Pharyngula

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 25, 2009 1:00 AM

bloody, heartless ghouls. so much for religion and morality

Posted by: bgbaysjr | March 25, 2009 1:02 AM

"Has she no sense of decency?" @ #1

No, none whatsoever.

All condolences to the survivors. Words chip and shatter under the weight of it...

Posted by: AlisonS | March 25, 2009 1:04 AM

I'm speechless at the inhumanity of this evil creep.

Posted by: Resa | March 25, 2009 1:07 AM

Disgusting.

Posted by: alextangent | March 25, 2009 1:13 AM

My sympathies to the Feldkamp family. Their loss is immeasurable.

Much like my disgust at the despicable Gingi Edmonds.

I don't want to turn this tragic event into some creepy spiritual 'I told you so' moment, but ...

Where's the common humanity, decency and understanding of the grief of those that have lost their loved ones? What drives Edmonds to think such a thing, far less feel the need to parade the vengeful nature of her sadistic cult in public? I'm sickened.

Posted by: dsmccoy | March 25, 2009 1:14 AM

Getting mighty close to Westboro Baptist territory here.

"I don't want to turn this tragic event into some creepy spiritual 'I told you so' moment, but ..."

but they do.

Posted by: Paper Hand | March 25, 2009 1:20 AM

I'm assuming the unit is flights, not miles

No, I'm pretty sure it's miles, totaling all flights.

Posted by: Coyote | March 25, 2009 1:26 AM

How pathetic.

Posted by: Northernskeptic | March 25, 2009 1:33 AM

what an utterly horrible excuse for a human being, preaching "god's love" while reveling in the pain and suffering of such a grief stricken family is disgusting. any god who would punish somebody by killing their family is a vicious sadistic piece of %$#@, oh wait this is the same god that was responsible for leviticus...gah! when will this mind virus finally die?

Posted by: Mr Z | March 25, 2009 1:34 AM

Having a goodly number of fundies in my family tree and some atheists, I have to say that dealing with the fundies is a case of realizing that they are actually delusional. They truly believe in the twisted fairy tales from the Bible. They ignore logic and decency because to not do so destroys the foundations of how they have built their lives.

Good things happen to bad people because satan is trying to tempt us. Bad things happen to good people because they did not listen to the right deity. These people have been brainwashed, and in as much as I have some capacity for compassion and tolerance, I sometimes wonder if we couldn't just find a vaccine for this illness. Logic is not easily injected to those afflicted with this disease. Much like you would not belittle someone suffering turrets disease, can you really hate these people deep in your being?

She had to make it an 'I told you so" moment because that is the ONLY conclusion she can draw from her brainwashed mind. The world has to fit the prophecy of her delusion, so this tragic accident HAD to have happened because he did not devote his life to the right deity. The accident is sad beyond words. Almost as sad is that there are a great number of people who can draw no other conclusion than he must be disobeying the deity.

BTW, 2000 hours is a not a lot of flying time, so rather than 2000 miles or hours, it's probably flights; like fighter pilots count experience in the number of sorties flown.

Posted by: raven | March 25, 2009 1:41 AM

Irving Feldkamp is the father of two and grandfather of five who were killed in that accident; he lost a shocking great swath of his family in that one sad afternoon.

OK, 14 died and 7 were Feldkamps. Which leaves 7 who were not Feldkamps.

So what are they besides dead? Collateral damage? You would think an all powerful diety could shoot straight, wouldn't you? Does this mean that god is getting old and needs glasses or just doesn't care much who he kills?

Or maybe this is just fundie xians doing what they have to do. Being evil as usual.

Posted by: Evangelatheist | March 25, 2009 1:43 AM

I couldn't help but send a little note to this xtian:

You are truly a heartless, evil, uncaring wretch of a human being. I suggest you practice a little more of what you preach: "you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you". (Ezekiel 35:6). You should not be celebrating this tragedy! It is christians like yourself that make me wish that the vengeful god you in which you believe is real so that he might smite you. Evidence, however, suggests that there are no gods. As such, I hope you can live with yourself and your inexcusable gloating.

Renounce your foolish belief in nonexistent gods and learn to let reason rule your life. You'll be a happier person.

Your Friendly Athiest.

May not do any good, but if she feels bad for even one second then I have done my job tonight. I'm afraid, however, that this one has visited the jesus camp a few too many times. Her email is gingi@gingiedmonds.com in case anyone else wants to express your outrage but doesn't care to visit her site.

Posted by: alextangent | March 25, 2009 1:49 AM

Evangelatheist AM #24;

I did the same and sent her an email. Here's mine;

Subject: Your offensive piece requires an apology

To: gingi@gingiedmonds.com

I read your piece on the deaths of the Feldkamp family with mounting disgust. If your intention was to develop your reputation as a person with not a shred of humanity or an iota of decency, and as someone whose very core is rotten with revenge and hatred, you have succeeded admirably.

You may never realise the magnitude of the offence you've caused. But if you think about what you've said, and the reaction to it -- and you shouldn't have to think too hard -- you might learn a little and want to reconsider what you wrote.

Whether you get it or not, you're due a lot of people an apology. Start with Bud Feldkamp.

I don't expect a reply.

Posted by: Keevan | March 25, 2009 1:52 AM

raven @ 22

The other two were the husbands of his two daughters.

Posted by: clinteas | March 25, 2009 1:55 AM

People like that just disgust me.
Well said,PZ.

And,"Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust",WTF?

Posted by: raven | March 25, 2009 1:58 AM

Look at it on the bright side. Using this wackos reasoning, god took out JD Kennedy and Falwell. Phillip Johnson, the Boalt Hall Lawyer and the father of ID isn't doing so well either. He has had several small strokes at a relatively young age.

Oddly enough, if you wait long enough, god will inevitably smite those people you don't like. One day he will get Gingi Edmonds too, although it could be tomorrow or decades from now. But he has terrible aim. While the Feldkamps children and grandchildren are gone, Feldkamp himself is still alive.

Posted by: Twin-Skies | March 25, 2009 2:03 AM

@raven

As cliche as it sounds, some there are far, far worse things than dying. One of them, at least as my uncles used to say, is realizing you will outlive your grandchildren. My heart goes out to Mr. Feldkamp - I can only guess the depth of turmoil his life must be in right now.

Posted by: Randy Owens | March 25, 2009 2:08 AM

...youth activists stood outside of Feldkamp's mini-mansion in Redlands holding fetal development signs....

Posted by: Pascalle | March 25, 2009 2:15 AM

But PZ. You should know your bible!

The bible doesn't say "though shall not gloat over other people's death"

So it's ok to do so.

And they claim atheists have no morals.. pfff....

Posted by: prettyinpink | March 25, 2009 2:23 AM

Rae, true. A lot of the mods over at Jill Stanek's can be really fickle especially with posts that call them assholes...

Posted by: Conversational Atheist | March 25, 2009 2:30 AM

"Don't ever preach at me about Christian morality: I've seen it, and it is empty of love for humanity, replaced with sanctimonious idolatry and commitment to dead, dumb superstition." - PZ

The worst part about it is that I am sure that Gingi does not feel like she is being a horrible person with what she wrote. It would be much... easier to accept if you could tell that she was thinking that she was being an ass with what she was saying. Instead, her religion has twisted her innate human compassion into a grotesque parody.

With every passing day, stories like this come out and spur me to keep up the good fight.

PZ, thank you for fighting against this harmful superstition.

- Conversational Atheist

Posted by: HalfMooner | March 25, 2009 2:42 AM

Gingi Edmonds' story is every bit as disgusting an exploitation of the deaths of innocents as any I've ever heard of.

The palpable satisfaction Ms. Edmonds displays can only be compared to... well, right now I can think of nothing to equal it.

Posted by: woodstein312 | March 25, 2009 2:47 AM

Has she no decency? At long last, has she no decency?

Posted by: Teleprompter | March 25, 2009 3:07 AM

@ woodstein312, #46

Apparently not.

Posted by: Mikewot | March 25, 2009 3:16 AM

Had a reply within minutes. One sick person:

I am merely making valid observations on factual events. I take no delight in these deaths and have had Feldkamp in my prayers long before you ever heard of him. I mourn the deaths of his children as equally as I mourn the deaths of the ones he profits from.

But hey! Thanks for taking the time to write!

Gingi Edmonds
www.gingiedmonds.com

Posted by: Twin-Skies | March 25, 2009 3:21 AM

@Mikewot

I only hope and pray that in the face of this tragedy, Feldkamp recognizes his need for repentance and reformation. I pray that God will use this unfortunate catastrophe to soften the hearts of Bud and Pam and that they will draw close to the Lord and wash their hands of the blood of thousands of innocent children, each as precious and irreplaceable as their own.

Her letter implies that there is some sort of "divine retribution" angle to this horrific accident and to Bud's own activities.

There isn't - just attempts by one obviously misguided fundie to put two and two together.

Posted by: Taliesan | March 25, 2009 3:27 AM

My letter:

Thank you Miss Edmonds. You have demonstrated to me, and many other atheists, just how sick, depraved and disgusting the Christian religious mind is.

With a mind unfettered by God, I felt compassion for those who died in the crash, and their families. You on the other hand saw fit to glory in those children's deaths, as some sort of just retribution, proving once again that your religion is not about being a decent human being, but rather the reverse, a grotesque parody of one.

To me, it was a tragedy. To you, it was a moment to say "I told you so," to get up on your pulpit, and feel joyously self-righteously avenged by the deaths of innocents.

While I could previously point to such events as the Catholic Church kicking out doctors for performing an abortion on a 9 year old girl and thus saving her life, but keeping the guy who impregnated her in the first place, or the Pope's frankly genocidal policy on AIDS in Africa, or the various statements of guys like Jerry Falwell, your column is perhaps the most visceral expression of how deeply horrible one has to be to be a Christian.

So again, I thank you for showing just what it takes to believe in "God's love."

Posted by: Evangelatheist | March 25, 2009 3:47 AM

@Mikewot #50
Got the same reply with an extra bit:

Celebrating? Did you actually READ my article? My guess is no. Why don't you actually read my article in context before you write an angry e-mails?
I am merely making valid observations on factual events. I take no delight in these deaths and have had Feldkamp in my prayers long before you ever heard of him. I mourn the deaths of his children as equally as I mourn the deaths of the ones he profits from.
And renounce my God? For what? Whatever heathen idol you're banging rocks over? Haha.. no thank you! ^_^

I fired back with a nice long email pointing out each of the nasty things she wrote (and corrected a few grammar errors that a "writer/journalist" shouldn't make). I closed with "In atheist circles, we often say about people like you: 'The stupid is strong with this one!'"

Posted by: Taliesan | March 25, 2009 3:59 AM

Evangelatheist

I got this:

Hey.. can I ask you a question? Are you pro-choice? Do you support the growing pile of minced baby pulp from the millions of innocent lives being slaughtered by abortion? Yes or no will do. You can spare me your poetic athiestic versions of hellfire preaching. ^_^

To which I responded:

I am pro-choice, because banning abortion doesn't stop them happening - all it does is put teenagers in court rooms where juries have to struggle with sending someone who is confused, scared and suffering from the guilt of having aborted their child to jail. All it does is send the operation into the back allies, where the mother's life and future is at risk thanks to the risk of infection.

In an ideal society, birth control would always be used except in cases where the prospective parents want children - and there would be no abortions except in high risk pregnancies.

But we do not live in an ideal society.

A law is only a law if you are prepared to enforce it, and I have enough compassion not to enforce that one.

Aside from that, whether I am pro-choice or not, I do not glory in innocent children dying, or the grief of their families. To me, the deaths of the children born of Nazis, is a tragedy. The child is not guilty of the "sins" of the parents.

But to you, well it kind of explains how you can reconcile Job's family being killed and then "replaced", because to you a child is just a commodity to be taken away from its parents or grandparents as a punishment, not a person in and of itself.

Posted by: Twin-Skies | March 25, 2009 4:22 AM

To be honest, her pouncing on this tragedy was better executed than some other ghouls I've seen lately, like Jack Thompson. *Brrrr*

Posted by: Liberal Atheist | March 25, 2009 4:26 AM

The fact that they're not trying to hide the darkest sides of their idiotic superstition and beliefs, suggests to me that they may truly believe what they claim to believe. If they knew it was wrong, or irrational, they would probably have tried to hide it.

Posted by: Con-Tester | March 25, 2009 4:34 AM

What virtually all of these religiously motivated anti-abortionist nuts conveniently disregard is the fact that worldwide, their god currently aborts some 30 to 40 million human foetuses annually through miscarriages. This is compounded with some eight million infant deaths annually.

“Mysterious ways” hardly begins to cover it. The thalidomide rabbits that anti-abortionists pull out of their hats in order to explain that one are a sight to behold.

Posted by: Hadron | March 25, 2009 4:42 AM

I had a look at some of Ms Edmonds other articles. It seems she knows she was being offensive and actually set out to appear so.

Why should we worry about not offending the baby killers? Killing babies offends me! If speaking the truth boldly is offensive, then pro-lifers need to get offensive. If pro-aborts want to get nasty, we can get nasty. At least our nasty doesn't end up in a bucket of saline or a trash compacter.

http://www.gingiedmonds.com/Feb18.html

Posted by: Miguel | March 25, 2009 4:51 AM

Gingi Edmonds, go fuck yourself you sanctimonious, ghoulish cretin. Pro-life activist my arse; death cultist is more like it.

Posted by: abys | March 25, 2009 4:53 AM

@50

Just amazing what sort of twisted mind this woman has. Since when has leaps of blind, maligned faith (as opposed to leaps of logic) been considered 'facts,' beyond playing a game of connect-the-dots where she's making her own dots to make a picture of a crucifix out of a picture of something else entirely?

And how the frak does her "knowing about the Feldkamps longer than you" justify/validate her disgusting opinions over others?

Unbelievable.

Posted by: Morsky | March 25, 2009 5:01 AM

Disgusting, ghoulish parasitism on the grief of others - pretty much standard MO for any religion.

What's even more disturbing, however, are her chirpy, ^_^ - filled responses to some of you who have sent her e-mail. Such proud, smug ignorance of... well, pretty much anything. Embriology, logic, world religions... This is agressive, smug ignorance in all its ugly, preening glory.

Posted by: Pwnzerfaust | March 25, 2009 5:09 AM

What a sick bitch. Sometimes I wish there was a hell, just so people like this could burn in it.

Posted by: MissPrism | March 25, 2009 5:12 AM

They protested at his "mini-mansion"? I thought a mini mansion was usually called a "house". But then, I suppose "we went to his house with gory pictures hoping to intimidate and incite violence against him and his family" doesn't show you in quite such a good light.
Fucking vultures.

Posted by: Roy Frattinger | March 25, 2009 5:30 AM

I have never written a comment in my life but this incident sickens me by beyond belief. I cannot believe a so called "Christian" Would say such a thing. It boggles my mind and just affirms all the more why I am an atheist. That someone could actually say this is beyond belief. I suppose this says more about Christianity than anything I have heard. Rot in hell Gingi Edmonds. May you never poison this earth again.

Roy Frattinger
Melbourne Australia

Posted by: Cedric Katesby | March 25, 2009 5:30 AM

Sent her an email expressing my disgust.
Also sent a quick "thumbs down" e-mail to Christian Newswire. Might not be able to reach the witch but perhaps there's somebody on the editorial staff of CN that has a sense of decency.

Posted by: kencabbit | March 25, 2009 5:43 AM

Sent her one final email. She asked me, like some of you, if I was pro-choice:
--------------------
Yup.. that would be compassion. And I've clearly got much more than you're displaying. You just seem to be a self-righteous noob who has approached me with a preconcieved notion of who I am and what I do. Is this possibly because you're pro-choice, I wonder?

Gingi Edmonds
--------------------

So I sent her this:

My complaint with you has nothing to do with pro-choice or pro-life. In fact, I don't believe I mentioned the issue. If you must know, although it remains beside the point, my moral stance is firmly against abortion. However, I actually want to make sure we have less abortions, so I support legal policies that I believe will actually reduce them. I'm not looking to get into that argument with you, as it has nothing to do with why I took offense at your article, and it's a very naive assumption on your part to think that it does. Bud Feldkamp could be a serial rapist, ex-Nazi war criminal who actually eats the flesh of infants--it would still be beside the point I was making. It would still be wrong to exploit the death of his family. I'm trying to recall an instance where Christ looked at the death of innocent children, pointed, and then said "See? This is what happens, what did we learn?"

I approached you with a notion of who you are. That notion was based on the words you wrote, and the information you've willingly provided on your website. That means I actually knew a little bit about who I was writing to, before I wrote! I had preconceived notions based on your own words, and nothing more.

You on the other hand, have approached me with numerous preconceived notions. For example: You assumed that I had no idea who Bud Feldkamp was, you assumed I am pro-choice, and you assume that I am making a claim to be righteous and compassionate. I have no compassion for you, and I would never dare to claim righteousness.

Enjoy the emailing--you seem to, anyway. For me, this will be my last reply. I just wanted to let you know that I found your words reprehensible, and in no way credit to your cause. It's not good for your message of life to write things like this-- perhaps this experience will be a learning opportunity. How have people perceived your words? I gather I'm not the only one who has taken issue.

Good luck with Life
[kencabbit]

Posted by: mwb | March 25, 2009 5:49 AM

If it were not for the obvious revenge fantasy, I would suppose that to Gingi Edmonds that Irving Feldkamp is Susan Pevensie. Even though she demonstrates the usual cognitive dissonance of a death fetishist still attached to this world, the revenge fantasy does seem appropriate: harm befalling one because of the 'sins' of another.

Posted by: Cedric Katesby | March 25, 2009 5:51 AM

Here's her reply to my letter.
Gotta love the "LOL" part.

Is a non-Christian really trying to dictate who is a 'good' Christian and who is 'terrible' one? Seriously, whats the deal? I don't try to dictate who is good and bad when it comes to you guys and your imaginary monkey gods. LOL!

Gingi Edmonds
www.gingiedmonds.com

Posted by: kencabbit | March 25, 2009 5:57 AM

@85:

Yes it's a waste of time, but I had time that needed wasting. And sometimes one feels a need to shake your fist at the brick wall even if it won't knock it down... =)

Posted by: heddle | March 25, 2009 5:58 AM

Myers,

Don't ever preach at me about Christian morality: I've seen it, and it is empty of love for humanity,

Yes of course. Because the über-rational, who base their conclusions on evidence and evidence alone, and are careful to check their presuppositions at the door (not that they have any, mind you), are correct to characterize the morals of group of ~10^9 people by the bad behavior of a relative few. Those of us who are irrational and who lack such insight would erroneously consider the possibility that every group has repulsive outliers. But that’s because we compartmentalize and suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Posted by: Joel | March 25, 2009 6:04 AM

For whatever reason, Reuters chose to run this story in the "Oddly Enough" section. Although, I don't know what would be odd about prosecuting a pilot for failing to do his job.

I'm sure Gingi would be quick to point out that the pilot was spared for his faith and the 16 who died were guilty of some sin and God was punishing them and their families.

Crash pilot who paused to pray is convicted

PALERMO (Reuters) - A Tunisian pilot who paused to pray instead of taking emergency measures before crash-landing his plane, killing 16 people, has been sentenced to 10 years in jail by an Italian court along with his co-pilot.

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE52N63B20090325

Posted by: Heywood | March 25, 2009 6:07 AM

My deepest condolences for the victims' families.

And as for the "Christian" author, I wish to spit in her face.

Posted by: Amph | March 25, 2009 6:09 AM

It occurs to me that those guys are so Old Testament. Christians in Europe and South America seem more New Testament. No death penalty, for instance, less hateful (see also Sam Harris on this topic). I know, JC may not always be Mister Nice Guy either, but in comparison to the fascist-God of the Old Testament he really is a congenial person.
Remains the fact that you hardly ever hear this kind of crab from Jews, who only have an Old Testament - so perhaps those holy books are just an excuse for some people with sadistic minds full of resentment.

