Richard Dawkins' Root of All Evil

[Professor Smooth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76UDVB-o ... ed&search=

After watching this, I believe that the world would be a lot better off if every muslim man, woman, and child was killed.

[Dead Head]

A better thing would be if every believer dropped their irrational religious faith. Not going to happen, of course.

[Professor Smooth]

A better thing would be if every believer dropped their irrational religious faith. Not going to happen, of course.

Neither is having ever single muslim killed. Yours is definately on higher moral ground than mine. If you had to guess which was more likely, every muslim being killed or every muslim quitting their faith, which would you pick?

[Dead Head]

If you had to guess which was more likely, every muslim being killed or every muslim quitting their faith, which would you pick?

Both scenarios have virtually no chance of occuring, but I guess that droppin' the faith is even less likely.

[Professor Smooth]

If you had to guess which was more likely, every muslim being killed or every muslim quitting their faith, which would you pick?

Both scenarios have virtually no chance of occuring, but I guess that droppin' the faith is even less likely.

We agree though, that if the muslim religion ceased to exist, the world would be a better place. Even though, there is no way for this to happen.

I put forward that even attempting to do so would intensify the problem.

[Kaylee]

If we're wishing for impossible things then what's wrong with an end to global domination by certain countries, a massive imbalance in world resources, wealth, money, luxury, food, medical care and economic power?

Wishing other people dead isn't very constructive most of the time.

[spiderfrommars]

My mate interviewed Ricky D :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/oxford/content/art ... kins.shtml

He's married to a Time Lady, the lucky man.

[Brendocon]

I love the way that when one religion topic hits a certain number of pages / turns into a giant shouting match / gains some sort of peaceful resolution, somebody just starts a new one...

[Yaya]

After watching this, I believe that the world would be a lot better off if every muslim man, woman, and child was killed.

I've been called a lot of names throughout the years and met up with some pretty nasty people.

But I've never had death wished upon me and my family before.

You make your 'deity' very proud.

[Professor Smooth]

You make your 'deity' very proud.

Don't have one, mate. I never said I wished for your death to you and your family. Just that the world would be a better (ie., ironically, less killing and violence) place.

That guy Dawkins interviews towards the end. The one that equates being an atheist with having no problem with fornicating in front of children, and other massive leaps of logic, friend of yours?

This guy speaks for his religion. He wants rights taken away from women and those with similarly insane dogmatic believes. He wants his religion to conquer the entire world. He justified the religious grounds for the world trade center attacks and all-but promises more of them. So, which is it? Do you agree with him or are you practicing your religion improperly?

[Brendocon]

And so it begins again...

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Religious wars 2

No one needs to die or anything but in the realms of 'never gonna happen' get rid of all religions and the world is miles better - the human race can finnaly move forward.

I think any sane person can understand why.

[Yaya]

After watching this, I believe that the world would be a lot better off if every muslim man, woman, and child was killed.

So let me get this straight.

From this one dude's interview, you have surmised that the destruction and death of women and children on the magnitude of billions of lives would be in some way positive?

From one guys interview. I can't watch it from work, but I have the feeling he likely does not go as far as to call for the death and destruction of billions of atheist children.

So putting you side by side with him in a contest of extremism after I watch this video should be interesting.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

the lesser of two evils - to be honest, sooner or later I can see some Muslim extremeist gtting hold of some nuke and cause the middle east to explode...litterally.

they will in essenence, kill themselves...

[Kaylee]

Didn't we just do the whole "If only religion didn't exist the world would be better etc." dance, in a thread which is still current?

Do we really need to go back to square one and start all over again? It's not as if anything new is being added here, save some refreshed vitriol.

And Smoothy, you're rather letting the 'side' down. The moral highground is something you want to occupy, not flee. The theory is that you want to be better than the people whom you dislike, rather than equivalent to them but coming from a different angle. Being an atheist extremist doesn't sound any better to my mind than being a theist extremist.

Having watched both Dawkin's programs I can honestly say whilst he makes some excellent points with some very well thought out and researched material he at several times undermines his own argument- particularly by only interviewing extremists (except for one liberal minded CofE vicar, whom he criticises for not being extreme enough) and by himself retreating into "Yes but I believe..." on several occassions, just like the people he's interviewing- at which point all intellectual superiority gets thrown out of the window imo (theories don't need 'belief' to function, theories are different from belief- they are an explanation of reality which happen to fit the facts which may be changed or dropped with time and new discoveries, 'belief' in them cheapens them into magical, perfect explanations and undermines their value as Scientific research imo).

