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.

Lincoln

United States

#858 Apr 28, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
The basic problem is that people, regardless of the underlying political or religious beliefs, can be convinced en masse that some things are worth killing for. In the long run, the only solution is promoting systems of ethics that give top priority to avoiding harm to others, the point being that if people don't kill each other over emotionally charged disagreements, issues can be sorted out through negotiation, consultation, or legal action.
Nazism, Communism, nationalism, Puritanism, so many isms have led to so many millions of deaths. Arguing over secondary motivations behind destructive mass action misses the point. All human societies, at one time or another, have allowed other priorities to take precedence over respect for the safety of others, resulting in warfare, mass executions, and genocide. The most significant advancement we can make in human development at this point is to break that cycle and create a global civilization for which "violent solution" is an absolute oxymoron.
There is no such thing as a violent solution.

By its very nature, violence only creates new problems.
Bombing Nazi Germany to rubble
from 1944 to 1945 seemed to work well.
Hitler shot himself and
we hanged 16 top Nazis.:-)

Sometime we need to resort to violence.

Japanese have not bombed
Pearl Harbor recently !

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#859 Apr 28, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Science is silent of the atheist yarn...
“Some will argue that a person who is ‘unnattractive’ as far as Western tastes go will gravitate towards issues of anger and anti-social behavior and often that kind of anger will manifest as a hatred for the concept of a god or deity or creator.
 
They might blame the creator and by denying the existance of a creator, they are denying their own ugliness. 
I do not mean to imply that one has to be ugly to be an athiest but there is an inherent inner ugliness that the patients percieve about themselves.  They may be quite attractive but consider themselves to be ugly but overall the people we studied were not blatantly attractive physically. 
Another factor to be considered is that a person who exhibits the Atheist Misfit Syndrome may be inclined to intentionally seem unappealing.  They may be intentionally unstylish or unkempt.  There are so many comorbities and variants that it may take years to create a scientific model that projects 100% accuracy with regards to how this all applies to western beauty.
 
“It’s hard to accept something like this — something like the results of our study — in an enlightened society, but there is no getting around the scientific proof. Every variable and every model that has been used comes to the same conclusion.  People who openly do not believe in a creator or a greater spirit and opt to debate it as part of their definition of self, are almost always suffering from a serious mental illness, and if they are not currently sick, the odds are nearly 100% that they eventually will become mentally ill.“
there is absolutely nothing scientific about that study at all. just another example of you having to post obvious lies to support your cult.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#860 Apr 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Note that I put "created" in quotes. You and Stephen are talking about two very different types of creation, and it's likely he will never use that word as a descriptive again because of theists taking such things out of context so willingly, just to quote mine.
Now, why do you assume anything was "created," as in, formed through the will of intelligence?
Why do you believe that in the beginning nothing existed and it exploded? I mean, seriously.

Roger Penrose mused that the M in Stephen Hawking's
M Theory stands for Myth.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#861 Apr 28, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Prisoners will try anything to get out of jail.
What else to Kaufman have to do really?
Perhaps you missed this ruling, Which is much more significant than Kaufman.
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial
Highlights from the Kitzmiller Case
Decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, by Judge John E. Jones, December 20, 2005
Expert testimony by Kevin Padian, professor of paleontology at U.C. Berkeley and President of NCSE's Board of Directors
The word charts from Barbara Forrest's testimony that show replacement of word "creation" with "intelligent design" after the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intell...
In short you lost the entire school board lost their jobs that is, The only one that survived wasn't up for reelection.
Had nothing to do with Kaufman trying to get out of jail.
Casey Anthony was freed by a Florida jury of her peers so court decisions are not always based on facts but on emotions and prejudices.

"the proofs of the being of a God – the Creator, Preserver, and Supreme Ruler of the Universe – the Author of all the relations of morality and of the laws and obligations these infer – will be within the province of the Professor of Ethics."
Thomas Jefferson,“Report of the Commissioners for the University of Virginia,” August 4, 1818 [The Rockfish Gap Report], from The University of Virginia
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#862 Apr 28, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>

Perhaps you missed this ruling, Which is much more significant than Kaufman.
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial
"The part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion. The judge's determination that ID endorses religion should have been sufficient to rule the policy unconstitutional."
Jay D. Wexler, Anti-ID legal scholar at Professor of Law, Boston University Law School

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#863 Apr 28, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion. The judge's determination that ID endorses religion should have been sufficient to rule the policy unconstitutional."
Jay D. Wexler, Anti-ID legal scholar at Professor of Law, Boston University Law School
in fact the defendents were stormed with massive ab=mounts of verifiable, provable evidence to show ID is not science in any way.

why is there not one single scientific theory of ID? because there is not one shred of fact to base a scientific theory on. there is not even a hypothesis for ID, because that also needs a shred of fact to start form.

