Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?

I'm responding to your posts here and to Dawkins views as expressed in his writings and videos. If what you and he say are not representative of your premises, then it would be difficult for me to respond.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What Muslim fundies? Who are we referring to here?

Its a philosophical disagreement; they offend my sense of rightness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Muslim fundamentalist terrorists. Let's say Al Qaeda, just because they're most famous:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_queda

I give up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lets ignore the media hype and tell me what you know about al-Qaeda that is based on facts. Try and show me an evidentiary chain.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ok

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For what? The organization is explicitly rooted in fundamentalist Islam.

By the way....

"Merari"s answer to the psychology behind terrorists and suicide bombers.

"Several hours per day are devoted to talking with enthusiastic members of the group. There is a focus on the "glory days of Islam," and the idea of martyrdom as God"s will," he said. "

http://media.www.michigandaily.com/...ys.Terrorists.Are.Normal.People-1404234.shtml

Your link.
Edit - hey! I worked for the institution mentioned.

Edit again:

"

 

Oops.

"Perhaps influenced by an outspoken and influential individual in the group, their conversations begin to mix religion with frustration and hate for the out-group—in this case, for the West. “They just keep talking up the hate and increasing it,” he said. “They even believe other Muslims are really not Muslims; only their groups are Muslims.” "

http://veracity.univpubs.american.edu/weeklypast/030706/030706_traccc.html


SAM, the things that you chose to link to show a connection between M.E terrorism and Islam. As I said, I'll concede the point that these people may have been raised in a more secular environment, but to say that they are not connected to radical Islam is a bit silly.

 

Okay, so who or what is "radical" Islam; what is radical about it?

 

Have you ever heard of a technique called "framing"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

 

Probably the fact that it is fundamentalist, or because it is better for propaganda purposes to say "radical Islam" than to portray "terrorists" as normal Muslim dudes. Doesn't really matter.


Edit:
"Have you ever heard of a technique called "framing"? "

No, but it falls under the rubric of my "propaganda purposes."

 

So who are the fundies? The ones who have never gone beyond their borders and have no knowledge or experience of the West, or the ones who were brought up secular, are educated, drink and date while living the Western lifestyle and then decide to blast off?

Who is the radical Islamist here?

 

Mm, I think the former is too simplistic and the latter sounds pat- "they hate us for our freedom."
Yeah, right. Poor American foreign policy has a lot more to do with this than any generalized hatred for Western values.

Historically, revolutionaries have been more educated, more urbane, middle to upper class people who were exposed (because of being better educated) to different ideas of what society could or should be, and fought for those ideas. I think that a lot of what motivates suicide terrorism is the feeling of being powerless - powerless because you are Palestinian and living in some shithole camp, powerless because your country was invaded under the pretext of discovering WMD, or powerless because you know that your country is poor and you resent the rich, westernized countries.
Your Robert Pape guy agrees with me:

"His conclusion: “Religion plays a role in suicide terrorism, but mainly in the context of national resistance” and not Islam per se but “the dynamics of religious difference” are what matter (166-67)."

Just as they did in the Irish conflicts. - religious ideology exacerbates a situation that is basically a nationalist issue.

 

So if the US were attacked by say, British terrorists, they wouldn't care?

And if the Iraqis were attacked by Iran? They'd heave a sigh of relief that its all in the religion?

Like the Tamil Tigers who periodically set off suicide bombs in Tamil Nadu, India to protest against Indian interference in their activities?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(like the time they blew up the Indian Prime Minister ?)

Also, any recent terror attacks by the simplistic Muslims? Which ones are the radical fundies again?

 

No, but it would probably be treated as a police problem, the way the domestic terrorist attacks in 96 were.

Mm, I think there would be different types of Muslims involved.

Don't verify my point when you're arguing against it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The ones in Afghanistan who aided Al Qaeda, the ones in Sudan who are lopping off heads, the ones in Iran who are stoning rape victims, the practitioners of Sharia and so forth.

 

All of them were one nation under the Ottomans for 600 years; whats changed now?

Think; its the secular Tamils attacking Indians for not allowing them their own state in Sri Lanka.

who asked for evidence of al Qaeda involvement over and over as a condition of handing them over for extradition? Was that wrong of them?

And throwing chopped off heads to use as firewood; nothing to do with 8 years of famine, competition for scarce land and resources and the fruits of post colonial divide and rule, of course.

Wonder where those guys were during the democratically elected regime of 1952, wonder why they instituted an extremist government in 1979, hmm, after 25 years of having the liberal parties selectively tortured and eliminated. Nah, no connection at all.

Yeah, those weirdos, after seeing the excellent example of Western society and values for the last 60 years.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh, well that certainly explains why the northern Sudanese have been doing the same thing to animists, Christians and other muslims. They must have been getting ready for the British policy of divide and rule for hundreds of years before the Brits arrived. Prescient, those lads.

Ah - so the Americans are responsible for islamofascism. Again. Sure.

Sure; as compared to hanging teenagers for being raped by their uncles, or stoning gay people. Family values. Like a mafia family, maybe, or a family of hillbillies.

 

<< So if the US were attacked by say, British terrorists, they wouldn't care? >>

Or even worse, the US funded British terrorism. Ireland is of course..British.

Its a question of perspective. In many respects the Taliban have helped save thousands of lives by completely eradicating the heroin trade.

<< JALALABAD, Afghanistan (February 15, 2001 8:19 p.m. EST

U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production in Afghanistan -- once the world's largest producer -- since banning poppy cultivation last summer.

A 12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two weeks searching most of the nation's largest opium-producing areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any opium to come out of Afghanistan this year.

"We are not just guessing. We have seen the proof in the fields," said Bernard Frahi, regional director for the U.N. program in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He laid out photographs of vast tracts of land cultivated with wheat alongside pictures of the same fields taken a year earlier -- a sea of blood-red poppies. >>

Compare and contrast that with the situation now..

<< Afghanistan is now awash with opium. Production has risen by around 15 per cent since 2006, with some 457,000 acres under cultivation compared with last year’s total of 408,000, according to US data. More than 92 per cent of all heroin sold in Europe originates in Afghanistan, and the proportion is still rising. >>

 

I like to stalk you, Duckie

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Perhaps you could try answering the post rather than whinge about a percieved feeling of persecution. I simply reply to who replies to me...I don't know you from Adam.

In fact I can scarcely recall the name of my 'crush'. The only crushing going on here are Dawkins failed ideas being trampled on.

Still no news on the Atheist Hitchens..a man so barkingly Atheistic that he sqiftly changed sides from being a Trotskyite (ah always the extremist!) to one of George Bush's greatest admirers.

Why?

Because he hates Religion.

Even now he's still squawking in the Right Wing press about how the Iraq War has been a great victory.

What a joker!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes deary. Maybe if you keep saying that and tap your ruby slippers together it will become true......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The problem with Dawkins are not 'failed' ideas. His current problem is that he is raising the moral finger, and hence he is no better than the average creationist.

His early work presented an idea, such as the selfish gene, that in itself might have moral connotations, but they were not explicit, other that than nature is great!

By raising the moral finger he has crossed the line and lost his position as educator. He has become an antagonizer.

Whether anyone agrees with him or not is besides the point. Dawkins has put himself in a position that will not allow him to create an educational environment that lets people educate themselves. He is guiding them with morals. He is guiding people by raising a finger and telling them that they are silly buggers. They might be, but it is not the way to change people.

He has become a priest for science, but he is not serving 'science' or 'society'.

 

I bet he is no longer an Atheist.