Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Nude Bog Lurker
Jan 2, 2007
Fun Shoe

Anos posted:

The important distinction is clearly fundamentalism. I don't care if you believe "in something more" or are a "spiritual christian" or whatever. I don't think it's anyone else's business because it has little impact on others.

The problem is when people uncritically accept dogma from authority. I think that is a harmful mode of thinking and we should work to limit it. Uncritical acceptance of authority is obviously not unique to fundamentalist religion but it may be the only case where it's both institutionalized and socially acceptable to indoctrinate children with it. That IMO makes certain brands of religion uniquely worthy of opposition.

We must make sure that people follow the principles of Correct Thought.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Rakosi
May 5, 2008

D&D: HASBARA SQUAD
NO-QUARTERMASTER


From the river (of Palestinian blood) to the sea (of Palestinian tears)

Nude Bog Lurker posted:

We must make sure that people follow the principles of Correct Thought.

Do you raise your kids by telling them to believe everything they're told? Society doesn't do that with anything else but Religion. It is a topic which is in a complete blind spot to what almost every Human recognizes is an important life skill (critical thinking and skepticism).

Imagine being told that gays are bad because the Quran says so and just going "Oh, okay! Fags burn in hell!" lmao.

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

Please do not bring the charge of racism into this. Islam is not a race, and my criticism of its tenants apply with equal felicity to white practitioners as it does to brown or black ones. Also, I am vehemently critical of Christianity as well, it's just that no one has seen the need to challenge me on that point.

And equally "thugs" are not automatically black people but the term is often used by racist people under the assumption that the two are inseparable. There are a lot more nonwhite Muslims in the world and Islam is ingrained into the culture of primarily nonwhite countries in the way Christianity is ingrained into the culture of predominantly white, western countries. So saying "Islam isn't a race and you can't be racist against it" is exceedingly disingenuous because people can and do very often use it as little more than a dogwhistle or proxy for nationalist xenophobia.

Bates
Jun 15, 2006

Nude Bog Lurker posted:

We must make sure that people follow the principles of Correct Thought.

I prefer a society of skeptical, critically thinking individuals and I will work towards that. You are free to do whatever you want - there is no "we" or "must".

Josef bugman
Nov 17, 2011

Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Pochoclo posted:

Orlanth is the light.

All Hail Argrath! Glory to the reaching storm!

And yeah, the people who are part of the "New Atheism" I found to be a rather smug and unendearing bunch. I mean I am an atheist but I am also really interested in faith and it seems like a lot of the people involved in the movement, who are much smarter than me, are way less curious and willing to find stuff out.

Crowsbeak
Oct 9, 2012

by Azathoth
Lipstick Apathy

Rakosi posted:

Do you raise your kids by telling them to believe everything they're told? Society doesn't do that with anything else but Religion. It is a topic which is in a complete blind spot to what almost every Human recognizes is an important life skill (critical thinking and skepticism).

Imagine being told that gays are bad because the Quran says so and just going "Oh, okay! Fags burn in hell!" lmao.

Plenty of people are told as children by their parents in your case to distrust certain people not of their nationality or to think others as their lessers for imagined crimes. Should we have separated you from your unfit parents? Like we should separate children from unfit religious parents?

Rakosi
May 5, 2008

D&D: HASBARA SQUAD
NO-QUARTERMASTER


From the river (of Palestinian blood) to the sea (of Palestinian tears)

OwlFancier posted:

And equally "thugs" are not automatically black people but the term is often used by racist people under the assumption that the two are inseparable. There are a lot more nonwhite Muslims in the world and Islam is ingrained into the culture of primarily nonwhite countries in the way Christianity is ingrained into the culture of predominantly white, western countries. So saying "Islam isn't a race and you can't be racist against it" is exceedingly disingenuous because people can and do very often use it as little more than a dogwhistle or proxy for nationalist xenophobia.

This has to be one of the most bullshit things in DnD I've ever read. It's something that people only ever say to try defend Islam. Islam is an ideology and a poo poo one at that. Muslims are people. By talking about the bad parts of Islam, no one is saying that Muslims are bad people.

