More Dawkins idiocy...

[outhouse]

Do you agree that Dawkins is a utopian?

You have far from demonstrated he is.

 

[outhouse]

Can you explain why Stalinism and Naziism are "religions" but humanism isn't?

Your taking him way out of context


""""I bracketed the two together as ideologies that use utopian ends to justify horrific means."""

 

[Lyndon]

Do you think its OK for cowards to strap bombs on and kill innocent people?

Do you support all terrorism?

What the hell is the difference between strapping a couple 1 kilo bombs on your body and blowing them up at a market, and strapping a couple 500kg bombs on your jet fighter and blowing up half a neighborhood. A 500% greater difference in the level of violence, that's what!!

 

[outhouse]

What the hell is the difference between strapping a couple 1 kilo bombs on your body and blowing them up at a market, and strapping a couple 500kg bombs on your jet fighter and blowing up half a neighborhood. A 500% greater difference in the level of violence, that's what!!

Do you support all terrorism?


Do you think its OK for cowards to strap bombs on and kill innocent people?

 

[Lyndon]

I don't support violence, but I don't see that either side is less violent than the other, which makes them both evil in my book. PS some of the biggest coward terrorists are in the Allied AIr Forces IMHO

 

[Augustus]

He was raised a Christian. His motives were all political not anti religious

Well communism was entirely anti-religious. This doesn't mean they were not political, but you can't seriously argue that they weren't anti-religious and remain credible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists#Activities

Stalin was more practical than ideological, but anti-theism was essential to the founding ideology of the Soviet Union.

The communists saw religion as the basis for everything, it was inseparable from politics. Soviet communism required the destruction of religion based morality in order to be viable. They could not have been more anti-religious.

Karl Marx: A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

"The criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done.

The criticism of religion leads to the doctrine according to which man is, for man, the supreme being; therefore it reaches the categorical imperative of overthrowing all relationships in which man is a degraded, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being.

There therefore was no distinction between [Marxism's] philosophical views regarding atheism and it's political views.

The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.

Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."

There can be no doubt that the fact that the new state of the USSR led by the communist party, with a program permeated by the spirit of militant atheism, gives the reason why this state is successfully surmounting the great difficulties that stand in its way - that neither "heavenly powers" nor the exhortations of all the priests in all the world can prevent its attaining its aims it has set itself

Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically.

Struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism

 

[Augustus]

You have far from demonstrated he is.

Is there such a thing as 'humanity'?

If so, what is it's basis seeing as we don't talk about porcinity, cananity or equinity?

Is there any evidence from history that shows humans are likely to accept common values?

Can you explain how 'reason' will lead to salvation?

Dawkins believes that all 'rational' humans should think like he does, can you show me any evidence to support this view?

Can you explain why Stalinism should be described as a religion, but humanism shouldn't be?

Can you explain why Stalinism is "evidence free" but humanism is evidence based?

If you keep refusing to answer the questions I'm asking, we can't really move past this stage...

 

[Useless2015]

Islamic Rhetoric. Muslims murder each other far worse then any western influence, but you did not post any of that I noticed



9/11 never forget. We wont.

9/11 was inside job to take away more of your precious 'freedom'. And what muslims do to each other is none of your business. Its awfully hypocrite to think that what Muslims is worse than what Americans do. If you believe in peace, you should be hurt for both sides.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Stalinism, Nazism & Islam

Do you think these are positive things?

Do you think there is no room for improvement?




Dont you think in this religion, the line is much thinner between normal follower of the faith and radical? I mean after all some regular muslims are joining isis for $50 and a cell phone.


In this religion there is not a huge gap between radical and typical. The religion in my eyes requires more fanaticism and fundamentalism then any other large faith.


I don't find his statements out of line because he is telling the truth.

I'm sorry, I had to stop reading here. That's one of the most ridiculous things I think I have ever read. In all my 26 years of life, you have hit a new low.

Who are all these Muslims being radicalised for a mobile phone? Tell me. In Britain, only 0.00025% of the Muslim population has joined ISIS, spread that across the entirety of the British population, the number becomes statistically irrelevant. When you look at the overall armed "forces" of groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda and many others, they amount to a similarly small number.

Not to mention, a MI5 report, published in 2008 states, openly, that a Muslim in Britain (or anywhere else for that matter), brought up in a truly Islamic household is very unlikely to be radicalised. The report goes on to say, that those who are radicalised "drink alcohol and use prostitutes".

So no, the line between a "moderate" Muslim and a radical is not thin. It is huge.

