Thanking 'god' but not the medical staff

H2UMrsRobinson

So many branches of Atheism to choose from.

Don't fancy the Militant variety, they seem a bit too "devout" for my liking and we all know where that leads.

The sciencey ones sound a bit dull, and it seems like WAYYYYY to much reading.

I'm gonna plump for A La Carte Atheism. I don't believe there is a god or gods, I want to live in a secular society and I don't like the acts on humanity that are committed in the name of religion, but I'm still going to celebrate Christmas, buy Easter eggs and use curses like OH MY GOD and JESUS WEPT...!

The man was dead for 78 mins and survived with all his faculties - call it a miracle, call it a freak of nature, call it whatever you will, that's your right. All I know for sure - It's pretty fcuking amazing and he's one lucky duck.

Defiler Of The Coffin

H2UMrsRobinson wrote: »

The man was dead for 78 mins and survived with all his faculties - call it a miracle, call it a freak of nature, call it whatever you will, that's your right. All I know for sure - It's pretty fcuking amazing and he's one lucky duck.

He wasn't really dead though - his heart had stopped beating but it still had electrical activity. It's a testament to the skill of the medical staff that he survived.

KeithM89_old

Father Damo wrote: »

Are you honestly stating that you think Scientology believers are people who are mentally sound?

Let me break it down

I regard Tom Cruise as retarded

I regard John Travolta as retarded

I regard the late Isacc Hayes as having been retarded

I regard Mel Gibson as a fcuking right wing Catholic nutjob with violent tendencies....but I dont regard him as clinically retarded or of low intellect.

Banned.
--
Report posts and we will get to them (eventually)
Thanking you.

partyatmygaff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Lol, there's that word 'offensive'. Were you offended by what I said?

If I've offended your religious sensitivities I have one thing to say to you.

So fucking what?

"Religious sensitivities"?

Are you deliberately being obtuse or do you not understand what i'm saying?

You said the current people who decry militant atheism (If born in the past) would have been the ones "setting fire to the tinder under non-believers". You implied that anyone against militant atheism would be killing atheists had they the opportunity which is not only ridiculous but offensive (Cue another Stephen Fry autoreply that completely misses the point).

If I opened a thread with "Atheists would kill religious people had they the chance" as the title i'd probably get an onslaught of posts and may even earn myself a ban.

H2UMrsRobinson

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

He wasn't really dead though - his heart had stopped beating but it still had electrical activity. It's a testament to the skill of the medical staff that he survived.

did not know that !

you do have to wonder though if 100 people who all went through the same 78 minutes with the same medical attention how many would pull through unscathed - still an element of luck in play here and I'm not detracting from the efforts of the staff at all, they clearly did a fantastic job.

Defiler Of The Coffin

H2UMrsRobinson wrote: »

did not know that !

you do have to wonder though if 100 people who all went through the same 78 minutes with the same medical attention how many would pull through unscathed - still an element of luck in play here and I'm not detracting from the efforts of the staff at all, they clearly did a fantastic job.

In one sense he was 'lucky' that his heart failed whilst on the pitch, the medical staff were standing by and were able to get to him quickly. If he had been home alone he would have been dead.

Scary stuff, the doctors still don't know what caused it, makes you realise how frail we really are.

Duggys Housemate

The whole idea that the modern atheist is a descendent of the "oppressed" atheists burned at the stake is nonsense, probably they are the descendants of the ultra religious who did the burning. Intolerance breeds intolerance and a quick glance at A&A and many talk about their religious upbringing. Ipso factor they are descendants of religious types at one generation. My dad is an atheist, in the Terry Wogan tradition, meaning he is a non believer but it doesn't define his life.

In any case this whole thread should be about laughing at the modern atheist, not only is the OP upset by a trivial turn of phrase, his entire premise is incorrect.

Duggys Housemate

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Lol, there's that word 'offensive'. Were you offended by what I said?

