Religion
Related: About this forumThe Chapel Hill murderer of Muslims is an atheist.
The man arrested on suspicion of killing three young Muslims in North Carolina described himself as an “anti-theist” and criticised all religions online.
Police said 46-year-old Craig Stephen Hicks handed himself in to officers in Chapel Hill overnight in the wake of the deaths of 23-year-old Deah Shaddy Barakat, his wife Yusor Mohammad, 21, and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19.
He has been arrested and charged with three counts of first-degree murder.
As tributes poured in for the young family, a Facebook page in Hicks’ name showed that he read paralegal studies at Durham Technical Community College and described himself as a supporter of “Atheists for Equality”.
A regular social media user, his last three posts were a cute dog video about the Pavlov effect, a viral advert for Air New Zealand involving mountain bikes, and a picture from United Atheists of America asking “why radical Christians and radical Muslims are so opposed to each others’ influence when they agree about so many ideological issues
TV programmes liked by Hicks include The Atheist Experience, Criminal Minds and Friends, while he describes himself as a fan of Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason and Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion.”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chapel-hill-shooting-craig-stephen-hicks-condemned-all-religions-on-facebook-prior-to-muslim-massmurder-arrest-10038126.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
atreides1
(16,093 posts)Can anyone find his Facebook page? I've been looking for it and so far no luck!
But it might have been a parking dispute:
http://www.wral.com/chapel-hill-police-parking-dispute-may-have-led-to-triple-shooting/14438074/
muriel_volestrangler
(101,369 posts)Atheist stuff, and anti-religion stuff, is fairly prominent.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to smear atheists and atheism? From the gleeful of the religionistas here, you'd think this guy being an atheist and the victims being Muslims were the only things about either of them that mattered. Talk about sloppy, dishonest thinking.
chillfactor
(7,584 posts)you are aware of that.... right?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And your point is what? Does every single murder committed by a Christian anywhere warrant a thread here too?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Apparently it does. This group loves Christian crimes.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Ones done in the name of religion are usually post-worthy though.
Was this one? Sounds like he was pissed off about a parking spot. Not sure which religion that is.
You might consider the Gungeon.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I don't think so, I'll bet the religious angle is part of it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Do you watch the news?
Take away all murders committed with guns, and the United States still has a higher murder rate than most European countries. Even with Hands, Fists, and Feet.
Sadly, this murder is not exactly a-typical for a ridiculous motive.
Most atheists I know tend to value their own lives, and one does not express value for their own life by committing multiple capital murders. In fact, that's kind of the opposite. He filed for indigencey, and has some other stuff going on, so no, I don't assume it was the religious aspect at all.
I don't think he valued anyone's life, including his own, and that is horrible.
I'm sure the FBI will take a look at the hate crime aspect though. We'll find out for certain, as you can be in issues like this.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Namely, that we are not to take literally the parts of Dawkins' The God Delusion where it calls for the execution of believers.
Oh.. wait... what? It doesn't say that? Ah. Never mind.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Perhaps a few centuries of scholarly analysis will eventually bring out the truth.
thucythucy
(8,087 posts)as your handle here, wasn't exactly known for his adherence to non-violence as a means of dealing with his political opponents, many of whom were indeed believers.
The historical Trotsky was very much into the occasional and maybe more than occasional use of bullets and bayonets to settle political disputes.
"In 1920 Trotsky published "The Defense of Terrorism," the most forthright statement of the principles of War Communism. Brushing aside parliamentary democracy, equality before the law, and civil rights as bourgeois frauds, he argued that the class war could be fought and won only by force, not by votes. To reject terror was to reject socialism." --Alan Bullock, "Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives", pg. 105.
Just to stress this one point: the man whose name you have adopted as your nom-de-guerre wrote a text titled "The Defense of Terrorism." In essence, the work does indeed call for the execution of believers--those who believed, not only in God (with a resulting campaign to stamp out religion in its entirely)--but also those who believed in such travesties as democratic elections, an independent judiciary, and individual human rights in general.
So there are texts, penned by avowed atheists, that have indeed been used to justify the execution of believers, the one in particular penned by the man who you seem to admire so much that you've taken his name as your own.
Unless your name really is Trotsky, in which case none of the above would apply to you, though you might want to say so, to clear up any misconceptions.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)So what you said is totally irrelevant. Thanks anyway! 
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)What a silly suggestion. Must have been his brother Fred Trotsky.
thucythucy
(8,087 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)You are far from the first to tear into me about ol' Leon. Most of them are just rude assholes about it, so I ignore them. Thank you for being nice.
thucythucy
(8,087 posts)Trotsky has been on my mind because I just finished reading the biography I mentioned by Alan Bullock, which I think is really quite excellent.
