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

First topic message reminder :

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.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

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.

I am a liberal with RW views also so I not asking you to give what other Liberals think, but how you think Ben.
I do not agree with the oppresion of Muslims out of irrational fear, never have, that is just deflecting from my points again.
Seriously, if you want to not challenge views because of religious belief, you make said views acceptable Ben.
That is a contradiction to your Liberal views and is done so out of a wrong view you think it means persecuing them.
It does not, as am I persecuting you for challenging your views?

No

Catch you later as off home in a minute

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

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'.

That did not answer a single point.
Okay show me any criminal act within Islam which is not seen as a sin?
That should resolve that issue then and why is it some are seen then as criminal if they are a sin.
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.


catch you later Zack

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

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

Firstly, being naive and contradictory are 2 different things.

You were accusing him of naivety because he disagreed about your views on Islam and its influence on terrorism. His view is perfectly sane and respectable. Yet you bully him with disrespect.

Anyway - just an observation. Ben is a big boy. ;-)

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

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'.

That did not answer a single point.
Okay show me any criminal act within Islam which is not seen as a sin?
That should resolve that issue then and why is it some are seen then as criminal if they are a sin.
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.


catch you later Zack

No bruv - you didn't say criminal act. You said sin. Nice try but major fail.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

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

Firstly, being naive and contradictory are 2 different things.

You were accusing him of naivety because he disagreed about your views on Islam and its influence on terrorism. His view is perfectly sane and respectable. Yet you bully him with disrespect.

Anyway - just an observation. Ben is a big boy. ;-)

He is naive to religion and its views and contradicts his Liberal views by accepting religious views.
So there is nothing wrong with my points, they are bang on.
Dear me this is religious sensitivity again, claiming to be critical is bullying which as seen is complete balderdash.
It is in fact a the worst possible attempt to delkect away from huge issues found within religion.
He is very respectable, never claimed otherwise, though his views contradict.
For example how does Ben view homosexuality?
How does Islam view homosexuality.
His views and Islamic views conflict.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

That did not answer a single point.
Okay show me any criminal act within Islam which is not seen as a sin?
That should resolve that issue then and why is it some are seen then as criminal if they are a sin.
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.


catch you later Zack

No bruv - you didn't say criminal act. You said sin. Nice try but major fail.

You want to split hairs by deflecting on the main point.
How many punishable acts in islam are not sins?

So answer the question why is it a criminal act in the majority of Muslim countries?
Why is apostacy the same?
How many Muslims agree both should be punished as a crminal act?
You may not agree with them, or at least I hope you do not but lets have some honesty here, because for centuries in the main both have been taught as punishable crimes in Islam?

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:


Firstly, being naive and contradictory are 2 different things.

You were accusing him of naivety because he disagreed about your views on Islam and its influence on terrorism. His view is perfectly sane and respectable. Yet you bully him with disrespect.

Anyway - just an observation. Ben is a big boy. ;-)

He is naive to religion and its views and contradicts his Liberal views by accepting religious views.
So there is nothing wrong with my points, they are bang on.
Dear me this is religious sensitivity again, claiming to be critical is bullying which as seen is complete balderdash.
It is in fact a the worst possible attempt to delkect away from huge issues found within religion.
He is very respectable, never claimed otherwise, though his views contradict.
For example how does Ben view homosexuality?
How does Islam view homosexuality.
His views and Islamic views conflict.

It's not for me to speak for Ben or anyone else but that's not what I get from him.

I believe what he's saying is that he disagrees with Islams view on homosexuality with respect to it being a sin and crime (ie legally punishable). But also understands that Muslims hold differing views on whether it is a crime and even if it is a sin.

For example some interpret the sexual misconduct laws in scriptures as that of public lewdness (therefore needing 4 witnesses). This would also apply to heterosexuals. And also means anyone can do what they like (with respect to sexual acts) in private. That's a liberal interpretation using the same scripture. And that is Ben's point. You can use the same scripture for a spectrum of views. This is not a test of scripture but of mankind.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

No bruv - you didn't say criminal act. You said sin. Nice try but major fail.

You want to split hairs by deflecting on the main point.
How many punishable acts in islam are not sins?

So answer the question why is it a criminal act in the majority of Muslim countries?
Why is apostacy the same?
How many Muslims agree both should be punished as a crminal act?
You may not agree with them, or at least I hope you do not but lets have some honesty here, because for centuries in the main both have been taught as punishable crimes in Islam?

Not splitting hairs at all. Sure you can seen that not all sins are considered crimes and I gave you examples of this.

Now you're just trying to twist your original question because you failed to grasp this fundametal difference.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

He is naive to religion and its views and contradicts his Liberal views by accepting religious views.
So there is nothing wrong with my points, they are bang on.
Dear me this is religious sensitivity again, claiming to be critical is bullying which as seen is complete balderdash.
It is in fact a the worst possible attempt to delkect away from huge issues found within religion.
He is very respectable, never claimed otherwise, though his views contradict.
For example how does Ben view homosexuality?
How does Islam view homosexuality.
His views and Islamic views conflict.

It's not for me to speak for Ben or anyone else but that's not what I get from him.

I believe what he's saying is that he disagrees with Islams view on homosexuality with respect to it being a sin and crime (ie legally punishable). But also understands that Muslims hold differing views on whether it is a crime and even if it is a sin.

For example some interpret the sexual misconduct laws in scriptures as that of public lewdness (therefore needing 4 witnesses). This would also apply to heterosexuals. And also means anyone can do what they like (with respect to sexual acts) in private. That's a liberal interpretation using the same scripture. And that is Ben's point. You can use the same scripture for a spectrum of views. This is not a test of scripture but of mankind.

The problem is though there is a vast amount of Muslims that view it as punishable and to the point some with activelly discrminate against them with homophobic attacks and where does this view come from Zack?
Where does the view to claim it is wrong Zack.
You cannot deny there is many preachers out there teaching views that it is vile etc.
Sorry your last point was a load of gobbldygook.
Ben is not challenging youir view that homosexuality is a sin, because he wrongly fears he may insult you.
Lets look at this rationally, why is two consenting adults in love a sin to you?
Lets look at interpretations also then, is not Wahhabism is very discrminating and harsh form of Islam?
Where is the counter view and teachings on this, where clearly this form of Islam is gaining support.
The vast mjaority oif extremisty groups all follow this form of Islam, of which Muslims are discrminated themselves from this ideology.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

You want to split hairs by deflecting on the main point.
How many punishable acts in islam are not sins?

So answer the question why is it a criminal act in the majority of Muslim countries?
Why is apostacy the same?
How many Muslims agree both should be punished as a crminal act?
You may not agree with them, or at least I hope you do not but lets have some honesty here, because for centuries in the main both have been taught as punishable crimes in Islam?

