Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Absolute truth

Atheists Are Hypocrites

Recommended Posts

PropellerAds

Hi again Absolute Truth

 

I’d have thought we were beyond such miss quoting and miss understanding by now.  The salon author seems to have forgotten that before you condemn someone for saying something you probably should find out if they actually said it.  The head line is shocking, if he’d actually said that then I’d be on your side here.  Given what he actually said I have to say that I can see where he’s coming from.

 

So what actually did Dawkins say?  Firstly he stated that he, like all modern people, would condemn paedophilia today.  He points out that the standards were different back then and some of what we would condemn today would have been at least tolerated back then and so these people got the idea that they could behave that way.  Finally he states that the sort of mild paedophilia he was talking about was the sort that did no harm.  He’s not saying that all mild paedophilia did no harm but the sort he was faced with, while uncomfortable at the time, did him no harm so he can’t judge it harshly and by today’s standards.

 

So let’s look at this in light of humanism.  What we are aiming for is the minimum number of restrictions on people to create the happiest society we can.  If a behaviour does no harm then it can’t be said to be reducing the sum.  Paedophilia has horrible consequences for many people so it must be condemned and we have strong laws today for that purpose.  In the past, under more lax ideas of paedophilia some actions which did not cause harm can be written off, that’s all Dawkins actually said and I’d have to say that I agree. If you can show that harm was caused then even those from a long time ago should be prosecuted and people today must be held to the much higher modern standard.

 

You’ll note that, contrary to the article you cited, Dawkins said that paedophilia, including mild paedophilia, must be condemned today. Do you disagree with Dawkins and me on this point because he made that point clear in his response despite the claims in that article you cited?

 

Russell

Edited by russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

It’s an extrapolation from what we can see around us to understand these things.  Sexual activity is a clear example.  I’m assuming you’ve seen those cartoons where the rabbit sees a sexy woman and his eye’s are popping out but a real rabbit would not be attracted to a human any more than a human would be attracted to a rabbit.  Yes there are probably a few very rare exceptions but that’s the rule.  So it’s clear that for this one characteristic their own kind is the best for all animals.

 

Socially again animals who have not been trained prefer the company of their own kind if they are social animals.  They make the clear choice and so display clearly that their kind is the best match for them and they’d rather the company of their compatriots.

 

It gets harder when it comes to more advanced characteristics but the difficulty we see domesticating animals seems to clearly speak to the high esteem they hold for their own kind and the characteristics and abilities of their kind. We have domestic animals but most have been domesticated over a very long time and with a great deal of effort.  Interacting with wild species involves the human pretending to be of their kind till they are accepted rather than the animals coming to understand that we are better.

 

In dolphin society the best of the best are those who can swim well, dive well and sing well.  They show these preferences by their choices.  They never consider us and our characteristics as desirable so they show again where their ideas of good lie.

 

Likewise the whales.  We know less about whales than dolphins but our observations show what they choose and that does not include the sorts of characteristics we might consider important but it does include the idea of whaleness.  Sleek body forms, diving abilities and singing abilities.

 

Do any of these animals even consider our technological abilities, as far as I can see no they don’t?  Such considerations are outside their mindsets and irrelevant to them.   They are hardly likely to judge an individual on such characteristics given that they don’t appear to consider such characteristics at all.

 

Interestingly among out closes relatives, the apes, technology does exist in a very rudimentary form and the social learning and passing on of such technology has been shown to exist and to be a very strong trait amongst them so maybe such apes would indeed envy our abilities in this area.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi and Redeemed

 

You look at the video and see god at every turn, I can see that, from a certain restricted perspective that does make sense but what’s the real picture here.  The narrator said it himself, he was going to ignore the vastness of space and focus just on earth.  That’s the fatal mistake right there for this line of reasoning.  You can’t just ignore the vastness of space.

