Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill

[Alcon]

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

Huh?

Was your first post in the thread facetious?  I know it was mocking, but was it facetious?  If so, then sorry for using you as an example.  Although you can't blame me for assuming it was a serious statement, considering your next post...

[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.

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.

ANYTHING can inspire violent acts.  Now tell me, is it fair to say that violent acts LITERALLY inspired by LITERAL lines of religious text are equatable to acts of violence done specifically in the name of non-belief in god?  What is the reality of the vast majority of terrorist acts, Antonio?

A terrorist can blow up a building and absolutely point to a single line of text in the Quran that calls him to commit this act.  What does the atheist terrorist point to?  What or whom commanded it?  

[°Leprechaun]

While I disagree with some of the ideas in this thread, I hold no animosity towards
anyone here for such differences.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_peac.htm

"IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE COMPASSIONATE, THE MERCIFUL, look with compassion on the whole human family"

What we need is less anger and more tolerance. The religious tolerance site is a good start.
As much as I disagree with some religions, I can still tolerate them. I can still keep in mind
that many/some religious people are looking for solutions and are not part of the problem
however I may disagree with their (some of) their beliefs.

[°Leprechaun]

The only thing that bothers me is the idea that these acts of violence by one person are
used as an argument against the idea that there is no proof of the existence of a certain
deity.

[°Leprechaun]

By the same token 9-11 was not proof that all Muslims are terrorists.
That is equally as aburd.

[°Leprechaun]

While I admit that people can be very evil, I think it is a shame how the media manipulates
people with stories like this. There is an "off" button to your TV and your computer.

[Alcon]

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.

That's not necessarily true.  There are several reasons that religion might present unique analytical problems.  First, the beliefs are involved are more likely to be fixed and not susceptible to moral appeals.  Second, if you think that religion doesn't serve an overall-positive social utility, you might see its disutility as more trouble than other beliefs, like political ones.  Third, religious beliefs and conflicts probably spread in a somewhat different way than political or ethnic ones -- which I think is worth considering.

Would you object to the separate analytical category of "political terrorism"?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Alcon, you have very quickly become one of my favorite posters. I have nothing more to add that you haven't except to also say this is, of course, incredibly sad and f**ked up.

[°Leprechaun]

Are those who are so quick to blame atheism for the acts of one crazy person willing to blame
Quakers for Nixon's role in Vietnam?

It makes about as much sense.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is anyone here blaming atheism for this murderers murdering ways?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

So now we have No True Atheist as well. Remarkable.

[°Leprechaun]

Is anyone here blaming atheism for this murderers murdering ways?

Good question.

What about Grumps?
"Damn atheists"
He isn't saying so, in so many words. It wasn't a very nice thing to say, however.

[King]

Is anyone here blaming atheism for this murderers murdering ways?

Good question.

What about Grumps?
"Damn atheists"
He isn't saying so, in so many words. It wasn't a very nice thing to say, however.

Pretty sure Grumps was just being facetious.

[°Leprechaun]

Is anyone here blaming atheism for this murderers murdering ways?

Good question.

What about Grumps?
"Damn atheists"
He isn't saying so, in so many words. It wasn't a very nice thing to say, however.

Pretty sure Grumps was just being facetious.

I missed that, ok, then.

[°Leprechaun]

If nobody is blaming atheism, then what is all the arguing here for?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

If nobody is blaming atheism, then what is all the arguing here for?

Atheism is impossible to blame in good faith (pun intended). Atheism is a no-thing. There's a certain type of worldview that is atheistic, and to some extent preoccupied with this fact, but also characterized by a certain degree of intellectual intransigence and often an animus against Muslims specifically, that I think is what we're arguing about whether or not to blame. (I don't think 'militant atheism' and 'New Atheism' are especially honest terms for this worldview, but it's definitely an identifiable, and specific, ideological current.)

I think what's going on with Dawkins here is that he's concerned about whataboutery, even if the whataboutery is comparing incidents that are, while similar in kind, vastly different in degree. I think this is a reasonable concern for him to have, but I don't think he's doing himself any favors; he really does just seem like he's freaking out, and it's unbecoming. (Then again, Twitter has...never really been a medium in which he acquits himself very well in general.)

[°Leprechaun]

If nobody is blaming atheism, then what is all the arguing here for?

