Did the Discovery Channel Gunman Have Ties to Atheist Groups?

Thanks for the warning. Yeh they won’t let this opportunity to confuse the issues pass unexploited. Better start preparing my responses, lol.

What exactly are we saying, Hemant?

Is Atheism not a lack of belief? Are there tenants to it, that must be adhered to?

Atheism isn’t a religion. There is no position to defend here. If the religious cite “Atheism” as cause for Lee’s issues, then they have the problem of drawing a thread through a group of people that “don’t have reason to accept the existence of something”. There is no commonality in this group other than what they “don’t think”.

When you have a “god”, and that “God” has a record of making pronouncements and rules, then you have a basis to assume commonality.

The only thing that is making this a topic is our irrational need to be noticed for our lack of superstition and our ability to remain rational in the face of a confusing world.

Some of the demands on that list do make sense, though. We really don’t need to be increasing population at the rate we are, and the dominant militaristic culture also needs to go away. It’s a shame he took it that route; now, nobody is going to even listen to those arguments.

How should our response differ from the responses of the christian community when one of their whack jobs offs an abortion doctor? How can we act/speak in a way that they don’t to distance ourselves from this guy? Or can we? What do they do wrong? Just thinking out loud here…

It will be interesting to hear what people say about this, but clearly his atheism is only news because normally, those who act out violently have at least some association with a religion. Of course odds would suggest that to be true since the american population is only about 3% atheist, but even when taking that into account, it’s worth noting that more than 97% of these horrible violent crimes are committed by people who aren’t atheist which suggests that one’s lack of belief in any gods is not what makes one likely to be violent.

It’s an unfortunate truth that people will sometimes do something horrible for what they believe to be a worthwhile cause. Religion is sometimes to blame (such as cases where people attack homosexuals, burn abortion clinics or deny their child proper medical care in lieu of prayer) and there are times when there is no religious affiliation with a group or individual’s actions at all as is the case with many eco-terrorists, stalkers and serial killers. If we look at the latter group and regularly dismiss their personal religious affiliations when they have one, then we can certainly dismiss their lack of one as well.

“Lee alone is to blame. And good riddance now that he’s gone.”

…….

You should be seriously ashamed of yourself

Great. Now I’m 2 degrees of separation away from this lunatic.

I’m glad he didn’t hurt anyone.

Reading all the links, it sounds to me that environmentalists will get the blame more than anything. Not that it’s right, but that’s the feeling I got from reading all that (especially his demands).

But then, I’m not an atheist who blames all Christians whenever a Christian does something, even when they do it in the name of their religion. But yes, *some* people will say it does reflect on atheists. That’s their issue.

I also agree with what some others have said. The man obviously had mental issues. I feel sorry for him, not happy he’s dead. If you read the links, he was at one point ordered to talk to psychiatrists who (according to him) found nothing wrong with him. How sad he couldn’t find the help he needed.

What Shannon said.

It’s funny how quickly everyone is jumping to “he obviously had mental health problems” because he’s an atheist when so many jump straight to “that’s what religion does!” when it’s a Christian or someone else. It’s so sickening. People with mental health issues, regardless of their other beliefs, should be given the same regard. And religion, for all its faults, is not the same thing.

And, yes, you should be ashamed for rejoicing in his demise. I don’t think any death should be celebrated. It is all opportunity lost.

I love the double standard here…when a crime is committed, the religious views of the perpetrator are irrelevant, unless of course they’re an atheist. A Christian could murder 100 children and still be called just a murderer; whereas an atheist could kill 1 person and they’d be screaming about how it was because he was an atheist. It’s also ridiculous to say that you can be caused to do something by atheism; as someone else was saying, there are no unifying characteristics, no tenets, no doctrines.

I have not yet had a chance to write about this in any great detail, but I did comment on another blog about this yesterday. While he may have been an atheist, his view that Humans are inherently evil seem to be influenced more by Christianity. The Christian claim has always been that humans are all evil sinners right from the start, ever since Adam ate the “apple.”

While Hemant is correct that atheism is simply a lack of belief, the greater atheistic community tends to focus also on Humanistic values. This guy certainly did not share those values, not with his actions and not with his manifesto. This will probably be the subject of tomorrow’s Dangerous Talk blog.
-Staks

Have to agree that this guy obviously had serious mental health issues and despite how horrific his actions were, he ought to be pitied more than reviled, and mocked not at all.