Posted by: Strangebrew | March 25, 2009 6:10 AM

I rather take exception to the 'Christian Newswire' organisation that printed this filth...

She is just a twisted bitter dollop of fossilised dino sick...

What is their excuse...?

Posted by: Saxon | March 25, 2009 6:14 AM

Have any of you read the entire article? It sure doesn't sound like it.Such a mob mentality. This was a horrific accident, one that would be akin to a drunk driver who finally realizes he needs to sober up when he kills a large family. Pointing out that the man profits from owning 17 abortion clinics, and that he's being prayed for by many people (first to stop dealing in death, and now for his loss and for those who he lost)...does not equal the horrid things you all seem to think.

It is so easy to write nasty things about a person you might never meet, it's like flipping off someone on the freeway that is going the opposite direction. You feel really vindicated for whatever slight you feel they dealt you...but how awkward it would be to have them come face to face with you sometime later.

Can you imagine how much a young girl aches when she DID see one of those children face to face, then learns that they are dead? The original author asks that question, good grief man, of course she thought of that. That's what hurts so badly. I know atheists can never understand what a Christian believes and feels, but please know, when we pray for someone, it is out of love.

Warning a person from dangerous behaviors isn't a bad thing. Inviting evil into your life by conducting money making deals that pay with the blood of innocent children is just asking for trouble.

No one believes that God caused that accident. The fact is, evil is in the world. Bad things happen to good people all the time. Bud Feldkamp made millions off the deaths of preborn children, and now, he's lost nearly all of his. How horrid is that? We can only pray that this tragic event will show him how precious life is, and he will choose to distance himself from the evil that we believe attacked his family.

Trust me, Gingi is not revelling in anything. She is sickened by this. She'd seen these people, face to face, she'd prayed for them. They were strangers, but not. She spoke to one of Dr. Feldkamp's friends, and was able to express her heartfelt condolences. He was of course very distraught, but even he was unaware of his friend's business dealings.

I know nothing I write here will be taken seriously, nothing will matter...you all have already made up your minds that she is the evil one, she is so bad. So be it. That is your right, freedom of speech and all. Just know, as a mother, I am very proud of her for bringing this story to light...and in the original that was clipped/snipped/edited...she asked for prayer for the whole Feldkamp family. She's very brave, much more brave than I. This is a hostile, angry world, and all these posts prove that. As her mother, I can only pray that none of you have to sit by and hear such horrible things said about your child. Because, like I said, she was not gloating, she was not taking delight, she was extremely shaken by this event, and she felt it was important to share it.

Posted by: Mike Doughney | March 25, 2009 6:20 AM

Having heard Flip Benham, the then-head of Operation Rescue (now Operation Save America) make nearly identical comments back in 1997 about a doctor who had recently died in a plane crash, I realized back then that people with such amoral, cretinous beliefs are a substantial portion of the American population. Ever since then I have assumed that those who based every life decision on superstitious nonsense about basic causation - not necessarily always Christian, mind you, but inexplicably confident about their delusions - would simply disregard any rational thought. Events in the 12 years since then at a national level seem to have confirmed my assumption.

Posted by: Michelle | March 25, 2009 6:22 AM

Okay... this is the kind of shit I don't want to read when I just woke up.

Loathsome, evil, contemptible BITCH. Human life is nothing to them and their god. Her views are TWISTED SILLY by her religion.

Posted by: Daniel de Rauglaudre | March 25, 2009 6:26 AM

Believers have a method to interpret God's decisions:

When something bad happens to their enemies, they say: "this is God revenge".

When something bad happens to them, they say: "it is a God test for our faith".

Posted by: Atheist Chaplain | March 25, 2009 6:28 AM

Funnily enough I cam across this post again via "Stumble" and I see that in typical Christian fashion this typical "Christian" Gingi Edmonds is easily ably to justify her morally barren world view through her adherence to the big sky daddy.
And please SimoN even you must see the absurdity of telling us that its OK to not believe in god, but not OK to go against him, the irony of that statement should shine as a beacon in the night, after all how can we go against something we believe only exists in the minds of sociopaths and the morally and ethically bankrupt.

Posted by: bsk | March 25, 2009 6:30 AM

Saxon:

Your post shows clearly how far your mind has been ruined by your faith, and I can only assume the same is true for your daughter. Taking that into consideration, I find it difficult to condemn her as several others have here. Her case simply shows yet again that the human race will never be free until religion is eradicated.

Posted by: Taliesan | March 25, 2009 6:33 AM

Saxon

Oh fuck you. She was using the coffins of those kids as her little soap box and to tell a grieving grandfather that he deserved it.

That is Christianity in action.

Posted by: Kel | March 25, 2009 6:38 AM

The children are safe now with the Creator. They are innocent, God loves them therefore He took them back.

Posted by: Thomas | March 25, 2009 6:40 AM

Throwing in the word "unfortunate" does not detract from the disgusting nature of her message: that the actions of the father somehow led to the destruction of innocent children. I am horrified that any religious activist would use such a tragedy, feign shock, and then make a statement that implied these events were divine retribution.

Posted by: bsk | March 25, 2009 6:43 AM

Wait wait wait, didn't Simon win the booby prize in Survivor: Pharyngula?

Posted by: sioux laris | March 25, 2009 6:45 AM

Saxon,

Thanks for showing me your tunnel at the end of any light. That you are sincere is the deepest indictment I can make of a truly ugly, carefully ignorant of itself arrogance.

[spits]

How much harder it is to accept that ANY religious person can be other than bad with shits like yourself representing the "gentle and forgiving" side of their faith.

[spits]

Posted by: Taliesan | March 25, 2009 6:48 AM

bsk

Yep.

I think PZ can add Morphing to the list?

Posted by: Strangebrew | March 25, 2009 6:51 AM

118#

think about this coincidence, abortion, kids, and cemetery

Think about this coincidence...moron...your god killed innocent kids...but he spared you and mizzy bile to pollute the planet with the miasma of poisonous vicious sludge...your god is a fucking lunatic...or is that his followers?

Posted by: Justin | March 25, 2009 6:53 AM

"I know atheists can never understand what a Christian believes and feels, but please know, when we pray for someone, it is out of love."

We would never be able to understand as none of us were ever christians or members of other religious groups in the past.

Posted by: FlameDuck | March 25, 2009 6:58 AM

Because the über-rational, who base their conclusions on evidence and evidence alone, and are careful to check their presuppositions at the door (not that they have any, mind you), are correct to characterize the morals of group of ~10^9 people by the bad behavior of a relative few.

Death for Christian is seeing God, nothing to be afraid of, instead we are waiting for the time coming.

I know, JC may not always be Mister Nice Guy either, but in comparison to the fascist-God of the Old Testament he really is a congenial person.

Inviting evil into your life by conducting money making deals that pay with the blood of innocent children is just asking for trouble.

You think Tripp Johnston is going to have a fighting chance at a normal life?

Posted by: faithless | March 25, 2009 6:59 AM

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

...stop sending emails to the woman. All it does is feed her ego. Telling her that she is wrong - either generally, or in the article she wrote - is rather like shouting at Stephen Hawking that he should just bloody well stand up and walk.

If it's not in DSM-IV as a recognised illness - 'inability to put horrifying events in a proper perspective due to religious perversion', then it's going to make it into DSM-V.

Westboro, Robertson, Edmonds --- these are mould breakers, christianity untainted by christ-like virtues.

Posted by: Rjaye | March 25, 2009 7:02 AM

Justin, I think you nailed it. People who are self righteous and feel they can tell other adults how to live and believe have lost their empathy. They cannot see how others can believe as they do at all. They have to protect their delusion and ascribe other people's "alien" behaviors and ideas as "sin" because it threatens their identity. It's a phobia.

As usual, it's always about the "cause." No suspicion that maybe the "cause" is a delusional sinkhole that hampers their very humanity in truly feeling care and compassion for a stranger in such dire circumstances.

And Simon-what's your deal (if PZ lets another comment slide through)? These drive-by whatevers are perplexing. Sometimes really headscratching. You have got to be a Poe, though how would I know?

Metta.

Posted by: FlameDuck | March 25, 2009 7:05 AM

Do not be arrogant, you WILL get a miserable life one day, next month, next year,

I mean it's like the gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by: david | March 25, 2009 7:12 AM

Did ANY of you actually read her article?
I first read Myers' post and I thought my God! What are these wackos saying now? Are they like that nutty family that protests at the service mens' funerals? I thought it would be necessary to respond and distance myself from the wackos. Before I did I read her article, all of it.

However, after the read I did not come away with the same conclusions Mr. Myers did. I believe this was due to Mr. Myers drawing conclusions based on what HE thought She thought and adding descriptions such as hideous, evil article, moral cretin, monsters, grim satisfaction, payback, amoral pious hypocrites, bloody-handed god, death cult, horror and sanctimonious does not inform it is vindictive.

I did NOT come away with the sense that she "makes it sound like divine retribution" but rather found her article to be worth my time to read.

Mr. Myers could have done a much better job in the article or attacked some other issue and done better. I find myself now thinking Mr. Myers is the hateful one and wonder why he feels the need to do this?

Posted by: Wolfhound | March 25, 2009 7:18 AM

You know, there are an inordinate amount of church buses that crash every year, killing all or most of the passengers. I wonder how offended/pissed/disgusted Gingi (isn't that a dog's name?) would get if a Muslim activist wrote a newswire article that pointed out how the author kept telling those Christians that Allah was the one true God and they needed to accept Him or suffer the consequences. I'm fairly certain Gingi and her ilk wouldn't appreciate the "I told you so" treatment from somebody of another faith. I mean, Muslims have been telling Christians for centuries that their faith is false. Shouldn't they listen before any more buses crash? Those who won't heed the warning deserve what they get, obviously.

Posted by: Strangebrew | March 25, 2009 7:19 AM

127#

It is not a threat, it happened to many peoples who desecrated Host.

Like who ?
Talking shit does not garantee that you are a impeachable source of such nonsense...

Do not be arrogant

Heal thyself clown!

you WILL get a miserable life one day, next month, next year

What a lovely Christian thought!

until the doctor would say "you get a cancer, your life would end soon"

Your Christian belief is such a well balanced and wise impediment!

i hope you won't be late at that time to ask for forgiveness.

Yes you do...because then you can parrot the sick bitch that began ..."I don't want to say I told you so ...but...."

For fuck sake throw him overboard or deep six the troll in purgatory PZ...this idiot is very sickly...it would be a kindness.

Posted by: kencabbit | March 25, 2009 7:21 AM

#137

I read the whole article. I actually read the whole article BEFORE I read the full PZ blog post. It did come off as if she was suggesting divine retribution. She went out of her way to argue that there was no known cause for the accident, as if it that was meaningful enough to devote a lot of time to. And it was meaningful, for her, since I feel she was suggesting that God had a hand in it, and I think most of the people here saw the same thing I did in that.

It was disgusting. I didn't need PZ Myers to point that out.

Posted by: jasonk | March 25, 2009 7:23 AM

I don't want to turn this tragic event into some creepy spiritual 'I told you so' moment,

Then don't. Asshole.

Posted by: Widgetas | March 25, 2009 7:25 AM

@137
Well I just read the entire article. You might have noticed that PZ removed all the incidental paragraphs explaining the crash, and the paragraphs talking about Feldcamp's business dealings (are these true? I see no references).
So we're left with the biased ramblings of a self confessed zealot, who's saying "Look! Look at the retribution! How great our god is visiting justice on those who now-I-come-to-think-of-it-are-innocent-of-these-'crimes'!"

As such, f*ck her.

Posted by: Doc J | March 25, 2009 7:28 AM

@ #131 Faithless

Unfortunately I am currently studying under a large portion of people who write the DSM criteria. They are currently cranking out DSM-V (probably due end of this year) and while they are apparently going to replace "borderline personality disorder" with "emotional intensity disorder," there is going to be no new entry for those unable to cope with things properly due to their religious affiliation.

Shame, though.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | March 25, 2009 7:30 AM

Leigh Williams @ 43:

Let me remind you that Jesus told us, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." What do you imagine He will say to you when your actions here on earth are reviewed? He will say to you, "As you did, so will I do to you. Go from me; you said 'Lord, Lord,' but you knew me not."

You mean Gingi goes to Hell?

Leigh, I didn't think you had it in you. And there was me thinking you were "probably not salvageable"!

Posted by: Desert Son | March 25, 2009 7:36 AM

There's a line spoken in the HBO television series Band of Brothers, in the last episode ("Points"), when a German army colonel surrenders to one of the central characters of the show, Maj. Richard Winters. The surrender is quiet and serene, not in the midst of exploding shells and bloody bodies, though World War II still goes on. The colonel says, having formally surrendered,

"I wonder what will happen to us when there are no more wars to occupy us."

I thought of that upon reading the post, Edmonds' commentary (and for all her insistence that she was just "reporting facts," it was commentary), and the thread, including Saxon's comment.

"I wonder what will happen to us when there are no more wars to occupy us."

Gods have been one of the oldest and most driving inspirations for human conflict, even if only as a mask for economic and territorial gain. The sinister ingenuity of gods is that, when all other wars to occupy us have ceased, there exists another reason, readily at hand and needing little or no justification in order to once more beat plowshares into swords.

Even if some mighty supernatural calamity swept down from the sky today and wiped the earth clean of any who had ever had an abortion, had ever contemplated an abortion, had ever performed an abortion, had ever entered into a discussion about abortion, was ever destined (in the absurd Calvinist sense) to have an abortion, or had ever stood in solidarity and comfort for one who had an abortion, then I submit that by tomorrow those dancing on the smoking corpses in celebration of righteous vindication would turn their gaze upon someone else tomorrow, all the while whetstones coursing sparks from the edges of their blades.

Supremely ironic in the darkest sense is the fact that, if gods really existed, and if they had agency in the world as claimed by followers down through the ages, then the gods themselves have been the most extensive and efficient performers of abortion in history. If worshipers of the supernatural value collections of developing cells so much, why then do they clamor with such fervor for those spirits supposedly at work in the world clearly responsible for destruction of those cells in numbers so large as to shake the senses?

As a final word to Saxon, to which I must hope I receive no reply, as I find this all too sad, I will reveal that I was brought up an Episcopalian, raised as a believer in that church, and clutching that belief for many years, until slowly reason and thought and reflection brought me to realize that I do not believe in gods, and that however much I may enjoy fiction invoking wizards and vampires and dragons and ghosts and psionics and powers from beyond, that such art as employs those devices does not make those elements true to life, except as concepts of imagination born of our own biochemistry. To suggest that many here could not understand Christians and Christianity is to partake of the No True Scotsman fallacy, suggesting as it does that those of us from Christian backgrounds were not, in fact, "doing it right." I submit that the manner in which we were doing it was, if nothing else, another signpost on the road pointing us to abandonment of the supernatural.

I have a long day ahead of me, and am sorry I began it by reading about Edmonds' loathsome missive. Some days start that way, after all.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: catgirl | March 25, 2009 7:54 AM

These people are so hypocritical. The Bible itself says that bad things that happen to people are not punishment for sins. In fact, I think it was Jesus who said it in the Bible. Also, the Bible says very little about abortion anyway, It says that forced abortion is wrong, but absolutely not the same thing as murder. I wish these people would spend more time reading the Bible and less time pretending it supports their hate.

Posted by: JP | March 25, 2009 7:57 AM

I can't help but get the feeling that this woman's stance will be bolstered further when she spews upon receiving our emails, " I"ve made the atheists angry....I must be doin somethin' right, praise jeebus."

Posted by: John | March 25, 2009 8:14 AM

Rank delusion:

1. "... also does abortions."

Don't make me laugh please.

2. "All I can feel is horror at the kinds of monsters who would find grim satisfaction in the death of 6 to 10 year old children..."

Some people feel horror at the "grim satisfaction" over the death of the unborn.
This man was killing babies for profit--although I am not partial to "divine retribution".

It is a sad irony.

There is no logical basis for you feeling sorry for the "6 to 10 years olds" and not the unborn. Certainly not one that is not arbitrary ("Well, they were actual children!")

3. "Has Gingi Edmonds considered the possibility that that "small child in tow" that she ignored to shout slogans and wave signs at Feldkamp might now be one of the shattered dead lying in that field?"

There is no reason to think not.

4. "Is she aware that the Feldkamp family is probably haunted more by the good memories, the loss of ones they loved, than the hate shouted at them by religious fanatics?"

How cute. But how is a protest against abortion "hate"?
Don't project your morals and world view on other people. Maybe, just maybe they believe that abortion is murder, and that it destroys a society.

5. "Don't ever preach at me about Christian morality: I've seen it, and it is empty of love for humanity, replaced with sanctimonious idolatry and commitment to dead, dumb superstition."

It's not any better on your side. The Soviets and Chinese government (not to mention Pol Pot) showed us that one--although you've yet to take responsibility for it.

I want you to explain (with your much-loved "rationalism") why this death is any less tragic than your run-of-the-mill abortion; or why a 6 year old is empirically worth "more" than a baby in the womb.

Or better yet, why you don't just tell women who have had a miscarriage to "Get over it! It wasn't a real baby anyway. It wasn't worth anything."

Stick to logic, eh.

Posted by: Ranson | March 25, 2009 8:18 AM

Desert Son/Robert

That there's a Molly-worthy post in my opinion. Cuts right to the heart of things.

Posted by: Ploon | March 25, 2009 8:19 AM

Comsympinko @ #158:

Hear hear. Nice first post.

Posted by: Geek | March 25, 2009 8:21 AM

John #159

There is no logical basis for you feeling sorry for the "6 to 10 years olds" and not the unborn.

By the same argument, you could extend this to all spermatozoa. And no getting around that with "Well, they were actual children!" You just ruled that one out. Oops.

Posted by: Ploon | March 25, 2009 8:24 AM

Is it time yet to start with the jokes? Do you think her middle name is Vitis? That could explain her sour outlook on life.

Posted by: 10channel | March 25, 2009 8:27 AM

Christians are not pro-life; they are pro-death. All of their preaching about death and afterlife proves it all already.

Posted by: Don Smith | March 25, 2009 8:28 AM

So, the writer is saying that sacrificing children is a good way to teach a lesson about sacrificing children? Seems to be a paradox here.

(pz) You bring up something that I find common in many stories about the loss of loved ones: Christians believe that their lives are so more important than others, including their loved ones, that their god will sacrifice those others to "teach them a lesson". In other words, they learning a lesson from their god is so important as to make the life of the loved one so trivial that it can be in play to be sacrificed.

I think back a few years to a husband and wife who had their five children in the back of their minivan when it was hit from behind and the van caught fire. They had to stand there and watch their five children burn alive. Their comment on national television was that God was teaching them a lesson. Apparently they thought their lesson was more important then the life ahead for each of the five children; the loves, adventures, and children in the future of those children were expendable just to teach the parents a lesson. I never could figure out what that lesson was and why they thought that lesson was more important than the lives of their children. Their god also thought it was so important that each child needed to feel the anguish of being burned alive.

Posted by: Robert Davidson | March 25, 2009 8:34 AM

While I share the dismay that motivated them, I can't see that angry, critical emails to the author do anything except polarise the positions further - isn't there a more useful response?

Posted by: 10channel | March 25, 2009 8:38 AM

@#159 John
"There is no logical basis for you feeling sorry for the '6 to 10 years olds' and not the unborn. Certainly not one that is not arbitrary ('Well, they were actual children!')"
So those heartless Christians felt sorry for either? I doubt it.

"Don't project your morals and world view on other people."
It is, after all, the Christians who are trying to push laws banning abortion. That is definitely projecting morals on other people.

Posted by: Eidolon | March 25, 2009 8:42 AM

Robert -

What other response would you suggest? How about "Gingi - I was a bit disappointed that you chose to use the unfortunate deaths of children to reinforce your anti-abortion stand."

