What on Earth is going on in the world today? It's gone mad

[britbox]

49 at last count. I think they posted live on facebook and some other social media These companies claim to use AI. It's about time they develop something to alert authorities quickly. And these are Aussies going over to NZ to do this. What's the word in Oz BB?

Good point. They know who's pregnant but can't figure out potential terrorists... I agree, lot to be learned from this and future harnessing of technology. Huge news in Oz obviously... although most of the commentary is referring to the guy as "Australian-born" rather than "Australian". Much of the focus is on NZ gun laws... Australia tightened their own rules after the Port Arthur attacks... kind of like the UK did after Hungerford and Dunblane.

 

[isabelle]

disgusting terrorist attack in NZ, hope those wild animals'll be send in jail till death

 

[Chris Koziarz]

49 at last count. I think they posted live on facebook and some other social media These companies claim to use AI. It's about time they develop something to alert authorities quickly. And these are Aussies going over to NZ to do this. What's the word in Oz BB?

AI technology is not fast enough, nor smart enough to instantly recognise the location of any random broadcast. Especially if the broadcast is from the location not previously known, i.e. not included in the training data set of AI algo. So, the use of AI to alert authorities in such case would be no faster (probably slower with many false positives, mean unnecessary alarms) than emergency phone calls from victims on scene.

Why would you want a special OZ word to describe such a person? The word is the same as yours: "mass murderer". We are so sickened with it (even 23 years after Port Arthur) that we are not in the creative mood. No one would be.

I can only add from myself, that religious hatred was the key motivation. The morality of "passionate religious believers" tends to be lower than that of an atheist, with alt-right believers become dysfunctional murderers. And it does not matter if the dysfunctional individual is an orthodox Muslim or christian white supremacists. They are all the same. While atheists are far less likely to commit such crimes.

 

[Federberg]

AI technology is not fast enough, nor smart enough to instantly recognise the location of any random broadcast. Especially if the broadcast is from the location not previously known, i.e. not included in the training data set of AI algo. So, the use of AI to alert authorities in such case would be no faster (probably slower with many false positives, mean unnecessary alarms) than emergency phone calls from victims on scene.

Why would you want a special OZ word to describe such a person? The word is the same as yours: "mass murderer". We are so sickened with it (even 23 years after Port Arthur) that we are not in the creative mood. No one would be.

I can only add from myself, that religious hatred was the key motivation. The morality of "passionate religious believers" tends to be lower than that of an atheist, with alt-right believers become dysfunctional murderers. And it does not matter if the dysfunctional individual is an orthodox Muslim or christian white supremacists. They are all the same. While atheists are far less likely to commit such crimes.

you may well be right. I'm no AI expert. But I wouldn't expect the limitations of AI to be anything to do with speed or the ability to identify locations. That's entirely dependent on pre-loaded data sets as you say. I would imagine the real problem would be discerning intent, and whether something is real or fake and if it's in real time.

 

[britbox]

AI technology is not fast enough, nor smart enough to instantly recognise the location of any random broadcast. Especially if the broadcast is from the location not previously known, i.e. not included in the training data set of AI algo. So, the use of AI to alert authorities in such case would be no faster (probably slower with many false positives, mean unnecessary alarms) than emergency phone calls from victims on scene.

Why would you want a special OZ word to describe such a person? The word is the same as yours: "mass murderer". We are so sickened with it (even 23 years after Port Arthur) that we are not in the creative mood. No one would be.

I can only add from myself, that religious hatred was the key motivation. The morality of "passionate religious believers" tends to be lower than that of an atheist, with alt-right believers become dysfunctional murderers. And it does not matter if the dysfunctional individual is an orthodox Muslim or christian white supremacists. They are all the same. While atheists are far less likely to commit such crimes.

You seem to have forgotten those cuddly atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao who killed around 60 million people alone.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

You seem to have forgotten those cuddly atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao who killed around 60 million people alone.

Good pick! But they say Stalin's religion was Collectivism, as Arianism was that of Hitler's. The crimes against humanity are on entirely new level.
I was thinking of the criminal capabilities of typical mortals such as this case of Brenton Tarrant, or Anders Breivik few y back, or ISIS fighters. Religious antagonisms (based on true believes or as an excuse) undermine most atrocities around the world today. Like John Lennon I believe the world without religion would be a far more peaceful world, although my believes might be as unrealistic as the views of other "believers".

