Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill

[°Leprechaun]

err, this thread is getting weird...

Why are we assuming his actions were motivated by religious issues?  This would seem less presumptive if his feed was littered with references to anti-religious violence, or specifically seemed to target Muslims, but as far as I can tell neither is the case.  The one reference to Islam was criticizing "radical" Christianity and Islam together.  The one reference he had to violence I've seen was criticizing religion for causing it.

Of course, that makes him a hypocrite -- considering he murdered three people, probably the weakest charge against him -- but I don't really understand what here is making it so obvious to people that this was motivated by an ideological conviction relating to religion.

Because for whatever reason we seem to have collectively given up on the idea that when someone goes crazy and shoots people the fault of it lies primarily on the guy who snapped and it's not in a vague sense "society's fault".

Whether he shot the men because of his anti-theist beliefs or not it's not New Atheism's fault he did it unless the New Atheists told him to; it's his own fault. The same applies to Islam, Christianity, or any other religion, ideology, or negation of.

Well, certainly a person needs to be held accountable for their actions.

[politicus]

err, this thread is getting weird...

Why are we assuming his actions were motivated by religious issues?  This would seem less presumptive if his feed was littered with references to anti-religious violence, or specifically seemed to target Muslims, but as far as I can tell neither is the case.  The one reference to Islam was criticizing "radical" Christianity and Islam together.  The one reference he had to violence I've seen was criticizing religion for causing it.

Of course, that makes him a hypocrite -- considering he murdered three people, probably the weakest charge against him -- but I don't really understand what here is making it so obvious to people that this was motivated by an ideological conviction relating to religion.

Because for whatever reason we seem to have collectively given up on the idea that when someone goes crazy and shoots people the fault of it lies primarily on the guy who snapped and it's not in a vague sense "society's fault".

Whether he shot the men because of his anti-theist beliefs or not it's not New Atheism's fault he did it unless the New Atheists told him to; it's his own fault. The same applies to Islam, Christianity, or any other religion, ideology, or negation of.

one man + two women

[TJ in Oregon]

err, this thread is getting weird...

Why are we assuming his actions were motivated by religious issues?  This would seem less presumptive if his feed was littered with references to anti-religious violence, or specifically seemed to target Muslims, but as far as I can tell neither is the case.  The one reference to Islam was criticizing "radical" Christianity and Islam together.  The one reference he had to violence I've seen was criticizing religion for causing it.

Of course, that makes him a hypocrite -- considering he murdered three people, probably the weakest charge against him -- but I don't really understand what here is making it so obvious to people that this was motivated by an ideological conviction relating to religion.

Because for whatever reason we seem to have collectively given up on the idea that when someone goes crazy and shoots people the fault of it lies primarily on the guy who snapped and it's not in a vague sense "society's fault".

Whether he shot the men because of his anti-theist beliefs or not it's not New Atheism's fault he did it unless the New Atheists told him to; it's his own fault. The same applies to Islam, Christianity, or any other religion, ideology, or negation of.

one man + two women

Sorry I should have read more carefully. The point still stands though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's not particularly unusual for racist attacks (and murders) to be partially opportunistic; i.e. a situation escalates in the way that it does because the assailant is a bigot and the victim(s) is (are/was/were) from (or apparently from) a group that he hates. Basically you shouldn't rule out the possibility just because there are other factors.

Needless to say, o/c, this is extremely disturbing.

[ingemann]

Now this post sounds a bit silly in retrospect.

I was thinking the same, but as a Christian I thought it would be bad taste for me to bring it up.

You thought right. "Thou shalt not kill" applies equally to everyone. There are plenty of atheists whether "moderate" or not (whatever that means) who think that people killing people for any reason, is both stupid and evil. If nothing else, most humans should know right from wrong.

Yes almost as bad taste as blamming Christians, Jews, Buddhist and everyother religion for the terror from Islamic fundamentalists. But no body in the other thread had a problem with that.

[Mr. Illini]

I think it is clear that if a Muslim had shot a member of a different religion and their newsfeed was found to be hateful toward other religions, people would not hesitate to assume that it was likely religiously motivated, which wouldn't be an unfair assumption. It's not an unfair assumption to assume this was religiously motivated either.

Rest in peace to the victims and may the lesson be one of nonviolence from all sides.

[ingemann]

I think it is clear that if a Muslim had shot a member of a different religion and their newsfeed was found to be hateful toward other religions, people would not hesitate to assume that it was likely religiously motivated, which wouldn't be an unfair assumption. It's not an unfair assumption to assume this was religiously motivated either.

Rest in peace to the victims and may the lesson be one of nonviolence from all sides.