Not splitting hairs at all. Sure you can seen that not all sins are considered crimes and I gave you examples of this.

Now you're just trying to twist your original question because you failed to grasp this fundametal difference.

But sins are the bases for punishments are they not based on the level of severity.
You are just avoiding the points and the fact the vast majority of Muslims believe it is punishable.
So where are these views that it is coming like this from Zack?
You do not hold such views, but you cannot deny many others view that it should be, so why are you trying to deny this, which is a view that discrminates against homosexuals.
Even your tame intepretation on Islam in regards to homosexuality still discrminates, to class this as a sin, who cannot deny that.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

It's not for me to speak for Ben or anyone else but that's not what I get from him.

I believe what he's saying is that he disagrees with Islams view on homosexuality with respect to it being a sin and crime (ie legally punishable). But also understands that Muslims hold differing views on whether it is a crime and even if it is a sin.

For example some interpret the sexual misconduct laws in scriptures as that of public lewdness (therefore needing 4 witnesses). This would also apply to heterosexuals. And also means anyone can do what they like (with respect to sexual acts) in private. That's a liberal interpretation using the same scripture. And that is Ben's point. You can use the same scripture for a spectrum of views. This is not a test of scripture but of mankind.

The problem is though there is a vast amount of Muslims that view it as punishable and to the point some with activelly discrminate against them with homophobic attacks and where does this view come from Zack?
Where does the view to claim it is wrong Zack.
You cannot deny there is many preachers out there teaching views that it is vile etc.
Sorry your last point was a load of gobbldygook.
Ben is not challenging youir view that homosexuality is a sin, because he wrongly fears he may insult you.
Lets look at this rationally, why is two consenting adults in love a sin to you?
Lets look at interpretations also then, is not Wahhabism is very discrminating and harsh form of Islam?
Where is the counter view and teachings on this, where clearly this form of Islam is gaining support.
The vast mjaority oif extremisty groups all follow this form of Islam, of which Muslims are discrminated themselves from this ideology.

Vast amounts of Muslims is a highly subjective term. I could say the same about other groups.

I never denied some Muslims use scripture to make homosexuality a crime. But you know there are different interpretations, even though you deny this on this thread.

But some Muslims go beyond scripture also - such as punishing homosexuals by throwing them off a cliff. This is not an Islamic law.

And why would Ben be afraid of insulting me. He's not that timid (as seen with you) nor am I that special. I can't help but think you're a bit paranoid.

Just to be clear - Ben can disagree with anything any I say. But I doubt it needed saying. This is just for you.

Let me take another crack at explaining my position.

I disagree that things like homosexuality, apostasy, adultery, etc. should be punished, or that women should be subordinate to men, or any of that. If your religion states otherwise, I disagree with your religion and its ideals.

But why do I feel this way? Because I believe in self-ownership and determinism -- that you own your body, your mind and your life and that nobody should be able to limit what you do with yourself unless you're causing harm to others.

That same ideal leads me to defend the individual freedom to make up one's own mind and have one's own beliefs. And, as we've talked about in another thread, challenging people's beliefs often just makes them cling to them more strongly.

So instead of focusing on trying to change people's beliefs, I focus on trying to change the way people act upon their beliefs. I think that's a better way to bring about peace. It's also a hell of a lot more respectful.

One more example, since I love them so much -- you overhear two drunks arguing in a bar. You agree with one of them, but then it becomes more heated and they start throwing punches.

Do you: A) Try to push them apart, saying, "No need to fight about this, guys" or B) Start trying to explain to the guy you think is wrong why he's wrong?

Which has a better chance of ending the fight?

Now, I can obviously tell you want me to say that certain regressive beliefs held by some Muslims are wrong, and you'll never see me praising the Taliban for assaulting girls being educated, which they say is in the name of their faith.

But when I also see Muslims doing good in the name of their faith, it's obvious to me that it's the interpretation that matters far more than the actual teaching. I'll say that about any other faith as well.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Not splitting hairs at all. Sure you can seen that not all sins are considered crimes and I gave you examples of this.

Now you're just trying to twist your original question because you failed to grasp this fundametal difference.

But sins are the bases for punishments are they not based on the level of severity.
You are just avoiding the points and the fact the vast majority of Muslims believe it is punishable.
So where are these views that it is coming like this from Zack?
You do not hold such views, but you cannot deny many others view that it should be, so why are you trying to deny this, which is a view that discrminates against homosexuals.
Even your tame intepretation on Islam in regards to homosexuality still discrminates, to class this as a sin, who cannot deny that.

But even you are discriminating against my liberal views by calling them a 'tame interpretation of Islam".

Even assuming the majority of Muslims hold a conservative view (and you're just using subjective terms like vast - don't think I haven't noticed), it doesnt make it or them right.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

The problem is though there is a vast amount of Muslims that view it as punishable and to the point some with activelly discrminate against them with homophobic attacks and where does this view come from Zack?
Where does the view to claim it is wrong Zack.
You cannot deny there is many preachers out there teaching views that it is vile etc.
Sorry your last point was a load of gobbldygook.
Ben is not challenging youir view that homosexuality is a sin, because he wrongly fears he may insult you.
Lets look at this rationally, why is two consenting adults in love a sin to you?
Lets look at interpretations also then, is not Wahhabism is very discrminating and harsh form of Islam?
Where is the counter view and teachings on this, where clearly this form of Islam is gaining support.
The vast mjaority oif extremisty groups all follow this form of Islam, of which Muslims are discrminated themselves from this ideology.

Vast amounts of Muslims is a highly subjective term.  I could say the same about other groups.

I never denied some Muslims use scripture to make homosexuality a crime. But you know there are different interpretations, even though you deny this on this thread.

But some Muslims go beyond scripture also - such as punishing homosexuals by throwing them off a cliff. This is not an Islamic law.

And why would Ben be afraid of insulting me. He's not that timid (as seen with you) nor am I that special. I can't help but think you're a bit paranoid.

Just to be clear - Ben can disagree with anything any I say. But I doubt it needed saying. This is just for you.

Subjective?
How many are calling for homosexuality to not be a crime in all Muslim majority countries?
Where is the millions of Muslim voicies calling for this?
Oh back to the usual emotive responses, seriously, when are you going to understand they are really pathetic mate?
Yet to see Ben disagree with your view on homosexuality.
So again you avoid the points, are you saying there is not problems within Muslim countries which hold many discrminating laws against groups of people?
Apostacy.
Adultery
Homosexuality
Child brides.
Discrmination and persecution of Non-Muslims

Where are these views coming from?

I could go on, but why are these issues in many of these countries Zack?

