Pat Robertson is proof god is imaginary, a real god would strike him down.

Many christian bloggers seem to be either disassociating themselves from Pat Robertson's remarks, or at least trying to find the "truth" in them by applying various "contexts".  Here are my thoughts.

The actual truth is, accidents happen, the are just accidents, flukes. The poor people of Haiti felt this in a particularly acute way because they are impoverished and do not have the same level of building codes and infrastructure a more developed country would have under the same circumstances. This is not god, vengeance, or anything, its just a terrible tragedy and we need to step up and help them. God, in fact, is imaginary. False hope to many for certain, but false none the less. Stuff happens. Pat Robertson is just added proof that there actually is no god, and he is behaving as a delusional person would be expected to behave, and the evangelical christian community is quietly in agreement with him because they share his delusion.

Given all the terrible things Pat Robertson has said for no purpose other than to keep himself in the news and controversial, you would think this extremely vengeful god would ultimately strike him down with some ironic disease like losing his voice or all ability to do anything but listen and observe.  But, again, since god is imaginary, that wont happen, and even if it did, it would only be yet another fluke.

The best way to support the people of Haiti for most of us is going to be ensuring that support remains consistent well beyond the media hype that is going on now.  When the country is relegated to the bottom of page 12 on CNN, that is when the real "heros" will appear, and support for them will be the most important.  I thought it was kind of sad to see Sanjay Gupta taking care of a minor cut on a 15 month old baby in Haiti as front page news on CNN.com today.  Seemed a bit opportunistic to say the least, the ultimate "photo op".  I wonder what he does "off camera".

In the mean time, whoever Pat Robertson's sound guy is...please, turn off his mike.

context and inspiration for this post:
http://www.dennyburk.com/what-is-pat-robertson-talking-about/comment-page-1/#comment-54803

Darwin and the case for "militant" atheism - Richard Dawkins on CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/dawkins.darwin.atheism/index.html

I dont think Dawkins is suggesting we literally form an atheist militia, but it is strongly implied that atheism and science need to be rigorously defended under the growing onslaught of attacks from the ignorant religious right. The attacks are particularly insidious because they do not occur in the form of intellectual challenges or debating points (which I think most Scientists and Atheists would welcome), rather, they take the form of propeganda outside of forums to the illiterate and under-educated, children etc. They take the form of backroom deals cooked up in churches and pushed into government policy directly past open public scrutiny.

These religous attacks literally circumvent accountability to intelligence by operating well away from the light of public inquest. The damage from the attacks is spreading ignorance, illiterate and undereducated generations, and thus a general increase in crime, violence, support for unjust wars, and the ablity for corporations to take advantage of a large, undereducated voting bloc to effectively rob taxpayers blind while "praising jeebus" in public.

This is why "militant" atheism should be discussed and defined...we need to proactively do something about the cancer of religion, delusion, and ignorance.