Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If you use Apple products, you get iBola

 Bromsy wrote:

I seriously cannot grasp what you are arguing against/for.

Argument 1: There is not enough evidence to conclude that Reza Aslan is a liar.

Argument 2: There is not enough evidence to conclude Reza Aslan believes FMG occurs only in Africa.

 Bromsy wrote:

I mean seriously? He specifically says that FGM IS NOT AN ISSUE IN ANY OTHER MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRY OUTSIDE OF AFRICA is that true?

He should have attached the word "significant", but FGM is pretty well established as an African peculiarity.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
To my surprise, there was a good article on Salon in support of Maher (typically, Salon is part if the outrage machine that gives true liberals a bad name).

What is a "true liberal"?

 dogma wrote:

What is a "true liberal"?

Exactly... depends on the timeframe too...

1877 thru 1937: laissez-faire constitutionalism (ie, classical liberalism)
Post 1937: New Deal statism (democratic social-welfarism)

 dogma wrote:


What is a "true liberal"?

Someone that isn't afraid to criticize any ideology that runs contrary to the ideas of liberalism. People and organizations like Salon and Affleck just fire up the outrage machine any time someone says something they don't like and instantly resort to accusing them of racism, homophobia, etc.

As a liberal I support (amongst other things) fair elections, free trade, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, universal human rights, and the right to private property.

It might shock you to know this, but almost no Muslim majority (even Turkey) or Muslim theocratic government support that worldview, yet for some reason liberals are quick to defend them and accuse anyone who might dare criticize them as nothing more than racists.

That is a serious problem.

 Frazzled wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
My eyes are bleeding from all those walls of text.

Are you sure it's not Ebola?

No its E-Bola

Funny thing. All those people going to Dallas this weekend for OU vs UT....Ebola transmission paradise.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Someone that isn't afraid to criticize any ideology that runs contrary to the ideas of liberalism.

And those ideas are?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

People and organizations like Salon and Affleck just fire up the outrage machine any time someone says something they don't like and instantly resort to accusing them of racism, homophobia, etc.

I find it interesting that you didn't include Maher in that sentence, given that his monologues are clearly designed to produce outrage...and that you seem pretty outraged.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

As a liberal I support (amongst other things) fair elections, free trade, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, universal human rights, and the right to private property.

Are you also claiming that your beliefs are definitive of liberalism?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

It might shock you to know this, but almost no Muslim majority (even Turkey) or Muslim theocratic government support that worldview, yet for some reason liberals are quick to defend them and accuse anyone who might dare criticize them as nothing more than racists.

That is a serious problem.

No, it doesn't shock me at all. But I think the more serious problem is the tendency of atheists to blame all things on religion, regardless of which one it happens to be. Something which is compounded by a general, Western fear of Islam that media sources are happy to play up.

 dogma wrote:
But I think the more serious problem is the tendency of atheists to blame all things on religion, regardless of which one it happens to be.

Except, of course, there are hardly any atheists that blame all things on religion.

 dogma wrote:


No, it doesn't shock me at all. But I think the more serious problem is the tendency of atheists to blame all things on religion, regardless of which one it happens to be. Something which is compounded by a general, Western fear of Islam that media sources are happy to play up.

I actually agree with this quite a bit.

There are a lot of things in Catholicism that I don't agree with, but I won't ever be ashamed of being Catholic and I'll raise my kids as Catholics.

I think Atheists need to be better about:

1 - Identifying the very large difference between 100% dogmatic practitioners of faith (of which, even for Islam, are a minority)
2 - Accepting that one can be of Science and of Faith.
3 - Misrepresenting the laughable few (Westboro, Young Earth Creationists) as indicative of the many.

But that's just some of my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:


Except, of course, there are hardly any atheists that blame all things on religion.

Oh, if they can, they do

 cincydooley wrote:

I think Atheists need to be better about:

1 - Identifying the very large difference between 100% dogmatic practitioners of faith (of which, even for Islam, are a minority)
2 - Accepting that one can be of Science and of Faith.

But that's just some of my opinion.

As for #1, first of all, atheists in general are completely aware that there are very few if any human beings alive who are 100% dogmatic practitioners of faith. Secondly, there is a valid point to be made that religious moderates provide cover for religious extremists. You need look no farther than the Aslan video or Ben Affleck's reactions in the Real TIme clip to get the gist of why many of us feel this way.