 

[britbox]

Good pick! But they say Stalin's religion was Collectivism, as Arianism was that of Hitler's. The crimes against humanity are on entirely new level.
I was thinking of the criminal capabilities of typical mortals such as this case of Brenton Tarrant, or Anders Breivik few y back, or ISIS fighters. Religious antagonisms (based on true believes or as an excuse) undermine most atrocities around the world today. Like John Lennon I believe the world without religion would be a far more peaceful world, although my believes might be as unrealistic as the views of other "believers".

Collectivism isn't a religion, it's a doctrine.

Humans are inherently tribal. Take away religion as the bond that holds the tribe together and something else fills the vacuum - might be colour, creed, nationality, political ideology, cults... whatever. One thing is always certain... humans kill each other. Everyone has the capability under certain circumstances to kill somebody else. War, revenge, hate, self-defence...

For every religious extremist going on killing rampages, you can find a carbon copy with a non-religious nutjob. In the UK, the mass shootings at Hungerford and Dunblane had nothing to do with religion. Mass murderers like the Yorkshire Ripper weren't related to religion...

Governments and Nations are probably the biggest dealers in indiscriminate death... ironically for "security reasons". I think Obama droned about 64 innocents in Pakistan and Northern Afghanistan using the lowest measuring stick available. Some put the civilian deaths at 300+. Yet, he got the Nobel Peace Prize.

Humans are wild animals operating under the fragile umbrella of civilization.

 

[mrzz]

Humans are wild animals operating under the fragile umbrella of civilization.

Perfectly put. But a few comments.

It was indeed a nice catch about the "atheist dictators", but one can dispute that to some extent. Stalin was "officially" atheist, as he had to, considering the party line, but one can only wonder what the hell was his true personal position. Same goes to Mao.

Anyway, the general point is valid, even if we can discuss the particular examples. What I think is the core issue is "moral certainty" that may come with religious beliefs -- and also with some doctrines. The person is so sure not only that she's (or he or whatever) right, but that some higher power/principle commands her actions. I hate moral certainty, to be honest.

I agree with @Chris Koziarz 's post above, that in general an atheist individual is much less likely to go on a killing rampant like that. But once you go up the ladder of power and the political side becomes relevant, than it becomes equivalent. A leader is equally likely to kill in the name of a doctrine as he is likely to kill in the name of religion.

But, to be clear, I do not think this is a flaw of religion itself , or of any given doctrine (in general, particular cases could be different). It is a human flaw.

BTW one day before the killings in NZ we had a mass shooting on a school here as well. 9 dead. Still no certainty about motivation but sounds like bullying resentment and addiction to video games like counter strike combined.

 

[britbox]

Perfectly put. But a few comments.

It was indeed a nice catch about the "atheist dictators", but one can dispute that to some extent. Stalin was "officially" atheist, as he had to, considering the party line, but one can only wonder what the hell was his true personal position. Same goes to Mao.

Anyway, the general point is valid, even if we can discuss the particular examples. What I think is the core issue is "moral certainty" that may come with religious beliefs -- and also with some doctrines. The person is so sure not only that she's (or he or whatever) right, but that some higher power/principle commands her actions. I hate moral certainty, to be honest.

I agree with @Chris Koziarz 's post above, that in general an atheist individual is much less likely to go on a killing rampant like that. But once you go up the ladder of power and the political side becomes relevant, than it becomes equivalent. A leader is equally likely to kill in the name of a doctrine as he is likely to kill in the name of religion.

But, to be clear, I do not think this is a flaw of religion itself , or of any given doctrine (in general, particular cases could be different). It is a human flaw.

BTW one day before the killings in NZ we had a mass shooting on a school here as well. 9 dead. Still no certainty about motivation but sounds like bullying resentment and addiction to video games like counter strike combined.

Stalin was anti-religion mate. It's not about "wondering about it". He sent people off to death camps in many of his various purges. It wasn't just limited to Christianity. He purged pretty much every religion. As a dictator who killed pretty much every perceived threat around him, it's pretty difficult to assume he was some sort of closet spiritual Christian. Stalin ruled with an iron rod carved in his own image.

I don't agree with yours or Chris's assessment that a religious person is more likely to go on a killing spree than a non-religious person. I think an extremist in any form is more likely to do that, regardless of the "cause" they are going out to bat on.

On that note, let's look at this NZ mass murderer... was he actually a religious extremist? Or has he just been loosely labelled "Christian" because of his "manifesto"? Was he a practising Christian? Did he read the Bible? Did he live by the Bible in any interpretation? Did he follow the Christian doctrine?

