THE CHAPEL HILL MURDERS

2/25/2015

As you probably already know, on February 11 atheist Craig Stephens Hicks shot a killed three Muslims in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, reportedly over a parking dispute. Hicks may also have been motivated by a hatred of his victims because of their religion, though this is by no means certain (some of his neighbors have claimed he hated everyone equally). But if this crime was even partially the result of a dislike of Muslims it raises the question whether anti-theism – or even atheism in general –
is in some way to blame. Many, including a few atheists, have said so: one atheist even tweeted that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins now have blood on their hands!

Anti-theism maintains not only that religions are false, but that many of them are detrimental to society – and the fear is that some who hold such a view might be led to a dislike of, not just religions, but of the individuals who practice these religions.

But even though anti-theism may lead some deranged individuals to commit violent acts, that doesn't mean the doctrine itself is to blame. Anti-theism, whatever one may think of it, does not condone violence against anyone merely for believing in some religious dogma. That is the crucial difference between it and doctrines like Islam and Christianity. In fact, anti-theism opposes such religions precisely because they do condone hatred of individuals for having different views. It would therefore be inconsistent for anti-theists to hate the religious for nothing more than their false beliefs.

Of course, the majority of Christians and Muslims these days do not condone violence, but that doesn't change the fact that the religious books they hold sacred contain passages instructing that dissenters (as well as many other individuals) be killed. And that is why when violence is committed in the name of some religion there is a problem for the religion itself.

Many critics of atheism were quick to point out that if atheists condemn Islam for its connection with terrorism, then they should likewise condemn atheism for its connection with the Chapel Hill murders. But as we've just seen, even if there is a connection between atheism and these murders, it isn't the same kind of connection. (And it is interesting, given that many Christians also condemn Islam for its connection with terrorism, that none of the critics of atheism called upon them to condemn their own religion for atrocities committed in its name.)

We don't know what motivated Hicks. But even if he claimed to have killed in the name of atheism, that does not put the blame on atheism – for the very simple reason that atheism does not command anyone to kill. After all, suppose the motive does turn out to have been nothing more than a parking dispute. Does that mean that the blame for the murders should fall on the concept of reserved parking spaces? Should we then end the practice of allotting such spaces because it might lead a deranged individual to violent acts?

22 Comments

Far

2/5/2018 07:43:39 pm

"But even if he claimed to have killed in the name of atheism, that does not put the blame on atheism – for the very simple reason that atheism does not command anyone to kill."

Atheist have a massive double-standard there. They are NEVER willing to defend Christianity the same way. If I were to claim on ANY Atheist or Anti-theist forum:

"But even if he claimed to have killed in the name of Christianity, that does not put the blame on Christianity, – for the very simple reason that Christ does not command anyone to kill."
I would receive a Jupiter-sized load of hateful bile.

OTOH, Given Hicks' actions, will you write a blog about how this is wrong on both counts:
http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1247287

Franz Kiekeben

2/6/2018 12:31:29 pm

Do I really have to point out that the Biblical God does command the killing of nonbelievers?

Far

2/7/2018 02:16:52 pm

Yes, if we are to discuss them.
As there is a difference.
You wish to condemn all Christianity for what a few do, while maintaining that "the few Anti-Theists" do not represent all Anti-theists.

Franz Kiekeben

2/7/2018 07:37:19 pm

It seems you are missing the point. Atheism is not a body of doctrine that includes the command to kill anyone. It is the (very small) body of doctrine that says gods do not exist (or, if you go by the weak version of it, that there is no reason to believe that any gods exist). Christianity is a body of doctrine that DOES include, in places, the command to kill those who dare to criticize it (never mind that in other places there are commands inconsistent with this one). And what this means is that when some lunatic kills in the name of Christianity, he actually does have a basis within Christianity for what he did; whereas when some lunatic kills in the name of atheism, he does not.

So yes, I do condemn all Christianity - but not for what some do in its name. I condemn it for containing the command to kill those whom it would be wrong to kill. The Bible is not a good book. Any book that contains anything evil in it is not good. And if you didn't believe it was the word of God, you probably would agree with me.

Far

2/10/2018 08:59:03 pm

>"It seems you are missing the point. Atheism is not a body of
> doctrine that includes the command to kill anyone."
Well, Atheism and Anti-theism certainly offer no prohibition of it at all, and neither do a large number of Atheists and Anti-theists

>"It is the (very small) body of doctrine that says gods do not exist
> (or, if you go by the weak version of it, that there is no reason to
> believe that any gods exist)."
1). You have seriously confused the claimed definition of Atheism with the definition of *>ANTI-theism<*. See Hitchens' definition below.
2). As it holds the doctrine that no gods exist, then it must also hold the doctrine that there are no god-given laws or commandments, which means mankind must make up their own. At that point you can deduce: of all those who make up such laws, the "winning" set of laws will belong to the ones most willing to use force. As Yeates stated:

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

History also proves that point through the inaction of Humanists in dealing with the abusive and violent realities of MArxist nations.
3). You can find Reasons to justify practically anything, and both Atheists and Anti-theists have.

>"Christianity is a body of doctrine that DOES include, in places, the
> command to kill those who dare to criticize it (never mind that in
> other places there are commands inconsistent with this one)."

I did not ask you for another unsupported claim. I asked for actual verses.

OTOH, What does Anti-theism proscribe? What does the incredibly intelligent C. Hitchens have to say?