If I've offended your religious sensitivities I have one thing to say to you.

So fucking what?

You should post that in reply to the OP, a man clearly offended that another man thanked God for not dying, a mere formulaic use of words the offended new atheist didn't have to bother his head about.

Instead his thread rages on.

Chuck Stone

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

You should post that in reply to the OP, a man clearly offended that another man thanked God for not dying, a mere formulaic use of words the offended new atheist didn't have to bother his head about.

The OP stated further in the thread that he learned his lesson or something to that effect.

He wasn't dogmatic about his being offended.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You said the current people who decry militant atheism (If born in the past) would have been the ones "setting fire to the tinder under non-believers". You implied that anyone against militant atheism would be killing atheists had they the opportunity which is not only ridiculous but offensive (Cue another Stephen Fry autoreply that completely misses the point).

If I opened a thread with "Atheists would kill religious people had they the chance" as the title i'd probably get an onslaught of posts and may even earn myself a ban.

I'm not interested in entertaining your indignation. I don't really care what you think about what I said - it's my opinion and I stand by it.

I'm done here.

Jimoslimos

Dave! wrote: »

Anti-atheism is the new anti-Catholicism

Indeed, that seems to be the flavour in AH at the moment. Any excuse to bandy around meaningless terms like 'miltant' or 'New' atheism. Usually preceded by the words;

"I'm not religious/I don't believe in God...BUT..."

Interesting that the most ferverent opponents of 'atheists who speak their mind' (because that's exactly what New/militant atheists are, although not as catchy a moniker I will admit!) are those who profess not to believe in God. Sounds to me like someone is in denial, one way or the other.

The OP was actually making a valid point, very badly though. The issue is more to do with how the media regard science and present the facts. Very easy for newspapers to headline with miracles, God, etc. Miracles as such are catchy, quick, easy to report (It happened - we don't know why) and unverifiable, and heaven forbid , a journalist should have to research any facts.

Science on the other hand, is perceived (wrongly IMO) as being boring and difficult to understand unless simplified into a 5-sentence paragraph. Also discounted if it doesn't work fast enough to keep pace with the current news topic. Hence we have headlines such as "Doctors still don't know what caused heart-attack" - as if every medical case was solved in the manner of 1hr episode of ER.

KeithAFC

Interesting that the most ferverent opponents of 'atheists who speak their mind' (because that's exactly what New/militant atheists are, although not as catchy a moniker I will admit!) are those who profess not to believe in God. Sounds to me like someone is in denial, one way or the other.

The OP demonstrated what Militant Atheism is. Taking a paragraph completely out of context and trying to spin it and turn it into some god bashing. It was pathetic and is a sign of what Militant Atheism is about. Not that Muamba will give a hoot as he is alive and that is all that matters. I don't really think he cares what any non believer thinks.

partyatmygaff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm not interested in entertaining your indignation. I don't really care what you think about what I said - it's my opinion and I stand by it.
I'm done here.

The coward's exit.

IMO, most of the atheists on this thread sound like the type who wouldn't mind killing a few religious people. The only thing holding them back is the fact it's the 21st century.

...

Apparently only one group of people are allowed to get indignant or feel offended enough to defend themselves.

Jimoslimos

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The coward's exit.

IMO, most of the atheists on this thread sound like the type who wouldn't mind killing a few religious people. The only thing holding them back is the fact it's the 21st century.

...

Apparently only one group of people are allowed to get indignant or feel offended enough to defend themselves.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VZMdofJetBI/RdjzEAiOCcI/AAAAAAAAAIk/wav4Lx2umTs/s320/oppressedchristians.jpg

KeithAFC wrote: »

The OP demonstrated what Militant Atheism is. Taking a paragraph completely out of context and trying to spin it and turn it into some god bashing. It was pathetic and is a sign of what Militant Atheism is about. Not that Muamba will give a hoot as he is alive and that is all that matters. I don't really think he cares what any non believer thinks.

