Bombings and biased samples

That's one side, but really just one side. Clearly one has to consider what Tamerlan was hearing from his mother (who apparently had become more religious--I don't know how, it just seems to have affected him, even if she were entirely pacific about it), what he was reading/watching on the web, and certainly what he might have experienced with Muslims in Chechnya (or thereabout), before one would know what sort of impact religion had upon him.

Of course I'm not agreeing with Coyne, especially since Tamerlan seems at present to have been the pivotal individual, and is/would be in that sense quite singular. What's been his experiences, what was his brain like, what was his cultural background and perceptions of purported grievances, hopes, sense of solidarity? It's complex, but that also means that the religious aspect is also complex, and can't be simply be counted as unimportant to his criminal behavior just because he appears to have been "fringe" in the American-Muslim community that he knew.

Basically I'm saying that we don't know, because we can't know, yet, if ever.

Glen Davidson

Oh, I'm absolutely sure religion played a role. Tamerlan was, I gather, certainly influenced by radical, extremist versions of Islam. But blaming the bombings on Islam in general or religion in general is rather like blaming the crimes of communism on atheism. Or, cripes, think of how many times right-wingers have tried to tar Democrats and liberals with tags like "socialist", "communist", Stalin, Hitler, etc. Guilt-by-vague-tendentious-misleading-association is the most bankrupt tactic in the book. And heck, much of the time, the actual history was that the moderates were the key to keeping the crazies down -- e.g., it is often said that FDR saved the country from communism.

Oops fixed blockquote mislocation.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the brothers accused of bombing the Boston Marathon, angrily disrupted a January talk at a Cambridge mosque when a speaker compared the Prophet Mohammed and the peace activist Martin Luther King Jr., the second time in recent months that Tsarnaev’s radical theology collided with mainstream Muslim faith at a public religious talk. In the days since the suspects were identified last week, a picture has emerged of 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev — the elder of the two brothers, who was killed Friday in the battle with police — as an increasingly militant immigrant, whom family members described as unhappy and mean. His brother Dzhokhar, 19, captured Friday night, is in serious condition and under heavy guard at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. He has a gunshot wound to his throat, said US Senator Dan Coats, a Republican on the Select Intelligence Committee, on ABC’s “This Week.’’ New details on the brothers’ fight with police suggests Tamerlan was killed when his brother ran him over, dragging Tamerlan underneath his car in his bid to escape. In disrupting the talk in January at the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s shouted at a speaker: “You are a Kafir” – a nonbeliever, according to Yusufi Vali, a spokesman for the mosque. Tsarnaev went on to say the speaker was contaminating people’s minds, and accused him of being a hypocrite. The congregation disagreed, according to Vali, and “shouted him out of the mosque” on Prospect Street.

I'm a huge proponent of the concept of "Truth in Advertising". Jerry Coyne should rename his blog from "Why Evolution is True" to "Why Atheism is the Only Point of View I can ever Tolerate".

I spit on his bigotry!

Nothing is ever completely clear about why human beings do things. I have to provide what is called motivation to characters, on the grounds that it makes them real, but again and again I am struck by how little is needed to make their acts credible, plausible, instantly understandable. We know, we members of the species Pan narrans, how fragile is the connection between our own motivations and rationality, and we can empathise how that is so for others.

Thus, this. The picture that seems to be emerging is of a young man who was "radicalised". But by what? How was it that he came to identify himself with a movement - antiwestern fundamentalist Islam - with which he had practically no connection at all, not by background, family, other association, history, education, conditioning, or anything else.

You can guess that he was traumatised by immigration. That he felt he was an alien, which is to say that he was alienated. I think this is a good guess.

For that is the first and most important step: alienation and self-identification. The Americans around him were alien to him. That is, other. If you understand that you are an alien, your very selfhood demands that you define the difference between yourself and the other. And the obvious difference was not the clothes they wore or the language they spoke, for he did the same. They didn't even look different, much. He wouldn't stand out in an American crowd at a football match. The obvious difference was that they were not Muslim.

The next step is accentuation. If being a Muslim is the difference, then again a sense of self requires that you accentuate that difference, for that defines you, and you cannot define as one of the 'other', by definition. So you become more of a Muslim. One who specifically rejects attempts to reconcile difference, because the difference is what matters to you.

Thus, the people among whom you live become "other". And that involves a terrifyingly easy transition, which is the last step, the step between alienation and dehumanisation. If the other is alien to you, then the other is not, in some sense, human.

As soon as that vital bridge is crossed, most of the constraints are removed. And the rest follows.

If this hypothetical explanation is close to correct, we should see that whatever form of self-identification the alienated person uses, the outcomes tend to be the same. It need not be religion. It can be any form, any idea, any identification, any group that's important enough to them. It may have some correlation with how aggressive that group is, what its culture accepts as response, but I think that this is what is actually seen.

One of the most arcane aspects of this is that this self-identification need not be related to actual fact. People can self-identify with a group that they don't really fit into at all, and, most curiously of all, can make aliens of a group of which they are actually members.

We will never actually know why, I think. In many ways, there isn't actually a "why". There's a what, though, and that we can at least trace, even if it can't be understood.

I'm disgusted by Coyne's bigotry. It's all right for him to be all rah-rah I'm an atheist.

But it is UNSCIENTIFIC to overgeneralize. He wants to obtain a general rule from a few data points, then turn that general rule into a theory of causation. But to get to causation, he needs a plausible mechanism.

To get to the desired conclusion "Islam made these brothers kill" he must overgeneralize. This is faulty induction without a plausible mechanism. If MOST Muslims in his community don't kill, you have to work harder to prove a mechanism of causation. Who, specifically, inspired these guys? Specifically, verifiably-- not just overgeneralization and begging the question.

This bigotry is unscientific.

There are also various types of hereditary mental illness issues that can emerge in the age range from about 17 to the mid 20s. Various kinds of bipolar depression, paranoia, and schizophrenia can make their appearance in late adolescence.

As I understand it, there are a number of major brain development processes taking place in this age range; and it is a very bad time to get into any kind of drugs, even something as mild as marihuana, if there is a history of this kind of illness in the family. These kinds of mental illness issues can also make a person susceptible to various forms of radical influences that play on paranoia.

If it is a heredity issue, both brothers may be affected, with the problem appearing in the older brother who then triggers the problem in the younger brother.

We don’t know exactly what is behind the uncle and his family disowning his brother who was the father of these two boys. Apparently there were already some problems in the more extended family relationships.

I agree with a poster I saw recently:

"Most Muslims view "Islamic" terrorists the same way most Christians view the Westboro Baptist Church."

What, precisely, the hell does this post have to do with the common descent of all life by means of natural selection, or the legal challenges to its teaching in public schools?

I expect this kind of thing at UD, which doesn't even *pretend* to be anything other than a nonstop airing of every conservative cultural grievance. Will Panda's Thumb be chiming in on the whole Gosnell thing next?

Mike Elzinga said: There are also various types of hereditary mental illness issues that can emerge in the age range from about 17 to the mid 20s. Various kinds of bipolar depression, paranoia, and schizophrenia can make their appearance in late adolescence. As I understand it, there are a number of major brain development processes taking place in this age range; and it is a very bad time to get into any kind of drugs, even something as mild as marihuana, if there is a history of this kind of illness in the family. These kinds of mental illness issues can also make a person susceptible to various forms of radical influences that play on paranoia. If it is a heredity issue, both brothers may be affected, with the problem appearing in the older brother who then triggers the problem in the younger brother. We don’t know exactly what is behind the uncle and his family disowning his brother who was the father of these two boys. Apparently there were already some problems in the more extended family relationships.

I just lost all respect for Jeremy Coyne, and for any approval-craving, submissive, authoritarian followers who may rush to his defense.

Leave the bigotry to Rush Limbaugh. He does it better than you ever can.

lkeithlu said:

Mike Elzinga said: There are also various types of hereditary mental illness issues that can emerge in the age range from about 17 to the mid 20s. Various kinds of bipolar depression, paranoia, and schizophrenia can make their appearance in late adolescence. As I understand it, there are a number of major brain development processes taking place in this age range; and it is a very bad time to get into any kind of drugs, even something as mild as marihuana, if there is a history of this kind of illness in the family. These kinds of mental illness issues can also make a person susceptible to various forms of radical influences that play on paranoia. If it is a heredity issue, both brothers may be affected, with the problem appearing in the older brother who then triggers the problem in the younger brother. We don’t know exactly what is behind the uncle and his family disowning his brother who was the father of these two boys. Apparently there were already some problems in the more extended family relationships.

I agree. This history of behavior suggests developing mental illness and loss of a grip on reality. That this particular man went for extreme Islam is a symptom; another person might go for militant environmentalism, fitness/health extremes or conspiracy theories. Or militant Christianity.

Exactly. The hating mind will seek an ideology that fits the hate. It is certainly true that the obnoxious side of Islam fits the bill, but so does the obnoxious side of most other organized dogmas and ideologies.

lkeithlu said: As wonderful as the internet is, it makes it much easier for this kind of person to develop an ideology, reinforce the illusion that he/she is right, and give them specific targets.

There are also various types of hereditary mental illness issues that can emerge in the age range from about 17 to the mid 20s. Various kinds of bipolar depression, paranoia, and schizophrenia can make their appearance in late adolescence.

Over at WEIT I accused Coyne of bigotry, and now I'm being flamed.

Oh, and what is it with all the screaming anyway? Coyne got your goat beard?

As for claiming that Coyne should apologize, you are clearly nuts (or “an idiot”, if you prefer strident language). Nowhere does it follow from your analysis, assuming it would be true, that there is something or someone to apologize for or to. Honestly, it looks like some religious non sequitur.

“Most Muslims view “Islamic” terrorists the same way most Christians view the Westboro Baptist Church.”

Uhh-- I'm wondering if I've been banned from WEIT? My comments now disappear, as they do at UD, while the Coyneians continue to attack me as a religious fanatic, possibly bearded.

If so, it's the first time I've ever been called "religious" and banned from an evolutionist website. Creationist websites, always-- they all ban me. Evolutionist websites? Not so much.

Just curious about something, Mr. Diogenes:

How does it feel to be flamed by evolutionists?

Almost certainly, we can infer that these views are the views of the vast majority of the mosque’s membership, as this is usually how the leaders of a religious community get to be leaders (and/or, people who disagree with the leaders leave the religious community). (And there is the guy at the butcher shop, celebrating Thanksgiving.) In addition, not only can we infer #3, but we get a sense of how unusual Tamerlan’s behavior was – even if someone disagreed with a sermon, standing up in the middle and, in an outburst, interrupting the speaker, is extremely unusual. I suspect it is about as unusual as it would be in a Christian sermon (I’ve never heard of such a case). I think it’s safe to say that Tamerlan was very offended by what he was being taught in the mosque.

FL said:

“Most Muslims view “Islamic” terrorists the same way most Christians view the Westboro Baptist Church.”

Except that the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't blow up marathons and fly planes into buildings.

The bigger question some here are alluding to (and not Flawed, who as usual has nothing to add to the conversation except drag) is whether or not there are single or multiple syndromes of this behavior some have attempted to define as "terrorism"

for example... if columbine had been carried out for all the same reasons and same motives but by students of some islamic faith.... would this have been the fault of islam?

maybe we would disagree here too

after all, we see how christians make large concessions and contortions to disavow any responsibility of christianity for abortion clinic bombings, trade center bombings and the many acts perpetrated by organized members of some christian sect or branch. they use the same rhetoric, even "it's not true christianity/islam, these acts are contrary to christianity/islam, these are not True Believers"

Nick accusing Coyne of being a bigot, for simply pointing out (albeit clumsily) what it is obvious upon neutral inspection by any disinterested apatheist, while employing the exact same shit reasoning as Coyne... that is still hilarious to me 10 minutes later.

I am STILL being flamed over at WEIT, after my banning. If someone could drop a note over at WEIT to the effect that Jerry banned me, an evolutionist blogger, after one comment, I would appreciate that.

None the less the Westboro congregation is repugnant, or do you disagree?

FL said:

None the less the Westboro congregation is repugnant, or do you disagree?

Oh, I fully agree with you. Yes they are. But they don't kill people. They don't bomb Boston children. They don't shoot down our soldiers in cold blood at Fort Hood. They don't plant car bombs in Times Square. And they don't hijack chock-full passenger planes and slam them into chock-full World Trade Centers. The difference deserves to be recognized. FL

I agree it is unscientific bigotry. I believe that if religion had never evolved, and Homo Sapiens were incapable of conceiving of religion, our worldwide history would have been just as bloody and savage and violent as it has been. Blaming religion is a cop-out. I'm sure if you dropped off a 100 "Brights" on a deserted island, within 6 months you'd have Lord of the Flies.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 said: I agree it is unscientific bigotry. I believe that if religion had never evolved, and Homo Sapiens were incapable of conceiving of religion, our worldwide history would have been just as bloody and savage and violent as it has been. Blaming religion is a cop-out. I'm sure if you dropped off a 100 "Brights" on a deserted island, within 6 months you'd have Lord of the Flies.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/5rJLWq8Iqe0R3hRf7YLMHc45lsnr49Q.pOxGKuOen7O_#dc428 said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 said: I agree it is unscientific bigotry. I believe that if religion had never evolved, and Homo Sapiens were incapable of conceiving of religion, our worldwide history would have been just as bloody and savage and violent as it has been. Blaming religion is a cop-out. I'm sure if you dropped off a 100 "Brights" on a deserted island, within 6 months you'd have Lord of the Flies.

Hilariously and naively self-pwning, again for fucks sake, you are doing what you are complaining about.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/5rJLWq8Iqe0R3hRf7YLMHc45lsnr49Q.pOxGKuOen7O_#dc428 said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 said: I agree it is unscientific bigotry. I believe that if religion had never evolved, and Homo Sapiens were incapable of conceiving of religion, our worldwide history would have been just as bloody and savage and violent as it has been. Blaming religion is a cop-out. I'm sure if you dropped off a 100 "Brights" on a deserted island, within 6 months you'd have Lord of the Flies.

Hilariously and naively self-pwning, again for fucks sake, you are doing what you are complaining about.

How? By suggesting that humans are violent animals? Yes ok, a generalization, but I'd think a pretty well supported one :)

https://me.yahoo.com/a/5rJLWq8Iqe0R3hRf7YLMHc45lsnr49Q.pOxGKuOen7O_#dc428 said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/5rJLWq8Iqe0R3hRf7YLMHc45lsnr49Q.pOxGKuOen7O_#dc428 said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 said: I agree it is unscientific bigotry. I believe that if religion had never evolved, and Homo Sapiens were incapable of conceiving of religion, our worldwide history would have been just as bloody and savage and violent as it has been. Blaming religion is a cop-out. I'm sure if you dropped off a 100 "Brights" on a deserted island, within 6 months you'd have Lord of the Flies.

Hilariously and naively self-pwning, again for fucks sake, you are doing what you are complaining about.

How? By suggesting that humans are violent animals? Yes ok, a generalization, but I'd think a pretty well supported one :)

"unscientific bigotry" followed immediately by unscientific bigotry predicated upon the way you wished things were in your imagination after all, if you want to convince us that "For good people to do evil things—that takes religion" is somehow in question, it will take more describing your alternate script for Lost

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 said: I agree it is unscientific bigotry. I believe that if religion had never evolved, and Homo Sapiens were incapable of conceiving of religion, our worldwide history would have been just as bloody and savage and violent as it has been. Blaming religion is a cop-out. I'm sure if you dropped off a 100 "Brights" on a deserted island, within 6 months you'd have Lord of the Flies.

FL said:

“Most Muslims view “Islamic” terrorists the same way most Christians view the Westboro Baptist Church.”

Except that the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't blow up marathons and fly planes into buildings.

When I criticize Professor Jerry Coyne I am careful to attribute his behavior to New Atheism; his attitudes and views are not indicative of atheism in general. When Jerry Coyne discredits the New Atheist movement, it's not a problem for me. That's the New Atheism talking, not the science.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 said: I agree it is unscientific bigotry. I believe that if religion had never evolved, and Homo Sapiens were incapable of conceiving of religion, our worldwide history would have been just as bloody and savage and violent as it has been. Blaming religion is a cop-out. I'm sure if you dropped off a 100 "Brights" on a deserted island, within 6 months you'd have Lord of the Flies.

