Pat Robertson Concludes Sikh Temple S...

Pat Robertson Concludes Sikh Temple Shooting Because 'Atheists Hate God'

There are 202 comments on the www.mediaite.com story from Aug 6, 2012, titled Pat Robertson Concludes Sikh Temple Shooting Because 'Atheists Hate God'. In it, www.mediaite.com reports that:

On his 700 Club program Monday morning, televangelist Pat Robertson came to the conclusion that Sunday morning’s Sikh temple massacre in Oak Creek, Wisc., was ultimately because “atheists hate God.”

“What is it?” Robertson wondered aloud. “Is it satanic? Is it some spiritual thing?”

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.mediaite.com.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#170 Aug 11, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
In 2011, the American Spectator citing research published in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research reported that atheism is on the decline as a whole in terms of adherents.

The American Spectator declared:

The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where charismatic Christianity is exploding."
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thri...
Why would I believe this? The American Spectator is a magazine with a politically conservative agenda. Your article's author appears to have gotten his "data" from a Christian web site called the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, including such hard science as, "Atheists are thought to be 137 million, a declining number" and "These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West".

"Thought to be"? "Presumably"?

How reliable is this Christian web site? Let them tell you themselves. They call themselves, "The reliable source for Christian mission history."

This is called Christian propaganda, and it's written to make you feel better about your church dying in the West. You can tell when it refers to all killed Christians as "martyrs," or when it includes language like the following:

"But overall, despite the distortions of secular, U.S. elite culture, people of faith in America and around the world can be hopeful that faith, and not Western secularism, represents the future for the vast majority of the world."

Mean old secular elites. Unlike the warriors for Jesus, they distort everything!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#172 Aug 11, 2012
EdSed wrote:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/n ews/2012/08/number-of-atheists -around-the-world-is-rising
NSS (UK)
Thanks for that.

Oddly, Gallup got the exact opposite result that the Christians reported: "the number of self-declared atheists in the world has risen by 9% since the measure was last taken in 2005."

It's a pretty safe rule that if there is "knowledge" or data that only the Christians have or are reporting, it's disinformation they generated. They have different standards for scholarship that the rest of us.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#173 Aug 11, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
"assuming multiple universes remain mathematically possible, there would still be no proof that they are actually present."
Kate McAlpine, The New Scientist, M-theory: Doubts Linger Over Godless Multiverse.

"That philosophy of Hawking's is precisely the one that I'm trying to counter. His views, as have been reported, are a perfect example of what is called scientism: that science is the only route to knowledge and that, ultimately, we'll have a complete understanding of everything. That is nonsense, and I think it's dangerous nonsense, because it makes scientists sound exceedingly arrogant. It's all very well saying the universe came about as a result of spontaneous creation due to M-theory. But that raises the question: where did M-theory come from? Why are there intelligible physical laws?" Russell Stannard, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Open University and recipient of The Bragg Medal and Prize of the Institute of Physics for ‘distinguished contributions to the teaching of physics’

"Unlike quantum mechanics, M-theory enjoys no observational support whatever. It has no basis in observable reality."
Roger Penrose, emeritus professor of mathematics at Oxford University

Ouch!!
Dude. You're a Christian. What do you care about proof or evidence?

Plus, you don't seem to grasp what "theoretical" means in "theoretical physics," or the place of speculation at the frontiers of knowledge. If you have to know how and where to look to find something, you can't find it until you conceive of it. Theoretical physicists are looking for branes, multiverses, oscillating universes, and anything else they can think of to account for the visible universe. If they find any of those, or a god, the scientists have promised to let us know.

Your god is in the same category as the multiverse and branes - a speculation. But it is at the bottom of the list of possibilities, because it has to be so much more complex than they do. Unlike the other possibilities, the creator god has to be a conscious and superpotent agent - omnipotent and omniscient, according to the Christians. That's a pretty tall order. Occam's razor insists that we remove unnecessary conditions or features, and a conscious creator may be unnecessary.

