Why what Kent Brantly said is offensive.

[Warren Stupidity]

“God saved my life,” said Brantly, looking gaunt, at a press conference Thursday, at which the room applauded his appearance. He thanked his medical team and the millions of people around the world praying for his recovery. “Please do not stop praying for the people of West Africa.”

Mr. Brantly is putting an intercessionnary deity front and center, claiming his recovery as the work of this deity. Like a sports star pointing to the sky, Brantly believes that a supernatural being has reached out and acted for his benefit. At least with sporting events, the claim is laughable. With Brantly it is not so funny.

This is offensive to many of us here on many levels. First, Brantly received medical care not available to most of the thousands of people currently infected with this virus. He received experimental treatments, first class care in Africa, and then was flown to a top facility in the United States. Those were not acts of a purported deity, those were acts of human beings. Front line health care workers risking their lives, dedicated researchers applying science in service to humanity, and the resources of a vastly wealthy nation were what interceded on behalf of Mr. Brantly.

Secondly, if we accept Brantly's assertion that his gods intervened on his behalf, what does that say about these alleged deities? Why does this god of Brantly's spare his life, while around 1500 other people have died? What sort of deity is this? It allows children to die from this horrible disease but spares this privileged white man?

Is that a god you choose to worship?

[cleanhippie]

1. Meh. Just more uncomfortable questions that believers will wave away as meaningless.

Critical thought in matters like these seem to be in short supply.

[roguevalley]

67. He can thank who the hell he wants. I don't care if its satan. What

he believes and wishes to express after this shit is his own business. It says more about those 'discomforted' than him.

[alp227]

71. "Discomforted"? Why can't it be suggested his "thank god" remarks are wrong?

I mean, given the circumstances of Brantly's rescue, calling the recovery a miracle by god is just out of bounds.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

85. Sure, he can thank anyone he wants

That doesn't mean that we can't call him out for the blatant hypocrisy.

[rug]

97. Do you consider "Fuck you Kent" calling him out?

That is what you typed.

Speaking of hypocrisy, if that's what he believes and if that's how he lives his life, that's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is not anything that irks you.

[AlbertCat]

111. What he believes and wishes to express after this shit is his own business

Then why say it to the press?

[The Magistrate]

2. I Agree, Sir

Whenever I hear this, my first thought is 'So, God made sure to kill the others, eh?'

I know it is sort of a reflex when people say this, a way of saying, 'I was so lucky to get through this!', but it does grate on the ear....

[nruthie]

3. Only God knows.

Truly God works in mysterious ways.

[AlbertCat]

112. Truly God works in mysterious ways.

Y'know.... if you eliminate god altogether, then the mystery evaporates and everything works and looks like it would without any supernatural anything.

Nothing mysterious about that.

[rock]

4. Yes, as I understand it

God would not have needed Brantly to have all that medical care, experimental treatments, first class care, and being flown to a top class facility in the US, had He wanted to save him. But, of course what do I know being an atheist?

[Hoppy]

5. I guess if he really believed that, he would have given the medication to someone else and just

prayed away the sickness.

[trotsky]

10. Great point.

What is it, like 10% of ebola victims survive? Clearly god has plenty of wiggle room in which to work miracles "naturally." He could have easily evened it out by killing some other ebola victim to save Brantly.

Bottom line is, it's an insult to those who have died of ebola, implying that their lives were not deemed as worthy of intercession.

[Hoppy]

16. Ya got something there regarding the 2nd paragraph.

For instance, lets look at the snake handlers ... the ones who get an express ticket to the great by-and-bye in the sky because their faith wasn't strong enuf.

Or maybe the snake handlers are just live action proof of Darwin's theory.

[Starboard Tack]

6. Good to see he wasn't as dismissive as those who criticize him

He thanked his medical team and the millions of people around the world praying for his recovery.

I guess there is no harm in him thinking it was a team effort by all concerned. The fact that he believed it may, in fact, have helped in his recovery. I'm sure it didn't hinder it.

But if it makes you feel better to scoff, go right ahead, Warren.
So much of what makes one feel better is in one's mind.

[rexcat]

8. If Brantly...

Was more honest his god and the prayers would have been last on his list. If his god was responsible for his recovery then his god was also responsible for him getting Ebola, not the fact that he got sloppy with his infectious disease precautions. He is not taking any responsibility for his actions what so ever. I find this a common theme among Christians.

He received first class medical care which was due this America white male privilege.

[Starboard Tack]

18. Who cares Rex? I don't care if he thinks it was partly about God.

Get over yourself. It's not a big deal. I don't care if you or he thinks God had anything to do with it. Of course it's a common theme among Christians. So fucking what? Where have you been? It's not something new. There are more important things to think about than worrying why some guy thinks God had a hand in curing him.

[Starboard Tack]

99. "the fact that he got sloppy with his infectious disease precautions."

And you base this accusation on what precisely?

[AlbertCat]

113. And you base this accusation on what precisely?

The way ebola is spread (it's not that easy to get) and the fact he got sick????...maybe????


Besides.... who wants medical personnel who believe in magic 1st and foremost? Doesn't sound very professional.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Why would you quote a description of what he did, rather than what he said?

Because, that line leaves out how he associated the two forms of help together as one.

“Above all, I am forever thankful to God for sparing my life”

[Starboard Tack]

19. I don't care what he thinks. It's his right to think whatever.

So he puts his God first. Big fucking deal. I've got no time for crap like this. Not time for people like him saying it and even less for those outraged by him saying it.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. It's not about you.

