Continuation of the Dawkins-bashing thread

98 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

I reject your notion that people of Muslim (or Jewish or Catholic) faith form any kind of "community", let alone what you superciliously qualify as "[b]other[/b] communities".[/b]


And I reject your notion that you have the absolute right to determine how other people self-identify just because you have some abstract idea. I can think of nothing that is really more presumptuous and arrogant than your self-proclaimed right to determine what other people are overtop of their own self-identifications and how they think of themselves, and the communities that they chose to identify with.

But you will never understand how anti-progressive your arrogance is, nor how harmful it is to the goals you say you want to achieve.

But this distraction is just more smoke and mirrors to avoid confronting the fact that you have spent the better part of two days defending Richard Dawkins falsehoods.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]
However, considering the large majoriity of our folks are religious, what do we do?[/b]

We ignore their personal faiths and unite with them on the basis of real issues and real struggles, never once using faith or lack of such to shun or ban or divide.

But when someone says, "I'm uncomfortable with all this gay and lesbian stuff because of my religion", we explain to them (nicely or otherwise) that in that respect, their religion is anti-human.

You see, religion operates to divide people on phoney superstitious and xenophobic bases when those people should be waging the same fight together.

In my union, I have waged countless campaigns, battles, strikes, you name it, without ever asking, knowing, or caring what religion other workers believed in. And in our union meetings, there is a strict rule that dates back more than a century - no discussion of religious issues. Workers have long understood how such matters divide and weaken them.

As a result, I have never once, in my memory, had a fight or debate in a union or workplace context about religion. Workers have far too much on their plate to care or talk about crap like that. Ironically, it is only here where people who should know better come to defend one faith or another. Sometimes I feel like I have to leave the room because the stench of incense is getting to me.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Polemics. Self agrandizing crapola. Get over it. Dawkins was wrong on the facts, now move on.

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]Ii see now you start to adsd other religions to your hitlist.[/b]

Just to clue you in a wee bit, but all religion is on unionist's "hit list". He's one of the long-standing champions of free thought on babble.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]Ii see now you start to adsd other religions to your hitlist.[/b]

I will put that comment down to your inexperience on this board and your apparent laziness in informing yourself. Avoid any innuendoes in my direction. That's some advice which will remain friendly for the moment.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
[b]

Just to clue you in a wee bit, but all religion is on unionist's "hit list". He's one of the long-standing champions of free thought on babble.[/b]


Hardly.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

martin dufresne

CODA: During the famed Taylor-Bouchard hearings, here in Quebec last year, where fine upright White citizens were given a sterling platform to bash ethnic and religious minorities, I was struck by the fact that anti-Muslim prejudice and hatred was leveled at them from two completely opposite positions: that of secularists, claiming that Quebec was a secular society, and that of hard-line Christians, claiming the right to preserve "heritage" Catholic and Protestant institutions. None of the two groups acknowledged that opposition; they remained united in bashing Muslims - from polar opposite positions -, as the symbol of everything they hated: alleged harm to freedom and fundamental rights for the former, alleged harm to the majority's historical values for the latter. Had they been asked to debate and settle the issue among themselves, these two groups would have torn each other apart, with no consensus possible. But having derogatory fantasies of Muslims on hand (during a World War against Islam as a force opposing imperialism) provided them with an out, an avoidance strategy, a third party to bash - if for opposite reasons - and avoid a contradiction their respective ideologies probably couldn't broach nd their respective interests wanted to avoid, each basking in the other's power base.

I wonder if Dawkins would get much press in The Telegraph for protesting the home-schooling and private school tutoring of his cronies' young Christian children in the view that the world was created by God, rather than it evolved through trial and error in a Godless universe... I think he rallies a much larger audience by choosing Muslim kids and parents as the bugaboos to hang his diatribes upon.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

I will put that comment down to your inexperience on this board and your apparent laziness in informing yourself. Avoid any innuendoes in my direction. That's some advice which will remain friendly for the moment.[/b]


[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

I will put that comment down to your inexperience on this board and your apparent laziness in informing yourself. Avoid any innuendoes in my direction. That's some advice which will remain friendly for the moment.[/b]


How snotty is that? What a fuckhead. Some champion of tollerance and understanding. Just another arrogant turd, really.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Unionist