Best wishes, and happy valentine day to you and yours.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I follow the news closely. Probably too closely. Your rudeness is duly noted, by the way.
Most atheists I know tend to value their own lives, and one does not express value for their own life by committing multiple capital murders. In fact, that's kind of the opposite. He filed for indigencey, and has some other stuff going on, so no, I don't assume it was the religious aspect at all.
Most people tend to value their own lives. That is normal. Committing a crime like this is stupid, as well as horrible on a moral level.
It will be interesting to see his "reasoning". He is allegedly cooperating with the police. His attitude towards Islam may be part of that reasoning, it may not. He is a self-proclaimed anti-theist dealing with observant Muslim neighbors.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That may or may not be true, but it's the best authority we have on the issue for now. The rest is armchair psychoanalyzing his facebook nonsense, which is fraught with peril.
Where did you get the idea that I'm 'pro-gunner'? Because I pointed out americans are ridiculously violent? Senseless killings are actually on the decline, but we still do WAY more of it than any contemporary nations, regardless of the murder weapon. That is all I meant to convey.
Rudeness is in the eye of the beholder. That was meant as friendly sarcasm ('Hey, are you new here?' 'What are you, new', kinda things you hear everywhere, where I live.). If it bothered you, or you thought it was some sort of dire insult, feel free to avail yourself of the alert button. 
If I intend to be rude, you'll know it, and you won't have to passive-aggressively point it out 'herp derp, your rudeness is noted'.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)the parking space dispute. Nothing I've seen excluded the possibility of religion being part of the equation.
If someone executes 3 people over a parking space, something else is in the mix.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Assumes facts not in evidence. Sometimes, the motive for extreme violence is just that simple. Sadly.
Edit: I based that on this statement:
It's within a range of possibilities, but I don't see enough evidence to actually wager on it. You seem to have found a higher level of confidence in the possibility.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's amazing the spin people impart whenever they interact with facts.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I have a hard time believing that was the only issue.
Amazing how some people are reading to this story. when I fist heard it I was shocked.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But what he is telling the authorities that have him in custody is certainly a fact. It may not be all the facts, and again, the FBI is going to take a look at this, with an eye to adding hate crime charges. It's not a certainty that THEY will ever be able to determine that for certain either, but it's a lot better than jumping to armchair quarterback conclusions.
When Egypt Air 990 went down, I didn't jump to conclusions. I eventually accepted the NTSB's findings, but the audio record still leaves the possibility the co-pilot didn't do it. Intent can be a difficult thing to interpret.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)One for which you have no evidence. Making it an accusation and nothing more.
The police specifically asked about that.
Again, we'll see what the FBI finds. If your accusation pans out, his sentence will be amplified for the nature of the crime.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The police asked about that? So? Have you considered the possibility he might lie?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)When I see some evidence, I may revise my position.
All signs point to this being a long-running conflict. There are a range of possibilities from 'not related to religion' to 'informed his lack of value for those particular lives' to 'primary motivation for murder'.
From the evidence I've seen reported so far (and this may have changed in the last 2 hours) options 1 and 2 remain probable, for me. Option three remains a possibility, but will require significant investigative effort, which will come later.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I hope your concern isn't the case.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I just want to be clear on this.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I knew a guy who worked as a bartender in a suburban town an hour north of Stamford, CT. He was killed when a patron stabbed him in the throat with a utility knife for refusing to serve the bastard a drink after last call. Then there was another guy, shot in the face because he cut someone off in line for a gas pump.
I have no trouble believing this guy shot and killed three people over a parking space, because I know people who have died for far less.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Case fucking closed.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)They had a history.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)But that history is pretty vague, and at this point impossible to verify. Any information the father can bring to the table is secondary, one-sided, and ultimately incomplete... never mind indelibly marked with the grief of a father who lost a child.
We know the perpetrator and the victims had a longstanding dispute. We don't know whether it was the perpetrator's attitudes toward the victims that shaped the dispute, or the dispute that shaped his attitudes toward the victims.
But that's neither here nor there; there will be a hate crimes investigation, and once it is complete we may have a better idea of what actually transpired between these two parties. I'm not getting roped into some puerile argument over whether or not we can trust the word of some gun-fondling asshat, because that's not my point.
I just have a difficult time understanding the leaps people make trying to give meaning to senseless acts of violence. Seriously: this is the United States. People have been shot for driving too slowly on the highway, for texting during the previews in a movie theater, for being in the "wrong place" at the "wrong time". If you think it inconceivable that a man would murder three people over a parking space... I'm sorry, but you haven't been paying attention.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am not saying that it could not be over the parking spot but that I don't believe that is only it.
okasha
(11,573 posts)who knew both the victims and the killer.
