More Dawkins idiocy...

[Sunstone]

9/11 was inside job...

In other news, it has been discovered that moon people are made of green cheese, just like the moon itself, and that the lunar landings that purportedly found otherwise were actually a hoax.

 

[outhouse]

If you keep refusing to answer the questions

Why are you making up questions that have nothing to do with Dawkins in context to what he actually stated???


You still have not substantiated your claim of Dawkins utopianism.

Is there such a thing as 'humanity'?

Where I live, there is plenty.

Is there any evidence from history that shows humans are likely to accept common values?

Is there any evidence from history that we have gained ground and that more and more people strive to accept common values?

Can you explain how 'reason' will lead to salvation?

Salvation from what? Islamic terrosim? Islamic sectarian genocide?

Dawkins believes that all 'rational' humans should think like he does, can you show me any evidence to support this view?

If we all thought like him, there would be no violence and more understanding.

The world would be so lucky to have everyone so educated.

I think you would find his main gripe is the negative aspects of religion more so then religion all together.

If you think there is no room for improvement, you would never be a friend of mine.

Can you explain why Stalinism should be described as a religion, but humanism shouldn't be?

Can you provide sources? because last time I checked ideology is not religion.

Can you explain why Stalinism is "evidence free" but humanism is evidence based?

Did he state this?

we can't really move past this stage...

I think you might need to understand the context to what he actually said first.

 

[Laika]

Religious faiths such as Stalinism, Nazism & Islam are dangerous because they teach that pie-in-the-sky Ends justify horrific Means.

hey Augustus, this might make you smile.

Spoiler

 

[Augustus]

Why are you making up questions that have nothing to do with Dawkins in context to what he actually stated???

They have everything to do with what he stated, and theses are views he has expressed in many contexts. They are reflective of his attitude in general.

I'm still unsure whether or not you understand the point that I'm making. I'm discussing the fact that his beliefs rely on transcendental qualities and are thus just as 'religious' and 'evidence free' as those that he criticises.

This is the only point, nothing else.

Where I live, there is plenty.

Humanity (human beings collectively) as a concept cannot be reached through reason. There is nothing scientific or natural about the concept. It is a product of religious though and is not something that you find in many traditional cultures.

It is a transcendental or mystical concept, not a scientific one.

There is nothing wrong with this in general. We all buy into some form of mythology. We should realise that we do this though and he doesn't.

I think you would find his main gripe is the negative aspects of religion more so then religion all together.

If you think there is no room for improvement, you would never be a friend of mine.

No, he is contemptuous of theistic religion in general. In the God Delusion he speculated that it might be worse to be raised Catholic than to be sexually abused as a child.

Can you provide sources? because last time I checked ideology is not religion.

I wouldn't use the term, Dawkins did though. In the OP I discussed it. Most ideologies contain aspects that could be described as "quasi-religious" though or maybe sanctified, mystical, transcendental, etc.

Did he state this?

He implied it and it reflects his wider view expressed frequently.

You still have not substantiated your claim of Dawkins utopianism.

This is why you need to answer the questions that I asked.

They are utopian because they are ideological rather than reflective of reality. Anything that claims to be universal is utopian. Anyone who believes that their personal values are the ones that would arise if only people were more rational is utopian.

Is there any evidence from history that we have gained ground and that more and more people strive to accept common values?

Not really.

The mass media has had some effect, but as we see there is a significant push back against the spread of such "common values". Diversity of worldviews had diminished due to the extinction of countless traditional cultures, but there is no move towards any universal values. Europeans were gassing Jews and deliberately starving tens of millions to death 75 years ago. America only ended racial segregation 50 years ago.

Why would any reasonable person see values as anything other than cyclical and changing? Progression and regression is what history shows. To think there will be no more regression is utopian.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

There are more distinctions than this. Something like 20-30% of all Muslims are Islamists - in that they believe Sharia should be the law of the land.

First of all, 20-30% of Muslims want Sharia law, as you say but where do they want it? Because I'm pretty sure a much higher percentage of Muslims would want Sharia law throughout Muslims lands. Closer to probably 90%. That probably scares you and I don't blame you, because western commentators, so called specialists, who speak on a minute by minute basis on anti-Islamic propaganda have made you believe that Sharia law is all about be-headings, and oppressing women or oppressing white people or oppressing non-Muslims etc etc etc. The reality is, that is not what Sharia law is.

