More Dawkins idiocy...

[outhouse]

In other words, can you give specific examples

Nope. Your not going to get a discussion in any depth what so ever.

 

[outhouse]

,

You're definition of terrorism does not include dropping bombs on innocent civilians, women and children, shows how bankrupt the whole definition of terrorism is by the West.

Do you EVER have any credible sources that the USA on purpose dropped bombs in innocent civilians or women and children, for just that purpose like the coward terrorist?


No you cannot. We are human and make mistakes, and often terrorist purposely, like the cowardly trash that they are hide behind women and children.


So you want to change the definition of terrorist, which I find hypocritical when you enjoy your freedom and safety the military gives you at no charge, less the blood of your brothers.

Why don't you move to one of these 3rd world countries if you don't like it here?

 

[Lyndon]

Oh brother!!!

 

[Lyndon]

I know you think fallacy arguments are nonsense. That said, how about we dispense with the ad hominem attacks? In other words, can you give specific examples to back up your claim that I haven't been listening?

(BTW, the King Fahd complex is also the one I read. I agree that it's the version most commonly reprinted in English, which is why I read it. That said, many of the Muslims I've debated have told me that they don't think it should be considered the definitive translation.)

Once again I don't believe you, the King Fahd edition of the Koran is the least reprinted as it is not available online. And it is never called the King Fahd complex, just for the point of argument what colour is it??

 

[icehorse]

Lyndon,

Sunstone is correct, you ARE good for a laugh. Alright, I'll indulge you one more time, here's a link to the complex, and really dude, you have to stop calling me a liar, you embarrass yourself:

http://www.qurancomplex.org/

 

[Glaurung]

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.

You have it backwards. Stawmen are quite real, and the whole point is to avoid the real argument. And when it comes to Islam, you unfailingly avoid the real point. That point being the recognition of the blood-stained elephant that for some bonkers reason you are determined to deny. (And never mind the reality that large chucks of the Muslim world which you so sycophantically defend comprise some of the most oppressive places on earth) Of course, you won't listen because anyone who takes the view that Islam has serious problems can only be motivated by "right-wing, Jew sympathizing, xenophobia".

Most Muslims aren't violent, but the beliefs which at the very least tacitly condone Islamism to varying degrees aren't super fringe. What other group throws murderous hissy-fits over unflattering cartoons? What other group puts bounties on the heads of authors over perceived "blasphemy"? Why do we have to walk on egg shells when it comes to Islam? I didn't like it when people attacked Catholicism, but in no instance did I ever desire to kill over it. I can't say the same thing about a significant percentage of Muslims.

(Late edit - spelling)

 

[Sunstone]

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.

I suppose the...um..."scholar"...who told you that had a degree in logic from Liberty University?

 

[Lyndon]

You're not going to accuse me of using a strawman, I'm disappointed!!

 

[Sunstone]

You're not going to accuse me of using a strawman, I'm disappointed!!

I'm sure you will provide me with plenty of chances in the future.

Logic was my first or second favorite subject at uni. Really.

I love how you so often boldly go where no logician dares to follow.

 

[leibowde84]

Earlier today, arch-buffoon Richard Dawkins tweeted these:

Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins 10h10 hours ago
Religious faiths such as Stalinism, Nazism & Islam are dangerous because they teach that pie-in-the-sky Ends justify horrific Means.

Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins 9h9 hours ago
Evidence-free ideologies such as Stalinism, Nazism & Islam are dangerous because they teach that pie-in-the-sky Ends justify horrific Means

These are classic examples of why he is far less rational than he believes himself to be.

The first one labels Stalinism and Naziism 'religions' to support his ideological assumptions. His arguments about the "unique danger" of religious belief have to come up against the major flaw that some non-religious ideologies have been even more murderous than the religions he hates. To solve this, hey why not just just say that they are religions instead?

But don't they have the characteristics of religions?

Well, it is certainly arguable, but the problem, from his perspective, is that if these are 'religions', then you have to conclude that ideologies such as humanism or Western liberalism are also religions.

