'We are so thankful to god': Man who was supposed to travel on missing AirAsia flight

[cleanhippie]

Apparently, God says "fuck you" to 160+ passengers and families from missing plane.

An Indonesian man scheduled to travel on the missing Air Asia Indonesia flight with his family has thanked God that chance led him to cancel their tickets just a day before it disappeared.

Chandra Susanto, from Surabaya, in Indonesia, had booked seats on QZ8501 from Surabaya to Singapore, which lost contact with air aviation control at 6.17am this morning, for his wife and three children to visit his father.

'We had been planning our holiday to Singapore since March 2014 so it was a great surprise for us when we cancelled our holiday yesterday', Mr Susanto told Daily Mail Australia.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2889017/We-thankful-god-Man-supposed-travel-missing-AirAsia-flight-wife-three-young-children-cancelled-tickets-YESTERDAY-father-ill.html

[Duckhunter935]

1. I agree with what you said

how arrogant of him, I guess none of the passengers or crew was worth saving.

[exboyfil]

2. But every last one that did die on the airplane were heathens

and had it coming.

[Malraiders]

3. Maybe they can learn to smile now. And I wonder what plan their God has for

his father?

[rug]

4. You're slipping.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/flight-delayed-as-haredi-men-refuse-to-sit-next-to-woman/

If you want to attack religion you're supposed to attack the actions rather than the beliefs. Isn't that how it goes?

[cleanhippie]

5. You're incoherent.

And making personal attacks, as usual.


Now go on, feed that last-word compulsion.

[rug]

6. Oh, the coherence is just fine.

I do note the irony of making accusations about personal attacks while calling another poster incoherent.

[edhopper]

10. Some say that here

many others say we should challenge beliefs.

I don't believe i have seen cleanhippie say that we should attack actions and not beliefs.

Are you getting the posters confused?

[cleanhippie]

12. Ed, it's got nothing to do with that.

It's a compulsive need to reply, not a compulsive need to be coherent.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Yawn.

[rug]

22. .

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Your content-free deflections are becoming tiresome in their predictability.

[rug]

26. I'll change it up.

[cleanhippie]

28. It's a compulsion to have the last word/response.

Tired and predictable, yes, but still a compulsion.

And just so sad.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. I'm confused by "thanked God that chance".

So a more or less random event that they cancelled their flight ('My father became ill so we had to cancel our flight') was it seems something to thank an imaginary being for causing, or not causing, as it was a random event. Being religious is very confusing. He also admits that he is "sorry" about the other 160 people who didn't have a divinely ordered random event to cause them to cancel their flights, so he is aware that there is something a bit peculiar about his situation and the alleged deity that got involved.

[cleanhippie]

9. You keep expecting them to make sense.

Only when you realize that they will never make sense, will it make any sense at all.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. It does seem that way.

Soon enough the Admonishment will descend on this thread to explain why we are just wrong for expecting sense.

[cleanhippie]

14. One already did.

But it was the usual incoherence.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Invisible admonishments!

[cleanhippie]

17. Impotent is more like it.

[rug]

23. Since this is the third time you said this, not that it's a compulsion, I'll tell you this.

Your lack of understanding is not a sign of incoherence.

[longship]

8. Yup. Would that be the same god who plunged the plane into the ocean? nt

[cleanhippie]

11. Couldn't be. God doesn't actually interfere or effect our lives.

Except when he does.

[edhopper]

16. While I see nothing wrong with discussing this

I will give the guy a break, He does acknowledge the tragedy for the passengers and I think he is just trying to make sense of the circumstances that lead to their missing the flight.

[okasha]

24. Good grief. Common sense.

Can't have that.

[JDDavis]

31. Can't have common sense when one's belief in a deity

means one has to openly thank him for not dying.

Somewhere on the internet, (the source of all truth in matters about god) I saw a post at a web site saying that these plane crashes were due to people not being or not believing in the Christian god and Jesus Christ as their savior. Yeah, I actually saw this, and of course I don't remember where but just Google Jesus and Christ and non Christians and plane crashes, I bet it comes up.

[rug]

33. Who said he had to?

[JDDavis]

48. So people that affirm a belief in something need no common sense?

That is what you are asking/saying?

No wonder the Roman Catholic church has succeeded for almost 1800 years. It relied upon people who didn't think common sense, (a phrase often used to mean basic logical thinking based upon evidence available, like don't stay out in the rain if you don't want to get wet, that kind of common sense, etc. etc.), was as important for people as was believing that they would burn in Hell if they didn't believe in Jesus.

No wonder this mythology lasted so long into the 21st century when the premise was that blatant.

By the way, can anyone answer why or how or under what circumstances religion is different than mythology? I think the person I am responding to made that statement yesterday or today, I don't know, but I think that bold statement was made quite recently.

So my questions are two:

1)Why would we believe in something that superceded common sense 1800 years ago, versus science today, and the lack of evidence for any virtue in religious teachings over the last 1800 years? Remember 1800 years ago, no universal education, no trains planes, even books, electricity, TV, or internet.

