Topic: Richard Dawkins

[JerseyKloppite]

I wrote out an extremely long reply to this, but I fear it will only serve to keep this going on, and on, and on in a manner that will be tiresome to others and synoymous with internet arguments. My original point, which is that Dawkins comes accross as a bit of a prick, seems to have upset you. It still stands.

I'm not sure how the above qualifies as a 'tempered' response; I consider it to be pretty aggressive and disrespectful.  I don't know what you think gives you the right to tell me to 'grow up', tell me things I 'need to be told'. Telling me 'my indoctriantion techniques are hateful' is ill-informed and grossly presumptuous. I have no children, and what I choose to teach any I hope to have one day will not be 'hateful'. There's a difference between religious indoctrination and teaching people about faith that you cannot or will not see, presuambly because you scorn anyone who believes in 'the great lie' (thanks for that by the way). Your comments regarding certain abhorrent beliefs of certain faiths demonstrate your dislike of religion in general, which is entirely reasonable. It doesn't however mean that you know what I or anyone else will teach their children. Not all religions share the same values, and not all practitioners observe their faith in the same way.

At no point have I insulted anyone, or said anything particularly controversial. You have every right to disagree with me, but if you can't hold a civil conversation I'd rather not bother. I may well look up the Selfish Gene. But if so, more due to corkboy or tepid water's replies than your own.

Which was the point I was trying to make from the start I am happy to, nay enjoy debating faith and religion in general with people. I just appreciate respect from those I talk to. I am a well meaning sort after all.

[The Fletcher Memorial]

Here we go. Firstly, you haven’t upset me (SKY Sports news upset me this morning but I turned it off, it may have coloured my response to you, though).

Secondly, I wasn’t talking to you directly when I said “Don't talk to me about doing your children a disservice by not teaching them about your morals, your ethics and the eternal bondage you call heaven because I will tell you to fucking grow up” I was addressing your points where you used “your children” in the same way as I then did. But I think you know that, don’t you?

Thirdly, I have not insulted you. I may have indirectly insulted you with my opinions on faith and religion, but that’s your problem I’m afraid. If your faith is constructed on such feeble foundations then it is no wonder you feel defensive or insulted when someone points at them.

Finally, being a well meaning sort I believe you probably will look up the books mentioned. And you are of course right in your appraisal of Corky and Tepid, both of whom are far superior to me on most if not all issues and certainly in their construction and delivery of debate.

[JerseyKloppite]

Thirdly, I have not insulted you. I may have indirectly insulted you with my opinions on faith and religion, but that’s your problem I’m afraid. If your faith is constructed on such feeble foundations then it is no wonder you feel defensive or insulted when someone points at them.

I never said you insulted me, I just opined that you style was quite aggresive. Your points are noted. My faith has perfectly solid foundations, thank you kindly.

Now I am going to go off and look at the really important stuff, the stuff that makes the world sit up and take notice. That's right, footballers biting other.

After all, isn't that what really matters most?

[El Diablos]

I can see in this thread that everyone's up to date with the recent spat that Dawkins had regarding his tweet about Medhi Hasan. Yesterday Dawkins issued an apology of sorts, which wasn't unexpected as anyone following him on twitter could see that he had put himself in to a position that he had to reconsider. Reconsider not so much for the central point he was making rather than the clumsy way he made it.

I follow Dawkins on twitter and and regularly read articles on his Foundation website. I think he is a terrific scientist who writes fantastic books on evolution, genes and other wonders of the natural world explored and understood by science. I also largely agree with his position on atheism. His foundation website is of particular interest when it highlights instances around the world where religious fundamentalism is the cause of intolerance: when atheists or secularists are persecuted, when freedom of thought and speech are suppressed, when barbaric practices are performed as religious ritual, women oppressed or scientific education is compromised through promotion of scriptural dogma.

But Dawkins himself can be a bit of an idiot. His tweets in particular seem to be designed to provoke and antagonise rather than explore and discuss. On many occasions I've read a poorly constructed comment he has tweeted and then witnessed the inevitable backlash from angry posters. As is to be expected much of the abuse he receives is equally ill-considered, often insulting and bigoted. Dawkins reposts some of them with haughty disdain. But often he also has to backtrack, or clarify, or rephrase in order to make his point clearer. I know that Twitter's constraints do not facilitate lengthy exposition, but that just means more effort is required for precision. I'm pretty sure that Dawkins knows what he is doing and by any other definition he would be considered an internet troll. I do find it annoying as I usually agree with the core of what he is saying.

Anyhoo Medhi Hasan is widely respected and has a number of colleagues who jumped to his defence. Increasingly Dawkins back tracked yesterday to the point where he posted this (apologies if this has been posted already and you're all up to date)-


http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2013/4/22/away-with-the-fairies


Away with the fairies by Richard Dawkins posted on April 22, 2013 04:08PM GMT


Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies. In an age of pre-Photoshop innocence, Doyle was fooled by a pair of mischievous schoolgirls who fabricated cardboard cutouts and photographed them.


