[Merged] General Criticism of Islam/Islamophobia Topics

[Belgian thought]

If Shakespeare had read the Koran he might have wrote, “Much Ado About Nothing”.

Somewhere in the Bible there is a passage, “In my fathers house there are many mansions”,
which can mean almost anything you want it to. Keep em guessing, that's the ticket!

Indeed, but I would go further back in time - Abrahamic, and subsequent religions, should have stopped when 'GOD' supposedly stated 'I am that I am'.

The guy who heard that message should have thought - 'er... OK then', and not try to decipher this ambiguous and rather nonsensical statement, by simply walking away, rather than giving this statement credence and founding loads of bollocks on it thereafter.

 

[Belgian thought]

I agree that I have in fact directed my hostility to towards him as a person–and not his ideas–and I apologize for personalizing my interactions with him.

Not too much offence taken, but I too made derogatory comments and can understand the hostility.

Now let us make babies .. but, not religious ones please.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Not too much offence taken, but I too made derogatory comments and can understand the hostility.

Now let us make babies .. but, not religious ones please.

I don't think that they have perfected that technology yet.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Interesting tweet:

Do you have an opinion, statement, or argument of your own to go with it? Should I give you the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not you're implying another sweeping generalization? Why or why not?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Because over the course of time I have had my own occasions to rant in this thread, (as one living among a majority Muslim population locally and oft a participant in or witness of unfortunate circumstances, and one not always above my condition) I wish to report some provisional conclusions.

While it is not incorrect to point out the many flaws of Islam, purely logical argument a la JREF is mistaken in approach.

Witnessing the occasions in which believers are confronted here on their beliefs provides me with two conclusions so far:

Empathy is the bridge that must be extended for one to cross from fantasy into reason; logical arguments, especially in aggressive form, ignore human nature and the need for self-esteem, and so are self-defeating in terms of the goals they seek.

Logic, reason, and science are limited to the natural world. Though I wholeheartedly subscribe to the notion that that is all that can be meaningfully discussed, it is not the place of a skeptic to categorically disallow belief in other, non-natural realms. To attempt to cross the boundary of arguments proper to our natural world, into others where preference provides the norms, is a sad mistake too often made.

What is always reasonable is to reject the encroachment of the religious on science in matters of fact or method, or on secular civil society in matters of law, and to protect the innocent from the more predatory charlatans. Meanwhile, one catches more flies with honey than vinagre.

However, by promoting the events and videos from conferences such as Skepticon, this site does foster an aggressive attitude of conquest, seeking victories in argument (follow the book titles and crowd cheers).

In a world in which shared knowledge is a multiplier, any minds that drop out of debate, any losers, are losses of our own.

ETA: I may yet rant again, as I remain subject to very real pressures. That does not mean I am not sincere in the above.

 

[Chaos]

Empathy is the bridge that must be extended for one to cross from fantasy into reason; logical arguments, especially in aggressive form, ignore human nature and the need for self-esteem, and so are self-defeating in terms of the goals they seek.

Now THAT, I will wholeheartedly second, and from personal experience - as a former believer, not in religion, but in... other things.

We need less Dawkins and Harris, and more Carl Sagan and Phil Plait.

 

[Humes fork]

Don't know about Phil Plait, but I'm not so sure Sagan was very different from Dawkins and Hitchens. In The Demon-Haunted World he compares belief in gods to hallucinations, and in Cosmos he does allude to that the gods might be made up, even if he doesn't say so explicitly.

 

[Chaos]

Don't know about Phil Plait, but I'm not so sure Sagan was very different from Dawkins and Hitchens. In The Demon-Haunted World he compares belief in gods to hallucinations, and in Cosmos he does allude to that the gods might be made up, even if he doesn't say so explicitly.

If you´d read the part I quoted, you´d know how Sagan was different from Dawkins and Hitchens - and Harris, for that matter.

 

[Humes fork]

If you´d read the part I quoted, you´d know how Sagan was different from Dawkins and Hitchens - and Harris, for that matter.

So are you trying to say that Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris lack empathy? That's an astonishing thing to say...

 

[Chaos]

So are you trying to say that Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris lack empathy? That's an astonishing thing to say...

I am trying to say they do not show empathy. Their style is entirely adversarial, "I´m right, you´re wrong and stupid/ignorant/insane/evil", which is why hate-mongers love to quote their words as gospel.

 

[Belgian thought]

I am trying to say they do not show empathy. Their style is entirely adversarial, "I´m right, you´re wrong and stupid/ignorant/insane/evil", which is why hate-mongers love to quote their words as gospel.

Is empathy a valid standpoint? Normative v Emotive.

Empathy tends to the latter and is thus not open to 'Normative' thinking, We could all wish for a lovey dovey world, but it is never going to be.

And, if we are going to be emotive on the subject, Empathy is, below sympathy. Sympathy holds the higher moral ground.

 

[tsig]

I am trying to say they do not show empathy. Their style is entirely adversarial, "I´m right, you´re wrong and stupid/ignorant/insane/evil", which is why hate-mongers love to quote their words as gospel.

What's empathy got to do with it?

If we're tossing reason out the window and going with emotions then hate has a legitimate place at the table.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Good points raised regarding empathy, highlighting some misunderstanding.

Here is what I offer for your consideration: In science, one deals with the world in observation of the way it is in fact, not as it should be.

My desire is for everyone to be logical, and to immediately change opinion as soon as new or better information arises. In the real world, even scientists of import have difficulty modifying perspectives in light of new evidence: Einstein was one. I still have great respect for him, don't you?

Now, a thought experiment. Suppose we discover everyone should adopt a firm gait and step more purposefully in their walking for better health. Now, I go up to a nice little old lady and I demand she start doing so, ignoring that (a) it is hard for her, and (b) she will most likely tip-toe in my presence from now on, defeating my purpose.

