Pharyngula

Posted by: Randomfactor | August 5, 2009 12:02 PM

Apparently PA, not LA (LA Fitness was the name of the club.)

Posted by: Endor | August 5, 2009 12:03 PM

From the linked article: "Moffatt would not confirm a newspaper report that Sodini's ex-girlfriend was one of the women killed in the shooting."

Of course. Naturally, the bitch who left him deserved to die. And any random creature who share the same genitalia too. That'll impress Jesus!

Posted by: Barklikeadog | August 5, 2009 12:04 PM

You'll know they are christians by their love.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 5, 2009 12:05 PM

Clinically insane most likely.
And a god delusion on top.
Awful.

Posted by: Diego | August 5, 2009 12:07 PM

My crazy Jehovah's Witness officemate stopped in this morning to ask if I had heard about this shooting. She always has either crackpot ideas or bad news for me (she scours the internet for disasters). And somehow she came around to signs and portents of the oh so exciting Armageddon. I guess it was pretty futile the other day when I asked her to try to tell me some good news from time to time, because for her bad news is good news if it means the end of the world is soon.

Posted by: James Dean | August 5, 2009 12:09 PM

You mean Pittsburgh?

Posted by: Jon Voisey | August 5, 2009 12:11 PM

Other articles have reported was that he hadn't had a date since 1984 and had no friends.

Gee. I wonder why he had to depend on imaginary ones.

Posted by: DR K | August 5, 2009 12:16 PM

These people reaped what they sowed.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | August 5, 2009 12:18 PM

Clinically insane most likely.

If only there was some way to keep guns out of the hands of homicidally psychotic individuals...

These mass killings seem to be so depressingly regular.

Posted by: Arguendo | August 5, 2009 12:28 PM

Here is what Theists will say...

"He could have just as easily been an Atheist writing that as a last ditch attack on religion."

"He didn't believe in God. He had some crazy idea of who God is"

"Poor soul, his atheist girlfriend must have drove him to it. I hope she accepted Jesus before he shot her."

"abaga lidik parfaraga" "Amen"

Posted by: Sam Mackrill | August 5, 2009 12:31 PM

> If only there was some way to keep guns out of the hands of > homicidally psychotic individuals...

There is! Keep the guns out of everybody's hands.

Posted by: Ray S. | August 5, 2009 12:36 PM

It doesn't appear that religion pushed him over the edge, it's more than religion convinced him there wasn't an edge. It's more of a transition and the grass is greener on the other side.

That salvation is by grace and not works is one of the foundations of Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptists like Pastor Tom Estes. Thus it doesn't matter what they do in this life; they already have an automatic ticket o sit next to Jesus in the next one. Those are the people to watch out for.

And the ones seeking the 72 virgins - won't they be pissed if it really does turn out to be raisins? Do you suppose they could repeat as a suicide bomber in paradise?

Posted by: Mike | August 5, 2009 12:38 PM

Slacktivist recently weighed in on Grace v. Works, in the context of the Left Behind series of books.

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2009/06/tf-skip-verse-10.html

Posted by: Sili | August 5, 2009 12:44 PM

Other articles have reported was that he hadn't had a date since 1984 and had no friends.

I, too, have yet to rape and murder anyone. I guess it was good I gave up gods before I snapped.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | August 5, 2009 12:46 PM

There is! Keep the guns out of everybody's hands.

Yes, I knew the answer really. It is certainly fairly effective here in the UK.

I know that taking all of the legitimately owned guns out of circualtion in the US is not trivial, and I understand that it requires ordinary citizens to give up a cherished right, but how many corpses does it take for people to be willing to do whatever is necessary?

Posted by: Holbach | August 5, 2009 12:48 PM

He may have claimed to see and know his god when alive, but now that he is dead he will do neither, and never know either way. And religion is always denied as a form of insanity run amuck.

Posted by: DR K | August 5, 2009 12:50 PM

#20

They were Godless.

QED

Posted by: strangebrew | August 5, 2009 12:53 PM

#16

"These people reaped what they sowed.'

That looks like a sentence ripe for the execution!

Possible a little clarification will determine whether it is a flame a shame or a simple blame game!

Posted by: James Sweet | August 5, 2009 12:55 PM

Wow. Rarely are the disastrous ethical consequences of the Atonement meme painted in such stark colors. It's one thing to know in theory that the idea of the Atonement is an implicit erosion of personal responsibility; it's another thing entirely to see it in action in such grave circumstances. Sad. :(

Posted by: Desert Son | August 5, 2009 12:57 PM

"The future holds nothing for me. Twenty five years of nothing fun. I never even spent one weekend with a girl in my life, even at my own place. Also unlikely to find another similar job. I guess then is when I take care of things. I don't have kids, close friends or anything."

The psychological strain of a social animal recognizing an environment populated by numerous other representatives of the species engaged in social connection, and realizing that he was not (for whatever reason, including his own agency) so likewise engaged. The whole situation is painfully sad, especially how he chose to deal with it in the end.

To top the tragedy off, if his diary is an accurate assessment of his feelings, he placed a final hope in a reward for which there's no evidence. It adds a whole new twisted spin on Pascal's wager. All that terrible experience, finalized with a bloody signature in the hope of an "afterlife," and one that would see past his deeds, to boot.

Tell your loved ones you love them tonight.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | August 5, 2009 12:59 PM

I guess Jesus murdered those 3 women and injured the other 10. Bad, Bad Jesus.

Posted by: Matlock Bolton | August 5, 2009 12:59 PM

Well obviously he wasn't a 'real' Christian. It's funny how you are a real christian right up to the point when you shock people. Either by killing a bunch of people or just announcing you are an atheist.

You have to love how 'real' Christians group atheists with mass murderers.

Posted by: genecutter | August 5, 2009 1:00 PM

There is nothing at all kooky about this man's journal entry from a religious point of view. It is exactly the same justification you will hear good Christians spouting all the time. The difference here is simply the severity of his particular crime. If his sin had been merely lusting in his heart, for example, every bible thumper in the land would applaud his wonderful prose. Clearly this guy was a loon by any standard, but that particular quote from his diary could have been lifted straight from a typical Sunday sermon in your local neighborhood church.

Posted by: Britomart | August 5, 2009 1:04 PM

Dunno why people are so stupid, really. There are solutions to loneliness, help at the local soup kitchen, take a cooking class, learn to ski, talk to a shrink. So many choices, really. Is this a case of prejudice against psychology? Was he gay? One would even think he could meet people in his church!

Oh. Don't feed the trolls.

Thank you kindly

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | August 5, 2009 1:04 PM

Yeah. Banning things always works great. Prohibition didn't end up increasing organized crime... wait... what?

Sorry to break it to you, but banning guns will only keep them out of the hands of people willing to follow the law. There's already a black market for unregistered/untracable guns. Banning them will just make it worse.

Organised criminals will always obtain guns, but insane people - the people who commit most of the mass murders and who kill their friends and families - won't have access to them.

It works very well in the UK, as it does in much of the rest of the world, to keep guns generally out of the hands of the public. (And certainly, to restrict handguns and semi- and fully- automatic weapons only to the police and military.) Why do countries like the UK have such low rates of mass killing?

If the US has a unique problem with firearms, then perhaps it is time to deal with it via the most draconian means.

Posted by: speedwell | August 5, 2009 1:09 PM

Knockgoats, you're smarter than me. Show your work. What's your best-thought-out process for taking guns away from "homicidally psychotic individuals." If it involves leaving guns in the hands of homicidal sociopaths in uniform, try again.

Posted by: Laurie | August 5, 2009 1:11 PM

Sounds like a case of this man's misogyny and his religious beliefs reinforcing each other.

As some feminist blogs are commenting, his attitudes about women aren't exactly uncommon. He hates women because he is attracted to them and can't stand the idea that they have the power and the right to say to no to him. Since he doesn't view women as quite being people in their own right, he has no tolerance for them not giving him what he wants. I don't think this attitude is exactly uncommon, though obviously even most women-haters don't commit mass murder. The only times I have been called a "b***h" or "c***t" have been when I have declined to drop my conversation with friends to talk to a random dude demanding my attention in a bar or on the street.

Another observation (which I hope isn't too inappropriate). This guy actually appeared fairly attractive in the picture on the internet. I suspect his personality issues, mental illness and/or hatred of women must have become obvious to the women he pursued (though clearly not so obvious that they prevented him from holding him a decent, paying job).

Posted by: James Sweet | August 5, 2009 1:13 PM

I'd like to copy-and-paste something I just wrote on blog:

Anti-atheists like to say that without religion, we have no moral compass. While I don't accept this line of argumentation, let's assume for a second that it is true. Even if it were, we would still expect atheists to behave more ethically than their Atonement-believing Christian counterparts, because the threat of imprisonment or other worldly consequences would be much less threatening to a person who believed that they'd get to chase it with an eternity in paradise anyway.

Posted by: Angel Kaida | August 5, 2009 1:17 PM

Silly PZ. It's called LA Fitness but it's in Pittsburgh. LA Fitness is a chain.

Posted by: MikeM | August 5, 2009 1:22 PM

Also as usual, the Bible is wildly inconsistent on the faith/works point:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/saved.html

Posted by: Angel Kaida | August 5, 2009 1:23 PM

Uh... everyone talking about religion's role in this shooting might want to check out his online diary, where he says religion is a waste and that he hates religious people, especially fundies. Then he does go on to say that maybe he'll see God, Jesus, etc.

Posted by: KSMB | August 5, 2009 1:24 PM

Wait. How can he have had no dates since 1984 and at the same time an ex-girlfriend at the gym? She must have been a really really ex from at least 25 years ago...

Posted by: Dave X | August 5, 2009 1:26 PM

Maybe if this evil man thought mastubation was an option he would have had more fun on the weekends. As an atheist, I really just can't fathom doing something so evil in this life.

The internet archive has some old pages of his. See http://web.archive.org/web/*hh_/georgesodini.com/

2004: "...Information provided and page created by George A. Sodini, a.k.a crazygeorge"

Posted by: Kevin | August 5, 2009 1:27 PM

Blogger half-sigma has the whole diary, apparently:

http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/08/george-sodinis-diary-page.html

Posted by: Tigerwolf | August 5, 2009 1:30 PM

I think religion is culpable in cases like this, where the whackaloon du jour leans on promises of afterlife and god’s forgiveness to expiate his guilt over what butchery he’s about to commit. Religion provides cover for someone who’s going off the deep end by being one more way for the whackaloon to insulate himself from the gnawing realization that, dude, you are fucked up and need to get some serious, reality-based help.

^..^

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | August 5, 2009 1:31 PM

@Dave X: Second Life and masturbation suffice for many a socially challenged introvert. Or so I've heard.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | August 5, 2009 1:34 PM

What I'm more curious about in this case is whether or not someone else would have gotten him help if he wasn't religious and his religion sheilded the fact that he was completely insane.

I know it's all just speculation, but it seems to be a pattern that the people who are religious AND insane rarely get the help they need before it's too late.

Posted by: Kevin | August 5, 2009 1:35 PM

Did religion provide an ad hoc excuse? Check this entry from his diary, entered Dec 2008:

"Tetelestai Church in Pittsburgh, PA - "Be Ye Holy, even as I have been Ye holy! Thus saith the lord thy God!", as pastor Rick Knapp would proclaim. Holy shit, religion is a waste. But this guy teaches (and convinced me) you can commit mass murder then still go to heaven. Ask him..."

And then this:

"I have been in barrooms and church groups. The worst people by far are the religious types. Especially a right-wing, stiff-faced fundie like XXXX. A condescending, demeaning, passive-aggresive person. Frigid, rigid, linear and totally inflexible. Being a very serious person, he cannot hide his frown-lined face. He better not try to smile; lest his face might crack. I knew children of parents who grew up in strict religious homes. Religion has a certain stink to it of guilt, shame, fear, and that moral standard that always contradicts the natural tendencies and desires of a person. Therin lies the conflict. Young person cannot experiment with things to decide on their own and establish their own parameters. So they tend to cut loose and really rebel much worse than the average young person."

Looks like he was religious, but cynical, neither in nor out, but indoctrinated, and affected. Again, my source is as above, half sigma's blog

Posted by: Joe | August 5, 2009 1:37 PM

It was in Pittsburgh, the brand is LA Fitness or something like that.

In any event, this sort of "gotcha" game exploiting tragedy isn't the sort of thing we need to be doing. It just lowers us to the level of the creationists who smear every scientist for one guy's fraud, or on a much more heinous scale, the people who connect Hitler to Darwin.

This isn't being brought up here to disprove someone claiming religious people are super-moral or anything - so far as I can tell, there's no purpose other than to tar religious people with this guys' extreme nuttery.

Worse, anything more than a cursory look at the case shows the religion wasn't the animating factor - it was at best the last push of a financially stressed, deeply lonely person.

Posted by: James Sweet | August 5, 2009 1:38 PM

Oy, the gun control debate... In my mind, it's fairly simple: Despite what both the pro- and anti-gun control lobbies would have you believe, there is very little proof of any correlation between gun control and crime, whether direct or inverse (i.e. it gun ownership doesn't discourage crime either, or at least there is no proof of that). Part of this may be because it is so difficult to tease out confounding factors, but in any case, we can pretty easily rule out any strong correlation.

That said, bans on handguns in urban areas with a serious gun crime problem seems like a reasonable idea. Although it's difficult to prove that it is at all effective, when you think about the issues involved it's not surprising that it's difficult to prove (how many major metropolitan areas do you know of where the only major change in either public policy or the socioeconomic environment over a ten year period is a change in the gun control laws?). At the very least, it empowers law enforcement to go after the perpetrators of gun violence, e.g. gangs, because they only have to be caught with a gun...

And that's really all. An all-out gun ban in the US would probably have very little effect on crime. Letting anybody in the US own any type of gun would also probably have very little effect on crime (though it would probably increase accidental shootings by a non-trivial amount...) Violent crime comes from other sources.

Posted by: Paul | August 5, 2009 1:41 PM

This isn't a religiously motivated (or even reinforced, unless he went even crazier than he already was in the last few days, which seems unlikely) killing spree.

I don't think it's as simple as that. He has disdain for other religious people, sure, but that doesn't counteract the effect of believing in the pie in the sky when you die, and thinking that's a better alternative than dealing with things in real life. Would he have gone over the edge if he didn't think "maybe I'll get to meet Jesus", etc.

Not saying there's a clear answer, I just think it's a little early to say he wasn't motivated by religion just because he doesn't like religious people. A lot of believers don't like other religious people, or will profess disdain for organized religion or churches.

Posted by: Mike in Ontario, NY | August 5, 2009 1:42 PM

Littlejohn @ 70 is talking good sense here and providing good information. There are more guns per capita in Canada than in the US, and you rarely hear of a Canadian going on a kill-crazy rampage. The problem is not guns per se, but rather some deep-seated pathology inside the American psyche.
As a socialist-leaning liberal, I often find that I break with my lefty brethren on the gun issue. I'm all for gun safety laws and technology that will help prevent tragic gun-related accidents, especially those involving kids. But bans and prohibitions won't change much of anything. Ban all gun sales? Round up and remove guns from legitimate owners?
Ever watch "Bowling for Columbine"? It raised more questions than it answered.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 5, 2009 1:43 PM

This isn't a religiously motivated (or even reinforced, unless he went even crazier than he already was in the last few days, which seems unlikely) killing spree. It's just your garden variety crazy misogynist asshole.

yep.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 5, 2009 1:44 PM

Mass killings---whether by gun, blade, or motor vehicle---are so horrific because they are rare. We are shocked because they only happen on great occasion, and so we have no opportunity to get used to them. We would be a much different species and live in a much different society if mass killings were as common as some think they are.

Where weapon bans are concerned, aint gonna work. Such things depend upon the plan going just right all the time. Seeing as we are imperfect creatures living in an imperfect world, no scheme is going to work all the time. The best you can do is be aware and be ready to act in the case of emergency. Accepting such things are going to happen, and that there's really nothing anyone can do to put an absolute stop to it, is a good first step.

Posted by: raven | August 5, 2009 1:45 PM

WTF, saw the MSM article on this guy this morning.

Just another deranged loon going out with a few dozen bangs.

Not a word about the god babble. Odd. Maybe they were afraid of offending a group known for occasional outbursts of homicidal violence.

Just another deranged fundie xian loon going out with a few dozen bangs.

Cue the fundie trolls in 10 9 8 7...
"You wouldn't dare say that if he was a Moslem"
"He wasn't a True Xian"
"Not all fundies go out and kill people" and the clincher.

"You Darwinist atheists are all going to hell. {Insert favorite death threats here}"

Posted by: Mr DArcy | August 5, 2009 1:47 PM

From the nutter's online diary:

"I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them."