[Shanti418]

Yeah, the video is a provacative one, and something that we can add to our discussions, but to say that the world would be better if we all tried religious exterminiation on a genocidal level has soured the taste in my mouth for this thread.

Should we kill all the Christians because evangelicals believe that all of the non believers will burn in flame, and because they believe Israel should be protected no matter what the cost because, in order for Revelations to occur, the Holy Lands must be in the hands of Jews?

Should we kill all the white people because there is a KKK?

Furthermore, I think we should at least be able to SEE the extreme guy's point about your societies running knee deep in percieved "sin" due to our lack of an agreed upon morality.

This is kind of getting into the gender issue, but I think it's one that illustrates the misunderstanding that colours this kind of discourse. I mean, "we" say to muslims, "You oppress your women, make them dress they way you want them to, and you force them into roles" But "they" would say, "You exploit your women, make them dress they way you want them to, and you have no clearly defined set of gender norms upon which you can build yoru society.

Remember, at the beginings of society, the delineation of labor between man and woman was created for utiliterian purposes, and there was no shame in that, because both sides of the coin were respected. It's only when you soak them in centuries of patriarchical dogma that the "woman's" role is denigrated and the man's role as bread winner/hunter is elevated.

To me a burkha is no different then a cross around a neck, or a catholic schoolgirl's uniform. To me, if Muslimes want to say, "Look at how you expect your women to dress, how you exploit their sexuality to sell products, how you make your daughters into whores, looking to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton into role models, how you socialize your women into using their femininity as a tool instead of a defense," I'd say, "Hey, that's a good point."

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I think its a **** point - ppl can dress how they want.

[Kaylee]

Personally I'm with Mark on that specific example.

I find it pretty amazing how some people submit so happily to having some of their most basic egalitarianisms, long and hard fought for, taken away on a whim about making some vague point about sexual exploitation in the West.

It's not that our civilisation doesn't exploit people, far from it, and not that people can't worship which God they choose, or that all Muslims follow this extreme practice of totally concealing clothing for women, or even that they can't dress how they wish- it's just the whole notion of throwing some of your most fundamental rights away in the belief you're making a statement about... your right not to be treated as an object.

It's like me signing up to the belief that homosexuality is a sin to make a point about the empty, shallow nature of the gay scene.

'Letting the baby out with the bathwater' comes to mind...

[Yaya]

Remember, at the beginings of society, the delineation of labor between man and woman was created for utiliterian purposes, and there was no shame in that, because both sides of the coin were respected. It's only when you soak them in centuries of patriarchical dogma that the "woman's" role is denigrated and the man's role as bread winner/hunter is elevated.

To me a burkha is no different then a cross around a neck, or a catholic schoolgirl's uniform. To me, if Muslimes want to say, "Look at how you expect your women to dress, how you exploit their sexuality to sell products, how you make your daughters into whores, looking to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton into role models, how you socialize your women into using their femininity as a tool instead of a defense," I'd say, "Hey, that's a good point."

Words that would have come out of my own mouth (or keyboard), but you have saved me the time by so eloquently and logically it.

If you talk with most Muslim women who wear the hijab (head covering), many describe it as "liberating". Sounds crazy, but why would they say this? Because it serves as an equalizer in practical life, that a women can be valued for who she is more than what she looks like. Are nuns also oppressed women in the West? They choose to wear these things.

Have you ever seen the virgin Mary not wearing hijab around Christmas time? A women who is worshipped by Catholics, the figurehead of their belief, is a women who wears hijab. Oppression?

AntiIslamist are under the presumption that men enforce hijab on women. Not the case. Though the Taliban are pushed away in Afghanistan, for example, what do you find women wearing now? The same burqas they were wearing before. Because they choose to.

To the Muslim women, wearing hijab is an act of worship, which is something Muslims try to do in any way they can. To the Muslim women, hijab is not oppression. It is liberation.

[Kaylee]

I think you're discounting a huge factor of disapproval from other like-minded Muslims. A woman not wearing a hijab in Afghanistan can expect reprisals- reporters who go there wear them, not out of respect more than out of fear. It's safer.

And yes I do think Nuns are just as wacky, you're essentially signing up as a second class citizen of your own volition in this country- at least in Afghanistan they're doing it for a better reason (their safety from extremists who will happily attack women not wearing one- since it is the 'law' as some perceive it).