@DangerousTalk
Stacks, he thought humans were evil because of their destruction to the environment… not for anything stemming from Christianity.

@ethanol
He had 21k in his bag when he was arrested. The amount he threw into the air is unknown.

@Hemant
Thanks for linking to my post.

Really? The man seemed willing to kill others for his demands. Yes, I’m glad the cops got him.

I totally agree. This was a point I brought up yesterday before the situation had even come to a close. The 9/11 hijackers were also obviously mentally disturbed, and no one is shows pity on them for their actions.

His mental health issues are not hypothetical and we should be sorry that they were never properly addressed, not happy that he’s gone.

Can’t we be both?

How should our response differ from the responses of the christian community when one of their whack jobs offs an abortion doctor? How can we act/speak in a way that they don’t to distance ourselves from this guy? Or can we? What do they do wrong? Just thinking out loud here…

We should respond by pointing out that Darwin never promoted violence, whereas the Bible and Koran quite explicitly demand violence from their adherents. I’ve added my $0.02 here, focusing on Darwin’s spurious influence on Lee.

@ Alex

Population growth isn’t as simple as you lay it out. Remember that if fertile, reproducing couples only replaced themselves, the would population would decline.

There is quite a bit of evidence showing that the population will peak soon, and begin a decline. Every nation that has achieved relative prosperity and security has also seen a rapid decline in births. If we want to control the world population, we need to increase the prosperity and security for all humans. When abundant food, health care, and effective birth control are available, women seem to naturally choose to have fewer children.

Ending war, overpopulation, immigration, or any of James Jay Lee’s other problems must start with education and wealth redistribution for all humans. It is the disparities between us that is the root of our problems.

Look at the population charts for Japan, Sweden, Finland and Norway. Those have been (arguably) the most stable nations considering involvement in wars, internal violence, crime, public health (they collectively have the longest average lifespans)and have a narrow distribution of wealth (the poorest and the richest are closer than in all other countries). The native population in these countries is actually declining. The only reason any of them have a positive population increase is due to immigration. I don’t think it’s a far jump to conclude that those conditions encourage people to have fewer children.

These sites have good information on how accessibility to birth control effects population:
http://www.overpopulation.org/birthcon.html

This site does a good job of showing population growth and how it relates to developing economies and developed ones.
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html

“This is why people should be able to conceal carry at work. One armed person in that building could have put a stop to that psycho.”

I agree completely with this, yet if I were armed and faced with someone with explosives strapped to his body I would be hoping two things: 1) I’ve been practising my head shots, and 2) I hope he’s not using a dead man switch.

I’m about as liberal as anyone here, but what choice did the cops have? He was pointing a gun at innocent people. Were they supposed to have Scotty beam him up to the mental hospital ship?
Apropos his religious beliefs, does anyone think the media would have mentioned the topic had the man been, say, a Methodist?
And yes, I’m a convert to concealed carry. I once believed letting law-abiding citizens carry guns would lead to fender-benders and other minor disputes escalate into shoot-outs. But most states now allow CC, and violent crime rates have gone down in every state that liberalized its carry laws. It’s counter-intuitive, but you can’t argue with statistics.

@VXbinaca

One armed person in that building could have put a stop to that psycho.

It seems to me that exactly one armed person was the cause of this whole situation. Good thing there wasn’t some other gun nut in there and the professionals were able to do their jobs.

“It seems to me that exactly one armed person was the cause of this whole situation. Good thing there wasn’t some other gun nut in there and the professionals were able to do their jobs.”

No, its a good thing he didn’t decide to shoot anyone, because the Police’s number one concern is the police. The police are(mostly) good people; but they are trained to put their safety before anything else. This is why flash grenades are used. Even though dozens upon dozens of people have died from them, they are still used. Why? Its safer for the police.

That’s obviously once the police get there. It takes 90-120 minutes to assemble a SWAT team, set up a perimeter, and devise a plan of action.

Officers on Patrol just try to generally spread out around the building and take cover behind their cars, to try and keep the guy from getting away.

Look, Police are great. They take a lot of shit, and yet they keep doing a great job.

The police are not omniscient. They are not omnipotent. They are professional police officers, but they are not soldiers. The man who shot lee? I’d be willing to bet that was the first person he shot.

