New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, SCRawl, Thanas

User avatar
Dragon Angel
Jedi Knight
Posts: 753
Joined: 2010-02-08 09:20am
Location: A Place Called...

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Dragon Angel » 2017-10-26 11:13am

Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 05:49am
If Christianity was in the news for the same scale of organized violence that ISIS has been known for I'm sure he would talk about that. He's not making the same arguments for each is justified by the fact that followers of one system are engaged in acts that followers of the other are not.
Actually, the news tends to underreport attacks that are not Islamic in nature. So, basing your analysis on media reports is ... not the most comprehensive study of the situation.

Formless will prepare his own response to you, but I just wanted to single this section out from the rest of your drivel because ... come the fuck on. You're supposed to know better.
"I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin', while my thoughts were busy hatchin', if I only had a brain!
I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin', my heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be would be a ding-a-derry, if I only had a brain!"

User avatar
Dragon Angel
Jedi Knight
Posts: 753
Joined: 2010-02-08 09:20am
Location: A Place Called...

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Dragon Angel » 2017-10-26 11:33am

Dragon Angel wrote:
2017-10-26 11:13am
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 05:49am
If Christianity was in the news for the same scale of organized violence that ISIS has been known for I'm sure he would talk about that. He's not making the same arguments for each is justified by the fact that followers of one system are engaged in acts that followers of the other are not.
Actually, the news tends to underreport attacks that are not Islamic in nature. So, basing your analysis on media reports is ... not the most comprehensive study of the situation.

Formless will prepare his own response to you, but I just wanted to single this section out from the rest of your drivel because ... come the fuck on. You're supposed to know better.
I should add to that I was also responding to this quote, but migraines made me forget about it and the edit window is long gone:
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 05:49am
Why shouldn't he when this violence is in the news and, until very recently, the Klan was not.
"I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin', while my thoughts were busy hatchin', if I only had a brain!
I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin', my heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be would be a ding-a-derry, if I only had a brain!"

User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4522
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by TheFeniX » 2017-10-26 12:41pm

Shroom Man 777 wrote:
2017-10-26 03:14am
On one hand I don't think casual people are less likely to be racists or whatever, but when it comes to obsessively lurking on the net and spending hours on flamewars or explaining their nonsense pseudo-science on why there's only two genders or fixating on whatever dirt they can come up with Horrible People who dare to blog about Feminism in Games or something, that's something beyond the scope of a "normie" - and let's face it, that degree of fixation is typical for nerd communities, whether it's constructive or benign or... not.
It takes one (or a few) technically competent neckbeards to hack a cellphone and get nudes, and share those picks with other neckbeards. "Normal people" don't have to go through as much trouble because multiple "sites for normal people" will happily show up on Google and help point all the millions in the right direction to see grainy boobs.

Going beyond that, Facebook has made it hilariously easy to argue about Godddamn anything on the Internet, near obsessively. My brother alone has zero computer skills, the guy can barely upgrade a video driver without a step-by-step guide, but he can shitpost on Facebook obsessively (on his phone) and link through to all kinds of pseudo-sciene bullshit about how BLM is all bad because some guy looted or how Hillary was running rape camps for Bill. He also plays Ark and Diablo 3. The former because I set everything up for him.

While that original argument and "science" may or may not come from neckbeards, it's also being shat out for mass consumption by people paid specifically to come up with it and send it out through maintstream channels like Facebook.

I find these people are actually more of a problem because the morons have greater numbers and normalize this type of behavior. "Nerd Culture" (fucking dumbass phrase) didn't become popular because nerds suddenly became cool. It became popular because it was co-opted by the masses and turned into what it is: people buying up gaming T-shirts and thick-rimmed glasses at Hot Topic.

I'm over-simplifying here, but it only takes one asshole to cause a wreck on the highway, but it takes hundreds to thousands of rubber-neckers to turn it into a gridlocked shitpile.

User avatar
Jub
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2699
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Jub » 2017-10-26 03:18pm

Dragon Angel wrote:
2017-10-26 11:13am
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 05:49am
If Christianity was in the news for the same scale of organized violence that ISIS has been known for I'm sure he would talk about that. He's not making the same arguments for each is justified by the fact that followers of one system are engaged in acts that followers of the other are not.
Actually, the news tends to underreport attacks that are not Islamic in nature. So, basing your analysis on media reports is ... not the most comprehensive study of the situation.

Formless will prepare his own response to you, but I just wanted to single this section out from the rest of your drivel because ... come the fuck on. You're supposed to know better.
Those attacks are very likely not on the same scale as ISIS, 9/11, or the attacks in France. If they were they would be impossible not to report even by our biased media. This isn't to say that smaller scale attacks aren't awful but, especially with the number of mass shootings in a place like the US, an attack that only catches a few people won't be national news unless the media had an angle.

This is really my point as well. Dawkins has an agenda and likely is biased to regard Islam as wrose than it is but it's hard to blame him when the Islamic world is such a mess and it's followers are in the process of trying to create new theocratic states. That isn't happening with many other religions and makes Islam worrying in ways those religions are not.

As an example, when was the last time someone faced criminal charges in a Christian nation for quoting the bibe the way Ahok Purnama has for quoting the Quran?

How many Christian states even still exist? 11 according to Wikipedia. Among these listed states such bastions of Christian fundamentalism as England, Denmark, Tonga (Which doesn't officially have a state religion), Tuvalu (where the state religoons only power is the right to have a presence at national events) and even Zambia has a mix of syncratic faiths with its Christianity. This leaves the Vatican City as our only real Christian theocracy.

Doing the same test with Islamic nations the count is closer to 40, if we include states as Islamic as England is Christian, with 9 states using Islamic law in either whole or large part. However this count may be low as a place like Jakarta is not listed as being an Islamic state when it has arrested a man for blasphemy against Islam.

So how isn't Islam dangerous again?

User avatar
SolarpunkFan
Padawan Learner
Posts: 432
Joined: 2016-02-28 08:15am

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by SolarpunkFan » 2017-10-26 03:19pm

Civil War Man wrote:
2017-10-24 12:00pm
*SNIP*
Your post gave me an excellent idea on forms of atheism/atheism and identity which would have included (among other things) this.

Then I put it off for several days and now I forgot what I wanted the thread to be like. :(

Back on topic: I agree with what you say. I'm not sure how well women are represented in New Atheism insofar as a web presence (judging by YouTube... not very well) as that might be a key factor in how misogynist or not a movement can become by virtue of how fundamental communication via web has gotten these days.
Just another member of Homo stultum (previously called Homo sapiens).

"A quasar is the most powerful object in the universe. It is bright with energy."

User avatar
Dragon Angel
Jedi Knight
Posts: 753
Joined: 2010-02-08 09:20am
Location: A Place Called...

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Dragon Angel » 2017-10-26 04:43pm

Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 03:18pm
Those attacks are very likely not on the same scale as ISIS, 9/11, or the attacks in France. If they were they would be impossible not to report even by our biased media. This isn't to say that smaller scale attacks aren't awful but, especially with the number of mass shootings in a place like the US, an attack that only catches a few people won't be national news unless the media had an angle.
"Very likely"? So, are you backing that with the contents of your rectum?

That the media doesn't report them does not follow into the idea that "most terrorist deaths are caused by Islam". If you don't see it, that does not mean it does not happen. You are assuming various media outlets are not operating off selection bias still even against "impossible not to report" stories, or just outright agendas of their own. People dying in an unreported terrorist incident still results in people dying. Are you trying to handwave that in your crusade to paint Islam as the greatest killer of people?

In this article written in January 2015 you could see that until then, "religiously motivated" violence as a category did not even make the 5% mark in the number of EU incidents. There is also an interesting statistic about US incidents in there.
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 03:18pm
This is really my point as well. Dawkins has an agenda and likely is biased to regard Islam as wrose than it is but it's hard to blame him when the Islamic world is such a mess and it's followers are in the process of trying to create new theocratic states. That isn't happening with many other religions and makes Islam worrying in ways those religions are not.
Your analyses completely disregard the sociopolitical situations the West helped immensely to cause, with our meddling from the era of imperialism, from the USA's need to compare dick sizes with the Soviet Union, and from our infinite War on Terror continuing on. Dawkins misses this as well. I can guess a few reasons why he would...