That mild enough? Look - by opening this window into her thoughts she revealed how she views the world. I think it is honestly twisted and sick. She needs to know that people are appalled by this.

Posted by: Blue Girl | March 25, 2009 8:48 AM

What kind of sick freak could worship a god like that?

And what the hell kind of name is 'Gingi" for a grown woman? That was the name of a Boxer my parents had to put down when I was a kid.

Posted by: 10channel | March 25, 2009 8:51 AM

@#176 Michelle
"By their logic, if a plane full of children of pro-life parents crashes, it is a proof that God approves abortion."
Also by their logic, if two planes happen to fly into two tall buildings causing them to collapse, then it is proof that "god" hated everybody who died.

Posted by: Rick Schauer | March 25, 2009 9:00 AM

Saint Gingi and her moment of schadenfreude...bitch!

Posted by: Carlie | March 25, 2009 9:02 AM

I don't want to turn this tragic event into some creepy spiritual 'I told you so' moment, but

Anytime someone says "I don't want to" or "I don't mean to" and then follows it with a "but", they're most likely about to make an ass out of themselves.

Posted by: Robert Davidson | March 25, 2009 9:08 AM

@Eidolon

I'm not sure what response - I'm wondering how it could be done in such as way as to be clear, not minimising the appalling attitudes she has displayed (I agree that being mild is not helpful; it's dishonest for one thing), but also not to dehumanise Gingi.

I can't see how really personal attacks help anything. What do you think?

Posted by: elbuho | March 25, 2009 9:13 AM

PZ just announced on Twitter that he has totaled his car in the snow on the way to the airport, and is stuck in Glenwood, MN

Posted by: Wolfhound | March 25, 2009 9:16 AM

Robert, your concern is noted.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | March 25, 2009 9:18 AM

#176 "By their logic, if a plane full of children of pro-life parents crashes, it is a proof that God approves abortion."

Nope, if that happened then it's Satan's doing...

Posted by: norzoc | March 25, 2009 9:21 AM

It isn't possible to drop a comment on Gingi Edmonds site. You have to write her a mail. She'll know why pretty well

Posted by: Carlie | March 25, 2009 9:23 AM

I know atheists can never understand what a Christian believes and feels

Except the ones who used to be devout Christians. Not pretend Christan pew warmers, absolutely devoted zealous Christians. I know it puts terror into your very soul to know those exist, but we are out there.

Posted by: elbuho | March 25, 2009 9:24 AM

http://twitter.com/pzmyers

# Now stuck in a tiny town with no way tothe airport. Waiting for my wife to pick me up...but she has to drive slowly, too.7 minutes ago from mobile web

# Yeah, car is totaled-wheels pointing in diff directions. I'm OK, except for little cuts from a broken glass shower.10 minutes ago from mobile web

# Disaster. Trying to get to the airport it's snowing, totaled the car in a crash. Now stranded in Glenwood.43 minutes ago from mobile web

Posted by: Greg Laden | March 25, 2009 9:30 AM

PZ is reporting that he was just in a car wreck:

PZ Myers Car Wrecked in Accident: Myers Suffers Minor Injuries

Posted by: norzoc | March 25, 2009 9:31 AM

@Ian Too:
Great email!
That's the best way to deal with that.

Posted by: Fez | March 25, 2009 9:32 AM

@179, her real name might be Suzi. From her domain registration:

Administrative Contact:
Edmonds, Suzi dizneewench@yahoo.com
1400 Fitzgerald Lane
Hanford, California 93230
United States
(559) 772-7911 Fax --

Posted by: adina | March 25, 2009 9:36 AM

I wonder if she also demonizes Holocaust victims or African-American slaves, or believes that they "deserved" their fate, due to something they did. Is this how she thinks justice works?

Posted by: caveman73 | March 25, 2009 9:40 AM

I only wish, in this moment, that there was a hell. That so Gingi Edmonds could rot in it. But the reality is she will live on spreading the evil of her religion and saddly corupting the minds of countless others.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | March 25, 2009 9:42 AM

Disgusting in any event--but of course she doesn't understand the Bible she so relentlessly pounds, either. She quotes Ezekiel, who rejected more clearly than any of the other prophets the notions of collective guilt and punishment. I hope she's overwhelmed with hate mail.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | March 25, 2009 9:44 AM

Amanda #202 "how Gingi's article is different from the post that PZ put up a few days ago about the praying pilot? Can't it be argued that both PZ and Gingi are capable of being sad over the loss of lives while still experiencing a bit of schadenfreude?"

No. PZ wasn't expressing joy that the pilot crashed and killed people. He was expressing disgust that people died because the pilot praying instead of conducting emergency procedures caused the crash, when it could have been avoided.

They're both pointing out the same thing: religion hurts people more than it help because it makes people do/say stupid things because it stops people from thinking.

Posted by: Teddydeedodu | March 25, 2009 9:45 AM

Amanda @202

"...but I just don't see what's so different about her response to the plane crash and PZ's (and the commenters') response to the praying pilot."

Well, for a start, PZ never attributed the Sicily crash to a Divine cause. :)

Posted by: SPAM!!! | March 25, 2009 9:51 AM

All out spam campaign anyone???

Posted by: Joe | March 25, 2009 9:55 AM

The plane was a Pilatus?
And nobody's drawn some batzo-crazy metaphysical conclusion yet?
I wash my hands.

Posted by: Greg Laden | March 25, 2009 9:56 AM

UPDATE:

PZ Myers Car Wrecked in Accident: Myers Suffers Minor Injuries

Posted by: Strangebrew | March 25, 2009 9:58 AM

Try to grow a heart, won't you?

That seems to be the problem...those with a supposedly Christian outlook seem to have either no interest or more likely no capability or capacity...of growing a brain...let alone a heart.

Several posts on this thread demonstrate that lack of simple humanity...maybe to be a jeebus clone that is the price they pay...or the rest of rational humanity has to pay...whatever!

Their sky daddy must be so proud of them.

Posted by: alextangent | March 25, 2009 9:59 AM

Got this as a reply from the foul Gingi;

LOL, nice cut and paste. If you ever feel compelled to actually read my article in context and personally write me an e-mail instead of parroting the regurgitated BS being fed to you, that's be great!

In the meantime, unless you would like to engage in a productive dialogue, you can go take your self-righteous fist-shaking elsewhere darling. ^_^

Douchebag.

Posted by: Carlie | March 25, 2009 10:04 AM

I once had a Pro-Life Christian girlfriend. She would frequently write pro-life letters to the governor stating her dissatisfaction with his pro-choice views. She also had a sweet and generous side that I truly loved.

It is easy to love and be generous to people you agree with. The hard part is being good to people who are acting in a way you personally disapprove of. I would hazard a guess that a 14 year old raped girl who was denied an abortion because your girlfriend's letters swayed the governor to ban them in the state would see her in a different light.

Posted by: raven | March 25, 2009 10:07 AM

Ever notice that there are large numbers of hurricanes and tornados in the south central USA, Oklahoma, Louisisana, Texas, and so on? Which cause immense destruction and kill huge numbers of people. This area is of course, the fundie heartland.

Using Gingi E.'s logic, god must hate fundie xians.

Polls show that the majority of the US population feels the same way, most of them other xians.

There is, of course, an alternative explanation that says, "weather happens" believed by a small minority of well over 50% of the population.

I don't know why anyone bothered emailing the godzombie. This is a religious fanatic every bit as twisted and hate filled as any moslem suicide bomber or xian witch hunter-burner.

Posted by: Natalie | March 25, 2009 10:08 AM

Amanda,

I don't know if I would say that Edmonds is expressing joy, but she certainly seems to be saying "I told you so", and attributing the deaths of these children to God's wrath over abortions.

In reality, though, Feldkamp's owning a family planning clinic has no direct bearing on the accident, where as the pilot in the previous post was neglecting to do his job because he was praying.

Posted by: Louis | March 25, 2009 10:09 AM

Oh and as for the topic of the OP:

Ghoulish christian fundamentalist arsehole creeps out of woodwork when something (in this case extremely) unpleasant happens to someone they don't agree with. Film at 11.

This is Falwell/Robertson/Phelps/most of the fundamentalists I encounter Standard Playbook 101. The problem is not that this reaction from Edmonds is shocking, it is that it is not shocking ENOUGH.

PZ's hyperbole (however right or righteous or otherwise) is being used by some, see Heddle @ 90 for example*, as an excuse to miss (or deprioritise) the opportunity to condemn their "brethren's" less than fulsomely lovely actions. I'm not saying PZ's hyperbole is out of place, just that there are a frighteningly large number of people quite willing to hide (dishonestly) behind such hyperbole in order to avoid dealing with the real elephant in the room. Again, the "moderate" protection of "extreme" religion is shocking, but not shocking ENOUGH.

People across the world, lots and lots of them, billion by uncountable billion should be shocked by this sort of thing. But they aren't. Just another data point in the banality of evil files I guess.

Louis

*Heddle, I singled you out because yours was the clearest post. I know you mentioned the "bad individuals" and as such would probably criticise this Edmonds character viciously. Of course I could use this as an opportunity to ask "Who appointed you God's spokesman and the rule by which True Christianity(TM) is measured" but we both know it would go no where. So sorry for singling you out but actually, you make my point for me quite well. Sorry.

Posted by: Seth | March 25, 2009 10:10 AM

I suggest we all write angry emails to this she devil and flame her unmercifully for her idiocy.

Alternately if any one finds naked pictures of gingi edmonds there are some gentlemen at 4chan that would love to see them.

Posted by: Mark Stevens | March 25, 2009 10:11 AM

To Ms. Edwards, I read your article about the Feldkamp tragedy and must say that everything that I have ever believed about your absurd religion has been confirmed. Your article is reprehensible and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that your gods answer to Mr. Feldkamps activities is to kill more children. Christianity is morally repugnant and your comments prove this. God of love, indeed. God of hate and retribution, of genocide and murder, petty, small, and evil, particularly in light of your asinine, vengeful and foolish remarks. I only hope that someday you will come to your senses and learn to break free from that small confining space you call a brain and view the real world for what it is without fear of punishment or retribution from some mythological overlord. How dare you. How dare you make such statements and then imply that it was your prayers for punishment on him that caused this tragedy. Shame on you. How can you possibly look yourself in the mirror? I have seldom ever read anything as disgusting, as revolting as this article. You have offended many millions of people and I hope that the day comes when you rue the decision to publish publicly such imbecilic tripe. Cretin.

Posted by: Amanda | March 25, 2009 10:12 AM

@Natalie

Thank you. That helped - there are certainly differences there. Thanks for answering my question without jumping on me like some of the others here have.

Posted by: pmont | March 25, 2009 10:16 AM

Saxon:

Inviting evil into your life by conducting money making deals that pay with the blood of innocent children is just asking for trouble.

G. Edmonds:

Hello rude person! Excuse my impertinence in pointing out your hypocrisy, but do you support the holocaust of America's children?

John:

I want you to explain (with your much-loved "rationalism") why this death is any less tragic than your run-of-the-mill abortion; or why a 6 year old is empirically worth "more" than a baby in the womb.

Science lesson time. Embryos, blastulas, and yes, pharyngulas, are not humans. They have the potential to become human, but as they exist, they have more in common with architectural blueprints. If you tear up a blueprint, you can always draw another blueprint. It might not be 100% identical to the lost blueprint, but nobody will know the difference once the building is built. The investment contained in the production of the blueprint (embryo) is minuscule bordering on insignificant compared with the investment placed in a fully-fledged building (human being). Anyone who considers the blueprint/embryo and the building/human as having the same value is simply wrong.

There are many natural factors that can and do contrbute to the premature destruction of embryos. It happens all the time.

From MedlinePlus: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm

It is estimated that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among known pregnancies, the rate of miscarriage is approximately 10% and usually occurs between the 7th and 12th weeks of pregnancy.

These are not human deaths. They are "miscarriages," or "spontaneous abortions." A woman who wants to have a baby and who suffers from a miscarriage is grief-stricken because her hopes have been dashed, and she feels a terrible loss akin to the death of a loved-one; such feelings are understandable. A woman who has an elective abortion might also feel bad about it, or she might not. The point is, how a woman feels about an abortion or miscarriage is irrelevant to what an abortion actually is. The destruction of an embryo is a commonplace occurrence in nature and is a trivial event. An abortion or miscarriage might be important to a woman and perhaps to her family, but it makes no difference to unrelated people or to the universe at large, despite unrealistic religious protestations to the contrary.

Posted by: Amanda | March 25, 2009 10:19 AM

Strangebrew @#234 "Before expressing concern for her well-being...maybe you should express concern for the folk that have to pick up the pieces of shattered lives.

Strangebrew, I do not have any concern for Gingi's wellbeing. She has come off as an arrogant brat and I don't have much respect for her.

I simply had a question that I wanted answered. I am more concerned about the way that we athiests present ourselves than I am about a 23 year-old pro-life kook.

And please don't suggest that I have no concern for the victims of this crash. You couldn't possibly know how I feel about them.

Posted by: Carlie | March 25, 2009 10:21 AM

The piece seems so surreal that all I can focus on is wondering why god would have killed the children in divine retribution instead of the father..

That's easy: to make him suffer more.

Posted by: Kemist | March 25, 2009 10:26 AM

I pray that God will use this unfortunate catastrophe to soften the hearts of Bud and Pam and that they will draw close to the Lord ...

clueless god : "Now that I've killed you kids and grand kids, will you worship Me ?"

me, building an incendiary bomb : "Fat chance motherfucker. See ya in Hell."

Posted by: SimoN | March 25, 2009 10:27 AM

I am looking for email address of Mr Irving to post my following letter, anybody know his address ?

==========================================================
Dear Mr Irving Feldkamp III,

i am very sorry to hear a bad news about your family plane accident which killed your daughters and grandchildren. I believe you love them very much.
I got the news from PZ Myers blog (the supporter of abortion) and found that you have a bloody business which make you a millionaire. No wonder the week-long vacation was planned at The Yellowstone Club, a millionaires-only ski resort.

Someone already reminded you about your bloody business but you were deaf. Do you remember the story of Pharaoh and Moses ? His beloved son was taken by God, so he suffered and life became miserable.
You must have the same feeling as Pharaoh, that feeling we call it Hell.
Your money and whole property are useless now, they can't buy your beloved life. They are just paper and numbers.

I resented you did not read the testimony of Bernard Nathanson. In his book, Sick of Death, there is a testimony of Dr Anthony Levatino, he lost his child :

"Life was good until June 23, 1984. On that date, I was on call, but I was at home at the time. We had some friends over, and our children were playing in the back of the yard.

At 7:25 that evening, we heard the screech of brakes out in front of the house. We ran outside and Heather was lying in the road. We did everything we could, and she died.

When you lose a child, your child, life is very different. Everything changes. All of a sudden, the idea of a person's life becomes very real. It is not an embryology course anymore. It's not just a couple of hundred dollars. It's the real thing. It's your child you buried."
http://prolifeaction.org/providers/levatino.htm

Back again to Pharaoh, he did not repent until he was vanished. He lost everything, even his life after death.

I hope by this tragedy, you are able to turn back to the Way, the Life and the Truth, so that you can meet your beloved again later in Heaven.
Use your time before late, we are all sinners who hate the sin.

Truly yours,
Simon

============================================================

Posted by: ??? | March 25, 2009 10:29 AM

Do not be arrogant, you WILL get a miserable life one day, next month, next year, until the doctor would say "you get a cancer, your life would end soon" and you remember 25.03.2009, i hope you won't be late at that time to ask for forgiveness.

Looks like Simon is once again engaging in projection. Then again, that's the entire arsenal of his ilk, isn't it?

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | March 25, 2009 10:29 AM

What kind of sick freak could worship a god like that?

A natural slave.

Posted by: AJ Milne | March 25, 2009 10:31 AM

Y'know, there's a certain theotroll 'round these parts, if I were to get any of him on my shoe, I wouldn't deign to scrape it off...

Nope. I'd just remove the shoe (gingerly, so as not to get any of the foul ichor on my hands) and burn it. Prolly in a real hot incinerator, if I could find one handy, just for safety's sake.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: Invigilator | March 25, 2009 10:34 AM

Clearly a warning to PZ from YHWH! Stop spreading your atheistic tomfoolery or it will be worse the next time! Bwahahahahah!

I will not, however, donate to help you buy a Hummer!

Posted by: sharky | March 25, 2009 10:36 AM

I called the Christian Newswire and got an actual person. I inquired about the article and was told that all they did was distribute what they were sent.

I said "I'm surprised an organization dedicated to a religion would post something so damaging to its faith."

He said "okay."

I thanked him and hung up. It's the organization's call if they want to blacken their own religion.

Posted by: Mike Caton | March 25, 2009 10:38 AM

Look for the silver lining. Yet another horror story to parade in front of self-described moderate or liberal Christians, one more opportunity to make them wonder if they're really in the right place. In the same vein I never miss an opportunity to repeat comments from Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell.

Posted by: Tony Sidaway | March 25, 2009 10:40 AM

Reminder for those who aren't scrolling through all the comments.

Read #201 for why PZ isn't blogging this morning.

See also PZ's twitter stream.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin | March 25, 2009 10:42 AM

MAJeff (@258):

Perhaps a nice handroll?

Great to see your pixels back here, BTW!

Posted by: Gaga | March 25, 2009 10:44 AM

But we're condemning someone (Gingi) here for using the deaths of people as an opportunity to say "I told you so," not for being an idiot. I'm just saying that PZ's post can be interpreted as doing just that - saying "hey, look at what this guy did - I told you religion is bad."

Posted by: heddle | March 25, 2009 10:44 AM

Simon #249,

What an iditotic post. I hope you are a Poe. If not, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

Posted by: Fred Mounts | March 25, 2009 10:45 AM

Does anyone know if PZ has ever been in a car crash? I had a funny feeling when I woke this morning.

:oP

Posted by: Psychodigger | March 25, 2009 10:47 AM

What a vile, evil hag! She ought to be hauled across whatever town she lives in on a cart naked, while people rip the flesh from her body with red hot tongs before they burn her at the stake... oh no, wait, that's their stiel, sorry. But she would deserve it just for being the despicable creature that she is (assuming of course, hoping even, that Gingi is a woman's name).

Posted by: extatyzoma | March 25, 2009 10:49 AM

of simon.

its obvious that hes not the product of intelligent design. If he were, god would have given him the apparatus to ejaculate in his own ass as that what he seems to want to do.

what a particularly toxic specimen.

Posted by: Endor | March 25, 2009 10:51 AM

#249 - looks like Simon is a death-loving ghoul as well.

That you sent a letter to a man whose just lost a large portion of his family speaks volumes about you. And, provides clear proof that your religion is all about mocking and hate.

Get to a psychiatrist. You need help.

Posted by: catgirl | March 25, 2009 10:53 AM

I'm not an atheist, but hateful people like Simon push me further in that direction. Of course, a few hateful atheists in this thread also prevent me from going the whole way.

Posted by: KI | March 25, 2009 10:56 AM

We really need to start a movement to help these people meet their maker, so to speak. If you truly believe in the afterlife, why don't you go there. We could have "Jump for Jesus" day at the local bridge, or a "Heaven or Bust" kool-aid party. Population reduction and stupidity clearing at the same time. R. Crumb even did a poster for us on the back of Zap #4 (I think, it may have been #5).

Is this going too far?

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | March 25, 2009 10:58 AM

Simon; spreading the love, one foetid, stinking, dripping, lump at a time. And by love I mean, morally bankrupt bullshit.

Simon, like Gingi, has no real compassion, love, or generosity of spirit. They've pissed all of their humanity away in a feeble contest to become the favourite of some fictional bogeyman.

Posted by: extatyzoma | March 25, 2009 11:00 AM

cant win with those believers.

A known atheist could die a wretched death by being nibbled by ants to the bone or could quickly have a heart attack whilst bedding 10 of the most beautiful people in the world (at once) and they would still cry goddidit.

the religious speciality: 'assertions without evidence'

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | March 25, 2009 11:01 AM

Do you remember the story of Pharaoh and Moses ? His beloved son was taken by God, so he suffered and life became miserable.

