PDA

View Full Version : Those peace loving White Supremacists are at it again



Paddy
18th June 2015, 14:05
Charleston killer 'had been inside for an hour' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33179091)


Police in the United States have been searching for a white gunman who killed nine people at a historic African-American church in Charleston in the US state of South Carolina.

Police say the killer had spent an hour in the church at a prayer meeting before opening fire on three men and six women.

MicrosoftBob
18th June 2015, 14:10
Easy solution ban religion, and send any religious reprobates off to another plantet where they can be left to kill each other in peace (or pieces)

d000hg
18th June 2015, 14:45
Thanks Bob. It's always nice when someone reminds us that stupidity transcends religion.

NotAllThere
18th June 2015, 15:01
It's being labelled a hate crime, so it seems likely that the perpetrator was not a fine upstanding member of that particular church. It could well be a peace loving muslim, atheist, American, white supremacist...

Given the moronic responses from people like MicrosoftBob, I wonder how long it will be before some atheist nutter goes amok due to their irrational hatred of anything religious? (If it hasn't already happened).

Eirikur
18th June 2015, 15:04
If Jesus wanted him to kill these people they should surely accept it and be happy with it?

MicrosoftBob
18th June 2015, 15:04
It's being labelled a hate crime, so it seems likely that the perpetrator was not a fine upstanding member of that particular church. It could well be a peace loving muslim, atheist, American, white supremacist...

Given the moronic responses from people like MicrosoftBob, I wonder how long it will be before some atheist nutter goes amok due to their irrational hatred of anything religious? (If it hasn't already happened).

Sounds like a hate crime there :igmc:

NotAllThere
18th June 2015, 15:29
Sounds like a hate crime there :igmc:Yes, what you advocate does sound like that. But I think you are too dim to realise it.

The title of this thread is also quite wrong. In this instance the peace loving <insert group here> were the victims, not the perpetrators.

MicrosoftBob
18th June 2015, 15:42
Yes, what you advocate does sound like that. But I think you are too dim to realise it.

The title of this thread is also quite wrong. In this instance the peace loving <insert group here> were the victims, not the perpetrators.

You're just being atheistaphobic now

Eirikur
18th June 2015, 15:49
Yes, what you advocate does sound like that. But I think you are too dim to realise it.

The title of this thread is also quite wrong. In this instance the peace loving <insert group here> were the victims, not the perpetrators.

Looks like a christian lunatic was also the perpetrator:


Police said the gunman sat in a bible study meeting for up to an hour before opening fire, killing six women and three men including the church pastor.

minestrone
18th June 2015, 15:50
Yes, someone shoots a congregation in a Christian church and it is the fault of Christians.

In other news London was to blame for the blitz, the Jews were to blame for the holocaust and Africans were to blame for slavery.

Is it to much to ask to say 'that is sad news' rather than having a go at the victims?

unixman
18th June 2015, 16:02
Unless he is completely insane, the shooter is a murderer. It doesn't matter what else he is, or claims to be, or what his job is, or who he voted for. He might have been wearing a blue shirt. Some in here would advocate taking action against all who wear blue shirts. To sad even for a scornful LOL.

Paddy
18th June 2015, 16:05
Looks like a christian lunatic was also the perpetrator:


His apparent MySpace page is even more cryptic, featuring just a photo of a dog and a Sunkist can and the following song from the Christian metal band A Thousand Times Repent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_metal_artists

and...

Charleston shooting suspect Dylann Roof was given a gun for his birthday | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3129887/Dylann-Roof-21-suspected-murdering-nine-race-hate-church-crime-got-gun-birthday-arrested-twice-year-drug-trespassing-charges.html)

Eirikur
19th June 2015, 07:43
What if Jesus told him to do it? like to hear what the relifreaks would have to say in that case

vetran
19th June 2015, 08:25
he was a nutter they exist in all religous flavours and colours.

pretty tragic really

Gibbon
19th June 2015, 08:29
Given the moronic responses from people like MicrosoftBob, I wonder how long it will be before some atheist nutter goes amok due to their irrational hatred of anything religious? (If it hasn't already happened).

