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

[spuriousmonkey]

I'm not purchasing a book because the second half is better than a horrible first part.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm not purchasing a book because the second half is better than a horrible first part.

I could loan you mine.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I could loan you mine.

Did you underline the sex parts?

 

[Xev]

Terrorism is about power; where its not suicide terrorism, it is to a great extent about money (civil conflicts are great for unbalanced power equations). (its not only about suicide bombers, btw, just what I got in a quick search, there is lots more info on terrorism alone)

Your links seemed to focus on terrorism as it applies to the Middle East - are you saying that terrorism in that region is motivated by profit and has little to do with religion?

Also, I did not see these athiests - I saw better educated people, more urbane people, but I didn't see anyone who claimed to be an athiest. Most seemed to adhere to the tenets of Islam.

Besides for the frustrated educated secular man with no presumed options, martyrdom is a blast; he gets more attention than he could have ever dreamed of.:shrug:

Secular =/ athiest.

 

[S.A.M.]

Did you underline the sex parts?

I could throw in the Fanny Hill as well.

 

[S.A.M.]

Your links seemed to focus on terrorism as it applies to the Middle East - are you saying that terrorism in that region is motivated by profit and has little to do with religion?

Also, I did not see these athiests - I saw better educated people, more urbane people, but I didn't see anyone who claimed to be an athiest. Most seemed to adhere to the tenets of Islam.

Secular =/ athiest.

It is antonymous to religious and devout.

And most "secular Muslims" I know are basically those who have no idea about Islam.

 

[Xev]

It is antonymous to religious and devout.

Point.

And most "secular Muslims" I know are basically those who have no idea about Islam.

Your links seemed to focus on terrorism as it applies to the Middle East - are you saying that terrorism in that region is motivated by profit and has little to do with religion?

 

[S.A.M.]

Your links seemed to focus on terrorism as it applies to the Middle East - are you saying that terrorism in that region is motivated by profit and has little to do with religion?

Actually there is one link on the Tamil Terrorists. For some reason, no one cares much about them.:bawl:

I think terrorism in the ME is about realisation; mostly by second generation secular young men who have adopted Western values in an Islamic society. I have noticed even in Saudi Arabia, it is the educated young men who are bitter about Western intervention in their countries, who go abroad to study as a means of improving their circumstances. I think the ones who turn to terrorism are the ones who are disappointed in what they perceive as a failure of the West to fulfill their aspirations but are too far gone in an individualistic society to return to their conservative roots. IMO, from what I have read so far on the subject, it appears to me that the ones who are stuck in a transitional state, without religion but unsuccessful in multiculturalism who are more likely to feel they need recompense. In such cases, I think its more about regaining lost power than about money.

Most of these boys appear to be ensconsed in a Western lifestyle, so they are not averse to the society; what I cannot figure out yet, is what keeps them separate and unintegrated.

 

[Xev]

Actually there is one link on the Tamil Terrorists. For some reason, no one cares much about them.:bawl:

Aww. Poor widdle terrorists.
Before we get off topic, you've answered my objection. But these men certainly are utilizing religion, yes?

Iceaura says:

He asserts that theistic belief commonly, in practice, justifies violence, because it creates allegiance to arbitrary authority and is not answerable to reason.

But Dawkins is ignoring the tradition of the past 200 years - what of the Terror, where French society tore itself to pieces in the name of reason? What would he say about the "philosophy" of the Marquis de Sade (hey, maybe it's just the cheese-eating surrender-monkeys who do this shit ) which tries to prove a rational need to act immorally? What about the alleged rational foundation of imperialism?

I think terrorism in the ME is about realisation; mostly by second generation secular young men who have adopted Western values in an Islamic society. I have noticed even in Saudi Arabia, it is the educated young men who are bitter about Western intervention in their countries, who go abroad to study as a means of improving their circumstances. I think the ones who turn to terrorism are the ones who are disappointed in what they perceive as a failure of the West to fulfill their aspirations but are too far gone in an individualistic society to return to their conservative roots.

I thought that the point of Islamic fundamentalism was to return to those conservative roots?
Actually, I'd recommend a book called "The Lucifer Principle" - David Bloom might be the author, or some reading on the people who opposed the Meji restoration.

I think many people feel disenfranchised by global, western culture, even those who benefit from it. To an extent, this is because consumer culture rests on dissatisfaction and competition.

 

[S.A.M.]

