What if the shooter had been a christian republican?

[Rhea]

hold on, you're a political junkie. how do you only know a little about hitchens?

I assumed he was joking. Whether or not there is any such thing as an "atheist community" is an endless, circular debate that I will not bother getting into. But suffice to say, if we accept that there is such a thing as an atheist community, which was a premise built into the question I was responding to, Dawkins and Hitchens would almost certainly be at the top rung of notoriety, with Harris probably one rung below them, and AHA below him and then Pat Condell somewhere in the middle.

No, seriously. I have been an atheist for 35 years. I have been hanging out NEARLY DAILY on an atheist forum for 15 of those. And I have NO IDEA who that last two are. ZERO. Never heard of them.

I knew Harris was a guy who wrote some books, but couldn't remember if he was the ex-preacher or a scientist. Dawkins and Hitchens I know of their stuff.

But if you ask us to accept that there is some thing called an atheist society, then I should fit SQUARELY within it, and possibly pretty high up on the awareness ladder. And I seriously have no freakin clue who those last two "notorious" people are. Jimmy Higgins (look at his join date) has been here for 15 years also, and has FORTY FIVE THOUSAND POSTS on an atheist forum and also doesn't have a familiarity with your "notorious" atheists. So your premise of an atheist community just fails the test of reality. Really.

 

[Axulus]

I assumed he was joking. Whether or not there is any such thing as an "atheist community" is an endless, circular debate that I will not bother getting into. But suffice to say, if we accept that there is such a thing as an atheist community, which was a premise built into the question I was responding to, Dawkins and Hitchens would almost certainly be at the top rung of notoriety, with Harris probably one rung below them, and AHA below him and then Pat Condell somewhere in the middle.

No, seriously. I have been an atheist for 35 years. I have been hanging out NEARLY DAILY on an atheist forum for 15 of those. And I have NO IDEA who that last two are. ZERO. Never heard of them.

I knew Harris was a guy who wrote some books, but couldn't remember if he was the ex-preacher or a scientist. Dawkins and Hitchens I know of their stuff.

But if you ask us to accept that there is some thing called an atheist society, then I should fit SQUARELY within it, and possibly pretty high up on the awareness ladder. And I seriously have no freakin clue who those last two "notorious" people are. Jimmy Higgins (look at his join date) has been here for 15 years also, and has FORTY FIVE THOUSAND POSTS on an atheist forum and also doesn't have a familiarity with your "notorious" atheists. So your premise of an atheist community just fails the test of reality. Really.

You make good points. Not every engaged atheist interacts with the same communities. There are lots of different communities including those who attend conventions, those who participate on reddit, those who subscribe to youtube atheists, those who follow famous atheists on twitter, those who regularly check Richard Dawkins foundation website, etc.

While there is a lot of overlap among many members of these various communities, that doesn't mean that the communities are one and the same.

 

[Tigers!]

What bothers me the most is that the response to this from the so-called "moderates" in the atheist community has been tepid at best. When a Christian wants to teach the Bible in school, the howls of outrage can break the internet, but when an atheist kills a family because of their religion, the atheist leaders are nowhere to be found. If they abdicate their responsibilities whenever radicals commit a horrific act in its name, then they can't complain when others say that those radicals are representative of and supported by the community.

Thank you for that.
That's the problem. When a Muslim/Christian/republican does something horrid like the event atheists jump up and down and say that it is their religion that. is the problem. When an atheist does such a thing where are the claims that it is their atheism that is to blame?

 

[Axulus]

What bothers me the most is that the response to this from the so-called "moderates" in the atheist community has been tepid at best. When a Christian wants to teach the Bible in school, the howls of outrage can break the internet, but when an atheist kills a family because of their religion, the atheist leaders are nowhere to be found. If they abdicate their responsibilities whenever radicals commit a horrific act in its name, then they can't complain when others say that those radicals are representative of and supported by the community.

Thank you for that.
That's the problem. When a Muslim/Christian/republican does something horrid like the event atheists jump up and down and say that it is their religion that. is the problem. When an atheist does such a thing where are the claims that it is their atheism that is to blame?

The difference is the motivation and the nature of association. If someone is regularly heard making anti-gay remarks, attends an anti-gay church, and is then later found to have murdered a gay individual, then their particular religious views and the anti-gay rhetoric from their church is likely to share some of the blame.

Similarly, if an atheist is regularly heard making anti-muslim remarks, attends an anti-immigration protest, and is later found to have murdered a Muslim, then their anti-religiosity motivated in part by their atheism is likely to share some of the blame.

