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

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that if the people who posit arguments such as 'atheists should condemn this' are not the ones also saying the right should condemn antifa etc. My point is that this 'condemnation' always only swings one way and its fundamentally hypocritical - also explain to me, as I already asked, how Antifa's violence is principally different considering they tool up and attack people.

If the attack was intended to further a political, religious, social or economic agenda, then yes it was terrorism.

If it was someone killing people because he felt like it, or didn't like them, or wanted to be infamous, then it was mass-murder or a hate-crime.

Words have meanings, and those meanings should be applied accordingly. A dog is a dog, regardless of how much we want it to be a cat.

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

So can all atheists please condemn this atheist terror attack?

I'm arguing that his militant approach isn't based on atheism by describing it as passive in so far as it doesn't actively promote anything beyond itself that is its an idea of individualism. There is no God. Nothing else. No extra strings and that means its a passive theory in so far as it is not in any way attempting to influence the behaviour or actions of those who believe in it which is where it differentiates from, for example, being religious and thus the mere fact he WAS an atheist has no realistic bearing on his actions nor grounds on which to claim so.

ok whatever i cant even be physically bothered to continue with the comparison topic since this post makes literally no sense since the condemnation does not "swing one way" considering that there are many people who disapprove of some idiots in antifa who use violence (myself included), but it's still ridiculous to bring them up in this discussion when the difference in the scale of violence is so large (26 dead vs a minority of antifa protesters attacking right-wing protesters (which have been heavily publicised and tend to drown out the more peaceful protests of the majority of antifa)).

also, the small minority of antifa protesters that do "tool up" to attack people do not attack to kill. they're still pretty sh**ty to attack people (unless they're actual, verifiable neo-nazis who actually attacked them first), but many of the publicised attacks have either been beatdowns (no weapons required), or the one incident at UC berkely where a few idiots threw molotov cocktails at the police.


also it's pretty ridiculous to somehow paint antifa/blm as this strict organisation when they're just movements that people get behind, and some of those people may be absolute trash. its an attempt to invalidate the numerous other people who stand behind them who protest peacefully.

But it is a very strained definition of atheism you are using. While it is theoretically correct that an atheist simply lacks belief in God or gods, unless you were born in a basement and were never allowed contact with ideas, you would be exposed to religion and you would have had to form a judgment about religion in order to be an atheist. So while it can mean complete passivity, in reality it does not entail complete passivity. Note this an argument about passivity vs activity, not the shooting.

As for the shooting, there is no need for X to have tenets prescribing the killing of people, for a person to have killed because of X. If X's rivals or intellectual opponents are Y, and a person bombs Y as Y is opposed to X, it is relatively simple to say that the person killed Y because of the person's association with X. Even if no reasonable person would blame X for the acts which were committed in its name. If the shooter targeted the church purposefully, it is correct to say he committed the act because he was an atheist, even though the tenets of atheism (or lack thereof) did not encourage him to do so.

I'm arguing that his militant approach isn't based on atheism by describing it as passive in so far as it doesn't actively promote anything beyond itself that is its an idea of individualism. There is no God. Nothing else. No extra strings and that means its a passive theory in so far as it is not in any way attempting to influence the behaviour or actions of those who believe in it which is where it differentiates from, for example, being religious and thus the mere fact he WAS an atheist has no realistic bearing on his actions nor grounds on which to claim so.

For example, the national and international news outlets claiming BLM is a religion of peace when there is video evidence of them chanting things like 'pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon'. My entire point is more people need to stand on principle and I respect you are one of those people but unfortunately there aren't enough - they see their side 'winning' and don't want to throw a spanner in the works. It is in no way ridiculous to compare the attitude to such events, as nobody from the athiest community is deflecting the question and chatting sh!t about 'legitimate aims' or 'no group responsibility' and I am pointing out how this should be the attitude of everyone in all communities but unfortunately it isn't - which is a refutation of the entire premise of this post hence the relevancy.

I don't think antifa care if people live or die when they throw molotov cocktails and beat people up. At BEST it's a reckless disregard for human life and that's being charitable.

So that's the position? It has nothing to do with invalidating anyone, it's a comparative point related to the thread. If you don't like the amount of criticism that can be leveled at Antifa then don't associate with them - you can stand for what they stand for without being under their flag.

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

It is hilarious to read such a biased article. Devin Kelley was NOT an atheist. I have blocked the guy on facebook, he used to post on a page called Atheist Republic where he preached religious nonsense and harassed people. Look up the page and contact the admins, they will tell you the exact same. What a surprise to see such propaganda from the Daily Mail (sarcasm). Also, did you know that he was a Sunday school teacher?

Atheists can be as bad as any Islamic or Christian extremist

The total number of Christian victims under the Soviet atheist regime has been estimated to range between 12-20 million

That's a bit like saying the Holocaust victims died because Hitler was a vegetarian.

Not once have I heard Atheists attack Judaism when some of their books encourage killing and stealing of gentile.

Atheists are pussies

Not once have I heard Atheists attack Judaism when some of their books encourage killing and stealing of gentile.

Atheists are pussies

Not once have I heard Atheists attack Judaism when some of their books encourage killing and stealing of gentile.