Sutherland Springs Killer: When Atheists Don't Fear God

[daimoniotica]

Plenty of you atheists out there who repeat how 'stupid' believers are: it would be nice if you'd all visit the nearest police station and register your hate so the rest of us can decide how to control it for you.

'SHE'S A BAD B***H' Texas church shooting – Facebook rants of ‘creepy’ gunman Devin Kelley, 26, who preached about atheism before killing 26 churchgoers
Devin Kelley, 26, who carried out the worst mass shooting in Texas' history, ranted on Facebook about churchgoers being 'stupid'

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4851812/texas-church-shooting-boy-family-murdered-devin-kelley-26/

 

[someoneyouknow]

Plenty of you atheists out there who repeat how 'stupid' believers are: it would be nice if you'd all visit the nearest police station and register your hate so the rest of us can decide how to control it for you.

Fake news. Kelley was not an atheist. It's the Sun for crying out loud.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/06/freedomjunkshuncom/no-texas-church-shooter-was-not-dnc-payroll-s-fake/

But the fake news article’s claim that atheism motivated the attack was undercut by law enforcement officials who said religion was not a factor, and that the shooting appeared to stem from a "domestic situation."

"There was a domestic situation going on with this family. The suspect's mother-in-law attended this church. We know that she had received threatening texts from him," Freeman Martin of the Texas Department of Public Safety told reporters in a Nov. 6 press conference. Martin added the shooting "wasn't over religious beliefs."​

Congrats about proving the point about the uneducated.

 

[dontbackdown]

Fake news. Kelley was not an atheist. It's the Sun for crying out loud.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/06/freedomjunkshuncom/no-texas-church-shooter-was-not-dnc-payroll-s-fake/

But the fake news article’s claim that atheism motivated the attack was undercut by law enforcement officials who said religion was not a factor, and that the shooting appeared to stem from a "domestic situation."

"There was a domestic situation going on with this family. The suspect's mother-in-law attended this church. We know that she had received threatening texts from him," Freeman Martin of the Texas Department of Public Safety told reporters in a Nov. 6 press conference. Martin added the shooting "wasn't over religious beliefs."​

Congrats about proving the point about the uneducated.

Pretty much. That and the fact that the sob had a laundry list of violent mental disorders.

 

[daimoniotica]

Fake news. Kelley was not an atheist. It's the Sun for crying out loud.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/06/freedomjunkshuncom/no-texas-church-shooter-was-not-dnc-payroll-s-fake/

But the fake news article’s claim that atheism motivated the attack was undercut by law enforcement officials who said religion was not a factor, and that the shooting appeared to stem from a "domestic situation."

"There was a domestic situation going on with this family. The suspect's mother-in-law attended this church. We know that she had received threatening texts from him," Freeman Martin of the Texas Department of Public Safety told reporters in a Nov. 6 press conference. Martin added the shooting "wasn't over religious beliefs."​

Congrats about proving the point about the uneducated.

The killer was a cold-blooded atheist. Quit stalling and go register your own hate with the police so we know why when you flip-out, too.

 

[igottapussy]

Even if he was an atheist, they've got a long way to go to catch up with all the millions of murders committed in the name of religion in the history of the world.

 

[daimoniotica]

Even if he was an atheist, they've got a long way to go to catch up with all the millions of murders committed in the name of religion in the history of the world.

He was an atheist and obviously hated God just as much as those murdering religionists hated the Nazarene, too.

 

[Hypoxia]

Which deity should he have feared? God is a job title, not a proper name. Lots of gods around. I usually fear Crom, Kali, Cthulhu, and Maximón, although the latter is fairly easily bribed.

Churches (and temples, mosques, etc) have long been targeted for terror and hate attacks. What good does belief do for believers who've been slaughtered? Sure, you might say, Lord {JHWH} moves in mysterious ways. Mysterious ways that promote or at least accept murder, mayhem, rape, torture, all the usual atrocities.

Lord {JHWH} was pretty useless here. A potent deity could erect a protective force-field around their worshipers. All those children! Infants! Lord {JHWH} sure harvested a lot of souls. Maybe a different deity would help more.

 

[daimoniotica]

God-fearing, white hat ex-NRA instructor who put God-hating, black hat atheist Sutherland Springs killer down:

VIDEO: ‘My God Protected Me,’ Says Man Who Shot Texas Church Killer
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/11/06/video-god-protected-says-man-shot-texas-killer/

 

[Hypoxia]

VIDEO: ‘My God Protected Me,’ Says Man Who Shot Texas Church Killer
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/11/06/video-god-protected-says-man-shot-texas-killer/

His god protected him but killed a couple dozen others. Sounds like not the best of gods to depend on.

