Here’s how far-right Christians incited stochastic terrorism at a Colorado Springs PP

Both of unabomber's parents were devout atheists and raised him to be an atheist.

"Ted and David's parents, Wanda and Theodore R. Kaczynski, were atheists, working-class intellectuals who valued education and dearly wanted their sons to succeed on a higher plane." ('I Don't Want To Live Long: Ted Kaczynski,' by Stephen J. Dubner Monday, Oct. 18, 1999, Time.)

Religion is specifically mentioned in his manifesto.

Religion, nowadays either is used as cheap and transparent support for narrow, short-sighted selfishness (some conservatives use it this way), or even is cynically exploited to make easy money (by many evangelists), or has degenerated into crude irrationalism (fundamentalist protestant sects, 'cults'), or is simply stagnant (Catholicism, main-line Protestantism)." (Ted Kaczynski, Manifesto, note 30, Paragraph 184).
www.washingtonpost.com...

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

1. Was he an atheist? Did he claim atheism? Was he acting in the name of atheism? Was he demanding that people become atheists or he'd send them a bomb?

2 . I don't disagree with what he said about religion. Does that make me an atheist terrorist too?

Along with being insane, Kaczynski was also a mathematical genius.

Can you show that the fact that he didn't like religion per se motivated his actions?

a reply to: Evil_Santa

I've read the Unibomber's Manifesto. Cite your specific if they're so clear in your mind.

You doubt it? Well, that must prove it then. (Could it be you're experiencing a bit of confiramtion bias here?)

You're now entering the realm of pure make-believe. You will not see that I have ever said anything even faintly resembling "atheists are free from irrational actions" and in fact, I doubt you'll find many examples of me talking about anything other than a generic definition of what atheism is (in the face of constant ignorance) and isn't. I don't presume to speak generically on behalf of "atheists" ... because they're all kinds of different people, with all kinds of hangups beliefs problems, etc.

So, quote me ... or I'd actually appreciate an apology for your overt misrepresentation of my position.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

1. Was he an atheist? Did he claim atheism? Was he acting in the name of atheism? Was he demanding that people become atheists or he'd send them a bomb?

2 . I don't disagree with what he said about religion. Does that make me an atheist terrorist too?

If you state so in your manifesto as part of the reasoning for your terrorist act, then yes that would make you an atheist terrorist too.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Are you really claiming that Kaczynski was bombing based on his negative attitude toward religion?

That's not why he said he was doing it. He was very clear about what he hoped to achieve.

What evidence do you have that his targets were influenced by his attitude toward religion?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

what i load of crap
i call it free speech

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: ~Lucidity

what i load of crap
i call it free speech

I know you're addressing OP but ... uh ... Dear's shooting spree was free speech?

Interesting take.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok. If his motive is so clear to you then state it.

He had a general disdain for humanity and religious people in particular as clearly stated in his manifesto.

So yes, his atheist beliefs were a big part of it.

"I believe in nothing," Kaczynski wrote in the journals released last week by federal prosecutors. "I don't even believe in the cult of nature-worshipers or wilderness-worshipers." Of his killings, Kaczynski wrote: "My motive for doing what I am going to do is simply personal revenge."
www.washingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: ~Lucidity

what i load of crap
i call it free speech

I know you're addressing OP but ... uh ... Dear's shooting spree was free speech?

Interesting take.

I am pretty sure you are being deliberately obtuse but they are clearly referring to discussion of planned parenthood distributing body parts being free speech.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Yes, I'll be glad to repeat myself:

Kaczynski sent a letter to The New York Times on April 24, 1995 and promised "to desist from terrorism" if the Times or the Washington Post published his manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future (also called the "Unabomber Manifesto"), in which he argued that his bombings were extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom necessitated by modern technologies.

Source

You haven't proven he was an atheist, merely that he didn't care for religion. Many people don't care for religion; that doesn't make them either atheists or terrorists.

You haven't shown that he claimed he was promoting atheism, nor that he attacked religious targets, nor that the targets he did attack were based on religious status.

Your claims are empty of evidence. Next?

a reply to: Gryphon66

"I believe in nothing" pretty much sums up his atheistic world view.

The black church shooter never stated "I am a racist" in his manifesto. Do you believe that is proof he was not a racist?

a reply to: Gryphon66

You haven't outwardly said those things, but you seem to illude to the idea that atheists are free from stochastic terrorism with this statement: "It is ironic that a political group that focuses on "personal responsibility" is so willfully blind to the realities that their brand of political rhetoric creates"

You never said atheists are free of making irrational decisions, but your position is one that refuses to acknowledging that both sides engage in what could be considered stochastic terrorism.

1. A public figure with access to the airwaves or pulpit demonizes a person or group of persons.

2. With repetition, the targeted person or group is gradually dehumanized, depicted as loathsome and dangerous—arousing a combustible combination of fear and moral disgust.

3. Violent images and metaphors, jokes about violence, analogies to past “purges” against reviled groups, use of righteous religious language—all of these typically stop just short of an explicit call to arms.

4 When violence erupts, the public figures who have incited the violence condemn it—claiming no one could possibly have foreseen the “tragedy.”

