Islam and depictions of Muhammad

[SYNACK]

There's no way on this Earth I'd let Apple install anything in my body, "evolution" be damned!

 

likewise, want to talk about extremisum I'd fight to the death not to have apple cack anywhere near me let alone inside me.

[LosOjos]

likewise, want to talk about extremisum I'd fight to the death not to have apple cack anywhere near me let alone inside me.

 

Just imagine it... it'd be hell! On a slightly related topic, I recently started playing Deus Ex (I'm very early in, no spoilers!) and a big part of that is bionic implants to "improve" humans or simply save them in horrific accidents. Where Apple ties in to this is dotted throughout the game are strung out "junkies" who were given transplants to save their lives but then can't afford the anti-rejection drugs they need and so are slowly dying due to a lack of money to keep their bionic implants up to date - that's the world I envisage when I think iOS6 controlled bionic body parts!

[pcstru]

I reworded my post as I knew what I said was a bit harsh, and that you'd be along to try to pull my points apart without making any of your own (isn't that the definition of a troll?)

My points you seem to have ignored. My first reply to you, in the last line I raised the issue of belief without action. My second reply tried to raise the complex issue that people seem to say others have a right to their belief but they shouldn't "shove it down my throat" but seem to ignore that those beliefs involve spreading the word. Both those points were offered in a spirit of discussion. Perhaps you are missing the points in your desire top score points dishing out harsh rhetoric?

Without further ado, I give you evidence of Dawkins' arrogance and disrespect:

 

Granted, that's only one example,

It might be arrogant of him to say he hasn't heard a good argument (I tend to agree with him) but disrespectful?Presumably you think it would be disrespectful to say I haven't heard a good argument for fairies at the bottom of my garden?

 

but I do wonder whether you've actually read any of his books?

 

I have read several of his books, which is why I question your choice of language in describing his statements or his views.

[pcstru]

@pcstru if you have a point to make, please, make it. Contribute to this debate. But if you're just going to keep trying to antagonise me with your passive-aggressive quotes of my posts, I'm going to ignore you. It's getting old, fast.

 

If you make statements that are false and for which you present no evidence, then I am free to respond and point that out. I don't particularly care if your ignore it or not.

[LiamH]

I reworded my post as I knew what I said was a bit harsh, and that you'd be along to try to pull my points apart without making any of your own (isn't that the definition of a troll?)

 

Without further ado, I give you evidence of Dawkins' arrogance and disrespect:

 

Granted, that's only one example, but I do wonder whether you've actually read any of his books?

 

I admit he could have been more subtle and softened the blow somewhat, but then he might come across as being patronizing.

 

He was asked a question and gave his answer as "No" which is understandable coming from someone who bases his entire belief on provable facts is being asked if someone who bases there belief on lack of facts (or denial of facts in some cases) ever posed a interesting argument to challenge his way of thinking. I cant see how his answer could be anything other than no, so it was just the way he said it with a stifled laugh but it was quite humorous.

 

I'm sure he does look down on some of his debating partners, in probably the same way we* look down on technophobes who cant grasp or refuse to learn basic computing skills.

 

*unless you have the patience of a saint** after repeat offences

 

**pun intended

[LosOjos]

My points you seem to have ignored. My first reply to you, in the last line I raised the issue of belief without action. My second reply tried to raise the complex issue that people seem to say others have a right to their belief but they shouldn't "shove it down my throat" but seem to ignore that those beliefs involve spreading the word. Both those points were offered in a spirit of discussion. Perhaps you are missing the points in your desire top score points dishing out harsh rhetoric?

 

You don't really leave room for debate though, do you? You make these claims as though they are fact; there's no debating with that. As for scoring points; points with who exactly? As far as I'm aware, there are no prizes!

 

My opinion clearly differs from your own, then again I feel you may again be taking my opinion as proposed fact. It is my opinion that a person can hold their own beliefs and that it's none of my business to deny them that. I do believe that they should do so without trying to force their beliefs on to others. Whether or not that is what their religion tells them they should do is a huge debate that has raged for years and certainly won't gain any clarity here. Just look at how many different interpretations of the Qur'an and the Bible there are; dozens!