Strange god who kills people just simply to teach other people a lesson. Less moral than Kant…

Be glad, Simon the Banned, the one with his nose on the glass, that the whole story is fiction. The nameless pharaoh, the slave people in Egypt, the plagues, the exodus – all made up, like the destruction of Alderaan.

Posted by: Dutchdoc | March 25, 2009 11:03 AM

carsh = crash.

You can all login and follow PZ's crash ordeal here:

http://twitter.com/pzmyers

Posted by: Leigh Williams | March 25, 2009 11:04 AM

And Saxon, you wrote: "I know atheists can never understand what a Christian believes and feels, but please know, when we pray for someone, it is out of love."

I am a devout Christian, and I call you a blasphemer and a heretic.

NO decent human being could spew the kind of poison you people do. Spewing it while calling yourself by the Lord's name and claiming His imprimature on your revenge fantasy is BLASPHEMY.

Posted by: Dutchdoc | March 25, 2009 11:06 AM

PZ Tweet:

Wed 25 Mar 11:03 via mobile web:
Now back on the road again with a hot female chauffeur. Might just make it to Michigan after all.

Posted by: elbuho | March 25, 2009 11:08 AM

From PZ on Twitter:

"Now back on the road again with a hot female chauffeur. Might just make it to Michigan after all."

Posted by: elbuho | March 25, 2009 11:09 AM

Haha you beat me to it DutchDoc.

elbuho (in Holland)

Posted by: Dutchdoc | March 25, 2009 11:12 AM

#294: "atheism doesn't want you."

Don't be rediculous!

Atheism is neither a person nor an organization with members.

Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in (any) God.

If you realize that there is no God based on random internet chattering, so much the better.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin | March 25, 2009 11:16 AM

Now back on the road again with a hot female chauffeur. Might just make it to Michigan after all.

This tweet might have been a tactical error on PZ's part: Here I was all brimming with sympathy, and ready to hit the new-car-tip-jar... but "road trip with a hot babe" doesn't sound quite so sympathy-provoking! ;^)

Posted by: 10channel | March 25, 2009 11:16 AM

@Endor #190
"How often have the phrases 'I'm not a racist, but' or 'I'm not a sexist, but' been followed up with that which proves the speaker to be exactly those things."
It is because of the "but." The "but" means that they will state a statement that is contrary to their previous one.

@bobxx #198
"Are Christians stupid assholes? Yes, but everyone already knew that."
No, not everybody already knows that. There are still plenty of people who think that religion is a social casual thing. They ought to be woken up to the true nature of religion soon.

@
"how Gingi's article is different from the post that PZ put up a few days ago about the praying pilot? Can't it be argued that both PZ and Gingi are capable of being sad over the loss of lives while still experiencing a bit of schadenfreude?"
If you read PZ's blog post a while back at all, you would know that it is not schadenfreude. The pilot was being negligent of his duties as a result of his religion or panic, and it was a great misfortune that his religion or panic misguided him to his disaster, killing many people.

"Okay, but I read Gingi's article and she didn't say that she fel joy"
But she did feel that it was a good thing, somehow a "divine punishment," an "I told you so." Whereas the pilot, through being negligent of his duties, killed innocent lives.

Posted by: Amanda | March 25, 2009 11:21 AM

Gaga @#267 I'm pretty sure that there are a few problem with the second approach...

Of course there are...Gingi's approach is absurd and makes no sense. But that doesn't mean that there wasn't gloating going on in both cases (Gingi's and PZ's). I'm not validating Gingi's perspective, I'm just voicing some concern over the potential hypocrisy of this post.

I'm not even sure it's hypocritical - which is why I asked for someone to explain how it might not be. So far, most people have said that PZ's and Gingi's reactions to the respective plane crash stories are different because they're wrong and we're right. That doesn't seem logical to me.

Posted by: Felix | March 25, 2009 11:26 AM

Congratulations! You have the personality of a burning bag of dogshit.

^ This.

Posted by: Dennis | March 25, 2009 11:26 AM

Wow- this is one of the most disgusting people I've ever read an article from. And one of the most disgusting people I've found on the internet- which is quite a feat.

I thought about writing this "writer"- but anything I'd write would be a waste of time because it'd be met with either ignorance/arrogance- or a smug "I got to them." And somehow I'm sure this woman feels she's be persecuted in her beliefs because others won't conform to hers.

Posted by: Dahan | March 25, 2009 11:28 AM

God must have saved PZ for some mighty purpose, like disproving god's existance. Wait, there's a flaw in this argument somewhere...

Posted by: Ploon | March 25, 2009 11:30 AM

Simon,

I wouldn't even urinate on you if you were aflame. Please do the human race a favour and go hide somewhere where no one, not even you, can find you.

Posted by: Gaga | March 25, 2009 11:34 AM

@305
Amanda,
I can see that and I'm sure there is a bit of truth in what you say.
For me (let's see if I can be clearer this time) the difference is that you can draw a comparison between the two posts only if you buy into a specific concept of god, which allows for one's behaviour to have consequences via divine wrath.
Barring that, to me the post of PZ is about the liability of certain behaviours and the one of Gingi is taking an unrelated tragic event as an excuse to make a point. I'm aware that some presuppositions push my reactions in one direction, of course :\

Posted by: Audrey | March 25, 2009 11:36 AM

As a writer, I know the power that words can wield.

In situations like this, I am always aware of the stark limitations of language. The words to comfort, to make this better, to console this family in their terrible, terrible grief do not exist or we'd offer them in a heartbeat.

Clearly however, the words to torture and hate *do* exist. And that too is a sad failure of language. This Gingi Edmonds epitomizes all of the attributes that Christians have, historically, attributed to the Devil. Makes me wish there was a Hell she could burn in.

Posted by: Dennis | March 25, 2009 11:38 AM

#314 Oh, come on. 300+ comments and no mention of the hundreds of bodies recovered from the crash?

What are you even talking about- make a complete sentence/thought- and actually read the article- there aren't "hundreds of bodies."

Posted by: Tulse | March 25, 2009 11:40 AM

C'mon, SimoN's really a Poe, right? I mean, no one could be that clueless, right?

Posted by: Category 7 | March 25, 2009 11:41 AM

SimoN, you should probably kill yourself for the good of the gene pool. Oh, sorry, is that evil Atheistic Darwinist Eugenics? No, don't kill yourself; just don't have kids that you can indoctrinate with your disingenuous, caustic piffle.

Thanks!

P.S. Supporting freedom of choice does not necessitate supporting promiscuous sex and/or lax use of contraception. You forget that most 'pro-choicers' desire to minimise abortion. Instead of painting us all as Evil Baby Killers, you may want to be a little more pragmatic so that we can all stop arguing for a while and work on the real issues at the problem's roots. I won't hold my breath!

Posted by: Monado | March 25, 2009 11:42 AM

For one thing, PZ said that praying was useless and showed pilot incompetence: that's a practical result. He did not say that it was God's plan or just retribution. He felt sorry for the victims and did not think God had killed them. He thought irrationality had killed them.

Ahem. "God has terrible aim... Feldkamp himself is still alive." But now that this horrible accident has happened, we can apply "Christian" logic, and remark that the insurance money will probably enable the survivors to invest in several more of Dr. Feldkamp's clinics, if they so desire. And Dr. Feldkamp, having experienced more suffering at having his life afflicted by an unexpected event, might be more motivated to relieve the suffering of others by making abortion available to more who need it, in more towns.

Posted by: Carlie | March 25, 2009 11:44 AM

Simon, every time you masturbate online like that you're killing tens of thousands of half-babies, which of course equates to fives of thousands of full babies. Stop the carnage!

Posted by: Alyson Miers | March 25, 2009 11:45 AM

Guys, I suggest no more emails to Ms. Edmonds. She's obviously enjoying the attention, and I don't want to see any more of her responses of, "Well, you're PRO-CHOICE, so nyah nyah!"

Pro-life: All human life is sacred. Just as long as it hasn't been born yet.

Oh, and SimoN? Go fuck yourself with a pineapple. I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

Posted by: Eidolon | March 25, 2009 11:47 AM

Janine:

re: simon - I liked the but did you consider ? I kind of like the alliteration.

Mike @ 312:

I think you will find that most posts are focused on Christianity, not xians. Xian thought is the issue. The author did not say something "mean", she implied that this accident was divine retribution. This is patently a Crock O' Crap. The emotional response to this is far, far different than the responses to the usual creotard stuff that appears here every day. It is not often a thread grows this quickly.

Posted by: raven | March 25, 2009 11:49 AM

The Voters are also blaming the Death Cult fundies for destroying the USA and its economy.

50% - More Conservatives Now Say Churches Should Stay Out of Politics Wed Sep 24, 12:00 AM ET
Half of self-described conservatives now express the view that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics; four years ago, only 30% of conservatives expressed this view. Overall, a new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds a narrow majority of the public (52%) now says that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters. For a decade, majorities of Americans had voiced support for religious institutions speaking out on such issues. The survey also finds that most of the reconsideration of the desirability of religious involvement in politics has occurred among conservatives. As a result, conservatives' views on this issue are much more in line with the views of moderates and liberals than was previously the case. Similarly, the sharp divisions between Republicans and Democrats that previously existed on this issue have disappeared. There are other signs in the new poll about a potential change in the climate of opinion about mixing religion and politics. First, the survey finds a small but significant increase since 2004 in the percentage of respondents saying that they are uncomfortable when they hear politicians talk about how religious they are -- from 40% to 46%. Again, the increase in negative sentiment about religion and politics is much more apparent among Republicans than among Democrats.

Looks like there is a backlash against the Death Cults. These are nihilists who have only brought death and destruction during their time in power. Their latest victim is the US economy, the largest in the world at one time. Palin is one, a hardcore religious kook.

Humanoid toads like Gingi, Palin, Simon, Dobson, Haggard, etc.. have produced for more atheists and anti-xians in 1 day than Dawkins or PZ could in their lifetimes. Polls show that the majority of the US population, mostly other xians are sick and tired of them. Them's the data, cut and pasted above.

"By their fruits, ye shall know them" and "As you sow, so shall you reap." I used to say that the Gingi's of the world would do some serious damage to the religion. Don't bother much anymore, it is now obvious that they have and will.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin | March 25, 2009 11:51 AM

Mike:

Oh no one christian said something mean about an abortionist

It's not about saying something mean Feldkamp: I think a majority of regulars here would endorse, if not applaud, the notion that it's OK to say mean stuff to people with whom you have fundamental disagreements. The "marketplace of ideas" is sometimes a rough-and-tumble arena, and I think most of us are pretty much down with that.

Using the tragic deaths of innocent children, wholly uninvolved in your philosophical combat, as a weapon against the people who loved them, though, is another matter. Even the most brutal combat has rules, and the indiscriminant slaughter (whether physical or emotional) of innocent noncombatants is always out of bounds.

(who in their eyes is literally a murderer)

Well, that's what they say. As I've commented in several places, they usually don't act like they really believe it. If you knew someone who was engaged in a vast commercial enterprise dedicated to the ongoing premeditated murder of children (i.e., this is what Ms. Edmonds and her ilk claim to believe about Mr. Feldkamp), would you be satisfied to simply cluck your tongue and warn him that if he didn't stop, God might eventually get peeved with him?

As I said in a previous post, I'm sure many individuals in the "pro-life" movement are sincere (albeit logically inconsistent), but the evidence suggests that the movement's leaders don't really believe what they preach, but preach it anyway for their own self-promoting reasons.

Posted by: Ric | March 25, 2009 11:52 AM

I just sent the author the following email:

"Dear Ms. Edmonds,

I recently read the above article, and the Book of Job came to mind. Perhaps you are not familiar with the Book of Job, or maybe you have forgotten it. Do you remember when, using facile and shallow logic, Job's Comforters tried to ascribe Job's suffering to some sin or unrighteousness? Do you remember God's response to Job's Comforters?

42:7 And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

42:8 Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job.

Guess how you relate to the lesson of the Book of Job. Do you prefer to be called Eliphaz, Bildad, or Zophar?

Sincerely,
Ric Baker"

Posted by: catgirl | March 25, 2009 11:54 AM

Mike, I'm glad someone agrees with me. There are plenty of terrible, evil religious people in the world, but there are also a few good people who are also religious. If being an atheist requires that I hate all religious people or assume that I am inherently more moral or smarter than them, it's understandable that I don't want to give myself that label regardless of my actual beliefs.

Obviously Edmonds is a horrible, insensitive, immoral person. But I don't have to hate every single Christian to realize that she's evil. Guess what? Pro-choice Christians actually exist. I can disagree with someone about their beliefs without hating them or assuming they're stupid. If we look at this person and say, "See, all Christians are bad", that isn't any better than a religious fundie looking at a bad atheist person and saying, "See, all atheist are bad". Just because they do it doesn't mean we should. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Also, shouldn't we be a little above making fun of someone's first name? Gingi probably didn't get to choose her own name, and if she did, first names mean very little about someone's morality or intelligence. This crazy lady is evil enough no matter what her name is.

I know that most atheists are not this petty and hateful, but a few of the posters here are, and I don't want to be associated with it.

Posted by: Bryn | March 25, 2009 11:55 AM

@ Simon

Yeah, yeah, yeah. When they're burying me following my untimely death at the age of 103, it'll be because god's finally tracked me down and is punishing me for my (at that point) 91 years of atheism and previous 12 years of agnosticism, right?

A hint for you, Simon: people who look for portents, omens and signs generally find them even though they don't exist.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | March 25, 2009 11:57 AM

Because one person in X religion is evil, everyone who follows said religion is evil.

No Mike, we're not saying that. The argument goes the other direction: lots of people believe in this religious foolishness and it makes some of them do very very foolish (even malicious) things. We recognize that not all the religious fools are malicious. But they're still fools.

So we're not reasoning "one bad apple ruins the bushel" it's more a case of pointing and nodding "yup. another one."

Posted by: Discombobulated | March 25, 2009 11:58 AM

raven@334:

Humanoid toads like Gingi, Palin, Simon, Dobson, Haggard, etc.. have produced for more atheists and anti-xians in 1 day than Dawkins or PZ could in their lifetimes.

Don't forget Pope Ratzi! He's single-handedly working toward the downfall of the Catholic church.

I'm always almost tempted to cheer him on in his efforts, until I remember the real misery and disease he spreads with every proclamation.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 25, 2009 11:59 AM

I'm late to the pile-on, but what the heck. It's a perfect opportunity to bash the exquisitely bashable. I'm not going to read all 300+ posts, but surely someone has pointed out that if this was a case of a Christian family losing so many lives, Mizz Edmonds would doubtless be falling all over herself with feigned grief.

"I don't want to turn this tragic event into some creepy spiritual 'I told you so' moment...but I just can't help myself!"

Posted by: FlameDuck | March 25, 2009 12:00 PM

Cuing Xian idiots saying PZ just experienced divine payback for making this post in 4...3...2...

Whenever a woman is forced to give birth against her will, the anti-abortionist up on the list gets the child, and is expected to raise that child until adult.

Although I'm a former Marine and as such have a rather extensive vocabulary you won't find in most dictionaries, I can't come up with a vile enough rant to tell you what I think of this person.

Congratulations! You have the personality of a burning bag of dogshit.

Posted by: Monado | March 25, 2009 12:00 PM

In from Daily Kos, William F. Harrison tells "Why I provide abortions."

I provide abortions for my patients and for any other girl or woman who feels this her best option...

By 1967 I was a third year medical student... and I was ending my rotation in the Ob-Gyn Service clinic. I was assigned a 40-plus-year-old, poverty-stricken mother of several children... This care-worn mother-of-several had a large abdominal mass that I rapidly determined to be a well advanced pregnancy. I asked my resident to come and break the news to this woman; it was very obvious to me that she was not going to be happy about the news of another pregnancy. When told that she - already unable to adequately feed and clothe her family - was again pregnant, she looked up at me and the resident. There we stood, two white males, well clothed, well fed young men with superior educations. We were, in her eyes, stunningly blessed and obviously going places in the world. She began to weep silently. She must have assumed, for good reason, that there was no way that we would understand her problems; she knew also that there was nothing that we could or would do to relieve her lacerating misery.

"Oh God, doctor," she said quietly, "I was hoping it was cancer."

Posted by: God Retardent | March 25, 2009 12:01 PM

After reading some of the comments in this category,I am so glad that I manage to remove my self from ANY religious convictions years ago.What a hate filled group of people the all are.

Posted by: Stu | March 25, 2009 12:04 PM

If being an atheist requires that I hate all religious people or assume that I am inherently more moral or smarter than them

Who said that? That religious people get there panties in a bunch every time anyone says anything mean about their particular set of fairytales is not the fault of atheists.

"See, all Christians are bad"

Again, take your strawman and shove it. What this proves is that Christianity is bad, not "all Christians".

Guess what? Pro-choice Christians actually exist.

Yes, and there are also Christians that believe in evolution, and there are gay Christians. I like to call them "cafeteria Xians", because they pick and choose what parts of the Bible they believe in and/or adhere to... mostly to make their Bronze-age belief system a bit more palatable in the modern age (and perhaps because they simply like shellfish).

The fundies are crazy, but often at least consistent; the cafeteria crowd cannot even claim the latter.

I know that most atheists are not this petty and hateful, but a few of the posters here are, and I don't want to be associated with it.

You read this article and call atheists hateful? Here's a quarter, please go buy some perspective.

Posted by: charley | March 25, 2009 12:08 PM

I love the logic of the author and most of the people commenting here. Because one person in X religion is evil, everyone who follows said religion is evil.

PZ never says everyone who is a Christian is evil. He says Christianity is evil, because it can and often does lead to attitudes like that of the article's author.

Posted by: Arno | March 25, 2009 12:11 PM

Marcus Ramun wrote:
"...are you on your way to becoming a convert to SimoN's religion of love?"

Nope, I can very easily be disgusted with a person's actions, but not with his group membership. So I kinda miss the "us versus them" mentality.

Posted by: Marshall Nelson | March 25, 2009 12:15 PM

"Once again, I am confirmed in my opinion that Christianity is a breeder of evil, a cesspit in which the most hateful and inhuman commitment to lies and delusions can ferment. Don't ever preach at me about Christian morality: I've seen it, and it is empty of love for humanity, replaced with sanctimonious idolatry and commitment to dead, dumb superstition."

"You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been, and still is the principle enemy of moral progress in the world."

Bertrand Russell (Mar 6, 1927)

Posted by: Richard Wolford | March 25, 2009 12:18 PM

You must all admit that is is at least very ironic that the plane would crash so near the Tomb of the Unborn.

No, I wouldn't, because I find nothing about this situation funny, or ironic, or anything other than a fucking tragedy. How about we make some jokes about how they don't have to save up so much for college now? Maybe a few laughs at all that space that opened up in their house? Any of those doing it for you?

Posted by: Bob L | March 25, 2009 12:24 PM

Clearly we atheists are the blind ones here. Only our worship of false monkey gods blinds us to the loving hand of our merciful savior when He swatted that plane load of small children out of the sky like a bug. Can't we see Jesus' tough love message here? It is simple; if Feldkamp repent of their murder of the pre-born Jesus would forgive them, bestow a completely new group of children on Mr Feldkamp along with a hot new prize wife and the Felkamps get to join the party in the big golden house in the sky. Jesus loves us, that's why He downed that plane.

Why can't we rationalist see this?
(the above is sarcasm for the clueless)

Posted by: Sarah | March 25, 2009 12:26 PM

I'm speechless. Reading that woman's hateful, sanctimonious words made me want to weep. I hope against hope that Mr. Feldkamp never sees them.

I can only say that I'm very, very glad there is no heaven, because spending an eternity with people like the horrific person who wrote that article would truly be hell.