Aww. Poor widdle terrorists.
Before we get off topic, you've answered my objection. But these men certainly are utilizing religion, yes?

No they are anti-religion.

I thought that the point of Islamic fundamentalism was to return to those conservative roots?

Frankly, I've only ever heard that from the Western media.

Actually, I'd recommend a book called "The Lucifer Principle" - David Bloom might be the author, or some reading on the people who opposed the Meji restoration.

I'll look it up

I think many people feel disenfranchised by global, western culture, even those who benefit from it. To an extent, this is because consumer culture rests on dissatisfaction and competition.

Yeah, blaming other people rather than evaluating your own gap between expectation and reality appears to be becoming the norm.

 

[iceaura]

Apart from that, I have long realised that he has contributed heavily to the conspiracy theories that revolve around Muslims; as a Muslim who is constantly on the receiving end of such nonsense, I find his work not only abusive to people like myself but also conducive to making these stereotypes more widespread and embedded in society.

This would be more persuasive if I hadn't read Dawkins for myself, and noted in your posts that as far as I can tell you consistently mistake his arguments.

It is possible that many others do as well, and thereby Dawkins's writings have the effects you claim, but that is a strange thing to blame on him.

Meanwhile: so far I have seen no evidence of disproportionate numbers of violent people emerging from the world's bastions of atheism and educated secular humanism, and attacking others. I have seen such numbers emerge from the world's bastions of fundie theistic religion (such as the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia). This seems especially true of violence that has political power as underlying motive - such as the stuff in the Middle East, or oppression of women - leading me to give provisional credence to Dawkins's generalizations from his chosen illustrative examples - that theistic religion creates cultural vulnerabilities in its adherents: they (and especially their children ) seem easier to sell on martyrdom and violence for a cause rather than simple self-defense, less resistant to the blandishments of charismatic authority.
edit in:

But Dawkins is ignoring the tradition of the past 200 years - what of the Terror, where French society tore itself to pieces in the name of reason?

Compare it to the Revolution in the US - where the culture was not dominated by a fundie theistic religion.

But Dawkins's argument does not depend on theistic religion being the only source of irrationality and violence, responsible for every atrocity (or even most of them). Just a lot of them, and the ones threatening us now.

I can understand the stereotype offending the believer, but fundie theistic religion does not seem to play well with others - and Dawkins does have that as evidentiary support.

 

[S.A.M.]

This would be more persuasive if I hadn't read Dawkins for myself, and noted in your posts that as far as I can tell you consistently mistake his arguments.

It is possible that many others do as well, and thereby Dawkins's writings have the effects you claim, but that is a strange thing to blame on him.

Meanwhile: so far I have seen no evidence of disproportionate numbers of violent people emerging from the world's bastions of atheism and educated secular humanism, and attacking others. I have seen such numbers emerge from the world's bastions of fundie theistic religion (such as the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia). This seems especially true of violence that has political power as underlying motive - such as the stuff in the Middle East, or oppression of women - leading me to give provisional credence to Dawkins's generalizations from his chosen illustrative examples - that theistic religion creates cultural vulnerabilities in its adherents: they (and especially their children ) seem easier to sell on martyrdom and violence for a cause rather than simple self-defense, less resistant to the blandishments of charismatic authority.

I can understand the stereotype offending the believer, but fundie theistic religion does not seem to play well with others - and Dawkins does have that as evidentiary support.

As I said, its pointless to repeat oneself when the premise is viewed differently. Perhaps your own viewpoints being reflected in his make it easier for you to accept them, while to me, his generalisations appear short sighted, ignorant and baseless.

Also violence need not involve a suicide bomber; it could also involve disproportionate trade practices that foster mass starvation, and supporting civil conflict to support an arms trade or to steal resources. You can kill a man as easily with starvation as you can with a bomb.

 

[Atom]

I could throw in the Fanny Hill as well.

I throw in my Benny Hill video

 

[iceaura]

As I said, its pointless to repeat oneself when the premise is viewed differently.

I don't think you know what Dawkins's premises - or mine, which are different - are. It's not a matter of different viewpoints - it's a matter of error, at least in judging by your responses to my own posts (avoiding interpretation issues re Dawkins).

 

[Atom]

It would if the basic premise is seen differently; in my experience Dawkinists tend to confuse memes and genes as reflective of each other. Perhaps this is due to the misuse of memetics as an allegory for gene function and selection, but it is still a disservice to the field.