The only way we would need the source for the universe to be conscious and purposive is if we found that it was intelligently designed. The boys over at the Discovery Institute have zealously dedicated themselves to looking for just that, and they're all Christians of some sort, so you know that they have your church's best interests at heart, and will find that "proof" if it exists.

But without identifying intelligent designs, if multiverses are on shaky constructs, god speculations are on even shakier ground.

Since: Mar 11

Ft Mitchell, KY

#174 Aug 11, 2012
Under different circumstances the Discovery Instituite would be saying Marduk was the designer!
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Point?
Let me guess - this is evidence of how smart your god is, because your bible says the world had a beginning. Is that it?
Two things about that:
[1] Your bible creation myth got absolutely nothing else right. Not one other "fact" in your biblical cogmogeny is accurate. There were no six days of creation. Light was not formed before the sun. Nor was the earth. Your bible fails to mention the expansion of space, the symmetry breaking as the individual forces broke out from a single force - nothing at all.
[2] Every other creation myth - and there are hundreds - got that right, too. Congratulations! You're in a nine-thousand way tie with every other creation myth. Here are several of the others: http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
Let's look at how smart the Babylonian god was. He also predicted that the singularity began ... er, that the world had a first moment:
"The mighty Marduk took his club and split Tiamat’s body in half. He placed half of her body in the sky and made the heavens. He created the moon to guard the heavens, and set it moving back and forth, on endless patrol. With the other half of Tiamat's body he made the land." http://mesopotamia.mrdonn.org/marduk.html

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#175 Aug 11, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
"When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up — we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."
Nobel Prize winning physicist Dr. Leon Lederman, Director Emeritus of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.

LOL.
This is about as uninsightful as it gets. The god part he's referring to - as the man said, nobody knows. He's making it up.

LOL indeed. I think you celebrate your victories a little prematurely.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#176 Aug 11, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for that.
Oddly, Gallup got the exact opposite result that the Christians reported: "the number of self-declared atheists in the world has risen by 9% since the measure was last taken in 2005."
It's a pretty safe rule that if there is "knowledge" or data that only the Christians have or are reporting, it's disinformation they generated. They have different standards for scholarship that the rest of us.
Yes.
People who make acts of faith and hold things as 'sacred' either aren't searching for truth or they don't know how to begin to do so.
Tolerance

Jalandhar, India

#177 Aug 11, 2012
I feel that this had nothing to do with religion. The issue here was absolute frustration due to maybe loss of employment and livelihood and quality of life. The resultant rage was misdirected towards the non ethnic Americans who probably, due to no fault of theirs, got blamed for these maladies.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#178 Aug 11, 2012
Tolerance wrote:
I feel that this had nothing to do with religion. The issue here was absolute frustration due to maybe loss of employment and livelihood and quality of life...
I think that has been said. Wade Page's religious beliefs, if he had any, were raised by Pat Robertson's comment.(This thread is on the 'Atheist Forum').


He was certainly unbalanced and employment and relationship crises may have triggered his 'spree-killing'.

The trick is to get better at spotting people at risk of such behavior. Some paedophiles have been known to approach social work or other authorities for help. I wonder if anyone has approached any authority claiming to be at risk of committing serial or spree-killing?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#179 Aug 11, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
What if we find signs of life on Mars? There is a very good chance that we will. What will you say then?
"Well, god never said that we were the only creation."
Wait until we create life de novo, which the Christians have been arguing vehemently is impossible and proof of a god. The answers are predictatble:

[1] You can't prove that that is how it happened.
[2] You've just proved that the creation of life requires an intelligent designer.

The Christians are not so much interested in the truth as it is in discrediting competition. It is not so much interested in discovery as victory, a psychology and culture alien to science.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#180 Aug 11, 2012
Tolerance wrote:
I feel that this had nothing to do with religion. The issue here was absolute frustration due to maybe loss of employment and livelihood and quality of life. The resultant rage was misdirected towards the non ethnic Americans who probably, due to no fault of theirs, got blamed for these maladies.
The murders had nothing to do with religion, or the "Reverend" Robertson's scapegoating of atheists?