How should we react to such gullibility? As a minimum we might simply call attention to the paradox that the creator of the unfoolable Sherlock Holmes, and the belligerently sceptical scientist Professor Challenger, could be so credulous. “It’s a rum do” or some such cliché might occur to us, and we might make a mental note to increase our own scepticism of other causes that he might espouse, for example his unshakeable belief (even Houdini himself couldn’t shake it) that Harry Houdini had supernatural powers. We would not, I think, stop reading Doyle’s excellent fiction simply because he was, in one respect, a credulous fool.
Lord Dowding,  Head of RAF Fighter Command in the Battle of Britain, also believed in fairies. Once again we might be moved to comment on the paradox that a man silly enough to believe in little gossamer-winged human creatures seemed to be rather good at managing squadrons of  Hurricanes and Spitfires with machine guns in their wings – and of winning a major victory with them.

Yesterday, on Twitter, I wrote of the British journalist Mehdi Hasan’s belief that the Prophet Muhamed flew to Heaven on a winged horse.  It is a belief at least as silly as Doyle’s belief in fairies, and it merits the same “It’s a rum do” comment on the paradox that Mehdi Hasan is simultaneously a very good journalist and political editor, who writes penetrating and sensible articles on current affairs and world politics. That such an effective critical intellect should simultaneously be capable of  believing in winged horses seemed to me to merit some sort of wry comment, comment of the “It’s a rum do” variety:  isn’t it odd, what a paradox, like Conan Doyle or Dowding and the fairies.

 Unfortunately, I phrased it poorly. Instead of saying “Isn’t it quaint that such a successful journalist can simultaneously believe something so daft”, I wrote, “Mehdi Hasan admits to believing Muhamed flew to heaven on a winged horse. And New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist.”
I cannot deny that this sounds horribly like a call for New Statesman to sack him, and it is not surprising that it was taken in that way and became controversial as a freedom of speech issue. Even worse, some respondents went overboard and thought I was saying that no Muslim should ever be employed as a  journalist, or even that no religious person should ever be employed as a journalist.

I certainly never intended any of those meanings. Twitters’s 140-character limit is notoriously inimical to nuance. If I were to attempt a nuanced account of what I really intended to say, it would be a rather confused mixture of the following three – admittedly not wholly compatible – spellings-out:
 Isn’t it an odd paradox that a journalist good enough to be employed by no less a journal than New Statesman is capable of simultaneously holding a belief at least as absurd as Conan Doyle’s belief in fairies? Given that he believes something at least as absurd as Conan Doyle’s belief in fairies, is it possible that I’ve over-estimated Mehdi Hasan? Could it be that he’s not such a good journalist as I had thought? Conversely, it seems so odd that a good and intelligent journalist should believe obvious nonsense, that I can’t help wondering whether he really does believe it, or whether he only pretends to out of loyalty to a loved tradition.

None of those three meanings was well conveyed by my ill-judged words, and I withdraw them with apologies.  I’m grateful to the many tweeters who came to my defence and saw no problem with my original formulation. Nevertheless, I cannot deny that my words were carelessly chosen.
I remain genuinely curious about the human mind’s capacity to hold silly and sensible beliefs simultaneously, sometimes even flatly contradictory beliefs. The best example of the latter that I know was told me by an astronomer colleague at Oxford. He spoke of an American professor of astronomy (he didn’t tell me his name) who publishes competent mathematical papers in astronomical journals, theoretical papers that assume that the universe is more than 13 billion years old. Yet at the same time he privately believes, on scriptural grounds, that the universe is less than ten thousand years old. Mehdi Hasan’s belief in a winged horse doesn’t contradict his sensible journalism in quite the same literal way. But I think it could fairly be said to run badly afoul of the spirit of critical thinking that we expect in a 21st century journalist.

There is a distinction between the Doyle/Dowding belief in fairies and Hasan’s belief in a winged horse. Hasan’s absurdity stems from a major religious creed and is for this reason treated with an over-generous portion of respect. Doyle’s belief in fairies was an individual eccentricity, fit only for mirth. People would blithely write off Doyle among the fairies as a comic nutter while agreeing that he was a very good storyteller; or laugh behind Dowding’s back while agreeing that he was handy with an Air Force. But if you describe a religious believer as a nutter because he believes in a winged horse (or a follower of another tradition because he believes water miraculously turned into wine) you will be in for trouble.

It was an additional intention of my tweet (spelled out in subsequent ones) to emphasise, yet again, this remarkably widespread double standard. It is a double standard that is applied, with peculiar vitriol, by some who call themselves atheists but bend over backwards to “accommodate” religious faith. If you were to suggest that Conan Doyle was a gullible fool among the Cottingley Fairies, I doubt that anyone would call you a “vile racist bigot”; or say to you, as a British Member of Parliament tweeted to me,  “You really are a gratuitously unpleasant man.” The difference, of course, is that Doyle’s ridiculous belief was not protected by the shield of religious privilege. And perhaps that is the most important take-home message of this whole affair.

[Corkboy]

That all seems fair.

I bumped into an old classmate of mine recently. At school, he was very bright and went on to study astrophysics or some such rocket science at university and post grad level. Anyway, he is now wearing the flowing garb of the Dominicans as a novitiate. We since entered into a haphazard email exchange and it's very sad stuff, to see a powerful intellect like this guy twisting itself into knots to "prove" that the Resurrection is literally true down to the last detail as set out in the Bible and every other religion is meaningless. He seems happy enough, though.

[JerseyKloppite]

... Reconsider not so much for the central point he was making rather than the clumsy way he made it...