 

It might be arrogant of him to say he hasn't heard a good argument (I tend to agree with him) but disrespectful?Presumably you think it would be disrespectful to say I haven't heard a good argument for fairies at the bottom of my garden?

 

I don't even know how to respond to that absurd comment...

 

What I find disrespectful is that Richard Dawkins has met some of the most powerful religious leaders in the world, he has had a chance to discuss and debate an issue that every single human being alive has had to ponder at some point, and he dismissed every single one of their points and arguments with a curt 'No'. That is disrespectful. If you are not interested in hearing both sides of the argument on the matter for which you are a spokesperson, perhaps you should step down and let somebody more willing to listen have a go.

 

I have read several of his books, which is why I question your choice of language in describing his statements or his views.

 

My personal opinion is that Richard Dawkins is a hindrance to Atheism. It is only in recent years it has been possible to admit to being atheist without fear of being shunned by the community at large (generally anyway). In making himself a spokesperson for atheists all over the world, Richard Dawkins is forming an opinion in others minds as to how an atheist thinks. Just as certain people will point at Muslim extremists and brand all Muslims terrorists, many will point at Dawkins and call all atheists arrogant and disrespectful. We do not need that. As a group of people who pride ourselves on being intelligent and balanced, having somebody stand up and metaphorically shove his fingers in his ears and ignore any argument contrary to his own beliefs is damaging our reputation, and it's taken us long enough to get this far as it is.

[pcstru]

You don't really leave room for debate though, do you? You make these claims as though they are fact; there's no debating with that.

I make points as strongly as I feel is warranted. I don't precede every sentence with "In my opinion", "I think" etc, because apart from anything I write quite obviously being my opinion, it; a) quickly gets dull as a writing style and b) I prefer to treat readers as intelligent enough to already have figured that out.

 

My opinion clearly differs from your own, then again I feel you may again be taking my opinion as proposed fact. It is my opinion that a person can hold their own beliefs and that it's none of my business to deny them that. I do believe that they should do so without trying to force their beliefs on to others. Whether or not that is what their religion tells them they should do is a huge debate that has raged for years and certainly won't gain any clarity here. Just look at how many different interpretations of the Qur'an and the Bible there are; dozens!

It doesn't matter how many different interpretations are available, the 'right to a belief' means that the only one that IS important is the one that an individual adopts. Some people do believe that they should not condemn others to hell by their inaction. That they must shout from the rooftops etc! So your granting them a right to believe without "shoving it down your throat" is not granting them much of a right at all. It also assumes (rather arrogantly perhaps) that your right not to be confronted by their belief superceeds their right to freely promulgate theirs. I'm not at all clear why your right wins over theirs.

 

What I find disrespectful is that Richard Dawkins has met some of the most powerful religious leaders in the world, he has had a chance to discuss and debate an issue that every single human being alive has had to ponder at some point, and he dismissed every single one of their points and arguments with a curt 'No'. That is disrespectful. If you are not interested in hearing both sides of the argument on the matter for which you are a spokesperson, perhaps you should step down and let somebody more willing to listen have a go.

What is to listen to? The best argument for a belief in god is "because I like to believe". There is no rational, scientific argument for a god. There is no objective, reproducible evidence. And it doesn't matter how 'powerful' the religious leader is, none of them have or can cross that barrier. Someone else listening won't change that and the poor form of the opposition is not really Dawkins fault.

My personal opinion is that Richard Dawkins is a hindrance to Atheism. It is only in recent years it has been possible to admit to being atheist without fear of being shunned by the community at large (generally anyway). In making himself a spokesperson for atheists all over the world, Richard Dawkins is forming an opinion in others minds as to how an atheist thinks. Just as certain people will point at Muslim extremists and brand all Muslims terrorists, many will point at Dawkins and call all atheists arrogant and disrespectful. We do not need that. As a group of people who pride ourselves on being intelligent and balanced, having somebody stand up and metaphorically shove his fingers in his ears and ignore any argument contrary to his own beliefs is damaging our reputation, and it's taken us long enough to get this far as it is.