It's about him, and what he said, and the 'Fuck you, got mine' mentality it suggests. Because there's about ~1500+ people who did not get saved by his god in the process.

I'm sure he doesn't mean it that way, but that's the net result of his claim. That god saved him, and not a shitload of other people.

[rexcat]

75. Well...

you have it wrong AtheistCrusader because Starboard Tack said so therefore it must be so, or something like that! I don't think he is posting to this forum for us to say things he disagrees with. I can think of more than several adjectives that would describe some in this forum but I am sure my post would be hidden by a "fair" and "impartial" jury.

[Starboard Tack]

100. I said "I don't care" not that you shouldn't care.

Please explain to me and to us all, how Brantly's belief that God had a part in his recovery is harmful to others.

[Htom Sirveaux]

78. Someone should ask Mr. Brantley about that.

I'm guessing this question of why he was spared and not others weighs heavily on his mind. Survivor's guilt and all. He clearly doesn't have a "fuck you, got mine" mentality, since he was there trying to save others in the first place, he's asking for people to pray for the other Ebola victims, and he's hoping that his case will bring attention to the needs of the other cases out there.

Tone deaf, as someone else suggested in this thread? Quite possibly. Selfish jerk? No, only an uncharitable interpretation of what he said could wring that sentiment out of this situation.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. I assume a very bad case of tone deafness.

I do not ascribe malice to him, in any capacity.

[Starboard Tack]

101. I'll go with the "tone deaf" description

"Selfish jerk" is way OTT.

[AlbertCat]

114. So he puts his God first. Big fucking deal.

Doesn't make for much confidence in his medical abilities or understanding. He believes in magic.

[Starboard Tack]

115. Who knows what his medical abilities are?

Probably more than mine, that's for sure. Do you screen your doctors before seeing them, just in case they have any religious tendencies?

[AlbertCat]

117. Do you screen your doctors before seeing them, just in case they have any religious tendencies?

I do...to make sure they aren't fundies. Doctors who do church and religion for social reasons I tolerate. But no doctors who wear their religion on their stethoscope.

Like the optometrist who wanted to replace my lenses (in my eyes), but had a jesus fish on his card. No way Jose!

[Starboard Tack]

118. So, you just look for overt signs like a fish on a card?

What if they are closet fundies? Or just fundies who don't wear those fundie armbands when they see patients?
What about the doctor who has a Mezuzah outside his door? Would you exercise your prejudice in such a situation?

Do you think atheists make better doctors, just because they are atheists?

[AlbertCat]

120. What a bunch of stupid questions to derail the thread.

And it's not a prejudice to want a doctor who doesn't put some god 1st.

And Mezuzahs are for homes, not offices. At least that's what I was told.


BTW....It's not nice to try to paint me as an anti-Semite.

[Warren Stupidity]

122. It is however freaking typical.

[Warren Stupidity]

121. Actually if I learned that my doctor was a fundamentalist religious idiot I would get a new doctor.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. which part of "God saved my life" do you not understand?

[Starboard Tack]

22. None, same as I don't understand your concern.

I don't spend too much time listening to nonsense, let alone caring about it, if I can help it.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. It seems obvious from your contempt that you do in fact spend a lot of

time reading and responding to things you consider to be nonsense, you just appear to think other people should not do the same.

[Starboard Tack]

30. I have a lot of time on my hands Warren. Being wealthy is not easy.

You have no idea what it's like living such a life of luxury, jetting back and forth between the yacht in Mexico and the villa in Italy. Did I mention the island we're thinking of purchasing. When I'm not counting my money and yelling at the servants, I while away my time looking for nonsense to be contemptuous about. What's your excuse?

[Warren Stupidity]

33. I still don't quite understand the double standard.

I must not be as gifted with superior intelligence. Somehow it is fine for you to be obsessed with idiocy, to be incensed over nonsense, but for other people it is a sign of insanity. You still haven't explained that in simple enough terms for me to understand.

[Starboard Tack]

36. You're right Warren. Must be the intelligence, plus the privilege we 1%ers have.

You can't be expected to grasp these things. You see, I'm obsessed with nothing Warren, not even Stupidity.
I have little time for nonsense and even less time for those who want to talk about it.
I saw your post in the gungeon, btw, it was good. You made a lot of sense. I'm sure we see eye to eye more over there, though you might get in trouble with some of your other buddies.

[Skittles]

102. you sure are spending a lot of time on the subject here

why do you care so much if others think he is sanctimonious?

[Starboard Tack]

104. I care more about discussing the motives of those I associate with than those I don't know

This is a place I choose to hang out, once in a while. I find it both entertaining and instructive. The conversation itself is often more interesting to me than it's content.
I am far more interested in how humans interact than I am in their personal spiritual beliefs.
I've heard all the beliefs, i think, from the far right conservative fundies to the extreme religion hating antitheist fundies and everything in between. The discussions are boring and circular for the most part.
I'm more interested in the politics of belief than the beliefs themselves. The way individuals join groups to reinforce their beliefs, even when those beliefs are non-beliefs. I'm not much into groups that are created for the sole purpose of being critical toward other groups. Same goes for groups that evolve in such a manner and end up being the opposite of what their original purpose was.

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. His treatment of medical professionals isn't what makes his statement offensive

What's offensive about his statement is what it necessarily implies about those 1,500 people who were not so lucky as to survive their encounter with Ebolavirus.

Would you say something like "God saved my life" in front of someone who watched a loved one -- or multiple loved ones -- horrifically die from hemorrhagic fever? To leave them wondering precisely what the hell their departed friends and relations could have possibly done differently to win God over? I certainly wouldn't.

