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

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

    Offline

    20
    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
    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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thetoebeans)
    did you unironically compare a mass shooting with antifa omfg
    1) No. Nice fallacy of relevance, I compared the condemnation of violent acts which you know full well as you read what I wrote

    2) Devils advocacy, assuming I had compared shooting a load of people to beating up people who you assume are your political opponents in the street, carrying knives and weapons, attacking police, setting fire to private property and criminal damage/vandalism then where exactly is your differentiation? Violence as means to an end, particularly politically, is wrong.


    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    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 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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    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 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.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    One thing I've noticed about these cases is that the media always tries to other the perpetrator and they cling onto whatever they can (race often).

    In this case we have a white man who clearly approves of the second amendment... just like the high ups in the media. They needed to find something that differentiates him from them and that's probably why they're focusing so much on him being an atheist.

    Realistically what all these terrorists have in common is that they're human and have a strong ideology that they want to force on others. Perhaps instead of fighting over whose belief is right, we'd be much better embracing our differences to create firm ground on which to build bridges between our communities.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    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.
    The atheist killed people because they didn't follow the same ideology as him...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    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.
    False.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ord-study.html
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0714103828.htm
    https://evolutionnews.org/2014/08/evolutionary_st/
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...st-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."
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    1) No. Nice fallacy of relevance, I compared the condemnation of violent acts which you know full well as you read what I wrote.
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  IMG_20171105_221126-compressed.jpg.jpeg
Views: 16
Size:  45.6 KB

    Checkmate, christians! *tips fedora*
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    The atheist killed people because they didn't follow the same ideology as him...
    Atheism isn't an ideology. And where is your evidence?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why do you always suspect that it's a Muslim who is behind these all?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    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.
    A lot of atheists are trying to rebrand atheism but it won't work. Atheism is the belief there is no God.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Atheism isn't an ideology. And where is your evidence?
    Mb, I meant because of the ideology those Christians followed. The article provides all the evidence I need.

    He claimed he was tired of those Christians.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    I would see that scenario as a different one. Muslims not only follow the same deity, but base their life off of Islamic ideals and their interpretation of their holy book. Religious people are in a position where it would be right and proper to defend those ideals, whereas - and this is what I want to get across - atheists don't support a set of ideals. The position atheists are in is more comparable to supporting Manchester United; hypothetically, I would not expect a Manchester United supporter to need to condemn an attack in the club's name.

    One should condemn any attack, but I reject the idea of 'atheist ideology' as you stated in your first paragraph - it is not an ideology, it is a lack of belief and consequently I stand by my statement that I condemn it as a human rather than an atheist.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    The atheist killed people because they didn't follow the same ideology as him...
    There is no ideology of atheism. The news is alleging this guy killed people because of the ideology of the victims. Christianity actually has an ideology - a set of ideas, rules etc. - which can be accepted or rejected. Atheism does not, it's just a single statement which is that the person who is atheist does not believe in god. Important distinction. In principle this guy killed those people not because atheism told him to(!), but because he hated people who were different from him.

    Assuming the news reports about him are true. It also sounds like he was having a life crisis for several other reasons.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    A lot of atheists are trying to rebrand atheism but it won't work. Atheism is the belief there is no God.
    Even if you define atheism as a hard belief that there are no gods - a positive, 100% belief - it is certainly not an ideology which is a (connected) set of beliefs (plural).

    Anyway, the authorities appear to believe that he was a stressed-out bloke with some illegally-held guns suffering a bad domestic situation, and that he ended up killing all these people after flipping. They do not believe the motivation was the pursuit of any kind of religious, political or hate agenda.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41892838
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Don't worry guys, he was just mentally ill, nothing to see here!
    Offline

    13
    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?
    More evidence that lefties / religious people are retarded. Look up false equivalency.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thetoebeans)
    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.
    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.


    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    False.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ord-study.html
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0714103828.htm
    https://evolutionnews.org/2014/08/evolutionary_st/
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...st-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."
    A god, not contemporary organised religion. This study is more suggesting the human development of the brain capacity has led them to view stuff they can't explain as the acts of a 'God' because of the human understanding of cause and effect and of their own limitations. Whilst interesting, I don't see how it rejects the statement that humans are not automatically inclined to religions (although it does require the qualifier that I was speaking in terms of modern religions as opposed to the incorporeal concept of religion). The two relevant passages for me are "But people living in cities in highly developed countries were less likely to hold religious beliefs than those living a more rural way of life, the researchers found" and "One of the studies, from Oxford, concluded that children below the age of five found it easier to believe in some “superhuman” properties than to understand human limitations." which tells me that it isn't applicable to the same extent to our society AND that it is a 'theory of the gaps' that is it stems from an inability to comprehend which in today's world is far smaller due to science etc. None of this suggests humans are innately dis positioned to religion in its current format, rather that the human brain has developed to fill the gaps as logically as it can manage. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that Quetzalcoatl and Allah are equivocal or natural understandings.



    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    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.
    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.
 
 
 
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
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • 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.