Taking a paragraph out of context has nothing to do with atheism, militant or otherwise. The OP apologised for his error anyway - hardly a trait of militism.

Overheal

KeithAFC wrote: »

I don't believe in any god. But I can't stand militant Atheism. One day we will see them take up arms trying to change the constitutions of countries and taking the liberty away from religious people.

Thats a little melodramatic. Have you been watching FOX? "War on Christmas" "War on Women" "War on Easter" "War on Hannukah" "War on Fossil Fuels" "War on Fisherman" "War on Salt" "War on Chocolate" "War on Spuds" "War on Halloween" - and more.

I think you might be confused by the term Militant, to be fair. Plus I have yet to hear any good examples of a War that was fought by Atheists. I can cite a ton of wars between Catholics, Protestants, Muslims (Those dastardly Ottoman Turks!) and even wars fought against the Aztec by Catholics but I seriously fail to think of any that were fought by or against Atheists. The only thing that flies remotely close to that is the last couple centuries, but in most cases those wars are still fueled by religious undertones.

As for changing constitutions, I've only seen Atheists uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Meanwhile plenty more Christians would prefer to see Christianity officially recognized as a state religion. Who's doing what to whom?

How about we all just retire the Militant term, nobody seems willing or able to use it correctly anyway.

conor.hogan.2

Militant atheism is as invisible as the PC Brigade….

Duggys Housemate

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Interesting that the most ferverent opponents of 'atheists who speak their mind' (because that's exactly what New/militant atheists are, although not as catchy a moniker I will admit!) are those who profess not to believe in God. Sounds to me like someone is in denial, one way or the other.

Or we are normal atheists, in the sense we are anti-psychics, or don't believe in Ghosts. It doenst consume our lives and define us. We don't pop into internet forums to make fun of ghost believers, and do that exclusively and all the time. I don't believe in God. Jesus was not the Son of God. Allah doesn't exist. I don't really get why you think a religious person would lie about this. Despite that I get on well with my religious mother as does my atheist father, as we do with my lovely religious aunt, and my somewhat religion bother in law. Most of my blood family are non-believers though.

We normals are distinct from the kind of guy who gets upset by an innocuous phrase, something which probably didn't upset the surgeons. And we dislike you because you give us all a bad name.

The OP was actually making a valid point, very badly though. The issue is more to do with how the media regard science and present the facts. Very easy for newspapers to headline with miracles, God, etc. Miracles as such are catchy, quick, easy to report (It happened - we don't know why) and unverifiable, and heaven forbid , a journalist should have to research any facts.

Except the paper did in fact record exactly what happened, which is why we know what happened.

Science on the other hand, is perceived (wrongly IMO) as being boring and difficult to understand unless simplified into a 5-sentence paragraph. Also discounted if it doesn't work fast enough to keep pace with the current news topic. Hence we have headlines such as "Doctors still don't know what caused heart-attack" - as if every medical case was solved in the manner of 1hr episode of ER.

Whats science got to do with Atheism? Some modern atheists are scientists, most aren't.

Duggys Housemate

Overheal wrote: »

I think you might be confused by the term Militant, to be fair. Plus I have yet to hear any good examples of a War that was fought by Atheists. I can cite a ton of wars between Catholics, Protestants, Muslims (Those dastardly Ottoman Turks!) and even wars fought against the Aztec by Catholics but I seriously fail to think of any that were fought by or against Atheists. The only thing that flies remotely close to that is the last couple centuries, but in most cases those wars are still fueled by religious undertones.

I admire the weasel wiggle room at the end end - the last few centuries are to be forgotten. Thats useful. I wont though.

Pretty much the entire Cold war was fought by two products of Enlightenment thinking - the secular US ( secular in constitution) and the atheist USSR. It involved dozens of proxy cold wars killing millions. Iraq could also be classified as two secular regimes in conflict. How soon we forget. China's invasion of Tibet is an atheist war against religion, the maoist terror groups continue their terror in Nepal. Until the rise of Islam most terror groups in Palestine, and plenty in Afghanistan and the middle East were communist, or Nationalist/Secular.