2) What exactly did someone who posts here mean by stating religion is different than mythology, (without giving anything like a substantial rational differentiation between the two)? No explaination given. I'm surprised that atheists here didn't challenge that assumption. Perhaps we can talk more later, but right now I have to feed two young children who are very hungry.

[rug]

51. Do you a need to paraphrase before answering a question?

Here it is, unblemished.

Who said he had to?

Rather odd reply you posted for five little words.

Now. do you think you're able to answer them?

I really have no interest in whatever other ruminations you have.

[JDDavis]

54. Oh dear, I have offended the thinking patterns of the grand marshall of

defence of Roman Catholicism here.

I am so sorry I offended you.

Please accept my most sincere apologies, if I misunderstood what you meant by your post.

Please explain what you meant by your title to your post, Who said he had to? without comment, without a word to read to explain your question.

Sorry if I offended or misunderstood your question/declaration/defensive statement.

As Obama has been known to say to Romney:

Please proceed.

By the way, I do not starve my children, these are not my children, my (GREAT GRAND NEPHEWS) and they had snacks all day long, and were learning how to cook pancakes and bacon and eggs at 6 pm Eastern USA time, after snacks at 4 pm.

They are 5 and 8 and want to know how to cook pancakes, but they are enmeshed in a cartoon movie now on the big screen TV, so I made popcorn and will serve them BLT's when the movie is over. Pancake lessons can be taught at 7 or 8 am just as well as now, and I have all the fixings for BLT's right here now.

[rug]

58. Your answers have become the verbal equivalent of falling down an escalator.

And as appalling.

I see you can't answer the question.

Next time I'll try to limit the question to four words.

[hrmjustin]

59. Nothing changes with him!

[rug]

61. NO KIDDING!

!

[hrmjustin]

62. .

[JDDavis]

63. What is your question to which you need me to respond?

I have about 20 comments from former students seeking recommendations to grad school or a job.

I have two little tykes entrusted to me for 24-30 hours while their parents go skiing in Vermont.

I love these little kids, and may have missed what I was supposed to respond to in your question, which I found meaningless.



By the way, the kids ate their BLT's, ate ice cream sandwiches, are now taking a shower and getting in pyjama's before 7:30 bed time with me reading them a story and maybe a board game, like Chinese Checkers, they beat me at last week. Their parents' call at 7 pm, coming soon, and they are happy and healthy, the first time I ever took care of them for a night. I guess it means my great nephew and great aunt-in-law likes me enough to leave thier kids with me for a night, even though I took care of that 28 year old as a baby a hundred times between 0 and 12.

Edited to add: how stupid, she is my great niece in law....plese excuse the stupidity about relationships of in-laws.

[JDDavis]

70. I am sorry, I do not understand your post

Please explain.

How is taking care of great nephews a "snark"?

[hrmjustin]

72. I meant to reply to your above post.

You were rather snarky to rug imo.

[hrmjustin]

73. I see I got alerted on. deleted it but I said he was snarky.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Fri Jan 2, 2015, 05:52 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Your snark was never appreciated here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=174912

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Snark" Pointless insults, simply because of a difference of opinon. No explanation, no reason for abusing posters with a post like this. This is a continuous patter for this poster. Clearly outside the terms and conditions DU posters agreed to. If people have objections of disagreements with a poster's statements, please state those disagreements.. calling names, using the word "snark" as some code word for religious superiority, definitely out of bounds on DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 2, 2015, 06:01 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No. No hide for you.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh, for pete's sake. This is a nonsensical alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: you have got to be kidding. terrible alert.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Disagree with alerter.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: That's just too mild for me to vote to censor it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Dumbass snarky alert, JD.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[rug]

74. !

Dumbass snarky alert, JD.

[hrmjustin]

75. Someone can not alert for 24 hours now.

Was really a bad alert I self deleted before I found out it was alerted on.

[rug]

76. Just as well. No one would be able to figure out the next alert.

Something about a BLT.

[hrmjustin]

77. Lol. well it was a good jury.

[longship]

79. And then there's the cultural aspects of it all.

I much prefer to the default null hypothesis, that there are no gods. However, that often does not work in the world anymore than it works here in the DU Religion Group.

So I am inclined to give this guy a pass, no matter that his argument is repugnant when one considers those who plunged to their deaths.

At least he was fortunate. Then there are the unfortunate many.

But why would an ethical person claim an ethical god as responsible for such a thing?

My regards.

[edhopper]

80. It's a mystery

Or so I've been told.

[delrem]

18. I have a simple system.

I blame everything bad that happens to me on God, and I congratulate myself for everything good that happens. By rigorously following this system for my entire life I've managed to get by without attaining to a single insight. I congratulate myself on that achievement -- it truly is bliss.

[jeff47]

19. Ya know, I never quite understand this kind of statement.

Presumably Susanto is devout, and his religion promises that he will spend eternity in paradise after his death.

Yet he's thanking God for delaying his entry into paradise.

