Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?

Today I have come to the opinion that the deification of Stalin, or the 'cult of the personality', as it is now called, was at least as much the work of Stalin's circle and the bureaucracy, who required such a leader, as it was his own doing. Of course, the relationship changed. Turned into a deity, Stalin became so powerful that in time he ceased to pay attention to the changing needs and desires of those who exalted him

Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was responsible for killing over 40 million people. Joseph Stalin closed down over 48 000 churches, and attempted the liquidation of the entire Christian Church.

Similarly, communist dictator of China Mao Tse Tung launched the Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution, ”History’s most systematic attempt ever, by a single nation, to eradicate and destroy Christianity…” Mao was responsible for killing about 72 million people.

A short history lesson.:shrug:
 
SAM said:
Seems to me you are being deliberately obtuse, in India we have a common penal code, but the civic code is determined by religion. Does that indicate that punishment of a penal offence is undermining heretics?
Click to expand...
Depending on what the civic code is allowed to specify, and what the penalties etc are, it indicates a willingness to allow religion to curb independent thought.

As in the Turkey, Iraq, and Iran examples - which seem to indicate variances in the amount of power wielded by the local religion. In Iran, where the most power is held by religious officials, the curbing of independent thought statewide appears to be greatest of the three. That would seem to bear out Dawkins's assertions.
 
iceaura said:
Depending on what the civic code is allowed to specify, and what the penalties etc are, it indicates a willingness to allow religion to curb independent thought.

As in the Turkey, Iraq, and Iran examples - which seem to indicate variances in the amount of power wielded by the local religion. In Iran, where the most power is held by religious officials, the curbing of independent thought statewide appears to be greatest of the three. That would seem to bear out Dawkins's assertions.
Click to expand...

Willingness to allow religion to curb thought? Hmm, I think you'll find that Iranians were the first to adopt secularism in the ME.

If there is a willingness, it is a direct result of the revolution, which was against the tortures of the secular Shah.

As for Turkey, the mandate against the hijab is against the wishes of most of the women.

So which is the more representative?

Actually women have been fighting to wear the hijab in Turkey since 1923, since it was first banned. Schoolgirls have been arrested and thrown in prison for that. While in Iran women wear Western clothing and have no objection to wearing the hijab; Iranian women wear it even outside Iran.

I doubt anyone would consider the Iranian women as especially curbed, or the Iraqi or the Turkish, anymore than they would look at the Girls Gone Wild and consider them self assured.
 
Last edited:
S.A.M. said:
Actually women have been fighting to wear the hijab in Turkey since 1923, since it was first banned. Schoolgirls have been arrested and thrown in prison for that. While in Iran women wear Western clothing and have no objection to wearing the hijab; Iranian women wear it even outside Iran.

I doubt anyone would consider the Iranian women as especially curbed, or the Iraqi or the Turkish, anymore than they would look at the Girls Gone Wild and consider them self assured.
Click to expand...

WTF does this have to do with wearing headcoverings or girls gone wild?
And they don't seem un-assured. They seem so happy to be taking their bras off.
My life would be much more awesome if taking my shirt off gratified me that much.
:(


*Pees on the rug*
 
SAM said:
I doubt anyone would consider the Iranian women as curbed,
Click to expand...
Well, you'd be wrong there - lots of people would. And for good reason. Because they have to wear the hijab. And the occasional blogger - Riverbend from Iraq, say - will comment on how it feels to have to don the thing after years of walking outside without it, from fear of the local fundies.
SAM said:
anymore than they would look at the Girls Gone Wild and consider them self assured.
Click to expand...
So none of them are - you're sure?

Is there a country - say some atheist Soviet spinoff - that mandates participation in Girls Gone Wild videos, or anything similar ?

There have been countries - city states, anyway - that mandated ritual prostitution for all women. But that was theistic religion, again.

We were speaking more of expressions of independent thought - granted, such can be curbed indirectly by curbing various circumstances, but there are more direct and obvious means at hand when a religion has political power - such as the recent inclusion of creationist material in Turkish textbooks, an apparent response to the incoming of Western ideas (in the past, creationist explanations were taken for granted, apparently, as they are elsewhere in Islam).