 

It’s true there are quite a few factors that need to come together for our planet to be suitable for life like us, the distance from the sun needs to be right, the orbit needs to be right.  The tilt of the plant and so the seasons don’t matter even though the author makes a big point of that.  Now what are the chances that there will be a planet in about this position in a random solar system?  The goldilocks zone is quite wide, Mars is in our sun’s habitable zone but other factors make Mars unsuitable to life.  We’ve found lots of planets around nearby stars now, our detectors can only just see small earth sized planets but we’ve found a few already and in the habitable zones for their stars.  Let’s assign the odds of say one thousand to one against finding a planet in the right orbit.  That appears to be way too conservative with the figure probably being around one in three to ten but we’ll start with one in a thousand to show how this actually works.

 

Now on to that, “I’ll ignore the vastness of the universe comment”.  Just exactly how vast is that universe that he’s ignoring?  Do you know?  There are literally millions of billions of galaxies each with literally billions of stars.  That’s a lot of stars.  If the odds of finding a planet in the habitable zone of a star are one in a thousand how many habitable planets will this universe contain?  The number is billions of billions.  Remember that that figure of one in a thousand was probably conservative given the information we have to hand so far.  Not really much need for a god to produce just the right planet in a universe full of potential home planets.

 

Now let’s get down to humans on this planet.  Do you know why we have the specific temperature tolerances that we do?  Do you know why polar bears can survive swimming around in sub zero ice water without any problems?  That’s evolution.  Every organism, humans included, is fine tuned to the niche in which they live.  If this planet was colder we’d have evolved to live comfortably in a colder environment just as polar bears do today.  If the days were longer we would have evolved to live in that environment, if the gravity was stronger we’d be evolved to live in that gravity, if the air was thinner, if the climate was hotter or more variable or the sun produced more UV we’d be evolved to live in that environment and we’d look around us and say “wow this world is perfect for us”.  In short no matter what this world looked like, or what this universe looked like, if it was capable of supporting intelligent life that life would look out at a location that suited their needs very exactly because they evolved in that niche.  There’s no need for a god to produce the only possible combination of creature and niche, they will always be a perfect fit.

 

You may look around you and go “wow it’s so amazing that must have been god” but that just show an ignorance of the very well understood mechanisms at work around us and the true size of this universe.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi and Redeemed

 

You look at the video and see god at every turn, I can see that, from a certain restricted perspective that does make sense but what’s the real picture here.  The narrator said it himself, he was going to ignore the vastness of space and focus just on earth.  That’s the fatal mistake right there for this line of reasoning.  You can’t just ignore the vastness of space.

 

It’s true there are quite a few factors that need to come together for our planet to be suitable for life like us, the distance from the sun needs to be right, the orbit needs to be right.  The tilt of the plant and so the seasons don’t matter even though the author makes a big point of that.  Now what are the chances that there will be a planet in about this position in a random solar system?  The goldilocks zone is quite wide, Mars is in our sun’s habitable zone but other factors make Mars unsuitable to life.  We’ve found lots of planets around nearby stars now, our detectors can only just see small earth sized planets but we’ve found a few already and in the habitable zones for their stars.  Let’s assign the odds of say one thousand to one against finding a planet in the right orbit.  That appears to be way too conservative with the figure probably being around one in three to ten but we’ll start with one in a thousand to show how this actually works.

 

Now on to that, “I’ll ignore the vastness of the universe comment”.  Just exactly how vast is that universe that he’s ignoring?  Do you know?  There are literally millions of billions of galaxies each with literally billions of stars.  That’s a lot of stars.  If the odds of finding a planet in the habitable zone of a star are one in a thousand how many habitable planets will this universe contain?  The number is billions of billions.  Remember that that figure of one in a thousand was probably conservative given the information we have to hand so far.  Not really much need for a god to produce just the right planet in a universe full of potential home planets.