Sharia law, first of all, stipulates the creation of a social welfare state and under the rule of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Madinah became the first society, in human history with a social welfare system i.e., those who are poor or neglected or elderly or jobless or orphaned are looked after by the resources of the state who tax those who have a certain amount of savings and earnings, on a yearly basis, to build institutes and provide employment for such people. So to put it simply: tax those who have, to provide for those who do not. There is no other taxation in the Islamic state (not ISIS, I mean a true Islamic state), except the zakat tax (tax for the welfare of the poor and orphaned). Which part of this do you find objectionable?

Of course there are many parts of the criminal law and civil law, all encompassed within Sharia, which are twisted to seem sadistic or inhumane by, yes you guessed it, the media. Sharia covers everything from fraud, taxation, murder, rape to divorce, marriage, civil lawsuits, injury claims and so on. It does so with the best balance I have seen of any law I have studied. For example, after a divorce occurs, the man must pay for the well being of his child, even if that child is living with his ex-wife for a certain amount of time, until the woman can again stand on her own two feet or is remarried. What do you find objectionable in that? In fact, that is the basis of most modern "western" divorce settlements.

So, any Muslim or non-Muslim who has studied Sharia without pre-conceived notions or prejudices, will recognise it for what it is, an effective basis for criminal and civil justice. In fact, most civil aspects of Sharia,have been incorporated in almost every society on earth.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

I remember when I was younger and thought I knew it all. Come back when your double that and have experience to back up your words.



Non sequitur for a global religion.



Then why are muslims the most illiterate group out of all the abrahamic traditions?

Why does islam produce more terrorist then any other religion?

Why was some of my muslim family murdered by other muslims over sectarian violence?

Why does islam require the most fanaticism and fundamentalism?

Maybe you don't understand even what islam calls moderate muslims, and not even moderate. I have yet to meet a muslim who accepts the truth in academia and history and I'm at a religious site.

Why is there no such thing as a credible muslim scholar?




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/terror-recruit-study_n_5916822.html

Among the other notable data points:

• 98 percent of interviewees perceived Islam to be under threat.
  • 98 percent believe the Somali government only protects its own interests.
  • 100 percent received no or limited education.
  • 64 percent joined with friends.
  
  
• 0 percent referred to a Somali national identity or the concept of 'Somalis.'

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.

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.

I do not know why your Muslim family was murdered. Why would I?

Who said Islam required the most fanatacism? In fact, the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (PBUH) states openly, "Take the middle path and do not be extreme in your views". That's from over 1400 years ago, not today.

I don't understand your next point, are you seriously saying Muslims, moderate or otherwise, do not accept academia in it's entirety and history in it's entirety? Or are you only talking about specific aspects of academia and history?

You has told you there is no such thing as a credible muslim scholar? what is a credible muslim scholar in your view? how does that compare or contrast with credible scholars or other religions and fields of study?

Ok, now onto the juicy bit. You have selectively quotes answers from "interviewees" from Somalia and made it seem like 98% of somalians like and support such and such thing. If you read the article itself, it is based on the interviews of 88 people who joined Al-Shabab during their youth and why they joined it. the article itself states, the reason for "radicalisation" is not due to Islam or religion of any kind but "there is no specific propaganda or belief that draws people to al-Shabab. Rather, it is the systemic dissolution of social services, security and national identity in Somalia that is driving youths to radicalize."

Why would you not mention the context of the article, what it is about and what the percentages actually mean?

I get the feeling you are not here to discuss issues but rather instigate your own personal views, ignorances and hatreds towards Muslims. I do hope I'm wrong, I really do. So I sincerely take time to read my response and to build a well researched ,well written argument. That you do not just pick and choose what you want to reply to, as I replied to everything you said and backed it up with reality and facts.

 

[icehorse]

First of all, 20-30% of Muslims want Sharia law, as you say but where do they want it? Because I'm pretty sure a much higher percentage of Muslims would want Sharia law throughout Muslims lands. Closer to probably 90%. That probably scares you and I don't blame you, because western commentators, so called specialists, who speak on a minute by minute basis on anti-Islamic propaganda have made you believe that Sharia law is all about be-headings, and oppressing women or oppressing white people or oppressing non-Muslims etc etc etc. The reality is, that is not what Sharia law is.