 

[dismal]

What bothers me the most is that the response to this from the so-called "moderates" in the atheist community has been tepid at best. When a Christian wants to teach the Bible in school, the howls of outrage can break the internet, but when an atheist kills a family because of their religion, the atheist leaders are nowhere to be found. If they abdicate their responsibilities whenever radicals commit a horrific act in its name, then they can't complain when others say that those radicals are representative of and supported by the community.

Thank you for that.
That's the problem. When a Muslim/Christian/republican does something horrid like the event atheists jump up and down and say that it is their religion that. is the problem. When an atheist does such a thing where are the claims that it is their atheism that is to blame?

But the atheism didn't make him a killer - that's just an unrelated coincidence.

Being a "progressive" is what made him into a killer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From what I've read he was a dick to everyone about it and the towing company eventually stopped taking his calls.

yep, I found this article shortly after I posted: http://www.wsj.com/articles/alleged...ing-disputes-tow-truck-driver-says-1423706574

It says that he was an asshole to just about everyone over parking, and that parking was assigned.

However, it was only the muslim ones that got bullets to the head about it. The fact that they were killed "execution" style makes me think it was more than just parking space rage.

I suspect that was perhaps more coincidence than anything. I just don't see anything reported so far that indicates he targeted Muslims.

Which is not to say there aren't atheists who disproportionately target Muslims for their anti-religion rants. We know they exist I just don't see evidence that this guy was one of them. He seems to have been more anti-Christian than anti-Muslim.

Yeah. That's the impression I get, also--they simply happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[Warpoet]

No, seriously. I have been an atheist for 35 years. I have been hanging out NEARLY DAILY on an atheist forum for 15 of those. And I have NO IDEA who that last two are. ZERO. Never heard of them.

I knew Harris was a guy who wrote some books, but couldn't remember if he was the ex-preacher or a scientist. Dawkins and Hitchens I know of their stuff.

But if you ask us to accept that there is some thing called an atheist society, then I should fit SQUARELY within it, and possibly pretty high up on the awareness ladder. And I seriously have no freakin clue who those last two "notorious" people are. Jimmy Higgins (look at his join date) has been here for 15 years also, and has FORTY FIVE THOUSAND POSTS on an atheist forum and also doesn't have a familiarity with your "notorious" atheists. So your premise of an atheist community just fails the test of reality. Really.

You really need to read more carefully before you respond to things. Oh, and PLEASE STOP USING ALLCAPS, it is childish and annoying, and it does not make you sound any more convincing. Quite the opposite.

The premise that an atheist community exists was not mine, it was built into the questions Axulus posed. I noted at the time that the idea of "leadership" was problematic.

But regardless, if we accept the premise, then there are certain people who can be accurately described as "well-known" within said community. At least four of the five mentioned easily meet that criteria, with only one (Condell) being borderline. And that's true regardless of whether a few individual posters on one atheist message board agree, FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND POSTS or not.

Again, following the premise of the question, Sam Harris in particular is, by any reasonable metric, very well-known amongst atheists. And the fact that you've barely heard of him is pretty clear evidence that you are not a valid simple by which to test the claim.

 

[Warpoet]

You make good points. Not every engaged atheist interacts with the same communities. There are lots of different communities including those who attend conventions, those who participate on reddit, those who subscribe to youtube atheists, those who follow famous atheists on twitter, those who regularly check Richard Dawkins foundation website, etc.

While there is a lot of overlap among many members of these various communities, that doesn't mean that the communities are one and the same.

Correct, but someone does not need to be known by every person in all of those overlapping communities to be considered "well-known."

 

[Tigers!]

But the atheism didn't make him a killer - that's just an unrelated coincidence.

Does that broad-mindlessness extend to Christianity?

 

[Tigers!]

The shooting happened Tuesday night

It's Thursday morning

It hasn't been 48 hours yet.

And the story is still unfolding.

Condolences to the family.

(I am sure you simply forgot to offer your sentiments to the family Tigers!. I mean, in your righteous indignation of the hypocrisy of atheists, you simple over looked common courtesy.)

Of course my condolences and prayers are with the families. This should never have happened.

 

[ksen]

Thank you for that.
That's the problem. When a Muslim/Christian/republican does something horrid like the event atheists jump up and down and say that it is their religion that. is the problem. When an atheist does such a thing where are the claims that it is their atheism that is to blame?

But the atheism didn't make him a killer - that's just an unrelated coincidence.

Being a "progressive" is what made him into a killer.

lol, progressives don't own guns. If he was a progressive he would've killed them with a knife made out of tofu.

 

[Tigers!]

