Theist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

[Dark Sonic]

In the end, it's a human issue. *welp*

 

[Natsu Shazneel]

Re: Christian terrorist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

Oh no!
That's so sad *sniff*
Why are people so bad nowadays? :NO::NO::T_T:

Because nice guys finish last.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Re: Christian terrorist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

Because nice guys finish last.

Something other nice guys would never notice!

 

[Tarkatower]

y

y he do dis

 

[Caliburn]

Not really, since theists can include Muslims or anyone who believes in God. Christian was the more accurate. It's just to prevent a religious flame war.

The person who committed the crime was also a woman, she was blond, was # years old, was born somewhere, was # cm tall and blablablablabla. All accurate, all irrelevant. On top of that both the title and the subject already clearly imply that this can't be anything else than the Christian god as only for that one the word "god" will be written with a capital G and not be preceded by an article. If this would have referred to another god it would not have been written with a capital letter, it would likely have been preceded with an article or the specific name of the god would have been clearly mentioned or it would have been preceded by an adjective clearly identifying the god like "the Jewish god" or "the Muslim god". A topic like this also can only come from a Christian country and the chance by default is high it's America as a 'minor' story like this is really not going to surface from a country that's in chaos and in other countries you can be thrown in jail for being an atheist, so that someone would be hitting a person with a stick for it would really not reach us or be buried under much more severe stories.

So adding 'Christian' let alone 'Christian terrorist' to the title it means the OC is trying to hammer severely for no reason whatsoever that there is something wrong with Christians. This entire thread is a ruse, a facade for that specific purpose as he's forcing the thread and the discussion to go into the direction he wants it to go, he is in fact abusing this story.

And that it's supposed to be accurate is also very relative as he could have said 'blond white Christian woman terrorist', implying that there is something wrong with whites, blonds, women, Christians and terrorists and in particular blond white Christian women terrorists. And in the end it's not even that accurate as is she dark blond? Platinum blond? Is she Catholic, Protestant, Westboro Baptist? This all can make a huge difference. In fact by being accurate, you can become extremely inaccurate as you're painting a distorted image of the situation. By using specific terms you automatically give the impression on people that those specific terms are what is important as otherwise you wouldn't use them and the terms you are using are not. However by using more neutral terminology a specific case can be used as an example, but at the same time leaving the door open for the whole discussion. This is not something that's unique to Christianity, on the contrary. So using theist can in fact be considered to be far more accurate, truthful and sincere as even that in this particular case it was a Christian, situations like these happen also happen within other religions.

It doesn't matter what she beat him for. The category she should be placed in is decided by her faith. So, while she is a theist, it is indeed more accurate and fitting to say Christian if she identifies as Christian. Cali changing it had nothing to do with being more fitting or accurate, but to avoid attacks on the Christian community.

No it wasn't just to avoid attacks on a specific community, it was about the integrity and sincerity of the topic and the thread. This is what the media does all the time: intentionally using specific terminology and telling only parts of the story to create certain impressions on people.

 

[-immortal-]

This is why i love religion

 

[YowYan]

No it wasn't just to avoid attacks on a specific community, it was about the integrity and sincerity of the topic and the thread. This is what the media does all the time: intentionally using specific terminology and telling only parts of the story to create certain impressions on people.

It's primarily north american media that deliberately puts muslims in a bad spotlight for private interests and blows up cases using biased news hosts. European media completely ignores the savagery that occur revolving around the migrant pandemic. Also to suit a larger agenda.

So yeah, the bolded was spot on.

 

[Punk Hazard]

The person who committed the crime was also a woman, she was blond, was # years old, was born somewhere, was # cm tall and blablablablabla. All accurate, all irrelevant.

And not comparable to describing her as a "Christian terrorist," as those adjectives are irrelevant to the story while the adjective of "Christian" is not.

So adding 'Christian' let alone 'Christian terrorist' to the title it means the OC is trying to hammer severely for no reason whatsoever that there is something wrong with Christians.This entire thread is a ruse, a facade for that specific purpose as he's forcing the thread and the discussion to go into the direction he wants it to go, he is in fact abusing this story.