Sharia law, first of all, stipulates the creation of a social welfare state and under the rule of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Madinah became the first society, in human history with a social welfare system i.e., those who are poor or neglected or elderly or jobless or orphaned are looked after by the resources of the state who tax those who have a certain amount of savings and earnings, on a yearly basis, to build institutes and provide employment for such people. So to put it simply: tax those who have, to provide for those who do not. There is no other taxation in the Islamic state (not ISIS, I mean a true Islamic state), except the zakat tax (tax for the welfare of the poor and orphaned). Which part of this do you find objectionable?

Of course there are many parts of the criminal law and civil law, all encompassed within Sharia, which are twisted to seem sadistic or inhumane by, yes you guessed it, the media. Sharia covers everything from fraud, taxation, murder, rape to divorce, marriage, civil lawsuits, injury claims and so on. It does so with the best balance I have seen of any law I have studied. For example, after a divorce occurs, the man must pay for the well being of his child, even if that child is living with his ex-wife for a certain amount of time, until the woman can again stand on her own two feet or is remarried. What do you find objectionable in that? In fact, that is the basis of most modern "western" divorce settlements.

So, any Muslim or non-Muslim who has studied Sharia without pre-conceived notions or prejudices, will recognise it for what it is, an effective basis for criminal and civil justice. In fact, most civil aspects of Sharia,have been incorporated in almost every society on earth.

How about we start with the premise that you have no idea what I think, and move the discussion on from that point?

Decades ago, Muslim leaders from around the world rejected the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (UNDHR), and several decades later they put forth an Islam-friendly version called the Cairo Declaration. This was not done by a few extremists, this was done by a collective of leaders from the world's Muslim majority or Muslim significant countries.

Why did they do this? Because - for example - they couldn't live with the idea that apostasy should NOT be a crime. What else do we need to know about Islam? You can cherry-pick scripture all you like, when the rubber meets the road, Islam is the enemy of the most basic of human rights.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

How about we start with the premise that you have no idea what I think, and move the discussion on from that point?

Decades ago, Muslim leaders from around the world rejected the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (UNDHR), and several decades later they put forth an Islam-friendly version called the Cairo Declaration. This was not done by a few extremists, this was done by a collective of leaders from the world's Muslim majority or Muslim significant countries.

Why did they do this? Because - for example - they couldn't live with the idea that apostasy should NOT be a crime. What else do we need to know about Islam? You can cherry-pick scripture all you like, when the rubber meets the road, Islam is the enemy of the most basic of human rights.

You countered, or tried to counter, my argument. I answered you and yet you refuse to answer me. That's fine but we don't need to carry on having this discussion now until you decide to engage in a 2 way discussion.

 

[icehorse]

No, you started your response with a strawman. I'm not going to defend claims I didn't make. A strawman is NOT true conversation, it bases the conversation on a fallacy. So, let's attempt to be fallacy free and have a discussion.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

No, you started your response with a strawman. I'm not going to defend claims I didn't make. A strawman is NOT true conversation, it bases the conversation on a fallacy. So, let's attempt to be fallacy free and have a discussion.

Don't give me the strawman rubbish, I'm not entirely sure you even understand the term. Like I said, I answered your points, now you answer mine. That's known as a discussion. If you do not wish to do so, that's fine.

 

[icehorse]

Don't give me the strawman rubbish, I'm not entirely sure you even understand the term. Like I said, I answered your points, now you answer mine. That's known as a discussion. If you do not wish to do so, that's fine.

I went back and read your response to me again, let's look at some specifics:

You said:

That probably scares you and I don't blame you, because western commentators, so called specialists, who speak on a minute by minute basis on anti-Islamic propaganda have made you believe that Sharia law is all about be-headings, and oppressing women or oppressing white people or oppressing non-Muslims etc etc etc.

There are two strawman claims in this sentence and in both cases you guessed wrong about what I believe.

Then you cherry-picked certain aspects of Sharia and asked:

Which part of this do you find objectionable?