Has it happened yet? We have thousands of years of killing in the name of God, have we any concrete examples of an atheist version of a crusade or jihad?

Probably not because most religously inspired killings are rooted in some sort of offence or ridicule against the said faith. You can't offend the beliefs of someone who has none.

Also atheist is wrong term to describe a person of no faith as it does have connotations of being against religion which could lead to hate. Given the lack of violence seemingly carried out by 'atheists' purely on anti religous grounds the correct term would be the latin nullifidian, a person of no faith.

To ridicule religion is not the same as irrational hatred, it is a rational response to superstitious nonsense.

Paddy
19th June 2015, 08:46
Has it happened yet? We have thousands of years of killing in the name of God, have we any concrete examples of an atheist version of a crusade or jihad?

Probably not because most religously inspired killings are rooted in some sort of offence or ridicule against the said faith. You can't offend the beliefs of someone who has none.

Also atheist is wrong term to describe a person of no faith as it does have connotations of being against religion which could lead to hate. Given the lack of violence seemingly carried out by 'atheists' purely on anti religous grounds the correct term would be the latin nullifidian, a person of no faith.

To ridicule religion is not the same as irrational hatred, it is a rational response to superstitious nonsense.

Exactly. Moreover, religion is based on fear that if a person displeases their god, they will go to hell when they die hence why they will commit atrocities out of fear of going to hell or reward of going to heaven.

Atheists do not have that fear and instead will make the most of life with respect to other human beings.

Religious people can not accept that when they die, that is the end.

unixman
19th June 2015, 09:05
Hi Gibbon nice theory but the sort of "atheist" trolls you get on the internet are at least as intolerant and insane as the worst religious cult, and just as bloodthirsty. Check Twitter. Worse, they believe that they have "science" to back up their mad eugenic visions.

All is not lost however. These trolls are I think not actually atheists, but just trolls who have chosen atheism as a vehicle for their all-too-human failings. And there you have it. The source of the evil is not religion, or atheism, or the bogey man, it is inside is. Any you can use almost anything - politics, religion, atheism - to ventilate it.

unixman
19th June 2015, 09:08
I understand the oldest murder victim was 87. An 87 year old woman, saying her prayers.

NotAllThere
19th June 2015, 09:17
...
To ridicule religion is not the same as irrational hatred...True. But espousing discrimination against people holding religious beliefs is not ridicule - and may well be rooted in irrational hatred. Some individuals on this site (MicrosoftBob is one example) seem to have an irrational kneejerk antipathetical response toward anything religious. I.e. just because it's anti-religious doesn't mean that it's not irrational.

Politically atheistic regimes in the 20th Century totted up millions of deaths. Extreme ideologies of any kind result in mass murder. Religion is just one particular flavour. I'd contend that the idea that religion naturally leads to murderous ideology is not proven. Rather I think an ideology becomes murderous either when the ideology is considered to be more important than individual people, or when the ideology labels non-subscribers to be less than human. The latter might indicate that while ridicule and lampooning should generally be tolerated, there is a point where it can become dehumanising, so even ridicule isn't unrestrictedly a good thing.

Ridicule might well be born out of irrational hatred.

WordIsBond
19th June 2015, 09:36
What if Jesus told him to do it? like to hear what the relifreaks would have to say in that case
What if Charles Darwin told him to do it because blacks are a lesser species and holding back evolution?

Oh. Charles Darwin didn't tell him to? Well, then my question is as ignorant and pointless as yours.

unixman
19th June 2015, 09:43
USSR - officially atheist - killed more humans than any other regime in history. It was born in a pogrom of 40 million people, and was one of the most aggressive nations ever known, oppressing its people, building walls to keep its own "citizens" from escaping, and creating vast Ghulags to imprison dissenters without trial, forever, while the leaders - what a surprise - lived in luxury.

Gibbon
19th June 2015, 09:54
True. But espousing discrimination against people holding religious beliefs is not ridicule - and may well be rooted in irrational hatred. Some individuals on this site (MicrosoftBob is one example) seem to have an irrational kneejerk antipathetical response toward anything religious. I.e. just because it's anti-religious doesn't mean that it's not irrational.

