The Atheism Mega-Thread

[Womble98]

The lack of coverage on this was interesting, was barely reported on any mainstream news sites, even places like BBC. Social media sites like reddit were pretty quiet about it as well.

 

[silkyman]

Probably because it's not actually that rare an event in the U.S.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org

Almost 1,500 people have been murdered with guns in the U.S. already in 2015. It's only that there initially may have been a religious element (and in particular, the new angle of militant atheism, which you can be sure the likes of FOX would have fucking loved) that it even became much more than local news.

 

[Stagat]

Well, the Americans have.

that's the spirit

 

[Pliny Harris]

From the BBC

The wife of the man accused of killing three Muslim students said the attack was motivated by parking, not religion.

Karen Hicks said she was "shocked" by the attack but said her husband Craig, 46, had parking disputes with many neighbours, of all religions.

I think, as a people, we've gone wrong somewhere.

I notice SALTIRE's gone a bit quiet.

 

[Jockney]

Very hard to verify any of this because no (trustworthy) major news media outlet is reporting much, but if those claims are legit then of course it should be considered a terrorist attack.

"Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R.)"

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

What claims?

There's not the merest shred of evidence that he was trying to further any political or social objective.

 

[Alty]

What claims?

There's not the merest shred of evidence that he was trying to further any political or social objective.

Agreed.

Religious fundamentalism is a very serious problem. I don't think people trying (as they seem to be here) to find some angle whereby they can just trot out the same old crap about there being "good and bad people everywhere" or say "[insert faith] is a religion of peace" is helpful.

What's happened here is incredibly sad. It might also be the case, despite the lack of hard evidence at this point, that this particular bloke did kill out of his hatred for religious people. But we don't have a significant section of anti-theists/atheists worldwide seeking to kill or violently oppress people because they don't believe the same things they do. Nor do anti-theists/atheists have appalling records on women's rights and gay rights. Or in their treatment of the poor (Christian denominations in particular have done brilliantly to keep the myth going there).

It seems to be human nature to unite around stuff. It can be a church, a nation, a football team or some other idea. Inevitably that creates in-groups and out-groups and people are going to clash. But I think we have to accept that religion is the most dangerous form of this because it often suggests that everyone else is a dangerous outsider, an enemy, and that you are the ones with God on your side.

 

[Alty]

And can I just request at this point that nobody brings up the fact Stalin or Hitler were bad men. I know most people likely to frequent this thread are better than that, but you know, just in case.

 

[Jockney]

What claims?

There's not the merest shred of evidence that he was trying to further any political or social objective.

There's not the merest shred of damning evidence because authorities are refusing to comment and this bloke hasn't been spamming up vbulletin boards with rambling manifestoes: the lack thereof does not preclude that objective. What is available in the public domain strongly hints that it may well have been an 'anti-theist' attack: strong self-identification with aggressive intolerant manifestations of atheism, a pre-occupation with handguns. Without any serious investigation, there is already enough there for a prosecutor to begin to establish a political motive for the attack.

It may or may not be the case, but why dismiss it out of hand at such an early stage?

 

[Jockney]

Agreed.

Religious fundamentalism is a very serious problem. I don't think people trying (as they seem to be here) to find some angle whereby they can just trot out the same old crap about there being "good and bad people everywhere" or say "[insert faith] is a religion of peace" is helpful.

What's happened here is incredibly sad. It might also be the case, despite the lack of hard evidence at this point, that this particular bloke did kill out of his hatred for religious people. But we don't have a significant section of anti-theists/atheists worldwide seeking to kill or violently oppress people because they don't believe the same things they do. Nor do anti-theists/atheists have appalling records on women's rights and gay rights. Or in their treatment of the poor (Christian denominations in particular have done brilliantly to keep the myth going there).

It seems to be human nature to unite around stuff. It can be a church, a nation, a football team or some other idea. Inevitably that creates in-groups and out-groups and people are going to clash. But I think we have to accept that religion is the most dangerous form of this because it often suggests that everyone else is a dangerous outsider, an enemy, and that you are the ones with God on your side.

It's a disingenuous but effective way of highlighting the contrast between the way attacks against certain minority groups are framed and the way we frame attacks with similar characteristics by members of certain minority groups. No one is seriously suggesting that anti-theism, or militant atheism or similar bullshit half-baked pseudo political philosophies are on a par with suicide bombings.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

There's not the merest shred of damning evidence because authorities are refusing to comment and this bloke hasn't been spamming up vbulletin boards with rambling manifestoes: the lack thereof does not preclude that objective. What is available in the public domain strongly hints that it may well have been an 'anti-theist' attack: strong self-identification with aggressive intolerant manifestations of atheism, a pre-occupation with handguns. Without any serious investigation, there is already enough there for a prosecutor to begin to establish a political motive for the attack.