I can just imagine St Peter at the Pearly Gates, with his checklist of sinners, deciding who goes down and who gets in. But that's all it is, imagination. Those 3 women and the nutter are DEAD, as in Monty Python's parrot. What a tragedy that anyone can believe in an afterlife. Poor sods!

Posted by: Terry | August 5, 2009 1:47 PM

It simply has to be that way, for these whack-jobs. Otherwise, this rat-shit fucker would have to deal with the reality, that when the last whatever flashes across one's brain cells, it's over.

So they commit the ultimate slimy (loss of descriptive adjectives here to fill in, so angry) crime against the human race, kill someone for being in a certain place at a certain time.

Sorry, but this guy is a rat-shit fucker, god I'm angry!

Posted by: Kevin | August 5, 2009 1:49 PM

Wow, comments stack up fast here!

@Josh # 74:

If you look at this guy's mindset, assuming that we have actually glimpsed it, you see that bizarre sort of helplessness and derogation of life, as well as sexual repression, which is so common in the minds of those dominated by religion. Taking the killer at his own word, I would agree that he was not motivated specifically by religion, but I would question if this sort of religion did not factor neatly into his mental grind, as he's also hinted in the passage we both have cited: Not works but by grace, so works don't matter, what I do is irrelevant anyway, life has no purpose, so I may as well send off to heaven now, those sorts of thing. His diary is bursting with these kinds of ideas. No preacher would say they send people off with that message, but being untidy teachers, they fail to see that it's an easy, parsimonious take of Christianity, if you believe in that sort of 'grace'.

Posted by: James Sweet | August 5, 2009 1:53 PM

Ever watch "Bowling for Columbine"? It raised more questions than it answered.

No doubt. Of course, in typical Michael Moore fashion, he ruins the whole thing by ending it with a hatchet job of an interview with a senile Charlton Heston... and then after doing a thoroughly wonderful job at demonstrating the complexity of the gun violence issue, inexplicably declares that the solution is more gun control after all.

But the first 80% of the movie is definitely worth watching. If you aren't going in with a powerful bias to begin with (as Moore himself was, apparently...) it will pretty much dispel any notion that gun control legislation has a strong correlation with gun crime.

Posted by: Angel Kaida | August 5, 2009 1:55 PM

98,
Oh, I totally did. Been burned one too many times on this damn internets! *shakes fist*

Posted by: spondee | August 5, 2009 1:56 PM

"I will try not to post anymore entries because the computer clicking distracts me."

That gave me the fucking shivers.

Posted by: Mark | August 5, 2009 1:59 PM

It's pretty obvious to me that this man and the 19 Saudi hijackers from 9/11 are from the same mold. Both ultimately used their religion as the final crutch to allow them to go over the edge of reality.

It's just that in the US Christians don't coddle to these mental cases, whereas in extremist Islam, they do. They even have camps to fortify their victims' resolve.

In the final analysis, they're identical in their use of religion to carry out acts that are totally against all reason. Thus, we can conclude that religion is dangerous just like a bottle of arsenic is dangerous - and thus, should be regulated like any other dangerous item. After all arsenic is benign until you start playing around with it.

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | August 5, 2009 2:02 PM

The really frightening thing is how much I recognize my own state of mind when reading Sodini's diary.

Posted by: Steve M | August 5, 2009 2:03 PM

It's not surprising that major media accounts of this killers diary leave out his bizarre religious statements. It's another example of how religion gets a pass from critical scrutiny in our society.
However, we should question what mainstream religious doctrine actually purports to be true about the creation of the universe, original sin, being "saved" and the whole "end times scenario."
There's always that curious line between "talking to god" or prayer, widely held to be a positive human endeavor and schizophrenia, a negative behavior when a god supposedly talks back to an individual. Like Sam Harris suggests, religious moderates seem unwilling to address their tacit approval of delusional extremism based on literal interpretation of ancient texts.

Posted by: Josh | August 5, 2009 2:10 PM

When are people -- and the media in particular -- going to start calling these incidents what they are: anti-woman hate crimes, that is, crimes designed for the express motive of collective intimidation of an entire class of people?

Thank you, Interrobang. That deserves repeating.

Posted by: bootsy | August 5, 2009 2:13 PM

2nd amendment: The right of paranoid rednecks to stockpile murder tools, stroke them and mutter to themselves. Until the time when they decide they've "had enough!" of something, and decide to send others to hell before they meet Jebus.

A sacred right.

Posted by: Holbach | August 5, 2009 2:16 PM

Glen Davidson @ 106

As an atheist, I never use the word "religion" when ascribing a deeply felt opinion or strong course of action as you have in mentioning darwinism and environmentalism which are most to be admired and engenered. I surmise you used the word loosely or figuratively to express your strong viewpoint, but it is still equating something which we as atheists detest. Your atheism has never been doubted by me, but just your choice of words.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 5, 2009 2:17 PM

littlejohn,
The obvious example is Switzerland, where every household is legally required to have at least one firearm (they don't have a standing army). There is almost no gun crime in Switzerland.

Rifles, not handguns. It is not true there is "almost no" gun crime, although levels are relatively low.

The American cities of New York and Washington, D.C., have a near-total gun ban except for cops. There is plenty of gun violence in both cities.

How can that be enforced without border controls with other parts of the USA?

American states that permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons are, for the most part, the states with the lowest violent crime rates.

This claim is presumably based on Lott's study. Subsequent work does not support his claims:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/468019
Concealed-gun-carrying laws and violent crime: evidence from state panel data

Japan, with a total civilian gun ban, has the highest suicide rate among developed countries.

And one of the lowest homicide rates.

Certainly, guns are not the major factor affecting homicide rates: among rich countries, economic inequality is (Wilkinson and Pickett The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better). However, in a survey of evidence from rich countries the major exceptions to the general trend of more inequality meaning more homicide they found were Singapore (high inequality, very few guns, low homicide), Finland (low inequality, lots of guns, high homicide rate) and the USA (high inequality, high gun ownership, homicide rate even higher than you would expect from its high inequality).

It may not be feasible to lower gun ownership in the USA, because of the immense resistance any serious attempt would provoke - but the evidence that more guns generally mean more homicide is pretty clear.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 5, 2009 2:23 PM

Revyloution@108,
See my #117. Guns are not the only or even the biggest factor, but a significant one. Interestingly, according to Wilkinson and Pickett, gun ownership correlates with homicides against females, not significantly with homicides against males.

Posted by: Primewonk | August 5, 2009 2:27 PM

Rorschach @8 said: "Clinically insane most likely.
And a god delusion on top.
Awful."

Um? Is there a difference?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 5, 2009 2:28 PM

At Holbach #115, I think Glen was being sarcastic. Note how he said he doesn't kill more people than he can eat before it spoils.

As for George Sodini, I think it is clear that he was desperately lonely and suffered from depression. Instead of seeing a mental health professional, he decided to kill innocent women. I'm horrified by his chosen course of action, and I am glad that most people do not choose to kill others because they're unhappy. It does make you wonder, though, how many people you know who seem happy and well-adjusted are quietly suffering through the pain of loneliness.

Also, maybe someone should try to track down the child he mentions at the end of his little diary. $250,000 is a lot of money and he or she could probably benefit from inheriting it. The child he abandoned should get that money.

Posted by: frog | August 5, 2009 2:30 PM

Bummer: I know that taking all of the legitimately owned guns out of circualtion in the US is not trivial, and I understand that it requires ordinary citizens to give up a cherished right, but how many corpses does it take for people to be willing to do whatever is necessary?

Don't think it'll work in the US. Gun control works to limit gun abuse by the rational -- if you increase the cost of a gun, a mugger is less likely to use a gun. But the problem in the US isn't the "rational" use of the gun -- it's the number of violent psychotics we have among us.

People get crazier and more violent the more isolated they are. People in the US are incredibly alienated relative to much of the world -- Americans have a higher geographical mobility than in most countries, they lack institutional support networks, they change jobs more often...

Which makes people crazier and more paranoid. If you don't know even the names of your neighbors -- you'll have a tendency towards paranoia. If everyone you ever talk to outside of work is the internet crazies (your family lives 2000 miles away, you have few friends...), it's much more likely that your mind will degenerate. No correctives to your internal feedback loops.

Gun control is a solution to the use of guns in monetary/"rational" crimes. But this crazy -- and any other -- could always just simply have driven their car through the gym window, etc.

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | August 5, 2009 2:36 PM

Beth @ #52:

Even I think those guys are nuts.

BMcP @ #126:

Erm, if he's on disability, chances are good that it's not just his 'chosen lifestyle'.

Dave X @ #122:

Good point. In my case, though, it's a non-starter, as I like the ability to leave my apartment for days at a time. Besides, I can barely even take care of a plant.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 5, 2009 2:39 PM

But this crazy -- and any other -- could always just simply have driven their car through the gym window, etc. -frog

This really is nonsense. It is much easier to kill a lot of people in a short time with a gun than a knife, car, etc. The only two mass killings in the UK in recent decades (I mean mass killings at one time, not the crimes of serial killers) were by nutters using legally owned guns. Keeping guns out of the hands of crazies is a string argument for strict gun laws.

Posted by: Revyloution | August 5, 2009 2:43 PM

Your use of the phrase 'Subsequent work does not support his claims' could be used to describe the findings of Wilkinson and Pickett. Or any other economic study. Most economic models (of any subject) use too many fixed numbers where they need variables. There simply isn't enough data to support either study.

Canada has similar inequities, higher gun ownership, and lower homicide. That alone bucks the trend.

My interest in armed vs unarmed societies has more to do with Tyranny than personal protection. I don't want to parade out all the same old historical references of tyrants who disarmed their populace, as I'm sure you've heard them before.

My main argument is that the idea of rights to ownership of weapons is a relatively new one. The men who authored the US constitution started an experiment. Part of the experiment is the separation of powers, one of which is the right to own arms, as a check against government. The experiment is barely 200 years old, so its far from conclusive to say whether or not its effective at preventing tyranny. The real cost in lives is quite small compared to other forms of mortality in the US. So I say, let the experiment continue.

Posted by: Watchman | August 5, 2009 2:44 PM

Hey now, is DR K blaming the victims? How Christian of him.

Fuck you, DR K.

This really does highlight some of the profound doctrinal contradictions found across the many flavors of Christianity.

Works don't matter. Christ paid for all your sins in advance. Nothing we do here on earth is of any consequence. Ergo, you can do whatever the fuck you want.

And yet, they call atheists nihilists, and claim there is no morality without God.

Posted by: Randomfactor | August 5, 2009 2:54 PM

Holy fuck. I have masturbated since age 13....

That's what drove him nuts. Everybody who has ever masturbated will eventually go nuts and shoot up a dance class. That's what they taught me in parochial school.

(Is this snark tag working?)

Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 2:57 PM

Desert Son:
Nicely stated.

Posted by: ObSciGuy | August 5, 2009 2:58 PM

I was about to post a contradictory snippet from George Sodini's blog, but Josh (comment #74) beat me to it.

My two cents? Assuming the blog postings are an accurate window into this guys life, the real issue here isn't religion, guns, etc. It's about untreated mental illness and George's screwed up family life during his youth.

IF society was as accepting of treating mental illness as they are physical illness (imagine if we had regular, mental health "check-ups" they way we have annual physicals!), THEN maybe tragedies like this one could be avoided.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 5, 2009 3:02 PM

Revyloution,
Canada does not refute what I said, because its lower homicide rate than the USA is accounted for by its greater economic equality - the most important factor across rich countries (also found in comparing states of the USA). As I said, guns are not the most important factor in determining homicide rates, but the evidence is, that they are a significant one.

Posted by: bootsy | August 5, 2009 3:07 PM

All I know is that these stories of fed up people killing others with guns would go much differently if all they had were knives. You can't kill someone at a distance with a knife, nor can you indiscriminately and lazily spray people down.

Frankly, I'm not impressed that someone knows how to use them properly. In my opinion, none of them should have been created in the first place. They have no place in a civilized society.

And for those people who point out supposed 'safe' societies where everyone has guns, how about Israel? Or Somalia?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 5, 2009 3:14 PM

I forgot the damned link. Wikipedia article on gun violence in the USA.

Posted by: Joffan | August 5, 2009 3:20 PM

A sad outbreak of crazy. Who knows how (or indeed whether) his mind worked towards his final act.

Littlejohn: I'd rather you didn't count suicide as a criminal act; certainly not on a par with murder.

Interrobang (and Josh in support):

anti-woman hate crimes, that is, crimes designed for the express motive of collective intimidation of an entire class of people

Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | August 5, 2009 3:21 PM

This person was obviously schizophrenic. His condition was not caused by religion. He may have been religious because of his condition. He is not representative of Christians I know.

When I was 16 once thought I heard God's voice. It was a very realistic experience and partly because of it I was a Christian for about 20 years.

Posted by: Religion™ Brand Brain Staples | August 5, 2009 3:22 PM

FFS why do these people never shoot themselves FIRST.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | August 5, 2009 3:43 PM

@151 ^--------------Blockquote fail------------^

Posted by: Black Jack Shellac | August 5, 2009 3:50 PM

@149, nice way to contradict yourself, you do sound like an xtian. You were 16 but you'd been an xtian for 20 years? Major maths fail.

Don't blame religion, it was psychosis. But if it had been an atheist it would be blame atheism, psychosis doesn't come into it.

Posted by: heddle | August 5, 2009 3:54 PM

Black Jack Shellac,

@149, nice way to contradict yourself, you do sound like an xtian. You were 16 but you'd been an xtian for 20 years? Major maths fail.

He meant he was a Christian for 20 years after the incident at age 16. Major reading fail.

Posted by: Dave X | August 5, 2009 4:07 PM

You know, with all the mastubating, occasional dating (but no all-night sleep-overs), complements by people, and the alleged kid in 1991, his sex life doesn't sound terribly abnormal.

The whack part is that he thought killing a bunch of women on his way out isn't significantly more evil than any of the alternatives. For that kind of crazy, you need some stupid religion.

Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 4:10 PM

Is there a Church of the Antinomianist in Milwaukee?

Posted by: Andrew Dunn | August 5, 2009 4:16 PM

Not to beat the firearms issue to death, but, when I purchased my first handgun it took 9 months. I had to wait for a class, take the class, file paperwork, wait for approval from the local sheriff, and the FBI (background check) and wait for the permit to show up in the mail.
I was complaining to a friend at work about the length of the process and he told me he could get me a gun that afternoon without a problem (friend of a friend kind of deal). I of course opted to go the legal route, but it reinforces the point that if you can eliminate ALL guns, not most, not many, but ALL, I might be fine with giving mine up. But they will get mine last.
I never have understood the idea that we as liberals (generally speaking) fight tooth and nail to defend the 1st amendment, but bash the 2nd at every turn.
Stay safe.

Posted by: heddle | August 5, 2009 4:24 PM

E.V.

So you're saying there has to be a formal Antinomianist church established in the area for it to become an accepted thought among fundamentalists?

Most fundamentalists are the polar opposite of Antinomianists. They are legalists.

I don't dispute that anyone can suffer from any distortion. I dispute that it was pervasive let alone universal among this teacher's students. Assuming he had more than, say, two students.

I grew up in inner city Pittsburgh which is a similar city. Crude Nihilism I recall. Hedonism I recall. Conservative Catholicism I recall. But I recall no evidence of a "let us freely sin so that grace may abound" attitude.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 5, 2009 4:31 PM

Bah!

Yes, I wasn't claiming concealed carry laws made things worse, just noting that the claim it improves things is dubious

Posted by: Xenithrys | August 5, 2009 4:34 PM

KemaTheAtheist: "What I'm more curious about in this case is whether or not someone else would have gotten him help if he wasn't religious and his religion sheilded the fact that he was completely insane."

Posted by: Josh | August 5, 2009 4:38 PM

#147:

I sincerely doubt that he was explicitly seeking to intimidate women as a group. Expressing his hatred/frustration of women is plausible, but I think not the rather more abstract connotation you suggest.

Well, he was clearly explicitly seeking to kill women as a group. You don't think there was a component of "this'll show those bitches" to his thinking? He writes that 30 million women rejected him, which is an odd way of putting it if you don't harbor a grudge against women in general. I guess it's possible that he didn't think that any other women would be affected but the ones he shot; he was, after all, crazy. I still think it's still a hate crime, though.

Posted by: Monimonika | August 5, 2009 4:43 PM

July 18, 2009

It was around 8:30am on a muggy morning in New Jersey, but fortunately I was not affected by the weather thanks to air conditioning and my lack of traveling outside during weekends. I was looking through the refrigerator trying to decide what to have for breakfast, as people are apt to do during the morning hours. Since I noticed that one of my two sisters had left out a greased frying pan that was used earlier for frying eggs, I also decided to have fried eggs for breakfast. I took out the carton of eggs, selected two nice-looking ones, set the two eggs aside on the kitchen counter, and placed the carton of eggs back inside the fridge.

