Atheist kills mother whilst reciting Dawkins

[Casey]

Sure, Chronic. But this guy didn't just use anything to justify his crime. He used religion. As do a significant amount of people looking for a reason to justify their crimes. Why? And how is it an assumption? It's stated right there in the original story. He was yelling religious diatribes whilst attacking and later killing his own mother. His arbitrary interpretation of a religion was both the catalyst and justification for the crime.

Smacky, that post reads like it was written by a 12 year old and isn't worth my time, but I'll break down just this part:

However, only recently, this previous scientific fact was proven to be, well, untrue. Modern findings have proven that the human spinal cord does regenerate, albeit, in a very slow manner. A lot of people with damaged spinal cords have been able to walk, much against the declaration of their doctors that all hope was lost.

Difference = Science is willing to adapt, change, and admit it was wrong in the light of new evidence. Religion will maintain that it is right in SPITE of a shitload of opposing evidence.

As for "needing faith" in scientists..... um, no. Not at all. The whole point is that I can examine their evidence the same way they have. Every scientific study I've ever done, both in school and for my own interest, presented a series of evidence and then made a conclusion based upon said evidence. The scientific community made up of thousands of people qualified in different fields and with different live experiences, generally come to the same conclusions, because they are pretty fucking obvious. It's pretty obvious that gravity exists. I don't need to personally throw a ball up in the air a million times for myself to be aware of that. And I CERTAINLY don't need to have "blind faith" to trust that anyone who DID throw a ball up a million times came to the same conclusion.

I've never read through a shitload of scientific evidence and come to a DIFFERENT conclusion than the scientist did. Not even when I had literally no idea of the conclusion they came to. It's common sense.

As for the babble about the parting of the red sea..... ROFLMAO. Anyone who seriously believes that a man waves his arms around and the water literally parted in front of him is quite frankly a fucking moron. How convenient that this all supposedly happened thousands of years ago before we invented video cameras, and nothing remotely unexplainable has happened since we did. People who believe that can go and play with the unicorns and the dragons that live in their basement as far as I'm concerned.

 

[vg4030]

The story on TMZ (and the one you posted) was just reported right after the incident so it just had that he was screaming religious stuff, holding a bible etc...
He hasnt made a statement saying what he did was right as it was in the name of God.

There is more news now that he snapped because of financial pressures (he was less than broke at the time)

New reports are revealing that the aspiring actor was struggling financially and may have snapped under the weight of the debt. Brea, 31, had small roles in "Ugly Betty" and the movie "Step Up 3D" but was not working while living at home with his mother and twin brother Marcel.

While money may have played a role in pushing the actor over the edge, it is clear that it wasn't the only factor. After attending a meeting Monday morning Brea returned home and went to bed early complaining of a headache. When he woke up several hours later he would commit a horrific act of violence.

'Ugly Betty' actor charged with killing mother | CapeCodOnline.com

It sounds similar to those guys who go postal and have a mental breakdown

 

[Chronic]

But this guy didn't just use anything to justify his crime. He used religion. His arbitrary interpretation of a religion was both the catalyst and justification for the crime.

All of this is an assumption. There is nothing in the article about him justifying his acts. It doesn't even mention why he did it. It just mentioned he was 'yelling religious diatribes whilst attacking and later killing his own mother'.

It's a fair assumption that religion played a role though but it's just as fair to assume he is mentally ill/was mentally ill when it occured. There are always a myriad of reasons why someone does something but in some cases you can blame the religious aspect. In this case however I think it's unfair and it actually weakens your stance on anti-theism.

But fuck it, it's not like a proponent of theism and the discussion has turned over into something I don't feel like discussing.

 

[Casey]

/\ Really? "Just as fair"? Not quite.

There's evidence of his crazy religious convictions. Where's the evidence of him being mentally ill, other than the assumption that someone who does something like this would be mentally ill?

 

[dilla]

In my opinion, ALL the religious people are insane, whether they kill someone else or not.

In my opinion, ALL black people are thieves, whether they have a job or not.

