Reply #196: Unsurprisingly, this long long thread revolves mainly around claims made without evidence, and

[struggle4progress]

the original youtube video is posted with the remark: This is proof that muslims want Shria Law in America

Let us work backwards through the careless logic here

Stipulating, arguendo, that a Muslim man, religiously offended by a parading atheist's "zombie prophet" act, attacked the parading atheist in Mechanicsburg last week, the youtube poster's assertion (This is proof that muslims want sharia Law in America) does not follow by any standard mode of reasoning. The alleged event would not even prove the weaker claim The attacker wants sharia Law in America. Of course, it might be factually that The attacker wants sharia Law in America; but the claim is unsupported by logic; and, setting mere logic aside, the claim is also unsupported so far by any material evidence. The universal claim (muslims want sharia Law in America), that the youtube poster imagines he has proved by his video, is demonstrably false and actually shows only that the youtube poster has very limited exposure to or interest in the views of many Muslims; it qualifies as crude stereotyping and rather exposes the youtube poster as a bigot

Taking a step backwards, let us stipulate somewhat less: that a Muslim man attacked the parading atheist in Mechanicsburg last week, and let us ask instead what evidence has been provided that the act was religiously motivated. Nothing supports this conclusion, beyond the plausibility of the narrative: a Muslim man, religiously offended by a parading atheist's "zombie prophet" act, attacked parading atheists participating in the town Halloween parade with the intent to offend Muslims and Catholics, as an demonstration of their own free speech rights. But, in fact, if a Muslim man attacked an atheist participating in the town Halloween parade, the motive for that act could not be established rigorously, merely by establishing a plausible narrative: other explanations for the attack remain possible and might become convincing if further evidence were provided -- for example, the attacker and the attacked might be acquaintances with some prior history of personal dispute over some non-religious issue. Such possibilities are difficult to resolve here, because the attacker is never identified

Taking another step backwards, let us stipulate even less: that someone attacked the parading atheist in Mechanicsburg last week, and let us ask instead what evidence has been provided that the attacker was Muslim. One can speculate here: perhaps the attacked and atheist had some prior personal relationship? perhaps the atheist learned this by using his own astounding powers of extrasensory perception? However we speculate, no evidence is provided, again because the attacker is never identified. If it is plausible that an atheist parading as Mohammed in a town Halloween event was attacked because he religiously offended a Muslim, this plausibility does not support any rigorous logical deduction from the hypothesis an atheist parading as Mohammed in a town Halloween event was attacked to the conclusion the attacker was a Muslim. The only other supporting evidence I see for the assertion, that the attacker was a Muslim, is a claim made in the video that the attacker, after the attack, called a friend of his, whose name seems be Middle Eastern: this is thin gruel

Finally, let us stipulate nothing and ask simply: what evidence exists for the primary claim someone attacked a parading atheist at the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade? Here, we have a video, that is too sloppily produced to show anything, in which we can apparently hear the supposed videographer (presumably the most proximate witness) indicate that he has no idea what is happening. The video, of course, seems consistent with the claim a Muslim man, who wants to bring sharia law to America, was religiously offended by a atheist's "zombie prophet" act and attacked the parading atheist at the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade -- but mere consistency is not proof, and since one can really see nothing in the video, the bare video is equally consistent with other narratives