Dawkins Choice: Abuse and Religion

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

As someone from an intensely religious culture, I see a lack of religion as the path to nihilism and social anarchy, not to mention incipient individualism at the cost of personal and social harmony

When I was a kid, Geraldo Rivera aired an infamous special report on Satanism. He recounted a number of horror stories about what happened to good American kids who got hooked on Satanism, and then tried to grill Zena LaVey, daughter of the founder of the Church of Satan. Now, here's the thing: none of the tales Geraldo told were LaVey's to answer for. It would be like asking a Baptist preacher from Illinois to answer for an Episcopal who raped his daughter, and then indicting the whole of Christianity because the one refused to be held doctrinally or morally responsible for the other.

The salient point emerges: these teenage "Satanic" rebellions had nothing to do with the Church of Satan. Rather, they imitated the cruelty and bloodlust the kids' parents taught them about what the Devil is supposed to be.

Okay, now ... does that idea make sense to you? Because it's not exclusive to Christians or even religion.

An example close to me would be communism. And before you go off about Marx and Cambodia, you should probably consider one of Marx's important but oft-ignored quotes: "One thing I know for sure is that I am no Marxist." If we take the Jesus myth at face value, you would be more accurate to say, "But then, Jesus Christ probably did not anticipate he would be so popular in Europe in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries."

However, having made that point, let me re-establish a theme. It took me years to figure out certain basic things about Communism, and part of the reason for that is that my own communitarian tendencies developed as a reaction to some viciously capitalist teachings and denunciations of Marxism and Socialism that were completely distorted. In recent years, I've finally come to understand one of the critical mistakes of the Soviet experience. And while this is clear when you look back to Marx himself, it is missing from the capitalist propaganda. A proper Communist revolution is a sociopolitical process, not an event.

Certain vital errors about former revolutionary phases do not come from the rejection of a myth (e.g. capitalism), but rather from trying to incorporate a corrupted myth (e.g. what most Americans learn about Communism).

Again, the errors reflect what the parents taught.

Nihilism: this is a tendency even I've noticed about atheism, but it is not a necessary symptom of atheism. Rather, what happens is that as people shed myths, they harden and become cynical. In American culture, one of the things that happens is that a nexus of lies come apart. Learning that the religious myths they were told were lies, that the social myths (e.g. the myth of America) were lies, and whatever other fluff ideology parents and community tried to stuff into the child were lies, eventually, one just puts their foot down. It's all a lie. It's all bullshit. And they grab onto the very same notion by which so many theists attempt to attack atheism: Nothing is certain.

I know the feeling, I know it from before;
Descartes through Hegel: belief is never sure.

(Lou Reed)​

The theist attacks: "Your rationalism isn't real. Nothing can be known. It's just another religion."

The nihilist, on the other hand, embraces: "Nothing can be known. Why bother?"

Lied to consistently enough, privileged, such as it is, to see the lies for what they are, the nihilist simply abandons all myths.

We look back to parents and community on two counts: first, they are the ones who told the lies. And, indeed, as we used to hear on a regular basis from our theists here at Sciforums, "Without God, there is no morality. Without God, there is no reason for morality."

Intended as an indictment of atheism, it declares a polar opposite. Perhaps those who walk away walk straight into the trap, but it's thematically consistent.

What about those who don't walk away from religion? What about those who don't see nihilism as an opposite, a rebellious condition? These are rare people for. My daughter, for instance: we'll never know. People would rather lie to her and groom her for a lifetime of psychological blackmail because it is absolutely unacceptable to them that she doesn't experience this ... what, love?

She's lucky, though. She has people around her who know better, and who love her.

And how can it happen now that you know the cause;
That nothing is changing, and everything’s wrong?
But pain is the healing and the tears sting like alcohol.
Just keep on there breathing—
We’ll help you down the long, long road back home.

(Toad the Wet Sprocket)​

And not everyone is that lucky, S.A.M. Don't pretend for a moment that anything is so simple as religion and atheism. Perhaps the betrayal won't sting so badly because she won't be nineteen or twenty when she finally recognizes it. Do you understand? If she doesn't spend all that time suffering the emotional blackmail, knowing that it's okay to call bullshit on incongruous faery tales and predatory mythmakers, understanding that she has people who will stand with and for her, perhaps her nihilist epiphanies will be academic instead of psychospiritual.

