3 Muslims killed by gunman in NC, USA

[msj]

Dawkins is a regular guest and in close agreement with Neocon atheist Bill Maher, on his HBO Real Time show. They are supporters of American and allied interventions in the Muslim World, and after at least 100,000 Iraqis died as a result of the U.S. led Invasion and Occupation....with more dying every day as the non-stop legacy, they have no legitimate right to point fingers at Islam as the most violent religion, while the West has been trying to manipulate their resources for the past several decades.

Um, no. Dawkins, like Maher, criticize the ideas of Islam. They also are critical of the ideas of Christianity, Judaism and any other bad ideas.

As Sam Harris has stated (on Bill Maher) it is just that Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas so it gets the majority of attention.

As for your allegations against Dawkins - show me in what ways he supported the war in Iraq.

I can show you this written by Dawkins "On the Eve of War" which suggests that you are, once again, committing lies, if not libel against the man.

And, once again, I kindly ask you to stop your libellous nonsense.

Dawkins marched against Tony Blair and the Iraq war so your continued lies only reduce your credibility.

[Bonam]

Dawkins marched against Tony Blair and the Iraq war so your continued lies only reduce your credibility.

What credibility?

[-1=e^ipi]

The whole world will gradually become secular. The so-called western world already is and even though it is very hard to believe today I have no doubt that in 50-100 years time countries such as Saudi-Arabia, Iran or any muslim-country will be as secular as our countries are today

You have an optimistic view of the future. If religious people continue to outbreed non-religious people, if laws that prevent freedom of expression, press & religion continue, and if political correctness + cultural relativism continue then I am unsure this will occur on the timescale that you suggest it will.

[-1=e^ipi]

But I can't help thinking that perhaps the joining Islam in the first place was motivated by something other than genuine religiosity. Maybe these angry young mooks feel like something is missing in their lives and get excited about the idea of joining a cause.

You mean like sense of purpose?

It can be reasonably applied to a guy who decided to kill Stephen Harper in retaliation for Canada's actions against ISIS, even if the guy's mental stability is debatable.

Wait, I thought terrorists had to target the civilian population. Stephen Harper can hardly be considered a civilian, nor a soldier at the war memorial, nor the police officers that were run over. The last two 'terrorist' attackers in Canada went specifically out of their way to NOT target civilians. So I don't think it is accurate to call the terrorists.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm not sure how we Canadians could possibly make a difference.

The government could try to completely isolate the Saudis, and point to the hypocracy of the US/EU and the oil money that leads to funding of Wahhabism that leads to terrorism. The main reason the US/EU can maintain their absurd positions is by ignorance of the population. If a strong ally such as Canada suddenly started strongly disagreeing with the US/EU and pointed out the insanity of current western foreign policy, it would be difficult for the media & foreign politicians to maintain the charade for very long.

[Bonam]

You have an optimistic view of the future. If religious people continue to outbreed non-religious people, if laws that prevent freedom of expression, press & religion continue, and if political correctness + cultural relativism continue then I am unsure this will occur on the timescale that you suggest it will.

Most non-religious people are the offspring of religious people (obviously so, since religiosity use to be near universal). So long as we don't have systemic killing of non-believers, religiosity will likely continue to wane in civilized parts of the world. Reactionary protections of religion and restrictions on free speech might only speed its downfall, as people become disgusted with the entanglement of church and state.

[kimmy]

Dawkins is a regular guest and in close agreement with Neocon atheist Bill Maher, on his HBO Real Time show.

To call Bill Maher a neocon is ridiculous. He might be argued to be a bigot, a sexist, and a hypocrite, but I can't imagine how you decided he's a neocon. Words have meanings, and the meaning of "neocon" has nothing to do with how one feels about Muslims.

As for your allegations against Dawkins - show me in what ways he supported the war in Iraq.

Perhaps he has confused Dawkins with Hitchens ... though that would be a glaring error for somebody who wishes to portray himself as an informed critic of the New Atheists.

-k

[Argus]

Wait, I thought terrorists had to target the civilian population. Stephen Harper can hardly be considered a civilian, nor a soldier at the war memorial, nor the police officers that were run over. The last two 'terrorist' attackers in Canada went specifically out of their way to NOT target civilians. So I don't think it is accurate to call the terrorists.