Again, a strawman. I never claimed either agreement or disagreement with the specific aspects of Sharia you mentioned.

Then you cherry-picked some more aspects of Sharia and asked:

What do you find objectionable in that?

Another strawman, implying that I disagree with some of the details you listed.

==

In the spirit of discussion, I will grant you that there are aspects of Sharia that have captured good morals and ethics. The problem is that Muslims tell us that we're not allowed to cherry pick the faith. Instead, we must take the whole she-bang lock, stock and barrel. We must treat the entire ideology as if it's perfect, final, and unalterable.

 

[Lyndon]

There's no such thing as a strawman, its just a term used to insult people who's ideas you don't comprehend or want to deal with.

 

[outhouse]

There's no such thing as a strawman, its just a term used to insult people who's ideas you don't comprehend or want to deal with.

That is not really true.

There is certain level of intellect to recognize these debate tactics, and it takes practice to sharpen these mental skills.

Plenty of people here use fallacies while debating when in desperation.

 

[outhouse]

You has told you there is no such thing as a credible muslim scholar?

It is an impossibility in my honest opinion, to have such thing as a credible muslim scholar, but there are plenty of muslim apologist who claim they are doing credible work. Muslim scholars are forced to live and follow the apologetic rhetoric not actual true history.


It would be the same as saying Christian apologist are credible historians. They factually are not, they are apologist.


Scholars have an unbiased view searching for the truth, they cannot let faith change their findings.


You can change my mind though. Please show me one muslim scholar that states muhammad plagiarized the bible, and that abraham and moses and noah are mythical characters.

Name any credible scholar in the whole world that uses the koran for any part of historical jesus studies or Israelite history BC, and you can change my mind.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

It is an impossibility in my honest opinion, to have such thing as a credible muslim scholar, but there are plenty of muslim apologist who claim they are doing credible work. Muslim scholars are forced to live and follow the apologetic rhetoric not actual true history.


It would be the same as saying Christian apologist are credible historians. They factually are not, they are apologist.


Scholars have an unbiased view searching for the truth, they cannot let faith change their findings.


You can change my mind though. Please show me one muslim scholar that states muhammad plagiarized the bible, and that abraham and moses and noah are mythical characters.

Name any credible scholar in the whole world that uses the koran for any part of historical jesus studies or Israelite history BC, and you can change my mind.

What are you trying to say? You should clarify and you should also answer my original reply.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

I went back and read your response to me again, let's look at some specifics:

You said:

There are two strawman claims in this sentence and in both cases you guessed wrong about what I believe.

Then you cherry-picked certain aspects of Sharia and asked:

Again, a strawman. I never claimed either agreement or disagreement with the specific aspects of Sharia you mentioned.

Then you cherry-picked some more aspects of Sharia and asked:

Another strawman, implying that I disagree with some of the details you listed.

==

In the spirit of discussion, I will grant you that there are aspects of Sharia that have captured good morals and ethics. The problem is that Muslims tell us that we're not allowed to cherry pick the faith. Instead, we must take the whole she-bang lock, stock and barrel. We must treat the entire ideology as if it's perfect, final, and unalterable.

No, you are the one who originally posted, in response to my post (which was not in anyway related to your response but I answered any way) that 20-30% of Muslims are Islamists because they want Sharia, implying that Sharia is dangerous or bad. I gave you examples of how it is not. If you would like, I could give you many more, not just the ones I "cherry picked". And since you did not, yet again, answer my questions, I'll let you off and since you states you do not object to the points of Sharia I posted, what do you object to then?

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

There's no such thing as a strawman, its just a term used to insult people who's ideas you don't comprehend or want to deal with.

In all honesty, I don't think people know what they mean when they say "oh that's just a strawman" and as you can see, the two people replying to my posts have not furthered the discussion one bit by continuously ignoring my questions and my responses to their questions.

 

[outhouse]

What are you trying to say?

What part of my opinion that muslims are required to refuse credible academic knowledge do not you understand?

 

[outhouse]

Who has told you Muslims are the most illiterate group of all Abrahamic faiths?

credible statistics.

 

[outhouse]

As is the case in countless non-Muslim, poor nations or the 3rd world as some would label it.

Yes this has much to do with the illiteracy. Muslims are the poorest of the poor.