Says you and your interpretation. If he were to word the thread as "Woman Beats Man for not believing in a higher being," would you then jump to the conclusion that the OP is trying to drive an agenda against women in the favor of men?

The title also describes the man as disabled. Perhaps he's also trying to push an anti-ableist agenda? Why not just cut out all adjectives then and go simply with "Person beats person for their belief," since description=pushing an agenda now.

And that it's supposed to be accurate is also very relative as he could have said 'blond white Christian woman terrorist', implying that there is something wrong with whites, blonds, women,

This is an incredibly faulty premise. Like I said above, we're taking being descriptive as pushing an agenda now? So unless he's super vague, he's automatically implying that any descriptions he uses towards the assailant is a negative category? That line of thinking is very naive.

By using specific terms you automatically give the impression on people that those specific terms are what is important as otherwise you wouldn't use them and the terms you are using are not.

Important? No. Relevant? Yes. If the woman is indeed a Christian, then that is relevant to the story, as the beating was caused by religious faith and this is her faith. It is not Macho's job to go "Just because she's a Christian, this does not mean all Christian's act this way." It is the reader's job to not be so ignorant that they assume a Christian woman beating a man means all Christians act this way. If you(general term, not you, Caliburn, specifically) read this and thought to yourself "I bet all Christians think this way," the problem is you, not the headline of the article.

No it wasn't just to avoid attacks on a specific community, it was about the integrity and sincerity of the topic and the thread. This is what the media does all the time: intentionally using specific terminology and telling only parts of the story to create certain impressions on people.

So because you're against the media using parts of the story rather than the full picture to distort the image, you crop out a relevant part of the picture, thus not using the full picture? How is it insincere to call a Christian woman a Christian woman in a story where her religious faith is quintessential to the story itself?

 

[Scooby Doo]

Important? No. Relevant? Yes. If the woman is indeed a Christian, then that is relevant to the story, as the beating was caused by religious faith and this is her faith. It is not Macho's job to go "Just because she's a Christian, this does not mean all Christian's act this way." It is the reader's job to not be so ignorant that they assume a Christian woman beating a man means all Christians act this way. If you(general term, not you, Caliburn, specifically) read this and thought to yourself "I bet all Christians think this way," the problem is you, not the headline of the article.



So because you're against the media using parts of the story rather than the full picture to distort the image, you crop out a relevant part of the picture, thus not using the full picture? How is it insincere to call a Christian woman a Christian woman in a story where her religious faith is quintessential to the story itself?

IF the woman is indeed a Christian...which, if Macho had actually watched the video he posted, he would know it wasn't specified.

Then there is the faulty evaluation of this crime as 'terrorism'.

Anyway, you say it's her specific faith that is relevant, not why she beat the man up. I don't think so, because, whether it's a hate crime or a terroristic act, it's a hate crime because the man belongs to the group of atheists, not because the woman belongs to a religious group, and if it's terrorism, it's terrorism because she had political/religious motives (as per Macho's own definition), so either case what matters is why she did this, not who she is.

Example: I'm a muslim, but if tomorrow I blow up my uni coz I don't wanna take the exam, then techincally you won't be incorrect in making a headline reading 'muslim idiot blew up his school', but the act has nothing to do with my religion. If I blew up the school because I demand free education for everyone, it will be categorized as terrorism because of my political motivation, not my religious identity.

Intent. It's important in penal law. Often you can distinguish between crimes based on the intent, and it's fallacious to infer the intent based on one's identity. Whether someone killing another person is unintended murder or intended assault resulting in death, is decided by the intent of the criminal agent, inferred by the circumstances of the crime. It's irrelevant if said person is male, female, Christrian or atheist.

