Richard Dawkins -- Islamophobia?

[Polaris]

As someone else pointed out, I as an atheist wouldn't want to be judged by Stalin or Mao, so therefore I don't judge Muslims by Bin Laden, Catholics by Torquemada, or Protestants by Samuel Sewall.

Judging an atheist by actions done by Communists done in the name of Communism is wrong. Mao and Stalin didn't commit atrocities in the name of atheism. Also atheism isn't a belief system.

Now, if you're a Communist, then you deserve all the judgment you get.

 

[tsig]

Not really, not when I consider any belief in Islam to be unacceptable. I judge religions by their most extreme members, because religion, based on nothing real, provides justification for atrocities that would not otherwise be there.

You sure as hell don't need religion to justify atrocities.

Your argument by straw men seems to be your only tactic lately.

(The straw man is he never said you need religion to justify atrocities but that some members of religion use it to justify atrocities.

 

[A'isha]

(The straw man is he never said you need religion to justify atrocities but that some members of religion use it to justify atrocities.

People who commit atrocities always find some way to justify their actions. Religion is one way, but hardly the only one.

 

[tsig]

As someone else pointed out, I as an atheist wouldn't want to be judged by Stalin or Mao, so therefore I don't judge Muslims by Bin Laden, Catholics by Torquemada, or Protestants by Samuel Sewall.

This post is a total non sequitur. What does not wanting to be judged by Stalin have to do with your judgement?

 

[Polaris]

People who commit atrocities always find some way to justify their actions. Religion is one way, but hardly the only one.

Religion leads people to commit atrocities they would not otherwise commit. But Steven Weinberg said it better:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

 

[A'isha]

This post is a total non sequitur. What does not wanting to be judged by Stalin have to do with your judgement?

Golden Rule.

Religion leads people to commit atrocities they would not otherwise commit. But Steven Weinberg said it better:

Steven Weinberg is an accomplished physicist, not a sociologist or historian.

 

[Polaris]

Golden Rule.



Steven Weinberg is an accomplished physicist, not a sociologist or historian.

And that makes what he says incorrect, why?

 

[A'isha]

And that makes what he says incorrect, why?

Because it doesn't take religion to make good people do evil things. The "well-intentioned extremist" isn't limited to being just a religious extremist.

 

[blutoski]

Religion leads people to commit atrocities they would not otherwise commit. But Steven Weinberg said it better:

It's a good quip, but the problem is that it is just as true of political ideologies.
Good people, wanting to do the right thing, still obliterated three million (estimated) harmless civilians in the Valley of Jars. Or Sam Harris' "Nuke 'em from space - it's the only way to be sure" solution for Iran.

Yet we're not pushing the elimination of "political ideologies" despite the real evidence of harm.

And I know why: we cultivate political idologies ourselves, so they must be right.
It's other people who should get rid of their harmful beliefs, not us.

 

[Tony]

From your above posts:

colossal arse.....he's done not one *********** thing to help beyond making stupid and offensive comments .......Dawkins and his whiny self-promoting slacktivism can go **** themselves.....An abrasive self-aggrandizing *******

Those look like insults and name calling to me.

This is the typical hypocrisy displayed by the religious and their defenders. One rule for thee, but not for me. Notice how they are upset when Dawkins criticizes traits in Islamic societies, but then go on to say how muslims in those societies are making the same criticism.

 

[Polaris]

Because it doesn't take religion to make good people do evil things. The "well-intentioned extremist" isn't limited to being just a religious extremist.

It's a rare extremist who commits an evil act for reasons other than "God". Weinberg's quote is true enough to stand.

It's a good quip, but the problem is that it is just as true of political ideologies.
Good people, wanting to do the right thing, still obliterated three million (estimated) harmless civilians in the Valley of Jars. Or Sam Harris' "Nuke 'em from space - it's the only way to be sure" solution for Iran.

You'll have to bring me up to speed on the Valley of Jars. Are you referring to the US bombing raids on the Plain of Jars during the Vietnam War?

As to Sam Harris...has he actually committed an evil act? I would offer a more nuanced solution than he has, granted (such as targeting every top ranking civil official in Iran for assassination).

Yet we're not pushing the elimination of "political ideologies" despite the real evidence of harm.

Yes we are. Lots of people would love to see the elimination of the neo-Nazis, or the Tea Party.

And I know why: we cultivate political idologies ourselves, so they must be right.
It's other people who should get rid of their harmful beliefs, not us.

It's not hard to point out real, physical harm done by beliefs. If "we" do no harm, "we" are right. If "they" do harm, then "they" are wrong. It's not relative.

 

[Tony]

Because it doesn't take religion to make good people do evil things.

History shows us otherwise.

 

[blutoski]

It's a rare extremist who commits an evil act for reasons other than "God". Weinberg's quote is true enough to stand.

