Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and “New Atheists” aren’t new, aren’t even atheists

EXCLUSIVE: Renowned scholar calls Harris, Dawkins anti-theists, and as dogmatic, fundamentalist as true believers

Not long ago, I gave an interview in which I said that my biggest problem with so-called New Atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is that they give atheism a bad name. Almost immediately, I was bombarded on social media by atheist fans of the two men who were incensed that I would pontificate about a community to which I did not belong.

That, in and of itself, wasn’t surprising. As a scholar of religions, I’m used to receiving comments like this from the communities I study. What surprised me is how many of these comments appeared to take for granted that in criticizing New Atheism I was criticizing atheism itself, as though the two are one and the same. That seems an increasingly common mistake these days, with the media and the bestseller lists dominated by New Atheist voices denouncing religion as “innately backward, obscurantist, irrational and dangerous,” and condemning those who disagree as “religious apologists.”

To be sure, there is plenty to criticize in any religion and no ideology – religious or otherwise – should be immune from criticism. But when Richard Dawkins describes religion as “one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus,” or when Sam Harris proudly declares, “If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion,” it should be perfectly obvious to all that these men do not speak for the majority of atheists. On the contrary, polls show that only a small fraction of atheists in the U.S. share such extreme opposition to religious faith.

In fact, not only is the New Atheism not representative of atheism. It isn’t even mere atheism (and it certainly is not “new”). What Harris, Dawkins and their ilk are preaching is a polemic that has been around since the 18th century – one properly termed, anti-theism.

The earliest known English record of the term “anti-theist” dates back to 1788, but the first citation of the word can be found in the 1833 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, where it is defined as “one opposed to belief in the existence of a god” (italics mine). In other words, while an atheist believes there is no god and so follows no religion, an anti-theist opposes the very idea of religious belief, often viewing religion as an insidious force that must be rooted from society – forcibly if necessary.

The late Christopher Hitchens, one of the icons of the New Atheist movement, understood this difference well. “I’m not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist,” he wrote in his “Letters to a Young Contrarian.” “I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful.”

Anti-theism is a relatively new phenomenon. But atheism is as old as theism itself. For wherever we find belief in gods we find those who reject such beliefs. The American anthropologist Clifford Geertz thought he could trace atheism all the way back to Neanderthal communities. Atheism is certainly evident in some of the earliest Vedic writings from the Indian subcontinent. The Rig Veda, composed sometime around 1500 B.C., openly questions belief in a divine creator:

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
The gods themselves are later than creation,
So who knows truly whence it has arisen?

How far back one traces the concept of atheism depends on how one defines the word. The term “atheist” is derived from the Greek a-theos, meaning “without gods,” and was originally a pejorative for those whose actions were deemed impious or immoral. To the Greeks, an atheist didn’t necessarily reject the existence of the gods. He merely acted as though the gods did not exist or were unaware of his actions. Unfortunately, this historical connection between lack of belief and lack of morals is one that still plagues atheism today, despite studies showing atheists to be, as a whole, less prejudiced, less willing to condone violence, and more tolerant of sexual, ethnic and cultural differences than many faith communities.

In the modern world, however, atheism has become more difficult to define for the simple reason that it comes in as many forms as theism does. An atheist may explicitly reject the existence of a god or gods (this is sometimes called “positive atheism”), or he may simply consider god’s existence to be irrelevant in explaining the nature of the universe (“negative atheism”). Many atheists might just as easily describe themselves as agnostic, following in the footsteps of the famed English writer Aldous Huxley who rejected the idea of a personal deity yet still sought some measure of spiritual fulfillment. Some atheists are empiricists, arguing that our sensory experience should be our sole source of knowledge; others are materialists or “physicalists,” assuming that nothing can exist beyond the material realm – both reject metaphysics as a viable tool in understanding the nature of being.

For a great many atheists, atheism does not merely signify “lack of belief” but is itself a kind of positive worldview, one that “includes numerous beliefs about the world and what is in it,” to quote the atheist philosopher Julian Baggini. Baggini cautions against viewing atheism as a “parasitic rival to theism.” Rather, he agrees with the historian of religions James Thrower, who considers modern atheism to be “a self-contained belief system” – one predicated on a series of propositions about the nature of reality, the source of human morality, the foundation of societal ethics, the question of free will, and so on.

Thrower and others – most notably the historian David Berman – trace the emergence of atheism as a distinct worldview to the end of the Enlightenment era, which, not coincidentally, is also the time that anti-theism first arose. The Enlightenment’s emphasis on skepticism, reason and scientific advancement posed a direct challenge to religion in general, and Christianity in particular. That makes sense when you consider that Christianity was not only the sole religion with which many Enlightenment thinkers had any familiarity. It was an all-encompassing political presence in the lives of most Europeans, which is why the atheism of the Enlightenment was grounded less in denying the existence of God than in trying to liberate humanity from religion’s grip on earthly power.

The great Enlightenment thinkers Voltaire, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were severely critical of institutional religion, viewing it as a destructive force in society. But they did not explicitly reject God’s existence, nor were they opposed to the idea of religious belief. (There were, of course, numerous other Enlightenment figures who professed atheism, such as Jean Meslier and the French philosopher Baron d’Holbach.) On the contrary, they recognized the inherent value of religious belief in fostering social cohesion and maintaining order, and so sought a means of replacing religion as the basis for making moral judgments in European society. It was political transformation they wanted, not religious reform.

Yet in the century that followed the Enlightenment, a stridently militant form of atheism arose that merged the Enlightenment’s criticism of institutional religion with the strict empiricism of the scientific revolution to not only reject belief in God, but to actively oppose it. By the middle of the 19th century, this movement was given its own name – anti-theism – specifically to differentiate it from atheism.

It was around this time that anti-theism reached its peak in the writings of the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx famously viewed religion as the “opium of the people” and sought to eradicate it from society. “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness,” Marx wrote in his celebrated critique of Hegel.

In truth, Marx’s views on religion and atheism were far more complex than these much-abused sound bites project. Nevertheless, Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.

Atheists often respond that atheism should not be held responsible for the actions of these authoritarian regimes, and they are absolutely right. It wasn’t atheism that motivated Stalin and Mao to demolish or expropriate houses of worship, to slaughter tens of thousands of priests, nuns and monks, and to prohibit the publication and dissemination of religious material. It was anti-theism that motivated them to do so. After all, if you truly believe that religion is “one of the world’s great evils” – as bad as smallpox and worse than rape; if you believe religion is a form of child abuse; that it is “violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children” – if you honestly believed this about religion, then what lengths would you not go through to rid society of it?