Now, she beat up the man for being an atheist. She could have been an agnostic, a deist, or simply an idiot...etc. What matters in categorizing this as a hate crime (or a terroristic act), is that she beat the man for being an atheist, not because specifically she was a Christian -which we don't even know for sure-, notwithstanding, again, that technically ofc you're not incorrect in saying she was a Christian IF and only she was indeed a Christian, but that's not by which you categorize a crime. Even 'theist' is a superfluous adjective in identifying this as a hate crime/terroristic act. Further instance: if someone beats up an Afro-American guy, for being black, it's a hate crime even if we don't know whether the assailant was white, hispanic, or a black himself/herself. If it turns out it was a white male, it won't change the categorization of this crime.

Other than that, you are somewhat right that in the end it'd be stupid to make a title saying 'person attacked person', but it's just as stupdi to make a thread about Christian terrorism when in fact her religion was not specified, but her motive was that the man did not believe in God,hence this being a hate crime as per US laws, not terrorism as the title suggests.

 

[chopstickchakra]

Not really, since theists can include Muslims or anyone who believes in God. Christian was the more accurate. It's just to prevent a religious flame war.

Just because someone calls themselves a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu etc., if they live their life actively ignoring and conflicting with the ideals of said religion then they are no more a practitioner of that faith as a man who eats vegetables on occasion is a vegetarian.

Also to the other topic of misusing words, the liberal use of the word terrorism here is much akin to the issue of the liberal use of the word racist. Many people continually use these words incorrectly primarily to elicit emotional responses.

 

[chopstickchakra]

That's the difference between atheists and people of a religion. Atheists do not have a systematically indoctrinated sense of pride and duty so they do not have a reason to get hostile or offended in any way when some disagrees or trashes the views of an atheist. They don't identify themselves with an ideology. It is simply the lack thereof.

And yet oddly so many of them do. Time and time again I've seen Atheists begin tirade after tirade on people who never bothered to talk to them simply because they heard them mentioning Religion or a belief. Most of the time you don't even have to bother saying anything about Atheist or Atheism specifically to incur their "wrath" simply mentioning anything remotely religious brings out the vitriol of a large percentage of Atheist online. Mention you believe in a God of some kind and watch out because quicker than you know you'll have between 10-20 people replying about how you're a dumb gullible rube who's forcing their religion onto people(The irony of them trying to push their "non-religion" onto others through intimidation and mocking, lost on them)

 

[Punk Hazard]

Just because someone calls themselves a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu etc., if they live their life actively ignoring and conflicting with the ideals of said religion then they are no more a practitioner of that faith as a man who eats vegetables on occasion is a vegetarian.

Also to the other topic of misusing words, the liberal use of the word terrorism here is much akin to the issue of the liberal use of the word racist. Many people continually use these words incorrectly primarily to elicit emotional responses.

Meh, a Christian is anyone who believes in Jesus Christ and his teachings. You don't have to follow them to necessarily be a Christian, as Christianity is primarily a belief system.

Then there is the faulty evaluation of this crime as 'terrorism'.

Never disagreed with this.

Anyway, you say it's her specific faith that is relevant, not why she beat the man up.

No I did not.

Example: I'm a muslim, but if tomorrow I blow up my uni coz I don't wanna take the exam, then techincally you won't be incorrect in making a headline reading 'muslim idiot blew up his school', but the act has nothing to do with my religion. If I blew up the school because I demand free education for everyone, it will be categorized as terrorism because of my political motivation, not my religious identity.

I'd be inclined to agree with this if the situations were the same as this one, but it is not. In those cases, your religion is irrelevant to the crime committed. In this situation, it is not.

Intent. It's important in penal law. Often you can distinguish between crimes based on the intent, and it's fallacious to infer the intent based on one's identity. Whether someone killing another person is unintended murder or intended assault resulting in death, is decided by the intent of the criminal agent, inferred by the circumstances of the crime. It's irrelevant if said person is male, female, Christrian or atheist.

Now, she beat up the man for being an atheist. She could have been an agnostic, a deist, or simply an idiot...etc. What matters in categorizing this as a hate crime (or a terroristic act), is that she beat the man for being an atheist, not because specifically she was a Christian -which we don't even know for sure-, notwithstanding, again, that technically ofc you're not incorrect in saying she was a Christian IF and only she was indeed a Christian, but that's not by which you categorize a crime. Even 'theist' is a superfluous adjective in identifying this as a hate crime/terroristic act. Further instance: if someone beats up an Afro-American guy, for being black, it's a hate crime even if we don't know whether the assailant was white, hispanic, or a black himself/herself. If it turns out it was a white male, it won't change the categorization of this crime.