Lets look at this rationally, why is two consenting adults in love a sin to you?
Lets look at interpretations also then, is not Wahhabism is very discrminating and harsh form of Islam?
Where is the counter view and teachings on this, where clearly this form of Islam is gaining support.
The vast mjaority oif extremisty groups all follow this form of Islam, of which Muslims are discrminated themselves from this ideology.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

But sins are the bases for punishments are they not based on the level of severity.
You are just avoiding the points and the fact the vast majority of Muslims believe it is punishable.
So where are these views that it is coming like this from Zack?
You do not hold such views, but you cannot deny many others view that it should be, so why are you trying to deny this, which is a view that discrminates against homosexuals.
Even your tame intepretation on Islam in regards to homosexuality still discrminates, to class this as a sin, who cannot deny that.

But even you are discriminating against my liberal views by calling them a 'tame interpretation of Islam".

Even assuming the majority of Muslims hold a conservative view (and you're just using subjective terms like vast - don't think I haven't noticed), it doesnt make it or them right.

They are tame compared to what the majority of Muslim countries have as law on homosexuality based again on their view of islam.
That is not discrminating against you in any shape or form.
You though deflect the point again, as is your view not a discrminating view against homosexuality by seeing this as a sin?

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Vast amounts of Muslims is a highly subjective term.  I could say the same about other groups.

I never denied some Muslims use scripture to make homosexuality a crime. But you know there are different interpretations, even though you deny this on this thread.

But some Muslims go beyond scripture also - such as punishing homosexuals by throwing them off a cliff. This is not an Islamic law.

And why would Ben be afraid of insulting me. He's not that timid (as seen with you) nor am I that special. I can't help but think you're a bit paranoid.

Just to be clear - Ben can disagree with anything any I say. But I doubt it needed saying. This is just for you.

Subjective?
How many are calling for homosexuality to not be a crime in all Muslim majority countries?
Where is the millions of Muslim voicies calling for this?
Oh back to the usual emotive responses, seriously, when are you going to understand they are really pathetic mate?
Yet to see Ben disagree with your view on homosexuality.
So again you avoid the points, are you saying there is not problems within Muslim countries which hold many discrminating laws against groups of people?
Apostacy.
Adultery
Homosexuality
Child brides.
Discrmination and persecution of Non-Muslims

Where are these views coming from?

I could go on, but why are these issues in many of these countries Zack?

Lets look at this rationally, why is two consenting adults in love a sin to you?
Lets look at interpretations also then, is not Wahhabism is very discrminating and harsh form of Islam?
Where is the counter view and teachings on this, where clearly this form of Islam is gaining support.
The vast mjaority oif extremisty groups all follow this form of Islam, of which Muslims are discrminated themselves from this ideology.

It is quite evident that Ben and I diverge on our view on homosexuality. I'm not offended by that. But you want to bully him into some sort of direct challenge against me. Very pathetic.

As for laws in Muslim countries (esp Saudi) go beyond scripture and go towards cultural sensitivities. So yes, I do think Muslim countries have a problem. They are not Muslim enough.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Subjective?
How many are calling for homosexuality to not be a crime in all Muslim majority countries?
Where is the millions of Muslim voicies calling for this?
Oh back to the usual emotive responses, seriously, when are you going to understand they are really pathetic mate?
Yet to see Ben disagree with your view on homosexuality.
So again you avoid the points, are you saying there is not problems within Muslim countries which hold many discrminating laws against groups of people?
Apostacy.
Adultery
Homosexuality
Child brides.
Discrmination and persecution of Non-Muslims

Where are these views coming from?

I could go on, but why are these issues in many of these countries Zack?

Lets look at this rationally, why is two consenting adults in love a sin to you?
Lets look at interpretations also then, is not Wahhabism is very discrminating and harsh form of Islam?
Where is the counter view and teachings on this, where clearly this form of Islam is gaining support.
The vast mjaority oif extremisty groups all follow this form of Islam, of which Muslims are discrminated themselves from this ideology.

It is quite evident that Ben and I diverge on our view on homosexuality. I'm not offended by that. But you want to bully him into some sort of direct challenge against me. Very pathetic.

As for laws in Muslim countries (esp Saudi) go beyond scripture and go towards cultural sensitivities. So yes, I do think Muslim countries have a problem. They are not Muslim enough.

Your views are at odds with the well being and equality of others because of your religious views.
I would love to see him challenge your views on homosexuality and countless other views on your faith as he has certainly done in regards to Christianity. Which is my point, Ben does not shy away from being highly critical of Christianity.
Oh do stop with the crap about bullying it is so pathetic on every level and is just you poorly attempting to defect away from every point posted at you because you cannot or choose not to answer them.
Well there are not many Muslims then according to you and little is being done to change this or make them progress.
Your silence is deafening on the matter Zack.
So you clearly wish to discrminate against innocent people and consenting adults who are in love based on no sound reasoining accept your faith, which again has no evidence.
Also who can judge who is right on what interpretation of Islam is right? Seems far more preach an intolerant view of Homosexuals would you not agree?

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Vast amounts of Muslims is a highly subjective term.  I could say the same about other groups.

I never denied some Muslims use scripture to make homosexuality a crime. But you know there are different interpretations, even though you deny this on this thread.

But some Muslims go beyond scripture also - such as punishing homosexuals by throwing them off a cliff. This is not an Islamic law.

And why would Ben be afraid of insulting me. He's not that timid (as seen with you) nor am I that special. I can't help but think you're a bit paranoid.

Just to be clear - Ben can disagree with anything any I say. But I doubt it needed saying. This is just for you.

Subjective?
How many are calling for homosexuality to not be a crime in all Muslim majority countries?
Where is the millions of Muslim voicies calling for this?
Oh back to the usual emotive responses, seriously, when are you going to understand they are really pathetic mate?
Yet to see Ben disagree with your view on homosexuality.
So again you avoid the points, are you saying there is not problems within Muslim countries which hold many discrminating laws against groups of people?
Apostacy.
Adultery
Homosexuality
Child brides.
Discrmination and persecution of Non-Muslims

Where are these views coming from?

I could go on, but why are these issues in many of these countries Zack?

Lets look at this rationally, why is two consenting adults in love a sin to you?
Lets look at interpretations also then, is not Wahhabism is very discrminating and harsh form of Islam?
Where is the counter view and teachings on this, where clearly this form of Islam is gaining support.
The vast mjaority oif extremisty groups all follow this form of Islam, of which Muslims are discrminated themselves from this ideology.

"How many are calling for homosexuality to not be a crime in all Muslim majority countries?"

personalty i haven`t a clue

But remember Alan Turing, He had been given a course of female hormones (chemical castration) by doctors as an alternative to prison after being prosecuted by the police because of his homosexuality in this country .