 

Now let’s get down to humans on this planet.  Do you know why we have the specific temperature tolerances that we do?  Do you know why polar bears can survive swimming around in sub zero ice water without any problems?  That’s evolution.  Every organism, humans included, is fine tuned to the niche in which they live.  If this planet was colder we’d have evolved to live comfortably in a colder environment just as polar bears do today.  If the days were longer we would have evolved to live in that environment, if the gravity was stronger we’d be evolved to live in that gravity, if the air was thinner, if the climate was hotter or more variable or the sun produced more UV we’d be evolved to live in that environment and we’d look around us and say “wow this world is perfect for us”.  In short no matter what this world looked like, or what this universe looked like, if it was capable of supporting intelligent life that life would look out at a location that suited their needs very exactly because they evolved in that niche.  There’s no need for a god to produce the only possible combination of creature and niche, they will always be a perfect fit.

 

You may look around you and go “wow it’s so amazing that must have been god” but that just show an ignorance of the very well understood mechanisms at work around us and the true size of this universe.

 

Russell

 

you say evolution

 

 

now tell me what is the evolutionary mechanism wich gives instructions to different parts of the natural motor how and when to connect to the motor, so the motor can work normally?

 

that video above testifies existence of God in macrocosmos

 

 

this video testifies existence of God in microcosmos

Intelligent Design, evidence of God's creation in Sperm and Bacteria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

You’ve posted this video before so I’ll just briefly explain here what’s wrong with it.  Michael Behe came up with the idea of irreducible complexity, the idea that some biological systems were built of parts in such a way that removing any one part would destroy the function of the product.  Such systems, he claimed, proved intelligent design because it was impossible to build them up one part at a time because only the complete system was functional.  The Bacterial Flagellum was one system he suggested was irreducibly complex.  That’s the system presented in the first part of your video.

 

In Kitzmiller v. Dover this idea was tested in court and found wanting by a fundamentalist christian judge.  Many precursors for the system were shown to exist.  The bacterial flagellum was in fact a modified excretory organelle on the surface of the bacteria with just a few minor modifications.  Of course proving that a system was irreducibly complex today does not prove that it could not have evolved anyway so his entire thesis was flawed from the start because it ignores the well-known mechanism of simplification from a more complex biological system down to the simple but efficient one used today which can then be irreducibly complex, but that’s another story.  Behe was found, in a court of law, to have ignored much pre-existing evidence which clearly showed that the flagella motor had precursors, evidence that he should have been aware of if he was keeping up with the published reports in his own field.  In other words the evidence proved that his claim that the bacterial flagella motor was irreducibly complex and so evidence for special creation was proven to be false based on evidence that predated his claim but which he claimed to be unaware of.  His group lost their case based on this evidence among other pieces presented.

 

There’s quite a bit of detailed info out there on Kitzmiller v. Dover if you’d like to read in detail how this idea was quashed.  It makes interesting reading.

 

The details of the design of the sperm cells suffer from some even more profound problems.  They show a production line assembling pre made parts into the final product, the sperm, but that has nothing whatever to do with how a sperm are actually produced.  The author misspoke here to put it politely.  Sperm are actually cells which grow pretty much as any other cell does; they start out in meiotic division which is unique to reproductive cells but grow from there as per any other cell into the finished cells that we’ve seen before.  The stylized and mechanized cells shown in that video are fanciful and the production line is a step beyond any reason or evidence and none of these things bear more than a passing resemblance to the actual sperm cells. 

 

How should we judge your position if you try to prop it up with fanciful stuff like this?  Can you not support your views with the truth? Wouldn’t that be better?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

You’ve posted this video before so I’ll just briefly explain here what’s wrong with it.  Michael Behe came up with the idea of irreducible complexity, the idea that some biological systems were built of parts in such a way that removing any one part would destroy the function of the product.  Such systems, he claimed, proved intelligent design because it was impossible to build them up one part at a time because only the complete system was functional.  The Bacterial Flagellum was one system he suggested was irreducibly complex.  That’s the system presented in the first part of your video.