You can feel however you want to about police to make yourself feel better, but you’re chances of survival will always be greater with a concealed firearm than without one. Its just like a fire extinguisher. There’s a low chance a fire will even start in your home, and still, a small chance that you’ll be able to do anything effective with a fire extinguisher, but that doesn’t keep you from having one, does it? Its a form of insurance. Its prudent to have insurance(health, homeowner’s, life, car), have safety equipment in your car(window breaking tools, airbags, etc.) and in your home(window bars, security systems, metal doors, deadbolts etc.)

And its equally prudent to have a weapon, at least in your home.

All of the things I have mentioned, you are unlikely to need(with the exception of health insurance) but it is still prudent and wise to have them.

The main difference between atheists and religious types are that for the most part, atheists are not afraid to denounce others that are crazy. Religious nuts jobs that do this same flip out scene are normally given a pass from their own.

He could not have been a true athiest. He didn’t want to save all the babies for his own dinner plate.

With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things…

James Jay Lee just happens to be the latter.

And good riddance now that he’s gone.

Personally i think that’s out of line, but you’re entitle to to your opinion.

We had a “Parent Night” at my school last night

The quote marks make me wonder what you and the other parents really got up to last night.

if fertile, reproducing couples only replaced themselves, the would population would decline

revyloution, you say that like it’s a bad thing.

ethanol said:

If we actually regret that he was not provided with treatment for a mental illness it is because we believe that he was redeemable, that the factors which caused him to do this could have been prevented through medication or some sort of psychological treatment. If we really believe this then we can’t be happy that he is now dead. Only sorry.

First off, I’m not happy he is dead. I’m happy he is no longer threatening violence on innocent people. When you become a threat to others, especially by strapping explosives to your chest and waving a gun around, the police have a responsibility to neutralize your threat, even if that means taking your life. Why? Because using lethal force prevents you from harming the 3 other innocent people. They were negotiating over the telephone for hours, and only killed him when he drew his weapon. You or I can’t know if he would have killed those 3, but killing Lee first was one way to ensure he didn’t cause anymore harm. Therefore, I am not sad.

Secondly, I find your views on “redemption” puzzling. Lee’s behavior (and everyone’s behavior) is controlled by the brain, and if some sort of neurochemical imbalance caused him to become violent – well then, that is what caused him to become violent. End of story. Treatment might have helped, but as far as we know, he never sought treatment. This is why I find the idea that society somehow failed him to be puzzling. If I have a problem regulating leptin (instead of a neurotransmitter) that results in my becoming obese (instead of violent) and eventually leads to my death, no one blames the nebulous concept of “society” for not recognizing I had a problem. Its my responsibility to seek treatment. The difference is that Lee’s problem caused him to harm other people. Obese or violent, we are still responsible for our actions.

Of course the situation would have been better if he had wound up in a hospital rather than taking hostages, but it didn’t happen that way, and that is regrettable. However, I don’t fault anyone but Lee.

This also gets to the heart of the error in your comparison to the 9/11 hijackers. For all their fanaticism, there is no evidence that the hijackers were crazy, at least not in the sense that they suffered a recognizable mental illness. This can be seen in the fact that while their ideals were bizarre and repulsive, the execution of their plan to further those ideals was coherent and logical. It is right to assume therefore that they understood the consequences of their actions and the desire to carry out these actions could not have been “fixed” through any sort of simple intervention. This is why we do not pity them.

What is it exactly about killing yourself and 3,000 civilians in order to get 72 virgins in heaven isn’t recognizable as a mental illness? Some would argue that getting the discovery channel to stop making shows about war is a far more rational request than the complete downfall of western civilization. And what leads you to believe that Lee didn’t understand the consequences of his actions? Or that some sort of “simple intervention” would have prevented those actions? Both of these terrorist acts were perpetrated by people out of touch with reality, and I don’t see much of a difference.

I can’t believe that you say “good riddance” now that he is gone. He was a facebook friend of mine who posted all the time on my wall. We shared a love of squirrels and concerns about the environment. Yes – his beliefs were extreme compared to my moderate views, but still, it’s tragic that he had to die. Please be more sensitive to those of us who connected with him, and be more careful with your words.

Lukas said:

The same problem that makes people require help often prevents people from actually seeking help.

Hmm…ok, good point. But help or no help, we are all still responsible for our actions.

re: “good riddance”

This statement disappointed me. I’m angry about what he did too, but it’s unfortunate that his mental well being wasn’t addressed before this event. A human life was taken, and arguably it could have been prevented.