with all the people that supposedly support ID, why has not one of them put up even a hypothesis for ID?

because they cannot. it is myth just like the religious cult it stems from.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#864 Apr 28, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you believe that in the beginning nothing existed and it exploded? I mean, seriously.
Roger Penrose mused that the M in Stephen Hawking's
M Theory stands for Myth.
that incredibly ignorant statement shows you don't even have the foggiest idea of the science theory you are trying to debunk.

makes you look like an incredible ass.

try to get at least a third grade level of understanding about the big bang theory before you try again, lest you look so stupid again.
Imhotep

United States

#865 Apr 28, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Had nothing to do with Kaufman trying to get out of jail.
Casey Anthony was freed by a Florida jury of her peers so court decisions are not always based on facts but on emotions and prejudices.
"the proofs of the being of a God – the Creator, Preserver, and Supreme Ruler of the Universe – the Author of all the relations of morality and of the laws and obligations these infer – will be within the province of the Professor of Ethics."
Thomas Jefferson,“Report of the Commissioners for the University of Virginia,” August 4, 1818 [The Rockfish Gap Report], from The University of Virginia
Was Kaufman at any time taken from his cell in prison to appear in court?

Would this be worth the effort of writing a few letters?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#866 Apr 28, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
The basic problem is that people, regardless of the underlying political or religious beliefs, can be convinced en masse that some things are worth killing for. In the long run, the only solution is promoting systems of ethics that give top priority to avoiding harm to others, the point being that if people don't kill each other over emotionally charged disagreements, issues can be sorted out through negotiation, consultation, or legal action.
Nazism, Communism, nationalism, Puritanism, so many isms have led to so many millions of deaths. Arguing over secondary motivations behind destructive mass action misses the point. All human societies, at one time or another, have allowed other priorities to take precedence over respect for the safety of others, resulting in warfare, mass executions, and genocide. The most significant advancement we can make in human development at this point is to break that cycle and create a global civilization for which "violent solution" is an absolute oxymoron.
There is no such thing as a violent solution. By its very nature, violence only creates new problems.
Well done!

Unless the very FIRST line of a given life-philosophy is "try not to kill anyone today"?(or something very similar)

Then the philosophy has the wrong priorities first-- and anti-murder isn't very important.

Take your bible-- the too-often quoted 10? Where in the list is "try not to kill anyone"? Number SEVEN*! Way-way down the list.

And nothing at ALL against causing other people deliberate harm...!

That is a most heinous omission, I think.

In fact?

If all you had in your list was:

1) try not to kill anyone
2) try not to cause anyone deliberate harm

....

All the rest would follow pretty much automatically....

... what a nice place >>that<< would be.

__________

* yes, I realize there are different lists-- some put "don't murder" at #5, others at #6-- but even then, that's still too low on the list-- it ought to be #1. And it ought to be don't KILL AT ALL-- not murder-- murder has specific legal connotations that are too easily side-stepped...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#867 Apr 28, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>well, ones morals should prevent one from rounding people up and them, no?
this is the part of these regimes i am talking about, not the war part. and that is what the people lying about this part of history are talking about also.
You would think so.

Alas, it's too easy to get all "lawyer" and to declare some humans "not people" and therefore, having no rights.

The USA, specifically the extremist of the Republican party, have tried to do this with at least two groups: illegal immigrants, and all muslims.

And to a lessor extent, anyone who's ... poor.

The ReThugs have tried to cast these groups as "not people" and therefore, NOT deserving of protection of the Constitution.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#868 Apr 28, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you believe that in the beginning nothing existed and it exploded? I mean, seriously.
Nobody actually believes that-- what you said? Is a lie, fabricated by idiots to confuse ... more idiots (such as you).

The Big Bang theory does not claim nothing was there before.

And the initial expansion wasn't an explosion-- not how YOU mean it.

So you lie in two ways.

Why?

You think we won't CATCH your lies?

We are not as dumb as ...

.... YOU.
Imhotep

United States

#869 Apr 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Well done!
Unless the very FIRST line of a given life-philosophy is "try not to kill anyone today"?(or something very similar)
Then the philosophy has the wrong priorities first-- and anti-murder isn't very important.
Take your bible-- the too-often quoted 10? Where in the list is "try not to kill anyone"? Number SEVEN*! Way-way down the list.
And nothing at ALL against causing other people deliberate harm...!
That is a most heinous omission, I think.
In fact?
If all you had in your list was:
1) try not to kill anyone
2) try not to cause anyone deliberate harm
....
All the rest would follow pretty much automatically....
... what a nice place >>that<< would be.
__________
* yes, I realize there are different lists-- some put "don't murder" at #5, others at #6-- but even then, that's still too low on the list-- it ought to be #1. And it ought to be don't KILL AT ALL-- not murder-- murder has specific legal connotations that are too easily side-stepped...
I retrieved these long ago from a forum so I don't know who really put them altogether, They clearly indicate what is necessary. Notice the dates?