But Dawkins himself can be a bit of an idiot. His tweets in particular seem to be designed to provoke and antagonise rather than explore and discuss. On many occasions I've read a poorly constructed comment he has tweeted and then witnessed the inevitable backlash from angry posters. As is to be expected much of the abuse he receives is equally ill-considered, often insulting and bigoted. Dawkins reposts some of them with haughty disdain. But often he also has to backtrack, or clarify, or rephrase in order to make his point clearer. I know that Twitter's constraints do not facilitate lengthy exposition, but that just means more effort is required for precision. I'm pretty sure that Dawkins knows what he is doing and by any other definition he would be considered an internet troll. I do find it annoying as I usually agree with the core of what he is saying.

This was the only point I was trying to make with my original comment above. His response is interesting and fair, but I do think he has a knack for 'trolling' or at least stirring up feelings antagonistically to further his cause.

The more significant, important and lofty your work is, the higher the standard expected of you in discourse. It really doesn't bother me all that much; if anything I think it's a shame because, in my view, it detracts from his arguments.

[Corkboy]

This was the only point I was trying to make with my original comment above. His response is interesting and fair, but I do think he has a knack for 'trolling' or at least stirring up feelings antagonistically to further his cause.

The more significant, important and lofty your work is, the higher the standard expected of you in discourse.

I expect he gets frustrated by stories like these....

2nd Child of Pa. Couple Dies After Only Praying

A Philadelphia couple — serving 10 years' probation for the 2009 death of their toddler after they turned to prayer instead of a doctor — has violated their probation now that another of their children has died.

Philadelphia Judge Benjamin Lerner said at a hearing they violated the most important condition of their probation: to seek medical care for their remaining children.

Authorities have yet to file criminal charges in the death of the 8-month-old boy last week, after he suffered with diarrhea and breathing problems for days. But charges could be filed once authorities pinpoint how the baby died.

The couple is on probation after a jury convicted them of involuntary manslaughter in 2010 in the death of their 2-year-old son, Kent, from pneumonia.

source

Being "tolerant" or "respectful" of minor oddities like believing in winged horses or fairies just makes it easier for genuinely damaging people like this to operate.

[JerseyKloppite]

I expect he gets frustrated by stories like these....

2nd Child of Pa. Couple Dies After Only Praying

So do I!

[The Fletcher Memorial]

Dawkins loves twitter to wind people up. Why he bothers I dont know but he does seem to get a kick out of it.

There 's a few youtube vids about where he's reading out his hate mail and he proper loves it. I'd post them if I wasnt in work. 

[Corkboy]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/-ZuowNcuGsc" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/-ZuowNcuGsc</a>

[The Fletcher Memorial]

And there you have it! Nice one Corky, you've got to love the fella 

[boots]

If people who believe in such, did not wear religious garb, stick ichtus fishes on their cars, wear multicoloured jumpers or smell of patchoulli oil, how on earth would we know who the wallies of this world were? They'd walk amongst us unknown. They may even be able to procreate more effectively.

As for homeopathy, i am for it. I think its great that i can sell a crystal to a silly person for stupid money. That way I can use the money to buy medicine. Besides by shunning clinical medicine for a few rose petals and some rhythmic humming, they effectively remove themselves from the gene pool. Everyones a winner.

Douglas Adamas got it spot on when he said "Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea"

Ok we've moved on to iPhone's but were still only a few jumps up from ameobas. Some of us are still a few less rungs up the ladder than the rest. Why else would X Factor be so popular.

In 1000 yrs time my guess is that these people will be ever so embarrassed by their daft ideas of religion, spirituality and faeries. By then we may well have moved on from superstition to fact based ideas based on observation. After all that is why we evolved eyeballs. Had it been left to a God, surely he would have left those out, lest we doubt things based upon the bleeding obvious.

Sorry Great Gramps (a minister) but thanks for the cake, sweets and pop.

[Corkboy]

In 1000 yrs time my guess is that these people will be ever so embarrassed by their daft ideas of religion, spirituality and faeries. By then we may well have moved on from superstition to fact based ideas based on observation.

Or the Harry Potter series might be religious texts...

[boots]

Or the Harry Potter series might be religious texts...

Ah, here we have an episode of the original star trek. Whereby a society was based on a gangster tome. I like to think someone clever will still be alive but frankly i think they might just think 'oh what the hell' and die off out of spite and indifference.


Buddhism. Its not religion or spiritual, its a way of being. Now that I can respect. Plus he's such a jolly fellow.

[jooneyisdagod]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/-ZuowNcuGsc" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/-ZuowNcuGsc</a>

The tone of his reading is absolutely brilliant. 

[The Fletcher Memorial]

Dawkins has no time for religion and faith. I am the same, particularly when it is taught to children in schools.

My missus’s nephew is doing his GCSE’s at the moment and we were round there the other day and her and her sister were chatting on about something or other, basically just making sounds and drinking tea while I was talking to Jack (her nephew) about the homework he was doing. He’d been flicking through this book, shaking his head, as we got there so I asked him what it was etc. and he closed it and faced the cover of it to me without saying a word, just raised his eyebrows and smirked.

Catholic Christianity “ah, I see. Giz a look then”. I must point out here that luckily Jack is a bright lad and into his maths and sciences and will be going to college and eventually university studying engineering and does not possess a single religious bone in his body. I’ve not received this from the horse’s mouth but I reckon his mum placed him in this school because it was the nearest, or his mates were going there or some daft shite along those lines. But I know, or I am fairly certain it wasn’t a decision based on a desire to be taught in a catholic school because even though, if asked, she would declare herself a catholic, she isn’t in any way active about it (though deep down she does harbour some absurd beliefs instilled in her from childhood).

