Why bother ringing 911?

[Khatru]

After all, according to Michelle Gregg, God was protecting her child from the gorilla.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/michelle-gregg-cincinnati-zoo-mother-mom-name-gorilla-harambe-facebook-photos-son-petition/

This callous and to be honest, deranged sense of gratitude is wholly lacking in any empathy whatsoever. 

Her imaginary friend had nothing to do with saving her baby while the zookeepers did.

Once more we see how a believer ignores human effort while giving credit to an invisible sky pixie.

[Owlswing]

After all, according to Michelle Gregg, God was protecting her child from the gorilla.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/michelle-gregg-cincinnati-zoo-mother-mom-name-gorilla-harambe-facebook-photos-son-petition/

This callous and to be honest, deranged sense of gratitude is wholly lacking in any empathy whatsoever. 

Her imaginary friend had nothing to do with saving her baby while the zookeepers did.

Once more we see how a believer ignores human effort while giving credit to an invisible sky pixie.

They don't just ignore 'human effort', they ignore anything and everything that cannot be attributed to their God!

Particularly in the U S, it is rapidly getting to the point where some sects of Christianity are becoming dangerously close to classification as mental instability if not actual mental illness.

I'm glad that I live in the U K and all I have to put up with are the very outer fringes of that sort of belief.

[Brownie]

They 'thanked the Lord' that their son was safe but they did profusely thank the zoo staff for intervening so quickly.  I don't think they are making a big deal out of thanking God, they just said it once and presumably that is in line with their beliefs.  It must have been a terrifying experience for their son and for them.

There's been a backlash against them because the silver back gorilla was shot so they wanted to make one final statement.

Years ago a boy fell into the gorilla enclosure at the Gerald Durrell Conservation Zoo in Jersey but he was treated tenderly by a female gorilla until he was pulled out, unhurt.  It was quite touching.  However an alpha male is a different kettle of fish if his territory is invaded.  The keepers had no choice but to kill the gorilla, he was dragging the little boy around, might have maimed and killed him.

I note police are considering investigating the parents with regard to the incident - why?  Do they seriously think the parents pushed the boy?  Horrible thought, not very likely but I presume the zoo has cctv.

[Maeght]

They 'thanked the Lord' that their son was safe but they did profusely thank the zoo staff for intervening so quickly.  I don't think they are making a big deal out of thanking God, they just said it once

They have said it more than once if you look at the tweets and seem pretty convinced that somehow God saved their son.

... and presumably that is in line with their beliefs.

Well of course - that's the point isn't it? But if someone believes God can influence such events or intervene do they wonder why God let it happen in the first place? What makes them think God saved their son but not the thousands of other children who would have died around the world that same day? Surely the point is that it demonstrates  the effect of their beliefs on their thinking isn't it?

[floo]

I bet those negligent parents wouldn't have blamed god if their son had died. His rescue was totally down to the response of the zoo staff absolutely nothing to do with the sky fairy!

[Brownie]

Floo, they only said, ''Thank the Lord'' or something like that, they weren't making a big deal out it!  It seems we are making more of a deal, most people wouldn't even have noticed.

The parents may well have been distracted, turning their backs for a moment, but it happens, doesn't mean they are always negligent.  We really should not be judgemental, let's wait and see what the facts are.

[floo]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!

[Shaker]

They 'thanked the Lord' that their son was safe

Long and dismal experience of theists and the things they come out with suggests they would have done exactly and precisely the same if their offspring had been turned into pulled pork.

[Owlswing]

They 'thanked the Lord' that their son was safe but they did profusely thank the zoo staff for intervening so quickly.  I don't think they are making a big deal out of thanking God, they just said it once and presumably that is in line with their beliefs.  It must have been a terrifying experience for their son and for them.

There's been a backlash against them because the silver back gorilla was shot so they wanted to make one final statement.

Years ago a boy fell into the gorilla enclosure at the Gerald Durrell Conservation Zoo in Jersey but he was treated tenderly by a female gorilla until he was pulled out, unhurt.  It was quite touching.  However an alpha male is a different kettle of fish if his territory is invaded.  The keepers had no choice but to kill the gorilla, he was dragging the little boy around, might have maimed and killed him.

I note police are considering investigating the parents with regard to the incident - why?  Do they seriously think the parents pushed the boy?  Horrible thought, not very likely but I presume the zoo has cctv.

No - they are investigating the parents for possible negligence, thus allowing the boy to fall into the enclosure. And quite rightly to in my opinion. The boy getting into the gorilla enclosure was not a matter of a few seconds inattention.

[floo]

No - they are investigating the parents for possible negligence, thus allowing the boy to fall into the enclosure. And quite rightly to in my opinion. The boy getting into the gorilla enclosure was not a matter of a few seconds inattention.

I agree. However, it seems incredible that it was actually possible for a member of the public to enter the enclosure, the zoo should have these areas better secured, imo.

[Maeght]

Floo, they only said, ''Thank the Lord'' or something like that, they weren't making a big deal out it!  It seems we are making more of a deal, most people wouldn't even have noticed.

As I pointed out they said more than that. On Facebook she wrote 'God protected our child until the authorities were able to get him' & thanked God for 'being the awesome God that he is'. In a statement the parents said 'We continue to praise God for His grace and mercy' so it wasn't just a 'Thank God' comment said in passing.

[SteveH]

Why indeed, when the emergency number is 999?

[Hope]

Why indeed, when the emergency number is 999?

Wrong, Steve!!   

[Hope]

After all, according to Michelle Gregg, God was protecting her child from the gorilla.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/michelle-gregg-cincinnati-zoo-mother-mom-name-gorilla-harambe-facebook-photos-son-petition/

This callous and to be honest, deranged sense of gratitude is wholly lacking in any empathy whatsoever. 

