm not satisfied with your answer, but if that's the best you can give, then no big deal.

As to your last paragraph, what does a gay guy being nice have to do with some religions teachings against homosexual sex and marriage? We don't teach that gay people are bad, or that they should be shunned, but rather that gay sex and marriage is wrong. Not all homosexuals have homosexual marriages or sex just like not everyone who has a desire to give a bully a good punch in the face follows through with it (not a perfect analogy, but that's not the point). In my religion, homosexual sex and marriage is considered wrong but we are supposed to love homosexuals (as in filial love, not erotic love ;) ).

Author
Time

I think you guys say you love homosexuals so you don't have to feel bad for treating them as second-class citizens.

"We don't hate homosexuals, we just judge them for being morally bankrupt due to the thing that makes them homosexuals."

It's bullshit.

Author
Time

I'll just add, while I'm at it, that the way religion treats homosexuals, people who have abortions (for any reason, including rape, incest, birth defects), people who (shudder) think different than they do...it just pisses me right off.  So yeah, it shouldn't surprise you guys when I go off the fucking rails.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RicOlie_2 said:

As to your last paragraph, what does a gay guy being nice have to do with some religions teachings against homosexual sex and marriage?

 I was being slightly flippant I'll admit but I was suggesting that maybe trusting one's own judgement is a good idea.

RicOlie_2 said:

We don't teach that gay people are bad, or that they should be shunned, but rather that gay sex and marriage is wrong.

 Like I've said, if people are consistent then I can accept their arguments on Homosexuality as valid (However I still think they are wrong). Correct me if I'm wrong but when Christian's say their religion condemns Homosexuality it is because of quotes like...

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

^ Fair enough seems pretty clear to me... HOWEVER... if you live by those two quotes you must live by the rest. Here are a few other quotes from Leviticus...

"For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off" (Leviticus 17:14)

^ One of many from Leviticus 17 saying if you've ever had a nice juicy medium rare steak then you're an abomination. Plus last time you had a steak at a restaurant (Even if it was well done) you should have asked the chef to pour out the blood and cover it in dust (If you didn't do that you are an abomination).

"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free". (Leviticus 19:20

"And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering". (Leviticus 19:21

"And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him". (Leviticus 19:22

^ So slavery is fine and if a man sleeps with another man's female slave she should be violently beaten but if the man kills an innocent creature he's forgiven. So the bible doesn't just dislke Homosexuals it has equal hatred for women. btw there is a hell of a lot of the Lord commanding animal sacrifices to be made, when was he last time a Christian did that?

"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord." (Leviticus 19:28)

^ So if tattoos are an abomination why are't they condemned by the Church and it's followers with as much enthusiasm as Homosexuals are condemned? Given the unfortunate habit of some Rappers to have homophobic lyrics it's kinda odd that they have tattoos all over themselves?

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire". (Leviticus 21:09)

^ Funny I can't remember hearing about Christians campaigning to bring back chucking woman on bonfires.

"And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you". (Leviticus 11:05)

"And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you". (Leviticus 11:07)

^ If you eat rabbit stew or sausages you're an abomination (Personally I'll take eternal damnation if it means I can still eat Bacon sandwiches). btw Hobbits are clearly abominations because they eat loads of unclean food.

"These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat". (Leviticus 11:09)

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you"  (Leviticus 11:10)

^ So if you eat any shellfish you are an abomination. Seems a tad harsh to have to burn in hell for all eternity for having a bowl of Moules Marinière (I'm in alot of trouble because I frickin' love em).

I could go on but I think that's enough. You can't pick and choose the word of God so you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible you believe in... unless some parts of the Bible aren't the word of God? and if some parts can be ignored why have some Christians chosen to hang onto the Homophobic parts?

TV's Frink said:

I think you guys say you love homosexuals so you don't have to feel bad for treating them as second-class citizens.

"We don't hate homosexuals, we just judge them for being morally bankrupt due to the thing that makes them homosexuals."

It's bullshit.

 ^ This.

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

As to your last paragraph, what does a gay guy being nice have to do with some religions teachings against homosexual sex and marriage?