"This is the sum of duty. Do not unto others that which would cause you pain if done to you." -- Mahabharata 5:1517, from the Vedic tradition of India, circa 3000 BCE

"What is hateful to you, do not to our fellow man. That is entire Law, all the rest is commentary." -- Talmud, Shabbat 31a, from the Judaic tradition, circa 1300 BCE

"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself." -- Avesta, Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5, from the Zoroastrian tradition, circa 600 BCE

"Hurt not others in ways that you find hurtful." -- Tripitaka, Udanga-varga 5,18 , from the Buddhist tradition, circa 525 BCE

"Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness, do not unto others that which you would not have done unto you." -- Analects, Lun-yu XV,23, from the Confucian tradition, circa 500 BCE

"One should treat all beings as he himself would be treated." -- Agamas, Sutrakrtanga 1.10, 1-3, from the Jain tradition, circa 500 BCE

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain and your neighbor's loss as your loss." -- Tai-shang Kang-ying P'ien, from the Taoist tradition, circa 500 BCE

"Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." -- Socrates (the Greek philosopher), circa 470-399 BCE
Lincoln

United States

#870 Apr 28, 2013
Science is
silent on atheism.

The rest of us
laugh at atheism

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#871 Apr 28, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
I retrieved these long ago from a forum so I don't know who really put them altogether, They clearly indicate what is necessary. Notice the dates?
"This is the sum of duty. Do not unto others that which would cause you pain if done to you." -- Mahabharata 5:1517, from the Vedic tradition of India, circa 3000 BCE
"What is hateful to you, do not to our fellow man. That is entire Law, all the rest is commentary." -- Talmud, Shabbat 31a, from the Judaic tradition, circa 1300 BCE
"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself." -- Avesta, Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5, from the Zoroastrian tradition, circa 600 BCE
"Hurt not others in ways that you find hurtful." -- Tripitaka, Udanga-varga 5,18 , from the Buddhist tradition, circa 525 BCE
"Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness, do not unto others that which you would not have done unto you." -- Analects, Lun-yu XV,23, from the Confucian tradition, circa 500 BCE
"One should treat all beings as he himself would be treated." -- Agamas, Sutrakrtanga 1.10, 1-3, from the Jain tradition, circa 500 BCE
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain and your neighbor's loss as your loss." -- Tai-shang Kang-ying P'ien, from the Taoist tradition, circa 500 BCE
"Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." -- Socrates (the Greek philosopher), circa 470-399 BCE
All good.

They imply my step #1, of course, but do not explicitly state it.

I like step one clearly stated-- I got the notion from an Original Star Trek episode, where Kirk laments the failure of civilizations in general, and waxes lyrical: "I will not kill today"

I like it. It makes no promise as to tomorrow-- but it is a promise to try to be better, today.

All that anyone can really promise anyway.

:)
Imhotep

United States

#872 Apr 28, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Science is
silent on atheism.
The rest of us
laugh at atheism
The ' rest of us ' are the ignorant ones aka theists.
People that have abandoned their minds for dogma.

U R exhibit #1 - in The Knuckle Dragger museum.

Polly want a cracker?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#873 Apr 28, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Science is
silent on atheism.
The rest of us
laugh at atheism
then why must you continually lie about atheists in an attempt to support your cult?

seems lik eyou really just fear the truth, like most cult members.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#874 Apr 28, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Science is
silent on atheism.
The rest of us
laugh at atheism
... and in doing so, you place yourselves below those who are more respectful of their fellow beings.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#875 Apr 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>downhill, sometimes you try to lump atheism in as a religion and here you are saying it is not...
A great example of his intellectual dishonesty. The great sin of relgious people is that their approach to life is subjective not objective, even their faith. That is why so many Cafeteria Christians exist.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#876 Apr 29, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Science is
silent on atheism.
The rest of us
laugh at atheism
Aww, another failed theist troll, bitter about having absolutely no proof of god.
Thinking

Hounslow, UK

#877 Apr 29, 2013
If religion hadn't taught Hitler and the German people to hate the jews, then a lot of civilians would not have been killed.
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Bombing Nazi Germany to rubble
from 1944 to 1945 seemed to work well.

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 scientia potentia... 29,448
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 min Uncle Sam 11,341
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 15 min Richardfs 348
Atheism is not a belief 50 min Brian_G 186
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Richardfs 254,898
News Revered Artist Was an Atheist Who Rejected God.... 1 hr woodtick57 41
News Abir Abdullah/EPA, via NewscomIn Bangladesh, Go... 1 hr NightSerf 1
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr Richardfs 9,593
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 4 hr Cheshire smile 50,932
More from around the web