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Many reports show that many women who wear the Hijab are made to feel guilty of being a women - they are covered because they might make men do somthing or think somthing they shouldnt - clearly bollox and just a way to make women 2nd class.

As for the Virgin mary etc... erm what was once 'fashion' is cleary not now and also pointless.

Basically why should a women wear one and not a man - why dont men cover head to toe? because some utterly lame rubbish that women are these creatures that will make mens minds go mad and we will all [composite word including 'f*ck'] up or somthing equally stupid.

Its purely for controll and utterly utterly pointless.

[Shanti418]

I find it pretty amazing how some people submit so happily to having some of their most basic egalitarianisms, long and hard fought for, taken away on a whim about making some vague point about sexual exploitation in the West.

It's not that our civilisation doesn't exploit people, far from it, and not that people can't worship which God they choose, or that all Muslims follow this extreme practice of totally concealing clothing for women, or even that they can't dress how they wish- it's just the whole notion of throwing some of your most fundamental rights away in the belief you're making a statement about... your right not to be treated as an object.

'Letting the baby out with the bathwater' comes to mind...

I don't recall suggesting that we should have our basic egaliterianisms taken away, but if I did, I sincerely apologize.
My main point concerning this matter is simply that oppression and exploitation are on two ends of the same continium.
My main point in much of what I say is that there is no black and white, only gray, there is no right and wrong, only good and bad. Everything is a result of what's we've been exposed to and what we've experinced as individuals.

But truth be told, can you really say that if we DIDN'T live in a patriarchal society, where the fat girl and the skinny girl had the same chance at the secretary position, where cleavage DIDN'T give you a better chance to get your foot in the door, where things like political and economic power were split evenly down the sexes, that there STILL would be the focus on exploitation of women's sexuality? Women wouldn't buy into it as much because they wouldn't have to.

I think you're discounting a huge factor of disapproval from other like-minded Muslims. A woman not wearing a hijab in Afghanistan can expect reprisals- reporters who go there wear them, not out of respect more than out of fear. It's safer.

That's true, and clearly, reprisals for what you wear are totally uncalled for, but how much more uncalled for are they then reprisals for who you f***, or what race your parents are? Racial and homosexual violence and prejudice are just a stone's throw in our past, relatively speaking, so religisocial violence isn't so far out of left fied that I can't understand it.

Additionally, it takes us to a fundamental problem that is right in the middle of all of our problems. That being, do Muslim states have the right to rule by theocracy? Government and religion are completly intertwined in some states (Not just Muslim either: See Tibet); do we, the West, have the right or jusitification to interfere in their right of self determination and enforce a secular federalism? Or do we have an obligation to let them organize their society as they wish, and deal with the internal repression and external violence it sometimes creates?

Many reports show that many women who wear the Hijab are made to feel guilty of being a women - they are covered because they might make men do somthing or think somthing they shouldnt - clearly bollox and just a way to make women 2nd class.

As for the Virgin mary etc... erm what was once 'fashion' is cleary not now and also pointless.

Basically why should a women wear one and not a man - why dont men cover head to toe? because some utterly lame rubbish that women are these creatures that will make mens minds go mad and we will all **** up or somthing equally stupid.

Its purely for controll and utterly utterly pointless.

See, you take out all the bolded generalizations and potshots, and we could have a real discussion of your points. Yes, that's part of why women wear the Hijab, but to say the reasons for wearing it have been ENTIRELY to subjugate women over the centuries of practice is silly.

[Yaya]

Additionally, it takes us to a fundamental problem that is right in the middle of all of our problems. That being, do Muslim states have the right to rule by theocracy? Government and religion are completly intertwined in some states (Not just Muslim either: See Tibet); do we, the West, have the right or jusitification to interfere in their right of self determination and enforce a secular federalism? Or do we have an obligation to let them organize their society as they wish, and deal with the internal repression and external violence it sometimes creates?

Once again, you beat me to the punch Shanti.

Its one thing for a religion to enforce itself upon other peoples. But to choose to live according to a certain creed? What is wrong in that? What is wrong with a Muslim nation wanting to live under Islamic law if that is their choice to do so, provided they do not enforce it on other nations?

If a women wants to cover her head, why not let her? Why this incredibly ethnocentric urge to "liberate" her by having her take it off, because to you its appealing?

