How about saying a prayer for xkcd?

Compassion is a perfectly fine substitute for our non-praying folks.

xkcd is a brilliant comic and one of the best things on the internet.  Just happened to click on the latest one:

Here’s the explanation.

God be with them.

Advertisements

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to How about saying a prayer for xkcd?

  1. Edohiguma says:

    You’re almost a year late.

    Stage 3, interesting. That’s usually an already well defined and invasive stage. Which is why I always say: women, go to your OBGYN regularly, check your breasts regularly. This stuff doesn’t just pop up overnight. Malign cell growth takes a while, it can be found earlier. Just because a woman is young doesn’t mean she can’t get it. There’s a reason such doctors exist.

    Btw, men can also get it. It’s rare, but it has happened.

    I don’t put much stock into prayers or compassion. Simple reason for me is: what does it change? Nothing. Back at the Tohoku quake, all this “pray for Japan” nonsense, how many people did it save? None. Here, have a shovel. Now that changes something. Facta, non verba.

    Just like Goethe wrote it in Faust: “Der Worte sind genug gewechselt, Laßt mich auch endlich Taten sehn!”

    • marj says:

      What prayer changes is one’s attitude.

      • Edohiguma says:

        Scenario: You come across a traffic accident. Three casualties. One of them bleeding like a stuck pig. What will you do? Pray for the bleeding to stop or get a first aid kit and stop the bleeding?

        Hint: if you don’t get the first aid kit from one of the cars on scene, I will personally make you the 4th casualty.

        • wormme says:

          Wow. You’re especially forceful about this one. Despite the fact that nothing in the Bible, Old or New Testament alike, supports the insane theory that deists should just stand around while someone dies.

          I know, I know, you’re an emergency responder. Well, so am I. My area isn’t medical relief, true, but jeez louise. Is this statement new to you? God helps those who help themselves.

          What would be the alternative?

          I’d truly like to know where you got the idea that deists are apathetic. HINT–It ain’t from the Bible.

          • Edohiguma says:

            It’s that general image of “oh, let’s pray”. That doesn’t sit too well with me. I’m more the “get the F off your feet and grab a shovel” type. You pray when we’re done for all I care, but if we’re in a classic SHTF situation, and I find you praying and, IMO, wasting time when the problem is burning through our shoes, then you’ll have a problem with me. Because then I expect you to be useful.

            Afterwards, do whatever you want. I don’t care.

  2. wormme says:

    I believe there is a (small) statistical difference between prayerful and non-prayerful recoveries, but of course one is free to attribute that to the placebo effect or other mental differences.

    • Edohiguma says:

      That is actually correct. But it’s not just the praying that some patients do, I also know cases where patients simply accepted their fate and they still had magnificent recovery. The mind can control the body up to a certain extent. Heck, it’s a general approach to life.

      I know people who fought hard to stay healthy, never really treating themselves to anything, who were 100% fit and who still died before reaching retirement. My grandfather on the other hand is 88. He doesn’t follow any restrictions. He eats what he likes, drinks what he enjoys. It’s the general approach to life that is quite important, IMO.

    • Edohiguma says:

      While I’m at it… It’s one of the reasons I have an issue with organized religion. Look at the leaders. From the pope to the dalai lama, they sit in their palaces on their golden thrones and tell us how we should live our lives. Why? Not because they’re concerned about our “spiritual well being” (if there ever was a retarded term, there it is), but simply because once again it’s about power.

      Now mind you, Jesus, as far as I remember, lived what he preached. Buddha lived what he preached. But today’s religious leaders are just like our political leaders: do as I say, not do as I do. They no longer lead by example. And this has been going for a very long time. Sure, there may be the occasional priest who actually lives what he preaches, but if you want to make a career in these organizations, you gotta howl with the wolves.

      So the dalai lama tells me how I must live my life. He talks about compassion, similar to how the pope raves about praying for *insert random cause here*. And that’s about it. What has either of them ever done that would benefit mankind? Nothing. They just talk. The dalai lama has been sitting on his chair ever since he was established as such. The pope has been in a solely academic career. Neither of them ever had boots on the ground.

      How many people were rescued from debris after the Tohoku quake because the dalai lama or the pope were compassionate or praying for them from a few thousand miles away?

      None.

      Who did all the rescuing? The teams on the ground with the shovels in their hands. And they did so while following established procedures, things that were known to work.

      Which is the issue I have with it. Everybody talks. So many words, so much hot air. But in the end, what really changes? Nothing.

      Lead by example or get the F out. Applies not only for our political leaders, but also for our “spiritual” ones.

      • wormme says:

        Wow. Not trying to be funny or glib or anything here. It’s just I realized something.

        I hate organized religion too.

        Not to say that I don’t think it benefits many people, perhaps most. But I, personally, hate it. You, edohiguma, have made me think in a way no one else ever has. I don’t hate “religion”. How could I, when I’m certain of the existance of God?

        But you’ve made me realize I hate “organized”.

        I knew it, but wasn’t conscious of it until now. “Organized” is just another word for “changed”. Hah!

        Thank you, edohiguma.

        • Edohiguma says:

          You’re most welcome.

          Though it’s kinda weird, because “religion”, per se, I don’t really mind either. I don’t have an issue with individuals doing whatever they do. As long as they leave me in peace, I leave them in peace and we can all have our own cake or even share it.

          I have an issue with a powerful group telling me what I have to do, because they think it’s the way things must be, and if I don’t follow them I get punished with eternal damnation or whatever. It’s the phonies I have an issue with. And there are so many of them these days.

          Let’s take god. God is everywhere, has created everything, right? Then why do I need a church or a mosque? Why do I need to go there to proper talk/whatever else with god? If god is everywhere, why would I need that? Why do I need a specially sanctioned priest for it? I can “talk” with god on a mountain just as well. I can read myself. So why would I… Oh… I forgot. The church or mosque or whatever is controlled by the organization pushing their ideas as the only true one and the priests, imams, preachers and whatever else are their agents. Damn, how could I forget this!

          If Mother Teresa would tell me “please do this”, then I would very likely do it. She led by example, that takes courage and dedication and for that alone I respect her. If the pope would tell me the same, I’d probably tell him to F off. Mother Teresa, I can get behind her approach. I may not agree with her personal believes, but her approach to things, absolutely. What she did is amazing. The dalai lama, on the other hand, how many sick people has he taken care of? How many orphans has he personally helped? I never heard any account of him doing anything even remotely like that. Same for the pope, same for any of the “gold pheasants” (it’s a mocking term for upper echelon members of established groups and organizations in German, going back to Nazi Germany and the massive displays of rank those higher ups lugged around) in any religion have done anything like that? How many of them follow the original teachings? That’s my issue.

          Sure, one could say that these leaders are supposed to inspire us to do these things, but… who inspires easier? A leader who leads by example? Or a leader who is just talk? For me, it’s someone who leads by example. If you have the balls to actually live what you preach, to get your hands dirty, to get your boots on the ground, then I will likely respect you. If you sit in your golden palace and just talk, why should I listen to you?

          They also tend to reduce it all to “if you follow our ideology and do what we tell you to do, you will go to heaven and if you don’t YOU’LL GO TO HELL!” While I personally think that, if god exists, I doubt it will give a damn about what tree we barked at, but rather will judge us by what we did and how we lived our lives.

  3. Pingback: “Social science” is neither social nor science. | World's Only Rational Man

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s