Militant Atheist Murders Christian Because of Her Views About Marriage

Here’s a news story that has not received much attention:

The 25-year-old Daniel E. was sentenced to life in prison by a court in Freiburg on Monday for killing his Christian student flatmate last August in a crime ruled to be motivated by hate and disdain.

The 31-year-old victim from Paderborn had first met her killer when she moved into a student flatshare last summer. The young woman was an active member of her parish who wanted to later work for the church.

But Daniel E. vehemently rejected any form of religion, and twice before killing her had tried to start a fight, he told police.

On the day of the murder – just ten days after moving in together – he stormed into her room and asked her what her stance was on same-sex marriage. When she said that she rejected this kind of marriage, he stabbed her while she sat on her bed, with a knife hidden in his trouser pocket.

State prosecutors argued that she had no chance against her sole flatmate. She tried to flee via the stairwell, but there he stabbed her in the back several times and she died at the scene. The court determined that he had deliberately planned the attack on his roommate.

From another report:

The court heard that the man described the murder to police as if it were a “school trip” after being arrested.

He said the attack was motivated by his hatred of religion, which was detailed in a “manifesto” discovered on his computer by investigators, Focus reported.

Defence lawyers argued that Daniel suffered from a personality disorder and shunned contact with others, while spending time in his room playing video games.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheism, atheist news, Hate, Religion, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Militant Atheist Murders Christian Because of Her Views About Marriage

  1. Clay says:

    Obviously atrocious and tragic. Also obviously not representative of typical atheist sentiment(s) or behavior.

  2. Vy says:

    Also obviously not representative of typical atheist sentiment(s) or behavior.

    It’s not atypical either.

  3. Regual Llegna says:

    “He said the attack was motivated by his hatred of religion, which was detailed in a “manifesto” discovered on his computer by investigators, Focus reported.”

    “Defence lawyers argued that Daniel suffered from a personality disorder and shunned contact with others, while spending time in his room playing video games.”

    If he was really anti-social he will never be influenced that way by the SWJs anti-christian because their opposition to gay marriage. The only thing certain is that he pick an easy target, i bet that the victim was white apart from christian and women, and he have a hatred for “religion” (they never say what religion? is every time the monolitic usage of the word “religion”) a religon and a set of belief that he don’t have.

  4. Vy says:

    they never say what religion? is every time the monolitic usage of the word “religion”

    Too true! “Religion” has become a buzzword for Atheists and churchians alike. Much like “racist” has become a meaningless term these days.

  5. Clay says:

    Vy said: “It’s not atypical either.” That Wikipedia link about a group of militant Bolshevik atheists is hardly typical, either, kid-o. Bolshevism was tantamount to a religion (_their_ religion) to them. So this is little more than one wacked-out religious (or quasi-religious) group persecuting another. (And that, o’ course, is historically typical.) But it’s this kind of ridiculous stretching, and the implicit lumping o’ (most, anyway, supposedly) atheists, freethinkers, and secular, with wacky, fanatical Bolsheviks, that makes you not only lose credibility, but seem a bit wacky & delusional (or at least ignorant, anyway) yourself. 😉

  6. Kevin says:

    Clay,

    It is with that same amusement that we regard the New Atheist movement, which reacted to the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers by Islamic terrorists by condemning Christians for believing Christ is the son of God. Colossal stretch, there.

  7. Vy says:

    That Wikipedia link about a group of militant Bolshevik atheists is hardly typical, either, kid-o

    You really should check the definition of “Atheist” before you attempt to sideline Atheists you find “icky”. The actions of the 100% Atheistic League of Militant Godless is perfectly consistent with Atheism – the belief in the non-existence of God(s).

    But it’s this kind of ridiculous stretching, and the implicit lumping o’ (most, anyway, supposedly) atheists, freethinkers, and secular, with wacky, fanatical Bolsheviks, that makes you not only lose credibility, but seem a bit wacky & delusional (or at least ignorant, anyway) yourself.

    Take a bath, it might help you get rid of that knee-jerk need to project and string up strawmen.

  8. Vy says:

    BTW, “religion” is not a buzzword for whatever you imagine is a religion, or in this case, try to dissociate your preferred belief from.

  9. SteveK says:

    The terms militant atheist and atheist activist are synonyms

  10. mechanar says:

    when you constantly pump people full with hate then eventually someone is going to act according to this kind of speech, if new atheists really believe that all forms of religion is ten times more dangerous than the atomic bomb and is going to destroy all of humanity if its not ERADICATED than this is not only an appropriate response but the ONLY legit response.