If he was such a religious scholar then surely he would have read the ten commandments?

"Though shall not kill"

or at the very least, you'd have expected him to have skimmed through the parable of the "Good Samaritan"

I don't class this guy as anybody acting in the name of any Christian doctrine. He's just some racist far-right scumbag blaming the Muslim community for his own shortcomings. A deranged nut job, no less...and you'll find them across the board.

 

[Horsa]

Stalin was anti-religion mate. It's not about "wondering about it". He sent people off to death camps in many of his various purges. It wasn't just limited to Christianity. He purged pretty much every religion. As a dictator who killed pretty much every perceived threat around him, it's pretty difficult to assume he was some sort of closet spiritual Christian. Stalin ruled with an iron rod carved in his own image.

I don't agree with yours or Chris's assessment that a religious person is more likely to go on a killing spree than a non-religious person. I think an extremist in any form is more likely to do that, regardless of the "cause" they are going out to bat on.

On that note, let's look at this NZ mass murderer... was he actually a religious extremist? Or has he just been loosely labelled "Christian" because of his "manifesto"? Was he a practising Christian? Did he read the Bible? Did he live by the Bible in any interpretation? Did he follow the Christian doctrine?

If he was such a religious scholar then surely he would have read the ten commandments?

"Though shall not kill"

or at the very least, you'd have expected him to have skimmed through the parable of the "Good Samaritan"

I don't class this guy as anybody acting in the name of any Christian doctrine. He's just some racist far-right scumbag blaming the Muslim community for his own shortcomings. A deranged nut job, no less...and you'll find them across the board.

I think that all violent crimes, terrorist attacks & wars stem from the fact that some people have different beliefs about something or other than other people & other people not being able to tolerate that except in some cases where people are just that sick, bitter & twisted that they like to see other people suffer. I'm not saying that this makes things right. It doesn't. I also think that some people who commit violent crimes or acts of terrorism & say they did it because of their religion are just making excuse as if people did things like this because of their religion, all people of their religion would do it but they don't. Only some do. None of the religions I know (which stem from Christianity, Buddhism & Islam & move onto Hinduism, Jainism & Zoroastrianism) encourage violence. In fact, they often preach the opposite message. Everyone should have the right to think & believe what they want as long as they don't affect anyone else. You may say what about the wars & violent crimes which were caused by greed for land or money. I'd answer they were caused by someone having land or money someone else wanted & them saying you can't have it, it's mine & fighting tooth & nail for it. At the end of the day, it's all caused by sick, bitter, twisted & nasty ideas some people get in their heads which cost the lives of lots of innocent people.

 

[Horsa]

BTW one day before the killings in NZ we had a mass shooting on a school here as well. 9 dead. Still no certainty about motivation but sounds like bullying resentment and addiction to video games like counter strike combined.

That's dreadful. I would say that although violent video games give certain people violent ideas it doesn't do this in all cases. People have to take some responsibility for themselves. Although violent video games & movies encourage violence it doesn't necessarily mean everyone who plays violent video games or watch violent movies is going to commit violent crimes. Therefore, I don't think that these violent video games or movies cause these catastrophic events. Everyone should know the difference between right & wrong as they should be taught that as a child so they should use this knowledge as an adult.

 

[mrzz]

Stalin was anti-religion mate. It's not about "wondering about it". He sent people off to death camps in many of his various purges. It wasn't just limited to Christianity. He purged pretty much every religion. As a dictator who killed pretty much every perceived threat around him, it's pretty difficult to assume he was some sort of closet spiritual Christian. Stalin ruled with an iron rod carved in his own image.

All true, but any (or at the very least most) fanatic religious leader will be anti-religion to all religions other than his own. Stalin was an extremely cynical leader who understood perfectly how political power operates. He often dealt with groups as a whole, he famously oppressed engineers, agronomists etc... it is no wonder religious groups are part of the equation. Given how twisted those tyrant's minds are, I would not rule out anything.

I don't agree with yours or Chris's assessment that a religious person is more likely to go on a killing spree than a non-religious person. I think an extremist in any form is more likely to do that, regardless of the "cause" they are going out to bat on.

