Four Shot Outside Teddy Haggard's Church

[m_huber]

Now I've got that Weird Al song stuck in my head...

"She was always using the word infer when she obviously meant imply. And I know some guys would put up with that kind of thing, but frankly, I can't imagine why."

 

[Autolite]

And don't you even think about disputing Strunk and White. That's E.B. White, the author of Charlotte's Web, who knew a little about correct usage.

Hey, no dispute here. Grammar's ain't my thing. Back on topic though, check out this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071211/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings

I'm not trying to score Atheist "points" or imply that christians are "nutters" but the article seems to underscore the shooter's problem with christianity. It is almost as if the christian religion had created it's own Frankenstein...

 

[Autolite]

"She was always using the word infer when she obviously meant imply. And I know some guys would put up with that kind of thing, but frankly, I can't imagine why."

"Dictionary.com" gives a usage note that implies that the interchangeability of the terms "infer" and "imply" is technically incorrect but acceptable. That's what I inferred after having read it ...

(My brain hurts, I'm going to bed now...)

 

[articulett]

In any case... the believers will not stop concluding that religion is necessary for morality... they will praise god for saving them without questioning why some were killed or why this happened in their church. They won't conclude that religion does not cure mental illness any better than it cures "gay". They will not conclude that easy access to guns has anything to do with it. They will never let a tad of blame go towards religion faith or god but they will imply that secularism or lack of faith or satan is to blame... (and atheists are secretly satanist to them of course.).

They will not be aware of how insensitive they sound to those who weren't spared and how they confabulate stories so that god is always the good guy and "not god" always to blame. They will not learn anything valuable from this--they will just use it like they use their bible to prop up whatever beliefs they have "faith" in. Heck, they'll call it a test of faith and declare faith the victor, I bet. Perhaps a prominent theist will wonder why no atheists spoke at the victims funerals implying it means something sinister just as some posit sinister intent on the posters here.

 

[articulett]

Now I've got that Weird Al song stuck in my head...

"She was always using the word infer when she obviously meant imply. And I know some guys would put up with that kind of thing, but frankly, I can't imagine why."

Okay... just so long as you know I didn't use infer incorrectly. I correctly noted that some people made false inferences regarding the words of others.

See:
Me: "You infer all kinds of nastiness and ill intent to what we're saying on a skeptics forum."

BP: "You keep saying "infer" here when you mean "imply," and "inference" when you mean "implication."

I should have written "from" what we're saying rather than "to". But infer is correct.

BP is inferring malicious intent from the non malicious words of various posters. (The receiver infers). Such intent was never implied.-- (the speaker implies.) He builds a strawman from his wrong inferences and then implies that this represents the other poster's intent and he proceeds to beat up the strawman pretending to hold a morally superior position.

See? He is incorrect as Autolite noted. Receivers make incorrect inferences. He is incorrect by his own definition in Strunk. He is incorrect across the board. Nobody was gloating or being malicious except those that were accusing others of doing so based on wrongful inferences from what was actually said. Rather than ask if people were implying that Christians deserve to die or whether we were gloating--BP inferred that to be the case when it was not the case at all... so he could play his "holier than thou" JREF vigilante card.

 

[BPSCG]

I'm not trying to score Atheist "points" or imply that christians are "nutters" but the article seems to underscore the shooter's problem with christianity. It is almost as if the christian religion had created it's own Frankenstein...

I wouldn't put the blame on the church. This was obviously a deeply troubled person, angry at a crowd of people who were unable to deal with his behavior, angry enough to make threats that were ignored or missed. His parents were unable to get him the help he obviously needed, and he finally went over the brink. The parallels with Virginia Tech are almost perfect, except that today it's a church rather than a university. Again, see my post 76:

Lady I know was raised as a Southern Baptist. She ended up rejecting her faith not so much because she saw the irrationality of it, but because she found herself being rejected by the pretty, cheerleader-type girls in her parents church, because she was shy and bookish. She decided the "we all love each other" mantra was hypocritical, and left.

Fortunately, she's emotionally a strong person and was able to live with the rejection. What would have happened had she been a little unstable, and angry after years of frustration at being an outcast?

So I don't blame the church for having created a monster, any more than I blame VT. Madness has its own reasons, that none of us can fathom.

I can absolve the church of any blame, while at the same time understand their illogical rationalizations. Those people who lost a loved one aren't thinking, "Why was my daughter killed, when she loved God as much as anyone else?" They're thinking, "She's in eternal bliss now, with God." When I hear that, I want to ask (but do not), "Then why are you crying?" The answer is, the answer has to be, because they are not 100% certain in their faith, there's that kernel of doubt inside that they dare not voice for fear of... well, they probably don't know. Releasing a psychological monster they would be too terrified to face?