Throughout history, most criminals have been young black men. They also smoke weed and listen to that hippity-hop music that's on the radio these days. Therefore, every black person is a thieving coon and it's all 50 Cent's song "How to Rob" that told these black people to rob and smoke weed.


That is what you sound like.

 

[dilla]

Must have been a Jesus lover for believing this shit: Deputies: Motel guest trashes room to find 'midget' - Local News - Winston-Salem, NC - msnbc.com

 

[Casey]

Throughout history, most criminals have been young black men.

Well that's simply not true, for a start.

Definition of insanity:

insanity in·san·i·ty (ĭn-sān'ĭ-tē)
n.

Persistent mental disorder or derangement.

Most would agree that persistent delusions are indeed a condition of the insane.

Definition of delusion:

a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact

Pwned.

 

[Duke]

But, some sort of rationalistic faith wouldn't be as unfounded as you claim. Our existence is extremely improbable, by any standards. As a reductionist you will argue while extraordinarily improbable, considering the infinite-like vastness of the cosmos, it eventually becomes inevitable. And the spiritually inclined thinks that the universe looks like a fix job, and claims intelligent design. It is known as the Goldilocks enigma. I personally don't find either of these explanations satisfying.

But your reasoning and science will never answer these questions. There will always be that tortoise at the bottom that you won't be able to explain away via spontaneous combustion. I'm certainly not proposing religion can answer these questions either.

The thing for me is that science at least tries to explain it. We might never get the ultimate answer, but we're at least not sitting in a semi-circle making things up.

I have no intrinsic problem with someone thinking a God or Gods made us, in whichever way. It becomes a problem when religion interferes with well-established science (evolution vs. creationism for example). If someone still thinks, anno 2010-almost-2011, that God made man in 7 days about 5000 years ago, I'm not calling that a rationalistic faith but the opposite.

I am just saying, I don't think some sort of faith or faith in the possibility of a god, is nearly as ignorant as you claim. And trust me, this world won't get much better without religion. People will remain just as intrinsically shitty as they are today.

Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't. I don't think we'll ever know.

 

[dilla]

Well that's simply not true, for a start.

Definition of insanity:



Most would agree that persistent delusions are indeed a condition of the insane.

Definition of delusion:



Pwned.

Facts or reasons that God doesn't exist. Start listing them.

 

[Duke]

I like what some of this guy said: Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a supernatural being, creator, or deity. Briefly, it is a lack of belief in God.

It is one of the major opponents of the Christian Church and Christian beliefs. It has always been diretly related to materialism. Summed up, the more materialistic a society is, the less spiritual it becomes. The less spiritual it becomes, the stronger atheism affects that society.

Therefore, the more materialistic a society becomes, the more atheism strengthens over it.

Atheism relies mostly on logic, analysis, and science. They do not believe in faith, nor the miracles of the Bible.

Atheism, though has major flaws. At first glance, it seems atheism has a strong, irrefutable, non-debatable position. Like so many things in this world, it looks good only on the outside, but actually is weak on the inside - a foundation built on sand.

Atheism has three major flaws:

Atheist Statement No. 1 - "Atheism declares it does not believe in faith, that science is the way to truth because it does not rely on faith unlike religion. Science does not rely on faith and therefore cannot be biased."

Christian answer: Even in science, we still need a certain degree of faith in scientists and researchers since we ourselves cannot possibly verify all their findings to prove that what they are saying is true.

Unless you can verify scientists' findings one by one for yourself, you will have to accept their "word" at face value. You will have to believe that what they're saying is true. You will have to have "faith" in their words.

Look. In the past, we've had "scientific errors" committed by scientists. Errors such as scientific facts that were declared as truth but were later found out to be false or in doubt.

Among numerous examples, one example is found in medical science. For many years, scientists/researchers have always declared that damage to the human spinal cord was permanent and irreversible. This was a scientific fact, established as the truth before.

However, only recently, this previous scientific fact was proven to be, well, untrue. Modern findings have proven that the human spinal cord does regenerate, albeit, in a very slow manner. A lot of people with damaged spinal cords have been able to walk, much against the declaration of their doctors that all hope was lost.