Apart from that, I have long realised that he has contributed heavily to the conspiracy theories that revolve around Muslims; as a Muslim who is constantly on the receiving end of such nonsense, I find his work not only abusive to people like myself but also conducive to making these stereotypes more widespread and embedded in society. In fact, he does to me what he claims theists do to science; create false truths by promoting his idea of "evidence", one that ignores all empirical evidence to date.

On that point, Chris Hitchens is an ideal soul-mate but you'll notice that the Atheist camp aren't at all happy to discuss Hitchens because of the rather inconvenient fact that he is not only pro-Iraq War but a supporter of Goerge Bush.

In fact he..err thinks George Bush is a very good Politican - stop laughing! - and a very clever man who is unfairly treated.

Okay..Laugh out loud!...I am!

If those are your Atheists then you are welcome to them!:shrug:

...as for all the rest..a lot of waffle and people constantly repating themselves in a tedious fashion.

 

[Xev]

No they are anti-religion.

Muslim fundamentalists are?!
Or the Tamil separatists are? I don't recall ever reading that - actually, beyond separatism, I have no idea what exactly they believe.
The attacks against Muslims are motivated by ethnic rivalry, not religious rivalry.

nkly, I've only ever heard that from the Western media.

Which has its biases, to be sure, but are you really saying that the people who wish to impose religious law are not motivated by religion?

 

[Xev]

Its important not to ignore the most fundamental and important distinction between Religion and Superstition...this is something that Dawkins with his rather clunking opinionated view fails to distinguish.

The main concept behind all of Religion is the moral, sometimes known as "The Golden Rule" which instructs humanity to teaching to behave well in all their dealings with others. Do unto others..etc...love thy neighbour as thyself.etc etc..this point, is the polar opposite of Superstition which is primarily to do with how we should look after ourselves, not our neighbours. In the main its a compete reversal of Religion, in fact its more akin to science, it merely panders to a total self-centredness and its this selfish rather than selfless modern fad which makes it attractive to its main adherents..at its extreme slightly oddball Californians and people with far too much time to think about themselves. It is lazy thinking by Dawkins to suggest that two opposites are in fact one and the same but it conveneniently allows him to stigmatise the entirety of Religious concepts existent before the Old Testament and the Torah and to pass it off as mere superstition. It isn't!

Dawkins, lacks the subtlety to differentiate between age old Traditional moral codes (Religion) and mere self absorbed whim and fashionable fad (Superstition).

Why do you continually harass me? You deliberately misread everything I post, and I have no interest in fuelling your weird and failed homosexual crush. Please leave me alone.

 

[iceaura]

If those are your Atheists then you are welcome to them

The whole business of this or that person "representing atheism" was an invention of you theists in the first place.

 

[Xev]

This would be more persuasive if I hadn't read Dawkins for myself, and noted in your posts that as far as I can tell you consistently mistake his arguments.

I am more annoyed that she hasn't replied re: memes. I have no idea what her objection to that is, exactly.

But Dawkins's argument does not depend on theistic religion being the only source of irrationality and violence, responsible for every atrocity (or even most of them). Just a lot of them, and the ones threatening us now.

I'm not claiming that it does. I'm saying that I find his emphasis on rationality to be a bit...pat. Maybe I'm not reading as much complexity into his arguments as I should.
And I don't think that the current, say, conflicts in the middle east are the result of a clash between Islam and Christianity. Certainly the religious element doesn't help, but religion doesn't motivate it as much as greed, inter-ethnic rivalry, cultural imperialism, post-cold-war and post-colonial issues (Isreal!) does.
IMO.

I hope I've explained my stance. I agree with what Dawkins is trying to do, but he seems caught up in the adversarial mode that our media seems to demand.

I can understand the stereotype offending the believer, but fundie theistic religion does not seem to play well with others - and Dawkins does have that as evidentiary support.

We agree here.

 

[Xev]

The whole business of this or that person "representing atheism" was an invention of you theists in the first place.

I may be wrong, but in his defense, the OP is an athiest and was asking the opinions of other athiests.

I also dislike the idea of an "athiest community." For instance, I posted here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1497593&postcount=14

about an argument I had with my boyfriend. The crux of the argument was my definition of athiesm: "absence of belief in, or disavowal of the idea of, God" which he claims is not athiesm, but agnosticism.

and I was promptly told that my beliefs are those of an agnostic, not an athiest. But others here have supported my definition, and I certainly do not believe in God.

So where is this athiest community?