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.

Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#2541 Jun 22, 2013
Thank you but I do know the reference. I was fully aware of what I was doing when I said that "kool aid" is a believer thing.

Thanks again, though.
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
Google "Reverend Jim Jones" and you will understand the reference.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2542 Jun 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
The [sic] was to cover my use of "krap" and "kalled".
<quoted text>
Gotcha. just wondering...

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2543 Jun 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Leave Jephtah’s daughter's ashes alone you sicko.
Prove that she was indeed burned.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2544 Jun 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Leave Jephtah’s daughter's ashes alone you sicko.
"There are two possible approaches to this problem. First, if Jephthah offered his daughter as a burnt sacrifice, he did so without God’s approval, for the law of Moses condemned human sacrifice (Deuteronomy 18:10). The writer of the book of Hebrews would not have endorsed that particular atrocity any more than he would have sanctioned Abraham’s lying (Genesis 12:10ff), or Rahab’s prostitution (Joshua 2:1ff). Reporting an event is not the equivalent of sanctioning it. The allusion in the book of Hebrews would reflect a characterization of Jephthah’s life of faith, viewed in its entirety, and would not discredit him simply because of an isolated (though horrible) act of sin, the fulfillment of a rash vow.

On the other hand, a number of prominent scholars (e.g., Edersheim, Archer, Geisler, etc.) believe that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering; rather, it is argued that he devoted her, as a virgin, to the service of Jehovah for the remainder of her life.
In support of this view, a number of arguments are proffered."

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2545 Jun 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"There are two possible approaches to this problem. First, if Jephthah offered his daughter as a burnt sacrifice, he did so without God’s approval, for the law of Moses condemned human sacrifice (Deuteronomy 18:10). The writer of the book of Hebrews would not have endorsed that particular atrocity any more than he would have sanctioned Abraham’s lying (Genesis 12:10ff), or Rahab’s prostitution (Joshua 2:1ff). Reporting an event is not the equivalent of sanctioning it. The allusion in the book of Hebrews would reflect a characterization of Jephthah’s life of faith, viewed in its entirety, and would not discredit him simply because of an isolated (though horrible) act of sin, the fulfillment of a rash vow.
On the other hand, a number of prominent scholars (e.g., Edersheim, Archer, Geisler, etc.) believe that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering; rather, it is argued that he devoted her, as a virgin, to the service of Jehovah for the remainder of her life.
In support of this view, a number of arguments are proffered."
actually the law of Moses made it very clear that killing people in the name of your mythical god was demanded by god.

sounds like a human sacrifice to me...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2546 Jun 22, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yeah, familiar with it and how they died, but why the [sic] in for Kool Aid what i was asking...
The classic tale of Jonestown (which turns out to be false) was that they all died from drinking poisoned Kool Aid.

The actual brand is no longer on the market, but it was a powdered drink mix, similar to Kool Aid.

We only know about it, because some people woke up at the last minute, and fled, desperately seeking asylum from Jones' insanity.

There was a dead senator and/or congressman involved too-- not as a perpetrator of Jones' nuttery, but as an attempted rescuer.

I don't recall all the nasty details.

But.

It is a lesson in what **FAITH** can lead to.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2547 Jun 22, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
There is plenty of data out there to determine if the image is that of a human corpse or a painting.
Correct. It's a painting-- the features are all wrong, for a cloth wrapped around a 3D surface, like a body.

But they are fine, for a flat painting-- which is **exactly** what everyone agrees it is.

Everyone who's not ... brain-damaged, that is.
Uncle Sam wrote:
Now do a little research and post the current consensus of forensic scientists.
I have. The conclusions is that it's fake.

Without a single doubt.

Apart from the brain-damaged individuals, and those who have accepted pay-offs from Vatican City.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2548 Jun 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
They only allowed it done once, which produced ages in the period of the Dark Ages, if I remember the period correctly. The people holding onto it won't allow any more tests done to it, which on it's own is telling that it's a scam. However, the inconsistencies with the stories and anthropology have shown it's no more reliable than ... well ... any of the "relics," really they are all idols, ironically
Why should they allow it to be proved fake?

They are raking in **billions** on it-- and the artificial "conspiracy" surrounding it only helps to **sell** the lie that much better.

Brain-damaged people***love** them a "conspiracy"...