I think Christianity is pretty loving hypocritical and disingenuous, but I do not apply those same labels to the little old lady living next door and minding her own business with her faith. If someone does have hosed up opinions, such as "gay people should be put to death", then this is a belief that overtly has been fostered in their (likely) abrahamic religion, not because they are brown. Just because you cannot separate an ideology from the colour of someones skin when discussing this, doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

Rakosi posted:

This has to be one of the most bullshit things in DnD I've ever read. It's something that people only ever say to try defend Islam. Islam is an ideology and a poo poo one at that. Muslims are people. By talking about the bad parts of Islam, no one is saying that Muslims are bad people.

Go to Stormfront, or Freep, or Reddit, or gently caress any Trump rally or small rural town and you'll absolutely find people saying all Muslims are bad people (and specifically middle eastern Arabs, which they believe is a synonym for Muslim). These aren't some outliers, either, they are huge portions of not majorities in those groups, and the New Atheists are one of them. So you're either ignorant of how dogwhistles are used, or you're just straight up lying.

Rakosi posted:

Just because you cannot separate an ideology from the colour of someones skin when discussing this, doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

:jerkbag:

Who What Now fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Jul 8, 2016

Rakosi
May 5, 2008

D&D: HASBARA SQUAD
NO-QUARTERMASTER


From the river (of Palestinian blood) to the sea (of Palestinian tears)

Who What Now posted:

Go to Stormfront, or Freep, or Reddit, or gently caress any Trump rally or small rural town and you'll absolutely find people saying all Muslims are bad people (and specifically middle eastern Arabs, which they believe is a synonym for Muslim). These aren't some outliers, either, they are huge portions of not majorities in those groups, and the New Atheists are one of them. So you're either ignorant of how dogwhistles are used, or you're just straight up lying.

No, I know what dogwhistles are but I maintain that shutting a discussion down because some people (no one here) use that rhetoric has to be one of the most hilariously ridiculous things I've ever heard. We can't criticism Islam here because some people on Stormfront can't separate the religion from skin colour? lmbo

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

Rakosi posted:

No, I know what dogwhistles are but I maintain that shutting a discussion down because some people (no one here) use that rhetoric has to be one of the most hilariously ridiculous things I've ever heard. We can't criticism Islam here because some people on Stormfront can't separate the religion from skin colour? lmbo

Can you not read the thread title? This is the thread to discuss the efficacy of New Atheism, it's not dedicated to criticizing Islam. And being chock full of disingenuous racists and bigots is a pretty big hurdle for New Atheism to overcome.

Rakosi
May 5, 2008

D&D: HASBARA SQUAD
NO-QUARTERMASTER


From the river (of Palestinian blood) to the sea (of Palestinian tears)

Who What Now posted:

Can you not read the thread title? This is the thread to discuss the efficacy of New Atheism, it's not dedicated to criticizing Islam.

Nice switcharoo!

A lot of New Atheism is based around dissecting the archaic and anti-social beliefs espoused in many faiths source literature, so it's pretty hard to avoid talking about it. You have been so dishonest throughout this thread:

"'All' is the same as 'most', idiot!"

"Islam is the same as brown people, so you can't talk about it, idiot!"

Another big part of New Atheism is not letting arguments be handwaved away anymore, and insisting on answers that many believers or defenders of faiths do not have for the kinds of the questions that have become more popular to ask. Religion has no inherent shield of respect that excludes it from analysis and critique, and some people find that tiring to deal with because the critique really is pretty endless. It's much easier to roll your eyes and complain that the New Atheists are all pedantic, boorish sycophants.

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

Rakosi posted:

Nice switcharoo!

It's not a "switcharoo", you dolt. If you really want to talk about how awful Islam is, and how it's uniquely awful in that regard, then knock yourself out. But the topic at hand is New Atheism, and the racist overtones in the language that New Atheists writ large use is absolutely germane to that. If you can't separate yourself from New Atheism then that's hardly our problem, is it?

Edit:

I shouldn't because it'll just fall on deaf ears, but I didn't say this:

quote:

"Islam is the same as brown people, so you can't talk about it, idiot!"