The greatest error on JREF I observe so far is that in seeing "the light," many folks are doing exactly the same thing a fundie of any other stripe would do: beat their chests and insist on a single path of perfection.

The real tragedy is this: the exact same behaviors result among proponents of any set of ideas, regardless of validity, due to the fact they remain human and subject to a wide range of conditioning factors for behavior that do not auto-adjust from simply having a perfect theory in mind.

The Skepticon videos share aspects of what one can observe in a church. Group bonding is rarely without consequence, as it usually depends on identifying the "enemy others." When skepticism is defined in opposition to something, and not as a proponent of method alone, it weakens itself considerably, losing legitimacy and placing obstacles to its own goals.

You are not immune from error even if you have the perfect postulates, iron-clad data, and precise reasoning skills. Sorry, that is myth. Self aggrandizing, rationalization of improper behavior toward others, especially those less gifted, is what one finds in observation.

JREF Physicians: Heal thyselves, and watch that mote. Holds for science as much as looney tunes.

You need to engage the world exactly where it is, how it is, and deal with the messy and imprecise. Life is not chess. And you are not automatically a better or superior person for being a skeptic. You might, in behavior, actually be worse. Get over it, and control for it.

 

[Chaos]

Is empathy a valid standpoint? Normative v Emotive.

Empathy tends to the latter and is thus not open to 'Normative' thinking, We could all wish for a lovey dovey world, but it is never going to be.

And, if we are going to be emotive on the subject, Empathy is, below sympathy. Sympathy holds the higher moral ground.

What's empathy got to do with it?

If we're tossing reason out the window and going with emotions then hate has a legitimate place at the table.

For one thing, empathy helps you stay away from the antagonistic standpoint, i.e. that the other guy - be he the Woo-Woo, the Liberal, the Muslim or whoever - is the enemy to be fought. It helps you be willing to consider their arguments and their points of view.

For another, empathy, and a way of arguing that shows your empathy, is immensely helpful in persuading others who do not share your position to begin with. Carl Sagan´s stance of "I know what you are trying to find in religion, I understand why you want to find it, but I would like to show you why I think my way works better" is so much more effective than Dawkins´ and Hitchens´ and Harris´ "I´m right, I know I´m right, it´s self-evident that I´m right, and you guys who disagree with me are dangerous lunatics".

 

[catsmate]

Qaradawi isn't "the head of the Muslim Brotherhood and a leading scholar of Sunni Islam". He's an ultraconservative outsider cleric who is the leading theological figure in the Islamist group known as the Muslim Brotherhood, a group whose Islamist goals and desire to impose conservative religious law proved so popular among Muslims that something like a third of Egypt's entire population took to the streets in protest against to get them booted from power barely a year into their control of the Egyptian government.

Someone using a quote mine to support their agenda peddling? No.........

Someone ought to take away Hazrat Dawkins' access to Twitter until he learns about this exciting new thing called "critical thinking".

EDIT: And I find it kind of telling that, for all their bleating about "ordinary, mainstream, decent Muslims", all these leading lights in the skeptic movement and "critics of Islam" seem to be doing is talking about the same video from this one tiny-ass Norwegian salafist group, over and over. The video is from last April, and Harris made his boneheaded comments about it last November. Couldn't Hazrat Dawkins have found anything else in the seven months since Harris blathered about it (or the year since the video itself was made)?

Maybe there wasn't anything else to support his opinion?

I didn't make the picture.

But you did attempt to use it to support your argument, without bothering to verify it's accuracy.

I could be wrong, but isn't he one of those hailed in the West as a "moderate Muslim"?

Citation required.

Also, why the obsession in this thread about Salafism/Wahhabism? It's not like the Taliban are Salafis/Wahhabis.

Time for you to do the research you should have done long ago.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

So as not to divert this thread from its main topic, happy to discuss empathy in a new thread if anyone cares to start one. Meanwhile, I posted a little something in the Humor section to highlight what I call, unscientifically, Hlaf's Hubris Coefficient.

Epic Particle Smackdown

 

[Humes fork]

Time for you to do the research you should have done long ago.

Maybe you should do that? The Taliban are not Salafis, they are Deobandis.

 

[Humes fork]

Two tweets that hit right at home. I full expect that Islamic apologists will defend the indefensible.

Conclusive proof that Islam respects ALL religions equally & has no agenda to eliminate all until only Islam remains pic.twitter.com/1JHqmEpwrF

https://twitter.com/JihadistJoe/status/473848409921953792

Which of the following carries a death sentence in Pakistan?
a. Kitten smuggling
b. Beheading infidels
c. Genocide
d. Blasphemy

https://twitter.com/JihadistJoe/status/473805884087599106

 

[A'isha]

That's funny, Humes fork. I could have sworn you claimed to have started this thread to be about reasonable criticism of Islam.

Instead, all I see recently is you cutting and posting tweets from some hateful ******* who apparently thinks "Give me an I, Give me an S, Give me a L, Give me an A, Give me a M, What do you get? A genocidal death cult hell bent on world domination" and "'Moderate' is just taqiyya term to defuse infidel criticism & disguise the fact we want all infidels dead or enslaved" are insightful observations regarding a religion of 1.6 billion people.

Still, I have to admit that taking a single verse from the official Saudi translation of the Qur'an and pretending that it's "conclusive proof" of what "Islam" says is a nice touch.

 

[Humes fork]

Do you have anything to counter the points made? If so, please do.

The notion of a "Saudi translation" is a dodge. Would the translation be radically different if made by someone else?

For your amusement, that guy is followed by Richard Dawkins, who occasionally retweets him.