Do you understand? What you fear is a natural consequence of what you're advocating. The only way to avoid it is to successfully seal someone inside the faery tale, so that they dismiss any potential alternative with bigoted zeal.

And in my daughter's case, her grandparents ought to know better. Their religion drove their own daughter fucking bonkers. You know, that insane woman I bitch and moan about from time to time, who couldn't tell the damn truth if her life depended on it? The one who looks at her (my, our) daughter as a status symbol?

Yeah. They want to do this to my daughter. And if they get their way, but fail to bottle her up inside insane bigotry, she will eventually hit the nihilist wall you fear. Like the teenage Satanic rebellions, like the corrupted myths of Communism, so, too, with nihilism.

And there are antidotes to nihilism. I've survived a nihilist period. Sad thing is that I could have emerged from it much earlier, but I didn't get the antidote until I was in college, and even then certain mistakes prolonged the nihilism by a period of years. So I have that, and it's not exactly a secret. The only reason more people don't have this antidote is specifically because the religious myths they were groomed to accept preclude it.

Social anarchy? That's a bit of a strange one. I'll leave it to you to define for now. Because historically, at least in the Abramic tradition, religion has only redirected and relocated the anarchy, typically consolidating it somewhere close to or smack amid the ruling class.

Incipient individualism at the cost of personal and social harmony? There are a number of fault lines running through that territory, S.A.M.

The ear can be conditioned to find beauty in discord. So can the person, conscience, soul, call it what you will. Personal harmony is, more often than not, illusory. As one who frequently and strongly criticizes Western cultural trends, I would be surprised if you had not noticed that certain forms of personal and social harmony are actually damaging. And in the case of American culture, you simply cannot lay that on the atheists. This is part of our Puritan heritage, a Calvinist streak that is actually reasserting itself in the evangelical ministry of personal prosperity. We're at war over this, S.A.M. I'm pretty sure you haven't missed that.

Individualism at the cost of personal and social harmony, then, strikes both ways. Where do we draw the line? The luxuries Americans enjoy today come at the cost of prior personal and social harmony. Our daughters are less and less the unregulated sexual property of their fathers, and this is a good thing despite the anguish and upheaval it has caused. More and more people are receiving their measure of equality under the law, despite the pain and social anarchy it has caused. It is not atheism in our culture that prevents us from sharing this harvest with the rest of the world. Rather, it has been our religious outlook.

an absence of religion in the family to me is an unnatural circumstance

I admit it is a statistical deviation.

one that, to me speaks of indifference in the guise of tolerance

This is symptomatic of the supremacist ideology inherent to redemptive monotheism.

I would expect such a family to be devoid of spiritual influence and the strength it confers on the individual.

That strength is a subjective measure.

Indulge me, please: Americans use less and less these days the phrase "God-fearing". You can still find it, but it's fallen out of vogue for obvious reasons, despite the fact that we're supposed to regard such fear as a positive thing in that context. But have you ever actually been afraid of God?

Deliberately witholding a source of strength from a child in the face of a rapidly changing social milieu seems irresponsible to me.

Consistency and strength are easy to confuse in that context. And, as I noted, that strength is a subjective measure. Furthermore, that strength is defined in the context of inherent supremacism.

I would propose that deliberately subjecting a child to psychological blackmail in the form of redemptive monotheism seems irresponsible and even cruel in the face of a rapidly changing social milieu.

So to me, not bringing up a child in faith is akin to casting the child out on the street and considering this as freedom.

There is a difference, S.A.M., between faith and love. Pretend you understand that; I'll believe you because, frankly, it is difficult—painful—for me to imagine you otherwise.

Clearly you have different views; while I agree you have the right to do as you please, it does not necessarily mean I agree with what you prescribe to.

See, that's the thing. I try to subscribe to as little as possible. It's okay, S.A.M., to not know the right answers. But it's a fucking tragedy to cling to the wrong answers for want of any answer.

 

[Gustav]

sam
where have you been? a madrasa? your zealotry is particularly striking and quite insane

 

[Gustav]

I admit it is a statistical deviation.

The Largest Atheist / Agnostic Populations

its a growing trend
a statistical norm

 

[S.A.M.]

Yep.
And you can't tell the difference between that and advocating an ideal society. I rest.