The excesses of these anti-theist regimes was fueled in no small part by a century of confident predictions that religion was a fast fading phenomenon – that God was, in a word, dead. By the end of the 20th century, however, few were making that claim any longer. The horrors of the first and second world wars not only punctured the promises of secular nationalism in the West. It led to a religious revival, particularly in the United States. In the 1970s, the rise of Islamic terrorism abroad and the insertion of Christian fundamentalism into American politics disabused most thinkers of the notion that religion was about to fade away from modern society. Then 9/11 happened, followed by George W. Bush’s crusade against “evildoers,” and, suddenly, religion was once again recognized as a potent and rising force in the world.

Disenfranchised by what they viewed as an aggressively religious society, personally threatened by a spike in religious violence throughout the world, and spurred by a sense of moral outrage, a certain faction of atheists among an otherwise rational population of people who doubt or deny the existence of God reverted to an extreme and antagonistic form of anti-theism. This is the movement that came to be called New Atheism.

The appeal of New Atheism is that it offered non-believers a muscular and dogmatic form of atheism specifically designed to push back against muscular and dogmatic religious belief. Yet that is also, in my opinion, the main problem with New Atheism. In seeking to replace religion with secularism and faith with science, the New Atheists have, perhaps inadvertently, launched a movement with far too many similarities to the ones they so radically oppose. Indeed, while we typically associate fundamentalism with religiously zealotry, in so far as the term connotes an attempt to “impose a single truth on the plural world” – to use the definition of noted philosopher Jonathan Sacks – then there is little doubt that a similar fundamentalist mind-set has overcome many adherents of this latest iteration of anti-theism.

Like religious fundamentalism, New Atheism is primarily a reactionary phenomenon, one that responds to religion with the same venomous ire with which religious fundamentalists respond to atheism. What one finds in the writings of anti-theist ideologues like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens is the same sense of utter certainty, the same claim to a monopoly on truth, the same close-mindedness that views one’s own position as unequivocally good and one’s opponent’s views as not just wrong but irrational and even stupid, the same intolerance for alternative explanations, the same rabid adherents (as anyone who has dared criticize Dawkins or Harris on social media can attest), and, most shockingly, the same proselytizing fervor that one sees in any fundamentalist community.

This is precisely what Albert Einstein meant when he warned about “fanatical atheists [who] are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who — in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium for the people’ — cannot bear the music of the spheres.”

There is, of course, nothing wrong with an anti-theistic worldview, though I personally find it to be rooted in a naive and, dare I say, unscientific understanding of religion – one thoroughly disconnected from the history of religious thought. Every major religion has, at one time or another, been guilty of the crimes that these anti-theists accuse religion of. But do not confuse the dogmatic, polemical, militant anti-theism of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and their ilk with atheism. The former rejects religious claims; the latter is “actively, diametrically and categorically opposed to them.”

One can certainly be both an atheist and an anti-theist. But the point is that the vast majority of atheists – 85 percent according to one poll – are not anti-theists and should not be lumped into the same category as the anti-theist ideologues that inundate the media landscape. (A diverse community being defined by its loudest voices? Imagine that). In fact, let’s stop calling New Atheism, “atheism,” and start calling it what it is: anti-theism

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/21/reza_aslan_sam_harris_and_new_atheists_arent_new_arent_even_atheists/


Well, I sure don't believe in some God up in the sky, but the rituals and ceremonies of different religions give a lot of people comfort and a way to get through their life, and I don't think anyone has the right to demand you stop something that gives you comfort. The difficulty is when people get strident, both about belief in religion and belief that others should stop believing. Questioning, great, everything should be questioned, getting fundamentally against is as bad as getting fundamentally for.

Yeah I Will also Contest from personal experience that if you speak against either of these two and you are faced with a bunch of Fundamentalist bullshit not based in science and only possible because of the lack of eduction the speaker possesses. A lot of The followers of these two men are Fundamentalist in all but name they have the same mindset and Internal monologue of superiority based on the faulty Idea that posses some All encompassing Answer all Queries when they in reality do not.


Seemingly Sane people Go Nuts and If they had the 'Social dominance' would be no different than Muslims that protest Mohammed cartoons.

“It’s astonishing the media can’t do the one thing to keep it and everyone else safe. It can’t do the one thing that would have kept the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists safe — which is to publish, en masse, all of these cartoons to present a united front against this creeping theocracy,” he began.
Harris claimed that he would have spoken up sooner, but “it’s become toxic for me to say over and over again that which should go without saying, then be vilified for it. It’s no fun working on this topic — although I am writing a short book with Maajid Nawaz, the working title of which is Islam and the Future of Tolerance.”


“The response of liberals — and it’s so depressing to have to use ‘liberal’ in a pejorative way, but liberalism has completely lost its moorings on the topic of Islam,” he continued. “Needless to say, we have all the usual suspects — Glenn Greewald, Reza Aslan, Chris Hedges, Karen Armstrong — and as unreadable as these people have become, you can’t help but notice the stupid things they say about Islam even in the aftermath of an atrocity like this.”
“As will come as no surprise, they will tell you this has nothing to do with Islam or heartfelt religious convictions, but that it has everything to do with capitalism and oppression and minorities and the racism of white people in Europe, and the racism of cartoonists at a magazine like Charlie Hebdo.”
“That is the cause of this behavior,” Harris said. “That is what will cause someone to pick up an AK-47 and murder 12 cartoonists and scream ‘Allahu Akbar!’ in the streets.”
“That is an absolutely insane analysis. If you grant everything that’s completely wrong with capitalism and the history of colonialism, you should not be able to deny that these religious maniacs are motivated by concerns about blasphemy and the depiction of Muhammad and consider their behavior entirely ethical in light of specific religious doctrines.”
Those “liberal” commentators are demonstrating the kind of “masochism, moral cowardice, and lack of intelligence at this point, that is allowing [them] to deny this fact.”
“Then there is the understandable matter of self-censorship, which is entirely based on fear. And the reason it’s ‘understandable’ is that it’s quite rational, if you’re the only news organization printing pictures of the prophet Muhammad.”
“This is why,” Harris said, “every news organization should have chosen to print the latest Charlie Hebdo cover immediately on the same day and spread the risk.”
“We hear everyday about this false trade-off between freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as if there’s some balance to be struck here,” he continued. “There is none — freedom of speech never infringes upon freedom of religion. There’s nothing I can say in this podcast about religion, generally, or Islam in particular, that would infringe upon someone’s freedom to practice his or her religion.”
“If your freedom of religion entails forcing those people who do not share it to conform to it, then that’s not freedom of religion — that’s theocracy.”
“This ‘respect’ we’re all urged to show for ‘religious sensitivity,’ is actually a demand that the blasphemy laws of Islam be followed by non-Muslims and secular liberals in the West are defending this thuggish ultimatum,” he said.
They are “putting the lives of cartoonists, journalists, free thinkers, and public intellectuals in jeopardy day after day. We’re only harming ourselves at this point. The Muslim world has simply got to get used to free speech winning, and we should make no apologies for this.”
“People have been murdered over cartoons,” he said, “end of moral analysis.”