Posted by: Bridgette | March 25, 2009 12:28 PM

I did not say it was a joke or funny. I am only saying that the author has a point in talking about the children of a major abortionist dying so close to a Tomb of the Unborn. That doesn't sound at all a bit too much of a coincedence?

Posted by: Akiko | March 25, 2009 12:29 PM

It is amazing to me that these people dont believe that they will also die someday. Happily, they will.

Posted by: SteveM | March 25, 2009 12:33 PM

catgirls wrote:

There are plenty of terrible, evil religious people in the world, but there are also a few good people who are also religious.

It is my opinion that they are nice in spite of their relion not because of it.

If being an atheist requires that I hate all religious people or assume that I am inherently more moral or smarter than them, it's understandable that I don't want to give myself that label regardless of my actual beliefs.

Atheism is lack of beleif in god, nothing more, nothing less. Hating religion would be anti-theism and is not "required" to be an atheist, though it is correlated.

Posted by: Hora | March 25, 2009 12:36 PM

I'm number 373 on this comment list, so this will likely only get read by number 374, but I want to say that you can't call Christianity heartless simply because of what one person said.

That's ridiculous. It's like calling vegetarians evil Jew haters because Hitler was one.

The evil 'Christian' who wrote that letter is not a real Christian. I for on, am not one either, but I believe in Christian 'values'. Such as forgiving one another, turning the other cheek, etc. 99% of the self-proclaimed Christians on this planet are not real Christians.

Posted by: Vic | March 25, 2009 12:38 PM

#375, phantomreader42

Well spoken!

Posted by: Bob L | March 25, 2009 12:39 PM

Bridgette @ "I did not say it was a joke or funny. I am only saying that the author has a point in talking about the children of a major abortionist dying so close to a Tomb of the Unborn. That doesn't sound at all a bit too much of a coincedence?"

It does sound like someone downed the plane, doesn't it?

Act of God indeed.

Posted by: gingivitis | March 25, 2009 12:42 PM

It may well not have been accidental that the plane ditched in a cemetery. The pilot may have tried to avoid killing live civilians on the ground.

Posted by: Stephanie W. | March 25, 2009 12:43 PM

Reading the sneering, emoticon-infested responses Gingi has sent out, I've developed the conviction that she's a /b/tard who got religion.

Simon: lrn2rite. And why should we mourn less for the loss of our fellow "evoluted apes" than we would for the puppets of dust and vapor you imagine us to be?

What has always disturbed me about arguments on the inscrutability of God's ethics to humankind (it's "just" to do harm to the uninvolved, those bystanders were asking for it, dracunculiasis is a just punishment for original sin, and it is also just if said punishment is administered apparently at random amongst those whom are "guilty" thereof, etcetera) is that, without an external standard of decency based on a thinking creature's respect for other minds and some assurance that your particular diety is adhering to said standard, what is the difference between worshipping Yahweh and Beelzebub? Why select one over the other if both of them are equally bastards as far as we are able to discern?

Posted by: Arno | March 25, 2009 12:43 PM

Hora, then please define what a "real Christian" is and what kind of personality traits/abilities demonstrate that these people are "real Christians"?

If you can't, you see, you've got the problem that "real Christians" are kinda like "proofs of intelligent design in DNA": people claim they exist, but just cannot seem to find them.

Posted by: Richard Wolford | March 25, 2009 12:46 PM

Or a bomb.

Perhaps from the Evil Atheist Conspiracy?

**dons cloak**

Posted by: DonZilla | March 25, 2009 12:46 PM

So we're not reasoning "one bad apple ruins the bushel" it's more a case of pointing and nodding "yup. another one."

In this case, is there anywhere I could find evidence of "the bushel" speaking up and protesting against this "bad apple's" article/comments? How about all those pro-choice Christians that "actually exist," gay or other "moderate" Christians? Don't they have anything to say?

I'd have more respect for the religious if they could make even a feeble attempt at shouting down their extremists once in awhile.

Posted by: Discombobulated | March 25, 2009 12:47 PM

Hora@376:

"No True Christian"

Bridgette@353:

Confirmation Bias
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
Cargo Cult

My logical fallacy bingo card is overflowing... I think I need another.

Posted by: WRMartin | March 25, 2009 12:47 PM

simon, Simon, simoN, or shall we simply call you MORON,

Fuck you. Fuck your imaginary god or gods. Your prophet never existed. Your god is fiction. Your holy book is fiction. Fuck your god and everyone he looks like.
Today is 25.03.2009 and I just wanted to get that in and on record. Not to say that nearly 50 years of saying the same thing hasn't brought me joy and happiness.

Fuck you, Simon. Fuck your god. Tomorrow will be 26.03.2009 and I will wish you and yours the same once again.

Sincerely,
W. R. Martin.

P.S. Fuck you, god. Fuck you, Simon.

Posted by: AVSN | March 25, 2009 12:48 PM

I don't normally bother with the comments this far in. I too shot off an email at the horror who wrote the offence piece. No real Christian would be anything other than upset with this woman.

Posted by: Keanus | March 25, 2009 12:51 PM

Edmonds not only is cruel but she can't even get her plain facts straight. The Los Angeles Times reports that the pilot, Bud Summerfield was

"...65-year-old former Air Force pilot with 8,500 hours of civilian flight time, including 2,000 hours in the type of plane that crashed."

The Times credit that info from "authorities" without being more specific. It also said he has flown the Feldkamp family for more than a decade and that the family thought of him as "Air Bud."

Posted by: Bob L | March 25, 2009 12:53 PM

Richard Worford @:"Perhaps from the Evil Atheist Conspiracy?"

Perhaps by the same people who bomb abortion clinics?

Unless these "tomb of the unborns" are a dime a dozen in the midwest it sounds like such a remarkable coincidence to beggar belief.

Posted by: Stacy | March 25, 2009 12:56 PM

PZ in car accident . He's OK. Details at Greg Laden's Blog.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/03/pz_myers_car_wrecked_in_accide.php

Posted by: DLC | March 25, 2009 12:59 PM

I have to say I'm stunned. This is about as low-down as you can get and still claim to be a human being. I won't dignify the author's existence any further with additional comment.

Posted by: Endor | March 25, 2009 1:00 PM

#299 & #300 - agreed, of course. i was poking fun at that poster's apparent belief her scolding is of any interest.

Posted by: Richard Wolford | March 25, 2009 1:00 PM

Perhaps by the same people who bomb abortion clinics?

Unless these "tomb of the unborns" are a dime a dozen in the midwest it sounds like such a remarkable coincidence to beggar belief.

Ah, point taken; the "pro-life" group (I assume I'm anti-life?) have been known to contain members who see no problems with bombing doctors, but children? I've not heard of this and I would have doubts that they would want to harm children, considering their position on abortion. So unless evidence is presented to the contrary, I will assume that there was no bombing and that something such as pilot error or excessive weight was to blame.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | March 25, 2009 1:02 PM

Robert Davidson @ #187:

I'm not sure what response - I'm wondering how it could be done in such as way as to be clear, not minimising the appalling attitudes she has displayed (I agree that being mild is not helpful; it's dishonest for one thing), but also not to dehumanise Gingi.

Gingi dehumanizes herself. Thank you for your concern. It is noted and stupid.

Amanda @ #202:

I'm just curious - and let me just state for the record that I am a pro-choice athiest - how Gingi's article is different from the post that PZ put up a few days ago about the praying pilot? Can't it be argued that both PZ and Gingi are capable of being sad over the loss of lives while still experiencing a bit of schadenfreude?

Thank you for your concern. It is noted and stupid.
The pilot chose to pray instead of doing something to land the fucking plane. As a result, people died. The pilot's abdication of his responsibility directly lead to deaths that would otherwise have been preventable. PZ did not gloat over this, but pointed out that the pilot was responsible for those deaths, and should be (and was) held responsible in a court of law. If you cannot see the difference between that post and a sociopathic ghoul celebrating the divinely-ordained murder of children for the sins of their granfather, then you are a fucking moron. There is no equivalence.

Posted by: Leigh Williams | March 25, 2009 1:03 PM

Would you people just slow down and pay attention to what you're reading?

Bob L's POINT, which flew right by you, is that perhaps anti-abortion terrorists bombed the plane.

NOT, as you so snidely inferred, that Gawd swatted it down.

Posted by: co | March 25, 2009 1:04 PM

I did not say it was a joke or funny. I am only saying that the author has a point in talking about the children of a major abortionist dying so close to a Tomb of the Unborn. That doesn't sound at all a bit too much of a coincedence?

Oh, yes, 11% too much coincidence.

Posted by: Endor | March 25, 2009 1:08 PM

#299 & #300 - agreed, of course. i was poking fun at that poster's apparent belief her scolding is of any interest.

__

"I know that most atheists are not this petty and hateful, but a few of the posters here are, and I don't want to be associated with it."

Great. We get it. Still don't care about your concern trolling, but we get it.

Posted by: Leigh Williams | March 25, 2009 1:10 PM

All you wingnut Christian trolls, listen up:

The Feldcamp daughters, husbands, and friend were a pediatrician, a dentist, a dental hygienist, an ophthalmologist, and a nurse.

None of these people has anything to do with abortions. They were all health care professionals.

Tell me again why it's such a big "coincidence". Do you think God hates doctors and nurses?

Posted by: Endor | March 25, 2009 1:12 PM

"How about all those pro-choice Christians that "actually exist," gay or other "moderate" Christians? Don't they have anything to say?"

It would be a mistake to assume that they aren't talking. They simply aren't given Fox news (or any other such platform) to speak - they don't bring in the ratings.

Posted by: CJO | March 25, 2009 1:15 PM

Voltaire! that's right. Thanks, Janine.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 25, 2009 1:17 PM

Still finding broken glass in strange places. Took off my shoes for airport security, and scattered glittery bits all over the conveyer belt

PZ, forever the security risk.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 25, 2009 1:21 PM

Thanks to the heroic efforts of the indispensable Trophy Wife, I am now at the airport and will make it to Michigan in time!

Posted by: Sherry | March 25, 2009 1:24 PM

When my kids were little, they used to get very upset when bad things happened to good people. I told them life is random, but there is probability to be factored in with the randomness.

For example, this plane crashed into a cemetery. There is no coincidence when the runway is next to an cemetery -- but there is probability!

Just like Natasha Richardson's death, the randomness of her dying from a small fall on a bunny slope was trumped by the probability of a fatal injury occurring when one does not wear a helmet.

Personally, I think the chaos pf life is easier to accept when randomness and probability is in control vs a real dick of a "GOD".

Posted by: Stu | March 25, 2009 1:24 PM

FlameDuck:

Who is on the plane, is not a factor for the likelyhood of a plane crashing/stalling. Otherwise having Michael Phelps on the plane would be a surefire way to avoid crashing into the ocean.

Molly-worthy.

Posted by: Sastra | March 25, 2009 1:26 PM

meezy #385 wrote:

I get very tired of people seeing one person's actions as a valid representation for the whole group. I know many christians who would never act this way and I know many atheists who would react the same way were the tables turned.

I don't think PZ was saying or implying that this person's response was representative of how all Christians respond. But it does point out several things.

First, that people who equate "Christian morality" with being reasonable and kind can't really do this, because there are too many different viewpoints which all legitimately fall under the label "Christian morality."

Second, that a supernatural world view which encourages the believer to interpret apparently accidental pain and suffering as deliberate lessons, signs, warnings, and 'soul-building' tasks sent to the sufferer "for a reason" will tend to breed and foster an attitude that doesn't just accept, but welcomes such necessary corrections.

I don't think that's just confined to Christianity. I know "New-Age" types who rationalize that people who get diseases like cancer are getting what they "need" to grow and develop spiritually, given to them by an all-wise Cosmic Consciousness or even themselves, hovering in some spiritual realm. This way of thinking about adversity goes beyond making the best of a bad situation, and gets creepy. In Christianity, you get the added incentive of punishments for the sinful, and that can get downright creepy.

Posted by: Jim | March 25, 2009 1:28 PM

Yet another smug, self-righteous christian, oh joy. I'm so sick of christian friends telling me they aren't all like this. They're just missing the point.

Posted by: Eidolon | March 25, 2009 1:31 PM

Robert:
I'm not certain the lady in question would respond in any manner other than a dogmatic one backed by quote mining from the bible. There have been a couple of good responses up thread - better than mine was by far. Point is though, I find it hard to believe that she really minds appearing as a zealot. Deep inside, I think her only regret is...no, on second thought I doubt seriously she has any regrets. I'll even venture a bit further to say that the silence of the pro-life movement, evangelicals and religious groups in general speaks volumes about the breadth of agreement with this bint.

The few posts citing remarkable coincidence demonstrate the role of confirmation bias in evaluating information. Unlikely does not mean impossible without divine intervention. Given the location of the runway, not unlikely at all when you realize the number of such shrines.

Posted by: pacoyogi | March 25, 2009 1:33 PM

Thanks for Gingi's contact info upthread. I'm using it to make a donation to Planned Parenthood in her name. Now Gingi will get a lovely thank you card from an organization she hates. Keep spreading the Christian love Gingi!

Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | March 25, 2009 1:38 PM

Fuck off, Simon, you despicable shitbag.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 25, 2009 1:42 PM

Why, thank you Louise Van Court for pointing this out.

Yes, many of us did have a moment of happiness when Falwell died. He did so much to make life more difficult for us.

As for the second story, I did not remember it but damn, I had a funny comment on that thread.

As for the third story, well, it was a moron who died doing something that his compatriots condemned others to hell for. If only the person was honest with himself and could trust an other person to keep an eye on him.

Not the same as gloating over a person dead relatives.

Posted by: catgirl | March 25, 2009 1:43 PM

Yes, and there are also Christians that believe in evolution, and there are gay Christians. I like to call them "cafeteria Xians", because they pick and choose what parts of the Bible they believe in and/or adhere to

You can call them what you want, but they are no less Christian than the bad ones. The fundies are also picking and choosing that parts of the Bible that they believe, since the Bible does not prohibit abortion. If you choose them to represent the entire religion, then you must also choose the moderate hypocrites to represent the religion. I don't like it that by saying we shouldn't hate all Christians because a lot of them are bad, people seem to think I am defending the crazy evil people like Edmonds. It's not all-or-nothing. I can realize that there are plenty of terrible Christians without using it as an excuse to think that 75% of people in this country are evil.

Some atheists (not PZ, not most of the people on this blog) do think that being atheist requires looking down on all religious people. Even though they are the minority, they make the entire group look bad, and I choose not to be associated with them by giving myself any kind of label. It's the worst of any group that get the most attention.

Posted by: CrypticLife | March 25, 2009 1:44 PM

catgirl,

Whether you're an atheist or not doesn't actually depend on who you associate with, but on whether or not you believe at least one deity exists. If you do, you're a deist or theist. If not, you're an atheist.

So, you don't need to identify with other atheists in order to be one yourself. It's not a club. If you feel like it's too adversarial here, try going to a place like atheistethicist.blogspot.com.

Posted by: SteveM | March 25, 2009 1:46 PM

Environmentalists protect the beach sea turtles need to lay eggs in, recognizing that you can't have sea turtles without eggs. How can I easily dismiss or ridicule people who try to protect what they see as young humans?

Bullshit. Sea turtles are endangered with extinction, humans, not so much. Second these people are not concerned with "protecting" those unborn children. They only want to stop abortion, they care nothing for providing for those children forced to be born to women without the means nor desire to care for it. Their "concern" is as hollow as any "concern troll" you find on the internet. And it is not an issue of when it becomes human, nor even when it gets "rights". None of your rights entitle you to live off someone elses body and life. You do have the right to permit (or forbid) someone to live off yours.

Posted by: Jonathan | March 25, 2009 1:48 PM

Here's a link that Gingi Edmonds has been posting on the last few days:

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/03/abortion_chain.html

Posted by: Stu | March 25, 2009 1:54 PM

How can I easily dismiss or ridicule people who try to protect what they see as young humans?

How can I easily dismiss or riducule people who try to protect sperm, which they see as young humans?

A woman has a child and can't afford to take care of it.

Then she shouldn't have had it. Or at least, she should have had the option not to have had it. Or, maybe she can have it adopted by those caring, loving "people that try to protect what they see as young humans" that want to deny her that choice. Oddly, those caring loving people never seem to be arond afterwards.

But at what age did it not deserve protection? Isn't there a certain level of arbitrariness (is that a word??) to that determination?

Of course there is. So for starters, let's side with the rights and health of the existing, living, breathing human being involved: the mother. After that, how about we cap it at the differentiating point between humans and others: a functioning brain. Not the potential of one, a functioning brain.

This is a thorny issue, and I wish people would stop being so righteous about it. From both sides.

Your concern is noted and dismissed.

Posted by: Jonathan | March 25, 2009 2:00 PM

Thought I would post my e-mail and response from the Newswire media:

Would your response have been the same had Irving 'Bud' Feldkamp been the owner of not the nation's largest privately owned abortion chain but rather the owner of the nation's largest chain of Nazi like concentration camps used for the purpose of exterminating all those of Jewish ethnicity?

Had Ms. Edmonds written an article pointing out the irony of such events unfolding and the lack of any of the media's reporting on this significant twist in the story I believe you would not have issued a response and would have likely agreed with Ms. Edmonds article. The reason is you value all human life as long as it is not the pre-born. Yet the pre-born are most defenseless and innocent among us. It appears your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Dan McCullough,
Christian Communication Network
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20006
202.546.0054

www.ChristianNewswire.com

From: Jonathan Williams
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:25 AM
To: newsdesk@christiannewswire.com
Subject: Disgusting

I want to issue a complaint about the opinion piece you carried from Gingi Edmonds regarding the tragic plane crash in Montana: http://www.gingiedmonds.com/

The article was beyond vile. This woman's rant was nothing more than a sanctimonious, delusional piece of filth.

I am not a believer in any way, shape or form, and this article has only solidified my belief that Christianity produces some of the most illogical, deluded, dangeous individuals on the face of this planet.

-jonathan

Posted by: Jonathan | March 25, 2009 2:05 PM

And finally, this was also sent to me from the Christian Newswire site:

Dead Children Expose the Worst in Us

Contact: Gary McCullough, 202-546-0054

OPINION, March 25 /Christian Newswire/ -- The following is submitted by Gary McCullough, director of Christian Newswire:

As the director of Christian Newswire I enjoy a unique opportunity to observe outlandish opinions and the responses they provoke.

On March 24, our service distributed a submission from Gingi Edmonds* that engendered much more than the usual number of replies questioning the character of Christian Newswire. This is not surprising since the item addressed is a combination of abortion, the death of born children, and the always popular topic of God's wrath. Edmonds wrote about the recent Montana airplane crash in which several children died, and the ties the family has to the abortion business.

As director of this newswire, I do not believe I need to defend our choice of what we distribute from attacks by those who trumpet the phrase "pro-choice." I am not concerned about the intolerance expressed by those who scream for tolerance. Nor do I intend to defend Ms. Edmonds' freedom to express herself from those who cry "censorship" to justify the publication of anything vile, offensive or disgusting.

Hypocrisy is just too easy of a target.

What I do find of interest is the common misunderstanding of God's judgment and what Edmonds expressed. Imagine if you will, a father telling his toddler son not to touch a hot stove. Over and over the father warns that the stove will burn him if he touches it. Yet the toddler does, and cries out in pain. The infant mind might blame the father for the burn he just experienced -- thinking he was being punished. "Why did you burn me daddy?"

I do not know the extent of the pain we will experience for failing to heed our Heavenly Father's admonition not to murder. Child-on-child and child-on-adult murderers are becoming less rare. An overall lack of respect for human life is undoubtedly having an impact. The highest concentration of child-on-child murders occur within the segment of our society with the highest concentration of abortion clinics. And we cry out, "Why is this happening -- is God punishing us?"

Ms. Edmonds does not claim that God took the lives of the airplane crash victims in an act of vengeance. She does point out the irony of such a loss being experienced by a leader in the child-killing profession.