And lets take the rest on - just sticking with Britain. Most wars prior to protestant revolution in Europe were not religious - the exception being the crusades - the hundred year war, the war of the Roses, Scottish and Welsh rebellions, Peasant uprisings, numerous wars of succession. Prior to the medieval ages it wasn't doctrinal disputes which saw the Normans invade England, nor the Vikings set up the danelaw, or the Anglo Saxons invade Britain, or - prior again - Caesar invade Britain. So, no.

The invasion of Ireland had doctrinal issues though.

As for changing constitutions, I've only seen Atheists uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Meanwhile plenty more Christians would prefer to see Christianity officially recognized as a state religion. Who's doing what to whom?

The founding fathers would have seen the first amendment as a protection of religion, the prohibition on an established Church meant to them that the President could not be a head of the Church. They wouldn't have seen this clause of the constitution as banning public displays of religion - we know this because it didn't. The Congress has to this day protestant chaplains hired to part before sessions - as it did on the first day, and the Army has chaplains.

How about we all just retire the Militant term, nobody seems willing or able to use it correctly anyway.

How about we don't.

Duggys Housemate

Jimoslimos wrote: »

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VZMdofJetBI/RdjzEAiOCcI/AAAAAAAAAIk/wav4Lx2umTs/s320/oppressedchristians.jpg

Taking a paragraph out of context has nothing to do with atheism, militant or otherwise. The OP apologised for his error anyway - hardly a trait of militism.

Given the size of the Jewish part of that pie chart, I suppose that applies to America? Why is it here?

Thats a little melodramatic. Have you been watching FOX? "War on Christmas" "War on Women" "War on Easter" "War on Hannukah" "War on Fossil Fuels" "War on Fisherman" "War on Salt" "War on Chocolate" "War on Spuds" "War on Halloween" - and more.

Again, America.

EDIT:

America is a different country. So there, there are evangelical protestants with a fair amount of power, and growing in number. Here in Europe, Christianity is in decline for a century . The real numbers for believers would be the number of people going to mass or church regularly which is a minority in all European countries, and a trace amount in most.

I Heart Internet

Father Damo wrote: »

If you could be arsed beyond the haze of your atheist **** attack

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

That made me laugh. Thanks Reverend Father.

foxyboxer

He seems like a very level headed chap. Great to see him making a recovery.

magicbastarder

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Pretty much the entire Cold war was fought by two products of Enlightenment thinking - the capitalist US ( secular in constitution) and the communist USSR.

FYP. it was about competing political ideologies, not religious (or lack of) ideologies.

marty1985

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Militant atheism is as invisible as the PC Brigade….

Militant atheists have already become a PC brigade. Dawkins come to Dublin to tell his supporters to "be offended" and borrow the tactics of feminists. In a relativist culture, political correctness is the most useful stick to beat people with. Town council vote democratically to retain the practice of a minute's prayer before meetings - The National Secular Society takes that town council, which is not known for its wealth, to the High Court. Wear a cross in a workplace - if it's not a fashion item someone will be offended. Footballer collapses and almost dies, says he is a living example of the power of prayer - offended atheist tests the waters in AH before realising people are tired of that brand of atheism.

magicbastarder

whatever the OP's motives were, i think offence was low on the list.
it was probably a comment on the 'thanking god for allowing me to win the FA cup medal/the best supporting actor oscar' school of thought, but unwisely used a near death to illustrate it.

and removing the actual practice of religion from political offices can only be a good thing. a town council should be seen to discharge its duties without favour to any particular religion.