Now being imprisoned is one thing, misguided for sure

Chemical castration that`s just barbaric in it self

and that's in the uk  

not many gays where that vocal back then hardly surprising given the consequences
however if your gay in a Islamic country today you get stoned or hung
remember its less than 50 years since we "civilised people"  stopped persecuting the  LGBT community as a matter of law

So How many are calling for homosexuality not be a crime in all Muslim majority countries

more than you probably think

Really based on what evidence Korben that many are ?
The point is it is secular views that has changed this and we have progressed away from religious beliefs and even today homosexuals do not have equal rights, but at least are on the right track, where this is extremely difficult when religious law rules many Muislim majority countries. Sorry but I do not think homosexuals should have to wait another year let alone 50 to see equal rights in these countries let alone all the others that face discrmination based off mythical beliefs and hence why I am so vocal on this as to why it is wrong to be inactive to not speak out and be critical of these religions.
Okay as a starting point how many western Muslims call for the decriminalisation of apostacy and homosexuality that live in Britain?

Brasidas wrote:

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.

Seems you are
by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views

I have already proven you don't understand Science to the extent that you can claim it correct, You rely 100% on faith for your claims.
when I have shown that hey you haven't looked at the big picture and even posted the Maths, you then Went all Cry baby and told me that Science doesn't matter
Which quite frankly is retarded only an fundamentalist would say such a thing.


And you do have Adherence to 'faith based claims' of the movement, the only way you can possibly claim you are no its to say that Atheism is not a religion but You sure as hell treat it like one.. so I say it is a religion NOT pure atheism as proposed by Greek philosophers but the Modern Institution of atheism being lead by Harris and Dawkins is.

Secularism is not atheism either.. the first secularist were still religious. Secularism is simply saying that we will make governing laws based around provable fact and 'the good of the people' and tolerate anyone that accepts this principal regardless of their religion.
Which your intolerance of others makes you against secularism too

Ben_Reilly wrote:Let me take another crack at explaining my position.

I disagree that things like homosexuality, apostasy, adultery, etc. should be punished, or that women should be subordinate to men, or any of that. If your religion states otherwise, I disagree with your religion and its ideals.

But why do I feel this way? Because I believe in self-ownership and determinism -- that you own your body, your mind and your life and that nobody should be able to limit what you do with yourself unless you're causing harm to others.

That same ideal leads me to defend the individual freedom to make up one's own mind and have one's own beliefs. And, as we've talked about in another thread, challenging people's beliefs often just makes them cling to them more strongly.

So instead of focusing on trying to change people's beliefs, I focus on trying to change the way people act upon their beliefs. I think that's a better way to bring about peace. It's also a hell of a lot more respectful.

One more example, since I love them so much -- you overhear two drunks arguing in a bar. You agree with one of them, but then it becomes more heated and they start throwing punches.

Do you: A) Try to push them apart, saying, "No need to fight about this, guys" or B) Start trying to explain to the guy you think is wrong why he's wrong?

Which has a better chance of ending the fight?

Now, I can obviously tell you want me to say that certain regressive beliefs held by some Muslims are wrong, and you'll never see me praising the Taliban for assaulting girls being educated, which they say is in the name of their faith.

But when I also see Muslims doing good in the name of their faith, it's obvious to me that it's the interpretation that matters far more than the actual teaching. I'll say that about any other faith as well.

Ben is far wiser than he lets on

And why he is not a fundamentalist but Brasadis is..
You can see the difference Brasaidis is even attacking Ben for Not attacking 'some one of the other group' he literally stated that Acceptance of others and their beliefs is the same as supporting them!... a totally Fundamentalist thing to say

Thanks, Veya -- I go back to one of the most rational things said to people who are against gay marriage -- "what difference does it make to you if other people want to get married?" I think it's basically the same argument. Thinking something is wrong and blowing up buildings over it are very different things ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:Thanks, Veya -- I go back to one of the most rational things said to people who are against gay marriage -- "what difference does it make to you if other people want to get married?" I think it's basically the same argument. Thinking something is wrong and blowing up buildings over it are very different things ...

Thinking something is wrong and Denying people the right to think something different are also very different things ..
If they still conform to the ideals of secularism their faith is irrelevant

In fairness both didge and I might be called atheist fundamentalists. BUT an atheist fundamentalist is still 1,000,000 x less dangerous than a religious fundamentalist. Which is ultimately why it is stupid to even use the term as it implies the two are in anyway similar. The extent of atheist fundamentalism in reality is that we speak ill of religion. If that upsets some people well then so what? God is one your side right? Believers should either grow up or reflect on their own insecurities.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Thanks, Veya -- I go back to one of the most rational things said to people who are against gay marriage -- "what difference does it make to you if other people want to get married?" I think it's basically the same argument. Thinking something is wrong and blowing up buildings over it are very different things ...

You are showing the worst dishonesty Ben when it comes to the problems found withn religion because you refuse to accept there are problems with religion itself where there has been for centuries. It is no good saying well there is many good people when at its core there are many that hold such religious beliefs that conflict with the well being and equality of people.
I mean how many daily and in many nations and suffering based on laws based on a mythical being. This still happens even with Christianity of which I do not deny in parts of Africa and you are showing the worst defense possible for these ideologies that affect so many people.
SAo lets ask you some simple questions.
What brought about the end of Slavery?
What brought about equal rights for Women?
What brought about equal rights for homosexuals?
Do you think they were brought about by bowing down to religious rule or standing up to such nonsense?
You are wrongly believeing that to stand up to such religious ideology is persecuting religion.
Well if this means standing up for the rights and well being is persecuting religion then I happilly am as guilty as charged because the well being and equality of people is far more important than some made up mumbo jumbo which does affect many people by barbaric laws and its time you started to recognise that.

Eilzel wrote:In fairness both didge and I might be called atheist fundamentalists. BUT an atheist fundamentalist is still 1,000,000 x less dangerous than a religious fundamentalist. Which is ultimately why it is stupid to even use the term as it implies the two are in anyway similar. The extent of atheist fundamentalism in reality is that we speak ill of religion. If that upsets some people well then so what? God is one your side right? Believers should either grow up or reflect on their own insecurities.

I know mate, I cannot even be bothered to respond to the wackadoodle and the things he comes out with because he is a crack pot.
The fact anyone tries to make out athiesm is dangerous and comes out also with unscientific claims which they have not proven shows how badly some want to defend religious ideologies which affect the well being of others and fail to understand this.

Eilzel wrote:In fairness both didge and I might be called atheist fundamentalists. BUT an atheist fundamentalist is still 1,000,000 x less dangerous than a religious fundamentalist. Which is ultimately why it is stupid to even use the term as it implies the two are in anyway similar. The extent of atheist fundamentalism in reality is that we speak ill of religion. If that upsets some people well then so what? God is one your side right? Believers should either grow up or reflect on their own insecurities.