About whether US atheists need worry over manipulative indoctrination ?
But it would never cloud your judgment about their arguments, of course. In fact, you don't even have to read their stuff to start threads commenting on its bigotry and danger, because of your principles.

If I heard them speak or saw the videos they made or the actions they took, it would be unnecessary.

Your take on his anti-theism is contradicted in several aspects by his actual writings. I am merely casting about for an explanation for that, and you did mention you have heard him speak, and agree with a description of him as a pompous ass.

To you maybe, perhaps we are conditioned by our separate beliefs. What seems like reasonable arguments to you seems like cherry picking and cheap shots to further an agenda to me.

LOL! Or is that another book you talk about but haven't read ?

Your link provides a couple of pages of excerpts.Check 'em out - they won't copy here for me.

Why not ask an anti-Semite who has the same feelings as he did? They may find the book a refreshing intellectual outlook on the evils of the Jew.

OK, we all have psychological problems and biases from our upbringing. But to those who do not find a lack of religion (which you continue to confuse with theism, muddling the whole discussion as usual) in the family "unnatural" , you cannot hope to be persuasive without gaining some apparent understanding of that strange situation.

Not at all. I think an atheist is far more likely to bring up a child atheist.

And you would be, in many cases, badly in error in your expectations. Please do not confuse such expectations with the experiences of others better informed. Ask them.

I have, most of them think a rapt admiration for nature is spiritualism. Many of them achieve this through mood altering drugs.

And that attitude is familiar to me from listening to fundies debate removing children from the homes of people who don't take them to church. It is exactly why governmental power should never be allowed to back a religion. There is no safety in the good will of the deeply religious official.

Or the militant atheist one. You know, like the ones who think all religious symbolism and expression should be suppressed or taught as mythology or undermined in other various ways they consider more "suitable" to what they consider the "ideal"

Further, now you are conflating faith with religion, after conflating religion with theism. And you are an intelligent, educated person. Any childhood indoctrination that prepares the mind for acceptance of that kind of muddle is to be avoided.

Perhaps this is a reflection of your culture? In India, faith, religion and theism are not isolated entities. We have communists elected by the religious Hindus/Muslims/Christians to run successful social systems.

So the net is someone who believes strengh of character in adversity and the benefits of faith require the childhood inculcation of nonsense, not as stories and metaphors, but as basic comprehensions of reality. The Big Lie as not just a tool of manipulation, but a cornerstone of proper childraising.

You clearly share Dawkins view of theists/theism/religion.

Nothing is "based on" atheism. You have seen, if you bothered to look, many human societies (especially in the recent past, before the spread of Islam and Christianity by force) making do quite well without a Deity.

Yeah, the Arabs were doing so well as warring tribes before Islam and have been doing even better since they discarded its principles in favor of kowtowing to outside influences that divide them. In actuality, there has never been a society that has endured without religion.

It offers quite a bit to the Islamic world. Freedom not the least.

What would bring freedom to the Islamic world is getting closer to Islam.

He wasn't. Certainly not as popular as Adolf Hitler in Iraq. Something Islam is overdue to suffer - an outbreak of "freethinking" in one of its theocraticies, leading to universities and the like.

Islam had a university long before the west decided to liberate it.

Tiassa

When I was a kid...The salient point emerges: these teenage "Satanic" rebellions had nothing to do with the Church of Satan. Rather, they imitated the cruelty and bloodlust the kids' parents taught them about what the Devil is supposed to be.

I'm guessing there is more to it than that.

A proper Communist revolution is a sociopolitical process, not an event.

Yup, like in Kerala, where the Indians have made it work. Not in Bengal where it has been a dismal failure.

(e.g. what most Americans learn about Communism).

Thats true for pretty much anything the mass media and government teaches them.

Again, the errors reflect what the parents taught.

Nihilism: this is a tendency even I've noticed about atheism, but it is not a necessary symptom of atheism.
The theist attacks: "Your rationalism isn't real. Nothing can be known. It's just another religion."

The nihilist, on the other hand, embraces: "Nothing can be known. Why bother?"

Lied to consistently enough, privileged, such as it is, to see the lies for what they are, the nihilist simply abandons all myths.

