Is the Chapel Hill incident hypocritical of Anti-Thiests?

[emilynghiem]

So I have been talking to an agnostic friend recently and he had a point and Id like to see your points of views on it!
So if you don't know recently a supposedly anti thiest went out onto the street and shot up 3 muslims because he thought they were wrong, Now heres the question, with the shootings in Paris which was caused by a bunch of militant muslims, a bunch of people blamed Islam and there teachings on it!

But is that wrong? Considering an anti thiest shot 3 muslims, no matter how much anti-thiests hate religion, I highly doubt a lot of you want to kill people who believe in it! so should we stop summing up religious based shooting with religion? What do you think?

Link to the article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...38126.html

Hi CoolFunk yes and no
1. No, I would agree not to paint with too broad a brush and blame all Muslims for Jihadists and terrorists, and blame all Christians for Klan and Zionists, or blame all 2nd Amendment advocates for gun violence, etc.

2. In cases where there was collusion and conspiracy going on, like in general the collective support of terrorists pushing for physical retribution against the journalists or cartoonists blaspheming Mohammad, then this does need to be addressed with that group, in whatever ways they claim to identify and associate as a group.

The REAL issue I see going on is the political belief in due process (which most American Muslims respect as most Christians also respect govt authority) v s extreme individuals who start bypassing due process and have political beliefs exerting equal authority as govt to carry out executions themselves (as ISIS does acting as judge jury and executioner without due process).

If we address the political belief about due process and defense, then we can identify "which people or groups" side with which beliefs. then I believe in setting up special realms of jurisdiction where such groups can live by their own laws, and not impose on those who believe in due process and civil governance.

If we have set places where it is agreed that such groups will rule in militant ways over themselves and their own members, then we can agree that when we find such individuals, who don't believe in due process, they can be sent to go live there.

I think that will separate the sheep from the goats rather clearly.
All the people who threaten to carry out punishments instead of going through legal processes would also have to agree to be deported if they don't respect due process.

[Esquilax]

It's no better when an atheist kills someone purely because they are religious, than when a radical Muslim kills for apostasy. It's nearly the same thing to me. It's lowering yourself to the exact same behaviour atheism hates in religion, so we're no better if we let it slide and pretend radical atheism doesn't exist.

There's no reason to let it slide, if this was an atheism-motivated crime. You can be an anti-theist without being anti-theists; being against religion doesn't mean being against the adherents. It's the beliefs that are objectionable, not the people holding them.

[Chas]

It's no better when an atheist kills someone purely because they are religious, than when a radical Muslim kills for apostasy. It's nearly the same thing to me. It's lowering yourself to the exact same behaviour atheism hates in religion, so we're no better if we let it slide and pretend radical atheism doesn't exist.

There's no reason to let it slide, if this was an atheism-motivated crime. You can be an anti-theist without being anti-theists; being against religion doesn't mean being against the adherents. It's the beliefs that are objectionable, not the people holding them.

All too often it is, in fact, the people who are objectionable.
There are theists who are dangerous because of their beliefs, there are theists who are willfully ignorant, there are theists who teach ignorance.

[Mudhammam]

I find it surprising that more violent crimes aren't committed out of hatred for religion considering how goddamn pervasive and repressing it generally is.

But as an anti-theist, I find no rational justification for the use of violence in marginalizing the sphere of influence that faith has, nor do I feel any affinity with the sentiments or actions of those who do.

[Brian37]

So I have been talking to an agnostic friend recently and he had a point and Id like to see your points of views on it!
So if you don't know recently a supposedly anti thiest went out onto the street and shot up 3 muslims because he thought they were wrong, Now heres the question, with the shootings in Paris which was caused by a bunch of militant muslims, a bunch of people blamed Islam and there teachings on it!

But is that wrong? Considering an anti thiest shot 3 muslims, no matter how much anti-thiests hate religion, I highly doubt a lot of you want to kill people who believe in it! so should we stop summing up religious based shooting with religion? What do you think?

Link to the article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...38126.html

NO,

I am an "anti theist" as well. Just like I am an "anti flat earther". I see no problem with going after absurd claims. I do not see any value in viewing the world with a kaleidoscope when we have telescopes. Now that is not about human rights, that is about claims and ideas.

I do not put atheists from the same group think as theists. There is a future that atheists don't think about. Our minority status now has us closer to empathy so we are more sensitive to others. But that is current. Power shifts over time, and the current atheists alive today wont be around. We too form groups, and we can also falsely view the word "atheist" as a moral code.

Our species evolution is where our behavior comes from, our labels are not patent holders of our species morality.

I do not want to see the word "atheist" to ever get turned into a religion, which it is not right now. I do not want it to be treated as a moral code. I do not want it to be treated as a loyalty oath.

I will say currently, the reaction of atheists has been swift and unified in condemning Hicks, no matter what his inspiration was. Ultimately humans really need to see the individual first and the label last.

[Fuzzy]

It was over a Parking dispute, and there's zero proof his anti-theist views influenced him in anyway, I do think there is an element of truth to the claim that had this been a Muslim on Infidel crime it'd have got way more media attention.

But then again there's no Anti-theist clergy running around commanding Anti-theist to kill and terrorize people so that's the difference. If it was an Anti-theist hate crime then it'd be a pure lone wolf operation, as no big time Atheist would justify this at all, whereas you have Muslim Imams glorifying suicide bombers and terrorists and such, which creates a wider problem.

But still, shit happens.

[Brian37]

So I have been talking to an agnostic friend recently and he had a point and Id like to see your points of views on it!
So if you don't know recently a supposedly anti thiest went out onto the street and shot up 3 muslims because he thought they were wrong, Now heres the question, with the shootings in Paris which was caused by a bunch of militant muslims, a bunch of people blamed Islam and there teachings on it!

But is that wrong? Considering an anti thiest shot 3 muslims, no matter how much anti-thiests hate religion, I highly doubt a lot of you want to kill people who believe in it! so should we stop summing up religious based shooting with religion? What do you think?

Link to the article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...38126.html

Humans are individuals first.

I am anti theist in the same way I am anti Unicornist, anti flat earther. I am against religion not from a human rights standpoint, I am against it's idea that it deserves to be criticism free. Hicks actions are his and are no reflection of anyone else but him.

[abaris]

christianity has it too, it's just that christians are less likely to take that part literally. They've entered the stage of their religion where all the inconvenient things are to be interpreted, which doesn't appear to be a stage that has fully swept over the younger islamic religion just yet.

That's ignoring all the raving pastors calling for killing gays and dreaming about theocracy as well as the hundreds of millions of muslims, who don't go out killing everyone not believing in Islam.

It's also ignoring the christian lawmakers, who, especially in the USA, try to sneak their version of Sharia law into schools and state legislations.

The only difference between radical christianity and radical Islam is the social and legal framework that keeps up the barriers in most places. Sometimes they break and the results are as ugly as - to take one recent example - the Charlie Hebdo shootings.

[The Grand Nudger]

It was over a Parking dispute,

Well wtf else are we supposed to kill people over, it's not like gods whispering in our damned ears!

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't see anything so bad about going to the park that you gotta shoot someone over it ... of course, I'm a little biased.