And that's not to say Brantly meant in any harm in what he said. I don't think he was being malicious in the slightest, and if he realized the kind of pain he might of caused others by saying something like this he might not have said it. But this is a representative example of the ethical problems engendered by the mainstream Christian practice of attributing to God one's good fortune.

[Starboard Tack]

26. Yeah, I know, like the guy who scores a home run and thanks God

Means God doesn't like the other team, which must be the Yankees. All very silly.I don't think any sane person is going to take offense or feel any pain about what he said.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. So according to you, everyone here who agrees that the statement

was offensive is insane.

[Starboard Tack]

34. What would it mean if I said "Yes" Warren?

Would it change your world view? After all, you have made it clear that, in your opinion, 90+% of the world's population is delusional.
It's hard to compete with those kinds of numbers Warren.

Sorry, I have to go now, Bill and Melinda and the other Warren are coming over to taste our truffles.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Tell Bill I said hi.

[Starboard Tack]

55. OK, will do. We'll be going out for a spin on Paul's yacht later tonight.

[cleanhippie]

119. Cool story, bro.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Take that up with the families of the deceased.

Many of whom are the sort of religion that people like Kent seek to convert.

A less acerbic treatise on the problem here:
http://edge.org/conversation/thank-goodness

[Starboard Tack]

49. I'm not defending him. I think his remark is silly.

I think he should keep such thoughts to himself, but it's a free world. I see no point in beating him up over it. I get no joy belaboring a point once it's been made. Whether one thinks God enters into the equation, or not, is irrelevant, imo, as long as it doesn't interfere with actual medical treatment.

I'll let you in on a secret. Every time I fly, I help keep the plane in the air through sheer will power, combined with extraordinary levitational skills, which I only call on when flying. I don't dismiss the pilot's ability. He's not aware of it, but we work as a team. If I announced this "fact" to the other passengers every time we land, there is a good chance that I may be laughed at, at best, or institutionalized at worst. I'm only telling you, because I know you won't tell anyone. So, mum's the word.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Would you tell the survivors of the victims of a plane crash that they might have lived

had you only been there to keep the plane in the sky with your magical willpower?

I'm betting you wouldn't.


I'm betting Kent doesn't realize that his comments will be read in international news, and some of the families of the dead are likely to see his claim, and take a uncharitable view of his privilege.

[Starboard Tack]

61. As I said, I keep it on the hush hush

I can't be on every plane, and anyway I hate flying, or was that already obvious.

Whatever view others may have regarding his claim means very little. I'm sure he is sincere in his belief and, who knows, he may be right. I doubt it, but you never know. I've seen a few people go through some rough shit and come out the other end as believers. Big deal.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. I don't doubt he is being sincere.

I doubt he has thought through if his claim has any associated implications for the victims who did not survive.

[Starboard Tack]

65. How can it have implications for them if they died?

Maybe he thinks God is more on his side because he's a believer, or maybe he thinks God threw him a random freebie. Who knows? If I tried to make sense out of stuff like this my head would explode.
Would it be better if he felt guilty about surviving, while others died?
This is something for believers to think about, not me.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. You know how I would have handled it?

I would have thanked the people who helped me, and then exhorted any fellow travelers to send money so that the same sort of move-heaven-and-earth care is available to more people.

Prayer didn't fly him out of there, put him in a critical care isolation facility, and provide experimental designer drugs. Money did. Assets. Resources. Things of the nature that would reasonably be expected to improve the odds of survival for ANY human.

[Starboard Tack]

69. Maybe he did that too. I know nothing about him

besides a single paragraph in the OP.
We have a daughter who is going out there shortly as part of the US effort to work on the front line of this epidemic. So it touches close to our hearts.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. OH. I see. You missed the press conference.

[Starboard Tack]

79. Sorry, it's not easy keeping up with everything.

Between dinner engagements on the yacht and entertaining in our Italian villa, we have little time for media events.
What press conference? The one mentioned in Warren's OP, but not linked to?
All I saw was

“God saved my life,” said Brantly, looking gaunt, at a press conference Thursday, at which the room applauded his appearance. He thanked his medical team and the millions of people around the world praying for his recovery. “Please do not stop praying for the people of West Africa.”

followed by Warren's outraged blather.

OK, I watched it now. In spite of all the God stuff, I think it 's pretty obvious he recognizes the human effort that went into his recovery and he emphasizes that at the end of his little speech.
Bottom line, he's a Jesus freak who just got saved by some powerful joojoo. He thinks it was God because he's programmed that way. We know better. Time to move on.

[Warren Stupidity]

91. And his yacht doesn't have the internets so the google doesn't work for him.

Plus he is not supporting this idiot, just attacking everyone who objects to a remarkably tone deaf bit of religious narcissism.

[Warren Stupidity]

88. Yes you are. You are doing so by berating everyone who has objected to his nonsense.

[Starboard Tack]

98. "Berating". I think not Warren.

I shrug at "his nonsense". I also shrug at how incensed some get about such "nonsense".
Surely you can come up with some better anti-religious posts than this. You're dipping into the hippie barrel with this one.

[Act_of_Reparation]

43. So anyone who would take offense to what he said must therefore be insane?

I hope you'll reconsider choosing those words.

[Starboard Tack]

72. Did I say that? No!

I said "I don't think any sane person is going to take offense or feel any pain about what he said."
Do you see the difference? Or are you looking for something else?