The Islamic world did not end up in the situation it is in now entirely on its own. If you're going to blame an entire religion of billions of followers for the actions of these fundamentalists then you had better get your historical facts straightened out first. If you don't, then you will only come off as spouting apologia for the horrendous actions we have made to cause destabilization in the Islamic world.
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 03:18pm
As an example, when was the last time someone faced criminal charges in a Christian nation for quoting the bibe the way Ahok Purnama has for quoting the Quran?

How many Christian states even still exist? 11 according to Wikipedia. Among these listed states such bastions of Christian fundamentalism as England, Denmark, Tonga (Which doesn't officially have a state religion), Tuvalu (where the state religoons only power is the right to have a presence at national events) and even Zambia has a mix of syncratic faiths with its Christianity. This leaves the Vatican City as our only real Christian theocracy.
Are you ... being serious? Are you trying to claim that fundamentalist Christians do not have a tendency to mistreat heretics or apostates? Please prove that, either prove that Islam has the sole domain of mistreatment or it is in such a great degree that Islam so vastly overshadows the rest to nothing. :roll:

No, citing Islamic theocratic states alone is not enough, because again you would be ignoring (blatantly or otherwise) the whys behind many of their existences. You would also be ignoring fundamentalist holds on countries such as Russia, where Orthodox Christians have a gigantic sway in governmental matters.
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 03:18pm
Doing the same test with Islamic nations the count is closer to 40, if we include states as Islamic as England is Christian, with 9 states using Islamic law in either whole or large part. However this count may be low as a place like Jakarta is not listed as being an Islamic state when it has arrested a man for blasphemy against Islam.

So how isn't Islam dangerous again?
Islam as a religion in itself isn't dangerous because I live on a planet with billions of Muslims, and the extremely significant majority do not have any interest in killing me or replacing Western governments with theocracies. In fact, they just want to live without being bothered, in peace. Many of them tried to until we started to back random chucklefuck tinpots including the House of Saud. And, all you have been doing is supplying standard right wing talking points.

So why don't you continue lecturing us on how inherently violent Muslims are, I'd like to see the wonderful work of anatomy you'd create by bending your foot all the way through your digestive tract.
"I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin', while my thoughts were busy hatchin', if I only had a brain!
I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin', my heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be would be a ding-a-derry, if I only had a brain!"

User avatar
Jub
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2699
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Jub » 2017-10-26 05:45pm

Dragon Angel wrote:
2017-10-26 04:43pm
"Very likely"? So, are you backing that with the contents of your rectum?
Not at all. That very likely qualifier is there because there is a non-zero chance that some Christian group has quietly been getting away with stuff on a scale to rival the upheaval in the middle east. I doubt that this is the case but you are welcome to present evidence if you find any.
In this article written in January 2015 you could see that until then, "religiously motivated" violence as a category did not even make the 5% mark in the number of EU incidents. There is also an interesting statistic about US incidents in there.
That's pretty EU and US-centric there Dragon. Now, how about you stop being dishonest and include Asia, Africa, and the Middle East (I do include ISIS attacks as terrorism) and see what those numbers look like?
Your analyses completely disregard the sociopolitical situations the West helped immensely to cause, with our meddling from the era of imperialism, from the USA's need to compare dick sizes with the Soviet Union, and from our infinite War on Terror continuing on. Dawkins misses this as well. I can guess a few reasons why he would...

The Islamic world did not end up in the situation it is in now entirely on its own. If you're going to blame an entire religion of billions of followers for the actions of these fundamentalists then you had better get your historical facts straightened out first. If you don't, then you will only come off as spouting apologia for the horrendous actions we have made to cause destabilization in the Islamic world.
And the Caliphate did the same to the West when they were the ones with the political and technological edge. That they did their damage in the now distant past doesn't make them any less to blame or any more innocent.

Now, that all said, our more recent meddlings have stirred the pot to a very large degree but I disagree that this makes us culpable for the actions of those who live there. Afterall, if I annoy you every day in completely legal fashion*, I'm still not the one at fault (morally or legally) when you face assault charges for punching me in the face. It was your choice to respond to the stimulus in a certain way and, regardless of my intent, you are the sole person who can and will face the blame for doing so.

The middle east is much the same, though I place far less total blame on them because we have straight up illegally meddled in things there and backed regime changes by force. Still, some blame is on them for not taking the higher road and for having such tribal hatreds that we can inflame them as we have.

*Note that I make no claim about if I am annoying you on purpose or by accident for this argument.
Are you ... being serious? Are you trying to claim that fundamentalist Christians do not have a tendency to mistreat heretics or apostates? Please prove that, either prove that Islam has the sole domain of mistreatment or it is in such a great degree that Islam so vastly overshadows the rest to nothing. :roll:

No, citing Islamic theocratic states alone is not enough, because again you would be ignoring (blatantly or otherwise) the whys behind many of their existences. You would also be ignoring fundamentalist holds on countries such as Russia, where Orthodox Christians have a gigantic sway in governmental matters.
When it comes to state-backed religious oppression Islam, at least among the major religions, has a near monopoly in the modern age.

Yes, Russia gets up to some shady shit, but I don't think most of that is religious so much as religion is a smokescreen to keep Putin's worst acts from making so many waves. I doubt either of us can find sufficient proof to solidly confirm or deny this so I shall let this sit for now.

Coming back to the original point, even if we give Russia to you, that leaves most of the ME as well as some SE Asian nations as places that make what Russia does look like childsplay. Do you dispute this or are you trying to make a false equivalency by continuing to excuse the actions of Africa and the Middle East while focusing hard on Europe and North America where you tyhink your arguments are stronger?
Islam as a religion in itself isn't dangerous because I live on a planet with billions of Muslims, and the extremely significant majority do not have any interest in killing me or replacing Western governments with theocracies. In fact, they just want to live without being bothered, in peace. Many of them tried to until we started to back random chucklefuck tinpots including the House of Saud. And, all you have been doing is supplying standard right wing talking points.
And yet there is no current Christian equivalent to ISIS and no equivalent state to Iran.

Even ignoring the extremes religion as a whole is still dangerous because it promotes a sense of helplessness in the face of the randomness that is our lives. It is true that we can do little in the moment to stop a random event like being struck by a car speeding through a light, it is untrue that humans have no control at all over such disasters. Thinking that we don't have an impact leads to things like believing we aren't causing global warming or that we can't stop men from assaulting women. Any mindset that instructs us to take matters out of our own hands when the going gets tough is dangerous even if every follower was 100% peaceful and community minded.

In this way most religions are equally dangerous while Islam is currently more dangerous due to the violent radical side that some minority has embraced.

User avatar
Dragon Angel
Jedi Knight
Posts: 753
Joined: 2010-02-08 09:20am
Location: A Place Called...

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Dragon Angel » 2017-10-26 07:24pm

Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 05:45pm
Not at all. That very likely qualifier is there because there is a non-zero chance that some Christian group has quietly been getting away with stuff on a scale to rival the upheaval in the middle east. I doubt that this is the case but you are welcome to present evidence if you find any.
Doesn't have to be Christians. I posted that to show you terrorist attacks that are not rooted in fundamentalist Islam tend to be underreported by the media. It can be Nazis for all we know, the point was to show Islam is not the greatest threat to human life in the way you are hyping it to be.

By the way, where's the proof, I'm still waiting on you to back up your statements.
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 05:45pm
That's pretty EU and US-centric there Dragon. Now, how about you stop being dishonest and include Asia, Africa, and the Middle East (I do include ISIS attacks as terrorism) and see what those numbers look like?
I included that because a. Most of these discussions tend to be revolved around the EU and US, and you mentioned EU- and US-centric examples, and b. For an example and for your convenience. I did not need to provide that because you had yet to, and still have not, provided proof that nearly all of these attacks were not comparable in scale to Islamic terrorism.

