Quote:


Here's the answer. Pretty self-explanatory.

Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha and her husband Deah Shaddy Barakat were brutally murdered in their home by Craig Stephen Hicks, in Chapel Hill (North Carolina) on February 10, 2015. The public has condemned their murders as a hate-crime because two of the victims, Razan and Yusor wore hijabs, therefore stood out as Muslims. What’s problematic about this logic is that if a person is wearing Islamic attire and is found to have been murdered by a non-Muslim—how does it automatically constitute a hate crime? By such logic—every person who has ever killed or harmed anybody who happen to practice religion are also committing hate crimes. It’s an abhorrent crime no matter what the motivation was and must be condemned. The premature implication of elements will not serve them justice.

What’s strikingly clear is that those who vehemently call it a “hate crime” are also rejoicing at the fact that an openly atheist man had killed three religious people.

Those who are against the criticism of Islam, the bandwagon of people like Reza Aslan, Mehdi Hasan and CJ Werleman are all having a hallelujah moment—and they have expressed their celebration via social media. Their reaction is nauseating as they have no qualms about using the murder of three innocent people to invalidate the criticism of an ideology.

Mehdi Hasan righteously tweeted if people will now demand to have atheism “reformed”. Where is the book of atheism for such reform? When did atheists call for the murder of theists in the name of a non-belief in a personal god? Where are all the armed atheists committing atheist-jihad and slaughtering tens and thousands of innocent people? Where is the evidence that Hicks was motivated by atheism to commit his crime? Hasan has constantly deflected Muslim extremism as having nothing to do with Islam—yet he now smugly wonders about a reform for atheism over one trigger-happy atheist? Milking the graves of innocent people to fit own narrative is a typical low for every apologist of Islamist violence. Lucky for Hasan—he believes in flying horses to come swoop him away from having to face his fallacious arguments.

And then we have our mighty lion, Reza Aslan—who roars the same slogan as Hasan, that Islamist violence has nothing to do with Islam and makes glaringly asinine statements about the rights of people in Islamic nations—responds to Hicks’ crime by barking at Richard Dawkins, professing his undying disbelief in Dawkins’ condemnation of the attack. Dawkins is not a malicious man who applauds the murder of innocents—in fact, he condemns violence, and that is precisely why he denounces religion. Remember who and what Aslan blamed for the Charlie Hebdo massacre? He certainly had no issue braiding straws and portraying the Kouachi brothers as disenfranchised Muslims who merely reacted in defense when cartoonists satirized their religion. But now—he implicates atheism because the killer was a fan of Dawkins. Aslan is a man who cannot live without a god—as he had gone from being a Muslim to a Christian before converting back to Islam again—so it’s clear why he would find vocal atheists threatening and call them “anti-theists”.

http://nation.com.pk/blogs/15-Feb-2015/dark-age-rising

Hicks also dismissed conspiracy theories about Obama being a “secret Muslim,” and he wasn’t opposed to the Park51 “Ground Zero Mosque,” pointing out that while Christians claimed it represented conquest over the US, churches often represented conquest over Native Americans.

But he also fits the profile for spree killers. He is a gun-rights advocate, owning a dozen firearms.

http://thevermilion.com/?p=3483

God is an imaginary friend for adults

 

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:


And why is a deity necessary to understand that?  There are many, MANY people who have that quality from all walks of life.  Can you demonstrate that a belief in god is necessary?

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:


Soren, multiple times I have told you that many atheists, myself included do not claim there is no god, just that we do not believe in one based on the evidence provided.  I'm curious as to what you are specifically referring to when you say "militant atheists".

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:


Why?

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:


No it isn't.  Atheism has no inherent qualities attached to it (other than a lack of belief in gods).  While some atheists are directly opposed to many religions (looking at you Satanic Temple), most people I have met are merely skeptical of the evidence provided, and are supporters of freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.  I don't care what you believe, as long as it doesn't have any negative effects.

https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/35469748/#35473975

Raven wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 12:59pm:


You're plagiarising again.

Stratos wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:39pm:

How does a materialist atheist understand the spirit, an essentially non-materialist concept?


Stratos wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:39pm:


You do not claim that there is no god. What DO you claim then? Removing both negatives means that you claim that there is a god but you just don't believe in it because the evidence for its existence is not scientific and so not credible for you.

This little double negative is the Alice through the rabbit hole escape route for you. 

You have no scientific evidence for the personalities of the people around you, no scientific evidence for your interpersonal relationships, emotions, feelings, attitudes, hopes and loves, nor of those around you. yet you lead a life firmly believing in their importance and influence on al your lives.



Stratos wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:39pm:

see above

Stratos wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:39pm:



No it isn't??

Just re-read what you said here - it is all about negatives: lack, opposition, scepticism. A-theism is conceptually about the negation of theism. It is a reaction to what religion posits (god).