 

I believe you fundamentally misjudge Dawkins. I've called you on it several times and you produce no examples which support your use of words and phrases like "extremist", "rude", "disrespectful", "treat people with utter disdain". Dawkins says what he thinks and makes compelling, evidence based, rational arguments. It's not his fault that the 'other side' has only woo-woo to offer in return. What I find strange is that religious people seem to want to dismiss science and/or try and argue on an equal basis. It's called 'faith' because it doesn't work that way.

Edited September 21, 2012 by pcstru

[Guest Guest]

Hitler...

[PiqueABoo]

The Best Richard Dawkins Moment Ever!!!

 

If that's not the On the Origin of Species sub-title defeat, I want my money back.

 

Appearances might be deceiving but Dawkins has independently struck me as being a teensy bit vicious in recent years, plus with the country seemingly getting crockier by the year I'm not so sure we should be kicking the local Christians, some of whom genuinely do possess a little traditional, unselfish virtue (see most hospices for instance).

Edited September 21, 2012 by PiqueABoo
tpyo

[pcstru]

Hitler...

 

Ha!

 

I quite liked Ben Goldacre's description of himself as an ab-atheist (sp?). I might aspire to that but perhaps it's a poor reflection on myself that I still find the issues compelling discussion.

[tmcd35]

likewise, want to talk about extremisum I'd fight to the death not to have apple cack anywhere near me let alone inside me.

 

what can I say? It'd be better than the Microsoft alternitive - full of viruses and in constant need of rebooting to stave off fatel memory errors. Damn if Microsoft made androids they'd be no different to our existing bodies

 

I suppose (to bring us back on topic) we can have some Muhammad look-a-like models for our Muslim brothers. As an agnostic with a sense of humor I'd go for the JC model and soend eternity convincing catholics that judgement day has come.

[LiamH]

what can I say? It'd be better than the Microsoft alternitive - full of viruses and in constant need of rebooting to stave off fatel memory errors. Damn if Microsoft made androids they'd be no different to our existing bodies

 

Would still prefer that to Apple, go in for a bionic foot and the surgeon gets lost due to inadequate maps and next thing you know you have a bionic foot where your head should be!

 

Plus you would have a list of things you can and can't do because they aren't approved for mac bionics. "oh you want to play tennis with your bionic elbow? sorry that's not supported, you can play the guitar and paint with it though! apple bionics are so creative!"

[featured_spectre]

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/5415815_460s.jpg

 

Religious and technological...all rolled into 1

[teejay]

Have stayed out of this so far, but hey, here goes:p

Last count, there are at least 1.6 billion Muslims, how many are kicking up a fuss over the film, a few thousand. By those figures, you can easily say that there is a massive majority of Muslims who are very tolerant of the film and really aren't fussed over it, it's just a very, very tiny minority who have taken offence. By those standards, you could argue that Islam is a very tolerant religion. Same with every other major religion, the massive majority are peaceful people just getting on with their lives and following their religion to the best of their ability.

Now, the other comment I have seen in this thread and others is 'I don't mind people having a religion, as long as they only practice it in private.'. As good Humanists/Atheists, I presume your fundamental set of morals are based around the UN Declaration of Human Rights? If so, may I point you to:

 

Article 18.

 

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

 

Therefore, rather than classing everyone who has any belief in a religion as an idiot, please be a bit more tolerant and accepting, giving everyone the same right to freedom of thought.

 

Just to give you an idea of what the religions are doing, in our local town we have the following:

Street Angels - helping people out and about town on a Friday/Saturday night making sure they people are safe, clearing up rubbish, helping people in need or distress.

Drop In Centre - providing food, clothing and support to over 120 homeless, asylum seekers, unemployed in need every Saturday.

Asylum Seekers - providing accommodation, food and activities to asylum seekers, and before you say these are just scroungers coming over for benefits, try talking to them and finding out their life stories, most are very harrowing.

Beds for the homeless - over winter around 30 homeless are given beds overnight in churches.

Rehabilitation for offenders - a house run and funded by the local churches to house and rehabilitate offenders, most having drug/alcohol addictions.