Before people invest too much in Hicks' account, it would be well to consider that his statements are likely made with advice of counsel.I.e., he's saying whatever his attorney believes will lead to a measure of leniency at trial. NC is a death penalty state. I do not have an optimistic view for Hicks' long-term survival.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)His wife didn't even try to say he was innocent but that it was not about religion.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Here, let me help:
Reliability of memory.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goodbye!
Mariana
(14,861 posts)about a man who killed some people over a parking space in Baltimore. As you've pointed out, it's not like murders over petty bullshit are rare occurrences in this country.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"This group loves Christian crimes"?? Try actually being acccurate, and saying that people post here about crimes motivated by or committed in the name of religion or its gods. Not simply crimes committed by religious people, which are far too numerous to list and far too common to be noteworthy.
Sheesh.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)That is a distinct possibility. Time will tell.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Where in the sacred texts of atheism non-believers are instructed to "just go kill any Muslims you can find"
We'll wait.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)An atheist can hold strong anti-religious beliefs. Those beliefs can stem from their atheism.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Could you please indicate the verse(s) in the Book of Atheism that suggest one should kill believers?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)about the difference between atheism and anti-theism.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)from the likes of those who use the meme "anti-theists" because it is used as a prerogative. It is used to stop the conversation because they won't or can't defend their position in a rational way. It is mean spirited and a bullying technique.
Damn, I have avoided this forum for some time. I feel like I need to shower now!
rug
(82,333 posts)
rexcat
(3,622 posts)I prefer shea butter in combination with almond oil in my body wash, especially in the winter. As I have gotten older my skin tends to dry out more. One added benefit, I smell really good when I get out of the shower.
rug
(82,333 posts)Medicinal luxury.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And list for us the "beliefs" held by atheists...
kwassa
(23,340 posts)But I already explained that.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)If that one atheist "believed" that the victims were alien invaders that had to be destroyed, that has nothing to do with atheism, now does it?
Please...try to stop looking silly.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)If Hicks believed that the alien invaders were trying to impose their religious belief upon him, and he killed them for that, then his atheism would most certainly be involved.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to not look silly.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Still waiting for you to prove that it was anything other than flamebaity "Nyah Nyah, an atheist killed someone! That ought to shut you atheists up!"
Go ahead...justify your post as anything other than that
kwassa
(23,340 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)was inadequate bullshit. Killer=atheist/victim=Muslim was all you had. That doesn't even come CLOSE to supporting a conclusion that it was a hate crime. It would be just as idiotic to argue that because the victims were Muslims, it was possible that he had caught them in an act of terrorism and shot them to prevent it. That conclusion has just as much support as your claimed "point".
Now do you see how silly and transparently flamebaity your post was? Yes, you hoped so badly that it was a hate crime, so that you and your cronies could finally have something to throw in atheist's faces..but your agenda-driven wishful thinking is about as far from logic as could be imagined.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I never stated it was a hate crime. It does certainly have the initial appearance of a potential hate crime, as Hicks makes a great deal on his Facebook page about his identity as an atheist and his hatred for religion. He then kills his religious Muslim neighbors. The first appearance of these facts indicate it might be a hate crime, to be borne out by later investigation, of course.
There is nothing idiotic about this thesis; it would be idiotic to dismiss the clearly evident facts before they have been investigated.
Not only is this thesis not idiotic, it is the most reasonable thesis possible with the initial set of facts presented. There is no more reasonable thesis than this, until more facts are added to the story. It is a thesis that is still not disproven now, at this stage of the investigation.
You have yet to point out any flaw in any of my logic.
rug
(82,333 posts)I heard that somewhere.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Which is pretty sad.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Or blowing up abortion clinics in the name of not enjoying football?
Don't be ridiculous.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Cause and effect.
Anti-religious and atheist logically travel together, unlike abortion clinics and football.
it's a full time job around here.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Typical!
pipoman
(16,038 posts)
Dorian Gray
(13,501 posts)post such flame bait (and it is flame-bait), I assume it's posted for the same reason that people post topics about Christians who murder people.
Answer: To get a rise out of people.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)As the OP's failure to provide any coherent response to my initial question shows. And very interesting that all of the usual suspects who would be denouncing a post that said simply "murderer X was a Christian" are nowhere to be seen.
But your attempt to paint a false equivalency between this post and the actual posts you mention about Xstians is almost equally lame.
Dorian Gray
(13,501 posts)Dorian Gray
(13,501 posts)I am curious how it's false equivalency (hence my post: How so).
I am truly interested in conversation about this and would like to hear your view as to why it is false equivalency.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Dorian Gray
(13,501 posts)but insinuating that it was an crime cause by atheism is as annoying as any post implying that christian kill because the bible tells them to.