The Middle East and Africa are their own messes, that are of course mired in various religious conflicts because these regions are so destabilized. You can't include these as a comparison to attacks like in Nice and 9/11 because the violence in the Middle East and Africa goes far beyond terrorism, into tribal and sectarian warfare. Even granting your comparison any equivalent weight, these unstable environments are not the result of Islam alone, and many reasons for them are independent of religion altogether. ISIS was after all created because of a power vacuum that just happened to be seized by al-Baghdadi, proclaiming himself to be the Caliph as his mandate. Your claiming that Islam is the main primary cause of this without equally significant primary causes is madness.
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 05:45pm
And the Caliphate did the same to the West when they were the ones with the political and technological edge. That they did their damage in the now distant past doesn't make them any less to blame or any more innocent.
Oh, so we're going to use religiously influenced events from centuries ago in this argument too? Okay, let me remind you that Christian men slaughtered populations during the Crusades, that the Inquisition was a bastion of repression, and Western conquerors slew uncountable numbers of Native Americans as part of their motto of God, gold, and glory.

Please, don't look at me. You're the one who chose to open this door. :lol:
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 05:45pm
Now, that all said, our more recent meddlings have stirred the pot to a very large degree but I disagree that this makes us culpable for the actions of those who live there. Afterall, if I annoy you every day in completely legal fashion*, I'm still not the one at fault (morally or legally) when you face assault charges for punching me in the face. It was your choice to respond to the stimulus in a certain way and, regardless of my intent, you are the sole person who can and will face the blame for doing so.

The middle east is much the same, though I place far less total blame on them because we have straight up illegally meddled in things there and backed regime changes by force. Still, some blame is on them for not taking the higher road and for having such tribal hatreds that we can inflame them as we have.
Yes, put it on the various denizens of such countries we've meddled in to topple regimes backed with US resources and military capabilities. People who are also rampantly being droned in US strikes that often do not actually hurt real terrorists or cause so much collateral damage as to be a pyrrhic victory ... if you consider innocent human lives in these countries to be at all valuable ... should "take the higher road". They should just learn to live with it and wait for a better day!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Are you daft, or are you just a piece of shit human being?
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 05:45pm
When it comes to state-backed religious oppression Islam, at least among the major religions, has a near monopoly in the modern age.

Yes, Russia gets up to some shady shit, but I don't think most of that is religious so much as religion is a smokescreen to keep Putin's worst acts from making so many waves. I doubt either of us can find sufficient proof to solidly confirm or deny this so I shall let this sit for now.

Coming back to the original point, even if we give Russia to you, that leaves most of the ME as well as some SE Asian nations as places that make what Russia does look like childsplay. Do you dispute this or are you trying to make a false equivalency by continuing to excuse the actions of Africa and the Middle East while focusing hard on Europe and North America where you tyhink your arguments are stronger?
I don't "excuse" the actions of Islamic theocratic regimes. Unless you want to consider my even mentioning a nation with ultra-conservative Christian input in response to you as "excusing" the regimes, in which case you would have an extreme and unhealthy emotional attachment to this issue.

Why is it, too, that Russia gets to have the supposed mitigating factor that "it's a smokescreen", while (any) fundamentalist Islamic regime must be entirely attributed to Islam? After all, the Orthodox Christians are still having their policies signed into law. In effect, it still becomes a theocracy via the proxy of its dictator.

And honestly, I don't give a shit about your opinions now because you won't even consider the possibility that Western influences fucked these regions significantly enough to cause people to want revenge, independently of religion. I condemn their violent attacks, but I'm not going to forget we pushed our titanic weight around enough to destabilize these regions. No, it has to be primarily because of Islam! :roll:
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 05:45pm
And yet there is no current Christian equivalent to ISIS and no equivalent state to Iran.

Even ignoring the extremes religion as a whole is still dangerous because it promotes a sense of helplessness in the face of the randomness that is our lives. It is true that we can do little in the moment to stop a random event like being struck by a car speeding through a light, it is untrue that humans have no control at all over such disasters. Thinking that we don't have an impact leads to things like believing we aren't causing global warming or that we can't stop men from assaulting women. Any mindset that instructs us to take matters out of our own hands when the going gets tough is dangerous even if every follower was 100% peaceful and community minded.

In this way most religions are equally dangerous while Islam is currently more dangerous due to the violent radical side that some minority has embraced.
:lol: In what way have I said we should take a nihilistic approach? Where have I espoused the strategy of "ignore Islamic terrorism completely"? Why are you mentioning ISIS and Iran as if the whole of Islam believes in their specific ideologies? I have so many questions to this. I'm literally just telling you that most of the billions of Muslims around the planet have no interest in harming me or my country's government in the name of their religion.
"I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin', while my thoughts were busy hatchin', if I only had a brain!
I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin', my heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be would be a ding-a-derry, if I only had a brain!"

User avatar
Jub
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2699
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Jub » 2017-10-26 07:57pm

Doesn't have to be Christians. I posted that to show you terrorist attacks that are not rooted in fundamentalist Islam tend to be underreported by the media. It can be Nazis for all we know, the point was to show Islam is not the greatest threat to human life in the way you are hyping it to be.

By the way, where's the proof, I'm still waiting on you to back up your statements.
Nice try with twisting my argument, I never stated that Islam was the greatest threat to human life. I'm merely making a case that it's one of the more dangerous religions around.

As for your proof, need I really prove that ISIS exists? It seems like the burden is on you to find worse abuses among other religions both in terms of scale and individual acts.
Most of these discussions tend to be revolved around the EU and US, and you mentioned EU- and US-centric examples, and b. For an example and for your convenience. I did not need to provide that because you had yet to, and still have not, provided proof that nearly all of these attacks were not comparable in scale to Islamic terrorism.
You have literally just asked me to prove a negative which is logically impossible and your question is poorly worded to boot.

I've mentioned examples from all regions Dragon, or are you again ignore that my examples were 9/11, attacks in France, and ISIS and not just the first two. Even ignoring the smaller scale attacks that are commonplace in certain regions you must now show that any other single religion has taken as many lives in the past 20 years as Islam has. Good luck.

[quote[The Middle East and Africa are their own messes, that are of course mired in various religious conflicts because these regions are so destabilized. You can't include these as a comparison to attacks like in Nice and 9/11 because the violence in the Middle East and Africa goes far beyond terrorism, into tribal and sectarian warfare.[/quote]

Except that you can compare them because the attackers who caused 9/11 and Nice came from those regions or were radicalized by somebody who does come from those regions. Your leaps in logic to try to shift the goalposts to a smaller area of this discussion are pathetic and I'll stop responding to you entirely if you don't cease them at once.
Even granting your comparison any equivalent weight, these unstable environments are not the result of Islam alone, and many reasons for them are independent of religion altogether. ISIS was after all created because of a power vacuum that just happened to be seized by al-Baghdadi, proclaiming himself to be the Caliph as his mandate. Your claiming that Islam is the main primary cause of this without equally significant primary causes is madness.
No event occurs in a vacuum Dragon, except in your sad mind. Give me a clear and concise reason why are crimes committed by Islamic extremists any more excusable than a crime committed by a person who has lost everything due to US internal policy? Will you argue that Timothy McVeigh was radicalized by the US intervention at Waco and thus is less culpable for his actions or is that too close to home for your dishonest ass to touch?
Oh, so we're going to use religiously influenced events from centuries ago in this argument too? Okay, let me remind you that Christian men slaughtered populations during the Crusades, that the Inquisition was a bastion of repression, and Western conquerors slew uncountable numbers of Native Americans as part of their motto of God, gold, and glory.

Please, don't look at me. You're the one who chose to open this door. :lol:
Humans are shitty, details at 11.