Group violence in Lord of the Flies definitely has religious aspects, with a pig's head as totem, and rituals involving it. It's fiction, sure, but then there have often been quasi-religious aspects in a lot of gangs, political parties like the Nazis, and societies like the Masons. It seems that violent activity often is at least enhanced by religion often enough, although clearly a lot of pro-peace activity also has involved religion. As far as Islam goes, plenty of it has been relatively peaceful, indeed, Sufis being a probably especially peaceful take on Islam. But its history certainly includes a good deal of violence, and that something like "jihad" (however it is "supposed to be taken"--more likely it simply can be taken several ways legitimately) is even an issue makes it different from, say, Hinduism or Buddhism. It seems fair to consider it to be repressive for the most part, not something that facilitates much more than an enforced peace, and it has not traditionally been tolerant of non-Abrahamic religions or of something like atheism (Christianity arguably isn't either, but there's nothing explicitly condoning repression of the "heathen," and writings that can be taken as opposing it). Not to say that Islam in general is "the problem" any more than I'd say that of Christianity, but it has not been historically a particularly peaceful belief vis-a-vis the outsiders. That said, such observations aren't generally productive of peace, either, which is why I think it's fair to note aspects of Islam that can be conducive toward violence in the right time and place, while getting along entails mostly emphasizing the peaceful possibilities that are in Islam and in mutually beneficial peaceful activities such as trade and cultural exchanges, which violence disrupts to the detriment of both sides. Glen Davidson

diogeneslamp0 said: I am STILL being flamed over at WEIT, after my banning. If someone could drop a note over at WEIT to the effect that Jerry banned me, an evolutionist blogger, after one comment, I would appreciate that.

As for Tamerlan himself, is it merely coincidental that he was named after a brutal, violent Muslim Mongol conqueror, more commonly written in English as "Tamerlane?" Obviously it could be coincidental, possibly cultural in a way that doesn't dwell on what a cruel man he was, any more than, say, "Alexander" does in the West, despite Alexander the Great's many brutal actions.

Nevertheless, there it is, he was named after a violent man. I really cannot do more than ask if that was at all unusual and thus possibly suggestive to one so named, or if it was merely something that people in that region of the world do in memory of "past glory."

Glen Davidson

So there are no Christian terrorists / bombers who have killed anybody?

“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind."

FL said: There is a clear and ongoing line of Muslim terrorism events occurring in America, but there's not such a line for Christians.

Just a guess, but the notion of violence connected with a certain religion may be complicated by culture. The Christian culture has passed through a variety of cultural and government settings that may allow for a more peaceful existence today compared to centuries past (world war obviously an exception; no one will say that Hitler, raised a Catholic, led his mostly Catholic and Lutheran countrymen to slaughter Jews because they didn't like their socio-economic status-there was and is a lot of anti-Semitism and that is mostly religious) The cultures where Islam is the dominant religion are less likely to adopt a more open, democratic society where women are equal. They are more tribal and have had destabilizing outside influences by western nations, forming "countries" out of artificial divisions. Although I don't condone terrorism, something tells me that if we (meaning US, UK., USSR and other European countries had not meddled, I don't think we'd be in the state we are right now.

Ouch-excuse the typos. Need an edit button!

antiplastick said: What, precisely, the hell does this post have to do with the common descent of all life by means of natural selection, or the legal challenges to its teaching in public schools? I expect this kind of thing at UD, which doesn't even *pretend* to be anything other than a nonstop airing of every conservative cultural grievance. Will Panda's Thumb be chiming in on the whole Gosnell thing next?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: As for Tamerlan himself, is it merely coincidental that he was named after a brutal, violent Muslim Mongol conqueror, more commonly written in English as "Tamerlane?" Obviously it could be coincidental, possibly cultural in a way that doesn't dwell on what a cruel man he was, any more than, say, "Alexander" does in the West, despite Alexander the Great's many brutal actions. Nevertheless, there it is, he was named after a violent man. I really cannot do more than ask if that was at all unusual and thus possibly suggestive to one so named, or if it was merely something that people in that region of the world do in memory of "past glory." Glen Davidson

A new challenge also arose for these three Khanates, in the form of an invasion of all three by another Mongol leader, Timur. An arrow wound suffered in his youth sufficiently injured his leg as to earn him the name Timur-i-Lenk in Persian, or Timur the Lame. In English that name later became corrupted into "Tamerlane." [...] The Timurid Empire was not singularly defined by the fact that it was an Islamic empire. Its founder, Timur, was himself a Muslim, but he rarely invoked his religion as any sort of impetus for his invasions. All of the territories he invaded were also Muslim-ruled, and thus he could not proclaim a jihad, or holy war, as the reason for his attacks, as Islamic leaders before him had done. He did claim that his invasion of the Delhi Sultanate was provoked by that Muslim empire's tolerant attitude towards Hindus, but even that reason could not mask his real desire to obtain some of the Sultanate's great wealth. But if his faith did not always show itself in his military campaigns, it certainly did in the cultural landscape of his capital, Samarkand. Artisans were brought from all of the Islamic lands Timur had conquered to beautify Samarkand, and indeed, much of that city's most striking monuments were erected by Timurid architects. The art of the Persian miniature also flourished under Timur, and the Persian cities of Herat, Shiraz, and Tabriz became important centres for this art. http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/timurid.html

FL said:

So there are no Christian terrorists / bombers who have killed anybody?

Oh, I never said that, Paul. I'm sure there may be a few, but very few in America. After all Tim McVeigh was NOT a Christian (as some Muslims mistakenly claim), but instead he was a proud "Invictus"-style atheist at the time of his execution. There is a clear and ongoing line of Muslim terrorism events occurring in America, but there's not such a line for Christians. Also, I think you and I can find some Christian scripures that prohibit murder, terrorism, and bombing, starting with the openly Creationist scripture of Gen. 9:6. There are no possible excuses in biblical Christianity for such things.

“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind."

FL

Nick Matzke said: Wikipedia says it was Genghis Khan's grandson that converted to Islam, which indicates the original Mongol horde thing managed to happen without Islamic inspiration...

Carl Drews said:

diogeneslamp0 said: I am STILL being flamed over at WEIT, after my banning. If someone could drop a note over at WEIT to the effect that Jerry banned me, an evolutionist blogger, after one comment, I would appreciate that.

We all need to celebrate Panda's Thumb as a refuge for the rational and sensible.

FL said:

So there are no Christian terrorists / bombers who have killed anybody?

Oh, I never said that, Paul. I'm sure there may be a few, but very few in America. After all Tim McVeigh was NOT a Christian (as some Muslims mistakenly claim), but instead he was a proud "Invictus"-style atheist at the time of his execution. There is a clear and ongoing line of Muslim terrorism events occurring in America, but there's not such a line for Christians. Also, I think you and I can find some Christian scripures that prohibit murder, terrorism, and bombing, starting with the openly Creationist scripture of Gen. 9:6. There are no possible excuses in biblical Christianity for such things.

“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind."

FL

Carl Drews said:

antiplastick said: What, precisely, the hell does this post have to do with the common descent of all life by means of natural selection, or the legal challenges to its teaching in public schools? I expect this kind of thing at UD, which doesn't even *pretend* to be anything other than a nonstop airing of every conservative cultural grievance. Will Panda's Thumb be chiming in on the whole Gosnell thing next?

Jerry Coyne is known as a scientist. His rant about Islam and religion could become associated with evolutionary biology, were it not for the laudable efforts of Nick Matzke to separate the two.

apokryltaros said:

Nick Matzke said: Wikipedia says it was Genghis Khan's grandson that converted to Islam, which indicates the original Mongol horde thing managed to happen without Islamic inspiration...

Genghis Khan's horde included both Muslims and Christians. He was not picky about the religion of his followers.

An interesting thought that occurred to me this morning.

For years I've noted how these terrorist acts are not only vicious to the victims, but also usually destructive for the people who are ostensibly being "supported". This act, for example, did not "advance Islam". It did the opposite, and obviously so, reinforcing the most negative possible stereotypes.

This had never occurred to me before, but perhaps an unconscious resentment toward the very ideology that is ostensibly being supported is part of the picture.

Perhaps, in short, hate-crazed terrorists are just sticking it to everyone. The people who went to see the marathon and ended up killed are maimed get hurt the most, but law-abiding Muslims are also hurt. And potentially reasonable people are pushed into making bigots of themselves, as an emotional reaction.

But perhaps that's the real motivation. Maybe modern terrorists are like serial killers, not like revolutionaries. The groups of the seventies with their assassinations and demands might have actually been trying to support a goal (this statement does not represent support or justification for seventies terrorism). More recent acts seems more nihilistic, narcissistic, infantile, sadistic, and unjustifiably enraged. More like something done to lash out at the world than to advance any cause, Islam or otherwise.

Nick Matzke said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: As for Tamerlan himself, is it merely coincidental that he was named after a brutal, violent Muslim Mongol conqueror, more commonly written in English as "Tamerlane?" Obviously it could be coincidental, possibly cultural in a way that doesn't dwell on what a cruel man he was, any more than, say, "Alexander" does in the West, despite Alexander the Great's many brutal actions. Nevertheless, there it is, he was named after a violent man. I really cannot do more than ask if that was at all unusual and thus possibly suggestive to one so named, or if it was merely something that people in that region of the world do in memory of "past glory." Glen Davidson

I bet it's a common name in that part of the world, I don't actually know of course. Random google hit:

A new challenge also arose for these three Khanates, in the form of an invasion of all three by another Mongol leader, Timur. An arrow wound suffered in his youth sufficiently injured his leg as to earn him the name Timur-i-Lenk in Persian, or Timur the Lame. In English that name later became corrupted into "Tamerlane." [...] The Timurid Empire was not singularly defined by the fact that it was an Islamic empire. Its founder, Timur, was himself a Muslim, but he rarely invoked his religion as any sort of impetus for his invasions. All of the territories he invaded were also Muslim-ruled, and thus he could not proclaim a jihad, or holy war, as the reason for his attacks, as Islamic leaders before him had done. He did claim that his invasion of the Delhi Sultanate was provoked by that Muslim empire's tolerant attitude towards Hindus, but even that reason could not mask his real desire to obtain some of the Sultanate's great wealth. But if his faith did not always show itself in his military campaigns, it certainly did in the cultural landscape of his capital, Samarkand. Artisans were brought from all of the Islamic lands Timur had conquered to beautify Samarkand, and indeed, much of that city's most striking monuments were erected by Timurid architects. The art of the Persian miniature also flourished under Timur, and the Persian cities of Herat, Shiraz, and Tabriz became important centres for this art. http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/timurid.html

Wikipedia says it was Genghis Khan's grandson that converted to Islam, which indicates the original Mongol horde thing managed to happen without Islamic inspiration...

Wikipedia says it was Genghis Khan’s grandson that converted to Islam, which indicates the original Mongol horde thing managed to happen without Islamic inspiration.

I expect that Scott Atran is right that the psychology of disaffected young men has more explanatory value than wild generalizations about Muslims. The empirical evidence suggests that people who are well integrated in their religious communities don't go in for violent acting out. If you're already angry and alienated, you look around for an explanation and inevitably find it in whatever is available whether it's fundamentalist Islam, apocalyptic Christianity, or Serbian nationalism. The ideology isn't the real cause, and terrorism can't be explained by postulating the existence of evil masterminds behind the scene. Indeed, the absence of hierarchical structure in terrorist circles is part of the problem. There is no head so you can't cut it off. By the same token, terrorist manifestations make so little sense that it's hard to argue with terrorists who don't have a worked out reason for their actions. What conceivable political purpose was served by bombing a footrace?

Oh sure, I wasn't implying that the Mongols were Muslim necessarily. Indeed, some Mongol leaders were Christian, and I believe were more or less the usual animists, etc., in the beginning. It is important that they largely ended up being Muslim, because to some degree that diminished the sense of outrage at the barbaric cruelties that the Mongols inflicted on the Muslim world, at least for the Muslim Mongols such as Tamerlane. Interestingly, the Mongols in the region of Mongolia became to a considerable degree Muslim, only to give that up in favor of Buddhism, presumably due to Buddhist missionaries. Entire populations giving up Islam didn't seem to happen often, at least not without warfare such as occurred in Spain. Glen Davidson

Oh sure, I wasn’t implying that the Mongols were Muslim

It is important that they largely ended up being Muslim

Nick Matzke said:

apokryltaros said:

Nick Matzke said: Wikipedia says it was Genghis Khan's grandson that converted to Islam, which indicates the original Mongol horde thing managed to happen without Islamic inspiration...

Genghis Khan's horde included both Muslims and Christians. He was not picky about the religion of his followers.

It's hard to be picky when you want to have a horde I guess...

Jim said: I expect that Scott Atran is right that the psychology of disaffected young men has more explanatory value than wild generalizations about Muslims. The empirical evidence suggests that people who are well integrated in their religious communities don't go in for violent acting out. If you're already angry and alienated, you look around for an explanation and inevitably find it in whatever is available whether it's fundamentalist Islam, apocalyptic Christianity, or Serbian nationalism. The ideology isn't the real cause, and terrorism can't be explained by postulating the existence of evil masterminds behind the scene. Indeed, the absence of hierarchical structure in terrorist circles is part of the problem. There is no head so you can't cut it off. By the same token, terrorist manifestations make so little sense that it's hard to argue with terrorists who don't have a worked out reason for their actions. What conceivable political purpose was served by bombing a footrace?

Then how come you’ve also stated that the Aurora shootings, and other shootings, and natural disasters and economic woes are because God is punishing America for permitting gay marriage?

FL said:

Then how come you’ve also stated that the Aurora shootings, and other shootings, and natural disasters and economic woes are because God is punishing America for permitting gay marriage?

I've only said that they are wake-up calls for this nation. The farther away a blessed nation like America moves from God, the farther away from His gracious protections we find ourselves. You see the headlines just like I do; you see what's going on. You see the bad economy not getting healed, you see people coming unraveled every week as you watch the headlines. People are all concerned about the terrorist bombing, but a young lady got carjacked last night, and they shot her, and she may not survive, but she is not going to get airtime on national TV. I think people have to be concerned about Muslim terrorism, but the real issue is that this country is headed in a very bad direction, (Sodom and Gomorrah). WE have forgotten God, and it makes the USA spiritually vulnerable and ALSO vulnerable in major areas like the economy, crime, terrorism, education, military religion, even science. Abe Lincoln and Ben Franklin warned us all about "forgetting God." As a Christian, I hope you agree with them. FL

Bigot for Jesus said:

Then how come you’ve also stated that the Aurora shootings, and other shootings, and natural disasters and economic woes are because God is punishing America for permitting gay marriage?

I've only said that they are wake-up calls for this nation. The farther away a blessed nation like America moves from God, the farther away from His gracious protections we find ourselves. You see the headlines just like I do; you see what's going on. You see the bad economy not getting healed, you see people coming unraveled every week as you watch the headlines. People are all concerned about the terrorist bombing, but a young lady got carjacked last night, and they shot her, and she may not survive, but she is not going to get airtime on national TV. I think people have to be concerned about Muslim terrorism, but the real issue is that this country is headed in a very bad direction, (Sodom and Gomorrah). WE have forgotten God, and it makes the USA spiritually vulnerable and ALSO vulnerable in major areas like the economy, crime, terrorism, education, military religion, even science. Abe Lincoln and Ben Franklin warned us all about "forgetting God." As a Christian, I hope you agree with them. FL

FL said:

Then how come you’ve also stated that the Aurora shootings, and other shootings, and natural disasters and economic woes are because God is punishing America for permitting gay marriage?

I've only said that they are wake-up calls for this nation. The farther away a blessed nation like America moves from God, the farther away from His gracious protections we find ourselves. You see the headlines just like I do; you see what's going on. You see the bad economy not getting healed, you see people coming unraveled every week as you watch the headlines. People are all concerned about the terrorist bombing, but a young lady got carjacked last night, and they shot her, and she may not survive, but she is not going to get airtime on national TV. I think people have to be concerned about Muslim terrorism, but the real issue is that this country is headed in a very bad direction, (Sodom and Gomorrah). WE have forgotten God, and it makes the USA spiritually vulnerable and ALSO vulnerable in major areas like the economy, crime, terrorism, education, military religion, even science. Abe Lincoln and Ben Franklin warned us all about "forgetting God." As a Christian, I hope you agree with them. FL

phhht said: America is forgetting gods just as it is forgetting Howdy Doody. And for exactly the same reason.