“I am not even an atheist so much as an antitheist;[sic] I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/473943-i-am-not-even-an-atheist-so-much-as-an

To a Christian radio host:
“I mean your preachments are evil and are a direct threat to the survival of civilization. If you don't consider me an enemy, then you don't know an enemy when you see or hear one.”
https://dotsub.com/view/07174440-6595-4eb8-8b6f-337c13a93237/viewTranscript/eng
http://rebrn.com/re/bill-maher-nominated-to-give-speech-at-uc-berkely-about-the-impo-386355/
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/3ssj3f/is_this_really_the_right_time_to_attack_religion/

"I seek to kill the enemies of civilization" (to which he has equated Christians)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgW7YJ4AXJo

“And then the third, perhaps the most immoral of all, is the injunction to love your enemies. That I will not do. I know who my enemies are. At the moment the most deadly ones are Islamist theocrats with a homicidal and genocidal agenda. I'm not going to love them. You go love them if you want; don't love them on my behalf. I'll get on with killing them and destroying them, erasing them and you can love them. But the idea that you ought to love them is not a moral idea at all. It's a wicked idea and I hope it doesn't take hold, especially on any of you seemingly serious, decent, young people. What a disgusting order to love those people.”
http://hitchensdebates.blogspot.com/2010/07/hitchens-vs-wilson-kings-college.html

A few Atheists do see the dangers of Hitchens' thinking, but they are few and ignored:
“Clever polemicist that he was, Hitchens distorted that to mock the question: The numbers of those bombed will decline. Yes, but the question is about how we reduce a specific subpopulation by indiscriminate bombing of the whole population. Hitchens doesn't care. He has an opportunity to riff on the machismo of war.
'When the side of Jihad said, can we take these casualties? When they worry, have we alienated the people? … They will get to the stage where they realise they have made a mistake, all the evidence in Iraq is that al-Qaeda have already discredited and disgraced themselves, and it's a matter now of just hunting down and killing them, which I think is a pleasure and a duty.' ”
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/23/the-trumpification-of-atheism/#ixzz4jq6qE0X6

To Hitchens, killing people can be a pleasure. If a Christian said that you'd go ranting wouldn't you, but... oh no, not if it's a fellow Anti-theist!
On the morality of Anti-theism, Hitchens rationality proves my point outside of religion:

"He always felt, for example, that the British Empire had a progressive role in India. He wrote of Columbus Day that the extermination of the Native Americans should be celebrated as a fact of historical progress. " - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jan/18/christopher-hitchens-socialist-neocon

What this means is that when some Atheist or Anti-theist kills, they actually do have a rational basis for it because neither Atheism nor Anti-theism proscribe it, and what is not proscribed is permitted. In other w

Franz Kiekeben

2/11/2018 10:36:11 am

"Well, Atheism and Anti-theism certainly offer no prohibition of it [the killing of innocent people] at all, and neither do a large number of Atheists and Anti-theists"

The fact that there are many atheists who don't disagree with killing the innocent is irrelevant if their doing so is not due to their atheism. The question we're discussing is whether atheism (or even anti-theism) commands the killing of anyone. It does not.

Now, it is true that the claim "there are no gods" also does not prohibit the killing of anyone. So what? Here are some other examples of views that do not include a prohibition against killing anyone:

metaphysical dualism
the theory of relativity
moral objectivism
etc, etc

See my point? Atheism is not ABOUT whether or not it is right to kill anyone. It is about whether gods exist. As such, it neither commands nor prohibits the killing of anyone. To conclude that therefore anyone who agrees with atheism does not think it is wrong to kill the innocent is blatantly false.

"You have seriously confused the claimed definition of Atheism with the definition of ANTI-theism"

No, I thought we were discussing atheism. Anti-theism is a subset of it. But even it doesn't command the killing of anyone.

"...it must also hold the doctrine that there are no god-given laws or commandments, which means mankind must make up their own."

That doesn't follow. Plenty of atheists believe in objective morality.

"At that point you can deduce: of all those who make up such laws, the "winning" set of laws will belong to the ones most willing to use force."

Sorry, but you are wrong again. Human beings have a natural moral sense - though one that is conditioned by society - and the moral principles we adopt aren't always bad. Far from it.

"History also proves that point through the inaction of Humanists in dealing with the abusive and violent realities of MArxist nations."

Those who did looked the other way did so, not because of humanism (which would be a contradiction, actually), but because of an irrational dedication to the ideals of socialism - which sound good to many people. In fact, they are much like the principles preached by Jesus - one of the reasons he's a flawed moral philosopher. His ideals are unrealistic and impractical, and are in part the cause of the disastrous experiment with communism that led to the deaths of millions.

"I did not ask you for another unsupported claim. I asked for actual verses."

You're kidding me, right? I'm not going to quote Bible verses with which I'm sure you are already familiar. But here's someone else's blog post which includes a few choice examples:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/01/22/yes-the-bible-does-say-to-kill-infidels/

Quoting Hitchens:

""I seek to kill the enemies of civilization" (to which he has equated Christians)"

The enemies of civilization he's talking about here are al Qaeda, etc. It's simply dishonest of you to suggest that he wanted to kill Christians. You know damn well that's not what he was saying. Doesn't your God prohibit bearing false witness?

"He wrote of Columbus Day that the extermination of the Native Americans should be celebrated as a fact of historical progress."

If this is true, then Hitchens was a bastard. But the link you provided merely asserts this without any references, and based on what I know of Hitchens, I seriously doubt it. Hitchens was often bombastic, he often engaged in hyperbole, and he often said things I disagree with. But I never heard him claim anything nearly as bad as the above.

Far

2/14/2018 10:15:03 pm

Quick response:

Franz: "You're kidding me, right? I'm not going to quote Bible verses with which I'm sure you are already familiar. But here's someone else's blog post which includes a few choice examples:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/01/22/yes-the-bible-does-say-to-kill-infidels/ "

Let us see...
Deuteronomy 17,
Deuteronomy 13,
"Or Numbers 31, where God commands the Israelites..."
The author of the website literally admits these are commandments to Israelites, Jews. If web-page's author wants to be anti-Jewish, so be it, I do not see Jews doing that today, so his only arguments should be that they are Not following the commandments.

