Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill

[Alcon]

I know you've made the argument before, Al, that the atheistic elements of the Communist Party had a lot to do with why they persecuted Christians.  I disagree, as it is quite obvious to me that persecution took place as part of an overall power struggle.  The Communists were fighting an element they thought could undermine their ideal government and society... They were not persecuting them in the name of atheism.

So now we have No True Atheist as well. Remarkable.

safasfsafdsfda.

That's not a No True Scotsman fallacy.  A No True Scotsman fallacy is an informal fallacy of goalpost-shifting, where someone makes a universal claim and then backs away from it.  He didn't do that, though, unless he made the claim that no atheists are violent.  I don't see him making that claim.  If he made the claim that no one has ever committed a violent act in the name of atheism, and then changed the definition of "in the name of atheism," that would be an NTS.  Otherwise, you're committing a syllogism error here.

[Alcon]

Maher I believe has said there is no such thing as moderate or liberal Islam and that all Muslims believe X, Y, & Z blah blah.

What quote are you thinking of?

The only one I can find of where he mentions "moderate Muslim" or "moderate Muslims" is this: "Condemning attack is not enough: unless you strongly endorse the right of anyone to make fun of any religion/prophet, you are not a moderate Muslim."

You could argue that this is an unnecessarily strict definition, but it seems totally incompatible with him rejecting the possibility of a moderate Muslim.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I know you've made the argument before, Al, that the atheistic elements of the Communist Party had a lot to do with why they persecuted Christians.  I disagree, as it is quite obvious to me that persecution took place as part of an overall power struggle.  The Communists were fighting an element they thought could undermine their ideal government and society... They were not persecuting them in the name of atheism.

So now we have No True Atheist as well. Remarkable.

safasfsafdsfda.

That's not a No True Scotsman fallacy.  A No True Scotsman fallacy is an informal fallacy of goalpost-shifting, where someone makes a universal claim and then backs away from it.  He didn't do that, though, unless he made the claim that no atheists are violent.  I don't see him making that claim.  If he made the claim that no one has ever committed a violent act in the name of atheism, and then changed the definition of "in the name of atheism," that would be an NTS.  Otherwise, you're committing a syllogism error here.

'kay

[Alcon]

I know you've made the argument before, Al, that the atheistic elements of the Communist Party had a lot to do with why they persecuted Christians.  I disagree, as it is quite obvious to me that persecution took place as part of an overall power struggle.  The Communists were fighting an element they thought could undermine their ideal government and society... They were not persecuting them in the name of atheism.

So now we have No True Atheist as well. Remarkable.

safasfsafdsfda.

That's not a No True Scotsman fallacy.  A No True Scotsman fallacy is an informal fallacy of goalpost-shifting, where someone makes a universal claim and then backs away from it.  He didn't do that, though, unless he made the claim that no atheists are violent.  I don't see him making that claim.  If he made the claim that no one has ever committed a violent act in the name of atheism, and then changed the definition of "in the name of atheism," that would be an NTS.  Otherwise, you're committing a syllogism error here.

'kay

This wasn't some highly technical "gotcha," dude, so if you're being dismissive I don't see why.

[King]

Ah, the No True No True Scotsman Fallacy fallacy.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I know you've made the argument before, Al, that the atheistic elements of the Communist Party had a lot to do with why they persecuted Christians.  I disagree, as it is quite obvious to me that persecution took place as part of an overall power struggle.  The Communists were fighting an element they thought could undermine their ideal government and society... They were not persecuting them in the name of atheism.

So now we have No True Atheist as well. Remarkable.

safasfsafdsfda.

That's not a No True Scotsman fallacy.  A No True Scotsman fallacy is an informal fallacy of goalpost-shifting, where someone makes a universal claim and then backs away from it.  He didn't do that, though, unless he made the claim that no atheists are violent.  I don't see him making that claim.  If he made the claim that no one has ever committed a violent act in the name of atheism, and then changed the definition of "in the name of atheism," that would be an NTS.  Otherwise, you're committing a syllogism error here.

'kay

This wasn't some highly technical "gotcha," dude, so if you're being dismissive I don't see why.

I made the claim, and I stand by it, that if this murder was in fact done in the name of atheism then it is one of the few times we've heard of such a thing.  That was in response to my comment in a separate thread about calling Islamic terrorism "religious terrorism" being retroactively silly after this story broke.  I said that you are still comparing a mountain to an ant hill; Al went back to the Soviet persecution of Christians... again.  He just replies with his usual nastiness/snarkiness and that's his shtick so whatever.

Fact of the matter is, atheism is the absence of something in all aspects.  Atheists don't have texts, figureheads, tenants, or rules to guide them on how to be an atheist.  Yes, there a radical elements inside the overall atheist population, but you seriously can not compare it to the two mainstream monotheistic religions, where divine permission to commit violent acts exists over and over and over in plain text.  I'm well aware most religiouses will never act on these passages, but the most violent of radical atheists are among the most ostracized of extremists I can think of.  Your average Christian family has a Bible in the house.  Mountain.  Ant hill.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This wasn't some highly technical "gotcha," dude, so if you're being dismissive I don't see why.