I was filled with the sense that I could not trust the frying pan as-is, so I grabbed two paper napkins in order to wipe the frying pan of excess egg bits. As I turned to grab the frying pan handle, I heard a "splat" sound. Looking down to my right, I saw that an egg had fallen to the floor and cracked open next to me. I looked up at the kitchen counter to see that my two eggs were still there. Where did this third egg come from? The mini-mystery filled me with a sense of suspense for a brief moment, but after a few seconds I used the napkins I had in my hand to wipe up the mess from the floor, got another napkin to wipe the frying pan, and proceeded to fry my two eggs.

The sense that something did not make sense still bugged me, though. Near the end of the day, the feeling was much diminished. At around 10:45pm, I was feeling sleepy and ready to doze off any second. I said goodnight to my other sister, who was working on her laptop in the living room, and went to bed. My sister usually stays up late into the night (since she tends to sleep most of the day) and also tends to eat at night as well. This annoys my mother very much, but she has mostly stopped mentioning it unless she is in a bad mood. Some nights, I listen to my sister's movements in the house during the night as I try to fall asleep. That night, I fell right to sleep.

I was awoken at around 6am the next morning by the sound of screaming voices. The voices were that of my mother and my sister. Dreading what I was about to encounter got out of bed and made my way towards the kitchen where my mother and sister (mostly my mother) were screaming at each other. I asked what was happening, and my mother looked to me with despair in her eyes.

"She," my mother wailed, pointing to my sister, "left the door to the freezer in the garage open last night. Hundreds of dollars of food, ruined! I kept telling her to be careful with that door, and had even just warned her yesterday when she left it open then. But she did it AGAIN! Soon after I had WARNED her!!"

My sister looked away, definitely feeling guilty, but unable to express in enough words the level of regret and shame she felt to my mother's satisfaction. My mother was understandably hysterical over the incident, but the constant berating had driven my sister to seclude herself away in tears and anger. I tried to mediate between them as we sorted through the food and tried to salvage as much of the food as possible. I had pizza for breakfast that day.

It has been only about two weeks since that morning, but much has happened. My mother is no longer angry about the incident and has attached a note of warning on the freezer door. My sister continues to be her old perky self, still staying up late at night, but aiming to change her sleep schedule eventually. My mother traveled to New York recently with her friends, and my sister is seeking employment during these troubled times. I am posting this story here for the first time, for no other reason than just because I can. And now I notice that I haven't had fried eggs since that time the day before the incident. I do not know what this means exactly, but I've reached this point and it's time for a change. Tomorrow morning, I think I will fry up some eggs for myself.

-M.L.
(ala #35)

Posted by: Endor | August 5, 2009 4:49 PM

"When are people -- and the media in particular -- going to start calling these incidents what they are: anti-woman hate crimes, that is, crimes designed for the express motive of collective intimidation of an entire class of people? "

That would require people to admit that such is a problem, as oppose to what they apparently want to believe, which is we, like TOTALLY live in a post-sexist era. And any woman who says otherwise is just one of those bitter, hairy-legged, man-hatin' lezbo femmists.

Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 4:50 PM

Dear Monimonika,
Thanks for your freshman comp homework, but the Lit. dept is down the hall, third door on your right. Just slip it under the door. Thanks again.

Posted by: David | August 5, 2009 4:51 PM

Yes, guns need to be banned so the only people to have them will be the fundie indoctrinated military and the police (everyone knows the cops would never use their authority to oppress anyone).

I don't own any guns as a I have small children but I am grateful that we have the choice to own firearms if needed. After reading stories about C street, Blackwater, mega churches on military bases and some of the birther nonsense I am starting become a bit nervous about what the future holds. I would prefer to keep my right to own a gun or ten.

banning something simply because there is a body count attached to it might sound reasonable but guns are not exactly on the top of the list of things with body counts.

Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 4:57 PM

Dear Monimonika Charles,
Thanks for your freshman comp homework, but the Lit. dept is down the hall, third door on your right. Just slip it under the door. thanx

Posted by: MaxH | August 5, 2009 4:58 PM

Can't... help... Baptist... childhood ... bubbling... to ... surface.

Gotta do it:

Okay, the gunman isn't very well-versed in his Bible. "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (Luke 6:46) Jesus then tells "us" (not this crowd, obviously, lol, but I'm channeling my childhood here) that a guy can't just claim he's for God, but then not act like a follower. If you continue to knowingly sin, it's all wailing and gnashing of teeth, y'all, lol.

Add to that, he's ignoring the famous verse that comes earlier in the passage: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." He wasn't doing ANY of that. If he felt those women or any women were treating him poorly, he should've been at home, praying for 'em.

There isn't one, but if there was a Hell, he's roasting.

I'll just be satisfied he's dead.

Posted by: Wry Mouth | August 5, 2009 5:02 PM

Just got wind of this post. My missus is a bona-fide psychologist of some note; I figure that qualifies her to comment on the subject of "religious" beliefs and how those often tie in with delusional or psychotic breaks.

Dr. Myers, your inference of "a similar logic" is cute, but tends to diminish the torment of people under mental illnesses. These people are trying to make sense, with an organ that itself is mis-firing. Often, my wife says, it is a choice between believing one is receiving messages from the devil or God, or believing one is insane. Most truly insane people don't want that realization thrust upon themselves.

An an aside, I don't know what atheistic people do when they have such a burden thrust upon them. But, as the culture has been, for a long time, immersed in Judeo-Christian tradition, it is not surprising to my wife that many people, even those who most would not see as day-to-day believers in a Living God, fall back on religious imagery and notions to grapple with what must be a terrifying situation.

"Logic" doesn't have so much to do with it, as the mind grasping at straws.

Note also, for the record, that my wife and I are (in different ways) both believers in the Judeo-Christian God. Her continued and strengthened beliefs, while grappling with human suffering you and I can only make conjectures about, fascinates me (I am a fairly sedentary academic).

Tying in this poor fellow's online diary, to his murderous spree strikes me as, I dunno: tenuous?

Posted by: raven | August 5, 2009 5:03 PM

nutjob lying fundie xian:

He wasn't a Christian. He was an atheist who hated Christian, women, and his family, and blamed them all for his unhappy life.

George the shooters last words:

Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell. Christ paid for EVERY sin, so how can I or you be judged BY GOD for a sin when the penalty was ALREADY paid. People judge but that does not matter. I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them.

raven #91:

Cue the fundie trolls in 10 9 8 7...
"You wouldn't dare say that if he was a Moslem"
"He wasn't a True Xian"
"Not all fundies go out and kill people" and the clincher.

"You Darwinist atheists are all going to hell. {Insert favorite death threats here}"

Well the xian liars have been here. So predictable. Whenever some xian fundie goes out and kills people, they always, without fail, show up make excuses, and lie.

OK Nutjob. Tell everyone they are going to hell, threaten to send them there with your firearms stockpile and you are done for the day. Another day, another lie for jesus.

Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 5:06 PM

Wry, reread what you wrote:

"Logic" doesn't have so much to do with it, as the mind grasping at straws.

Note also, for the record, that my wife and I are (in different ways) both believers in the Judeo-Christian God. Her continued and strengthened beliefs, while grappling with human suffering you and I can only make conjectures about, fascinates me (I am a fairly sedentary academic)

See if you can spot your own logical fallacies.

Posted by: Desert Son | August 5, 2009 5:10 PM

Revylution at #138:

As for conceal and carry making you nervous, the statistics say that people with a CCW license are some of the most law abiding peaceful citizens in the US.

Thanks, but psychologically, this isn't making me feel better about concealed carry. I'm not saying it's a rational nervousness, either, to be fair. Concealed carry makes a tricky and delicate issue (gun ownership) even more so, in my opinion.

bootsy at #143:

And for those people who point out supposed 'safe' societies where everyone has guns, how about Israel? Or Somalia?

Yay, false equivalency! Sure, Somalia isn't safe and they have many firearms, but laying the one directly at the feet of the other is bad logic. Even if all the guns in Somalia disappeared overnight, I wouldn't be booking a ticket to visit. Somalia's problems may be exacerbated by firearms, but are rooted in things like economic woes, tribalism, generations of warlord culture, regional conflict (Ethiopia), and the like. During the Rwandan crisis of the 1990s, countless murders were carried out using machetes. By your false equivalency, we should also ban steel-edged tools and weapons, as well.

Frankly, I'm not impressed that someone knows how to use them properly.

I'm sorry to hear that. I, for example, am impressed by people who know how to operate motor vehicles properly. Every one of them on the road is a 3,000 + pound missile, and I'm aghast at the ones operated by people who seem oblivious to proper use.

In my opinion, none of them should have been created in the first place. They have no place in a civilized society.

What fantasy land do you live in, out of curiosity? Thank goodness that civilization before firearms was so well-behaved, with things like the massacre at Worms on the First Crusade, or Attila the Hun's conquest of Europe, or the Roman subjugation of same, or the pre-imperial warring in what is now China, or the Greco-Persian wars, or every other unrecorded butchery of one human animal on another with club, stone, or blade. Hell, it's all been downhill since the firearm!

E.V., thanks for the kind words. I really feel like guns and gun control is a very tricky issue, and that if Celtic Evolution and I were to sit down and talk over a beer (I'm buying), we'd probably find alot about gun control we'd agree on, even though I think all gun ownership isn't inherently and necessarily bad. I also recognize that I'm in a very privileged position: I've never known direct conflict that threatens my life, I've never been bodily threatened by a criminal, and the weapon I do own is to the automatic assault rifle what the paper airplane is to the jumbo jet. There's so many factors to consider (like, say, in Somalia): availability, type of weapons, recourse to and availability of health care (including mental health care), proper licensing procedures, testing, demonstration of responsibility, family considerations, a legal infrastructure that actually works on fair and just principles (most of the time), and the list goes on and on.

I still think this guy would have been crazy and dangerous without firearms. Maybe he wouldn't have killed as many as he did without guns, or maybe he might have found another way (chemicals, explosives, vehicles, who knows) to kill as many, or more. Regardless, I'm not convinced that locking down a nations firearms would have necessarily prevented this guy from doing harm to someone.

Something that always amazes me with the crazies who shoot, is that they hit targets. It's tough to hold a firearm steady in a tense situation, especially with adrenaline pumping through a body ruining fine motor coordination. It's hard enough holding a firearm steady on a stationary target even 25 yards away. I've read accounts (self-reports, not statistical analyses) from police who say that most law enforcement shootouts occur in the dark, shooters within six-feet of each other, cylinders or magazines emptied and neither perp nor cop hitting one another. And then, of course, there are those times when inner city gang conflict sprays bullets in a neighborhood, missing the gang members and killing a young child in a bystanding home. For all the difficulty there is in hitting a target, I sure as hell don't ever want to be staring down the barrel of a firearm. There are so many challenging issues on this one, and I'm conflicted every time I think about them.

One thing I am grateful for is this discussion. I think it's been a good one, with good points on different sides. Thanks all for the comments.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: raven | August 5, 2009 5:13 PM

George:

I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them.

Doesn't sound like much of an atheist to me.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 5, 2009 5:18 PM

Knockgoats,

It's not self-dramatizing, it's the intent behind the second amendment. I actually support that intent. Responding to the passage of the Patriot Act through violent uprising would have accomplished little except the destabilization of the government. I was actually talking about the imposition of unfettered executive power >through the use of the military. If they have guns and we don't, they win. We have a fighting chance if we are armed. Pitchforks aren't very effective against M-16s.

Bush/Cheney did push through any number of laws that seem to have the effect of slowly eroding our rights and privileges as Americans. The goal was probably to do it so slowly it would always seem like armed uprising was inappropriate at any particular time. I don't know what the answer to the slow erosion method of destroying a democracy is, but leaving the military as the sole possessor of firearms is not it.

Posted by: Islander | August 5, 2009 5:21 PM

@Knockgoats #50-

What plain facts am I denying? Did I not say I was in favor of strict gun control and psychic evaluations? I said I didn't think taking EVERYONE'S guns away was the right solution and I stand by that. If you think the only solution is total abolishment of all legal gun ownership, well, I'm sorry, but that's foolish. I live very near the Mexican border, and I promise you, it's not hard to buy a gun off the street. I do not want the criminals to be the only armed ones, and I do not want every criminal to have a guarantee that if they kick my door in, they're safe.

I said earlier I have been in a couple of predicaments myself, and I was glad I had my firearm, so I'll share.

I live on Galveston Island, Texas, a barrier island in the Gulf of Mexico that was directly hit by Hurricane Ike. Reconstruction has been going on since, and the crime rate has picked up. About three months ago, I was at an ATM, and I heard running footsteps. I turned, and a man was running full speed toward me with a brick in each hand (I was at a drive-up ATM, but had to get out of my car because of the machine's poor design). By now, he was about 20 feet away, and as he prepared to throw the first at me/my car, I pulled my gun on him. He stopped, of course, dropped the bricks, and I held him there until the cops came. There was no way I would have been able to hop back in my car, put it in gear, and maneuver out of the skinny driveway before he smashed my window and me.

Just a few days ago, I was in my apartment, which overlooks a busy street. I heard a woman screaming, which isn't too unusual, but she got more intense so I went to the window to check it out. There, in broad daylight, in the middle of the street, was a man getting very aggressive towards this woman, who appeared to be his girlfriend from the way they were arguing. He grabbed her around her arms and lifted her, so I grabbed my gun and ran outside. This guy had to be close to 300 pounds, and I'm a whopping 120. He was holding her in a bear hug, and she was absolutely terrified, so I screamed "HEY!" and chambered a round when he looked at me. He set her down, and held his hands up. Out of my excitement, I told him to get the f*ck out of there. My girlfriend had called the police when I ran out the door, so I hoped they would get there quickly and pick him up. Guess what? Cops never showed.

Again, I am very happy I had my legal, licensed firearm, because reason or the police simply won't always save you. Neither of these men had firearms, but they weren't shying away from violent crime.

Posted by: bootsy | August 5, 2009 5:23 PM

Keep in mind this misogynist fuckwit obtained his guns "legally":

From The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

At the press conference regarding the LA Fitness Center shootings, Allegheny County Superintendent Charles Moffatt said that Mr. Sodini brought four guns to the gym: two 9-millimeter semi-automatics, a .32-caliber semi-automatic and a .45-caliber revolver. Superintendent Moffat said Mr. Sodini pulled one of the 9-millimeters from his bag and opened fire until he ran out of bullets, then he dropped that gun and began shooting with the second 9-millimeter. Mr. Sodini used the revolver, which he had in his pocket, to kill himself, Superintendent Moffat said. He had extra long clips in the 9-millimeters that held 30 bullets each, Superintendent Moffat said. One 9-millimeter clip was empty when recovered by police, while the other had 12 bullets remaining.

Superintendent Moffat noted that the large clips were illegal under the assault weapons ban, which was allowed to expire in 2004. When asked how he felt about that, Superintendent Moffat said "We're not going to get into that today."

The superintendent said Mr. Sodini had a permit to carry the weapons. Of the three guns police have definitively traced to Mr. Sodini, two were purchased in late 2008 and one was purchased early this year.

When police searched Mr. Sodini's home, they found rifles and shotguns, four in all.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 5, 2009 5:28 PM

Pitchforks aren't very effective against M-16s. - Pygmy Loris

Nor are small arms against tanks and helicopter gunships. You going for privately-owned nukes perhaps? Seriously, preventing tyranny depends on taking effective collective political action long before the executive could even think of ordering the military to impose total control.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 5, 2009 5:30 PM

I don't own any guns as a I have small children but I am grateful that we have the choice to own firearms if needed. After reading stories about C street, Blackwater, mega churches on military bases and some of the birther nonsense I am starting become a bit nervous about what the future holds. I would prefer to keep my right to own a gun or ten.

The mafia will always outgun you.

The real problem in the USA is the situation described in comment 68: legal or illegal, you can just go and buy a gun. That's insane.

Posted by: newJob | August 5, 2009 5:35 PM

@187

The first poster here wrote "The real cause was Darwinism, though." Obviously he was being sarcastic and not expressing his true beliefs.

Given George Sodini's attacks against religion, his former Church, and religious people, as well as his inclusion of the phrase, "At least that is what I was told", I think there is an excellent chance that he was just mocking Christianity, rather than expressing his true beliefs. I think this is the most reasonable way of reconciling it with his earlier statements.

Posted by: Paul | August 5, 2009 5:42 PM

I need to refresh before posting. Knockgoats says exactly what I was saying, only more clearly and concisely...

Posted by: MadScientist | August 5, 2009 5:43 PM

Religion is fantastic for the mentally deranged; it affirms their sick delusions and encourages them to murder rather than encouraging them to seek people who might be able to help. How many times a year do we hear this "I'm doing this for god" shit from murderers?