OTOH, perhaps I was not clear, Where are Christians told to kill? You know, by Jesus, or His apostles.

Can we talk about how Atheists and Anti-theists have committed mass-murder on a Large scale, without the corresponding condemnation by Atheists and Anti-theists. Are there books titled:
"The Marx Delusion" by Dawkins
"The End of Marxism" by Harris
Or would there have Ever been a book titled:
"Marx is Not Good: How Marxism Poisons Everything" by Hitchens?
No, I don't think so.

Far: "...it must also hold the doctrine that there are no god-given laws or commandments, which means mankind must make up their own."
Franz: "That doesn't follow. Plenty of atheists believe in objective morality."

And plenty don't. Where is _their_ "natural moral sense"? Let us add that some of those who do claim to believe it speak or act contrary to their claims. The problem is, which group it Right? Which group's reasoning is valid and which is invalid? Why did those that are wrong reach unreasonable conclusion using reason, and who is to pass judgement on those two groups. If you think All religious people are a threat to civilization (e.g: Hitchens and Sam Harris ), then killing them to protect the rest of humanity "from the abyss" would be acceptable, i.e: be objectively moral.

If the group that makes claims to the existence of "objective morality" are to be respected, then it is in their interest to condemn their fellow Atheists and Anti-theists along with their condemnation of the religious, and possibly heap Greater condemnation on the Atheists and Anti-theists because they had no religious texts to mislead them! Calling the quantity of such condemnation we actually find "minuscule" would be to over-emphasize it.

For example, do any of your blogs condemn Marxist Atheists and Anti-theists for their murderous tendencies? And what do you say to those that claim that what ruled those Communist nations was not Marxism, as no true Marxist (one who does exactly what Marx taught) would act that way? That reasoning leaves only Atheism and Anti-theism as the causes.

Look at it this way: Unless you're an Anarchist (see Dawkins paragraphs on the Montreal Police Riots) or nihilist, you must admit that when you remove one set of moral laws, you must replace them with another. Clearly Atheists and Anti-theists have not done that.

Franz Kiekeben

2/15/2018 11:00:19 am

"OTOH, perhaps I was not clear, Where are Christians told to kill? You know, by Jesus, or His apostles."

And when did I claim that Jesus or his apostles commanded anyone to kill?

According to Christianity, if God at any time commanded the killing of those who don't believe in him, then it MUST BE morally right in at least some cases to kill non-believers. (Or are you saying your God is sometimes evil?) You may disagree with another Christian as to when it is right and when it isn't, but that's irrelevant. My point is that Christians have a basis in their holy book for believing that it is sometimes right to kill non-believers, and therefore a Christian may conclude, based on that, that he should do so. And you cannot say that about atheism. Atheism doesn't say anything about this one way or the other.

"Can we talk about how Atheists and Anti-theists have committed mass-murder on a Large scale, without the corresponding condemnation by Atheists and Anti-theists...

"For example, do any of your blogs condemn Marxist Atheists and Anti-theists for their murderous tendencies?"

Are you actually saying that I'm not allowed to write a blog that deals with the question of theism vs atheism?!? Really? I HAVE to write about communist atrocities too? What if my blog isn't ABOUT that? And why do I only have to write about atrocities committed by atheistic regimes, and not those committed by, say, the Nazis? (Speaking of which, do YOU blog about the Nazis and other Christians who killed innocent people?)

"If you think All religious people are a threat to civilization (e.g: Hitchens and Sam Harris ), then killing them to protect the rest of humanity "from the abyss" would be acceptable"

Again, that doesn't follow. Do you think that communists are a threat to civilization? If so, do you think they should all be killed?

--"Franz: "That doesn't follow. Plenty of atheists believe in objective morality.""

"And plenty don't. Where is _their_ "natural moral sense"? "

You are really confused. The question whether morality is objective or not is a metaethical one: it deals with what the NATURE of morality is, not with what is right or wrong. Denying that morality is objective doesn't mean not having a moral sense. I myself don't believe in objective morality, but that doesn't mean I don't have moral principles.

My point above was merely that your claim that, if there are no god-given commandments, then morality is not objective, is wrong.

Far

2/21/2018 11:20:27 am

http://www.franzkiekeben.com/blog/the-chapel-hill-murders

Wow, looking back, my "quick response" wasn't all that quick, was it?

Franz: "According to Christianity, if God at any time commanded the killing of those who don't believe in him, then it MUST BE morally right in at least some cases to kill non-believers. (Or are you saying your God is sometimes evil?) You may disagree with another Christian as to when it is right and when it isn't, but that's irrelevant. My point is that Christians have a basis in their holy book for believing that it is sometimes right to kill non-believers, and therefore a Christian may conclude, based on that, that he should do so. And you cannot say that about atheism. Atheism doesn't say anything about this one way or the other."

You still haven't given any verses where New Testiment calls for the killing of non-believers.

But, No. Jesus speaks specifically against what you claimed. Book of Romans (attributed to Paul) and 1st Pete both address the subject:
1 Peter 2:10-15
Romans 12:1-21

Yes, Christians can disagree among themselves, but if they act contrary to the teachings of Jesus, you cannot blame their actions of Christianity.

At the time the commands where given to the Isearlites the existence of the nation was threaten in such a way that God gave those commands, but that explicitly does not apply to now. In the same way Americans were given explicit commands to kill Germans between 1941 and 1945, but that does not apply now.