God does not accept pure filth, shirk mixed, and the desire to communicate with claim outweigh the infidels on God in judgment, and legislation. Do not fool yourself and do not fool others. … in spite of the victims, which are inevitable in war, those who want to join the ranks of the Mujahideen is increasing every day. The best good guys are sacrificing their lives for God and do not bargain [with] polytheism and Juggernaut authorities. … God will accept nothing but the Quran and Sunnah … Therefore all the talk ho tolerance, such as tolerance with immorality and infidelity, and the multiplicity of the right, Kaljma between Sharia and the laws of the idol, and the rights of human beings, Kadaa one succumb to the laws of superstitious, and democracies, as arbiter of the majority, even if they are an infidel and other terms the many is not only a reference and life according to the law Juggernaut , unacceptable to unify Muslim. So must all the Muslims of the Caucasus, to accelerate the establishment of Sharia, and follow the Muslim ruler, and obedience to the judge in the Islamic Shariah is obligatory.
Jamaat Shariat

God does not accept pure filth, shirk mixed, and the desire to communicate with claim outweigh the infidels on God in judgment, and legislation. Do not fool yourself and do not fool others. … in spite of the victims, which are inevitable in war, those who want to join the ranks of the Mujahideen is increasing every day. The best good guys are sacrificing their lives for God and do not bargain [with] polytheism and Juggernaut authorities. … God will accept nothing but the Quran and Sunnah … Therefore all the talk ho tolerance, such as tolerance with immorality and infidelity, and the multiplicity of the right, Kaljma between Sharia and the laws of the idol, and the rights of human beings, Kadaa one succumb to the laws of superstitious, and democracies, as arbiter of the majority, even if they are an infidel and other terms the many is not only a reference and life according to the law Juggernaut , unacceptable to unify Muslim. So must all the Muslims of the Caucasus, to accelerate the establishment of Sharia, and follow the Muslim ruler, and obedience to the judge in the Islamic Shariah is obligatory. Jamaat Shariat

harold said: An interesting thought that occurred to me this morning. For years I've noted how these terrorist acts are not only vicious to the victims, but also usually destructive for the people who are ostensibly being "supported". This act, for example, did not "advance Islam". It did the opposite, and obviously so, reinforcing the most negative possible stereotypes. This had never occurred to me before, but perhaps an unconscious resentment toward the very ideology that is ostensibly being supported is part of the picture. Perhaps, in short, hate-crazed terrorists are just sticking it to everyone. The people who went to see the marathon and ended up killed are maimed get hurt the most, but law-abiding Muslims are also hurt. And potentially reasonable people are pushed into making bigots of themselves, as an emotional reaction. But perhaps that's the real motivation. Maybe modern terrorists are like serial killers, not like revolutionaries. The groups of the seventies with their assassinations and demands might have actually been trying to support a goal (this statement does not represent support or justification for seventies terrorism). More recent acts seems more nihilistic, narcissistic, infantile, sadistic, and unjustifiably enraged. More like something done to lash out at the world than to advance any cause, Islam or otherwise.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/l8u7at1vufrjjG7E95mllxRfU5Y-#1ff46 said: "jumping to conclusions" This is liberal b.s. Expressing concerns about Islam itself is warranted and appropriate. The branch of Islam that apparently motivated Tamerlan Tsarnaev is mainstream Islam in Makhachkala, Dagestan. According to TIME, the Russians were watching Tamerlan because of his involvement at the Salafi Kotrova Street Mosque (مسجد كوتروفا). Using Google translate, here's a taste of the sort of sermon delivered at this mosque in July 2010:

God does not accept pure filth, shirk mixed, and the desire to communicate with claim outweigh the infidels on God in judgment, and legislation. Do not fool yourself and do not fool others. … in spite of the victims, which are inevitable in war, those who want to join the ranks of the Mujahideen is increasing every day. The best good guys are sacrificing their lives for God and do not bargain [with] polytheism and Juggernaut authorities. … God will accept nothing but the Quran and Sunnah … Therefore all the talk ho tolerance, such as tolerance with immorality and infidelity, and the multiplicity of the right, Kaljma between Sharia and the laws of the idol, and the rights of human beings, Kadaa one succumb to the laws of superstitious, and democracies, as arbiter of the majority, even if they are an infidel and other terms the many is not only a reference and life according to the law Juggernaut , unacceptable to unify Muslim. So must all the Muslims of the Caucasus, to accelerate the establishment of Sharia, and follow the Muslim ruler, and obedience to the judge in the Islamic Shariah is obligatory. Jamaat Shariat

Read this mainstream Islamic sermon delivered at a major mosque in the Dagestani capital city, and then explain why anyone concerned about this widespread problem is "jumping to conclusions." And please don't segue into absurd and hateful statements from the likes of Sam Harris, whose bigoted writing actually does target Muslims for ethnic profiling and torture.

It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishment the scroll,

I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.

“jumping to conclusions” This is liberal b.s. Expressing concerns about Islam itself is warranted and appropriate.

This is liberal b.s

FL said: I’ve only said that they are wake-up calls for this nation. The farther away a blessed nation like America moves from God, the farther away from His gracious protections we find ourselves. You see the headlines just like I do; you see what’s going on.

FL said: Here is the last part of what McVeigh believed before he died.

It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishment the scroll,

I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.

That's atheism, folks. If you want to put a slash-mark in there ("agnostic/atheism") that's fine; there are,many atheists who in fact are slash-marks. People of faith were trying to reach out to McVeigh at the end, and maybe that's why he agreed to a Catholic chaplain visit. He was NOT a perfect 100% atheist, I'll admit.

FL said: Here is the last part of what McVeigh believed before he died.

It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishment the scroll,

I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.

That's atheism, folks. If you want to put a slash-mark in there ("agnostic/atheism") that's fine; there are,many atheists who in fact are slash-marks. People of faith were trying to reach out to McVeigh at the end, and maybe that's why he agreed to a Catholic chaplain visit. He was NOT a perfect 100% atheist, I'll admit. But THAT snippet, his last will and testament right there, was his true religion. Atheism. "Science is my religion," he said. Obviously that dovetails with atheism. But even science wasn't his final authority, according to the poem he made a point of citing. HE was his own god, and the God of the Bible was a non-entity as far as he was concerned. (It's not accident that the poem says, "It matters not how strait the gate"; that's a direct rejection of Jesus's invitation for humans to "enter ye in at the strait gate," viz, Himself.)

FL said: That's atheism, folks. If you want to put a slash-mark in there ("agnostic/atheism") that's fine; there are,many atheists who in fact are slash-marks. People of faith were trying to reach out to McVeigh at the end, and maybe that's why he agreed to a Catholic chaplain visit. He was NOT a perfect 100% atheist, I'll admit. But THAT snippet, his last will and testament right there, was his true religion. Atheism. "Science is my religion," he said. Obviously that dovetails with atheism. But even science wasn't his final authority, according to the poem he made a point of citing. HE was his own god, and the God of the Bible was a non-entity as far as he was concerned. (It's not accident that the poem says, "It matters not how strait the gate"; that's a direct rejection of Jesus's invitation for humans to "enter ye in at the strait gate," viz, Himself.) But the final two lines are the clearest of all. McVeigh was Atheist (as far as we know, not having access to the final seconds of his life). Not perfectly atheist, sure sure, but still Atheist. FL

FL said: THAT snippet, his last will and testament right there, was his true religion. Atheism.

ksplawn said: (Timothy McVeigh) wasn't any kind of atheist, at least not in 1996 (a year after the bombing) when asked directly about his beliefs. Neither was Anders Breivik. Nor the IRA. Nor the KKK and their numerous offshoots. So what, exactly, are you trying to prove?

Boston Bombing Suspect Cites Iraq, Afghanistan Wars As Motive

j. biggs said: Nice try passing McVeigh as an atheist there Floyd, but McVeigh was at best equivocal about his religious views to the end. The fact that he requested a Catholic chaplain and took the sacrament of anointing of the sick prior to his execution kind of rules him out as a staunch atheist. Also McVeigh was affiliated with a Christian identity group in Elohim City, OK and was arrested in close proximity to their compound. Regardless of what McVeigh claims about his religious views, he had a strong association to Christian identity groups and claimed that the OKC bombing was primarily in retaliation for the attack of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX. It doesn't really follow that an atheist's motivation for an act of terrorism would be to avenge the massacre of a Christian death cult. I know it's hard for you to accept Floyd, but there are actually people out there who commit acts of terrorism and identify themselves as Christians. Again, I'm not saying Christianity in particular or religion in general is the cause but it is ridiculous to argue that there isn't an association there.

Ray Martinez said:

j. biggs said: Nice try passing McVeigh as an atheist there Floyd, but McVeigh was at best equivocal about his religious views to the end. The fact that he requested a Catholic chaplain and took the sacrament of anointing of the sick prior to his execution kind of rules him out as a staunch atheist. Also McVeigh was affiliated with a Christian identity group in Elohim City, OK and was arrested in close proximity to their compound. Regardless of what McVeigh claims about his religious views, he had a strong association to Christian identity groups and claimed that the OKC bombing was primarily in retaliation for the attack of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX. It doesn't really follow that an atheist's motivation for an act of terrorism would be to avenge the massacre of a Christian death cult. I know it's hard for you to accept Floyd, but there are actually people out there who commit acts of terrorism and identify themselves as Christians. Again, I'm not saying Christianity in particular or religion in general is the cause but it is ridiculous to argue that there isn't an association there.

When McVeigh committed mass murder he was not a Christian following Christ; rather, he was a deceived Atheist following Satan. And whatever McVeigh did prior to execution corresponds to following Christ. This is not an unusual scenario; a person facing death turning to the Savior. The logic seen in the argument above is invulnerably sound.

Paul Burnett said:

FL said:

“Most Muslims view “Islamic” terrorists the same way most Christians view the Westboro Baptist Church.”

Except that the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't blow up marathons and fly planes into buildings.

So there are no Christian terrorists / bombers who have killed anybody?

phhht said: Atheism is not a religion, Flawd. You cannot give a definition of religion which includes both your own lunacy and atheism. Atheism is no more a religion than baseball fandom or love of beets or indeed, science. If quoting Invictus makes you an atheist, then millions of people, Christians and Muslims and followers of Scientology, are atheists. So is Nelson Mandela, so is Captain Renault, an official played by Claude Rains in Casablanca. You simply repeat your canard without every justifying it. You're a bull goose loony.

FL said: THAT snippet, his last will and testament right there, was his true religion. Atheism.

Ray Martinez said: When McVeigh committed mass murder he was not a Christian following Christ; rather, he was a deceived Atheist following Satan.

And whatever McVeigh did prior to execution corresponds to following Christ. This is not an unusual scenario; a person facing death turning to the Savior.

phhht said: Jeezy C you're stupid, Ray. Atheists don't follow Satan.

Ray Martinez said:

Paul Burnett said:

FL said:

“Most Muslims view “Islamic” terrorists the same way most Christians view the Westboro Baptist Church.”

Except that the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't blow up marathons and fly planes into buildings.

So there are no Christian terrorists / bombers who have killed anybody?

Are you suggesting Christ led and inspired people to murder? If the answer is yes then where did you obtain this idea? When a person commits murder they are not following Christ.

Pretend Bigot for Jesus said:

phhht said: Jeezy C you're stupid, Ray. Atheists don't follow Satan.

Anyone not following Christ is automatically following Satan. The problem with you is that you're the stereotypical theological dunce without a shred of Biblical knowledge.

NYT: Boston Suspect Cites Islamic Extremist Beliefs as Motive

So far I've posted actual sermons from the mainstrem mosque attended by the terrorist and testimony from the other terrorist himself that the marathon bombing was motivated by Islam.

In response to this I see name-calling and denial of the plain evidence. I think you can do better than this.

And it's time for Nick to admit that he was just plain wrong.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: Jeezy C you're stupid, Ray. Atheists don't follow Satan.

Anyone not following Christ is automatically following Satan. The problem with you is that you're the stereotypical theological dunce without a shred of Biblical knowledge.

Ezekiel 20:25–26 “I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by”; 2 Thessalonians 2:11 “God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie”

Ray Martinez said:

Paul Burnett said:

FL said:

“Most Muslims view “Islamic” terrorists the same way most Christians view the Westboro Baptist Church.”

Except that the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't blow up marathons and fly planes into buildings.

So there are no Christian terrorists / bombers who have killed anybody?

Are you suggesting Christ led and inspired people to murder? If the answer is yes then where did you obtain this idea? When a person commits murder they are not following Christ.

In July 2011, Anders Behring Breivik was arrested and charged with terrorism after a car bombing in Oslo and a mass shooting on Utøya island.[40] As a result of his attacks, 151 people were injured, and 77 killed. Hours prior to the events, Breivik released a 1,500 page manifesto detailing that immigrants were undermining Norway's traditional Christian values, and identifying himself as a "Christian crusader"... Beginning after the Civil War, members of the Protestant-led[64] Ku Klux Klan organization began engaging in arson, beatings, cross burning, destruction of property, lynching, murder, rape, tar-and-feathering, and whipping against African Americans, Jews, Catholics, and other social or ethnic minorities. They were explicitly Christian terrorist in ideology, basing their beliefs on a "religious foundation" in Christianity. -- Wikipedia

Anti-abortion violence is recognized as a form of Christian terrorism... In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort. March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison. July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility, the Ladies Center, in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003. The clinic in Pensacola had been bombed before and was also bombed subsequently, in 1984 and 2012. December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings. January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result. October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death with a high-powered rifle at his home in Amherst, New York.[10] His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001. May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at church in Wichita, Kansas. -- Wikipedia

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: Jeezy C you're stupid, Ray. Atheists don't follow Satan.

Anyone not following Christ is automatically following Satan. The problem with you is that you're the stereotypical theological dunce without a shred of Biblical knowledge.

diogeneslamp0 said:

Ray Martinez said: When McVeigh committed mass murder he was not a Christian following Christ; rather, he was a deceived Atheist following Satan.

Just because we don't believe in your imaginary friend, does not mean we "follow" your imaginary enemy. [Who by the way, has a much, much smaller death count in the Bible than Yahweh.] He appears to have been associated with the super-racist super-creationist Christian Identity movement, founded by Gerald L. K. Smith; and he was hopped up angry about the Branch Davidians getting toasted. What atheist followed the first and was angry about the second?

Ray Martinez: And whatever McVeigh did prior to execution corresponds to following Christ. This is not an unusual scenario; a person facing death turning to the Savior.

Hey Ray, why is death row always full of born again Christians?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that God is the kind to send sunshine and rain on the just and unjust, the righteous and the unrighteous, alike.

So what, exactly, are you trying to prove?

Ray Martinez said: The Bible teaches anyone not following Christ is automatically following Satan, the Deceiver. This is BASIC Theology.

apokryltaros said:

Pretend Bigot for Jesus said:

phhht said: Jeezy C you're stupid, Ray. Atheists don't follow Satan.

Anyone not following Christ is automatically following Satan. The problem with you is that you're the stereotypical theological dunce without a shred of Biblical knowledge.

So all of the Jews, including all of the Prophets mentioned in the Bible are all burning, or going to burn in Hell?

Ray Martinez said: Are you suggesting Christ led and inspired people to murder?

Am I the only one who gets sick of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy being spit at us by FL and Ray Martinez here? We know already they are pathological liars, why do we need more proof of that?

Nick Matzke has created an Opening Post lambasting Atheist Jerry Coyne for blaming Islam and religion in general for the Boston bombing murders.

"A-theism" means "against Theism." Coyne is just being an honest Atheist, opposing any form of perceived Theism. This is why Atheists are Evolutionists because evolution opposes, and is against, Theism (Theos did it).

Hey Ray, why is death row always full of born again Christians?

Because they repented in prison.

But the criminal acts that got them on death row was when they were Atheists, not following Christ.

Ray Martinez said:

apokryltaros said:

Pretend Bigot for Jesus said:

phhht said: Jeezy C you're stupid, Ray. Atheists don't follow Satan.

Anyone not following Christ is automatically following Satan. The problem with you is that you're the stereotypical theological dunce without a shred of Biblical knowledge.

So all of the Jews, including all of the Prophets mentioned in the Bible are all burning, or going to burn in Hell?

Apokryltaros CLAIMS to be a Christian, yet he created a post that Atheist Jerry Coyne would be quite proud of. The Prophets who prophesied of the coming Messiah in hell? Apokryltaros is a theological dunce without a shred of rudimentary Biblical knowledge.

Ray Martinez said: "A-theism" means "against Theism."

FL said: But I think some of you are getting a little upset at the fact that a terrorist event in America was perp'd by a guy [Timothy McVeigh] who died in the skeletal arms of Atheism. FL

Hey, as long as we're doing laundry lists of terrorism for fun and profit, let's put PRO-GAY people right up there with the other extremists (you too Stanton). Check out this pro-gay terrorist hate-crime:

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/04/22/FRC-Shooter-Pleads-Guilty-To-Committing-an-Act-of-Terrorism

FL

FL said: Hey, as long as we're doing laundry lists of terrorism for fun and profit, let's put PRO-GAY people right up there with the other extremists (you too Stanton). Check out this pro-gay terrorist hate-crime: http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/04/22/FRC-Shooter-Pleads-Guilty-To-Committing-an-Act-of-Terrorism FL

Ray Martinez said: When McVeigh committed mass murder he was not a Christian following Christ; rather, he was a deceived Atheist following Satan.

Ray Martinez said: Nick Matzke has created an Opening Post lambasting Atheist Jerry Coyne for blaming Islam and religion in general for the Boston bombing murders.

"A-theism" means "against Theism." Coyne is just being an honest Atheist, opposing any form of perceived Theism. This is why Atheists are Evolutionists because evolution opposes, and is against, Theism (Theos did it).