I said this:

quote:

"Many groups, including New Atheists believe that Islam is the same as brown people, so you can't talk about it pretend that they don't, idiot!"

Who What Now fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Jul 8, 2016

Rakosi
May 5, 2008

D&D: HASBARA SQUAD
NO-QUARTERMASTER


From the river (of Palestinian blood) to the sea (of Palestinian tears)

Who What Now posted:

It's not a "switcharoo", you dolt. If you really want to talk about how awful Islam is, and how it's uniquely awful in that regard, then knock yourself out. But the topic at hand is New Atheism, and the racist overtones in the language that New Atheists writ large use is absolutely germane to that. If you can't separate yourself from New Atheism then that's hardly our problem, is it?

"Islam is bad", coming from an atheist, is language heavy in racist overtones? Ahahahah.

What in your opinion would be a more acceptable way to word "Islam is bad" which would eliminate all possibility of someone somewhere arguing that its racist? You say words like "language" but you actually don't mean the word choice is wrong at all, you would just much rather no one ever directly critique certain religions in a thread about what New Atheism has going on. The rhetorical shutdown that happens whenever someone brings up these subjects, which you have display so wonderfully, is part of the reason why New Atheism has become so popular; many of its most famous proponents don't give a poo poo if someone is tired of talking about a subject, or feel it might be rude to discuss it. This is attractive to many people because historically, religion has had many more protections in/from discussion than it has now.

And as for your edit, go back and read our exchange again. I responded to OwlFanciers comment, and then you jumped to his defense by agreeing that saying "Islam is bad" is a dogwhistle for "Muslims are bad".

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

Rakosi posted:

"Islam is bad", coming from an atheist, is language heavy in racist overtones? Ahahahah.

I'm going to need you to back up there a wee bit, kiddo. You just did a little rhetorical bait-and-switch here (ironic, considering you falsely accused me of doing the same). "Islam is bad" does not necessarily carry racist overtones when coming from an atheist, but when coming from groups like the New Atheists, yes absolutely it does. Just like if it was coming from Stormfront or /pol/. Context matters, and the source of an argument is part of that and can change the implicit and explicit meanings of arguments. You keep trying, badly, to conflate New Atheism with all atheists when that isn't the case. I should know, I'm an atheist who is vehemently against New Atheism precisely because it's packed to the brim with assholes and bigots.

quote:

And as for your edit, go back and read our exchange again. I responded to OwlFanciers comment, and then you jumped to his defense by agreeing that saying "Islam is bad" is a dogwhistle for "Muslims are bad".

I agreed with him because it's the same argument I made back on page 2. And it's still correct, "Islam is bad" is a dogwhistle for "Muslims/arabs are bad" when used by New Atheists.

WampaLord
Jan 14, 2010

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

Please do not bring the charge of racism into this. Islam is not a race

This is something racist people say.

jiggerypokery
Feb 1, 2012

...But I could hardly wait six months with a red hot jape like that under me belt.

Personally, I subscribe to the line of thought this thread calls 'new atheism'. I detest Islam, Catholicism in particular and could happily rank the world religions in a subjective order of 'evilness'. The real challenge of holding such views is expressing that detesting Islam is categorically NOT the same as detesting Muslims. Sam Harris has done a great job of pushing this point. The temptation to false dichotomy is irresistible to many in this thread already, and is extremely frustrating.

Islam isn't a race, a group of people or anything. You can't offend an Islam, you can't persecute nor discriminate against an Islam. Likewise a Catholicism, it's nonsensical. To criticise Catholicism for it's introduction of the concept of Hell, and the horrific consequences such an idea has in terms of subjugating people, for example, is absolutely not the same thing as criticising Catholics as a group of people.

jiggerypokery fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Jul 8, 2016

Josef bugman
Nov 17, 2011

Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund
So you are saying you are critisicing the "ideas" that these things are, whilst also not the people that subscribe to them?