Not thinking a sane person would take offense is quite different from declaring that all who do must be insane.

Got you going on the word "sane", didn't I? It's been thrown about a bit lately, hasn't it?
Makes one think, doesn't it? So easy to bandy words around.

But let's go with it, just for the hell of it. Let's say that, hypothetically, anyone taking offense to this guy thanking God for his survival, must be insane. I don't think that, of course, but hypothetically, if I did, it would mean what? 10, 100, 1000, a million people might be considered insane (by me). Big fucking deal.
How does that compare to the 5.5 billion that several here consider "delusional" and some consider "psychotic"?

But, of course, I never said it.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. But...

I don't...

What.

"I don't think any sane person is going to take offense or feel any pain about what he said."

That actually translates into this:

'I think any person who takes offense or feels any pain about what he said, is insane'

It's just changing the order of the words.
Like, that's a perfect paraphrase of what you said.

[Starboard Tack]

81. Nah! Don't go silly on me now.

I listened to his nonsense and I read Warren's nonsense. Neither one are insane. They are both mildly offensive, but no sane person should take offense at either of them.
They are both harmless. I'm not offended by harmless people.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Look, I think you mean well but

"No sane person would"
"Only an insane person would"

mean the same thing. One can be substituted for the other. Either implies the other.

[Starboard Tack]

82. If they meant the same then they would be the same.

But it's OK if you want to think they are the same. It falls within the realm of sanity to consider them the same.
So, let me change the word "sane" for "reasonable" and your word "insane" for "unreasonable".

Sane was more fun, because Warren and the lads from the basement like to talk about everyone being delusional and psychotic. So, I thought I'd throw it in to spice things up, but I'm willing to compromise, being a "reasonable" sort.

[Act_of_Reparation]

84. You might not have meant it, but that is precisely what you said.

"I don't think any sane person is going to take offense or feel any pain about what he said."

Let's break it down--

Those who would not take offense or feel pain about [sic] what he said: sane people.

Which means, ipso facto...

Those who would take take offense to or feel pain because of what he said: people who are not sane.

The use of the word "any" removes restriction from the category "sane person", thus making your argument: "every sane person would not find his comments offensive or hurtful". That necessarily means that anyone who would find the comments hurtful or offensive cannot, therefore, be sane.

So what are you trying to get at, then? Did you misspeak? Or are you suggesting there exists some third category on the continuum of sanity that is neither sane nor insane?

Got you going on the word "sane", didn't I? It's been thrown about a bit lately, hasn't it?
Makes one think, doesn't it? So easy to bandy words around.

Yes, it has been thrown around a bit lately. And I have categorically disagreed with those who have been tossing it around.

But let's go with it, just for the hell of it. Let's say that, hypothetically, anyone taking offense to this guy thanking God for his survival, must be insane. I don't think that, of course, but hypothetically, if I did, it would mean what? 10, 100, 1000, a million people might be considered insane (by me). Big fucking deal.
How does that compare to the 5.5 billion that several here consider "delusional" and some consider "psychotic"?

How do these actions compare? Well, they're both wrong, for starters, and in both cases I have spoken against those making such claims.

Beyond that, you present nothing but absurdity. The actions of others are irrelevant; your statements can only be evaluated fairly on their own merits. Two wrongs do not make a right, last I looked into matter.

[hrmjustin]

37. I don't get why some are just so upset over this.

The poor guy nearly dies and he thanks God for being better and he is a bad guy for it.

[Starboard Tack]

38. Beats me Justin. Some are so obsessed with the idiosyncracies of others...

...that they miss their own. I sometimes ascribe my good fortune to things far more outlandish than thinking God had anything to do with it. I rarely tell anyone. They'd be sure I was delusional if I did.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. See post 42.

There are implicit conditions that come along with accepting those claims. None of them flattering about either the claimant, or the god, if it does exist.

That's why it is offensive.

Please try to look beyond what Kent is claiming for himself, to what it implies about everyone who didn't make it. It's an ugly insinuation. EVEN in the same breath he asks for people to pray for the remainder still fighting it, it's an ugly insinuation.

In a press release, it smacks of the judges on America's Got Talent, exhorting the audience to call in and vote for some particular act they happen to favor.

It just... man, it rubs the wrong way, if you look one micron past Kent's own experience himself, to what is happening to the rest of the people afflicted by this. Kent didn't just happen to mention god.

"I did not know then, but I have learned since, that there were thousands, maybe even millions of people around the world praying for me throughout that week, and even still today. And I have heard story after story of how this situation has impacted the lives of individuals around the globe — both among my friends and family, and also among complete strangers. I cannot thank you enough for your prayers and your support. But what I can tell you is that I serve a faithful God who answers prayers."

"Through the care of the Samaritan's Purse and SIM missionary team in Liberia, the use of an experimental drug, and the expertise and resources of the health care team at Emory University Hospital, God saved my life — a direct answer to thousands and thousands of prayers. "

"Above all, I am forever thankful to God for sparing my life and am glad for any attention my sickness has attracted to the plight of West Africa in the midst of this epidemic. Please continue to pray for Liberia and the people of West Africa, and encourage those in positions of leadership and influence to do everything possible to bring this Ebola outbreak to an end. Thank you."


He is fully invested in the idea that his god spared him, specifically, and deliberately.

What then of the other victims? Not enough prayers on the faith-ometer? Not enough votes for the act to go through to Vegas? Howard Stern disappointed? Sending them home?

It's a really unpleasant implication.

[hrmjustin]

54. Praying for those stillsick is not offensive.

Feeling God spared you is not offensive.