Interview with a physicist from (as a youth) Turkey:
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/08/13/taner_edis/index.html
- -
What about the idea that human beings have a common ancestor with chimpanzees?
That's definitely a no-no ...you will find that Muslims will typically be very reluctant to allow for human evolution
- -
So is there a way for Muslims to create a scientific culture that would really take root and flourish?
I don't know. My preference would be that the more liberal strains of Islam would gain more power, so that science and technology can be more autonomous from religious and moral concerns. Without this, I don't see the Islamic world taking a trajectory in science that's going to be similar to the Western world's. However, in the end, this is not something for me to decide. I'm an outside critic, being over here.
Click to expand...
The idea that the religion has to change before this or that theory can be taught and discussed seems taken for granted. But that is Dawkins's point about religion: it impedes. It curbs independent thought.
 
iceaura said:
Well, you'd be wrong there - lots of people would. And for good reason. Because they have to wear the hijab. And the occasional blogger - Riverbend from Iraq, say - will comment on how it feels to have to don the thing after years of walking outside without it, from fear of the local fundies. So none of them are - you're sure?

Is there a country - say some atheist Soviet spinoff - that mandates participation in Girls Gone Wild videos, or anything similar ?

There have been countries - city states, anyway - that mandated ritual prostitution for all women. But that was theistic religion, again.

We were speaking more of expressions of independent thought - granted, such can be curbed indirectly by curbing various circumstances, but there are more direct and obvious means at hand when a religion has political power - such as the recent inclusion of creationist material in Turkish textbooks, an apparent response to the incoming of Western ideas (in the past, creationist explanations were taken for granted, apparently, as they are elsewhere in Islam).

Interview with a physicist from (as a youth) Turkey:
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/08/13/taner_edis/index.html

The idea that the religion has to change before this or that theory can be taught and discussed seems taken for granted. But that is Dawkins's point about religion: it impedes. It curbs independent thought.
Click to expand...

It may be taken for granted by Dawkins, but I doubt he is the right person to comment on that considering his own memetic contributions and bias against theists.

Personally I think coercion of any kind subdues thought, but lack of religious ethics fractures social structure to an extent where independence of
thought becomes moot, mostly because no one cares enough about the mind when the soul is empty and without direction. Lack of religion leads to the development of alternate ideologies most of which are far more damaging to intellectual development and social stability than any religion can be, which is why any areligious society has had a very short lifespan in the history of man.
 
Xev said:
WTF does this have to do with wearing headcoverings or girls gone wild?
And they don't seem un-assured. They seem so happy to be taking their bras off.
My life would be much more awesome if taking my shirt off gratified me that much.
:(


*Pees on the rug*
Click to expand...

Willingness to allow being curbed. Contrary to popular belief in the West, not everyone wants to take off their shirt.:D
 
Well, I think they should give it a try before they give up on it altogether. Maybe they should post the results here, so that people could make some kind of determination as to whether it works or not. You know, for societal interest and all.
 
GeoffP said:
Well, I think they should give it a try before they give up on it altogether. Maybe they should post the results here, so that people could make some kind of determination as to whether it works or not. You know, for societal interest and all.
Click to expand...

The guys don't take off their shirts either. :bugeye:
 
SAM said:
It may be taken for granted by Dawkins, but I doubt he is the right person to comment
Click to expand...
Not taken for granted - observed. As we can verify.

SAM said:
Lack of religion leads to the development of alternate ideologies most of which are far more damaging to intellectual development and social stability than any religion can be, which is why any areligious society has had a very short lifespan in the history of man.
Click to expand...
You need a fairly loose definition of religion, to make that stick - and even then, quite a few atheistic societies seem to have tooled along OK.
SAM said:
Willingness to allow being curbed. Contrary to popular belief in the West, not everyone wants to take off their shirt
Click to expand...
And contrary to the claims of theistic oppression, some of the ones who do are right to.

Like some dogs want the leash, some want off.

The one size fits all model of the good and the soul has no more claim on sane allegience than Procrustes Bed has on the fellow traveller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top