Que?

whaley
Aug 13, 2000

MY DOODOO IS SPRAYING OUT
Seeing someone proudly identify as an atheist on the internet is the same as seeing them proudly identify as a gamer at this point for me

whaley
Aug 13, 2000

MY DOODOO IS SPRAYING OUT
Basically a warning message that you're about to proselytize incessantly

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

jiggerypokery posted:

Personally, I subscribe to the line of thought this thread calls 'new atheism'. I detest Islam, Catholicism in particular and could happily rank the world religions in a subjective order of 'evilness'. The real challenge of holding such views is expressing that detesting Islam is categorically NOT the same as detesting Muslims. Sam Harris has done a great job of pushing this point. The temptation to false dichotomy is irresistible to many in this thread already, and is extremely frustrating.

Islam isn't a race, a group of people or anything. You can't offend an Islam, you can't persecute nor discriminate against an Islam. Likewise a Catholicism, it's nonsensical. To criticise Catholicism for it's introduction of the concept of Hell, and the horrific consequences such an idea has in terms of subjugating people, for example, is absolutely not the same thing as criticising Catholics as a group of people.

You're right that criticism of Islam or Catholicism is not automatically criticism of Muslims or Catholics. But you're wrong if you also believe that the two are never conflated. For every Sam Harris out there (and I don't know enough about Harris to judge his stances on anything but I'll take your word that he doesn't conflate the two) there are dozens of Thunderf00ts and Amazing Atheists who go on for hours about the barbaric Muslim hordes coming to rape, pillage, and kill all the whites in the west. And that's a major problem with the New Atheist movement, it's incredibly toxic to minorities, and you have to be willfully blind not to see it.

jiggerypokery
Feb 1, 2012

...But I could hardly wait six months with a red hot jape like that under me belt.

I wouldn't call myself an atheist, but whatever. Part of the problem is the common concept between all Judaic religions is that whatever their book happens to be, it is the absolute word of god spoken through prophets :commissar:. It's the nuclear option of deflecting criticism. You can't cherry pick the parts you agree with and disagree with, either you follow the word of god or you reject that it is the word of god at all which leaves you with a black and white position. The whole new atheism thing has both this, and the need to be obcenely careful to avoid language that invites the racism straw man to contend with.

To stay on the topic of the thread, it's efficacy is extremely hampered by the power of the defences of religion, irrational as they may be. The reason strawmaning and false dichotomy exist is they are loving effective at face value in shutting people down.

e:

Who What Now posted:

You're right that criticism of Islam or Catholicism is not automatically criticism of Muslims or Catholics. But you're wrong if you also believe that the two are never conflated. For every Sam Harris out there (and I don't know enough about Harris to judge his stances on anything but I'll take your word that he doesn't conflate the two) there are dozens of Thunderf00ts and Amazing Atheists who go on for hours about the barbaric Muslim hordes coming to rape, pillage, and kill all the whites in the west. And that's a major problem with the New Atheist movement, it's incredibly toxic to minorities, and you have to be willfully blind not to see it.

You have morons on every side of every worthwhile argument. I never said they were never conflated, but what I am getting at in the above paragraph is that this conflation hugely stifles the efficacy of new atheism.

jiggerypokery fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Jul 8, 2016

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

jiggerypokery posted:

I wouldn't call myself an atheist, but whatever. Part of the problem is the common concept between all Judaic religions is that whatever their book happens to be, it is the absolute word of god spoken through prophets :commissar:. It's the nuclear option of deflecting criticism. You can't cherry pick the parts you agree with and disagree with, either you follow the word of god or you reject that it is the word of god at all which leaves you with a black and white position.

Except that tons of people do pick the parts they like and don't like? That's the whole reason we have so many denominations of Christianity, Islam, ect. What the gently caress are you talking about?

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!
May 31, 2006

theres a fwiggin' genocide going on acwass da borda, why dont we do sumfin..? pweeez no votey for joe biden uWu

jiggerypokery posted:

I wouldn't call myself an atheist, but whatever. Part of the problem is the common concept between all Judaic religions is that whatever their book happens to be, it is the absolute word of god spoken through prophets :commissar:.

This is not a common thread, and in fact is isolated almost entirely to a particularly anti-intellectual strain of Evangelical Christianity in the United States.