He is not saying those who died deserved it and he went there to help people.

Sorry but I don't agree with you.

I think this nitpicking of a guy who nearly died is unseemly.


I

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Would you tell the survivors of one of the victims, 'I'm sure glad my god saved me', as they

mourned their dead, who were presumably not saved by your (the hypothetical speaker's) god?

Because by roundabout way of international media, that sentiment is going to get back to the survivors of victims of this epidemic.

[hrmjustin]

59. I think many of those victims would be happy that a man who got sick helping the people

of my area recovered. I think they would be praying for him.

I think your being too hard on him.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. I'm a creature of logic.

I have to follow the causal chain behind his claim.

It paints a very ugly picture of the god he claims to believe in.
I understand if you disagree, but I don't see what you base it on.

[hrmjustin]

62. Well I have compassion for a man who put his life on the line.

I have never really done anything like that.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. I will agree that there will be some number of people very grateful

that he was there at all, to aid others.

But I do not believe that gratitude will be universal, given his statements.
Medical evac, top flight care, experimental drugs, all of these things could potentially save other sick victims. But they don't have access to those very human, very tangible resources.

[hrmjustin]

66. Well it is a great embarrassment that these two Americans got it because they are Americans and

others have to wait.

Look I would have worded it differently but I think he shoukd be given a break.

[rexcat]

77. I have not problem with him surviving...

but when he attributes to some god over the people who actually saved him because of science and good medical care that seems to be where I draw the line. As someone who worked in the clinical setting in infectious disease and saw some people live and some die I can tell you there is no proof that a god intervened either way.

There was usually a good scientific reason for the outcome but I am sure you would not understand the concept I am describing for what happened: The reason he came down with Ebola is because he did not follow protocol and got infected. He received excellent care both in Africa and in the United States. He was one of the fortunate ones who was able to fend of the infection because of his immune system and more than likely the experimental drug he received. Look, I did not have to interject a god in the explanation, imagine that!!!

[hrmjustin]

94. And I say give the guy a break because he nearly died.

[rug]

7. What is offensive is that the medical care he received is scrupoulously hoarded.

Not that his mention of God offends you.

But go pick your own priorities. I'll pick mine. I don't see recovery rooms as a place for specious debates.

[hrmjustin]

11. Oh come on rug, he thanked God! Don't you know we are supposed to be offended?

Who cares that he almost was killed, who cares he thanked his doctors as well, and who cares that his faith got him throught it!

[rug]

12. You're right!

I'm surprised somebody doesn't simply post "Fuck you, Kent."

Oh wait, somebody did.

[hrmjustin]

13. Yeah they did.

Can't say I am surprised.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

15. It's pretty much another form of prosperity gospel.

People who have added earthly benefits not available to others ascribing it to being 'blessed', thus implying that everyone else who doesn't have their prosperity or other benefit isn't 'worthy' of God's grace.

I think it says more about the self-centeredness of those who make such statements than about the nature of any possible Divine being.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. Well there are no divine beings, but how one describes the nature

of unicorns does say something about what that person's unicorn belief system is. Believers who crow about divine intervention have a lot of explaining to do about these deities of theirs, all of which reflects not on fictional supernatural creatures, they don't exist, but on the believers themselves.

[rug]

20. OK, Warren, what exactly does Kent's thanking God for surviving ebola say about him?

[AtheistCrusader]

23. That god can, and wanted to save him, and did, and did not save ~1500+ other people.

[rug]

40. Good try but that's not his post.

This is:

Believers who crow about divine intervention have a lot of explaining to do about these deities of theirs, all of which reflects not on fictional supernatural creatures, they don't exist, but on the believers themselves.

I prefer to have him defend this nonsense himself rather than have surrogates jump in front of him.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. That statement reflects precisely what I have been saying.

With a starting point that there is no god, which obviously you don't ascribe to, but if that's where you begin, when someone claims 'my god saved me', and there's a heap of dead folks behind him that didn't get saved, the implication is obvious.

His god saved him, but couldn't save the rest.
His god saved him, but didn't want to save the rest.
His god saved him, but wasn't sufficiently motivated to save the rest.
His god saved him, but had explicit purposes to killing the rest.


It gets ugly, fast, when you explore beyond his claim, to what must counterbalance the claim.

[rug]

44. Good for you but the question was about what he is saying.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. I'm pretty sure we were getting at the same thing here.

So take my previous response. Add on, that balance reflects on him, for making that claim.

I'm actually stunned by the silence here, of people of faith who believe in god, but do NOT believe in intercessory prayer. Because that claim paints an ugly picture of their god. One I am sure such people directly reject. But they've been awfully quiet. Maybe they aren't as numerous as I previously thought. Anyway.

Back to the subject, that claim reflects on the claimant, in this case, one Kent Brantly, who is assuming, blindly through his economic, class, and religious privilege, that a divine being selected him to survive, out of all the dead that were allowed to die. From someone of my vantage point, that claim is positively dripping of privilege, and arrogance.

It's going to elicit strong, and uncharitable responses from some people.

[rug]

47. I'm certain you're not.

You're restating the problem of evil and he's making another passive-aggressive attack on all believers.

Believers who crow about divine intervention have a lot of explaining to do about these deities of theirs, all of which reflects not on fictional supernatural creatures, they don't exist, but on the believers themselves.

It's the difference between discussion and disruption.

I don't blame him for avoiding the responses.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. That seems a clear statement to me.

If the supernatural creatures existed... well, that would be a different thing. Then we'd have to examine why they do or don't intervene in some cases.