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 5, 2009 5:47 PM

I just find it preposterous that all his religious students had been schooled in the very same hideous perversion of sovereign grace theology.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 5, 2009 5:54 PM

Paul and Knockgoats,

Excellent point. However, numbers do matter and the military is only 1% of the population. Enough people with legally available firearms and munitions could hold their own with the military possibly long enough to turn the tide against the imposition of military might on the citizenry. Without firearms we don't stand a chance.

There were 200 million firearms in 44 million homes in 1994. That doesn't address the superior air power of the military, but, and this is purely opinion, I think it's a sight more difficult to envision the use of air power and bombs against the citizenry.

On the issue of training, there are many private militias in the USA that consider it their duty to prevent the abuse of the citizenry my the government through the military. These militias train regularly and are prepared to wage battles against the military if the need arises.

That's not to say I think it will be effective, but again, without firearms in the hands of the citizenry there's no chance at all.

Posted by: Sastra | August 5, 2009 5:59 PM

Fire and brimstone is god fer 'em.

Er, that should be "Fire and brimstone is good fer 'em" -- though I suppose it works either way.

Posted by: MaxH | August 5, 2009 6:11 PM

#216 - Listen, as a Baptist kid, and then a Catholic young adult, (then atheist, but that's not the point here), I heard that voices were a good thing. The very religious don't believe the old adage "If you talk to God, you're religious. If he talks back, you're psychotic." After all, Moses heard God, and we're not calling HIM crazy are we?

Well, WE are, but they aren't, lol.

Posted by: Sastra | August 5, 2009 6:13 PM

Tis Himself #216 wrote:

That counselor is obviously incompetent. Even when I was religious I knew that hearing voices was a sign of severe mental problems.

I knew someone who suffered a similar problem -- not with a Catholic counselor, but with a group of New Agers. When, as a teenager, she began hearing voices and suffering from delusions, her network of "spiritual" devotees gave her praise and encouragement, convinced that she was a sensitive mystic tapping into the Higher Realms, etc. She herself was scared, but they reassured her and told her to let it flow. Her amazing insights and abilities were enriching their lives as well as hers.

She claims she got seriously, seriously screwed up before she or someone else (I don't remember) had the good sense to realize that something was really wrong, and she subsequently received treatment for schizophrenia. As a result, she's very bitter over the whole mysticism/religion thing -- New Age in particular.

There aren't a lot of rational filters when you start talking about "realities."

Posted by: wildlifer | August 5, 2009 6:32 PM

@220
Plus you would have all the defectors in the military if such orders ever came to pass...

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | August 5, 2009 6:44 PM

oh, i wasn't talking about the militia's specifically, but about people like the freepers who are now rattling their sabersguns, but called everyone who dared disagree with bush a traitor. there is a lot more of those than there is of the hardcore militias.

Posted by: raven | August 5, 2009 7:25 PM

George the shooter:

Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell. Christ paid for EVERY sin, so how can I or you be judged BY GOD for a sin when the penalty was ALREADY paid. People judge but that does not matter. I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them.

Nutjob the lying fundie cultist:

Given George Sodini's attacks against religion, his former Church, and religious people, as well as his inclusion of the phrase, "At least that is what I was told", I think there is an excellent chance that he was just mocking Christianity, rather than expressing his true beliefs. I think this is the most reasonable way of reconciling it with his earlier statements.

Looks like Nutjob has a high quota of lies. Or he is working on next months quota.

So George said he was taught xianity. Where did you get yours? Osmosis, IV injection? Transplant.? Found it on the sidewalk. Nutjob, everyone learns their religion from something verbally or in writing. Except for those who make theirs up. Dumb statement from an idiot..

He didn't much care for religious people. Most people don't, including xians. . Xians hate each other. Before we took away their armies, they killed each other for centuries by the tens of millions. Ever here of the Reformation? Pope=Antichrist. Lots of people drop out of church without dropping the religion.

George:

I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them.

Nothing mocking about that statement. Especially since this was written right before he died by his own gun. And no atheist would make a statement like that.

Nutjob is just doing a common fundie thing. Repeating a lie over and over again and hoping it will come true. When all you have is lies, that is about all that one can do. Unless you are a sincere Liar for jesus with a gun. Then if no one buys your lies, you can simply shoot them.

Posted by: Tom | August 5, 2009 7:59 PM

With regard to the gun control thing, I find it slightly depressing that some Americans feel the need to have firearms for self defence. Are you really that insecure?

Posted by: Revyloution | August 5, 2009 8:14 PM

Jadehawk said
'gyyarggh, I hate this argument! for all intents and purposes, the U.S. is a disarmed country. or what precisely do you think a handgun/rifle/machinegun/whatever will do to a junta hell-bound on taking over and capable of carpet-bombing you into oblivion? the disparity of what the U.S. military has, and that the U.S. population has, is larger then it was before the Constitution was written and all firepower was restricted to the ruling class.'

Ah of course. That's why we won the battle against the Afghan Taliban so decisively. Our superior air power easily subdued the local populations who are armed only with small arms and improvised explosives.

Oh wait...

Posted by: gerwood | August 5, 2009 8:31 PM

Has anybody noticed that the major media outlets are not showing this side of the story at all.There is no mention whatsoever of any religious connection.

Posted by: Nils Ross | August 5, 2009 9:03 PM

"Atrocity has no excuses, no mitigating argument. Atrocity never balances or rectifies the past. Atrocity merely arms the future for more atrocity. It is self-perpetuating upon itself; a barbarous form of incest. Whoever commits atrocity also commits those future atrocities thus bred." -Frank Herbert.

Posted by: Another Ben | August 5, 2009 9:47 PM

Hmmm... gun control.

Let me count how many mass shootings we've had in Australia since the government repo'ed everyones guns back in '96 after Marty Bryant went postal in Tasmania (35 dead, 21 injured).

Zero. QED.

Posted by: Inoculated Mind | August 5, 2009 10:18 PM

Anybody notice how the CNN copy of the "edited" online diary left out the last entry - the one where he goes crazy-religious? Anybody venture a guess as to how likely they would be to edit that out if he was instead saying "I kill because there is no god - darwinz rulez!"?
I give the chances at zero, willing to take 100:1 odds.

Ms. Inoculated Mind says: by the way that guy wasn't ugly so he must have been a massive creepazoid, otherwise he could have gotten w/women.

Inoculated Mind: Note the final diary entry. Creepazoid, Check.

Posted by: gerwood | August 5, 2009 10:48 PM

The fact that it was left out sure says a lot about our news system and who is in control here.Nice little conspiracy???

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | August 5, 2009 11:15 PM

Inoculated Mind @ #237:

Not everyone who isn't successful with their preferred gender is a "massive creepazoid". This guy was, certainly, but not everyone.

Posted by: blindpig | August 5, 2009 11:38 PM

One of the wisest things my father ever taught me was, "If your happiness depends on what what other people do or say, you'll be a miserable wretch your whole life." Many people think they need another person in their life to somehow "validate" them. Yet how many relationships have you seen where the goal of each of the partners is to make the other as miserable as possible. Being in a relationship doesn't guarantee happiness, any more than being single guarantees misery. Being in a loving, sexually fulfilling relationship is a wonderful thing, but how many people in this world are lucky enough to find such a relationship, or sustain it? In the broad picture of things, very few. The best place to find happiness is in the life of the mind. Burke said "Life is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel." This guy was one of the latter.

Posted by: martin_z | August 6, 2009 2:29 AM

Two points about gun control, from a Brit. Where, by the way, the police aren't even generally armed.

It's a matter of national philosophy, you might say. It'll never work in the US, as there is a general feeling, passed down through the generations, that guns are almost a birthright. Hell, Scout and Jem were given guns for Christmas in To Kill a Mockingbird - my jaw dropped when I read that.

Here in the UK, and in most of Europe, the feeling is that guns are not necessary for life, and in general terms you shouldn't be able to carry them in the street. Again, it's almost like a gut feeling - most people will spout about freedom, but they are happy to live without that particular freedom for increased safety.

So yes, the only people who have guns on the street are criminals. But it also means that the revulsion towards criminals who use guns is higher (even among criminals, I suspect).

And what happens? Massively less gun crime in Europe.

The facts are irrefutable. But hell - it's like religion. No point in arguing, really. They'll just come back with anecdotal evidence (#197) or assert their right to believe what they like!

Americans are never going to give up gun ownership. That's fine. But please don't expect us in Europe to understand it.

Posted by: DingoJack | August 6, 2009 3:59 AM

Ilander commented (#197) : "Did I not say I was in favor of strict gun control and psychic evaluations?"
And if the psychic hot line is jammed, what then?
Guess we'll have to fall back on psychological or psychiatric evaluation. ;) - DJ

Posted by: afreudtolove | August 6, 2009 5:09 AM

Here is another quote from his diary:

"I have been in barrooms and church groups. The worst people by far are the religious types. Especially a right-wing, stiff-faced fundie like Andy."

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 9:01 AM

I cannot believe you guys are tying this to religion.

Cf: Scarlett kingsnake with coral snake....its not the external appearance that matters.

You guys are supposed to value science and the scientific method. Some of you are clearly intelligent (others not so much).

You KNOW correlation is not causation, yet many of you continue to draw parallels between the two. YES, I know many Christians do the same to Atheists. Does that make it RIGHT? Especially, if one of the parties can recognize the difference?

Do we always have to demonize another people group? Do we always have to have enemies? God, this sickens me.

Posted by: raven | August 6, 2009 9:21 AM

CT the lying fundie xian creep:

Do we always have to demonize another people group? Do we always have to have enemies? God, this sickens me.

Nice example of a psycho fundie creep, pretending to think. If the guy had said Darwin made me do it, the fundies would be reposting it for a thousand years.

What is the group that routinely demonizes other people and has an agenda of hate, hate, and more hate? Xian fundies. They hate the gays, scientists, docs, liberals, democrats, catholics, other religions, other protestants, Obama, atheists, and on and on. Who created the US Xian Terrorists?

George:

I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them.

Nothing mocking about that statement. Especially since this was written right before he died by his own gun. No atheist would make a statement like that. A xian looking at his last days would.

CT:

God, this sickens me.

Yes, we know you are one sick puppy. You and millions of pathological lying fundies. You aren't planning on going on a shooting spree are you? So, who is at the top of your To Kill list or are you just going to hit a Mall and choose the random option.

Posted by: The Countess | August 6, 2009 9:38 AM

He sounds like one of those Nice Guys™ who think women owe him something. Another asshole with delusions of privilege and entitlement. When I first read of the case I thought of the massacre of women at Ecole Polytechnique in Canada by Marc Lepine, who wanted to kill feminists.

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 10:06 AM

Ok, [some of] you want to tie this to religion? Seriously?

Do you really want to do that?

Then, I guess its fair to point to the fact that the columbine shooters were atheists?

Broken down here:
http://www.verumserum.com/?page_id=1567

Or how about:
"...While most literate individuals are aware of the atheism of mass murderers such as Josef Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Tse-Tung, they are not aware of how many other atheist leaders have been responsible for mass murder. In one of the book's appendices, I provided a list of 49 other atheist leaders who had overseen the slaughter of at least 20,000 individuals; these 52 leaders represent the majority of atheists who have ever held supreme political power. This number is particularly striking when one considers the fact that the Christian king responsible for what was considered the worst crime in Christendom's Wars of Religion, the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre, died regretting his role in the deaths of an estimated 10,000 French Huegenots..."
Source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=84742

SO do you, as an intelligent person, REALLY [seriously] want to claim that BELIEF was responsible for this shooting?

Do You?

Posted by: bootsy | August 6, 2009 10:23 AM

Belief in the "right to bear arms" is much like religion, in that there are arguments that it is so deeply imbedded in our culture (USA's) that it will never go away. Obviously I don't expect that belief to go away at once, but I certainly won't throw up my hands and say it will never happen, what's the point of doing anything.

Certainly in suburban/urban areas of the U.S., most people do not take for granted a right to possess something so dangerous. I don't even think the people on this site, who (as far as I can tell from reading what they say online) seem like the most rational people in the world, should have them. I wouldn't want any members of my family to have them, either.

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 10:35 AM

"And if you really believe that atheism itself had anything to do with the actions of the people quoted in that deceitful regurgitation you posted, then you truly are an ignorant asshole of the highest order."

And if YOU believe that this man's 'religion' had anything to do with this murder, then you are.

CORRELATION is _NOT_ CAUSATION

I could correlate the fact that ATHEISTS murdered people and declare unabashedly that ATHEISM was one of the primary motivators.

Just as you are doing with this man's journal entry on religion.

See the relation now?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 6, 2009 10:37 AM

CT

SO do you, as an intelligent person, REALLY [seriously] want to claim that BELIEF was responsible for this shooting?

No... so take your strawman and leave please. It's been pointed out many many times in this thread already that almost no-one here is drawing a direct line of causality between his religion and his actions (except for the people that keep trotting out this strawman and thumping their chests about how awful it is).

At worst, some people here are calling his religion a mitigating factor... and that is certainly a debatable topic... but the original post by PZ had more to do with highlighting the similarities in logic between this deranged lunatic and other people we've come across.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 6, 2009 10:44 AM

Thought for a second there we had a live one.
Just rehashing old shit though.
Boring,next.

Posted by: Lee Picton | August 6, 2009 10:47 AM

CT is just another lying fundie scumbag, trotting out the "people killed by atheists" lie. Get this straight: No human being ever killed another IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM, unlike christian murderers over the centuries who most definitely killed, tortured people, and went to war in the name of their murderous thug of a god. Atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot et.al. were laws unto themselves in murderous cults of peraonalities - theirs. They never killed people to make them become atheists, unlike the christians who killed people by the hundreds of thousands over the centuries unless those people became christians, and their brand of christian, to boot. Remember the Albigensians? And the forced conversions of the Jews in Spain?

Posted by: raven | August 6, 2009 10:50 AM

CT is a routine, typical fundie death cultist. He can lie longer than anyone can stay interested. Below is a sampling of the To Kill lists that fundies frequently publish like it is something normal that eveyone should have.

The record is Rushdooney, He wanted to kill 297 of the 300 million US citizens alive today. Of course he was a psychopath. He was also the founder of American xian Dominionism. The Rapture Monkeys are coholders with a devout wish for 6.7 billion dead, everyone alive now.

Must be tough be a death cultist. So many to kill, so little time. And their millions and billions of potential victims aren't at all enthusiastic about being murdered by crazed religious fanatics. They never cooperate.

CT, xianity. You and your cultists are doing it wrong.

How to identify fundie xian cultists. It is easy. They lie constantly. They are very, very good at hating. Dumb. They and their leaders frequently publish lists of groups they want to kill. They occasionally kill them.

Pat Robertson: wikipedia
Hugo Chávez“ I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.

We will find you, we will try you, and we will execute you. I mean every word of it.
[Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, at the Aug 8, 1995 U.S. Taxpayers Alliance Banquet in Washington DC, talking about doctors who perform abortions and volunteer escorts My note. Terry’s sympathizers have, in fact, murdered more than a few health care workers.

“Pastor Jerry Gibson spoke at Doug Whites New Day Covenant Church in Boulder.

He said that every true Christian should be ready and willing to take up arms to kill the enemies of Christian society.

bcseweb.org Rushdooney:
Our list may not be perfect but it seems to cover those “crimes” against the family that are inferred by Rushdoony’s statement to Moyers. The real frightening side of it is the interpretation of heresy, apostasy and idolatry. Rushdoony’s position seems to suggest that he would have anyone killed who disagreed with his religious opinions. That represents all but a tiny minority of people. Add to that death penalties for what is quite legal, blasphemy, not getting on with parents and working on a Sunday means that it the fantasy ideal world of Rushdoony and his pals, there will be an awful lot of mass murderers and amongst a tiny population.

We have done figures for the UK which suggest that around 99% of the population would end up dead and the remainder would have each, on average, killed 500 fellow citizens.

Chalcedon foundation bsceweb.org. Stoning disobedient children to death.Contempt for Parental Authority: Those who consider death as a horrible punishment here must realise that in such a case as
….cut for length
Rev. William Einwechter, “Modern Issues in Biblical Perspective: Stoning Disobedient Children”, The Chalcedon Report, January 1999

When The Hate Comes From ‘Churches’
ASHLAND, Ore. - A recent spate of crimes points up a growing connection between hateful actions and organizations calling themselves churches.
Two brothers from northern California reportedly linked to such a group were charged this week with the killing of two gay men near Redding. Benjamin Matthew Williams and James Tyler Williams also are suspects in the firebombing of three synagogues in the Sacramento area last month.

According to personal acquaintances as well as law enforcement officials, the Williams brothers were involved in Christian Identity, a religion that holds Jews and nonwhites to be subhuman and is closely tied to the Aryan Nations white-supremacist group based in northern Idaho.