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

Rakosi posted:

This has to be one of the most bullshit things in DnD I've ever read. It's something that people only ever say to try defend Islam. Islam is an ideology and a poo poo one at that. Muslims are people. By talking about the bad parts of Islam, no one is saying that Muslims are bad people.

I think Christianity is pretty loving hypocritical and disingenuous, but I do not apply those same labels to the little old lady living next door and minding her own business with her faith. If someone does have hosed up opinions, such as "gay people should be put to death", then this is a belief that overtly has been fostered in their (likely) abrahamic religion, not because they are brown. Just because you cannot separate an ideology from the colour of someones skin when discussing this, doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

I can manage to talk about the bad parts of Islam without getting accused of being racist.

I would suggest that if you have a recurring problem with being unable to do that it might be because you're being racist, or at least are being insufficiently distinguishable from a racist.

Like, I can say "Islam is often used by its adherents as a tool to oppress women which is bad." and I don't get called racist for it.

I don't really need to say that because I imagine everyone here is already aware of the patriarchical bent of most world religions but I can say it if the need arises. The PC police aren't going to come and boot my door down.

jiggerypokery posted:

You have morons on every side of every worthwhile argument. I never said they were never conflated, but what I am getting at in the above paragraph is that this conflation hugely stifles the efficacy of new atheism.

If the conflation is done by people who fit the description of New Atheists then perhaps it doesn't stifle the efficacy of New Atheism as much as it is part of the point of New Atheism.

At some point you can't no-true-scotsman out all of the idiots. If a New Atheist is going to view religion as a monolithic entity then someone critical of New Atheism can presumably do the same. It's a little rich to complain about people associating you with the worst excesses of your in-group when your in-group is sort of founded on the idea of doing that to other people.

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jul 8, 2016

jiggerypokery
Feb 1, 2012

...But I could hardly wait six months with a red hot jape like that under me belt.

Who What Now posted:

Except that tons of people do pick the parts they like and don't like? That's the whole reason we have so many denominations of Christianity, Islam, ect. What the gently caress are you talking about?

What? They don't censor out sections of the books on a whim, denominations are just different interpretations. Changing the book substantially is requisite of starting a new religion. Islam/Christianity don't teach that the old testament is wrong, they are just 'new and improved'. Catholicism and the CoE share the same, identical book (translations not withstanding) but follow different interpretations of it.

In answer to your question 'what the gently caress are you talking about' I was talking about why it is difficult to answer this...

Josef bugman posted:

So you are saying you are critisicing the "ideas" that these things are, whilst also not the people that subscribe to them?

Que?

Yes, although I accept that individuals could take offence to such a notion that I find a phrase like "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" to be utterly at odds with my values and I reject anything that would contain such a message. I'd argue that given I don't believe that line can be the word of a benevolent god, it's probably the word of a bigoted human passed off as the word of god. Otherwise it must be the word of a malevolent god. In any case, I can call whomever wrote it a oval office with a really, really bad idea without passing judgement on those who follow a particular interpretation of the book it is written in, right?

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

jiggerypokery posted:

In any case, I can call whomever wrote it a oval office with a really, really bad idea without passing judgement on those who follow a particular interpretation of the book it is written in, right?

It's possible, sure, but the problem is that an overwhelming majority of people don't bother to make that distinction. And I'm willing to bet that your judgement of Catholics is colored by your judgement of Catholicism.

TURN IT OFF!
Dec 26, 2012
I haven't really been following atheism since "elevator gate", but isn't the new New Atheism, Atheism Plus? Like a direct response to the perceived xenophobia and sexism of New Atheism?

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

Surely it would be Crystal Atheism.

jiggerypokery
Feb 1, 2012

...But I could hardly wait six months with a red hot jape like that under me belt.

OwlFancier posted:

At some point you can't no-true-scotsman out all of the idiots. If a New Atheist is going to view religion as a monolithic entity then someone critical of New Atheism can presumably do the same. It's a little rich to complain about people associating you with the worst excesses of your in-group when your in-group is sort of founded on the idea of doing that to other people.

