Richard Dawkins -- Islamophobia?

[A'isha]

If this is the best you have, then you don't have much.

If you say so.

Atheists get mad a lot of things, some of those things are less than rational. It is futile to try to please them all. I see no reason why Dawkins should kowtow to atheists who want to coddle Islam.

Alishba Zarmeen is hardly an "atheist who wants to coddle Islam".

How do you know?

Experience.

Because it forces you to see bogymen that aren't there. As evidenced by your citation of Dawkin's statement about the ratio Muslim population to the amount of Nobel Prizes awarded to Muslims.

There were a lot more comments than just that at the links I posted.

 

[Tony]

The population sizes of Turkey and Indonesia, for one thing. Though I mainly cited that to show that it's both difficult to assess the entirety of the Muslim population, and that for the portion of the Muslim world that was surveyed, the claim "Muslims support stoning and beheading!" is not exactly the case.

And neither is it the case that the vast majority of Muslims are against those things.

 

[A'isha]

Does that quote claim people will magically stop doing bad things without religion?

It, quite explicitly, claims that good people will not do evil things without religion.

 

[Polaris]

The LTTE aren't exactly good people, they're terrorists.

 

[Polaris]

Delete.

 

[Tony]

If you say so.

I'm not biased against Dawkins.

Alishba Zarmeen is hardly an "atheist who wants to coddle Islam".

Don't know anything about him/her.

Experience.

More hypocrisy. Why is suddenly ok for YOU to make broad generalizations about critics of Islam?

There were a lot more comments than just that at the links I posted.

The rest were replies to people reacting to his initial post.

 

[A'isha]

Deleted because Polaris did.

 

[Tony]

It, quite explicitly, claims that good people will not do evil things without religion.

It actually doesn't explicitly say that. This is your bias coloring your view.

 

[Craig B]

The LTTE aren't exactly good people, they're terrorists.

Terrorism isn't good. How do you know? Because bad people do it. How do you know that they are bad people? Because they're terrorists.

 

[A'isha]

The LTTE aren't exactly good people, they're terrorists.

al-Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah aren't good people either, they're terrorists.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I'm not sure how much stock should be put into that survey, unfortunately. Some people will just sign up for anything, making poor assumptions about what they're agreeing with.
The infamous End Women's Suffrage petition illustrated that pretty well.

IIRC, the difference was that people didn't know what "suffrage" meant. ("End the suffering of women? Sure, I'll sign that!")

The people signing Hussein's petition understood that it was in favor of the "right" to Female Genital Mutilation, and she explained this to them. There was, apparently, no deception involved. They understood what they were signing. In fact, she says

“I kept using the word ‘it’s just mutilation’. They were like ‘yes, you are right’. How can anyone think that’s okay?”

 

[Craig B]

IIRC, the difference was that people didn't know what "suffrage" meant. ("End the suffering of women? Sure, I'll sign that!")

The people signing Hussein's petition understood that it was in favor of the "right" to Female Genital Mutilation, and she explained this to them. There was, apparently, no deception involved. They understood what they were signing. In fact, she says

Were these signatories Muslims?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Were these signatories Muslims?

I don't know. It sounds like they were random shoppers. She claims that some of the people signed it even though they said "they believed FGM was wrong", because it was part of her culture.

 

[A'isha]

It actually doesn't explicitly say that. This is your bias coloring your view.

Er, yes it does: "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."

More hypocrisy. Why is suddenly ok for YOU to make broad generalizations about critics of Islam?

I'm not, I'm making statements about people who use a very specific dogwhistle phrase.

The rest were replies to people reacting to his initial post.

And other statements he made, and people reacting to other things he said.

And neither is it the case that the vast majority of Muslims are against those things.

At a rough estimate, it looks like a slight majority in the specific countries surveyed are.

 

[Tony]

Alishba Zarmeen?

Is this her? Looks like someone has tarnished her with the "Islamophobe" label. No doubt those labeling her an Islamophobe are just as wrong as those labeling Dawkins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laRmFEwiHYM

 

[Axiom_Blade]

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.

We are pushing for elimination of pernicious political ideologies that encourage cult-like and irrational thinking. There are political cults which are just as scary as any religious one. Religion is just one symptom of a larger disease, but it is a symptom nonetheless.

 

[Polaris]

Terrorism isn't good. How do you know? Because bad people do it. How do you know that they are bad people? Because they're terrorists.

I think you need to reread the definition of circular logic. Terrorism isn't good because it harms people for no good reason.

al-Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah aren't good people either, they're terrorists.

But would they be without Islam? The LTTE have no such justification.

 

[Tony]

Er, yes it does: "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."

That isn't explicit, by definition. At best, it is implied. Take a look at the whole quote, he is talking about religion. It would be ridiculous for him to include other things, especially when it is clear that he is trying to be direct and pithy. I can say "sitting on your couch all day and not getting exercise will make you fat". That doesn't automatically mean that sitting on your couch and not exercising is the ONLY thing that will make you fat.

Again, this is you demanding people walk on egg shells.

I'm not, I'm making statements about people who use a very specific dogwhistle phrase.

If that is how you justify your bigotry, so be it, but don't pretend like you aren't doing the same thing you are accusing others of doing.

And other statements he made, and people reacting to other things he said.

None of which is a condemnation of All muslims.

At a rough estimate, it looks like a slight majority in the specific countries surveyed are.

Concerning those issues, a slight majority isn't really good. I sure as hell wouldn't think it a good thing if only a slight majority of Americans were against stoning for adultery.

 

[A'isha]

That isn't explicit. At best, that is an interpretation. Take a look at the whole quote, he is talking about religion. It would be ridiculous for him to include other things. I can say "sitting on your couch all day and not getting exercise will make you fat". That doesn't automatically mean that sitting on your couch and not exercising is the ONLY thing that will make you fat.

Saying "But to get fat, that takes sitting on your couch all day and not getting exercise", on the other hand, pretty much does.

And I apologize to Polaris if I'm misconstruing his argument, but he certainly seems to be arguing that it takes religion and no other non-religious ideology to make good people do evil things.

Again, this is you demanding people walk on egg shells.



If that is how you justify your bigotry, so be it, but don't pretend like you aren't doing the same thing you are accusing others of doing.

I enjoy discussing things with you, even in a heated fashion on a contentious topic like this.

But I have no interest in getting into this kind of fight with you.

None of which is a condemnation of All muslims.

It was pretty clear to me and to others (including the Pakistani atheist who, as you have apparently discovered by now, is not a "coddler of Islam") that Dawkins meant it as such.

Concerning those issues, a slight majority isn't really good. I sure as hell wouldn't think it a good thing if only a slight majority of Americans were against stoning for adultery.

Muslims are not a hive mind, and some Muslim countries have overwhelming majorities of people for stoning, and other Muslim countries (with far more Muslims in them than the pro-stoning countries) have overwhelming majorities against stoning.

"Muslims are for stoning people because Islam!" is therefore the wrong conclusion to draw.

 

[Polaris]

Saying "But to get fat, that takes sitting on your couch all day and not getting exercise", on the other hand, pretty much does.

And I apologize to Polaris if I'm misconstruing his argument, but he certainly seems to be arguing that it takes religion and no other non-religious ideology to make good people do evil things.

Not only religion - I make acceptances for civic-religion or other non-theistic religions (Communism for instance) as well as plain old traditional superstition.

But mainly religion - and Abrahamic religion in particular.