It may or may not be the case, but why dismiss it out of hand at such an early stage?

I'd generally be inclined to let the authorities establish the facts of the case, and then leave them to decide whether any political/philosophical beliefs held by the perpetrator might warrant further consideration so far as the motive goes. In this instance the police have already said that they believe the crime was motivated by a parking dispute, so I would consider that to be the most likely trigger. I'm happy to keep an open mind on that but it does rather seem to me as though people (not you) have constructed a certain narrative on the basis on a few social media postings in an attempt to make a faintly risible point about atheists having the same capacity for acts of terrorism as their religious counterparts. He may well have been a strident anti-theist but, from the limited bits that I've seen, there's nothing that marks him out as being a dangerous extremist.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I appreciate reversing oppressions isn't normally that worthwhile an exercise, because they're asymmetric.

Suppose the killer was Muslim and killed a soldier, his wife and her sister. Given how politicised and up-for-debate Muslims' existence, particularly Muslims who wear hijab tends to be in Western Society that's the closest analogue to a reverse case.

If that killer also regularly shared the opinions of radical preachers who'd advocated jihad against the West and suggested killing American soldiers may be permissible*, do you think people would try to suggest that this was about parking?

Even if a parking dispute was the thing that drove him into a murderous rage (and it sounds like he didn't murder any of his other neighbours over parking, no matter how much it might have annoyed him), exposing yourself uncritically to the constant stream of demonisation and dehumanisation of Muslims that Dawkins, Harris et al churn out on a daily basis is bound to warp your worldview. The militant atheist/anti-theist movement is riddled with crypto-fascists and yet the links are never made between the confused, angry and bigoted who carry out racist attacks and the "clever" racists who whip up the hatred but put enough distance between themselves and the ensuing violence to deny any culpability.

* I appreciate neither Dawkins nor Harris has said that about Muslims so explicitly. However, he's advocated torture and racial profiling of Muslims and cheerled for wars of aggression that have resulted in millions of (mainly Muslim) civilian deaths. He also claims Muslims "instinctively side with other Muslims, no matter how sociopathic", claimed that America is "at war with Islam" - which he clarifies as meaning at war with tens of millions of Muslims worldwide, and bigged up anti-Muslim fascist movements.

 

[silkyman]

This. (To Pineapples post..)

As I've pointed out before, there have been 1,500 gun related deaths in the U.S. this year already. 25 of them classed as 'mass shootings'. Not all of them were big news, because, FFS, it's only the middle of February and they have had 25 mass shootings already!

 

[silkyman]

Suppose the killer was Muslim and killed a soldier, his wife and her sister. Given how politicised and up-for-debate Muslims' existence, particularly Muslims who wear hijab tends to be in Western Society that's the closest analogue to a reverse case.

How is that in any way a reverse case? Extremist muslims have threatened to, and have actually murdered soldiers. Show me the previous militant atheist murders?

Anyone who throws phrases like 'crypto fascists' around randomly doesn't really deserve airtime outside of a sixth form debate club, tbh.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Why don't we hear more about mainstream racism toward Scientologists? It's almost as if choosing to identify as an adherent of a fucktarded ideology is not the same as being born into a particular racial or ethnic group.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

How is that in any way a reverse case? Extremist muslims have threatened to, and have actually murdered soldiers. Show me the previous militant atheist murders?

Anyone who throws phrases like 'crypto fascists' around randomly doesn't really deserve airtime outside of a sixth form debate club, tbh.

What word would you like me to use for people who say things like "the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists."

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

"The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists. To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization."

 

[Pliny Harris]

By sounds of things and the little I've read this doesn't sound like a full-blown terrorist offence, but that doesn't take anything away from the evilness of the act to me so it's pretty much semantics. Given that definition of terrorism though I'd confidently call say Elliott Rodger a terrorist. It's a word we need to challenge ourselves into not just using for Muslim killers but somehow I have my doubts it'll revert to its official meaning any time soon.

 

[thespus]

I'm fucking terrified by all murderers—muslims, atheists, crocodiles, etc. Why acknowledge the "political aims" of some c***? Let's call him/her a c*** and move on. Anyone capable of murder is a terrorist to me. Don't show his/her face on the news. Just move on. There were 6 separate murders in St. Louis in one night a few weeks back. That's not a one off—in St. Louis or loads of cities across America. Let's treat murdering c*** for what they are and not give any special attention to those that may or may not have political aims. No innocent murder victim is more tragic than another—all motivations for killing a life-form are horrifying. Every killer is a terrorist--don't let the racist/religious extremist/etc. feel any more special than the gang member who killed a convenient store clerk for initiation.