My point is that Atheists and Anti-Theists have a basis in their reasoning (i.e: Hitchens and Harris) for believing that it is sometimes right to kill believers, and therefore Atheists and Anti-Theists may conclude, based on that, that they should do so. This appears to be what Hicks did, as Atheism doesn't say anything about this one way or the other.
---

"Are you actually saying that I'm not allowed to write a blog that deals with the question of theism vs atheism?!? "

Not at all. Just that condemning religious people for something and failing to condemn Atheists and Anti-Theists for the same thing is hypocritical. It makes it appear as if you're saying it's wrong for religious, but not for Atheists and Anti-Theists. That the killings by Israelites thousands of years ago are worthy of condemnation, but the killings by 20th Century Atheists is not.

Even C. Hitchens admits:
"You demand that people - you prefer the term "intellectuals" - give an account of their attitude to the Stalin terror. Irritatingly phrased though your demand may be, _I say without any reservation that you are absolutely right to make it._ A huge number of liberals and conservatives and social democrats, as well as communists, made a shabby pact with "Koba", or succumbed to the fascinations of his power."
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/sep/04/history.highereducation

So, for once C. Hitchens agrees with me. Is it not shocking?

The logic for this inaction can be found. For one group of Atheists and Anti-Theists to turn on another Atheists and Anti-Theists risks dividing the forces against religious people, and causing infighting. Such a division of forces cannot be allowed, until after the revolution. Then history can repeat itself with the metaphorical Bolsheviks crushing the metaphorical Mensheviks once more.

And yet:
"Hitchens also took Amis to task for Koba the Dread in The Atlantic, _criticizing him for suggesting the dreaded moral equivalence between the Nazis and the Communists and for wondering if the right side won the Russian Civil War. Hitchens’s dogged determination to defend Lenin shows that he is, at heart, as intense a believer as any radical Islamist._ After all, it was one thing to believe in 1917 that the Bolsheviks might be better than the Romanovs; it is quite another to believe that still today, tens of millions of corpses later."
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-purest-neocon/

Franz: "Again, that doesn't follow. Do you think that communists are a threat to civilization? If so, do you think they should all be killed?"

Not unless there is a war. The teachings of Christianity are written. So with the verses given above go the specifics Jesus gives:
https://iblp.org/questions/what-are-commands-christ

"Denying that morality is objective doesn't mean not having a moral sense. I myself don't believe in objective morality, but that doesn't mean I don't have moral principles."

Even Hicks, Stalin and Mao had moral principles, just few that anyone else would like. They decided rationally what was moral. You did not answer the question, Where is _their_ "natural moral sense"? Or are you saying what they did WAS rationally moral?

Far

2/21/2018 11:51:20 am

And let us admit this truth:
When you speak of Christianity, you talk about bad things.
When you talk about Atheism and Anti-theism, you only talk about good things.

Will you ever write a blog condemning Atheists for their historic flirtation with Authoritarianism.

I don't believe you will. It would be too embarrassing.

Franz Kiekeben

2/22/2018 09:36:18 am

Unfortunately, it's become obvious that you either aren't willing to actually admit (much less deal with) my points, or that you just don't get it. I suspect the former. You keep evading the points I've made and keep repeating the same nonsense that, since there are atheists who committed atrocities, it follows that atheism is to blame.

I no more blame atheism for what communist dictators did than I blame Christianity for what Christian dictators did. In what way am I being inconsistent? I am not "condemning religious people for something and failing to condemn Atheists and Anti-Theists for the same thing," as you say. I condemn CHRISTIANITY for suggesting that nonbelievers are evil (it's in the Bible), which is directly connected with the fact that people have been killed in its name. Atheism cannot be criticized the same way.

For the last time: the fact that there are evil atheists like Stalin and Mao does not follow from atheism. If they had been Christians who had committed the same atrocities, you wouldn't be condemning Christianity for it - and neither would I, since their atrocities (unlike, say, those of the Spanish Inquisition) would not be the result of Christian doctrine! Again, the Nazis were mostly Christians, but I do not blame their actions on Christianity. If you insist I have to blame atheism for Stalin simply because he was an atheist, then you have to blame Christianity for the Nazi concentration camps.

Far

2/25/2018 03:01:19 am

Sigh.OK...I guess I went off on a tangent.

Does this paragraph sum up your argument?

Franz: "According to Christianity, if God at any time commanded the killing of those who don't believe in him, then it MUST BE morally right in at least some cases to kill non-believers. (Or are you saying your God is sometimes evil?) You may disagree with another Christian as to when it is right and when it isn't, but that's irrelevant. My point is that Christians have a basis in their holy book for believing that it is sometimes right to kill non-believers, and therefore a Christian may conclude, based on that, that he should do so. And you cannot say that about atheism. Atheism doesn't say anything about this one way or the other."

God is the Supreme Judge, and as such is able to hand down judgments and appoint executors/executioners of His Judgements, just as a human judge can, But that does Not make it moral or permissible for a individual to commit such acts of their own accord. To Wit: Lawful executions DO NOT legalize vigilantly actions. Because Jesus and the Apostles speak against such vigilantly actions, such a state is made plainly clear.

Franz: "I myself don't believe in objective morality, but that doesn't
mean I don't have moral principles.
My point above was merely that your claim that, if there are no god-
given commandments, then morality is not objective, is wrong."

The Bible states that God has put moral principles into man, but man's sinful nature causes him to fail to live up to those principles. Such a declaration can even be found in Washington's Farewell Address. I heard someone say once, "there are not enough men with enough guns in the world to force men to obey the law." Voltaire spoke along that line, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him"(https://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire). Religion/Religious teachings are necessary to keep man within moral boundaries, Atheism/Anti-theism remove them.

So how can you reject objective morality yet deny morality is not objective without God? I sounds like another Atheist I debated who stated, "In my view, doubt is a virtue and belief a vice," and believed it "absolutely."

