Chapel Hill shooting forces uncomfortable conversations among Reddit's atheists

[rug]

Updated by German Lopez on February 11, 2015, 1:50 p.m. ET

We still don't know why three students, all Muslim, were shot to death in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, on Tuesday. But there is unconfirmed speculation that the murders were motivated by the victims' religion, bolstered by a Facebook account that appears to belong to someone with the same name as the man who turned himself into police for the killings, and which identified him as an "anti-theist."

It may yet turn out that the killers' views on religion did not motivate the murders. All the same, this initial speculation has provoked difficult conversations and self-reflection in some atheist circles, some of which are anticipating that they will be blamed for the attack — much in the same way that some members of those atheist communities have, in the past, blamed Islam for the acts of violent Muslim extremists.

In the past, prominent figures on atheism such as Bill Maher and Sam Harris have blamed violent extremism on religions and their followers, with Maher once infamously characterizing Islam as "the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will fucking kill you if you say the wrong thing." Discussion about a link between religion and violence is also fairly popular on r/atheism, a large atheist community on Reddit.

Atheists have already condemned the attacks on three young Muslims in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, though they should not have to. Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins tweeted, "How could any decent person NOT condemn the vile murder of three young US Muslims in Chapel Hill?" The top thread on r/atheism states, "As an anti-theist myself I hope he rots in jail."

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/11/8019729/chapel-hill-shooting-atheism

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/2viz6c/chapel_hill_shooting_three_american_muslims/

[Fumesucker]

1. At least one poster on DU is delighted that these three murders happened..

And thinks that the killer's actions were "brilliant".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6211732

[shenmue]

2. It is possible he had more than one reason.

[gwheezie]

3. I'm am atheist

I'm not having any uncomfortable conversations. Atheist have killed people because of their beliefs. It's happened. We don't have a big book we all believe in that says it's ok.

[Htom Sirveaux]

4. Which big book would that be?

And would everyone who honors that book, or even the majority, agree that said book tells them to kill?

[gwheezie]

7. If you are going to kill someone

The bible can give you cover. A rational person would not use the bible to justify murder but people can lose their minds and be so angry or scared they have to justify irrational acts. Atheist don't come together in large numbers believing a book that has examples of justified murder in it.
There have been mass murders and atrocities committed by atheists but the writings that justify that behavior has not stood the test of time like the bible has and the followers of those leaders usually have dissipated after the fall from power.

[Htom Sirveaux]

9. Again, do you think all or even a majority of those who honor the Bible

would agree that the Bible justifies them in killing? I ask because if people who honor the Bible don't believe that it justifies them in killing, then a murderer who cites the Bible to them won't receive any "cover" from that.

[gwheezie]

10. Not at all

There'd be lots more killing going on. The intent to kill was there. A belief in god doesn't cause someone to kill anyone. I'm not any kind of expert on religion but from what little I know the depictions of killing because of religion has more to do with power and not a belief in god. The bible has lots of passages that don't seem to have anything to do with a belief in god but has been used to give people a moral reason for doing something that would be considered immoral on another passage in the bible. To me these justified by god killings in the bible were more about the politics of the time and power struggles.
I don't know if I'm making myself clear. Ever person I know who's religion is based on Abraham, christian, jew or muslim could not picture themselves going on a killing spree because of something they read in the bible. but even in modern times the bible is quoted by mostly hate groups as a reason to kill someone.

[Htom Sirveaux]

15. That's a lot better than your original comment

which seemed to imply that if atheists DID "have a big book that we all believed in that said it's ok", then it would be alright to hold atheists accountable for this murderer.

[gwheezie]

21. Sorry it came across that way

Which it obviously did. I actually meant it as a extremely nuanced comment on atheism. My late husband used to complain I had entire comversations on my head and only blurted out one sentence expecting someone to know what I meant.
My uncomfortableness with the position some atheist take is that religion causes people to act on a way that is immoral, I was not uncomfortable that an atheist may have killed someone because they are religious because I don't find it shocking. It's been done before. It's been done on a mass scale. I am horified these people were killed.
Atheists don't have a book that millions of us believe in. We don't have the big book that collectively binds us to each other. There's no dogma or doctrine. When we say we atheist there is no positive assumption of what we believe there is a negative assumption of what we don't believe. Any religious person who quotes a passage in their book to another believer knows the passage is in the book.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. If atheism had some bolt-on doctrine that it does not currently possess

that exhorted people, in the past, to murder, I would quickly distance myself from that association.*

I'm an atheist.
I'm also firmly non-aggression.

The two things are completely un-linked and unrelated. I have been an atheist all my life, I've lived by the non-aggression principle since the 6th grade. There is and was nothing in atheism that made non-aggression incumbent upon me. Non aggression is something I electively chose on my own for reasons that have not a damn thing to do with the existence or non-existence of a god.


*There are, as we have discussed, some atheists that were perfectly efficient bloody-minded murderers. But atheism itself lended nothing at all to their elective choice to commit murder. They are non-overlapping magisterium. A-theism is a lack of belief in god. Nothing more. It neither restrains, nor encourages murder or any other moral issue.

Most religions on the other hand, absolutely do have direct doctrine and opinions on moral issues, including murder and genocide (and allegedly actual historical or allegorically historical examples of man murdering man for religious reasons, man murdering man at the behest of god, and god murdering man at the behest of himself.