You can't claim one group are simple victims without ignoring the history between the groups. You ask me to do this when looking at the current ME but fail to do this when looking at the colonialism that caused the current situation. Why is this?
Yes, put it on the various denizens of such countries we've meddled in to topple regimes backed with US resources and military capabilities. People who are also rampantly being droned in US strikes that often do not actually hurt real terrorists or cause so much collateral damage as to be a pyrrhic victory ... if you consider innocent human lives in these countries to be at all valuable ... should "take the higher road". They should just learn to live with it and wait for a better day!
It's their best way to stop the attacks. Logic dictates that if these people were willing to ditch their religion and westernize these attacks would stop whereas joining a terrorist cell and fighting the US will only prolong the suffering. Is any part of this unclear to you?
Why is it, too, that Russia gets to have the supposed mitigating factor that "it's a smokescreen", while (any) fundamentalist Islamic regime must be entirely attributed to Islam? After all, the Orthodox Christians are still having their policies signed into law. In effect, it still becomes a theocracy via the proxy of its dictator.
Perhaps because these states have a history of Islamic law and Russia, at least to the same extent, does not. There are also the details of how each rise in religious power has occured and what groups specifically are being targeted. You know nuanced views that show that Russia =/= Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, etc.
And honestly, I don't give a shit about your opinions now because you won't even consider the possibility that Western influences fucked these regions significantly enough to cause people to want revenge, independently of religion. I condemn their violent attacks, but I'm not going to forget we pushed our titanic weight around enough to destabilize these regions. No, it has to be primarily because of Islam! :roll:
Give me a yes or no answer to this question Dragon, is or is not Islam being used to motivate these people and fan the flames of revenge?
:lol: In what way have I said we should take a nihilistic approach? Where have I espoused the strategy of "ignore Islamic terrorism completely"? Why are you mentioning ISIS and Iran as if the whole of Islam believes in their specific ideologies? I have so many questions to this. I'm literally just telling you that most of the billions of Muslims around the planet have no interest in harming me or my country's government in the name of their religion.
Where have I argued that most Muslims are out to harm us; go ahead and quote me if you can.

I haven't, in fact, I've argued that extremism aside, Islam and Christianity are pretty similar and that I dislike both of them. Or did you miss where I posted this:
Jub" wrote:If Christianity was in the news for the same scale of organized violence that ISIS has been known for I'm sure he would talk about that. He's not making the same arguments for each is justified by the fact that followers of one system are engaged in acts that followers of the other are not.

Your argument is like complaining that reviews of two packages for the same car aren't the same when one package is known to catch fire and the other is simply an uncomfortable noisy fuel guzzler. The second set of points may apply to the first package in equal or greater measure, but one can be forgiven for instead focusing on the fact that it catches fire.
I directly compare Christianity and Islam with the care package example, but you choose to cherry pick my reply ignoring my full argument. Now kindly fuck off and stop trying to put words into my mouth.

User avatar
Civil War Man
NERRRRRDS!!!
Posts: 3565
Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Civil War Man » 2017-10-26 08:00pm

SolarpunkFan wrote:
2017-10-26 03:19pm
Your post gave me an excellent idea on forms of atheism/atheism and identity which would have included (among other things) this.

Then I put it off for several days and now I forgot what I wanted the thread to be like. :(
I would also have included apatheism, which is the belief that the question of the existence of gods is irrelevant to living a moral life, among that list. It's not strictly atheistic, and leans more towards agnosticism, but it's a rather interesting concept. Atheists say "God is not real." Agnostics say "We cannot know whether God is real." Apatheists say "It doesn't matter whether or not God is real." Also, apatheist is a cool theological vocabulary word to bring up in discussion (though my favorite one of those is henotheism, which is the belief in the existence of multiple gods but only considering one worthy of worship).
Back on topic: I agree with what you say. I'm not sure how well women are represented in New Atheism insofar as a web presence (judging by YouTube... not very well) as that might be a key factor in how misogynist or not a movement can become by virtue of how fundamental communication via web has gotten these days.
There is a slight question of cause and effect here. Sometimes women are not well represented in a community because misogyny keeps them out, and sometimes they are not well represented because misogyny forces them out. For the latter example, see pretty much any industry centered around computers. Coding used to be considered a job for women, but as computers started to become increasingly important in the workplace, and computer skills became more desired as a job skill, men entered the field in large numbers and forced the women out.

User avatar
Jub
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2699
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Jub » 2017-10-26 08:12pm

Civil War Man wrote:
2017-10-26 08:00pm
I would also have included apatheism, which is the belief that the question of the existence of gods is irrelevant to living a moral life, among that list. It's not strictly atheistic, and leans more towards agnosticism, but it's a rather interesting concept. Atheists say "God is not real." Agnostics say "We cannot know whether God is real." Apatheists say "It doesn't matter whether or not God is real." Also, apatheist is a cool theological vocabulary word to bring up in discussion (though my favorite one of those is henotheism, which is the belief in the existence of multiple gods but only considering one worthy of worship).
Apatheism is actually my preferred form of belief. I cannot know for a fact that there is or isn't a deity but I can choose to live a decent life and hope that any just deity will see that as enough. If that is not enough or there is no deity to reward me then I must be content that what I have done has created a positive impact that will outlast my time on this rock.
There is a slight question of cause and effect here. Sometimes women are not well represented in a community because misogyny keeps them out, and sometimes they are not well represented because misogyny forces them out. For the latter example, see pretty much any industry centered around computers. Coding used to be considered a job for women, but as computers started to become increasingly important in the workplace, and computer skills became more desired as a job skill, men entered the field in large numbers and forced the women out.
Isn't part of it also that once women are out, or if they were never in to begin with, there is a slight social pressure that guides women away from entering the field.

As an example, most STEM nerds are cool with the idea of women working alongside them, though some are vocally for or against it, this apathy should keep anyone out or draw anyone in. I'd argue that the biggest thing keeping women from STEM fields is social inertia and not some active plot to keep women out. When this is counteracted by advertising or specific classes designed to encourage women, women enter the field. Hopefully, this leads to a point where no counteracting force is required.

With social movements, unlike education, there is no agency to step in and open the door and most people just don't swim against the stream without a little push to get them started.

User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3644
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Formless » 2017-10-26 08:41pm

You know what, Jub, no. You are clearly arguing in bad faith, and at the point where you accuse me of connecting Islamic Terrorism to FGM despite the bloody obvious fact that I am arguing AGAINST the connection, I lost any interest in engaging with you point by point. That was a gigantic Ad Hominem worthy of Andrew Fireborn, or alternatively Thunderf00t himself.

(actually, your overall style in that post feels a lot like a Thunderf00t video, now that I think about it. Though, it should be said, I haven't watched one of his videos in years, so maybe he's gone from nitpicking to ranting now. It doesn't matter either way, really)

Not that I feel like its necessary to address such a trash heap. I mean, who addresses messages in reverse order? Who doesn't understand how post #2 is supposed to buttress post #1 and not the other way around? Look, I know this is going to sound like a TL;DR, but it kind of is. I legitimately tried to read your whole post when I realized a few things:
  1. that any resposne on my end would be repetitive and consist of a lot of "citation needed" and "are you trying to pad your word count to impress or intimidate me?"
  2. that your grasp of rhetoric is terrible. If I was trying to criticize Dawkins' tone (which I thought didn't need to be stated when a better case is made by talking about his hysteria and stereotyping) that would actually be valid! We're talking about whether he's a bigot, not whether he is right. Rhetoric can be a part of bigotry. Hell, your rhetorical incompetence is obvious from the first sentence; of course a critic has to talk about the details of a thing he is criticizing, that's what makes you a critic and not just a dumbass with an opinion. :roll:
  3. your entire method was not to create a throughline which connects your various statements to a single argument, but the more superficial rout of posting a mass of easy sound bites and cheap Ad Hominems.
  4. on that note, your method of chopping the arguments I made up seems to qualify as a sort of quote mining, because while everything I wrote is technically there, its presented so that the context of any given passage is absent. I distinctly got pissed when I realized that you were making statements about FGM that were dealt with later in my post. Not a good sign.
  5. that because you don't work from a through-line, you missed the fact that my exchange with mr friendly guy was all about the etiology of FGM; that is, what really causes it. I expected mr friendly guy, being a doctor, would understand the idea. After all, you can't treat a medical problem if you don't know what is actually causing it, and FGM is a medical problem. So you can throw all the condemnation you want at Islamic scholars who see FGM as permissible, but that condemnation does fuck all to solve it and may exacerbate the issue. Obviously the point sailed over your head.
  6. that you like to refer to Islam as "barbaric" repeatedly, despite that tendency being on the list of Islamophobic attitudes I linked to. Did you think I wouldn't notice, or was that a deliberate attempt to troll? :wanker:
Dragon Angel, you can have at him for all I care. Its clear you are talking to a idiot, however, and you know what Mark Twain said about trying to argue with idiots. :P


P.S. The fact that my post referenced the Muslim Brotherhood was an editing error. I kind of got into a hurry at the last minute, and that's why that sentence fragment and other grammatical errors got into the post responding to mr friendly guy. I thought I would put that out there as evidence of the good faith effort to try and read the quote spaghetti nonsense.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.