    Of course 99.99999% of new atheist dont really believe half of the things that comes out of their mouth because they (falsely) think it wont have consequences. This man mayd be a lunatic yes and would have if the new atheist did not exist choose another vehicle for his blood lust, but the important thing about stories like this is that its a big nail in the coffin that is new atheist thinking.
    This is not some hypothetical proof that they are wrong but a physical one that if religions were to disappear from this world evil would still exist.

    this is why Religions are superior to all “Earthly” ideologies, most religions teach that evil lives in ALL people and ALL people have to do their best to fight this evil within them. The opposite of the new atheists say is true Religions do not absolve People of all responsibility political Ideologies do.

    This is what it looks like when someone thinks he has ascended from the primitiv common man. Of course there are religious fanatics who think the same way but they can be dissproven theologically and Philosophically. But in atheism there is no way to do that. or to Put it simpel if a christian a hindu a sheikh a theist a muslim (I deeply hope that i am right about the last one but I sadly have to say that I doubt it) Is doing somethin evil you can always say that he will be juged in the end but in atheism this is not possible because the concept of good and bad have disappeared alltogether.

    Everything a man like stalin has to do is to say to dissprove his atheist critics is to say that morality is just a human invention with no real meaning…. and than shoot them in the head.

    I am still waiting to this day for an explanation for how exactly this atheist utopia is supposed to work if all people on the one hand say all life is precious than deny that life has meaning. On the one hand say Ethics is as real as mathematical truths than say that In Reality there is no right and wrong. Say that all men must choose a moral life and reason but than deny that free will is real either. A society that contradicts itself cannot stand. In order to be consistent in my view that Human life is matters if have to belief that human life has meaning any other attempt to formulate an alternativ is doomed. I have to belief that truth matters because there is truth.

    there is one simpel way to disarm the whole atheist argumentation. How is your belief that human life has value any different than a religious faith?

    Ps: is it just me or does the articel kind of suggests that videogames are also responsible for his actions because if so than to me as a gamer this is annoying to hear I thought we were past this.

  11. Clay says:

    Vy, Vy, Vy, what _are_ we to do with you?! Despite your vain, desparate attempts to be (or at least appear) intellectually sophisticated, you just keep digging the delusional-ignorant hole deeper, kid. And I’m happy to oblige ya with a definition of ‘atheist’: Here ya go, knock yaself out: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist.

    Your ‘League of Militant Atheists’ (also properly translated as ‘League of Militant Godless’) were Leninists. And while it is true that atheism is consistent with the actions of this League (in particular, and the reason for your even referencing ’em in the first place: the murder of clery and devout laypersons), it’s also consistent with Buddhist loving kindness & compassion. Indeed, atheism is (more-or-less) consistent with anything but theism (wull, duh). But atheism in/of/by itself _*implies*_ NOTHING _but_ non-theism. Atheism _per se_ doesn’t imply the overall stance and actions of the Bolshevist-Leninist ‘League of Militant Atheists’; and it certainly doesn’t imply the position of going around murdering clergy and devout-religious people. But you imply (and seem to think) otherwise; and (OF COURSE) you’re wrong.

    And a religion (or quasi-religion, something that functions in way more-or-less tantamount to how a religion functions) doesn’t have to be _theistic_. Buddhism is yet again a paradigmatic example: It has no deity, no godhead. (You imply — or at least seem to (want to) imply — otherwise, i.e., that ‘religion’ is restricted to theistic, or at least quasi-theistic, ensembles-of-dogma; but yet again, you’re (or you’d be) wrong.)

    But you do seem to have a desparate hard-on, so to speak, to tar-&-feather ALL (or at least MOST) non-theists with the likes of the Leninist League of Militant Atheists. But this is, on your part, clearly (and utterly delusionally) tilting at straw windmills (if you’ll allow my that mix o’ metaphors… 😉 ) There’re very few (perhaps not quite zero, but the number is surely an utterly negligible number of) non-theists today (or ever, really, aside from the exception-that-proves-the-rule wacko Leninists you cite) that even come anywhere remotely near advocating, much less practicing (or seeking to practice, anyway), the systematic extermination (or even persecution) of theists in general or Christians in particular. Argue with ’em? Well, yeah, maybe. Even ridicule ’em? Perhaps. But seek to persecute the hell out of ’em, if not murder ’em by the bushel?! _Only_ in your fevered, utterly paranoid delusions would _that_ even be remotely conceivable.