None of this should be a secret either, considering there are over 1.5 billion Muslims on this planet, if so many were verging on ISIS style radicalisation, human civilisation would not exist.

 

[paarsurrey]

outhouse said: ↑
Do you think its OK for cowards to strap bombs on and kill innocent people?

Do you support all terrorism?

What the hell is the difference between strapping a couple 1 kilo bombs on your body and blowing them up at a market, and strapping a couple 500kg bombs on your jet fighter and blowing up half a neighborhood. A 500% greater difference in the level of violence, that's what!!

A marvellous post.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

outhouse said: ↑
Stalinism, Nazism & Islam
Do you think these are positive things?
Do you think there is no room for improvement?
Dont you think in this religion, the line is much thinner between normal follower of the faith and radical? I mean after all some regular muslims are joining isis for $50 and a cell phone.
In this religion there is not a huge gap between radical and typical. The religion in my eyes requires more fanaticism and fundamentalism then any other large faith.
I don't find his statements out of line because he is telling the truth.

I'm sorry, I had to stop reading here. That's one of the most ridiculous things I think I have ever read. In all my 26 years of life, you have hit a new low.
Who are all these Muslims being radicalised for a mobile phone? Tell me. In Britain, only 0.00025% of the Muslim population has joined ISIS, spread that across the entirety of the British population, the number becomes statistically irrelevant. When you look at the overall armed "forces" of groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda and many others, they amount to a similarly small number.
Not to mention, a MI5 report, published in 2008 states, openly, that a Muslim in Britain (or anywhere else for that matter), brought up in a truly Islamic household is very unlikely to be radicalised. The report goes on to say, that those who are radicalised "drink alcohol and use prostitutes".
So no, the line between a "moderate" Muslim and a radical is not thin. It is huge.
None of this should be a secret either, considering there are over 1.5 billion Muslims on this planet, if so many were verging on ISIS style radicalisation, human civilisation would not exist.

A marvellous post.
Regards

 

[psychoslice]

Give me Dawkins any day, the stupidity is mostly on the other side of his arguments.

 

[icehorse]

I'm sorry, I had to stop reading here. That's one of the most ridiculous things I think I have ever read. In all my 26 years of life, you have hit a new low.

Who are all these Muslims being radicalised for a mobile phone? Tell me. In Britain, only 0.00025% of the Muslim population has joined ISIS, spread that across the entirety of the British population, the number becomes statistically irrelevant. When you look at the overall armed "forces" of groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda and many others, they amount to a similarly small number.

Not to mention, a MI5 report, published in 2008 states, openly, that a Muslim in Britain (or anywhere else for that matter), brought up in a truly Islamic household is very unlikely to be radicalised. The report goes on to say, that those who are radicalised "drink alcohol and use prostitutes".

So no, the line between a "moderate" Muslim and a radical is not thin. It is huge.

None of this should be a secret either, considering there are over 1.5 billion Muslims on this planet, if so many were verging on ISIS style radicalisation, human civilisation would not exist.

There are more distinctions than this. Something like 20-30% of all Muslims are Islamists - in that they believe Sharia should be the law of the land.

 

[icehorse]

Back to the OP - first off, remember these are *tweets* we're talking about, not articles.

Second, I think they're actually thought provoking, because it is a dangerous mistake to label Islam as a "religion".

Islam is a totalitarian ideology with a religious facet. Therefore the comparison to other ideologies is apt.

 

[Unification]

Earlier today, arch-buffoon Richard Dawkins tweeted these:

Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins 10h10 hours ago
Religious faiths such as Stalinism, Nazism & Islam are dangerous because they teach that pie-in-the-sky Ends justify horrific Means.

Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins 9h9 hours ago
Evidence-free ideologies such as Stalinism, Nazism & Islam are dangerous because they teach that pie-in-the-sky Ends justify horrific Means

These are classic examples of why he is far less rational than he believes himself to be.

The first one labels Stalinism and Naziism 'religions' to support his ideological assumptions. His arguments about the "unique danger" of religious belief have to come up against the major flaw that some non-religious ideologies have been even more murderous than the religions he hates. To solve this, hey why not just just say that they are religions instead?

But don't they have the characteristics of religions?

Well, it is certainly arguable, but the problem, from his perspective, is that if these are 'religions', then you have to conclude that ideologies such as humanism or Western liberalism are also religions.