Atheism is impossible to blame in good faith (pun intended). Atheism is a no-thing. There's a certain type of worldview that is atheistic, and to some extent preoccupied with this fact, but also characterized by a certain degree of intellectual intransigence and often an animus against Muslims specifically, that I think is what we're arguing about whether or not to blame. (I don't think 'militant atheism' and 'New Atheism' are especially honest terms for this worldview, but it's definitely an identifiable, and specific, ideological current.)

I think what's going on with Dawkins here is that he's concerned about whataboutery, even if the whataboutery is comparing incidents that are, while similar in kind, vastly different in degree. I think this is a reasonable concern for him to have, but I don't think he's doing himself any favors; he really does just seem like he's freaking out, and it's unbecoming. (Then again, Twitter has...never really been a medium in which he acquits himself very well in general.)

My view of the "New atheists" is that they are simply against the abuses of religion. It is wrong to compare them
to religious extremists or call them fundamentalists or to call them 'militant'. They are asserting the right to criticisize religion. You
could say that they are "evangelical" in the sense that they are supporting the superiority of reason over
blind faith. Faith is believing something without science or reason to back it up, and while I can't disprove
it, perhaps, as a reason to believe, I don't 'get it'.
For millenia (at least some of) religion has persecuted atheists, infidels, heretics and scientists.
Even in this century you had the monkey trial.
Atheists and scientists have contributed a lot to the world. Religion (generally speaking) has held us back.
I like the quote from "Inherit the Wind", "I may be rancid butter, but I'm on your side of the bread."
While they may not be as diplomatic as some people would prefer, in being critical of religion, their intentions
is to promote a reasonable debate vis a vis the usefulness of religion.
I might not agree with all their political views, but their defense of reason as a method of seeking truth appeals to me.

[King]

If nobody is blaming atheism, then what is all the arguing here for?

That Atheist extremists like Bill Maher and Sam Harris's saying Islam is an enemy of the West on television should be treated with the equivalency of Muslim political leaders like Ahmadinejad going in front of the U.N. saying the Holocaust never happened.

It is propaganda which incites violence.

[°Leprechaun]

As far as their criticism of Islam in particular, well, certainly there are moderate Muslims, but today radical Islam does seem to be problematic, but there are extremists in a lot of religions.

In the following essay, Sam Harris is critical of all religions, not just Muslims:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/

[King]

As far as their criticism of Islam in particular, well, certainly there are moderate Muslims, but today radical Islam does seem to be problematic, but there are extremists in a lot of religions.

In the following essay, Sam Harris is critical of all religions, not just Muslims:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/

I'm sure the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't think well of Hindus and Buddhists either, but their main focus as Arabs is against Jews and Christians because those are the most present forces. Sam Harris does not write whole books and do whole television interviews on Buddhism. He does it on Islam and Christianity. An atheist in the United States would find Christians and Muslims to be the cause of religious woes.

I have no problem with atheism since I agnostic. However, the Maher/Harris types need to be called out as the Atheist equivalents of religious clerics.

[°Leprechaun]

If nobody is blaming atheism, then what is all the arguing here for?

That Atheist extremists like Bill Maher and Sam Harris's saying Islam is an enemy of the West on television should be treated with the equivalency of Muslim political leaders like Ahmadinejad going in front of the U.N. saying the Holocaust never happened.

It is propaganda which incites violence.

You may have a valid point. I saw that show, but I can't remember everything, it was a while ago. I don't think either of them believe that all Muslims are bad people (I obviously don't), I think that they would concede that there are plenty of moderate Muslims. I am sure that they could have chosen their words more wisely.
I for one, have studied Sufism and that doesn't fit in with fundamentalist Islam at all, in fact many more right wing
Muslims consider Sufis heretics.

[King]

Maher I believe has said there is no such thing as moderate or liberal Islam and that all Muslims believe X, Y, & Z blah blah.

[°Leprechaun]

Maher I believe has said there is no such thing as moderate or liberal Islam and that all Muslims believe X, Y, & Z blah blah.

If he did, that was stupid. I will have to look at the youtube video and get back to you on that.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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.

So now we have No True Atheist as well. Remarkable.

What do you even mean by that? 

[°Leprechaun]

Maher I believe has said there is no such thing as moderate or liberal Islam and that all Muslims believe X, Y, & Z blah blah.

Here are some youtube videos with Harris

Sam Harris:

"There are hundreds of millions
of Muslims who are nominal
Muslims who don't take the
faith seriously." who don't
want to kill apostates who
are horrified by ISIS" etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo7z2Ml2tI0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG4WCLOBPbo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU