Atheist: 'Okay For Those on The Left to Critique, Mock, Deride Christianity, But Islam Gets a Free Pass'

Eilzel wrote:Dawkins and Hitchens have a wife a children. None of them have ever been attacked by extremists. And the fact that is even expressed as a concern is why we should be openly critical of Islam and some Muslims.

In fairness Ben, it happens here too, imho, yourself, Quill and Sass are far more vocal against Christianity than against Islam.

Eilzel wrote:Dawkins and Hitchens have a wife a children. None of them have ever been attacked by extremists. And the fact that is even expressed as a concern is why we should be openly critical of Islam and some Muslims.

In fairness Ben, it happens here too, imho, yourself, Quill and Sass are far more vocal against Christianity than against Islam.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Dawkins and Hitchens have a wife a children. None of them have ever been attacked by extremists. And the fact that is even expressed as a concern is why we should be openly critical of Islam and some Muslims.

In fairness Ben, it happens here too, imho, yourself, Quill and Sass are far more vocal against Christianity than against Islam.

I'm also far more familiar with Christianity than I am with Islam -- you'll note I'm also not vocal against Judaism and other faiths I don't know that well.

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Dawkins and Hitchens have a wife a children. None of them have ever been attacked by extremists. And the fact that is even expressed as a concern is why we should be openly critical of Islam and some Muslims.

In fairness Ben, it happens here too, imho, yourself, Quill and Sass are far more vocal against Christianity than against Islam.

I'm also far more familiar with Christianity than I am with Islam -- you'll note I'm also not vocal against Judaism and other faiths I don't know that well.

So your excuise to only riducle and take the piss out of Christianity is a working understanding, even though all 3 Abrahamic  faiths share many of the same prejuediced myths? It should not matter how well you know a religion if you know within all 3 they are prejudiced against women, homosexuals, non-believers, to then be critical of them, but fundementally like me you have no problem taking the mick out of Christianity, but we then seperate where you fail or seem to shy away from other poor faiths like Islam

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


So your excuise to only riducle and take the piss out of Christianity is a working understanding, even though all 3 Abrahamic  faiths share many of the same prejuediced myths? It should not matter how well you know a religion if you know within all 3 they are prejudiced against women, homosexuals, non-believers, to then be critical of them, but fundementally like me you have no problem taking the mick out of Christianity, but we then seperate where you fail or seem to shy away from other poor faiths like Islam

I think that the Quran, like the Bible, has both positive and regressive teachings, and I don't believe in the supernatural so I think both are hocum.

I try to balance that against the basic right to freedom of thought and come down on the side of enforcing just and humane secular laws rather than combatting religions themselves. Nothing good has ever come out of going to war with an entire religion.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Dawkins and Hitchens have a wife a children. None of them have ever been attacked by extremists. And the fact that is even expressed as a concern is why we should be openly critical of Islam and some Muslims.

In fairness Ben, it happens here too, imho, yourself, Quill and Sass are far more vocal against Christianity than against Islam.

I'm also far more familiar with Christianity than I am with Islam -- you'll note I'm also not vocal against Judaism and other faiths I don't know that well.

Eilzel wrote:Dawkins and Hitchens have a wife a children. None of them have ever been attacked by extremists. And the fact that is even expressed as a concern is why we should be openly critical of Islam and some Muslims.

In fairness Ben, it happens here too, imho, yourself, Quill and Sass are far more vocal against Christianity than against Islam.

sassy wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Dawkins and Hitchens have a wife a children. None of them have ever been attacked by extremists. And the fact that is even expressed as a concern is why we should be openly critical of Islam and some Muslims.

In fairness Ben, it happens here too, imho, yourself, Quill and Sass are far more vocal against Christianity than against Islam.

I think you will find that I criticise those that say they are Christian and don't follow Christian practices Les.

sassy wrote:You can't help yourself can you.  Stick you head up your arse, you might find some brains up there, because there aren't any between your ears.

sassy wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Dawkins and Hitchens have a wife a children. None of them have ever been attacked by extremists. And the fact that is even expressed as a concern is why we should be openly critical of Islam and some Muslims.

In fairness Ben, it happens here too, imho, yourself, Quill and Sass are far more vocal against Christianity than against Islam.

I think you will find that I criticise those that say they are Christian and don't follow Christian practices Les.

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Dawkins and Hitchens have a wife a children. None of them have ever been attacked by extremists. And the fact that is even expressed as a concern is why we should be openly critical of Islam and some Muslims.