The article says that the killer was a Christian of one of the white supremacist, neo-Nazi denominations. Robertson seems to have absolved the killer and his Christian cult for all of that, and simply proclaimed him an atheist.

This, of course, is just the latest installment in the centuries long program that has been waged by the Christian church against skeptics since the days of the rack, the stake, the pear, and the iron maiden. Now, they have to settle for atheophobic hate speech, which Robertson calls the love of his god:

"... you talk about the love of God and hope it has some impact"

It has impact all right. This scapegoating has made the lives of skeptics and freethinkers more difficult and more dangerous for eons. How dare we think!

“Land of Entrapment”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#181 Aug 11, 2012
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>I think that has been said. Wade Page's religious beliefs, if he had any, were raised by Pat Robertson's comment.(This thread is on the 'Atheist Forum').
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =D1wxX2xD0YAXX
He was certainly unbalanced and employment and relationship crises may have triggered his 'spree-killing'.
The trick is to get better at spotting people at risk of such behavior. Some paedophiles have been known to approach social work or other authorities for help. I wonder if anyone has approached any authority claiming to be at risk of committing serial or spree-killing?
How does one police the country? And, beings how I did Social Work in the past, yes is the answer to your last question. Many people do not take these nuts seriously. I reported a "suicidal" male in another state that called me with threats of his life, after taking others out. Long story short, a block was cordoned off, and he was disarmed in about an hour. A weapons cache was found. Whatever he had intended, I never felt bad for disarming him. As it were. He had mentioned doing these things while drunk, but so what? No sane person does this stuff. He had been in Nam, according to him, but sometimes I wonder if that was just an excuse. He really wanted to kill, massively. "Why" is not as important to me as stopping the action. The police told him it was me that turned him in!! and my life seemed threatened for awhile. I can appreciate why some people won't get involved. Not saying that is ok, but fears of all the BS that you can get put through for one. And the danger to your own innocent life for interviening.
clem

Hamilton, Canada

#182 Aug 11, 2012
A televangelist and a pedophile walk into a bar.
The bartender says " what would you like to drink sir? "

“Land of Entrapment”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#183 Aug 11, 2012
Tolerance wrote:
I feel that this had nothing to do with religion. The issue here was absolute frustration due to maybe loss of employment and livelihood and quality of life. The resultant rage was misdirected towards the non ethnic Americans who probably, due to no fault of theirs, got blamed for these maladies.
Well, it depends on if you consider White Supremacy as a religion. It could be defined as such. They worship a white god. White people only. Where as God is not a race, rather a Spirit. They distort Scriptures like any cult does.

“Land of Entrapment”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#184 Aug 11, 2012
The temple provided an easy target for this COward.
Simple, if one is a nut murderer.
Sounds like the Mid-East has indeed arrived.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#185 Aug 11, 2012
Nijoni wrote:
<quoted text>
... No sane person does this stuff... "Why" is not as important to me as stopping the action....
If no person does this stuff while they are 'sane' then it would seem to follow that none should face criminal prosecution.

And the 'why'(motivation) is all-important in anticipating who is at risk of committing such actions and understanding how to prevent them.

What I notice about your last three posts and one from Nightserf recently is that you seem to see this as a law-and-order issue? To my mind, it is also a psychological and societal one.

Intervention from community police or social services is in my mind, at least as regards crime prevention and getting timely help to the person at risk of committing of crime. I'm thinking in terms of my local community police officer (who was called Sergeant Flowers. Really!:-) or a nice lady with a handbag. You two seem to think exclusively in terms of swat-teams or the FBI? In the case where you passed info to the police, I suppose it was essential that the first intervention had to be armed police. No chance for a less confrontational approach to the individual?