Why do people feel the need to argue this like lawyers arguing obscure interpretations of ancient laws?

We know what a bloody terrorist is, all but the ideologues amongst us eager to excuse terrorism when they dislike their targets.

[Argus]

The government could try to completely isolate the Saudis, and point to the hypocracy of the US/EU and the oil money that leads to funding of Wahhabism that leads to terrorism. The main reason the US/EU can maintain their absurd positions is by ignorance of the population. If a strong ally such as Canada suddenly started strongly disagreeing with the US/EU and pointed out the insanity of current western foreign policy, it would be difficult for the media & foreign politicians to maintain the charade for very long.

And what would be your end point in this, forcing the Saudi government from power? Who exactly would that help?

[-1=e^ipi]

And what would be your end point in this, forcing the Saudi government from power? Who exactly would that help?

Isolating the Saudi's doesn't imply that the Saudi's will lose power. They have the 4th post powerful military in the world.

Not that I think you can get much worse than the status quo. The Saudi's funding wahabbism with oil money are one of the main reasons why we have Al Queda, Al Shabab, Boko Haram, ISIS, and all these terrorists attacks in the western world.

[kimmy]

Isolating the Saudi's doesn't imply that the Saudi's will lose power. They have the 4th post powerful military in the world.

So the US, Russia, and China are obviously the top 3... You're saying Saudi Arabia is ahead of Great Britain, Germany, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, Turkey, South Korea? I am skeptical...

-k

[Derek 2.0]

So the US, Russia, and China are obviously the top 3... You're saying Saudi Arabia is ahead of Great Britain, Germany, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, Turkey, South Korea? I am skeptical...

-k

I think he's confused "4th most powerful" with "spends the 4th most on defense", which of course trades places any given year (based on annual budget line item purchases and exchange rates) with the United Kingdom, Japan and France......

[-1=e^ipi]

So the US, Russia, and China are obviously the top 3... You're saying Saudi Arabia is ahead of Great Britain, Germany, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, Turkey, South Korea? I am skeptical...

-k

Yes. Not only do they spend the 4th most on military, but they control Mecca (which means that if any nation were ever to attack Saudi Arabia, the Saudi's could invoke sura 9 of the quran, and suddenly that invader is at war with hundreds of millions of muslims globally). Plus they have spread their crazy wahabist ideology globally, which means they have many puppet terrorist groups that could do their bidding.

[Argus]

Isolating the Saudi's doesn't imply that the Saudi's will lose power. They have the 4th post powerful military in the world.

Not that I think you can get much worse than the status quo. The Saudi's funding wahabbism with oil money are one of the main reasons why we have Al Queda, Al Shabab, Boko Haram, ISIS, and all these terrorists attacks in the western world.

The power of the military is of little importance compared to its loyalty. And yes, we COULD get worse. We could get lots worse.

[Argus]

I think he's confused "4th most powerful" with "spends the 4th most on defense", which of course trades places any given year (based on annual budget line item purchases and exchange rates) with the United Kingdom, Japan and France......

The Saudi military has some decent gear but it's rank and file are of questionable loyalty and as we've seen over the past, Arab armies have a tendency to melt away the moment they start taking fire. The only exception seems to be where they're convinced they're on a jihad and will go to heaven if they die. The power of the virgin, I think that's called.

[Derek 2.0]

Yes. Not only do they spend the 4th most on military, but they control Mecca (which means that if any nation were ever to attack Saudi Arabia, the Saudi's could invoke sura 9 of the quran, and suddenly that invader is at war with hundreds of millions of muslims globally). Plus they have spread their crazy wahabist ideology globally, which means they have many puppet terrorist groups that could do their bidding.

Yet the British, French, Indians, Pakistan and Israel have nuclear arsenals, and with the British and French, the ability to cripple the Saudi economy by conventional means........

[Derek 2.0]

The Saudi military has some decent gear but it's rank and file are of questionable loyalty and as we've seen over the past, Arab armies have a tendency to melt away the moment they start taking fire. The only exception seems to be where they're convinced they're on a jihad and will go to heaven if they die. The power of the virgin, I think that's called.

The Kingdom, at best, is a regional power, right behind Israel and Iran (if they get their nukes)

[WIP]

Um, no. Dawkins, like Maher, criticize the ideas of Islam. They also are critical of the ideas of Christianity, Judaism and any other bad ideas.