 

In Kitzmiller v. Dover this idea was tested in court and found wanting by a fundamentalist christian judge.  Many precursors for the system were shown to exist.  The bacterial flagellum was in fact a modified excretory organelle on the surface of the bacteria with just a few minor modifications.  Of course proving that a system was irreducibly complex today does not prove that it could not have evolved anyway so his entire thesis was flawed from the start because it ignores the well-known mechanism of simplification from a more complex biological system down to the simple but efficient one used today which can then be irreducibly complex, but that’s another story.  Behe was found, in a court of law, to have ignored much pre-existing evidence which clearly showed that the flagella motor had precursors, evidence that he should have been aware of if he was keeping up with the published reports in his own field.  In other words the evidence proved that his claim that the bacterial flagella motor was irreducibly complex and so evidence for special creation was proven to be false based on evidence that predated his claim but which he claimed to be unaware of.  His group lost their case based on this evidence among other pieces presented.

 

There’s quite a bit of detailed info out there on Kitzmiller v. Dover if you’d like to read in detail how this idea was quashed.  It makes interesting reading.

 

The details of the design of the sperm cells suffer from some even more profound problems.  They show a production line assembling pre made parts into the final product, the sperm, but that has nothing whatever to do with how a sperm are actually produced.  The author misspoke here to put it politely.  Sperm are actually cells which grow pretty much as any other cell does; they start out in meiotic division which is unique to reproductive cells but grow from there as per any other cell into the finished cells that we’ve seen before.  The stylized and mechanized cells shown in that video are fanciful and the production line is a step beyond any reason or evidence and none of these things bear more than a passing resemblance to the actual sperm cells. 

 

How should we judge your position if you try to prop it up with fanciful stuff like this?  Can you not support your views with the truth? Wouldn’t that be better?

 

Russell

 

 

 

Michael Behe came up with the idea of irreducible complexity, the idea that some biological systems were built of parts in such a way that removing any one part would destroy the function of the product.  Such systems, he claimed, proved intelligent design because it was impossible to build them up one part at a time because only the complete system was functional

 

i have watched that video about that court, this is it

 

 

but this is to comical from atheists honestly, they tried to disprove this case with mouse trap, so they put mouse trap on the tie just ike decoration, yo ucan see that at 8:00 min

 

they said that those who hade flagellum before bacteria were virus, is had spike like tail, wich did not rotated.

 

So now question is for you, who had rotating propellers before bacteria and spermcells, when did bacteria started to use rotating propellers?

WHO HAD rotor and stator before bacteria and spermcells? WHo had gear and clutch before bacteria?

 

20080620200680.jpg

 

according to evolution, these stuff evolved, tell me what is the evolutionary mechanism wich tells different parts of the motor where to connect in the motor so the motor connect properlly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

I’ve never seen that video before but I have read the transcripts of the court case and I’ve seen much of the evidence used to destroy Behe’s claims in that case.  The court was scathing of Behe and his cohort, it was proven in court that their motive was religious, they showed older versions of the text book under question which still had the references to religion in them before they were edited to produce the more secular appearing versions presented to the schools board.  Then they showed that the homologies Behe claimed did not exist for the flagella motor were known before Behe made his claims so his claims were only valid if you ignored quite a bit of pre-existing evidence.  That’s a very poor way to behave for a professor and it would never get published in a scientific journal if vetted properly.

 

Yes I loved the mouse trap example, it was indeed comical. More comical when you realize that the ideas they were portraying with that mousetrap should have been well known to someone with the educational background that Behe claimed.  Did you understand the point they were making with the mousetrap?

 

Do you know exactly what Behe claimed in his book and in court?  It’s critical to this discussion that you understand exactly what he claimed and precisely why it is well known that his arguments were false.

 

There were several claims and I’ll only go into some of them but here are the most critical ones in my opinion.