Edmonds also asks why the business of this family's patriarch was not mentioned by in any of the news coverage.

What would the media's response have been if this loss of life happened to one who operated a "death camp" for the Nazis? Would the press have included the profession of the patriarch of this family if he was part of the 9-11 attack? The twist of fate displayed by one grieving over the loss of his own family while employed in the extinguishing the lives of others would see widespread news coverage.

The most frequently used word to attack the opinion put forth by Edmonds was "shame" as in "have you no shame?" and "shame on you."

I propose that as is the case in the vast majority of human interactions when stress and discomfort bubble to the surface -- the thing we claim to despise the most in others is a fault within ourselves that we refuse to acknowledge.

Do I need to state the obvious? What is more shameful than murdering your own child? One answer might be murdering others' children for hire.

Thus I am taking this opportunity to say to all who have asked if Christian Newswire has no shame, or if Ms. Edmonds has no shame; that boat sailed in 1973. As is true of our nation's past tolerance of slavery, our present tolerance of child-killing in the name of abortion is a defining trait of American society.

When it comes to child-murder, as a nation, in can be said:

We have no shame.

Posted by: Stu | March 25, 2009 2:13 PM

You can call them what you want, but they are no less Christian than the bad ones.

Tell that to them.

The fundies are also picking and choosing that parts of the Bible that they believe, since the Bible does not prohibit abortion.

I think you missed a Commandment there.

If you choose them to represent the entire religion, then you must also choose the moderate hypocrites to represent the religion.

Okay, I'll explain this to you one more time. We're not talking about an innate property of a person, such as being black, or gay. Christians make a conscious choice to ignore reality and believe in a flaming pile of bullshit. That bullshit enables them to be shitty human beings.

The "hate" we display here is for that flaming pile of bullshit, and for what it turns people into.

Again: we're not saying Christianity is bad because of the actions of a few loons. We're saying Christianity is poppycock, and is awful and dangerous because it enables lunacy. That it does not make every single follower into a raging misanthrope is a very poor excuse.

I don't like it that by saying we shouldn't hate all Christians because a lot of them are bad,

Nobody here "hates all Christians". We hate their viewpoints. That kind of antropomorphing a person's viewpoints into the person entirely is irrational, and albeit not completely absent in the atheist community (such as it is), far and away more common in the religious.

people seem to think I am defending the crazy evil people like Edmonds.

You can take that straw-man and stick it with your other ones. Go play the victim somewhere else.

I can realize that there are plenty of terrible Christians without using it as an excuse to think that 75% of people in this country are evil.

Good for you. Now point out where this was actually said.

Some atheists do think that being atheist requires looking down on all religious people.

[Citation needed]

Posted by: gingivitis | March 25, 2009 2:18 PM

Also check out the lunatic fringe here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2214343/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2214214/posts

Posted by: Stu | March 25, 2009 2:19 PM

What point is that exactly? Functioning brain, I mean.

A NEJM quote I don't have an exact link for right now:

"Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks."

So for me, personally, a ban on abortions after 26 weeks (with exceptions for rape, severe defects and health of the mother, of course) would be defensible.

Posted by: Spyderkl | March 25, 2009 2:27 PM

OMC. What kind of pig would say something like that about the death of real honest-to-goodness (as opposed to masses of unformed cells unable to survive outside the womb) children? Ugh.

I've never missed religion since I walked away from it, and I sure as hell don't miss it after reading this.

Posted by: heddle | March 25, 2009 2:42 PM

Susan,

Their cackling in this instance reminds me of the joy they fantasize feeling when everyone who ever disagreed with them is tortured and thrown into flames in their imagined glorious afterlife.

You're an idiot.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | March 25, 2009 2:47 PM

heddle, I hear that the smelling the burning flesh of the damned is one of the sublime pleasures of heaven.

Posted by: Endor | March 25, 2009 2:48 PM

"Their cackling in this instance reminds me of the joy they fantasize feeling when everyone who ever disagreed with them is tortured and thrown into flames in their imagined glorious afterlife."

Oh boy, do they enjoy dreaming up with nearly orgasmic glee all the ways in which we will be tortured and how much suffering we be put through. Usually with an added dose of "I'll be laughing from heaven" tossed in for added bile.

Posted by: uppity cracka | March 25, 2009 2:52 PM

Stu-460

Thanks! That's interesting, I'll investigate further.

Posted by: uppity cracka | March 25, 2009 2:57 PM

I think that's pretty much the gist of it, Endor.

Posted by: Paul Dorman | March 25, 2009 2:57 PM

If someone wants to let her know how they feel..
Gingi Edmonds
(559) 772-7911

[Source: http://www.gingiedmonds.com/About.html]

Posted by: uppity cracka | March 25, 2009 3:00 PM

Heddle,

I am an idiot, too? Because if you say so, I must be.

Posted by: JBlilie | March 25, 2009 3:04 PM

Saxon @ 100:

"No one believes that God caused that accident. The fact is, evil is in the world. Bad things happen to good people all the time. Bud Feldkamp made millions off the deaths of preborn children, and now, he's lost nearly all of his. How horrid is that? We can only pray that this tragic event will show him how precious life is, and he will choose to distance himself from the evil that we believe attacked his family."

And there's no such thing as a contradiction in theology! You really think this?!

"Trust me, Gingi is not revelling in anything. She is sickened by this. She'd seen these people, face to face, she'd prayed for them."

You'd have to be a self-righteous fool to miss the triumphal tone of "I-told-you-so my god taught you a lesson now, didn't he!?" tone in that article. You are seriously deluded.

Prayer is nonsense. It's been proven to be a myth. Pray over them?! That'd be like me sacrificing a goat over you, or reading the chicken's entrails over you, or shaking my magic rattles (or crystals or magnets) over you. Do you see how this looks to us?

We feel the same way about your god that you do about baal, wotan, and zeus.

Exodus 21:22-25:

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she miscarries but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Posted by: uppity cracka | March 25, 2009 3:05 PM

uppity cracka, #476

I haven't read your earlier posts. If you wrote some unsubstantiated gross generalization along the lines of "Christians smile wistfully whilst pondering the eternal torment of the wretched heathen" then yes, you're an idiot. But like I said, I haven't read your previous posts.

Posted by: Stu | March 25, 2009 3:09 PM

Thanks for the laugh with the accidental sockpuppetry there, heddle.

Posted by: Sherry | March 25, 2009 3:10 PM

Having worked weight and balance for a commuter airline, the children would all be counted as "half-weights". If this plane was overloaded, it's because of baggage, not the number of passengers.

Posted by: Strangebrew | March 25, 2009 3:13 PM

The position of Dan McCullough...the spokesman for Christian bollocks is no better then a rancid jeebus clone...all he has is strawman argument and hiding behind the free speech catechism delivered with pompous and prurient attitude towards the folk that have complained about his lack of moral judgement.

So be it...the face of Christianity today is very very ugly....
He displays that face with no shame and no understanding...and absolutely no dignity.

Posted by: heddle | March 25, 2009 3:14 PM

Stu,

Thanks for the laugh with the accidental sockpuppetry there, heddle

No problem--I deserve mockery for that mistake. (And it's the second time in the last couple of weeks. Damn.)

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 25, 2009 3:18 PM

"I deserve mockery"

Fixed that for you, heddle.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | March 25, 2009 3:20 PM

"No problem--I deserve mockery for that mistake. (And it's the second time in the last couple of weeks. Damn.)"

You deserve mockery for a lot more than just sockpuppetry...

Posted by: JBlilie | March 25, 2009 3:23 PM

heddle@473:

The doctrine of damnation is my second most important reason for rejecting Christianity:

Love me or burn: The central dogma of Christianity are that you must love Jesus and accept him as God and then you will be “saved” and spend eternity in Heaven after you die. If you don’t do this, you will be tormented in hell for an eternal (endless, infinite) period of time. These are the simple conclusions that follow from Christian dogma (airy sophistry about mild Jesus bringing love and happiness to your life does not change the basic equation stated.) All non-Christians burn: if you are not a Christian (and many Christian sects extend this to any kind of Christian other than their brand), then you burn in hell forever, EVEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER SEEN A BIBLE BURN FOREVER, and there have been many millions (billions probably) of these in the history of the earth. Even insincere Christians burn: those who go through the motions but don’t truly believe. This God is asserted to be kind, loving, and forgiving. This is logically inconsistent.

Mark 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

Eternal punishment in hell: Forever is a long time. Punishment is understood by humans to be just when it fits the offense committed. ETERNAL punishment even of a very mild sort (and hell is described in Christian doctrine as blood-curdlingly nasty, even without the eternal part thrown in), is, by definition, infinite in scope (anything multiplied by infinity is infinite.) The only just offense for which it could be imposed is an infinitely bad one. Humans have finite powers and therefore are incapable of an infinitely bad offense. A person’s lack of knowledge of this special God, Jesus, cannot be justly judged to be an infinitely bad offense. The dogma of hell is simply logically inconsistent with the definition Christians provide of their God: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, loving, forgiving, kind. Imposing an infinite punishment for any finite offense is unjust and evil. Therefore, it can never be justly imposed on humans, who have finite abilities. The good judge others by their character, not their beliefs, and punish deeds, not thoughts, and punish only to teach, not to torture.

An atheist (or some one who has never been exposed to Christian teaching, for example a Taoist or Confucian grandmother in Hunan in 439 AD) who lives an exemplary life, deeply moral, kind, generous, forgiving, public-spirited, devotes themselves and all their possessions to the care of the poor, but who does one lick of work on a Sunday (or was that Saturday?!), swears, tells a single lie, has a single thought of lust for his neighbor’s beautiful wife or daughter, steals one tiny bit of food when starving (actually, given the Christian doctrine of “original sin” no action of this sort is necessary for the conclusion to follow) will be subjected to an INFINITE punishment. However, if a venally evil murderer, rapist, thief, pederast, whore-monger, child torturer reaches the end of his long life of debauchery, and simply decides to love Jesus and say he’s sorry (to whom? the victims of his crimes?) then he gets eternal bliss in paradise. This is not a just or good doctrine.

Posted by: heddle | March 25, 2009 3:26 PM

OT, but I had to share the good news that we're number 3!

Posted by: raven | March 25, 2009 3:27 PM

Now I don't want to call these folks the scum of the earth or anything but.......

Not quite right. They are from below the earth. These are just ghouls feeding off of the dead. Fundie xianity doesn't seem to have any lower limit to how low they can sink.

76% of the US population describes themselves as xian, a percentage that is dropping and has dropping 10-15% in the last few decades. Gingi Edmonds and her mob of ghouls is the reason why.

So be it...the face of Christianity today is very very ugly....

Their mentality is no different from a moslem suicide bomber, a Mullah condemming a woman for driving a car, or xians killing a witch. Religious fanatics with a seething hate they mistake for god. And normal people find it repulsive these days.

Posted by: Amanda | March 25, 2009 3:30 PM

Phantomreader @408 "PZ did not gloat over this, but pointed out that the pilot was responsible for those deaths, and should be (and was) held responsible in a court of law. If you cannot see the difference between that post and a sociopathic ghoul celebrating the divinely-ordained murder of children for the sins of their granfather, then you are a fucking moron."

Okay, well, people are disgusted that Gingi used this opportunity to make a point - that God will punish those who support abortion (or something similar). And they should be - it was insensitive (and on top of that her beliefs are irrational and freaking crazy).

Perhaps PZ's post, which would not have been posted had it not been intended to drive home a point about religion, was insensitive as well, simply because it was an opportunity to make a point during a time when people were grieving. Or at least it could be interpreted as being insensitive, just as Gingi's has been.

I wasn't asking about the difference in logic in the posts. But perhaps you missed that as you were working up your hot-headed and reactionary response.

Posted by: heddle | March 25, 2009 3:34 PM

JBlilie

The doctrine of damnation is my second most important reason for rejecting Christianity:

Well I'm glad you think so.

As for the rest of your comment--didn't you post the same tome earlier?

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 25, 2009 3:34 PM

"I had to share the good news that we're number 3!"

And in my book you'll always be number two. And now, back to potty training my three year old.

Posted by: foldedpath | March 25, 2009 3:37 PM

Sherry #484:Having worked weight and balance for a commuter airline, the children would all be counted as "half-weights". If this plane was overloaded, it's because of baggage, not the number of passengers.

Well, one difference is that baggage doesn't move around and change the plane's center of gravity, which might have been a factor if there were more kids than seats, on that smallish plane.

Posted by: Brownian | March 25, 2009 3:40 PM

No, we don't. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good lie.

So? Who cares what the fuck you and the rest of those false Christians believe?

It makes about as much sense to argue how many hit dice a green dragon should have as it would the details of your mythology.

Brownian, The World's Only True Christian

Posted by: Stu | March 25, 2009 3:47 PM

Was it not human before the brain developed?

On my personal scale, no. It's a POTENTIAL human. Sorry, no rights.

(And can we agree that "pro-lifers" that do not bomb/picket IVF clinics for the millions of potentially viable embryos they toss out every year are disgusting hypocrites -- especially when coupled with opposition to embryonic stem-cell research?)

Because that unquestioning belief in one's own point of view, that sense of unwavering certainty - that's what we atheists are know for. Being openminded and able to re-examine our position would only make us like, um, religionists

But not you, right? You, you are just so above the fray...

Concern troll is concerned.

Posted by: MWSletten | March 25, 2009 3:48 PM

I too emailed the dipshit site publisher and received the "you must be pro-choice" and "unreported irony" boilerplate. My response:

You assume much sir. Although my (or anyone else's) personal opinion about abortion wasn't the subject of my previous email, I will tell you I find the practice to be abhorrent. Though, unlike you, I've accepted the idea in a free society my personal view of morality can't (and shouldn't) be applied universally.

Too, your comparison to Nazis of those who believe their individual rights take precedence over others' obviously debatable morals is telling. Of course I shouldn't be surprised that such extreme attitudes exist at an organization willing to publish what you have.

Since you asked one of me, I have a couple of questions for you: Is the irony you and Ms. Edmonds find in this tragedy "significant" enough to be worth debasing your cause and publication as you have? Have you considered that no other media outlet chose to comment about it because dignity and class are valued higher outside your organization?

There is no need to repond -- I'm sure you recognize rhetoric when you see it. All further correspondence from you or your organization will find it's way into my "junk" mail folder.

Good day.

Posted by: FlameDuck | March 25, 2009 3:51 PM

I'm using it to make a donation to Planned Parenthood in her name.

Would your response have been the same had Irving 'Bud' Feldkamp been the owner of not the nation's largest privately owned abortion chain but rather the owner of the nation's largest chain of Nazi like concentration camps used for the purpose of exterminating all those of Jewish ethnicity?

I'm going to have to go with the late Bill Hicks here. If you're so pro-life, and you're so pro-child, then adopt one that's already here, that's very unwanted and very alone, and needs someone to take care of it, to get it out of a horrible situation.

Posted by: Stu | March 25, 2009 3:54 PM

Okay, well, people are disgusted that Gingi used this opportunity to make a point - that God will punish those who support abortion (or something similar). And they should be - it was insensitive (and on top of that her beliefs are irrational and freaking crazy).

You call this ghoulish sociopathic driveling lunacy "insensitive"? Are you fucking serious?

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 25, 2009 3:56 PM

I'm so relieved to learn that there are no true Christians who think like this about hell, and those who roast for eternity to make a nightlight for those who sleep smugly in heaven.

From St. Thomas Aquinas, Of the Relations of the Saints Towards the Damned

It is written (Is. 66:24): "They shall go out and see the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against Me"; and a gloss says: "The elect will go out by understanding or seeing manifestly, so that they may be urged the more to praise God."

I answer that, Nothing should be denied the blessed that belongs to the perfection of their beatitude. Now everything is known the more for being compared with its contrary, because when contraries are placed beside one another they become more conspicuous. Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned.

...But in the future state it will be impossible for them to be taken away from their unhappiness: and consequently it will not be possible to pity their sufferings according to right reason. Therefore the blessed in glory will have no pity on the damned.

...the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.

Posted by: Brownian | March 25, 2009 4:02 PM

This is an honest question -- I can understand religions built around the notion of works or faith leading to salvation, since the believers' actions actually have consequences, but if one believes everything is predestined, what is the point of religion?

Now you've done it. I was doing everything in my power to keep Heddle from reading Module #36 from his DM's Guide to Campaigning in the Calvinist Plane, but you've just asked him to open the floodgates on the physiological differences between hobbits and dwarves.

Posted by: JHS | March 25, 2009 4:06 PM

This pretty well encapsulates all the reasons I hate religion. At the end of the day, it's all ugly, petty, inhumane tripe.

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 25, 2009 4:08 PM

A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Both parts of the answer being, I would say, equally important.

Which is to say, of no importance whatsoever. One may argue every bit as reasonably and with every bit as much relation to reality and one's future well-being, that the highest goal of any sensible being is to make sure that Frodo and Bilbo always always have more fresh pipeweed than they could possibly smoke. Oh, and smiting anybody who disagrees with me, and gloating when they get what's coming to them, forever.

Posted by: guvic | March 25, 2009 4:10 PM

Glad PZ is OK from this morning's accident. While reading that article I noticed this one:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/03/25/2009-03-25_new_york_palace_hotel_boss_niklaus_leuen.html

Shouldn't we have laws like in France against wearing religious symbols at work or school?

I understand the guy was quite rude with his remarks but that particular ash Wednesday symbol is particularly unnerving. I am a surgeon and I just can't keep my eyes out of patients foreheads on that day. It really keeps me from concentrating in what I am doing.

Posted by: Sastra | March 25, 2009 4:11 PM

heddle #517 wrote:

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Q. 2. What is the chief end of God?

Posted by: Tulse | March 25, 2009 4:13 PM

Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

But none of that matters to your salvation. God has already decided whether you will be saved regardless of what you do. It makes as much sense to pray and "glorify" god as it does to pray and glorify an asteroid that may be on a path to strike the earth -- both will, according to your own beliefs, have exactly as much influence on the outcome. You presume that God has already determined whether you will "enjoy him forever" or not, so what's the point of religious practice? How is predestination not just a brute fact of the world like gravity?

(And sorry, Brownian -- I also like to poke holes in the logic of D&D spells. Ask me sometime about using a continual darkness spell cast on an object in a tube to produce the incredibly handy device I called a "flashdark"...)

Posted by: frog | March 25, 2009 4:14 PM

Sastra: I think you are grossly underestimating people's ability to rationalize and interpret their religious texts to fit their pre-existing values.

That's why there are good Christian despite their Christianity. There's no objective way to argue that they're not grossly distorting their intellectual heritage: the Bible, the church fathers, the scholasts, Calvin and Luther, and so on and so forth. In order to create a facsimile of decency, they have to rationalize away the trivial facts of their religion, like a decent person who happened to be a Stalinist.

The facts are simple -- they have an all-powerful God that creates a world of evil. There are only a couple ways around this: the original Christian (neo-Platonic) position that God wasn't really all-powerful, that as soon as he "touched" the world, his own failure became apparent (thereby require self-sacrific); or that God is evil; or to handwave about "freedom" without making any sensible definition of freedom; or to simply declare that evil is good ("God is inscrutable, a mystery").

The first one was eliminated since orthodox Christianity arose, since it basically makes anykind of "orthodoxy" impossible, since by definition orthodoxy is the failure of creation.

The second is a recurring theme in the practice of unofficial Christian theodicy, with it's waves antinomian rebellion and secret rejection of doctrine by inner circles. The third is particularly destructive, since it requires a constant self-delusion that is inevitably corrosive (Liberal Christianity). The last is standard doctrine for most sects --- "Slavery is Freedom" --- and is a senseless abdication of responsibility for a moral code, which creates the seeds for abdicating morality itself (see Fundamentalism).

As I said, the core of the doctrine is bad, evil, dirty, destructive and below human dignity. The fact that a decent artist can create a beautiful work with dung doesn't mean that it's good to cover one's walls with feces.

