I think I understand now...

[Karalysia]

That is more about nationalism than religion (as many suicide bombings are about), not to mention that it is extremely likely the whole bomb plot was overblown as an excuse for the Chinese government to crack down.

That's rather my point. Terrorism seeks to achieve a political goal. Muslim terrorist groups, like Christian, Sikh, anarchist, Buddhist, Hindu etc... all seek to achieve a political goal whatever it may be. There is noting particularly unique about the usage of suicide bombings by Muslims. Really they ripped off the Russians.

 

[manim]

Sometimes, the Qu'ran says stuff like "there shall be no compulsion of religion" and sometimes it does say violent stuf

well there is a good reason for that
when muhammad started preaching islam he was just a rich guy form mecca and he was looking for followers so he started with a peacfull and non violent stuff but after 12 years he became ruler of madina and after that he just used islam to justify his orders and lots of them were voilent orders

 

[Karalysia]

And of course an Iranian would say that.

 

[generalstaff]

That's rather my point. Terrorism seeks to achieve a political goal. Muslim terrorist groups, like Christian, Sikh, anarchist, Buddhist, Hindu etc... all seek to achieve a political goal whatever it may be. There is noting particularly unique about the usage of suicide bombings by Muslims. Really they ripped off the Russians.

Glad I got the point, or at least directly said it. I see an argument of some atheists to be "religion causes suicide bombings, therefore religion bad," and did not want to assume anything.

You could also include Shinto in the list with Japan during WWII (Kamikaze, troops trained to jump in front of tanks with landmines).

 

[Karalysia]

You could also include Shinto in the list with Japan during WWII (Kamikaze, troops trained to jump in front of tanks with landmines).

No. Not at all.

 

[civ_king]

On Dawkins:

First off, Dawkins is a ridiculously awesome writer of evolutionary biology. I intensely recommend his The Selfish Gene, The Ancestor's Tale, and to a lesser extent The Extended Phenotype.

I'm not too familiar with Dawkins' views of religion, most of what I know oh his views are from a few things on the internet and a lecture he gave at a local university (HE SIGNED MY BOOKS ).

I think a general problem that might explain some of the insistence that Dawkins uses strawmen is that religious views are so varied, that any atheist arguing on the subject is going to be arguing against views that aren't that of a given religious observer. In these sorts of things, who and what exactly you are arguing against is pretty tricky, and misunderstandings are going to happen.

Granted

Comparing Dawkins to Coulter suggests to me that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Please enlighten us with a argument made by Dawkins, in context, that you find to be unreasonable and why.

Publishing books and public speaking bears no resemblance to door to door proselytizing. This argument fails.
Richard Dawkins has written ONE book on the subject of religion, and speaks at events that one must actively attend, usually requiring the purchase of tickets, to hear him speak. He also offers his opinion freely when it is solicited from him by news organizations. Please explain how it is at all reasonable to say that he "goes out of his way to convert people to Atheism". As far as I can tell he has never once attempted to make someone hear his opinion against their will.

Please provide an example, in context.

Give us your misogynists and bigots
Q: The Vatican is making it easier for Anglicans -- priests, members and parishes -- to convert to Catholicism. Some say this is further recognition of the substantial overlap in faith, doctrine and spirituality between the Catholic and Anglican traditions; others see it as poaching that could further divide the Anglican Communion. What do you think?

What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders. The Anglican church has at least a few shreds of decency, traces of kindness and humanity with which Jesus himself might have connected, however tenuously: a generosity of spirit, of respect for women, and of Christ-like compassion for the less fortunate. The Anglican church does not cleave to the dotty idea that a priest, by blessing bread and wine, can transform it literally into a cannibal feast; nor to the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite. It does not send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV. Whether one agrees with him or not, there is a saintly quality in the Archbishop of Canterbury, a benignity of countenance, a well-meaning sincerity. How does Pope Ratzinger measure up? The comparison is almost embarrassing.

Poaching? Of course it is poaching. What else could you call it? Maybe it will succeed. If estimates are right that 1,000 Anglican clergymen will take the bait (no women, of course: they will swiftly be shown the door), what could be their motive? For some it will be a deep-seated misogyny (although they'll re-label it with a mendacious euphemism of some kind, which they'll call 'an important point of theological principle'). They just can't stomach the idea of women priests. One wonders how their wives can stomach a husband whose contempt for women is so visceral that he considers them incapable even of the humble and unexacting duties of a priest.