User avatar
Jub
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2699
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Jub » 2017-10-26 08:55pm

Formless wrote:
2017-10-26 08:41pm
Not that I feel like its necessary to address such a trash heap. I mean, who addresses messages in reverse order? Who doesn't understand how post #2 is supposed to buttress post #1 and not the other way around? Look, I know this is going to sound like a TL;DR, but it kind of is. I legitimately tried to read your whole post when I realized a few things:
It was late and I didn't even reliaze that multiquote had fucked up the order until this morning, so that is legit my bad.
[*] that your grasp of rhetoric is terrible. If I was trying to criticize Dawkins' tone (which I thought didn't need to be stated when a better case is made by talking about his hysteria and stereotyping) that would actually be valid! We're talking about whether he's a bigot, not whether he is right. Rhetoric can be a part of bigotry. Hell, your rhetorical incompetence is obvious from the first sentence; of course a critic has to talk about the details of a thing he is criticizing, that's what makes you a critic and not just a dumbass with an opinion. :roll:
Yet you call him out for making these statements as if they were false, curious that the truth is now bigotted in your eyes.

As for talking about the details, that depends on the time and format, a long forum post can go in depth but a 10-20 minute video on YouTube cannot. Longer format videos don't get the view counts that shorter ones do and series lose viewers as episodes are added, so one must make a compromise for the sake of reaching an audience. The same goes for long articles v. short and article series v. single articles as neither can rely of prior audience engagement as a formal (or informal) debate can.
[*] on that note, your method of chopping the arguments I made up seems to qualify as a sort of quote mining, because while everything I wrote is technically there, its presented so that the context of any given passage is absent. I distinctly got pissed when I realized that you were making statements about FGM that were dealt with later in my post. Not a good sign.
That whole post out of order was a fuck up on my part and likely lead to my lack of throughline. It was not done intentionally.
[*] that because you don't work from a through-line, you missed the fact that my exchange with mr friendly guy was all about the etiology of FGM; that is, what really causes it. I expected mr friendly guy, being a doctor, would understand the idea. After all, you can't treat a medical problem if you don't know what is actually causing it, and FGM is a medical problem. So you can throw all the condemnation you want at Islamic scholars who see FGM as permissible, but that condemnation does fuck all to solve it and may exacerbate the issue. Obviously the point sailed over your head.
FGM isn't exactly a medical problem as most who practice it aren't what anybody would call a professional. It's a social issue at its core and social issues are one thing a religion should be good at dealing with. Of course, it helps when they see things like FGM as an issue instead of shrugging and saying, 'Muhamad was cool so who are we to judge?' and moving on.
[*] that you like to refer to Islam as "barbaric" repeatedly, despite that tendency being on the list of Islamophobic attitudes I linked to. Did you think I wouldn't notice, or was that a deliberate attempt to troll? :wanker: [/list]
I literally never opened your links because frankly, this whole touchy-feely issue-phobia thing has no place in an intellectual debate. I could care less if your feelings are hurt so long as the facts are sound.

I used the term because you used it and I thought it made for a fun counterpoint. I little embellishment on my part I'll admit but an effective one given your response.
P.S. The fact that my post referenced the Muslim Brotherhood was an editing error. I kind of got into a hurry at the last minute, and that's why that sentence fragment and other grammatical errors got into the post responding to mr friendly guy. I thought I would put that out there as evidence of the good faith effort to try and read the quote spaghetti nonsense.
It was in the post so I quoted it, it's not on me to read your mind any more than it is on you to read mine. We both fucked up our editing and have admitted as much.

I will accept your desire not to debate me but if your desire not to do so stems from my editing error I would ask that you reconsider.

User avatar
Dragon Angel
Jedi Knight
Posts: 753
Joined: 2010-02-08 09:20am
Location: A Place Called...

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Dragon Angel » 2017-10-26 09:24pm

Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 07:57pm
Nice try with twisting my argument, I never stated that Islam was the greatest threat to human life. I'm merely making a case that it's one of the more dangerous religions around.

As for your proof, need I really prove that ISIS exists? It seems like the burden is on you to find worse abuses among other religions both in terms of scale and individual acts.
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 07:57pm
You have literally just asked me to prove a negative which is logically impossible and your question is poorly worded to boot.

I've mentioned examples from all regions Dragon, or are you again ignore that my examples were 9/11, attacks in France, and ISIS and not just the first two. Even ignoring the smaller scale attacks that are commonplace in certain regions you must now show that any other single religion has taken as many lives in the past 20 years as Islam has. Good luck.
9/11 happened in the US. Attacks in France happened in France, and by extension the EU. ISIS is a political entity that both causes terrorist acts outside its zone of influence, and engages in war within that zone. We are talking about terrorist acts, not war. Unless you'd like to consider any battle in war to be fair game as "terrorist acts", which would water down the meaning of terrorism to near-uselessness.

I asked you to prove the "very likely" qualifier of your argument in your response to me. That is a positive claim which you have not backed and you are repeatedly ignoring my requests to back. Please put up, or shut the fuck up.
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 07:57pm
Except that you can compare them because the attackers who caused 9/11 and Nice came from those regions or were radicalized by somebody who does come from those regions. Your leaps in logic to try to shift the goalposts to a smaller area of this discussion are pathetic and I'll stop responding to you entirely if you don't cease them at once.
Deaths in the Middle East happen in the Middle East. Deaths in the EU happen in the EU, and deaths in the US happen in the US. The Middle East's reasons for its body count are vastly more complex than "Islam did it all lol".

Oh, the utter projection from you. Save me the time and stop responding then.
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 07:57pm
No event occurs in a vacuum Dragon, except in your sad mind. Give me a clear and concise reason why are crimes committed by Islamic extremists any more excusable than a crime committed by a person who has lost everything due to US internal policy? Will you argue that Timothy McVeigh was radicalized by the US intervention at Waco and thus is less culpable for his actions or is that too close to home for your dishonest ass to touch?
Do ... do you not know what a power vacuum is? Are you reading the same sentences I'm typing? :wtf:

Do you even make any attempt to understand the sociopolitical situation of the Middle East or do you like to conveniently handwave inconvenient details from your worldview? Did Timothy McVeigh live for most of his life in a war-torn hellscape where a gigantic reason for it being that way was because of meddling from superpowers far away from his homeland?

Man, talk about dishonesty. Or maybe in your case, utter indifference to human life.
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 07:57pm
Humans are shitty, details at 11.

You can't claim one group are simple victims without ignoring the history between the groups. You ask me to do this when looking at the current ME but fail to do this when looking at the colonialism that caused the current situation. Why is this?
What even.....

You mentioned a centuries-old example against Muslims and in doing so, you opened the door to me telling you about some of the worst atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. And suddenly your example should have more meaning than "humans are shitty, details at 11"?

If you are going to use shitty actions committed by Islamic followers from centuries ago, then it is just as fair for me to use shitty actions from Christian followers centuries ago.
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 07:57pm
It's their best way to stop the attacks. Logic dictates that if these people were willing to ditch their religion and westernize these attacks would stop whereas joining a terrorist cell and fighting the US will only prolong the suffering. Is any part of this unclear to you?
What makes you think "Westernizing" will solve all their problems? Why are you going to guilt, or perhaps force, them into suddenly abandoning their faith? Are you saying the only way that our meddling, our rabid bombardment, and other human rights abuses will end is if we seize them from their cultures?