I think that would be a simplification. I wouldn'talways jump to the conclusion that a Muslim terrorist hating another group would necessary be a Islamic terrorists or that religion would be their primary motivation. The Palestinian terrorists in the 70-80ties, may usual have been Muslims, but they was not really Islamist, just as IRA wasn't "Catholist" (or whatever you wanted to call a ideology of fundamentalistic Catholism). Yes this guy clearly didn't like Islam or Muslims, but you really don't need a religious (or in his case areligious) motivation to dislike obvious Muslims, sometimes it's just a dislike or hatred of the other, other times it's based on personal experience (I for example doesn't blame holocaust survivours who don't like Germans).

[ElectionsGuy]

Disgusting, and very sad.

[Lief 🗽]

The father says that the murderer had been harassing his daughter and her husband before, including while carrying a gun.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

definitely just a parking dispute though

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

This is terrorism, pure and simple. If the the shooter had been Muslim and the victims white Christians, that would undoubtedly be the headline on every major news network.

Sidenote: Willing to bet that this firearm was purchased legally too...

[Alcon]

Because for whatever reason we seem to have collectively given up on the idea that when someone goes crazy and shoots people the fault of it lies primarily on the guy who snapped and it's not in a vague sense "society's fault".

Whether he shot the men because of his anti-theist beliefs or not it's not New Atheism's fault he did it unless the New Atheists told him to; it's his own fault. The same applies to Islam, Christianity, or any other religion, ideology, or negation of.

I don't know what it would mean to be a religion's "fault," but someone's actions can be influenced by sincere beliefs that they were ideologically correct, including if that ideology is religious.  I'm not sure how an abstract idea could be "at fault," but it can be a causal influence.  Or do you disagree?

I think it is clear that if a Muslim had shot a member of a different religion and their newsfeed was found to be hateful toward other religions, people would not hesitate to assume that it was likely religiously motivated, which wouldn't be an unfair assumption. It's not an unfair assumption to assume this was religiously motivated either.

Rest in peace to the victims and may the lesson be one of nonviolence from all sides.

Are we really holding ourselves up to the standards of internet news site commenters here?  Yes, there are some people who would see any Muslim killing any non-Muslim and assume it was religiously motivated.  Those people are probably idiots, since I imagine a majority of murders committed by devout Muslims have nothing to do with religion.  I have no idea how the rate of religiously-inspired murders among devout Muslims relates to the rate of religiously-inspired murders among strong atheists, but in either case, I doubt the rate is near 50% for either group.

In this case, the randomness of the attack may lend greater probability to it being an ideologically-motivated killing.  That's fine.  I don't think it makes it "obviously" a hate crime, but it makes it plausible that it's one.  Here are my problems, though:

1. People (like Lief) who decry assuming that Muslim-on-non-Muslim killings are ideologically-motivated, but jumped on this, are being hypocrites.

2. Like I said before, abstractions like religions can't really have "fault."  However, posts like Beet's ("so much for the superiority of New Atheism") make no sense for two reasons.  First, even if this guy's actions were motivated by distate for Muslims, that doesn't necessarily indicate that he believed this action were morally justified due to anti-theism; that's a little different than the average religiously-motivated terrorism.  Additionally, even if we assume New Atheism was the causal influence, it doesn't make sense to treat all ideologies the same if any people see them as justifying wrong acts.  There are simply ideologies that -- regardless of whether I personally find the interpretations of those ideologies "wrong" -- are more frequently used to justify wrong acts.  If Beet isn't trying to disclaim that idea, I have no idea what he's trying to do.

People are responding to this thread emotionally, and saying intellectually ridiculous things in the process.  Except they're responding emotionally based on defensiveness about their ideological convictions, not about concern for the victims.  I feel like a jerk lately for being down on so many threads...but sorry, this one is pretty disappointing.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

So Richard Dawkins is going nuts about this on Twitter. He seems profoundly nervous. He made something like a dozen tweets insisting it was 'just a parking dispute' in a row.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Now this post sounds a bit silly in retrospect.

Wait, so an atheist kills some people and now it's silly to call religious terrorism for what it is?  That makes zero sense.  Islam is not the only religion to be used to justify violence and terrorism.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

So Richard Dawkins is going nuts about this on Twitter. He seems profoundly nervous. He made something like a dozen tweets insisting it was 'just a parking dispute' in a row.

I don't know why.  This is one of the few (if any) violent acts we've heard of that could even be accused of being motivated by atheism. 

[°Leprechaun]

Now this post sounds a bit silly in retrospect.

Wait, so an atheist kills some people and now it's silly to call religious terrorism for what it is?  That makes zero sense.  Islam is not the only religion to be used to justify violence and terrorism.

When has faith every made any sense? Point that out to any non-atheist and all you get is "I believe it on faith". Zero sense, as the apostle Thomas pointed out seeing is believing. Why should I accept anything on faith? The whole argument that one atheist does something wrong as evidence for God's existence makes zero sense. Who created this man who did these heinous murders?

[Lief 🗽]

1. People (like Lief) who decry assuming that Muslim-on-non-Muslim killings are ideologically-motivated, but jumped on this, are being hypocrites.