As Sam Harris has stated (on Bill Maher) it is just that Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas so it gets the majority of attention.

As for your allegations against Dawkins - show me in what ways he supported the war in Iraq.

I can show you this written by Dawkins "On the Eve of War" which suggests that you are, once again, committing lies, if not libel against the man.

And, once again, I kindly ask you to stop your libellous nonsense.

Dawkins marched against Tony Blair and the Iraq war so your continued lies only reduce your credibility.

Well excuse me for forgetting that St. Richard of Dawkins was not quite the warmongerer that Hitchens was, or Sam Harris for that matter...who seems to be for wars that go well, and against the ones that are going badly....just like his buddy - Bill Maher!

FWIW I rejected this BS from evangelical atheism that you can mock and disparage a long-running system of beliefs...like a religion without similarly disparaging any of those people who share those beliefs. It may work in theory, but it doesn't work in real life, and anyone who belongs to any religion will not listen further....especially to long-winded boring crap from guys like Dawkins!

Several years ago, I was a member of the secular humanist organization - Center For Inquiry, and quit after a change in leadership led to a dramatic chang towards trying to copy some of the sensational strategies of the new atheist writers and organizations they spawned - Blasphemy Day was the last straw for me! And I decided that organizing around non-belief in supernatural things is an exercise in futility and a good way of finding yourself among people you can't agree on anything else with.

[WIP]

This is drivel. More men than women self-identify as atheists, but the number of people who identify as non-religious is pretty much equal between the sexes. If your implication here is that women will cling to religion because their silly little female brains don't like science and prefer magic... it's crap.

And this goes back to the earlier question regarding why young educated males are more comfortable self-identifying as atheists, while women prefer to self-identify as "not religious". Personally I believe it's the same reason why many women prefer not to self-identify as feminists: the word itself carries a bunch of baggage that people just don't want to be associated with even if they do share many or most of the core beliefs.

If you enter a Unitarian/Universalist church, you're stepping into one of the few places where there are a lot of people who don't have strong religious beliefs. What strikes me is that a lot....and I mean a lot of the men identify as atheist/agnostic, while a lot of the women...and the women tend to make up the majority, identify as spiritual or some sort of mystical mumble jumble. There's something about trying to apply rationality and scientific reasoning to every subject that a lot of women don't find appealing...even after they quit mainstream religion....so what's your theory?

You know where else women go and return with horror stories? Gamer conventions. Gamer websites. Software developer conventions. In fact, the same probably goes for just about any community which is overwhelmingly male.

You're obviously referring to "ElevatorGate" situation involving Rebecca Watson. Her only complaint was that being one of the few females at the conference resulted in her getting hit on a lot; she suggested attendees ought to stop doing that if they wanted more women to attend in the future. Suggesting that any sort of Bill Cosby situation occurred is an outrageously inaccurate misrepresentation of her complaint. And suggesting that Richard Dawkins himself may have been behind Bill Cosby type behaviour is utterly slanderous. You've stooped to a new low here.

There's a lot more than "elevatorgate" and the way Rebecca Watson got trashed by the online atheists...including A-hole Dawkins himself, was something to behold, and something that should have made atheist and skeptic organizations do a gut check!

The big story I don't really want to toss up...because he's the subject of a lot of testimonies and possible criminal investigations was Michael Schermer though...one of the leaders of one of two main skeptic organizations.

There is a problem in these groups for some reason...a few years back, when I was still actively trying to get our atheist/humanist group better established, we had our own internal sexual harassment issue when a newer member creeped out some of the few female atheists who took enough interest to show up, and wouldn't come back again....so there does seem to be a problem here, and I'm not completely sure why, except that secular and atheist groups start out mostly male, and do not make an easy transition to a male / and female culture....not a lot different than what happens in many workplaces that go from all-male to adding female employees. Sexual harassment seems to be inevitable and something that a proactive approach is needed.