Why do you have moral principles? Because you were taught them. Why didn't Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. have the same moral principles? Because they weren't taught them? Unlikely. Because they rejected such constrains because they were religious? Very likely. What did Nietzsche say would happen once man "killed" God?
"Nietzsche understood that the death of god could potentially vault a large majority of the human race into a state of nihilism."
https://academyofideas.com/2012/11/nietzsche-and-the-death-of-god/

The success of Christianity has brought the world great benefits (although I think you may disagree, I would like to provide evidence for that point). So much so that many people begin to believe it does not need religion to maintain the situation. As a metaphor, you understand that while boiling sterilizes water and it may remain so awhile after; it does not remain so indefinitely? Such is mankind's morality with its failures and foibles. It can be seen in nations across the globe where Atheists and Anti-theists have ruled unchallenged, so history has proven it.
---

Franz: "I no more blame atheism for what communist dictators did than I blame Christianity for what Christian dictators did. In what way am I being inconsistent?"
While that is gratifying to read, it still leaves a problem, as a vast number of Atheists/Anti-theists do blame Christianity for what dictators like Hitler did.

The conclusions reached by different Atheists/Anti-theists are inconsistent. Hitchens has even gone so far as to declare that Hitler was but Martin Luther King was was Not a Christian. Such is the state of affairs.

The purpose of Rationalism is to reach a conclusion that is consistently close/closer to the Truth. As Atheists/Anti-theists disagree over so much, I am also trying to point out their failure in that arena.
The Failure of Atheists'/Anti-theists' Rationalism means their conclusions are never unquestionable, because their fellow Rationalist Atheists/Anti-theists disagree with each other. In turn this allows those like Lenin to set their own moral law. You may disagree with another Atheist/Anti-theist as to what is right and what it isn't, but that would be irrelevant.

Franz: "I condemn CHRISTIANITY for suggesting that nonbelievers are evil (it's in the Bible)..."

Where? I believe you will more likely find it says that of All humanity: Romans 3:23.

Franz: "For the last time: the fact that there are evil atheists like Stalin and Mao does not follow from atheism."

Atheism/Anti-theism de facto says: make your own rules/laws.

Christianity has rules, laws, teachings. Anything that goes against them can Not be blamed on Christianity. As an Atheist said: you cannot blame Jainism if a Jainist commits murder. By saying there are no God given rules/laws, is Atheism/

Far

2/25/2018 03:11:49 am

...
By saying there are no God given rules/laws, is Atheism/Anti-theism not responsible for the what happens? Is an idea that removes restraint not responsible for what that act causes? If you removed the restraints of a lion, would you not be responsible for the results?

Franz Kiekeben

2/25/2018 12:14:53 pm

That is basically the argument, though it's a bit broader than that (the above was written specifically in response to something you said). The Bible says that those who don't believe are evil - so it's not merely that God commands their killing. The latter is the worst part, though.

And I can't believe you actually keep asking me where in the Bible it says such things. Have you ever read anything other than the NT? (Not that the NT isn't problematic as well!)

Psalms 14:1 (and it gets repeated in 53:1 for good measure) famously says that all unbelievers are evil. And I've already mentioned the commands to kill unbelievers, which you defended this way:

"At the time the commands where given to the Isearlites the existence of the nation was threaten in such a way that God gave those commands, but that explicitly does not apply to now. In the same way Americans were given explicit commands to kill Germans between 1941 and 1945, but that does not apply now."

But the commands I'm referring to were not only to kill those in rival tribes (as inexcusable as those are, for they include the command to kill even babies); there was also the command to kill anyone in your own midst who was a nonbeliever (see, e.g., Deuteronomy 13:6-9). Killing your own children, etc., for disbelieving simply cannot be compared to killing enemy soldiers during a war. Sorry.

Lastly, the ENTIRE BASIS underlying Christianity (and so this is where the NT is no better than the old) is that we are all deserving of eternal torture, and only those who accept Jesus are forgiven. If Jesus says I deserve to be burned for eternity, can you really blame the Inquisitors for concluding it is right to burn me at the stake? What's a few minutes of burning compared to an eternity?

"But that does Not make it moral or permissible for a individual to commit such acts of their own accord."

Religious fanatics who kill because they believe God told them to do so obviously do not think they are doing it "of their own accord".

"So how can you reject objective morality yet deny morality is not objective without God?"

What I rejected was your claim that there being no God implies that morality is not objective. My reasons for rejecting moral objectivity have zero to do with God, and even if God existed it wouldn't make any difference.

"Why do you have moral principles? Because you were taught them."

Human beings have moral principles in great part as a result of human nature, because we are social animals. Those only go so far, and are mostly limited to our own social group (being social means we are tribal), of course. The rest depends on your society and on individual differences. So it is true that much of the morality we have is due to the fact that we were taught those principles.

"Why didn't Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. have the same moral principles?"

To a great extent, they WEREN'T taught the same principles. But individual differences play a larger role in these cases, which are after all exceptional.

"Because they rejected such constrains because they were religious?"

And so how do you explain the German Christians who carried out the final solution? Why didn't the religious constraints work in their case? And what about the Inquisition? Why didn't the religious "constraints" no only not work - why were they the ACTUAL CAUSE of their actions?

"The success of Christianity has brought the world great benefits"

The success of Christianity brought about the Middle Ages, in which there was no freedom and anyone who dissented was in danger of execution. The closest to that we have today is life under the Taliban or Isis. This doesn't mean all principles in Christianity are evil - far from it. But taken as a whole, it is a bad philosophy.