Politically atheistic regimes in the 20th Century totted up millions of deaths. Extreme ideologies of any kind result in mass murder. Religion is just one particular flavour. I'd contend that the idea that religion naturally leads to murderous ideology is not proven. Rather I think an ideology becomes murderous either when the ideology is considered to be more important than individual people, or when the ideology labels non-subscribers to be less than human. The latter might indicate that while ridicule and lampooning should generally be tolerated, there is a point where it can become dehumanising, so even ridicule isn't unrestrictedly a good thing.

Ridicule might well be born out of irrational hatred.

Some good points. I agree that to ridicule individuals to the point of dehumanising them is morally reprehensible.

I personally have no real problem with people following whatever beliefs they want, I have a problem when it becomes political or they try telling us how to behave or what is acceptable, then their ideas are open to examination and ridicule if applicable.

Paddy
19th June 2015, 10:02
USSR - officially atheist - killed more humans than any other regime in history. It was born in a pogrom of 40 million people, and was one of the most aggressive nations ever known, oppressing its people, building walls to keep its own "citizens" from escaping, and creating vast Ghulags to imprison dissenters without trial, forever, while the leaders - what a surprise - lived in luxury.

You mean Stalin. He was from Georgia and former priest.

WordIsBond
19th June 2015, 10:06
Has it happened yet? We have thousands of years of killing in the name of God, have we any concrete examples of an atheist version of a crusade or jihad?

Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist who said he killed because he didn't believe there was a God to hold him accountable, but there is no evidence he actually targeted religious people for their religion.

Mao Zedong certainly applies, he considered religion an enemy of the state and brutally targeted religious people simply because of their religion, intellectuals, etc, to try to impose his philosophies.

Joseph Stalin destroyed thousands of churches and had more than 100,000 priests and nuns shot. He also was an atheist who went on a "jihad" to impose his views on hundreds of millions.

Kim Jong Il. Pol Pot.

It's ludicrous to suggest atheists have their hands clean or haven't used force and violence in the name of their beliefs.

WordIsBond
19th June 2015, 10:12
You mean Stalin. He was from Georgia and former priest.
Actually not true. He was in seminary but was an atheist and never became a priest.

Would be irrelevant if it were true. If an atheist becomes a Muslim and kills people because of his beliefs, you don't blame atheists because he was a "former atheist." If a former priest becomes an atheist and kills people because of his beliefs, you don't blame priests because he was a "former priest."

original PM
19th June 2015, 10:12
Yes, someone shoots a congregation in a Christian church and it is the fault of Christians.

In other news London was to blame for the blitz, the Jews were to blame for the holocaust and Africans were to blame for slavery.

Is it to much to ask to say 'that is sad news' rather than having a go at the victims?

Strange you should say that because slavery has been rife in Africa for thousands of years - the white slave traders bought the slaves that came to the US from black slave traders - they did not go and 'steal' people.

So in essence yes blacks were to blame for slavery.

EternalOptimist
19th June 2015, 10:40
I reckon they weren't praying. probably doing some cartoons or something and got what was coming to them.
If they were cartoons of mohammed (peas be upon him), he'll probably get off with a caution

NotAllThere
19th June 2015, 11:35
Some good points. I agree that to ridicule individuals to the point of dehumanising them is morally reprehensible.

I personally have no real problem with people following whatever beliefs they want, I have a problem when it becomes political or they try telling us how to behave or what is acceptable, then their ideas are open to examination and ridicule if applicable.I entirely agree.

Unix
19th June 2015, 13:40
This is about racism and the availability of guns in the U.S. These shootings happen almost monthly whereas other countries with gun controls very rarely. Only the American right idiots can begin to justify this.

d000hg
19th June 2015, 14:11
Given the kind of vitriol you see "religion should be banned" etc, it does seem likely there are people out there who might go on a spree in the name of demonstrating how bad religion is.