    So it’s YOU, Vy, not me, who is “knee-jerk[edly] project[ing] and string[ing] up strawmen.” But, I’ll make a deal with ya, sport: I’ll take a shower (or bath, if you insist, though I’m more a shower guy m’self), if YOU will! Everyone into the pool! 😉

    Ciao

  12. Clay says:

    Kevin: Christian fanatics have been known to murder abortion ob-gyn docs. Virtually any religion (except for, perhaps, Jainism and Buddhism) can be construed in such as way as to breed fanaticism and fanatic violence. Which is the point (and the problem). Besides, Muslims claim their ‘God’ is identical with the deity that Christians believe in. Except that Islam gets it right: No Trinity, and the Koran updates and replaces the New Testament. Same ‘God’, though (purportedly). So what was it you were saying fanatical Muslim terrorists?! 😉

  13. Clay says:

    mechanar: You obviously don’t know the first thing about non-theism/non-supernaturalism/naturalism or secular humanism. Do some homework before spewing such stupid nonsense.

  14. TFBW says:

    @Clay:

    Virtually any religion (except for, perhaps, Jainism and Buddhism) can be construed in such as way as to breed fanaticism and fanatic violence. Which is the point (and the problem).

    So, on the one hand we have examples of religions (Jainism, Buddhism) which you consider extremely unlikely to produce violence, and on the other hand we have an example of cold-blooded murder which is grounded in anti-religious atheism. Even granted that the latter example isn’t typical, what are we to conclude? The usual New Atheist narrative is that religion is the root of all evil, more or less. It seems like we should reject that, based on the data we see here. Is that in line with what you’re saying?

  15. Clay says:

    TFBW: You obviously haven’t read or watched much Sam Harris. But whatever. Christian wackos gun-down or otherwise violently assault abortion providers. Theism, and Abrahamic theism in particular, has no rational basis (believers to the contrary notwithstanding). The Abrahamic religions are prone to (or at least amenably construable as condoning, if not encouraging) violent conversion and/or persecution & suppression of infidels. The Leninists cited are indeed the exception that proves the rule that atheists per se have no especial tendency toward violence or fanaticism; quite the contrary.

    But one can appreciate someone becoming a bit flustered when ongoingly confronted with the obtuseness of Christian apologists… 😉

  16. TFBW says:

    @Clay: You made no attempt to answer my question, but merely responded with well-worn New Atheist talking points. I’ll cut to the chase and conclude that you have nothing original to add to the conversation.

  17. Clay says:

    TFBW: Yeah, let’s cut to chase: No, as usual TFBW, you’re simply being obtuse. But to answer your (primarily intended to be rhetorical??!) question: No, that’s not in line with what I said or am saying. (1) Theism is irrational because it’s incoherent. (2) Theistic religions (especially the Abrahamic ones) are (inherently) prone to violence. (3) NON-theistic religions, such as Jainism or Buddhism, are not inherently or especially prone to violence. (4) Atheism _per se_ (as distinguished from anti-religious sentiments, apparently, in the op’s case, to a homicidal, quasi-psychotic degree) was not causally responsible for the op’s murderer’s actions. (5) Atheism, and metaphysical naturalism, have nothing in/of/by themselves to do with violence or propensity(s) toward violence. So, yet again, to ANSWER YOUR QUESTION: No, that would not be a proper or reasonable conclusion to draw. So there ya go, TFBW; ya happy now?!

  18. TFBW says:

    Okay, so now you’ve dropped the facts relevant to this case entirely, and are singing from nothing but the New Atheist hymn book. That’s one way of avoiding uncooperative data, I suppose.

  19. TFBW says:

    In any case, the question was whether we should reject the New Atheist notion that “religion is the root of all evil, more or less.” You’re saying “no”, but asserting (in direct contradiction to that answer) that non-theistic religions are “not inherently or especially prone to violence.” It seems to me like you should really be answering along the lines of, “yes, we should reject this idea that religion is the root of all evil, because it’s theism specifically that’s the problem.” Of course, to give an answer with even that much cognitive content, you’d have to get your knee-jerk reactions under control and do some actual thinking.

  20. Kevin says:

    “Theistic religions (especially the Abrahamic ones) are (inherently) prone to violence.”