Harris is quoted as saying
If he could stop either rape or religion from existing he would stop religion
SORRY Les that is JUST AS FUCKED UP AND ANY RELIGIOUS MAN'S IDEALS

If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.

Again the institution of Atheism is EXACTLY THE SAME
Harris DOES NOT SAY what you say at all and completely contradicts YOUR claims about atheists. If atheist Raise him as a man to Emulate than THEY DESERVE TO BE CRITICISED EXACTLY AS RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS DO

"It is time we admitted that we are not at war with "terrorism". We are at war with Islam."

~sam harris
You know what we call a Muslims that says they are at war with over a billion people because they believe something different???
AND yes as he is talking the war on terror Which has cost over a million lives YES he is Talking about KILLING people for what they believe

It is time that scientists and other public intellectuals observed that the contest between faith and reason is zero-sum. There is no question but that nominally religious scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth R. Miller are doing lasting harm to our discourse by the accommodations they have made to religious irrationality.

Can only be said IF YOU DON'T understand even the Basics of Quantum Physics In WHICH CASE you are just using Faith too. It is time for Atheist to Admit that According to Mathematics by which we define Our Universe Atheism is JUST AS UNLIKELY  all tests humanity has conducted on celestial entities have NOT SUPPORTED the nothing philosophy of Atheists.

The problem with faith, is that it really is a conversation stopper. Faith is a declaration of immunity to the powers of conversation. It is a reason, why you do not have to give reasons, for what you believe.

Hypocrite As he never gives a reason why he believes what he believes, He just uses Faith flat up refuse to discuss anything out side his restricted definitions.

The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness to do so.

Ignorance, as Buddhism CLEARLY SAYS OTHERWISE the only difference between Buddhist Philosophy and Science is the requirement for mathematical proof

Atheism is just a way of clearing the space for better conversations.

yeah learn some Ancient Greek Plato and Socrates already did this Atheism is NOT clearing anything Maybe in the limited Euro/Abrahamic mindset but SHIT man open your eye to the world there is so much more that that miserable place and simplistic fairy tales. Atheism SHUT the conversation down as it just like religions before it INSIST they have answer when they DO NOT.

I would stop religion too based on the fact it is nonsense and has no evidence for this and is dangerous because it allows people to wrongly believe in things that have no bases to the point it aftects the well being and equality of others.
He is right it is sheer madness and intellectual dishonesty and rape is backed by the abrahamic religions so by stopping religion you have stopped the main probloem of most of the rapes where men have wrongly though they are empowered over women aor does not a wakadoodle like yourself understand this?

Second you are talking out of your arse Veya, there is no atheist doctrine, it is jjust non-belief and those of this are speaking out against disgusting religious laws, which do affect the well being and equality of others and you think that deserves criticism? Fine, you thus wish to back discrmination then based on something that has no evidence. That is nothing short of the most backward Iron age thinking we have moved awaiy from in the West but not parts of the rest of the world and now clearly parts of Australia.


You clearly are a religious wackadoodle and whay you defend religious discrmination, seriously if anyone could read what you are writing they would lock youi up as clearly you are insane and if Ben cannot see that, then this concerns me he stands by and does not speak out at the intellectual dishonesty and bullshit that you write.
So your anger is at views one athiest has said that does not lead athiests but expresses criticism rightly of religion and you fear the fact that what he says is right.

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Thanks, Veya -- I go back to one of the most rational things said to people who are against gay marriage -- "what difference does it make to you if other people want to get married?" I think it's basically the same argument. Thinking something is wrong and blowing up buildings over it are very different things ...

You are showing the worst dishonesty Ben when it comes to the problems found withn religion because you refuse to accept there are problems with religion itself where there has been for centuries. It is no good saying well there is many good people when at its core there are many that hold such religious beliefs that conflict with the well being and equality of people.
I mean how many daily and in many nations and suffering based on laws based on a mythical being. This still happens even with Christianity of which I do not deny in parts of Africa and you are showing the worst defense possible for these ideologies that affect so many people. No more than those the suffer at the hands of those that worship the almighty dollar..
SAo lets ask you some simple questions.
What brought about the end of Slavery? WHO ALLOWED IT? NOT EVERYONE , Not Even a point because Not all humans engaged in slavery in the first place
What brought about equal rights for Women? Economics Secularism
What brought about equal rights for homosexuals? Secularism The Right of Freedom of determination That you wish to deny religious people
Do you think they were brought about by bowing down to religious rule or standing up to such nonsense?
You are wrongly believeing that to stand up to such religious ideology is persecuting religion.
Well if this means standing up for the rights and well being is persecuting religion then I happilly am as guilty as charged because the well being and equality of people is far more important than some made up mumbo jumbo which does affect many people by barbaric laws and its time you started to recognise that.

And you show the dishonesty in denying that as an institution Atheism suffers Exactly the same.


I do not deny Atheist Fundamentalist are less dangerous NOW
But it doesn't take much investigation into men like Harris and observations of People like Brasadis to See that YES
it will be used to abuse people and take away their rights to self determination IT will allow uneducated fools to fell so Superior cause they Know the answers, when a smarter man knows they don't.

AND see EXACTLY Like a fundamentalist He cant refute any of my points so he turns to personal attacks and trying to deflect ignore.

AGAIN SECULARISM IS NOT ATHEISM
you have not shown a single good thing atheism has done that would not also be done by an agnostic or even religious secularist.

Everyone but a fundamentalist accepts. science and the right to self determination with the belief that religion or lack of it have no part in the legal frame work of a nation.


And seriously You didn't even understand newtons laws or the well established issues of taking them off a planet and using them in a universal context... GET AN EDUCATION Understand what you are supposed to believe. You are not equipped for this debate. Not once have I ever supported any institution JUST Like I don't support Institutional atheism Because it allows the creation of Idiot Fundamentalists taking what they heard as gospel without ever critically analysing the information ... I support people thinking for themselves Which evidently you are incapable of.


SO YOU Never answered from the other thread DO YOU AGREE WITH SAM
has no one ever suffered from being too reasonable???

