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

#1121 May 6, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text> I dont buy into any of that conspiracy nonsense at all.
I was just pointing ou the Hitler was a dedicated Catholic is about as factual as Obama was born in Kenya. Or bush did 9/11.
People who believe in any of the above nonsense will ignore 90% of the evidence that disagree with their opinion and hang onto scraps that do.
Atheists post the Hitler nonsense often.
Atheist do not want theists on "Their" threads LOL
Imagine these atheists in power in the United States.
Politically this is one of the reasons people generally do not vote for atheists.
Atheists love their own views but intolerant of other views.
Atheists seem filled with Hate.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1122 May 6, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists post the Hitler nonsense often.
Atheist do not want theists on "Their" threads LOL
Imagine these atheists in power in the United States.
Politically this is one of the reasons people generally do not vote for atheists.
Atheists love their own views but intolerant of other views.
Atheists seem filled with Hate.
Im going to leave this thread. Arguing with these people is a lot like arguing with Birthers and Truthers. ALL are just different branches of the same tree.
Lincoln

United States

#1123 May 6, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text> Im going to leave this thread. Arguing with these people is a lot like arguing with Birthers and Truthers. ALL are just different branches of the same tree.
Never thought of that.
They do remind of "the Birther" thread on Topix.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1124 May 6, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text> You have been arguing with me about the diaries ever since I pointed out they where a forgery..
Wow, but YOU ARE delusional!

I have been arguing about the PHOTOS I linked to-- WHICH YOU SAID YOU IGNORED.

Does lying come naturally to you? Or did you have to practice first?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1125 May 6, 2013
californio wrote:
But I had a good weekend spending time with my Famliy and friends on a trip to Griffith park. I simply dont have time to waste on topix over the weekend.
And your batsh7t-insanity was not missed in the least.

I do hope your family has adult supervision-- you appear to be quite insane... and not in the least, an adult.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1126 May 6, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text> Im going to leave this thread. Arguing with these people is a lot like arguing with Birthers and Truthers. ALL are just different branches of the same tree.
Don't let the screen door smack you on your oversized backside on the way out...

... you won't be missed.

At all.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#1127 May 6, 2013
I think the coversation is more interesting in that it might indicate that some people feel oddly defensive about the question.

There also seems to be communicaton problems, part of which might be caused by failing to keep discussion of a figure's public stance distinct from their private superstitious beliefs. In my experience, the latter were normally weak even in ages past and something most people give little serious thought to them. They may be caused by upbringing (give me a boy under 7..).

Most people's attitude to religion can vary over time so they might be a believer at some point and not at another - Hitler and Obama both.

The point I would emphasise is how silly and divisive religious superstitions are in this day and age.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#1128 May 6, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't let the screen door smack you on your oversized backside on the way out...
... you won't be missed.
At all.
I disagree.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#1129 May 6, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text> I dont buy into any of that conspiracy nonsense at all.
I was just pointing ou the Hitler was a dedicated Catholic is about as factual as Obama was born in Kenya. Or bush did 9/11.
People who believe in any of the above nonsense will ignore 90% of the evidence that disagree with their opinion and hang onto scraps that do.
You bought into conspiracy nuttery, it's the same thing. Do yourself a favor, learn German, then listen to his recorded speeches, lest you truly look a fool.
Lincoln

United States

#1130 May 6, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't let the screen door smack you on your oversized backside on the way out...
... you won't be missed.
At all.
At last you admit defeat.
Lincoln

United States

#1131 May 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You bought into conspiracy nuttery, it's the same thing. Do yourself a favor, learn German, then listen to his recorded speeches, lest you truly look a fool.
Hitler lied, in German and in the translations.
Read "Hitler's Table Talk" or go to a historian on Germany during World War II.

"The Sudetenland] is the last territorial claim that I have to make in Europe." Hitler after Munch 1938.
Hitler stated he had no wish to go to war with Poland, etc.

This is History not metaphysics. Hitler would say anything to gain power. Peace

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#1132 May 6, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Hitler lied, in German and in the translations.
Read "Hitler's Table Talk" or go to a historian on Germany during World War II.
"The Sudetenland] is the last territorial claim that I have to make in Europe." Hitler after Munch 1938.
Hitler stated he had no wish to go to war with Poland, etc.
This is History not metaphysics. Hitler would say anything to gain power. Peace
Um, wait, Hitler lied ... about what he believes .... wow. That has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1133 May 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, wait, Hitler lied ... about what he believes .... wow. That has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read.
Indeed.

These Christian Apologizers will literally say >>anything<< to try to excuse the multiple-failures, the outright atrocity perpetrated by their ugly beliefs.

It is disgusting to witness.

More to the point?