“It’s not counter-intuitive if you realize the value of the deterrence factor. The more risk that a potential victim might be able to effectively stand up to them, the less likely most potential criminals are to commit a crime.”

Right! Just like gang violence. The deterrence factor and likelihood of violent and ongoing reprisals, coupled with criminals’ well-honed impulse control, have really nipped it in the bud.

Oh, wait…

When you cross that line of threatening violence with two implements that can cause serious harm or death to people, you cease to be human to me and can be put down.

So hostage negotiators are just a waste of space, huh? and there is absolutely no situation in which a good, albeit misguided/mentally ill person could conceive that violence would solve certain problems? It’s not worth attempting to talk them down? I’m not saying this is necessarily true of lee- I don’t know much about the guy- but the whole “shoot first ask questions later” attitude is ridiculous.

intelligence and thought does not mean you aren’t insane. Plenty of the criminally insane put thought into their actions.
And yes, I am aware that negotiators often just buy more time. But I think it’s worth taking the time to try and get through to someone before going in guns blazing. sometimes it works.

I don’t think I’m making my position very clear. I’m not necessarily saying that shooting him was a poor choice, or that there aren’t any situations when taking out the bad guy is the right thing to do. This is the sentance that bothered me:

When you cross that line of threatening violence with two implements that can cause serious harm or death to people, you cease to be human to me and can be put down.

I think if you are about to kill someone, you should be very conscious of the fact that he or she is human, and may have complicated justifications for their actions. I think if a negotiator feels like they could get through to someone they should have that opportunity. I don’t think threatening someone automatically means you can’t be reached and must be “put down.”
The ideal situation is for everyone to get out alive and unhurt. It may not always be possible, and I do think that the hostage’s safety should come first, but that should be the goal. Usually, the “us or them” mentality is a false dichotomy.

well yes, but so do you. I honestly can’t imagine a situation in which I would wish someone would die if it was avoidable. If there is a choice between talking someone down and shooting them, you should always talk them down. I don’t think it’s a good idea to shoot before you evaluate your available choices. However, I want to be very clear that I am not condemning the person who shot lee or anyone who has shot in self-defense (or in the defense of someone else). I’m just outlining what I think should be the proper train of thought in these situations. We are all human, and empathy and understanding are valuable traits.

Such as “you’re not allowed to be mentally ill, and if you are, shooting you is a solution that makes me happy.”

Or making shit up and putting it in my mouth?

His insanity wasn’t the problem I had with him. Taking hosties was my problem with him.

I might be able to go along with that except:

– He built a bomb. Those take lots of time to build. That takes premeditation and intention, regardless of any state of psychosis whether or not it’s his fault. I don’t accidentally build a TV-B-Gone to shut off TV’s.

– Cops would use spike strips which take out pairs of tires at a time, which don’t disrupt the center of gravity as much on the truck which going at high speeds down a freeway. Plus you have the chance of a bullet ricocheting and hurting someone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Firearms_safety

Always remember all four Firearms rules, and the fourth applies to this hypothetical situation especially. Pistol cartridges lack th, penetration, speed and stopping power to take out a tire. In fact, why shoot the tires when shooting the driver would make more sense? It’s 3 less bullets in the air. Because then the vehicle would have zero control.

-Your situation isn’t comparable to this because the person is using a vehicle and isn’t stationary.

Him being shot was right. I could understand that once the situation was known to the police that he had a bomb and gun, asking him a few times to give up, after that it’s too long to wait for everyone to come out alive.

I think the commander made the right decision in taking him out. Should have happened sooner.

I think the commander made the right decision in taking him out. Should have happened sooner.

why? I can understand saying that if he injured someone before he was shot, but he didn’t. I’d rather they ask questions first and understand the situation before shooting, assuming no one gets hurt as a result. clearly no one did.

@ Muggle and Anonymous Atheist

Hey Muggle! I said ‘decreasing population’ more as just a statement, with no positive or negative connotations. That said, there will be quite a few problems that pop up if we start declining as a species world wide. Mostly economic problems, but also environmental ones like, what would we do with all the extra housing? But that’s an entirely different discussion.

Anonymous Atheist, the 2 child per couple average isn’t just some hypothetical figure, it’s a real number in populations. The average family in the Scandinavian countries only has 2 kids, and their whole population is declining slightly every year. Japan and parts of Russia have similar statistics.