Online, I've found that the worst misogynists (aside from the hilariously misnamed MRAs) are gamers, personally. The online atheist community and online gamer community have some things in common. They're overwhelmingly male, they're young, and they tend to be shall we say, socially marginalized. I don't believe that people who are socially successful tend to seek out this sort of identity for themselves-- once again, the key is that these are not all atheists nor all gamers, these are the ones who choose to make that an aspect of themselves that they build an identity around. It's a way for them to build themselves up, find a peer group, find some sort of positive identity as opposed to being a dork or nerd or outcast. They choose to identify themselves as atheists because they would like to think of themselves as intellectuals or freethinkers instead of being outcasts. And it's no mystery that many young men who feel socially marginalized have resentment for women.

For me, I play games but I don't go to gamer conventions or participate in the gamer online community or identify myself as a gamer. It's something I do, not who I am. Likewise with atheism. I am an atheist but I am not part of the atheist community and I don't go to atheist conventions or rallies or announce my atheism to people. If anybody asks, I'll say "not religious", because I don't want to deal with confrontations and stereotypes and negative associations that the word "atheist" carries. I never really thought of myself as an atheist at all, actually. It was only persistent badgering and attacks on the non-religious by Betsy here on the forum that convinced me to take a stand.

-k

Since I have little interest in computer games, I only know that sexual harassment in the gaming world became a serious topic after a noted female game designer became the subject of harassment, sexual and even death threats when she chose to speak out about the problems.

[Derek 2.0]

FWIW I rejected this BS from evangelical atheism that you can mock and disparage a long-running system of beliefs...like a religion without similarly disparaging any of those people who share those beliefs. It may work in theory, but it doesn't work in real life, and anyone who belongs to any religion will not listen further....especially to long-winded boring crap from guys like Dawkins!

Very good point, I find those condemning various religious groups often as off-putting as some of the kooky things said by some religious folks. Anecdotal, but in my opinion, from reading the various topics here on religion, I find the posts by those opposed to organized religion often to be far more inflammatory then those defending religion………

[August1991]

And what would be your end point in this, forcing the Saudi government from power? Who exactly would that help?

"Saudi government"?

Argus, to me, the mere term is like "Tudor England". The Saud family took control of a country, and put its name on it. In truth, it's "Arabia" not "Saudi Arabia".

====

IMHO, we in the civilized West face several problems: one problem is the obscurantism of these Wahhabites. I reckon that we should have confronted them long ago.

Aside from their treatment of women, here's another point: why are non-Muslims forbidden travel to Mecca? IMV Mecca, like Jerusalem, should be an open city. Why do Rome and Jerusalem have Mosques but Mecca has no Christian church?

Indeed, there is no church (Catholic, Protestant) or temple (Buddhist, Jewish), none at all, anywhere in "Saudi" Arabia. Why? Wahhabites have deemed that "Saudi" Arabia is the sacred place of the "Two Holy Cities".

Edited February 20, 2015 by August1991

[WIP]

Very good point, I find those condemning various religious groups often as off-putting as some of the kooky things said by some religious folks. Anecdotal, but in my opinion, from reading the various topics here on religion, I find the posts by those opposed to organized religion often to be far more inflammatory then those defending religion………

Agreed. And most people who are criticizing religion, never get around to identifying what aspects of religion they are attacking: beliefs and doctrines, ritual observances, prayer, church attendance and leadership etc.. Religion is a big catch-all that's been with us as long as the early city states discovered (accidentally or intentionally) that they needed some sort of shared rituals and beliefs to unite people together for common purpose. If we just get rid of religion, what do the antitheists propose we put in its place?

Most haven't even thought that far ahead, because they are still too busy in their parents' basements playing World of Warcraft etc. to consider that the real world requires real solutions to problems, not just wishing away religions they don't happen to like or agree with.

[Mighty AC]

Very good point, I find those condemning various religious groups often as off-putting as some of the kooky things said by some religious folks. Anecdotal, but in my opinion, from reading the various topics here on religion, I find the posts by those opposed to organized religion often to be far more inflammatory then those defending religion

Agreed. And most people who are criticizing religion, never get around to identifying what aspects of religion they are attacking: beliefs and doctrines, ritual observances, prayer, church attendance and leadership etc.. Religion is a big catch-all that's been with us as long as the early city states discovered (accidentally or intentionally) that they needed some sort of shared rituals and beliefs to unite people together for common purpose. If we just get rid of religion, what do the antitheists propose we put in its place?