That's not my perception at all. How do you define 'evil act'? The concept of criminals come to mind.

As to Sam Harris...has he actually committed an evil act?

No, but neither have most Moslems, right? (pending definition of evil act)

It's not hard to point out real, physical harm done by beliefs. If "we" do no harm, "we" are right. If "they" do harm, then "they" are wrong. It's not relative.

I think that's my point, right? Most Moslems do no harm, so I put them in the 'good guys' bucket. Dawkins seems unwilling to discriminate, and that's my criticism. The resemblance to bigotry is suspicious.

 

[A'isha]

This is the typical hypocrisy displayed by the religious and their defenders. One rule for thee, but not for me.

What hypocrisy? I am insulting towards a single individual for things that single individual has actually said and done. Dawkins is insulting towards all of the nearly two billion followers of a whole religion for things a few of them have said and done.

How are those things in any way comparable?

Notice how they are upset when Dawkins criticizes traits in Islamic societies, but then go on to say how muslims in those societies are making the same criticism.

No, I'm "upset" that Dawkins criticises not just "traits in Islamic societies", but all Muslims everywhere for something that is not only not practiced by anything remotely resembling all Muslims everywhere but is also practiced by plenty of non-Muslims as well, and then blaming Muslims and Western Liberals for not sharing his broad-brushing, when in fact it's those very same Muslims and Western Liberals (and most emphatically not him) who are actually doing something to end the practice.

We've discussed this sort of topic plenty of times before, you and I...you know where I'm coming from on this and why I hold the positions I do. Or at least you did, I thought.

It's a rare extremist who commits an evil act for reasons other than "God". Weinberg's quote is true enough to stand.

And what actual evidence is there to support that assertion?

 

[A'isha]

History shows us otherwise.

I disagree.

 

[blutoski]

People who commit atrocities always find some way to justify their actions. Religion is one way, but hardly the only one.

This is part of my model for what's happening in these countries. 50 years ago, they'd be fighting the power-projecting nations (US, Russia, UK, France) in the name of Communism, but now that ideology is discredited and has no 'oomph' so they turn to something else that's at minimum organized and financed.

 

[Polaris]

That's not my perception at all. How do you define 'evil act'? The concept of criminals come to mind.

Criminals aren't extremists, nor are they good people. They commit crimes for selfish reasons, not because they think they are contributing to some greater good.

An "evil act" as I'm defining it here is an act that causes physical, tangible harm to others for reasons the evil actor considers good.

No, but neither have most Moslems, right? (pending definition of evil act)

Most individual Muslims don't commit evil acts. However, they belong to a religion which is used as justification for evil acts by other adherents of Islam. Ordinary Muslims give credibility to Islam, which fuels evil actors to commit evil acts they would not otherwise do. I'm not just talking about suicide bombings here, either, I'm talking about every time parents disown a child for marrying a non-Muslim or harass (or worse) a woman on the street for "improper" dress.

I think that's my point, right? Most Moslems do no harm, so I put them in the 'good guys' bucket. Dawkins seems unwilling to discriminate, and that's my criticism. The resemblance to bigotry is suspicious.

While the average Ahmadi is much more pleasant than the average Deobandi, they're both supporting a religion that causes harm that would not otherwise occur - no adherent of Islam is truly blameless for the horror it causes unless they completely abandon it. I'm with Dawkins in my unwillingness to discriminate here.

And what actual evidence is there to support that assertion?

What evidence is there that the vast majority of extremists have "God" as their justification? A basic understanding of history should suffice.

 

[tsig]

What hypocrisy? I am insulting towards a single individual for things that single individual has actually said and done. Dawkins is insulting towards all of the nearly two billion followers of a whole religion for things a few of them have said and done.
How are those things in any way comparable?



No, I'm "upset" that Dawkins criticises not just "traits in Islamic societies", but all Muslims everywhere for something that is not only not practiced by anything remotely resembling all Muslims everywhere but is also practiced by plenty of non-Muslims as well, and then blaming Muslims and Western Liberals for not sharing his broad-brushing, when in fact it's those very same Muslims and Western Liberals (and most emphatically not him) who are actually doing something to end the practice.

We've discussed this sort of topic plenty of times before, you and I...you know where I'm coming from on this and why I hold the positions I do. Or at least you did, I thought.



And what actual evidence is there to support that assertion?

Insulting an individual, OK.....insulting a group, not OK, is there a limit on how many must be in a group before it's immune from insult?

 

[Polaris]

Insulting an individual, OK.....insulting a group, not OK, is there a limit on how many must be in a group before it's immune from insult?

Enough to go on arson riots and beheading sprees, as I understand it.

 

[Tony]

I disagree.

Then you've got a lot of learning to do.