Atheist Islamophobia... Again

Atheist Islamophobia... Again

There are 3766 comments on the Religion Dispatched story from Apr 9, 2013, titled Atheist Islamophobia... Again. In it, Religion Dispatched reports that:

Sparked by a Richard Dawkins tweet , in which he drew a parallel between Islamists and Nazis, Nathan Lean recently suggested on Salon.com that the most famous representatives of the new atheism "flirt with" Islamophobia [echoing Chris Stedman's prescient warning to fellow atheists on RD this past August]. As the article explains, Dawkins, Hitchens ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Religion Dispatched.

Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2460 Jun 20, 2013
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if your deity had an unusually large head and one leg a good bit shorter than the other. He also would have been a good deal taller than the average middle easterner of 2,000 years ago. I doubt the Romans would have had any need for Judas to point him out. How many really tall guys with abnormally sized heads an a limp were wandering around Jerusalem at the time?
On the other hand, the size, the really large head in proportion to the body and the poorly scaled limbs are all characteristic of the Gothic style of painting, which was prevalent in the early middle ages. The same era that carbon dating gives us as the approximate age of the shroud. Hmmm. The same era when counterfeit 'relics' of all sorts were common, both to fleece pilgrims and to dupe the flock with phony 'proof' of the biblical stories and the history of the martyrs.
Find a forensic scientist to say the image on the Shroud is not that of a real human body. Now find an objective site and not one of your skeptic sites that could not find the truth if they tripped over it. I am anxiously waiting your link.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2461 Jun 20, 2013
Dak-Original wrote:
<quoted text>
"Deeply puzzling" article is not the same as confirming that it is Christ's image or that the item is not carbon-dated to early middle ages.
You will be hard press to find a scientist to say the image is not that of a real human being but a painting. Are you trying to say 21st century forensics can not tell the image of a true body and that of a painting. If that's the case forensic science should not be used in any court case.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2462 Jun 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called paint.
Only a person with their head in the sand would make such a claim.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2463 Jun 20, 2013
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if your deity had an unusually large head and one leg a good bit shorter than the other. He also would have been a good deal taller than the average middle easterner of 2,000 years ago. I doubt the Romans would have had any need for Judas to point him out. How many really tall guys with abnormally sized heads an a limp were wandering around Jerusalem at the time?
On the other hand, the size, the really large head in proportion to the body and the poorly scaled limbs are all characteristic of the Gothic style of painting, which was prevalent in the early middle ages. The same era that carbon dating gives us as the approximate age of the shroud. Hmmm. The same era when counterfeit 'relics' of all sorts were common, both to fleece pilgrims and to dupe the flock with phony 'proof' of the biblical stories and the history of the martyrs.
Duh, cloth stretches.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#2464 Jun 20, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Only a person with their head in the sand would make such a claim.
You really don't care about reality, you just want to live in your make believe world ....

.... or you're just another troll.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#2465 Jun 20, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
You will be hard press to find a scientist to say the image is not that of a real human being but a painting. Are you trying to say 21st century forensics can not tell the image of a true body and that of a painting. If that's the case forensic science should not be used in any court case.
Forensic science could tell, if they were not lying.
Amused

Princeton, MA

#2466 Jun 20, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Find a forensic scientist to say the image on the Shroud is not that of a real human body. Now find an objective site and not one of your skeptic sites that could not find the truth if they tripped over it. I am anxiously waiting your link.
You provided one already. If you read the whole article, and not with an eye to cherry pick only that which supports your view, it blows serious holes in your fairy tale.Example:

"Nickell, in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non-representative. They concluded that the features can be explained if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist.[120][121]"

Or: "After years of discussion, the Holy See permitted radiocarbon dating on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud. Independent tests in 1988 at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concluded with 95% confidence that the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD.[1] This 13th to 14th century dating is much too recent for the shroud to have been associated with Jesus of Nazareth. The dating does however match the first appearance of the shroud in church history.[69] This dating is also slightly more recent than that estimated by art historian W.S.A. Dale, who postulated on artistic grounds that the shroud is an 11th-century icon made for use in worship services.[70]"

Or: John[20:6–7] states that Apostle Peter found multiple pieces of burial cloth after the tomb was found open, strips of linen cloth for the body and a separate cloth for the head. Is your own bible incorrect? A whole shroud, as you claim vs. "strips of cloth for the body and a separate cloth for the head"?

Or: "In 1543 John Calvin, in his Treatise on Relics, wrote of the shroud, which was then at Nice (it was moved to Turin in 1578), "How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet?" He also noted that, according to St. John, there was one sheet covering Jesus's body, and a separate cloth covering his head.[clarification needed] He then stated that "either St. John is a liar," or else anyone who promotes such a shroud is "convicted of falsehood and deceit".[44]"
Amused

