"God stepped in"

So, according to a certain sub-set of Christians God has to be one of the laziest, most clueless, incompetent assholes to ever exist. The only other possible interpretation (assuming God does exist) of comments from dim-wits like Debbie Dills is that she and her type of theist is willfully ignorant and/or self-deluded to an astonishing level. The Religious News Service commentary "God stepped in, says Debbie Dills, who spotted alleged S.C. killer" is yet another example of how easily religious beliefs can turn peoples brains into tapioca.

The very notion that God deserves any praise for allegedly being involved in any way with the tragedy that occurred recently in a South Carolina Church is disgusting. Why give this supposed supreme being any praise? God "stepped in" to help catch Dylann Roof after he committed murder but what about before the actual crime? Was God playing golf while this scrawny little asshole was plotting the murders? God couldn't get off his ass to give the little bastard a heart attack while loading his gun?

This is the type of thinking that infuriates me. Praise God on one hand and ignore everything else. It isn't just sloppy thinking it is downright fucking stupid. It is contradictory and a clear sign that this type of theist hasn't a fucking clue what they are talking about. Even if you accept this version of the God concept it is a being far from praiseworthy. None of the apologetics that have been tried to cover such a worthless piece of shit comes even close to being coherent let alone plausible. The most common excuse for such tragedies when they are actually questioned is "free will." One of the more irritating flaws in this stupid response, setting aside the innate contradiction with God's perfection, is that the "free will" of one scumbag somehow must out weigh the "free will" of numerous decent human beings.

Dill belittles herself and everyone else who sought to apprehend Roof by crediting a villainous fictional character. It's pathetic

Lots of people

Lots of people; That's the answer to the rhetorical question posed by Trey Lion's "Who Would Jesus Shoot?" I do agree with quite a bit of his commentary but find it rather silly and ignorant to appeal to religion for support. The assholes who oppose even mild gun control/gun regulation are just as religious as those who support such restrictions. It is also the height of self-delusion to turn to the Christ figure on such matters. As I have pointed out there isn't a single Jesus in scripture. At least one version was, according to the New Testament, a tempermental violent bastard. Luke 19:27 is a pretty blatant example:
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Sorry, my initial answer is slightly inaccurate. Jesus would kill all non-Christians. Given that the Christians worldwide number around 2 billion, that means Christ would be just fine with slaughtering around 5 billion people. Somehow I don't think genocide is a good answer for reducing gun violence.

Religious Violence as a Zero-sum Game

Derek Flood's recent HuffPo piece, "Does Religion Promote Violence", is actually fairly well written. He does not view the question in the title as if it is really a yes or no answer. Unfortunately it is equally clear that many of his otherwise valid insights are tainted by a variety of myths, assumptions, and false premises. He seems to think that most critics, especially non-believers, of religion that write/talk about religious violence see it in such a simplistic way.

I have come across very few atheists who treat this legitimate criticism as a zero-sum game. No critics I'm aware of insist that Religion automatically or directly leads to violence. That is not the criticism. The problem with religion in regard to violence is that it is so amorphous and subjective that it easily loans itself to justifying all manner of horrendous behavior and faulty thinking. The question should really be treated as a set of inter-related questions. It should be possible to inquire into the specific circumstances and interpretations that have led to violence without being accused of bigotry or narrow mindedness. 

It would also be helpful if the media didn't constantly misrepresent and distort the criticism atheist have actually made. The truth is that religion has led to violence, That does not mean either that Religion automatically leads to violence or that atheist are claiming that it does. 

Despite some of these bogus implications Flood's piece is worth reading since he does bring up a number of legitimate questions and concerns.