Forget shitty human being, that's just too nice for you now. You're an old school colonialist. You'd fit right in with the people who wanted to "train the Indian out of" the Native Americans.
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 07:57pm
Perhaps because these states have a history of Islamic law and Russia, at least to the same extent, does not. There are also the details of how each rise in religious power has occured and what groups specifically are being targeted. You know nuanced views that show that Russia =/= Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, etc.
However, in effect, their results are now indistinguishable. Russia has laws with the backing of the Orthodox Church, designed to appeal to that base. That would be an example of a nation that has nigh-theocratic involvement in its governing, which is what you had asked for.
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 07:57pm
Give me a yes or no answer to this question Dragon, is or is not Islam being used to motivate these people and fan the flames of revenge?
Yes, but this is not the black and white "yes" that you want from me. You will never get a black and white "yes" answer on this. For that matter, if you're never going to properly address the sociopolitical causes behind Islamic extremism or downplay them, and only blame the religion, then I have no more interest in properly arguing with you. Actually, now that you've pretty much outed yourself as a colonialist, I have no interest in arguing with a piece of shit in a backyard septic tank like you properly, period.
Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 07:57pm
Where have I argued that most Muslims are out to harm us; go ahead and quote me if you can.

I haven't, in fact, I've argued that extremism aside, Islam and Christianity are pretty similar and that I dislike both of them. Or did you miss where I posted this:
Jub wrote:If Christianity was in the news for the same scale of organized violence that ISIS has been known for I'm sure he would talk about that. He's not making the same arguments for each is justified by the fact that followers of one system are engaged in acts that followers of the other are not.

Your argument is like complaining that reviews of two packages for the same car aren't the same when one package is known to catch fire and the other is simply an uncomfortable noisy fuel guzzler. The second set of points may apply to the first package in equal or greater measure, but one can be forgiven for instead focusing on the fact that it catches fire.
I directly compare Christianity and Islam with the care package example, but you choose to cherry pick my reply ignoring my full argument. Now kindly fuck off and stop trying to put words into my mouth.
Please don't be intellectually dishonest with me. Your reply to Formless was an essay of apologia for Islamophobia, my reply to you was to single out your incredibly baffling ignorance of terrorist violence not from Islam, and your replies to me have since just been more apologia. I singled out that one statement because I thought you would know better from your posting history about researching these statistics. I can see my assessment of your debating capability and honesty was sorely mistaken.
Formless wrote:
2017-10-26 08:41pm
Dragon Angel, you can have at him for all I care. Its clear you are talking to a idiot, however, and you know what Mark Twain said about trying to argue with idiots. :P
Nah, you're totes right. I completely misjudged his character, because I'm that kind of sucker who is probably too optimistic for her own good. :cry:
"I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin', while my thoughts were busy hatchin', if I only had a brain!
I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin', my heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be would be a ding-a-derry, if I only had a brain!"

User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3644
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Formless » 2017-10-26 09:54pm

Wow, Jub, you still don't get it, do you? mr friendly guy specifically asked me for a definition of Islamophobia, and if you think definitions of bigotry are too "touchy-feely" to have any place whatsoever in intellectual debate, then get the fuck out! This debate was never about the mere truth of Dawkins statements, and to pretend otherwise proves you are just butting into a conversation you neither comprehend nor are able to engage with properly. Nor want to engage with properly. Indeed, if that is your attitude, how do you condemn homophobia without feeling like a hypocrite?

What are you even doing here, anyway? The whole thread is about "touchy-feely" stuff, like misogyny and racism among the faux-intellectual New Atheist crowd. Maybe "touchy-feely" stuff is actually important to society, and therefore does have a place in intellectual discussion? It sure seemed that way in my college sociology classes. Maybe you are just full of shit? I think you are just full of shit.

Finally, to make one final point on an issue of factual matters, FGM is a medical issue regardless of whether its practitioners are professionals or not because it causes medical problems. Long term ones, too. And also because we can connect it to education regarding health. It happens that it is also a social issue, because its etiology is entirely social in nature. This is not unlike HIV, in that its spread has a social dimension even though it is undeniably a disease caused by a virus. Your approach of trying to distill it down to just a religious issue not only does a disservice to Muslims all over the world who are just as disgusted by the practice as we are, it actually stymies understanding because it creates blind spots to some of its most important dimensions.
Dragon Angel wrote:Nah, you're totes right. I completely misjudged his character, because I'm that kind of sucker who is probably too optimistic for her own good. :cry:
Don't worry, man, I almost got suckered in and was starting to write several paragraphs in response before I realized I was getting trolled. When you see quote spaghetti its incredibly tempting to respond, but you have to know when its a trap.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.

User avatar
Jub
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2699
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Jub » 2017-10-26 10:29pm

Dragon Angel wrote:9/11 happened in the US. Attacks in France happened in France, and by extension the EU. ISIS is a political entity that both causes terrorist acts outside its zone of influence, and engages in war within that zone. We are talking about terrorist acts, not war. Unless you'd like to consider any battle in war to be fair game as "terrorist acts", which would water down the meaning of terrorism to near-uselessness.

I asked you to prove the "very likely" qualifier of your argument in your response to me. That is a positive claim which you have not backed and you are repeatedly ignoring my requests to back. Please put up, or shut the fuck up.
"This group [ISIS/ISIL] has been designated a terrorist organisation by the United Nations and many individual countries."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_d ... overnments

So fuck off trying to claim that they are anything but a terrorist cell that exploded into a vacuum and is now imploding just as quickly.

Given that this is objectively a fact, show me anything larger than ISIS in scale from any religion over a recent time span.

As for my very likely comment, it was refering to my lack of certainty that something larger than ISIS had emerged in the past few years and somehow escaped my notice. I cannot find something that is not there so the burden is upon you to show that there has been something larger over that span that I missed.
Deaths in the Middle East happen in the Middle East. Deaths in the EU happen in the EU, and deaths in the US happen in the US. The Middle East's reasons for its body count are vastly more complex than "Islam did it all lol".
Every attack is complex so don't bullshit me by refusing to look at where the attackers came from to instead count the bodies where they lie. The deaths all come from the same place in the name of the same religion.
Do ... do you not know what a power vacuum is? Are you reading the same sentences I'm typing? :wtf:

Do you even make any attempt to understand the sociopolitical situation of the Middle East or do you like to conveniently handwave inconvenient details from your worldview? Did Timothy McVeigh live for most of his life in a war-torn hellscape where a gigantic reason for it being that way was because of meddling from superpowers far away from his homeland?

Man, talk about dishonesty. Or maybe in your case, utter indifference to human life.
The US was born of war too, so should we excuse its actions as the result of the conditions that have formed it? In fact, that sounds like what the pro-gun crowd around here says when they argue that gun control is impossible in the US due to the complex way the nation was formed.

Everey nation is complicated and we don't use excuses to explain away why China does things or why the US does something else, so why is the Middle East special?
What even.....

You mentioned a centuries-old example against Muslims and in doing so, you opened the door to me telling you about some of the worst atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. And suddenly your example should have more meaning than "humans are shitty, details at 11"?

If you are going to use shitty actions committed by Islamic followers from centuries ago, then it is just as fair for me to use shitty actions from Christian followers centuries ago.
Yes, humans are shitty sometimes. Stop making excuses because I'm calling the Middle East out for being slightly shittier than average right now.
What makes you think "Westernizing" will solve all their problems? Why are you going to guilt, or perhaps force, them into suddenly abandoning their faith? Are you saying the only way that our meddling, our rabid bombardment, and other human rights abuses will end is if we seize them from their cultures?
Not at all, but it would stop the drone strikes way faster than fighting a guerrilla war will. So if the goal is to not be in a war-torn hellscape it's an avenue they could look into. It's hardly the only way though; not killing one another so that something stable can form would also be a good start but, shitty as it is, without the protection of a world power that seems unlikely.
However, in effect, their results are now indistinguishable. Russia has laws with the backing of the Orthodox Church, designed to appeal to that base. That would be an example of a nation that has nigh-theocratic involvement in its governing, which is what you had asked for.
Yet, when examining the root cause one has closer ties to religion and the other to politics. When religion is no longer useful to Putin it will be discarded like a broken tool. When a state is founded on it that tool is not so easily set aside.
Yes
That is all I needed from you. Thank you for your concession.
Please don't be intellectually dishonest with me. Your reply to Formless was an essay of apologia for Islamophobia, my reply to you was to single out your incredibly baffling ignorance of terrorist violence not from Islam, and your replies to me have since just been more apologia. I singled out that one statement because I thought you would know better from your posting history about researching these statistics. I can see my assessment of your debating capability and honesty was sorely mistaken.
My position is this:

-All religions are pretty shit because of the harmful knock on effects of the belief that an outside force has control over you.

