Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-atheism.html

    So can all atheists please condemn this atheist terror attack?
    • Offline

      9
      #youAintNoNeckbeardBruv

      If anything, neckbeards are the real victims!
      Online

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by FarhanHalim)
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-atheism.html

      So can all atheists please condemn this atheist terror attack?
      Why should I?
      It was nothing to do with me and atheism is the not-religion of peace. This guy was just following a twisted interpretation of atheism for his own purposes.

      Just kidding!
      Of course I condemn it. Why wouldn't I?
      What possible reason could I have for refusing to condemn a brutal and murderous attack on non-combatants, regardless of who the attacker or victims are?

      However, despite your attempt a whataboutery, there is nothing in atheism that can be used to justify the attack, because it is nothing more than a lack of belief in gods. If his actions were motivated by a hatred for religious people, that is due to his own personal beliefs and prejudices. There are no atheist texts or rules or revelations that atheists are obliged to follow that say that non-atheists should be fought until all belief is atheist, or that religious people are the vilest of creatures who deserve harsh punishment if they refuse to submit to atheism, for example.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      Seeing the pictures of all those people - especially the children - is so heart-breaking. None of them knew they'd never see tomorrow again...

      Disgusting stuff.
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by QE2)
      Why should I?
      It was nothing to do with me and atheism is the not-religion of peace. This guy was just following a twisted interpretation of atheism for his own purposes.
      Are you trying to sound like a Muslim?
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      All people should condemn this attack. I understand that I am now in a privileged position, as no one is going to blame all irreligious people like me for the actions of this one individual. I strongly dislike the DM but if this is true, it is certainly a terrorist attack.
      Online

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by iodo345)
      Are you trying to sound like a Muslim?
      Is that what a Muslim sounds like? Oh.
      Online

      19
      ReputationRep:
      I do love a false equivalency. While I don't think it is the duty of any given Muslim to condemn any given Islamic attack, Islam literally has a set textbook for its adherents. Many interpret it differently, but its followers in general share many beliefs and engage in many of the same practices. Atheism is not a religion or an ideology or even a movement really; the only thing its followers generally have in common is that they don't believe in a god.

      In any case, obviously I condemn it, because I'm not bats**t insane...
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by QE2)
      Is that what a Muslim sounds like? Oh.
      Not being politically correct but yes after a terror attack this is normally the same response.
      Online

      8
      ReputationRep:
      and the news do not call it a terrorist attack... Just a problem of mental illness
      Online

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by raganosio)
      and the news do not call it a terrorist attack... Just a problem of mental illness
      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.
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by QE2)
      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.
      So if a Muslim just went around killing non-Muslims indiscriminately in public just because he didn’t like them, that wouldn’t be a terrorist attack?
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Ladbants)
      So if a Muslim just went around killing non-Muslims indiscriminately in public just because he didn’t like them, that wouldn’t be a terrorist attack?
      Depends on his motive, Islamic terrorism is ususally pretty obvious, the terrorists usually shout out Religious lines whilst carrying out the attack, or leave passages of the Qu'ran in certain locations for the police to find. That is the point they want people to know their motive.
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Ladbants)
      So if a Muslim just went around killing non-Muslims indiscriminately in public just because he didn’t like them, that wouldn’t be a terrorist attack?
      No, it wouldn't be. There are Muslims who have done this as well and they have not been labelled terrorist incidents. Unless the act was in furtherance of a cause, it is not a terrorist act. It is simply mass murder. I would say that if his killing these church goers were focussed because they were religious people, and he wanted something to come from his destruction, such as inciting others acts like this or trying to open a debate about the correctness of religious belief, that would suggest it was something more than mere mass murder.
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by SCIENCE :D)
      Depends on his motive, Islamic terrorism is ususally pretty obvious, the terrorists usually shout out Religious lines whilst carrying out the attack, or leave passages of the Qu'ran in certain locations for the police to find. That is the point they want people to know their motive.
      But if they are Muslim, how do you know they are not simply saying religious lines because they are Muslim, just as they'd say those same lines after being in a car crash. There is nothing necessarily terroristic in using Qur'anic verse while killing other people.
      Online

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Ladbants)
      So if a Muslim just went around killing non-Muslims indiscriminately in public just because he didn’t like them, that wouldn’t be a terrorist attack?
      There are plenty of Muslims in prison for violent crimes who were not charged with terrorism, so no, not necessarily.

      However, where a person subscribes to an ideology and behaves in a way that is consistent with that ideology, ideological justification could be argued if there is no evidence to the contrary. (Note: I am not saying that Islamic ideology requires Muslims to carry out attacks, just that such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the contents of the ideology)
      For example, if a National Front member gave a Pakistani man a kicking, would you require him to be shouting "****ing P•••" for you to assume a racial motivation for the attack? Of course, not all NF members are violent thugs and the attack could have nothing to do with the victim's race, but it is not entirely unreasonable to make the assumption that it has, given the context.
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by QE2)
      There are plenty of Muslims in prison for violent crimes who were not charged with terrorism, so no, not necessarily.

      However, where a person subscribes to an ideology and behaves in a way that is consistent with that ideology, ideological justification could be argued if there is no evidence to the contrary. (Note: I am not saying that Islamic ideology requires Muslims to carry out attacks, just that such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the contents of the ideology)
      For example, if a National Front member gave a Pakistani man a kicking, would you require him to be shouting "****ing P•••" for you to assume a racial motivation for the attack? Of course, not all NF members are violent thugs and the attack could have nothing to do with the victim's race, but it is not entirely unreasonable to make the assumption that it has, given the context.
      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
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
      But if they are Muslim, how do you know they are not simply saying religious lines because they are Muslim, just as they'd say those same lines after being in a car crash. There is nothing necessarily terroristic in using Qur'anic verse while killing other people.
      A look at their browser history would usually complete the story.
      Online

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Ladbants)
      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
      Your opinion is duly noted.
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      **** man, all these crazy atheists.

      Funny though that when the white male shooting people is a Christian, they don't say "crazy creepy Christian".
     
     
     
    Reply
    Submit reply
    TSR Support Team

    We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

    Updated: November 15, 2017
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.