So I had a butchers at this book and as I was doing so Jack explained that this was one of his GCSE’s and even though he’s well on course to fly his engineering diploma along with his other GCSE’s, his mum wanted him to “just as good” in his religious studies but he said “it’s just a waste of time, have a look at the stuff it says in there, how’s that even been allowed to be printed?” and sure enough I could see what he meant:
(Incidentally, I sneakily asked him if I could borrow this book to which he happily replied “you havin a laff? Yer can keep it!” I won’t keep it, I just wanted to scan through it and post bits of it here.)


Topic 3.1.1

The main features of a Catholic upbringing and how it may lead to belief in God

Main points

The main features of a catholic upbringing

Catholic parent are likely to:

•   Have their babies baptised and promise to bring up their children in God and be good Catholics
•   Teach their children to believe in God
•   Teach their children to pray to God
•   Take their children to Mass where they learn to worship God
•   Send their children to a Catholic school

How a Catholic upbringing may lead to, or support, belief in God

It is natural for children who have had a Catholic upbringing to believe in God because:

•   Their Catholic parent will have told them about God and they will believe their parents
•   Catholics pray to God, so they will believe that God exists because their parents would not waste their time praying to nothing
•   Seeing so many people worshiping God when they go to Mass ill make them believe that God exists
•   They will be taught that God exists when they go to school, and will believe it because their teachers tell them it is true


Though a mixture of head shaking and laughter you turn over the page and it gets better, or worse, actually.

Topic 3.1.3

The argument from design and belief in God

Main points

Design means making a plan to produce something. For example, a car is made to the plan of the designer, and looking at any part of the car makes you think that the car has been designed.

Many religious have looked at the world and seen that the way the universe works makes it look as if it has been designed. Some scientists also see evidence of design in the process of evolution where complex life-forms develop from simple ones.
 
From this they have developed the argument from design:

•   Anything that has been designed needs a designer.
•   There is plenty of evidence that the world has been designed (laws of science such as gravity and magnetism; DNA being a blueprint for life etc.)
•   If the world has been designed, the world must have a designer.
•   The only possible designer of something as wonderful as the universe would be God
•   Therefore the appearance of design in the world proves that god exists.

This argument supports belief in God and may lead to those who are not sure to believe there is a God.

And on it goes from giving four responses to understanding evil and suffering - God has his reasons for allowing evil and suffering but humans cannot understand those reasons or God gave humans free will so it’s a problem caused by humans, not God or evil and suffering are not a problem because life is a preparation for paradise and even God has a reason for not using his power to remove evil and suffering but humans cannot understand it. God is divine and there is no way humans can understand his thoughts - to listing AIDS as one of the main causes of poverty (while neglecting to mention the churches opposition to the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS) or explaining how the bible says that homosexuality is a sin.

It is riddled with blatant omissions and flat out lies, designed to reinforce falsehoods by wrapping them up in pseudo-objectivity yet still managing glowing endorsments for good catholics everywhere (many become doctors and nurses in order to help the poor you know). This is what is being taught in schools. How can this be acceptable to any right thinking person, really, how? How is the system so fucked up to allow this to go on as if it were perfectly normal or reasonable? It is not religious studies but indoctrination and it is reinforcing lies and twisted ideas that have often been placed in the childs head by the parents and it is a disgrace. I only hope more kids are like Jack and see it for what it really is.

[The Gulleysucker]

The contents of that document seem to have been derived from here (it's a word doc) .... http://www.school-portal.co.uk/GroupDownloadFile.asp?GroupId=1087067&ResourceId=3602919
At a guess it looks like the teacher has perhaps just taken a shortcut to get through the planning hoops for GCSE RE preparation and has simply downloaded it and changed the word Christian to Catholic.
I expect it's likely that other schools preparing kids for GCSE RE, not just Catholic ones, have also used that document as a template for lessons with the odd bit of editing.
I wouldn't get too stressed about it myself, especially as the kid seems to see through it all.

[Camarero25]

From this they have developed the argument from design:

•   Anything that has been designed needs a designer.
•   There is plenty of evidence that the world has been designed (laws of science such as gravity and magnetism; DNA being a blueprint for life etc.)
•   If the world has been designed, the world must have a designer.
•   The only possible designer of something as wonderful as the universe would be God
•   Therefore the appearance of design in the world proves that god exists.

This argument supports belief in God and may lead to those who are not sure to believe there is a God[/font][/color].

Brilliant logic.

[RideTheWalrus]

That Design thing is an argument for God that I learnt about in philosophy classes few year ago in college. It's a pretty weak argument, but one we had to learn for the syllabus.

Just be glad we're not in the states where it's so much worse.

[Malaysian Kopite]

Just be glad we're not in the states where it's so much worse.

'Belief in God' is actually the first pillar of state in my country.