-Religions that are actively encouraging violence are worse than the others until they cease to do so, then they are only as bad as any other religion.

-The community functions that are offered by religions can be replaced by secular options and doing this is better because it lacks faith in an outside source as a means of forcing people to act.

Thus, by the facts and my own system of beliefs, Islam is more dangerous and thus worthy of scorn than Christianity. When things change and the ME cools off, I will think of them as only another religion among many.

User avatar
Jub
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2699
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Jub » 2017-10-26 10:36pm

Indeed, if that is your attitude, how do you condemn homophobia without feeling like a hypocrite?
Because homosexual behavior is natural and its suppression causes harm while the act itself does not? It's like you think me incapable of logic.
What are you even doing here, anyway? The whole thread is about "touchy-feely" stuff, like misogyny and racism among the faux-intellectual New Atheist crowd. Maybe "touchy-feely" stuff is actually important to society, and therefore does have a place in intellectual discussion? It sure seemed that way in my college sociology classes. Maybe you are just full of shit? I think you are just full of shit.
I'm an authoritarian technocrat and I reject that feelings are as important as some people make them out to be. I lean left on social issues because I believe that they have utility within society. By this same stance, I reject religion because for the good it does it also causes a harm that a secular replacement would not. Is any part of this beyond your understanding?
Finally, to make one final point on an issue of factual matters, FGM is a medical issue regardless of whether its practitioners are professionals or not because it causes medical problems. Long term ones, too. And also because we can connect it to education regarding health. It happens that it is also a social issue, because its etiology is entirely social in nature. This is not unlike HIV, in that its spread has a social dimension even though it is undeniably a disease caused by a virus. Your approach of trying to distill it down to just a religious issue not only does a disservice to Muslims all over the world who are just as disgusted by the practice as we are, it actually stymies understanding because it creates blind spots to some of its most important dimensions.
In the terms of my argument, note that I never addressed any other means of combating FGM, Islam is perfectly ripe for targeting for not doing anything to inform its followers that FGM is harmful. As for a more nuanced plan of attack education, religious leaders speaking up, hygienic aids to avoid some of the issues people think are prevented by FGM, and other such steps would be a good place to start.

I'm glad you asked.

User avatar
Dragon Angel
Jedi Knight
Posts: 753
Joined: 2010-02-08 09:20am
Location: A Place Called...

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Dragon Angel » 2017-10-26 10:57pm

Jub wrote:
2017-10-26 10:29pm
Image
Jub, I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore dude. That you quoted my "Yes" without the paragraph that followed it and immediately went concession acceptedlul is ... just ... totally symbolic of how you've been acting this entire "debate". Your constant moving of goalposts and bad faith representation of my words just renders any conversation meaningless, not even to mention your little colonialist motherfucker attitude. I'm tempted to report you for never actually providing evidence either but that would be an even further waste of time.

I mean, god damn, I disagreed with mr friendly guy in this thread very much but at least he didn't act like a total shitcock the way you are now.

I just suggest that you check yourself sometime, because your fixation on Islam is really unhealthy and will probably lead to a bad future for you.
"I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin', while my thoughts were busy hatchin', if I only had a brain!
I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin', my heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be would be a ding-a-derry, if I only had a brain!"

User avatar
Jub
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2699
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Jub » 2017-10-26 11:08pm

Dragon Angel wrote:
2017-10-26 10:57pm
Image
You do you. You refused to engage my points in good faith yourself.

You tried to argue that somehow the violence in the Middle East isn't related to the ME the moment it is exported to another country while at the same time arguing that we have to excuse violence in the ME due to the situation there. Do you not see the logic fail on that one?

As for my 'fixation' I have none. I live in a multicultural city and I'm damn proud to do so, I support pride and if you check my (Very NSFW Twitter) https://twitter.com/JDKink (Seriously, I warned you all) you'll see how I interact with people of other genders. I support immigration and free movement and was vocal in my support of Canada taking in refugees. So please take this painting you have of me in your head and make a few extra strokes because one debate does not define me.

User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3644
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Formless » 2017-10-26 11:26pm

Jub wrote:Because homosexual behavior is natural and its suppression causes harm while the act itself does not? It's like you think me incapable of logic.
Your posts here suggest exactly that. You dismissed all discussion of "issue-phobias" (aka bigotry) as having "no place in intellectual debate." Taken to its logical conclusion, that precludes us from talking about homophobia regardless of whether homosexuality is natural or not. Homophobia is still a social issue, after all, with all sorts of dimensions like masculine culture, fear of disease, stereotyping, religion...

And it turns out that most people didn't choose their religion any more than most homosexuals choose their sexuality. They were born into a religious family. The only difference is that a religious person can change religious affiliation later in life, but most choose not to, especially in the face of aggressive attacks on their identity.

You don't like talking about things that are intellectually challenging, do you?
In the terms of my argument, note that I never addressed any other means of combating FGM, Islam is perfectly ripe for targeting for not doing anything to inform its followers that FGM is harmful. As for a more nuanced plan of attack education, religious leaders speaking up, hygienic aids to avoid some of the issues people think are prevented by FGM, and other such steps would be a good place to start.
Yes, it would. But note that one of those things is not like the others. Having religious leaders speak out against it requires us to get into a dialogue with religious leaders, and that dialogue can't involve bullying them and calling their religion barbaric.

Its almost like that was my point the entire time. But thank you for admitting that you are an authoritarian. It does place all the nonsense you've spouted into its proper context and tells me how seriously to take your opinions on society.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.

User avatar
Jub
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2699
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Jub » 2017-10-26 11:36pm

Your posts here suggest exactly that. You dismissed all discussion of "issue-phobias" (aka bigotry) as having "no place in intellectual debate." Taken to its logical conclusion, that precludes us from talking about homophobia regardless of whether homosexuality is natural or not.
I mean, you can put whatever extra words in there that you want. My meaning was this, feelings can fuck off when it comes to debate, they don't have a place and this creating of x-phobia tags to dismiss valid arguments is dishonest and lowers the standard of debate.
Homophobia is still a social issue, after all, with all sorts of dimensions like masculine culture, fear of disease, stereotyping, religion...

You don't like talking about things that are intellectually challenging, do you?
You want to talk gay culture, let's go. The whole Peterpan thing where age plays a huge role in who gets action and who doesn't, the whole twink/bear thing, where leather culture and BDSM fit into the scene, where do you want to start? I'll go down that kink rabbit hole too if you care to.

As to where religion and fear of disease fit in, they honestly shouldn't be as large a concern as they are. Yes, anal sex does carry a higher risk of disease but we have ways around that and now that we know what HIV/AIDS is and how to control it there shouldn't stay a front page issue. Religion can fuck off and die if it's going to make gay people try to change rather than accept themselves and be happy, it can die in a fire when it makes people attack the LGBT population.
Yes, it would. But note one of those things is not like the others. Having religious leaders speak out against it requires us to get into a dialogue with religious leaders, and that dialogue can't involve bullying them and calling their religion barbaric.

Its almost like that was my point the entire time. But thank you for admitting that you are an authoritarian. It does place all the nonsense you've spouted into its proper context and tells me how seriously to take your opinions on society.
Or those leaders can open their eyes, they're often the most educated and wealthy among their communities and could do the research if they cared to. We should not have to lead the leaders of others to the knowledge that they themselves should already know.

