Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Senile Richard Dawkins falls deeper into the rabbit hole of popular hatred

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Mark Tapley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭Mark Tapley


    Vomit wrote: »
    "SJW".. :rolleyes: I had to look that up as I'm not a huge consumer of popular media. Why are the views of some boards users reduced to the narrow lenses of memes and quips? It's sad. How about taking some real interest in the world around you eh? Wouldn't that be better than rushing off to find the best meme that you can pour your understanding into? This 'SJW' label helps to prove my original point about the Maher/Harris term 'Regressive Leftist'-- i.e. finding a label to tar and feather people who just disagree with you.

    You mean like "ivory tower atheist" ?


  • Options
    #123
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,478 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Herb Powell wrote: »
    But you're totally not a bigot, right?

    I've met plenty ordinary peaceful muslims, what's laughable to me is someone thinking that out of the billion-odd muslims on the planet there's not a single decent one. Same as , wait for it, christians, jews, hindus, any other group you can name.

    There's a serious miscommunication on this,

    There is, in that I am a ordinary peaceful Christian.

    I was baptised Christian. I was raised Christian. But do I genuinely believe Christ was the son of god, born of a woman who was a virgin, and made water into wine and created food out of nothing and walked on water?

    No. Christ (see, raised Christian), I can magic up one of those miracles with a phone and the number for a Chinese restaurant.

    When people talk about ordinary peaceful <insert religion here> they basically mean people who might socially identify with a religion but certainly don't believe or follow it as the guiding light of their life. If I genuinely believed there was an inhuman God standing in judgement over me for all eternity, the laws and passing human morality would have absolutely no concern for me. Humans can put me in jail for a time. But it will end. God can punish me forever.

    That is the miscommunication people refer to when they talk about "moderates" in any given religion. Either you believe in an inhuman morality, or you don't.


  • Options
    #124
    stunmer
    Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭stunmer


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    The issue is people, and 6.9 billion people who are religious don't particularly care to fight about it, they just want to be able to get on with their lives, but when the things they believe in are threatened, why shouldn't they fight for what they believe in?

    Like misogyny, death for gays, death for apostates?


  • Options
    #125
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,114 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    Dawkins only got into science to bash Muslims.

    This is just bizarre. Where do you get such inside info?


  • Options
    #126
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    This is just bizarre. Where do you get such inside info?

    The opinions on this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,671 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    stunmer wrote: »
    I had to look this up.

    Dawkins responded to a photo of the woman and said she "had one of the most stupid faces he had ever seen". Maybe she had a stupid face in the photo. Maybe he was bitter. Hardly hateful.

    I'm not going to say Dawkins doesn't make mistakes but to say he has hatred towards people or is racist is to unfairly describe him.

    stunmer wrote: »
    Like misogyny, death for gays, death for apostates?


    Don't mind if I borrow your own words from above then - I'm not going to say people don't make mistakes, but to suggest that all people who are religious are the same or even think anything alike as each other, is hardly evidence of rational, critical thinking being employed.

    It's easy to take a pessimistic view of any ideology, that just requires lazy thinking, in fact, it doesn't require any thought at all really! Ignoring the positive aspects of any ideology shows a distinct lack of understanding, or an unwillingness to understand, and that's really not the way to go about changing peoples minds or promoting an ideology that you're trying to frame as something that could be a positive influence in someone's life.

    Dawkins unfortunately just isn't an example of atheism as a positive influence in someone's life. He is unfortunately just a rather sad individual IMO, who deserves to be pitied.


  • Options
    #128
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    It's easy to take a pessimistic view of any ideology, that just requires lazy thinking, in fact, it doesn't require any thought at all really! Ignoring the positive aspects of any ideology shows a distinct lack of understanding, or an unwillingness to understand, and that's really not the way to go about changing peoples minds or promoting an ideology that you're trying to frame as something that could be a positive influence in someone's life.

    Sorry Jack, I know you mean well, but everything in that statement can be thrown right back at ya and could be applied to any bizarre ideology at all.


  • Options
    #129
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,671 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    Sorry Jack, I know you mean well, but everything in that statement can be thrown right back at ya and could be applied to any bizarre ideology at all.


    Absolutely!

    I mean, really, I can't disagree with that, and that's why I always say it's so important to examine an ideology from an objective perspective. If criticism is ever to be seen as legitimate, it must be objective, it must be balanced.

    Unfortunately Dawkins doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that reality, and that's why he'll only ever be preaching to those people who share his ideas. I'm often left thinking "where's the point in that?".


  • Options
    #130
    stunmer
    Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭stunmer


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Don't mind if I borrow your own words from above then - I'm not going to say people don't make mistakes, but to suggest that all people who are religious are the same or even think anything alike as each other, is hardly evidence of rational, critical thinking being employed.