Other than that, you are somewhat right that in the end it'd be stupid to make a title saying 'person attacked person', but it's just as stupdi to make a thread about Christian terrorism when in fact her religion was not specified, but her motive was that the man did not believe in God,hence this being a hate crime as per US laws, not terrorism as the title suggests.

It can actually be argued it's her radicalized beliefs that led to this beating. You can't say she would have done the same if her religion was different or if she had none when her religion is, in all probability the main reason this happened, along with the man being atheist.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Never disagreed with this.

Okay. Just saying that Macho apparently didn't do his job xd

No I did not.

So I misunderstood this? :

It doesn't matter what she beat him for. The category she should be placed in is decided by her faith. So, while she is a theist, it is indeed more accurate and fitting to say Christian if she identifies as Christian. Cali changing it had nothing to do with being more fitting or accurate, but to avoid attacks on the Christian community.

Or maybe we are just arguing from different perspectives? Because I'm talking from the aspect of criminal categorization, to which her faith is irrelevant.

I'd be inclined to agree with this if the situations were the same as this one, but it is not. In those cases, your religion is irrelevant to the crime committed. In this situation, it is not.

My argument was that to say it was a hate crime or a terroristic act, you don't have to know her religion. Also, religion can be used simply in the sense of believing in God, in which case using the adjective theist is correct, if one insists on this being relevant. But again, what matters from the aspect of the crime, is what group the man belonged in. Not which group the assailant belonged in.

If let's say someone beat up a Christian for believing in Jesus=God, it's irrelevant what the assailant himself/herself believed in: whether he/she is a jew, muslim, hindu or buddhist, or even a non-trinitarian Christian. Unless you are suggesting that his/her belief is the cause of his/her actions, but I'm quite sure that for example buddhism does not teach you to beat people up.

It can actually be argued it's her radicalized beliefs that led to this beating. You can't say she would have done the same if her religion was different or if she had none when her religion is, in all probability the main reason this happened, along with the man being atheist.

And yet I actually said right in the above paragraph that yes, people of a different denomination might have done the same, as sometimes such hate crimes do happen, committed by religious persons of all kinds of faith.

The reason this happened was that the man didn't believe in God (or in a god, am lazy to rewatch the video again for that minor detail).

 

[YowYan]

And yet oddly so many of them do. Time and time again I've seen Atheists begin tirade after tirade on people who never bothered to talk to them simply because they heard them mentioning Religion or a belief. Most of the time you don't even have to bother saying anything about Atheist or Atheism specifically to incur their "wrath" simply mentioning anything remotely religious brings out the vitriol of a large percentage of Atheist online. Mention you believe in a God of some kind and watch out because quicker than you know you'll have between 10-20 people replying about how you're a dumb gullible rube who's forcing their religion onto people(The irony of them trying to push their "non-religion" onto others through intimidation and mocking, lost on them)

You mean they verbally show their dissent and mock people of faith? Yes, that is common. They do so because people of faith keep talking as if they KNOW but in reality they have no argument whatsoever. That is why the mockery is so rampant.
Was I talking about mere 'mocking'? No. I was talking about the hostility that comes with a delusional sense of pride when one identifies themselves with a religion so your point is invalid.

Mocking is not being hostile.

 

[Illuminater]

Why are we arguing this? Everyone knows that religion is false and bad for the human race and the woman should go to prison for what she did.

 

[Scooby Doo]

That's the difference between atheists and people of a religion. Atheists do not have a systematically indoctrinated sense of pride and duty so they do not have a reason to get hostile or offended in any way when some disagrees or trashes the views of an atheist. They don't identify themselves with an ideology. It is simply the lack thereof.