#2 - I doubt any atheist alive doesn't understand that somebody can be religious and accept science. Many of the most noted scientists, both in history and today, are religious. I would kind of doubt that there are too many relgious extremists who accept any science that they understand contradicts their religious beliefs though. Hence why biology is disputed by so many religious extremists, but gravity is not. They do not perceive gravity to contradict their religious beliefs, but they do perceive evolution by natural selection to contradict their creation myths.

 cincydooley wrote:
I think Atheists need to be better about:

1 - Identifying the very large difference between 100% dogmatic practitioners of faith (of which, even for Islam, are a minority)

So, are you saying your dogma is awesome because you can not apply it?

 cincydooley wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


Except, of course, there are hardly any atheists that blame all things on religion.

Oh, if they can, they do

It's my opinion that you are reacting to a charicature of atheists, rather than the truth. Most atheists I know really couldn't care less about any of this stuff...they just happen to be unconvinved that there are are any deities.

 dogma wrote:
And those ideas are?

All of the things I listed and then some. Islam is not compatible with Western liberal thought. I've offered plenty of evidence to support that (mainly the Pew Research polls), and yet American liberals are quick to defend Islam out of fear that we might hurt their feelings. Islam can and should be reformed and the followers of it are going to be the ones that do it.

I find it interesting that you didn't include Maher in that sentence, given that his monologues are clearly designed to produce outrage...and that you seem pretty outraged.

That's funny, I'm not outraged in the least bit. You're absolutely right, Maher is a pot stirrer, of that there is no question. Aslan is also correct that Maher is not sophisticated in his criticism of Islam.

Are you also claiming that your beliefs are definitive of liberalism?

In the loosest sense, yes. The things I listed are pretty much the building blocks of liberalism. Do you disagree?

No, it doesn't shock me at all. But I think the more serious problem is the tendency of atheists to blame all things on religion, regardless of which one it happens to be. Something which is compounded by a general, Western fear of Islam that media sources are happy to play up.

You don't need to be an atheist to understand that religion can lead people to do horrible things. What I am expressing is not "fear" of Islam, it's criticism of the ideology. The hard numbers show that there is a serious gap between what the average Muslim believes and the idea of universal human rights. This doesn't mean that we should portray Islam as the scary boogeyman coming to kill us all (as some prominent conservative pundits do) and get on TV and bang to drums of war. Islam has to adapt and the way to do it is address it bluntly, not tuck our tails between in our legs and cower in fear at the idea we might offend someone.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I think Atheists need to be better about:

1 - Identifying the very large difference between 100% dogmatic practitioners of faith (of which, even for Islam, are a minority)

So, are you saying your dogma is awesome because you can not apply it?

I don't know what you're trying to say here. You'll need to clarify.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

Oh, if they can, they do

It's my opinion that you are reacting to a charicature of atheists, rather than the truth. Most atheists I know really couldn't care less about any of this stuff...they just happen to be unconvinved that there are are any deities.

I am saying that the more you paint following your dogma as a bad thing, the more you imply your dogma is bad.

 jasper76 wrote:

#2 - I doubt any atheist alive doesn't understand that somebody can be religious and accept science. Many of the most noted scientists, both in history and today, are religious. I would kind of doubt that there are too many relgious extremists who accept any science that they understand contradicts their religious beliefs though. Hence why biology is disputed by so many religious extremists, but gravity is not. They do not perceive gravity to contradict their religious beliefs, but they do perceive evolution by natural selection to contradict their creation myths.

I think you'll find, at least with Catholocism, that's pretty wrong.

From the Catechism:

Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are

and from Pope JPII

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I am saying that the more you paint following your dogma as a bad thing, the more you imply your dogma is bad.

I think adhering to ANY dogma, unquestioningly, be it Islam, Catholicism, Liberalism, or Conservatism, is a bad thing.

I'll provide you with an example:

I don't believe homosexuality is a choice. I'm inclined to believe (and I say inclined to believe because it can't be proven) that homosexuality is a genetic mutation designed by nature as a method of population control, my simple fact that a homosexual paring cannot naturally propagate the species. I don't believe people would chose to be part of an ostracized group. As such, I believe that nature/god intended for homosexuality to exist, and therefore don't believe it to be a sin because it IS what nature and god intended. In this instance, I believe our DOGMA is wrong as it has been, like anything historical in nature has been, coloured by humans over it's existence.