Maybe that is partly the difference between an 'NRA society' and one without guns? And as you have suggested, that it is cultural (anti-state-intrusive); and that it is easier for people to go 'off the radar' in the US than it is in Europe.

The police certainly seem to have made a serious mistake in letting the source of your warning about the potential killer reach his ears. Good work on your part. Well done.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#186 Aug 11, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait until we create life de novo, which the Christians have been arguing vehemently is impossible and proof of a god. The answers are predictatble:
[1] You can't prove that that is how it happened.
[2] You've just proved that the creation of life requires an intelligent designer.
The Christians are not so much interested in the truth as it is in discrediting competition. It is not so much interested in discovery as victory, a psychology and culture alien to science.
In the "battle" between religion and science, religion lost as soon as they started putting lightning rods on church steeples.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#187 Aug 11, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
In the "battle" between religion and science, religion lost as soon as they started putting lightning rods on church steeples.
Lightning strikes makeshift mosque in Bangladesh, kills 13

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/10/world/asia/bang...

They did not get the memo!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188 Aug 11, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
In the "battle" between religion and science, religion lost as soon as they started putting lightning rods on church steeples.
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Lightning strikes makeshift mosque in Bangladesh, kills 13
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/10/world/asia/bang...
They did not get the memo!
It doesn't get much funnier than "Touchdown Jesus" going up in smoke:
&fe ature=related

Apparently, there was an adult book store across the street that went unscathed.

O holy! O so holy!

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#189 Aug 11, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
It doesn't get much funnier than "Touchdown Jesus" going up in smoke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =nI1Yu2IgQpYXX&feature=rel ated
Apparently, there was an adult book store across the street that went unscathed.
O holy! O so holy!
I remember that one!! LOL!
downhill246

West Palm Beach, FL

#190 Aug 11, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
The American Spectator, once a serious voice of conservative opinion, has lost what little respect it had in the journalistic community because it makes no effort at all to separate its journalism from its politics. Similarly, the International bulletin of Missionary Research is less than open about the way it collects and analyzes statistical data. I'm afraid the stats in your article are less than reliable. Those that it attempts to refute, however, come from sources that share the exact methodology from study design to selection of participants to excel files showing both the raw data and the results to the all-important metadata. There is no comparison between the IBMR and such research groups as the Pew Forum or ARIS.
Are you perhaps selecting sources based on whether they agree with your preconceived notions rather than making an honest search to see what the trends are? When data from reliable sources show results that bother them, intellectually honest skeptics nevertheless accept the results rather than go data -mining and cherry-picking. Ask yourself: is your object to discover statistical reality or simply to find data with which to push your points, whether accurate data supports them or not?
It's been sad that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics, but accurate ones open up views to aspects of reality that can be seen in no other way. that's why, when finding and using statistics, it's best to verify that they have emerged from a rigorous process that adheres to the highest standards of the field. In order to do that, one has to become competent enough to review the metadata to assure that the methodology is correct.
That's not all that hard--one introductory course provides all of the needed skills. Once you've reviewed a few studies from a source, though, you can ease off and simply trust the source, as I have done with Pew, ARIS, several U.S. government agencies, and a few others. You also get a sense of how well prepared data tends to be presented so that you are likely to recognize flawed studies when you see them. Inaccessible metadata is a huge red flag.
Which brings us back to the IBMR data you found in the AS. When you find data that is at odds with that of organizations known for solid statistical research, it is wise to verify it for yourself, not just present it with a "So there!" attitude. the latter approach is almost guaranteed to lead to embarrassment.
Translation: "I don't like the message."

"Bang, bang, the messenger is dead."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
A Universe from Nothing? 15 min u196533dm 450
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 23 min ChristineM 10,046
News New Jersey woman will get to use '8THEIST' lice... 42 min Eagle 12 2
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 57 min Into The Night 749
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr UR Failing 43,126
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Eagle 12 18,481
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Eagle 12 256,542
News Why I quit atheism 2 hr Thinking 694
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 5 hr IB DaMann 5,676
More from around the web