You must be registered for see links

:

Simple Definition of ideology

: the set of ideas and beliefs of a group or political party

Full Definition of ideology


2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture

You must be registered for see links

:

2. (Philosophy) the set of beliefs by which a group or society orders reality so as to render it intelligible

You must be registered for see links

:

Ideology, in the Althusserian sense, is "the imaginary relation to the real conditions of existence". It can be described as a set of conscious and unconscious ideas which make up one's beliefs, goals, expectations, and motivations.

You must be registered for see links

:


Simple Definition of belief

: a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true

: a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable

: a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone


Full Definition of belief



3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

You must be registered for see links

:

Definition of atheism


2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

____________
Apparently, atheism can be understood as an ideology.

You mean they verbally show their dissent and mock people of faith? Yes, that is common. They do so because people of faith keep talking as if they KNOW but in reality they have no argument whatsoever. That is why the mockery is so rampant.
Was I talking about mere 'mocking'? No. I was talking about the hostility that comes with a delusional sense of pride when one identifies themselves with a religion so your point is invalid.

Mocking is not being hostile.

The guy was talking about cases when religious people didn't even talk about knowing anything, yet they were mocked for the mere fact of being religious.

In reality, saying that a group has no argument whatsoever, proves nothing but that you don't know what an argument is.

You must be registered for see links

:


Simple Definition of argument


: a statement or series of statements for or against something

: a discussion in which people express different opinions about something

Full Definition of argument

1 obsolete : an outward sign : indication

2
a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal
b : discourse intended to persuade

3
a : the act or process of arguing : argumentation
b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion

_______
You seem to be a rather prideful person, thinking you are better for not being religious.

Anyway, have you heard about the Chapel Hill shootings, for one? Yup, that was an atheist killing religious people.

_______

You must be registered for see links

Simple Definition of hostile


: not friendly : having or showing unfriendly feelings

: unpleasant or harsh

You must be registered for see links

Simple Definition of mock


: to laugh at or make fun of (someone or something) especially by copying an action or a way of behaving or speaking

: to criticize and laugh at (someone or something) for being bad, worthless, or unimportant

Full Definition of mock


1
: to treat with contempt or ridicule

_____
Seems to me that mocking is a rather unfriendly and unpleasant/harsh way of expressing your thoughts.

Why are we arguing this? Everyone knows that religion is false and bad for the human race and the woman should go to prison for what she did.

Not everyone. But i'm glad you are speaking in the name of mankind, when were you appointed as our representative?

I don't think anyone would disagree that what this woman did, was bad, and should be punished.

 

[YowYan]

You must be registered for see links

:

Simple Definition of ideology

: the set of ideas and beliefs of a group or political party

Full Definition of ideology


2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture

You must be registered for see links

:

2. (Philosophy) the set of beliefs by which a group or society orders reality so as to render it intelligible

You must be registered for see links

:

Ideology, in the Althusserian sense, is "the imaginary relation to the real conditions of existence". It can be described as a set of conscious and unconscious ideas which make up one's beliefs, goals, expectations, and motivations.

You must be registered for see links

:


Simple Definition of belief

: a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true

: a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable

: a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone


Full Definition of belief



3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

You must be registered for see links

:

Definition of atheism


2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

____________
Apparently, atheism can be understood as an ideology.




The guy was talking about cases when religious people didn't even talk about knowing anything, yet they were mocked for the mere fact of being religious.

In reality, saying that a group has no argument whatsoever, proves nothing but that you don't know what an argument is.

You must be registered for see links

:


Simple Definition of argument


: a statement or series of statements for or against something

: a discussion in which people express different opinions about something

Full Definition of argument

1 obsolete : an outward sign : indication

2
a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal
b : discourse intended to persuade

3
a : the act or process of arguing : argumentation
b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion

_______
You seem to be a rather prideful person, thinking you are better for not being religious.

Anyway, have you heard about the Chapel Hill shootings, for one? Yup, that was an atheist killing religious people.

