Why We are Mad At You by an Atheist

[laconicsax]

200. Well, your clear misuse would indicate otherwise.

Had eqfan592 said that the communist leaders weren't atheists because of some ad hoc reason, that would have been a perfect example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

The distinction that eqfan592 is making doesn't define historical dictators out of the general category of "atheists," it defines them out of the he narrower, clearly defined category of "leaders of atheists."

Additionally and more to the point, the point being made about how calling those dictators "atheist leaders" as a synonym for "leaders of atheists" was parallel to why it would be inappropriate to call Obama a "Christian leader" since he isn't a leader of Christians in any sense that has to do with his religion or the religion of those he leads. He doesn't represent Christianity, he doesn't speak for the religion, etc. Likewise, Stalin (as an example) isn't an "atheist leader" since he wasn't a leader of atheists in any sense that had to do with the nonbelief of those he led. He didn't represent atheism, he didn't speak for everyone who didn't believe in a god, etc.

So you see, because eqfan592's argument was about whether "atheist leader" is even a meaningful label, it wasn't invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy. Something like "Stalin wasn't an atheist leader because no atheist leader would be a mass murderer" would be a NTS, but "Stalin wasn't an atheist leader because atheism has no leadership structure--there's no such thing as an atheist leader" isn't.

It isn't that fine a distinction.