• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

More Dawkins idiocy...

Sapiens

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Tomorrows_Child said:
You have just about ignored all my facts, or tried twisting them and that final part, wow. Anyway, let me just break down your "argument".

First point, "non-sequitor" for a global religion. What do you mean? I already quoted stats of how small the proportion of ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc are to the global population of Muslims, why did you quote the bit where I was specifically talking about Britain only?

Who has told you Muslims are the most illiterate group of all Abrahamic faiths? Show me the numbers and the sources. Did you know it was Muslims who first developed the modern concept of a hospital and a university? Did you know that it is Muslim nations which still house the world's oldest educational establishments? Education rates in much of the Muslim world have definitely dropped in the last 2-3 centuries, but that is more to do with poverty, colonialism, slavery, economic and military oppression of the haves on the have nots. As is the case in countless non-Muslim, poor nations or the 3rd world as some would label it.
Click to expand...
There is not doubt that the Islamic world maintained a great deal of western knowledge that otherwise would have been lost during the middle ages, but as the saying goes, "what have you done lately?" Currently Muslims are the most illiterate group of all Abrahamic faiths and maintain the greatest gender gap in literacy.

International Islamic News Agency said:
Illiteracy is stunningly rampant in the Muslim world. Nearly 40 percent, (with varying percentages in the Member States of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) of the Muslim world's population cannot read or write, which means that there are hundreds of millions of illiterates in the OIC countries, mostly female, according to a report prepared by OIC and obtained by the International Islamic News Agency (IINA).

The report showed that adult literacy rate in the OIC countries is roughly 73 percent, lower than the global adult literacy rate (82 percent), and the rate of other developing countries (85 percent), based on 2013 statistics.

The Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) stated that illiteracy rates in the Muslim world ranges between 40 percent among males and 65 percent among females, with rural areas lagging behind urban areas by over 10 percent.
Click to expand...
Tomorrows_Child said:
Again, who had told you Islam produces more terrorists than any other religion or ideology? Numbers, stats and sources?
Do you know the definition of terrorism? Here, from the english dictionary: "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." A terrorist would be one who then perpetrates the violence and intimidation. Who has perpetrated more violence than the armies of Britain, the US, NATO across the world, in particular the Muslim world. By the very definition of the english language, they are terrorists and on a far larger and much more well equipped level than ISIS and the likes can even dream of.
Click to expand...
The actions of the armies of Britain, the US, and NATO maybe, in your eyes, reprehensible, but they do not fit your definition of Terrorism in that they are OFFICIAL and AUTHORIZED use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Remember, Carl von Clausewitz said, "War is the continuation of politics by other means."
 
icehorse

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Osal said:
The number of people in the US killed through some form of gun violence is the US last year was aound 12,000 (gunviolencearchive.org).

The US is far more violent, and senslessly so, than the ISIS caliphate. That's not to say that ISIS should be excused, but if we object to what ISIS is doing, how can we turn a blind eye to violence in our own back yard? How can we take moral ground we do not deserve?

And what would we do if some other country invaded to save us from ourselves?
Click to expand...

I can take the moral high ground because I'm not the US government. I can disagree with BOTH ISIS and US domestic and foreign policy ;)
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
2014 Syria 76,000 pop 22 m
2014 afgan 14,638 pop 31 m
2014 Iraq 21,073 pop 34 m

111,711 deaths for 87 M people

12,000 USA 320 m people


That's only 3 middle eastern countries.
 
David M

David M

Well-Known Member
leibowde84 said:
Signature strikes? I'm not sure what that means.
Click to expand...

Attacks launched at targets that exhibit behaviour that meets certain criteria but without any knowledge of the people targetted. For instance a group of armed males, which in regions where lots of people carry guns is certainly no indication of hostile activity. As was admited by a former US Ambassador the criteria for who is a target: “The definition is a male between the ages of 20 and 40. My feeling is one man’s combatant is another man’s – well, a chump who went to a meeting.”

Mestemia said:
Source?
Click to expand...

See above. Killing people simple because they are doing something that matches something that terrorists also do leads to the intentional targetting of civilians who have nothing to do with any conflict.

There is also the admitted tactic of delayed strikes so that rescuers are hit when they go to help those injured in the first strike.
 
Last edited:
prometheus11

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
To the OP:

While I don't agree with Dawkins all the time, I can't find much to disagree with, here. The pejoratives used concerning him indicate a personal grudge rather than a legitimate issue with his rhetoric. Maybe people who are lashing out against Dawkins are just angry because at some time in the past he struck a nerve? That'd be my guess.
 
Olinda

Olinda

Member
Hi Prometheus11. the 'practice' comment related to some stuff that was very rightly deleted from this thread.

"While I don't agree with Dawkins all the time, I can't find much to disagree with, here. The pejoratives used concerning him indicate a personal grudge rather than a legitimate issue with his rhetoric. Maybe people who are lashing out against Dawkins are just angry because at some time in the past he struck a nerve? That'd be my guess."

Personally, I do have an issue with Richard Dawkins. I've seen people raised in fundamental, authoritarian beliefs who have rejected these as adults, preach 'Dawkinism' as passionately as they ever held their former beliefs. And this is not entirely harmless, as it causes stress to family and friends who prefer a gentle, liberal form of their own religion to atheism. Exactly the same "now I have the truth; if you don't agree you are wrong" attitude as they held in their birth religion.

Specific to the OP, I think Augustus has validly made the point that Richard Dawkins is quick to ridicule people whose beliefs cannot be backed up with evidence and/or logic, yet the same can be said for his own belief system.
 
prometheus11

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
It's not ideal, but I'll take the trade. Those people now need genuine love and they'll realize it faster on that course than pretending to be religious.
 
Olinda

Olinda

Member
outhouse said:
That has not been demonstrated, that is my whole problem with the OP

well, if Augustus hasn't convinced you it's unlikely that I will. Let's agree to differ :)



I'm sorry but lack of logic should be ridiculed in many cases, depending on context.
Click to expand...

Belief, by it's nature, is not necessarily supported by either logic or evidence. Nothing wrong with that, unless it contradicts logic or evidence. In any case, I'm at a loss to see how ridicule will help.
 
Olinda

Olinda

Member
prometheus11 said:
It's not ideal, but I'll take the trade. Those people now need genuine love and they'll realize it faster on that course than pretending to be religious.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in your evidence that
1 genuine love excludes accepting different beliefs
2 a liberal religious belief system is equivalent to 'pretending to be religious'

See, I'm on a journey myself to define my own belief system; being here is part of that. Someone shouting me down, flourishing Dawkins' works and ridiculing any beliefs that I may express is no more help to me than any other religious bigot Or a blowfly.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
Olinda said:
Belief, by it's nature, is not necessarily supported by either logic or evidence
Click to expand...

Without getting to philosophical, or the definition of belief. It is supported by both logic and evidence. And this is heavily defended by theist.

And supported by secular cultures.

Faith on the other hand, yes I would agree, but again theist will argue it.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
well, if Augustus hasn't convinced you it's unlikely that I will. Let's agree to differ

Sorry I place a higher value on your opinion bud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top