Huh?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Now this post sounds a bit silly in retrospect.

Wait, so an atheist kills some people and now it's silly to call religious terrorism for what it is?  That makes zero sense.  Islam is not the only religion to be used to justify violence and terrorism.

If atheism can inspire violent acts just as much as religion, it's indeed silly to single out "religious terrorism" as a relevant analytical category.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

So Richard Dawkins is going nuts about this on Twitter. He seems profoundly nervous. He made something like a dozen tweets insisting it was 'just a parking dispute' in a row.

I don't know why.  This is one of the few (if any) violent acts we've heard of that could even be accused of being motivated by atheism. 

Because certain elements on the internet have made very clear that white men and atheists will be held account for this crime, as retaliation for the unfair treatment Muslims get every time a Muslim commits a crime or an act of terror.

Dawkins is the most vocal white male atheist out there, so they're gunning for him. I'm not surprised he's nervous.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't know why.  This is one of the few (if any) violent acts we've heard of that could even be accused of being motivated by atheism. 

Would recommend that you avoid making sweeping statements that are obviously untrue.

[afleitch]

What on earth is this thread? Armchair psychoanalysis of a gun nut, possibly mentally unstable, 'patriotic' atheist coupled with a bit of self congratulating. People have tragically died. That's the only fact we need to contend with right now.

[°Leprechaun]

I don't know why.  This is one of the few (if any) violent acts we've heard of that could even be accused of being motivated by atheism. 

Would recommend that you avoid making sweeping statements that are obviously untrue.

Good point, but was it motivated by atheism, per se?
Does the Communist Manifesto suggest war or murder as a means to an end. Yes communists are atheists, but not all atheists are communists. Atheism per se does not suggest war or murder as a means to an end. Is there an atheist bible?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I don't know why.  This is one of the few (if any) violent acts we've heard of that could even be accused of being motivated by atheism. 

Would recommend that you avoid making sweeping statements that are obviously untrue.

I know you've made the argument before, Al, that the atheistic elements of the Communist Party had a lot to do with why they persecuted Christians.  I disagree, as it is quite obvious to me that persecution took place as part of an overall power struggle.  The Communists were fighting an element they thought could undermine their ideal government and society... They were not persecuting them in the name of atheism.  Atheism has no tenants to which one can point to and radicalize.  Believe it or not, Hitch and Dawkins are not our "prophets".  You can not equate someone who interprets (often violent) religious text as a call to violence against non-believers to this "atheist terrorist".  

[°Leprechaun]

What on earth is this thread? Armchair psychoanalysis of a gun nut, possibly mentally unstable, 'patriotic' atheist coupled with a bit of self congratulations. People have tragically died. That's the only fact we need to contend with right now.

What is this thread? Perhaps the dumbest thread ever on this forum.
Anyone want to nominate it?
I try not to post here much anymore, but the stupidity of this thread got my emotions
heated up.

[°Leprechaun]

I don't know why.  This is one of the few (if any) violent acts we've heard of that could even be accused of being motivated by atheism. 

Would recommend that you avoid making sweeping statements that are obviously untrue.

I know you've made the argument before, Al, that the atheistic elements of the Communist Party had a lot to do with why they persecuted Christians.  I disagree, as it is quite obvious to me that persecution took place as part of an overall power struggle.  The Communists were fighting an element they thought could undermine their ideal government and society... They were not persecuting them in the name of atheism.  Atheism has no tenants to which one can point to and radicalize.  Believe it or not, Hitch and Dawkins are not our "prophets".  You can not equate someone who interprets (often violent) religious text as a call to violence against non-believers to this "atheist terrorist". 

"no tenants" is right
atheism is the idea that there is no proof of God's existence
how could that simple definition promote any kind of killing

and who created atheists?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I don't know why.  This is one of the few (if any) violent acts we've heard of that could even be accused of being motivated by atheism. 

Would recommend that you avoid making sweeping statements that are obviously untrue.

I know you've made the argument before, Al, that the atheistic elements of the Communist Party had a lot to do with why they persecuted Christians.  I disagree, as it is quite obvious to me that persecution took place as part of an overall power struggle.  The Communists were fighting an element they thought could undermine their ideal government and society... They were not persecuting them in the name of atheism.  Atheism has no tenants to which one can point to and radicalize.  Believe it or not, Hitch and Dawkins are not our "prophets".  You can not equate someone who interprets (often violent) religious text as a call to violence against non-believers to this "atheist terrorist".  

Yeah, I would agree Communists were not motivated by atheism. The religious were just one of many elements that they wanted purged, because they worshipped a higher cause than Communism.

It was communist violence, not atheist violence. Likewise, it's likely this is racist violence, not atheist violence. He most likely killed them because he hated Muslims (or at least was more likely to escalate to extreme violence because he disliked Muslims), not because he wanted to fight against religion.