    I know not all religious people think the same and I would never suggest they do. I was just picking you up on your comment that religious people should fight for what they believe in. Does this include some of the more barbaric beliefs?

    I agree we should fight for what we believe in. Only I think these opinions should be discussed, debated and criticised before we can decide what is worth fighting for. I don't believe a book written hundreds of years ago in bronze age Arabia should decide what we should believe.


  • Options
    #131
    stunmer
    Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭stunmer


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Absolutely!

    I mean, really, I can't disagree with that, and that's why I always say it's so important to examine an ideology from an objective perspective. If criticism is ever to be seen as legitimate, it must be objective, it must be balanced.

    Christopher Hitchens posed this challenge:
    Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    Ultimately, with all these threads, everyone discusses different things.

    The text of the holy Koran and the Hadith are one thing.

    The interpretations - current and historical - are another.

    The political Muslim groups who pick and chose what to believe are another again.

    Our Muslim work colleagues, friends and neighbours, who often couldn't care less about any of this and are simply getting on with life, are another category - and that's what most people are talking about.

    Then there are the foreign-funded hate-mosques, foreign-funded nice mosques, and home-grown ones that are considered heretical.

    And there's the TV crazies who spew what is regarded by the vast majority of Muslims as nonsense.

    And there are the dangerous ones with guns and bombs who hate each and every one of us.

    There's something for everyone there, and the discussion gets skewed when people pick a group to make their point.

    But when someone says an Islamist viewpoint (rather than a Muslim) is totally incompatible with Western values or indeed democratic values, they are absolutely right - and the Islamist would agree as well.

    Anti-Islamism is not racism or Islamophobia, and it's a deep insult to the Muslims who have been fighting against this crap to suggest otherwise.

    The Islamic world is an amazing culture - what a shame it has been hi-jacked in the way it has.


  • Options
    #133
    Old Jakey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 436 ✭✭Old Jakey


    The two boys in the video are spot on.


  • Options
    #134
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    stunmer wrote: »
    Christopher Hitchens posed this challenge:

    I was thinking along the lines of "Let there be light," but I also liked this answer by John Morales at the Oz Atheist blog:
    How about a religious believer who defies his religious beliefs to conform with his job description?
    It’s ethical, and it couldn’t have been done by a non-believer.


  • Options
    #135
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,671 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    stunmer wrote: »
    I know not all religious people think the same and I would never suggest they do. I was just picking you up on your comment that religious people should fight for what they believe in. Does this include some of the more barbaric beliefs?


    It includes anything tbh, I'd be employing double standards once I were to say that people should only fight for certain things they believe in. Now how they choose to fight for what they believe in, well, that would be up to the person themselves.

    I agree we should fight for what we believe in. Only I think these opinions should be discussed, debated and criticised before we can decide what is worth fighting for. I don't believe a book written hundreds of years ago in bronze age Arabia should decide what we should believe.


    You're never going to reach a point in society where everyone is on the same page. I believe in open discussion too, but in order for that discussion to be productive, it's more important to listen to other people and understand where they're coming from before we criticise them for what they choose to believe in.

    stunmer wrote: »
    Christopher Hitchens posed this challenge:


    I always liked Hitchens, but I think such a question overlooks the point of why people identify with whatever ideology they do and why that particular ideology motivates and influences them in whatever way it does.


  • Options
    #136
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    The differences between the Islamist and the Muslim viewpoints are ones of interpretation of a religion based in belief in revelation i.e. that about 600 ce "God" revealed key truths about humanity and "himself" to Mohammed. The fact that one interpretation of this fundamental nonsense is more compatible to western liberal democracy to some thinkers is beside the point. All interpretations of revealed religions are expositions of delusion. Discussion of all this belongs in other forums. Dawkins threads will keep appearing simply because it's a good way to try to distract from the fundamental silliness of revealed religion.


  • Options
    #137
    Chickentown
    Registered Users Posts: 252 ✭✭Chickentown


    Vomit wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvvQJ_zsL1U

    My last shred of respect for Dawkins has finally disappeared. Here we have two 'heroes' of popular media knocking over some nicely placed strawmen, creating a new concept from their asses, the "Regressive Leftist" and giving each other a pretty cringy and congratulatory 69 over having both recognised and named this concept. *Applause* Let's hear it for these heroes of the intelligentsia! Bravo.

    These two men have totally different reasons for hating Muslims. Dawkins is politically unaware, only caring about the ivory tower atheist agenda, and Bill Maher is using him. In this clip, Maher looks like he's struggling to appear calm and intellectual- you can almost see the dummy within waiting to make a quip about the 47 virgins.