You are absolutely right, of course. But going back to the OP...

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

3) If the answer to question 2 is yes, religion is, on balance, doing more harm than good, then what is our best strategy in opposing it?

Not viewing it as a monolithic entity is a good start, and rejecting any conflation of criticality of ideas with bigotry is a good way to continue.

Ze Pollack posted:

This is not a common thread, and in fact is isolated almost entirely to a particularly anti-intellectual strain of Evangelical Christianity in the United States.

http://www.whyislam.org/on-faith/quran-the-word-of-god/

"The Quran is the last testament in a series of divine revelations from God (Allah in Arabic). It consists of the unaltered and direct words of God, which were revealed through the Angel Gabriel to Muhammadp, the final prophet of Islam, more than 1400 years ago."

Sure, whatever you say.

Interestingly, I just found out Pope Francis made a statement on this recently (2013) which suggests the Catholic church is, indeed, distancing itself from the idea that the bible is the absolute word of good, saying the word of god precedes the bible, and the bible is instead a recollection of it. http://catholicism.about.com/b/2013/04/12/pope-francis-the-word-of-god-precedes-the-bible-and-surpasses-it.htm

I didn't know that he had said that. That is good news indeed.

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

OwlFancier posted:

Surely it would be Crystal Atheism.

If they want to distance themselves from New Atheism they should be Atheism Classic.

GAINING WEIGHT...
Mar 26, 2007

See? Science proves the JewsMuslims are inferior and must be purged! I'm not a racist, honest!
Okay. A lot to get to.

Who What Now posted:

Can you not read the thread title? This is the thread to discuss the efficacy of New Atheism, it's not dedicated to criticizing Islam. And being chock full of disingenuous racists and bigots is a pretty big hurdle for New Atheism to overcome.

This is a good discussion to have. If indeed the New Atheists (which, by the way, we could also discuss whether this is a good term and exactly who falls under this banner, because it seems no one really refers to themselves this way except to say "I am known as a New Atheist by some") are mostly racist, that is a big problem. It seems to me, for the most part, though, that even if they are, they tend to at least attempt a conversation rooted in statistics and facts, even if they are wrong about what either of those things say. I don't tend to see many criticisms of Islam that could only be applied to brown Muslims.

But saying something like this:

Who What Now posted:

Mostly racist assholes and being mostly racist assholes.

as a definition for New Atheists is stupid and is only going to hamper the conversation and you know it. Besides that, your assertion that New Atheists use "Muslim" as a stand-in for brown people does not at all match my experience, and the fact that you cite Trump rallies as proof of this to me shows how much you have misinterpreted the situation. I agree that a lot of people do use this term in a dogwhistle way, but I hear that more from American Christians and/or Tea Partiers than I do from atheists, New or otherwise. No, my anecdotal evidence does not prove that New Atheists are colorblind saints, but neither does your anecdotal evidence prove that they are synonymous with the New KKK.

This seems to be the foundational problem with having this discussion: the automatic assumption of racism on those who criticize any piece of Islamic doctrine. If you read racism into every criticism of Islam, of course you are going to see all critics of Islam as racists.

Consider the following two statements:

"A Christian church has barred women from serving as priests, because the tenants of their faith tell them that women are unfit for leadership roles. I find this distasteful because there is nothing inherent in women that should prevent them from being just as capable at heading a church as a man."

"A Muslim man living in Paris has blown himself up to kill artists at a magazine, because the doctrines of his faith tell him that creating an image of the prophet Mohammad is punishable by death, and further, that it is his religious duty to carry out this sentence. I find this deplorable, because no one deserves to die for drawing cartoons, even vitriolic, hateful ones."

Are either of them racist? Don't concern yourself with whether these actually are tenants of the respective faiths, that is irrelevant: what matters is that they are believed to be tenants by the people in the examples. If you read racism into the second statement but not the first, that really is an error on your side of the discussion, not mine. And don't respond to this by quoting it and saying "You're the real racist!" as a paraphrase of what I've said. If that is what you take me to be saying you need to read it again.