It's just that I really don't care about (apparently?) strictly defined terms relating to logic, so was using the term in a very informal sense. So the appearance of a dense block of prim black-coated disapproval was not entirely anticipated.

Specifically a claim was made that religious persecution by the well-known atheist state the Soviet Union does not count because the attempt by this atheist state to impose atheism at the point of a gun was not motivated by atheism but by other considerations. Which is, for the record, total trash. This bogus and historically illiterate argument was made in the context of a claim about violence almost never being motivated by atheism (a claim that, like it or not, is untrue).

All of which is a bit odd because if there was a 'political' motivation to these murders it looks (I've not followed closely so could be missing several very important things) to be primarily anti-Muslim (I would use the word 'racist' but Americans get weirded out by uses of that word that postdate the 19th century).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

That violence has never been committed in the name of Atheism is a lie

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

That violence has never been committed in the name of Atheism is a lie

Lol.  I didn't even claim that.  Doesn't change the fact that the amount of violence committed in the name of atheism or irreligion doesn't even compare to what's been done when Gott mit uns.

Al, WHY in your view were Christians in the USSR persecuted?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Lol.  I didn't even claim that.  Doesn't change the fact that the amount of violence committed in the name of atheism or irreligion doesn't even compare to what's been done when Gott mit uns.

Oh great, we've reached the point when we're comparing body counts...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, WHY in your view were Christians in the USSR persecuted?

Is this a serious question? The Bolsheviks were militantly anticlerical (far more so than Marx or (especially) Engels were, actually) and acted accordingly once in power. The various religious minorities didn't have a particularly fun time either.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Lol.  I didn't even claim that.  Doesn't change the fact that the amount of violence committed in the name of atheism or irreligion doesn't even compare to what's been done when Gott mit uns.

Oh great, we've reached the point when we're comparing body counts...

Well, it matters.  The world isn't cupcakes and rainbows there, Sunshine. 

Al, WHY in your view were Christians in the USSR persecuted?

Is this a serious question? The Bolsheviks were militantly anticlerical (far more so than Marx or (especially) Engels were, actually) and acted accordingly once in power. The various religious minorities didn't have a particularly fun time either.

And you think it's ridiculous to claim they were anticlerical due to the fact they were trying to establish a VERY centralized form of society and government that was dependent on everybody buying in (or forced, whatever) and being good little cogs in the machine?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

This thread is about as pleasant as I predicted.

[Alcon]

This wasn't some highly technical "gotcha," dude, so if you're being dismissive I don't see why.

It's just that I really don't care about (apparently?) strictly defined terms relating to logic, so was using the term in a very informal sense. So the appearance of a dense block of prim black-coated disapproval was not entirely anticipated.

If an argument sucks, I generally think we should explain why it sucks, not why another, slightly similar argument sucks.

This is definitely the first time in my life I've ever been called "prim," though, so that's something!

Specifically a claim was made that religious persecution by the well-known atheist state the Soviet Union does not count because the attempt by this atheist state to impose atheism at the point of a gun was not motivated by atheism but by other considerations. Which is, for the record, total trash. This bogus and historically illiterate argument was made in the context of a claim about violence almost never being motivated by atheism (a claim that, like it or not, is untrue).

I don't dislike that claim if it's true (besides the fact that it's sad and stuff).  I just get frustrated with the tendency of arguments on this site to vaguely half-engage the opposing side, and substitute intellectual allusions for intellectual arguments.  It's like sometimes the arguments here involve posts that just say things like "lol how post-bolshevik" and I'm thinking, I'm a reasonably smart guy and I have no idea what the heck that means.  And, in this case, I actually do know the allusion you were making, and it didn't really make an explicit logical point, so it didn't serve much purpose besides tonal condescension.  I think the Atlas has enough tonal condescension as it is from idiots that our smart, knowledgeable posters don't need to be doing it too.

All of which is a bit odd because if there was a 'political' motivation to these murders it looks (I've not followed closely so could be missing several very important things) to be primarily anti-Muslim (I would use the word 'racist' but Americans get weirded out by uses of that word that postdate the 19th century).

If HockeyDude doesn't accept the connection between atheism and communistic violence -- hard to know, since you didn't really engage him on the point -- then I don't know how that claim becomes "a little odd" based on this incident.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

That violence has never been committed in the name of Atheism is a lie

Lol.  I didn't even claim that.  Doesn't change the fact that the amount of violence committed in the name of atheism or irreligion doesn't even compare to what's been done when Gott mit uns.

Is that even true once you consider the numbers of each throughout history? I'm skeptical.

Either way, it's classic whataboutery.

