Gunman's father: "It's up to God to punish the homosexuals"

[uo111 5,282]

Poor gays brainwashed into being "accepting" of religious bigotry.

Anyone who thinks being gay is a "sin" is our enemy, regardless of whether they take up a gun and shoot us. 

[christinahoney 383]

4 hours ago, sexfashionfame said:

What he said is in accordance with his beliefs. I don't think he is horrible for saying that it is up to God to punish the homosexuals. I disagree with him but he disagrees with me and that's just as important. We have our differences, but he is in a horrible circumstance that none of us could ever fathom and I'm sure he's trying to mourn the best he can. I see nothing hateful here. 

correct

[mister max 18,480]

[Shadowcrest 2,487]

2 minutes ago, uo111 said:

Poor gays brainwashed into being "accepting" of religious bigotry.

Anyone who thinks being gay is a "sin" is our enemy, regardless of whether they take up a gun and shoot us. 

There are no enemies, just misguided masses of people. You do not have to hate them because they dislike you for what you do with your life. 

Live your life and let them waste theirs irrationally hating things they refuse to understand. 

[uo111 5,282]

Just now, Themysciran said:

There are no enemies, just misguided masses of people. You do not have to hate them because they dislike you for what you do with your life. 

Live your life and let them waste theirs irrationally hating things they refuse to understand. 

They inspire literally billions of people to think we deserve to die. Let me just go ahead and ignore that.

[Shadowcrest 2,487]

1 minute ago, uo111 said:

They inspire literally billions of people to think we deserve to die. Let me just go ahead and ignore that.

Billions. That is quite the overexaggeration. 

[Lucifer 1,997]

"God" will judge EVERYBODY. Let's keep it at that. He is no better.

[PartySick 172,545]

5 hours ago, RainbowBlonde said:

He's right though. His religion does not exactly tolerate the gays. To say that Islam is LGBT-friendly is a stretch.

Yeah...this is kind of the (horrible) equivalent of "love the sinner, hate the sin" in a way. Idk, I guess it's because of the people I grew up around but I don't think what he said was all that bad? He's not condoning his son's actions and he doesn't believe we should be hurting anyone. Leave it up to God to do the judging, your job is to accept him and live your own life.

Spoiler

That's basically the thinking of most Christians I've met in my life

 

[uo111 5,282]

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

But they do subscribe to the law of their countries. And not by volition, because they're just born in that kind of captivity. An atheist true to his belief would at least realize that all those laws were pragmatic and not in any way valuable on their own, yet how many self-proclaimed atheists would agree that robbing a bank is wrong? Why? Isn't that actually a smart decision based on the belief that there's no afterlife to work for? To be good for?

A lot of those things don't make sense. For all that critical thinking atheists are supposed to have, there's very little thinking going in the direction of how they themselves are defined by their nature and their particular environment. That's sad, especially when they then ironically go and judge religious people when they should, in theory, be smart enough to realize that those people are just working with the material they have, just like they themselves were able to work with atheism as a viable option that guaranteed them certain comforts.

See, I don't buy that. Sure, you can always question the status quo, but then it doesn't matter what that status quo is. You can find examples for that on any scale possible. And, trust me, empirical science has had more than enough embarrassing episodes where that dynamic of indoctrination becomes clear.

One obvious one being that the now world famous prehistoric cave art was studied by the most distinguished scientists who all dismissed the drawings as scribblings of a few years old maximum. The man who actually found the drawings and defended their (as it turned out, correct) dating had his entire career systematically destroyed by the scientific establishment, only because the theories of that establishment didn't make room for his findings. It was only after the man died that scientists, after repeated studies, had to face the undeniable fact that he had been right.

One of hundreds of possible examples. Another fruitful one is that people living in supposedly modern Western societies today still maintain their belief in a stereotypical "free will" which they then apply to criminal contexts. A murderer is not someone who was led to his actions by the combination of nature/nurture, no, he's a disgusting waste of space that should be killed or at least tortured for the rest of his life by being held in captivity as a punishment. A more religiously inspired idea can't be found in Western culture today, even though science has long discarded the notion that criminals engage in criminal behavior because they're bad people who choose "the wrong thing" intentionally.