These are ideologies that contend that they are universal and innate to 'humanity', humanity itself is a religious construct as it universalism. They place a mystical value on something, in this case the individual and its inalienable human rights. They also preach salvation, for Dawkins, salvation comes through science, reason, democracy and respect for individual rights. As with religious people, he believes that there is one correct way of living, which, by happy coincidence, just happens to be the same as the one as he believes in.

So, on to the 2nd tweet. Instead of religion, it is now "evidence free ideologies" that are the problem. All of the world's problems are cause by people's lack of reason. It is important to note that he didn't refer to utopian ideologies being problematic, just "evidence free" ones. Irrational, unscientific thinking again is the cause of all evil.

Unfortunately for Mr Dawkins, he is a humanist, and if any ideology meets the criterion of being "evidence free", it is humanism. Yet again, he fails to realise that his own beliefs are disproved by any scientific criteria and are wholly irrational.

There is no humanity, no universal human rights, no salvation through reason. Yet he is entirely confident in the fact that his beliefs are perfectly rational and evidence based. Not only is there no evidence to support his views, but there is a mountain of evidence to disprove them.

The problem is not with "evidence free" ideologies, but utopian ones. Radical Islam, Stalinism and Naziism were indeed utopian, and this quest for utopia justifies the cruellest means. Unfortunately for him, Dawkins own ideology is also utopian. For example, a significant number of Humanists supported the neo-conservative/liberal interventionist wars. Fighting wars to establish human right and Western values is utopian. Any ideology that sees itself as universal is utopian.

But, the problem with utopian thinkers is that they can see the irrational utopianism in the ideas of others, but not within themselves.

This is not to say that humanism or liberalism are 'bad' or comparable to Stalinism, radical Islamism, etc., it's just that if you want to attack these ideologies you need to understand the basis for your own belief system.

Some ideologies are preferable to others, it's just that people are never going to agree on which ones. In the modern world, we have the problem that these competing belief systems are brought into contact with each other too much.

No matter how desirable it may be though, you aren't going to convince everybody that they must adopt your value system because it more 'factual'. This is not because they are blind to the evidence, but that you are blind to your utopianism.

Ideologies are how you explain to yourself how the world works. They are myths, not evidence based truths.

History very clearly shows us that we are never all going to believe in the same myths.

There is no solution to this problem, but accepting that our own myths are not universal at least might prevent us from further stoking the flames.

Ideologies like nazism and stalinism have authorities. Humanism does not.

 

[leibowde84]

What the hell is the difference between strapping a couple 1 kilo bombs on your body and blowing them up at a market, and strapping a couple 500kg bombs on your jet fighter and blowing up half a neighborhood. A 500% greater difference in the level of violence, that's what!!

One targets innocent civilians, the other targets military targets with civilians dying as collateral damage. Intent is the difference. Suicide target innocent, non-military targets to get more attention.

 

[leibowde84]

You're not going to accuse me of using a strawman, I'm disappointed!!

If you don't want to be accused of 5his, don't use straw men.

 

[Lyndon]

Dead is dead, same tragedy..........

 

[leibowde84]

Dead is dead, same tragedy..........

Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Lyndon]

Sorry but I'm not interested at all in your twisted notion of what's true!!

 

[outhouse]

Many people flat out refuse logic and knowledge, they always have and always will.

 

[leibowde84]

Sorry but I'm not interested at all in your twisted notion of what's true!!

Sorry but I'm not interested at all in your twisted notion of what's true!!

Right back at ya slick.

 

[outhouse]

Right back at ya slick.

Some people will never get it.

They have been proven wrong so many times over and over again, they refuse logic and attack education and knowledge because its so foreign to them.

 

[Useless2015]

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Is there such a thing as 'less dead'?

 

[icehorse]

Is there such a thing as 'less dead'?

Would you agree that "intention" plays a huge role in legal situations?

If you agree, then would you also agree that modern legal systems strive to be fair and moral?

If you agree to both of those, then can you see how intention is related to morals and ethics?