As to the idea that without it the door is opened to the evil which dictators have caused, that's simply laughable. Again, religion has never prevented such evils, and has often caused them. The only reason people like you think this way is because Marx happened to be an atheist. But that has essentially nothing to do with the basis of communism, nor with its successful implementation. If the communist philosophy had not been atheistic, communists still would have done exactly what they did, except for banning churches (they would instead have used churches to further promote their perfect brotherhood of humanity, in accordance with Christian principles). Again, all you have to do is look at Nazi Germany. In addition, there are plenty of almost entirely secular nations in the world right now in which none of these terrible things are going on. How do you explain that? Are you afraid of the Norwegians?

"The conclusions reached by different Atheists/Anti-theists are inconsistent."

Since atheism is merely about whether or not there are gods, that's hardly surprising. Why would you expect human beings, who disagree on so many things all the time, to all of a sudden agree on everything simply because they agree th

Franz Kiekeben

2/25/2018 12:30:46 pm

[Just noticed part of the comment was chopped off, as happened to yours]

"The conclusions reached by different Atheists/Anti-theists are inconsistent."

Since atheism is merely about whether or not there are gods, that's hardly surprising. Why would you expect human beings, who disagree on so many things all the time, to all of a sudden agree on everything simply because they agree that there is no God.

"Christianity has rules, laws, teachings. Anything that goes against them can Not be blamed on Christianity."

But they are inconsistent and difficult to interpret, and so you have everything from St. Francis to the Westboro Baptists. Plus, as I've already said, some of those teachings are evil.

"Atheism/Anti-theism de facto says: make your own rules/laws."

To begin with, as I've already said, many atheists believe there are objective moral principles, so it's just false that atheism says any such thing. Second, even if someone believes there are no objective moral principles, it doesn't follow that they believe each individual, or each society, should make their own rules. I feel very strongly about the moral principles I accept, and I also can see that most people brought up in the right type of environment agree to a great extent on these moral principles. If anyone tries to implement very different principles, I hope they can be prevented from doing so. That's the best we can do.

Franz Kiekeben

2/25/2018 02:48:48 pm

One more thing. You obviously consider my criticism to be nothing but a mischaracterization of Christianity. Well, here's something that should make you rethink that. The Christian apologist Gleason Archer argued, in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, that the reason why God commanded the killing of nonbelievers in OT times, but does not do so today, is because these days, the Holy Spirit empowers us to resist " the corrupting influence of unconverted worldlings... and still keep true to God" (p 159). In OT times, God's people didn't have this empowering spirit (why not?) and that's why they had to kill unbelievers.

But now think about what that actually implies. If it WEREN'T for the empowering influence of the Holy Spirit within Christians, then they WOULD be justified in killing non-Christians. IOW, it is morally right to kill those who aren't Christians if they might convert you away from your religion! THAT is what one of the most respected apologists for the faith thinks. He only gets out of the conclusion by claiming that the Holy Spirit empowers us - something which I could certainly see another Christian disputing. (Maybe the Holy Spirit doesn't necessarily empower all Christians, after all.)

I don't have the correct moral rules, according to you, since I apparently just make mine up, and therefore lack the restraint that prevents me from committing horrible atrocities. And yet I'm the one who finds the idea of killing, say, a Buddhist, simply because he was brought up to believe the way he does, horrible - while biblical expert Archer thinks it would be perfectly justified under the right circumstances.

I'll stick to my (far more enlightened) moral principles over those of the Bible any day. Sorry.

Far

3/31/2018 12:32:15 am

1) This is to note that this conversation is reaching the point I call "excessive dendritic expansion." The point where the the field under discussion expands beyond what can be considered a “forum post” and becomes a blog. Trimming must be done, so I will attempt to trim.

In hopes of maintaining a smaller dialog, I need to know what your operating definitions are for:

Morality, objective morality, subjective morality and relative morality.

2) NOTE: To ease typing: Atheists & Anti-theists = A&AT

3) Franz: “Psalms 14:1 (and it gets repeated in 53:1 for good measure) famously says that all unbelievers are evil.”

Ah! But where in those verses does it command they be murdered? Neither Testament instructs the Jews to go rampaging around what we now call the Middle East killing non-Jews.
Congruent examples: Jonah and the Ninevites. Jonah actually gets mad at God for not punishing the Ninevites! Luke 9:51-56, where Jesus rebukes His disciples for suggesting punishment of those to reject them.

Franz: "Now, it is true that the claim "there are no gods" also does not prohibit the killing of anyone. So what? Here are some other examples of views that do not include a prohibition against killing anyone:

metaphysical dualism
the theory of relativity
moral objectivism
etc, etc"

Thank you for admitting that A&AT have no source for morality. Now, as is the philosophy of Western Society that if it's not outlawed, it's legal, the actions of the Soviets PRC and other A&AT are understandable. This also explains how Sam Harris and C. Hitchens can reach their conclusions:

C. Hitchens:
"I mean your preachments are evil and are a direct threat to the survival of civilization.
If you don't consider me an enemy, then you don't know an enemy when you see or hear one."

“I think the enemies of civilisation should be beaten and killed and defeated, and I don’t make any apology for it… We can’t live on the same planet as them, and I’m glad because I don’t want to. I don’t want to breathe the same air as these psychopaths and murderers… It’s them or me. I’m very happy about this because I know it will be them.”

" "I'm just wondering if I should draw you a picture. You mean how does killing them lessen their number?"
He went on to state: "The numbers of those bombed will decline." He also described the hunting and killing of al-Qaida not only as a duty, but a "pleasure". "

Harris:
"Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense."

Harris and Dawkins agree on the idea of shared guilt among all adherents of a religions, as in Dawkins' words: "there is a sense in which the moderate, nice religious people — nice Christians, nice Muslims — make the world safe for extremists." Aren't moderate, nice A&ATs making the world safe for extremists A&AT?

You can have your subjective morality, but how does that protect Christians from Hitchens and Harris, or anyone who agrees with them?