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 25, 2009 4:15 PM

Q. 2. What is the chief end of God?

So far as I can tell, it's where they stick the nozzle if the universe needs an enema, which means no matter what, if there is a god, humans are hosed.

Posted by: Stu | March 25, 2009 4:16 PM

Amanda,

No, I wasn't talking about WHAT she was saying.

Phew.

The manner in which she said it was insensitive.

Considering WHAT she was saying, who cares about the HOW? I mean, really...

Posted by: uppity cracka | March 25, 2009 4:27 PM

After reading heddle's blog, I can only say that heddle is a lunatic.

Brownian is my new hero.

Posted by: uppity cracka | March 25, 2009 4:31 PM

As the world's only true christian, I can only assume that everything you say is true, sir.

Posted by: Stu | March 25, 2009 4:34 PM

After reading heddle's blog, I can only say that heddle is a lunatic.

Almost, but not quite. That's the scary part.

Posted by: MikeM | March 25, 2009 4:36 PM

Yesterday, people called Gary McCullough shameless. Today, however, we have changed our minds and decided he's just an asshole.

Sometimes we just need to rethink things.

Gary McCullough, you're dancing on people's graves. Is this what your Jesus meant when he said to turn the other cheek? Really, this is how you interpret things? Hmmm. Glad I left the religion. Feels better every day.

(In reference to this comment).

Posted by: RG | March 25, 2009 4:37 PM

I don't get it. These people want me to believe.. Well if their God is real and does this, FUCK HIM! He doesn't get the honor of me worshiping him.

Posted by: Brownian | March 25, 2009 4:41 PM

As the world's only true christian, I can only assume that everything you say is true, sir.

Well, let's not go off all half-cracked, Uppity. While you may safely assume that, as the world's only True Christian, whatever I say about the nature of True Christianity is more true than anything anyone else says about it (unless they're agreeing with me, I am certainly fallible in other areas of knowledge. Further, it should be noted that I remain an atheist, as True Christianity doesn't actually require belief in a deity. You and everyone else would know this if you only opened your hearts, though I recognise that this is difficult for most, not least due to the difficulty in acquiring rib spreaders and steady sources of lactated Ringer's.

Posted by: Maargen | March 25, 2009 4:48 PM

To Bill Dauphin@455:

I think the fact that religionists feel they have no choice but to obey the laws of the land is one instance where they make sense. I really don't believe that killing people who don't ascribe to one's own view of morality is the right thing to do, even if they're Nazis. Slaves were routinely killed (ok, maybe not "routinely", but if one was beaten to death then "oops". After all, it was your own property. Exodus 21:21), but I really can't see that it would have been right for abolitionists to kill these slaveowners in cold blood. There's a reason there are laws against vigilantism.

Also, inconsistency with their own beliefs are one thing religionists are pretty consistent about (I say religionists because they're all - observant jews, christians, muslems, etc. - more similar than alike, and all pretty batty). Once you start off with the imaginary friend, can the end result of the thought process make much sense?

I guess my larger point is that too many people, from both the pro-choice and anti-choice position, see abortion as a religious issue. I think it can and should be discussed as an ethical one, but it isn't - partly because of the baggage of the mysogynisitic, sexually-obsessed prudery of the anti-choice camp. I try not to react to abortion questions from my dislike of the anti-choice messenger, but from the point of view of respect for the life of the women and children(?) involved. Meanwhile it's pro-choice, liberal organizations (and administrations) that do more to make fewer abortions necessary - another proof that ethics without religion is so much better than "religious morality".

Posted by: frog | March 25, 2009 4:50 PM

RG: I don't get it. These people want me to believe.. Well if their God is real and does this, FUCK HIM! He doesn't get the honor of me worshiping him.

I don't see how you can have any other response, if you're both decent and honest. That's the crux -- Christianity keeps you from being both simultaneously.

Posted by: JBlilie | March 25, 2009 4:57 PM

heddle:

I'm disappointed: You haven't called bullshit on Thomas Aquinas @518.

Posted by: kryptonic | March 25, 2009 5:06 PM

SimoN at #249?
What a disgusting pile of crap you prove yourself to be with each post. Why are you still here, you little weasel? Don't you get that no one wants to read your mindless, moronic ravings!

PZ is OK?

Saxon and Gingi. When can we expect to see you and your fellow pro-fetus sign- and aborted fetus jar-wielding zombies in front of the Feldkamp's home again? Don't wait! You have to strike now or you are going to seem like a couple of cowards and anti-choice pro-life lightweights. You can also show your concern for the unborn by sending your crew to protest at the cemetery too! If you pass up on these protest opportunities, then the darwinist, baby-eating, satan's taint-licking, faggot, commie, pharyngula-posting, terrorist-coddling, masturabator atheists win. Remember, "abortion stops a beating heart!"

Posted by: Kraid | March 25, 2009 5:20 PM

My bad, the correct title is Dead Children Expose the Worst in Us. Whatever. To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to, BULL-shit, BOOL-shit, etc.

Posted by: robhoofd | March 25, 2009 5:22 PM

^ blockquote malfunction ^

Posted by: heddle | March 25, 2009 5:31 PM

JBLilie,

I'm disappointed: You haven't called bullshit on Thomas Aquinas @518.

That's because it is irrelevant. Susan and Endor (and maybe others) were spreading the nonsense that living Christians take pleasure in contemplating the eternal torment of unbelievers, say like PZ. We don't. Aquinas is talking about the fact that in heaven we will have no pity and no sorrow over the lost, and will view it as just. Apples and oranges.

Most Christians will say this about Aquinas' point--for it is one that comes up fairly often: we understand theoretically that we will not be sad in heaven, but we cannot comprehend it this side of glory. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard a Christian say: "I don't see how I'll be happy in heaven when considering those who aren't there."

Personally I am in a minority-I think we will be sad at times. The fact that God will wipe away our tears means, to me, that we have been crying. But that's just a guess.

Tulse,

But none of that matters to your salvation.

Exactly! Welcome to Calvinism. We do all the churchy stuff because we like it, not because it will save us.

Posted by: Uerba | March 25, 2009 5:42 PM

As someone who does believe in God, I am absolutley apalled by the sheer iniquity of this cruel and heartless woman. If indeed she does want to get more people to see the love and grace of her deity and religious kin, making it seem bloodthirsty and vile is NOT a step in the right direction. Not that I wish it on her person, but if something this horrible ever happens to her, perhaps it'll be her "comeuppance" for this truly discraceful behavior.

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 25, 2009 5:49 PM

Aquinas is talking about the fact that in heaven we will have no pity and no sorrow over the lost, and will view it as just. Apples and oranges.

Most Christians will say this about Aquinas' point--for it is one that comes up fairly often: we understand theoretically that we will not be sad in heaven, but we cannot comprehend it this side of glory.

This is why I drive defensively, because I have to share the road with people who are even more crazy than heddle, and heddle is crazier than a shithouse rat.

Posted by: C. M. Baxter | March 25, 2009 5:59 PM

Uerba, see post #561.

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 25, 2009 6:00 PM

Heddle is clearly not trying to persuade anybody when he tries to defend his position by reassuring us that people in heaven will turn into people who will somehow no longer have to experience empathy, who won't be bothered by the miraculous perpetual torture of fellow human beings, and who refer to such a state as "glory."

Heddle here sounds as reassuring as Coraline's Other Mother (in Neil Gaiman's book and its animated adaptation), reassuring her that she'll be so happy when Coraline lets her replace her real eyes with black, sewn-on button eyes. Any child can recognize such wrongness, but heddle is cheerfully looking forward to being an animated corpse with any moral qualms scooped out of his brain, concerned only for the happiness of the monster he wants the rest of us to swoon over.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | March 25, 2009 6:01 PM

The weirdest thing about heddle is that he really, truly doesn't seem to realize how cruel and insane he sounds.

No, I think he's fully aware of how cruel and insane he sounds - he just believes that the pleasure he gets from expressing himself in such a way isn't the result of insane cruelty; rather, he sees it as righteous piety.

Such is the gift of religion.

Posted by: astrounit | March 25, 2009 6:08 PM

heddle #517 proclaims:

"Q. 1. What is the chief end of man? A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever. Both parts of the answer being, I would say, equally important."

You don't even understand the inconsistency between your use of the words "end" and "forever".

Together with your estimation of what constitutes "importance" your statement rates you as an imbecile.

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 25, 2009 6:12 PM

heddle,
You yourself, in your shameless worship of infinite evil, are a far more disgusting example of the dark side of Christianity than any of the preachers you describe@571.

Posted by: heddle | March 25, 2009 6:20 PM

astrounit,

You don't even understand the inconsistency between your use of the words "end" and "forever". Together with your estimation of what constitutes "importance" your statement rates you as an imbecile.

Um,

1) I didn't write it, it was written the 1640's by the Westminster divines. Say what you want about them, but they were the educated elite of that era, and the boys knew how to write.

2) There is no inconsistency between their use of the words man's chief end (purpose) and the fact that he would be engaging in said activity forever. None.

3) That kind of makes you the imbecile, I'm afraid.

Knockgoats,

[Heddle,] You yourself, in your shameless worship of infinite evil, are a far more disgusting example of the dark side of Christianity than any of the preachers you describe@571.

Really, Wow. Whodathunkit?

Posted by: Uerba | March 25, 2009 6:25 PM

C.M. Baxter, this is a Scienceblog(tm) that happens to be maintained by an atheist, not an "atheist blog". I've been in debates with belligerently fundamentalist believers, and if that's taught me anything, it's that no matter how much reason you use or evidence you present, nothing will change thier minds. We're not talking a reasonable person here, but a pious "Christian" who cares about little more than being right, so I can write my letters or email her, and it's going to be seen by blind eyes, IF it's seen at all. I'm not trying to covert anyone, and I've been following this blog for a while. Just chill out, man.

Posted by: Brownian | March 25, 2009 6:26 PM

Heddle,

Whether you and those you agree with or those who you disagree with are in the majority is not the issue. Neither revelation nor democracy decide the truth of your religious claims or those of any other. Stereotypes or not, the point stands: neither Christianity nor religion in general encourage or enforce any sort of objective morality other than allegiance to authority. No matter your expertise in Calvinistic theology, you must recognise that the only argument you can make with any conviction is that at least you and some set of those who self-describe as Christians don't act in the manner PZ and others describe. But in the end, if God exists and Christianity is true and belief vs. non-belief have any bearing on our lives in the here and now whatsoever, we could at least expect to see much more consistency among the beliefs of Christians than of Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Dogonists, or neo-Aztecs. We don't. This is the very reason why the No True Scotsman Fallacy is so problematic, at least for those who believe in a God that wants people to be saved.

As a predestinationist, I suspect this means little to you. You believe because God willed you to, and that's good enough for you. But as a predestinationist, I'm often surprised at your lack of understanding as to why your arguments as to the nature and truth value of your version of Christianity are so unconvincing to the majority of us here.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | March 25, 2009 6:37 PM

Brownian asked (of heddle):

But as a predestinationist, I'm often surprised at your lack of understanding as to why your arguments as to the nature and truth value of your version of Christianity are so unconvincing to the majority of us here.

I think the bigger question is why heddle argues, since part of the idea of the predestination he believes in is the concept of unconditional election - that his god decides whether or not you believe. If you don't believe it's because god doesn't want you to.

But if faith in his god can only be granted by an act of said god, we can't choose to be Christians. So, heddle shouldn't be asking us to believe in his god; he should be asking his god to believe in us.

I guess he doesn't have as much faith as he claims.

Posted by: MickyW | March 25, 2009 6:42 PM

Heddle; It's in Calvinism that Christianty loses it completely.

Get your bible out boy; mine's bigger! And I recognise it for what it really is: something to get fucked over with.

Posted by: Brownian | March 25, 2009 6:51 PM

But if faith in his god can only be granted by an act of said god, we can't choose to be Christians. So, heddle shouldn't be asking us to believe in his god; he should be asking his god to believe in us.

Calvinism: Blaming God for Atheists Since 1536.

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 25, 2009 6:51 PM

Heddle is not a more disgusting example of the dark side of Christianity than any of the preachers he described @571. He's merely an example of how crazy you'd have to be to think that his faith has any attraction to people who aren't insane.

When heddle wrote about ...the fact that in heaven we will have no pity and no sorrow over the lost, and will view it as just, he's such a complete sociopath that he can't imagine our disgust at the way he looks forward to experiencing a hollow space where a human heart would be in heddle heaven.

Heddle is a perfect specimen of what PZ was writing about when he titled his post, "a heartless faith." Heddle distinguishes between heartlessness, and the glory of blessed post-death heartlessness bestowed by a cosmic monster who'll scoop your heart out so you won't have to care about suffering. At least heddle's not an atheist, even he has to draw the line somewhere.

Posted by: heddle | March 25, 2009 6:54 PM

Brownian,

we could at least expect to see much more consistency among the beliefs of Christians than of Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Dogonists, or neo-Aztecs.

But many atheists say, do they not, that morality does not come from God and that Christianity in fact is an impediment. That means that they, in effect, should have a better track record than Christians.

I am not going to claim a scorecard. The point is that you ask a fair question, if I understand you: why aren’t Christians better models of moral living? The question is fair because we make the claim that morality comes from our God.

But, as I pointed out, atheists also make claims about morality that would predict a better grade if for no other reason than Christians will lower the average.

Again, I won’t try to tally score—but I will say that I see no evidence that atheists behave better than Christians. In this post we have the example of the Christian gal writing an insensitive and self-serving article. We also have a few people calling for such things Simon’s death by fire—and other incredibly vile posts concerning this woman—things that go way beyond pointing out legitimate concerns over what she wrote. Personally, I’d call it a wash.

Furthermore Christians have the concept of the visible and invisible church. There is really no way of assessing whether the invisible church has a better track record than the visible—but the possibility is open.

I'm often surprised at your lack of understanding as to why your arguments as to the nature and truth value of your version of Christianity are so unconvincing to the majority of us here.

Why would you be surprised? I suffer no such lack of understanding—rather I expect to be unconvincing.

Posted by: FlameDuck | March 25, 2009 7:04 PM

Thou shalt not criticize religion. Your job is on the line ...

Posted by: windy | March 25, 2009 7:07 PM

Aquinas is talking about the fact that in heaven we will have no pity and no sorrow over the lost, and will view it as just.

"But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 25, 2009 7:09 PM

So, heddle shouldn't be asking us to believe in his god; he should be asking his god to believe in us.

I do. (Well, not believe, but close enough.)

Like this?

Oh Lord please don't burn us
don't kill or toast your flock
Don't put us on the barbecue
or simmer us in stock,
Don't bake or baste or boil us
or stir-fry us in a wok.

Oh, please don't lightly poach us
Or baste us with hot fat.
Don't fricassee or roast us
Or boil us in a vat,
And please don't stick thy servants, Lord,
In a Rotissomat

Once heddle goes to heaven, he expects to be asking God to pass the long pork, please. It's only while he's stuck in mortal mode with us hell-bound atheists that he tries to be perceived as having something resembling a conscience and compassion. Passing for nearly normal is a survival skill, after all.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | March 25, 2009 7:09 PM

Brownian wrote:
Calvinism: Blaming God for Atheists Since 1536.

Oooh, I know what I'm asking for on my next trip to the custom t-shirt store...

heddle wrote:

But many atheists say, do they not, that morality does not come from God and that Christianity in fact is an impediment. That means that they, in effect, should have a better track record than Christians.

I agree that that's a pretty silly claim, in and of itself - and nigh on impossible to verify.

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 25, 2009 7:18 PM

Thanks, ASC, for another reminder of the wholesale assholism that comes with your political and religious convictions.

It's not just an asshole move to name PZ's children along with a link, it reads like a death threat. The FBI doesn't take kindly to such behavior, now matter how Christian it may be.

Posted by: frog | March 25, 2009 7:28 PM

we understand theoretically that we will not be sad in heaven, but we cannot comprehend it this side of glory

As I said, define evil as good, and call it a day.

Posted by: astrounit | March 25, 2009 7:34 PM

To heddle #578:

Ah, but a "PURPOSE", a "GOAL", a PRECONCIEVED whether strived for or acheived, is an END to the "quest". There's no QUESTING involved at all when one is already convinced of the "answer". You puke forth your falsehoods and expect everybody to be wowed by your tremendous powers of ignorance. People who already have there own sense of what constitutes importance and sincerity don't like getting vomited on by rank imbeciles.

When you display the audacity of an imbecile, if you can't get it through your impenetrably thick imbecile skull that there are people who have thought all of this stuff through thoroughly and have far surpassed your imbecilically dull and static views, when you actually make statements that easily demonstrates your imbecility, it doesn't surprise me an iota that you cast that label back on those who see right through your sorry imbecilic ass.

You are a consummate imbecile of the first order. It's quite obvious that "God" ordained it. You just don't get it. Imbeciles don't get it. Everybody with an ounce of brains here knows it. You don't. You must be an imbecile.

Posted by: frog | March 25, 2009 7:43 PM

Wowbagger: I agree that that's a pretty silly claim, in and of itself - and nigh on impossible to verify.

So off the mark, it's not even wrong.

Culture (morality) isn't a scientific discipline, subject to Popperian verification. It's inherently subjective, and thereby subject to the standards of the arts.

Trying to fit everything into the same box is insane. If we judge an ideology, we can not primarily look at some mythical "track record", as if a culture were a statistically analyzable series of experiments, any more than you would judge a book by it's "track record". You have to critically analyze it like a sculpture, a painting, choreography, prose, poetry, and such.

Under those conditions, you can come up to a critical appraisal that the structure of Christian morality is fuggin ugly, ill-conceived, lacks grace or realism, and is a modern hack on a medieval hack on an Imperial hack, on a set of Roman and Middle-Eastern hacks, on a Greek hack on a whole series of Iron Age hacks; as if someone had tried some kind of postmodern integration of random paragraphs, tied together by a celebration of death and suffering.

You don't have to ask the question about whether "Christians" or "Humanists" have a better track record -- you have to ask whether Christianity as a body of literature celebrates ugliness and evil.

I don't need to ask whether, sociologically speaking, those who watch child-porn are more or less likely to commit pedophiliac crimes in order to reject child-porn as a blot and a stain, and personally judge those who indulge. Sociological research may be interesting to answer the question of what our legal response should be; but no one is suggesting some kind of legal censuring of Christianity is necessary -- we can morally censure purely on the basis of the structured, concensus subjective reality of the art form.

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 25, 2009 7:51 PM

My conception of heddle in heaven: "Th-th-th-that's all, Ethel!

Posted by: Carlie | March 25, 2009 7:56 PM

Windy at #597 reminded me of this one:

Aquinas is talking about the fact that in heaven we will have no pity and no sorrow over the lost, and will view it as just.

Mr. Helpmann: He's got away from us, Jack.
Jack Lint: 'Fraid you're right, Mr. Helpmann. He's gone.

Posted by: Chemgirl | March 25, 2009 8:00 PM

I am always shocked and confused at how these religious types manage to make connections to things that are totally irrelevant.

Children of a man who protects the right of women to an abortion die in a plane crash? Clearly these events are related. For people who are supposed to rely on faith, they sure pretend to know a hell of a lot about the mind of their God.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | March 25, 2009 8:21 PM

I wrote:

I agree that that's a pretty silly claim, in and of itself - and nigh on impossible to verify.

So off the mark, it's not even wrong.

I think you've got your wires crossed, frog. What I was trying to say (and didn't think was ambiguous in the least) is that it would be difficult to show, definitively, that adherence to Christianity made one consistently 'less moral' than a lack of adherence to Christianity - which is what heddle said atheists on occasion claim.

So, I think we're actually in agreement. Or, at least, that's what I've gleaned from the rest of your post.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted by: frog | March 25, 2009 8:25 PM

Wowbagger:

You're right, I misread you. You were responding to a heddlian straw man, and I thought you were acting as the straw man.