    Are you saying that Christians are prone to violence?

  21. FZM says:

    That Wikipedia link about a group of militant Bolshevik atheists is hardly typical, either, kid-o. Bolshevism was tantamount to a religion (_their_ religion) to them. So this is little more than one wacked-out religious (or quasi-religious) group persecuting another.

    This raises questions about the definition of religion, if Bolshevism (with its view that religion and belief in the supernatural is harmful but baseless superstition rooted in ignorance and particular, scientifically identifiable social/economic conditions) turns out to be a religion.

    I wouldn’t say that Bolshevik attitudes towards and action against religion could be considered all that ‘marginal’ historically either; the Soviet Union lasted for until 1992, spawned or created a range of imitation regimes and political movements in Eastern Europe, heavily influenced extant Communist regimes in China, Vietnam etc.

    I guess the problem the problem the Soviet example raises is that, on the face of it, if a government’s (continuously) self-proclaimed commitment to ‘progressive’, enlightened secular values, a highly secular society, promotion of a scientific atheist worldview and so on, manifests itself in a society which doesn’t function any better than a theocracy there are issues with standard secularist arguments against religion.

  22. Vy says:

    Well, what a lovely diatribe. Well then…

    Vy, Vy, Vy, what _are_ we to do with you?! Despite your vain, desparate attempts to be (or at least appear) intellectually sophisticated, you just keep digging the delusional-ignorant hole deeper, kid.

    Are those puerile strawmen and projections supposed to add one iota of credibility to your case?

    And I’m happy to oblige ya with a definition of ‘atheist’: Here ya go, knock yaself out: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist.

    From Oxford Dictionary:

    atheism
    NOUN

    [mass noun] Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

    Funnily enough, your link says:

    [French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless

    Your ‘League of Militant Atheists’ (also properly translated as ‘League of Militant Godless’) were Leninists.

    You can attach any label your confabulated mind dreams up to them for as long as you want but the fact still remains, they were 100%, absolute Atheists. The only difference between them and many an Atheist I’ve being being the position of power.

    The League of Militant Atheists[1] (Russian: Союз воинствующих безбожников Soyuz voinstvuyushchikh bezbozhnikov, literally League of the Militant Godless – LMG[2]); Society of the Godless (Общество безбожников Obshchestvo bezbozhnikov); Union of the Godless (Союз безбожников Soyuz bezbozhnikov), was an atheistic and antireligious organization

    And like many Dawkinian, Four Horseman Atheists today:

    the League aimed at exterminating religion in all its manifestations and forming an anti-religious scientific mindset among the workers.[5][6] It propagated atheism and scientific achievements,[7] conducted “individual work” (a method of sending atheist tutors to meet with individual believers to convince them that gods do not exist)

    No matter how good you think you are at pontificating, and no matter how many awards you’ve won at mental gymnastics in the Olympics, your attempts at using willful ignorance and selective blindness to try and poof those facts away fall face flat.

    And while it is true that atheism is consistent with the actions of this League (in particular, and the reason for your even referencing ’em in the first place: the murder of clery and devout laypersons)

    Their actions are consistent with Atheism.

    it’s also consistent with Buddhist loving kindness & compassion.

    Confabulation at its best.

    Indeed, atheism is (more-or-less) consistent with anything but theism (wull, duh). But atheism in/of/by itself _*implies*_ NOTHING _but_ non-theism. Atheism _per se_ doesn’t imply the overall stance and actions of the Bolshevist-Leninist ‘League of Militant Atheists’; and it certainly doesn’t imply the position of going around murdering clergy and devout-religious people. But you imply (and seem to think) otherwise; and (OF COURSE) you’re wrong.

    Their actions are consistent with Atheism – the belief in the non-existence of God(s). They lived as Atheists, were convinced of their Atheism and were dedicated to promoting it, and its dogma of scientism, where ever and however, free of any consequence. Your strawmaning and capslock doesn’t change that.

  23. FZM says:

    Atheism, and metaphysical naturalism, have nothing in/of/by themselves to do with violence or propensity(s) toward violence.

    Neither does theism as a metaphysical position. Belief in the existence of a omnipotent, omniscient, personal creator deity doesn’t entail anything about any particular teachings, moral rules etc. connected to this deity.

    Theistic religions (especially the Abrahamic ones) are (inherently) prone to violence.

