(February 8, 2013 at 2:00 am)Darkstar Wrote: But, see, there doesn't appear to be any indication that he was a serial killer due to his being a Muslim.
(February 8, 2013 at 6:35 am)Confused Ape Wrote: None as yet but I've come across one or two atheists in the past who seemed to regard atheism as some kind of ideology. They wanted to impose rules and regulations about what atheists should and should not do, Richard Dawkins wasn't atheistic enough for them because he only rated himself 6.9 on the scale of theistic probability and they regarded Sam Harris as a heretic because he's interested in meditation and altered states of consciousness. (I was a heretic too because my brain produces odd, subjective experiences and I use Jungian psychology.) They also regarded stamping out religion as every atheist's evolutionary imposed duty.
Maybe we're just lucky that some atheist nutcase hasn't killed anyone in the name of atheism the ideology but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens.
These.
There appears to be some confusion between an 'atheist/christian killer' and 'a killer who happens to be an atheist/christian'. It's all about motive (i.e. were they killing because of their religion/irreligion or for some other reason). Consequently, I'd consider Stalin 'an atheist killer': he killed people out of his ideological perspective of 'atheism' (as a subset of his pseudo-religious, communist ideologies).
It's a broad set of extremist ideologies which are the problem. The religiosity of the ideology is only one factor but a powerful one; I'd insert Sam Harris' comment on Jainism here. Therefore it's less likely for an 'atheist' ideology to lead to killing but it is possible.
Sum ergo sum