So you don't believe in God. Thats your privelege. If it makes you feel better to call the parents liars and oppressors, so be it. If, by any chance, your daughter does grow up to be religious, she may have the same thoughts about your attempts to have her grow up atheist. Its the nature of rebellion that it must needs have an oppressor.

Perhaps the betrayal won't sting so badly because she won't be nineteen or twenty when she finally recognizes it. Do you understand?

You seem to be constantly projecting your own feelings onto your daughter. Why?

Do you understand? What you fear is a natural consequence of what you're advocating. The only way to avoid it is to successfully seal someone inside the faery tale, so that they dismiss any potential alternative with bigoted zeal.

Potential alternative being the glories of atheism, I suppose. Because it so clearly is the better alternative.
Anyone who cannot fathom this message is lost and needs be saved, I suppose.
Whats with all theists and atheists in the west needing to evangelize their beliefs so incessantly?

And there are antidotes to nihilism. I've survived a nihilist period. Sad thing is that I could have emerged from it much earlier, but I didn't get the antidote until I was in college, and even then certain mistakes prolonged the nihilism by a period of years. So I have that, and it's not exactly a secret. The only reason more people don't have this antidote is specifically because the religious myths they were groomed to accept preclude it.

Again you seem to be projecting your experiences(which sound like the nihilism of athiesm to me) on the rest of the religious world.

The ear can be conditioned to find beauty in discord. So can the person, conscience, soul, call it what you will. Personal harmony is, more often than not, illusory. As one who frequently and strongly criticizes Western cultural trends, I would be surprised if you had not noticed that certain forms of personal and social harmony are actually damaging. And in the case of American culture, you simply cannot lay that on the atheists. This is part of our Puritan heritage, a Calvinist streak that is actually reasserting itself in the evangelical ministry of personal prosperity. We're at war over this, S.A.M. I'm pretty sure you haven't missed that.

I think the American experience is an excellent example of what lack of spiritual growth and replacing it with materialism can do for a people. Don't forget that you're not the only ones occupying other peoples and their lands, beginning at home. And you've found someone to blame for it.

It is not atheism in our culture that prevents us from sharing this harvest with the rest of the world. Rather, it has been our religious outlook.

I doubt it. I'm pretty sure those who direct the masses are most likely to be athiests and the social anarchy, incipient individualism and lack of personal and social satisfaction are inevitable.

This is symptomatic of the supremacist ideology inherent to redemptive monotheism.

Not all the religious people I know are monotheists. In fact, if are talking India, I'd say very few of the religious people I know are monotheists.

Indulge me, please: Americans use less and less these days the phrase "God-fearing".

Considering their history, I would say God is not the uppermost on their minds, though like other self indulgences such as"liberty", "freedom" and "equality", the pretence is absolute.

Consistency and strength are easy to confuse in that context. And, as I noted, that strength is a subjective measure. Furthermore, that strength is defined in the context of inherent supremacism.

I do not think the average Indian outlook can in any way be defined as supremacism.

I would propose that deliberately subjecting a child to psychological blackmail in the form of redemptive monotheism seems irresponsible and even cruel in the face of a rapidly changing social milieu.

You're an atheist to Christianity. Its what you would think.

There is a difference, S.A.M., between faith and love. Pretend you understand that;

I know what love is. I come from a pragmatic society, so your descent into hyperbole is puzzling and seems rather over the top to me.

See, that's the thing. I try to subscribe to as little as possible. It's okay, S.A.M., to not know the right answers. But it's a fucking tragedy to cling to the wrong answers for want of any answer.

Well you're clearly tortured over the whole process.

sam
where have you been? a madrasa? your zealotry is particularly striking and quite insane

Zealotry? Have you read the posts by athiests in this thread?

 

[S.A.M.]

The Largest Atheist / Agnostic Populations

its a growing trend
a statistical norm

So is obesity and cancer.

 

[(Q)]

If the Dawkins movement goes on as Marxism did (started with a harmless fellow spouting ideal societies, if I recall), they'll see for themselves what the result of militant atheism can be.

Yes well, we'll all see how very wrong you are, but in the meantime, try not to indoctrinate your children into your religion. Teach them ALL the religions equally.

You also might want to read a few books yourself before teaching them about that which you know nothing about.

I can just see the day one of Sam's children coming home from school after learning about communism, socialism, Hitler, etc., and calling Sam a bold-faced liar.