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

I will put that comment down to your inexperience on this board and your apparent laziness in informing yourself. Avoid any innuendoes in my direction. That's some advice which will remain friendly for the moment.[/b]


Shoot, as long as you're consistent, as most times you are.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball (or this is rather what he meant to say):
[b]Unionist, I disagree with your ideas, but I respect you personally and would never dream of confusing attacks on your views with attacks on you. I am capable of distinguishing between attacks on ideas and attacks on people.[/b]

There, I proofread your text. No charge.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Your so dimwitted that you failed to notice that RP has been watching your childish tirades for almost a year now. But you are so consumed with your own "cleverosities" that you failed once again to notice what is going on right in front of your face.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Anyway. Have fun with the polemics and bullshit Unionist, anything to avoid the fact...

[b]Fact: Dawkins was wrong on the facts.[/b]

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Your so dimwitted that you failed to notice that RP has been watching your childish tirades for almost a year now. But you are so consumed with your own "cleverosities" that you failed once again to notice what is going on right in front of your face.[/b]

The Train has Lights!

[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

martin dufresne

quote:


I am capable of distinguishing between attacks on ideas and attacks on people.

Ah, were Muslims so lucky to have such opponents...

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]... a world war against Islam ...[/b]

No kidding. My, my. I'll have to check with Indonesia and Pakistan and Egypt and Morocco and Saudi Arabia and the Emirates and many others to see how they're holding up in that "world war".

Oh, and which side are Karzai and his "parliament" full of religious nutbars on in that "world war"?

Honestly, martin. There are wars going on in this world, but they're not over interpretations of the Qur'an or similar shit.

Unionist

Cueball, edit out your adjectives which are contrary to babble policy, please. I have never once attacked you personally and I expect you to show the same respect to everyone here. Do it now, please.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

No kidding. My, my. I'll have to check with Indonesia and Pakistan and Egypt and Morocco and Saudi Arabia and the Emirates and many others to see how they're holding up in that "world war".

Oh, and which side are Karzai and his "parliament" full of religious nutbars on in that "world war"?

Honestly, martin. There are wars going on in this world, but they're not over interpretations of the Qur'an or similar shit.[/b]


Do jokes make it easier Unionist? You never seem to wade so deeply in other reliigions?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

"nutbars" is accerptable for peole that practoce religion? Unoiinist we shoud be loooking for dialogue, not atheism?

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]I wonder if Dawkins would get press in The Telegraph for protesting the home-schooling and private school tutoring of young Christians in the view that the world was created by God, rather than it evolved through trial and error in a Godless universe.[/b]

Well, if he just focused on Xian hocus-pocus, I know for a fact we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But, because Dawkins's broad critique of religious thought includes a critique of the ideas held by some members of an Oppressed Group™, Dawkins's ideas magically become controversial among several babblers.

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]There, I proofread your text. No charge.[/b]

Nicely done.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]"nutbars" is accerptable for peole that practoce religion? [/b]

No, try reading - I'm referring to gangs of fanatics, including ex-Taliban and others, in the puppet Karzai parliament. My insults directed to them are not because they "practise religion" (I have no idea what information you base that statement on). It is because they support the U.S.-NATO occupation of their country and enslavement of their own people. They are far worse than "nutbars". They are warlords, druglords, and murderers. And every single one of them swears they are Muslim. Just as every "serious" candidate for president of the U.S. has to swear they are [b]not[/b] Muslim (such as that other creep, Obama).

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
[b]

Nicely done.[/b]


Don't "ENVY" him Sven.

[img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

Watch the medals pour in!

martin dufresne

Unionist, let me save you some trouble: Muslim Brothers are routinely jailed in Egypt and forbidden to run in elections; islamists are demonized in Afghanistan as we well know; and the U.S. is making very threatening noises against Pakistan ever since Musharraf lost control to... more Islamists. I won't run through the list of other countries where islamist parties are the growing opposition to Western-backed regimes, you know them as well as I do. I am talking about a political movement, not just a religion or an idea. To ignore that association is disingenuous at best... oh, is that a forbidden adjective?
P.S.: Can we [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz2VtXw-yZA]cool it[/url] a little, even if y'all can't manage to prove Cueball wrong?

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]

Do jokes make it easier Unionist? You never seem to wade so deeply in other reliigions?[/b]


Stop your innuendo. Second warning.

