Village Atheism VS Chapel Mormonism

[_Chap]

But some theists do feel disabled from denying certain propositions about their beliefs under any circumstances, do they not, because they feel that there are some truths that may not be denied without grave sin? And some of them have died because of that.

Sure, though the ones who get to that point are few and far between. But you or I wouldn't begrudge anyone for lying in that circumstance, right? I think that's the point. It has nothing to do with the possibility of being wrong.

The point is not what you or I would begrudge.

The point (in the context of this thread) is that some people WOULD be willing to die to avoid denying certain propositions, and you and I would not. That is an important difference worth pointing out, no?

[_Tarski]

Isn't there an important issue here we need to settle? Did Russell even say this? Is the quote genuine? If not, who first attributed it to him and why? (I suspect an enemy of Russell more than I do a villiage atheist)

[_EAllusion]

Isn't there an important issue here we need to settle? Did Russell even say this? Is the quote genuine? If not, who first attributed it to him and why? (I suspect an enemy of Russell more than I do a villiage atheist)

I see the quote attributed to him all over the place, but noone lists a primary source. That's usually a good sign of a quote being fake. At the same time, since it is all over generic quote collector sites, that also implies it isn't a recent invention meant to smear him. We're going to have to sleuth this one.

[_MsJack]

Remember the the story that developed out of the Columbine shootings that a student was asked if she believed in God under threat of her life, she said yes, and then was murdered? Almost right away it was clear that this was a myth, but it the story held and for some people continues to hold tremendous power in evangelical circles precisely because it plays into this fantasy.

I wouldn't call it a myth; that implies that it was entirely fabricated, which it wasn't. Rather, it was an amalgamation of two different shootings in the library that did happen. A girl in the Columbine library was asked if she believed in God, and she said yes. But the girl that it happened to---Valeen Schnurr---survived her injuries, and she was shot before she was asked whether she believed in God, not after.

A few years ago, Valeen told The Guardian:

Across the room, Valeen Schnurr, who had turned 18 six days before, was cowering beneath another table with her best friend Lauren. They had just been preparing an English presentation on the American Civil War novel Cold Mountain and their pencil cases were still on the desk above their heads. Valeen remembers Lauren holding her hand tightly. Then, without understanding why, Valeen felt her body jerk forcefully. She noticed she was bleeding and would find out subsequently that she had been shot nine times at close range. "The force of the bullets pushed me out from under the table," says Valeen, now 27. "I was in excruciating pain. It feels like fire running through your body. I was saying 'Oh my God, oh my God' and one of them [Klebold] asked me if I believed in God. I said yes. He asked why. I said 'My parents brought me up that way'."

Then she held her breath and closed her eyes, hoping he would leave her to die. The gunman walked away.

Cassie Bernall, who was also in the library, was shot and killed. The Schnurr and Bernall accounts got mangled together. Perhaps it was innocent at first (that would be understandable), but I think Christians continued to promote the "she said yes!" martyrdom of Cassie Bernall long after they knew the details were not accurate.

It was also claimed that the first victim of Harris and Klebold, Rachel Scott, was asked if she believed in God, said yes, and was fatally shot afterward. I heard Scott's father speak some number of years ago. He said that the source for that was Rachel's friend Richard Castaldo, who was shot 8 times himself and paralyzed by the gunmen, but that Castaldo had since backed off from that and denied that Rachel had been asked about God prior to being shot. Darrell Scott was very candid in admitting that while he personally believed it had happened, it was possible that it hadn't and it was not central to the message that he wanted to share about Rachel.

Personally, I think Schnurr was the only person who was asked that day about her belief in God, and she was not shot because of it.

[_EAllusion]

I wouldn't call it a myth; that implies that it was entirely fabricated, which it wasn't.

I don't think myths have to be entirely fabricated. The story that developed out of the events did not happen. The whole thematic arc of the story, that a person was murdered for bravely announcing their belief in God, is not incorrect. It's based in some actual facts, but myths often develop that way.

[_Chap]

... The whole thematic arc of the story, that a person was murdered for bravely announcing their belief in God, is not incorrect. ...

I don't get it. From the facts posted by MsJack, it seems unlikely that anyone was murdered for announcing their belief in God.

So how does that morph into the statement that "The whole thematic arc of the story, that a person was murdered for bravely announcing their belief in God, is not incorrect".

(What is this 'thematic arc' idea? Could Mormon apologists start saying that the 'thematic arc' of the Book of Mormon is 'not incorrect'? Interestingly, my Google search seems to suggest that this term is used in helping people to write good fiction ...)

[_MsJack]

I don't think myths have to be entirely fabricated. The story that developed out of the events did not happen. The whole thematic arc of the story, that a person was murdered for bravely announcing their belief in God, is not incorrect. It's based in some actual facts, but myths often develop that way.

I assume you meant "not correct." But I don't agree that this was "the whole thematic arc of the story." Rather, the thematic arc of the story was, "Be ready to affirm your faith, even if it means risking your life." The account of Valeen Schnurr still supports that arc. She knew that she had already been shot, but when the gunman focused on her specifically and asked about her belief in God, she did not know whether or not an affirmative answer would further put her life at risk. The whole "She said YES" campaign that blazed through youth groups at the time was aimed at getting students to be willing to affirm their faith regardless of the risks.

Ending the story with the brave Christian perishing for affirming her faith simply provided for greater pathos than what really happened, so the Cassie Bernall amalgamation was preferred and perpetuated.

[_EAllusion]

What is this 'thematic arc' idea?

Are you familiar with the "She said yes" narrative that exploded in popularity in evangelical circles? The takeaway of the story was her unlikely martyrdom in standing up for her faith in Christ along with the hopeful belief they too would be so courageous; that their faith would be so powerful they would proclaim it no matter the challenge. They're evangelicals. They like to evangelize.

The problem is this mythical. MsJack seems to understand the term myth differently than I do. Maybe she would've preferred if I said urban legend? Rumor?

[_EAllusion]

Bah.

Yes. I meant either 1) not correct or 2) incorrect.

Not both.

[Guest]

... the thematic arc of the story was, "Be ready to affirm your faith, even if it means risking your life." The account of Valeen Schnurr still supports that arc. She knew that she had already been shot, but when the gunman focused on her specifically and asked about her belief in God, she did not know whether or not an affirmative answer would further put her life at risk. The whole "She said YES" campaign that blazed through youth groups at the time was aimed at getting students to be willing to affirm their faith regardless of the risks. ...

But ... She had no idea at all 'whether or not an affirmative answer would further put her life at risk' or for that matter whether or not an NEGATIVE answer would further put her life at risk.

She had no idea what kind of answer would have been safer to give.

Now given that fact, and given that one is in any case not obliged to give a crazy gunman a truthful answer, the most intelligent thing to do might just have been to emit agonized groans in reply, or pretend to be dead. I do not of course in any way criticize this young woman for the answer she gave in her fear and pain. I doubt very much though whether she gave that answer as a result of any rational thought or explicit determination to witness to any religious faith whatever the cost.