_________

* you know: True Believers™ or more accurately, reality deniers.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2549 Jun 22, 2013
LNC Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats is what I remember as well. 12 century?
11th or 12th was the approximate date, give or take a couple a hundred years or so.

No where near the 1760+ years they would need to make their myth work.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2550 Jun 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"There are two possible approaches to this problem. First, if Jephthah offered his daughter as a burnt sacrifice, he did so without God’s approval, for the law of Moses condemned human sacrifice (Deuteronomy 18:10). The writer of the book of Hebrews would not have endorsed that particular atrocity any more than he would have sanctioned Abraham’s lying (Genesis 12:10ff), or Rahab’s prostitution (Joshua 2:1ff). Reporting an event is not the equivalent of sanctioning it. The allusion in the book of Hebrews would reflect a characterization of Jephthah’s life of faith, viewed in its entirety, and would not discredit him simply because of an isolated (though horrible) act of sin, the fulfillment of a rash vow.
On the other hand, a number of prominent scholars (e.g., Edersheim, Archer, Geisler, etc.) believe that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering; rather, it is argued that he devoted her, as a virgin, to the service of Jehovah for the remainder of her life.
In support of this view, a number of arguments are proffered."
Bible Apologizers, desperately trying to apologize for the bible's use of HUMAN SACRIFICE by one of it's heroes....!

Sick.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2551 Jun 22, 2013
LNC Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats is what I remember as well. 12 century?
Mid 13th to late 14th:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_...

"The Shroud of Turin, a linen cloth commonly associated with the crucifixion and burial of Jesus Christ, has undergone numerous scientific tests, the most notable of which is radiocarbon dating, in an attempt to determine the relic's authenticity. In 1988, scientists at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud to a range of 1260–1390CE, which coincides with the first appearance of the shroud in France in the 1350s.[1]

These results are generally accepted by the scientific community. This dating has been questioned by some, and doubts have been raised in particular regarding the representivity of the sample that was taken for testing."

"Professor Christopher Ramsey of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit who observed in 2011 that "There are various hypotheses as to why the dates might not be correct, but none of them stack up."

On September 28, 1988, British Museum director and coordinator of the study Michael Tite communicated the official results to the Diocese of Turin and to the Holy See. In a well-attended press conference on October 13, Cardinal Ballastrero announced the official results, i.e. that radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260-1390 CE, with 95% confidence. The official and complete report on the experiment was published in Nature.[35] The uncalibrated dates from the individual laboratories, with 1-sigma errors (68% confidence), were as follows:

Tucson: 646 ± 31 years;
Oxford: 750 ± 30 years,
Zurich: 676 ± 24 years old
the weighted mean was 689 ± 16 years, which corresponds to calibrated ages of CE 1273-1288 with 68% confidence, and CE 1262-1384 with 95% confidence.

As reported in Nature, Professor Bray of the Instituto di Metrologia 'G. Colonetti', Turin, "confirmed that the results of the three laboratories were mutually compatible, and that, on the evidence submitted, none of the mean results was questionable."

It seems to me that the *scientific* consensus is that the dates are accurate and that there is NO way they could be 1000 years off. if that is the case, the shroud is a medieval relic.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2552 Jun 22, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
11th or 12th was the approximate date, give or take a couple a hundred years or so.
No where near the 1760+ years they would need to make their myth work.
Nope. 13th or 14th century.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2553 Jun 22, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes, I am telling you that given the small sizes of the samples, even modern techniques cannot definitively determine how the image was produced. There is even controversy whether the 'blood' stains are actual blood or pigment (hematite)!

Because of distortion effects that would happen if the shroud was placed around the head and body, the best current guess is that a bas relief statue was used for the 'body' in the image. An actual person would not give as good of an image.