That science is not based on faith is totally false. Therefore, this refutes the first statement of atheism.

As St. Francis of Assisi wisely said "Faith is higher than reason. Reason is useless.... unless you believe."


Atheist Statement No. 2 - "Science is based only on purely objective facts, while religion is partially subjective and therefore cannot be purely objective. "

Christian answer: Science relies on objectivity, and needs to utilize a method called the "scientific method". The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, data-gathering, etc.

Once science loses its objectivity, or becomes partially subjective, it loses its credibility as a discipline.

Therein lies the problem. The scientific method does provide purely objective data, BUT scientists still have to "interpret them. Since scientists are only human, the interpretation of the data becomes mixed with personal opinions and become "partially subjective". This cannot be avoided.

Scientists are human beings with different beliefs, religions, philosophies, and come from various countries and cultures throughout the globe.

Take for example the debate on the origin of the universe. This major debate has been going on for centuries, and has divided the scientific community into "creationist scientists" and "evolutionist scientists".

The creationist scientists believe that the universe has order, design, and was created by an intelligent, omnpiotent being, a god. God is the creator of the universe.

The evolutionist scientists believe otherwise. They state that the universe has no design, has no order and is random. They reject the idea of a god, a creator of our universe.

And it doesn't even matter who has more numbers on either side. The truth is never based on "majority wins".

Say for example, my friend and I hid a silver coin inside a box. Now, we make a survey and ask all people around the world if they believe a coin exists in the box or not.

Even if all people around the world said they don't believe a coin exists in the box, the truth is not affected by their numbers. My friend and I know the truth that a coin does exist because we hid it ourselves! So truth is not based on majority opinion.

Atheist statement number 2 is therefore false.


Atheist Statement No. 3) "Science is better than religion because it relies on an objective method - the scientific method. This method produces truth because it is based on objective data, experimentations, logic, etc. Religion does not use an objective method and is based on opinion, speculation, etc. It lacks "scientific proof", on "miracles" in the Holy Bible."

Christian answer: Science does rely on an objective method, but by what authority does the "scientific method" produce truth? By what authority does science possess when it says we must believe science because it utilizes the "scientific method"?

I mean you cannot state that science is an authority of truth simpy because it uses the scientific method. It's like saying "I therefore conclude that science produces truth because it uses the scientific method."

By what authority?

How will you prove using the scientific method does produce truth? Because it's "scientific"? Because science said so? Again, the question "By what authority does science have by proclaiming to be the truth than religion"?

The statement "The results of the scientific method should be followed" is unscientific because it is a value statement that does not get its authority from anywhere but itself.

"We should use the scientific method." Why should we? "It proves itself." How does it prove itself? "It uses the scientific method."

Atheist Statement: "The scientific method is true because it works and because it is axiomatic (self-evident)."

Christian answer: Sounds a lot like faith to me. Who decides what is axiomatic? does the scientific method decide it? That makes it circular if it does. If not, then it is not scientific itself.

I would have to do all the experiments to come to that conclusion. Other than that, I take it on faith that all of the scientists who did the experiments and reviewed them and tested them are not lying to me. That is my point.

You cannot use the "scientific method" as a reason to make science as an authority of truth, simply because the only way to prove science as the truth is to use the "scientific method"! The logic is circular.

And yes, the miracles in the Bible have been verified by both atheist (for objectivity) and theist (God-believing) scientists as true historical events. Events such as the Exodus from Egypt, David slaying Goliath, parting of the Red Sea, etc. were tested and researched using modern scientific methods. Watch "Secrets of the Bible" at Cable TV's "Discovery Channel".

At a different cable channel, underwater cameras showed pictures of ancient relics -particularly a large "chariot wheel" deep beneath the Red Sea. When traced back, the design of the wheel was identical to the chariots used in Egypt at around the time Moses' parting of the Red Sea occurred!

God has been so gracious as to provide solid, irrefutable evidence to believers and non-believers alike.