It just adds to their tragedy, because if they truly believed to the depths of their souls, that their loved ones were with God, they would celebrate, not mourn. Faith is the belief in something for which you have no evidence, and it's a hard thing to come by. It's something these people have come to depend on, and when that faith is so harshly challenged, it doesn't always survive.

When those of us who don't believe in an afterlife lose someone tragically and suddenly, all we lose is that person. We don't also lose something we thought we could trust. You can say that faith that they trusted was a mirage, but the pain of losing it is no less real.

 

[articulett]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071211/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings

"God, I can't wait till I can kill you people. Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don't care if I live or die in the shoot-out. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you ... as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world."

I thought Jews were to blame for most of the problems of the world; wasn't that what Mel Gibson said? I think we secularists get the blame for Hurricane Katrina (via Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson).

Apparently this nut-job posted his intentions online. Isn't it possibly that he also mentioned something to someone? Didn't anybody clue-in as to what this guy was all about???

People knew he was nuts... but what could they do? Nutty people exist. Maybe they thought he was possessed? Nutty people can own guns. We can be aware of the potential danger people pose without having the power to do anything about it. We can't lock people up based on what they might do. And the mentally ill tend to distrust those who might treat them.

But his father was a neurologist. Most neurologists understand things like gods and souls to be an illusion and stuff like mental illness to be a function of brain abnormalities not something fixable by faith. (But the Bush administration apparently had a gynecologist in the cabinet who mistook his wife's anus for her vagina... or so he claimed.) I don't know if anyone could have done anything, but faith claims to keep people from doing immoral acts like hating people and killing willy nilly. It doesn't appear to work as advertised. This won't occur to any of the faithful. They do not need evidence for such claims-- they have faith! They will still demand the right to own as many guns as they can accumulate pointing out the one that presumably saved lives without connecting the fact that random gunshot victims is the price we all pay for liberal gun laws. No lessons will be learned. The superstitious get more so when tragedy strikes and the apologists try to make those who comment upon this into the bad guys thus protecting the omnipresent "faith is good" meme.

 

[Puppycow]

It's not gloating over someone's death

I understand that, but some people would nevertheless take it that way. I was mostly reacting to the OP, which seems to be a case of adding insult to injury. Maybe I'm being too politically correct and cautious, but I think that when someone has just died, that sensitivity is the best approach.

and there is no "atheists cause". We don't need to convert people to nonbelief

Heretic! I'm telling the elders on you! You're gonna lose your card!
I don't know about that. I suppose we don't need to do anything, but like gay people fought for social acceptance, I would like more acceptance of my rationalist worldview.
I think the world would be a lot better if superstition became a minor relic of a bygone era. I admire Carl Sagan and his efforts at reaching mass audiences of regular people. And he was always very respectful and sensitive.

and sharing humor amongst each other rather than mocking the nutters to their face is rather tasteful given the regular blame they give to us for all the worlds problems--and not just on forums-- on the news-- to their parishioners. The pope just blamed atheists for all the worlds evils... don't rain on my private skeptical parade with moral platitudes, puppycow. We didn't shoot anyone. And THIS IS a skeptics forum I don't think any of the offended people will be hanging out here... and I don't think anyone said anything awful. Plus, it might be good for some humans to start thinking before bleating... perhaps our commentary could inspire less blatant god pandering amongst the faithful.

But wouldn't it be great if atheists came across as more mature than the pope?
In politics, style is at least as important as substance. If your argument is logical but it makes you look petty or shrill, it's still a net loss because most people are more emotional than rational.

It's actually more offensive that the woman praised the grace of god for sparing her out loud in the media knowing that god didn't give that same grace to the dead folks. What are their loved ones to think? That was the insensitive statement--not anything said here. Everything an atheist says is judged much harsher than anything a believer says. We can't win. Even our own have absorbed the cultural "faith is good" meme.

Well, I agree with that, although it seems that most of these facts (including the fact that the shooter was home-schooled by fundies) became known after the OP was posted.
I certainly reject the "faith is good" meme. I remember thinking the same thing watching TV in the wake of Katrina, when some people who had all lost their homes started bleating that it had increased their faith. A similar thing occurred with the Tsunami disaster. This is when I thought, not for the first time, that no wonder religion has been so successful. For some reason all evidence, good or bad, is interpreted by the believer as confirmation of their faith. And if they are impervious to logic, then it is useless to try to convince them with logic alone. Style is at least as important as substance. It also occurred to me that faith is a mechanism for dealing with emotional pain. If you could somehow convince yourself that your departed loved ones have gone to heaven, where you will one day be reunited, it would make it much easier to accept their death.