Princeton, MA

#2467 Jun 20, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Duh, cloth stretches.
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" Paul Simon "The Boxer"
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2468 Jun 20, 2013
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" Paul Simon "The Boxer"
Paul Simon? What's he an expert on?
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2469 Jun 20, 2013
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
You provided one already. If you read the whole article, and not with an eye to cherry pick only that which supports your view, it blows serious holes in your fairy tale.Example:
"Nickell, in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non-representative. They concluded that the features can be explained if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist.[120][121]"
Or: "After years of discussion, the Holy See permitted radiocarbon dating on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud. Independent tests in 1988 at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concluded with 95% confidence that the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD.[1] This 13th to 14th century dating is much too recent for the shroud to have been associated with Jesus of Nazareth. The dating does however match the first appearance of the shroud in church history.[69] This dating is also slightly more recent than that estimated by art historian W.S.A. Dale, who postulated on artistic grounds that the shroud is an 11th-century icon made for use in worship services.[70]"
Or: John[20:6–7] states that Apostle Peter found multiple pieces of burial cloth after the tomb was found open, strips of linen cloth for the body and a separate cloth for the head. Is your own bible incorrect? A whole shroud, as you claim vs. "strips of cloth for the body and a separate cloth for the head"?
Or: "In 1543 John Calvin, in his Treatise on Relics, wrote of the shroud, which was then at Nice (it was moved to Turin in 1578), "How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet?" He also noted that, according to St. John, there was one sheet covering Jesus's body, and a separate cloth covering his head.[clarification needed] He then stated that "either St. John is a liar," or else anyone who promotes such a shroud is "convicted of falsehood and deceit".[44]"
What's the final conclusion in the Wiki Link I posted? Now who is cherry picking? It's not me.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#2470 Jun 20, 2013
The supposed crucifixion of this imposter character was stolen from some 18 different Pagan Gods who hung from a tree. In the Christian bible, there is more than one verse that states the Nazarene was hung from a tree:
Acts 5:30 - The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Acts 13:29 - And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher.
The Norse God Odin preceded Jesus the Christ. Odin hung from a tree and experienced a death of sorts to obtain knowledge. Through being "reborn," he obtained gnosis [advanced spiritual knowledge], as did the Egyptian God Set who was “crucified” on a “cross” known as a furka.
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the final conclusion in the Wiki Link I posted? Now who is cherry picking? It's not me.

“gun control takes two hands”

Since: Mar 13

outdoors

#2471 Jun 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Forensic science could tell, if they were not lying.
Got it- all experts who don't agree with you are lying. thanks for clearing that up. You are a bobclone of the highest (spelled "l-o-w-e-s-t") level.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2472 Jun 20, 2013
swerty wrote:
The supposed crucifixion of this imposter character was stolen from some 18 different Pagan Gods who hung from a tree. In the Christian bible, there is more than one verse that states the Nazarene was hung from a tree:
Acts 5:30 - The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Acts 13:29 - And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher.
The Norse God Odin preceded Jesus the Christ. Odin hung from a tree and experienced a death of sorts to obtain knowledge. Through being "reborn," he obtained gnosis [advanced spiritual knowledge], as did the Egyptian God Set who was “crucified” on a “cross” known as a furka.<quoted text>
Proves nothing. Have you ever heard of convergent evolution?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2473 Jun 20, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Proves nothing. Have you ever heard of convergent evolution?
it shows that your cult couldn't even invent an original god, they made up one out of bits and pieces from previous cults...

and you worship that obvious myth...sheesh! one born every minute....
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2474 Jun 20, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>it shows that your cult couldn't even invent an original god, they made up one out of bits and pieces from previous cults...
and you worship that obvious myth...sheesh! one born every minute....
Prove Christianity came from any other religion then the Jews. You are just parroting what you've been brainwashed into believing. You cannot prove Christianity came from any of these pagan religions.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2475 Jun 20, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove Christianity came from any other religion then the Jews. You are just parroting what you've been brainwashed into believing. You cannot prove Christianity came from any of these pagan religions.
Ummmmm...Swerty just gave it to you. how can you deny the facts in front of your face? oh yeah, you're a cult member. that is what you do.

every aspect of jesus' divinity was stolen from previous cults. from walking on water to healing the sick to raising the dead. from his supposed virgin birth to his fake rising from the dead, all stolen from previous religious cults.

maybe you should find an original cult that thinks spaceships are hiding behind comets or some such....
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2476 Jun 20, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Ummmmm...Swerty just gave it to you. how can you deny the facts in front of your face? oh yeah, you're a cult member. that is what you do.
every aspect of jesus' divinity was stolen from previous cults. from walking on water to healing the sick to raising the dead. from his supposed virgin birth to his fake rising from the dead, all stolen from previous religious cults.
maybe you should find an original cult that thinks spaceships are hiding behind comets or some such....
That's a bunch of hogwash; there is no connection between these pagan religions and Christianity. Anybody with half a brain can google it for themselves.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2477 Jun 20, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a bunch of hogwash; there is no connection between these pagan religions and Christianity. Anybody with half a brain can google it for themselves.
so it's just a coincidence that every single aspect of the divinity of your cult's savior was used in previous religious cults?

my how you can turn on the blinders when the facts swhow yoru cult for what it is...

your cult lied to you....again...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#2478 Jun 20, 2013
huntcoyotes wrote:
<quoted text>Got it- all experts who don't agree with you are lying. thanks for clearing that up. You are a bobclone of the highest (spelled "l-o-w-e-s-t") level.
Not what I said.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#2479 Jun 20, 2013
cant say i have
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Proves nothing. Have you ever heard of convergent evolution?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 14 min dollarsbill 247,217
Proof of God for the Atheist 19 min thetruth 94
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 22 min DebraE 12,411
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 7 hr -Stray Dog 47,746
Atheism and Evidence of the Exodus 13 hr Amused 25
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 13 hr Amused 15
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 16 hr thetruth 2,352
More from around the web