[The Fletcher Memorial]

The contents of that document seem to have been derived from here (it's a word doc) .... http://www.school-portal.co.uk/GroupDownloadFile.asp?GroupId=1087067&ResourceId=3602919
At a guess it looks like the teacher has perhaps just taken a shortcut to get through the planning hoops for GCSE RE preparation and has simply downloaded it and changed the word Christian to Catholic.
I expect it's likely that other schools preparing kids for GCSE RE, not just Catholic ones, have also used that document as a template for lessons with the odd bit of editing.
I wouldn't get too stressed about it myself, especially as the kid seems to see through it all.

Looks like the other way around mate, I typed that out directly from his study book:



But I'm not worried about him, my point is it being taught at all. There will be other kids who don't question and lap it up.

[TepidT2O]

Looks like the other way around mate, I typed that out directly from his study book:



But I'm not worried about him, my point is it being taught at all. There will be other kids who don't question and lap it up.

I'm not sure so many don't question.

More a case of they sit there and don't care.

The majority of kids won't believe in god at all, and even those who do won't believe it in that sense.

That book was produced by and exam board...strange I think

[The Fletcher Memorial]

I'm not sure so many don't question.

More a case of they sit there and don't care.

The majority of kids won't believe in god at all, and even those who do won't believe it in that sense.

That book was produced by and exam board...strange I think

I think the issue is learning about religion rather than learning from religion. And some of the shite in that book is manipulative. I’d like to think that most kids would care and don’t believe but that’s not the point, they not have to be subjected to this.

I understand that kids can be opted out if the parents wish so and over the age of 16 the kids can do so themselves (bit late by then though?). Maybe I am overreacting I don’t know, but reading through that revision guide was depressingly sad.

[SP]

That book was produced by and exam board...strange I think

The market in action. There are multiple exam boards who income is dependent on attracting schools to sit their exams rather than another board's. There are a large number of Catholic schools. Provide a "Catholic-friendly" syllabus and materials, and hoover up the Catholic thirty pieces of silver.

Brilliant commercially, but of so very wrong on every other level. Don't hold your breath for a Tory administration intervening.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I don't really see a problem with the book - it's a course book for religious studies and it does what it says on the tin.  If it was a science text book then that would be different.

And there's nothing wrong with the logic of that design argument, it's just that it all hinges on the second bullet and that is hugely contentious, or plain wrong.

[jooneyisdagod]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLtOffrpsHQ

Excellent documentary on the man. 

[brownie 09]

Had to unfollow him on twitter today. I'm not religious and I agree to a certain degree that religion has caused a lot of problems in the world but his whole war against religion is annoying and certainly his main pet hate of Islam. I find it ironic that he moans about the narrow mindedness and hate preaching of Muslims but he does the exact same thing by tarring them all with the same brush calling them terrorists and preachers of hate. He himself is preaching hate.

Today asking Muslims to condone terrorists I mean wtf is he trying to gain from this?

[jooneyisdagod]

Had to unfollow him on twitter today. I'm not religious and I agree to a certain degree that religion has caused a lot of problems in the world but his whole war against religion is annoying and certainly his main pet hate of Islam. I find it ironic that he moans about the narrow mindedness and hate preaching of Muslims but he does the exact same thing by tarring them all with the same brush calling them terrorists and preachers of hate. He himself is preaching hate.

Today asking Muslims to condone terrorists I mean wtf is he trying to gain from this?

He has the balls to come out and say what a lot of people think.  No religion in the world will lash out the way Islam does when the prophet is depicted in a cartoon or a film.  The onion even had a cartoon that depicted an orgy between gods of several religions and none of that elicited any sort of a reaction.

The painter M.F. Hussain's elicited a grave response from fringe elements of hinduism in India but even that was restricted to a small section of the world. Most recently the controversial sardonic youtube video sparked worldwide protests and in some places bombings and death.

There is no question Islam is the most reactionary religion in the world at the moment and it's not just Dawkins that says it, it is also the likes of Bill Maher, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens who have all held the same opinion. And a hell a lot of other thinkers and they are justified in saying so.

Also, I've grown up with muslims all my life and lived in houses with muslims, have a great deal of muslim friends etc. Great lads and I really like them all but I cannot stand their ideology and I never brought it up since I knew it would tar my viewing of them but there is no question a lot of even middle of the road muslims get up in arms when the prophet is concerned. I've seen it with my own eyes how they can almost turn into different people when their religion is questioned let alone ridiculed. There is a problem with what a lot of these kids are told at the madrassas and the arabic schools and somehow I think there is a bit of look the other way political correctness with all of it far as I can see. As far as the ideology goes, it is quite toxic.

[TepidT2O]

To suggest Dawkins is irritating and arrogant is fine.

To suggest he's waging a campaign against Muslims is just plain wrong.

He does the same to Christianity (and more often too).

[brownie 09]

He has the balls to come out and say what a lot of people think.  No religion in the world will lash out the way Islam does when the prophet is depicted in a cartoon or a film.  The onion even had a cartoon that depicted an orgy between gods of several religions and none of that elicited any sort of a reaction.

The painter M.F. Hussain's elicited a grave response from fringe elements of hinduism in India but even that was restricted to a small section of the world. Most recently the controversial sardonic youtube video sparked worldwide protests and in some places bombings and death.

There is no question Islam is the most reactionary religion in the world at the moment and it's not just Dawkins that says it, it is also the likes of Bill Maher, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens who have all held the same opinion. And a hell a lot of other thinkers and they are justified in saying so.