The biggest mistake of Western civilization has been its assumption that because its ideology reigns supreme above all others, spreading such ideology is equivalent to freeing a nation bogged down in slavery. This is a conflict that will repeat itself time and time again, and this is the conflict, above all others, that will lead to World Wars.

As a Muslim American, I have no right to enforce my beliefs on nonMuslim American people because I choose to live in this nation, it does not choose me. Therefore, I must abide by its laws, regardless of how much I might disagree with them (most are agreeable to me).

As it is, I find the Constitution of the United States upon which this country was based as compatible with my Islamic beliefs. Not many nations in the world provide the freedom to practice one's belief as the U.S. does. In fact, in some Muslim nations, I would have an easier time living as a Muslim in America.

But to say that such a system must be instituted to all third world nations in a hope to better them is nothing but pure baseless ethnocentrism, a form to racial bigotry.

[Kaylee]

[ACCIDENTAL DOUBLE POST]

[BB Shockwave]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76UDVB-o ... ed&search=

After watching this, I believe that the world would be a lot better off if every muslim man, woman, and child was killed.

Heck, the world would be better if ALL of humankind would be eradicated. Took you so long to realise it? Maybe the next intelligent species after us will be a better one...

[Yaya]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76UDVB-o ... ed&search=

After watching this, I believe that the world would be a lot better off if every muslim man, woman, and child was killed.

Heck, the world would be better if ALL of humankind would be eradicated. Took you so long to realise it? Maybe the next intelligent species after us will be a better one...

And what of alligators? I have heard they can be quite dangerous. Oh, and sharks!

We should start the hunt now!

[Kaylee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76UDVB-o ... ed&search=

After watching this, I believe that the world would be a lot better off if every muslim man, woman, and child was killed.

Heck, the world would be better if ALL of humankind would be eradicated. Took you so long to realise it? Maybe the next intelligent species after us will be a better one...

And what of alligators? I have heard they can be quite dangerous. Oh, and sharks!

We should start the hunt now!

The hunting of the Snark?

mmm... snark...

[Shanti418]

But truth be told, can you really say that if we DIDN'T live in a patriarchal society, where the fat girl and the skinny girl had the same chance at the secretary position, where cleavage DIDN'T give you a better chance to get your foot in the door, where things like political and economic power were split evenly down the sexes, that there STILL would be the focus on exploitation of women's sexuality? Women wouldn't buy into it as much because they wouldn't have to.

You've completely lost me- living in a patriarchal society is therefore good? Bad? Are you saying if we didn't have bad things people would never have rallied against them and therefore we are better off with the bad things?

What I'm saying is in response to your inference in the previous post that women's fashion is a result of a long and hard right for egaliterianism. What I'm saying is that gender equality is still a false promise, and a long ways away, so while post feminist ideology DOES try to mix sexuality back in with power and feminity, it's a bit of a step to say that woman's fashion in the West is a pure result of liberation.

Racial and homophobic violence are nowhere near the past sadly. They are still very much part of our present.

I didn't mean to imply that. What I meant to say is that the days where gays or interracial people are dragged out into the street and shot. like with the women who don't observe Muslim clothing rules, are, for the most part, over in the West. There is violence, there is prejudice, there is bigotry. But out and out murder like the kind you describe in Muslim countries is the exception rather than the rule here.

Additionally, it takes us to a fundamental problem that is right in the middle of all of our problems. That being, do Muslim states have the right to rule by theocracy? Government and religion are completly intertwined in some states (Not just Muslim either: See Tibet); do we, the West, have the right or jusitification to interfere in their right of self determination and enforce a secular federalism? Or do we have an obligation to let them organize their society as they wish, and deal with the internal repression and external violence it sometimes creates?

That is a huge problem, but nowhere did I mention regime change in other countries- I was highlighting to Yaya that the notion that all Muslim women adopt the hijab out of pride and to liberalise themselves doesn't stand up to much scrutiny on the world stage.

Personally speaking I'm of the opinion if we want to pit ourselves against every unfavourable regime on Earth we'll be fighting a war we can't possibly win- we'd be fighting most of the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Russia, China, North Korea and most of Africa.

True, and I didn't mean that you did. However, when we make a value judgement (and not saying that a value judgement isn't warrented) on the social mores of Muslim society, this question is a natural undercurrent, and I just wanted to bring it to the top so we could discuss it.



You CAN'T hunt Snark. Lion-O would totally kick your ass.

[Kaylee]

That was *SNARF*!

[Shanti418]

D'Oh!

What about those Smurf wannabes that were underwater?