But try and keep in mind, you're talking to people who don't recognize those supernatural creatures as real, and thus, we have to rely upon the claims of the people who insist they exist.

In this case, a claim that not only does a god exist, but it saved Kent Brantly's life, while it allowed, ignored, or killed over a thousand other people for purposes unknown.

[rug]

50. It's clear tio me as well what that statement is about.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Can you elaborate?

Because I can't see what you're after. I assume you are not happy with the negative connotation, and I can guess why...

But the post is materially sound. From my viewpoint anyway.

[rug]

57. I did, in 47.

His actual statement is in bold. It continues his agenda about delusions and believers since his wiki efforts have failed.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. I see what you're getting at.

I disagree with your assessment, but he can respond and clear it up.

Taken as a single claim, I think the claims of the believers in this case does reflect on the believers themselves. But that's because I don't perceive any supernatural deities behind them to actually examine.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. When I saw that headline ("God saved me") I cringed.

Whether or not a God actually exists is for another debate, but I thought it was a ridiculous statement on several levels. First, God didn't save him; science did. Science plus the availability to him of the best medical care. I suppose one might argue that God saved him indirectly by inspiring scientists to develop the treatments that made him well, but why hasn't God saved all those poor Africans who got the same disease but didn't get the same first-rate treatment and died? Is the good doctor suggesting that God values his life more than the lives of the people who died?

It always bugs me when someone who survives some kind of disaster - maybe a plane crash, or a tornado - says God saved them. Why didn't God save the other people? Why are you special?

[trotsky]

29. I felt the same way.

And it really seems insulting to the memories of those who died.

[Uben]

28. In the book of Matthew I think....

...there is a verse where Jesus supposedly said, "It would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of god."

If you see the bible as the word of god, you aren't going to heaven unless you give up all your material wealth. Sell the damned Cadillacs and Mercedes, sell the Mcmansions and give all your money to the poor. Then, maybe you'll get to heaven. I can't think of one rich person who has done this. They must all be crowded in hell, because they damned sure aren't in heaven!

If Brantley hadn't had privileged access to the new drug and free transport to the U.S. to a major hospital, he likely would have died.....and gone to hell, to be with the rest of the privileged ones.

Do rich people who claim to be believers not read their bibles? Or, do they selectively overlook the things that are not convenient for them? Can't have it both ways.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. I wouldn't go quite so far as to call it offensive so much as clueless and tone-deaf.

Dr. Brantly is a medical missionary whose religious persuasion is apparently evangelical Christian. Fine; that's his thing, and more power to him for his work in Africa. Unquestionably, he risked his life to help those people. This kind of expression seems to be a common way for some religious people to express relief at having survived some kind of life-threatening event; you hear it all the time from survivors of various disasters. I don't think it's ever an intentional "Nyah, nyah, God saved me and not the rest of you losers, he loves me and not you" kind of thing. But it's horribly tone-deaf because of the implication that God wanted this particular person to survive the disaster and not the others. How does a statement like that make the families of people who died feel? Like God cared less for them?

[AtheistCrusader]

41. I see you are doubling down.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why Kent's god reached in and saved him, either directly, or indirectly by arranging for treatment and assets that were not available to over 1,500 other dead victims so far.

If his god saved him, the implication is one of the following:

God didn't bother to save the rest.
God didn't want to save the rest.
God couldn't save the rest but wanted to.

That is the arrogant presumption implicit in his statement. THAT is what is offensive.

[Warren Stupidity]

90. He can't respond, he is on an unexpected vacation.

[cleanhippie]

93. OUTSTANDING!

[Lordquinton]

83. interesting thread

The same people who crucify Dawkins on a regular basis on the basis of out of context quotes are claiming offence when we point out how problematic this guy is being. They demand we give him slack, and call us insane (my mistake, just not sane) when we point out the implications of this guys words, yet go into fits of apoplexy whenever a certain prominent athest gets misquoted in the headlines.

But no privlige here, none at all!

[rug]

89. Actually, there's more offense taken here by those who resent his mention of God.

The temerity of the man!

What privilege would you call that?

[AlbertCat]

116. He didn't "mention" god.... he gave him full credit for other's hard scientific work.

Any doctor who believes in magic.... hell, any adult who believes in magic.... is sad, But especially medical professionals. Who wants a witch doctor to treat them????

[rug]

123. And?

This isn't tickling my outrage meter.

[AlbertCat]

125. This isn't tickling my outrage meter.

Religionists are always such ingrates when it comes to the many and varied benefits of science.

[rug]

130. Oh, do you think scientific achievements are the sole result of nonreligionists?

What a peculiar view you have.

Speaking of Dr Brantly, what is it exactly you think he was doing in Liberia in the first place?

[AlbertCat]

131. Another stupid question

And then you pretend you already know the answer....because you really don't care what my view is, peculiar or not.

As to your second question... he's a missionary so he was proselytizing for one thing.

He obviously thinks medicine comes from the supernatural.... which it doesn't.
No gods required.

[rug]

132. I try to keep the listener in mind when formulating a question.

I was not aware the Indiana University School of Medicine taught that medicine comes from the supernatural. Someone should notify the authorities.

[AlbertCat]

133. Someone should notify the authorities.

No need to, as you already know. As I'm sure you also are aware that not everyone exits a school with the school's teachings fully intact.

Besides, no one has even implied such a thing as " Indiana University School of Medicine taught that medicine comes from the supernatural". It's just you trying to be oh so clever because "I try to keep the listener in mind when formulating a question." is not evident. Trying to gaze down at them from a height is most the time.