I thought you were singing "If I only had a brain" -- and it turns out I was getting on the yellow brick road instead.

But I like the rest of my post, even if the impetus was only my own foolishness.

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 25, 2009 8:31 PM

you used the words puke and vomit and variants of imbecile at least eight times

Astrounit must've been referring to heddle droppings.

Posted by: casey | March 25, 2009 8:38 PM

I know a horrible, little fundamentalist brat who deserves a spanking. (They believe in corporal punishment, don't they? That's what I thought.) And since this is such an extreme case of naughtiness, I suggest using the paddle.

Posted by: Max | March 25, 2009 8:43 PM

Actually, given her viewpoint it was an entirely reasonable post. If you take as a given (I don't) that the man was as guilty of atrocities as any Nazi, then hers was actually a rather civilized response. And that's the scary part for me. When you take such a distorted view of the world it is very easy to become the monster you abhor. Should some evidence of foul play come to light, I do hope she is considered as a person of interest.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | March 25, 2009 8:46 PM

Heddle, I'm a bit late to the fold, but I like how when you rise to heaven your god allows you to watch those deemed unworthy suffer, yet makes the suffering largely irrelevant by removing your ability to feel anything but that it is just that we suffer for not having been picked as worthy by your god. And this is moral how?

To quote Lewis Black, you are "Stone-cold-fuck-nuts!"

Posted by: John Nernoff III | March 25, 2009 8:56 PM

I sent the following to Gingi:

Deut 7:1 ...many nations--the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations....you must destroy them totally....show them no mercy....For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth....

[genocide n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. --Am Herit. Dict. 3rd Ed, 1994]

Numbers 31:17: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones."

Deut. 2:34: ". . . utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones."

Deut 20:10-16 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.

Posted by: ambulocetus | March 25, 2009 9:23 PM

Cuttlefish @ 193
That almost brought me to tears.

Posted by: TheNaturalist | March 25, 2009 9:26 PM

Just two words: douche nozzle.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | March 25, 2009 9:47 PM

frog wrote:

The evilness/ugliness of the core of their ideology is distinct from their personality and real personal beliefs.

I think a lot of it's to do with how little is actually required of Christians to qualify as such - i.e. they just have to be able to answer in the affirmative when asked what their religious beliefs are.

Should Christians have to qualify through study and show they actually understand the philosophy and ideology of the faith they wish to be part of then we'd have fewer Christian scumbags like the odious 'Gingi' revelling in the deaths of these people.

Admittedly, if Christians had to study and understand their religion there'd be far fewer Christians; too many of would go 'hang on - it means I have to believe in what? Oh, that's just stupid! I'm outta here.'

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 25, 2009 10:01 PM

Should Christians have to qualify through study and show they actually understand the philosophy and ideology of the faith they wish to be part of ...

Posted by: don | March 25, 2009 10:06 PM

Would it be sick if somehow this creepy lady had a connection with the plane crash, sabatoge, I would not put it past these crazies...

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 25, 2009 10:24 PM

Please hurry up and join them.
You pitiable sow.
The time has come.
The time is now.
Just go.
Go.
Go!
I don't care how.
You can go by foot.
You can go by cow.
Christard troll tammi will you please go now!
You can go on skates.
You can go on skis.
You can go in a hat.
But
Please go.
Please!
I don't care.
You can go
By bike.
You can go
On a Zike-Bike
If you like.
If you like
You can go
In an old blue shoe.
Just go, go, GO!
Please do, do, do, DO!

(with apologies to Dr. Seuss and Marvin K. Mooney, reputedly a standin for Richard M. Nixon)

Posted by: Danton49 | March 25, 2009 10:26 PM

Great article. I just stumbled upon this blog and so far I'm loving what I see. I admit that religious does have a few (very few) good intentions, but not enough to make up for the incredible about of evil they cause. This is a great example of where they become so deluded in thinking they know what is right, while ignoring the blatant ironic and disgusting statement they make. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Numad | March 25, 2009 10:34 PM

"I'm sure it won't be posted because I don't agree[...]"

I think you may harboring some misconceptions about the administration of this blog.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | March 25, 2009 10:35 PM

As a Calvinist, heddle believes in TULIP:

Total Depravity - We're scum
Unconditional Election - God doesn't care that we're scum
Limited Atonement - Jesus died to redeem only some of us, the rest are going to Hell.
Irresistible Grace - We're going to Heaven or Hell even if we're dragged there by the scruff of our necks.
Perseverance of the Saints - It doesn't matter what we do, those of us going to Heaven are going there even if we were concentration camp guards, those of us going to Hell can be the nicest, most moral people.

Calvinists are more wackaloon than many Christians and their god is an even bigger sadist than many Christians' god.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | March 25, 2009 10:36 PM

I'm sure it won't be posted because I don't agree, but this string is not worth my time to read. 90% plus of what I did read was pure hate. You know, that stuff that only Christians are supposed to be capable of!! It's clear that either most intelligent people aren't wasting their time reading this string and/or the moderator is deleting most of the posts he disagrees with.

Try reading for comprehension, douchebag.

PZ only deletes those comments of habitually unpleasant trolls, and almost always gives them warnings in advance. One-off drive-by morons like your incompetent self are safe, unless you make a habit of it.

There are plenty worse than you who survive.

Posted by: CocoLoco | March 25, 2009 10:39 PM

I'm getting a little tired of the "fundies will always be fundies and nothing will change them and they won't listen to reason" , etc. etc. It's just not true. I am living proof of that. I was pretty fundie all my life up until a few years ago. It IS possible and there IS hope, people. Just check out EXChristian.net. There are "deconverters" contributing their story of deconversion just about every day. Keep fighting with the voice of reason, it works more than you think.

Posted by: peter | March 25, 2009 10:44 PM

I was going to send the young lady a nice email but I couldn't for this reason: "The e-mail message could not be delivered because the user's mailfolder is full."

Sounds like you've all been doing a nice job, congratulations.

- a "pro-abort"

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 25, 2009 10:49 PM

I'm getting a little tired of the "fundies will always be fundies and nothing will change them and they won't listen to reason" , etc. etc. It's just not true

What, you think you're the very first apostate to post here? Go to the end of the line, you strawman-spewing concern troll.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 25, 2009 11:05 PM

An email today from Matt Trewhella of "Missionaries to the Preborn", promoting the Edmonds screed, endorses the goddidit perspective on the plane crash:

A reminder that there is a God who judges rightly in the earth.

Posted by: Desert Son | March 25, 2009 11:15 PM

Ranson at #160, way back up thread, just now getting back to this thread after a trying day (I had a few brief moments to post in PZ's car wreck thread earlier), and just wanted to say thank you for your kind words.

Does Calvinism remind anyone else of Boxer from Orwell's Animal Farm? "I will work harder," even though, no matter the extent of the effort, no matter the dedication to the work, no matter the allegiance to the "party," the poor bastard's going to end up at the glue factory.

I guess the difference would be that some people revel in the role.

"It's a crazy world."
"Someone should sell tickets."
"Hell, I'd buy one."
-Raising Arizona

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Derek | March 25, 2009 11:21 PM

#644 Disgusted wrote: "this string is not worth my time to read. 90% plus of what I did read was pure hate. You know, that stuff that only Christians are supposed to be capable of!!"

Where was it stated that "hate" is the exclusive domain of Chrisianity? All human beings are capable of having this engagement with the world regardless of religious affiliation, or lack thereof.

Also, if a passionate reaction to the goulish musings of Gingi Edmonds bothers you, then by all means stop reading this thread.

Posted by: Desert Son | March 25, 2009 11:27 PM

Shoot, just realized I should've put a spoiler warning in my post at #659, in case some folks were planning on reading Animal Farm who hadn't yet.

Sorry about that. So, yeah, uh . . . spoilers . . . previously.

Great Cthluhu, I'm tired. Gotta go to bed.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Kel | March 25, 2009 11:49 PM

Those complaining about unfairly demonising the religion by way of the extremists then at the same time saying these people aren't "true" Christians are hypocrites.

Posted by: aratina | March 26, 2009 12:24 AM

It's clear that either most intelligent people aren't wasting their time reading this string and/or the moderator is deleting most of the posts he disagrees with. - disgusted

Posted by: Leigh Williams | March 26, 2009 12:28 AM

He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."

#593, posted under the names of PZ's children.

This is a THREAT, is what it is.

The asshole's name and contact info:

John Pacheco
Vigil Co-ordinator
40 Days for Life
Ottawa Campaign
pacheco377@gmail.com

John Pancheco, I see what you did there!

I sent ole' John the following email:
-----------------------------------------------
Subject: Thanks for visiting Pharyngula

Thanks for dropping by PZ Myers' blog today. Since you saw fit to threaten PZ's children, I've noted your contact info in the thread you visited for future reference. If anything untoward should happen to his family, I'm sure the authorities will be paying you a visit.

I only mention this to document your threatening activity. Truth be told, I'm sure you're so ineffectual in all areas that you pose no real danger.

By the way, your theology and politics are both ridiculous and wrong. I thank God that you and your ilk are becoming more and more irrelevant by the day, though I deplore the shrillness the resulting desperation engenders.

Have a nice day!

Leigh Williams
Austin, Texas

Posted by: Kel | March 26, 2009 12:31 AM

Love according to pharyngula Atheist, this is my conclusion

Posted by: Evangelatheist | March 26, 2009 12:49 AM

Simon-
If you're going to bother to post, why don't you post something constructive: let me suggest a comparison between the hateful gingi edwards and the also hateful esther. I'd be interested in studying your delusional thoughts.

However if you don't bother to come up with anything more useful, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Posted by: jrock | March 26, 2009 1:13 AM

Hey, first time poster and relatively new to the site. Had to respond on that idiot Gingi. She should take a lesson from a 6 year old that has a better sense of compassion than she'll ever have in her twisted little mind.
'If you want to learn to love better, you should start with a friend who you hate,'

Nikka - age 6
I've been outraged at the antics of so-called "loving" Christians for some time, and this is but another unsurprising example of what they do.

As for Simon, nice post. I see you've learned that when logic and reason fail resort to slurring those that don't agree with you (i.e. anyone who thinks rationally). As for the use of the word fuck all the time, well, I won't use the word, but what I will say is "Doom on you!"

Posted by: Reggie | March 26, 2009 1:32 AM

Amen, PZ. A-fucking-men.

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 26, 2009 1:42 AM

Yes, Twin-Skies. That, and the biblical injunction about the sins of the fathers passed on to the children, can be interpreted as nothing other than a death threat. There are some assholes who need to learn that it isn't Dick Cheney's FBI any more.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2009 1:54 AM

Yes, Twin-Skies. That, and the biblical injunction about the sins of the fathers passed on to the children, can be interpreted as nothing other than a death threat. There are some assholes who need to learn that it isn't Dick Cheney's FBI any more.

Death threats over the internet are felonies. And the FBI has a cybercrimes division. Report them to the FBI. They will investigate and prosecute. There are a lot of people doing multi-year sentences for death threats.

Been there, done that. And two slime molds ended up charged with federal felonies and explaining the unexplainable in court to a judge.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | March 26, 2009 2:09 AM

saxon wrote:

gingi...a christian girl, usually assoicated with LIFE and saving babies.

[checking dictionary] Nope, got nothing matching that definition.

I do have 'gingi - clueless, repellent, attention-desperate, forced-birth anti-choice sociopathic embarrassment-even-to-other-Christians* scumbag who might have turned out differently had her equally odious scumbag of a mother exercised common sense and/or critical thinking skills at key points in her or her daughter's life.'

PS Go fuck yourself, turd.

*_{Read some of the posts here, dipshit; we have Christians calling your daughter out for her immoral repugnanace.}

Posted by: Twin-Skies | March 26, 2009 2:15 AM

@saxon

It depends on whicch culture you follow. Ravens in western mythology tend to get a bad rep, unfortunately. In my country for example, ravens (or at least their relative, the maya bird) is respected for its cleverness and affection as a pet.

Quit the stereotyping baseless generalizations - all you're showing is your ignorance

Posted by: John Morales | March 26, 2009 2:23 AM

saxon @683, why do you evade the issue by irrelevant comparisons with user names?

Despite her protestation, your daughter used the grief of others to turn this tragic event into some creepy spiritual 'I told you so' moment, in her own words.

You're no better:

This was a horrific accident, one that would be akin to a drunk driver who finally realizes he needs to sober up when he kills a large family.

Posted by: bootsy | March 26, 2009 2:35 AM

@669 Simon:

Good point, I would LOVE a fuck as breakfast.

I'll be working on making that happen.

Posted by: CocoLoco | March 26, 2009 2:42 AM

Ken @ #655,

Get a grip, man.What the hell makes me a concern troll? My comment was meant as an encouragement to those who think all Christians are hopelessly delusional. I was and no longer am due to the efforts of those contributing to sites such as this. Chill the hell out. This is why I rarely comment on this site. People like you jump down throats without first understanding what was meant.

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 26, 2009 2:48 AM

My comment was meant as an encouragement to those who think all Christians are hopelessly delusional.

Strawman. Look up the word apostate. Few here could even imagine such a thing, with so many of us having been formerly fundies.

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 26, 2009 2:53 AM

People like you jump down throats without first understanding what was meant.

Nobody can be expected to know what you meant, unless it is accurately reflected in what you write. A lesson heddle needs to learn also, is to never write more clearly than you can think.

Posted by: CocoLoco | March 26, 2009 2:58 AM

Sigh. Ken. Let me try this again. What I mean is, some can see the light of reason and throw off the shackles of Christianity. I did. I no longer am a Christian after research and listening to reason. I'm saying there is hope. With the right tools some people can overcome the delusion in which they were raised. That's all. My reason for posting in the first place was that I fear people giving up fighting people like Gingli with reason. I would have thought similar things as her once upon a time. What is wrong with saying there's hope?

Posted by: raven | March 26, 2009 3:05 AM

By the way, I just realized I used the feminine her without actually knowing if your female. If you aren't I apologize for the error. No offense intended on my part.

Since when is being female an insult? No offense meant or taken. I'm a lot more concerned about saxon, gingi, and the hordes of similar. A lot of the evil I've seen in the past has been mostly just psychotics who really aren't evil, just crazy, bad genetics and bad brain chemistry.

These people are in a class by themselves. I think it takes a seriously defective personality backed up by faith in a monstrous, sadistic god to produce moslem suicide bombers, witch killers, or gingis, saxons, and the multitude of the same.

"It takes religion for good people to do bad things." Imagine what religion does for people who start out bad.

Posted by: John Morales | March 26, 2009 3:11 AM

CocoLoco, relax. With good reason, regulars here have very sensitive troll sniffers and itchy trigger-fingers :)

What is wrong with saying there's hope?

I'm getting a little tired of the "fundies will always be fundies and nothing will change them and they won't listen to reason" , etc. etc.

My reason for posting in the first place was that I fear people giving up fighting people like Gingli with reason.

Posted by: jrock | March 26, 2009 3:19 AM

@ raven
Being female isn't an insult(as I'm sure my wife would agree). As for the defective personality backed by faith, I think that faith causes the defective personality. Religion, I'm sure we'll all agree, is propagated by brainwashing the young and the superstitious. By focusing on the young, who don't really have a chance at developing a personality, religions can shape and mold them however they want. While I agree about brain chemistry for some, I think the sad truth is that people like Gingi were twisted by their parents into sad caricatures of actual human beings that mistake fantasy for reality.

The really scary thing is in her twisted fantsy world, she probably truly believes she was expressing some sympathy for the doctor. Why religion hasn't been classified as a mental disorder is beyond me.

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 26, 2009 3:28 AM

Perhaps I'm naive?

We'll turn you into a steely-eyed, flint-skinned athier-than-thou atheist in no time. Buck up. We have the upper hand and the moral authority. After all, we don't have to imagine there's no heaven. We're all here just doing the best we can. Sorry about the stubbed toes, but I'm sure you've noticed there are flaming bags of poo all over the place today.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | March 26, 2009 3:29 AM

CocoLoco, stick in there, we can be a bit abrasive at times, to say the least :) especially if we have just had a lot of trolling or a run of inane god botherers with circular arguments so that even seemingly innocent posts can get someones spidey senses tingling. But it can be fun and educational, for I don't think a day has gone by that I haven't learnt something of value here, either from PZ or from one of the mountain of superb posters.

Posted by: John Morales | March 26, 2009 3:35 AM

CocoLoco, I don't think you're naive, but some of us are somewhat jaded. Hang around a while and you'll see godbots whose insouciant yet wilful ignoring of reason and evidence over a period of time is remarkably predictable.

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | March 26, 2009 3:44 AM

This is heinous. But it does not accurately represent the majority of those who profess Christian faith. My guess is that it may represent many of the folks who claim to be Christian...

Bullshit. The only thing about this is it perhaps more starkly shows the udnerlying theme of Christianity than most usually dare to.

Almost universal among all but those who most casually call themselves Christian is the feeling that if they have avoided a fatality, God saved them, and if they die, God has "called them home."

God decides when and why you die. That is the essence of Christianity. You will be judged. You will be rewarded or punished. That's Christianity in a nutshell. Add varying degrees of "you're inherently nasty, dirty, bad, sinful and you have some major sucking up to do or your ass is going to be tortured" for most if not all Christian sects.

It's almost impossible to believe in any god without being delusional (those who have no access to any scrap of information learned since about 5000 years ago get a pass)

It's almost impossible to believe in and worship rather than detest the Christian god (as commonly represented) without being at least to some degree immoral.

Human morality comes from empathy. The Christian god cannot be revered without an empathy deficiency.

Christain faith is a form of sociopathy.

Posted by: jrock | March 26, 2009 3:50 AM

Uhhh...Truelove, judge not lest ye be judged. Seems appropriate since judging by your post you just did the exact same thing everyone else has been doing.
Besides love is not what makes us human. It's a part of what makes us human, along with hate, anger, fear, sadness, happiness, and all other emotions.

As for the true measure of man being loving those that don't agree with you, well, no that isn't the true measure of a man. I love plenty of people who don't agree with me (for instance, my wife happens to be a preacher's daughter). If you want to use love as the measure of men, feel free because that's not really germane to the discussion at hand. This discussion is actually more analogous to "The only requirement for evil to triumph is for good people to sit back and do nothing." Standing up for what you believe in is the true measure of any person.

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | March 26, 2009 4:09 AM

Typo correction: a person can say they dont HATE anyone.

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | March 26, 2009 4:16 AM

"Standing up for what you believe in is the true measure of any person."

Gentle disagreement. I would actually depreciate that a bit. WHAT you believe in is the true measure of a person. After that standing up for it is good, as long as what you believe in isn't bullshit.

Godwin alert - Hitler did a damned fine job of standing up for what he believed in. The measure of him as a person? Not so fucking great.

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | March 26, 2009 4:30 AM

aqhhh fuck. quote didnt work. I give up. No more commenting on a 15 year old pc with a malware-ridden copy of windows 95 via dialup on a noisy trailer phone line.

No more internet til im back incivilization.

Posted by: jrock | March 26, 2009 4:48 AM

@Jaffa Hots

Thank you for that clarification. You're right, I should have been more careful when I made that statement. Although it seems that there is an assumption that the true measure of a person has to be inherently good. You nailed it right on the head when you said the measure of Hitler was "not so fucking great".
However, tossing out the assumption that the measure of a person is a good thing, and realizing that it simply reflects the person for better or for worse, and given the fact that the only way to know what someone believes is by them standing up for it, I think my statement still has validity.
Gingi stood up for what she believed and we have taken her measure. She is cruel, venal, and twisted and definitely found wanting.

Posted by: Drosera | March 26, 2009 5:53 AM

If you ‘moderate Christians’ do not agree with her then you should consider burning your Bible, a book that should really be called Genocide for Dummies, and stop calling yourselves Christians.

Posted by: Drosera | March 26, 2009 6:01 AM

John, feel free to spread the word.