And where does subjective morality come in when people like Hicks decide it is moral to kill people over a parking dispute?

Franz Kiekeben

4/3/2018 07:26:26 am

This conversation is also reaching the point where it's becoming pointless. You keep ignoring context when you quote atheists (the enemies of civilization that Hitchens and Harris are talking about are obviously terrorists, not all believers). You keep dodging the fact that the Bible does condone the killing of non-believers (even though I've already quoted at least one passage that says so) and instead point to other passages that do not do so - as if that absolves your holy book. And you keep trying to turn what I say into something supporting your nonsense views - for example:

Me: "Now, it is true that the claim "there are no gods" also does not prohibit the killing of anyone."

You: "Thank you for admitting that A&AT have no source for morality."

Are you kidding me? You actually don't understand the difference between a claim that DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY (such as the claim that there are no gods) and a claim that explicitly rejects morality? I also pointed out that the theory of relativity does not include a prohibition against killing. Why didn't you conclude that all those who accept relativity therefore have no moral basis against killing? That, in a nutshell, is your argument against atheism.

I won't continue humoring you unless you stop all three of the above dishonest tactics.

Far

4/16/2018 09:46:54 pm

SIGH!
Can we discuss "context"?

So you will only continue this dialog if I abstain from disputing your claims? Mr. Pot I would like you to meet Mr. Kettle.

Are you willing to let your views to be challenge by evidence?

Franz: "Christianity is a body of doctrine that DOES include, in places, the command to kill those who dare to criticize it (never mind that in other places there are commands inconsistent with this one)."

What evidence have you presented to backup your claim. Reference to Jewish scripture are irrelevant; You Claimed Christianity does! Christianity's mission is to bring non-Jews to God, not to Judaism. The NT actually addresses the Judification of Goyim, and declares it wrong.

Franz: "And what this means is that when some lunatic kills in the name of Christianity, he actually does have a basis within Christianity for what he did; whereas when some lunatic kills in the name of atheism, he does not."

Interesting, but so what? Lunatics do lots of things. If a Lunatic Jainist murders someone, can we blame Jainism? If an A&AT kills religious people because he believes religion is a threat to civilization, that's still because of Atheism. A&AT leaves you with only your rationality and no reliable point of reference. No moral GPS, no Polaris, no lighthouse.

So when an otherwise stable Atheist (who has posted an A&AT meme that "all the middle east needs for peace is Atheism" with approval: https://am14.akamaized.net/med/cnt/uploads/2015/02/Screen-Shot-2015-02-11-at-11.34.52-AM-300x276.png) murders someone over parking spaces, what are we to blame, Christianity? His only guide was his "subjective morality," and it obviously approved.

Even Atheists agree with me on the following - to a degree:

"If it turns out, as it appears to indicate, that Hicks was inspired to kill by his anti-religious animus, then it’s time for atheists to denounce the extremists in their ranks. The extremists are the anti-theists (New Atheists) masquerading as atheists. I can say this boldly because I was a New Atheist."

"I can assure you the New Atheists, venomous and virulent, speak in the same hostile language as the religious fundamentalists and bigots they attack."

"Noam Chomsky, an atheist, has called New Atheists “religious fanatics”. Journalist Chris Hedges says they’re the secular version of the religious right."
-http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/chapel-hill-murders-beast-new-atheism-1598776345

Can we discuss "context"?

Lenin wasn't a Lunatic, according to C. Hitchens he was a great man. He killed on a massive scale, and was followed willingly by an untold number of Atheists. Shall we follow Hitchens' reasoning on this?

1) Why is Hitchens so proud of about Lenin?

"One of Lenin's great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia."
C. Hitchens, http://www.heavenonearthdocumentary.com/interviews_hitchens.html
"The Communist Party destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, ..." - Wikipedia.
"It is estimated that 500,000 Russian Orthodox Christians were martyred in the gulags by the Soviet government, not including torture or other Christian denominations killed." - Wikipedia.
So we can see Hitchens was not against killing. Was C. Hitchens a lunatic?

2) ALL Religions are the same to C. Hitchens:

"I am not even an atheist so much as an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." C. Hitchens
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/473943-i-am-not-even-an-atheist-so-much-as-an
"all religions"

3) Hitchens explicitly includes Christians/Christianity in his "enemies of civilization" category:

(Speaking to a Christian:) "I mean your preachments are evil and are a direct threat to the survival of civilization.
If you don't consider me an enemy, then you don't know an enemy when you see or hear one."
C. Hitchens: https://dotsub.com/view/07174440-6595-4eb8-8b6f-337c13a93237/viewTranscript/eng
and
https://endlessjune.wordpress.com/2017/01/12/dialectics-and-hitchens/

4) Hitchens knew how to deal moraly with his enemies:

“I think the enemies of civilisation should be beaten and killed and defeated, and I don’t make any apology for it… We can’t live on the same planet as them, and I’m glad because I don’t want to. I don’t want to breathe the same air as these psychopaths and murderers… It’s them or me. I’m very happy about this because I know it will be them.”
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/09/fields-of-blood-by-ferdinand-mount-review/ ---
"enemies of civilisation" = "all religions"

I provide multiple sources in support of my argument, given by Atheists, and somehow I'm taking Hitchens "out of context"? There are some Secular Humanists have the same problem with C. Hitchens I do, but you claim only I

Far

4/16/2018 09:53:22 pm

but you claim only I am taking Hitchens out of context.

Denial isn't a river in Egypt, and it isn't an argument or a proof. If I am taking C. Hitchens "out of context,"

PROVE IT!
---

Franz: "Now, it is true that the claim "there are no gods" also does not prohibit the killing of anyone. So what? Here are some other examples of views that do not include a prohibition against killing anyone:
metaphysical dualism
the theory of relativity
moral objectivism
etc, etc"

True, those subject do not, but that is irrelevant. As irrelevant as both Hitler and Stalin having mustaches.

