Atheist Islamophobia... Again

Atheist Islamophobia... Again

There are 3765 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2501 Jun 21, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
You're such a sheeple.
There goes an irony meter!
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2502 Jun 21, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
There goes an irony meter!
It's a statement of fact and not, as atheist use, bigotry.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#2503 Jun 21, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a statement of fact and not, as atheist use, bigotry.
Yet it's us atheists who are less prone to opposing equal rights and freedom of speech, while it's historically demonstrated that christian oppose both.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2504 Jun 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet it's us atheists who are less prone to opposing equal rights and freedom of speech, while it's historically demonstrated that christian oppose both.
That a myth, atheists are as bigoted and intolerant as any religious body every was. Just look at the posts on this thread. So don't play that holier then thou record.
Dak-Original

Belfast, UK

#2505 Jun 21, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Your mommy is not going to like the bad language you are using. Didn't she raise you better?
I would not call that "using bad language". Bullshit used as a metaphor for worthless lies. Besides, bullshit is not a rude word.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2506 Jun 21, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a statement of fact and not, as atheist use, bigotry.
Um, no it wasn't. You were responding to someone who had a link specifically discussing the shroud and that shows it cannot be what you claim it to be. The majority of the scientific evidence puts it as a medieval relic.
Amused

Dracut, MA

#2507 Jun 21, 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.
Mithra has the following in common with the Jesus character:

Mithra was born on December 25th of the virgin Anahita.
The babe was wrapped in swaddling clothes, placed in a manger and attended by shepherds.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or "disciples."
He performed miracles.
As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
He ascended to heaven.
Mithra was viewed as the Good Shepherd, the "Way, the Truth and the Light," the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah.
Mithra is omniscient, as he "hears all, sees all, knows all: none can deceive him."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper."
Mithra "sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers."
Mithraism emphasized baptism.

All of this over 1,500 years BC

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#2508 Jun 21, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
That a myth, atheists are as bigoted and intolerant as any religious body every was. Just look at the posts on this thread. So don't play that holier then thou record.
I see no evidence to support you assertion, even on this thread.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2509 Jun 21, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, no it wasn't. You were responding to someone who had a link specifically discussing the shroud and that shows it cannot be what you claim it to be. The majority of the scientific evidence puts it as a medieval relic.
One discredited carbon dating puts it as a medieval relic. Let see if you can agree on one thing. Do a little research and answer the following: Is the image the Shroud that of a human corpse or an artist's rendition? Yes or no; and support your answer with recent evidence from respected forensic scientists.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2510 Jun 21, 2013
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
Mithra has the following in common with the Jesus character:
Mithra was born on December 25th of the virgin Anahita.
The babe was wrapped in swaddling clothes, placed in a manger and attended by shepherds.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or "disciples."
He performed miracles.
As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
He ascended to heaven.
Mithra was viewed as the Good Shepherd, the "Way, the Truth and the Light," the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah.
Mithra is omniscient, as he "hears all, sees all, knows all: none can deceive him."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper."
Mithra "sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers."
Mithraism emphasized baptism.
All of this over 1,500 years BC


Supply supporting evidence by respected scholars and with original manuscripts and hieroglyphs.
Amused

Dracut, MA

#2511 Jun 21, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Supply supporting evidence by respected scholars and with original manuscripts and hieroglyphs.
To what end? Nothing anyone supplies will satisfy you because you have no intention of admitting the falsity of your assertions no matter what evidence is supplied.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#2512 Jun 21, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
One discredited carbon dating puts it as a medieval relic. Let see if you can agree on one thing. Do a little research and answer the following: Is the image the Shroud that of a human corpse or an artist's rendition? Yes or no; and support your answer with recent evidence from respected forensic scientists.
LOL! Yeah... it was "discredited" by those who have a vested interest in it being accepted as "real". What a putz!
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2513 Jun 21, 2013
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
To what end? Nothing anyone supplies will satisfy you because you have no intention of admitting the falsity of your assertions no matter what evidence is supplied.
Just as I thought, you just make stuff up and think you can sell it. You better try selling it to your kool aid buddies at the skeptic site.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2514 Jun 21, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>LOL! Yeah... it was "discredited" by those who have a vested interest in it being accepted as "real". What a putz!
Only words, you can't prove it.

God gave us the Shroud of Turin for you skeptics. Christians don't need it to prove God is in their lives.
Dak-Original

Belfast, UK

#2515 Jun 21, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Only words, you can't prove it.
God gave us the Shroud of Turin for you skeptics. Christians don't need it to prove God is in their lives.
Would GOD provide such lousy evidence? Deluded one!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2516 Jun 21, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
One discredited carbon dating puts it as a medieval relic. Let see if you can agree on one thing. Do a little research and answer the following: Is the image the Shroud that of a human corpse or an artist's rendition? Yes or no; and support your answer with recent evidence from respected forensic scientists.
And how was the carbon dating discredited? There has been a claim that the sample was taken from a medieval 'repair', but the original researchers deny that as a possibility.

Whether the image is from an artist (by far the most likely case) or a corpse (also possible; but a medieval, one if so) is irrelevant if the age is less than 1000 years.

Once again, without further samples being taken and analyzed, it is impossible to go further.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2517 Jun 21, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Your mommy is not going to like the bad language you are using. Didn't she raise you better?
Your Jesus,(were he real) would say to you: "Satan, get thee behind me! I do not know you."

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2518 Jun 21, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
You're such a sheeple.
I'll take your concession of defeat as a given, then.

Proof the shroud is fake:
" http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article815.html... ;

Your Jesus,(were he real) would say to you: "Satan, get thee behind me! I do not know you."

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2519 Jun 21, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
One discredited carbon dating puts it as a medieval relic. Let see if you can agree on one thing. Do a little research and answer the following: Is the image the Shroud that of a human corpse or an artist's rendition? Yes or no; and support your answer with recent evidence from respected forensic scientists.
The following does not rely on carbon dating to prove the shroud is a fake:" http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article815.html... ;
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2520 Jun 21, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And how was the carbon dating discredited? There has been a claim that the sample was taken from a medieval 'repair', but the original researchers deny that as a possibility.
Whether the image is from an artist (by far the most likely case) or a corpse (also possible; but a medieval, one if so) is irrelevant if the age is less than 1000 years.
Once again, without further samples being taken and analyzed, it is impossible to go further.
The date has been discredited and one would expect the original researches to deny they made a mistake. It is now accepted by creditable researchers the original dating was in wrong due to a sampling error.

Which is it: An image of a corpse or a painting? Now remember this is the 21st century with 21st century forensics. Are you telling me forensics cannot tell the difference? Do some research and give me a definitive answer.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 53 min IB DaMann 75,461
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 5 hr Subduction Zone 206
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 hr Nemesis 4,070
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 6 hr Subduction Zone 6,108
Majority of Scots now have no religion (May '16) 6 hr John 164
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 hr Eagle 12 - 32,055
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 11 hr Eagle 12 - 581
More from around the web