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]Don't "ENVY" him Sven.[/b]

There is a monumental difference between envy and admiration.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Cueball, edit out your adjectives which are contrary to babble policy, please. I have never once attacked you personally and I expect you to show the same respect to everyone here. Do it now, please.[/b]

Attacking a poster for being "new" is not a pejorative a hominem attack? Saying that they are a lazy thinker is not a personal attack?

Sue me!

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

Stop your innuendo. Second warning.[/b]


I'm conflicted. Cueball owned this thread but Unionist is worthy of contempt.

What to think about?

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Unionist, let me save you some trouble: Muslim Brothers are routinely jailed in Egypt and forbidden to run in elections; islamists are demonized in Afghanistan as we well know; and the U.S. is making very threatening noises against Pakistan ever since Musharraf lost control to... more Islamists. I won't run through the list of other countries where islamist parties are the growing opposition to Western-backed regimes, you know them as well as I do. I am talking about a political movement, not just a religion or an idea. To ignore that association is disingenuous at best... oh, is that a forbidden adjective?[/b]

Martin, are you suggesting that the people attacking the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban and the Pakistani "Islamists" are not themselves [b]Muslim[/b]!?

Your world war against Islam is being waged by... Muslims!?

Do me a favour and try not to reduce real contradictions in the world to some apocalyptic religious war.

Next you'll be telling me that Al Qaeda is the vanguard of opposition to U.S. imperialism? Or is it the Saudi royal family?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

Martin, are you suggesting that the people attacking the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban and the Pakistani "Islamists" are not themselves [b]Muslim[/b]!?

Your world war against Islam is being waged by... Muslims!?

Do me a favour and try not to reduce real contradictions in the world to some apocalyptic religious war.

Next you'll be telling me that Al Qaeda is the vanguard of opposition to U.S. imperialism? Or is it the Saudi royal family?[/b]


If we spared the Islamophobia, I'd be hapy.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

And BTW, I'm not Muslim...

Cueball Cueball's picture

Fact: Dawkins was wrong on the facts.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Sorry for being obtuse, but I felt it necessary.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]And BTW, I'm not Muslim...[/b]

Well, that changes everything. I love you now. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Oh by the way, [url=http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_m... are not alone[/url]:

quote:

"Senator Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, Was Not Raised As A Muslim, And Is A Committed Christian."

Obama Was Baptized And Attends Church Once a Week When He is Able.

Obama Held His Personal Bible When He Was Sworn-In As A U.S. Senator.

Barack Obama's Middle Name Is Not Mohammed.


That, my dear friend, is what we call [b]Islamophobia[/b]. Don't look for it here. Look to the enemies of humanity.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

Well, that changes everything. I love you now. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]


You're such a shiite and obscurantist at tiimes, thought I knew u better?

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]

You're such a shiite and obscurantist at tiimes, thought I knew u better?[/b]


I am not. I have a sunni disposition.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]I have been saying on and on, over and over again that Muslims generally do not find this issue interesting. This is my personal experience.[/b]

Funny how we're supposed to accept [b]your personal experience[/b] as to what Muslims think, but when it comes to Richard Dawkins you start demanding statistical studies.

quote:

[b]I have never had a discussion about it with a Musim person.[/b]

Well, Richard Dawkins has. Many, many Muslims. I trust his assessment more than I trust yours.

quote:

[b]I have read articles on the development of this debate in Islam, and the articles confirm my personal experience -- creationism v science is just not a big deal to most Muslim people.[/b]

And I have posted in this thread several articles that say the opposite. Again, your say-so is worthless on this subject, particularly in view of the lies and slanders you have been spewing incessantly.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

quote:


Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]And I have posted in this thread several articles that say the opposite. Again, your say-so is worthless on this subject, particularly in view of the lies and slanders you have been spewing incessantly.[/b]

And until u prove otherwise, so shall it be...

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

I am not. I have a sunni disposition.[/b]


I always suspected that, you sneaky bastard...

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Funny how we're supposed to accept your personal experience as to what Muslims think, but when it comes to Richard Dawkins you start demanding statistical studies. [/b]

Not at all. As I have tried to explain. Remind asked me a specific question about Muslim feeling on this issue in regards to how popular creationism is among Muslims. I said I did not know because I have never discussed it with them. The issue never came up.