Harris did add that he disagrees with laws in France and Germany criminalizing Holocaust denial. “A person should be absolutely free,” he said, “to deny the Holocaust and destroy his reputation. Others should be free to ridicule him and boycott his business. But there shouldn’t be a law against this kind of idiocy.”


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/sam-harris-liberals-like-greenwald-aslan-support-thuggish-ultimatum-of-islamic-terrorists/

veya_victaous wrote:Yeah I Will also Contest from personal experience that if you speak against either of these two and you are faced with a bunch of Fundamentalist bullshit not based in science and only possible because of the lack of eduction the speaker possesses. A lot of The followers of these two men are Fundamentalist in all but name they have the same mindset and Internal monologue of superiority based on the faulty Idea that posses some All encompassing Answer all Queries when they in reality do not.


Seemingly Sane people Go Nuts and If they had the 'Social dominance' would be no different than Muslims that protest Mohammed cartoons.

What a crock of shit if ever there was one.
Where is this evidence of fundementalism by atheists?
So people whoi have challenged views are now fundementalists?
Do you even know what the word means?

fun·da·men·tal·ism

 (fŭn′də-mĕn′tl-ĭz′əm)
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 1800s and early 1900s in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

---

fun′da·men′tal·ist adj. & n.

I think it's a crock of shit to say that liberals have lost their moorings when it comes to Islam. I think the pressure has just been mounting on people to brand Islam the "religion of terrorism," and dipshits like Harris, Maher and others have been bending to it.

It's not about defending hateful beliefs or violence. It's about reminding society not to treat everyone who might fall under some "Muslim" label as a violent, hateful terrorist.

As far as any atheist attitude toward Islam goes (because, of course, all atheists think alike ), for one thing, it's important to distinguish liberalism from atheism -- there are right-wing atheists and liberal theists. For another, I can quite easily take the position that Islam the belief system is ridiculous, while also acknowledging that you do have the right to your own opinions and beliefs and shouldn't be unduly persecuted because of ideas in your head.

Is this complicated or something?

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think it's a crock of shit to say that liberals have lost their moorings when it comes to Islam. I think the pressure has just been mounting on people to brand Islam the "religion of terrorism," and dipshits like Harris, Maher and others have been bending to it.

It's not about defending hateful beliefs or violence. It's about reminding society not to treat everyone who might fall under some "Muslim" label as a violent, hateful terrorist.

As far as any atheist attitude toward Islam goes (because, of course, all atheists think alike   ), for one thing, it's important to distinguish liberalism from atheism -- there are right-wing atheists and liberal theists. For another, I can quite easily take the position that Islam the belief system is ridiculous, while also acknowledging that you do have the right to your own opinions and beliefs and shouldn't be unduly persecuted because of ideas in your head.

Is this complicated or something?

Nobody is saying all Muslims are which is the poor defense weak Liberals always use.
This is about how indeed a number of Islamic verses is used to justify violence and can easily be used to promote violence.
I suggest you stop ignoring this problem, which has continued to grow. Nobody disputes other factors play a party like social and political views, but the fact is there is many parts of Islam, just like Christianity and Judaism which is at odds with Secularist views. The good thing in regards to the later views, is they have little influence today because in both cases most believers have adapted secular views
Okay lets see how your views on Liberalism stand up to scrutiny.

Islamic view of women?
Islamic view of apostacy?
Islamic view on adultery?
Islamic view of Homosexuality?
Islamic view on Non-Muslims?
Islamic view on children?

1) PLENTY of people are saying all Muslims are terrorists. At least where I live!

2) EVERY religion is full of hateful B.S.

3) Nobody is ignoring the problem, which is violence, not belief.

4) How can you possibly ask me, of all people, to answer for every Muslim? There are several billion of them, and it turns out they actually do disagree with one another on a fairly regular basis. (You've heard about the whole Shia/Sunni thing, right?)

Who do you think was maintaining that Mosul museum that got ransacked by ISIS, a bunch of white Christian British people?

Ben_Reilly wrote:1) PLENTY of people are saying all Muslims are terrorists. At least where I live!

2) EVERY religion is full of hateful B.S.

3) Nobody is ignoring the problem, which is violence, not belief.

4) How can you possibly ask me, of all people, to answer for every Muslim? There are several billion of them, and it turns out they actually do disagree with one another on a fairly regular basis. (You've heard about the whole Shia/Sunni thing, right?)

Who do you think was maintaining that Mosul museum that got ransacked by ISIS, a bunch of white Christian British people?

Plenty of Muslims are terrorists, which is the problem, do you not think tens of thousands is not plenty of Muslims, who's main victims are Muslims themselves?
Yes every religion is full of shit, but the one main present problem today is Islam itself.
The problem is connected to religion, which you are ignoring, it is not the whole problem but part of the problem, which you are ignoring.
I am not asking you to answer for any Muslim but as a Liberal to the views expressed in the Quran and Hadiths on the following points I gave.

Okay lets see how your views on Liberalism stand up to scrutiny.

Islamic view of women?
Islamic view of apostacy?
Islamic view on adultery?
Islamic view of Homosexuality?
Islamic view on Non-Muslims?
Islamic view on children?


At present the views expressed above by the Quran and hadiths and enacted out throughout the Muslim world is at odds with Liberalism and completely discrminates against all of the above.

I'm saying, I can't tell you what the Islamic view is on anything, because there's not one concrete, circled-in-black-ink Islamic view on anything, but a multitude of interpretations which lead to many actions. You're choosing to pay attention to some of those views and ignore the rest.

I can tell you what the stereotypical Muslim-basher's opinions of what Islamic views are, but you can't really think that's accurate.

What exactly do you propose to counter the problem of religion; should we get to work on mind control? Focus on stopping the violence; anybody can give any reason at all for committing violence, and guess what -- they're usually going to give a reason that they think justifies them.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm saying, I can't tell you what the Islamic view is on anything, because there's not one concrete, circled-in-black-ink Islamic view on anything, but a multitude of interpretations which lead to many actions. You're choosing to pay attention to some of those views and ignore the rest.

I can tell you what the stereotypical Muslim-basher's opinions of what Islamic views are, but you can't really think that's accurate.