Would you lie to your own children like you lie here, Sam?

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes well, we'll all see how very wrong you are, but in the meantime, try not to indoctrinate your children into your religion. Teach them ALL the religions equally.

Since I do not know all religions equally, that would be impossible. As my own parents did, though, I would ensure they were exposed to people of other religions. I would even teach them to be kind to atheists.

You also might want to read a few books yourself before teaching them about that which you know nothing about.

As you have read on all religions I presume.

I can just see the day one of Sam's children coming home from school after learning about communism, socialism, Hitler, etc., and calling Sam a bold-faced liar.

Communists were atheists gone wild. Still are, in China and Korea, where they continue to enforce atheism on the public. Live with it.

Would you lie to your own children like you lie here, Sam?

Only when I tell them that people like you also deserve equal consideration.
But thats in good faith.

 

[greenberg]

Since I do not know all religions equally, that would be impossible. As my own parents did, though, I would ensure they were exposed to people of other religions. I would even teach them to be kind to atheists.

On the grounds of what would you teach your children to be kind even to atheists?
How would you explain to your child that she or he ought to be kind even to atheists?

Only when I tell them that people like you also deserve equal consideration.

Again, on the grounds of what do you think that people deserve equal consideration?

 

[(Q)]

Since I do not know all religions equally, that would be impossible.

They are all out there for your perusal, Sam. That's no excuse.

As my own parents did, though, I would ensure they were exposed to people of other religions. I would even teach them to be kind to atheists.

Even your parents failed to teach you about other religions, they indoctrinated you into their religion. We are exposed to people of other religions almost every day, but that doesn't mean we learn their religions from them. Utter nonsense.

As you have read on all religions I presume.

I'm not talking about religious books, I'm talking about books in which you could actually learn something as opposed to your imaginative rants.

Communists were atheists gone wild. Still are, in China and Korea, where they continue to enforce atheism on the public. Live with it.

Only when I tell them that people like you also deserve equal consideration.
But thats in good faith.

Ah, so it's confirmed, you'll indoctrinate and lie to your children just like you were indoctrinated.

Too bad, I pity them.

 

[S.A.M.]

On the grounds of what would you teach your children to be kind even to atheists?
How would you explain to your child that she or he ought to be kind even to atheists?

The same way as I would teach them to be kind to all people of course. Even atheists, strange as it may seem, are human beings.

Again, on the grounds of what do you think that people deserve equal consideration?

Personally I do not believe bigots and separatists retain a right to equal consideration. However, regardless of my personal bias against them (they have wrecked many a havoc through history and continue to do so today) I believe everyone shares this world and should have a voice to express their beliefs, no matter how distasteful they may be to us.

There is the matter of hate speech and lack of consideration for others, but one usually associates that with lack of good sense. Subject to social propriety and equality towards all groups, I see no reason for the haters to not have a platform and debate with them. But for them to expect me to give them equal consideration would be beyond my personal views on tolerance.

They are all out there for your perusal, Sam. That's no excuse.
Even your parents failed to teach you about other religions, they indoctrinated you into their religion. We are exposed to people of other religions almost every day, but that doesn't mean we learn their religions from them. Utter nonsense.

I'm guessing your parents weren't too religious.

I'm not talking about religious books, I'm talking about books in which you could actually learn something as opposed to your imaginative rants.

I take it you will not be teaching any religions to your children then

Ah, so it's confirmed, you'll indoctrinate and lie to your children just like you were indoctrinated.

Too bad, I pity them.

And I pity you.:shrug:

 

[(Q)]

I'm guessing your parents weren't too religious.

You "guess" a great many things, Sam. That is the problem.

I take it you will not be teaching any religions to your children then

They will learn about a great many religions, including the worship of Thor, Zeus, Mithra, Buddha, Allah, etc. That is the difference between you and me. You will ONLY indoctrinate Islam into your children. Very sad, indeed. They will grow up deluded, as you have.

 

[iceaura]

If I heard them speak or saw the videos they made or the actions they took, it would be unnecessary.

It would still be necessary - if you had the principles you claim.

What seems like reasonable arguments to you seems like cherry picking and cheap shots to further an agenda to me.

What they seem like to someone with no experience or comprehension of them is hardly persuasive to those who have it.