I asserted that this created the impression for me that Muslims are not really that interested in this debate as a group. A view that has been confirmed for me by my reading source material on this topic. They say that it is not a popular debate. This confirmed my general impression.

Unlike Dawkins and his anecdote I did not think I could present a firm case on Muslim disposition on this issue, based on my immediate experience.

quote:

Well, Richard Dawkins has. Many, many Muslims. I trust his assessment more than I trust yours.

Even though, Dawkins assesement is based on the patently false assertion that "most devout Muslims are creationists", as shown in the survey brought to light by RosaL. In fact Dawkins is totally wrong, only 1/3rd of Muslim students identify as creationist.

Dawkins, the self styled sociologist and political critic is apparently is not even aware of studies made by British polsters about the very subject at hand, where Muslim respondents overwhellmingly did not identify themselves as creationists. The acumen of his studies and his conclusions are completely spurious bullshit, and outside of one little anecdote where he met with some children, he offers absolutely no evidence to support his thesis.

Then after propgating false news Dawkins goes on to make generalized attacks against Multiculturalism, and so on and so forth. Total conjecture, and bullshit, with no apparent possible source other than the fact that he harbours the same kinds of prejudicial views about Asians and Muslims that are rife among the UK's white Christian majority. So either he is talking out of his hat or he is playing up to those biases for effect, when the evidence shows that it is Christian students who are most likely to harbour unscientific views about evolution, while Muslim students who do not, outnumber those that do by a margin of 2 to 1.

This is quite at odds with Dawkins assesment targeting a majority of Muslim creationists, and progressive policies such as multicultrualism. [b]Dawkins is wrong.[/b] Sorry to break it to you. But you know doubt will cling to Dawkins, without any rational scientific basis for doing so, or evidence, regardless and try and make the facts suit your case, even though they clearly do not --Just like any fanatical fundy.

What is of course most absurd is that you will make this defence in the name of "critical thinking" and "science", when Dawkins seems very unaware of even the basic principles upon which sociology is conducted.

Dawkins again reveals that he is bullshit pop-sociologist, whose tendentious hermenutics, and common-knowledge prejudices are layered with cherry-picked evidence and anecdotes, and then cemented with baseles suppositions, who does not even bother to look into readily available research material before popping off on his well publicized public rants.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I'm not even going to bother dignifying your lies with a response.

Cueball Cueball's picture

What lies? The fundy then retreats into his shell with outraged indignation and refuses to read the facts. Better yet, he claims he is defending "science" in the process.

Simple fact; number of Muslim students who believe in creationism: 33%.

Fact; Dawkins assesment of the above: "Most devout muslims are creationists". Evidence offered to support this view: "I talked to some children."

Another fact; percentage of times Dawkins, the "scientist", is statistically accurate in his assesement of Muslim beliefs in regards to creationism: 0%

Atheist fundamentalists reaction when confronted with the evidence: Priceless!

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Meanwhile the "close-minded" "obscurantist" "medieval minded" Muslims who are advertising their book, "Why Darwinism is Incompatible With the Qur'an", invoke the following idea:

quote:

As the above verse commands, Muslims who believe in the theory of evolution must consider this theory carefully, carry out wide-ranging research, and make their decision according to their consciences. This book has been written to help them do so and to shed some light upon the path that they are following.

Now that is what I call demanding rote acceptance of a view based in the voice of unquestioned authority. "Wide ranging research" "decision according to consciences"? What a bunch of ideological tyrants.

NorthReport

I enjoy Stan Persky's perspective on issues such as intelligent design. He has suggested in other writings that we need to bring these disbelievers of evolution theory into the classrooms, the philosophy classrooms to debunk their theories, but not the scientific classrooms.

[url=http://thetyee.ca/Books/2008/04/29/AmericanUnreason/]review 'The Age of American Unreason'[/url]

Michelle

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]How snotty is that? What a fuckhead. Some champion of tollerance and understanding. Just another arrogant turd, really.[/b]

Cueball, you've been here long enough to know this is against babble policy. Cut it out.

Michelle

In other news, this thread seems to have degenerated to mostly personal attacks, so I'm going to close it. Too far along for moderator intervention to help, I think.

Pages

Topic locked