Actually, you know what? Fine. Read racism into my comments. Pretend I'm just scared as all hell of brown people. Whatever. Now address the things I have said. When a Muslim commits violence for what appear to be explicitly theological grievances, is that or is that not motivated by Islam? Why or why not?

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

TURN IT OFF! posted:

I haven't really been following atheism since "elevator gate", but isn't the new New Atheism, Atheism Plus? Like a direct response to the perceived xenophobia and sexism of New Atheism?

Like in response to Reddit level MRA Athiesm poo poo?

WampaLord
Jan 14, 2010

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

Actually, you know what? Fine. Read racism into my comments. Pretend I'm just scared as all hell of brown people. Whatever. Now address the things I have said. When a Muslim commits violence for what appear to be explicitly theological grievances, is that or is that not motivated by Islam? Why or why not?

Whenever a Muslim doesn't commit violence, is that motivated by Islam? Because there's literally hundreds of millions of non-violent Muslims so judging all of them off a tiny minority is extremely hosed up.

GAINING WEIGHT...
Mar 26, 2007

See? Science proves the JewsMuslims are inferior and must be purged! I'm not a racist, honest!

OwlFancier posted:

Like, I can say "Islam is often used by its adherents as a tool to oppress women which is bad." and I don't get called racist for it.

This is exactly the kind of thing that gets called racist.

Crowsbeak
Oct 9, 2012

by Azathoth
Lipstick Apathy

jiggerypokery posted:

Personally, I subscribe to the line of thought this thread calls 'new atheism'. I detest Islam, Catholicism in particular and could happily rank the world religions in a subjective order of 'evilness'. The real challenge of holding such views is expressing that detesting Islam is categorically NOT the same as detesting Muslims. Sam Harris has done a great job of pushing this point. The temptation to false dichotomy is irresistible to many in this thread already, and is extremely frustrating.

Islam isn't a race, a group of people or anything. You can't offend an Islam, you can't persecute nor discriminate against an Islam. Likewise a Catholicism, it's nonsensical. To criticise Catholicism for it's introduction of the concept of Hell, and the horrific consequences such an idea has in terms of subjugating people, for example, is absolutely not the same thing as criticising Catholics as a group of people.

My gosh this is the height of falseness. If one is even going to take this from a "rational" context at least note that Zorastrianism already believed in a place of punishment long before Christ was born, likewise the Greeks also had Tarturus for those who had really pissed off the Gods. Seriously if there is one thing that really gets me about people like you is when you make such easily disprovable comments.

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

jiggerypokery posted:

You are absolutely right, of course. But going back to the OP...


Not viewing it as a monolithic entity is a good start, and rejecting any conflation of criticality of ideas with bigotry is a good way to continue.

Except that conflation of criticality of ideas with bigotry is a real thing that happens. You don't get to pretend that it doesn't because you find it uncomfortable.

quote:

http://www.whyislam.org/on-faith/quran-the-word-of-god/

"The Quran is the last testament in a series of divine revelations from God (Allah in Arabic). It consists of the unaltered and direct words of God, which were revealed through the Angel Gabriel to Muhammadp, the final prophet of Islam, more than 1400 years ago."

But not all Muslims believe that's true. Do you acknowledge that or do you think that those people aren't "real" Muslims.

TURN IT OFF!
Dec 26, 2012

CommieGIR posted:

Like in response to Reddit level MRA Athiesm poo poo?

More like Richard Dawkins, but yes.

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!
May 31, 2006

theres a fwiggin' genocide going on acwass da borda, why dont we do sumfin..? pweeez no votey for joe biden uWu

jiggerypokery posted:

You are absolutely right, of course. But going back to the OP...


Not viewing it as a monolithic entity is a good start, and rejecting any conflation of criticality of ideas with bigotry is a good way to continue.


http://www.whyislam.org/on-faith/quran-the-word-of-god/

"The Quran is the last testament in a series of divine revelations from God (Allah in Arabic). It consists of the unaltered and direct words of God, which were revealed through the Angel Gabriel to Muhammadp, the final prophet of Islam, more than 1400 years ago."

Sure, whatever you say.