I find it telling that you believe we cannot strive to improve the well-being of people and the planet without the aid of a fairy tale. There is no need for fake authorities when seeking to improve lives, end violence, discrimination and suffering. In fact, religions are now often the most counter productive forces to human advancement.

Most of us evil atheist don't want to get rid of religion. We simply want to reduce its cultural importance to the point that it no longer impacts public policy decision making. Part of that process is breaking down the protective cocoon that has been shielding religious ideas from debate for so long. The more that religious ideas are openly discussed the faster they will be reduced to something on par with astrology. Sometimes the debate of ideas will be brutal and scathing, sometimes it will be humourous, and at others more civil and mundane...you know, just like every conversation topic we discuss here. Religious beliefs are no different than any other ideas, the do not deserve special respect or protection.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Mighty AC

[WIP]

I find it telling that you believe we cannot strive to improve the well-being of people and the planet without the aid of a fairy tale. There is no need for fake authorities when seeking to improve lives, end violence, discrimination and suffering. In fact, religions are now often the most counter productive forces to human advancement.

Most of us evil atheist don't want to get rid of religion. We simply want to reduce its cultural importance to the point that it no longer impacts public policy decision making. Part of that process is breaking down the protective cocoon that has been shielding religious ideas from debate for so long. The more that religious ideas are openly discussed the faster they will be reduced to something on par with astrology. Sometimes the debate of ideas will be brutal and scathing, sometimes it will be humourous, and at others more civil and mundane...you know, just like every conversation topic we discuss here. Religious beliefs are no different than any other ideas, the do not deserve special respect or protection.

I haven't talked much about my metaphysical beliefs lately, because I don't think it's what's really important for others to know or consider. What is important is what we value/not how whether we think we live in a universe built by design or indifferent to our desires and wishes.

I am part of that "evil atheist" category also, when it comes to metaphysical beliefs, because I also don't see evidence that our world is designed....except in the sense of emergent design forces in nature. Some physicists believe our universe can be described as a "complexity engine" that appears likely to achieve the required organizational complexity to create carbon-based lifeforms, so who knows!

Whether someone believes they live in universe built with a pre-intended purpose, and that they themselves may play a part in that grand design, I don't really care....I just want to know what they value and how much do they value the interests of others when there is no personal or financial benefits involved.

Some people believe in a "fairy tale" because they decide more from intuitions than trying to rationalize these sorts of subjects, while others are highly skeptical and want to see evidence of design first. On this point, it's worth noting that a research paper by a Finnish psychologist - Marjanna Lindeman, published a few years ago, examining test subjects looking for images in static on an analog television screen, showed that the religious believers were more likely to see images in the white noise, that weren't there, BUT it was also revealing that the skeptics missed images that were presented to them, because of their high levels of skepticism! Just goes to show that it takes all kinds of people to make a world, and we shouldn't all be thinking the same things in the same ways!

[msj]

Well excuse me for forgetting that St. Richard of Dawkins was not quite the warmongerer that Hitchens was, or Sam Harris for that matter...who seems to be for wars that go well, and against the ones that are going badly....just like his buddy - Bill Maher!

It was nice of Kimmy to come to your rescue. She makes a valid point and given that this is the second mistake/lie I have caught you on with respect to your opinions about Richard Dawkins please excuse me for assuming the worst about you.

FWIW I rejected this BS from evangelical atheism that you can mock and disparage a long-running system of beliefs...like a religion without similarly disparaging any of those people who share those beliefs. It may work in theory, but it doesn't work in real life, and anyone who belongs to any religion will not listen further....especially to long-winded boring crap from guys like Dawkins!

The ideas are one thing and the people another.

I have no problem with people who hold ideas that I may find silly or stupid or whatever. But I do object when those ideas are turned into flying planes into buildings and strapping nails and explosives to ones body.

As Ricky Gervais says - Just because I hate cancer does not mean I hate cancer patients.

As a recent cancer survivor I agree with that - I hate cancer, but I never stopped loving the 99.99% of my normal cells.

Pretty easy for me to distinguish, in my mind, even if the chemo and surgeon's had difficulty distinguishing the normal cells from the cancerous cells.

Apparently we are getting better treatments that hopefully will distinguish and then hopefully cancer will be beat.

If only there was a way to apply this to good ideas and poor ideas ....

Edited February 20, 2015 by msj