Atheist Devin P. Kelley massacres 26 religious people?

[Aetixintro]

Here we are. 26 churchgoers are now dead due to a crazy guy who liked Atheism on Facebook. Thus Devin (Devil?) P. Kelley has been an Atheist?

How much of an Atheist is he there in the Bible belt of USA? Why did they delete his Facebook profile?

And Atheism does indeed deny commonplace ethics/morality. Find your own, they say!

From media, some words on his person: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/texas ... er-n817806

"He was very sick in the head," Katy Landry, a former girlfriend of Devin Patrick Kelley, told NBC News.

Now! Here we have a perpetrator! Here we have an Atheist! What should we believe about Atheism? This is my question.

[marco]

Religion does tell its people not to murder, so religion does have that morality.

But then religion also tells people that killing is sometimes right. We should kill witches, gay people, errant girls. We should murder people who disrespect Muhammad. And some do!

Atheism goes nowhere near advocating any of this but universally condemns it. You are backing the wrong horse, I'm afraid.

[Aetixintro]

Religion does tell its people not to murder, so religion does have that morality.

But then religion also tells people that killing is sometimes right. We should kill witches, gay people, errant girls. We should murder people who disrespect Muhammad. And some do!

Atheism goes nowhere near advocating any of this but universally condemns it. You are backing the wrong horse, I'm afraid.

As you write this, you know d*mn well that:
Killing witches, gay people and errant girls does not happen like that in the modern World. Rather this is a phenomenon in poor parts of the World. Orlando in Florida, USA has been dubbed terrorism and is not accepted practice of society. Christianity has no responsibility for lunatics, psychiatry, social workers, police have. Killing in the name of Muhammad because of "disrespect" is also largely a matter of poverty, yet to catch up with modern, liberal World.

Atheism has no morals and thus do no condemning at all. Secular Humanism on the other hand, that you seem to ignore (by usergroups/own text of support), universally condemns these kinds of murders. You seem to be backing the wrong horse, I'm afraid.

[marco]

As you write this, you know d*mn well that:
Killing witches, gay people and errant girls does not happen like that in the modern World.

Your point, presumably, is that religion has progressed from its barbaric stages. Is it therefore no longer the author of its advice, when decent people ignore that advice?
Some modern theocracies behead people for sexual misdemeanours. I wonder where they got the advice from.

Killing in the name of Muhammad because of "disrespect" is also largely a matter of poverty, yet to catch up with modern, liberal World.

Is that so? Then why have doctors been involved in atrocities, men who were following the dictates of their religion, as they saw it? I agree religion preys on poverty, but let us not blame the poor for religion's bad advice.

Atheism disputes the existence of a moralising God, not the existence of morality. We do not require a God to shout from the clouds that stealing and killing are wrong. So both religionists and atheists have a moral code which they largely respect. The problem is that when God tells someone to do something wrong, then it has to be done. Atheists do not have that dilemma.

Nor do religionists, you might say. Well the shouts of Allah Akbar would suggest otherwise. But of course we can go to the Holy Bible and hear God telling Abraham to murder his son. And Abraham sets about complying. The wicked command becomes okay because God ordered it. Atheists do not have voices in their heads ordering them to murder.

If it's morality one seeks, close the Old Testament.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 33 by marco]

Atheists do not have voices in their heads ordering them to murder.

Even though you may know that Atheists are also subject to Schizophrenia by "hearing voices in their heads, giving commands of what to do", it takes Atheism to truly suffer God delusion, to believe that one is a god and can do whatever it takes as one sees fit, regardless of both ethics, let's say the Christian, and moral practice of society as well as any personal.

God delusion:

Grandiose delusions
Grandiose delusions involve the belief that he/she has exceptional power,... He/she may believe he/she is God or some other type of deity.

From http://www.schizophrenic.com/content/sc ... -delusions

[Bust Nak]

The point is that the shooter needed a kind of morality that would not have let him shoot and kill the 26 people and wound another 20 people.

That shooter did not have that morality.

We all need this kind of morality.