By sounds of things and the little I've read this doesn't sound like a full-blown terrorist offence, but that doesn't take anything away from the evilness of the act to me so it's pretty much semantics. Given that definition of terrorism though I'd confidently call say Elliott Rodger a terrorist. It's a word we need to challenge ourselves into not just using for Muslim killers but somehow I have my doubts it'll revert to its official meaning any time soon.

What is the definition of a full-blown terrorist attack? Elliott Rodgers was a terrorist—he terrified bunches of people. So did the gang member who killed three people in Los Angeles. I don't get the fascination with the word terrorism apart from its ability to make the media more money.

 

[Pliny Harris]

What is the definition of a full-blown terrorist attack? Elliott Rodgers was a terrorist—he terrified bunches of people. So did the gang member who killed three people in Los Angeles. I don't get the fascination with the word terrorism apart from its ability to make the media more money.

Just going back to a previous reference in the thread:

"Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R.)"

So that one, rather than simply terrorising someone. Unless parking properly counts as a social objective. Swings and oranges.

 

[thespus]

Which is my point—every murderer has some sort of bizarre/delusional/narcissistic objective for killing someone. Let's either stop using the word terrorist or label every mad c*** who kills someone a terrorist. We need to stop putting these maniacal c*** on a different level than the other murderers. They're all maniacal c***, so let's end the moronic internet debates and media-wankfests where people pick sides about which group of homicidal freaks is a bigger threat than the other. They are all fucking terrifying organisms—school shooters, drug cartel gangsters, white supremacists, religious and non-theist extremists, satanists, men, women, trans-genders, etc. They all kill for some nonsensical reason; let's stop putting their ugly faces on TV and debating what to label them unless they are fugitives on the loose. Let whatever dumb fucking objective they had die with them and maybe those with motives won't be as fucking motivated. I don't need to know who this c*** in North Carolina was anymore than I need to know which cartel member shot and killed someone for gang initiation. I'm not any more or less sympathetic for the families of these victims than I am for the folks in Paris, Travyon Martin, or the random guy four blocks north of me.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

I appreciate reversing oppressions isn't normally that worthwhile an exercise, because they're asymmetric.

Suppose the killer was Muslim and killed a soldier, his wife and her sister. Given how politicised and up-for-debate Muslims' existence, particularly Muslims who wear hijab tends to be in Western Society that's the closest analogue to a reverse case.

If that killer also regularly shared the opinions of radical preachers who'd advocated jihad against the West and suggested killing American soldiers may be permissible*, do you think people would try to suggest that this was about parking?

Even if a parking dispute was the thing that drove him into a murderous rage (and it sounds like he didn't murder any of his other neighbours over parking, no matter how much it might have annoyed him), exposing yourself uncritically to the constant stream of demonisation and dehumanisation of Muslims that Dawkins, Harris et al churn out on a daily basis is bound to warp your worldview. The militant atheist/anti-theist movement is riddled with crypto-fascists and yet the links are never made between the confused, angry and bigoted who carry out racist attacks and the "clever" racists who whip up the hatred but put enough distance between themselves and the ensuing violence to deny any culpability.

* I appreciate neither Dawkins nor Harris has said that about Muslims so explicitly. However, he's advocated torture and racial profiling of Muslims and cheerled for wars of aggression that have resulted in millions of (mainly Muslim) civilian deaths. He also claims Muslims "instinctively side with other Muslims, no matter how sociopathic", claimed that America is "at war with Islam" - which he clarifies as meaning at war with tens of millions of Muslims worldwide, and bigged up anti-Muslim fascist movements.

I think you're willfully conflating anti-Muslim bigotry with hostility towards Islam as an ideology. No matter how flawed their approach, I think that if you genuinely believe that you can equate the views of Harris and Dawkins et al to those of violent Jihadis, you seriously need to get a grip. When it comes to people's religious sensibilities, the "New Atheists" tend to be equal opportunities offenders.

Harking back to some of the points raised about media coverage I would tend to suggest that the more indiscriminate the killings, the higher the body count, the more public the location, the longer the event takes to unfold, the more headlines will be generated. I'm sure there's a perfectly legitimate debate to be had about how the racial or religious profile of a victim influences reporting but I don't know that this story, appalling and horrific though it is, ticks very many of the aforementioned boxes. A lot of Jihadi-style terrorist atrocities do, as do things such as gun massacres, which explains why they tend to generate a lot of national and international headlines. We don't, of course, usually consider these to be acts of terrorism as the assailants tend to be lone wolves, lacking any sort of coherent vision... although, tbh, I might stop pondering this now as it's all a bit MACABRE

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Elliott Rodgers was a terrorist—he terrified bunches of people.