Meanwhile, officials are investigating the links between Benjamin Smith and the World Church of the Creator. Over Independence Day weekend in Illinois and Indiana, Smith shot Asians, Jews, and an African-American (killing two and injuring nine) before killing himself.

Fundie cultists frequently publish lists of groups they plan to or would like to kill. From above quotes, we have MDs, “enemies of christian society” (whoever they are), heresy etc., disobedient children but only by stoning, gays, Jews, nonwhites, the topic of this thread-scientists and others.

If the truth is ugly, way it goes. By their words, ye shall know them, The Book.

Posted by: raven | August 6, 2009 10:59 AM

CT the death cultist:

Source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=84742

CT quoted World Nut Daily. This is a lunatic fringe right wing web site sympathetic to the Haters and Liars for jesus. It is nonstop lies.

CT, you need to go back to your lunatic web sites and babble with your fellow cultists. Quoting World Nut Daily is equivalent to a giant neon sign that says, "I'm a total moron with a brain the size of a walnut and a deranged religious fanatic." While these are common, they aren't credible.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 6, 2009 11:04 AM

Chris, as a Christian shouldn't you strive to be as honest as possible?

If you answer yes, please explain this blog post of yours.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 6, 2009 11:14 AM

Chris, World Net Daily?

Friendly advice.

Maybe you should spend some time educating yourself and less time using one of the biggest laughing stocks on the internet as a source of your information.

You'll be taken a lot more seriously.

Posted by: Dave X | August 6, 2009 11:18 AM

Blindpig @ #243 -- I think that quote from your father might be related to Richard Bach's "Illusions": If your happiness depends on what somebody else does, I guess you do have a problem."

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 11:22 AM

Rev, first I replied to your comment over there...so why didn't you allow me to respond BEFORE accusing me of dishonesty over here? *scratches head*

As for your question YES.

(And I already answered it over there...but I'll post my answer here)

"Hey Rev, thanks for stopping by.

Can you provide a blog currently attacking atheists/atheism (especially with regard to Atheism being the bane of the world) – I was having a hard time finding one that fit the motif, but if we can find one, I’ll definitely update the post.

Regarding the dishonesty thing – see my last comment on the blog over there. I wasn’t addressing PZ’s post as much as the commentators who ARE directly tying religion/religious beliefs into this man’s justification for his actions. I marked several of the comments that 1.) intimate or 2.) directly accuse religion or belief of enabling this guy to carry out his actions. There’s no logic in that statement. A person bent on a course of action will justify it any number of ways (including religion or lack of religion – see Columbine murders)

I do apologize if it seems I’m being dishonest in any way. Seriously."
(from my blog)

How, exactly, do you feel that I am being dishonest? Aren't many of the commenters on here directly tying this man's religion to his ability to commit these acts? And because this man's religion is Christianity - then that must provide more proof for the insanity of Christianity? And that [all - intimated] Christians are hateful, insane people?

Am I wrong about the comments on this post? Am I wrong that PZ's post (with the carefully selected portion of the diary) will bring out attacks on religion amongst his readers?

I can understand the desire to bash religion. I can.

You know, its a funny thing. When Christ preached, people WANTED to hear him (minus the religious leaders). Many desired to hear what He had to say.

Christianity is not like that today so the problem is clearly with the presentation, the dogma, the pharisaic mode of operation.

Now, do you deny that we demonize different people groups as a human race? That there are more [quantitative] people on this planet that are willing [and do] demonize others, than who do not?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 6, 2009 11:33 AM

And because this man's religion is Christianity - then that must provide more proof for the insanity of Christianity? And that [all - intimated] Christians are hateful, insane people?

Just a really poor job of drawing stretched conclusions.

Just how many strawmen do you intend to toss into the ring before you leave?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 6, 2009 11:34 AM

Rev, first I replied to your comment over there...so why didn't you allow me to respond BEFORE accusing me of dishonesty over here? *scratches head*

Sorry.

Regarding the dishonesty thing – see my last comment on the blog over there. I wasn’t addressing PZ’s post as much as the commentators who ARE directly tying religion/religious beliefs into this man’s justification for his actions.

Yes but your post on your blog implies that everyone here including PZ was making that distinction when that is clearly false.

Christianity is not like that today so the problem is clearly with the presentation, the dogma, the pharisaic mode of operation.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi

Now, do you deny that we demonize different people groups as a human race? That there are more [quantitative] people on this planet that are willing [and do] demonize others, than who do not?

Trying to parse that...

Do I think there are people who demonize other groups? Other than your choice of the word "demonize", um, yeah. Obviously.

The question is are there people who point out legitimate reasons to be critical of other groups. Yes as well.

But my call of dishonesty had nothing to do with that point. It was about the lie of omission you are / were guilty of implying that everyone here was blaming religion for this horrible incident when it most clearly is not the case except for a very few people. Even the quotes you chose do not fully support your case.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 6, 2009 11:40 AM

#1 Regarding WND: That source was from Vox Popoli/Theodore Beale - which had been picked up by WND...duly noted about WND.

And that even more reinforces my point.

Vox Day is a self important misogynistic idiot.

Another person to stay far away from.

Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2009 11:45 AM

CT #279 wrote:

Aren't many of the commenters on here directly tying this man's religion to his ability to commit these acts? And because this man's religion is Christianity - then that must provide more proof for the insanity of Christianity?

I think it's only fair to point out that the person who first started tying this act to religion -- and a very specific interpretation of Christianity -- was the killer himself. He did this rather explicitly. PZ provides just one of the quotes.

So do we believe him? Not necessarily: Sodini's not only rationalizing, he's clearly got major mental health issues. But I think it's fair, and reasonable, to explore the possibility that there was indeed some causal connection between his theology and his actions.

Although some atheists may be too quick to take the killer's claim at face value, I think that many religious people are too quick to dismiss what he wrote, and the implications of a world view which sees all sin as washed away through faith in Jesus. He had been a long time member of a church which taught exactly that. At the very least, the religious may want to fine tune their way of framing certain theological points, lest they be 'misinterpreted' and taken at their word.

Posted by: raven | August 6, 2009 11:51 AM

CT the death cultist:

Can you provide a blog currently attacking atheists/atheism (especially with regard to Atheism being the bane of the world) – I was having a hard time finding one that fit the motif, but if we can find one, I’ll definitely update the post.

CT, stop with the lying. It is boring and you aren't very good at it. Most of modern US fundie xianity is centered around attacking two groups. Gays and atheists. They occasionally throw in scientists, docs and a dozen other groups. They also occasionaly get tired of just hating and kill a few here and there.

CT the death cultistsL

Am I wrong about the comments on this post? Am I wrong that PZ's post (with the carefully selected portion of the diary) will bring out attacks on religion amongst his readers?

What a delusional moron. CT is playing the persecution card. Xians self identified make up 76% of the population. They owned the last president, Bush, and have their own bizarre political party, the GOP. An atheist can't even be elected dog catcher in the USA.

CT is upset because xians lie, hate, and kill constrantly and people don't like it. "By their fruits, ye shall know them" Maybe if they stopped being evil kooks, people wouldn't call them....evil kooks.

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 11:56 AM

Raven, if/when you decide to communicate instead of hurling insults around, I'll discuss with you.

Feel free to stop by the blog.

Posted by: E.V. | August 6, 2009 11:59 AM

"At worst, some people here are calling his religion a mitigating factor...

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 6, 2009 12:03 PM

What? I'm not trying to change the subject - I CAN understand the desire to bash religion - BUT I cannot understand the desire to bash religion by abusing a diary entry as support of your position.

I think Sastra already addressed this more eloquently than I ever could (as usual) at #287. Given the way Sastra outlines the validity of what PZ pointed out and why, How do you respond?

Posted by: Rorschach | August 6, 2009 12:06 PM

Raven, if/when you decide to communicate instead of hurling insults around, I'll discuss with you.

Feel free to stop by the blog.

That guy is just blogwhoring now, really.

Next.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 6, 2009 12:14 PM

Blogwhoring... That reminds me, CT, if you want to see some unrestrained atheist hate-festivities, visit Tom Estes' blog, The Hard Truth (search for it).

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 6, 2009 12:19 PM

I would agree as long as it stays CRITICAL and not ABUSIVE. Agree?

What you fail to understand, and it's probably because you don't frequent this place, is that we've heard the same thing from Christians over and over and over etc.. etc... so eventually it just gets to the point that being calmly critical has been tried ad nauseam and the next move is to ridicule. And frankly religion is deserving of abuse and ridicule along with calm criticism at different points. If you pay attention to this blog (use the search function for evolution to get an idea) you'll see what we here often deal with when the proponents of destroying science education make their moves. They are 100% religious and nearly all are Christians. And not extreme Christians either. That is why you see the language you do. If harsh language offends you, you should choose another blog to read. If you don't like what is being said, try and argue against it. You can ignore the more abusive comments if you feel the need to and just address the points being made. This is no kindergarten playground, this is sparta.... ok that was really lame. This is a free flowing blog where PZ allows and in some cases encourages harsh treatment of poor logic, shitty opinion and badly formed and supported ideas. If you can deal with that, please stay and argue your points. If you can't, do yourself and us a favor and choose another place to spend your time. It's your choice obviously.

The title of my blog post is "Do we as humans ALWAYS have to demonize other people groups?"

So I can never address specific points inside a blog post unless they directly reference the title's exact meaning?

Here's my point of my blog post. "The intellectual heavy weights over at Pharyngula (who espouse scientific method as one of the highest principles of living) choose to make a case of this as “religion is bad”.

(Again, I was specifically addressing the commentators on this post but it wasn't clear on my blog - fixed it)

And you're still lying by implying that all the commentors are doing this. And they are not.

So I standby that the use of this man's diary entry to espouse a view that "religion is bad/evil/terrible/whatever" violates the scientific principle that most of you hold up as the highest principle. Does that make sense?

And as a "group" who hold to scientific integrity, why in the hell do you allow members of your own group to violate it without repercussion?

This is a blog not a Organizational meeting. When egregious errors are made they are pounced on no matter who says them. However the errors you think are happening, in the vast majority of examples here are not actually happening. If you read all the comments you'll see many people pointing out the opposite of what you are claiming.

FOR THE SAME reason that ALL groups do it. We look over the faults of those that are "in-group" and bash those that are "out-group" even when they exhibit the same behaviors.

You're being biased and picking and choosing the examples that support your point ignoring the ones that destroy it.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 6, 2009 12:26 PM

Wry Mouth,

I find those atheists I am most inclined to hang out with, are those that can see sound arguments for theism

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 12:27 PM

1.) Blogwhoring? Seriously? C'mon give me a break. You saw raven's posts, if he/she wants to discuss seriously then this is not the place to do it. Blogwhoring indeed.

2.) Re: Tom Estes' blog - Thanks Aratina...I'll check it out

3.) Celtic: I think Sastra already addressed this more eloquently than I ever could (as usual) at #287. Given the way Sastra outlines the validity of what PZ pointed out and why, How do you respond?

I assume you mean the third part, and perhaps the first?

First PartI think it's only fair to point out that the person who first started tying this act to religion -- and a very specific interpretation of Christianity -- was the killer himself. He did this rather explicitly. PZ provides just one of the quotes.

Second PartSo do we believe him? Not necessarily: Sodini's not only rationalizing, he's clearly got major mental health issues. But I think it's fair, and reasonable, to explore the possibility that there was indeed some causal connection between his theology and his actions.

Third PartAlthough some atheists may be too quick to take the killer's claim at face value, I think that many religious people are too quick to dismiss what he wrote, and the implications of a world view which sees all sin as washed away through faith in Jesus. He had been a long time member of a church which taught exactly that. At the very least, the religious may want to fine tune their way of framing certain theological points, lest they be 'misinterpreted' and taken at their word.

Where does faith come from? Faith comes from repentance. Without repentance, there can be no faith.

Was this man repentant?

Now, regarding the point. YOU ARE CORRECT. Too many Christians think that belief in a person without repentance makes everything "all right".

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 12:33 PM

Rev:

(Again, I was specifically addressing the commentators on this post but it wasn't clear on my blog - fixed it)

And you're still lying by implying that all the commentors are doing this. And they are not.

See where I said - "fixed it" - I meant that I had fixed it. LOL

Regarding the logic thing, I want people to look at themselves first and come down on members of their own group as hard as they do to non-members.

Regarding groups: It is a sociological term - We fit in groups as animals not like boy/girl scout organizations LOL. Groups that share similiar beliefs, education etc etc.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 6, 2009 12:36 PM

See where I said - "fixed it" - I meant that I had fixed it. LOL

Good grief Chris, I was still answering your question about what I though was dishonest about your first post.

sigh

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 6, 2009 12:39 PM

Where does faith come from? Faith comes from repentance.

No it doesn't. Faith is belief without, or in the teeth of, evidence. It usually comes from conformism - most people adopt the religion they were told was true as a child - or from desperation, as is often the case with addicts.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 6, 2009 12:53 PM

Aren't many of the commenters on here directly tying this man's religion to his ability to commit these acts? And because this man's religion is Christianity - then that must provide more proof for the insanity of Christianity?

That would be like sending coals to Newcastle, as we used to say in Britain when coal came from Newcastle. Sand to the Sahara, maybe. For most here, the insanity of Christianity is not in doubt; the question is, whether it is a relatively harmless, or a deadly dangerous form of insanity. (My own answer would be - sometimes one, sometimes the other; and I haven't studied this case closely enough to have an opinion on whether it's relevant, i.e. whether this man's exposure to Christinsanity was a significant factor in turning him into a murderer.)

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 12:56 PM

Rev,

"And yes I do. If you want you can search on my name and see me being critical of people on this blog when I deem it necessary. Frequently."

Excellent. At least I still have some faith that human race holds members of their own groups accountable.

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 1:01 PM

Knockgoats wrote:

Where does faith come from? Faith comes from repentance.

No it doesn't. Faith is belief without, or in the teeth of, evidence. It usually comes from conformism - most people adopt the religion they were told was true as a child - or from desperation, as is often the case with addicts.

Whoa there Knockgoats. Now we're getting into a scriptural discussion of Faith, and not a secular one. I can't argue the case here as I am abiding by the "No Scripture" bias.

My point of real God centered faith has to be based on scripture - so that is where my argument comes from, so I have no defense of my position not being allowed to post scripture out of respect for another person's community.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 6, 2009 1:10 PM

CT, still haven't proven your imaginary god exists, and you quote the fictional babble to back up your fictional arguments. And you wonder why we call you a delusional fool. No evidence for anything, just belief in fiction. I'm not abusive, just calling it as it is. You have nothing.

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 1:16 PM

Hmm...apparently missed a blockquote tag in my last post.

Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2009 1:16 PM

CT #305 wrote:

Now, regarding the point. YOU ARE CORRECT. Too many Christians think that belief in a person without repentance makes everything "all right".

I would make 2 points. The first is that some versions of Christianity can be more dangerous than others.

And the second one is that "faith" as a method makes it virtually impossible for any version of Christianity -- or, indeed, any religious or spiritual viewpoint -- to be distinguished as more reasonable than any other.

Your explanation of where the killer's theological interpretation went wrong can be disputed from within Christianity itself. With faith comes repentance from the sin of pride. The greatest sin of pride involves man thinking that he can "deserve" salvation by his good acts. He can not. By admitting that he's a miserable sinner with a penchant for blood and violence, and can do nothing else but act on it, the killer is repentant in the true sense of the concept. He's admitting that man is vile and incapable of refraining from sin. And he's recognizing that only Jesus -- the Perfect Man -- is capable of paying for his human sins.

Now, I know you can dispute this as being "what Christianity really means." But the problem is that, from the point of view of an outsider, the two warring interpretations are six of one, half a dozen of the other. We atheists might say we like Interpretation A more than Interpretation B because it's more reasonable from a secular standpoint, and therefore sound more like humanism. But there is no up front requirement that the "true" version of Christianity (or Islam or New Age or what have you) is the one that sounds most like secular humanism. In fact, if it sounds too much like secular humanism, we can start wondering if we've gotten into Religion-as=myth-and-metaphor Land.

My own opinion is that, in this case, the killer's religious views may have been a contributing factor. Not the real motivation, but it didn't help. Supernaturalism seldom does. Certainly, he was not suffering from a propensity for being too reasonable.

But, I think the more important issue is that the common apologetic that religion is necessary for morality, and that faith in God will invariably lead to faith in human value, has one more counterexample to contend with. If you do not make this argument yourself, then this may not seem especially significant to you. But it's often made.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 6, 2009 1:26 PM

CT, people here have discussed the logical fallacies you are committing many times in other threads. My Way Or The Highway type of assertions for religion are rejected outright on this blog. You have to show, as Wry Mouth noted, sound arguments for theism. Unfortunately for Christians, liberal to fundie, there is no sound argument for Christianity. None. You may as well be presenting arguments for playing Quidditch and reading Harry Potter instead of attending church and reading the Bible because to atheists those are the same kinds of things.