FL said: Hey, as long as we're doing laundry lists of terrorism for fun and profit, let's put PRO-GAY people right up there with the other extremists (you too Stanton). Check out this pro-gay terrorist hate-crime: http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/04/22/FRC-Shooter-Pleads-Guilty-To-Committing-an-Act-of-Terrorism

May we please stop feed the no-true-Scotsman trolls and get back on point? Another nail in Nick's post: Boston Globe, Bomb suspect influenced by mysterious radical.

Nick, please admit you called it wrong based on a single anecdote from the ISB. Of course we must be vigilant to make sure that blameless Muslims aren't all targeted for the heinous acts of a tiny minority, but clearly there's "overwhelming evidence" that the heinous acts of this tiny minority are motivated by their belief in Islam.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/l8u7at1vufrjjG7E95mllxRfU5Y-#1ff46 said: ...there's "overwhelming evidence" that the heinous acts of this tiny minority are motivated by their belief in Islam.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: When McVeigh committed mass murder he was not a Christian following Christ; rather, he was a deceived Atheist following Satan.

What about Breitvik Ray? He claimed to be Christian. What about the Ku Klux Klan? The abortion killers? They claimed that Christ led them and inspired their murders.

phhht said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/l8u7at1vufrjjG7E95mllxRfU5Y-#1ff46 said:...there's "overwhelming evidence" that the heinous acts of this tiny minority are motivated by their belief in Islam.

And by their…

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: When McVeigh committed mass murder he was not a Christian following Christ; rather, he was a deceived Atheist following Satan.

What about Breitvik Ray? He claimed to be Christian. What about the Ku Klux Klan? The abortion killers? They claimed that Christ led them and inspired their murders.

This comment suggests that our Atheist-Evolutionist (Phhht) believes murderers are honest people telling the truth (no wonder he believes in evolution). If these people were Christians, following Christ, where does the New Testament support their claims that Christ inspires His followers to murder people? In short, where is the evidence suporting their claim that they are Christians....in their murderous acts? Is this your argument? The secular world holds Christ to have been a good and wise teacher. I offer this universal belief as refuting the claims of the murderers.

dalehusband said:

Ray Martinez said: Nick Matzke has created an Opening Post lambasting Atheist Jerry Coyne for blaming Islam and religion in general for the Boston bombing murders.

Correct. Thus he proves to be more tolerant than you are, Ray.

"A-theism" means "against Theism." Coyne is just being an honest Atheist, opposing any form of perceived Theism. This is why Atheists are Evolutionists because evolution opposes, and is against, Theism (Theos did it).

There are several definitions of "atheism". The mildest is merely lacking belief in God, which I find useless since we are all born lacking any belief in anything, yet calling a newborn baby an atheist is nonsense. It's no more logical than calling a newborn baby a Muslim or a Hindu. The definition I use is "denial of the existence of any god", which would make atheism a definite point of view to be held by choice once someone reaches the ability to make a decision about what to believe. The definition YOU just used is actually for ANTI-theism, not A-theism. Thus you are inaccurate.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/l8u7at1vufrjjG7E95mllxRfU5Y-#1ff46 said: NYT: Boston Suspect Cites Islamic Extremist Beliefs as Motive So far I've posted actual sermons from the mainstrem mosque attended by the terrorist and testimony from the other terrorist himself that the marathon bombing was motivated by Islam. In response to this I see name-calling and denial of the plain evidence. I think you can do better than this. And it's time for Nick to admit that he was just plain wrong.

Ray Martinez said: My definition of Atheism is STANDARD and originates in Greek. You're a typical uneducated evo moron. Alpha as a prefix negates what follows.

diogeneslamp0 said:

Hey Ray, why is death row always full of born again Christians?

Because they repented in prison.

No Ray, because your religion exists so that people can ESCAPE PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY. Thus explaining its popularity with criminals, molesters, pyramid scheme operators, closeted gays, etc.

But the criminal acts that got them on death row was when they were Atheists, not following Christ.

And here we see the real circular logic applied by Flawed and Ray. 1. All crimes are committed by atheists. Proof follows: 2. To determine someone's religious beliefs: 3. Do they commit crimes? Yes/No. 4. If yes, they are atheist. 5. McVeigh committed crimes. 6. Therefore, McVeigh is atheist (from 4.) 7. Therefore, all crimes are committed by atheists, proving 1. Logic like a rolled-up armadillo, and just as impenetrable. Do you have any INDEPENDENT proof of people's religious identity, or is everything with you just "Circular Logic, and I take the rest of the week off?"

Don't forget Phhht, you're always accusing me of personally "having blood on my hands" based on a couple of unrelated (that is, unrelated to myself) child-death court cases in other states, far away. Would that put me on your Terrorist Laundry List?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/l8u7at1vufrjjG7E95mllxRfU5Y-#1ff46 said: The branch of Islam that apparently motivated Tamerlan Tsarnaev is mainstream Islam in Makhachkala, Dagestan. According to TIME, the Russians were watching Tamerlan because of his involvement at the Salafi Kotrova Street Mosque (مسجد كوتروفا).

So far I’ve posted actual sermons from the mainstrem mosque attended by the terrorist and testimony from the other terrorist himself that the marathon bombing was motivated by Islam.

FL said: Don't forget Phhht, you're always accusing me of personally "having blood on my hands" based on a couple of unrelated (that is, unrelated to myself) child-death court cases in other states, far away. Would that put me on your Terrorist Laundry List?

Ray Martinez said: How can you say a mass murderer was following Christ when he murdered, and not the opposite, was not following Christ?

ksplawn said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/l8u7at1vufrjjG7E95mllxRfU5Y-#1ff46 said: The branch of Islam that apparently motivated Tamerlan Tsarnaev is mainstream Islam in Makhachkala, Dagestan. According to TIME, the Russians were watching Tamerlan because of his involvement at the Salafi Kotrova Street Mosque (مسجد كوتروفا).

Actually that mosque has been described as "radical," not mainstream. http://world.time.com/2013/04/22/tsarnaev-in-dagestan/ Wikipedia seems to indicate that Salafism is not actually all that mainstream, and that jihadist Salafis account for about 1% of Muslims worldwide. In comparison, the actual mainstream mosques and Muslims mentioned in the sources Nick Matzke cites all seemed to express dismay at Tamerlan's radical beliefs and notions.

So far I’ve posted actual sermons from the mainstrem mosque attended by the terrorist and testimony from the other terrorist himself that the marathon bombing was motivated by Islam.

The KKK say they're motivated by Christianity. So?

You continue to espouse the murderous false doctrine of magical healing. If you don’t like that, Flawd, if it makes you think you might be a terrorist murderer, then take your humanity in hand and repudiate it.

FL said:

You continue to espouse the murderous false doctrine of magical healing. If you don’t like that, Flawd, if it makes you think you might be a terrorist murderer, then take your humanity in hand and repudiate it.

Okay then. I'll do it. I hereby repudiate the murderous false doctrine of MAGICAL healing. Of course, since I'm a Christian, I also hereby affirm and celebrate the gracious and wonderfully true Bible doctrine of MIRACULOUS healing. (But at least you got what you wanted, Mr. Phhht!) FL

FL said: I also hereby affirm and celebrate the gracious and wonderfully true Bible doctrine of MIRACULOUS healing.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: How can you say a mass murderer was following Christ when he murdered, and not the opposite, was not following Christ?

I say that, Ray, because all the thousands of people who murdered in the name of Christ, from the Crusaders to Adolph Hitler to Anders Brietvik, claim to be Christians. Why should we believe YOU, Ray, when you say they are not?

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: How can you say a mass murderer was following Christ when he murdered, and not the opposite, was not following Christ?

I say that, Ray, because all the thousands of people who murdered in the name of Christ, from the Crusaders to Adolph Hitler to Anders Brietvik, claim to be Christians. Why should we believe YOU, Ray, when you say they are not?

Our Atheist-Evolutionist admits that he believes Hitler. Intelligent people know Hitler was a monster without any credibility whatsoever. People like our Atheist Evolutionist (Phhht) do not understand that Hilter used propaganda to deceive the German people. That propaganda can still be seen working in the views of our Atheist-Evolutionist.

Islam is a poisonous ideology. The Koran advocates violence against unbelievers. You could just as well quibble about Nazis in general or Nazis in particular. After all, most Nazis were just ordinary non-violent Germans.

A non-Muslim has no business defending Islam. Jerry Coyne and other critics of Islam are already well aware that Islam is not the same thing as Muslim.

phhht said: Hitler claimed to be Christian, Ray, just like Anders Breitvik, just like all those murderous crusaders, just like the Ku Klux Klan, just like the abortion murderers. Just like YOU claim to be Christian, Ray.

As usual religion poisons everything, including this thread. Religion is not a prerequisite for doing evil things but is sure makes it easier!

NobleRotter said: As usual religion poisons everything, including this thread. Religion is not a prerequisite for doing evil things but is sure makes it easier!

Ray Martinez said: My definition of Atheism is STANDARD and originates in Greek. You're a typical uneducated evo moron. Alpha as a prefix negates what follows.

This is not origin stuff but just an attempt to put religion in a bad light by connecting it too evil.
First these people were immigrants and that being Chechens. They hjad recently been fighting Russia for independence. tHere was once a famous movie theatre attack/hostage thing.
They come from violent circles.
I understand they were not respectful or gratful to be allowed into America and even get some of the better things because of doing well in education.
They stilled hated Americans .
There is a culture of legitimacy of attacking Americans(and Canadians) by foreigners coming here or being born here.
its not a religious motivation but instead a identity motivation.
Islam is seen and presented as a bad influence in the world and so this coupled to a chechen identity leads, in a tiny few, to strike back.
for sure here in toronto many Muslims show they resent how Islam is portrayed by North america.
Everybody resents being portrayed in a bad light deserving or not.
This thread is portraying religion, include Christians, in a bad light.
IIts all poor sampling.
Most everybody passes on basic character traits regarding high justice. Only rare occasions do whole populations chose to do/ consent to wrong or evil. very rare.

The issue here is a identity issue and immigration of third world peoples with added grudges manifesting in tiny numbers of profound hate.
Its not religion or Muslim problems with Israel or American foreign policy.
Identity, Identity, Identity.
The great historic problem in mankind dealing with mankind.

Does this mean Pandas thumb real support for evolution is really a opposition to religion.
Say it ain't so!
i've been arguing the merits of scientific investigation.

Idiot for Jesus lied: Does this mean Pandas thumb real support for evolution is really a opposition to religion. Say it ain't so!

i've been arguing the merits of scientific investigation.

Robert Byers said: Its not religion or Muslim problems with Israel or American foreign policy.

The ISB mosque from the anecdote that Nick cites is tainted with support of violence: Mosque that Boston suspects attended has radical ties

"Boston mosque in Cambridge, Mass., have been investigated for Islamic terrorism, including a conviction of the mosque's first president, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, in connection with an assassination plot against a Saudi prince. And its sister mosque in Boston, known as the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, has invited guests who have defended terror suspects. A former trustee appears in a series of videos in which he advocates treating gays as criminals, says husbands should sometimes beat their wives and calls on Allah (God) to kill Zionists and Jews, according to Americans for Peace and Tolerance, an interfaith group that has investigated the mosques."

Do you have anything to say in response to all this, Nick? Or do you just plan to ignore evidence that contradicts your discredited argument?

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: Its not religion or Muslim problems with Israel or American foreign policy.

But the surviving bomber himself says that it is religion. The bomber himself says it was also anger at Iraq and Afghanistan. How is it that you, Robert Byers, can discern the true motives of this man when he apparently doesn't know them himself.

Driver said: Islam is a poisonous ideology. The Koran advocates violence against unbelievers. You could just as well quibble about Nazis in general or Nazis in particular. After all, most Nazis were just ordinary non-violent Germans. A non-Muslim has no business defending Islam. Jerry Coyne and other critics of Islam are already well aware that Islam is not the same thing as Muslim.

harold said:

Driver said: Islam is a poisonous ideology. The Koran advocates violence against unbelievers. You could just as well quibble about Nazis in general or Nazis in particular. After all, most Nazis were just ordinary non-violent Germans. A non-Muslim has no business defending Islam. Jerry Coyne and other critics of Islam are already well aware that Islam is not the same thing as Muslim.

Are you proud of being a bitter, submissive authoritarian follower who parrots the hateful bigotry of the day (today anti-Muslim, at other times racist, anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, anti-Irish, etc*)? Or are you secretly ashamed? Incidentally, this is about the most absurd and extreme example of Godwin's law I have ever seen.

Driver said: Islam is a poisonous ideology. The Koran advocates violence against unbelievers.

You could just as well quibble about Nazis in general or Nazis in particular. After all, most Nazis were just ordinary non-violent Germans.

A non-Muslim has no business defending Islam.

Jerry Coyne and other critics of Islam are already well aware that Islam is not the same thing as Muslim.

apokryltaros said:

Ray Martinez said: My definition of Atheism is STANDARD and originates in Greek. You're a typical uneducated evo moron. Alpha as a prefix negates what follows.

In Greek, the prefix "anti-" means "against" The prefix "a-" means "without" or "lacking" Not that you give an actual goddamn about correct Greek. You parade your seething stupidity and fake hate for all the world to see.

harold said:

Driver said: Islam is a poisonous ideology. The Koran advocates violence against unbelievers. You could just as well quibble about Nazis in general or Nazis in particular. After all, most Nazis were just ordinary non-violent Germans. A non-Muslim has no business defending Islam. Jerry Coyne and other critics of Islam are already well aware that Islam is not the same thing as Muslim.

Are you proud of being a bitter, submissive authoritarian follower who parrots the hateful bigotry of the day (today anti-Muslim, at other times racist, anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, anti-Irish, etc*)? Or are you secretly ashamed? Incidentally, this is about the most absurd and extreme example of Godwin's law I have ever seen.

dalehusband said: Am I the only one who gets sick of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy being spit at us by FL and Ray Martinez here? We know already they are pathological liars, why do we need more proof of that?

Ray Martinez said:

dalehusband said: Am I the only one who gets sick of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy being spit at us by FL and Ray Martinez here? We know already they are pathological liars, why do we need more proof of that?

The use of "No True Scotsman" here says "anyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian." The No True Scotsman claim (above) seems to be the only claim Evolutionists accept without evidence in support. Of course the evidence of mass murder, in the minds of intelligent and objective persons, falsifies any claim of following Christ. And what is also quite evident here is the fact that Evolutionists hate Christianity, which supports the claim that Evolutionists are Atheists.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/l8u7at1vufrjjG7E95mllxRfU5Y-#1ff46 said: The ISB mosque from the anecdote that Nick cites is tainted with support of violence: Mosque that Boston suspects attended has radical ties "Boston mosque in Cambridge, Mass., have been investigated for Islamic terrorism, including a conviction of the mosque's first president, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, in connection with an assassination plot against a Saudi prince. And its sister mosque in Boston, known as the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, has invited guests who have defended terror suspects. A former trustee appears in a series of videos in which he advocates treating gays as criminals, says husbands should sometimes beat their wives and calls on Allah (God) to kill Zionists and Jews, according to Americans for Peace and Tolerance, an interfaith group that has investigated the mosques." Do you have anything to say in response to all this, Nick? Or do you just plan to ignore evidence that contradicts your discredited argument?

Ray Martinez said: The alpha prefix stands for negation.

a- prefix meaning "not," from Latin a-, short for ab "away from" (e.g. avert), or its cognate, Greek a-, short for apo "away from, from," both cognate with Sanskrit apa "away from," Gothic af, Old English of (see apo-). -- Online Etymological Dictionary anti- word-forming element meaning "against, opposed to, opposite of, instead," from Old French anti- and directly from Latin anti-, from Greek anti "against, opposite, instead of," also used as a prefix, from PIE *anti "against," also "in front of" (see ante). It appears in some words in Middle English but was not commonly used in word formations until modern times. -- -- ibid.

First of all, make no mistake that the Quran villifies unbelievers, and enjoins contempt for us.

Because the Quran is not actually a god given and eternal book, but the ravings of men based on the ravings of one lunatic, there is development of opinion as well as just downright contradiction in the Quran. There is plenty of justification for violence to be found. Suras 4:74 and 4:95, for example, explicitly condone religious violence.
Initially, Mohammed sanctioned defensive fighting, but after conquering Mecca, he became much bolder in his statements.

In the bestselling and highly influential "Milestones," Sayyid Qutb states that Muslims were restrained from aggression "in Mecca and in the early period of their migration to Medina," but that following this "Muslims were permitted to fight, then they were commanded to fight against the aggressors; and finally they were commanded to fight against all the polytheists" (which includes Christians and Jews). It is this command which is the operative one today.

The Koran contains examples of offensive warfare rather than defensive, such as Suras 2:191-193 and 2:216. However, this is a moot point, since no-one disputes that the follower is enjoined to kill the unbelievers when Islam is under threat. Thus Palestinan suicide bombers have religious justification for their acts, killing civilians including children.