You simply don't see anyone mass murdering in the name of atheism. But that does not mean that atheism is "better" than any religion (but I agree that most people might use it exactly in this sense, which is not my case). There is surely a whole bunch of other aspects were atheists might, on average, have a less desirable behavior than people with religious beliefs. Religion is just one of the possible ways a person with some predisposition will express her extremism. Unfortunately "god's will" is the ultimate argument for an extremist.

I agree with your points about the NZ mass murderer in particular. But just remember that the problem with religious extremism is that it is not necessarily logic. They will find a way to twist and turn whatever they want. Probably all the atrocities that were committed in the name of any religion were explicitly against the principles found in their own holy books. I agree that "Though shall not kill" is as explicit as it can get, but even still people have found a way to kill in the name of the (Christian) god. They might lack coherence but it does not change the outcome of their actions.

I am not saying that religion (in itself) is to blame in those cases. 99% of the time I agree that is simply the other way around. But it is a complicated issue. I guess that what is useful to control such extremist behavior is the own religious institutions, which at any point in time will give the current "interpretation" of the holy books, and actively control the most violent sectors. Currently, in the west, we are undermining the authority of those institutions, so I simply expect more violent episodes to pop up.

 

[mrzz]

it doesn't necessarily mean everyone who plays violent video games or watch violent movies is going to commit violent crimes.

Surely it doesn't, but we do not need everyone in this case. All we need is around 0,1 % to have a complete nightmare scenario.

 

[Horsa]

Surely it doesn't, but we do not need everyone in this case. All we need is around 0,1 % to have a complete nightmare scenario.

I know. What my point was but I didn't make it clear enough is that it's not the violent video games & films that are at fault but what was going on inside the perpetrator's head. The video games & films don't tell people to go out & kill people. They do that themselves through their own choices. Even if the video games & films did say that people would still have the choice whether to or not. Do you remember doing something as a child & when asked why you did it responding with "She/he told me to do it." & being asked "If she/he told you to jump off a cliff, would you?" for which the answer was no. Same principle.

 

[britbox]

All true, but any (or at the very least most) fanatic religious leader will be anti-religion to all religions other than his own. Stalin was an extremely cynical leader who understood perfectly how political power operates. He often dealt with groups as a whole, he famously oppressed engineers, agronomists etc... it is no wonder religious groups are part of the equation. Given how twisted those tyrant's minds are, I would not rule out anything.



You simply don't see anyone mass murdering in the name of atheism. But that does not mean that atheism is "better" than any religion (but I agree that most people might use it exactly in this sense, which is not my case). There is surely a whole bunch of other aspects were atheists might, on average, have a less desirable behavior than people with religious beliefs. Religion is just one of the possible ways a person with some predisposition will express her extremism. Unfortunately "god's will" is the ultimate argument for an extremist.

I agree with your points about the NZ mass murderer in particular. But just remember that the problem with religious extremism is that it is not necessarily logic. They will find a way to twist and turn whatever they want. Probably all the atrocities that were committed in the name of any religion were explicitly against the principles found in their own holy books. I agree that "Though shall not kill" is as explicit as it can get, but even still people have found a way to kill in the name of the (Christian) god. They might lack coherence but it does not change the outcome of their actions.

I am not saying that religion (in itself) is to blame in those cases. 99% of the time I agree that is simply the other way around. But it is a complicated issue. I guess that what is useful to control such extremist behavior is the own religious institutions, which at any point in time will give the current "interpretation" of the holy books, and actively control the most violent sectors. Currently, in the west, we are undermining the authority of those institutions, so I simply expect more violent episodes to pop up.

That's the point though, isn't it? It's rarely a killer following his own religious doctrine that causes them to kill others.

It's general human intolerance of other "tribes". If you remove religion then there will be something else to fill the vacuum. My point on Stalin (who I don't accept was religious) was that anybody with an extreme belief system (religious or otherwise) and psychopathic tendencies is more likely to kill on a large scale... and that includes atheists.

Chris's assertion that the world would be a better place without religion isn't something that I buy. Those same people would still be psychopathic and intolerant.

 

[mrzz]

Chris's assertion that the world would be a better place without religion isn't something that I buy. Those same people would still be psychopathic and intolerant.

Well, at this point we agree. I am an atheist myself but I recognize the social importance of religion.

 

[britbox]

Well, at this point we agree. I am an atheist myself but I recognize the social importance of religion.

Yeah, I think you mentioned it before.

