Atheist Fundamentalism

[The Valkyrie]

There are some impressive straw creations in this thread

I blame farmers.

[DramaQueen]

I plane ze crawps

[Whateverist]

There are some impressive straw creations in this thread

What else can we do? With so little to go on as to what a god is, or how morals supposedly relate to one, what else do we have to work with but straw? Probably the cleanest stance is .. whatever, wake me up if anyone actually detects a god or the world agrees on an unambiguous description of one. Until then, meh.

[Mudhammam]

Reza Aslan....


'Nuff said.

[genkaus]

And people on this forum frequently speak out against the Bible itself as well, because like the Koran, it's a collection of immorality and superstitious shit with a handful of nice ideas and concepts that have been presented elsewhere more effectively and without the threat of divine punishment or the shoe-horning in of supernatural justifications. Both books deserve to be ridiculed because both books are ridiculous.

Sure. But is ridiculing the book enough justification to dismiss the religion?

[Minimalist]

Here's the deal - until you can prove god and his influence, let's keep him out of civil laws and experiential moral lessons.

Unmoved Mover. Next.

Philosophical diarrhea. Try to stick with reality.

[genkaus]

How is it propaganda to point out that Islam has some horrendous ideas in its holy text?

Let's see:
Propaganda - information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

Looks like the shoe fits.

Absolutely.

Must've missed that part. Which other types of Islam did they identify?

But as Harris states, the Qur'an is "a mother load of bad ideas". Don't you agree?

The fact that the majority of Muslims don't follow it has nothing to do with what it actually says.

IIRC, Harris said "Islam is a mother load of bad ideas" which is the point I'm trying to evaluate. What the Muslims follow may have little to do with what the Quran says, but it has everything to do with what Islam says. I'm trying to figure out what the difference is or if there is one.

---

None of the people mentioned exhibit anti-Muslim bigotry.

They are talking about Islam and the Qur'an, not Muslims.

Harris makes the point, that Muslims that are fundamentalists and Jihadists are getting their ideas from their holy text. The fact that the vast majority of Muslims cheery pick is great.

Are these or are these not bad ideas:

Killing infidels.
Stoning women that are not virgins on their wedding night.
Stoning a women if she did not scream loud enough when she was raped.
Woman's testimony is not acceptable in court unless there are 2 or more.

If you agree that these are bad ideas, you are in agreement with Harris.

Of course Christians that espouse the bad ideas in the Bible are held to the same standards.

Harris has spoken out many times on the anti-condom policy that Catholics spread in Africa. He's spoken about the anti-gay policy spread by an American Evangelical Christian that has lead to government policy to kill or imprison gays in Africa.

I think you are missing the point here. Those ideas are very bad, but are they Quranic ideas or are they Islamic ideas?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Here's the deal - until you can prove god and his influence, let's keep him out of civil laws and experiential moral lessons.

Unmoved Mover. Next.

That proves you've read some philosophy, but haven't pondered it much.

NEXT.

---

But it does speak to the shallow nature of anti-Muslim bigotry. It's okay to cherry-pick the Bible, but Muslims cannot do so, by Western lights: they must either embrace every repulsive sura, or be false Muslims.

Cafeteria Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Southern Baptists ... Christian sects and outlooks are not held to the same standard.

I wonder why.

None of the people mentioned exhibit anti-Muslim bigotry.

They are talking about Islam and the Qur'an, not Muslims.

You're missing my point. The fact that Christians cherrypick is assumed by Westerners; the fact that Muslims cherrypick is ignored by Westerners.

Harris makes the point, that Muslims that are fundamentalists and Jihadists are getting their ideas from their holy text. The fact that the vast majority of Muslims cheery pick is great.

Exactly. But my point, further, is that even when the moderates do cherrypick, and move beyond the brutality in the Quran, they are still slagged by atheists, such as those in this very thread-- this time for ignoring the brutal verses.

It's alomst enough to make one think that atheists would prefer Muslims be more brutal, perhaps in order to provide an easier target (as if that is even necessary).

Are these or are these not bad ideas:

Killing infidels.
Stoning women that are not virgins on their wedding night.
Stoning a women if she did not scream loud enough when she was raped.
Woman's testimony is not acceptable in court unless there are 2 or more.

If you agree that these are bad ideas, you are in agreement with Harris.

You're clearly misreading what I'm writing. I'm sorry if I'm not being clear; I'm not espousing support for Muslim doctrine. I'm pointing out non-Muslim hypocrisy.

Of course Christians that espouse the bad ideas in the Bible are held to the same standards.

I'm not so sure about that. Feel free to correct me.

Harris has spoken out many times on the anti-condom policy that Catholics spread in Africa. He's spoken about the anti-gay policy spread by an American Evangelical Christian that has lead to government policy to kill or imprison gays in Africa.

At the same time, Christians who would treat women as second-class citizens are regularly elected to office. Christians who would deny gays equal rights are regularly lauded for their stands. Those positions are pretty similar to Muslim fundamentalists, who get slagged -- but non-Muslims get much less heat for such backwards stands.

That is my point. Sorry if I was unclear in making it earlier.

[fr0d0]

There are some impressive straw creations in this thread

What else can we do? With so little to go on as to what a god is, or how morals supposedly relate to one, what else do we have to work with but straw? Probably the cleanest stance is .. whatever, wake me up if anyone actually detects a god or the world agrees on an unambiguous description of one. Until then, meh.

Well you'd think that you'd still stick to the evidence of believers, none of whos views are remotely touched upon above. Chad is even vilified for expounding quite accurately. If you're going for a comical characature bearing no relation to the subject, then I think you're bang on target. I could easily summarise the consensus on comparative religions. It seems no one else in this thread besides Chad can. I think that's because you deliberately don't want to. Your bias is that strong. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[genkaus]

Well you'd think that you'd still stick to the evidence of believers, none of whos views are remotely touched upon above. Chad is even vilified for expounding quite accurately. If you're going for a comical characature bearing no relation to the subject, then I think you're bang on target. I could easily summarise the consensus on comparative religions. It seems no one else in this thread besides Chad can. I think that's because you deliberately don't want to. Your bias is that strong. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong. The subject of the discussion is the relevance of doctrine to the religion - how central it is, how consistently it is followed or should be followed and how many religious people agree with that. Any evidence and reasoned views on the subject - from believers and non-believers alike are welcome. But don't derail the discussion by bringing in your fantasies. That is what Chad did, for which he was vilified.