If you are in any doubt that they use their religion to sanction their acts, read the words of Ahlam Tamimi.

That Western secularism is a threat to the Islamic state is not an unreasonable conclusion. Thus we have groups such as Al-Qaeda. Aggressive US foreign policy over the last 50 odd years (particularly troops in Saudi Arabia) and its support for Israel seal the deal: The USA is an enemy of Islamic states.

Sura 9:25-26 refers to the battle of Hunain, where supposedly Allah "punished the unbelievers; thus He rewards those without faith."

Sura 8:12 is vile by any secular standard "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

Suras 8:39 and 8:65 are dangerous statements if one believes they are divinely inspired.

There are well over 100 verses in the Quran encouraging violence against the infidel.

In Sura 9:111, we see the declaration that those who are slain in Jihad are rewarded.

Many Islamic scholars have taken the violence of the Quran at face value.

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." So it is established that non-combatants are fair game in physical Jihad.

Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

Bukhari (11:626) - [Muhammad said:] "I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes."

Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammed, prophet of Islam.

Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam's most respected philosophers, said that "the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force"

bn Baz said "But going out oneself to fight in jihad is the highest form (of jihad)."

Other respected scholars who interpret the Quran as condoning offensive violence against the unbelievers include Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, Al-Mawardi, Ibn Taymiya, and Al-Shafi‘i.

To anyone who has read the Bible, that an ancient holy book should condone ruthless violence should be a complete lack of Jack's surprise.

Now, was it fair to compare Islam to Nazism? Yes, yes, and a thousand times yes: It is a bigoted doctrine that preaches tribal contempt and murder of outgroups.

It is utterly clear from what I wrote that I am not comparing Muslims to Hitler or Goebbels or Goerring or any general. I am not even referencing soldiers following orders, but ordinary non-violent i.e non-combatant people of Germany. There were well over 30 million who were Nazis. My point being that it is NOT the vast majority of followers who are evil. The problem is the ideology.

Do you think there was something special about the German people that made them evil? Of course there was not. They were ordinary folk caught up in historical circumstances. However, just as we would not say therefore Nazi ideology is okay since most of the people who were Nazis were non-violent, it is also the case that Islam does not get a free pass just because Muslims are for the most part non-violent. The Quran is poisonous, and the hadiths even worse. That is what matters.

To criticize Islam is to criticize the dogma, not the people who have been swept up in it by historical (and geographical) circumstance.

The Quran is a primitive, laughable, bloodthirsty text. A non-Muslim who defends its doctrine is just as ridiculous as a non-Christian who defends the Bible.

Quoting the Koran to define the characteristics of modern Islam is just absurd, and I wish people would stop doing it. You might as well define Christianity by the New Testament or Judaism by the Tanakh. Can we at least admit that holy books aren't like computer programs? Far from determining how believers act or believe, they mostly serve as something for theologians and rabbis to explain away. Thus most of Christian history can be understood as a mostly successful effort to get around the good parts of the Gospel just as most of Jewish history is mostly a successful effort to get around the bad parts of the Torah. The Muslim interpreters have been no less creative. What Islam is has to be understood by looking at what it is in the present. Of course that's a very mixed bag, but there it is.

Ray Martinez said:

dalehusband said: Am I the only one who gets sick of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy being spit at us by FL and Ray Martinez here? We know already they are pathological liars, why do we need more proof of that?

The use of "No True Scotsman" here says "anyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian." The No True Scotsman claim (above) seems to be the only claim Evolutionists accept without evidence in support. Of course the evidence of mass murder, in the minds of intelligent and objective persons, falsifies any claim of following Christ. And what is also quite evident here is the fact that Evolutionists hate Christianity, which supports the claim that Evolutionists are Atheists.

Some of the residents are opposed to religion, others are not.

I say people who profess Christianity, Islam, Atheism, or any other religious or anti-religious viewpoint are perfectly capable of committing murders.

"No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind..." (1 Cor. 10:13a).

"...And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it." (1 Cor 10:13) "(Nine different bad sins) ...And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor. 6:9-11)

FL says: All God has to do is remove His current graces and protections that He’s got covering you and I right now, just remove them by one inch, and there’s literally NOTHING you and I won’t do, no matter how evil or filthy.

diogeneslamp0 said: Uhh-- I'm wondering if I've been banned from WEIT? My comments now disappear, as they do at UD, while the Coyneians continue to attack me as a religious fanatic, possibly bearded. If so, it's the first time I've ever been called "religious" and banned from an evolutionist website. Creationist websites, always-- they all ban me. Evolutionist websites? Not so much.

Nothing I said was bitter or submissive. You are projecting. I am not a bigot. I am against the ideology of Islam. There is nothing racist about opposing a vile ideology. As I said, Coyne and other critics of Islam are well aware that Muslim is not the same thing as Islam.

FL said: Hey, as long as we're doing laundry lists of terrorism for fun and profit, let's put PRO-GAY people right up there with the other extremists (you too Stanton). Check out this pro-gay terrorist hate-crime: http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/04/22/FRC-Shooter-Pleads-Guilty-To-Committing-an-Act-of-Terrorism FL

An Asshole For Jesus said:

Some of the residents are opposed to religion, others are not.

And how about you? Where do you stand on that issue? Just curious to hear your thoughts.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/l8u7at1vufrjjG7E95mllxRfU5Y-#1ff46 said: The ISB mosque from the anecdote that Nick cites is tainted with support of violence: Mosque that Boston suspects attended has radical ties "Boston mosque in Cambridge, Mass., have been investigated for Islamic terrorism, including a conviction of the mosque's first president, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, in connection with an assassination plot against a Saudi prince. And its sister mosque in Boston, known as the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, has invited guests who have defended terror suspects. A former trustee appears in a series of videos in which he advocates treating gays as criminals, says husbands should sometimes beat their wives and calls on Allah (God) to kill Zionists and Jews, according to Americans for Peace and Tolerance, an interfaith group that has investigated the mosques." Do you have anything to say in response to all this, Nick? Or do you just plan to ignore evidence that contradicts your discredited argument?

harold said:

Nothing I said was bitter or submissive. You are projecting. I am not a bigot. I am against the ideology of Islam. There is nothing racist about opposing a vile ideology. As I said, Coyne and other critics of Islam are well aware that Muslim is not the same thing as Islam.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I consider your obsessive efforts to conform to a currently fashionable bigotry to be typical submissive/pseudo-aggressive, authoritarian follower behavior. Naturally, I don't "agree" with the more violent passages of the Koran, the Bible, etc, nor with regressive aspects of the culture of some Muslim countries, but your selective and excessive focus on currently fashionable bigotry against Muslims is tiresome. As I noted, at any given time, there are mainstream authoritarian ideological movements that demonize some outgroup. Justifications are always found. In fact, your implications that some large group of people are all inherently dangerous and flawed bear a striking resemblance to the sort of thing that D.W. Griffith illustrated in Birth of a Nation. There's always a group that it's encouraged to denigrate and demonize. It has been (and in some circles still is) African-Americans, Irish immigrants, Catholics, Jews, etc. There's always plenty of "justification", and the "justification" usually has some partial accuracy, otherwise it wouldn't fly. Members of white supremecist groups will cite social statistics that are accurate (but jump to unwarranted conclusions about why). The actual reason that accepted bias against Muslims (formerly against "Arabs") entered US and Canadian culture - and I'm just old enough to remember this - was the oil crisis of the early seventies. It was reinforced by middle east events and the Iranian hostage crisis. It was already strongly in place before the WTC atrocity - Arnold Schwarzenegger fights turbaned Muslim bad guys in eighties films and even Back to the Future features "Iranian terrorists". There's nothing original, "atheist", "skeptical", "rational", or decent about jumping on the bandwagon and quote mining the Koran for unpleasant passages. It's just seeking approval by denigrating the "outgroup du jour". I just despise all hateful unjustified violence, no matter who commits it. And although I am an atheist by the current definition - I have no belief in gods or the supernatural - I don't need to conform to some damn "movement", contort myself into logical knots to play apologist for every word out of the mouth of Richard Dawkins, whoops, I meant Jeremy Coyne, to know what I believe. (And by the way, if you think every single word in this paragraph doesn't apply perfectly to you - and it may not; I suspect it does but can't really know - that doesn't negate any of the prior paragraphs.)

harold said:

Nothing I said was bitter or submissive. You are projecting. I am not a bigot. I am against the ideology of Islam. There is nothing racist about opposing a vile ideology. As I said, Coyne and other critics of Islam are well aware that Muslim is not the same thing as Islam.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I consider your obsessive efforts

Naturally, I don't "agree" with the more violent passages of the Koran, the Bible, etc, nor with regressive aspects of the culture of some Muslim countries

In fact, your implications that some large group of people are all inherently dangerous

and flawed

There's nothing original, "atheist", "skeptical", "rational", or decent about jumping on the bandwagon and quote mining the Koran for unpleasant passages.

It's just seeking approval

Jim said: Quoting the Koran to define the characteristics of modern Islam is just absurd, and I wish people would stop doing it.

FL said: But would you be willing to engage and directly hook up with the sole Solution to that problem, the Lord Jesus Christ? Would you be interested in doing that?

How in the world can you be almost certain on a conclusion based on nothing but anecdote?

I specifically said that the majority of Muslims are non-violent, and that the majority of 30 million Germans were ORDINARY people.

Which is more fair to take as representative of American Muslims? The (presumably) hundreds of patriotic Muslims and leadership of the mosque? Or the nutjob who opposed what the mosque said?

Which is more fair to take as representative of religious people in general?

If you base your opinion of Islam in general, or religion in general, on a biased sample of violent nutjobs, what are you doing?

How would you feel if someone took the actions of some violent atheist nutjob(s) and used it to smear atheism in general?

What do you call it when Christian fundamentalists use this tactic on atheists?

Driver said: Because the Quran is not actually a god given and eternal book, but the ravings of men based on the ravings of one lunatic, there is development of opinion as well as just downright contradiction in the Quran. There is plenty of justification for violence to be found.

Driver said: There is plenty of justification for violence to be found.

In the bestselling and highly influential “Milestones,” Sayyid Qutb states that Muslims were restrained from aggression “in Mecca and in the early period of their migration to Medina,” but that following this “Muslims were permitted to fight, then they were commanded to fight against the aggressors; and finally they were commanded to fight against all the polytheists” (which includes Christians and Jews). It is this command which is the operative one today.

Ray Martinez said: Of course the evidence of mass murder, in the minds of intelligent and objective persons, falsifies any claim of following Christ.

The No True Scotsman claim (above) seems to be the only claim Evolutionists accept without evidence in support.

Ray Martinez said: Of course the evidence of mass murder, in the minds of intelligent and objective persons, falsifies any claim of following Christ.

The term was coined by Antony Flew, who gave an example of a Scotsman who sees a newspaper article about a series of sex crimes taking place in Brighton, and responds that "no Scotsman would do such a thing". When later confronted with evidence of another Scotsman doing even worse acts, his response is that "no true Scotsman would do such a thing", thus disavowing membership in the group "Scotsman" to the criminal on the basis that the commission of the crime is evidence for not being a Scotsman. -- RationalWiki

Although there a number of people associated with the "atheist movement" whom I respect, and although I am an atheist, my sense that the "gnu atheist" movement is taking on the characteristics of an authoritarian ideology has been growing for some time.

That impression has now been fully confirmed.

It may be a harmless authoritarian ideology, but I still find dehumanizing of "the other" and parroting of mindless propaganda in a desperate effort to conform to a group identity to be distasteful in the extreme.

Although it is obvious that Ray Martinez is committing a No True Scotsman fallacy - the essence of the fallacy is always that the one making it presumes a power to arbitrarily declare what a "true" Scotsman is, and can thus always shift the definition when it suits their purpose - I will give him some minimal credit.

At least he says that his (right wing authoritarian regressive eccentric isolated science-denying judgmental demonizing) version of Christianity condemns murder.

That's a lot better than some of the counter-examples that have been brought up.

I hope you stick to that principle, Ray Martinez, when a Christian does the killing and the victim is someone from a group you don't like.

"Not a 'real' Christian" may be logically false, but it sounds a lot better to me than "they did the right thing."

harold said: Although there a number of people associated with the "atheist movement" whom I respect, and although I am an atheist, my sense that the "gnu atheist" movement is taking on the characteristics of an authoritarian ideology has been growing for some time. That impression has now been fully confirmed. It may be a harmless authoritarian ideology, but I still find dehumanizing of "the other" and parroting of mindless propaganda in a desperate effort to conform to a group identity to be distasteful in the extreme.

Yep, the Bible is just as vile as the Quran. There are some vile Christians who seek to justify their behaviour by referencing the Bible. Christianity has the historical edge, but at the current time, it is Islamic extremists more so than Christians who have strapped explosives to themselves, planted bombs, hijacked planes, and attacked embassies.

harold said:

phhht said:

harold said: Although there a number of people associated with the "atheist movement" whom I respect, and although I am an atheist, my sense that the "gnu atheist" movement is taking on the characteristics of an authoritarian ideology has been growing for some time. That impression has now been fully confirmed. It may be a harmless authoritarian ideology, but I still find dehumanizing of "the other" and parroting of mindless propaganda in a desperate effort to conform to a group identity to be distasteful in the extreme.

I'm a gnu atheist, and whenever I'm criticizing the views of my fellow non-believers - I think of them as the "subhuman others" - I take the opportunity to highlight how liberal, how tolerant - how superior - my own sensibilities are, compared to those of the mindless movement ideologs. After all, they're parroting dogmatic propaganda, lost in a desperate effort to conform to a group identity, under the thumb of their authoritarian atheist overlords, and slavering to impose their own authority, evidence be damned. I, in contrast, am an enlightened, disinterested, and above all non-authoritarian critic, perfectly positioned for broad-brush stereotyping. But I would never do such a thing. Some might find it distasteful in the extreme.

What has me especially annoyed in this thread, which you actually haven't been doing, is the adoption of the arguments of right wing neo-con bigots, against a comparatively weak cultural group, who have been implicitly sanctioned as legitimate targets, and who were, in fact, already being subjected to drone attacks etc before this bombing. The Nazi-era Germans were bombed. They were bombed for a valid reason, because the Nazi government started wars with other nations, and other nations had to defend themselves. (The holocaust mainly took place when the Nazis were already at war.) When people make repeated claims of equivalence between "Islam", or I might add, "atheism", "gay marriage support", or anything else, to Nazism and Nazi Germany, anyone who does not pick up the implication that physical attacks might be justified is, well, not very good at picking up implications. I do perceive the "gnu atheist" movement as more given to repetitive slogans and idolization of "leader" figures than suits my personal style, and I've said that before - probably more diplomatically - but most of the time that movement criticizes powerful, oppressive establishments, and most of the time its arguments have some merit. Just as "Muslims should condemn terrorist bombings", the gnu atheist response to Jerry Coyne should have been to respectfully dispute with him here. Although I shared the irritation at Coyne expressed in the OP, I also sympathize with his emotional response. It's the shutting down of criticism and rush to defend whatever he says, apparently because he's Jerry Coyne, that annoys me. Probably my statement was too harsh, but a movement based on respect for rational thought and humane values should be consistent.

It’s only a matter of time before the faitheists and apologists start clamoring that what was really behind the attacks was politics and Western imperialism—anything but faith.

That Muslims may be a minority in some places (presumably what harold means by "culturally weak"), just as every group is a minority somewhere, is NOT a reason not to criticize the ideology of Islam. Whether I live in Wyoming or Saudi Arabia is not the measure of whether I can criticize Islamic dogma.

The implication that criticism of Islam is right-wing is ridiculous.

Moving on, I can't be bothered to look back through the thread, but someone said something about religions moving on from the violence in their texts, and specifically that Jews don't use the violence in the Tanakh to justify political actions. Firstly, there are significant numbers of Muslims who do use the violence in their texts to justify their actions. I even gave examples, as if anyone should need them! Secondly, there are not Jews justifying their political actions based on the Tanakh? What do you think the state of Israel does? Hold discos in the desert?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/5rJLWq8Iqe0R3hRf7YLMHc45lsnr49Q.pOxGKuOen7O_#dc428 said: What did Coyne say?

It’s only a matter of time before the faitheists and apologists start clamoring that what was really behind the attacks was politics and Western imperialism—anything but faith.

WELL NOW LOOKY HERE

https://me.yahoo.com/a/5rJLWq8Iqe0R3hRf7YLMHc45lsnr49Q.pOxGKuOen7O_#dc428 said: worth pointing out that for the duration of this entire thread nick has ran away from addressing the original shit post. good thing we have creationists and enablers to make that odious job unnecessary

Driver said: Moving on, I can't be bothered to look back through the thread, but someone said something about religions moving on from the violence in their texts, and specifically that Jews don't use the violence in the Tanakh to justify political actions. Firstly, there are significant numbers of Muslims who do use the violence in their texts to justify their actions. I even gave examples, as if anyone should need them!

diogeneslamp0 said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/5rJLWq8Iqe0R3hRf7YLMHc45lsnr49Q.pOxGKuOen7O_#dc428 said: What did Coyne say?