marty1985

I agree that religious practices mixing with politics isn't desirable. But whatever your opinion on long held traditions and whether or not it actually affected council business, it was interesting the way the democratic voting process was to be ridden roughshod over. Public opinion didn't favour the secularists AFAIK, everyone's favourite paper the Daily Mail had March of the PC Brigade as their headline, and the government vowed to overturn the decision. But that's neither here nor there.

magicbastarder

marty1985 wrote: »

it was interesting the way the democratic voting process was to be ridden roughshod over.

the democratic process has resulted in laws being passed which the town council's method of doing business have to adhere to, and it's those laws on which the issue is to be decided; it's not the town council's place to decide a running order which might violate state legislation.

it's a bit of a muddle to call the town council hiding behind 'the democratic process' to perpetuate an anti-democratic practice.

Jimoslimos

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

We normals are distinct from the kind of guy who gets upset by an innocuous phrase, something which probably didn't upset the surgeons. And we dislike you because you give us all a bad name.

'Normals', ah c'mon now - atheists get a bad enough rep for being smug. Is this a schism within atheism?! Normal atheists is about as valid a term as 'vegetarian atheists', 'gluten-intolerant atheists' or 'drivers disqualified for clocking up 12 penalty points atheists'

The very fact that you are able to declare you don't believe in God makes you a 'militant atheist' in many people's eyes.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Except the paper did in fact record exactly what happened, which is why we know what happened.

Whats science got to do with Atheism? Some modern atheists are scientists, most aren't.

No, the papers headlined with miracles etc, we know what happened because it happened live - we don't know why. It's lazy journalism to assign it as an act of God.

As for Muamba, I don't begrudge him his words. It would be churlish of me to attack a guy for what he said since 1) He's after coming through a pretty traumatic ordeal and 2) I've no doubt the media hacks were looking for a quick soundbite.

As for science and atheism, yes you are right, they are not mutual. However in many cases where religion and atheism clash, science is involved. Take Richard Dawkins, probably the most high profile, and in many people's minds deserving of the title 'militant atheist'. The guy is abrasive, even amongst his peers in the scientific community but we all have colleagues like that - we don't assume them to be militant. So why is he is so critical of religion? Well maybe people have forgotten, he is actually an evolutionary biologist, and much of what he teaches comes into direct contradiction to what religion teaches - there isn't much hope for him if every student is being fed conflicting evidence on the origins of man.

Oh and you don't need to be a scientist to understand science, it's elitist to think in this way, in the same way you don't need to be an economist to understand economics - actually in that case it's probably better if you're not!

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Given the size of the Jewish part of that pie chart, I suppose that applies to America? Why is it here?

Yes, you are indeed right. The Christian part of that chart should be a lot bigger for Ireland. My point still stands - now reinforced

marty1985

magicbastarder wrote: »

the democratic process has resulted in laws being passed which the town council's method of doing business have to adhere to, and it's those laws on which the issue is to be decided; it's not the town council's place to decide a running order which might violate state legislation.

it's a bit of a muddle to call the town council hiding behind 'the democratic process' to perpetuate an anti-democratic practice.

What anti-democratic practice? I don't have the details of the case off-hand but if memory serves correct the court decision was based on a technicality. The secularists won but not on the basis of their argument. Hence, the government said they wanted the decision overturned as a matter of urgency. I fail to see then how it would violate state legislation when the state made its intention clear. Now, I might agree that there shouldn't be prayers before a meeting. It doesn't bother me. What most found distasteful was the National Secular Society's calculated actions in targeting and interfering with that town council whose members had followed a democratic practice. But again, whatever about the case, I used it as an example of the PC brigade in action.

mloc

Jimoslimos wrote: »

there isn't much hope for him if every student is being fed conflicting evidence on the origins of man.

Stories and scripture are not evidence.

Jimoslimos

mloc wrote: »

Stories and scripture are not evidence.

Indeed, but the problem occurs when it is presented as such - see 'Intelligent Design'.