Hey Tiger, can you point us to a single time on this board where a person shot another person and the consensus here was that it was religiously motivated, despite there being no evidence of such other than differing religious views of the parties involved?

The threads about Anders Brevik, Jared Loughner, Timothy McVeigh et al spring to mind

 

[RavenSky]

Thank you for that.
That's the problem. When a Muslim/Christian/republican does something horrid like the event atheists jump up and down and say that it is their religion that. is the problem. When an atheist does such a thing where are the claims that it is their atheism that is to blame?

But the atheism didn't make him a killer - that's just an unrelated coincidence.

Being a "progressive" is what made him into a killer.

Being a gun nut is what made him into a killer.

 

[RavenSky]

But the atheism didn't make him a killer - that's just an unrelated coincidence.

Does that broad-mindlessness extend to Christianity?

Who is being mindless here? You?

There is next to no evidence that Craig Hicks killed anyone because they were Muslim or because he is an atheist.

 

[dismal]

Does that broad-mindlessness extend to Christianity?

Who is being mindless here? You?

There is next to no evidence that Craig Hicks killed anyone because they were Muslim or because he is an atheist.

Right, it's clearly because he's a progressive. You watch Rachel Maddow enough and something snaps.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Laff Break

 

[Rhea]

You really need to read more carefully before you respond to things. Oh, and PLEASE STOP USING ALLCAPS, it is childish and annoying, and it does not make you sound any more convincing. Quite the opposite.

I don't always use ALL CAPS, but when I do, it's because I'm having problems with my mouse
{insert photo of that "I don't always" guy}
and can't easily click on the italics button. Or because I want to get your goat. You pick.

 

[Underseer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/us/muslim-student-shootings-north-carolina.html

I wonder why these fora has been quiet about this?
I can imagine the reaction if the shooter had been a Christian republican.
I can imagine the reaction if the victims were black.

Yet an atheist murders Muslims and there is thundering silence.

Why?

(Before some one pipes in about the possible parking dispute would you allow a Christian republican that latitude? I doubt it.)

So one atheist shooter proves that atheism is bad, but the many, many Christian shooters up until now do not prove that Christianity is bad?

It's amazing that you managed to commit an argument from consequence and a false equivalence fallacy all in the same argument. That's pretty impressive!

 

[laughing dog]

Hey Tiger, can you point us to a single time on this board where a person shot another person and the consensus here was that it was religiously motivated, despite there being no evidence of such other than differing religious views of the parties involved?

The threads about Anders Brevik, Jared Loughner, Timothy McVeigh et al spring to mind

Why did those threads spring to mind? There was no evidence that McVeigh nor Loughner were religiously motivated. Brevik called himself a "cultural Christian" but did not practice nor preach religion. Perhaps if you cited what you meant, others might better understand what you are talking about.

 

[ronburgundy]

To be analogous, wouldn't that have to read...

'cause, I don't the Muslims or Christians in this case wasted any time at all in applying the "anti-theist crime" to this case...

I think you misread.

In any case, yes, Muslims jumped to the conclusion it was a hate crime, some Christians did the same in order to vilify/demonize liberal atheists, and atheists tend to be jumping to the conclusion that it was just a dispute over parking. Who the fuck knows what the exact reason was.

There is zero evidence that religion played any role and a lot of evidence that he had a long standing conflict with these individuals for other reasons.
In addition, it is illogical to think it was about religion given that the evidence suggests he had just as much or more of a problem with the non-Muslim religion of 90% of the people around him and all others who parked in that spot. Until there is a shred of evidence suggesting religion as the motive, the ration position is that it had zero to do with religion, just like 99% of all other murders.

But I stand by my claim that if it had been a Muslim who had killed three Jews you'd see a lot less nuance in how this was being reported and perceived.

First, stupidity does not validate counter stupidity. Second, there is nothing comparable about these situations. This guy was not critical of Muslims in particular, but of all religion and if anything more critical of Christians than Muslims. There were hundreds Christians around he could have killed, but did not, despite all evidence showing he had a more animosity toward them. This is strong evidence against religion being a factor. If a person in a region with relatively few Jews were to selectively target Jews for public ridicule and then, of all the people around them, target the few Jews for violence, then this would be a much more improbable co-occurrence and thus make the victims' Jewishness are more probable factor.
The actual current situation is more like a person who says "I don't like people who eat bread", then they kill someone who, like 90% of people, happens to eat bread, and people claim "He killed them because they ate bread!!"

This case is among the countless that show why ignorance in understanding probability is not just a threat to intellectual progress, but a massive threat to political and moral progress.