Three Muslims shot to death by a militant atheist at UNC

Post Reply New Topic

And neither does being a theist.

"You can, however, blame a parking dispute."
Yup, the only reason he killed them was because of parking, I totally believe that and it's not just a load of hogwash certain atheists are gravitating towards to defend themselves.


No, there are definitely people who say it. They don't know what the hell they are talking about as they are the brand of incredibly ignorant athiests.

The Quran also explicitly states that violence should not be used to convert people and whatnot. There is another sura saying infidels, but in context it's referring to the infidels who were at war with the early muslims at the time and were trying to eliminate them, not infidels in general. Extremists argue that that sura overrides the previous one, but that is not the main, sensical interpretation.

"he Quran contains dozens of passages that condemn non-believers and other-believers in the most explicit terms, predicting all the tortures of hell that they "deserve" to suffer. " So what? That has nothing to do with actually being violent to people who don't believe. Anyway, it's not that people are punished for simply lacking faith, it's because either a. they aren't actually be punished, but because they lack faith, they are unable to go on the path that leads to salvation or b. they are rebelling against God and God is doing the natural retribution for those that rebel against him. The exact way it's interpretted depends on theology, but pretty much no one thinks disbelief in and of itself is immoral.

Do you have a single piece of evidence to support the conclusion that he hated muslims and that hatred was behind this crime? Or do you just take it on faith?

There is evidence that he was obsessive and confrontational about the parking spots.

That's a very naive idea of cosmic justice. The idea isn't that people should be threatened into being moral (though that certainly happens in practice, though I wouldn't consider that necessarily a bad thing as it's better for everyone if bad people don't do bad things), but that if the world is just, there will be justice for those where human justice failed. Would a just God allow the wicked to commit atrocities without retribution? Anyway, there is a passage in the New Testament where a man complains about being denied entrance into heaven despite keeping every commandment, to which Jesus replies "I never knew thee", the implication being that following the commandments so you can get into heaven doesn't make you righteous, the righteous love God and love their neighbor. That's what becoming like Jesus really means.

As for Abraham, that wasn't immoral precisely because God stopped him, actually sacrificing his son would have been immoral and God would have been immoral to not stop him, but he didn't actually want him to sacrifice his son, it was a test of loyalty. The idea is that not all decisions is the most moral decision obvious because we lack critical information on what will happen in the long run, but God knows. Of course, that's assuming it's actually God speaking, not a bastard posing as God...



Yes, there is, on his facebook there is plenty of evidence he hated religious people as he made comments about it all the time.

"There is evidence that he was obsessive and confrontational about the parking spots." And who the hell finds it acceptable to MURDER people over parking spots? To do such one must view the people as not deserving of life over his needing a parking spot. It's frankly ridiculous to the point of offensiveness you aren't even considering the possibility there is more the story than just a parking spot.

I think you are talking about Matthew 7:21-23 and it doesn't say what you think it says.

The "naive view of cosmic justice" we are discussing is not mine, but one that has been explained to me by Christians and Muslims.

That would be the all knowing, just God who commanded the annihilation of Amelek and resulting twisted justifications by Jewish and Christian believers today? Examples:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_c ... de-FAQ.htm
http://christianthinktank.com/rbutcher1.html
Not sure I can swallow that!

Show me one.
"Of course I want religion to go away" doesn't qualify.
I couldn't find anything here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints ... nti-theism
Maybe you can?

No one. But is it possible that Craig Hicks was just an obsessive nut with a gun?
I don't pretend to know what was going on in his mind, but you do. People have been shot over walking across someone's lawn. Armed obsessives kill people for irrational reasons all the time in this country.
Now you are reading my mind! Did God tell you you have special powers that let you do that?
But you are mistaken. I am quite ready to believe that Hicks has other motivations. I just haven't seen any evidence to show that yet. Is it offensive not to jump to conclusions?

More about Hicks:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/the- ... king-spot/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/ch ... rolina.htm

Correct. But few people are simply theists. They follow one religion or another, and religions often contain explicit instructions to be violent.


Yes, but we are now in a time of war. Israel is killing Muslims in Palestine, and many western nations killed Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. In wartime, even Mohammed severed the heads of infidels. The Quran allows opening of the gates of hell for those that oppose them in war. Note that even some Christians in the most tolerant country in the west, where they are a majority, think that there is a war against them (see: Bill O'Reilly). So really, you can imagine anything done against any Muslim person by a non-Muslim would seem proper justification for holy war against non-Muslims. It can be no surprise that a book full of descriptions of the torture of non-believers doesn't generate sentiments of good will with them.

"They follow one religion or another, and religions often contain explicit instructions to be violent. " Yeah, in the context of some war where there is some enemy which is killing them, generally they explicitly tell people to be peaceful.

"Note that even some Christians in the most tolerant country in the west, where they are a majority, think that there is a war against them (see: Bill O'Reilly)." These people are loonies, as those who make up excuses for a holy war based on nothing. The context is when the infidels are literally trying to eradicate muslims, when there is already a literal war. People are looking for an excuse for war, it ultimately has nothing to do with religion, that just gives them an excuse. For example, the ISIS fighters want to restore the Caliphate, which has more to do with imperialism than actual islam.

What's the difference? Islam is itself an imperialist ideology.

You know very well the difference between Islam and imperialism, and no, Islam is not an imperialist ideology. The confusion comes because Mohammad was both a civil and religious leader.

And Islam is both a religious and civil ideology.

No it is not. Sharia law is a civil ideology, but it is not islam.