In fairness Ben, it happens here too, imho, yourself, Quill and Sass are far more vocal against Christianity than against Islam.

I'm also far more familiar with Christianity than I am with Islam -- you'll note I'm also not vocal against Judaism and other faiths I don't know that well.

Well if you're not "familiar enough" to criticise, then you're not "familiar enough" to defend either....!

Really Ben, you keep contradicting yourself lately on this issue.

Didge wrote:Again showing how far removed Veya is from understanding

It may well have been secularisim that advanced societies but it actually was many Christians that voted for change, which shows how much they have progressed compared to Muslims, because where Muslims have tried to progress Islam in the Muslim world they have been surpressed in the main.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Well if you're not "familiar enough" to criticise, then you're not "familiar enough" to defend either....!

Really Ben, you keep contradicting yourself lately on this issue.

I don't defend the idea of Islam, like any other religion, because I think they're full of destructive ideas and they're fiction.

I do defend people's right to freedom of thought and those who don't hurt anyone and thus who don't deserve to be treated differently than any other law-abiding person. In other words, I strongly disagree with their beliefs, I defend their right to believe them, and so long as they aren't committing crimes, I defend their rights.

Didge wrote:So infantile abuse now when proven to be wrong and also very sexist it seems as well.
Its not any women will bring us forward but only great men.
Again no matter how you look at this and how much Christianity was regressive, it was Christians in many European countries that brought about secular change. I never denied many also tried to stop this, but fundementaly it shows Christians were able to adapat from a previous poor literal stance. So all the other never actually addressed any points.

they hate you and will not listen to you regardless of any logic or reason presented.
So stop wasting time and effort. your method has never worked and never will because it is a method devised by a plebeian mind.

if people refuse to advance then whatever, keep advancing your self until they are so obsolete and must choose between joining you or fading further into irrelevance. Like i have said we don't stop making medical advances that require evolutionary theory to be correct in order to debate/convince creationists.. we just keep making more advances that prove evolution to a greater and greater extent.. and every time we do the creationist position get weaker...

why assault the walls of ignorance when they can be undermined through advancement of humanity to the point they fall under their own weight?

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Well if you're not "familiar enough" to criticise, then you're not "familiar enough" to defend either....!

Really Ben, you keep contradicting yourself lately on this issue.

I don't defend the idea of Islam, like any other religion, because I think they're full of destructive ideas and they're fiction.

I do defend people's right to freedom of thought and those who don't hurt anyone and thus who don't deserve to be treated differently than any other law-abiding person. In other words, I strongly disagree with their beliefs, I defend their right to believe them, and so long as they aren't committing crimes, I defend their rights.

No, you are fundementally a hypocrits Ben on this matter, of which there is no doubt
Nobody has not stated about the right of freedom of thought but for you to be very critical of bad beliefs, as do you not be critical of racism a very bad belief? How about homophobia, another bad belief?
Yet when it comes to the prejudice views in Islam its normally this'
"Oh my goodness, its physically impossible to be critical"

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


No, you are fundementally a hypocrits Ben on this matter, of which there is no doubt
Nobody has not stated about the right of freedom of thought but for you to be very critical of bad beliefs, as do you not be critical of racism a very bad belief? How about homophobia, another bad belief?
Yet when it comes to the prejudice views in Islam its normally this'
"Oh my goodness, its physically impossible to be critical"

I don't know how many different ways I can say "I don't defend the idea of Islam," or "I strongly disagree with their beliefs."

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Well if you're not "familiar enough" to criticise, then you're not "familiar enough" to defend either....!

Really Ben, you keep contradicting yourself lately on this issue.

I don't defend the idea of Islam, like any other religion, because I think they're full of destructive ideas and they're fiction.

I do defend people's right to freedom of thought and those who don't hurt anyone and thus who don't deserve to be treated differently than any other law-abiding person. In other words, I strongly disagree with their beliefs, I defend their right to believe them, and so long as they aren't committing crimes, I defend their rights.

No, you are fundementally a hypocrits Ben on this matter, of which there is no doubt
Nobody has not stated about the right of freedom of thought but for you to be very critical of bad beliefs, as do you not be critical of racism a very bad belief? How about homophobia, another bad belief?
Yet when it comes to the prejudice views in Islam its normally this'
"Oh my goodness, its physically impossible to be critical"

I don't know how many different ways I can say "I don't defend the idea of Islam," or "I strongly disagree with their beliefs."