Conversely, I do believe abortion is wrong and is a sin because murder is wrong and is a sin. If science can unequivocally tell me that life doesn't begin until a certain place, then I'll adjust my views regarding whether or not abortion is wrong. What I will not do, however, is condemn or chastise others for their choices regarding it, as one of the most respected and devout philosophers of our faith tells us:

Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum, or: "With love for mankind and hatred of sins."

It's just one example, but IMO interpretation is an important and valuable tenet of faith.

 cincydooley wrote:
I think you'll find, at least with Catholocism, that's pretty wrong.

Oh, I never meant to imply that Catholicism is one of the 'usual suspects' when it comes to science denial.

My mom is Catholic, I was raised Catholic, so I know the score on that front.

However, you gotta admit there still are Catholics who think evolution is bunk, and Adam and Eve is the way to go. I even saw this view promoted on that Catholic cable TV station more than once or twice.

There are still Catholics who won't attend a wedding of a divorced person...even if they got an annullment. Some of them are still left in the oldest generation of my family. My mom's own uncle would not attend her second wedding, even though my mom's divorce was caused by my dad's alcoholism, and she went through the hoops of getting an annullment from the Church.

I understand that there's a spectrum of Catholic beliefs, from the hardcore right to the social justice left, to the people who just want to take their kids to church on Christmas and Easter.

 jasper76 wrote:


However, you gotta admit there still are Catholics who think evolution is bunk, and Adam and Eve is the way to go. I even saw this view promoted on that Catholic cable TV station more than once or twice.

There are still Catholics who won't attend a wedding of a divorced person...even if they got an annullment. Some of them are still left in the oldest generation of my family. My mom's own uncle would not attend her second wedding, even though my mom's divorce was caused by my dad's alcoholism.

I understand that there's a spectrum of Catholic beliefs, from the hardcore right to the social justice left, to the people who just want to take their kids to church on Christmas and Easter.

Oh, of course, but A) I think thats a significant (and dying out) minority, and B) in regards to the evolution part, isn't even what the Catholic Church believes. The Catholic Church, pretty expressly, believes in theistic evolution.

You will find no further argument from me on Catholicism and science. We are on the same page here.

(Just to be clear, I don't believe in theistic evolution, or theistic anything, but I do think I have a pretty good grasp on the modern Catholic viewpoint on science)

 cincydooley wrote:
The Catholic Church, pretty expressly, believes in theistic evolution.

As always, there can be gaps between what the Church teaches and what the faithful actually think. I have met my fair share of Catholics (including priests) who dispute evolution in some form or another. I have also met a few Catholics who dispute the True Presence in the Eucharist. There's a lot of ignorance in society and the faithful are not exempt.

 Manchu wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
The Catholic Church, pretty expressly, believes in theistic evolution.

As always, there can be gaps between what the Church teaches and what the faithful actually think. I have met my fair share of Catholics (including priests) who dispute evolution in some form or another. I have also met a few Catholics who dispute the True Presence in the Eucharist. There's a lot of ignorance in society and the faithful are not exempt.

This might be an amazing revelation to some people (not you Manchu, or anyone else in this thread specifically), but Islam is the same way.

 Hordini wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
The Catholic Church, pretty expressly, believes in theistic evolution.

As always, there can be gaps between what the Church teaches and what the faithful actually think. I have met my fair share of Catholics (including priests) who dispute evolution in some form or another. I have also met a few Catholics who dispute the True Presence in the Eucharist. There's a lot of ignorance in society and the faithful are not exempt.

This might be an amazing revelation to some people (not you Manchu, or anyone else in this thread specifically), but Islam is the same way.

Yes there are lots of Muslims that would fall under that category (I know some personally).

The problem still remains that there is still large swaths of Muslims that we consider "moderate" because they aren't actively participating in violent jihad but still believe in things like the death sentence for apostasy and the repression of women under sharia law. I keep saying this and it seems that no one is doing it: look at the Pew Research polls on these subjects.

 Hordini wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
The Catholic Church, pretty expressly, believes in theistic evolution.

As always, there can be gaps between what the Church teaches and what the faithful actually think. I have met my fair share of Catholics (including priests) who dispute evolution in some form or another. I have also met a few Catholics who dispute the True Presence in the Eucharist. There's a lot of ignorance in society and the faithful are not exempt.

