Chapel Hill Shooting Leaves 3 Muslim Students DeadThe shooter's FB page has been taken down, so it's hard to tell if he is also a Social Justice Warrior, or whether he is just another rabid Atheist.
"On Mr. Hicks’s Facebook page, he describes himself as a former auto parts dealer who has studied to be a paralegal, and he appears to be an ardent critic of religion. He expressed support for groups like Atheists for Equality, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
Last month, he posted a photo that says, “Praying is pointless, useless, narcissistic, arrogant, and lazy; just like the imaginary god you pray to.”
He also posted a photo of what he said was his .38-caliber, five-shot revolver.
...
“Based on the brutal nature of this crime, the past anti-religion statements of the alleged perpetrator, the religious attire of two of the victims, and the rising anti-Muslim rhetoric in American society, we urge state and federal law enforcement authorities to quickly address speculation of a possible bias motive in this case,” Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement."
And now there's this:
Chapel Hill Shooter Craig Hicks an 'Anti-Theist' who Opposed All ReligionsIt will be interesting to watch the reactions of Progressive/Leftist/Atheists to this sort of tolerant behavior. Richard Dawkins has responded in defense of Atheism as "reasonable" in the following convoluted semi-disclaimer:
"His Facebook 'likes' included the Huffington Post, Rachel Maddow, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Freedom from Religion Foundation, Bill Nye "The Science Guy," Neil deGrasse Tyson, Gay Marriage groups and similar progressive pages."
"How could any decent person NOT condemn the vile murder of three young US Muslims in Chapel Hill?" Richard Dawkins said on his Twitter page."Which is almost the same as saying, "I condemn the vile murder of three young US Muslims...", and yet not quite. Remember, Dawkins could NOT condemn Hitler for his actions, there being no objective morality from which to make such a judgment. So his question here, seen in that light, is just a question, not an actual moral rejection.
8 comments:
It seems to me I've met Mister Hicks - or someone very like him - online, in one of the many atheist echo chambers.
They (with characteristic arrogance) declare religeous believers to be arrogant and offensive. It seems this time one of them, free-floating in what passes for AtheoLeft 'thought' in the Void, parted with the last shreds of 'conventional morality' and decided to eliminate two or three examples of the religious disease.
That these were Muslims only muddies the water. Perhaps he thought he would have more support than he actually does? Or maybe he has more support that most people are willing to admit? It's wonderful what the Internet is doing to our culture.
Regarding Hicks' comment about prayer, it seems to me that the words "arrogant" and "narcissistic" apply far more to NOT praying.
I also agree with what you say about atheists having no standard by which they can justifiably measure morality in the first place. C.S. Lewis and many other thinkers far smarter than me have addressed that point far better than I could.
the shooter had a whole bunch libertarian stuff on his facebook page, i love how you just assert that somehow every athiest is a "progressive liberal"
"It will be interesting to watch the reactions of Progressive/Leftist/Atheists to this sort of tolerant behavior. Richard Dawkins has responded in defense of Atheism as "reasonable" in the following convoluted semi-disclaimer:"
thats because there isnt really anything to defend as it had nothing to do with athiesm or religon and everything to do with a parking pass dispute
" Remember, Dawkins could NOT condemn Hitler for his actions, there being no objective morality from which to make such a judgment."
well if you believe in god there isnt really an objective morality to make a judgement
I managed to get a look at Mr. Hicks' Facebook page before it was taken down. I had a stroll through the timeline photos which were a never ending, and I mean that literally --I scrolled and scrolled, repository of every anti-theist (and that was the title of the page btw) meme ever created, it seems. Probably two a day, sometimes more. And he liked every prominent Atheist in existence.
Waka said:thats because there isnt really anything to defend as it had nothing to do with athiesm or religon and everything to do with a parking pass dispute
And yet his Atheism was not a deterent in the killings for parking space.
===
Stan said:"Remember, Dawkins could NOT condemn Hitler for his actions, there being no objective morality from which to make such a judgment."
Waka responds:well if you believe in god there isnt really an objective morality to make a judgement
Waka,you have not attacked Stan's argument.In fact you don't dispute it,meaning you can't or you agree with Stan.Your response is a red herring and tu quoque.Whatever objective morals that may or may not be lacking in theism does not automatically grant Atheism the moral superiority.You must make a logical case for the existence of objective morality in Atheism.
Of course you can't and that's why you will do what most Atheist do over here;spew some illogical crap then runaway like a coward.
I'm going to take a middle-of-the-road position on this. I agree that, given his rabid anti-religious attitudes, and the identities of his victims, an investigation into his motives is justified, but I'll withhold judgment on what role his atheism played in the killings for now.
Whether it was atheism which led him into psychopathy or psychopathy which led him into atheism, it's hard to say.
There is, however, a morbid irony in the image of a man opining on the moral evils of religion while committing a heinously immoral act.
Which with this world really be better off without, Christians or Craig Hicks?
Waka responds in the totally predictable fashion: Atheism is not in any manner related to the behavior of the Atheist.
This is in direct contradistinction from the reactions of Leftists who blamed Sarah Palin for the shooting of Giffords, even thought there was zero evidence connecting the shooter to any knowledge of Palin's concept of targeting. And, of course, ignoring (denying) the specific use of SPLC's hate site to target - and shoot a person in - the FRC offices.
And Waka illustrates the use of rational inversion by making the absurd claim that theists have no morality beyond themselves, and implying that to be some sort of justification for perverted personal moralities which are self-derived by Atheists, whose arrogance allows them to deny all culpability of their own morally empty and self-centered worldview while attempting to condemn those who strive to meet moral Goods outside of their own cravings and vices.
The rebellion against the norms of punctuation is certainly a sign of inversion within a worldview; the tiniest discipline must be rejected, a sign of fear and arrogance emotionally tied in a knot. It is directly in keeping with asserting logical fallacies and never acknowledging them: that occurs because of the arrogance of declaring there to be no Truth, and the internal fear of knowing that to be irrational, yet having to do it because of deep seated emotional neediness.
Here's the SPLC connection to the FRC shooting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgjI3wavx-I
SPLC is a Leftist hate site.
Post a Comment