People will always favor illusions over facts if those facts attack some of their cherished biased values, even in a society that claims it's superior to others because science is its supposed guide to life. As if. How many people still believe in love? In their mission as a parent? In their destiny as a successful businessman? In the idea that they "deserve" the good things in their lives? In the idea that they are a certain identity that isn't immediately blotted out when certain brain segments shut off or organized just a tiny bit differently? In the idea that it actually does matter what they do in life even though they believe there will be no reward other than annihilation? The grand majority. So no, I really can't agree. I think that Western society builds its identity against "religion" as its opposite, but on no grounds other than a hideous, self-defeating hypocrisy.

What atheist believes robbing a bank is wrong just because of moral reasons?

The idea that laws stem from morality is a religious one. The case against anarchy isn't based on morality, it's based on logic.

You can't say atheist are hypocritical without generalizing all of them (which is crazy because the only thing they all believe in is that their is no god). Let's not pretend atheist agree with all the laws in whatever country they live in (another point of contention because not all atheist have the same laws, unlike religions which have the same holy text).

29 minutes ago, Themysciran said:

Billions. That is quite the overexaggeration. 

2.2 billion Christians. 1.6 billion Muslims.

 

[ryanripley 86,575]

I KNEW ITTTTTTT I KNEW HIS PARENTS HAD TO OF HAD SOME INFLUENCE!!! i will bet you ANY money that they hit him as a child  

[Didymus 34,380]

11 minutes ago, uo111 said:

What atheist believes robbing a bank is wrong just because of moral reasons?

I know many lol

At least they won't think of another reason before I actively call on them to think further.

#youjustdontdothat

And if you don't think it's possible to rationalize instincts impressed upon your brain as a child there's no reason to continue this conversation.

13 minutes ago, uo111 said:

You can't say atheist are hypocritical without generalizing all of them (which is crazy because the only thing they all believe in is that their is no god). Let's not pretend atheist agree with all the laws in whatever country they live in (another point of contention because not all atheist have the same laws, unlike religions which have the same holy text).

I said the main dynamics in Western society are hypocritical (which in itself is a pastiche of reality, but I can't talk unless I make them in whatever direction). But yeah, sure I'm generalizing atheists, just like everyone in here is generalizing religion and the individuals following "it".

And I don't care if they agree with laws or not, most of them will obey in the end, out of fear for persecution. And you don't think there are Christians or Muslims who disagree with one or two statements in their holy books but will still defend their value? I think we can find the same with a lot of unreligious people who don't like to get a ticket for driving too fast.

[DrewStevens 5,249]

10 minutes ago, Didymus said:

I know many lol

At least they won't think of another reason before I actively call on them to think further.

#youjustdontdothat

And if you don't think it's possible to rationalize instincts impressed upon your brain as a child there's no reason to continue this conversation.

I said the main dynamics in Western society are hypocritical (which in itself is a pastiche of reality, but I can't talk unless I make them in whatever direction). But yeah, sure I'm generalizing atheists, just like everyone in here is generalizing religion and the individuals following "it".

And I don't care if they agree with laws or not, most of them will obey in the end, out of fear for persecution. And you don't think there are Christians or Muslims who disagree with one or two statements in their holy books but will still defend their value? I think we can find the same with a lot of unreligious people who don't like to get a ticket for driving too fast.

I agree that atheism isn't itself better than theism and we shouldn't generalize any group. But you can generalize religion without generalizing their followers because it's a doctrine, it can't decide or change its mind like individuals can.

Atheists and religious people have to obey the laws of their countries, it's not like only atheists were controlled by them. I bet if some of those laws didn't exist many people would do the same thing that this murderer did.