Interestingly, I just found out Pope Francis made a statement on this recently (2013) which suggests the Catholic church is, indeed, distancing itself from the idea that the bible is the absolute word of good, saying the word of god precedes the bible, and the bible is instead a recollection of it. http://catholicism.about.com/b/2013/04/12/pope-francis-the-word-of-god-precedes-the-bible-and-surpasses-it.htm

I didn't know that he had said that. That is good news indeed.

Oh my. A random site on the internet. Definitely a rock-solid base to proclaim all of Islam believes something you're working with, there.

FYI, since it's clear you're new to all this, "biblical literalism is horseshit" has been Catholic doctrine since ~800 AD, as a simple matter of copying books being something the abbot handed out to monks as punishment detail, and as a result finding any two books that agreed on what exactly God said being a miracle in and of itself.

Working around this problem is generally agreed to be the reason for Mohammed's prohibition against translating the Quran, and even then the concept "this is the direct and inarguable word of god, no disagreement is possible" has (as with pretty much everyone outside of aformentioned strain of evangelical christianity) quietly been gotten rid of in favor of interpreting ways around particularly annoying or contradictory passages.

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

Actually, you know what? Fine. Read racism into my comments. Pretend I'm just scared as all hell of brown people. Whatever. Now address the things I have said. When a Muslim commits violence for what appear to be explicitly theological grievances, is that or is that not motivated by Islam? Why or why not?

Depends on the specific incident. Individual acts of violence tend to be more indicative of a general antisocial bent and insufficient societal buy-in than a fault of the specific fixation to which the violent individual subscribes.

See: Many fundamentalist Christians might be huge pieces of poo poo as a result of their religious beliefs but the ones that go out and shoot people are far fewer and distinct from the general shittiness of what might be considered their peers. You can suggest that perhaps a religious community does enable and encourage their ideas but even then it's not "Christianity" as a whole that does that, it's their specific community because there are certainly plenty of Christians which don't encourage violence or even especially lovely opinions.

The same is true of Islam, and most other religions.

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

This is exactly the kind of thing that gets called racist.

Hands up anyone who thinks I'm being racist when I say that.

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

"A Christian church has barred women from serving as priests, because the tenants of their faith tell them that women are unfit for leadership roles. I find this distasteful because there is nothing inherent in women that should prevent them from being just as capable at heading a church as a man."

"A Muslim man living in Paris has blown himself up to kill artists at a magazine, because the doctrines of his faith tell him that creating an image of the prophet Mohammad is punishable by death, and further, that it is his religious duty to carry out this sentence. I find this deplorable, because no one deserves to die for drawing cartoons, even vitriolic, hateful ones."

Are either of them racist? Don't concern yourself with whether these actually are tenants of the respective faiths, that is irrelevant: what matters is that they are believed to be tenants by the people in the examples. If you read racism into the second statement but not the first, that really is an error on your side of the discussion, not mine. And don't respond to this by quoting it and saying "You're the real racist!" as a paraphrase of what I've said. If that is what you take me to be saying you need to read it again.

The first one is more reasonable than the second. Women not being able to serve as priests is a quite common belief among many Christian denominations and local communities. I don't think there are very many Islamic communities in the world who think that blowing people up because of cartoons is a good idea, because if there were we'd have a lot more craters around the place.

So, I would suggest that if someone says the latter the may have an ulterior motive, it is harder to credit that as a rational position than the former.

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Jul 8, 2016

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

And don't respond to this by quoting it and saying "You're the real racist!" as a paraphrase of what I've said. If that is what you take me to be saying you need to read it again.

Actually, you know what? Fine. Read racism into my comments. Pretend I'm just scared as all hell of brown people. Whatever.

Jesus loving Christ, dude how many times do I have to tell you

Who What Now posted:

I don't believe that you want to treat Muslims as subhuman,


Who What Now posted:

Again, I'm not talking about you specifically but New Atheism as a movement,

I'm happy to address the rest of your post, but I need you to be intellectually honest and acknowledge that I'm not calling you a racist so you can take that loving chip off your shoulder.

  • Locked thread