What exactly do you propose to counter the problem of religion; should we get to work on mind control? Focus on stopping the violence; anybody can give any reason at all for committing violence, and guess what -- they're usually going to give a reason that they think justifies them.

Sorry Ben, that is the biggest copout ever.
These are views expressed in the Quran and hadiths, which many Muslims follow as the word of God and Muhammad.
The list I gave is very specific and held in many Muslim countries..
As to the problem of religion it was a problem in the west and secular ideals changed that and what is needed in Islam is a reformation.
The fact is in the west except the US, where Christian beliefs are still strong it is not a problem anymore, only the US where again it is Christians that discrminate, as they have a large following.
Only by continuing to challenge such views do you bring about change, which you shy away from.

So try again

Okay lets see how your views on Liberalism stand up to scrutiny.

Islamic view of women?
Islamic view of apostacy?
Islamic view on adultery?
Islamic view of Homosexuality?
Islamic view on Non-Muslims?
Islamic view on children?

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm saying, I can't tell you what the Islamic view is on anything, because there's not one concrete, circled-in-black-ink Islamic view on anything, but a multitude of interpretations which lead to many actions. You're choosing to pay attention to some of those views and ignore the rest.

I can tell you what the stereotypical Muslim-basher's opinions of what Islamic views are, but you can't really think that's accurate.

What exactly do you propose to counter the problem of religion; should we get to work on mind control? Focus on stopping the violence; anybody can give any reason at all for committing violence, and guess what -- they're usually going to give a reason that they think justifies them.

Sorry Ben, that is the biggest copout ever.
These are views expressed in the Quran and hadiths, which many Muslims follow as the word of God and Muhammad.
The list I gave is very specific and held in many Muslim countries..
As to the problem of religion it was a problem in the west and secular ideals changed that and what is needed in Islam is a reformation.
The fact is in the west except the US, where Christian beliefs are still strong it is not a problem anymore, only the US where again it is Christians that discrminate, as they have a large following.
Only by continuing to challenge such views do you bring about change, which you shy away from.

So try again

Okay lets see how your views on Liberalism stand up to scrutiny.

Islamic view of women?
Islamic view of apostacy?
Islamic view on adultery?
Islamic view of Homosexuality?
Islamic view on Non-Muslims?
Islamic view on children?

And again, I will tell you (and you should know for yourself) that every religious teaching carries with it multiple interpretations. For just one example, let's take a Bible verse:

And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (Mark 16:17-18)

To the majority of Christians, this verse is talking about the power of faith in poetically exaggerated terms. But to some Christians, as you know, this verse is a commandment to handle snakes and speak in tongues in church services, and attempt to exorcise demons from people.

Or, how about a secular example? Three people both believe homosexuality is unnatural. One of them (say, Tommy Monk) goes on internet forums and writes, "I think homosexuality is unnatural." Another of them runs for public office and tries to pass anti-gay legislation. And the third goes to gay bars and beats people up.

Now, I know that I can probably do a lot more good in the world by saying:

"Regardless of your personal beliefs, you should let gay people live free lives."

Than by saying:

"You thick-headed troglodyte, the backwards superstition (which your loving parents raised you to believe in since before you could talk) is utterly false, and you are a piece of human excrement for believing it!"

Many people hold their beliefs strongly, whatever they might be. They'll live by them, argue for them, and even try to enact laws that make others live by them, but very few people kill others because of their beliefs -- and you're not roping me into any bullshit that says there's one special kind of belief that's different from the rest of them and makes your everyday person into a homicidal maniac.

More woeful excuses.
There are many interpretations, not so much within Islam, which is the point when you are ignoring the fundemental fact on what is taught in the Quran on these views points and what you are doing by such poor replies is actually defending them Ben.
I and Sam Harris, and Hakins are not saying people who are religious are thick headed, they certainly are misguided, because there is no scientific evidence for their beliefs, another fundemental fact you are ignoring. These beliefs allow people to actually discrminate because they take the view they are divinely inspired.
So if I say to a religious person their beliefs have no scientific evidence and are based on a falsehood what is so wrong with that?
Nothing, what you are doing is allowing such falsehoods to continue and unchecked out of some misguided belief you have that this would be discrimination to them.
Many views held in the Quran are at odds with the well being and equality of others, it does not need an interpretation and for you to claim it does is excusing these vile verses that do.

Okay lets see how your views on Liberalism stand up to scrutiny.

Islamic view of women?
Islamic view of apostacy?
Islamic view on adultery?
Islamic view of Homosexuality?
Islamic view on Non-Muslims?
Islamic view on children?

For fuck's sake ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:For fuck's sake ...

Yes for fuck sake, when you run out of poor views you are only left with the facts:
I am off to work, but can we have some honesty in your replies Ben and not poor excusess on interpretation, when many verses are very clear in what they say.


Laters

Seriously, Bras, which approach do you think would be better to curb religiously inspired violence:

"We should all find a way to live according to our beliefs but also peacefully."

OR:

"Your cherished beliefs are erroneous and I think you might be a terrorist."

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:For fuck's sake ...

Yes for fuck sake, when you run out of poor views you are only left with the facts:
I am off to work, but can we have some honesty in your replies Ben and not poor excusess on interpretation, when many verses are very clear in what they say.


Laters

It's a debate, not an endurance challenge, Bras

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Yes for fuck sake, when you run out of poor views you are only left with the facts:
I am off to work, but can we have some honesty in your replies Ben and not poor excusess on interpretation, when many verses are very clear in what they say.


Laters

It's a debate, not an endurance challenge, Bras

It is a debate, which to me you are showing a lack of liberalist views

Your questions is loaded as if there is only two answers, when there are far better answers like challenging unscientifc views in religion.
The fact there is countless evidence to show literal religious belief does not want to live in harmony may give you a clue and you deluded yourself to thinking you can. It is only because of secular views that has brought about change in religious belief.

Laters

Reza Aslan’s latest Salon article worries me. Not just because of the content – that’s the same as always and like Jerry Coyne at Why Evolution is True, I’m getting a bit tired of it. What worries me is that I’m starting to recognize his style. I haven’t actually read that much of his writing, but already I know not only how the arguments will proceed, but what the conclusions reached will be. I’m clearly reading too much of his work. There are other writers whose work I couldn’t recognize as easily, but I’d be far better off being familiar with.
It seems to me he started to write an article damning atheists, but recognizing that there are a few of us now who will pick up on any errors, decided to do a bit of research first. In doing so he found out that we’re not the evil creatures many religious seem to think we are, and he had the honesty to point it out:

Unfortunately, this historical [semantic] connection between lack of belief and lack of morals is one that still plagues atheism today, despite studies showing atheists to be, as a whole, less prejudiced, less willing to condone violence, and more tolerant of sexual, ethnic and cultural differences than many faith communities.