The guy was a nut, dangerous with guns. He was hateful. Who cares what his religious or non-religious ideology is?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)He could get the death penalty.
It in no way reflects upon atheists as a whole but the motives are important.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)In the first place, no one puts up OPs here titled simply "The murderer of X is a Christian". When crimes committed by Christians are discussed it is either as a rebuttal to the frequently made claim that religion/god are the primary sources of morality, and that religious people are by necessity more moral than atheists (a claim which atheists never make in reverse), or to point out how the tenets of Christianity instruct or motivate people to commit terrible evils.
Both of those are material to issues perfectly relevant to discussions in this forum, and hence not "flamebait" in any way, shape or form. As I amply demonstrated, the title of kwassa's OP had NO other purpose than to smear and agitate (their rather laughable attempt to show otherwise notwithstanding).
Dorian Gray
(13,501 posts)your first two points. I get why that would rankle and totally understand why you would feel the need to rebut that.
The third point... pointing out how the tenets of Christianity instruct or motivate people to commit terrible evils.... I'm more wary of that. People use what they want to use to justify their actions. Instruct I reject. Motivate... I can accept.
I'm with you on this being flamebait. I'm with you that there seems to be a disturbing glee that the perpetuator of the crime was atheist and not christian. And that makes me sad. 3 people were murdered, execution style. Reading about those people, they gae back immensely to society and they were good, decent people. DAs can figure out if it was a hate crime or not. The perpetrator of the crime sounds deranged. I don't think anybody should find satisfaction because of the background of the perpetrator of the crime.
And on that note, I'm headed out to Las Vegas! Where nothing from the Bible will instruct or motivate me for three days.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The biggest difference I see in these situations is that people who kill or commit crimes in the name of their religion can often point directly to their official holy text to find a passage that can be interpreted to justify it. Now you can also point to passages in that same book telling you not to murder people, or that you should take care of the poor, etc. But the fact remains that millions if not billions of people believe - and support - the notion that the book has special magic meaning, it comes from the gods, etc. And there's no arguing with that. None whatsoever.
If the guy in Chapel Hill killed 3 Muslims because they're religious and he thinks the religious should die, then he's a monster of the worst sort and completely wrong. And there's no holy book of atheism he can use to support what he did, not in any way, shape or form.
I think the automatic respect that religion and religious ideas are insisted to have, is part of the problem.
But what would I know, I'm just an insect.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)of people actually believing that there is a supreme being who created the whole universe and is giving these orders. If that were actually the case, the sheeplike deference of the religionistas to him/her/it would be understandable and regardable in a very different light.
But of course, some people here are still at sea on this, and adamantly maintain that it doesn't matter at all whether "god" actually exists.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, was charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the Tuesday shooting, Chapel Hill police said. He appeared briefly in court Wednesday."
The FBI will have a look though, and see if a hate crime was committed, and add to the charges.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Response to Fumesucker (Reply #39)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)To answer the question I would not take him at his word completely whatever he says.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)Murder over parking spaces has happened before. Here's a recent one:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-ci-homicide-arrest-20150112-story.html
Some people are just unstable and dangerous and it doesn't take all that much to push them over the edge.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)defenders of religious privilege continue to fail to understand is that atheism isn't a belief system.
These three Muslims identified with an explicitly hateful, misogynistic, bigoted religion, right in the texts, and they could have been none of those things, but in our world of religious privilege, identifying with such belief systems while not agreeing with them is "normal".
The murderer identified as an atheist, even an anti-theist, but all that says about him is he lacks a belief in gods and is opposed to the idea of belief in gods. Nothing radical there, but in our culture of religious privilege, it is seen as radical by many.
The murderer could be a bigoted asshole. He's quite despicable as a human being for killing people over a parking dispute, and it's not very believeable that that is all it was about. But atheism and anti-theism even aren't belief systems, and say nothing about being a bigot or an asshole. Islam, on the other hand, says a lot of things about being a bigot and an asshole, some good, some shit.
Anti-theism is akin to saying anti-capitalism. It doesn't mean a person is going to kill all capitalists.
No, you can't ascribe this guy's actions to atheism, because it's not a belief system that has a book which even hints at killing others. That would be all the Abrahamic religions. Just trying to head off some of the false dichotomies that I always see.
And no, I don't think I remember anyone saying atheists can't be assholes, murderers or terrorists for some cause or other. Rather, theists are extremely prejudiced against atheists in the US, even more so than Muslims according to a study, but religious privilege makes that hard for many people to see.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)While denying that they have a belief, they act just like a very dogmatic believer.
If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck ....