 

[richard_daily]

His god protected him but killed a couple dozen others. Sounds like not the best of gods to depend on.

God has a plan.

His plan was for this (fake) athiest to murder apparently.

Sounds like a pretty disorganized god.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

The killer was a cold-blooded atheist. Quit stalling and go register your own hate with the police so we know why when you flip-out, too.

Cold-blooded atheist...?

Our Lord and Savior accepts all into His flock, whether they love Him or not.

May the Morning Star forgive your soul.

 

[chillywilly2]

He was a little prick with anger issues that didn't get along with his mother in law.

And the government didn't do their job because it should have been a bit tougher for him to get a gun.

 

[daimoniotica]

God-fearing patriot man

What did you do when the shooting started?

I ran directly to the report of gunfire.

Why?

To stop the bad guy, of course.


God-hating progressive man

What did you do whent the shooting started?

I ran home.

Why?

To make sure the women and children were safe, what else?

 

[daimoniotica]

Each and every one of us is naturally born with total free will; e.g., any one of us is naturally free/able to kill each other at any time we choose.

No man's law is powerful enough to stop/prevent that freedom - man's law can only punish what it establishes as intolerable.

God endows us all with this natural individual liberty for simply one reason: so we can freely choose to love Him as He loves us.

We either freely choose to love God, or not...

And the opposite of love is, class?

No human being with the love of God in their heart can ever kill/murder another. Thus was The Way in its first 300 years after the Nazarene's murder, before the state instituted religion as its sanction.

 

[phrodeau]

The opposite of love is indifference.

And here's a murderer with God in his heart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_J._Guiteau

 

[Hypoxia]

A magic figure in the sky made this all happen.
Oh no, the shooter was driven by Satan!
But Satan is only another tool of Lord {JHWH}.
But the Lord has a plan for us!
That plan involves murdering many children.
Why didn't the Lord deal with mother-in-law issues?

Just a note on sacred violence: The standard family consists of a father, mother, and child(ren). The Xian Holy Trinity (three gods in one!) has a father, son, and... ghost. The father obviously killed the spiritual mother and left her a ghost. Classic domestic scene.

 

[dontbackdown]

He was a little prick with anger issues that didn't get along with his mother in law.

And the government didn't do their job because it should have been a bit tougher for him to get a gun.

He was mentally deranged and it seems he had a great animosity towards children as well. The testimony from the survivors is chilling in that respect. In any rational society he would have been incarcerated in a mental institution. A series of SCOTUS decisions starting in the late 1970's have set the bar so high in what is needed to keep the likes of this asshole off the streets that it's damn near impossible to put them away until after they've done their worst.

To quote Abraham Lincoln, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." Nor was it written so as to eliminate common sense. And there in lies the problem. The second amendment is an individual freedom, that has been established by the SCOTUS. On the other hand society has the right, and the obligation, to make certain that the criminally insane do not have the means to visit harm on the law abiding. That includes preventing them from having access to firearms and in some cases making certain they are locked up in an institution for treatment until such time as it is certain that they are no longer a threat to society or themselves. It's a dilemma that we, and the courts, have brought upon ourselves. How does society protect itself from the criminally insane while not trampling on the rights of the law abiding?

 

[doowdniw]

Just because he didn't believe in hell doesn't necessarily mean he won't end up there.

 

[WoundedKnee]

I read the title of this thread four times before I realized that it wasn't Donald or Kiefer. I kept wondering how one or the other freed a killer.

 

[Hypoxia]

To quote Abraham Lincoln, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." Nor was it written so as to eliminate common sense. And there in lies the problem. The second amendment is an individual freedom, that has been established by the SCOTUS. On the other hand society has the right, and the obligation, to make certain that the criminally insane do not have the means to visit harm on the law abiding. That includes preventing them from having access to firearms and in some cases making certain they are locked up in an institution for treatment until such time as it is certain that they are no longer a threat to society or themselves. It's a dilemma that we, and the courts, have brought upon ourselves. How does society protect itself from the criminally insane while not trampling on the rights of the law abiding?

Citizens (what about non-citizens?) have a constitutional right to bear arms. Doesn't say firearms, just arms; and a well-regulated militia is mentioned but ignored. Oh well.

"The people" have a constitutional right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" from random gov't intrusions. But do I have a right to be secure from non-gov't actors? Do I have the right to walk down the street without fearing being shot?

Rights are not granted, only seized. Must we seize the right of personal safety in public? How would such seizure work? If we see someone carrying in public, will we tazer and disarm them? Will bombs level 'gun' shows and shops? Is pro-safety terrorism necessary?

 

[WoundedKnee]

Do you have the right to walk down the street without fear of being mugged? Hit by a car? Be stuck by lightening?