 

Behe claimed that the flagella motor was irreducibly complex.  This claim is actually true, the motor will not function if you remove any of its parts.  That’s not controversial but he then goes on to suggest that it therefore could not have evolved.  We have plenty of evidence of structures that are irreducibly complex yet it is not controversial that they evolved.  Evolution can work down from a far more complex and messy structure to the simple, elegant and irreducibly complex one’s that we see today.  Evolution can work from an object that has a different function and modifies it to produce a new function the result of which is irreducibly complex.  So we know of several pathways that can lead to irreducibly complex systems that are open to evolutionary forces.

 

Behe claimed that there were no homologs to the proteins used in the flagella motor.  As that video pointed out many of them exist in virtually the same arrangement in the Type III secretory system (the spiked tail as you call it) of bacteria today so this claim was simply false and that fact was known before Behe published his work.  In court the opposition placed a pile of scientific papers on the desk in front of Behe and asked if he was aware of them.  The pile was big, over a hundred papers all from Behe’s own field and all showing homologs to the bacterial protiens.  Behe simply claimed ignorance but his case was destroyed by the evidence.

 

Bacterial flagella don’t fossilize so we can’t go back and look at when these features arose.  They appear in so many different species that this feature probably arose very early on, over three billion years ago probably.  Before this was invented no one had rotating propellers, evolution invented it at that time as far as we can tell.

 

DNA tells the parts of every system in every organism we are aware of where to go and what to do.  That’s how your body is built as you grow in the womb from an single cell to a fully formed human being, that’s how bacteria are formed and that’s how everything in between is produced.  Evolution fine tunes DNA to produce exquisite mechanisms such as the flagella motor by tweaking whatever designs existed before till we see today the results of over three billion years of fine tuning in these amazing mechanisms.

 

You do understand that we’ve watched in real time as a colony of bacteria derived from one single cell evolved the ability to consume a food source that their progenitor could not.  A colony of bacteria which had no genetic variation (bacteria are not diploid so they have only one gene at any given locus) from which selection could work so every novel new ability we see in them is evolution inventing before our eyes.  Evolution is inventive while we watch, it’s more than just a theory.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

I’ve never seen that video before but I have read the transcripts of the court case and I’ve seen much of the evidence used to destroy Behe’s claims in that case.  The court was scathing of Behe and his cohort, it was proven in court that their motive was religious, they showed older versions of the text book under question which still had the references to religion in them before they were edited to produce the more secular appearing versions presented to the schools board.  Then they showed that the homologies Behe claimed did not exist for the flagella motor were known before Behe made his claims so his claims were only valid if you ignored quite a bit of pre-existing evidence.  That’s a very poor way to behave for a professor and it would never get published in a scientific journal if vetted properly.

 

Yes I loved the mouse trap example, it was indeed comical. More comical when you realize that the ideas they were portraying with that mousetrap should have been well known to someone with the educational background that Behe claimed.  Did you understand the point they were making with the mousetrap?

 

Do you know exactly what Behe claimed in his book and in court?  It’s critical to this discussion that you understand exactly what he claimed and precisely why it is well known that his arguments were false.

 

There were several claims and I’ll only go into some of them but here are the most critical ones in my opinion.

 

Behe claimed that the flagella motor was irreducibly complex.  This claim is actually true, the motor will not function if you remove any of its parts.  That’s not controversial but he then goes on to suggest that it therefore could not have evolved.  We have plenty of evidence of structures that are irreducibly complex yet it is not controversial that they evolved.  Evolution can work down from a far more complex and messy structure to the simple, elegant and irreducibly complex one’s that we see today.  Evolution can work from an object that has a different function and modifies it to produce a new function the result of which is irreducibly complex.  So we know of several pathways that can lead to irreducibly complex systems that are open to evolutionary forces.