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

You are showing the worst dishonesty Ben when it comes to the problems found withn religion because you refuse to accept there are problems with religion itself where there has been for centuries. It is no good saying well there is many good people when at its core there are many that hold such religious beliefs that conflict with the well being and equality of people.
I mean how many daily and in many nations and suffering based on laws based on a mythical being. This still happens even with Christianity of which I do not deny in parts of Africa and you are showing the worst defense possible for these ideologies that affect so many people. No more than those the suffer at the hands of those that worship the almighty dollar..
SAo lets ask you some simple questions.
What brought about the end of Slavery?   WHO ALLOWED IT? NOT EVERYONE , Not Even a point because Not all humans engaged in slavery in the first place
What brought about equal rights for Women? Economics Secularism
What brought about equal rights for homosexuals? Secularism The Right of Freedom of determination That you wish to deny religious people
Do you think they were brought about by bowing down to religious rule or standing up to such nonsense?
You are wrongly believeing that to stand up to such religious ideology is persecuting religion.
Well if this means standing up for the rights and well being is persecuting religion then I happilly am as guilty as charged because the well being and equality of people is far more important than some made up mumbo jumbo which does affect many people by barbaric laws and its time you started to recognise that.

And you show the dishonesty in denying that as an institution Atheism suffers Exactly the same.
I do not deny Atheist Fundamentalist are less dangerous NOW
But it doesn't take much investigation into men like Harris and observations of People like Brasadis to See that YES
it will be used to abuse people and take away their rights to self determination IT will allow uneducated fools to fell so Superior cause they Know the answers, when a smarter man knows they don't.
AND see EXACTLY Like a fundamentalist He cant refute any of my points so he turns to personal attacks and trying to deflect ignore.
AGAIN SECULARISM IS NOT ATHEISM
you have not shown a single good thing atheism has done that would not also be done by an agnostic or even religious secularist.
Everyone but a fundamentalist accepts. science and the right to self determination with the belief that religion or lack of it have no part in the legal frame work of a nation.
And seriously You didn't even understand newtons laws or the well established issues of taking them off a planet and using them in a universal context...  GET AN EDUCATION Understand what you are supposed to believe. You are not equipped for this debate. Not once have I ever supported any institution JUST Like I don't support Institutional atheism Because it allows the creation of Idiot Fundamentalists taking what they heard as gospel without ever critically analysing the information ... I support people thinking for themselves Which evidently you are incapable of.
SO YOU Never answered from the other thread DO YOU AGREE WITH SAM
has no one ever suffered from being too reasonable???

So I am not an expert on science, does that mean you have proved scientists wrong?
No you are such a retard to think that you have, which is basically why you are such a wackadoodle on every level and mis the dundemental point that in many religions they have no bases for any evidence and  you know this yet seek to claim nothing more than bullshit to back your view now around newton which is comical to say the least and has no bases except for someone who needs to be certified and is a danger to the public at large with the babble you come out with.
I am educated to the point I know you are a wackadoodle and clearly need help with the things youi come out with because they are completely irrational at every turn.
Oh my goodness, secularism is based now on religious belief is it?
Please show me that?
This is why you are such a wackadoodle
Next show me the doctrine that atheists have to follow?
There is no danger from atheist, because they do not believe in harming people but to show the ways of religion have no bases and are myths, nothing more, you just will n ot accept that because you are a religious nutball like the Godsquad who did the same trying to convince people with cancer cures.
Unless you have anything intelligentg to say, I suggest you bow out with grace because the more you post the more I am convinced you are an idiot.

Brasidas wrote:I would stop religion too based on the fact it is nonsense and has no evidence for this and is dangerous because it allows people to wrongly believe in things that have no bases to the point it aftects the well being and equality of others.
He is right it is sheer madness and intellectual dishonesty and rape is backed by the abrahamic religions so by stopping religion you have stopped the main probloem of most of the rapes where men have wrongly though they are empowered over women aor does not a wakadoodle like yourself understand this?

Second you are talking out of your arse Veya, there is no atheist doctrine, it is jjust non-belief and those of this are speaking out against disgusting religious laws, which do affect the well being and equality of others and you think that deserves criticism? Fine, you thus wish to back discrmination then based on something that has no evidence. That is nothing short of the most backward Iron age thinking we have moved awaiy from in the West but not parts of the rest of the world and now clearly parts of Australia.


You clearly are a religious wackadoodle and whay you defend religious discrmination, seriously if anyone could read what you are writing they would lock youi up as clearly you are insane and if Ben cannot see that, then this concerns me he stands by and does not speak out at the intellectual dishonesty and bullshit that you write.
So your anger is at views one athiest has said that does not lead athiests but expresses criticism rightly of religion and you fear the fact that what he says is right.

Yeah whatever fundie You keep making straw men to make yourself fell better that you subscribe to a doctrine of thinking no better than Taliban hill Sheppard BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT EITHER you just have blind faith in what you are told. And you wish to discriminate against people like the Taliban hill shepherd, not me, I just want everyone to admit they don't know.

SECULARISM stop religious laws.. it has NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM
the men that originally Proposed secularism were largely AGNOSTICS..

Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
Secularism is the belief that LAWS are based on facts or the 'good of the people' the only thing that it has to do with religion OR atheism is that it Ignores BOTH EQUALLY.. Again you need to go and learn some basics if you want to continue BECAUSE I am not religious and Definitely not Abrahamist but I AM familiar with Quantum Mathematics and MORE STRONGLY SUPPORT SECULARISM THAN YOU..


ATHEISM IS NOT saying there is options or stuff we don't know (that is agnosticism) , it is saying there is ZERO/NOTHING in relation to gods/divine
Which the universe DOES NOT SUPPORT? SO you are doing something no different that a religious institution. AND THAT IS A DOCTRINE!! you have a clear claim that is the central point of the atheist doctrine that YOU KNOW FOR 100% Fact there is NOTHING that is gods/divine

Because BEN is right Secularism is just like the gay marriage logic ... IF it doesn't effect anyone else than why not
It doesn't change an Australians life to let people have a mosque or church or temple as long as they also accept they have no right to stop people doing things that don't effect them in return

Holyoake invented the term "secularism" to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief. An agnostic himself, Holyoake argued that "Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."

The aspirations of a secular society could characterize a secular society as one which:

Refuses to commit itself as a whole to any one view of the nature of the universe and the role of man in it. Atheist fail that one big time
Is not homogeneous, but is pluralistic. Which Harris works against wanting a Homogeneous Atheist society
Is tolerant. It widens the sphere of private decision-making.
While every society must have some common aims, which implies there must be agreed on methods of problem-solving, and a common framework of law; in a secular society these are as limited as possible.
Problem solving is approached rationally, through examination of the facts. While the secular society does not set any overall aim, it helps its members realize their aims.
Is a society without any official images. Nor is there a common ideal type of behavior with universal application.