OT: So Typepad is no longer usable on Pharyngula?

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 1:37 PM

Sastra wrote

And the second one is that "faith" as a method makes it virtually impossible for any version of Christianity -- or, indeed, any religious or spiritual viewpoint -- to be distinguished as more reasonable than any other.

I started to argue this, and realized you said "more reasonable". True enough. You can't really reason through faith/metaphysics.

I think, that "true Christianity" - the blood & guts of today's Christianity is not true. I think Orthodoxy and power shift in Rome and the persecution of Christians by Christians as early as 300 CE lost the message of Christ.

So, I find myself very UNOrthodox but very blessed. Go figure.

But, I think the more important issue is that the common apologetic that religion is necessary for morality, and that faith in God will invariably lead to faith in human value, has one more counterexample to contend with. If you do not make this argument yourself, then this may not seem especially significant to you. But it's often made.

I totally agree - most real theologians agree that men have morality and experiential knowledge shows us that man places value on other man (typically).

Regarding the faith/repentance thing, I think scripture speaks to it in this order:

Acts 20:20-21 20 I did not shrink from doing anything helpful, proclaiming the message to you and teaching you publicly and from house to house, 21 as I testified to both Jews and Greeks about (1)repentance toward God and 2faith toward our Lord Jesus.

And regarding Jesus' testimony in Luke:

Luke 18:13-14 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' [repentance]14 I tell you, this man went down to his home justified [not guilty in a legal sense] rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted."

Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2009 1:49 PM

CT #327 wrote:

I think, that "true Christianity" - the blood & guts of today's Christianity is not true.

I think it's a truism that every Christian thinks they are trying to follow the true message of Christ, while fighting against a religious world which has lost it.

The people whom you classify as having lost the message, are classifying you the same way.

Regarding the faith/repentance thing, I think you're stuck with the problem I wrote about in my previous post: the more you try to make your theology make sense to an atheist, the less impressive and important your theology becomes to us. If it stands up as reasonable and plausible from our standpoint in the world, it doesn't need a Special Revelation from God.

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 6, 2009 2:01 PM

"Does repentance to God (repentance from sin) sound reasonable and plausible from your standpoint?"

As reasonable and plausible as repentance to Zeus.

Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2009 2:04 PM

CT #330 wrote:

Why does it have to be impressive?

Impressive from a rational standpoint, I mean -- reasonable. A good thing.

Does repentance to God (repentance from sin) sound reasonable and plausible from your standpoint?

Depends on how it's defined. If it's made into advocacy of respecting other people and avoiding harming them for their sake, for yours, and for the sake of others, then 'repentance to God' sounds just fine -- as a rather elaborate and perhaps unwieldy metaphor.

Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2009 2:24 PM

CT #334 wrote:

scripturally, that is not how its defined. I wish it were sometimes.

Then, unless I know how you're using scripture to define it, I can't know if I would find it either reasonable or plausible. Of course, there's also the question of whether an interpretation is reasonable or plausible from the standpoint of the text itself. You or I could argue over what some quote by Nehi in the Book of Mormon means, with neither one of us considering the BOM to be anything other than a rather unreasonable and implausible construction by Jos. Smith.

Which prompts me to ask a question. How much of your Christian faith -- and how you live it -- would still be just as reasonable, and just as plausible, if the truth of the matter is, that there is no God? Does God really have to exist, and does the entire Christian myth have to be true, for Christianity to have any value?

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 6, 2009 2:39 PM

CT,
You're just using the "no True Scotsman" argument. It doesn't convince. Obviously, if we allow your definition, then no-one with faith can ever do anything wrong - because if they were repentant at the moment they did it, they wouldn't have done it. So the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch-burnings, the wars of religion, the justifications of slavery and racism in the name of Jesus - none of them can possibly be laid at the door of Christianity. Deeply dishonest.

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 2:49 PM

CT, You're just using the "no True Scotsman" argument. It doesn't convince. Obviously, if we allow your definition, then no-one with faith can ever do anything wrong - because if they were repentant at the moment they did it, they wouldn't have done it. So the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch-burnings, the wars of religion, the justifications of slavery and racism in the name of Jesus - none of them can possibly be laid at the door of Christianity. Deeply dishonest.

Eh? Would you mind explaining your logic there? I don't follow.

Lay it out logically please.

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 2:58 PM

E.V. #340 wrote:

BTW: Those scriptures have been reinterpreted, selectively ignored and rationalized to the point that almost any meaning can be projected to suit the objectives of the interpreter.

Well, Greek can still be interpreted several ways - I will grant you that.

So, please, enlighten me. What other meanings and interpretations do you see? Feel free to use whatever translation you like. I'm not trying to be snide, but the burden of proof for that statement lies on your shoulders.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 6, 2009 3:03 PM

So, please, enlighten me. What other meanings and interpretations do you see? Feel free to use whatever translation you like. I'm not trying to be snide, but the burden of proof for that statement lies on your shoulders.

So you think the bible is today exactly as it was when it was originally pieced together?

Posted by: Paul Claessen | August 6, 2009 3:22 PM

( From http://tr.im/vM73 )
The guy wrote in his diary:
"But this guy teaches (and convinced me) you can commit mass murder then still go to heaven. Ask him."

'this guy' refers to Pastor Rick Knapp. Maybe someone should have a word with Mr. Knapp about what he teaches!

Although, maybe people already have:
http://www.tetelestai.org/ourDoctrine.html

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 6, 2009 3:26 PM

CT,
Yes, I admit I could have been clearer. For convenience, I'll number the steps in the argument.

1) Your claim is that there is "no faith without repentance".

2) Now I assumed it followed from this that when someone with faith "sins", they have therefore lost their faith, and then have to make a fresh act of repentance to regain it.

3) Otherwise, someone could repent once, gain faith, then go on to commit any atrocities at all and still "have faith".

4) Maybe you're happy with that. If so, your claim that this particular individual did not have faith collapses, as you don't know he did not at some time repent.

5) If not, by your definition, it is a necessary truth that at the time of committing an atrocity, no-one has faith.

6) Thus no amount of evidence whatever that faith had ever led people to commit atrocities would ever be allowed to count - the argument being always open that unfortunately, they had fallen back from their faith.

7) Now the perpetrators of the various atrocities I listed certainly in many cases believed they had faith - and did not consider the things they did to be atrocities.

8) But on your account, it is always open to any Christian to say "but they didn't really have faith, or they wouldn't have committed that atrocity" - and hence their deeds were not the responsibility of Christianity.

This is a version of the "No true Scotsman" argument. In case you're not familiar with that phrase, it derives from the assertion that "No Scotsman puts honey on his porridge" being disproved by a sceptic exhibiting a Scotsman who does, and this evidence being met with "Ah, but no true Scotsman puts honey on his porridge" - defining the evidence out of existence.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 6, 2009 3:31 PM

Have you read any of Greg Boyd's stuff?

No, I barely have time to read all the thing I have for work, but I'll check out the blog re: Ehrman just for kicks.

Also, he is a former atheist fwiw.

not worth much of anything but thanks for sharing.

Yeah I'm not educated enough on the subject but there are a few here that are.

Maybe they'll chime in.

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 3:35 PM

E.V. #340 wrote:

BTW: Those scriptures have been reinterpreted, selectively ignored and rationalized to the point that almost any meaning can be projected to suit the objectives of the interpreter.

CT wrote:
Well, Greek can still be interpreted several ways - I will grant you that.

So, please, enlighten me. What other meanings and interpretations do you see? Feel free to use whatever translation you like. I'm not trying to be snide, but the burden of proof for that statement lies on your shoulders.

Then EV wrote #344:

CT:

Which sect do you want to discuss? You think your interpretation matches every other denomination? Are you a fundamental literalist or do accept the rationalization that much of the New and Old Testaments are metaphorical?

You need to get out more, take a comparative religion course or three.
As a former seminarian I can assure you your current paradigm does not hold but for those select Christians who happen to agree with your current interpretation of scripture - your specific denomination. Or do Ian Paisley, Jim Jones, David Koresh or Fred Phelps echo your same inerpretation too? (No True Scotsman fallacy in 3...2...1...)

Ev, I thought you wanted to interpret the text - not what different denominations say or don't say. I care little for denominations.

Now, if you want to discuss the meaning of the text(s) we can do that.

Ben in Texas #346 wrote:

Yes I'm familiar with the Scotsman fallacy.

Yes I'm familiar with the fallacy.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 6, 2009 3:39 PM

Paul Claessen, I just saw this at Rickross Cult Education Forum:

Tetelestai is pastured by Alan Knapp, a Thieme prodigy. Knapp was ordained by Thieme in 1991. Knapp also made fun of other pastors, and other churches. He used to joke about “men in dresses”, which I assume was referring to Priests of different denominations. He also would make fun of other churches “happy clappy churches” I assume was a reference to Pentecostal, Baptist, or Evangelical churches....

I guess the best way to describe my experience with Knapp’s sermons is that it’s listening to a guy teach you not to be arrogant, except he himself is the most arrogant person in the building. Sort of like someone with a cigarette in their mouth teaching the dangers of smoking.

And then there is the Internet Archives 2007 version of Knapp's church doctrine (pay attention to the anti-atheist sentiments, CT):

We believe that at death, a believer's soul and human spirit pass immediately into God's presence and there he remains in conscious bliss until Christ's appearing at the Exit-Resurrection. At that time, his soul, human spirit and body will be reunited in association with the Lord forever in glory. But at the death of an unbeliever, his soul will remain in conscious misery until the final judgment of the Great White Throne at the close of the Millennium. At that time, his soul and body will be reunited and cast into the Lake of Fire, not to be annihilated, but to be punished with everlasting destruction, banished from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His power for all eternity.

Posted by: Paul | August 6, 2009 3:41 PM

Don't waste your time, Rev. I followed the link, and 2 paragraphs in:

"For me, it’s enough to hold that the Bible is “inspired” and generally historically “trustworthy.”"

Yeah, that sounds like a "former atheist". I consider parts of the Wheel of Time inspiring, and it even has references to contemporary history, but that doesn't put it in a place where it's "good enough" to be considered a divinely inspired text. Seriously, archaeology shows whole swathes of "OT History" to be bunk.

Posted by: E.V. | August 6, 2009 3:51 PM

Once you conceptualize that deities/spirits are purely human constructs, it's highly unlikely that you return to believing in an invisible Sky Daddy whose capricious way of causing or not preventing suffering and only offering a pleasant afterlife to those who follow a certain prophet, who was sequestered in a very specific geological area before the advent of mass communications, is rather dubious when you apply reason, eh?

(Oops, sorry about you people in the hinterlands who didn't hear the message, but you're all doomed to hell - and you infants as well unless you were catholic... until they decided limbo didn't exist anymore.)

This entire material universe is the testing ground for its' supposed creator and a sentient humanoid species on a tiny planet to see whether they get rewarded or punished for eternity in a supposed life after death? Why that's almost laughable when you really look at, isn't it CT?

Posted by: E.V. | August 6, 2009 4:07 PM

Now, if you want to discuss the meaning of the text(s) we can do that.

Your solipsistic view is as tedious as your ability to dodge any reasonable refutation of your bullshit arguments.

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 4:25 PM

Knockgoats wrote:

CT,
Yes, I admit I could have been clearer. For convenience, I'll number the steps in the argument.

Thanks!

1) Your claim is that there is "no faith without repentance".

2) Now I assumed it followed from this that when someone with faith "sins", they have therefore lost their faith, and then have to make a fresh act of repentance to regain it.

3) Otherwise, someone could repent once, gain faith, then go on to commit any atrocities at all and still "have faith".

4) Maybe you're happy with that. If so, your claim that this particular individual did not have faith collapses, as you don't know he did not at some time repent.

5) If not, by your definition, it is a necessary truth that at the time of committing an atrocity, no-one has faith.

6) Thus no amount of evidence whatever that faith had ever led people to commit atrocities would ever be allowed to count - the argument being always open that unfortunately, they had fallen back from their faith.

7) Now the perpetrators of the various atrocities I listed certainly in many cases believed they had faith - and did not consider the things they did to be atrocities.

8) But on your account, it is always open to any Christian to say "but they didn't really have faith, or they wouldn't have committed that atrocity" - and hence their deeds were not the responsibility of Christianity.

This is a version of the "No true Scotsman" argument. In case you're not familiar with that phrase, it derives from the assertion that "No Scotsman puts honey on his porridge" being disproved by a sceptic exhibiting a Scotsman who does, and this evidence being met with "Ah, but no true Scotsman puts honey on his porridge" - defining the evidence out of existence.

I had to think about this one for a while.

You repent to God and have faith in Jesus - what is this faith? That God raised Him from the dead. Why did He raise Jesus from the dead? Certainly not for the works that Jesus did, but for the promises that God had given throughout the "old" testament. The promises of a King, of a savior were given in the OT and fulfilled in the new.

So you repent to God and are justified, and you believe that Jesus is the fulfillment of those promises that are looked for (promises of Salvation and abundant _life_).

So at risk of stepping into the fallacy, there MUST be EVIDENCE of the EXPERIENCE.

The Scotsman fallacy doesn't really apply I think, because "being" a Scotsman requires no EXPERIENTAL event. You don't EXPERIENCE being a Scotsman, you are born one. You EXPERIENCE being a Christian, you aren't born one.

Salvation & Forgiveness AFFECTS you as an individual, as a family.

It's like skydiving. A person can tell you all about it and explain how to do it with mechanical precision. But until that person EXPERIENCES it, it does not AFFECT them. After experiencing it, their life is "changed". Now they can describe the feelings, the emotions, the moment, the effects for lack of a better word.

Alright now back to the argument.

Christians sin - but they've experienced salvation - they've experienced forgiveness, so real sin AFFECTS them. They realize it, they are conscious of it. They don't WANT to do it. They DON'T plan it. They DON'T talk about it before hand. They don't want any part of the conviction of sin.

As far as losing faith goes, I don't know. Scripture seems to indicate in some places that you cannot lose it, other places it indicates that it can be lost, and in Hebrews, it seems to state emphatically that once its lost, a person cannot "be restored to repentance".

Honestly, as a Christian, and as a human being, I cannot see how this man experienced God, because it changes you.

Same goes for Calvin in my mind. He had Michael Servetus murdered basically because he was a heretic. Had Calvin really experienced God, or was he the guy on the ground who had never skydived?

I cannot tell you the decision of God on that one. I can tell you our works are judged.

1 Peter 1:17-19 17 If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; 18 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

So, even if this guy was "really" saved, He will be judged according to His works.

I know I may not have addressed your arguments sufficiently and I apologize.

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 4:35 PM

Let me post this very simple concept that you can't seem to get one more time:

Interpretation = meaning.

I don't think that is really true is it?

Meaning is given by the accepted definition of words. Words are important.

A Greek word translated "evil" in english - what does it mean?

Well, what does the Greek word mean - what did it mean when Homer used it? Or Paul? Or Jesus? Or Whomever. Does the meaning of the word change.

You cannot get to meaning without getting to the way the author used that particular word. Look at the Bible translations and the arguments against reading a word a certain way.

Same for the Hebrew of course. You must find comparative uses to determine meaning in many cases.

Would you agree with that or no?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 6, 2009 4:43 PM

You EXPERIENCE being a Christian, you aren't born one.

Rubbish!

You're talking to someone who was born a christian. And let's not get technical regarding needing to be baptized to be a christian. No infant makes that choice willingly. The only reason I was ever a christian is because I was born into a family of them. (Higher education and a natural curiosity about the way the world really works was a wonderful cure... I got a lot better.)

In that way, being a Scotsman and being a christian are no different... and that's how the fallacy applies.

Posted by: E.V. | August 6, 2009 5:03 PM

(evil)Does the meaning of the word change?

YES, IT DOES!!!!!!!!!

Do you honestly think that truly horrible events which are described as evil are believed to be brought on by some metaphysical agent (ghosts/evil spirits/ demons/wrathful gods), and if so, which ones? Can someone who only believes that Satan brings evil prove he is right over someone who believes evil is an interpretation of the horror humans are capable of, regardless of other's beliefs in gods/spirits/gnomes, trolls & ogres? You may dismiss gnomes, trolls and ogres out of hand, but at one time many people believed they brought disease, famine, misfortune - the embodiment of evil; now we know better (some of us do).
You don't seem to understand etymology or conceptual differences in language.

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 6:00 PM

Sastra wrote I think we need to distinguish between several ways of doing wrong in religion. One way is to do wrong, but think you're doing the right thing because of your religious views (Crusades, Inquisition, slavery, honor killing.) You don't repent because you don't need to repent (and might need to repent if you don't do it.)

Another way is to do wrong, and know you're doing wrong, and going against your religious views (theft, murder, lying.)You know you need to repent.