Religion does tell its people not to murder, so religion does have that morality.

Not what I asked you. Why do you need religion to provide that morality?

In times when morality is needed then to remain silent is not a virtue.

Silence is a wonderful virtue in many ways - but not when it is time to speak up for right, and to speak against wrong doing.

Again, fix your expectation. Vegetarianism is silent on this, yet it is not a problem because you don't expect otherwise. Why is this a flaw of Atheism when it is your expectation that is at fault?

Atheist are the biggest accusers against religion in this world - so hopefully the Atheist can see from their own tactic being thrown back at them.

Again, the tactic does not work in reverse, because (most?) religion, atheism does not have a prescribed code of conduct.

Atheism has unjustly been throwing this kind of accusations at religion...

It's not unjust though. Religion is at best guilty of contributing, at worse the sole cause of the religious crimes in question.

[JP Cusick]

As far as I can see Atheists are just as angry when people are murdered as theists are. I certainly am.

For religion (not just Christianity) we are not to be angry.

In religion we are to understand evil and we are to have compassion and even love for our enemies, and we are to forgive wrongs, and we are to work to make things right.

The Atheism just does not give a person any morally upright way to release their anger.

And yes I know that Atheism is silent and Atheism says nothing = and thereby it is morally bankrupt.

Religion does tell its people not to murder, so religion does have that morality.

Really?

Kill ...
Kill ...
Death ...
Death ...
Kill ...
Kill...
Death for Blasphemy ...
Kill

You changed the word in order to make your point, and still the word stands true.

I said murder because murder has a different meaning and not to murder is the morality, and the correct translation in the ten commandments was = Thou shalt not murder.

Your changed the word into "kill and death" which are normal and natural parts of life, and they are not based on morality.

Some monster-man has shot up a church in Texas then to kill (to kill - not to murder) that shooter was the morally right thing to do.

You changed the word to suit your self.

Silence is a wonderful virtue in many ways - but not when it is time to speak up for right, and to speak against wrong doing.

Which atheists are remaining silent?

Atheism itself is silent.

The Church shooter could rightly be an Atheist without any contradiction.

To claim he was a Sunday school or Bible study teacher is a big contradiction because Christianity is not silent, and Christianity condemns the shooter as committing a horrible sin.

[marco]

Even though you may know that Atheists are also subject to Schizophrenia

And measles of course. You have strayed from the point.

it takes Atheism to truly suffer God delusion, to believe that one is a god and can do whatever it takes as one sees fit, regardless of both ethics, let's say the Christian, and moral practice of society as well as any personal.

Am I actually involved in this conversation? I have no idea where these wild assertions come from and I know of no atheists who think they are God. The missing steps in your argument must contain many flawed assumptions.

In fact many atheists show remarkable humility and confess their great ignorance. I think perhaps you have made a simple error and you are mistaking atheism for megalomania or some such malaise.

As to the subject of the OP, were we to identify Kelley as a biped, then we could with equal justification make a tirade against ALL bipeds.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 26 by OnceConvinced]

I note the following:

Why do you list the conditions for getting sentenced to death as if we live 2000 years ago?

I'm simply pointing out that the bible does teach that in some cases murder is ok. Whether we take those commands seriously today it irrelevant, but it seems that occasionally some Christians do.

This isn't acceptable and you should know it (therefore you are...).

I know it's not acceptable but the fact is that the bible endorses that type of behaviour whether we like it or not. There is no atheist bible that teaches things like this. In fact as an atheist now I have come to hold life more sacred than ever before, because this life is not a test. It's the only life we have and thus should be lived to its fullest and we should allow others to live that life too.

The Christianity is of the modern World, 2017 (CE), and likely to be both modern and moderate and where Mosaic Laws are obsolete as well as ALL those points on your list because felons are due to trial and not killed directly in any case (I think you know what I mean - Killers may thus receive the death sentence in being a sinner etc.).

Remember, God is the same yesterday, today and forever. He doesn't change his morals.