Annual event to celebrate the local area, attracted over 10,000 people this year.

Interfaith organisations working to ease any racial tensions.

There are prison visitors, people supporting the elderly, you name it, all organised and run by religious organisations. They are also not there to start evangelising, in fact that is strictly forbidden for most of these things, they are just there as they want to help people.

 

The problem is, all the good stuff done by religious groups never makes the news, it's only the extremists causing trouble or the silly arguments in the CofE that make the headlines. Overall, if you actually looked at all the good stuff being done today by religious groups, it far outweighs the negatives.

 

Just my thoughts and an alternative view...

[Dos_Box]

I wonder what would be the response if somehow a child was managed to be raised until adulthood with no knowledge or exposure to religion?

What would that child think when suddenly exposed of the perceived existence amongst various groups of a myriad of Gods and beliefs? Or would the child have invented their own?

[SYNACK]

I wonder what would be the response if somehow a child was managed to be raised until adulthood with no knowledge or exposure to religion?

What would that child think when suddenly exposed of the perceived existence amongst various groups of a myriad of Gods and beliefs? Or would the child have invented their own?

 

So long as they were still educated appropriately they should be fine. There is a tencancy of the mind to find patterns and associations where they are none so some form of superstition or religion is probably going to be there but without so much weight added to it they should not be bound by it.

[jinnantonnixx]

I wonder what would be the response if somehow a child was managed to be raised until adulthood with no knowledge or exposure to religion?

What would that child think when suddenly exposed of the perceived existence amongst various groups of a myriad of Gods and beliefs? Or would the child have invented their own?

 

Good question. I think it's down to where and when the question is framed. In a modern, scientifically advanced civilisation, or in remote land in stone-age times?

 

We can see the current state of religious 'evolution'. Each tribe, culture or civilisation develops their own religion, either from common roots or independently. They may be separated by geography, ideology or culturally.

 

These are some of the known religions; of which there are thousands: List of religions and spiritual traditions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I will leave the question of 'is religion man-made' open, but I think the answer is clear from the evidence. Most religions were created to provide answers to the (as then) unknown. Man is a pattern-seeking mammal, and when a good explanation is not available, a bad explanation will do.

 

Here is a religion we could watch evolving from scratch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

Some find it amusing, but I think it's quite sad.

 

Some, more sinister religions, were created to exploit the credulity of others but that was the topic of another thread!

 

So, would the child have any good reason to invent a god or religion to explain things? I don't think so. Religion and the invention of gods was the product of a need to understand natural events, but now these events are thoroughly understood*. On the other hand, the invocation of gods would require an insurmountable amount of explanation.

 

*unless you're Bill O'Reilly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M

Edited September 22, 2012 by jinnantonnixx

[jinnantonnixx]

...

The problem is, all the good stuff done by religious groups never makes the news, it's only the extremists causing trouble or the silly arguments in the CofE that make the headlines. Overall, if you actually looked at all the good stuff being done today by religious groups, it far outweighs the negatives.

 

Just my thoughts and an alternative view...

 

This topic was often debated by Christopher Hitchens. The argument went something along these lines:

Agreed, religious people can be involved in altruistic work. But is this done in the name of religion or would they do it anyway because it's a good thing to do? Hitchens debates are all on Youtube, and there are many in which this topic is debated. He went into further philosophical depth, asking if an atheist's good deed was of more worth because there could be no prospect of a heavenly reward, and so on, but that is far beyond the scope of a technical forum. Anyway, I recommend you check out his videos.

 

He often put down the challenge:

1. Name one good deed that could only be done by a person of faith (it was never answered),

2. Name one atrocity committed in the name of religion (spoilt for choice).

 

Hitch wasn't very keen on Mother Teresa - well worth a watch is you have time. http://youtu.be/zQ7G79WvTPE

 

Bertrand Russell wasn't as scathing as Hitchens, conceding that there may be some good done by religious groups, but 'They condemn acts which do no harm and they condone acts which do great harm.'