Once he’d recognized that atheists in general are good people, he had to find a way to get in his usual dig at Sam Harris, with a side-swipe at Richard Dawkins so it doesn’t look too much like he’s obsessed with Harris. Harris and Dawkins have been labelled “New” atheists. According to Aslan, “they give atheism a bad name”.  He then does his best to find quotes from both men that show them in a bad light, or are at least likely to offend religious people. Instead of repeating Aslan’s quotes, I thought I’d introduce a couple of different ones:

Sam Harris

 
Aslan seems now to be on some sort of crusade to turn atheists against Harris and Dawkins:

“… it should be perfectly obvious to all that these men do not speak for the majority of atheists. On the contrary, polls show that only a small fraction of atheists in the U.S. share such extreme opposition to religious faith.
In fact, not only is the New Atheism not representative of atheism. It isn’t even mere atheism (and it certainly is not “new”). What Harris, Dawkins and their ilk are preaching is a polemic that has been around since the 18th century – one properly termed, anti-theism.”

Well, duh! Aslan has committed one of the errors common among the religious when discussing atheism. He does it again here:

In the modern world, however, atheism has become more difficult to define for the simple reason that it comes in as many forms as theism does.

Well, no. There’s only one form of atheism. All atheism means is a lack of belief in gods. Atheists, of course, are people, and like all people, we’re complicated. Each of us is different and unique. No theist can be solely defined by the fact they are a theist, and no atheist can be defined by that one thing either. Most of us are anti-theist as well as atheist, and some aren’t. That doesn’t mean we have any plans to go around attacking theists. Aslan, however, characterizes the anti-theist stance as follows:

“… religion [is] an insidious force that must be rooted from society – forcibly if necessary.”

Neither Harris nor Dawkins has ever, as far as I’m aware, advocated violence. In fact, they have spoken out against it. To imply otherwise is inflammatory and irresponsible. To imply that any atheist is planning to force religion from society, especially when his research has shown him that atheists more likely than most to oppose violence, is a reflection of his own intellectual insecurity. Further, it’s reinforcing the negative stereotypes of atheists he’s just acknowledged don’t stack up.
The idea that atheism is an ideology is simply false. I asked the question, “Is atheism an ideology?” on Twitter a couple of days ago to see what other atheists thought. The response was quick and universal. Atheism is NOT an ideology. One even wanted to know what possessed me to ask such a stupid question, so I let everybody know about Aslan’s article in Salon. Below are some of the responses I received within about ten minutes:  (Double-click to enlarge.)

Atheists have a wide range of ideologies, of which atheism is only a part. Statistically, there are positions on other matters that an atheist is more likely to hold, but those positions have nothing to do with being an atheist. However, the open-mindedness that often leads to atheism is consistent with the fact that atheists are more likely to be tolerant, non-violent, and accepting of difference. The problem seems to be that society seems to think religion has a special place when it comes to its tenets being questioned. Most people accept the right of others to disagree, but when that disagreement is over religion, the religious often have the opinion that disagreement is abuse. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (mainly via Pakistan) has been bringing resolutions to the United Nations to try and make defamation of religion a crime since 1999. Numerous non-binding resolutions have been passed by the UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Council), although they have resisted these calls as incompatible with the UNHRC International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Included in those countries that have neither signed nor ratified the Covenant are: Bhutan, Brunei, Burma, Fiji, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Sudan, and the UAE. (North Korea tried to withdraw its signing/ratification, but there is no withdrawal provision.)

One of the sources Aslan linked to was Phil Zuckerman’s Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions. Its many findings include the following:

It is often assumed that someone who doesn’t believe in God doesn’t believe in anything, or that a person who has no religion must have no values. These assumptions are simply untrue. People can reject religion and still maintain strong beliefs. Being godless does not mean being without values. Numerous studies reveal that atheists and secular people most certainly maintain strong values, beliefs, and opinions. But more significantly, when we actually compare the values and beliefs of atheists and secular people to those of religious people, the former are markedly less nationalistic, less prejudiced, less anti-Semitic, less racist, less dogmatic, less ethnocentric, less close-minded, and less authoritarian.

And:

If religion, prayer, or God-belief hindered criminal behavior, and secularity or atheism fostered lawlessness, we would expect to find the most religious nations having the lowest murder rates and the least religious nations having the highest. But we find just the opposite. Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is deep and widespread. And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon. Furthermore, although there are some notable exceptions, rates of most violent crimes tend to be lower in the less religious states and higher in the most religious states. Finally, of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries, and of the eight cities within the United States that make the safest-city list, nearly all are located in the least religious regions of the country.

To me, it is an example of the irrational fear theists have of atheists, which comes from knowing deep down the atheists are right, and there is no god. Coming to the realization that there is no god is a very scary idea for many people, and I can understand why that would make them lash out. However, the constant attacks on atheists that they are wrong for questioning religion, rather than religion for being unable to answer, is very frustrating.
The only real difference I can see between “New” atheists and old atheists is that “New” atheists speak up and challenge religion. Religion is not used to being challenged and doesn’t like it. The many countries where punishments as heinous as death for blasphemy and apostasy are testament to that. In the West we can at least speak out these days, but for many that means alienation and vilification, which writers like Aslan unconsciously support. (When I became an atheist it didn’t even occur to me that my family would treat me any differently, and they didn’t. I’m one of the lucky ones.)
As always, Reza Aslan acknowledges the negative stereotypes (this time about atheism), gives the evidence that they are wrong, then makes up a way to justify his negative opinion, especially of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. This is exactly what he does as an apologist for Islam; he acknowledges the criticisms of extremist Islam are valid, then denies Islam has anything to do with the actions of fundamentalist Muslims, then gets in a dig at Harris and Dawkins. His cognitive dissonance never ceases to amaze me.

 

http://www.heatherhastie.com/reza-aslan-pontificates-atheism-is-an-ideology-and-new-atheists-are-violent/

Exactly didge, ideas don't have rights.

Religious fundamentalism = trying to restrict others rights, suicide bombing, institutional and righteously justified bigotry, theocracy, terrorism etc.

Atheist fundamentalism = mocking and criticizing religion.

People need to stop being such bitches, which is exactly what they are being when they compared atheist 'fundamentalism' to the religious 'equivalent'. If ONLY religious fundamentalism was more like atheist fundamentalism- oh that's right it can't be, because as we see with debates against Harris, Dawkins et al, religion falls apart when people try to defend it.

