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

Andrew Brown on Dawkins

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,739 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    iMyself wrote: »
    His personal opinion about a New statesman interview he made? I'm not sure what your point is?! Can everyone start a New Statesman blog? I don't think they can. So clearly he is using his position to spread his religious nonsense. Calling it a blog doesn't change anything.
    So any writer that posts on their NewStatesMan blog page shouldn't be allowed to post what someone considers nonsense? Why should a writer be censored for discussing their religious opinions? He isn't manipulating news articles to promote an agenda, he's publishing opinion pieces.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #63
    iMyself
    Closed Accounts Posts: 95 ✭✭iMyself


    koth wrote: »
    Why should a writer be censored for discussing their religious opinions?
    Because its poor journalism and he is using his access to a media outlet to spout his rubbish. But it's not journalism its a blog. Ok.


  • Options
    #64
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Rascasse wrote: »
    He still said it and as a devout Muslim believes it, ..........story.

    No, he does not believe it, which was rather obvious. Here we have a man who declares that a religous state is a stupid idea, advocates a secular state etc, and is being spoken about as if he were some Anjem Choudray style bigot.
    Rascasse wrote: »
    ......lefties.......

    Well I think we can see what your major malfunction seems to be.


  • Options
    #65
    Rascasse
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭Rascasse


    Nodin wrote: »
    No, he does not believe it, which was rather obvious. Here we have a man who declares that a religous state is a stupid idea, advocates a secular state etc, and is being spoken about as if he were some Anjem Choudray style bigot.
    The only person who has been referred to as a bigot is Dawkins in Andrew Browns blog. All because he had the temerity to have a laugh something Mehdi Hasan said he believes.
    Nodin wrote: »
    Well I think we can see what your major malfunction seems to be.
    Do you have a problem with the word lefty? Mehdi doesn't. May you think it means something it doesn't, either way let's keep it to the substantive points rather than my 'major malfunctions'.


  • Options
    #66
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Rascasse wrote: »
    Hasan is a frequent commentator on Muslim issues and is probably the most high profile British devout Muslim journalists. So it's not a case of Dawkins attacking him just for being Muslim, the guy has dubious views and airs them in public.

    I'd imagine videos like the ones below puts in Dawkins' sights. Hasan saying Mulsims have the moral high-ground and accusing non-Muslims of living like animals;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4hpfqFt-0Q

    Atheists are people of no intelligence;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APAPqT3QdFU

    I was not aware of this. Thank you for the links.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I was not aware of this. Thank you for the links.

    ...which he explains here.....

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dissident-voice/2009/07/islamic-extremists-muslim


  • Options
    #68
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Rascasse wrote: »
    The only person who has been referred to as a bigot is Dawkins in Andrew Browns blog. All because he had the temerity to have a laugh something Mehdi Hasan said he believes.
    ......


    Did you read what was actually said...?

    "Mehdi Hasan admits to believing Muhamed [sic] flew to heaven on a winged horse. And New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist."


  • Options
    #69
    darjeeling
    Registered Users Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...which he explains here.....

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dissident-voice/2009/07/islamic-extremists-muslim

    Mehdi Hasan says the remarks were taken out of context, which is the usual excuse. Yes, they were small excerpts from much longer speeches whose central message was a challenge for muslims to embrace modernity and science. However, that does not absolve him of throwing the audience some 'red meat' in which he rhetorically dehumanises non-Muslims. We have all seen the dangers that result when people start to see their opponents as less than human.

    Hasan's attempt to explain away his remarks as simply quoting from the Koran is also dubious. We all know that sacred texts are filled with contradictory messages, and that individual religious believers and leaders can derive very different religious interpretations from the same texts according to which parts they choose to cite.

    Going back to Dawkins, yes he was wrong to put out a message that seemed to call for excluding relgious people from employment on the basis of their personal beliefs, and he was right to apologise for that. He's still banging on about winged horses, though, and that is never going to get us very far as a basis for dialogue when trying to solve the world's problems.

    And finally, the week's events have shown us that steroids are no way to make a winged horse.

    .


  • Options
    #70
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...which he explains here.....

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dissident-voice/2009/07/islamic-extremists-muslim

    Interesting isn't it, Dawkins says what he says, people point out what was wrong with it and he apologises. Hasan just defends himself, there's not one iota of apology or "I can see how that looks to atheists and I regret saying it".

    But then Dawkins is the shrill militant bigot, and Hasan the modern progressive so I guess perception is everything.


  • Options
    #71
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    pH wrote: »
    Interesting isn't it, Dawkins says what he says, people point out what was wrong with it and he apologises. Hasan just defends himself, there's not one iota of apology or "I can see how that looks to atheists and I regret saying it".

    But then Dawkins is the shrill militant bigot, and Hasan the modern progressive so I guess perception is everything.


    ....because if you look at the whole speech its obvious what he's at whereas with Dawkins it was a complete remark, made in a medium entirely unsuitable to carry a long and nuanced message.

    I've characterised neither man in those terms.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....because if you look at the whole speech its obvious what he's at whereas with Dawkins it was a complete remark, made in a medium entirely unsuitable to carry a long and nuanced message.

    I've characterised neither man in those terms.

    You what?

    Fair enough he's calling for moderation in Islam and a lot of the speech is critical of Islam, but he clearly says that non Muslims are animals and Muslims are superior to them and basically shouldn't stoop so low. That's *not* out of context.

    If I'm critical of the atheist movement and am arguing for change in it I still don't get to call Christians "no better than animals" as an aside, just because I'm arguing for something else.


  • Options
    #73
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    pH wrote: »
    You what?

    Fair enough he's calling for moderation in Islam and a lot of the speech is critical of Islam, but he clearly says that non Muslims are animals and Muslims are superior to them and basically shouldn't stoop so low. That's *not* out of context.

    If I'm critical of the atheist movement and am arguing for change in it I still don't get to call Christians "no better than animals" as an aside, just because I'm arguing for something else.

    He used it to refer to muslims as well - a muslim equivalent to "sheeple", it would appear.


  • Options
    #74
    SebBerkovich
    Registered Users Posts: 1,624 ✭✭✭SebBerkovich


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...which he explains here.....

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dissident-voice/2009/07/islamic-extremists-muslim

    Weird explanation from him. kinda felt after reading it like he had basically said "Whoops, sorry about that, but in fairness i was right to say it"


  • Options
    #75
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Well Dawkins is the world's top thinker so he must be right!
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2013/apr/25/richard-dawkins-named-top-thinker


  • Options
    #76
    darjeeling
    Registered Users Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    pH wrote: »
    Well Dawkins is the world's top thinker so he must be right!
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2013/apr/25/richard-dawkins-named-top-thinker

    Damn it, I had a tenner on Nicki Minaj.


Advertisement