On the Satanic Neo-Nazi

[Tiassa]

I agree about the ill tempered writer on here. To wit: that would be you. When you're constantly upset with everyone around you, perhaps the problem is you?

You're trying too hard. What is it about this thread in and of itself that you take so personally?

Religion is about politics. The various religions have always made it that way. Otherwise it's a personal thing and there's nothing to discuss.

You can't just make it up as you go.

See how this works, short and to the point. No quoting needed, no rambling.

And nary a clue.

Let me know when you finally have something to say.

• • •​

This strikes me as very unclearly expressed:

Well, right, but that's because you're trying to be confused. See #5↑, 16↑.

So, again, something about the coincidence between someone objecting yet being apparently unable to comment on the actual explanation. Seriously, you can't actually tell me anything useful, it seems. Like this:

It seems to be fairly typical of your communication style.

As to what I am guessing is the subject matter of the thread, I rather agree with Seattle that there doesn't seem any reason to bring this person's odd religious beliefs into the explanations for his conduct. Plenty of religious nutters commit even worse crimes. It seems more likely he was a nutter first and then decided to label himself a Satanist, neo-nazi or whatever.

What a waste. So, yeah, I get it, you're confused, especially by what you haven't apparently read, which seems to be a fairly common style around here.

Thus: The point of saying that there are all sorts of reasons to ask is that there are all sorts of reasons to ask. What kind of genius are you to find that so confusing? Oh, right, the kind who needs to presuppose no reason at the outset.

The reminder to separate the behavior from the religious label is the point of the thread. Such as it is, yet again there remains the point of a general reflection on the state of the discourse, and the implication that some need to find a new argument is probably what unsettles a few people. Is it that you're following the discussion so closely that you missed it, or that you're discomfited because it strikes too close?

 

[exchemist]

You're trying too hard. What is it about this thread in and of itself that you take so personally?



You can't just make it up as you go.



And nary a clue.

Let me know when you finally have something to say.

• • •​

Well, right, but that's because you're trying to be confused. See #5↑, 16↑.

So, again, something about the coincidence between someone objecting yet being apparently unable to comment on the actual explanation. Seriously, you can't actually tell me anything useful, it seems. Like this:



What a waste. So, yeah, I get it, you're confused, especially by what you haven't apparently read, which seems to be a fairly common style around here.

Thus: The point of saying that there are all sorts of reasons to ask is that there are all sorts of reasons to ask. What kind of genius are you to find that so confusing? Oh, right, the kind who needs to presuppose no reason at the outset.

The reminder to separate the behavior from the religious label is the point of the thread. Such as it is, yet again there remains the point of a general reflection on the state of the discourse, and the implication that some need to find a new argument is probably what unsettles a few people. Is it that you're following the discussion so closely that you missed it, or that you're discomfited because it strikes too close?

As usual, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[Yazata]

If Charlie Manson was Buddhist would he have been less dangerous?

Perhaps, if adherence to Buddhist practice somehow suppressed his willingness to act out other elements of his craziness. I'm very doubtful whether that would have succeeded, but don't actually know it.

This Melzer guy was a wack job (apparently). You can argue that he was mentally ill or perhaps he felt a sense of misguided detachment from society or whatever the combination of societal and mental issues that were involved. Throwing atheism into the mix seems pretty bizarre.

One (of several) problems that I have with this thread is that it's ostensibly about a single individual (Melzer) who I have never heard of and know nothing about. We are being asked to generalize about him and to form broader conclusions about the influence of religion (however we define it) or the lack of it on antisocial/criminal behavior.

I'm with you Seattle in thinking that one can't really generalize that way from this one single extremely cryptic example. Especially if this Melzer individual suffered from some underlying psychological issues that inclined him to claim allegiance to causes (religious or not) that appeared to him to be rebellious. Satanism, neo-Naziism, al Qaeda, whatever else. (Perhaps in the 21st century atheism is too mainstream and just isn't outre enough to appeal to this particular guy's taste.)

It's hard to form broader conclusions about the role of religion/lack of it in life from what most likely is a case of psychiatric illness.

 

[Tiassa]

As usual, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

You never tried.

 

[C C]

[...] Still: If Melzer was an atheist, do you think he would have been a less dangerous neo-Nazi? If he was an atheist, would the former infantryman have betrayed his country? Would he have made better decisions? [...]

Indeterminable, or it's certainly not a given that being an atheist would have made a difference. The Order of Nine Angles seems to be a hodgepodge of ideology and mythical thinking (latter derived from sources prior to Abrahamic proliferation as well as elements of modern paganism). "Atheism" as a broad category doesn't exclude questionable beliefs in general -- it predates positivism.

A sub-classification or specific stripe of atheism like Alex Rosenberg's scientism{*} or "disenchanted naturalism" might deflect one from wholly spiritual and metaphysical related enterprises. But not from the passionate arena of political thought orientations and movements that might be considered precursors to religion (or going in the opposite direction of classification, those being labeled "para-religious"). ONA could have still been attractive to Melzer for the goal reasons -- unbelievers in the mystical parts could still tolerate them and exude the ritual appearances for the sake of the philosophical agenda that appealed to them.

- - -

{*} Rosenberg's conception, of course, is another formulated prescription itself, with or without conspiracy features -- not a non-invented rock a geologist stumbled over while cataloging items in the field.