Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Now this post sounds a bit silly in retrospect.

Wait, so an atheist kills some people and now it's silly to call religious terrorism for what it is?  That makes zero sense.  Islam is not the only religion to be used to justify violence and terrorism.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

So Richard Dawkins is going nuts about this on Twitter. He seems profoundly nervous. He made something like a dozen tweets insisting it was 'just a parking dispute' in a row.

I don't know why.  This is one of the few (if any) violent acts we've heard of that could even be accused of being motivated by atheism. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I don't know why.  This is one of the few (if any) violent acts we've heard of that could even be accused of being motivated by atheism. 

Would recommend that you avoid making sweeping statements that are obviously untrue.

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.  Atheism has no tenants to which one can point to and radicalize.  Believe it or not, Hitch and Dawkins are not our "prophets".  You can not equate someone who interprets (often violent) religious text as a call to violence against non-believers to this "atheist terrorist".  

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Now this post sounds a bit silly in retrospect.

Wait, so an atheist kills some people and now it's silly to call religious terrorism for what it is?  That makes zero sense.  Islam is not the only religion to be used to justify violence and terrorism.

If atheism can inspire violent acts just as much as religion, it's indeed silly to single out "religious terrorism" as a relevant analytical category.

ANYTHING can inspire violent acts.  Now tell me, is it fair to say that violent acts LITERALLY inspired by LITERAL lines of religious text are equatable to acts of violence done specifically in the name of non-belief in god?  What is the reality of the vast majority of terrorist acts, Antonio?

A terrorist can blow up a building and absolutely point to a single line of text in the Quran that calls him to commit this act.  What does the atheist terrorist point to?  What or whom commanded it?  

[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.

What do you even mean by that? 

[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.

[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?

[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?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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.

Religion is absolutely an agent of social control for those at the top.  Think Vatican City in the Dark Ages.  Doesn't mean individual radicals don't terrorize and kill in the name of their god or that Al Queda isn't largely faith-based martyrdom (who obviously use their methods to achieve a political agenda, as well... but still).

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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.

Religion is absolutely an agent of social control for those at the top.  Think Vatican City in the Dark Ages.  Doesn't mean individual radicals don't terrorize and kill in the name of their god or that Al Queda isn't largely faith-based martyrdom (who obviously use their methods to achieve a political agenda, as well... but still).

And do you deny that there were/are individual radicals, unaffiliated with any government, who lauded the suppression of religion in the Soviet Union, or would like to see the same thing happen today? 

No.  My entire point is that it's not nearly as common.  IMO, it's like comparing a a guy who robs a 7/11 to Bernie Madoff.