Muslim students killed at University of North Carolina

It appears an atheist has finally killed for atheism. If so, this will be a gigantic obstacle for atheism as a movement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/us/muslim-student-shootings-north-carolina.html?_r=0
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chapel-hill-shooting-craig-stephen-hicks-condemned-all-religions-on-facebook-prior-to-muslim-massmurder-arrest-10038126.html

Really? Sounds like an idiot to me. And where is there anyone who in any way represents atheism saying people should kill their religious neighbors? There is just no connection.
I’m just glad he didn’t kill himself so he can open his mouth and prove what an idiot he is.

There is no indication that the killer acted as a representative of atheism. mid atlantic, are considering a career at Fox News?

I heard it was a fight over parking. There is no indication it had to do with religion or atheism. That’s a red herring.
LL

I was wrong to post he had killed for atheism specifically. It was gloating on my part.
Its easy to see how this leaves a bad mark on atheism; the recently increased tension between Muslims and westerners (especially western atheists) is bad enough, but atheists often pontificate about how lacking faith makes one less violent, more able to critically evaluate situations, etc - no it doesn’t…and here’s proof.

There is no indication that the killer acted as a representative of atheism. mid atlantic, are considering a career at Fox News?
No luck there... Fox news has been defending atheism against the charge that Hicks represents atheists and killed for atheism.
I was wrong to post he had killed for atheism specifically. It was gloating on my part. Its easy to see how this leaves a bad mark on atheism; the recently increased tension between Muslims and westerners (especially western atheists) is bad enough, but atheists often pontificate about how lacking faith makes one less violent, more able to critically evaluate situations, etc - no it doesn't.......and here's proof.
The actions of one person is not proof of the thinking of other people with similar traits. That's called prejudice.
I was wrong to post he had killed for atheism specifically. It was gloating on my part. Its easy to see how this leaves a bad mark on atheism; the recently increased tension between Muslims and westerners (especially western atheists) is bad enough, but atheists often pontificate about how lacking faith makes one less violent, more able to critically evaluate situations, etc - no it doesn't.......and here's proof.
It does, 99% of the time. There is no way to control for mentally unstable people. It can happen to anyone in any group. That he says he did itfor atheism means nothing. He's nuts. He could just as well be an atheism hater who wants to make a negative statement about atheism. I wouldn't take any statement from a mentally unstable person as meaning anything rational--unless he pleads guilty. That would be the only rational statement he could make and he probably won't make it. LL
I was wrong to post he had killed for atheism specifically. It was gloating on my part. Its easy to see how this leaves a bad mark on atheism; the recently increased tension between Muslims and westerners (especially western atheists) is bad enough, but atheists often pontificate about how lacking faith makes one less violent, more able to critically evaluate situations, etc - no it doesn't.......and here's proof.
A) I've never heard an atheist make that statement, B) everyone is somebody's atheist, so the notion is off the mark right off the bat. About point B - you're misusing the word Faith. It's not having faith or not having faith. It's having faith in X. So a Hindu has no faith in the Christian God, therefore the Hindu is an atheist. The Christian has no faith in the Hindu gods, therefore Christians are atheists. Everybody is somebody's atheist.
I was wrong to post he had killed for atheism specifically. It was gloating on my part. Its easy to see how this leaves a bad mark on atheism; the recently increased tension between Muslims and westerners (especially western atheists) is bad enough, but atheists often pontificate about how lacking faith makes one less violent, more able to critically evaluate situations, etc - no it doesn't.......and here's proof.
The actions of one person is not proof of the thinking of other people with similar traits. That's called prejudice.The correct prejudice.
I was wrong to post he had killed for atheism specifically. It was gloating on my part. Its easy to see how this leaves a bad mark on atheism; the recently increased tension between Muslims and westerners (especially western atheists) is bad enough, but atheists often pontificate about how lacking faith makes one less violent, more able to critically evaluate situations, etc - no it doesn't.......and here's proof.
It does, 99% of the time. There is no way to control for mentally unstable people. It can happen to anyone in any group. That he says he did itfor atheism means nothing. He's nuts. LLYet when Muslims or Christians do it, they aren't nuts? Their beliefs made them do it? Your bias is plain to see. All of your recent posts in the threads concerning the Charlie Hebdo killings show that you think religious belief itself motivated those actions.

Indications are he was a surly, troublemaking busybody and crank who liked nobody and was longing for the opportunity to use his gun.

I was wrong to post he had killed for atheism specifically. It was gloating on my part. Its easy to see how this leaves a bad mark on atheism; the recently increased tension between Muslims and westerners (especially western atheists) is bad enough, but atheists often pontificate about how lacking faith makes one less violent, more able to critically evaluate situations, etc - no it doesn't.......and here's proof.
It does, 99% of the time. There is no way to control for mentally unstable people. It can happen to anyone in any group. That he says he did itfor atheism means nothing. He's nuts. LLYet when Muslims or Christians do it, they aren't nuts? Their beliefs made them do it? Your bias is plain to see. All of your recent posts in the threads concerning the Charlie Hebdo killings show that you think religious belief itself motivated those actions. You overlook the fact that there is nothing in atheism that condones such acts. There is plenty in Islam and Christianity that does. Atheism doesn't condone anything, it's solely a lack of belief in any god. There is no atheist doctrine, there is no atheist "holy book," there are no atheist leaders speaking for atheism. LL
I heard it was a fight over parking. There is no indication it had to do with religion or atheism. That's a red herring. LL
I live near Chapel Hill. The local newspaper has given a lot of coverage to the murder of the three Muslim students. The entire community has been shocked by this event. The murderer, Hicks, was known to be a very angry person, so much so that the condominium group he lived in had a special meeting at the community clubhouse to discuss how to deal with him, as several people reported being afraid of him. Apparently parking disputes among tenants have been going on for some time, there being too few spaces, with some people parking in other's allotted places. Nothing has been reported about the parking practices of the slain three, whatever they might have been. Clearly parking is not a valid reason for murder. Hicks was angry at a lot of people his wife reports. Perhaps we need better mental health services. Although Hicks was a strident atheist, religion does not appear to have been his primary motive. A few years ago he argued for the right of Muslims to construct a mosque near the site of Ground Zero (NYC). I don't know the truth of the situation beyond newspaper reports. Perhaps we need fewer guns in our society.