US church shooter was ‘creepy atheist” who disliked religious people

What I’m saying is if a Muslim went around killing multiple non-Muslim people because of the fact that they were Muslim, that wouldn’t be classed as just a hate incident but a terror attack. Same should go for this church attack

You can condemn something without having any responsibility or connection of any sort.

Condemning something is just saying that you think it is wrong and that you disapprove.

I condemn all acts of violence against non-combatants, regardless of the perpetrator, victim, or justification. Why wouldn't everyone? It's the only reasonable response.

did you unironically compare a mass shooting with antifa omfg

Yet if he were in a group dedicated to abstaining from McDonald's and he subsequently shot up a McDonald's, you'd question the relationship between the act and his McDonald's non-belief, even though there is no semantic content in not eating a McDonald's other than you do not eat at McDonald's. For that person, however, you would see that McDonald's non-belief had a greater meaning and was indeed determinative of the act.

I condemn violence - naturally - as a human, but not as an atheist. Atheism is not a structured set of beliefs or an ideology, it does not need condemning from that angle.

I wouldn't because non-belief is the default position. Nobody is born religious, it's taught to them so the default position is not religious or in this analogy not an eater of McDonalds. The differentiation isn't that they didn't but they did, by a positive act they became something which then influenced their world view. Same as you wouldn't refer to an illiterate 6 month old as 'uneducated', it's just the default position. People should use their common sense and say where in McDonalds loving has he acquired anything to imply he should act as he did, if the answer is nowhere it's irrelevant, if McDonalds put 'shoot up KFC' on all their napkins then its causal. Same applies here.

Terrorism must have some kind of political or ideological motive behind it. If there is none then it isn't terrorism, as simple as that. What reason would a Muslim have to hate all Muslims? The only one I can think of is that they don't worship the same god or follow the same celestial rules, in which case would constitute an ideological motive.

I wouldn't because non-belief is the default position. Nobody is born religious, it's taught to them so the default position is not religious or in this analogy not an eater of McDonalds. The differentiation isn't that they didn't but they did, by a positive act they became something which then influenced their world view. Same as you wouldn't refer to an illiterate 6 month old as 'uneducated', it's just the default position. People should use their common sense and say where in McDonalds loving has he acquired anything to imply he should act as he did, if the answer is nowhere it's irrelevant, if McDonalds put 'shoot up KFC' on all their napkins then its causal. Same applies here.

1) No. Nice fallacy of relevance, I compared the condemnation of violent acts which you know full well as you read what I wrote.

The atheist killed people because they didn't follow the same ideology as him...

When you are talking about someone born into a religious or semi-religious country, i.e. any modern country as they all have a religious presence, there is an engagement with the subject-matter about its merits. Very few people simply do not consider religion ever and come to the default position of no belief. When people reject religion, and this is what they do when they engage with the subject-matter and are unmoved by it and go to the effort of calling themselves an atheist, there is a judgment. An action, not mere passivity.

To apply it to this case, this person did not merely not accept religion as a passive act. He positively rejected religion and was evangelical in his proclamations about the merits of atheism. To go back to the McDonald's analogy, he not merely did not eat McDonald's, he refused to eat it, he stood outside the restaurant and proclaimed its lack of value for all to hear. Again, that is no mere default position. That is active rejection. You could very well say "but that is not what atheism entails, as it could simply cover a belief system which is completely ignorant or indifferent to religiosity", but it could mean much more and for this person it did.

Atheism isn't an ideology. And where is your evidence?

I think the OP was implying that as Muslims are often expected to condemn attacks committed by Muslims, atheists should condemn an attack by an atheist, which they naturally would because there is no sense of "kinship" or ideological connection that might make some atheists seem reluctant to publicly condemn the actions of a fellow atheist if there was a suggestion that they were following the tenets of an interpretation of atheist ideology.

It is irrelevant whether one condemns it as a human, an atheist, an investment banker, or a Man U supporter, only that one does condemn it, particularly if questioned on the issue.

The atheist killed people because they didn't follow the same ideology as him...

A lot of atheists are trying to rebrand atheism but it won't work. Atheism is the belief there is no God.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5053013/Devin-Kelley-outcast-preached-atheism.html

So can all atheists please condemn this atheist terror attack?

yes so you're still comparing the "violent" acts of antifa to the violent mass shooting. you're asking for left wing people to condemn violence from blm/antifa because they condemn a mass shooting.

False.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8510711/Belief-in-God-is-part-of-human-nature-Oxford-study.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm
https://evolutionnews.org/2014/08/evolutionary_st/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3266680/Why-believe-God-Religion-just-way-fulfilling-16-basic-human-desires-scientist-claims.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z3b6hyc

"Most anthropologists believe that homo neanderthalensis had religion. If that is correct, it is older than the human species.
When the Europeans came to the New World, they found that the Native Americans - with whom they had had no contact - had religion, and it was similar enough to their own that they recognized it as the same sort of thing, similar enough for them to be able to use the Native American's religion to communicate Christian ideas.
When we find some tribe in the middle of the Amazon or the Congo that has had no contact with the outside world, they always have religion.
Not to mention the fact that the vast, vast majority of human beings are some sort of theist, and always have been, which is NOT what we would expect if atheism was the default state of the human being."

When you are talking about someone born into a religious or semi-religious country, i.e. any modern country as they all have a religious presence, there is an engagement with the subject-matter about its merits. Very few people simply do not consider religion ever and come to the default position of no belief. When people reject religion, and this is what they do when they engage with the subject-matter and are unmoved by it and go to the effort of calling themselves an atheist, there is a judgment. An action, not mere passivity.

To apply it to this case, this person did not merely not accept religion as a passive act. He positively rejected religion and was evangelical in his proclamations about the merits of atheism. To go back to the McDonald's analogy, he not merely did not eat McDonald's, he refused to eat it, he stood outside the restaurant and proclaimed its lack of value for all to hear. Again, that is no mere default position. That is active rejection. You could very well say "but that is not what atheism entails, as it could simply cover a belief system which is completely ignorant or indifferent to religiosity", but it could mean much more and for this person it did.