There might be a third way, and it's rather odd. You do wrong, and know you're doing wrong, but you know you're doing wrong as a fulfillment of your religious views (sinning is unavoidable, and a necessary reminder of the Fall and need for redemption through faith, not works.) You don't need to repent your sinful nature, actually -- you just need to acknowledge it properly, and that is True Repentance.

That third, rather creepy possibility, might be what we're discussing in the present situation.

When you say present situation, are talking about the gentleman in particular, or our conversation on repentance?

For me, #2 applies, not because of religious views necessarily - though they do apply. Religious views of sin, are not necessarily God's views of sin. In the southern Baptists for example, drinking alcohol is considered a sin/wrong. So that's a religious view, but not the right view.

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 6:06 PM

Rubbish!

You're talking to someone who was born a christian. And let's not get technical regarding needing to be baptized to be a christian. No infant makes that choice willingly. The only reason I was ever a christian is because I was born into a family of them. (Higher education and a natural curiosity about the way the world really works was a wonderful cure... I got a lot better.)

In that way, being a Scotsman and being a christian are no different... and that's how the fallacy applies.

Interesing point of view. What is your reasoning for this stance that you were "born a Christian"?

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 6:28 PM

Well, I was hoping for a bit more than that.

Christianity is definitely not something you're "born into" like Judaism.

Posted by: Watchman | August 6, 2009 6:35 PM

Christianity is definitely not something you're "born into" like Judaism.

Technically true, but for those among us who were born into Christian families and baptized as infants, it may as well be. It's pointless hair-splitting to argue otherwise, at least in the context of the current discussion. So why bother?

Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2009 6:53 PM

CT #369 wrote:

When you say present situation, are talking about the gentleman in particular, or our conversation on repentance?

I'm talking about the specific form of theology the killer talked about in the quote PZ presents in his post:

"Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell. Christ paid for EVERY sin, so how can I or you be judged BY GOD for a sin when the penalty was ALREADY paid."

Working on the assumption (possibly false) that the man was sincere, he may have found an interesting way of allowing his religion to justify doing wrong. If you read the short essay linked to at #214, the reasoning (and the problem) is made clearer. If all man's works are as filthy rags before the Lord, one might as well be hanged -- or saved -- for a sheep, as for a lamb. Killing women in a gym is no worse, or better, than forgetting to say grace at a meal. Nothing we do on earth matters: the only important choice we make is to accept the gift of grace every time we sin, sin, sin. The penalty need only be paid once -- and it was.

This would be an example of faith making all crimes equal. "Repentance" becomes a matter of improving your life and morals by abdicating any ability or attempt to change your "works" -- with disasterous results from the secular point of view.

Usually, though, atheists point out that religion can often be used the first way -- and this also makes it dangerous. It assumes facts not in evidence, and then draws the ethical choices from there. If background assumptions are correct, then certain actions are noble. If these background assumptions rest on faith in invisible, untestable things, then men's actions are not only unpredictable, but impervious to reason.

For me, #2 applies, not because of religious views necessarily - though they do apply. Religious views of sin, are not necessarily God's views of sin.

I'm not sure what you mean here, when you say #2 "applies." That's how you see repentance? How do we know you're not going to fall into what, for us, would be #1? #2, by the way, needs no religion to back it up. You can do it on good will and the world alone.

I was trying to point out that, if you and Knock are going to talk about whether faith helps one avoid doing wrong, you're going to need to make clear which sort of 'wrong' you're both talking about. As Knockgoats points out, one can use a sincere, devout, honest love of God to steel your resolve to help the poor, or kill the infidel. Or both.

Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2009 7:03 PM

CT #373 wrote:

Christianity is definitely not something you're "born into" like Judaism.

I agree. So does Dawkins. He wants to eliminate the nasty habit of talking about a "Christian child" or a "Muslim child." He says that's like talking about a "Keyesian economist child." Religious views are rational conclusions drawn from empirical evidence, not just a matter of undergoing rituals and singing the same songs and eating the same food.

(Humanist Judaism may be a weird sort of exception: they're atheists, but love the "stories" and habits that unite them as a kind of extended ethnic family. One can also be a 'cultural Christian' in the sense of putting that cute little manger scene under the non-religious Christmas tree, and treating the birth of Jesus just like the story of Santa Claus. But that's not taking the religion particularly seriously, as religion.)

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 7:20 PM

Working on the assumption (possibly false) that the man was sincere, he may have found an interesting way of allowing his religion to justify doing wrong. If you read the short essay linked to at #214, the reasoning (and the problem) is made clearer. If all man's works are as filthy rags before the Lord, one might as well be hanged -- or saved -- for a sheep, as for a lamb. Killing women in a gym is no worse, or better, than forgetting to say grace at a meal. Nothing we do on earth matters: the only important choice we make is to accept the gift of grace every time we sin, sin, sin. The penalty need only be paid once -- and it was.

Ok, I could see that reasoning from that man's theological viewpoint. I think though to reason to "our actions here no longer matter" as a theological viewpoint would be to ignore "most" of scripture and to abuse Paul's writings.

(Which happens all the time)

Also regarding where I said "#2 applies"

Another way is to do wrong, and know you're doing wrong, and going against your religious views (theft, murder, lying.)You know you need to repent.

ow do we know you're not going to fall into what, for us, would be #1? #2, by the way, needs no religion to back it up. You can do it on good will and the world alone.

There is a specific theological element that is needed (religious views). If you had left out religious views from #2, it would not have applied.

I was trying to point out that, if you and Knock are going to talk about whether faith helps one avoid doing wrong, you're going to need to make clear which sort of 'wrong' you're both talking about. As Knockgoats points out, one can use a sincere, devout, honest love of God to steel your resolve to help the poor, or kill the infidel. Or both.

For the Christian, with scripture readily available (at least here in this country), and honest love of God does not square with murder (there are no rewards for killing infidels/atheists)

Before the written word became prolific/available - Man was constrained to be taught the traditions (as far as Christianity is concerned) and couldn't read them for himself (assuming he had learned to read in the first place).

I'm not sure if this applies to Judaism before the Roman exile/dispersion as there were many of the Hebrew scriptures written in the common languages which would seem to indicate a large portion of the Jewish population could read.

So, having said that, much of Christendom history is littered with bad theology and worse decisions. (And still today!)

The Cardinal/Bishop/Pope (whoever) might order an edict that was to be followed under threat of excommunication. It is very interesting to see how the Bishops as early as the 3rd century were exiled for "heresies" and removed from fellowship based on the majority views.

It was definitely more "community" greater than "individual" which is hard to even grasp in our day and age.

Posted by: raven | August 6, 2009 7:31 PM

CT the delusional:

Honestly, as a Christian, and as a human being, I cannot see how this man experienced God, because it changes you.

Experiencing xianity changes people. Lately it has tended to make them into monsters. or Atheists.

The leadership of the fundie perversion are all humanoid toads. They spread hate and lies like rain. The members nod their heads like it is all OK. Many of them openly hate the USA, want to overthrow the government, set up a theocracy and head on back to the Dark Ages.

They believe riduculous things like the world is 6,000 years old and all of science is wrong.. All the sects hate each other and all claim to be the only True Xians.

That is why the areligious segment is growing rapidly. And why xianity is losing between 1 and 2 million people a year in the USA. As you sow, so shall you reap.

Posted by: CT | August 6, 2009 7:54 PM

Even if you could ( many anthropologists who work in linguistics would argue you really can't) It still is not going to have a concrete universal meaning across all regions of Greece much less the entire regions we're talking about by contemporaries of the time. (where the hell is OwlMirror?) The concept to monotheism was foreign to any but those who worshipped the God of Abraham, and even verses of the OT don't make it clear whether this god had his own specific territory(By the waters of Babylon) or was the only extant god in the universe. The petulance of the god of Genesis suggests a very young, adolescent god, later he seems much different. In short, Gods personality and even acts attributed to him change in later texts when Satan/Lucifer gets the blame. And don't forget all those seraphim and cherubim or putti.

I think you're putting a lot of "eggs" in one basket.

First, Biblical Greek is recognized as koine Greek I believe. As such it obeys a lot of linguistic "rules" - there are a few, not many, words of uncertain determination. The rest are fairly easy to translate on their own. HOWEVER, the tenses and combinations does make getting the "sense" of the passage problematic. An author could use a word with multiple meanings/senses and only the context of the passage would give us a very good approximation of the meaning.

Biblical Hebrew on the other hand has more words of uncertain determinations and the context is required to even come close to the meaning of the word, and then the "sense" the author meant can still be unknown.

The NET bible offers many translators notes for each passage which I like - answers "Why was this passage translated this particular way?"

The accounts of Jesus in the NT don't jibe and certain concepts don't translate to modern concepts. How can the miracles have occurred without the suspension of physics, and if he did suspend physics somehow, why were his powers so inconsistent? What is the meaning of a blood sacrifice if the sacrificial lamb is a god and cannot actually die? So much is borrowed (or stolen) from Egyptian ideological motifs that it's hard define what much of it really says. Was it hype? Mistranslation? Ignorance of what we now know to be scientifically unlikely? And if they didn't understand modern knowledge and were writing about commonly held superstition, doesn't that relegate the stories to being myth and folklore of an age before the age of scientiae?

Have you been keeping up with physics lately? :)

http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13226725 (March 2009)

There are some very interesting things going on with physics.

It boils down to this:Theologians, cultural anthropologists and linguists cannot agree on whole passages much less tiny subtle nuances; what makes you think you can decipher the meanings accurately?

Fair question. It would be arrogant to assume that anyone can get the complete, actual meaning intended by the author. Context provides clues so that helps along with the original languages to come very, very close though.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 6, 2009 8:35 PM

Repentance comes from understanding the value of your neighbor. Our sin doesn't affect God (scriptural support provided as desired) - but it does affect the children of mankind. And that is what "ticks God off" so to speak - not the action of the sinner per se, but the injustices done to the "neighbor" or "brother/sister".

As fas as I'm concerned, just another deluded xtian making shit up as he goes along, and interpreting bits and pieces from his holy book the way it best suits him for maintaining the warm-fuzzies in his head, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 6, 2009 9:02 PM

E.V.,

as you said @ 386, that horse is long dead, and Sophistry is all that's left.
Off to work now, and then the big field trip party, yay !

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 6, 2009 9:31 PM

Our sin doesn't affect God (scriptural support provided as desired) - but it does affect the children of mankind.

So god isn't necessary for either sin or repentance. The boy just keeps losing jobs one after the other.

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 6, 2009 11:34 PM

Experiencing god doesn't change you, but thinking you've experienced god can, I guess. (Never experienced it myself.)

CT, just as you think you've experience god (Yahweh), every other person who believes in other gods believes just as much that they've experienced their god.

Posted by: Some Guy | August 7, 2009 4:22 AM

The statistical evidence is quite clear: greater availability of guns raises homicide rates

Except where it doesn't. Ever heard of Switzerland, where every man in a certain age range is required to have an assault rifle and ammunition in their home?

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 7, 2009 6:22 AM

Ever heard of Switzerland, where every man in a certain age range is required to have an assault rifle and ammunition in their home? - Some Guy

Ever heard that statistical evidence of a general trend does not require that every instance conform to that trend? The statistical evidence I referred to is for states of the USA. It takes into account other possible factors - much easier to do than in an international study. Here's the reference again:

State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003.
Miller M, Hemenway D, Azrael D. Soc Sci Med 2007; 64(3): 656-664.
Affiliation: Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.09.024

The international comparisons are much less clear, with social inequality apparently being a major factor (see the refs I've given earlier), but there are some interesting cases, like the unexpectedly high homicide rate in Finland, which has very high gun ownership. Swiss assault rifles held at home are in fact used in a non-trivial number of murders of female by male partners.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 7, 2009 8:55 AM

If I'm guilty of sophistry,

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 9:02 AM

Nice tu quoque fallacy, C.T. The old rubber/glue retort, eh? Oh yeah, you're the guy who thinks there is a definitive ancient "bible" existing somewhere that can easily set the record straight. *laughs*
I'm waiting for that empirical data, Mr. Avoidance.

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 9:08 AM

C.T. seems to be a very pale imitation of Silver Fox with Waltonesque adolescent overtones.

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 9:15 AM

C.T's indoctrination seems to be complete, although he doesn't acknowledge that had he been indoctrinated as a Hindu or Muslim he would be just as zealous and self-righteous as a follower of either of those religions, but at least he wouldn't be spouting all that drivel from St. Peter.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 7, 2009 9:21 AM

CT, quit avoiding the issue of needing to supply real evidence for your presuppositions. You are doing typical godbot behavior of someone who knows they are losing the argument. Pony up real evidence or go away.

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 9:26 AM

C.T. It's very nice you are cutting and pasting Ad Hom fallacy. Critical thinking skills would be good for you to study.

But... Empirical data. Empirical data. Come back when you have some, my naive little deluded friend.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 7, 2009 9:32 AM

Until you prove your fictional babble is real and accurate, all you are doing is preaching or proselytizing. That is a plonking offense. Pony up real hard physical evidence to keep yourself from going there. Why are you so scared of real physical evidence?

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 9:42 AM

Greg Boyd doesn't qualify as empirical evidence. He's just as delusional as you and supplies no real evidence. He expresses his concern from the point of faith. We've gone over the definition of faith to the point of nausea. You are no different than conspiracy theorists or people who believe in alien abductions and ghosts - you only spout tautologies based on bronze age texts from superstitious nomadic tribes, no substantial, unimpeachable empirical evidence exists for your belief other than the fact that you believe it. period.
Quoting Paul just makes me feel all the sadder for you and your inability to grasp reality. There were older religions than the Abrahamic religion. Don't you think the 1 True Religion&trade would be the first?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 7, 2009 9:50 AM

You are attempting to change the subject of the debate.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 7, 2009 9:58 AM

CT, if I was trying your argument, I would do the following
1. Show proof for god.
2. Show proof the the inerrancy of the bible.
3. Then, and only then, talk about the interpretation of the bible.
You are trying to presuppose steps one and two. You can't do that and have an effective argument. Especially if your presuppositions are false, which they are. Your god doesn't exist and the babble is a work of fiction.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 7, 2009 10:04 AM

Nope...what I am conceding is that American Christianity is not biblical Christianity for the majority of Christian denominations. - CT

Just yours, eh? Funny, most of the others (Protestants, at least) would say the same.

So where are/were the effects of this "biblical Christianity" in evidence? That there have been individual Christians of great merit I do not deny. I see no evidence any Church has ever improved people morally.

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 10:10 AM

My debate with you stemmed from this post:

Faith comes from authoritarianism.
BTW: Those scriptures have been reinterpreted, selectively ignored and rationalized to the point that almost any meaning can be projected to suit the objectives of the interpreter.

You keep choosing Paul as if he were the only NT authority. If you were Catholic, you'd reject your former atheist cowboy and badger us with Aquinas.

Your original argument only applies if the shooter belonged to your denomination with your group derived specific interpretation - in short, your sectarian paradigm. Sorry, but scriptural meaning and the conclusions drawn from it is largely subjective or there would be only one Christian religion - strike that - only one religion, period. (but then you think there is only one xian religion, and you just happen to belong to the correct one.)

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 10:34 AM

God in search of man.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 7, 2009 10:46 AM

The church was meant as a place for believers to come together to worship God as a community of believers. Not to make public policy and wage war and violence.

That's a noble sentiment, CT... here's the difficult question: do you think or believe most christians share the same viewpoint?

My experience tells me that is not the case, and that you are in the small minority among christians. Now, could this be wrong? Could it be that most christians really do share that viewpoint? Perhaps... but again, experience tells me otherwise (see Tome Estes website). So if it's the vocal minority making the rest of you look bad... how does christianity as a whole respond to it?

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 7, 2009 10:54 AM

So your view of the church's role is to improve people morally? CT

What on earth do you mean, my view of the church's role? Why would I have such a view? This thread began as a discussion of the possible moral effect of Christian teaching on an individual - so its moral effects on individuals generally are relevant.

The church was meant as a place for believers to come together to worship God as a community of believers. Not to make public policy and wage war and violence. CT

I really couldn't care less what you think Paul of Tarsus's original intentions were; I'm concerned with the bad effects of religion in the real world.

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 11:13 AM

OK, Ad Hominem time: CT is a loon. He is unable to attempt any (temporary) objective view beyond his very limited self imposed paradigm. I wonder just how much white shows around his pupils in a face to face with this guy.
I'm done.This guy is from the Adam Savage, "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" playbook.

Posted by: Sastra | August 7, 2009 11:23 AM

CT #422 wrote:

Sure, there are subjective interpretations of all sorts of things including scripture. And there have been scads of "bad" theology by poor interpretation - eisegesis in particular (reading one's own ideas into the text and using them to support wrong ideas)
But ultimately, the text has one meaning - God in search of man.