If think we have all heard of the stages of grief. One of those stages is "bargaining." It seems like a pretty pointless stage from a logical viewpoint, but I suppose that this is the stage where people convince themselves that something good will come of it. "God had a reason." "Now he/she's in a better place." Maybe this "bargaining" stage of grief is the main purpose of religions. Atheism can't really compete with that because it is limited to things we have scientific evidence to support, and there is no scientific evidence for a soul or an afterlife.

 

[Puppycow]

I think that for all intensive purposes, infer and imply mean the same thing.

 

[shuize]

I can absolve the church of any blame, while at the same time understand their illogical rationalizations. Those people who lost a loved one aren't thinking, "Why was my daughter killed, when she loved God as much as anyone else?" They're thinking, "She's in eternal bliss now, with God." When I hear that, I want to ask (but do not), "Then why are you crying?" The answer is, the answer has to be, because they are not 100% certain in their faith, there's that kernel of doubt inside that they dare not voice for fear of... well, they probably don't know. Releasing a psychological monster they would be too terrified to face?

It just adds to their tragedy, because if they truly believed to the depths of their souls, that their loved ones were with God, they would celebrate, not mourn. Faith is the belief in something for which you have no evidence, and it's a hard thing to come by. It's something these people have come to depend on, and when that faith is so harshly challenged, it doesn't always survive.

I've thought and asked similar questions of Christians (although never to anyone who has lost a child) about what happens to newborn babies and those that die during childbirth when they die before accepting Jesus. The standard answer is that they are wisked away to heaven. "But if you really believe that's true," I ask them, "why then do you work so hard to prevent abortions? It seems to me you're taking away their free pass into heaven and only increasing the chances that more people will end up in hell."

 

[shuize]

Well, I agree with that, although it seems that most of these facts (including the fact that the shooter was home-schooled by fundies) became known after the OP was posted.

I certainly reject the "faith is good" meme. I remember thinking the same thing watching TV in the wake of Katrina, when some people who had all lost their homes started bleating that it had increased their faith. A similar thing occurred with the Tsunami disaster. This is when I thought, not for the first time, that no wonder religion has been so successful. For some reason all evidence, good or bad, is interpreted by the believer as confirmation of their faith. And if they are impervious to logic, then it is useless to try to convince them with logic alone. Style is at least as important as substance. It also occurred to me that faith is a mechanism for dealing with emotional pain. If you could somehow convince yourself that your departed loved ones have gone to heaven, where you will one day be reunited, it would make it much easier to accept their death.

I remember taking a long road trip with one of my religious relatives. As we were driving together for several days, the conversation eventually turned to religion. What it came down to for him was that he just could not bear to accept that he would never see his parents again and, faced with that profound grief, I could not bring myself to hammer home any argument to try and convince him otherwise.

 

[articulett]

Puppycow,

I agree with everything you say. I just don't think the OP harmed anyone. And if we are going to be accused of being strident and shrill by every person certain that they are morally superior due to their faith... then at least let us engage in wicked irreverence. Why do we have to be mature or try to win people over? It doesn't work; they just feel more entitled to respect and deference because of faith. If I'm going to constantly be accused of being wicked and immoral and insensitive by those I consider more wicked, immoral, and insensitive than myself, then, by god (pun intended), I'm going to enjoy it sans the Catholic guilt leftover from my youth.

I don't want to show deference or respect to the "faith is good" meme. Those who expect such from me never show respect for my "reason is better" opinion. Besides, blasphemy is a victimless crime. I get great enjoyment from general irreverence-- maybe it helps in letting go of old demons. And sometimes my fellow skeptics really make me laugh with their wry observations. That counts for something doesn't it? It takes the lemons of a tragic event we had nothing to do with and makes a little lemonade so that we have something to drink while we're biting our tongues over the endless prattle the faithful will spin from this tale.

Watch and see how god and faith will get all the good press and be proffered as the solution for preventing such tragedies in the future while reason gets the short shrift and "lack of faith" gets the blame.

Nobody is gloating. We're noting the irony. Gloating might be what some theists were doing when they learned that Pat Tillman was an atheist and thus it was good that he died.

So what if we're being snarky.... what better place to do so than on a skeptics forum? Is there really any harm? Are those who think we're being snotty really the people we should be taking social advice from?

 

[articulett]

I remember taking a long road trip with one of my religious relatives. As we were driving together for several days, the conversation eventually turned to religion. What it came down to for him was that he just could not bear to accept that he would never see his parents again and, faced with that profound grief, I could not bring myself to hammer home any argument to try and convince him otherwise.