Atheists and religious people are capable of the same things but religion gives you more reasons to do either harm or help people. Atheists don't need to do anything since they don't believe they have to earn a ticket to get into some promised land. Atheists can do their own judgments without the help of a book that promotes slavery, discrimination and murder.

An atheist isn't any better than a religious person, but if you took two identical individuals and you made one of them believe in one of the Abrahamic books that individual would be way more intolerant than the other who doesn't believe in what the books says.

[Didymus 34,380]

11 minutes ago, DrewStevens said:

I agree that atheism isn't itself better than theism and we shouldn't generalize any group. But you can generalize religion without generalizing their followers because it's a doctrine, it can't decide or change its mind like individuals can.

Atheists and religious people have to obey the laws of their countries, it's not like only atheists were controlled by them. I bet if some of those laws didn't exist many people would do the same thing that this murderer did.

Atheists and religious people are capable of the same things but religion gives you more reasons to do either harm or help people. Atheists don't need to do anything since they don't believe they have to earn a ticket to get into some promised land. Atheists can do their own judgments without the help of a book that promotes slavery, discrimination and murder.

An atheist isn't any better than a religious person, but if you took two identical individuals and you made one of them believe in one of the Abrahamic books that individual would be way more intolerant than the other who doesn't believe in what the books says.

And you're going to decide what the doctrine is, then?  If there's anything uniting holy books it's their lack of consistent doctrine or systematic explanation of it. And then you have passages blatantly contradicting each other.

Look at the history of theology for all monotheistic religions. There is no doctrine. People decide the doctrines, usually completely at random, like how some council decided that the Holy Trinity was a thing hundreds of years after Christ supposedly died. Which is why I actually don't think you can generalize, esp. when you have so much segments within just one religion, Christianity being the most dramatic example.

And then I don't really agree about that last thing either. Believe in one of the books? What does that mean? Adherents of religions are notorious for picking and choosing and explaining away bits they don't like. So I think that's again an unwarranted generalization, esp. when there are no two identical individuals and history again speaks against you. When you have centuries of tolerance towards homosexual behavior in perfectly Islamic areas while that exact same behavior was met with an unambiguous death penalty in Christian ones (despite there being no prohibition against homosexuality in the New Testament), then what does that tell you?

It's just a lot more complicated. The very idea of "religion" vs. "something else" shows Enlightenment bias. All underlying cognitive mechanisms are the same for people who believe in God and people who believe that their life is given a purpose when they work hard and make something of themselves. I agree that some of the material religious believers can find is fuel for abuse when it suits the individual, but I think it's a lot more valuable to look at the total interplay of dynamics instead of just singling out a religion and claiming it's the source of all the trouble. That, to me, is like mistaking symptoms for the cause of the disease   People will always find reasons to kill each other, and they don't need ones as inventive as ancient divine commands.

[Manul 7,377]

He can take this apology, shove it in Quran and then shove that up his ass.

[uo111 5,282]

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

I know many lol

At least they won't think of another reason before I actively call on them to think further.

#youjustdontdothat

And if you don't think it's possible to rationalize instincts impressed upon your brain as a child there's no reason to continue this conversation.

I said the main dynamics in Western society are hypocritical (which in itself is a pastiche of reality, but I can't talk unless I make them in whatever direction). But yeah, sure I'm generalizing atheists, just like everyone in here is generalizing religion and the individuals following "it".

And I don't care if they agree with laws or not, most of them will obey in the end, out of fear for persecution. And you don't think there are Christians or Muslims who disagree with one or two statements in their holy books but will still defend their value? I think we can find the same with a lot of unreligious people who don't like to get a ticket for driving too fast.

I'm at jury duty right now of all places (trust me, I feel no moral obligation to be here).

Of course some religious people defend texts/pasages they disagree with. They think if they don't, they're going to hell.  Who defends laws they disagree with outside of dictatorships? If I speak out against a law I feel no fear of repercussion. So why would I or anyone defend such a law. 

People who get tickets don't automatically think there should be no speed limit...