Positive Ideals behind the secular society:

Deep respect for individuals and the small groups of which they are a part.
Equality of all people.
Each person should be helped to realize their particular excellence.
Breaking down of the barriers of class and caste.[23]

So Veya just posted evidence that secularism ios not religious and then argues otherwise.
I am pnot going to debate with a retard and will await people with some sense like Zaxk to debate.
If I was you Vey I would go and seek professional help because you have all the hallmarks of insanity.
Atheism is simply non-belief and yet you invent things around this because it fundemnetally debunks any concept you have and like any religious nutball you fear something which is rational. That is why there is no intellectual honesty in any of your answers Veya and you come out with the most idiotic incorect claims based off your own hatred which is typical of a religious nutball.
Athiesm is saying there is no evidence for any God, there is none, its time you began to accept the facts and no amound of C&P is going to back that in any shape or form.
You are showing just like many religious nutballs how intolerant you are other people who simply do not believe in a God based on there being no evidence.
You mistake this as an ideology because you are intolerant of atheism because it shows up the flaws in your beliefs.
Ben is wrong because he contradicts his own liberal views and scularism is based around rational thinking and the well being of others which Ben seeks to excuse if they are religious because he wrongly perceives this as persecution nto religious people.
He shows why he is no Liberl and holds little Liberal beliefs when he allows for religious beliefs to be equal to rational thoughts and the well being and equality of others. All you are doing is proving why religion is so intoerant because as seen it invents nonsense as if atheism is a threat, when it is not a threat it is based on rational thinking.

Unless you have anything intelligentg to say, do not waste my time with more stupidity

Thank you

Right I have better things to do than to deabte with a wackadoodle


As I say I will wait for those who have intelligence.

What is the point of presenting reason and logic to someone that doesn't value it
After presenting such things to Brasadis I Know
NONE

And Buddha is NOT omniscient.
Fuck me that guy is SO ignorant

READ IT

Holyoake invented the term "secularism" to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief. An agnostic himself, Holyoake argued that "Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."

AND WHERE HAVE I SAID RELIGIOUS you a Moron that has lost so badly you are making stupid straw men.
CLEARLY Secularism  has nothing to do with ATHEISM as the guys who invested the name was agnostic AGAIN Because he being MUCH smarter than Sam or Yourself Knows we do NOT KNOW!!!

I have NOT claimed to Know what is, YOU HAVE ATHEISTS HAVE they say the answer is ZERO to sum when we have not even worked out the whole equation they are Pompous self conceited fools Just like every religious person that is  for the EXACT same reason CLAIMING TO KNOW SOMETHING THEY DON"T

And I am NOT EVEN trying to disprove Science You are fucking thick. I am Using Science to Disprove Atheism because Atheism Makes a Definite statement about the universe that WE DO NOT KNOW and there is Absolutely NO mathematical Evidence for !!!!  

YOU SAY YOU KNOW, I SAY I DON'T..  
and YOU WANT TO PERSECUTE PEOPLE so FUCK YOU HATE MONGER FUCK WIT.
You and people like you are what is wrong with the world YOU are no different than ISIS, You want persecution for ideas..
You have already admitted you'd prefer people to be raped than allowed to be religious SO You opinions should be viewed through that statement. You are an evil piece of shit.

BRasidas STOP answering You are a fundie I don't care what you say
Les and Ben are reasonable Atheists and I am sick of offending them Because An idiot like you has the same belief as them... (just like a Moderate Muslim feels about Fundies)

Not all Atheist are evil But those that Model their atheism on the Ignorance and hate of Sam Harris ARE!!

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Thanks, Veya -- I go back to one of the most rational things said to people who are against gay marriage -- "what difference does it make to you if other people want to get married?" I think it's basically the same argument. Thinking something is wrong and blowing up buildings over it are very different things ...

You are showing the worst dishonesty Ben when it comes to the problems found withn religion because you refuse to accept there are problems with religion itself where there has been for centuries.
It is no good saying well there is many good people when at its core there are many that hold such religious beliefs that conflict with the well being and equality of people.
I mean how many daily and in many nations and suffering based on laws based on a mythical being. This still happens even with Christianity of which I do not deny in parts of Africa and you are showing the worst defense possible for these ideologies that affect so many people.
SAo lets ask you some simple questions.
What brought about the end of Slavery?
What brought about equal rights for Women?
What brought about equal rights for homosexuals?
Do you think they were brought about by bowing down to religious rule or standing up to such nonsense?
You are wrongly believeing that to stand up to such religious ideology is persecuting religion.
Well if this means standing up for the rights and well being is persecuting religion then I happilly am as guilty as charged because the well being and equality of people is far more important than some made up mumbo jumbo which does affect many people by barbaric laws and its time you started to recognise that.

So what, we throw out the good majority along with the bad minority? You've seriously lost the plot, and beyond that I don't think you've given any real thought to anything I've written. In fact, I doubt you even read half of it.

I would be careful with the examples you name -- slavery? Really?

The cause of immediate emancipation, as the abolitionists came to define it, had a different germ of inspiration from those Enlightenment ideals that Jefferson had articulated: the rise of a fervent religious reawakening just as the new Republic was being created. That impulse sprang from two main sources: the theology and practice of Quakerism and the emergence of an aggressive, interdenominational evangelicalism. Both movements arose in England and America during the Age of Enlightenment—the eighteenth century. The pietism of the Quakers, a radically egalitarian Protestant sect, asserted the love of God for every human being, regardless of color, sex, or station in life. Even before the American Revolution, the most famous of the mid- and late eighteenth-century Quaker reformers, John Woolman, Anthony Benezet, Benjamin Lay, and later Benjamin Lundy began to publish their opinions and raise the issue of human bondage at Quaker meetings, largely in Pennsylvania. Even in Southern states where a greater number in the faith held slaves, their activities led to increased manumissions.

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/amabrel.htm

You simply (and I do mean "simply") refuse to see religion as a mixed bag, with good and bad. I might not believe in any of it but at least I can recognize that it has often inspired good things.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

You are showing the worst dishonesty Ben when it comes to the problems found withn religion because you refuse to accept there are problems with religion itself where there has been for centuries.
It is no good saying well there is many good people when at its core there are many that hold such religious beliefs that conflict with the well being and equality of people.
I mean how many daily and in many nations and suffering based on laws based on a mythical being. This still happens even with Christianity of which I do not deny in parts of Africa and you are showing the worst defense possible for these ideologies that affect so many people.
SAo lets ask you some simple questions.
What brought about the end of Slavery?
What brought about equal rights for Women?
What brought about equal rights for homosexuals?
Do you think they were brought about by bowing down to religious rule or standing up to such nonsense?
You are wrongly believeing that to stand up to such religious ideology is persecuting religion.
Well if this means standing up for the rights and well being is persecuting religion then I happilly am as guilty as charged because the well being and equality of people is far more important than some made up mumbo jumbo which does affect many people by barbaric laws and its time you started to recognise that.

So what, we throw out the good majority along with the bad minority? You've seriously lost the plot, and beyond that I don't think you've given any real thought to anything I've written. In fact, I doubt you even read half of it.