Religion can be speeded in its decline with good education systems and relentless mockery- the pathetic reactions of which will eventually see it shown for what BS it is to believers.

If you don't like your faith being held up to brutal scrutiny then truth is you should ask yourself why.

And as to the OP, I doubt Harris and Dawkins would argue against being called antitheists as well as atheists. But they ARE as much atheists as Aslan is a Muslim.

Also, Aslan is being disingenuous when he cites Mao and Stalin as being motivated by anti-theism to treat religion as they did. It wasn't their atheism or anti-theism. It was their personality cult leadership and iron will to have everyone devoted solely to the state/regime, to the point of presenting themselves as a god-like figure- THAT is why they suppressed religion.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Yes for fuck sake, when you run out of poor views you are only left with the facts:
I am off to work, but can we have some honesty in your replies Ben and not poor excusess on interpretation, when many verses are very clear in what they say.


Laters

It's a debate, not an endurance challenge, Bras

Ben is quite right about there being a many interpretations on all those issues - AND you know this Didge. There are plenty of posts where you have said this to me.

You're simply playing your rather childish games again. And rather confirming Reza Aslan's view on New Atheists. lol!

Lmao at how these anti- theists are so worried about Reza Aslan. Ironically proving him right.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

It's a debate, not an endurance challenge, Bras

Ben is quite right about there being a many interpretations on all those issues - AND you know this Didge. There are plenty of posts where you have said this to me.

You're simply playing your rather childish games again. And rather confirming Reza Aslan's view on New Atheists. lol!

Oh do not even bother with the emotive crap sunshine its boring.
Really, so your view on homosexuality is not the same as the vast majority of Muslims?
Second why is that?
There is slight variations in Islam, many views agree.
How about martyrdom
Ben is very naive to religion and the way it allows rational people to follow views that have no scientific bases.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Lmao at how these anti- theists are so worried about Reza Aslan. Ironically proving him right.

Worried?
Do not make me laugh he is the one coming out with the most idiotic claims, which as seen are very coimical.
That is rfeligious people for you quite irrational in the main.

Eilzel wrote:Exactly didge, ideas don't have rights.

Religious fundamentalism = trying to restrict others rights, suicide bombing, institutional and righteously justified bigotry, theocracy, terrorism etc.

Atheist fundamentalism = mocking and criticizing religion.

People need to stop being such bitches, which is exactly what they are being when they compared atheist 'fundamentalism' to the religious 'equivalent'. If ONLY religious fundamentalism was more like atheist fundamentalism- oh that's right it can't be, because as we see with debates against Harris, Dawkins et al, religion falls apart when people try to defend it.

Religion can be speeded in its decline with good education systems and relentless mockery- the pathetic reactions of which will eventually see it shown for what BS it is to believers.

If you don't like your faith being held up to brutal scrutiny then truth is you should ask yourself why.

And as to the OP, I doubt Harris and Dawkins would argue against being called antitheists as well as atheists. But they ARE as much atheists as Aslan is a Muslim.

There is no comparrisons, it is as you say religious people making excuses for the problems found within their religions.
When you have claims to divine rules, then you have many problems and where is relgious views still strong?
It is the most illiterate nations.
That says it all really.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Ben is quite right about there being a many interpretations on all those issues - AND you know this Didge. There are plenty of posts where you have said this to me.

You're simply playing your rather childish games again. And rather confirming Reza Aslan's view on New Atheists. lol!

Oh do not even bother with the emotive crap sunshine its boring.
Really, so your view on homosexuality is not the same as the vast majority of Muslims?
Second why is that?
There is slight variations in Islam, many views agree.
How about martyrdom
Ben is very naive to religion and the way it allows rational people to follow views that have no scientific bases.

Bruv seriously? Who's being or accusing anyone of being emotional? Certainly not me.

The truth is that these are the usual games you play on this board. That is just a fact.

And yes, you have admitted in the past that Muslims have different interpretation of scripture - on many levels.

I'm really not trying to wind you up. So wind you neck in mate.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Lmao at how these anti- theists are so worried about Reza Aslan. Ironically proving him right.

Worried?
Do not make me laugh he is the one coming out with the most idiotic claims, which as seen are very coimical.
That is rfeligious people for you quite irrational in the main.

Lol! Now im really convinced.

Love the way your patronising Ben just because he doesn't agree with you. That is what Reza is talking about. Can you not see that?

You are free to believe what you want Didge. But when you ram views down people's throat by bullying them - then that is fundamentalism

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:
Oh do not even bother with the emotive crap sunshine its boring.
Really, so your view on homosexuality is not the same as the vast majority of Muslims?
Second why is that?
There is slight variations in Islam, many views agree.
How about martyrdom
Ben is very naive to religion and the way it allows rational people to follow views that have no scientific bases.

Bruv seriously? Who's being or accusing anyone of being emotional? Certainly not me.

The truth is that these are the usual games you play on this board. That is just a fact.

And yes, you have admitted in the past that Muslims have different interpretation of scripture - on many levels.

I'm really not trying to wind you up. So wind you neck in mate.

What games?

You have a substancial amount of Muslims that share similar views or are you saying them again the Quran is utterly useless as a guide book because your views are so different and far apart?
The views do not differ that much and again thanks for proving your own book is not perfect and completely usless as a guide book as it is not clear. You could not wing your dick in as its never been used, so again spare me the emotive nonsense you will lose.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Worried?
Do not make me laugh he is the one coming out with the most idiotic claims, which as seen are very coimical.
That is rfeligious people for you quite irrational in the main.

Lol! Now im really convinced.

I know you are when you use lol, its a tell you have.

Bras, the problem we're having here is that you don't accept the fact that I don't accept your premise. You want me to say what liberals say about Islamic beliefs about certain things, but I can't begin to do that because of one major problem, in that beliefs, especially religious ones, usually have two components:

1) What is right/wrong

2) What should be done about it

You're sort of ignoring the second facet, which is where I have a problem addressing what you're saying -- in that I have less of a problem with someone who thinks homosexuality is wrong and decides to argue for that point or to pray for homosexuals, etc., than I do with someone who tries to pass anti-gay laws or commit acts of violence or oppression.

I must insist on this point because freedom of thought and opinion is an essential value that liberals try to safeguard. If there were no freedom of thought, the government or the church could force us all to be religious.

If you're asking me whether liberals support anything done to oppress anyone in the name of Islam or any other religion, or in the name of any other irrational idea, we do not (in general, I can't speak for all of us either). But that includes the oppression of Muslims out of irrational fear.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Love the way your patronising Ben just because he doesn't agree with you. That is what Reza is talking about. Can you not see that?

You are free to believe what you want Didge. But when you ram views down people's throat by bullying them - then that is fundamentalism  

Bullying?