I thought China had come closest to trying to stamp out religion as a kind of "atheist crusade", it was certainly strongly suppressed for a time. Maybe N. Korea also? But they tend to do that wanting to replace religion with some sort of "emperor/state worship" rather than for the sake of atheism.

d000hg
19th June 2015, 14:13
Exactly. Moreover, religion is based on fear that if a person displeases their god, they will go to hell when they die hence why they will commit atrocities out of fear of going to hell or reward of going to heaven. That's a load of rubbish, and objectively untrue (certainly as far as Christianity is concerned). I can't say that individuals doing these things don't share your views but it ain't what the religion actually teaches.

Paddy
19th June 2015, 14:17
That's a load of rubbish, and objectively untrue (certainly as far as Christianity is concerned). I can't say that individuals doing these things don't share your views but it ain't what the religion actually teaches.

Do babies go to hell? - Catholic Answers Forums (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=104494)



If the parents of a baby are non-practicing Catholics, and the baby passes on, where does the baby pass on to?
Because of original sin, does it go to hell?
Because of original sin and the fact that the parents are not practicing Catholics, does the baby go to hell?

d000hg
19th June 2015, 14:22
What's that got to do with what I said?

unixman
19th June 2015, 14:31
If my Muslim colleagues are anything to go by, Islam is more about fasting and praying 5 times a day

NotAllThere
19th June 2015, 14:42
What's that got to do with what I said?

Nothing at all. Paddy's understanding of Christianity or even Catholic Christianity seems to be based more on irrational ill-informed prejudice than anything substantive. It's a shame really, because if he put the effort in there's plenty of well-thought out material for bashing us Christians with.

Platypus
19th June 2015, 14:49
I understand the oldest murder victim was 87. An 87 year old woman, saying her prayers.

So what?

Unix
19th June 2015, 15:49
It's distasteful to attack religion in this case because the victims where all in a Church expressing their religious beliefs which they are free to do in the US, the perp killed for racial reasons nothing to do with religion.

My own position on religion is I am an Atheist in regards to the main religions but Agnostic on some kind of higher being. This doesn't mean I disregard all the wisdom in the bible such as Jesus sermons etc who I view as a revolutionary philosopher, or the benefits to society Churches bring.

xoggoth
19th June 2015, 18:46
My own position on religion is I am an Atheist in regards to the main religions but Agnostic on some kind of higher being. This doesn't mean I disregard all the wisdom in the bible such as Jesus sermons etc who I view as a revolutionary philosopher, or the benefits to society Churches bring.

Tend to agree, a creator is as probably as good a theory as any, and there may well be some purpose behind everything, it is just the details of the established religions that make no sense whatever. Nothing wrong with many general religious moral principles either, you don't have to be religious to agree that the last 7 commandments make sense or even that the Islamic prohibition of alcohol is quite sensible.

The problem is when religious dogma imposes irrational specifics as to exactly how society should be governed or attempts to override individual rights. In society the greater good and individuals freedoms have to be balanced sensibly. There is no place for following irrational bollux from supposedly religious texts.

Mind you, religion is not unique in irrationality, many political beliefs are just as barmy. Why do intelligent educated people go on believing in communism when every communist society has been a disaster? The problem is not religion but human nature.

WordIsBond
20th June 2015, 06:53
Easy solution ban religion, and send any religious reprobates off to another plantet where they can be left to kill each other in peace (or pieces)


If Jesus wanted him to kill these people they should surely accept it and be happy with it?

For those wanting to play "blame the victim" here, it's not hard to find out just how terrible these religious people were.

NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/charleston-church-shooting/dylann-roof-almost-didnt-go-through-charleston-church-shooting-n378341):

Roof told police that he "almost didn't go through with it because everyone was so nice to him,"

Listen to the victims' family statements (https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=402&v=e26Eysq22Yg):


"I forgive you, and have mercy on your soul."

"I forgive you and my family forgive you, but we would like you to take this opportunity to repent."

"We welcomed you with open arms.... Every fibre in my body hurts.... May God have mercy on you."

"For me, I'm a work in progress, and I acknowledge that I'm very angry.... We have no room for hate, and so we have to forgive."

Yeah, a religion that influences people in that way is terrible and should be banned.