User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3644
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Formless » 2017-10-27 12:14am

Jub, feelings can't be divorced from discussions of social or cultural issues. Period. If you were really invoking "utility," you would understand that the concept is directly tied to the feelings of other human beings. Namely, their happiness and their suffering. Moreover, you talk as if you want to radically change other people's belief systems without engaging with their feelings... yeah, that's not how it works, buddy. There is a reason that Pathos is one of the three classical concepts in rhetoric. In the real world, people's beliefs aren't just tied to abstract concepts like logic and facts. They are tied to feelings, because of things like identity, experience, relational factors, etc. And its even true of atheists! I have yet to meet an atheist whose sole reason for becoming an atheist was philosophy and logic. Well, there are those who were born into an irreligious family to begin with, but they are a different story. Every atheist I know has some sort of emotionally significant experience with religion that wore down their faith or their cognitive barriers between their rational mind and the emotional ties they had to their religion. For example, my siblings and I all went to a church where we had a pastor who was pretty blatantly homophobic. Now, I don't know my brother's reasons for basically abandoning his faith (but you could ask him as he has an account here-- however, he works till midnights these days), but I'm pretty damn sure I now know my sister's reasons. She didn't come out to us as bisexual until just this year after marrying her husband (who I am quite sure has known for a lot longer), but you can imagine how all those sermons over the years would have done more to grind away her faith than any number of philosophy books would have done. It was an attack on her identity... her feelings that no one could blame her for having.

Now as I indicated earlier in this thread, I once went to a mosque just to know what it was like. It was actually during Ramadan this year. The night I went, you know something that happened? While I was there, some cowardly asshole decided to drive by the place in his truck and wave a knife around while displaying an Islamophobic banner on his vehicle. There were kids playing outside. Do the feelings of their parents not matter? The feelings of the Imam who called the cops, and who has a huge widescreen TV in his office displaying all the live cameras on the property, so that he can catch these assholes who do this on a semi-regular basis? I was there, I saw everyone's reaction. It made me feel unsafe, and I was inside the building at the time chatting with the Imam while sitting under that TV. I left quite thankful that the asshole in the truck was too cowardly to get out of it and prove how dangerous Islamophobia can be.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who has been on the receiving end of prejudice and bigotry for a second, and you will start to understand the rage and sadness they feel towards the bigots and assholes who deny that their feelings matter. That's where bigotry starts. That's where violence starts. No. You can't take feelings out of the discussion. If you think so, then you can fuck off.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.

AniThyng
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2557
Joined: 2003-09-08 12:47pm
Location: Took an arrow in the knee.
Contact:

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by AniThyng » 2017-10-27 12:33am

It's a strange feeling, I almost feel Jub's style here is the distillation of the SDN board cultural view on atheism in the heyday a decade ago. Am I the only one?

Mind this does seem like an overall positive shift, but in light of the article in the OP seems like a kind of example of the cultural shifts.
I do know how to spell
AniThyng is merely the name I gave to what became my favourite Baldur's Gate II mage character :P

User avatar
Jub
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2699
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Jub » 2017-10-27 12:39am

Formless wrote:
2017-10-27 12:14am
Jub, feelings can't be divorced from discussions of social or cultural issues. Period. If you were really invoking "utility," you would understand that the concept is directly tied to the feelings of other human beings. Namely, their happiness and their suffering. Moreover, you talk as if you want to radically change other people's belief systems without engaging with their feelings... yeah, that's not how it works, buddy. There is a reason that Pathos is one of the three classical concepts in rhetoric. In the real world, people's beliefs aren't just tied to abstract concepts like logic and facts. They are tied to feelings, because of things like identity, experience, relational factors, etc.
Pathos is the weakest of the three anyway, and more people should objectively search their own beliefs and weigh them against reality. My depression and anxiety have force me to do this and it has helped clarify many things.
And its even true of atheists! I have yet to meet an atheist whose sole reason for becoming an atheist was philosophy and logic. Well, there are those who were born into an irreligious family to begin with, but they are a different story. Every atheist I know has some sort of emotionally significant experience with religion that wore down their faith or their cognitive barriers between their rational mind and the emotional ties they had to their religion. For example, my siblings and I all went to a church where we had a pastor who was pretty blatantly homophobic. Now, I don't know my brother's reasons for basically abandoning his faith (but you could ask him as he has an account here-- however, he works till midnights these days), but I'm pretty damn sure I now know my sister's reasons. She didn't come out to us as bisexual until just this year after marrying her husband (who I am quite sure has known for a lot longer), but you can imagine how all those sermons over the years would have done more to grind away her faith than any number of philosophy books would have done. It was an attack on her identity... her feelings that no one could blame her for having.
I was born into an irreligious family and they aren't exactly uncommon in the first world. They're in fact growing to be more common as people fail to connect with outdated teachings. So just because you're in an area where this is less common doesn't mean you can project this onto other areas of the world.

Also, nice annecdotes, do you have any data to back this shit up or has storytime with jilted ex-Christian Formless started up for the evening?
Now as I indicated earlier in this thread, I once went to a mosque just to know what it was like. It was actually during Ramadan this year. The night I went, you know something that happened? While I was there, some cowardly asshole decided to drive by the place in his truck and wave a knife around while displaying an Islamophobic banner on his vehicle. There were kids playing outside. Do the feelings of their parents not matter? The feelings of the Imam who called the cops, and who has a huge widescreen TV in his office displaying all the live cameras on the property, so that he can catch these assholes who do this on a semi-regular basis? I was there, I saw everyone's reaction. It made me feel unsafe, and I was inside the building at the time chatting with the Imam while sitting under that TV. I left quite thankful that the asshole in the truck was too cowardly to get out of it and prove how dangerous Islamophobia can be.
That's shitty, shouldn't happen, and, if it's that common, the city should post officers there to arrest or ticket people who pull this shit during hours of worship. This is an issue that can be treated with more force alongside education and the general leftwards march of most non-US nations.
Put yourself in the shoes of someone who has been on the receiving end of prejudice and bigotry for a second, and you will start to understand the rage and sadness they feel towards the bigots and assholes who deny that their feelings matter. That's where bigotry starts. That's where violence starts. No. You can't take feelings out of the discussion. If you think so, then you can fuck off.
Been there done that, have the emotion scars below this festive novelty t-shirt to prove it. I was raised poor to a single mother, bullied throughout most of elementary and middle school, kicked out of my house and put into foster care before the end of middle school, and then came out to work a shit service job in a tourist town. Don't preach to me about prejudice and privilege like I don't understand it.

I just don't buy that people need special treatment outside of a social safety net and mental/physical healthcare that should be there for everybody.
AniThyng wrote:
2017-10-27 12:33am
It's a strange feeling, I almost feel Jub's style here is the distillation of the SDN board cultural view on atheism in the heyday a decade ago. Am I the only one?

Mind this does seem like an overall positive shift, but in light of the article in the OP seems like a kind of example of the cultural shifts.
I've been here since 2004 when I joined in my first year of high school so it makes sense. I grew up with this board and lurked even after I was banned for being an immature little shit.

User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3644
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: New Atheism’s Idiot Heirs

Post by Formless » 2017-10-27 01:38am

AniThyng wrote:
2017-10-27 12:33am
It's a strange feeling, I almost feel Jub's style here is the distillation of the SDN board cultural view on atheism in the heyday a decade ago. Am I the only one?

Mind this does seem like an overall positive shift, but in light of the article in the OP seems like a kind of example of the cultural shifts.
I only signed up nine years ago, but personally he reminds me a bit of myself when I was younger. Hot under the collar, fond of the quote-by-quote method of arguing, quick to cite fallacies I didn't fully understand, and yeah, I admit I watched Thunderf00t for a time. I think I moved on mostly because I got bored of religious debate, and still later I took a hiatus from here for a couple years just to focus on classes. A college education and a leave from this board can do wonders for your temper and ability to put things into perspective, so maybe people just started to grow up since then? Of course, maybe some of the worse offenders from back in the day just don't post anymore, because of deterrence or something.

Also, yes I see you Jub. But your posting has gotten so pathetic I'm starting to think I'm just rewarding you by responding. Those anecdotes, for instance, clearly aren't meant to prove anything, they are meant as demonstration. Anyone who properly understood rhetoric or argument would know that and understand they don't need proof to do their job, but you just keep trolling on and on, not understanding the purpose of a topic statement, not getting how uncontroversial my central thesis is to anyone with psychology knowledge (or common sense), not seeing past the bubble you grew up in, failing to engage with the points being made, etc.

*yawn*
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.

Locked