It’s only a matter of time before the faitheists and apologists start clamoring that what was really behind the attacks was politics and Western imperialism—anything but faith.

WELL NOW LOOKY HERE

Well looky here: I wrote ONE comment at WEIT and was insta-banned. Apparently JC believed me to be a "faitheist" or an "apologist." Anyone who considers me to be a "faitheist" or an "apologist" is either freaking paranoid or has ZERO reading comprehension.

Did this kid cite the defense of Islam as a motivating factor, or not? Yes? Then what the hell are you even whining about?

I said: worth pointing out that for the duration of this entire thread nick has ran away from addressing the original shit post. good thing we have creationists and enablers to make that odious job unnecessary

What "shit post"? Nick was write[sic]-- despite much scrounging, there has been no refutation.

snip long winded multifont irrelevant rant

If you claim to employ the scientific method,

nick claims that since some people, in the congregation attended by Tamerlan Tsarnaev, do not agree with his religious views, therefore we cannot conclude that his religious views are religious views, they are views held "in spite of" True Islamic Views As Qualified By Nick Matzke.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/5rJLWq8Iqe0R3hRf7YLMHc45lsnr49Q.pOxGKuOen7O_#dc428 said: Incidentally, did he call you a faitheist or an apologist? Or are you just employing that super-sciency method you are talking about to infer this was his reason? I guess we'll never know. I guess it's fine to impugn the character or motives of some people on the basis of personal anecdote but not others, right?

It is gratifying to see religion defended here. We should certainly denounce and even denigrate any idea that attacks evolution, including if it stems from religious motives. It's nice to see religion being defended when the religious are not being stupid.

diogeneslamp0 said:

nick claims that since some people, in the congregation attended by Tamerlan Tsarnaev, do not agree with his religious views, therefore we cannot conclude that his religious views are religious views, they are views held "in spite of" True Islamic Views As Qualified By Nick Matzke.

Bullshit. Nick makes no mention of "True Islamic Views". Strawman attack.

Nick's version of the NPR / Wall Street Journal version of the truth: Both the leadership and congregation of the Cambridge mosque that Tamerlan Tsarnaev attended were pro-American, pro-patriotism, and pro-civil rights/nonviolence leader Martin Luther King Jr. Tamerlan opposed what he heard in his mosque. He did what he did in spite of what he heard at his mosque, not because of it.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/5rJLWq8Iqe0R3hRf7YLMHc45lsnr49Q.pOxGKuOen7O_#dc428 said: Incidentally, did he call you a faitheist or an apologist? Or are you just employing that super-sciency method you are talking about to infer this was his reason? I guess we'll never know. I guess it's fine to impugn the character or motives of some people on the basis of personal anecdote but not others, right?

diogeneslamp0 said: Ugh, you’re straining. I want to generalize from Jerry Coyne’s behavior to Jerry Coyne’s mentality. How shocking!

You want to generalize from two guys to 1.3 billion people, or to a reification fallacy of "Islam" like it's a person or monolithic block of stone. You can't equate or analogize what you do to what I do, no matter how hard you strain.

self-pwnage

Pretty sure this (Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s islamic views are not True Islamic Views) is exactly what the curiously absent OP is implying.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/5rJLWq8Iqe0R3hRf7YLMHc45lsnr49Q.pOxGKuOen7O_#dc428 said:

diogeneslamp0 said:

nick claims that since some people, in the congregation attended by Tamerlan Tsarnaev, do not agree with his religious views, therefore we cannot conclude that his religious views are religious views, they are views held "in spite of" True Islamic Views As Qualified By Nick Matzke.

Bullshit. Nick makes no mention of "True Islamic Views". Strawman attack.

Nick's version of the NPR / Wall Street Journal version of the truth: Both the leadership and congregation of the Cambridge mosque that Tamerlan Tsarnaev attended were pro-American, pro-patriotism, and pro-civil rights/nonviolence leader Martin Luther King Jr. Tamerlan opposed what he heard in his mosque. He did what he did in spite of what he heard at his mosque, not because of it.

Pretty sure this (Tamerlan Tsarnaev's islamic views are not True Islamic Views) is exactly what the curiously absent OP is implying.

Of course you saying "bullshit strawman attack" is so convincing perhaps you have epistemic access to Nick's actual mental states and can't just go by, you know, what he fucking said.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/5rJLWq8Iqe0R3hRf7YLMHc45lsnr49Q.pOxGKuOen7O_#dc428 said:

diogeneslamp0 said: Ugh, you’re straining. I want to generalize from Jerry Coyne’s behavior to Jerry Coyne’s mentality. How shocking!

Oh, I see. So it's OK for you to do this wrt Coyne because you are you, right, and not OK for Coyne to employ similar generalizations from the behavior of islamic terrorists to the mentality of islamic terrorists because he is Coyne.

harold said: Tamerlan Tsarnaev planned and carried out a vicious, insane attack on innocent people, which in his twisted mind was somehow justified.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev admitted to playing a role in the marathon bombings... and told federal agents that he and his brother were motivated by extremist Islamic beliefs, when he was interviewed Sunday at the hospital, law enforcement officials said. -- New York Times

harold said: Over a billion people are Muslims. Many of them read the Koran. But an incredibly tiny fraction of those people do what Tamerlan Tsarnaev did. If you add up all the Muslims who committed bombings and massacres in a given period of time, it's an insignificantly tiny proportion of the Muslims in the world. Furthermore, a lot of crazed killings are committed by people who aren't Muslims, too.

harold said: Logically, Islam can't be an ideology that has a high success rate of turning people into crazed killers, because there are over billion Muslims in the world and most of them aren't crazed killers.

harold said: Massively common traits like "being a Muslim" or "being a Christian" do not explain highly unusual actions.

phhht said:

harold said: Massively common traits like "being a Muslim" or "being a Christian" do not explain highly unusual actions.

Such traits do not ALWAYS explain murder, but sometimes they DO. They do in the Boston bombing case, and they do in the case of the Christian terrorist bombers and murders.

ksplawn said:

phhht said:

harold said: Massively common traits like "being a Muslim" or "being a Christian" do not explain highly unusual actions.

Such traits do not ALWAYS explain murder, but sometimes they DO. They do in the Boston bombing case, and they do in the case of the Christian terrorist bombers and murders.

So the attack is explained by the fact that the bombers were Muslims?

phhht said:

ksplawn said:

phhht said:

harold said: Massively common traits like "being a Muslim" or "being a Christian" do not explain highly unusual actions.

Such traits do not ALWAYS explain murder, but sometimes they DO. They do in the Boston bombing case, and they do in the case of the Christian terrorist bombers and murders.

So the attack is explained by the fact that the bombers were Muslims?

It appears to be so explained by the bomber himself.

ksplawn said:

phhht said:

ksplawn said:

phhht said:

harold said: Massively common traits like "being a Muslim" or "being a Christian" do not explain highly unusual actions.

Such traits do not ALWAYS explain murder, but sometimes they DO. They do in the Boston bombing case, and they do in the case of the Christian terrorist bombers and murders.

So the attack is explained by the fact that the bombers were Muslims?

It appears to be so explained by the bomber himself.

I'm sure he had an objective and reasonable assessment of his motivations, unimpeded by any potentially aberrant psychology or influences. Think about the implications of what you're saying. "The attack is explained because he was (member of X large, diverse, typically non-bomber group)" is not actually sufficient explanation. If it really were, we would be perfectly justified in instituting some kind of round-up of all members of X large group and treating them all as hostile agents who want to blow people up. Why? Because we could reasonably expect the same behavior from all Muslims (not just any particular Muslim, but all), even the Muslims that denounced Tsarnaev's behaviors before and after the attack. But instead they were denouncing him! Surely the mere fact that he shared some subset of religious beliefs with them is not "sufficient explanation." If it were, reality would be different from what we observe. The same applies to Christian terrorists and murderers; they are the extreme outliers. They are the exception. They are the rarest of the rare within their groups. They are broadly denounced by the majority of their co-religious peers. Simply "being a Christian" is not sufficient explanation for their deeds, otherwise they wouldn't be so unusual. They'd be the norm. The very fact that we have terms like "radical," "extremist," "militant," etc. to describe the subsets of the group that most frequently claim those individuals is evidence enough that 'massively common traits like "being a Muslim" or "being a Christian" do not explain highly unusual actions.' These are not difficult ideas to grasp.

ksplawn said:

phhht said:

ksplawn said:

phhht said:

harold said: Massively common traits like "being a Muslim" or "being a Christian" do not explain highly unusual actions.

Such traits do not ALWAYS explain murder, but sometimes they DO. They do in the Boston bombing case, and they do in the case of the Christian terrorist bombers and murders.

So the attack is explained by the fact that the bombers were Muslims?

It appears to be so explained by the bomber himself.

I'm sure he had an objective and reasonable assessment of his motivations, unimpeded by any potentially aberrant psychology or influences. Think about the implications of what you're saying. "The attack is explained because he was (member of X large, diverse, typically non-bomber group)" is not actually sufficient explanation. If it really were, we would be perfectly justified in instituting some kind of round-up of all members of X large group and treating them all as hostile agents who want to blow people up. Why? Because we could reasonably expect the same behavior from all Muslims (not just any particular Muslim, but all), even the Muslims that denounced Tsarnaev's behaviors before and after the attack. But instead they were denouncing him! Surely the mere fact that he shared some subset of religious beliefs with them is not "sufficient explanation." If it were, reality would be different from what we observe. The same applies to Christian terrorists and murderers; they are the extreme outliers. They are the exception. They are the rarest of the rare within their groups. They are broadly denounced by the majority of their co-religious peers. Simply "being a Christian" is not sufficient explanation for their deeds, otherwise they wouldn't be so unusual. They'd be the norm. The very fact that we have terms like "radical," "extremist," "militant," etc. to describe the subsets of the group that most frequently claim those individuals is evidence enough that 'massively common traits like "being a Muslim" or "being a Christian" do not explain highly unusual actions.' These are not difficult ideas to grasp.

Do you mean to argue that despite the testimony of the bomber, Islam played no causal role in the bombing?

harold said:

Do you mean to argue that despite the testimony of the bomber, Islam played no causal role in the bombing?

Your original claim, like the original claim of Coyne, was that it was the ONLY causal factor.

So was Islam the ONLY contributing factor? Of course not, that's idiotic. Was it a contributing factor at all...[?]

I do know that the bomber himself attributes his motivation to Islam, just as the Christian terrorists attribute their violence to the leadership and inspiration of their gods.

To deny that religious belief played a motivational role is idiotic.

harold said:

I do know that the bomber himself attributes his motivation to Islam, just as the Christian terrorists attribute their violence to the leadership and inspiration of their gods.

This point has been dealt with.

To deny that religious belief played a motivational role is idiotic.

This is a straw man misrepresentation of the points that others have made.

phhht said: Do you argue that we should refuse to recognize the sickle-cell anemia mutation because the mutation is benign in the vast majority of people who carry it? Of course you do not.

phhht said: No, they are both easy to grasp and repugnant to everyone, including me, and I have never advocated them, any more than you have.

ksplawn said:

phhht said: Do you argue that we should refuse to recognize the sickle-cell anemia mutation because the mutation is benign in the vast majority of people who carry it?

So now you're comparing Islam to a hereditary genetic disease. This is supposed to convince me that you're making a rational argument somehow?

phhht said: No, they are both easy to grasp and repugnant to everyone, including me, and I have never advocated them, any more than you have.

ksplawn said: Then why did you say, on this very page, that sometimes "being a Muslim" is sufficient to explain things like this?

phhht said:

ksplawn said:

phhht said: Do you argue that we should refuse to recognize the sickle-cell anemia mutation because the mutation is benign in the vast majority of people who carry it?

So now you're comparing Islam to a hereditary genetic disease. This is supposed to convince me that you're making a rational argument somehow?

I'm sorry the analogy is too deep for you to understand.

phhht said: No, they are both easy to grasp and repugnant to everyone, including me, and I have never advocated them, any more than you have.

ksplawn said: Then why did you say, on this very page, that sometimes "being a Muslim" is sufficient to explain things like this?

As far as I know, I never said that. It was you who imputed that argument to me. And even if I had said that, it would not follow that we should somehow treat all religious people as pariahs. My point is that the religion of the Boston bomber was a motive for his behavior. He says so. Do you deny it?

phhht said: Ah, I see now where you read that. I was, of course, not speaking of "being a Muslim" as the motivation of the bombers, but instead, their religious belief of Islam. I apologize for the loose phrasing.

phhht, you are arguing that the First World War was all the fault of the Serbs, because one of them shot an Austrian archduke.

ksplawn said:

phhht said: Ah, I see now where you read that. I was, of course, not speaking of "being a Muslim" as the motivation of the bombers, but instead, their religious belief of Islam. I apologize for the loose phrasing.

I'm still having trouble parsing that. Are you simply saying that their claim to being a Muslim is sufficient for them to be categorized as Muslim despite the fact that they committed murder, responding to the No True Scotsman stuff that was going on earlier? Are you saying that the Tsarnaevs' particular brand of Islamic belief was sufficient to explain the attack?

Dave Luckett said: phhht, you are arguing that the First World War was all the fault of the Serbs, because one of them shot an Austrian archduke.

There are several ways I can interpret this, so instead of just speculating I think it would be better to see your line of thinking and how you're distinguishing between what others think you're arguing and what you think you're arguing.

No. I see no difference. It's an analogy. If you're allowed sickle-cell anaemia, I'm allowed first world wars.

One young Serb - out of six who lay in wait, admittedly - shot an Austrian archduke. That young man was armed and enabled by a cabal of officers in Serbian military intelligence, operating secretly, in defiance of their nominal military and civil superiors.

He said to the end that his act was inspired by Serbian nationalism. Quite so. It was. But does Serbian nationalism explain the First World War?

Of course not. The Austrian Emperor's reaction, grief-driven, but insane, helps explain it. The Czar's instant intervention helps. The Kaiser's carte blanche to Austria helps. The armed and bellicose state of Europe does. Its separation into two camps does. Forty years of steady ratcheting up of tension does. Mobilisation plans that called up entire populations does, because once they were started they couldn't be stopped.

The real causes went far beyond the motivations of a single young man, or even of a murderous nationalist faction. Was the cause, then, Serb nationalism? Or was it all nationalism? Is, then, all nationalism to be expunged? Even when it only expresses as a love of one's country?

The same with the Boston bombing. Considered as part of a whole history of attacks against the softest of western targets by Islamic radicals, it was an act in what they would certainly call a war, if they were to use an English word. But is that war caused by religion? Was the first world war caused by nationalism?

I don't think so, in either case.

Dave Luckett said: Considered as part of a whole history of attacks against the softest of western targets by Islamic radicals, it [the Boston bombing] was an act in what they would certainly call a war, if they were to use an English word. But is that war caused by religion? Was the first world war caused by nationalism? I don't think so, in either case.

Yes, I agree. He was motivated by his religion, as Gavrilo Princep was motivated by his Serbian nationalism. And saying the one is just about as penetrating and helpful to preventing the outcome as saying the other.

Dave Luckett said: Yes, I agree. He was motivated by his religion, as Gavrilo Princep was motivated by his Serbian nationalism. And saying the one is just about as penetrating and helpful to preventing the outcome as saying the other.

phhht said: If I could penetrate deeply enough to recognize a prophylactic measure, I would say so, but I do not.

Dave Luckett said: Nothing is ever completely clear about why human beings do things. I have to provide what is called motivation to characters, on the grounds that it makes them real, but again and again I am struck by how little is needed to make their acts credible, plausible, instantly understandable. We know, we members of the species Pan narrans, how fragile is the connection between our own motivations and rationality, and we can empathise how that is so for others.

AltairIV said:

lkeithlu said: As wonderful as the internet is, it makes it much easier for this kind of person to develop an ideology, reinforce the illusion that he/she is right, and give them specific targets.

While this is certainly true in some individual cases, I maintain that the internet is the greatest anti-nutcase invention ever invented. For the first time in history any individual can, and will, be exposed to a world of facts, opinions, and alternate viewpoints that they probably never would ever have been aware of otherwise. And when Someone Is Wrong On The Internet, there will almost certainly be others coming along to correct them post-haste. As an educational resource alone it is unprecedented. It takes a certain kind of focused and dedicated attitude to actively filter that kind of bombardment out, and such a person has to deliberately limit himself to only those echo chambers that re-enforce his beliefs to truly do so. Even then opposing ideas are sure to slip through the cracks occasionally. It's becoming almost impossible to completely isolate yourself anymore. I believe that in such an open environment converts to reason are more likely than converts to crazy. Bad ideas can be exposed for what they are, and good ones can reach a much wider audience than ever. The internet is still young, only becoming a real force in the world within the last 20 years, but we can already see a new, net-aware generation of people who are much more aware of the world and active in it. This is true even in areas of the world that have traditionally been rather closed, such as the Middle East and China. It will take some time before the full effects become clear, but I predict that when the current baby boomer generation finally passes on that we'll see a much more tolerant world of opinion.

