It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Good thing I do not belong to any faith. Haven't taken part in the Crusades either.
It is a common problem with many so called "New Atheists" of today, to paint people of religius belief, almost by definition, as humans of lesser intellect or even inteligence than themselves (I am not saying you do it, necessarily). It is quite an unhealthy and in fact dangerous way of thinking, but it is nevertheless an idea which has been heavily promoted by intellectuals like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Hitchens. It doesn't exactly do the modern understanding of religion or world politics much good.
I am not religious myself, but I believe there is something more to this world than mere science. Something beyond, in itself inexplicable. Which language you choose to describe that which is inexplicable, that is irelevant. However I strongly react when atheists use their so called rationility to look down on people of other faiths, or even justify violence, like many atheists in fact do. They are sometimes not much better than the very religious fundamentalists they love to criticise.
But it is far worse than bad science: it is inaccurate explanation and erroneous claims based on nothing but more erroneous claims. At worst fraudulous ones. I don't mind someone expressing his spirituality, whatever that means. Claiming an hegemonic truth based on faith and no evidence whatsoever, claiming moral superiority because of a faith, confusing devotion with moral, THAT I have a huge issue with. Oh and killing out of deference for a hypothetical God and some guy dead a few centuries ago.
It's true that spirituality (which can be very personal, not always or necessarily rational, but certainly beneficial for individual well being & calm) is often confused with organized religion (which unfortunately and particularly in the case of all Abrahamic faiths has been abused throughout history both conceptually and with dogma in a self-serving way to suit certain violent points of view).
Having said that, it's also true that religious people are not necessarily stupid, and it would be foolish to assume so, which is I think @jobo's point. One can be extremely intelligent and still deeply religious - an apparent contradiction.
Of course you have an issue with that. Like most of us, billions of muslims included.
Not only "arabic faiths" (either it be Islam, Christianity, or whatever). Every ideology or faith can be used to promote violence and injustice. A deep look at history will tell you that. New atheists do it today, as well as Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Capitalists, Communists... you name it. The list goes on. To say Islam is unique because some use it to promote violence, is incredibly simplistic. Yet, its a common practice of today.
Agreed. It is definitely a major problem today but it is not unique to Islam. It is unique to any organized, dogmatic, unyielding or illogical point of view, philosophy, ideology or way of thinking. Nazism was not a religion but it was a relatively unyielding, uncompromising dogma & point of view.
Regarding new atheists, give me one action done by say Dawkins, Hitch or Harris comparable in negative impact to what organized religions do today?
I can't give you any 'actions', at least as of date... But they have all made a career this last decade in justifying incredibly violent acts against the middle east.. which was the point. I am sure you know that yourself? You will also find several acts of discrimination against muslims, all over Europe, influnced by the same line of thinking.
Your point is also valid.
At least Dawkins, Hitch or Harris are encouraging people to think independently, which can never be a bad thing.
However, they also have to accept that more than half the world's population is religious (like it or not). That's not going to change as long as there's:
1. death (the great unknown and also the great certainty) and
2. fear (a natural human characteristic).
Such as? And no I don't know. You made the claim.
And it is the rights of new atheists and myself to recharge rightly point out that religions are supported by no evidence and call them on their claims.
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/sam-harris-uncovered
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/20134210413618256.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/
In Europe the matter of Islamophobia (in lack of a better word) is a growing issue, and sometimes they do lead to acts of rampage and malice. That is not to say it is directly infuenced by Harris or Hitchens of course (that was wrongly put), but the Islamophobia their atheist line of thinking is helping to promote, does. Of course its not nearly in the same league as the violent acts by religious fanatics, and that was never my point. The point I made was that some atheists hostile depiction of other religions, and Islam especially, can be used to promote violence. In that sense it is not some much different from other religions. And if these ideals are allowed to grow over time, it could very well lead to worse acts.
The main point is that violence can always be justified. Even by thoughts that can be considered "rational" to some.
I agree with you on this - you have put forward the risk well. The tone of any criticism of religious violence has to be more nuanced and deliberate.
Otherwise some of the less open minded and intelligent among us (both religious and non-religious) may become motivated to violence as they get stirred up in animalistic ways.
In any case, harsh criticism of Islam is in no way comparable to the application of sharia law, the murder of homosexuals, the war on condoms and contraceptives by the Catholic church, the teaching of creationism in school, etc.
Exactly!
If that really is your line of thinking, there is of course no point in discussing this any further... Rational criticism is welcomed, irrational criticism is not...
I'm not saying there isn't. I'm saying that criticizing Islam as an ideology however hardly does not make said criticism islamophobic. And when did the words of Hitch, Harris or Dawkins had the kinds of destructive consequences listed above in my previous posts?
So because their occationally very hostile depiction of muslims have so far not led to atrocities of the same kind, they can basically say whatever they want? Is that really your point?
And Hitchens supported and promoted the Iraq war, with his "rational" line of thinking. (I cannot say if Harris or Dawkins supported said war, but they have at least done their best to justify many of the violent acts later on.)
Well said.