Because that would be cruel and possibly pointless. And besides you can get out your opinions here on a skeptics forum without hurting anybody. Biting your tongue is easier when you have a place to vent. Vent here amongst others who can appreciate your observations. I don't think anyone here would advocate hammering your lack of belief home to anyone.

(And I would hope your relatives would show similar respect of your feelings and opinions should you be in a similar situation. Often the people expecting me to respect their feelings have very little respect for mine--they presume I believe as they do... or that if I don't, I should.)

 

[shuize]

Because that would be cruel and possibly pointless. And besides you can get out your opinions here on a skeptics forum without hurting anybody. Biting your tongue is easier when you have a place to vent. Vent here amongst others who can appreciate your observations. I don't think anyone here would advocate hammering your lack of belief home to anyone.
And I would hope your relatives would show similar respect of your feelings and opinions should you be in a similar situation. Often the people expecting me to respect their feelings have very little respect for mine.

It was a strange experience. I actually had the feeling that, given enough time (which we had), I could probably bring him to doubt his faith. But I remember as soon as I had that "revelation," I thought to myself, "All you'd be doing is convincing him he'll never see his parents again without offering anything meaningful (to him) in return."

 

[articulett]

It was a strange experience. I actually had the feeling that, given enough time (which we had), I could probably bring him to doubt his faith. But I remember as soon as I had that "revelation," I thought to myself, "All you'd be doing is convincing him he'll never see his parents again without offering anything meaningful (to him) in return."

Yes... there's always that feeling of being torn... you don't want to prop up a delusion or even the idea that faith can lead to truth... but you don't want to be a killjoy or hurt someone or cause people to get defensive. Believers tend to presume everyone believes as they do. I try to choose my battles. I realize that once people realize I am a non-believer, I'll be subject to the judgments them imbued that term with and suddenly my every motive will be up for scrutiny and they'll be angry at me because they realize I find their beliefs unbelievable. I try to think of my goals ahead of time. Venting here helps me be more tactful in real life I think.

 

[dann]

Nobody is gloating. We're noting the irony. Gloating might be what some theists were doing when they learned that Pat Tillman was an atheist and thus it was good that he died.

Can you see the difference? They are the bad guys, so they gloat. But we are the good guys so we merely note the irony! Like this:

We don't need to convert people to nonbelief and sharing humor amongst each other rather than mocking the nutters to their face is rather tasteful given the regular blame they give to us for all the worlds problems--and not just on forums-- on the news-- to their parishioners.

Can you see the irony in this?!

 

[CFLarsen]

In the same way that typing "mocking blowhards to their face" is not knocking blowhards. The nutters and blowhard never recognize that they are the nutters and blowhards. If you aren't a nutter or a blowhard, it means nothing to you. It's a skeptics forum, remember.

I'm not walking into churches shouting, "Do you guys really believe this crap?"

You confuse reality with your strawmen all the time. You should get that checked out.

What difference does it make if they realize they are "nutters" or "blowhards"?

You are still knocking them, aren't you?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Police are now reporting the gunman took his own life.

The security guard scored multiple hits, and the gunman then shot himself.

Thanks for that update. So, the kid finally hit the correct target.

Good for him. Got one thing right.

DR

 

[normdoering]

articulett wrote: "... if we are going to be accused of being strident and shrill by every person certain that they are morally superior due to their faith... then at least let us engage in wicked irreverence."

It's a bit worse than being accused of being strident and shrill. If you've seen some of the spin put on the shootings you'll see some theists blaming, among other things, atheists, the secular media and Richard Dawkins. I've got the links to prove it:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/ugly-and-vile-spin-some-christianists.html

 

[articulett]

articulett wrote: "... if we are going to be accused of being strident and shrill by every person certain that they are morally superior due to their faith... then at least let us engage in wicked irreverence."

It's a bit worse than being accused of being strident and shrill. If you've seen some of the spin put on the shootings you'll see some theists blaming, among other things, atheists, the secular media and Richard Dawkins. I've got the links to prove it:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/ugly-and-vile-spin-some-christianists.html

Damn... I predicted it. That Virginia Tech shooter was a Christian too-- they were going to have him exorcised. And some preacher wondered why atheists weren't giving speeches at the victims memorials. Others used it as an opportunity to convert. Every time something bad happens it's the atheists, feminists, secularists, or gays. The invisible guys is responsible for all that is good.

They loudly bleat poor me as they oppress others and loudly blame others while turning a blind eye to their own hypocrisy. At least we have this forum... And we're smarter... and funnier

Though they track us down here to preach at us and tell us how much holier they are than us. When is that damn rapture coming?