It takes a certain kind of focused and dedicated attitude to actively filter that kind of bombardment out, and such a person has to deliberately limit himself to only those echo chambers that re-enforce his beliefs to truly do so.

A prophylactic measure would be to address the sources of despair. . . this might be a more fruitful approach than to try to suppress religion

diogeneslamp0 said:

Driver said: Moving on, I can't be bothered to look back through the thread, but someone said something about religions moving on from the violence in their texts, and specifically that Jews don't use the violence in the Tanakh to justify political actions. Firstly, there are significant numbers of Muslims who do use the violence in their texts to justify their actions. I even gave examples, as if anyone should need them!

This is a better argument. Just taking quotes from the Quran out of context, with no negative control (i.e. no comparison to analogous quotes from the Bible) is not proof of causation. OTOH, if you quote Muslim militants saying that such-and-such verse from the Quran inspired or justified their violence, you've gotten closer to proof of causation. But then you must connect the quoted militant to the mosque in Boston that threatened to throw out the Boston bombers. Even then, all aspects of your experimental criteria must be verified via a negative control. Science requires negative control. If you have no negative control, you're being unscientific.

I have acknowledged that "extreme religious beliefs play a part in crimes like this". I suppose I am practising "religious exceptionalism" in that I don't place the blame for them on religion as such, but more narrowly on the extreme religious beliefs. I would hold that the fact that only a very few believers commit such crimes makes blaming the religion automatically suspect. Further, I ascribe the incidence of these extreme beliefs to underlying causes - alienation, acculturation, powerlessness, despair.

Somebody observed earlier that fundamentalist, extremist religion - all sorts - tends to attract angry, embittered, disaffected young men. Islam is perhaps the worst for that, but it is far from alone among religions for that, and religion itself is also not the only allegiance that does it.

ksplawn said:

phhht said:

ksplawn said:

phhht said:

harold said: Massively common traits like "being a Muslim" or "being a Christian" do not explain highly unusual actions.

Such traits do not ALWAYS explain murder, but sometimes they DO. They do in the Boston bombing case, and they do in the case of the Christian terrorist bombers and murders.

So the attack is explained by the fact that the bombers were Muslims?

It appears to be so explained by the bomber himself.

I'm sure he had an objective and reasonable assessment of his motivations, unimpeded by any potentially aberrant psychology or influences.

Think about the implications of what you're saying. "The attack is explained because he was (member of X large, diverse, typically non-bomber group)" is not actually sufficient explanation.

If it really were, we would be perfectly justified in instituting some kind of round-up of all members of X large group and treating them all as hostile agents who want to blow people up. Why? Because we could reasonably expect the same behavior from all Muslims (not just any particular Muslim, but all), even the Muslims that denounced Tsarnaev's behaviors before and after the attack. But instead they were denouncing him! Surely the mere fact that he shared some subset of religious beliefs with them is not "sufficient explanation." If it were, reality would be different from what we observe.

The same applies to Christian terrorists and murderers; they are the extreme outliers. They are the exception. They are the rarest of the rare within their groups. They are broadly denounced by the majority of their co-religious peers. Simply "being a Christian" is not sufficient explanation for their deeds, otherwise they wouldn't be so unusual. They'd be the norm. The very fact that we have terms like "radical," "extremist," "militant," etc. to describe the subsets of the group that most frequently claim those individuals is evidence enough that 'massively common traits like "being a Muslim" or "being a Christian" do not explain highly unusual actions.' These are not difficult ideas to grasp.

This is one of the hallmarks of the postmodern excuse makers for radical Islam

Funny how when Muslim terrorists cite the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, then their reasons are all of a sudden very believable and nobody wonders about whether “they had a reasonable assessment of motivations”…

Were these 2 motivated by extreme corners of their religion? It would seem so. So how many murders and deliberate killings occurred in the US (a fairly violent place, speaking as a Canadian) in the past 2 weeks not motivated by similar extreme corners of this religion? If these kids had been born in different circumstances, but with the same personality and possibly parental issues. Maybe they would have become teenage assassins for Mexican drug cartels, or violent gangbangers in innercity American ghettos, or maybe largely inexplicable mass murderers of children in small Connecticut towns.

What I dislike about Coyne's post and many supporters in this thread is not whether these 2 were motivated by radical Islam or not, but the implication that Islam is the cause, that IF Islam did not exist, these killings and other murderous acts would not have occurred. That the incredibly high incidence of violence globally is mostly down to religion. I see the only root cause is not religion, but being human. I also dislike the implicit suggestion that being a "rational" atheist (rational in quotes because I think there are severe limits on the rationality possible by humans, we're not computers) makes one incapable of being a horrible, murderous and violent person. The depths of depravity humans are capable of seems to be bottomless, religion not required.

harold said: The only person who seems to think that this is a plausible explanation for the bombing is one of the defenders of Coyne.

harold said:

Funny how when Muslim terrorists cite the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, then their reasons are all of a sudden very believable and nobody wonders about whether “they had a reasonable assessment of motivations”…

The only person who seems to think that this is a plausible explanation for the bombing is one of the defenders of Coyne. I despise both of those useless, harmful wars. You could argue that there was a shred of justification for the Afghanistan war,

but there were better options. The Iraq was was trumped up partly because the previous time a Republican president invaded Iraq, he went up in the polls (a strategy that worked - Bush narrowly defeated a mediocre candidate for re-election even with "wartime president" to run on, and would surely have lost without that).

I despise the wars, and so do millions, I think it is safe to say probably billions, or other people around the world, but apparently less than one millionth of us are setting off bombs.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 said: Were these 2 motivated by extreme corners of their religion? It would seem so. So how many murders and deliberate killings occurred in the US (a fairly violent place, speaking as a Canadian) in the past 2 weeks not motivated by similar extreme corners of this religion? If these kids had been born in different circumstances, but with the same personality and possibly parental issues. Maybe they would have become teenage assassins for Mexican drug cartels, or violent gangbangers in innercity American ghettos, or maybe largely inexplicable mass murderers of children in small Connecticut towns. What I dislike about Coyne's post and many supporters in this thread is not whether these 2 were motivated by radical Islam or not, but the implication that Islam is the cause, that IF Islam did not exist, these killings and other murderous acts would not have occurred. That the incredibly high incidence of violence globally is mostly down to religion. I see the only root cause is not religion, but being human. I also dislike the implicit suggestion that being a "rational" atheist (rational in quotes because I think there are severe limits on the rationality possible by humans, we're not computers) makes one incapable of being a horrible, murderous and violent person. The depths of depravity humans are capable of seems to be bottomless, religion not required.

bigdakine said:

ksplawn said: I'm sure he had an objective and reasonable assessment of his motivations, unimpeded by any potentially aberrant psychology or influences.

Well clearly you understand why he did what he did better than him.

This is one of the hallmarks of the postmodern excuse makers for radical Islam.

Now of course, it is politically correct to pretend that we really have no idea why they did what they did. The usual excuses don't work.

If it really were, we would be perfectly justified in instituting some kind of round-up of all members of X large group and treating them all as hostile agents who want to blow people up. Why? Because we could reasonably expect the same behavior from all Muslims (not just any particular Muslim, but all), even the Muslims that denounced Tsarnaev's behaviors before and after the attack. But instead they were denouncing him! Surely the mere fact that he shared some subset of religious beliefs with them is not "sufficient explanation." If it were, reality would be different from what we observe.

Paranoid much?

The same applies to Christian terrorists and murderers; they are the extreme outliers. They are the exception. They are the rarest of the rare within their groups. They are broadly denounced by the majority of their co-religious peers. Simply "being a Christian" is not sufficient explanation for their deeds, otherwise they wouldn't be so unusual. They'd be the norm. The very fact that we have terms like "radical," "extremist," "militant," etc. to describe the subsets of the group that most frequently claim those individuals is evidence enough that 'massively common traits like "being a Muslim" or "being a Christian" do not explain highly unusual actions.' These are not difficult ideas to grasp.

So when some Christian blows up an abortion clininc, do you doubt his/her stated reasons for doing it?

But of those who are setting off bombs, what are their motivations?

ksplawn said:

bigdakine said:

ksplawn said: I'm sure he had an objective and reasonable assessment of his motivations, unimpeded by any potentially aberrant psychology or influences.

Well clearly you understand why he did what he did better than him.

I'm not claiming that I know better than him. I'm simply pointing out that people tend to be terrible judges of their own objectivity and unreliable about the reasoning behind their own actions, something all scientists are forced to confront as part of the process of doing science. This is especially true when somebody is bugfugging nuts, which I think you would have to be in order to conclude that setting off a bomb in a crowd of innocent people (including children) is the appropriate answer to geopolitical and spiritual issues over which you have no control. So why should I take some maniacs' word that being a Muslim is the justification they need for mass murder and terrorism?

This is one of the hallmarks of the postmodern excuse makers for radical Islam.

You seem to be obsesssed with the idea that I'm excusing anything. That's insulting and ridiculous. I can disagree with someone's overly broad generalizations without "excusing" the things they're generalizing.

If someone described all red things as heavy because bricks are red and heavy, am I "excusing" laydbugs by pointing out that they're red yet lightweight? What I'm seeing in these arguments is a willingness to embrace shallow, easy, and unnervingly bigoted

diogeneslamp0 said:

Ray Martinez said: Of course the evidence of mass murder, in the minds of intelligent and objective persons, falsifies any claim of following Christ.

This is an explicit invocation of No True Scotsman. I don't think Ray understands why that's a fallacy. He doesn't even know what logical fallacies are, but for the entertainment of others, I'll unpack this....

Suppose B= belief and A = actions. Now above Ray invokes No True Scotsman. If someone's actions (A) are evil, then their belief B cannot be Christian. That is, Ray says A is the independent variable and B is the dependent variable deduced from A: B = f(A) Or more specifically: If (A == evil) then B = anti-Christian Now what is wrong with that? Well, if Belief is deduced from Action, then you cannot predict someone's Actions from their Belief. Any attempt to predict someone's Action from their Belief is CIRCULAR LOGIC, because you just deduced Belief from Action -- that is, unless you have an independent means of measuring belief. But we can't have an independent means of determining belief, because when Adolf Hitler, Anders Breivik, crusaders, Christian terrorists etc. say they're Christian, Ray discards all such statements. So, since Ray rejects all independent means of deducing B, then if you write: B = f(A) As Ray said above, then you cannot empirically predict someone's actions as in: A = f'(B) You cannot predict someone's Actions from their belief, without invoking CIRCULAR LOGIC, since beliefs are merely an invisible, hypothetical free variable we can never independently measure (as Ray says it is).

The No True Scotsman claim (above) seems to be the only claim Evolutionists accept without evidence in support.

In the very next sentence after that, Ray invoked an explicit No True Scotsman. The very next sentence after the one above is our evidence for Ray's No True Scotsman. Ray, answer me this question: If belief is deduced from action as you claim, and if no Christian can INDEPENDENTLY determine the beliefs of politicians (e.g. Hitler, Pat Robertson), then isn't Christian belief useless in practice? We can't possibly apply it politically then, right? American creationists in the 1930's loved Hitler and called him a true Christian. Today, why should we bother voting for "Christian" politicians or "Christian" laws if all you Christian creationists in the 1930's called Hitler and Nazi Germany truly Christian, as you vociferously did?

Gods, Ray, you're dumber than greasy old dirt. You don't even understand the No True Scotsman fallacy.

harold said:

But of those who are setting off bombs, what are their motivations?

That is a good question. First let's clear up the obvious - the objections to Coyne mainly revolve around his implied stereotyping of other Muslims as likely bombers.

bigdakine said:

harold said:

But of those who are setting off bombs, what are their motivations?

That is a good question. First let's clear up the obvious - the objections to Coyne mainly revolve around his implied stereotyping of other Muslims as likely bombers.

I don't know that is what Coyne is doing. Perhaps he can clarify. IMHO he is not stereotyping other Muslims as likely bombers, rather he is stereotyping terrorist bombers as likely Muslims.

bigdakine said:

harold said:

But of those who are setting off bombs, what are their motivations?

That is a good question. First let's clear up the obvious - the objections to Coyne mainly revolve around his implied stereotyping of other Muslims as likely bombers.

I don't know that is what Coyne is doing. Perhaps he can clarify. IMHO he is not stereotyping other Muslims as likely bombers, rather he is stereotyping terrorist bombers as likely Muslims.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 said:

bigdakine said:

harold said:

But of those who are setting off bombs, what are their motivations?

That is a good question. First let's clear up the obvious - the objections to Coyne mainly revolve around his implied stereotyping of other Muslims as likely bombers.

I don't know that is what Coyne is doing. Perhaps he can clarify. IMHO he is not stereotyping other Muslims as likely bombers, rather he is stereotyping terrorist bombers as likely Muslims.

bigdakine said:

harold said:

But of those who are setting off bombs, what are their motivations?

That is a good question. First let's clear up the obvious - the objections to Coyne mainly revolve around his implied stereotyping of other Muslims as likely bombers.

I don't know that is what Coyne is doing. Perhaps he can clarify. IMHO he is not stereotyping other Muslims as likely bombers, rather he is stereotyping terrorist bombers as likely Muslims.

In 2013, yes there's a decent probability, 30-40 years ago, it would likely have been IRA in the UK, or communists in Western Europe. In the late 19th century in Paris it would have been anarchists, in Northeastern India and Nepal today, good odds on communists and maoists. In 2013 (and most of the 20th) in the US, it's still good odds to be some sort of anti-government nativist extremist. etc. Yes there are conflicts worldwide and Muslims are involved in some of them, more often then not as victims, though also as perpetrators. To simplify extraordinarily complex geopolitical and psychological issues as "they did it because of Islam" is, to be perfectly honest, mediocre critical thinking from a scientific mind. Only a tiny fraction of the violence in the US today (which is one of the more violent of the world's industrialized democracies) is inspired or motivated by Islam, so to rant and rave about Islam because it was a contributing factor in 3 of the nearly 15,000 homicides in America each year seems a bit of an over-reaction.

That's nice. But I wasn't, arguing that terrorism competes with handgun violence or *normal* (ugg) criminal activity in the US for killing Americans.

Ray Martinez said:

diogeneslamp0 said:

Ray Martinez said: Of course the evidence of mass murder, in the minds of intelligent and objective persons, falsifies any claim of following Christ.

This is an explicit invocation of No True Scotsman. I don't think Ray understands why that's a fallacy. He doesn't even know what logical fallacies are, but for the entertainment of others, I'll unpack this....

---The person who doesn't understand No True Scotsman (NTS) is you and your evo friends, not me. And before we go any further it should be noted that the evos initiated and invoked NTS to undermine my claim that murderers cannot be following Christ when they murder. The evos are thus saying "Yes, a person can be a Christian following Christ when they murder because NTS is true." In response I am challenging the validity of NTS as representing a valid answer and refutation of my foregoing claim. ---The first thing one must do is define and explain NTS. Then one must ask: does NTS represent a valid logical fallacy? And if so is the fallacy universally applicable to all persons and situations? ---In the example given by its creator (Antony Flew), a true Scotsman would never put sugar on his porridge. So if a man were to put sugar on his porridge then that person cannot be a true Scotsman. Response ---I would say the point seen in the example given is quite clear: A man can indeed be a true Scotsman and place sugar on his porridge. So it is fallacious to say a man cannot be a true Scotsman and place sugar on his porridge. ---But we are not talking about trivial matters concerning Scotsman, porridge and sugar; rather, we are talking about those who claim to follow Christ and the action of murder, not the action of placing sugar on porridge. I contend neither the New Testament nor widespread secular undertsanding of Christ allow anyone to be following Him while committing murder. This means one cannot produce an objective source that says Christ condones murder. The New Testament explicitly says that Christ sends out his followers as sheep among wolves. The depiction of Christians as sheep, among wolves (those who are not Christians), expressly forbids the "wolve-like" action of murder. In another passage Christ tells Peter to sheath his sword after he used it, without His permission, to harm another person. Christ then healed the person whom Peter harmed. And secular people widely accept Jesus to have been a good and wise teacher. Both adjectives (good and wise) do not allow the action of murder. ---So the NTS fallacy is not universally applicable to all persons and situations, however. In some NTS renditions, a true Scotsman would never commit sadistic murder; therefore if a sadistic murder is committed one can be sure a Scotsman didn't do it because a true Scotsman would never commit sadistic murder. Response ---I would say, once again, the point seen in the example given is quite clear: A man can indeed be a true Scotsman and commit sadistic murder. So it is fallacious to say if a sadistic murder was committed the suspect cannot be a Scotsman. ---But once again, we are not talking about Scotsman, but alleged Christians who commit murder. Rhetorically, I ask, where did anyone obtain the idea that a person is following Christ while committing murder? One cannot point to the claim of the murderer ("I am a Christian") as evidence supporting the claim; for said statement merely acts to restate the claim. The fact of the matter says there isn't any source that says Christ condones murder---just the opposite. Whatever source one uses to obtain information about Christ, I contend one will not find support of violence, much less murder. Therefore we can say a person is NOT following Christ when they commit murder. ---Ghandi, for example, was known as leader who also expressly forbid violence. Ghandi advocated non-violent civil disobedience under the assumption that the conscience of the State would eventually capitulate. Therefore any person committing violence while claiming to be a follower of Ghandi cannot, in fact, be a follower of Ghandi. ---So, once again, the examples of Ghandi and Christ falsify the universal application of NTS as representing a valid logical fallacy. Conclusion ---The attempt by Evolutionists to say No True Scotsman successfully exposes a logical fallacy in the claim that a person cannot be following Christ when they murder, fails. Essentially, NTS is a defense of subjectivism (non-objective thought). It wrongly assumes universal application. The examples of Christ and Ghandi expressly forbid certain actions by their followers. For when these actions are manifested one cannot identify them self as a follower of Ghandi or Christ.