Franz: "Atheism is not ABOUT whether or not it is right to kill anyone. It is about whether gods exist."
Franz: "Are you kidding me? You actually don't understand the difference between a claim that DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY..."
IT has NOTHING to do morality?

1) By rejecting God's existence you reject God-given morality.

2) If you take away the law, and replace it with nothing you get anarchy . How then shall you live? Atheism by default, leaves only reason to determine that. Lenin, Hitchens and Hicks took that path. Look where it lead them.

(see Dawkins discussion of the Montreal Police riots: https://www.bethinking.org/human-life/richard-dawkins-and-the-man-delusion)

Once you get rid of a God-given guidance, where do A&AT get their morals? If morals are not objective, they are individual to everyone and thus forcing your opinion on others (such as Hicks) does take on a religious dimension.

Since you've failed to answer my question about your definition of the moralities under discussion, I have turned to the web for the standard definitions:

"Objective morality is the perspective that there are things about the universe that make certain morals claims true or false. An objectivist would state that the way the world is makes murder an objectively wrong thing to do. ... Subjective morality is the perspective that moral claims don't really have a truth value."
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-objective-morality-and-subjective-morality

"Moral Relativism: The view that what is morally right or wrong depends on what someone thinks. (To which the claim that opinions vary substantially about right and wrong is usually added.) We can think of this position as coming in two flavours:
(a) Subjectivism: What is morally right or wrong for you depends on what you think is morally right or wrong, i.e., right or wrong is relative to the individual. The 'moral facts' may alter from person to person.
(b) Conventionalism: What is morally right or wrong depends on what the society we are dealing with thinks, i.e., morality depends on the conventions of the society we are concerned with. The 'moral facts' may alter from society to society."

Atheism allowed Hicks to determine what is morally right or wrong depends on what he thought. Hicks used subjective morality.

But it's your ballfield, so I guess you win.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/73/18/76/731876c454ddc7b503127200b15a565f--freedom-of-speech-quotes-bill-hicks-quotes.jpg
Quote>
Me: "Now, it is true that the claim "there are no gods" also does not prohibit the killing of anyone."
You: "Thank you for admitting that A&AT have no source for morality."

Are you kidding me? You actually don't understand the difference between a claim that DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY...
<Unquote
Heh, yeah, I did sort of step on it with that. Sorry.
---
Franz: "You keep dodging the fact that the Bible does condone the killing of non-believers (even though I've already quoted at least one passage that says so) "

You are taking those verses out of context. =)

And you keep ignoring that A&AT's have used subjective morality to justify anything they want - because they can! That is a poison A&AT spreads.

Franz Kiekeben

4/18/2018 08:50:44 am

Would it calm you down any if I said I actually agree with some of what you are implying? For example, if some atheist says all religious people are evil and that inspires some lunatic to go and kill religious people, then obviously that atheist bears some responsibility. The problem is that you're seeing this as the fault of atheism, rather than the fault with some atheist or other. Sorry, but those aren't the same thing!

A few other odds and ends:

I believe I've already pointed out exactly how you took Hitchens out of context, but in case I'm misremembering, here's one example: above you quote (again) Hitchens' admission that Lenin achieved a good in ending the power the Orthodox Church had over Russian society. You take this to mean that Hitchens was a big fan of Lenin. Yet in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE of the interview you linked, he goes on to criticize Lenin! (I myself don't think he went far enough in his criticism. But the point is that he was not endorsing Leninism at all.) Yet you "conveniently" ignore that, and just keep repeating that one passage, as if that somehow proves atheism approves of the killing of millions of innocent people.

Do you think the VW Beetle was a pretty good idea? (I used to have one myself. It was a great car.) If so, does this mean you agree with everything Hitler stood for?

As to atheism having nothing to do with morality: sorry, but it doesn't. Atheism (positive atheism) is the single claim that there are no gods. The only way this leads to any moral differences between the atheist and the theist is that the atheist cannot accept any principles that have directly to do with the existence of any gods. So, for instance, if there is a moral principle in some religion that says it is right to sacrifice a child to a god, the atheist will not accept that. And similarly if there is a principle that says one must pray to a god, or that one must love a god, etc.

As far as any other moral principles that supposedly come from a god are concerned, the atheist can accept those without accepting that they came from the god. So, if the great god Xazu says that eating potatoes is evil, an atheist could agree that eating potatoes is evil (maybe he was raised in that kind of culture and it just seems obvious to him that potato-eating is a no-no) without believing that Xazu has anything to do with it.

Franz Kiekeben

4/18/2018 07:33:50 am

"So you will only continue this dialog if I abstain from disputing your claims?"

Far, I have been more than patient with you. Almost anyone else would by now have stopped replying, at least. And yet you keep coming back, repeating the same points that I've already answered (IOW, the way you reply to what I've said is merely to repeat the same thing I was responding to), and then to top it off say the above? Really?

"Reference to Jewish scripture are irrelevant"

So none of what YOUR GOD commanded back in OT times matters? It's completely irrelevant? That God the Father commanded the killing of innocent people, as far as you're concerned, says nothing about God the Father's morality? Really? Are you f-ing kidding me?

This just shows how incredibly dishonest you are being.

Here's something else that shows this:

"Franz: "And what this means is that when some lunatic kills in the name of Christianity, he actually does have a basis within Christianity for what he did; whereas when some lunatic kills in the name of atheism, he does not."

Interesting, but so what? "

So what?? That's my entire point, that's what! The point you have been denying all along, that's what!

THE CHAPEL HILL MURDERS

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Categories