Linoge

I thinks its just a pity that god couldnt be out helping the millions of starving and dying children in Africa before looking after 1 single rich, first world football player.

For such a "great" dude.... serious lack of priorities....

Duggys Housemate

Jimoslimos wrote: »

'Normals', ah c'mon now - atheists get a bad enough rep for being smug. Is this a schism within atheism?!

The very fact that you are able to declare you don't believe in God makes you a 'militant atheist' in many people's eyes.

I am not a militant because I tend to like the religious people I meet, and I don't harangue them ( or on the internet). This may be because I didn't grow up with Holy Joes, however.

No, the papers headlined with miracles etc, we know what happened because it happened live - we don't know why. It's lazy journalism to assign it as an act of God.

The term miracle is often used colloquially as meaning a very unlikely happy incident. Not necessarily supernatural.

As for science and atheism, yes you are right, they are not mutual. However in many cases where religion and atheism clash, science is involved. Take Richard Dawkins, probably the most high profile, and in many people's minds deserving of the title 'militant atheist'. The guy is abrasive, even amongst his peers in the scientific community but we all have colleagues like that - we don't assume them to be militant. So why is he is so critical of religion? Well maybe people have forgotten, he is actually an evolutionary biologist, and much of what he teaches comes into direct contradiction to what religion teaches - there isn't much hope for him if every student is being fed conflicting evidence on the origins of man.

Hmm, i doubt that, I see him as sectarian. Its clear from his website that he is real down on Catholicism - the second most evil religion ( the first being Islam but not often attacked). He is clearly fond of Anglicanism. In practice Catholicism is not the Christian force which has attacked evolutionary biology these last two decades, that was evangelical Christianity, which Dawkins spends little or no time on. Hitchens did.

Oh and you don't need to be a scientist to understand science, it's elitist to think in this way, in the same way you don't need to be an economist to understand economics - actually in that case it's probably better if you're not!

On the Economics, agreed :-)

Yes, you are indeed right. The Christian part of that chart should be a lot bigger for Ireland. My point still stands - now reinforced

Not really because I took out the cultural Christians in my rebuttal to that piechart. Atheists are hardly under siege from cultural Catholics who support homosexual rights, divorce, often abortion and so on. Ergo, believing Catholics can see themselves as a minority, legitimately. Of course, that is no reason to not be under attack, I am just disputing the pie chart reasoning.

Duggys Housemate

marty1985 wrote: »

What anti-democratic practice? I don't have the details of the case off-hand but if memory serves correct the court decision was based on a technicality. The secularists won but not on the basis of their argument. Hence, the government said they wanted the decision overturned as a matter of urgency. I fail to see then how it would violate state legislation when the state made its intention clear. Now, I might agree that there shouldn't be prayers before a meeting. It doesn't bother me. What most found distasteful was the National Secular Society's calculated actions in targeting and interfering with that town council whose members had followed a democratic practice. But again, whatever about the case, I used it as an example of the PC brigade in action.

The idea that the British State is secular is a bit ...weird.

Jesus Wept

biko wrote: »

So he thank the god that struck him down in the first place?

Obvious test is obvious.

KeithAFC

Overheal wrote: »

Thats a little melodramatic. Have you been watching FOX? "War on Christmas" "War on Women" "War on Easter" "War on Hannukah" "War on Fossil Fuels" "War on Fisherman" "War on Salt" "War on Chocolate" "War on Spuds" "War on Halloween" - and more.

I think you might be confused by the term Militant, to be fair. Plus I have yet to hear any good examples of a War that was fought by Atheists. I can cite a ton of wars between Catholics, Protestants, Muslims (Those dastardly Ottoman Turks!) and even wars fought against the Aztec by Catholics but I seriously fail to think of any that were fought by or against Atheists. The only thing that flies remotely close to that is the last couple centuries, but in most cases those wars are still fueled by religious undertones.