_______

You must be registered for see links

Simple Definition of hostile


: not friendly : having or showing unfriendly feelings

: unpleasant or harsh

You must be registered for see links

Simple Definition of mock


: to laugh at or make fun of (someone or something) especially by copying an action or a way of behaving or speaking

: to criticize and laugh at (someone or something) for being bad, worthless, or unimportant

Full Definition of mock


1
: to treat with contempt or ridicule

_____
Seems to me that mocking is a rather unfriendly and unpleasant/harsh way of expressing your thoughts.







Not everyone. But i'm glad you are speaking in the name of mankind, when were you appointed as our representative?

I don't think anyone would disagree that what this woman did, was bad, and should be punished.

Did not read any of it but I'm guessing you failed to comprehend the difference between hostility and mockery. Begone, Balazs.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Did not read any of it but I'm guessing you failed to comprehend the difference between hostility and mockery. Begone, Balazs.

If you are not willing to read what the dictionairies say...if you are not willing to educate yourself...you are not in the position to talk about others' delusional sense of pride.

I posted definitions. I posted the definition of mocking and hostile. Dictionairies disagree with you. I guess you failed to comprehend that you are not infallible.

Anyway, I'm not gonna be gone, Jozef

You seem rather offended tho.

You must be registered for see links

1 To result in displeasure

You must be registered for see links

Simple Definition of displeasure


: a feeling of unhappiness or annoyance

You must be registered for see links

1
: to disturb or irritate especially by repeated acts

____
Apparently you don't like when I'm repeatedly correcting you. Seems like religious people are not the only ones here who get offended.

It's also funny how you are calling out others for not having an argument, when you are not even willing to listen to what they have to say.

 

[YowYan]

If you are not willing to read what the dictionairies say...if you are not willing to educate yourself...you are not in the position to talk about others' delusional sense of pride.

I posted definitions. I posted the definition of mocking and hostile. Dictionairies disagree with you. I guess you failed to comprehend that you are not infallible.

Anyway, I'm not gonna be gone, Jozef

You seem rather offended tho.

You must be registered for see links

1 To result in displeasure

You must be registered for see links

Simple Definition of displeasure


: a feeling of unhappiness or annoyance

You must be registered for see links

1
: to disturb or irritate especially by repeated acts

____
Apparently you don't like when I'm repeatedly correcting you. Seems like religious people are not the only ones here who get offended.

It's also funny how you are calling out others for not having an argument, when you are not even willing to listen to what they have to say.

I'm not offended, I'm irritated I have to keep reminding you not to come to me with carefully crafted wallies instead of just getting straight to the point.

Here is the difference between hostility and mockery. An atheist will trash your pride with words without making you feel physically threatened. A religious nut will try to trash your face due to lack of an argument or make genuine threats. Violence against words. It's as simple as that. You don't have to quote stuff from the dictionary, it won't help your cause in the end.

 

[Scooby Doo]

I'm not offended, I'm irritated I have to keep reminding you not to come to me with carefully crafted wallies instead of just getting straight to the point.

Here is the difference between hostility and mockery. An atheist will trash your pride with words without making you feel physically threatened. A religious nut will try to trash your face due to lack of an argument or make genuine threats. Violence against words. It's as simple as that. You don't have to quote stuff from the dictionary, it won't help your cause in the end.

I posted the definition of offended. It includes displeasure. Then, the definition of displeasure includes annoyance, and annoyance includes irritation. So yes, you are offended according to the dictionary, as per your own admittance. Keep being in denial, though.

You also don't seem to understand the meaning of wallie. It means a wall of text. A wall of text is a long essay with no paragraphs, no punctuation, and no proper grammar.

You must be registered for see links

My posts are divided into paragraphs, I use proper punctuation and grammar.

The difference between hostile and mocking is such that I linked you from dictionairies. Both include causing unpleasant feelings.

You can keep being in denial and say that dictionaries don't help my case, but then what does? Why exactly should I take you as an authority on English more than a dictionary? Because you are qualified to form your opinions? Who said so again? You? Who are you again?

You saying that an atheist will do this and a religious nut will do that proves nothing. I say dinosaurs fly and pigs sing. Wait, no.