Why not ask an anti-Semite who has the same feelings as he did?

None of the excerpts you described as reasonable, educated, prescient, etc, included anything particularly anti-Semitic. Your description of them as similar in in approach and tone to Dawkins writings is yet more evidence that you haven't bothered to read at least one of the books in question.

I have, most of them think a rapt admiration for nature is spiritualism. Many of them achieve this through mood altering drugs.

You have not.

You know, like the ones who think all religious symbolism and expression should be suppressed or taught as mythology or undermined in other various ways they consider more "suitable" to what they consider the "ideal"

Again with the elementary confusion of particular rejection and totalitarian espousal. You would accept no such "reasoning" in your field.

Perhaps this is a reflection of your culture? In India, faith, religion and theism are not isolated entities.

They don't have to be muddled and confused with one another, by anyone. Culture is no excuse.

You clearly share Dawkins view of theists/theism/religion.

Not religion. Not even all theists, or the more reflective theisms.

What would bring freedom to the Islamic world is getting closer to Islam.

The believers will not willingly allow you to revamp their beliefs according to your preferences. You would need force, as in the past and now.

Islam had a university long before the west decided to liberate it.

The Islamic world has not had a high-quality university system for hundreds of years. And they don't now, with all the money and opportunity anyone would need. Scotland and Ireland alone - poverty stricken, religiously oppressed, and onerously conquered subjects of England - have had a better university system than the entire Islamic world together for generations.

Whats with all theists and atheists in the west needing to evangelize their beliefs so incessantly?

The atheists are complaining about ill treatment - with justice. The theists are bringing the wonderful benefits of their theism to you and your kind, SAM, in classic theistic fashion, justified by their beliefs and the need to save you from your lack of true theistic faith. They are saving your children from pretty much what you seem to regard as the flaws of Bell's and Tiassa's spiritually deficient upbringing. Interesting experience, to be the target of that kind of thinking, eh ?

 

[S.A.M.]

It would still be necessary - if you had the principles you claim. What they seem like to someone with no experience or comprehension of them is hardly persuasive to those who have it. None of the excerpts you described as reasonable, educated, prescient, etc, included anything particularly anti-Semitic. Your description of them as similar in in approach and tone to Dawkins writings is yet more evidence that you haven't bothered to read at least one of the books in question. You have not. Again with the elementary confusion of particular rejection and totalitarian espousal. You would accept no such "reasoning" in your field. They don't have to be muddled and confused with one another, by anyone. Culture is no excuse.
Not religion. Not even all theists, or the more reflective theisms. The believers will not willingly allow you to revamp their beliefs according to your preferences. You would need force, as in the past and now. The Islamic world has not had a high-quality university system for hundreds of years. And they don't now, with all the money and opportunity anyone would need. Scotland and Ireland alone - poverty stricken, religiously oppressed, and onerously conquered subjects of England - have had a better university system than the entire Islamic world together for generations. The atheists are complaining about ill treatment - with justice. The theists are bringing the wonderful benefits of their theism to you and your kind, SAM, in classic theistic fashion, justified by their beliefs and the need to save you from your lack of true theistic faith. They are saving your children from pretty much what you seem to regard as the flaws of Bell's and Tiassa's spiritually deficient upbringing. Interesting experience, to be the target of that kind of thinking, eh ?

heh! The Islamic world? The western "world" with all its principles of secularism and humanism and advances in science and education runs its economy on the stolen resources and abject oppression of those less fortunate.

Pardon me for not being impressed by the lip service.

 

[HumanBeast]

With freedom of religion in the USA, I think that could work even for minors. Ethics do not need religious foundation.

 

[S.A.M.]

With freedom of religion in the USA, I think that could work even for minors. Ethics do not need religious foundation.

So you'll agree that all minors be educated fully in the majority religion of <insert region> of the United States?

 

[iceaura]

heh! The Islamic world? The western "world" with all its principles of secularism and humanism and advances in science and education runs its economy on the stolen resources and abject oppression of those less fortunate.

We were comparing the university systems, a notable deficiency of the Islamic world for centuries now.

The Western world, btw, was until fairly recently pretty much self-supporting - its wealth largely generated within its own sphere. Its huge and as yet only dimly understood (domestically) crimes are of course notable - its theistic impositions great among them - but one of the tragedies of them is that they were unnecessary even for greed's purposes.