For some, the motive will be homophobic bigotry, and a consequent dislike of the efforts of decent church leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury to accept those whose sexual orientation happens to deviate from majority taste. Never mind that they will be joining an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture.

Turning to the motives of the poachers, here we find cause for real encouragement. The Roman Catholic Church is fast running out of priests. In Ireland in 2007, 160 Catholic priests died, while only nine new recruits were ordained. To say the least, those figures don't point towards sustainability. No wonder that disgusting institution, the Roman Catholic Church, is dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp: "Give me your homophobes, misogynists and pederasts. Send me your bigots yearning to be free of the shackles of humanity."

Archbishop Rowan Williams is too nice for his own good. Instead of meekly sharing that ignominious platform with the poachers, he should have issued a counter-challenge: "Send us your women, yearning to be priests, who could make a strong case for being the better-qualified fifty percent of humanity; send us your decent priests, sick of trying to defend the indefensible; send them all, in exchange for our woman-haters and gay-bashers." Sounds like a good trade to me.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/...9/10/give_us_your_misogynists_and_bigots.html

Are you telling me that those aren't strawmans?

 

[Cashie]

No, this is a strawman

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Are you telling me that those aren't strawmans?

Nope, not a straw man to be found. I do see some flaws, a bit of unsupported opinion. Some hyperbole here and there. A great deal of truth, albeit stated in a very impolite manner, that I'd imagine you're uncomfortable recognizing.

 

[Dachs]

Oh crap, now we're talking about Dawkins. I wonder if he got rejected by a seminary when he was young and has it in for religion ever since?

That's a semi-similar story to what happened to Gibbon

 

[civ_king]

Nope, not a straw man to be found. I do see some flaws, a bit of unsupported opinion. Some hyperbole here and there. A great deal of truth, albeit stated in a very impolite manner, that I'd imagine you're uncomfortable recognizing.

1) "transform it literally into a cannibal feast" it's not corporeal in the normal sense so it's not cannibalistic

2) "nor to the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite." The Catholic Church doesn't have the power to ordain women to the priesthood.

3) "send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV." According to the CDC:"The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected."
Is any of that illogical?

4) "If estimates are right that 1,000 Anglican clergymen will take the bait (no women, of course: they will swiftly be shown the door), what could be their motive? For some it will be a deep-seated misogyny" "misogyny: the hatred of women by men" surely if it is deep seated he could produce some facts

5) "One wonders how their wives can stomach a husband whose contempt for women is so visceral that he considers them incapable even of the humble and unexacting duties of a priest." Eh? As I said earlier "The Catholic Church doesn't have the power to ordain women to the priesthood. "

6) "Never mind that they will be joining an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture."

that's pervasive?

7) "No wonder that disgusting institution, the Roman Catholic Church, is dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp: 'Give me your homophobes, misogynists and pederasts. Send me your bigots yearning to be free of the shackles of humanity.'" That's um special.

 

[Cashie]

That's a semi-similar story to what happened to Gibbon

I meant it as a Hitler joke, but yeah.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

well there is a good reason for that
when muhammad started preaching islam he was just a rich guy form mecca and he was looking for followers so he started with a peacfull and non violent stuff but after 12 years he became ruler of madina and after that he just used islam to justify his orders and lots of them were voilent orders

That's ridiculous. So you're saying that all of Islam, and throughout the Qu'ran, is just one giant power-hungry conspiracy? And which of us is the Muslim again?

 

[Dumanios]

Maybe he's Zoroastrian.

 

[Karalysia]

That's ridiculous. So you're saying that all of Islam, and throughout the Qu'ran, is just one giant power-hungry conspiracy? And which of us is the Muslim again?

Is that a surprise from a Shia ? You know how Shiaism rose to prominence in Iran? It was a dude called Ismail and a bunch of guys known as the Qizilbash.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

1) "transform it literally into a cannibal feast" it's not corporeal in the normal sense so it's not cannibalistic

So is it the body of christ or not? Saying it is, but "not in the normal sense" is a hair split so fine that you cannot expect someone who isn't a believer to understand it because it makes no sense. It is not possible to misrepresent an argument that is nonsensical. Not a straw man.