As for changing constitutions, I've only seen Atheists uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Meanwhile plenty more Christians would prefer to see Christianity officially recognized as a state religion. Who's doing what to whom?

How about we all just retire the Militant term, nobody seems willing or able to use it correctly anyway.

I don't think we should get into this argument about have Atheists started or taken part in wars. We all know the answer to that is yes and some Atheists have been involved in some of the biggest wars ever.

It is a rather silly argument in my opinion to try and think Atheists don't believe in fighting or anything like that.

omck80

My brother had a sudden cardiac arrest aged 34 and I thank everyone there who could give him cpr until ambulance arrived then the staff in hospital who tried their hardest for 5 wks to keep him with us, I know those people did every thing for him sadly it wasn't enough I don't go to mass or follow religion but I would still say Thank God we got that time with him or Thank God he had a release in the end. Would never forget the staff and everything they did it's just a figure of speech.

Linoge

omck80 wrote: »

My brother had a sudden cardiac arrest aged 34 and I thank everyone there who could give him cpr until ambulance arrived then the staff in hospital who tried their hardest for 5 wks to keep him with us, I know those people did every thing for him sadly it wasn't enough I don't go to mass or follow religion but I would still say Thank God we got that time with him or Thank God he had a release in the end. Would never forget the staff and everything they did it's just a figure of speech.

Its a figure of speech to the non religious or the sometimes religious, but not for the very religous. These people say prayers, want god to guide the surgeons hands blah blah. They believe god is working through the doctors.

I know the point of this thread was that he supposedly thanked god instead of the medical staff which obv wasnt true, but I think that thanking god at all (not figuratively speaking) is a bit insulting. God had nothing to do with it!

Its like "Thank you for loaning me that money. I would also like to thank god for making it possible for you to loan me money".

marty1985

Well, even though the thread starts with religion bashing and calling Fabrice Muamba "disrespectful" and a "loon", even though by all accounts he's an articulate, intelligent, humble and all-round good guy (a fresh of breath air at a time when other footballers are in the news for rape), I think the best atheist way to salvage this train-wreck of a thread (and prime example of what a lot of users here find distasteful of the New Atheism) is to agree that religious people are stupid because they don't blame God for misfortune, that way you can keep your inner glow of superiority while the rest of us continue to admire Muamba's good character and his recovery.

omck80

Linoge totally agree with you. I don't think he meant anything wrong when he "thanked God" as I didn't when I Thanked God for my brother's release it's a word play. I know what you mean about people saying prayers and stuff... I Just have problems myself believing there a God. I'l say no more with my statement,

St.Spodo

Militant atheists don't fly planes into sky scrapers nor blow up buses and buildings. Throughout European history, most murderous regimes/groups have had a religious or religion-based agenda. With this in mind, arrogant or didactic atheists on the internet are hardly the other half of the walnut of ideological extremism.

UglyBolloxFace

How did this shit make it to 17 pages

:pac::pac:

marty1985

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

How did this shit make it to 17 pages

:pac::pac:

You've a lot to answer for.

Duggys Housemate

St.Spodo wrote: »

Militant atheists don't fly planes into sky scrapers nor blow up buses and buildings. Throughout European history, most murderous regimes/groups have had a religious or religion-based agenda. With this in mind, arrogant or didactic atheists on the internet are hardly the other half of the walnut of ideological extremism.

Nonsense. I already wrote about this before. There were few religious wars prior to the Protestant revolutions, after than yes. Most wars were secular land grabs, a lot of them by pagans. The Bronze age was not that glorious. And atheist groups have blown up bridges, themselves, and others in European history. Mostly communists, sometimes nationalists, and others.

UglyBolloxFace

marty1985 wrote: »

You've a lot to answer for.

I answer to noone but God.

:pac::pac:

joseph brand

Kiera wrote: »

Maybe it was the devil who struck him down and god saved him.

What about all the other people on and off the pitch who drop dead? They weren't saved.

god is a Bolton fan?