And at least they gained something in consequence. The theistically justified enslavement and oppression of women in the Islamic world, for example - an ongoing crime of enormous significance - has gained its perpetrators basically nothing that I can see.

Your consistent fallback to slur of motive and character, btw, (Dawkins has all these bad personal attributes - but his actual arguments and writings ? ), would not serve you in your profession, where you have to make your case, I'm guessing.

 

[S.A.M.]

We were comparing the university systems, a notable deficiency of the Islamic world for centuries now.

The Western world, btw, was until fairly recently pretty much self-supporting - its wealth largely generated within its own sphere. Its huge and as yet only dimly understood (domestically) crimes are of course notable - its theistic impositions great among them - but one of the tragedies of them is that they were unnecessary.

And at least they gained something in consequence. The theistically justified enslavement and oppression of women in the Islamic world, for example - an ongoing crime of enormous significance - has gained its perpetrators basically nothing that I can see.

Uh self supported?

Just read the last 500 years of western history for self supported economy.

I agree that cultures in the East have lost much they had gained before, but that is due in large part to the parasitical nature of western colonialism and land grabbing from native populations. Even today, western economy owes its lot to divide and rule policies, skewed trade agreements (including the famous structural adjustment policies designed to put fledgling economies out of order) and fomenting conflict through arms trade. This is the enlightened age, following two world wars and a holocaust, which in turn followed centuries of oppressive occupation. Left to themselves and without outside interference that is targeted to divide for exploitation, any economy can and will flourish.

The mistake made by Islamic nations then and now, is to believe that western interests are aimed at aiding them rather than controlling them. That perception is slowly changing and countries are now more circumspect and less willing to trust western intervention.

Your consistent fallback to slur of motive and character, btw, (Dawkins has all these bad personal attributes - but his actual arguments and writings ? ), would not serve you in your profession, where you have to make your case, I'm guessing.

my profession has very little to do with Dawkins. As a nutritionist engaged in reducing the role of reductionist scientific thinking in nutrient research, he is very very far from what my work involves.

And its not his personal characteristics (which you seem to be stuck on) but his anti-theism which I condemn. To me he is just another intellectual bigot.

 

[iceaura]

Uh self supported?

Just read the last 500 years of western history for self supported economy.

If you also add up the numbers, you will find that large as the crimes were they provided only a small percentage of the wealth generated by Western societies in the past 500 years.

They were stealing things like diamonds and timber and slaves - raw materials, luxury items, means. They weren't stealing iron, paint, and machinery. And most of the raw materials were home grown, even. There was plenty of timber, slaves were bred at home and found to be drags on mechanical innovation anyway, the Americas were huge and fertile - the stuff from India, China, was nice, but icing on the cake.

The volume and value of trade between the Western countries was much larger than the influx of stolen stuff from the rest of the planet - and the overhead was less.

With the depletion of the great Texas oilfields and English coal mines, the original forests, the cheap high quality iron ore, etc, things changed a bit; but the rise to power of the West was not built essentially on robbery - at least not on robbery of non-Westerners.

And its not his personal characteristics (which you seem to be stuck on) but his anti-theism which I condemn. To me he is just another intellectual bigot.

You seldom address his anti-theism, which you seem to be unfamiliar with. You harangue against his bigotry, his motives, his goals, his fervor, not his arguments.

 

[S.A.M.]

If you also add up the numbers, you will find that large as the crimes were they provided only a small percentage of the wealth generated by Western societies in the past 500 years.

They were stealing things like diamonds and timber and slaves - raw materials, luxury items, means. They weren't stealing iron, paint, and machinery. And most of the raw materials were home grown, even.

The volume and value of trade between the Western countries was much larger than the influx of stolen stuff from the rest of the planet - and the overhead was less.

With the depletion of the great Texas oilfields, the easy and light coal, the cheap hogh quality iron ore, etc, things changed a bit; but the rise to power of the West was not built essentially on robbery - at least not on robbery of non-Westerners.

You forgot the resources with all the stolen land.

And for effects on economy, just see the effect on Indian economy between the advent of the East India Company and the partition of the country for details.

 

[Imperfectionist]

And that's nothing like the Islamic Empire, they took land only to teach the heathens the value of having a shared mythology...