And of course talking about the school has nothing to do with this thread about Dr. Brantly who thinks some supernatural entity is responsible for his cure. I mean, he said so. Someone should notify the residents of his next assignment!

Since you are again in "belittle the person because you cannot address the issue" mode...again.... I'm bored. You can have the last quip (you enjoy it so).

[rug]

134. I must have misread your post.

He obviously thinks medicine comes from the supernatural

Silly me.

[AlbertCat]

135. I must have misread your post.

It appears you didn't read any of them at all.


"Silly me."

Well, you said it.

Good night.

[rug]

136. Good night.

[MellowDem]

86. Saying "god saved me"

Is incredibly narcissistic, implying god chose not to save many others.

It also seems to be the worst sort of way to avoid acknowledging privilege.

[YarnAddict]

87. So what?

I think we can all agree that Dr. Brantly was at death's door, and made a remarkable (miraculous??) recovery.

Some who got the experimental drug didn't survive, and some who didn't get it survived. If he wants to credit God, or the fickle finger of fate, or whatever, who cares? And unless you are one of the researchers who developed the drug, or one of the medical people who treated him, I don't think you have a right to be offended.

[okasha]

92. If it were possible to rec individual posts,

I would rec this one.

[YarnAddict]

105. Thank you.

When I saw the doctor making that statement, I knew right away that there was going to be a thread on DU by a member of the Fraternal Order of the Perpetually Aggrieved about how offended they are by it.

I just wish we could all learn not to judge other people. If what I'm doing doesn't directly affect someone else, even if they don't agree with what I'm doing, they can feel free to look away.

[Warren Stupidity]

95. As explained quite clearly, perhaps the loved ones of the 1500 or so people who Brantly's alleged

deity didn't save might just take a bit of offense at the suggestion that the freaking creator of the universe reached out and saved this privileged person while letting their loved one's die.

That plus the people who risked their lives to keep Brantly alive might just take offense at having their role diminished to mere puppets acting at the alleged almighty poobah's inclination.

That plus perhaps those of us who are barraged by religious idiocy like this every time we turn on the news are sick and tired of the endless pandering to religious fruitcakes.

Yahweh didn't save Brantly any more than he afflicted the thousands of others.

[YarnAddict]

96. Well,

are you one of the loved ones? Did you risk your life to keep dr Brantly alive? I'm guessing not, so, you really have no right to be offended.

[Skittles]

103. I'm guessing Warren will not even bother with this

hoo boy

[Warren Stupidity]

106. "right to be offended"

Of course I have a right to be offended by things that don't affect me personally. I am vastly offended by the summary execution of Michael Brown, for example. But if you had bothered to read what I wrote, I gave the third reason: our society panders to religious idiocy like that expressed by Brantly, religiosity is pandered to, given a pass, idiocy is uttered and nobody dares to point out that if the Yaweh interceded on Brantly's behalf, then Yaweh chose to not intercede on the behalf of the 1500 or so other people who died. That makes this deity pretty much a psycho bastard, which if one actually reads the bible, is exactly how he is portrayed. That pandering affects me personally and is extremely offensive to me and has damaged our society, perhaps beyond repair.

[YarnAddict]

108. Panders to??

Really? Allowing him, as the first person on American soil to not only have Ebola, but to survive it, after he truly believed he would die, to express his gratitude to a God he believes in, is pandering to religious idiocy???? Should the media have handed him a list of approved talking points, or warned him not to mention his faith? Or, once he had made his statement should a reporter or two have badgered him about the other victims, the ones who didn't survive?

Being offended by someone who has the same right under the First Amendment to say whatever he wants as you do to type "Fuck you!!!!!" on an Internet forum is top-tier hypocrisy.

Do you get offended by seeing a Muslim woman in a headscarf? Or is your righteous indignation reserved for Christians, or only for evangelical Christians?

If you see a couple of old ladies cluck-clucking about two guys walking down the street holding hands because they are offended, or if someone in a check-out line makes disparaging comments about what a food stamp recipient has in their cart, do you defend their right to be offended? Or, do you get in their faces and scream that it is none of their business who someone loves, or what someone buys?

Same thing.

Exact. Same. Thing.

I have read parts of the Bible. IIRC, the one thing I took away from it is "Judge not, lest ye be judged." I'd say that's good advice for anyone, including atheists. It's a nice way of saying MYOB.

[Warren Stupidity]

110. "to express his gratitude to a God " - he claimed his survival was the direct work of god.

I understand that your sense of religious privilege causes you to be insulted by the mere suggestion that such an expression has implications that are hugely problematic, that is in fact part of the problem. You don't think your Christian ideology ought to be questioned at all, and that public utterances of sanctimonious drivel should not cause any non-Christians any upset at all. Too bad for you.

Yes I find the oppression of women and LGBT people under the Islamic ideology repulsive, as is the oppression of women and LGBT people under Christian ideologies. It is all repulsive.

And no I will not "mind my own business" when people speak vile bullshit in public. Brantly's private views are none of my business, what he does in public, and how our servile media handle what he does, are very much my business.

"a couple of old ladies cluck-clucking ", a rather misogynistic and ageist phrase, is not somebody giving a press conference to a world audience.

[rug]

124. I though it went "you don't have a right not to be offended".

Be consistent, man!

[mr blur]

141. If only it were possible to rec individual posts... (nt)

[mercuryblues]

107. I always

hate statements like this.