Fuck me, what a joke.
PMSL, so now because I disagree I am bullying the simple tactic of those religious and those who appease them, play the victim card

Ben_Reilly wrote:Bras, the problem we're having here is that you don't accept the fact that I don't accept your premise. You want me to say what liberals say about Islamic beliefs about certain things, but I can't begin to do that because of one major problem, in that beliefs, especially religious ones, usually have two components:

1) What is right/wrong

2) What should be done about it

You're sort of ignoring the second facet, which is where I have a problem addressing what you're saying -- in that I have less of a problem with someone who thinks homosexuality is wrong and decides to argue for that point or to pray for homosexuals, etc., than I do with someone who tries to pass anti-gay laws or commit acts of violence or oppression.

I must insist on this point because freedom of thought and opinion is an essential value that liberals try to safeguard. If there were no freedom of thought, the government or the church could force us all to be religious.

If you're asking me whether liberals support anything done to oppress anyone in the name of Islam or any other religion, or in the name of any other irrational idea, we do not (in general, I can't speak for all of us either). But that includes the oppression of Muslims out of irrational fear.

You do not accept because you do not want to go down the road which shows the clear problems found within religion espcially when they are literal beliefs and fail to see when they are going to clash with secular views, which is the well being and equality of others.
Many Abrahamic views clash with this, where at least now in the west many Christians and Jews are secular, Muslims in the main are certainly not secular in their views.
There is no difference to a religious person or someone who argues against Homosexuality, both views are ignorant not formed from anything rational or scientific.
The fact is you are contradicting your own liberal views, which are at odds with such religions.
Now either you wish to see reform in faiths like the Abrahamic ones, or you make their backward views acceptable?

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Bruv seriously? Who's being or accusing anyone of being emotional? Certainly not me.

The truth is that these are the usual games you play on this board. That is just a fact.

And yes, you have admitted in the past that Muslims have different interpretation of scripture - on many levels.

I'm really not trying to wind you up. So wind you neck in mate.

What games?

You have a substancial amount of Muslims that share similar views or are you saying them again the Quran is utterly useless as a guide book because your views are so different and far apart?
The views do not differ that much and again thanks for proving your own book is not perfect and completely usless as a guide book as it is not clear. You could not wing your dick in as its never been used, so again spare me the emotive nonsense you will lose.

Oh really? Now we have sexually offensive jokes. Well done mate. You sound like a true loser. Again - I'm not trying to wind you up. If you want me to answer any questions, be decent and ask politely.

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Bras, the problem we're having here is that you don't accept the fact that I don't accept your premise. You want me to say what liberals say about Islamic beliefs about certain things, but I can't begin to do that because of one major problem, in that beliefs, especially religious ones, usually have two components:

1) What is right/wrong

2) What should be done about it

You're sort of ignoring the second facet, which is where I have a problem addressing what you're saying -- in that I have less of a problem with someone who thinks homosexuality is wrong and decides to argue for that point or to pray for homosexuals, etc., than I do with someone who tries to pass anti-gay laws or commit acts of violence or oppression.

I must insist on this point because freedom of thought and opinion is an essential value that liberals try to safeguard. If there were no freedom of thought, the government or the church could force us all to be religious.

If you're asking me whether liberals support anything done to oppress anyone in the name of Islam or any other religion, or in the name of any other irrational idea, we do not (in general, I can't speak for all of us either). But that includes the oppression of Muslims out of irrational fear.

You do not accept because you do not want to go down the road which shows the clear problems found within religion espcially when they are literal beliefs and fail to see when they are going to clash with secular views, which is the well being and equality of others.
Many Abrahamic views clash with this, where at least now in the west many Christians and Jews are secular, Muslims in the main are certainly not secular in their views.
There is no difference to a religious person or someone who argues against Homosexuality, both views are ignorant not formed from anything rational or scientific.
The fact is you are contradicting your own liberal views, which are at odds with such religions.
Now either you wish to see reform in faiths like the Abrahamic ones, or you make their backward views acceptable?

If you're asking me whether liberals support anything done to oppress anyone in the name of Islam or any other religion, or in the name of any other irrational idea, we do not (in general, I can't speak for all of us either). But that includes the oppression of Muslims out of irrational fear.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! Now im really convinced.

I know you are when you use lol, its a tell you have.

Now you're just being paranoid.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Love the way your patronising Ben just because he doesn't agree with you. That is what Reza is talking about. Can you not see that?

You are free to believe what you want Didge. But when you ram views down people's throat by bullying them - then that is fundamentalism  

Bullying?

Fuck me, what a joke.
PMSL, so now because I disagree I am bullying the simple tactic of those religious and those who appease them, play the victim card

Yes, bullying. Just like a true fundamentalist.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


You do not accept because you do not want to go down the road which shows the clear problems found within religion espcially when they are literal beliefs and fail to see when they are going to clash with secular views, which is the well being and equality of others.
Many Abrahamic views clash with this, where at least now in the west many Christians and Jews are secular, Muslims in the main are certainly not secular in their views.
There is no difference to a religious person or someone who argues against Homosexuality, both views are ignorant not formed from anything rational or scientific.
The fact is you are contradicting your own liberal views, which are at odds with such religions.
Now either you wish to see reform in faiths like the Abrahamic ones, or you make their backward views acceptable?

If you're asking me whether liberals support anything done to oppress anyone in the name of Islam or any other religion, or in the name of any other irrational idea, we do not (in general, I can't speak for all of us either). But that includes the oppression of Muslims out of irrational fear.

Again you are happy for religious people to preach that homosexuality is wrong and that the punishement should either be prison or death?
The view is clearly at odds with the well being and equality of homosexuals and liberal views.
Then we have the victim card played again, where again you wish to make such views acceptable even if their views are at odds with the well being and equality of others. This is about being critical of these religious views which helped shape the west into secular views. This did not change by not challenging them, yet you wish to allow them to go unchallened through a false fear this is persecuting them. The fact is, if this was a literal Christian you would have no problem being highly critical of such views.
Do not even start to come out with nonsense claims to persecutions.
If they hold views that have no rationl view to them and are based on faith which affects others, then such views should be challenged.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

What games?

You have a substancial amount of Muslims that share similar views or are you saying them again the Quran is utterly useless as a guide book because your views are so different and far apart?
The views do not differ that much and again thanks for proving your own book is not perfect and completely usless as a guide book as it is not clear. You could not wing your dick in as its never been used, so again spare me the emotive nonsense you will lose.

Oh really? Now we have sexually offensive jokes. Well done mate. You sound like a true loser. Again - I'm not trying to wind you up. If you want me to answer any questions, be decent and ask politely.