 

[dontbackdown]

Citizens (what about non-citizens?) have a constitutional right to bear arms. Doesn't say firearms, just arms; and a well-regulated militia is mentioned but ignored. Oh well.

"The people" have a constitutional right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" from random gov't intrusions. But do I have a right to be secure from non-gov't actors? Do I have the right to walk down the street without fearing being shot?

Rights are not granted, only seized. Must we seize the right of personal safety in public? How would such seizure work? If we see someone carrying in public, will we tazer and disarm them? Will bombs level 'gun' shows and shops? Is pro-safety terrorism necessary?

Look "barracks lawyer", everyone, including the Supreme Court, has no confusion over what "arms" means.

The rest of your crap is pretty much a mindless rant that does nothing to address the real issue.

Do you have the "right" to walk down the street without being robbed, mugged, pick pocketed, or raped? The answer is "No." No such 'right' exists. You do have the right to look after your own interests and to protect yourself from the aforementioned. And there is NO law that government can pass that will secure you from being molested by the criminal or the criminally insane, NONE. To think otherwise would put you in the same category as Linus and his security blanket. You may get a warm and fuzzy feeling, but it's hardly any protection at all.

I find it interesting, even if you don't, that the 'first responder' was an armed citizen. Who, apparently shot the asshole twice. Then pursued him to the bitter end. And while the dipshit ended up putting a bullet in his own brain it's likely that he wouldn't have lived anyway. If only that citizen could have arrived sooner.

 

[AnAmericanDarling]

Plenty of you atheists out there who repeat how 'stupid' believers are: it would be nice if you'd all visit the nearest police station and register your hate so the rest of us can decide how to control it for you.

As The Rolling Stones might say, "I Just Want to See His Face." You got any proof? And you're not supposed to dislike your opponents. What ever happened to Love Thy Brother? Or do you kind of nitpick what you choose to practice and not practice from The Bible?

 

[Hypoxia]

Do you have the "right" to walk down the street without being robbed, mugged, pick pocketed, or raped?

I mentioned none of those. I said, without being SHOT. Weapons *can* be regulated rather more effectively than can human assailants. A thug without a firearm can't shoot me. Can commit all sorts of other atrocities, yes, but can't shoot me. SHOOTING is the subject here. Quit deflecting.

I find it interesting, even if you don't, that the 'first responder' was an armed citizen.

An armed citizen... who prevented nothing except escape. The dozens of victims were already dead. If the shithead shooter hadn't been carrying, he could not have shot them. Is that hard to understand?

I think a movement will form. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE IN PUBLIC WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING SHOT. Or to use constitutional language, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons against firearms violence in public shall not be violated, and any unauthorized person carrying a firearm in public shall be incarcerated at hard labor for a period of not less than twenty years." Something like that.

That is not a right that will be granted. Rights are never granted. Rights are seized. I have a hunch a very large number of Americans will want to seize that right.

 

[dontbackdown]

I mentioned none of those. I said, without being SHOT. Weapons *can* be regulated rather more effectively than can human assailants. A thug without a firearm can't shoot me. Can commit all sorts of other atrocities, yes, but can't shoot me. SHOOTING is the subject here. Quit deflecting.

An armed citizen... who prevented nothing except escape. The dozens of victims were already dead. If the shithead shooter hadn't been carrying, he could not have shot them. Is that hard to understand?

I think a movement will form. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE IN PUBLIC WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING SHOT. Or to use constitutional language, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons against firearms violence in public shall not be violated, and any unauthorized person carrying a firearm in public shall be incarcerated at hard labor for a period of not less than twenty years." Something like that.

That is not a right that will be granted. Rights are never granted. Rights are seized. I have a hunch a very large number of Americans will want to seize that right.

"Molested" is the operative word and that includes being murdered. People used to understand that term. <sigh>

You keep saying that "rights are seized." Which in effect is saying that "might makes right." I'm wondering how you can reconcile that with an orderly society? Far too "Hitlerest" to my way of thinking. After all, he did create an orderly society even if macabre.

You really need to read Locke ("Two Treatises of Government") and von Humboldt ("The Sphere and Duties of Government" (The limits of State Action)). Or you can just read H. G. Wells "The Time Machine." For every action there is an unintended consequence and I find it odd indeed that those that are the least inclined to believe in religion, or a higher order, are the most inclined to believe they can create a Utopia here on earth with just a 'few more laws' or that waving a piece of paper in the face of an assailant will cause them to cease and desist.

Perhaps you might not of noticed but the greater the diversity of a nation, the greater the friction. And the greater the friction the more violence is common. Or to put it another way, the more homogeneous the nation, the less violence is common. So if you're one of those that buy into the notion that "diversity is good" then you better expect escalating violence.