It is also important that the *first* verified description of the shroud states it was a forgery and even had someone who confessed:

"However the presence of the Turin Shroud in Lirey, France, is only undoubtedly attested in 1390 when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2554 Jun 22, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
The classic tale of Jonestown (which turns out to be false) was that they all died from drinking poisoned Kool Aid.
The actual brand is no longer on the market, but it was a powdered drink mix, similar to Kool Aid.
We only know about it, because some people woke up at the last minute, and fled, desperately seeking asylum from Jones' insanity.
There was a dead senator and/or congressman involved too-- not as a perpetrator of Jones' nuttery, but as an attempted rescuer.
I don't recall all the nasty details.
But.
It is a lesson in what **FAITH** can lead to.
I remember when this happened. Here is a brief synopsis:

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1970s/p/jone...
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#2555 Jun 22, 2013
L'esprit de l'escalier.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"There are two possible approaches to this problem. First, if Jephthah offered his daughter as a burnt sacrifice, he did so without God’s approval, for the law of Moses condemned human sacrifice (Deuteronomy 18:10). The writer of the book of Hebrews would not have endorsed that particular atrocity any more than he would have sanctioned Abraham’s lying (Genesis 12:10ff), or Rahab’s prostitution (Joshua 2:1ff). Reporting an event is not the equivalent of sanctioning it. The allusion in the book of Hebrews would reflect a characterization of Jephthah’s life of faith, viewed in its entirety, and would not discredit him simply because of an isolated (though horrible) act of sin, the fulfillment of a rash vow.
On the other hand, a number of prominent scholars (e.g., Edersheim, Archer, Geisler, etc.) believe that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering; rather, it is argued that he devoted her, as a virgin, to the service of Jehovah for the remainder of her life.
In support of this view, a number of arguments are proffered."
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#2556 Jun 22, 2013
So you're saying the bible is lying cuntspeak for fucktards.

Who could disagree?
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove that she was indeed burned.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2557 Jun 22, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mid 13th to late 14th:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_...
"The Shroud of Turin, a linen cloth commonly associated with the crucifixion and burial of Jesus Christ, has undergone numerous scientific tests, the most notable of which is radiocarbon dating, in an attempt to determine the relic's authenticity. In 1988, scientists at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud to a range of 1260–1390CE, which coincides with the first appearance of the shroud in France in the 1350s.[1]
These results are generally accepted by the scientific community. This dating has been questioned by some, and doubts have been raised in particular regarding the representivity of the sample that was taken for testing."
"Professor Christopher Ramsey of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit who observed in 2011 that "There are various hypotheses as to why the dates might not be correct, but none of them stack up."
On September 28, 1988, British Museum director and coordinator of the study Michael Tite communicated the official results to the Diocese of Turin and to the Holy See. In a well-attended press conference on October 13, Cardinal Ballastrero announced the official results, i.e. that radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260-1390 CE, with 95% confidence. The official and complete report on the experiment was published in Nature.[35] The uncalibrated dates from the individual laboratories, with 1-sigma errors (68% confidence), were as follows:
Tucson: 646 ± 31 years;
Oxford: 750 ± 30 years,
Zurich: 676 ± 24 years old
the weighted mean was 689 ± 16 years, which corresponds to calibrated ages of CE 1273-1288 with 68% confidence, and CE 1262-1384 with 95% confidence.
As reported in Nature, Professor Bray of the Instituto di Metrologia 'G. Colonetti', Turin, "confirmed that the results of the three laboratories were mutually compatible, and that, on the evidence submitted, none of the mean results was questionable."
It seems to me that the *scientific* consensus is that the dates are accurate and that there is NO way they could be 1000 years off. if that is the case, the shroud is a medieval relic.
Thanks. My memory had it earlier, but not by much, at around 1100 or so.

In any case? Not even close to the approximately 2000 years needed to be commiserate with the Jesus legends.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2558 Jun 22, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. 13th or 14th century.
Yes. I have read your post. Thanks.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2559 Jun 22, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I remember when this happened. Here is a brief synopsis:
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1970s/p/jone...
Yes, I remember the news reports as well.

I saw the article confirmed what I'd read, that some people escaped into the nearby woods, and were later rescued when the US authorities arrived, as a follow-up to Ryan's failure to return.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2563 Jun 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.
From Nova:
"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.
The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.
BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...
...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...
and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.
So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?
Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.
BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"
These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.
Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.
As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.
so you are saying gravity isn't there because we don't fully understand it?

your level of scientific understanding is limited to parroting crap you dig off insane cult sites...

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) 5 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 34,130
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 28 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 14,844
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 59 min superwilly 255,496
News Is Atheism Just a Religion In Disguise? (Feb '08) 3 hr Reason Personified 35
Reasoning with Insanity 4 hr Eagle 12 40
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 7 hr Eagle 12 4,463
News Why I quit atheism 7 hr Eagle 12 259
More from around the web