How does a person outside the religion tell "bad" theology from "good" theology? Does the problem get easier, or harder, if one is supposed to decide which side has been inspired by a Sacred Spirit -- and which side has not?

This is not just a problem for atheists analyzing Christianity. It would apply to anyone analyzing the sacred beliefs and traditions of a religion which they themselves consider to be false, but sincerely believed.

Do we decide what the correct interpretation is by looking to see what the majority thinks? Which group has the most historical precedent? Which segment does the best literary analysis? Which denomination seems to sacrifice the most, and has the most fanatics? Which sect follows their religion the way I would follow it, if I believed in it?

Tell me, CT -- the Sunnis and the Shiites: which side is heresy? Which side is following man's way, and which side is truly seeking to understand the will of Allah?

Every side says the same thing: the other groups are distorting their understanding of the sacred by making it fit into what they want it to be. I, however, am different. I seek the God who seeks me.

Every side. Every view. Every version. Including the ones neither you, nor I, like very much.

If I get to pick true Christianity, it will be that of Bishop John Shelby Spong. And even I see problems with that.

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 11:39 AM

Again Sastra elucidated clearly what I failed to express tangibly.

CT: What she said!!

Posted by: CT | August 7, 2009 12:33 PM

Sastra, great questions.

How does a person outside the religion tell "bad" theology from "good" theology? Does the problem get easier, or harder, if one is supposed to decide which side has been inspired by a Sacred Spirit -- and which side has not?

This is not just a problem for atheists analyzing Christianity. It would apply to anyone analyzing the sacred beliefs and traditions of a religion which they themselves consider to be false, but sincerely believed.

Do we decide what the correct interpretation is by looking to see what the majority thinks? Which group has the most historical precedent? Which segment does the best literary analysis? Which denomination seems to sacrifice the most, and has the most fanatics? Which sect follows their religion the way I would follow it, if I believed in it?

A lot of thoughts here...

The overriding thought seems to be that there is a responsibility of those outside the religion to analyze the religion itself? To Christianity some slack, outsiders would need to know which theology is "correct". To cut religion in general some slack, outsiders would have to be able to make judgmental decisions based on evidence of some sort.

I think your overriding wish might be (I know mine is) an accepted, overriding Unified Theory of Christianity. That then is testable. Does it fit this model, does experimentation return verifiable results.

I think that comes from scripture. Not everyone has an experimental/analytical mindset, but those that do can find this unifiying theory within scripture and then apply it to theological systems and see which "fail" and which "pass".

Let's take an "IF" statement for a minute (just grant me the use of it - whether you believe it or not). IF God grants us individual talents, gifts, abilities etc, then I believe He desires for us to use them. Ok? So, if we as intellectuals (some of you more than others, more than I), are highly intelligent, could we not study the scriptures and find the unifying themes along with reading what others say about those themes, coming at scripture as a specification for what belief should look like, not coming at scripture as a skeptic - looking to tear holes in it the first chance you have.

What you may find, is that the "holes" aren't holes at all, when it is looked at uniformly.

I would love to have a Unified Theology that Christians could all agree on.

But the truth is, we are all different and there are corrupt people. And some of these corrupt people run our churches and make a lot of "noise".

The Unifying Theory of scripture, in my studies, is that God redeems His people - and they continually rebel against it. The Christian church today looks an AWFUL lot like the corruption of Israel in the OT (priests taking bribes? Or devouring the oppressed? Or ignoring the hungry and poor? Building buildings instead of helping people? Causing non-believers to blaspheme God? How about that one...)

So while Christianity as a "whole" may "appear" this way, most of it is because of media and "bad news reporting". There are those Christians within Christianity struggling to maintain these activities, not out of sense of duty, but out of sense of calling. (But the media does a piss poor job of covering those events)

And I know that non-religious folk do the same (feed the poor etc - but they don't worship God)

Worship derives from a sense of "worth" - Hebrew word shachah to bow down before an object of worth/honor. English worship derives from Anglo-Saxon weorthscipe meaning "worth-ship". (Those are just a few examples)

Generally worship means honor, respect, devotion, reverence, veneration, adoration or admiration toward an object of value, worth or esteem.

So, its not the responsibility of "outsiders" to judge a religion...The insiders should hold each other accountable and properly/publicly denounce actions by its adherents that go against scripture - though this might cause outsiders to ridicule them further. But perhaps not.

And Christians don't want to be divisive. Scripture teaches about being divisive as well (against it) but again it teaches that scripture "divides joints and marrow, soul and spirit and judges the heart" (Hebrews 4:12). I think Truth divides...and I think it always will.

I'm not familiar with Spong, I'll check him out.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 7, 2009 1:00 PM

SomeGuy@436
Asked and answered. See #397.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 7, 2009 1:05 PM

CT -

Your entire post at #435 is merely an exercise in continuing to highlight what we've been saying all along...

I think your overriding wish might be (I know mine is) an accepted, overriding Unified Theory of Christianity.

Yours and every single other christian... the problem is, most christians don't see this as a problem... they already believe they have it. You are not excluded from this. You outline it yourself in your post. You believe that your interpretation of scripture is more accurate to what is intended to be taught. So doesn't every other christian, for the most part.

But the truth is, we are all different and there are corrupt people. And some of these corrupt people run our churches and make a lot of "noise".

Ahhh... once again the appearance of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy... They are still christians, like it or not, and they may have the same opinion of you and your interpretation, frankly.

What you may find, is that the "holes" aren't holes at all, when it is looked at uniformly.

Well... what do you mean by "holes"? The holes I would first point to are the obvious contradictions between written scripture and real-world observation (eg, the flood)... there are dozens of them, and they don't go away no matter how "uniformly" you look at it. If you're talking about "holes" in what messages the bible should be teaching... well... I'm not sure you'll ever get past the "interpretation" problem.

So, its not the responsibility of "outsiders" to judge a religion...

It absolutely IS, when that religion imposes itself onto a society, and that society feels its ill effects. Do we need to refer once again to the long litany of religiously sponsored atrocities? Are you really going to make the claim that no organization should be judged by outsiders whom are directly affected by that group's actions?

So while Christianity as a "whole" may "appear" this way, most of it is because of media and "bad news reporting".

So you assert christianity has only appeared this way since the advent of the media-age (last 20 years or so)? Ugh. That's obscene.

Look... as far as a "Unifying Theory"... since the entire problem here surrounds the interpretation of a single book, doesn't it make you wonder how an infallible being could be so completely mis-represented? You'd think an omnipotent, all powerful being could, fairly easily, have made the whole point moot by being completely clear and precise in his "inspired words".

The problem is that these are not divinely inspired words. They are a collection of parables, taken from older cultures and traditions, and wrapped around the customs of the time they were written. They were passed down and retold, gathered from countless sources and then grouped together by early christians into a single collection. When explained in this light, suddenly the problem of having so many different interpretations is not so hard to understand.

You seem like a decent, well meaning person, CT... and I think you believe you need your religion to be that way. I can tell you from personal experience... you don't.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 7, 2009 1:20 PM

I think your overriding wish might be (I know mine is) an accepted, overriding Unified Theory of Christianity. That then is testable. Does it fit this model, does experimentation return verifiable results.

I think that comes from scripture. Not everyone has an experimental/analytical mindset, but those that do can find this unifiying theory within scripture and then apply it to theological systems and see which "fail" and which "pass". - CT

You are wrong, and very obviously so: that there is no such "unifying theory" evident within scripture is clear from the vast range of mutually contradictory interpretations arrived at by believers, including sincere and erudite Biblical scholars. All you have is your own conviction that your interpretation is the right one.

Let's take an "IF" statement for a minute (just grant me the use of it - whether you believe it or not). IF God grants us individual talents, gifts, abilities etc, then I believe He desires for us to use them. Ok? So, if we as intellectuals (some of you more than others, more than I), are highly intelligent, could we not study the scriptures and find the unifying themes

Obviously not, given the range of different interpretations arrived at. Taking this one step further, we have strong grounds for believing that the Bible is not divinely inspired: surely an omnipotent being could have done a lot better in making its meaning clear.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 7, 2009 1:44 PM

Mother Teresa - CT

The evil sadist and dictators' arselicker, you mean?

Posted by: CT | August 7, 2009 2:02 PM

If you believe you're qualified to sit in judgment, then by all means do so.

Posted by: CT | August 7, 2009 2:41 PM

Rather a silly thing to say. We all judge. Moreover, we all, living in the societies we do, face the question of whether the social influence of religion (and specifically Christianity) should be supported or opposed.

Yes we do judge. And, if I remember correctly, each group screams about being judged by another group.

Atheists scream about being judged by Christians. Gays scream about being judged by Christians. (I am NOT condoning Christian behavior in this)

Then, those groups turn around and do the same thing.

And no, I'm not saying "Can't we all just get along?!" LOL

Witness the columbine case:

Atheists unfairly denigrated in Columbine aftermath
http://www.examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m4d21-Atheists-falsely-denegrated-in-Columbine-aftermath

It's an endless cycle....or is it?

Posted by: Sastra | August 7, 2009 5:08 PM

CT #435 wrote:

The overriding thought seems to be that there is a responsibility of those outside the religion to analyze the religion itself?

No: the overriding thought is that there is no way, from either inside a religion, or outside of it, to discern what the 'correct' version of the religion is. Each member sees themselves equally as the seeker seeking truth.

I think your overriding wish might be (I know mine is) an accepted, overriding Unified Theory of Christianity. That then is testable. Does it fit this model, does experimentation return verifiable results.

Does it persuade the community of experts towards a consensus? Could it?

I would love to have a Unified Theology that Christians could all agree on. But the truth is, we are all different and there are corrupt people. And some of these corrupt people run our churches and make a lot of "noise".

Answer to my question: no.

So, if we as intellectuals (some of you more than others, more than I), are highly intelligent, could we not study the scriptures and find the unifying themes along with reading what others say about those themes, coming at scripture as a specification for what belief should look like, not coming at scripture as a skeptic - looking to tear holes in it the first chance you have.

A proper scientist tries to find the holes in his theory: if he does not do this himself, other scientists will. Out of this process comes truth.

You ought to come at scripture, then, by trying to tear holes in it. And do it seriously, by studying genuine critics: not people who say "I used to be a skeptic, but then I found the solution." Approach the Bible as if it wasn't the word of God, but the word of men. That's how you take it seriously, on its own terms, and so avoid using it to discover what you need.

And Christians don't want to be divisive. Scripture teaches about being divisive as well (against it) but again it teaches that scripture "divides joints and marrow, soul and spirit and judges the heart" (Hebrews 4:12). I think Truth divides...and I think it always will.

No -- truth itself doesn't divide people. What divides people is the belief that, in order to discover truth about God, you only need to seek God sincerely.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 7, 2009 6:24 PM

CT #435

...could we not study the scriptures and find the unifying themes along with reading what others say about those themes, coming at scripture as a specification for what belief should look like, not coming at scripture as a skeptic - looking to tear holes in it the first chance you have.

Critically reading the Bible put me on the road to atheism. I realized that Yahweh was a really nasty, petulant bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old.

For instance, Pharoah ignores Moses's pleas about the Israelites because god "hardened his heart." Whereupon god does really nasty things to the Egyptians including killing children. This is not the sort of thing a supposedly loving, benevolent, moral deity does. It's the sort of thing a sadistic thug does.

The Prophet Elijah is wandering around when a bunch of children tease him about his baldness. Elijah prays to god: "These brats are being snotty to me, Lord. Time to do some smiting." So a couple of bears show up to maul 42 kids. I'm supposed to be favorably impressed by a god who does that?

CT, reading the Bible told me that your pet god is an asshole. Any god that sadistic isn't worthy of my belief. And it doesn't say much for you that you feel the need to worship a bullying asshole.

Posted by: CT | August 10, 2009 9:09 AM

Tis Himself wrote: Critically reading the Bible put me on the road to atheism. I realized that Yahweh was a really nasty, petulant bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old.

For instance, Pharoah ignores Moses's pleas about the Israelites because god "hardened his heart." Whereupon god does really nasty things to the Egyptians including killing children. This is not the sort of thing a supposedly loving, benevolent, moral deity does. It's the sort of thing a sadistic thug does.

The Prophet Elijah is wandering around when a bunch of children tease him about his baldness. Elijah prays to god: "These brats are being snotty to me, Lord. Time to do some smiting." So a couple of bears show up to maul 42 kids. I'm supposed to be favorably impressed by a god who does that?

CT, reading the Bible told me that your pet god is an asshole. Any god that sadistic isn't worthy of my belief. And it doesn't say much for you that you feel the need to worship a bullying asshole.

Regarding Pharaoh - the word "hardened" means "strengthen".
Hebrew: Chazaq -Meaning: to be or grow firm or strong, strengthen

How else it used in scripture?
Deuteronomy 3:28 28 'But charge Joshua and encourage him and strengthen [chazaq] him, for he shall go across at the head of this people, and he will give them as an inheritance the land which you will see.'

1 Chronicles 29:12 12 "Both riches and honor come from You, and You rule over all, and in Your hand is power and might; and it lies in Your hand to make great and to strengthen everyone.

We see that God enabled Pharaoh to hold fast to his own resolve in the face of God's power. God didn't override Pharaoh's own choice - God knew what Pharaoh's choice would be:

(Before the hardening God says)
Exodus 3:19 19 "But I know that the king of Egypt will not permit you to go, except under compulsion.

I wrote a whole article on this already here...

Revisiting Pharaoh, Moses and God

Regarding Elisha, I think you make a caricature of what scripture says

2 Kings 2:22-24 22 So the waters have been purified to this day, according to the word of Elisha which he spoke. 23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!" 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.

Do you think God was pleased by this? Or was Elisha acting on his own...his own prejudice?

We know that the prophets were men, and weren't always the most compassionate and made mistakes. See Jonah complaining when God didn't destroy the Ninevites.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 10, 2009 9:51 AM

CT@453,
Your apologias for Jahweh the psychopathic megalomaniac are simply ridiculous. Whatever the meaning of the word translated as "hardened" in the story of Pharoah and Moses, the sense of the text is quite clear: God caused Pharoah not to accede to Moses' demand, so that he could show off what a powerful god he is. As for the Elisha story, Elisha cursed the mocking children in the name of the Lord, and bears came and tore them to pieces. If the latter was not a result of the former, the text would say so. If it was, are you suggesting Jahweh had no option but to send the bears in response to Elisha's curse?

Posted by: CT | August 10, 2009 10:05 AM

Re: why am I posting here?

This is an 'academic' discussion that has led us here - follow the comments if you will.

Knockgoats wrote: Your apologias for Jahweh the psychopathic megalomaniac are simply ridiculous. Whatever the meaning of the word translated as "hardened" in the story of Pharoah and Moses, the sense of the text is quite clear: God caused Pharoah not to accede to Moses' demand, so that he could show off what a powerful god he is.

That is just plain wrong and ignorant Knock. That would be like me coming at a scientific theory with absurd ideas and ASSERTING that my OWN interpretation is the correct one.

Have you actually STUDIED/EXAMINED the text in Exodus 3, and especially verse 19 and flowing into the events in Egypt?

Posted by: aratina cage | August 10, 2009 10:13 AM

Re: Pharaoh's heart

CT, you may be interested to read a conversation about the hardening of the heart as it was discussed on another thread starting with this comment: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/atheist_fundamentalists.php#comment-1799909

Posted by: CT | August 10, 2009 10:18 AM

Nerd, you are the one attempting to derail the discussion, not I.

If someone makes a comment about scripture/theology, then one must be willing to discuss scripture/theology.

According to post #322, I was invited to discuss scripture in support of my points.

Now, if you would like to actually ENGAGE in the conversation, then please do so. If not, please see your way out of the conversation.

This will be my last response to you, unless you actually engage academically and without insult. You are acting like a child and will be treated as such.

Posted by: CT | August 10, 2009 10:33 AM

CT, you may be interested to read a conversation about the hardening of the heart as it was discussed on another thread starting with this comment: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/atheist_fundamentalists.php#comment-1799909

Aratina,

Thanks for the link.

I'm not sure what Heddle's point is actually, but I'm not a Calvinist/Reformed adherent.

(I actually really dislike Calvin for a few reasons)

Regarding "hardening of hearts", the Hebrew word for harden in the Exodus is clearly 'to strengthen' - to enable people to do A.) What the individual determines to do, and/or B.) to do what God calls them to do.

Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 7:42 PM

Regarding "hardening of hearts", the Hebrew word for harden in the Exodus is clearly 'to strengthen' - to enable people to do A.) What the individual determines to do, and/or B.) to do what God calls them to do.

"Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD."

*smiles & walks away shaking his head*

Posted by: iq95vjp5A | August 24, 2009 3:42 PM

iq95vjp5C http://gogole.com/?iq95vjp5D iq95vjp5F [url=http://gogole.com/?iq95vjp5G]iq95vjp5H[/url]