But of course, those who want to blame religion because people in a church were shot up by a lunatic probably don't have the integrity to click through, listen to what these "religious reprobates" say, and reconsider their own hatred.

BrilloPad
23rd June 2015, 10:51
Ferguson police willing to offer Dylann Roof a front-line role (http://newsthump.com/2015/06/22/ferguson-police-willing-to-offer-dylann-roof-a-front-line-role/)

vetran
23rd June 2015, 11:16
Exactly. Moreover, religion is used to create fear by bad people no God could love that if a person displeases their god, they will go to hell when they die hence why they will commit atrocities out of fear of going to hell or reward of going to heaven.


FTFY

you know most of the religions are run by people, many are very bad people.

unixman
23rd June 2015, 13:05
It's distasteful to attack religion in this case because the victims where all in a Church expressing their religious beliefs which they are free to do in the US, the perp killed for racial reasons nothing to do with religion.

Yes and I would go further. USA media now in self-flagellation mode, claiming that this crime proves the entire country is racist. It proves nothing of the sort, in my view. The shooter was very evil as were his accomplices, such as his parents who furnished the weapon. He was responsible for his actions, nobody forced his hand. He acted with great deliberation and aforethought. The US population as a whole is not to blame for this crime. South Carolina governor calling for removal of confederate flag now. Not necessary but I'm no expert on US politics.

Oh and as for Christianity, the families have publicly forgiven the mass-murderer.

SpontaneousOrder
23rd June 2015, 13:13
Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist who said he killed because he didn't believe there was a God to hold him accountable, but there is no evidence he actually targeted religious people for their religion.

Mao Zedong certainly applies, he considered religion an enemy of the state and brutally targeted religious people simply because of their religion, intellectuals, etc, to try to impose his philosophies.

Joseph Stalin destroyed thousands of churches and had more than 100,000 priests and nuns shot. He also was an atheist who went on a "jihad" to impose his views on hundreds of millions.

Kim Jong Il. Pol Pot.

It's ludicrous to suggest atheists have their hands clean or haven't used force and violence in the name of their beliefs.


There's a difference between killing in the name of atheism, and killing while being an atheist.
And what went on in the USSR is not killing in the name of atheism - it was removing what they perceived as a threat to their goals. It just ahppens to be that one of those threats was theism. Fuzzy line there I guess. And beside the point as I dont;t hink this had anything to do with religion, did it?


But anyway... was this guy on SSRIs too? They've been wel knows to cause psychotic tendencies and rage for a long time now. And pretty much every school mass shooter was on them.

BrilloPad
23rd June 2015, 13:33
FTFY

you know most of the religions are run by people, many are very bad people.

Governments are also run by very bad people.

Paddy
23rd June 2015, 13:53
Governments are also run by very bad people.

Yes, run by very bad religious people:-

The Queen = Head of the C of E, Or a least her forefathers murdered on mass.
T Blair, "God talks to me"
Bush, "God told me to invade Iraq.
and on and on...

NotAllThere
23rd June 2015, 15:27
...
The Queen = Head of the C of E, Or a least her forefathers murdered on mass. ...Well, they were Catholic. :ohwell But that really goes with SO's point about atheists and the USSR- the Catholics weren't persecuted by the crown particularly because of their beliefs, but rather their loyalty was seen to be to the pope first.

minestrone
23rd June 2015, 17:12
Yes, run by very bad religious people:-

The Queen = Head of the C of E, Or a least her forefathers murdered on mass.
T Blair, "God talks to me"
Bush, "God told me to invade Iraq.
and on and on...

He never said that. Neither did he say the French have no word for entrepreneur.

Neither did thatcher say "a man riding a bus at 26 may count himself a failure"

It's not the problem that people believe these things, it is that they form strong opinions from them and then go on to try and form other peoples opinions based on them.

minestrone
23rd June 2015, 17:18
America's crime stats are pretty bonkers and they certainly have a bit of an issue historically with race relations but sitting here on keyboards banging away about what they have to do to fix after reading some stuff on the internet it is laughable. As clearly witnessed by the OP claiming this was a Christian that shot the place up before the title of the thread was changed.