 I was being slightly flippant I'll admit but I was suggesting that maybe trusting one's own judgement is a good idea.

I agree with trusting one's own judgment, and your point is taken. I also believe that it is possible, or more probably likely that I may err in my judgment on occasion.

RicOlie_2 said:

We don't teach that gay people are bad, or that they should be shunned, but rather that gay sex and marriage is wrong.

 Like I've said, if people are consistent then I can accept their arguments on Homosexuality as valid (However I still think they are wrong). Correct me if I'm wrong but when Christian's say their religion condemns Homosexuality it is because of quotes like...

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

^ Fair enough seems pretty clear to me... HOWEVER... if you live by those two quotes you must live by the rest. Here are a few other quotes from Leviticus...

"For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off" (Leviticus 17:14)

^ One of many from Leviticus 17 saying if you've ever had a nice juicy medium rare steak then you're an abomination. Plus last time you had a steak at a restaurant (Even if it was well done) you should have asked the chef to pour out the blood and cover it in dust (If you didn't do that you are an abomination).

"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free". (Leviticus 19:20

"And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering". (Leviticus 19:21

"And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him". (Leviticus 19:22

^ So slavery is fine and if a man sleeps with another man's female slave she should be violently beaten but if the man kills an innocent creature he's forgiven. So the bible doesn't just dislke Homosexuals it has equal hatred for women. btw there is a hell of a lot of the Lord commanding animal sacrifices to be made, when was he last time a Christian did that?

"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord." (Leviticus 19:28)

^ So if tattoos are an abomination why are't they condemned by the Church and it's followers with as much enthusiasm as Homosexuals are condemned? Given the unfortunate habit of some Rappers to have homophobic lyrics it's kinda odd that they have tattoos all over themselves?

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire". (Leviticus 21:09)

^ Funny I can't remember hearing about Christians campaigning to bring back chucking woman on bonfires.

"And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you". (Leviticus 11:05)

"And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you". (Leviticus 11:07)

^ If you eat rabbit stew or sausages you're an abomination (Personally I'll take eternal damnation if it means I can still eat Bacon sandwiches). btw Hobbits are clearly abominations because they eat loads of unclean food.

"These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat". (Leviticus 11:09)

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you"  (Leviticus 11:10)

^ So if you eat any shellfish you are an abomination. Seems a tad harsh to have to burn in hell for all eternity for having a bowl of Moules Marinière (I'm in alot of trouble because I frickin' love em).

I could go on but I think that's enough. You can't pick and choose the word of God so you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible you believe in... unless some parts of the Bible aren't the word of God? and if some parts can be ignored why have some Christians chosen to hang onto the Homophobic parts?

Oh gosh, I've never seen that before! *leaves room to sacrifice lamb and stone an adulteress*

The reason we no longer sacrifice animals is because Christ (yeah Bingowings, I know that's a title and not a name) made the ultimate sacrifice with his crucifixion in atonement for our sins, and therefore we do not have to make additional sacrifices. We Catholics also have the sacrament of confession/reconciliation in which we believe our sins are forgiven which also replaces sacrifices. God chose a form of worship/atonement that was relevant to that time period, but sacrificing animals is no longer relevant to ours. In regards to killing people and the rest, the Mosaic law was a temporary law, more moral than other laws of the time, but not all the way there yet. God originally introduced a less harsh law, but the Israelites were still unable to follow it, thus he replaced it with a harsher law that they would be able to follow. This they did for some time, but when the Messiah came, Christianity began with a new Christological law that went the extra step or two beyond the Mosaic law and wasn't filled with so much ceremonial and ritualistic aspects, but was more inclusive (i.e. not just limited to the Israelites anymore) and a bit more challenging to live up to.

TV's Frink said:

I think you guys say you love homosexuals so you don't have to feel bad for treating them as second-class citizens.

"We don't hate homosexuals, we just judge them for being morally bankrupt due to the thing that makes them homosexuals."

It's bullshit.

 ^ This.

 Having sex with the opposite sex is not what makes one heterosexual. In the same way, having sex with the same sex is not what makes one homosexual. Having sex outside of marriage is what we consider wrong, not being sexually attracted to the same sex.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RicOlie_2 said:


TV's Frink said:

I think you guys say you love homosexuals so you don't have to feel bad for treating them as second-class citizens.