See I told you that you would lose if you went down that route.
Act like an adult and I will treat you as one

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

I know you are when you use lol, its a tell you have.

Now you're just being paranoid.

Its one of your tells when you get over excited

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:
Bullying?

Fuck me, what a joke.
PMSL, so now because I disagree I am bullying the simple tactic of those religious and those who appease them, play the victim card

Yes, bullying. Just like a true fundamentalist.

Really, so its is bullying to challenge views, because they are religious and have no evidence for them.
So to you it is child abuse to tell a child when they do something wrong because you are bullying them by educating them?
You are talking utter babble now.
This is the problem with religious people they think they should be immune to criticism.
Again you clearly do not even know what a fundementalist is.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Oh really? Now we have sexually offensive jokes. Well done mate. You sound like a true loser. Again - I'm not trying to wind you up. If you want me to answer any questions, be decent and ask politely.

See I told you that you would lose if you went down that route.
Act like an adult and I will treat you as one

I wasn't going down any route, you paranoid ninny. Come off it Didge. I was treating you nicely.

As for your question above - I do think homosexuality is a sin. And no, I don't think there should be any punishment for just being gay.

But as Ben said - there are many different views.

And thank you for admitting that you were playing games. Point proved.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Yes, bullying. Just like a true fundamentalist.

Really, so its is bullying to challenge views, because they are religious and have no evidence for them.
So to you it is child abuse to tell a child when they do something wrong because you are bullying them by educating them?
You are talking utter babble now.
This is the problem with religious people they think they should be immune to criticism.
Again you clearly do not even know what a fundementalist is.

You then went on to patronise him. Knowing you, you would have then gone on to insult him. Just as you did to me above.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Now you're just being paranoid.

Its one of your tells when you get over excited

Hmm sure! Like a billion other people don't use lol too. HA HA! ;-)

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

See I told you that you would lose if you went down that route.
Act like an adult and I will treat you as one

I wasn't going down any route, you paranoid ninny. Come off it Didge. I was treating you nicely.

As for your question above - I do think homosexuality is a sin. And no, I don't think there should be any punishment for just being gay.

But as Ben said - there are many different views.

And thank you for admitting that you were playing games. Point proved.

Emotive response again.
Yes how many Muslims countries have homosexuality as a crime?
Why do you think many do?
A sin makes something criminal or do you not understand this?
Sin is just another way to say you believe something is wrong, when there is no bases it is wrong accept the belief around your faith.
If you attempted to look at this without a religious bias you would see so, but again it clouds your thinking.
You cannot control who you are physically attracted can you?
If the same is with homosexuals, they are born being attracted to their own sex. Thus if your God exists, he has created this way and yet makes them a sin from the start, that is irrational.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Really, so its is bullying to challenge views, because they are religious and have no evidence for them.
So to you it is child abuse to tell a child when they do something wrong because you are bullying them by educating them?
You are talking utter babble now.
This is the problem with religious people they think they should be immune to criticism.
Again you clearly do not even know what a fundementalist is.

You then went on to patronise him. Knowing you, you would have then gone on to insult him. Just as you did to me above.

What insult? Your whole answer is subjective to how you feel and how religious people tend to be over senitive, espcially around sex.
My view is Ben is very naive around religious views, because he wrongly thinks it is persecution to challenge religious views.
That is my stance here which as seen is true based on his answers.
I like Ben but I am going to be highly critical if I think his liberal views contradict

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Its one of your tells when you get over excited

Hmm sure! Like a billion other people don't use lol too. HA HA! ;-)

You use it when you get over excited and use it poorly to think you get at people.
You don;t and actually give yourself away when you are becoming emotive.

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


You do not accept because you do not want to go down the road which shows the clear problems found within religion espcially when they are literal beliefs and fail to see when they are going to clash with secular views, which is the well being and equality of others.
Many Abrahamic views clash with this, where at least now in the west many Christians and Jews are secular, Muslims in the main are certainly not secular in their views.
There is no difference to a religious person or someone who argues against Homosexuality, both views are ignorant not formed from anything rational or scientific.
The fact is you are contradicting your own liberal views, which are at odds with such religions.
Now either you wish to see reform in faiths like the Abrahamic ones, or you make their backward views acceptable?

If you're asking me whether liberals support anything done to oppress anyone in the name of Islam or any other religion, or in the name of any other irrational idea, we do not (in general, I can't speak for all of us either). But that includes the oppression of Muslims out of irrational fear.

Again you are happy for religious people to preach that homosexuality is wrong and that the punishement should either be prison or death?
The view is clearly at odds with the well being and equality of homosexuals and liberal views.
Then we have the victim card played again, where again you wish to make such views acceptable even if their views are at odds with the well being and equality of others. This is about being critical of these religious views which helped shape the west into secular views. This did not change by not challenging them, yet you wish to allow them to go unchallened through a false fear this is persecuting them. The fact is, if this was a literal Christian you would have no problem being highly critical of such views.
Do not even start to come out with nonsense claims to persecutions.
If they hold views that have no rationl view to them and are based on faith which affects others, then such views should be challenged.

If you're asking me whether liberals support anything done to oppress anyone in the name of Islam or any other religion, or in the name of any other irrational idea, we do not (in general, I can't speak for all of us either). But that includes the oppression of Muslims out of irrational fear.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I wasn't going down any route, you paranoid ninny. Come off it Didge. I was treating you nicely.

As for your question above - I do think homosexuality is a sin. And no, I don't think there should be any punishment for just being gay.

But as Ben said - there are many different views.

And thank you for admitting that you were playing games. Point proved.

Emotive response again.
Yes how many Muslims countries have homosexuality as a crime?
Why do you think many do?
A sin makes something criminal or do you not understand this?
Sin is just another way to say you believe something is wrong, when there is no bases it is wrong accept the belief around your faith.
If you attempted to look at this without a religious bias you would see so, but again it clouds your thinking.
You cannot control who you are physically attracted can you?
If the same is with homosexuals, they are born being attracted to their own sex. Thus if your God exists, he has created this way and yet makes them a sin from the start, that is irrational.

As sin makes something criminal? Are you sure. I've missed s few prayers and fasts, I've yet to be arrested. Including in Saudi Arabia during my Umrah. So much for your logic.

And there is no conclusive evidence about the nature of homosexuality. Perhaps that is your 'faith'.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Hmm sure! Like a billion other people don't use lol too. HA HA! ;-)

You use it when you get over excited and use it poorly to think you get at people.
You don;t and actually give yourself away when you are becoming emotive.

Oh ok, Mr Freud.

What are pathetic dick jokes a sign of?