Suppose B= belief and A = actions. Now above Ray invokes No True Scotsman. If someone's actions (A) are evil, then their belief B cannot be Christian. That is, Ray says A is the independent variable and B is the dependent variable deduced from A: B = f(A) Or more specifically: If (A == evil) then B = anti-Christian Now what is wrong with that? Well, if Belief is deduced from Action, then you cannot predict someone's Actions from their Belief. Any attempt to predict someone's Action from their Belief is CIRCULAR LOGIC, because you just deduced Belief from Action -- that is, unless you have an independent means of measuring belief. But we can't have an independent means of determining belief, because when Adolf Hitler, Anders Breivik, crusaders, Christian terrorists etc. say they're Christian, Ray discards all such statements. So, since Ray rejects all independent means of deducing B, then if you write: B = f(A) As Ray said above, then you cannot empirically predict someone's actions as in: A = f'(B) You cannot predict someone's Actions from their belief, without invoking CIRCULAR LOGIC, since beliefs are merely an invisible, hypothetical free variable we can never independently measure (as Ray says it is).

The No True Scotsman claim (above) seems to be the only claim Evolutionists accept without evidence in support.

In the very next sentence after that, Ray invoked an explicit No True Scotsman. The very next sentence after the one above is our evidence for Ray's No True Scotsman. Ray, answer me this question: If belief is deduced from action as you claim, and if no Christian can INDEPENDENTLY determine the beliefs of politicians (e.g. Hitler, Pat Robertson), then isn't Christian belief useless in practice? We can't possibly apply it politically then, right? American creationists in the 1930's loved Hitler and called him a true Christian. Today, why should we bother voting for "Christian" politicians or "Christian" laws if all you Christian creationists in the 1930's called Hitler and Nazi Germany truly Christian, as you vociferously did?

Hitler only claimed to be a Christian before he was elected and appointed. His claim was sheer propaganda to get elected and appointed. In any mainstream history book one can easily find much information that says Hitler opposed the Church and Christianity. His actions of mass murder support the claim. And the fact that anyone would believe anything Hitler says indicates astounding ignorance, stupidity, or perhaps even wickedness. RM (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist, species immutabilist)

In all fairness, SLC, the Roman Catholic Church does not excommunicate people for being criminals, only for abrogating what it regards as the essential doctrines of the Faith itself. These doctrines include acceptance and obedience to duly constituted authority on matters of Church order, heresy and apostasy, but apparently do not stretch to prohibiting genocide and Jew-baiting. Or, as we have seen more recently, prohibiting the rape of children, or elaborate subterfuge to cover it up, plus coercion to silence the victims.

Martinez says you can find in respectable works of history the idea that Hitler opposed the Church or vice-versa. That is a flat lie. No respectable historian thinks that. Hitler had a formal agreement - the 1933 Concordat - with the Catholic church that both sides observed scrupulously. Some individual clergy and lay opposed the Nazi regime but they were not officially supported by their churches, Protestant or Catholic.

Some Catholic bishops forbade their congregations to join the Nazi party at first, apparently out of concern for the "Socialist" in the party's official title, and suspicions that they were atheists, or something. This was rescinded when Hitler, in a 1933 speech, described Christianity as the foundation of the Nazi state. After that, the Christian churches' official reaction to the atrocities was a careful and studied neutrality, and for their part the Nazis made the right noises and said the correct words, and left the Church and its clergy alone, so long as they didn't interfere - and they didn't, pretty much.

Only one opposition Church-based group emerged, other than rare individuals or very small groups within acquiescing congregations. This was the "Bekennende Kirche", the Confessing Church, a segment of the Lutheran communion. But even this was mostly concerned with preventing State interference in the Church, not in denouncing or opposing the Nazi policies outside the Church, including the genocides. Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller, both Lutheran pastors, were prominent exceptions, but were very atypical. Bonhoeffer was executed, and Niemoller spent seven years in concentration camps, and nearly met the same fate. If there was any general or official Lutheran denunciation of their treatment, it was muted to the point of silence. There comes a point where silence is complicity.

Maybe the Churches knew no better. It might be said that the German churches did no worse than the German population. As Stephen Fry penetratingly demanded, "If that is so, then what are you for?"

SLC said: Martinez is either a liar or he is totally ignorant.

Frankenberger claimed to be a believing Christian both before and after he was appointed Chancellor. In every public statement he made in which religion came up, he professed to be a believing Christian.

Martin Luther, whose antisemitic screeds were worse then [sic] anything in Mein Kampf, probably had the most profound influence on his antisemitic views, despite the fact that he was a Catholic.

In addition, the Raping Children Church has declined to this day to excommunicate him, despite his crimes.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 said:

That's nice. But I wasn't, arguing that terrorism competes with handgun violence or *normal* (ugg) criminal activity in the US for killing Americans.

Hmmm ok, to be honest, I'm not sure what point you're arguing at all. :) Looking back at Jerry's original post, this part is the most questionable to me: "How many times do we have to learn this lesson? By all accounts the Tsarnaev brothers were creditable students, good athletes, and seemingly nice people. That is, of course, until they fell into the grips of Islam. As Steve Weinberg says, “For good people to do evil things–that takes religion.”" He makes it sound like these 2 guys woulda been wonderful guys until evil religion struck. It's all religion's fault. It poisons everything. etc. etc. I don't see how that claim is supported. And I don't think the utterly simplistic view can be subscribed to by a critical scientific mind. If there's one thing the skeptical mind should realize, it's not all black and white. How are these "good" people? "Good" people don't end up with the allegations they're accused of right now in my books. And as mentioned many times in this thread, there are hundreds of millions of people of faith who may be good, may be total dicks, but either way, don't end up committing murder.

I sometimes wonder if the fact that Islam is 500 years younger than Christianity has any bearing on its behaviour. Think what the Catholic church was doing in the 1500's.

Dave Luckett said: Martinez says you can find in respectable works of history the idea that Hitler opposed the Church.... That is a flat lie. No respectable historian thinks that.

Ray Martinez said:

SLC said: Martinez is either a liar or he is totally ignorant.

I'm not the least bit insulted to be viewed as such by a person who believes the wonders of nature were produced by an unguided process while tethered to a genuine element of chance.

Keelyn said:

Ray Martinez said:

SLC said: Martinez is either a liar or he is totally ignorant.

I'm not the least bit insulted to be viewed as such by a person who believes the wonders of nature were produced by an unguided process while tethered to a genuine element of chance.

Of course you are not insulted, Martinez. But, that is only because simpletons such as you have absolutely no understanding or concept of the “wonders of nature.” For you, all the “wonders of nature” distill down to a simple, “Gosh!

Ray Martinez said:

Keelyn said:

Ray Martinez said:

SLC said: Martinez is either a liar or he is totally ignorant.

I'm not the least bit insulted to be viewed as such by a person who believes the wonders of nature were produced by an unguided process while tethered to a genuine element of chance.

Of course you are not insulted, Martinez. But, that is only because simpletons such as you have absolutely no understanding or concept of the “wonders of nature.” For you, all the “wonders of nature” distill down to a simple, “Gosh!

Evo hatred.

We demand the freedom of all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not jeopardize the state's existence or conflict with the manners and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The Party as such upholds the point of view of a positive Christianity without tying itself confessionally to any one confession.

Ray Martinez said:

SLC said: Martinez is either a liar or he is totally ignorant.

I'm not the least bit insulted to be viewed as such by a person who believes the wonders of nature were produced by an unguided process while tethered to a genuine element of chance.

Frankenberger claimed to be a believing Christian both before and after he was appointed Chancellor. In every public statement he made in which religion came up, he professed to be a believing Christian.

Relevance? Point?

Martin Luther, whose antisemitic screeds were worse then [sic] anything in Mein Kampf, probably had the most profound influence on his antisemitic views, despite the fact that he was a Catholic.

While Hitler was born into the Catholic Church (like countless others who became Atheists) he was not Catholic or Christian when he wrote "Mein Kampf" or when he began his political career. Hitler claimed Christianity before Christian audiences, but the claim was propaganda. Hitler was a Darwinist. He obtained his belief that life was a constant struggle to survive from Darwin; hence "My Struggle" or "Mein Kampf. As for Luther, his anger at the Jews was theologically-based. The Nazis, who were Atheists and Darwinists, seized on his writings and misrepresented them. Darwinists and Atheists continue to misrepresent the writings of Luther because of their hatred of Evangelical Christianity and Creationism.

In addition, the Raping Children Church has declined to this day to excommunicate him, despite his crimes.

I'm a Protestant. The Catholic Church excommunicated Luther. And the reason the Roman Church hasn't excommunicated Hitler is because he was never a Catholic. A child has no choice when he or she is baptized, attends Mass, etc.etc. And priests who rape children are not real Catholics or Christians. They are deceivers (wolves in sheep's clothing or Atheists) when they rape children.

Without quoting quotes, I've distilled a few things from this conversation.

First, individual humans are capable of senseless acts of violence. "Senseless" in the sense that the given act seems to have little or no connection to any conceivable external goal, other than (perhaps) lashing out or causing terror for the sake of causing terror. (As opposed to say, killing to defend oneself, or killing to steal something, both of which have a concrete external goal beyond the act itself.)

Second, since the vast majority of religious people do not perform senseless acts of violence, religion alone cannot be the sufficient motivation to commit senseless acts of violence.

Third, individuals will tend to seek out information and other people who tend to support the beliefs that they already hold.

Fourth, one of the most common groups to which humans attach themselves are religious groups.

These observations lead to a few tentative conclusions.

It would suggest that those individuals who are inherently capable of senseless acts of violence would seek out others who either agree with them, or who would tolerate such senseless acts of violence, or (perhaps more importantly) who the violent person would believe would tolerate their acts.

Such voluntary groupings of people would tend to reinforce and therefore enhance the common shared beliefs, emphasizing the common bond.

It seems to me that a person who may be capable of violent acts would tend to be drawn to groups who they believe would condone such acts. In the US, that could be gangs, white supremacist groups, or certain religious sects. In predominately Islamic countries, that would be the more reactionary mosques.

When McVeigh committed mass murder he was not a Christian following Christ; rather, he was a deceived Atheist following Satan.

When a person commits murder they are not following Christ.

And I bet he was no true scotsman, either!

When McVeigh committed mass murder he was not a Christian following Christ; rather, he was a deceived Atheist following Satan.

When a person commits murder they are not following Christ.

bigdakine said: lemme see how I can put this in words that won't be misunderstood. I accept the proposition that there is at least a segment of the population that is susceptible to certain triggers, or even perhaps a variety of triggers, that can bring them to do great evil. Maybe to an extent we are all susceptible. But for a great many of us, our triggers require events or experiences so extreme that they are well beyond normal human experience and the vast majority of us never acquire an impulse to murder people. But there are a number of Islamic Radicals, that IMHO, use Islam or exploit its texts to condition that portion of their populations, find that portion, that is susceptible and bring them to the point of committing great evil. At the current time radical Muslims seem to have a leg up on getting that portion of their population, that susceptible part of that population sufficiently worked up. So is Islam the problem? Or is it just that radical muslims have too much influence? Perhaps this is something of a chicken or the egg type argument. Either way it is an issue that can only be solved by Muslims, just as abuse by the Churches and sectarian warfare among Christians was settled by Christians with schisms, reformations, and separation of Church and State and everybody else just getting fed up with it.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 said:

bigdakine said: lemme see how I can put this in words that won't be misunderstood. I accept the proposition that there is at least a segment of the population that is susceptible to certain triggers, or even perhaps a variety of triggers, that can bring them to do great evil. Maybe to an extent we are all susceptible. But for a great many of us, our triggers require events or experiences so extreme that they are well beyond normal human experience and the vast majority of us never acquire an impulse to murder people. But there are a number of Islamic Radicals, that IMHO, use Islam or exploit its texts to condition that portion of their populations, find that portion, that is susceptible and bring them to the point of committing great evil. At the current time radical Muslims seem to have a leg up on getting that portion of their population, that susceptible part of that population sufficiently worked up. So is Islam the problem? Or is it just that radical muslims have too much influence? Perhaps this is something of a chicken or the egg type argument. Either way it is an issue that can only be solved by Muslims, just as abuse by the Churches and sectarian warfare among Christians was settled by Christians with schisms, reformations, and separation of Church and State and everybody else just getting fed up with it.

I follow you on all that. And I agree with you that radical movements in Islam have far too much influence globally right now and are dangerous. If you scroll up and see some of my earlier posts, I expand on that thought. And I've also pointed the finger, not at Islam itself, but directly at Saudi Arabia. The sect that arose in Saudi Arabia through a political and actual marriage between the house of Saud and Al-Wahhab in the 18th century and grew in power and eventually conquered most of the Arabian peninsula in the 1920's and 30's, this extreme sect in the 20th century has been boosted by unbelievable oil wealth. That oil wealth has allowed it to be exported vigourously by the Saudis. It has caused enormous harm to the Muslim world. Almost every group of radical, extreme, and violent Islam in any country has at its source Saudi-backed fundamentalism. And the irony is of course, Saudi Arabia is granted almost immune sacred cow allegiance from the western world. Is it a genuine threat? Yes. Funny (in a very sad way) how Iran is the great enemy of the US, whereas society has relatively much much more freedom in Iran than in Saudi Arabia, women included. And back to my greater, original point: some people, like Jerry, seem to believe that if only Islam (and I suppose all other religions) vanished we'd enter in some sort of Utopian golden age of peace and reason. I see no basis for that. Sure in many parts of the world it's Islam being exploited like you describe, but it will always be something. In the early 90's many political and historical commentators thought with the demise of the "Evil Empire", the USSR, the world entered that Utopian phase as all those previously communist countries embraced democracy and freedom, there would be nothing to war about anymore! On a pseudo-related tangent, I don't believe that the threat of radical Islam is either an existential threat, nor the most significant threat in the world today. I am most alarmed about what will happen if China's environment collapses...

SLC said: Unfortunately, the situation for women in Iran has deteriorated considerably since the mad mullahs took power in 1979. I would also have to take some issue with eec2 here as Shiite Islam in Iran, Iraq, and their offshoots in Syria (the Alawites) and Hizbollah in Lebanon are just as extreme as the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia.

J. L. Brown said: When McVeigh committed mass murder he was not a Christian following Christ; rather, he was a deceived Atheist following Satan. When a person commits murder they are not following Christ. And I bet he was no true scotsman, either!

Ray Martinez said:

J. L. Brown said: When McVeigh committed mass murder he was not a Christian following Christ; rather, he was a deceived Atheist following Satan. When a person commits murder they are not following Christ. And I bet he was no true scotsman, either!

The attempt to undermine via No True Scotsman was played earlier in the thread by your evo brothers. The attempt was refuted (click on link below). http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/04/bombings-and-bi.html#comment-304749

Dave Luckett said: Martinez reaches far, to little purpose. His claimed authorities don't support him. [snip] Martinez's attempt to portray Nazi-Christian Church relations as opposed or conflicted, or, worse, the Christian church as generally opposed to the Nazis, goes far beyond even his selected quotations from his selected authorities. That attempt is deeply dishonest and transparently false.

Ray Martinez said:

J. L. Brown said: When McVeigh committed mass murder he was not a Christian following Christ; rather, he was a deceived Atheist following Satan. When a person commits murder they are not following Christ. And I bet he was no true scotsman, either!

The attempt to undermine via No True Scotsman was played earlier in the thread by your evo brothers. The attempt was refuted (click on link below). http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/04/bombings-and-bi.html#comment-304749