    Truly frightening how this kind of conservative attitude is masquerading as progressive- conflating Islam with jihadism and extremism. There are literally billions of peaceful Muslims and guess what- they have a right to be Muslim if they want!! Every 'era' has a group of people in the spotlight of 'acceptable hatred' - how about this once we stand up, as real liberals, and say ENOUGH! Muslims are ordinary people FFS! They are not all bearded men in caves plotting against the rest of us.

    Bottom line- you cannot bully and harrass people into believing like you believe! Let's examine the 'racism' part-- turns out a great majority of Muslims are in/from the middle-east, and by a totally unrelated co-incidence, we (in the west) are at war with them and are occupying their countries. I wonder why we've turned on them! Oh right...they are trrrrrrrists!

    Damn these men. And Bill Maher- the tw*t who applauds every time Israel carpet bombs thousands of children. If anyone gets a free pass, it's THAT country. Why? Well, because they are just another white European colony "civilising" a lesser people.

    History..same sh*t, over and over...

    I know and what is most shocking is that people in 2015 still believe in god.


  • Options
    #138
    testaccount123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    Herb Powell wrote: »
    But you're totally not a bigot, right?
    Religion says women are lesser beings than men who should obey their husbands, homosexuals should be put to death, non-believers should be put to death, freedom of speech should be outlawed, champions a prophet who is a murderous pedophile with a predilection for chopping off heads hundreds at a time, ISIS-style, as the perfect man.

    Guy on internet criticises that religion, and he's the bigot.

    You couldnt make it up.

    I know plenty of secular Arabs who moved from North Africa to France, nice fellas they are too.

    The fabled "moderate Islam" doesnt think women should be stoned for adultery or other sexual "crimes", just shamed and ruined in their own community. The "moderate" doesnt think queers should be hung from cranes like they are in Iran, but wouldnt let one anywhere near his family or business. The "moderate" doesnt believe people should be jailed and tortured for criticising the prophet, but he doesnt think it should be legal either, regardless of freedom of speech laws where he lives. "Moderate Islam" has views on interracial marriage which would make the KKK blush - yet we are allowed to despise the racism of the one while the other gets a pass. Why? Who knows, it just does.

    Heres your "moderate Islam".


  • Options
    #139
    testaccount123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    Vomit wrote: »
    So, you also have Muslims who don't actually believe the Koran
    Those arent Muslims, they are just people.
    All of these people have the right to call themselves whatever they like (delusional or not) without being harassed and told what they should believe.
    If someone believes women are inferior to men, that is not OK. Its not OK even if only Islamic women get to deal with the consequences of that ideology. We live our lives based on a consensus of agreement reached over hundreds of years on what people should believe. Its called society.

    I wonder why this needs to be explained to young leftists now. I thought I was left wing. Either I stopped being left wing or what left wing is has changed.
    The best way to spread atheism and secularism is to do it by example.
    What, like say developing modern liberal democracy? The tenets of which Islam is fundamentally at odds with? The thing that millions of people are fleeing toward the safety of as we speak?

    This whole argument is depressing. Islam is not OK, we got to see a religious state in action here already and it wasnt fun. Its like people have just forgotten what the last bunch of religious nutters got up to.


  • Options
    #140
    Herb Powell
    Registered Users Posts: 3,097 ✭✭✭Herb Powell


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    Religion says women are lesser beings than men who should obey their husbands, homosexuals should be put to death, non-believers should be put to death, freedom of speech should be outlawed, champions a prophet who is a murderous pedophile with a predilection for chopping off heads hundreds at a time, ISIS-style, as the perfect man.

    Guy on internet criticises that religion, and he's the bigot.

    You couldnt make it up.

    I know plenty of secular Arabs who moved from North Africa to France, nice fellas they are too.

    The fabled "moderate Islam" doesnt think women should be stoned for adultery or other sexual "crimes", just shamed and ruined in their own community. The "moderate" doesnt think queers should be hung from cranes like they are in Iran, but wouldnt let one anywhere near his family or business. The "moderate" doesnt believe people should be jailed and tortured for criticising the prophet, but he doesnt think it should be legal either, regardless of freedom of speech laws where he lives. "Moderate Islam" has views on interracial marriage which would make the KKK blush - yet we are allowed to despise the racism of the one while the other gets a pass. Why? Who knows, it just does.

    Heres your "moderate Islam".

    That's grand, and I don't disagree with you on the regressive nature of the hardcore beliefs, but you still didn't get my point.

    You can't just call people who don't follow every last detail of a religion "not real followers", in this case muslims. Religion is not binary, it doesn't work like that. There are many different flavours of Christianity, and many of Islam. Within that, most believers have their own interpretation. It's invalid for you to call any of them false when they identify as such.

    The problem is when people say "Oh group x will do this/act like this because they believe set of rules y". It's nowhere near as clear-cut, and there's a really fine line that people often miss between criticising a religion (fire at will, imo) and dehumanising followers of a religion.


Advertisement