Edited September 22, 2012 by jinnantonnixx

[sted]

So long as they were still educated appropriately they should be fine. There is a tencancy of the mind to find patterns and associations where they are none so some form of superstition or religion is probably going to be there but without so much weight added to it they should not be bound by it.

 

I believe its called ontic dumping. Going from i cant control the weather to i wonder who does

[jinnantonnixx]

I believe its called ontic dumping. Going from i cant control the weather to i wonder who does

 

 

Carol, of course.

[Arthur]

I will leave the question of 'is religion man-made' open, but I think the answer is clear from the evidence.

If humans eventually colonize Mars and the only people allowed to go are atheist's, it would be interesting to see if there were any religions after several hundred years.

[kernewek-sam]

I wonder what would be the response if somehow a child was managed to be raised until adulthood with no knowledge or exposure to religion?

What would that child think when suddenly exposed of the perceived existence amongst various groups of a myriad of Gods and beliefs? Or would the child have invented their own?

 

I'm not sure if Richard Dawkins has said that we have part of our brain that leads us to believe in a God. I haven't read his books so I can't be sure on that. Though if that were true, I'd be interested to see if they invented their own.

 

It would be nice if people could have their various religious or non-religious views/beliefs and be able to respect each others difference of opinions.

@Earthling Maybe it would take another evolutionary step to achieve that, unfortunately.

[pcstru]

So, would the child have any good reason to invent a god or religion to explain things? I don't think so. Religion and the invention of gods was the product of a need to understand natural events, but now these events are thoroughly understood*. On the other hand, the invocation of gods would require an insurmountable amount of explanation.

 

I dont think it's correct to say that events/things are "thoroughly understood" (not even close). Much of what we have is theory - good working models but with known (and critical) deficiencies. Then there are the unprovable (in principle) questions : "what happens after I'm dead". I don't see why people would not want to comfort themselves with 'spiritual/religious' answers. I'd call them (spiritual/religious ideas) 'natural memes' - I'd expect them to turn up in one form or another regardless.

[pcstru]

I'm not sure if Richard Dawkins has said that we have part of our brain that leads us to believe in a God. I haven't read his books so I can't be sure on that. Though if that were true, I'd be interested to see if they invented their own.

There was an interesting experiment where they stimulated a part of the brain and the subjects described feelings of epiphany. However, one of this years ignoble prizes was awarded for "demonstrating that brain researchers, by using complicated instruments and simple statistics, can see meaningful brain activity anywhere — even in a dead salmon. "

It would be nice if people could have their various religious or non-religious views/beliefs and be able to respect each others difference of opinions.

 

That is just another belief people wish to impose on others. It will always fail while there is a genuine freedom of belief because beliefs can be mutually incompatible (X believes Y which compels them to hate W because W believes Z). I'm not even sure what people really mean by "respect" in that context. If I believe in a sceptical, evidence based approach to life, how can I meaningfully "respect" someone who believes in something that I believe is "woo". And someone might show the ultimate respect of my beliefs by challenging them. Whereas if I challenge the religious beliefs of someone in exactly the same way, people might tell me I am "disrespecting" them. Respect is relative and in the context, probably largely meaningless.

[jinnantonnixx]

I dont think it's correct to say that events/things are "thoroughly understood" (not even close).

 

My error. I should have said that we understand the natural phenomena that perplexed early mankind (floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, droughts, storms, etc) which they attributed to gods.

 

Then there are the unprovable (in principle) questions : "what happens after I'm dead". I don't see why people would not want to comfort themselves with 'spiritual/religious' answers.

 

As for taking comfort in religion/spirituality, well, if someone honestly believes it then it is a comfort. It doesn't make it true, though. It might be true, but it doesn't make it true. We shouldn't trip up on the 'genetic fallacy' which states that just because a proposition is not supported by strong argument or evidence, it doesn't mean that the proposition is necessarily untrue. There might be an afterlife. We might be corporally reassembled in heaven after we die. I don't think that there's any evidence for this, and I think that the arguments for an afterlife are only convincing if you want to believe in the conclusion. I must conclude that there is (probably) no afterlife.

 

I'm with Epicurus on this.

Edited September 23, 2012 by jinnantonnixx