Atheist statement number 3 is therefore false.

Seeker of Truth: Why Atheism Is Wrong

Still, nothing definitive. Which is why I don't see how one can say there is or is no divine being.

LMAO, my head hurts after digging halfway through that bullshit.

Fallacies abound, two for the price of one!

 

[Duke]

Facts or reasons that God doesn't exist. Start listing them.

You do understand the nonsensical nature of this question, yes?

 

[dilla]

You do understand the nonsensical nature of this question, yes?

You can't prove he does or he does not. I don't see how extremists from either side can say he does or does not. I'm taking sides here. I'm pointing out what I think are contradictory ideas.

"You can't prove God exists. Religion makes you delusional."

I'm pretty sure that goes for both parties there.

 

[Pittsey]

I think I am done with religious threads on here.

I think a belief in a god that created us in his image, is bordering on lunacy. If by god you mean Science, and the strength of life force... Then I agree. If you are talking about a "thing" with it's on concious thought... I am not with you.

 

[Duke]

You can't prove he does or he does not. I don't see how extremists from either side can say he does or does not. I'm taking sides here. I'm pointing out what I think are contradictory ideas.

"You can't prove God exists. Religion makes you delusional."

I'm pretty sure that goes for both parties there.

I don't see how extremists in ANYTHING come to their ideas, let alone on this topic.

What are you arguing? What point are you making here?

Do you consider the anti-God club here on SH "extremist atheist"?

 

[Jokerman]

You can't prove he does or he does not. I don't see how extremists from either side can say he does or does not. I'm taking sides here. I'm pointing out what I think are contradictory ideas.

It's not on those who don't believe to disprove something there's no proof of. You can't disprove any amount of made-up-on-the-spot things. Does that mean there's an equal chance they do exist as don't? No. The burden of proof is on the believer. And until they come up with something, the most extreme form of disbelief is warranted.

 

[dilla]

I think I am done with religious threads on here.

I think a belief in a god that created us in his image, is bordering on lunacy. If by god you mean Science, and the strength of life force... Then I agree. If you are talking about a "thing" with it's on concious thought... I am not with you.

I agree with you. But it just seems the religion vs. science debate is really just Christianity vs. science. I realize it is the largest religion in the world, but we really don't go into depth on other religions. So if this is a "Fuck Christians" debate, I still won't take part in it but at the same time I don't know the ins and outs of Christianity. But I know that no one on here could answer questions we have about a religion the way someone of that religion would with their first-hand knowledge of it all. And that's why I think there are a lot of generalizations in this thread and a lot of the anger towards atheists and believers is because each member has had a bad experience with someone with the opposing viewpoints.

 

[dilla]

It's not on those who don't believe to disprove something there's no proof of. You can't disprove any amount of made-up-on-the-spot things. Does that mean there's an equal chance they do exist as don't? No. The burden of proof is on the believer. And until they come up with something, the most extreme form of disbelief is warranted.

What if a Believer believes in God but also in freedom of speech and thought and doesn't impose his views upon other Believers and non-Believers? It's hard to fathom because no atheist on the internet that I've ever seen has resorted to believing the same idea. That if someone believes in God, fine, just don't impose your beliefs on me. It's the opposite, and it turns into proving the other person wrong and getting them to feel guilty for being a believer and to get them to become atheist. It's called intolerance, and it's on the behalf of the atheist's part and is laughable when the argument for being atheist has religious intolerance on behalf of believers as the main reason.

 

[Jokerman]

^what's that got to do with anything I said or the topic itself?

 

[dilla]

^what's that got to do with anything I said or the topic itself?

You're saying the role of a Believer is to prove that God exists. What if he doesn't care what others believe, but wants to believe and practice his religion to himself? What if he feels religion helps him in his life? Does he still have to prove it to a non-Believer? Because we have people that think that Believers that keep to themselves are "insane" and "delusional." And I don't think that's right.

 

[Jokerman]

No, he doesn't have to prove it to a non-believer, but he then shouldn't expect us to respect his belief. Respect him but not his belief.