[Associate Justice PiT]

That violence has never been committed in the name of Atheism is a lie

Lol.  I didn't even claim that.  Doesn't change the fact that the amount of violence committed in the name of atheism or irreligion doesn't even compare to what's been done when Gott mit uns.

Is that even true once you consider the numbers of each throughout history? I'm skeptical.

Either way, it's classic whataboutery.

     One of the odder notions that I have found to be common with American liberals and atheists is that people were monolithically religious until sometime around the 1960s. In that sense, they are fighting some sort of massive historical tide by daring to suggest that there is no God.

[publicunofficial]

As an atheist, I can say with honestly that a lot of atheists are extremely Islamophobic and like to use their blanket philosophy of "I'm against all religious extremism" to say vile and xenophobic things about Muslims. I'm sure there are atheists on this forum who have said "lol Islam is the religion of peace" as a comment on any number of articles on terrorist attacks.


Anyone who thinks that these three Muslims would still be dead if they were any other religion is a coward who is afraid to admit that a bad man did a bad thing in the name of their philosophy. People don't want to admit that they share the shooters philosophy, and the only real difference between the shooter and all the other athiests who think like him is that this guy was slightly more unhinged.

And to call this a simple dispute over parking and nothing more is such a massive display of willful ignorance and confirmation bias that it disgusts me. Richard Dawkins could've been a goddamn man and said something about the dangers of villifing religions and the acts it could've caused, but instead he ran to Twitter to deflect criticism of himself and the form of atheism he's pushed for decades like a goddamn coward and at this point I cannot look at him with any sort of respect.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Was it Dawkins who coined the phrase 'moral coward' as a term of abuse for people whose ethical beliefs are significantly informed by their religious faith? I think it might have been Dawkins who coined that phrase. If so, hahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Marokai Backbeat]

As an atheist, I can say with honestly that a lot of atheists are extremely Islamophobic and like to use their blanket philosophy of "I'm against all religious extremism" to say vile and xenophobic things about Muslims. I'm sure there are atheists on this forum who have said "lol Islam is the religion of peace" as a comment on any number of articles on terrorist attacks.

A pithy sarcastic comment like that is "vile and xenophobic" now?

[publicunofficial]

As an atheist, I can say with honestly that a lot of atheists are extremely Islamophobic and like to use their blanket philosophy of "I'm against all religious extremism" to say vile and xenophobic things about Muslims. I'm sure there are atheists on this forum who have said "lol Islam is the religion of peace" as a comment on any number of articles on terrorist attacks.

A pithy sarcastic comment like that is "vile and xenophobic" now?

Vile? No. Xenophobic? Yeah. Maybe not by itself, but the kinds of people who make those pithy comments usually have a lot more to say when you question them about it.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So no, there's nothing vile and xenophobic about sarcastic comments like that, just the people you have in your head that say them.

[publicunofficial]

So no, there's nothing vile and xenophobic about sarcastic comments like that, just the people you have in your head that say them.

Please find me someone who makes comments like that and also has no real bias against Muslims or their religion, and is otherwise a fair and non-biased observer. And please do not say "I make those comments and I'M not a racist"

[afleitch]

Was it Dawkins who coined the phrase 'moral coward' as a term of abuse for people whose ethical beliefs are significantly informed by their religious faith? I think it might have been Dawkins who coined that phrase. If so, hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh do f-ck off Madeline.

This thread is an absolute train wreck that has paid scant attention to the event itself instead focusing on a game of moralistic ping pong when the real issue is one of a clearly unhinged man with a history of threatening his neighbours and being beholden to firearms. A man's faith or lack of means f-ck all when it comes to the wider problem of Muslim-baiting within the most jingositic, militaristic and screwed up sections of American society, particularly since the Paris attacks.

This sort of post says nothing, means nothing and does nothing.

EDIT: I don't actually wish you to 'f-ck' off, but more this sort of thing you do now and then.

[nclib]

Very sad for this to happen in my hometown--regardless of whether or not it was motivated by hate. (BTW, they misspelled Chapel Hill in the OP link (not Capitol Hill)).

Certainly, there are atheists who are violent and atheists who are peaceful, just as is true for Muslims, Christians, etc., but that doesn't mean atheists are just as likely to be violent as Muslims/Christians/etc. are.

[Mopsus]

Al, WHY in your view were Christians in the USSR persecuted?

Is this a serious question? The Bolsheviks were militantly anticlerical (far more so than Marx or (especially) Engels were, actually) and acted accordingly once in power. The various religious minorities didn't have a particularly fun time either.

And you think it's ridiculous to claim they were anticlerical due to the fact they were trying to establish a VERY centralized form of society and government that was dependent on everybody buying in (or forced, whatever) and being good little cogs in the machine?

By that same logic, you could argue that organized religion is an agent of social control, so no one has ever actually been persecuted for having the wrong faith, but for being a threat to the powers that be.