I have a close friends whose 20 year old daughter died from Leukemia. Despite getting top notch medical care and experimental treatment. This statement implies that my friends did not believe or pray enough for her to survive.

[YarnAddict]

109. My mother

always believed that she could change fate by praying and having enough faith. It just about drove me crazy.

BUT,

She hated the fact that I breast fed my first son. Hated it. Not sure why, and it really doesn't matter. So, I know that when I was pregnant with Boy #2, she prayed that I wouldn't be able to breastfeed him. Well, when I was seven month pregnant with him, I was diagnosed with cancer, and faced major surgery, and months of treatment. And just to make sure I couldn't breast feed, God saw to it that I had Stage III cancer and would need chemotherapy.

If there is a God I see him less as a benevolent Santa Claus, indulging his children than as a mean old man, saying "Be careful what you wish for."

Fortunately for my mother, her personality (disorder) allowed her to deny that one had anything to do with the other.

If Dr. Brantly thanks God for saving his life, it doesn't bother me one way or another. He is just another person expressing his views. Big deal. If you don't like hearing it, change the channel.

[CAG]

126. When one of these posters goes over to take care of dying, highly contagious Ebola virus

patients in Africa like Dr. Brantly has done, I'll finally give a flying (^% that their little heart strings are hurt over a sentence that that this private citizen, thrust in a public spotlight, said.

[Warren Stupidity]

127. The NGOs have evacuated their health care workers from the west african countries

that are in the worst shape. At this point the people of west Africa are pretty much on their own. These same NGOs purchased experimental treatments for their people, and kept them away, in at least one documented case, from local health care workers afflicted with Ebola. Brantly, one of the evacuees, thanks god for saving him, the people of west Africa have been abandoned to their own devices. Will your god save them too?

You want to actually learn something rather than just wag your religious privilege finger at me? Here: http://www.pointofinquiry.org/dr._aida_benton_the_west_african_ebola_outbreak

[CAG]

128. How about you walk a mile in those volunteers shoes who regularly place themselves in less

than desirable conditions before assaulting them on the keyboard. What part of my response was religious, btw?

[CAG]

129. First of all, the experimental drugs are probably worthless, and may do more harm than good.

I know something about this, its actually part of my profession, so take your condescension elsewhere.

Had they given the experimental drugs to people of West Africa (including the local healthcare workers), there would be cries of discrimination about not subjecting NGO workers to the same "experimental toxic chemicals" thrown at the people of West Africa. They can't win either way!!

[Act_of_Reparation]

139. Why would you think the experimental drugs are worthless?

I don't know much about the particular drug used, but there seems to be at least anecdotal evidence that using blood plasma from patients who have survived the virus may effectively treat emergent cases. From what I understand, doctors in Africa have been doing this since the 1980s.

I do agree, however, that dispensing these drugs in Africa wouldn't have helped much, and would have been extremely damaging if the drugs do not, indeed, work.

[CAG]

142. anecdotal evidence, particularly for drugs treating viral infections, is meaningless

If doctors have been using that treatment modality since the 80's, its obviously not been used extensively, and there are reasons for this. Most likely, the usually-exciting "anecdotal evidence" turns out to be a bust once given to a decent number of patients and adequately compared to placebo. If it was so effective, they would be using it commonly and the mortality rate would not be as catastrophic as it is.

[Act_of_Reparation]

143. I understand the limitations of anecdote

It sounded, however, that you had specific reason -- apart from the lack of clinical trials -- that this treatment would not only be ineffective, but harmful. Or do you simply believe that likely given the success/failure rate of antivirals, or experimental drugs more generally?

[AtheistCrusader]

137. One sentence? I see you didn't watch the press conference either.

What he said was consistent with religious evangelism, sure.

[goldent]

138. "What sort of deity is this?"

Secondly, if we accept Brantly's assertion that his gods intervened on his behalf, what does that say about these alleged deities? Why does this god of Brantly's spare his life, while around 1500 other people have died? What sort of deity is this? It allows children to die from this horrible disease but spares this privileged white man?

Is that a god you choose to worship?

This sort of question has been asked a few times in the past (maybe more) and while people have tried different explanations, I think the best answer was given by Pope Benedict who said (paraphrasing) "we don't know." And in Brantly's case, we don't know whether God intervened. Brantly thinks so but we don't know. It could have been the great care provided by his medical team, it could have been the medicine, etc. I've heard that 50% of the people infected with this strain survive, which to me makes any claims about his recovery pure speculation.

[Warren Stupidity]

140. The 50% rate is for the current outbreak and is considered a sampling error

that will eventually go back up to ebola's more traditional lethality as the epidemic progresses.

[TreasonousBastard]

144. Every night I watch the nightly news with people thanking God for...

not dying in a hail of bullets, a fire, a car wreck, a tornado... Or any of the other terrible things that happen. Yes, most of the time I think they are silly kneejerk reactions, but this is the sort of thing people say when they go through a traumatic incident.

Now a missionary, who's job actually revolves around his personal beliefs, says it and all hell breaks loose.

After reading the rationalizations why this is supposedly offensive and why it must be decried, I just don't buy it.

He did not blabber ant-vax nonsense, he did not say nonbelievers should not be cured. He didn't say anything negative at all and inventing scenarios where all the people who die are at the hands of some uncaring God are ridiculous. Theologians and divinity schools are well aware of this dilemma and have discussed it to death long before you guys noticed it. There's even a name for it, but I can't remember it right now.

So, since no one is actually harmed, or threatened to be harmed, by this utterance, I fail to see just why the outrage