Her imaginary friend had nothing to do with saving her baby while the zookeepers did.

Once more we see how a believer ignores human effort while giving credit to an invisible sky pixie.

And you have proof positive that the keeper who shot the gorilla wasn't being guided and perhaps even calmed by God?  Have they told you that this wasn't the case?  Perhaps the shooter and their boss are believers who felt that this was the best thing to do.

To make such a daft comment, Khat, when I doubt whether you know any of the actors involved in the drama, is little short of crass. 

[jeremyp]

Why indeed, when the emergency number is 999?

Good luck with 999 in Cincinnati

[Hope]

They have said it more than once if you look at the tweets and seem pretty convinced that somehow God saved their son.

And, of course, you have lots of proof to show that the people involved didn't believe that they weren't being guided by God?

Well of course - that's the point isn't it? But if someone believes God can influence such events or intervene do they wonder why God let it happen in the first place? What makes them think God saved their son but not the thousands of other children who would have died around the world that same day? Surely the point is that it demonstrates  the effect of their beliefs on their thinking isn't it?

It would be interesting to know how many children's lives were saved that day, either by the quick thinking of passers-by, by the work of youth workers, medics, social workers, law enforcers, teachers, scientists, ...  and, of course, zoo-staff.  To dismiss the role that God plays in everyday life as glibly as some here do is to ignore the realities of life.

[Maeght]

And you have proof positive that the keeper who shot the gorilla wasn't being guided and perhaps even calmed by God?  Have they told you that this wasn't the case?  Perhaps the shooter and their boss are believers who felt that this was the best thing to do.

To make such a daft comment, Khat, when I doubt whether you know any of the actors involved in the drama, is little short of crass.

Can God only act through humans? If so, how do you know it is anything other than humans acting alone? If not, then why didn't God just save the child directly without the need for human intervention?

[Maeght]

And, of course, you have lots of proof to show that the people involved didn't believe that they weren't being guided by God?

Of course they believed that - I didn't say otherwise.

It would be interesting to know how many children's lives were saved that day, either by the quick thinking of passers-by, by the work of youth workers, medics, social workers, law enforcers, teachers, scientists, ...  and, of course, zoo-staff.

By human actions, yes.

To dismiss the role that God plays in everyday life as glibly as some here do is to ignore the realities of life.

Really? When there is no evidence other than belief that God is involved at all.

[Hope]

Can God only act through humans? If so, how do you know it is anything other than humans acting alone? If not, then why didn't God just save the child directly without the need for human intervention?

He often does act through people - after all, a physical presence is often required, but he can work independently of humans.

We heard an amusing story of a family in Nepal whose 'allottment' (as it were) was in the middle of the area that the villagers used for their own crops.  When the family became Christians, the other villagers decided to block the network of irrigation channels that ran through the area where they touched the family's plot.  A week or two later, as the level of the river that fed the channels dropped and the channels dried up, the family's plot was the only one that stayed damp.  This wasn't a normal yearly event; the villagers had no recollection of it happening in their life times.  Somehow water was making its way underground to it, but by-passing all the other plots.  They had to unblock the channels in order for the water that was reaching the one plot to reach the others. OK, it might have been coincidental, but the timing suggests that there was something more than that - what some call a God-incident.

[Hope]

Of course they believed that - I didn't say otherwise.

The point I'm making is that we don't know what anyone other than the parents believed.  For all we know, all the other people at the zoo that day - public and employees - were believers (or none of them).  For Khat to make his sweeping OP points to the pointlessness of the OP.

By human actions, yes.

Which may, or may not, have been prompted by a faith in God.

Really? When there is no evidence other than belief that God is involved at all.

When there is no naturalistic evidence, I agree, but then how often do events occur for which there are no naturalistic explanations?

[Maeght]

He often does act through people - after all, a physical presence is often required,

Why - can't God just make it happen, like parting the Red Sea for example. And you didn't ask the question 'how do you know it is anything other than humans acting alone?'

as to  but he can work independently of humans.

So why need humans at all? Why not save the child without the need for human involvement and the death of the Gorilla?

[Maeght]

The point I'm making is that we don't know what anyone other than the parents believed.  For all we know, all the other people at the zoo that day - public and employees - were believers (or none of them).  For Khat to make his sweeping OP points to the pointlessness of the OP.

This was a response to my post - not Khat's.

Which may, or may not, have been prompted by a faith in God.

I don't think anyone disputes that people do things because of their faith sometimes. But that isn't the same as saying God intervened or saved someone is it?

When there is no naturalistic evidence, I agree, but then how often do events occur for which there are no naturalistic explanations?

I don't know of any where there is no possible naturalistic explanation.
[/quote]

[Gordon]

When there is no naturalistic evidence, I agree, but then how often do events occur for which there are no naturalistic explanations?

Do you have an example of a event with no naturalistic explanation?

[Hope]

This was a response to my post - not Khat's.

Yet it came from aresponse to the OP and the thread as a whole.

I don't think anyone disputes that people do things because of their faith sometimes. But that isn't the same as saying God intervened or saved someone is it?

Whilst I don't believe that God is a creation of the human mind, if a believer does something in the name of God, that suggests God has.  After all, we get God (and gods) being at least in part blamed when people commit atrocities.

I don't know of any where there is no possible naturalistic explanation.

Well, I've referred to the issue of right and wrong.

[Gordon]

Well, I've referred to the issue of right and wrong.

You referred to an 'event': I suppose reaching an opinion regarding something being right or wrong would be an event of thinking, but since this involves neural activity in brains then this would be natural.