"We don't hate homosexuals, we just judge them for being morally bankrupt due to the thing that makes them homosexuals."

It's bullshit.

 ^ This.

 Having sex with the opposite sex is not what makes one heterosexual. In the same way, having sex with the same sex is not what makes one homosexual. Having sex outside of marriage is what we consider wrong, not being sexually attracted to the same sex.

 How convenient that only heteros are allowed to marry.

"It's okay to be homosexual - but surprise, you can't marry, so you can't have sex!"

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:


TV's Frink said:

I think you guys say you love homosexuals so you don't have to feel bad for treating them as second-class citizens.

"We don't hate homosexuals, we just judge them for being morally bankrupt due to the thing that makes them homosexuals."

It's bullshit.

 ^ This.

 Having sex with the opposite sex is not what makes one heterosexual. In the same way, having sex with the same sex is not what makes one homosexual. Having sex outside of marriage is what we consider wrong, not being sexually attracted to the same sex.

 How convenient that only heteros are allowed to marry.

"It's okay to be homosexual - but surprise, you can't marry, so you can't have sex!"

 Think that ^ one's called "Catch-69".

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:


TV's Frink said:

I think you guys say you love homosexuals so you don't have to feel bad for treating them as second-class citizens.

"We don't hate homosexuals, we just judge them for being morally bankrupt due to the thing that makes them homosexuals."

It's bullshit.

 ^ This.

 Having sex with the opposite sex is not what makes one heterosexual. In the same way, having sex with the same sex is not what makes one homosexual. Having sex outside of marriage is what we consider wrong, not being sexually attracted to the same sex.

 How convenient that only heteros are allowed to marry.

"It's okay to be homosexual - but surprise, you can't marry, so you can't have sex!"

 I've always thought that Catholic Sexual Ethics does have at least one piece of logic going for it: All sex has to be potentially reproductive in nature. Thus, the prohibition on homosexual acts is consistent, and doesn't necessarily stem from reasoning which doesn't affect heterosexual couples.

ROTJ Storyboard Reconstruction Project

Author
Time

As an atheistic thread this is a lot about catholic religion...

I would consider myself not very atheistic, nor very religious. I prfer to have my own thoughts on something. I don't know if there is some higher entity than humans, but I think if there is, I won't call it "god". So, beliving, that it is possible, that there are some kind of higher developed beings, I am surely not a true etheist, or am I?

To the ongoing "gay vs. catholic teachings" discussions:

Isn't the whole problem with religions, no matter what, not the religion itself, but what human interpret into their teachings and writings? Personally I won't consider "god" as an "existing entity", it is more an "idea". It is more that rules of ethic are getting some kind of face in faith.

To say it with the Saints:

"You shall not kill, you shall not rape, you shall not steal."

"I kill Gandalf." - Igor, Dork Tower

Author
Time

timdiggerm said:

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:


TV's Frink said:

I think you guys say you love homosexuals so you don't have to feel bad for treating them as second-class citizens.

"We don't hate homosexuals, we just judge them for being morally bankrupt due to the thing that makes them homosexuals."

It's bullshit.

 ^ This.

 Having sex with the opposite sex is not what makes one heterosexual. In the same way, having sex with the same sex is not what makes one homosexual. Having sex outside of marriage is what we consider wrong, not being sexually attracted to the same sex.

 How convenient that only heteros are allowed to marry.

"It's okay to be homosexual - but surprise, you can't marry, so you can't have sex!"

 I've always thought that Catholic Sexual Ethics does have at least one piece of logic going for it: All sex has to be potentially reproductive in nature. Thus, the prohibition on homosexual acts is consistent, and doesn't necessarily stem from reasoning which doesn't affect heterosexual couples.

 No sex for sterile couples!  No sex for people in their seventies!

God sure does have some illogical rules.

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

timdiggerm said:

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:


TV's Frink said:

I think you guys say you love homosexuals so you don't have to feel bad for treating them as second-class citizens.

"We don't hate homosexuals, we just judge them for being morally bankrupt due to the thing that makes them homosexuals."