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)but it has nothing to do with atheism or anti-theism in general. Neither promotes killing, or even has a position on it.
The guy also described himself as a gun-toting liberal and supported equality for gays.
If he hadn't been gub-toting, I'm guessing the three people he murdered would be alive.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Not all atheists or anti-theists think exactly like you. It has nothing to do with a position taken by a group of atheists, as none are taken as a group, as you pointed out.
But that is the absurdity of this logic. For a position to be a belief of an atheist, it does not have to be believed by all atheists. Only one, or a few, are sufficient to make it the belief of an atheist. Their viewpoint on religion stems from their atheism.
There are obviously atheists who hate religion and will say and do everything in their power against it. I've seen many here on DU over the years.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)and normal, many progessives do. It's an idea. Only religious privilege make people see it differently from hating trickle down economics.
And atheism does says nothing about how to treat religions, there ar all sorts of ideologies out there that do though. Certain strains of communism, for example, are among the most famous, but again, atheism is not an ideology or belief system.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)The two travel together.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)But neither advocate killing and there is no dogma.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)an individual atheist can have their own dogma.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)There you go again.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I frankly have no idea what you are talking about.
Spell it out for me. What is your point?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)It's "dogma". Crack open the dictionary and look it up.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Your argument hinges upon the the misleading use of a word with multiple context-dependent definitions. An individual's "dogma"--something they hold to be irrefutably true--is not qualitatively equivalent to a religious "dogma"--a set of inflexible precepts dictated by a religious authority--yet you present them as if they were one in the same.
You really ought to stop doing that.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)please figure out the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist. It's insulting to the people you're attempting to talk about when you obviously have no clue, and it makes you look silly.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I know the difference between atheists and anti-theists.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)was based on your obvious lack understanding of the terms you were trying to use (and no, you clearly don't grasp the difference). I know the religionista victimology in this room requires you to pretend that demolishing your argument is a "personal attack" (or "bullying" or "stalking" or "harassment" or any of the other lame accusations people here have tried), but it ain't.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to formulate one that's coherent. All you can do is move goalposts from your OP (the point of which you still can't even enunciate).
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and a waste of time. But then, this is not new.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)with actual facts, and an actual justification for your post other than flamebait, feel free to share them. You've offered nothing but snark and evasion so far.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)You label my OP flamebait, but have offered zero rebuttal, only insults. Labeling a post flamebait is not a rebuttal, only an accusation without any support.
You are truly guilty of everything you accuse me of.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)You have failed to answer it through the whole thread. Hence, flamebait. Your post had no other purpose you can enunciate, despite being given dozens of chances. You have nothing but an attempt to smear atheists and atheism.
Flamebait.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)2. And your point is what, other than a lame attempt
to smear atheists and atheism? From the gleeful of the religionistas here, you'd think this guy being an atheist and the victims being Muslims were the only things about either of them that mattered. Talk about sloppy, dishonest thinking.
First, it is a little hard to find the question in this mess. It is hidden amidst insults and editorializing.
Let us strip it down to what it could have been, which is:
"What's your point?"
Now, that is a question I could answer. However, I have no motivation to answer anyone whose first response to me it is to insult me twice in their opening response, with observations about me and the significance of this story that are clearly false.
My point, not that you deserve this response, is that this story is a possible example of an atheist hate crime against Muslims. That makes this an important news story. It is not flamebait. It is a news story. The point that a self-identified atheist killed three Muslims is significant.
And you hate it. So?
rug
(82,333 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You know the drill.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)It starts with "dog."
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Irl the atheists I know are live and let live type of people.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Am I a ticking time bomb? ... Am I ready to go on a homicidal anti-theist rampage?
Let's see:
Militancy? ... oops ... pacifist here ...
LOTS of guns? ... um ... not a one ...
But yeah ... I am atheist ... and anti-theist ...
Watch out! ... here I come!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)This is a news story.
Promethean
(468 posts)Imagine if every time you are asked about your religion and answer honestly everybody immediately assumes you lack morals. Imagine in almost every discussion about your religious views the other side makes long forceful arguments claiming your religion cannot possibly be moral. They almost always compare your religion to Hitler and other tyrants saying such is the inevitable outcome of your religion.
Now look at the original post and substitute the word atheist for whatever you call your religion with the above hypothetical in mind. Would you still see such a thing as harmless or would you see another attempt to paint your beliefs as immoral?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The family does not believe this was over a parking space and neither do I.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)What is said here has zero consequences for our lives, people finding out you are an atheist in real life on the other hand can have profound ramifications on your life. People lose jobs, family and friends over this stupidity.