All-in-all, this actually is a term that i've only been introduced to tonight and while it is being used as a buzzword to describe the recent attacks on PP, the above process can easily be applied to other things that are happening. #killallmen for instance.

amazing, here we have an op that reveals a strategy that the ptb have been using to pull the puppet strings whichever way they want really, for whatever agenda that they wish to promote since probably farther back than nazi germany.
control the media, have them twist a few lies in with a few half truths, and get it out to the people over and over again, have a few seemingly ordinary people carry that message over and over again, and soon you will have an army of people carrying that message for you...heck you can even convince the population that the jews are sacrificing their babies on their alters! by the time you are ready to round up those nasty baby sacrificing jews, only a small portion of the population will speak out or try to help them. another portion might want to but will be too afraid to because well, you are either with us, or against us. and probably close to half won't because they will know that they are kind of complicit in the whole thing by passing the rumors and lies on.

The idea that the jews were sacrificing the christian babies is not something I made up, it was actually something that people believed years before hitler came to power. how many today actually believe that any of the jews that died in those concentration camps ever sacrificed any baby to their jewish god?

I gave up my tv years ago, I rely on the internet to obtain news now, but one of the reasons my tv sits unused, not cable connected to it was that the only thing that I would watch on it was news and I found it to be 90% bs, emotional garbage designed to get me to feel a certain way about a person or group of people, and most of the other 10% was fluff about people who really didn't have any news value whatsoever. The media companies are all owned by probably less than a dozen corporate entities, they control them as it suits them. And, if they want violence on the streets they sure the heck know how to get it. After all, an american police state is big money for some of them or their buddies!

Instead of being so danged defensive, maybe we should really start considering just why they want a violent populace?

a reply to: dawnstar

Yep.

When my sisters and I were kids, our family had two pets...a dog and a cat. They got along for the most part, usually snuggling up together at night to keep warm, once in a while fighting over the same toy.

But lock them in a room and throw a piece of baloney on the floor (whole other story...psycho sister and so on) and they went at it to the point of blood, and dad had to run into the room and toss a sheet over them to calm them down.

I don't know what made me think of that. Maybe unplugging the TV is what more people need to do. I did mine in 2009 and only turn it on when something extreme is happening, but then can only take so much and have to pull the plug again.

Control. It's definitely about control. And we are all susceptible to one degree or another. And we're the only ones who can neutralize the effects of psychos penning us in and throwing baloney at us.

a reply to: Evil_Santa

I "seem to allude to the idea?" Wow.

Let's go with what I actually say and claim, shall we? Rather than the mind-reading act you're alleging to perform.

For example, I haven't "claimed atheists are free from stochastic terrorism" I've said there have no terrorists for atheism .. because there haven't been.

I also didn't say that "atheists are free of making irrational decisions" and yet, rather than apologizing for misrepresenting me, you go on to claim something else that I haven't said.

You seem desperate to prove a point I haven't made or claimed. Desperate enough to misrepresent and twist what others say. I think we're done.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Gryphon66

"I believe in nothing" pretty much sums up his atheistic world view.

The black church shooter never stated "I am a racist" in his manifesto. Do you believe that is proof he was not a racist?

That's not atheism, that's nihilism. So still no proof.

Have I ever claimed Dylan Roof was racist? You've crossed over into the ridiculous.

You're desperate to prove your point rather than look at the facts; you and I are done as well.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Tim McVeigh was an agnostic which is pretty damn close to an atheist.

In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would "improvise, adapt and overcome", if it turned out there was an afterlife. "If I'm going to hell," he wrote, "I'm gonna have a lot of company." His body is to be cremated and his ashes scattered in a secret location.

www.theguardian.com...

That may or may not be the case. Doesn't really matter here...seems to me the premise is that anyone of any belief can be/is susceptible to a constant, targeted barrage, no matter how limited or how large their world is. It can be bombardment of information on a small scale (Westboro Baptis or a terror cell) or a large scale (the world).

originally posted by: Indigent
So x y z says something and that makes someone to kill a bunch of people. Ummm is there evidence The killer listen to x y z in the first place?

C'mon do you think the person actually has to hear it for it to be the reason for why crazy people do crazy things? It just creates an "unsafe environment " where it is allowed to happen. Sarcasm off.

What is the solution that people who promote this stochastic terrorism idea on how o deal with it? Do you want to try and jail people for their speech? If so, better be prepared to open up Pandora's box. There will be many on all sides who will fall under those parameters, jailing people for deemed "hate speech".

I don't think you really want to go there. The people proposing this idea will find that it won't only get their foes arrested, their side will be caught in the net as well.

Welcome to the new America. Oh damm, now I'm one of this anti-government types.

YOU BETTER TURN ME IN.

a reply to: pavil

You're right. Legislation probably is not the answer here. But that doesn't mean it's not a thing and isn't being used willfully and intentionally and that it isn't dangerous.

People who recognize it as a problem can only attempt to address the issue with counterbalance, which do try to do and which, for the most part is what I thought we try to do here at ATS.

a reply to: dawnstar

And the way to focus on this is by starting a purely one-sided discussion as if this only a one-sided issue?

Isn't that in an of itself a form of what the OP is claiming exists?

Ironic that the very same people straining to form this connection are the same ones who jump up an down foaming at the mouth to deny any possibility that there might be a connection between terrorism and radical Islam, not even normal Islam, but simply radical variants like those espoused by ISIS and al Qaeda.