It's bullshit.

 ^ This.

 Having sex with the opposite sex is not what makes one heterosexual. In the same way, having sex with the same sex is not what makes one homosexual. Having sex outside of marriage is what we consider wrong, not being sexually attracted to the same sex.

 How convenient that only heteros are allowed to marry.

"It's okay to be homosexual - but surprise, you can't marry, so you can't have sex!"

 I've always thought that Catholic Sexual Ethics does have at least one piece of logic going for it: All sex has to be potentially reproductive in nature. Thus, the prohibition on homosexual acts is consistent, and doesn't necessarily stem from reasoning which doesn't affect heterosexual couples.

 No sex for sterile couples!  No sex for people in their seventies!

God sure does have some illogical rules.

 That isn't true. I gave an answer for that...not sure if it was in this thread or the other one (my Catholic one).

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

Indeed.

If God were to ignore my actions in this world and cast me to hell simply because I didn't worship him...I submit that he/she is a god not worthy of worship.

 So you want to worship a God you don't believe in for all eternity rather than be rid of him forever? The first option is what I call heaven, the second is what I call hell.

What you are unintentionally saying is "if God decided that I wouldn't have to worship him for eternity because I didn't worship him on earth, I wouldn't want to worship him."

 I'm saying a perfect being does not require worship.  Worship is a human invention.

 The Bible points out that worship is not for his benefit, but for ours.

 So there's no reason for God to judge our lack of worship if we've led a good life.

 According to Mormon doctrine, there is truth to your statement, yes.

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rusfefmQDEs

Out of curiosity, what is the atheist explanation for things like this? Or do you just ignore these things and assume that there will be a scientific explanation in the future?

You're asking, what's the explanation for an idiot who had climbed under a heavy and obviously dangerous truck that is held up by a single flimsy jack, who is suffering massive bloodloss, internal injury and going into extreme shock hallucinates two Angels kneeling to his left and to his right in the exact same position as the two Paramedics were kneeling? (Paramedics who were metaphorically "Angels of Mercy").

That of course doesn't even cover why he imagines God would torture him under a truck causing him agony the like of which he couldn't believe, then putting him into hospital for two months making his families lives a living nightmare. Also running up huge medical bills, depriving his family of his income and distracting the Doctors from helping other people. If God really wanted to help him, he would have stopped the truck falling on him in the first place.

So everything up to the recuperating has an obvious explanation after even a few seconds of rational thought. As to God giving him back a little (But not all of his intestine for some bizarre reason) I offer mostly scepticism. He could have imbelished the Angel story to add weight to his claims, since as I note above it's easily explained away. Remember that this guy has launched a succesful book writing career off the back of this story. The profits of which is probably how he is paying the huge medical bills that God lumbered him with. Also it's how he is providing for his family now that God has taken away his livelihood.

However Wikipedia notes...

"The average length of the small intestine in an adult human male is 22 feet 6 inches. It can vary greatly, from as short as 15 feet to as long as 32 feet."

Much more than the 18-20 feet he mistakenly states in his promotional video for his book. If he had started with 32 feet, losing 75% would leave him with 8 feet which is almost what he was left with. Of course human error may also have been a factor. The first set of Doctors getting a different measurement from the second set of Doctors. Who were each measuring a big curled up confusing mass of tubes using two different methods.

If you look at these problems the same way Sherlock Homes would...

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Using that logic, it's pretty easy to realise that since Angels are impossible, there are hundreds of possible explanations.

A final note: If his prayers worked, how come they didn't for the other hundred thousand people that also died while praying for salvation on that day? It comes down to arrogance I guess (Sorry if this sounds harsh). That he'd believe that out of all the other much more deserving, blameless (He wasn't blameless the incident was his own stupid fault) and deeply good people that had their prayers ignored, he alone was chosen by God as being special among all the peoples of man.

This is the kind of story that only confirms by belief in the non-existence of God.

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

Thank you for your answer. One small note though: there was nothing said about the paramedics being in the same position as the angels. The video was made later, and they just happened to make the angels like that.

I have some answers for some things you brought up, but it's three in the morning here and I'm not about to try explaining things when I'm half asleep.