"I know what it's like to be black in America because I'm on DU and it's not easy being white on DU." Sound pretty stupid for a white person to say, doesn't it?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)go through irl With family and in their jobs. I understand that religious privilege is a real thing even though i personally have a hard time spotting it irl.
So don't think I am not sympathetic.
okasha
(11,573 posts)I won't call anyone out by name, but they are rather obvious. The type of post you doescribe as a hypothetical isn't hypothetical at all.
Context.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Almost every discussion you have about religion results in a forceful argument that you are not moral and almost always results in a comparison to Hitler?
Where in the world do you live?
Wherever it is, it sure is a good thing that you have a place to like DU to talk about your atheism without being called amoral and compared to Hitler.
FWIW, there have been many posts here where the words christian, mormon, religious, etc. have been substituted for atheist. There have even been articles that didn't include that in the actual headline where the posting member inserted the word christian. Many here have objected to that and rightly so.
This man is an anomaly. He may be an atheist but he certainly doesn't represent atheists, just like those religious people that commit heinous crimes.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Nor does it mean you are an intolerant asshole or a bigot.
Unfortunately, some atheists are intolerant assholes and they like to carry guns to solve their problems. According to one of esteemed fellow atheists, who also likes to carry a gun around, these executions were not motivated by religious belief, but by a PARKING PROBLEM.
BeyondGeography
(39,383 posts)there wouldn't be an OP or ten here pointing that out, using news stories with that label in the headline.
Some of you are being ridiculous.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...typical xtian fundies don't behave like this...but ignorant racists do...
But I'm sure that this attack had nothing to with religion (or lack thereof) in the same way the Charlie Hebdo rampage had nothing to do with religion either...Right?
At the end of the day three innocent people are dead...and that sucks, whatever the reason behind the attack...
BeyondGeography
(39,383 posts)All of it.
struggle4progress
(118,356 posts)Man had gun. Man spent lots of time posting about how he wanted religion to go away and how he regarded himself as a conscientious objector to ignorant dangerous and baseless superstitions that keep killing people. Man then pointlessly killed three Muslim neighbors.
These facts suggest a fearful and unhappy man, who abstractly attributed his fear and unhappiness to other people's "dangerous and baseless superstitions" and who concretely projected his own fear and unhappiness onto several people he didn't actually know, turning them into scapegoats for his personal misery; and having convinced himself that their ignorance was killing people, he then killed them.
Excessive reliance on online interaction can isolate people; and human isolation is not a good thing: it can lead to obsessive and deranged thinking. Fear causes erratic and unpredictable behavior; and obsessive fearful people with guns in their hands can be a major threat.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Who inhabit this room will be along soon to upbraid you for trying to evaluate someone's mental condition over the internet.
Yeah, right...
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Or so we have been told.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)That when a mother kills her kids to send them to heaven or someone dies during an exorcism or someone kills because God told them to, that their religion had nothing to do with it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)EvilAL
(1,437 posts)What helps drive this mental illness should also be considered.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)EvilAL
(1,437 posts)that drive people to hurt or kill other people.
Who knows, maybe God really did tell some people to kill other people.
Who knows, maybe the dead kids really were possessed by the devil.
Who knows, maybe heaven really is a better place for living children.
Who knows, maybe they were all just crazy.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)In many instances, there is severe and untreated psychiatric illness that causes people to commit horrible crimes. Since that is all preventable, that's a serious problem.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)my post to Justin about how people say it's not the person's beliefs about religion that drive them to harm others, and we always hear the excuse that hey must have mental problems.
I agree these things could be avoided if there were more treatment options available and people truly did want the help.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's not an "excuse", it's a fact.
Religious beliefs neither makes it more likely or less likely that someone will become psychiatrically ill or that someone might become violent.
It is wrong to blame this man's actions solely on his lack of beliefs, and it is equally wrong to blame similar behaviors solely on beliefs.
The bottom line is that the vast majority of people, be they religious or not, would never do these things. They are anomalies.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)EvilAL
(1,437 posts)Secular mental health programs. Without running the risk of having to tell a religious person with schizophrenia that the God they are talking to is all in their head, without insulting their beliefs.
"God is real, but he's not telling you to kill people".
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)EvilAL
(1,437 posts)Dealing with someone that thinks God is talking to them is never going to be a fun time. You'd either have to convince them that god doesn't exist, or reinforce the god idea in their head but convince them that they are wrong about what god is doing.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I defer to the professionals.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)but more beneficial.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Dealing with people that are experiencing command hallucinations is always challenging. It is not more difficult if someone thinks the voices are coming from god than it is if someone thinks the voices are coming from the CIA. You don't convince psychotic people of anything. That is a losing proposition and not an approach any legitimate practitioner would take.