Also, I've grown up with muslims all my life and lived in houses with muslims, have a great deal of muslim friends etc. Great lads and I really like them all but I cannot stand their ideology and I never brought it up since I knew it would tar my viewing of them but there is no question a lot of even middle of the road muslims get up in arms when the prophet is concerned. I've seen it with my own eyes how they can almost turn into different people when their religion is questioned let alone ridiculed. There is a problem with what a lot of these kids are told at the madrassas and the arabic schools and somehow I think there is a bit of look the other way political correctness with all of it far as I can see. As far as the ideology goes, it is quite toxic.

Maybe he does have the balls to say what a lot of people think doesnt mean its right. Its constant though, it isnt just oo  i dont like them and thats the end he just goes on and on.

Ive met a fair few muslims (my cousin has also married one) yeah they have different views but not at any time have i though these are evil bastards that want to rid me from this world and take over.


If anything all he is doing is making a current situation that isnt exactly stable much worse and giving groups such as the EDL a valid reason to hate.

To suggest Dawkins is irritating and arrogant is fine.

To suggest he's waging a campaign against Muslims is just plain wrong.

He does the same to Christianity (and more often too).

tbf i did say his war against religion and atm he has his bile firmly set on Islam. He is constantly going on about it.

[jooneyisdagod]

Maybe he does have the balls to say what a lot of people think doesnt mean its right. Its constant though, it isnt just oo  i dont like them and thats the end he just goes on and on.

Ive met a fair few muslims (my cousin has also married one) yeah they have different views but not at any time have i though these are evil bastards that want to rid me from this world and take over.


If anything all he is doing is making a current situation that isnt exactly stable much worse and giving groups such as the EDL a valid reason to hate.

I don't think Dawkins or for that matter anyone is suggesting that every muslim wants to get rid of you from the world. There are plenty of muslims that go to work, come back home, watch tv, cook dinner etc. Basically what everyone else does.


However there is a significant fervent minority that is extremely toxic and unfortunately they have the ideological backing to do the things that they do. Any man/woman found to be engaging in a relationship outside of marriage will be stoned to death according to sharia law and while there may be plenty of muslims that totally disregard it, it is quite simply because western democracies afford them the ability to do so. Yet several extreme right madrassas have taken advantage of this very dogma of the western life i.e. the freedom of expression to preach it's bullshit.

And even middle of the road muslims can get extremely agitated as soon as their religion is called into question. There are so many really vile madrassas around the world that preach some absolute nonsense which is completely in discordance with 21st century values. Every time the prophet is depicted there is a huge world wide agitation. The danish cartoonist received death threats, the French newspaper that reprinted the cartoon was attacked, the South Park episode got a huge amount of hate and the recent innocence of muslims video sent protests sparking worldwide citing blasphemy.

Finally and this is absolutely crucial mate but the punishment for apostasy in Islam is death. That's that. No questions asked. Any ideology that claims that you cannot leave it because you were unfortunate enough to be born into it is toxic. It goes against the fundamental freedoms that the 21st century can finally afford some sections of society.

And Bernard36 is right. Dawkins has a great deal of cynicism as far as every religion goes, not just Islam.

Finally and probably the most controversial opinion of all but as an outsider I've only seen an interview or two with Tommy Johnson and not a lot of what he is saying with regards to Islam is wrong. He has maintained that multiculturalism hasn't failed given how Carribeans, hindus, Sikhs, buddhists etc have seamlessly assimilated into society unlike muslims. And that is a valid accusation. So I don't know if he is a racist bigot as people are saying or if pretending to be rational is just a ruse but this is all I've heard him say and I don't see why he is wrong.

[Nessy76]

If you can't see why the EDL is wrong, then you really, really, need to do some more research.

Islam, like all the major faiths, preaches tolerance and respect for people of different views. Holding up examples of extremist interpretations of Islamic law makes as much sense as holding up examples of extremist Christian law. There are plenty who self-identify as Christians that have carried out horrific atrocities in the name of Jesus. Actions which most Christians would be utterly appalled by. It's exactly the same with Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims are reasonable, ordinary, peaceful people that believe in a merciful and loving god.

People will get upset when you mock their beliefs. You don't think the fuss about Springer the Opera was way OTT?

[jooneyisdagod]

If you can't see why the EDL is wrong, then you really, really, need to do some more research.

Islam, like all the major faiths, preaches tolerance and respect for people of different views. Holding up examples of extremist interpretations of Islamic law makes as much sense as holding up examples of extremist Christian law. There are plenty who self-identify as Christians that have carried out horrific atrocities in the name of Jesus. Actions which most Christians would be utterly appalled by. It's exactly the same with Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims are reasonable, ordinary, peaceful people that believe in a merciful and loving god.

People will get upset when you mock their beliefs. You don't think the fuss about Springer the Opera was way OTT?

Nessy, Like I said earlier mate, I don't live in the UK and frankly with a name like the EDL, I can see why they get a lot of hate. Also that youtube clip about 'muslamic ray guns' is fucking hilarious.

That said I've only seen Tommy Johnson or whatever his name is on a couple of news reports like a 60 minutes program that was aired on Australian tv here and a couple of BBC shows including one where he contended that multiculturalism hadn't failed, it was only Islam that had failed to assimilate and he was immediately branded a racist and a bigot. Perhaps he is and his public persona is a farce but living outside the UK as I do, I can only go with what I see on reputed news channels such as BBC and to a certain extent the Channel 9 news report here in Australia.