[cbayer]

11. I think that people who commit these kinds of crimes find cover wherever they can.

Their degree of rationalization has to be immense.

People can use the bible or other religious texts to justify violence, but they can also use it to justify non-violence.

Public leaders in any group can have their statements used in all kinds of ways. When someone says "Islam is the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will fucking kill you if you say the wrong thing", one might interpret that in a way that justifies feeling threatened by one's neighbors and then killing them in "self defense". It's not rational at all, but it is a clear example of using something as cover.

There have been civil rights and peace movements driven by believers and founded on their scriptures. Some of those leaders have stood the test of time. The guy in your avatar is one of them.

[gwheezie]

13. I get that

When I said the bible gives you cover, it's not giving a person cover in society. It gives themselves cover to commit the act. They were going to kill anyway. If they weren't going to kill anyway they would have picked the passage in the bible that says turn the other cheek.

[cbayer]

17. I think the point is that people will find cover wherever they can.

I don't think they are more likely to do that if they are religious and I don't think that religious texts provide more cover than some secular texts.

Ayn Rand has given people a lot of cover.

[cbayer]

5. Bad people do bad things.

Maybe we should not be so quick to attribute these kinds of heinous acts to someone's religion or lack of religion. It's an ugly game and the tables have been turned.

Perhaps we could agree to condemn acts of violence and stop using them as tools to beat up on people who hold a different position regarding religion.

[Fumesucker]

22. Does doing one bad thing make someone a bad person?

Or is the bad cooked in before the bad thing is done, just waiting to come bubbling out at the right moment?

On the other hand, what if it's just a fairly ordinary person who happens to be suffering from some form of mental illness and has easy access to a weapon that makes it all too easy to kill with but the slightest pressure of a single finger while in an extremely agitated state?

[cbayer]

23. I don't know. What do you think?

I think killing 3 people in cold blood is a pretty good indication that the person is bad or sick or both.

Fault lies with our mental health system and our lack of adequate gun control, imo. In the end, "bad" doesn't really cover it.

[Fumesucker]

24. My question was in response to your claim that bad people do bad things..

I was wondering how we tell if a person is bad or not, solely by their actions or is there some other criteria?

Was this man bad before he pulled the trigger and murdered those innocent people? Or was he a good person up until that moment?

I've been in a couple of ongoing disputes with neighbors over trivial stuff in my lifetime and I've seen how they can escalate, I'm a live and let-live type but as we have discussed before not everyone is wired the same way.

I kind of tend to sympathize with Muslims in America, even as I have no desire at all to live in a Muslim dominated society. Anyone who thinks about issues deeply tends to get a bit conflicted I think, clearcut hard and fast answers aren't that common in life.

[cbayer]

27. Maybe there is a blood test. I don't know.

If you want to get technical, there are degrees to which people have or do not have a conscience. Those that can inflict harm on others with no feelings of guilt or remorse tend to have little and would probably be considered bad by most people.

I have no idea what this man was like before he did this, but I am sure more information is forthcoming.

Perhaps he was bad. Perhaps he was sick. Perhaps he was being used by others. Perhaps all three.

What does seem apparent is that his victims were innocent, but I could be wrong about that as well.

[MellowDem]

6. I know it makes me uncomfortable...

I mean, the Atheist Book has lots of good stuff in it, but I tend to ignore those parts about killing believers, context right? But I do wonder if I'm just being intellectually dishonest now, I don't like this feeling...

[hrmjustin]

8. I see some here are feeling uncomfortable as well.

[cbayer]

12. As they should be.

What I hope is that this will put an end to using heinous crimes as a weapon to attack religion and the religious.

This man doesn't represent atheists. He doesn't represent anti-theists. He is an anomaly, just like the people too often highlighted here who commit equally heinous crimes and have a religious identification.

It's wrong when it is done to attack believers and it's wrong when it is done to attack nonbelievers, and a little crow pie never hurt anyone.

[hrmjustin]

14. Reading the responses so far I doubt our friends will stop that tactic anytime soon.

It is what it is.

[cbayer]

16. Reasonable people will respond reasonably and

may take a step back and consider how this isn't right which ever way it flows.

Unreasonable people will not be able to do that. There is too much at stake. You do have the option of deciding which people you will engage with.

[hrmjustin]

18. Yep! oh they were behaving with me today.

None of those issues. I understand that some are shocked and have a hard time believing this but I don't buy the parking spot narrative. Having said that people need to realize this reflects on no one but the murderer himself.

[gwheezie]

19. What has made me uncomfortable is

If an atheist claims atheists have not committed mass murder or atrocities because only religion does that. This guy may very well have picked these people out because they were identifiable as religious due to their appearance who knows what he was thinking.

[cbayer]

20. It has never been a tenable position and I hope to see the end of it.

People commit atrocities for all kinds of reasons. They should be held individually responsible. If there are underlying organizations or individuals that have fed their sickness, then they should be examined.

I suspect, but do not know, that this man is ill, but we shall see.

[okasha]

25. At the absolute least, he has anger-management problems.

A psychiatric evaluation may well turn up other issues. I think a jury would be very resistant to an impairment defense, though.