It is also interesting to note that there is not necessarily a correlation between those that develop religiously based psychotic symptoms and their degree of religiosity before the episode. Some people with no religious beliefs will develop religiously based psychosis and will return to being non-religious after the episode is resolved. On the other hand, a highly religious person may develop psychotic symptoms with no religious theme at all.
You are trying to make a distinction where none exists.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)with these people. No experience in trying to make them better. I'll use the Pope as an example. If the Pope said god talks to him and tells him to do things would he require an evaluation on his mental health. If the Pope killed someone because God told him to, would people believe him because he's the Pope? Where do you draw the line to say that everyone that kills for god is crazy. hehheheh
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and must be evaluated on an individual basis. In general, religious beliefs are not signs of illness. However, those that develop illnesses sometimes develop symptoms with religious themes.
The pope is no less likely to develop an illness than anyone else. He, like anyone else, would have to be individually evaluated.
You are trying to single out religion in a way that really doesn't make sense, but if you want to hold religion responsible for some heinous acts, are you willing to hold atheism responsible as well?
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)But it's hard to say it doesn't have an effect on their decisions when they say they did it for god or ti send kids to heaven. What would one blame when an exorcism goes wrong and someone dies? Is everyone involved insane or are they deluded by their beliefs?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)religion at play. Religious delusions are not unusual, as people with psychosis try desperately to make sense out of what they are experiencing. Some of these people were religious before the experience and remain religious afterwards. Some of them were not religious and return to not being religious after the episode.
Exorcisms are sometimes performed for what are really psychiatric problems. The RCC has a protocol that requires that all people be evaluated for medical and psychiatric issues. This eliminates the great majority of those seeking exorcism. Unfortunately, there are those that ignore the protocol and that is where the trouble begins. If those involved are insane or deluded would have to be determined on a case by case basis.
The bottom line is that there is no correlation between religiosity and insanity, so your observations are incorrect.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)There is a correlation. That doesn't have to mean that their religion made them crazy. Obviously everyone a couple of thousand of years ago that killed and raped other humans over religion weren't all mentally ill, but they obviously believed they were on a mission from god.
Why is it so different today?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)in their brain and they are hearing voices telling them to kill, is there a correlation with the CIA?
It's not different today. People have and will continue to kill and rape for all kinds of reasons. Some are religiously motivated, some are politically motivated, some are insane, some are just really bad people.
Why is killing for religion different than killing for other reasons?
Dorian Gray
(13,501 posts)I feel for the three killed. This should never have happened.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)or may not have motivated him.
The tragedy is that there were signals and he didn't get the help he needed.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)will speak up to denounce this act any second now....
(CRICKETS)
kwassa
(23,340 posts)
Richard Dawkins has decried the shooting in North Carolina that left three young Muslims dead in their family home.
The vocal opponent of organised religion called for condemnation of the massacre on Twitter.
"How could any decent person NOT condemn the vile murder of three young US Muslims in Chapel Hill?"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-condemns-chapel-hill-shooting-suspected-to-have-been-carried-out-by-antitheist-that-left-three-muslims-dead-10037983.html
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)I stand corrected, thank heaven for an actual answered prayer.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)blames anti-Muslim rhetoric in part.
I would like to see Dawkins speak to this issue.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to denounce every murder committed? Or even every murder committed by an atheist?
Do you?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Is every one of them obligated to apologize and denounce when the person does something bad?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Good for him.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)He clearly and sarcastically implied that Dawkins not denouncing this was a failing on his part ("Crickets"? Really? WTF?). Which, as I pointed out to him and to you, is horseshit. Not to mention that Don Q got all snarky about it barely 2 microseconds after the murders, and then had to slink away redfaced when Dawkins DID respond after, gee..a few hours. Fucking sue him.
Now answer my question...if you can.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Lots and lots of people get murdered every day, every week, every month. Some almost certainly by atheists. Some probably by people who have read his books and been inspired by him in one way or another. About virtually all of those, Richard Dawkins says not a word of regret, condolence or apology on behalf of himself or atheism, and no one upbraids him one whit for failing to do so. The ONLY reason he did so in this case is fear of criticism on social media, and how he would be painted if he treated this murder just like most of the others that go virtually unnoticed. Make no mistake, he felt strong pressure to do what he did.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Or is this simply your supposition?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Do you need it explained again?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Factual support is not necessary.
I bow down before such logic.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that you don't understand why Dawkins felt strong pressure to do this. If you don't get it, just say so, and I'll be happy to elaborate.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)You have a theory that this is true, you are willing to accompany it with an explanation, but there is no basis for this theory other than your supposition that this is true.