What sort of >>good<< god would >>permit<< such things to ruin it's "good" name?

Answer: no god would stand for these shenanigans.

Conclusion: there are no good gods, anywhere.

And life is too sweet, for there to be bad gods...

... sooooo...

:D
Lincoln

United States

#1134 May 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, wait, Hitler lied ... about what he believes .... wow. That has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read.
This is a bit like when you posted "wiki" was a good primary source for documentation. REMEMBER?

History actually does have rules of evidence.
Several thousand books have been written on World War II.
Lincoln

United States

#1135 May 6, 2013
K K

"Hitler of History" John Lukacs Phoenix Press

The horrible life and work of Adolf Hitler have long raised puzzling questions for historians: How could the putatively civilized German nation allow a leader to plunge it into murderous barbarism?

Why did the rest of Europe not put a stop to Hitler’s rise before Germany could amass imperial power? How did Hitler transform bourgeois anti-Semitism into the Holocaust?

John Lukacs addresses these and many other questions in this book of essays on the many problems Hitler and his regime present to historians. He assesses the contemporary, too-abundant literature, and makes some surprising and controversial evaluations.

Since 1945 there have been over 100 biographies of Adolf Hitler. Depictions of the dictator have ranged from the anti-Christ to a man who really did nothing wrong, whose staff caused all the evils.

The late noted historian Lukacs has not written a biography of Hitler but a history of the history of the knowledge we have of Hitler by examining his major biographers. Through the analysis of writers in Germany, England, and the United States,

Lukacs wrestles with such problems as where Hitler’s ideas were shaped, his racism, his obsession with Jews, and other problems facing anyone studying the leader of the Third Reich. Along the way, he discusses the admirers and defenders of Hitler and Hitler’s place in history.

This is an important book for anyone wishing to delve seriously into the literature of Hitler. While not an easy work to read, it should be in all academic and large public libraries.In

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#1136 May 6, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a bit like when you posted "wiki" was a good primary source for documentation. REMEMBER?
History actually does have rules of evidence.
Several thousand books have been written on World War II.
The big difference: Wiki operators require valid sources and those must be included in the articles, so you can trace them. When no sources are cited, the information is questionable, and wiki owners tend to delete anything that does not present valid sources. You offer no valid sources, simply your blind assertion.
Lincoln

United States

#1137 May 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The big difference: Wiki operators require valid sources and those must be included in the articles, so you can trace them. When no sources are cited, the information is questionable, and wiki owners tend to delete anything that does not present valid sources. You offer no valid sources, simply your blind assertion.
Wikipedia acknowledges that it should not be used as a primary source for research.[3]

Librarian Philip Bradley stated in an October 2004 interview with The Guardian that "the main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window."[4] Robert McHenry similarly noted that readers of Wikipedia cannot know who has written the article they are reading – it may or may not have been written by an expert.[5]
Lincoln

United States

#1138 May 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The big difference: Wiki operators require valid sources and those must be included in the articles, so you can trace them. When no sources are cited, the information is questionable, and wiki owners tend to delete anything that does not present valid sources. You offer no valid sources, simply your blind assertion.
"Hitler of History"
John Lukacs Phoenix Press a valid source. Numerous books

Sir Martin John Gilbert Biographer of Sir Winston Churchill, numerous books

Read any of these books or suggest historian on world war II that you have read?
Fair Enough
Peace

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#1139 May 6, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia acknowledges that it should not be used as a primary source for research.[3]
Librarian Philip Bradley stated in an October 2004 interview with The Guardian that "the main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window."[4] Robert McHenry similarly noted that readers of Wikipedia cannot know who has written the article they are reading – it may or may not have been written by an expert.[5]
2004, you do realize that it's now 9 years later, almost a full decade, right? A librarian is not an authority, either, making this an appeal to authority fallacy for you, again. Have you ever read the disclaimer in any science magazine? Same disclaimer, it's a legal protection disclaimer to avoid lawsuits by people stupid enough to take what they read and then go do stupid things based on it. You're acting as naive as a 5 year old now.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#1140 May 6, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
"Hitler of History"
John Lukacs Phoenix Press a valid source. Numerous books
Sir Martin John Gilbert Biographer of Sir Winston Churchill, numerous books
Read any of these books or suggest historian on world war II that you have read?
Fair Enough
Peace
Nope, not a valid source. Aesope wrote hundreds of books on monsters, does that make them experts on monsters?

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) 8 min ChristineM 243,148
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 11 min ChristineM 9,248
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 23 min Brian_G 19,752
Should atheists have the burden of proof? 3 hr thetruth 21
John 3:16 3 hr thetruth 33
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 9 hr NoahLovesU 6,174
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 14 hr ChristineM 2,283
More from around the web