I focus on the individual dimension rather than the group dimension. I'll give you an example on a lighter note... imagine you have a really extreme sports fan... let's just say he was a Boston Celtics fan. If the Celtics didn't exist then what do you think he'd be doing? Sitting at home? I don't, I'm guessing that he'd be an extreme sports fan of another team. Hope you get the analogy! If you remove one thing... something else fills the vacuum.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

BTW one day before the killings in NZ we had a mass shooting on a school here as well. 9 dead. Still no certainty about motivation but sounds like bullying resentment and addiction to video games like counter strike combined.

This one can be blamed on relaxed gun laws. I guess the crime was committed by school youngsters, correct? So what's the result of the investigation how the youngsters obtained the weapons? I remember you said obtaining a gun is tougher in your country than in US but are the restriction adequate? It does not seem so, if children who are always exposed to bullying resulting in strong resentment that pushes the victims "over the limit" and subsequently they could obtain the guns to re-tribute.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Yeah, I think you mentioned it before.

I focus on the individual dimension rather than the group dimension. I'll give you an example on a lighter note... imagine you have a really extreme sports fan... let's just say he was a Boston Celtics fan. If the Celtics didn't exist then what do you think he'd be doing? Sitting at home? I don't, I'm guessing that he'd be an extreme sports fan of another team. Hope you get the analogy! If you remove one thing... something else fills the vacuum.

I think we all need to agree on your point here. As I've said above I feel that my Lennonian vision of the better world without religion be a utopia, because precisely as you say, the religious extremists will find out other motivations for their crimes.
There is no doubt in my mind that "atheists tribe" (to follow your terminology) exhibits both higher level of knowledge and higher moral standards than "religious tribes" do. For example several studies have shown that incident of atheism among large population is perfectly proportional to the general level of education, peaking at 97% among tenured uni professors. Because the proportionality relation is symmetric you can flip the axes and describe the same by saying atheists are on average better educated than non-atheists. Also it has been shown that incidences of social prejudice like xenophobia, homophobia in general all forms of intolerance including religious intolerance, are rarer among atheists. No surprise with the latter, as most religions teach their members their god be the only deity; and believers in other gods are pagans and errands. So the intolerance, even if in mild form, is written in most religious scriptures. Of course most religious people rest on just stating others are in error (which is fine and what most organisations teach) but some will try to correct errant beliefs, sometimes forcibly.
But it needs to be clarified that correlation of any kind does not imply causation. And in this case, although criminals are more likely to be religious than atheist, does not mean religion is the cause or motive of their crimes. Ultimately it's just an excuse.

 

[britbox]

I think we all need to agree on your point here. As I've said above I feel that my Lennonian vision of the better world without religion be a utopia, because precisely as you say, the religious extremists will find out other motivations for their crimes.
There is no doubt in my mind that "atheists tribe" (to follow your terminology) exhibits both higher level of knowledge and higher moral standards than "religious tribes" do. For example several studies have shown that incident of atheism among large population is perfectly proportional to the general level of education, peaking at 97% among tenured uni professors. Because the proportionality relation is symmetric you can flip the axes and describe the same by saying atheists are on average better educated than non-atheists. Also it has been shown that incidences of social prejudice like xenophobia, homophobia in general all forms of intolerance including religious intolerance, are rarer among atheists. No surprise with the latter, as most religions teach their members their god be the only deity; and believers in other gods are pagans and errands. So the intolerance, even if in mild form, is written in most religious scriptures. Of course most religious people rest on just stating others are in error (which is fine and what most organisations teach) but some will try to correct errant beliefs, sometimes forcibly.
But it needs to be clarified that correlation of any kind does not imply causation. And in this case, although criminals are more likely to be religious than atheist, does not mean religion is the cause or motive of their crimes. Ultimately it's just an excuse.

Lennon's vision of peace and harmony might be slightly more credible if he hadn't slapped his first wife around and basically ignored his son for the majority of his life.

The view that people with a higher level of education are atheists is easy to believe. I agree most tenured professors and academics are undoubtedly likely to be atheists. They have higher levels of education because they have spent the most time in education, some have barely spent any time outside of academia. Level of education doesn't necessarily reflect "intelligence" though - the people with the highest recorded IQs in history are largely theocrats.

The majority of academics are left of centre and have a fairly rigid doctrine of what is acceptable and unacceptable. Most life-long teachers I know are all Identikit clones when it comes to political and religious views. People thinking outside of those boundaries don't usually last very long in academia.

When a rogue shooter goes on a killing spree, it's still my view that it's very much about the individual. I think we kind of agree on that.