Huh? If the afterlife is so wonderful, why be so exited to remain here on Earth?

[AtheistCrusader]

20. My universal translator converts that to "Got mine, Fuck you".

Doesn't matter how he meant it. It's like being in a crowd, and some asshole starts shooting, but runs out of ammo when it was your turn. You get in front of the cameras and say 'sure glad he ran out', but it's going to sound to some people like 'sure glad he used all his bullets on other people first'.

It's a fucked up thing to say.

[phil89]

27. I just think most people like

that goof have not really thought critically about what they believe. It's so absurd as to be offensive. Like the sickos who thought the cross at the WTC was a sign from god...who I guess had no problem watching the attack happen.

[mmonk]

29. Reminds me of the book, "God's Problem"

by Bart Ehrman. Good read.

[trotsky]

32. Interestingly enough, the attitude that a god favors one group over another...

has actually led to one group rounding the other up to teach them a lesson. Tattooing them, taking their property, even killing them.

You may want to rethink what I'm sure you thought was an oh-so-clever retort.

[rug]

34. Why don't you post the wording of the alert you sent?

[hrmjustin]

35. I can't believe that was hidden.

Clearly it was a point to the op to get over it.

Bad result imo and I hope someone posts the results.

[rug]

36. That's why the wording of the alert is important.

It's not hard at all to skew jury results depending on how the alert is phrased.

He posted his reply two minutes after the jury results.

[hrmjustin]

37. I guess the alert police is in full force.

Yet we are the ones always accused of doing it all the time.

[rug]

42. Meanwhile, this is just peachy.

You keep expecting them to make sense.

Only when you realize that they will never make sense, will it make any sense at all.

[hrmjustin]

43. Yes I know.Ii expect it from him.

[eomer]

38. I can't believe you said that.

So you think it's acceptable to insinuate that the criticism in the OP is of a kind with the horrors of the Holocaust? Wow.

[hrmjustin]

39. Fair point.

But i think the poster was just frustrated with these kind of posts.

[eomer]

40. If getting frustrated is justification for that sort of thing...

then prepare yourself for a wild ride.

(In other words, don't we all get frustrated with "X" kind of posts? Maybe the poster with the hide is the one who needs to "get over it".)

[hrmjustin]

41. Or maybe posts like this are only done to insult believers here.

The man thanked God for being alive. Not a crime you know.

I think the hide was bogus.

[eomer]

45. There are plenty of ways to disagree or complain about the OP...

...that don't insinuate that it's of a kind with the horrors of the Holocaust. Like the way you just did, for example. There's a reason why your criticism of it wont get hidden (rightly so) and that the other one did get hidden. That other one was clearly out of bounds. It's shocking to me that that isn't obvious to you.

[hrmjustin]

47. Well i stand by my view it was a bad hide.

The op could have rebutted.

[eomer]

49. Not surprised at all that you do. n/t

[hrmjustin]

50. Wait, first you say you are suprised then you say your not.

Which is it?

[eomer]

52. Two different things.

I was shocked that anyone would find the hidden post acceptable.

But I'm not surprised that you in particular would stand by something once you've taken a public position on it.

[hrmjustin]

53. I stand by it was a bogus hide and it was.

If posters didn't like it they could have just responded to it.

[eomer]

56. Right, lumping things in with horrors of the Holocaust is okay in your opinion.

I think I've got it.

[hrmjustin]

57. Not what I said but whatever.

Have a good weekend.

[eomer]

60. I don't see any other way to take the hidden post,

but always willing to entertain that I'm missing something.

[rug]

44. Which of course is not what he said at all.

But since he won't post the alert, it's good to get the flavor of it.

[eomer]

46. He said he can't believe it was hidden.

I took that to mean he thought the hidden post was acceptable. I stand by that interpretation unless somebody (preferably Justin) can tell me something else it could reasonably mean.

[rug]

55. Never mind. Here is the alert, shimmering in all its disingenuity.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is not mockery, this is intentional racial and ethnic bias. Making fun of people who have different beliefs than Christians or other religions or non-believers is not appropriate here on DU.

"intentional racial and ethnic bias"

Pavlov would be proud.

I thought the "making fun of people. . . . is not appropriate here" was a nice touch.

[eomer]

65. OK, you forgot to admit you were wrong about the alerter being trotsky.

Because that's obviously not trostky. In fact the alerter seems to have misunderstood the post and alerted based on thinking the post was the opposite of what it really was (missing the sarcasm in other words).

[rug]

68. I'm not certain who the alerter is.

I have my thoughts.

[okasha]

71. In that case, an honorable person

would come forward, admit his mistake, and apologize. Don't you agree?

[eomer]

78. Yes, I agree.

And I would think they'd want to in order to not be misunderstood as well.

[okasha]

66. That alert is a blatant lie.

Is there a mechanism for appealing a bogus hide like this?

[hrmjustin]

67. Only one hide was overridden on du3 so no.

[rug]

69. No, but admin should be notified. They know who sent the alert.

What triggers action is either something really egregious or a pattern of disruption.