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

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

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm tired of hearing about American shooters. By sensationalising every incident, the media is giving these people what they want - notoriety. Enough already
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Any such attacks on innocent peope is disgusting and should be condemned by all people. There is no doubt that there are atheists who are motivated by their hatred of religions or religious people, and this hatred inspires them to commit great acts of evil. This is something that is unacceptable and should be challenged.

    (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.
    Whilst it is true that words do have a meaning. We also have to take into account the fact that what constitutes a terrorist attack varies depending on the law of the state or country in question. For example, in Saudi law atheism constitutes terrorism. People often ask why is or isn't such and such an event called a terrorist attack. The truth is that sometimes it is a bit more complicated and it depends on how terrorism is defined by the specific state or nation in question.
    • Offline

      21
      (Original post by FarhanHalim)
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-atheism.html

      So can all atheists please condemn this atheist terror attack?
      Not sure what an atheist is, but I am not religious and I do not condemn any act of terrorism. How can randomly killing people en mass be acceptable by any stretch of the imagination? You would have to have a twisted, warped mindset to carry out such acts.
      Offline

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

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by thetoebeans)
      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.
      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.
      Online

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
      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.
      The distinction I am drawing is not due to it. It doesn't make sense to say athiesm caused it as there is nothing substantive in there to inspire such views. It is true he did it because of atheism but not that anything within atheism directed his view to do so - that's my point, a differentiation of causality
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      I've definitely seen a rise of staunch atheists that love to force their beliefs onto religious people and undermine them, which exactly what many of them claim to fight against - I say this as an atheist. I am no way comparing them to this crazy shooter, but I've definitely noticed more and more "extreme" atheists.
      • Community Assistant
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
      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.
      I would much prefer antifa to the alt right tbh.
      Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
      • Community Assistant
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
      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.
      Anyways antifa are a much smaller group than the alt-right. They are just an excuse for right wingers to cover up their own faults.
      Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Atheists can be as bad as any Islamic or Christian extremist


      According to wikipedia

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

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by StudyJosh)
      The atheist killed people because they didn't follow the same ideology as him...
      1. Atheism isn't an ideology
      2. Even if it was, there is nothing in it that could possibly be used to justify killing people for not being atheists
      3. There is no evidence that he killed those people because they weren't atheists. (It now appears that it may have been the result of a domestic dispute).
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Alamaniya)
      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?
      It does seem odd that a "militant atheist" would work as a teaching assistant at a bible school?
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Psy0ps)
      Atheists can be as bad as any Islamic or Christian extremist
      Of course they can. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. It doesn't make someone good or bad because it doesn't contain any instructions, rules, restrictions, punishments, etc, etc.

      The total number of Christian victims under the Soviet atheist regime has been estimated to range between 12-20 million
      The millions who died in the Soviet Union did not die "because of atheism". They died because of the policies of an extreme, totalitarian ideology based on Marxism-Leninism. Rejection of organised religion was just one small element in that ideology, and certainly not the one responsible for the deaths.

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

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by QE2)
      That's a bit like saying the Holocaust victims died because Hitler was a vegetarian.
      Quite! Everyone knows it was because he owned a dog.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      Atheists are pussies

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

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Sotaro)
      Not once have I heard Atheists attack Judaism when some of their books encourage killing and stealing of gentile.
      You are not very well read then. That happens often on TSR, for instance. There is no doubt that the supposed god of the Abrahamic religions is a cruel, vengeful and arbitrary deity, completely unworthy of worship by any thinking person.
      • Offline

        9
        (Original post by Sotaro)
        Atheists are pussies

        Not once have I heard Atheists attack Judaism when some of their books encourage killing and stealing of gentile.
        Hitler was an atheist
        Offline

        16
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Sotaro)
        Atheists are pussies

        Not once have I heard Atheists attack Judaism when some of their books encourage killing and stealing of gentile.
        Probably because TSR doesn't have a regular supply of Jews claiming that the Torah is the literal and unchanged word of god, the perfect guide for all humanity as applicable now as it was 1400 years ago, and that it does not contain any violence, intolerance or discrimination, and so on.

        If they did, Judaism would get the same treatment. But they don't. Radical Judaism is not an issue.
       
       
       
      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
      Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
      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.