This might be an amazing revelation to some people (not you Manchu, or anyone else in this thread specifically), but Islam is the same way.

I don't think anyone is disputing that here. However, I think the problem that arises, and the differences we see between that and Christianity is that there is state sponsored/approved oppression in the name of Islam in a lot of countries, whereas that doesn't so much exist for Christianity. Yet, as Maher and Harris are trying to point out, "liberals" are plenty okay acknowledging that oppression/hate from Christianity while (seemingly) being unwilling to do so with Islam.

In my opinion, it all boils down to the following conflict of values in "liberalitude".

Valuing human rights.

Valuing other cultures.

What happens when other cultures don't value human rights?

BOOM....Ben Affleck's head explodes on live TV.

 jasper76 wrote:
In my opinion, it all boils down to the following conflict of values in "liberalitude".

Valuing human rights.

Valuing other cultures.

What happens when other cultures don't value human rights?

BOOM....Ben Affleck's head explodes on live TV.

Thank you. That explains the point I've been trying to make pretty well.

We need to call on the people in those cultures that do value human rights to stand up and demand change and help them if need be, because they definitely exist.

 cincydooley wrote:
However, I think the problem that arises, and the differences we see between that and Christianity is that there is state sponsored/approved oppression in the name of Islam in a lot of countries, whereas that doesn't so much exist for Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2014

I guess I should have better emphasized "so much" or reworded to say "nearly as much."

Nowhere did I say it didn't happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:


We need to call on the people in those cultures that do value human rights to stand up and demand change and help them if need be, because they definitely exist.

Agreed; the problem is that, and it's emphasized BY AFFLECK in that video, is that those people literally put their lives at risk by doing so.....

 cincydooley wrote:
However, I think the problem that arises, and the differences we see between that and Christianity is that there is state sponsored/approved oppression in the name of Islam in a lot of countries, whereas that doesn't so much exist for Christianity.

I'd add to this that it is very important to note that to the extent to which this is true, it is only really true for modern, domesticated Christianity. Christian states throughout history have been extrememely oppressive. In the modern day, not so much, but I believe this has been in spite of Christianity....and by that I mean it has been Christianity reforming itself to become compatible with humanist and liberal Enlightenment and modern values, rather than the other way around.

 cincydooley wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:


We need to call on the people in those cultures that do value human rights to stand up and demand change and help them if need be, because they definitely exist.

Agreed; the problem is that, and it's emphasized BY AFFLECK in that video, is that those people literally put their lives at risk by doing so.....

Exactly.

Sam Harris brings this up in his response to the entire debacle; Kristof (and Affleck) failed to realize that by using this as an attack against Harris, he as proving Harris' point (there are fundamental flaws with the doctrine of Islam):

Sam Harris wrote:Kristof made the point that there are brave Muslims who are risking their lives to condemn “extremism” in the Muslim community. Of course there are, and I celebrate these people too. But he seemed completely unaware that he was making my point for me—the point being, of course, that these people are now risking their lives by advocating for basic human rights in the Muslim world.

And again here:

After the show, Kristof, Affleck, Maher, and I continued our discussion. At one point, Kristof reiterated the claim that Maher and I had failed to acknowledge the existence of all the good Muslims who condemn ISIS, citing the popular hashtag #NotInOurName. In response, I said: “Yes, I agree that all condemnation of ISIS is good. But what do you think would happen if we had burned a copy of the Koran on tonight’s show? There would be riots in scores of countries. Embassies would fall. In response to our mistreating a book, millions of Muslims would take to the streets, and we would spend the rest of our lives fending off credible threats of murder. But when ISIS crucifies people, buries children alive, and rapes and tortures women by the thousands—all in the name of Islam—the response is a few small demonstrations in Europe and a hashtag.” I don’t think I’m being uncharitable when I say that neither Affleck nor Kristof had an intelligent response to this. Nor did they pretend to doubt the truth of what I said.

 jasper76 wrote:

Except, of course, there are hardly any atheists that blame all things on religion.

I wasn't speaking literally.

Of course there aren't many atheists that blame all things on religion, but many of them blame many things on it in a knee-jerk fashion; and quite a few famous ones have established careers on that basis.

Out of pure curiosity, which famous people are you referring to?