I lol'd.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I think you're willfully conflating anti-Muslim bigotry with hostility towards Islam as an ideology. No matter how flawed their approach, I think that if you genuinely believe that you can equate the views of Harris and Dawkins et al to those of violent Jihadis, you seriously need to get a grip. When it comes to people's religious sensibilities, the "New Atheists" tend to be equal opportunities offenders.

I think it's hard to separate the two. Islam isn't simply an ideology - it's more complex than that; it's a diverse and often disparate collection of beliefs and customs that range from Hui Chinese to Nation of Islam types in the US. You'd be hard-pressed to find many beliefs or customs that are held in common across everyone.

If it is an ideology, you can't really oppose one without opposing the other. If I'm against fascism, I have to be against fascists. And if I think that ideology is the biggest threat to Western Civilisation surely it stands to reason that I'm actively hostile to the people who hold those views, unless you think people are coerced or brainwashed into that particular point of view.

But if it's not, you still can't really separate the two. If it's a set of customs and beliefs, it's hard to be against that set of customs and beliefs without being against the people for whom those customs and beliefs are important.

There are obviously principles that are important to hold that sometimes put you in conflict with some traditional interpretations of Islam, but I think it's very important to distinguish that from being against Islam/Muslims generally, and also apply those principles far widely than to just single out already pretty marginalised groups.

Either way, it's clear that there's a correlation between more people being hostile to Islam as an ideology and people who look like they might be Muslim - whatever their religion, if any - being attacked or abused on the streets, put under surveillance by the police or harassed at airport security.

So you'd hope the anti-Islam-as-an-ideology would be a bit more careful with their words, wouldn't you? If I was Richard Dawkins/Sam Harris and thought there was even a faint possibility that my own rhetoric could have inspired this shooting, I would dramatically reassess the statements I've made. I really hope they're all doing that, and when people accuse them of Islamophobia in future, their first respose is "shit, where?" rather than reflexive denial.

 

[silkyman]

Why don't we hear more about mainstream racism toward Scientologists? It's almost as if choosing to identify as an adherent of a fucktarded ideology is not the same as being born into a particular racial or ethnic group.

Is Scientology a race now?

 

[silkyman]

What word would you like me to use for people who say things like "the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists."

What word means 'someone who only posts half a quote out of context'?

 

[silkyman]

Anyway. The FBI are now investigating whether this was a 'hate crime' or whether someone slightly mental who happened to be an atheist snapped in a gun-centric culture and shot three people who happened to the muslims because of an ongoing row about his obsession with parking.

Both fucking ridiculous reasons to murder people.

I wonder if every shooting comes under the same scrutiny, or if every one of the 4,987 people killed and injured by firearms in the U.S. so far in 2015 were shot by someone of exactly the same race, religion and sexuality.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Is Scientology a race now?

The point is within your grasp Silky.

If it is an ideology, you can't really oppose one without opposing the other. If I'm against fascism, I have to be against fascists. And if I think that ideology is the biggest threat to Western Civilisation surely it stands to reason that I'm actively hostile to the people who hold those views, unless you think people are coerced or brainwashed into that particular point of view.

But if it's not, you still can't really separate the two. If it's a set of customs and beliefs, it's hard to be against that set of customs and beliefs without being against the people for whom those customs and beliefs are important.

You're projecting. I'm pretty sure I could have a civil discussion with an Islamist or a Neo-Nazi, you don't change anyone's mind by shouting bigot in their face. Of course you can get frustrated or even angry when someone is saying things that you find offensive, but that's a far cry from painting anyone and everyone who might identify in a similar way with the same brush.

And I'm not sure why you're assuming such a level of ignorance in everyone else. If you can understand that there is a broad spectrum of belief that comes under the umbrella of "Islam" then anyone can too. Though I think when most of us are talking about Islamic ideology, we're talking about the texts. We're talking about the stuff that even the most moderate Muslim is tacitly legitimizing. Same with Christians and the Bible.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

What word means 'someone who only posts half a quote out of context'?

Sorry does the second sentence improve things much? Liberals who big up fascists (hai Hayek) always pretend to be only supporting their position with extreme reluctance.

 

[silkyman]

is 'liberals bugging up facists' something you encounter daily, to make that sort of connection?

The second part of the sentence makes a big difference. You know this, or you wouldn't have excluded it.