And you are right that the majority of muslims are peace loving, average guys and gals. I know that first hand. But  extreme interpretations in this case refers to what, more literal interpretations ? Plenty of muslims realise that they live in the UK, or the US or somewhere in the western world and that the laws of their country or indeed their religion do not apply there but there are plenty who believe sharia is above all and while we may say that is a more extreme interpretation of the sharia, it is also a more literal one. Also there seems to be a bit of a dichotomy in what muslim leaders are saying with respect to the laws of the land and sharia. Some contend that the laws of the land take precedence over Sharia although every muslim has to adhere to the Sharia and others contend that Sharia is the ultimate and it is every muslim's responsibility to ensure it remains that way.

I think we'll both say that the second one is far more extreme but I don't know exactly what's written in the Quran to say which one is more accurate.

And of course there are christians that have more extreme interpretations as well which often tend to be more literal ones i.e. believing everything in the Bible as accurate like the book of genesis for example. Is that really a more extreme interpretation or simply a more literal one ? And really 2000 years ago, more people must have believed in what we now consider extreme simply because we didn't know as much about the world around as as we do now. And that has come about as a result of rational thought. The extreme interpretations of today were norm back in the day and in some countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, extreme interpretations of the Quran are in fact considered the norm in this day and age. Women aren't allowed to vote in Saudi Arabia are they ? And they only recently received the go ahead to drive as well.

I do believe there is a certain head in the sand attitude in the general liberal population about religion and Richard Dawkins believes the same thing. The real shame of course is that if the EDL are a genuinely right wing racist organisation, then their beliefs coincide with that of some of the most pre-eminent thinkers of our time. That's a real shame if only the bigoted, right wing nazi bastards are openly saying what many liberal thinkers are refusing to do so in fear of offending. 


Edit: I'll leave you with this from the onion.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/?ref=auto

P.S. The musical you are referring to was by Stewart Lee wasn't it ? Never saw him as a 'militant atheist' as the new derogatory term for those atheists that actually stand by their beliefs now goes but yeah it was appalling that religion could wield that amount of power. Doesn't matter which religion it is. By the way this is crucial, the punishment for apostasy in Islam is death and that offends me. And quite frankly, not enough is made about it.

[Nessy76]

And the punishment for adultery according to the Christian bible? There's always a question of interpretation in there things. Not all Muslim countries even have the death penalty.

As for the EDL, nothing more than opportunist fascists. One or two of them might have read a book or two (or more likely had the gist of it explained to them by someone who can read) but it would be a serious mistake to think of them as thinkers of any sort. They're just more of your typical anti-intellectual racist thugs, all they do is geared to spreading distrust and disharmony and outright hatred.

Look up a bit of background on 'Tommy Johnson' or whatever he's calling himself these days. He's as far from Dawkins as you can imagine.

[jooneyisdagod]

And the punishment for adultery according to the Christian bible? There's always a question of interpretation in there things. Not all Muslim countries even have the death penalty.

As for the EDL, nothing more than opportunist fascists. One or two of them might have read a book or two (or more likely had the gist of it explained to them by someone who can read) but it would be a serious mistake to think of them as thinkers of any sort. They're just more of your typical anti-intellectual racist thugs, all they do is geared to spreading distrust and disharmony and outright hatred.

Look up a bit of background on 'Tommy Johnson' or whatever he's calling himself these days. He's as far from Dawkins as you can imagine.

Mate, I'll take your word on the EDL. Perhaps they are indeed fascist bastards and that quite simply means we are wasting our time talking about them. That said, I never said they were thinkers just that as soon as any one of them says something they are told they are fascist bastards and hence they hold that opinion.

And I'm not saying there isn't a question of interpretation in these things at all. Just that the more literal the interpretation, the more extreme it tends to be.

The reason I brought up apostasy is quite simple. If for instance as a christian, you do not agree with getting stoned to death for adultery, you could leave the church. And apart from maybe the bible belt of the USA, you are likely to face little in the way of retribution. You can't leave Islam if you disagree with the punishment for adultery which can also be death because erm you'll be killed. At the end of the day, you can't leave an ideology that claims to be the word of god which goes against the fundamental principles of modern life i.e. liberty.

Now Dawkins has rightly taken this ideology to task. He also takes Christianity to task and I've seen several examples of it like where he was absolutely scathing about Uganda where there seems to be a concerted effort from Evangelicals to pass off homosexual behaviour as sin. However it is the simple rule about apostasy that is absolutely paramount. You simply can't say that well I disagree, I don't think there is a god and leave. Those that do are ostracized and in some cases face acts of criminal retribution.

So I don't see how Dawkins can be accused of being an Islamophobe as some people at least on twitter are doing. He dishes it out to all religions and Islam in particular incur his wrath.

[Nessy76]

Probably because he lives in the UK, where there is a great deal of sensitivity and misinformation about Islam to begin with. And where no-one is legally put to death for leaving a religion. But where firebombings of mosques have taken place. And where the media has frequently seen fit to portray all Muslims as terrorists - a highly offensive stereotype that has done massive damage to the relationship between non-muslims and muslims - something that wasn't an issue in most of the country pre-September 11.