2) "nor to the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite." The Catholic Church doesn't have the power to ordain women to the priesthood.

So being a man is "an essential qualification to perform the rite" FACT not strawman.

3) "send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV." According to the CDC:"The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected."
Is any of that illogical?

There were official Church representatives in Africa telling AIDS infected people that using condoms increased the rate of HIV transmission. It is a fact that church reps were telling lies about the efficacy of condoms. There was a huge stir about it a year or so ago, you can't have missed it. The Church has since clarified it's position on the matter to prevent this from happening which is very much to their credit but doesn't change the fact that it was happening. Not a straw man.

4) "If estimates are right that 1,000 Anglican clergymen will take the bait (no women, of course: they will swiftly be shown the door), what could be their motive? For some it will be a deep-seated misogyny" "misogyny: the hatred of women by men" surely if it is deep seated he could produce some facts

He's speculating on the possible motives of someone who would change faiths. One difference between the churches, he points out, is that there aren't any women in the Catholic clergy. Who would want such a thing? Misogynists. It's a logical progression of thought. Not a straw man.

5) "One wonders how their wives can stomach a husband whose contempt for women is so visceral that he considers them incapable even of the humble and unexacting duties of a priest." Eh? As I said earlier "The Catholic Church doesn't have the power to ordain women to the priesthood.

Then the Catholic Church is impotent as there are many other churches that have this power. It's seemingly a quite trivial matter to many faiths. Surely it must be easier than turning wafers into flesh that is not flesh "in the normal sense". If the Catholic god did not see fit to grant these powers perhaps Dawkins is wrong. Perhaps it is god that has the contempt for women and not the Church. This is the closest he comes to an actual straw man argument in this whole statement, and I don't think it quite makes the mark. More of an ad hom against Catholic husbands than anything else.

6) "Never mind that they will be joining an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture."

An inaccurate statement, perhaps, mostly because it uses the present tense rather than the past tense. Clearly not a straw man.

7) "No wonder that disgusting institution, the Roman Catholic Church, is dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp: 'Give me your homophobes, misogynists and pederasts. Send me your bigots yearning to be free of the shackles of humanity.'" That's um special.

An opinion, a bit crude, but not one that I completely disagree with. Pandering to other faiths in order to lure some clergy to switching sides is a bit unseemly.

 

[manim]

So you're saying that all of Islam, and throughout the Qu'ran, is just one giant power-hungry conspiracy?

yes that is exactly what im saying

And which of us is the Muslim again?

well i know im not i was born muslim and i believed in it till i was 15 but not anymore

Is that a surprise from a Shia ? You know how Shiaism rose to prominence in Iran? It was a dude called Ismail and a bunch of guys known as the Qizilbash

i dont think even ismail himself was a shia.he only promote shia in order to create a difference between Ottomans and iranians and by the way since im not muslim i cant be a shia

 

[Karalysia]

i dont think even ismail himself was a shia.he only promote shia in order to create a difference between Ottomans and iranians and by the way since im not muslim i cant be a shia

I assure you, Ismail was very much a Shia and while that may to an extent have factored into it he was a devout believer of that there is no doubt.

 

[manim]

I assure you, Ismail was very much a Shia and while that may to an extent have factored into it he was a devout believer of that there is no doubt.

your right my mistake what i ment was while he was a devoted shia his hatred toward sunnis was way more powerfull then his love for shias thats why he was more tolerant towards christians then he was towards sunnis

 

[NovaKart]

I can certainly understand why you would dislike Islam living in an Islamic theocracy.

Karalysia, I don't really get your point about Shia Islam, are you saying that Shias dislike Muhammad?

 

[.Shane.]

Moderator Action: So far this thread is fine, but I see a lot where it could very easily cross the line. I'm posting this as a friendly admonition.

If you intend to keep posting in this thread heed this word: Assume that ANY religion, being populated by fallible human beings, has the potential to facilitate great evil. Any posts that make blanket declarations coloring an entire religious people as evil/stupid/terrorists/whatever will be infracted.

Again, please take note. My goal is to help direct the conversation, just a little, and in so doing, save a bunch of you trouble and bunch of the staff's time down the road.