The Batman killer in Colorado reminds us all once again of the argument from evil that is the best defense against Jehovah's Witnesses at the front door, friends who "pray for you," and all others still clinging to the God Delusion. My favorite explication of the argument was put forth by John L. Mackie, the Australian philosopher. He demonstrated the utterly fallacious claim that God is both good and omnipotent, since an all powerful good deity cannot but prevent evil, leaving one to wonder why it occurs with such regularity. James Eagen Holmes disproves the existence of God by murder of innocent total strangers. Those who counter with the claim that God gave man free will and thus it is man who makes such evil choices simply ignore the obvious: God could have made certain that Holmes would choose good over evil, and thus many lives would have been saved.
Yeah so sad - I've been listening to the news about the story.
Thanks, but I owe it all to Mackie. Of all the writings I've perused about atheism, his was the most convincing...and, really, the simplest. "God is dead because we don't need him" is a pretty good one, too: parsimony & the razor of Fr. Occam.
Works in mysterious ways... Part of His plan... Blah blah blah... Insert inane rationalization here: _____________________
I like the one that says God must exist because the Bible tells us so.
Yes, and because the Bible tells us so, God exists! The old circular thinking bit.
Sooo, this question is being asked on an atheist web site . . . .why??
People have been slaughtered en masse long 'ere now, and likely, they will again in the future. Other people will wring their hands, pray to their god and uselessly ask, "why?" and fail to recognize that they contribute to the problem by default, because they cling to useless and impotent gestures while failing to contribute to any form of solution.
One of the more brilliant YouTube atheists out there made a statement which stuck with me, and which is one of multiple steps that humankind need to take if we want to have any chance of changing this pattern:
If we’re to grow up as a species, we need to address the systems that infantilize us.
A good God would destroy the American Rifle Association.
Better yet, let the NRA continue, but with the emphasis to go far harder on the RESPONSIBILITY of owning a weapon than the right to own one, never mind what is really needed for hunting or self-protection.
And while we're at it, apparently, Holmes got a LOT of what he used through the internet, probably with about as much oversight as a hole in the head. This harks back to the gun catalogs of half a century ago, where you could order up a weapon as easily as choosing something from the Spiegel catalog. Add that to the 100-round magazine he had for his AR-15 and I see very little difference between the 1960's and the early 21st century as regards access to weaponry.
Unfortunately, the judicially activist New Majority on the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 2nd Amendment and ruled that virtually no restraints can be put on gun acquisition, such that Holmes could have gone into the theatre with a howitzer. It would be typical of the fat rightwing nutjob, Scalia, to say that Holmes had every right to acquire the weapons he did -- where was it, a department store for Crust's sake -- even if he was NOT a part of a "well-regulated militia...." Remember, Scalia the Catholic might be expected to go along with the presentist arguments of the evangelical "historians" including that goon who appears on Fox Noise, finding in 6- of 7,000 year old desert warlord rules some applicability to today's human events. Such that he also ignores the fact that it is not necessary for us to maintain a "well-regulated militia." I rather doubt that if we did, Mr. Holmes would join up. He is far more interested in fulfilling the Old West myth of the fastest gun alive. But then his inspiration might even seem to have been Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver.
Why does anyone need an assault rifle?