The fact is that the bible endorses these things, whether they are part of modern morality or not. It therefore isn't surprising when people kill in the name of God believing that they are following God's commands. Atheism has no such commands however. There is no Atheist scripture giving examples where it's ok to kill.

I bring these scriptures up to counter what one theist member here says, ie religion does not tell people to murder. Clearly some religions do and Abrahamic religions do.

It seems that much of the text written in opposition to religion above is therefore of the unreasonable kind, often argued by a .

If it is in one's holy books and Christians throughout history are taking those commands and acting on them, then it is not unreasonable to hold Christianity accountable.

hostile/uncharitable interpretation of the Bible and understanding of the modern Christian life

How else would you interpret those scriptures? For instance, when was it ever morally acceptable to kill an entire town due to the sins of one person?

Seriously, if the bible tells us to kill witches and a Christian kills a witch today because they believe them to be evil, aren't they just following what they believe God's rules to be? One thing is for sure there is no atheist doctrine commanding anyone to be killed and that is the whole point I am trying to make. You can't compare evil acts done by atheists to evil acts done by Christians. There are no commands for atheists to commit atrocities, not even 2000 years ago.

[OnceConvinced]

Religion does tell its people not to murder, so religion does have that morality.

But then religion also tells people that killing is sometimes right. We should kill witches, gay people, errant girls. We should murder people who disrespect Muhammad. And some do!

Atheism goes nowhere near advocating any of this but universally condemns it. You are backing the wrong horse, I'm afraid.

Indeed, in fact I would go as far as to say that atheism places more of a value on human life than religion does. With religions such as Christianity we are taught that we are all filthy sinful people who deserve to die. We are taught that this life is really just a test and that our true life doesn't start until we get to Heaven. We are taught that we are going to live for ever.

So a Christian may deem it a favour to take a life if they believe the person they were killing was going to Heaven. (eg take examples of Christian parents who have killed their children). Christians may feel they are working on behalf of God when they kill an evil person, sending them on a quick trip to Hell.

Atheists, on the other hand are well aware that this is the only life we have. We need to value it and make the most of it. We should also allow other people to do the same.

Furthermore, atheists do not feel as though they need to speak or act on behalf of any god, like Christians do.

[OnceConvinced]

The Atheism just does not give a person any morally upright way to release their anger.

Of course it doesn't. Neither does vegetarianism or stamp collecting. Atheism has no code so why would it give a way to do anything? As atheists we determine our code and morals through other means. Not through atheism.

And yes I know that Atheism is silent and Atheism says nothing = and thereby it is morally bankrupt.

Then so is vegetarianism, stamp collecting, and any other label you may want to put on anyone.

Your insistence the atheism is morally bankrupt is a Non Sequitur

Religion does tell its people not to murder, so religion does have that morality.

Really?

Kill ...
Kill ...
Death ...
Death ...
Kill ...
Kill...
Death for Blasphemy ...
Kill

You changed the word in order to make your point, and still the word stands true.

You don't see those things as a form of murder?

The point is that Atheism has no such list of commands. There is no holy book telling atheists that they should commit atrocities.

I said murder because murder has a different meaning and not to murder is the morality, and the correct translation in the ten commandments was = Thou shalt not murder.

Your changed the word into "kill and death" which are normal and natural parts of life, and they are not based on morality.

If an entire town is put to death as a result of one person's evil, I call that murder. In fact I call it genocide. What do you call it?

You changed the word to suit your self

I called a spade a spade. I'm not going to sugar coat murder.

The fact that you are trying to sugar coat murder by trying to make out its not murder is the whole problem. It's sugar coating things like that which make religion so dangerous. It's one of the reasons why we hold Christianity accountable for its actions.

You don't see Atheists trying to sugar coat murder.

To claim he was a Sunday school or Bible study teacher is a big contradiction because Christianity is not silent, and Christianity condemns the shooter as committing a horrible sin.

He WAS a bible teacher.

There you go, washing your hands of this guy. If an atheist commits an atrocity you won't see Atheists claiming he was never a true atheist.