PM: "Controlling all the details of His plan. Holman may not like this, but God ordained that Seung-Hui would do this."
John W. Loftus responded,
JWL: "While our views may seem problematic to you, your view is absolutely sick."
Now, we must remember the context here. John holds to physical determination. Thus, both sides hold that these events were brought about by antecedent causes. From there I point out that in my view this was planned by a person, there is meaning here, there is real right and wrong here, there is true moral good that will come out of this, there will be justice, and these events were done, ultimately, and in some way, for the good of those who love (or will love) God.
On the other hand, in John's view, this event was still determined; but it has no meaning, it is not really wrong, it will be forgotten, there will be no justice, and these events were ultimately done for no purpose.
That's John's view and my view.
But, I'm not here to comment on the above, just to use it as a spring board into bringing out something else Loftus has said while in the safety of the ivory tower. While in the context of debating Christians, making purely an academic point. I'm going to offer an example of how unbelievers, like John Loftus for instance, are not being very consistent.
You see, John thinks that because I said that these events were planned by God, that is morally reprehensible. Why is it "sick" that God would plan this? Well, supposedly because what Seung-Hui did was evil. What happened was a moral outrage.
His buddies at Debunking Christianity, if you read the comments in the combox of the original post by Holman which I responded to in the linked post above, think this event was immoral, evil, and a terrible tragedy.
Well, what if Seung-Hui had not killed himself and the police caught him after he shot 30 people. What should happen to this man according to John W. Loftus. Was this man a "bad" man even? Let's read John Loftus' comments on why people do bad things, and what should happen to them:
"People don't misbehave because they are evil, they may just be sick. Punishment isn't what people need, so much as healing and understanding." - John W. Loftus ( SOURCE)
So, we need to "heal" and "understand" Cho Seung-Hui. If he didn't take his life, we should send him to a 4 star hotel along with doctors to "heal" him and "understand" why he did what he did. But what if Seung-Hui says that "Bertrand Russell is right. That there is no meaning to the world, other than what we create, and I [Seung-Hui] want to create my own meaning, which entails being a mass murderer." Should we "understand" this? Do we then let Seung-Hui go on his merry way? To keep him confined to the supervision of the doctors against his will would constitute punishment. And we can't have that, says Loftus!
The is Holman's leader's view. The view of the boss man at Debunking Christianity. This is the view of the atheist.
Clearly the sides are divided. Debate has left the comfort of mere words and has entered into the realm of reality. How do the atheists words comport with what happened? With our feelings? Is the atheist worldview satisfying? Sure, they can talk a big game when nothing is on the line, but will they step up when the chips are on the table? Tell us to not be upset with Seung-Hui, rather, we should try to "understand" him. Seung-Hui does not deserve punishment? Tell that to the victims! Let atheists run the show and any form of justice is out the window. Remember that Loftus says he doesn't punish his dog, Franklin J. Loftus? He's trying to be consistent. So in Loftus' world, if Franklin went on a rampage, killing dozens of school children, Loftus' wife would say "no-no!" and "put him in his cage for the night."
Furthermore, to say Seung-Hui was "sick" simply means that his neurons didn't fire in the type of pattern that Loftus' and most others fire. That's all.
So, when you want to get upset with Seung-Hui or these events, remember to try and "understand" Seung-Hui. And, if you wish he were here to reap justice, remember that Seung-Hui should not be punished, says atheist John Loftus.
That's the worldview of Loftus. That's the worldview of atheists.
The line has been drawn. The blood is in our face. Is this event really wrong? Was it meaningless? Is there no justice? Will there be justice? Will the victims have vindication? Ask yourself if your worldview can handle these events? Ask yourself if you're acting as if your worldview were not true. If you realize the problem, call a local church. If you want to remain a meat bag, then try to act consistently. Stop acting as if what happened was "evil" or "terrible" or a "moral outrage." Just remember that you're a lump of matter who is thinking (having neurons go snap, crackle, pop in your head) about one lump of matter who flung a bunch of matter at high speeds at other lumps of matter.