Does atheism need a moment of reckoning?

After the discovery that the man who murdered three Muslim students in North Carolina on Wednesday was an atheist, it was a matter of hours before the media conversation shifted from simple horror and mourning to a discussion of the attack’s implication for atheism.

Vox reported that atheists faced an “uncomfortable conversation,” and The Washington Post immediately called on “End of Faith” author Sam Harris for an explanation. On Twitter, historian Vijay Prishad did not hesitate to say the killer was “inspired” by so-called New Atheist writers, and the author CJ Werelman hoped the tragedy would awaken America to “threat” of atheism. The American Humanist Association felt compelled to put out a statement condemning the attack.

But connecting the killings in any way to atheism rests on a dangerous underlying principle. To begin with, the link between the religious or political persuasions of criminals and their criminal behavior should always be approached cautiously. While the “parking dispute” narrative pushed by Richard Dawkins is thoroughly discreditable, the violently insane have all manner of obsessions and can crib any set of principles to rationalize their acts. To suggest that the atheistic beliefs of Craig Hicks turned him murderous is akin to saying that Jodie Foster caused Reagan to be shot, or that Judaism caused the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre.

Despite this, the attacks were used by some to revive preexisting complaints against atheism. Writing in the New Republic, Christian writer Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig demanded a reckoning, framing the murders as a wake-up call to atheists about dangerous tendencies among them. She argued that the cocksureness that comes with atheistic certitude has allowed more-rational-than-thou young white men to blind themselves to a growing strand of hatefulness. Atheists, she said, need to consider the possibility that such violence is an “outgrowth of a system” that fails to sufficiently question its moral commitments.

This is not to say that present-day atheism is free of problems; in fact, nearly everything that critics of the New Atheists say is true. Christopher Hitchens gleefully daydreamed about the murder of Islamists, and while Sam Harris always insists he hates the belief rather than the believer, there is no denying the venom of the hatred itself. It is unfortunate that Richard Dawkins has to be atheism’s most prominent exponent—though Dawkins once demonstrated a capacity for engaging seriously and respectfully with religious scholars, in recent years he has dedicated himself to demonstrating that he should never have been allowed to open a Twitter account. The charges of Islamophobia among prominent atheist writers are well-substantiated; many of our supposed humanists are simply not very humane.

Fortunately, atheism and agnosticism have a long line of beautiful and sensitive thinkers from which to draw for this task. Beginning with the ancient doubters, and stretching to Shelley’s nonviolence, Dewey’s democracy, and Russell’s anti-war socialism, previous ages had an atheism that was truly “liberal” in the best sense of that word. Kurt Vonnegut managed to both disbelieve and crack jokes, quipping memorably that “I do feel that evolution is being controlled by some sort of divine engineer. That’s why we’ve got giraffes and hippopotami and the clap.” It’s also time for humanism to give greater prominence to feminist voices, from Skepchick Rebecca Watson to Egyptian dissenter Nawal El Saadawi (who does not identify openly as an atheist, but describes religion as merely a kind of politics and states that “religions in general, are in my view, devoid of justice and are oppressive to women and the poor.”) The task of skeptics is to recapture the spirit of Thomas Paine and combine a rejection of religion with a fierce opposition to injustice.

Hellsangel wrote:Wow! Who would have thought that even atheists have a problem with Islam?

Hellsangel wrote:Duh! Comrade Obvious! Why do you think everyone has a problem with Islam?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Duh! Comrade Obvious! Why do you think everyone has a problem with Islam?

Idiots come from all backgrounds, idiocy is not birthright of chaddies.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Duh! Comrade Obvious! Why do you think everyone has a problem with Islam?

Idiots come from all backgrounds, idiocy is not birthright of chaddies.

Oh my! Did you just say that everyone who is not Islamic is idiotic, Comrade? At least now you're being honest about your agenda.

truthbetold wrote:Cd
Let us see. 
Bill maher is bad because he called Islam to own up its mistakes.
Now some lunatic nut kills Muslims ( I feel sorry for the victims and their families), the non religion of atheism is bad. 

truthbetold wrote:
Islam and its believers are called up to answer for terrorism because it causes direct harm to individuals, families, groups, regions, nations and world. The dangers are physical and economical. 
You and your stupid jihadi supporter clans equates a random event with a historical phenomena that is destroying the lives of millions of islamic followers and billions of innocent people around the world.
Your logic is not only poor but it is sick.

truthbetold wrote:Cd
I am aware that you buy into bill maher on liberal stuff. I have no problem if you disagree with him on a point of view. But your ilk has prevented him from speaking in university forums because of his views on Islam. That shows what is more important to your ilk.
Sir
I do not use jihadi supporter very lightly. You have a ton evidence behind you. Examples of your selfless service jihadi cause is widely recognized to earn you the distinction jihadi supporter. 

truthbetold wrote:
Now that it is clarified, let us move back to the topic of atheism and opposition to Islam.
If I were an atheist, Islam presents clearest example what is wrong with religion. It is stuck in the 19th century Wahhabism, it limits women's freedom immensely, it spreads terrorism around the world etc. that is just a sample to give you a flavor. I would pick as many examples from recent history to make a case against religion. 
Atheism is an unorganized set of people with no coherent organization. Actions of an individual who happened to be atheistic nut does not ruboff on an idea known as atheism.

Islamic followers do generate enough news to cause resentment among different populations of the world. Their reputation is too strong to be widely influenced by minuscule atheist movement. In fact that is a failure of atheist movement.

truthbetold wrote:After recent Paris attacks, Islamic people and its leaders gave customary condemnation attached with various caveats. But on smallest pretext you see thousands and millions pouring onto streets chanting anti western terrorist slogans.

truthbetold wrote:The widespread usage of violence by various groups of Islam around the world and dominant voice of terrorist language in Islamic preacher teachings and deep mass support levels make certain stains of islam a present and imminent danger.

truthbetold wrote:Cd
Islam is just like a political body like communist party or other political entity. It so happens it is around for along time and hopelessly entwined with the idea of God and culture of a part of world.
It is open to criticism just like any other political entity. It's followers are subject to similar treatment like followers of communism. 
Terrorism is always carried out by a small group of people. That is required for its operational survival. Even state supported pak terrorists work in small secretive units. It is the widespread logistic support and more importantly widespread moral support that is a cause for concern. After recent Paris attacks, Islamic people and its leaders gave customary condemnation attached with various caveats. But on smallest pretext you see thousands and millions pouring onto streets chanting anti western terrorist slogans. The widespread usage of violence by various groups of Islam around the world and dominant voice of terrorist language in Islamic preacher teachings 
and deep mass support levels make certain stains of islam a present and imminent danger.

truthbetold wrote:Who gave arms Tunisia, Algeria, Mali, boko haram, Palestine, Libya, etc. arms are over the place. Your attempt to point finger at someone else does not get you anywhere. I said they are bad, dangerous and pig headed. But I did not say they are stupid.