    I’ve seen this argument about Abrahamic religions quite often. I think it’s something there should be clear evidence for; comparable societies where Abrahamic religions are not present should be more peaceful internally, fight less wars and the wars should involve less bloodshed.

    It’s not something there is obvious supporting evidence for; in fact there seems to be plenty of evidence that the dominance of Abrahamic religions in a society isn’t really a factor in determining how violent it is, how many wars it fights etc.

  24. Vy says:

    and many an Atheist I’ve *met*

  25. Vy says:

    And a religion (or quasi-religion, something that functions in way more-or-less tantamount to how a religion functions) doesn’t have to be _theistic_. Buddhism is yet again a paradigmatic example: It has no deity, no godhead.

    Neither does Jainism, Scientology (with its “8th dimension”) or a plethora of other religions you’ve never heard of.

    It’s no news that Atheism functions as a religion today, as it has in the past.

    (You imply — or at least seem to (want to) imply — otherwise, i.e., that ‘religion’ is restricted to theistic, or at least quasi-theistic, ensembles-of-dogma; but yet again, you’re (or you’d be) wrong.)

    These delusional conversations you’re having with your mind self does nothing to help your case.

    But you do seem to have a desparate hard-on, so to speak, to tar-&-feather ALL (or at least MOST) non-theists with the likes of the Leninist League of Militant Atheists. But this is, on your part, clearly (and utterly delusionally) tilting at straw windmills (if you’ll allow my that mix o’ metaphors… 😉 ) There’re very few (perhaps not quite zero, but the number is surely an utterly negligible number of) non-theists today (or ever, really, aside from the exception-that-proves-the-rule wacko Leninists you cite) that even come anywhere remotely near advocating, much less practicing (or seeking to practice, anyway), the systematic extermination (or even persecution) of theists in general or Christians in particular. Argue with ’em? Well, yeah, maybe. Even ridicule ’em? Perhaps. But seek to persecute the hell out of ’em, if not murder ’em by the bushel?! _Only_ in your fevered, utterly paranoid delusions would _that_ even be remotely conceivable.

    Pathetic tirade riddled with strawmen and projections.

    So it’s YOU, Vy, not me, who is “knee-jerk[edly] project[ing] and string[ing] up strawmen.”

    Please stop projecting.

    But, I’ll make a deal with ya, sport: I’ll take a shower (or bath, if you insist, though I’m more a shower guy m’self), if YOU will! Everyone into the pool!

    You should have taken that bath before you bothered to dump that nonsensical text wall, it might’ve helped your credibility.

  26. Vy says:

    The Moscow group tended to support the leftist side of the debate on how to destroy religion (i.e. in favour of attacking religion in all of its forms rather than moderation)

    Hmmm, where have I heard something like that before? Oh, that’s right:

    In 1929, the Second Congress changed the society’s name to The Union of Belligerent (or Militant) Atheists.[13] At this Second Congress of Atheists, Nikolai Bukharin, the editor of Pravda, called for the extermination of religion “at the tip of the bayonet”

    I’m sure I’ve seen something similar. Er… yeah, “religion must end” and “religion needs to be destroyed”. They’ve got their own set of “rationalizations”

  27. Michael says:

    (4) Atheism _per se_ (as distinguished from anti-religious sentiments, apparently, in the op’s case, to a homicidal, quasi-psychotic degree) was not causally responsible for the op’s murderer’s actions. (5) Atheism, and metaphysical naturalism, have nothing in/of/by themselves to do with violence or propensity(s) toward violence.

    I would agree that atheism _per se_ was not responsible for murder. Just as atheism _per se_ is not responsible for anything good that has ever happened. What was behind the murder was anti-religious bigotry, the very thing promoted and encouraged by New Atheist leaders and activists.

  28. mechanar says:

    @Clay interesting that you have not given any reason or explanation why I am wrong just the typicial “you are wrong because I say so” Please explain, if when atheism is true and at the bottom of all things there is no right or wrong how can humanism be justified and why if you answer is that it dosent need any justification because you FEEL it to be true why do the religions of the world have to provide evidence? Please give me the mathematical formula that proofs human beings have value. Show me were it says in Phisics that Stalins empire was something that had to be ended.

    If atheism has no set of rules or dogmas to follow meaning it can be literally anything why does that make it superior to faith which in theory makes it impossible to do evil acts. Pretty much all suposed arguments for atheims are really against theism because atheism has no fundament to stand on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s