These are ideologies that contend that they are universal and innate to 'humanity', humanity itself is a religious construct as it universalism. They place a mystical value on something, in this case the individual and its inalienable human rights. They also preach salvation, for Dawkins, salvation comes through science, reason, democracy and respect for individual rights. As with religious people, he believes that there is one correct way of living, which, by happy coincidence, just happens to be the same as the one as he believes in.

So, on to the 2nd tweet. Instead of religion, it is now "evidence free ideologies" that are the problem. All of the world's problems are cause by people's lack of reason. It is important to note that he didn't refer to utopian ideologies being problematic, just "evidence free" ones. Irrational, unscientific thinking again is the cause of all evil.

Unfortunately for Mr Dawkins, he is a humanist, and if any ideology meets the criterion of being "evidence free", it is humanism. Yet again, he fails to realise that his own beliefs are disproved by any scientific criteria and are wholly irrational.

There is no humanity, no universal human rights, no salvation through reason. Yet he is entirely confident in the fact that his beliefs are perfectly rational and evidence based. Not only is there no evidence to support his views, but there is a mountain of evidence to disprove them.

The problem is not with "evidence free" ideologies, but utopian ones. Radical Islam, Stalinism and Naziism were indeed utopian, and this quest for utopia justifies the cruellest means. Unfortunately for him, Dawkins own ideology is also utopian. For example, a significant number of Humanists supported the neo-conservative/liberal interventionist wars. Fighting wars to establish human right and Western values is utopian. Any ideology that sees itself as universal is utopian.

But, the problem with utopian thinkers is that they can see the irrational utopianism in the ideas of others, but not within themselves.

This is not to say that humanism or liberalism are 'bad' or comparable to Stalinism, radical Islamism, etc., it's just that if you want to attack these ideologies you need to understand the basis for your own belief system.

Some ideologies are preferable to others, it's just that people are never going to agree on which ones. In the modern world, we have the problem that these competing belief systems are brought into contact with each other too much.

No matter how desirable it may be though, you aren't going to convince everybody that they must adopt your value system because it more 'factual'. This is not because they are blind to the evidence, but that you are blind to your utopianism.

Ideologies are how you explain to yourself how the world works. They are myths, not evidence based truths.

History very clearly shows us that we are never all going to believe in the same myths.

There is no solution to this problem, but accepting that our own myths are not universal at least might prevent us from further stoking the flames.

On his behalf, focusing strictly on the tweets alone, he was telling the truth.

All of the other stuff, I understand what you're saying.

 

[outhouse]

Back to the OP - first off, remember these are *tweets* we're talking about, not articles.

Second, I think they're actually thought provoking, because it is a dangerous mistake to label Islam as a "religion".

Islam is a totalitarian ideology with a religious facet. Therefore the comparison to other ideologies is apt.

And your he first one who hit the nail on the head and took the tweet in context.


Ideologies was the key word here.

 

[outhouse]

That's one of the most ridiculous things I think I have ever read. In all my 26 years of life

I remember when I was younger and thought I knew it all. Come back when your double that and have experience to back up your words.

the entirety of the British population,

Non sequitur for a global religion.

So no, the line between a "moderate" Muslim and a radical is not thin. It is huge.

Then why are muslims the most illiterate group out of all the abrahamic traditions?

Why does islam produce more terrorist then any other religion?

Why was some of my muslim family murdered by other muslims over sectarian violence?

Why does islam require the most fanaticism and fundamentalism?

Maybe you don't understand even what islam calls moderate muslims, and not even moderate. I have yet to meet a muslim who accepts the truth in academia and history and I'm at a religious site.

Why is there no such thing as a credible muslim scholar?

Who are all these Muslims being radicalised for a mobile phone?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/terror-recruit-study_n_5916822.html

Among the other notable data points:

• 98 percent of interviewees perceived Islam to be under threat.
  • 98 percent believe the Somali government only protects its own interests.
  
  
  • 100 percent received no or limited education.
  
  
  • 64 percent joined with friends.
  
  
• 0 percent referred to a Somali national identity or the concept of 'Somalis.'

 

[outhouse]

if so many were verging on ISIS style radicalisation,

so every other muslim who is not in isis is perfect and has no need for improvement ???????

 

[outhouse]

9/11 was inside job

Ignore list time.

 

[outhouse]

I'm sorry, I had to stop reading here.

You never started.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html

Quarter of British Muslims sympathise with Charlie Hebdo terrorists

Some 27 per cent of British Muslims sympathise with Paris gunmen, while more than one in ten say satirical cartoons "deserve" to be attacked