You have no evidence.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)he had no other rational reason to comment on and "apologize" for this murder out of thousands. The evidence is the obvious fact that he didn't just pick this one out of a hat to comment on. The evidence, for anyone paying attention, is that he has a record of acting to defuse or deflect anticipated criticism of himself and of atheism.
Feel free to offer up your alternative reason why he "chose" this murder in particular to comment on, and why those same reasons might have compelled him just as easily to choose any other. If, as I suspect, you have no other reason that makes a smidgen of sense, you'll have answered your own question.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)When you find some factual support, write again.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that you don't understand logic.
And I'm sure you'll be offering up your "evidence" that Dawkins simply "chose" this murder out of thin air to comment on, as you claimed, and that he felt no pressure at all to do so. Have at it.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)You claim to have evidence when you have none. You have no proof of your assertion, yet you claim that I am illogical to ask for any sort of factual support.
You have nothing, actually.
How rational or logical is it to keep insisting that you do?
struggle4progress
(118,356 posts)he always seemed angry and confrontational. His ex-wife said he was obsessed with the shooting-rampage movie "Falling Down," and showed "no compassion at all" for other people. His current wife, Karen Hicks, said he "champions the rights of others" and said the killings "had nothing do with religion or the victims' faith." Later Wednesday, she issued another statement, saying she's divorcing him ...
Were three Muslims slain for their religion or their parking space?
February 11th, 2015
cbayer
(146,218 posts)beliefs has a weapon.
What could possibly go wrong?
Iggo
(47,571 posts)Gore1FL
(21,152 posts)We aren't supposed to bring that up. Lots of people here are positively delighted that an atheist killed someone who was religious, because this is chance to shove it in the faces of atheists who question the wisdom of revering a old book that contains many morally questionable commandments.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)People that do these things are anomalies. They can find justification anywhere they want. Someone who reads the bible and says it is telling them to kill their neighbors is no different than someone who reads anti-islam rhetoric and thinks that is telling them to kill their neighbors.
There is no difference, and attempting to draw a distinction is dishonest.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The bible also purports to be the word of a god.
And there are people who believe it IS the word of a god.
Those are three really big distinctions, cbayer. I understand why you would want to try and pretend they don't exist, though.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Where in the bible does it say that the bible is the word of God? Which book precisely would that be in? The Book of Trotsky? (Not Leon, of course)
You are definitely a very entertaining fellow, Trottles. 
Gore1FL
(21,152 posts)There is an obvious distinction. There was no dogma driving this man to commit atrocities.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)People sometimes do things because they feel they are being instructed to do them. Whether they think it is the voice of god or the CIA has implanted a chip in their brain, It does not matter.
You can not say with any certainty at all that there was no dogma driving this man. We just don't know that. Maybe he thought that religion really was a disease for which we could find a cure, and perhaps he thought his part of the cure was killing off a few people. Maybe he really did believe that Islam is a religion that is just like the mafia and that he was at high risk of being slaughtered by his muslim neighbors. Or maybe he was just pissed off about a parking space.
Attempting to draw a distinction here is meaningless and only being done to provide some kind of flimsy cover. This man does not in any way represent you just like Dr. Tiller's killer does not in any way represent most christians. He's an anomaly and the label "atheist" is likely the only thing you share.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)because they think the voice of "god" is in their heads telling them to, and people doing things because the CIA is mind-controlling them. We regard the latter types as mentally ill and prescribe psychiatric treatment. And yet you have argued incessantly that the same judgement applied to the former is bigoted and totally unjustifiable.
Odd, that.
Gore1FL
(21,152 posts)Atheism has no dogma.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It is not something unique to religion.
FWIW, he describes himself as an anti-theist. An anti-atheist is, imo, an atheist with specific beliefs. Those beliefs may be dogmatic.
Gore1FL
(21,152 posts)I'll accept that as your concession when I stop laughing.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"Dogma" meaning specific religious instruction (ordained and commanded by one's god, unassailable and unprovable) is being equivocated with "dogma" meaning any belief that is strongly held. Many people do the same thing with the word "faith" all in order to try and protect religion from criticism.
ck4829
(35,091 posts)He's for equality, he's a fan of the Age of Reason, he complains about radical Christians and radical Muslims... then he goes out and murders three people, three people who lived their lives opposite of the religious people he spent his time complaining so much about.
Is it over a parking space? It very well could be, but I'm willing to bet at the core of that, someone did something that he perceived as an insult to his self-righteousness, a large part of which that he cloaked behind a sense of superiority over religious people, which in itself for him is interchangeable, he probably would have chose something else if atheism wasn't as appealing to him.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)His political positions really do seem inconsistent with the crime. There is also the issue of his wife who announced that she was divorcing him the day of the crime and may have told him this before the crime.