I would be careful with the examples you name -- slavery? Really?

The cause of immediate emancipation, as the abolitionists came to define it, had a different germ of inspiration from those Enlightenment ideals that Jefferson had articulated: the rise of a fervent religious reawakening just as the new Republic was being created. That impulse sprang from two main sources: the theology and practice of Quakerism and the emergence of an aggressive, interdenominational evangelicalism. Both movements arose in England and America during the Age of Enlightenment—the eighteenth century. The pietism of the Quakers, a radically egalitarian Protestant sect, asserted the love of God for every human being, regardless of color, sex, or station in life. Even before the American Revolution, the most famous of the mid- and late eighteenth-century Quaker reformers, John Woolman, Anthony Benezet, Benjamin Lay, and later Benjamin Lundy began to publish their opinions and raise the issue of human bondage at Quaker meetings, largely in Pennsylvania. Even in Southern states where a greater number in the faith held slaves, their activities led to increased manumissions.

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/amabrel.htm

You simply (and I do mean "simply") refuse to see religion as a mixed bag, with good and bad. I might not believe in any of it but at least I can recognize that it has often inspired good things.

Know it is naive people like yourself that is losing the plot because ytou are too weak or too afraid to challenge bad ideas out of fear of offense and religions have plenty of bad ideas that affects the lives of others, where they discrminate against others.
Seriously do you not even see how your own views conflict and contradict where you are shit scared to challenge such bad ideas, because you hold a really backward view you would be persecuting them?
Now again how did we progress Ben from such backward views
What brought about the end of Slavery?
What brought about equal rights for Women?
What brought about equal rights for homosexuals?
Do you think they were brought about by bowing down to religious rule or standing up to such nonsense?
You are wrongly believeing that to stand up to such religious ideology is persecuting religion.

Nobody denies there is some good from religion, where did anyone claim that?
Do you think that nullifies the bad parts in someway?
That is you confusing the issue because we all know there is some good, that though does not stop the problem of the countless bad parts, when the very bases of religion espcially the Abrahamic ones is religious racism, "my god is right all other faiths arewrong" and damned and seen as wrong, that in itself is discrimination and those who do not follow are condemned.
Sorry wake up from the bollocks you are spouting Ben because it is sheer bullshit which you are seeking to deflect problems found within rfeligion.
You are no Liberal because no Liberal would deny such problems and then even worse seek to protect them as you are doing

veya_victaous wrote:BRasidas STOP answering You are a fundie I don't care what you say
Les and Ben are reasonable Atheists and I am sick of offending them Because An idiot like you has the same belief as them... (just like a Moderate Muslim feels about Fundies)

Not all Atheist are evil But those that Model their atheism on the Ignorance and hate of Sam Harris ARE!!

Have to totally agree here.

Didge, you're even quoting Sam Harris as if it's from scripture. Surely you can see the irony?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:BRasidas STOP answering You are a fundie I don't care what you say
Les and Ben are reasonable Atheists and I am sick of offending them Because An idiot like you has the same belief as them... (just like a Moderate Muslim feels about Fundies)

Not all Atheist are evil But those that Model their atheism on the Ignorance and hate of Sam Harris ARE!!

Have to totally agree here.

Didge, you're even quoting Sam Harris as if it's from scripture. Surely you can see the irony?

WTF
So quoting someone where there words make the most sense is now you being delusional; to claim that as if it is the same as religion?
Behave that is pathetic.
Of course you would agree you follow bad ideas.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Have to totally agree here.

Didge, you're even quoting Sam Harris as if it's from scripture. Surely you can see the irony?

WTF
So quoting someone where there words make the most sense is now you being delusional; to claim that as if it is the same as religion?
Behave that is pathetic.
Of course you would agree you follow bad ideas.

It's none of your business what ideas I follow.

And that's kind of the point. Only a fundamentalist would think it is their business.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

WTF
So quoting someone where there words make the most sense is now you being delusional; to claim that as if it is the same as religion?
Behave that is pathetic.
Of course you would agree you follow bad ideas.

It's none of your business what ideas I follow.

And that's kind of the point. Only a fundamentalist would think it is their business.

If your ideas affect others or myself, then you make it my buisness.
Only someone religious would try to impose their beliefs onto others.

Beliefs are other peoples business when some people's beliefs lead them to commit atrocities.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

It's none of your business what ideas I follow.

And that's kind of the point. Only a fundamentalist would think it is their business.

If your ideas affect others or myself, then you make it my buisness.
Only someone religious would try to impose their beliefs onto others.

The fact you are also imposing the ideas of fundamental Athiesm makes you a hypocrite.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

If your ideas affect others or myself, then you make it my buisness.
Only someone religious would try to impose their beliefs onto others.

The fact you are also imposing the ideas of fundamental Athiesm makes you a hypocrite.

What a crock of shit.
Please share exactly what I am trying to impose on anyone?
Seriously this is what is wrong with some religious people, any criticism of their faiths and they come out with even more absurd claims.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The fact you are also imposing the ideas of fundamental Athiesm makes you a hypocrite.

What a crock of shit.
Please share exactly what I am trying to impose on anyone?
Seriously this is what is wrong with some religious people, any criticism of their faiths and they come out with even more absurd claims.

You want to impose Atheism at the expense of any religion.

The likes of Sam Harris (your prophet) is currently focussing on Islam.

Denial of this would be ridiculous.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

What a crock of shit.
Please share exactly what I am trying to impose on anyone?
Seriously this is what is wrong with some religious people, any criticism of their faiths and they come out with even more absurd claims.

You want to impose Atheism at the expense of any religion.

The likes of Sam Harris (your prophet) is currently focussing on Islam.

Denial of this would be ridiculous.

Impose Atheism, are you that fucking stupid?
Seriously, you have as much belief in the crap you just posted as you do in your belief in your own deity. It came from being unable to take criticism from your faith you invent claims that are just untrue.
I only wish people to look at what they believe with the same critical view they would of anything that is taken on faith.
I only wish them to want to see for themselves something is a bad idea.
That is not enforcing anything, it allows people to decide for themsxelves and only those who fear the true invent bullshit like you do to try and make out those seeking the truth are in some way bad.
Seriously you are an embaressment at the infantile tactics you use in debate and even worse to make unfounded claims you cannot back up.
Do not even consider yourself intelligent when you make such an idiot of yourself to make accusations you cannot back up

Okay isn't religion a personal thing?
Why has it got to be ridiculed and pulled apart and dissected?

Religion is like a doughnut; It's okay to have one and eat it sensibly along with other nutritious foods, but if you only live off doughnuts you're going to become filled with nothing but doughnut and be very unhealthy in both body and mind.