When the EDL start using your arguments to back up their hate-mongering, it is time to take a good look at yourself, in my opinion, it is a time to be cautious and explore nuance and interpretation of your words. The all-muslims-are-terrorists Meme (something Dawkins doesn't comprehend half as well as he pretends to) is clearly a negative thing, and should be opposed, but the words of someone like Dr Dawkins being all-too-easily twisted to support that and enable it to continue to spread, that is something which ultimately, he is responsible for.

In my (non-religious) world view, you are responsible for your actions and their predictable consequences. The predictable consequences of spreading anti-Islamic messages by a medium as blunt as Twitter, should be obvious to anyone.

I've no objection to him raising these issues, but he does need to be sensitive to how his words will be taken, and to take care to explain precisely what he means - something which cheap soundbites on Twitter do not afford. In many of his books on evolution, he goes to extreme and unnecessary lengths to seperate his use of a phrase like "mitochondrial Eve" from the biblical character of Eve, and he needs to take the same care not to be misunderstood here.

I don't doubt that he means well, but his arrogance in assuming he understands everything and moreso that everyone will take his words at face value, is a serious flaw in the man.

[jooneyisdagod]

Probably because he lives in the UK, where there is a great deal of sensitivity and misinformation about Islam to begin with. And where no-one is legally put to death for leaving a religion. But where firebombings of mosques have taken place. And where the media has frequently seen fit to portray all Muslims as terrorists - a highly offensive stereotype that has done massive damage to the relationship between non-muslims and muslims - something that wasn't an issue in most of the country pre-September 11.

When the EDL start using your arguments to back up their hate-mongering, it is time to take a good look at yourself, in my opinion, it is a time to be cautious and explore nuance and interpretation of your words. The all-muslims-are-terrorists Meme (something Dawkins doesn't comprehend half as well as he pretends to) is clearly a negative thing, and should be opposed, but the words of someone like Dr Dawkins being all-too-easily twisted to support that and enable it to continue to spread, that is something which ultimately, he is responsible for.

In my (non-religious) world view, you are responsible for your actions and their predictable consequences. The predictable consequences of spreading anti-Islamic messages by a medium as blunt as Twitter, should be obvious to anyone.

I've no objection to him raising these issues, but he does need to be sensitive to how his words will be taken, and to take care to explain precisely what he means - something which cheap soundbites on Twitter do not afford. In many of his books on evolution, he goes to extreme and unnecessary lengths to seperate his use of a phrase like "mitochondrial Eve" from the biblical character of Eve, and he needs to take the same care not to be misunderstood here.

I don't doubt that he means well, but his arrogance in assuming he understands everything and moreso that everyone will take his words at face value, is a serious flaw in the man.

Firstly, Dawkins might be British but make no mistake, his calls for rationalism is a worldwide movement. He speaks in the US, he speaks in Australia, he speaks in India, he speaks in pretty much every far flung corner of the world you can imagine. So while apostasy in the UK cannot be legally punished with death there are plenty of places around the world where it can be and Dawkins uses his twitter to connect with people from around the world.

That said, even in the UK, I would be interested to see if Madrassas tell the kids enrolled there that while Islam might punish apostasy with death, the UK grants them religious freedom and as a result their apostasy will be met with a simple nod. I would be really interested if the preachers at Madrassas are actually teaching kids that and I'm quite sure the answer to that is no. Also apostasy irrespective of whether or not it's in the UK or not is met with a great deal of stigmatization and in Salman Rushdie's case, death threats.


Also I would be very very surprised if all muslims are portrayed as terrorists by the media or for that matter by Prof. Dawkins. In fact, I don't recall him saying anywhere that all muslims are terrorists.


The EDL could use any number of facts to support their stance be it right or wrong. Doesn't invalidate the fact. For instance, the EDL have previously stated that Islam has shown higher growth rates due to the increased fertility rate among muslim populations. Does that mean the British census board should stop publishing such things. There are numerous reports that also say the same thing by the way, some liberal sources and some right wing sources but none of that has any bearing really.

And you are right that people ought to take responsibility for their actions and that if you spread 'anti-islamic' messages then a backlash is rightly expected. But what is anti-islamic exactly ? Tweeting an youtube video of a rally where people are screaming the British police should go to hell and a woman wearing a skirt is told to cover herself up and asked who she is trying to seduce and condemning it ? Is that really an anti-islamic thing to do ? If so, full power to Prof. Dawkins. And I'll join him too. So will many others by the way. From all ends of the world.

I cannot agree more with you on the need to use words more carefully though especially on twitter. It can lead to a lot of rage simply because it is very hard to contextualize one's opinion in just 140 characters.

I see absolutely no arrogance in the man though. I simply see someone that isn't willing to bend over backwards to assuage people's feelings over a sensitive subject. Like Corky posted earlier in the thread, any person telling someone that their most cherished beliefs are simply wrong will come across as a knobhead to that person but it has to be done unfortunately. A bit like telling a child that Santa doesn't exist.

[Nessy76]

I think you're deliberately misunderstanding me. I don't want to speculate as to why.

[jooneyisdagod]

I think you're deliberately misunderstanding me. I don't want to speculate as to why.

I'm most certainly not deliberately misunderstanding you.

I may have misunderstood you but rest assured it's not deliberate.

[Nessy76]

I'm most certainly not deliberately misunderstanding you.

I may have misunderstood you but rest assured it's not deliberate.

Yeah, whatever. Just keep quoting the EDL and I'll ignore you from here on.