 

Behe claimed that there were no homologs to the proteins used in the flagella motor.  As that video pointed out many of them exist in virtually the same arrangement in the Type III secretory system (the spiked tail as you call it) of bacteria today so this claim was simply false and that fact was known before Behe published his work.  In court the opposition placed a pile of scientific papers on the desk in front of Behe and asked if he was aware of them.  The pile was big, over a hundred papers all from Behe’s own field and all showing homologs to the bacterial protiens.  Behe simply claimed ignorance but his case was destroyed by the evidence.

 

Bacterial flagella don’t fossilize so we can’t go back and look at when these features arose.  They appear in so many different species that this feature probably arose very early on, over three billion years ago probably.  Before this was invented no one had rotating propellers, evolution invented it at that time as far as we can tell.

 

DNA tells the parts of every system in every organism we are aware of where to go and what to do.  That’s how your body is built as you grow in the womb from an single cell to a fully formed human being, that’s how bacteria are formed and that’s how everything in between is produced.  Evolution fine tunes DNA to produce exquisite mechanisms such as the flagella motor by tweaking whatever designs existed before till we see today the results of over three billion years of fine tuning in these amazing mechanisms.

 

You do understand that we’ve watched in real time as a colony of bacteria derived from one single cell evolved the ability to consume a food source that their progenitor could not.  A colony of bacteria which had no genetic variation (bacteria are not diploid so they have only one gene at any given locus) from which selection could work so every novel new ability we see in them is evolution inventing before our eyes.  Evolution is inventive while we watch, it’s more than just a theory.

 

Russell

 

 

 

 

Behe claimed that the flagella motor was irreducibly complex.

 

the point is not is it irreducible or not, the point is

 

let say that it is reducible and that developed step by step, even if it would be evolution , then it proves that such construction is evolved by God, beacuse God knew if wich direction to evolve creations.

 

so actually evolution is not the reason to avoid Godm, beacuse if it was created trough evolution then it means that God evolved it step by step, and NOT THAT IT EVOLVED BY ITSELF.

 

 

if you say it evolved by itself without any thinking creator, then can i ask you a question

 

Can you mother give birth to herself??

NO, so cant stuff just create itself out of nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

you see difference between believers and non-believers is that when believer see natural motor/engine believer say there most be a creator for that

but for non-believer natural engines/motors dont need creator, beacuse they create themeselves, let me show you with photos what is difference between believers and non believers

 

 

i proved that atheism i illogical belief system with the example of construction of natural engine

 

 

example

if we say, where did motor of the bacteria was before bacterias where created???

 

how did that motor connect to flagellum and bacteria before creation of bacteria?

 

who had this motor before first bacteria and spermcells ?

nrmicro1493-i1.jpg

 

 

A(motor) , B(hook), C(ms-ring), D(p-ring), E(filament), F(junction)

 

where do we find those components outside bacteria and spermcells?

 

how could components know that all those components should connected so the motor can work normally?

 

if we say that these components

 

A(motor) , B(hook), C(ms-ring), D(p-ring), E(filament), F(junction)

 

were in nature before first bacterias? how could evolution give the a pattern how they shall connect to each other.

 

and last question, have you ever seen such car engine create itself or by nature

 

car-and-driver-engine-001.jpg

 

can you imagine that winds, water, dust and fire togheter created a car engine like this, impossible, then how can nature create such bacterial engine by itself?????

 

Atheists believe this:

 

 

 

flagellum.jpg

 

Motor has 40 parts

 

 

Ateists says:

from non-order ----> to order

from this B, D, F, A, C, E to this----> (ABCDEF)

No creator is needed

 

I say

from non-order ----> to order

from B, D, F, A, C, E to this---->; (ABCDEF)

you need a thinking creator

 

so what is more logical, judge for yoursefl?

 

car engine

car-and-driver-engine-001.jpg

 

evidence that someone constructed it

 

atheists says:

 

from this

legos.jpg

 

 

to this

0376-2.jpg

 

No creator is needed, it creates itself

 

 

religious people say

 

from this

legos.jpg

 

 

to this

0376-2.jpg

 

you need a thinking creator

 

 

So who is more logical here???? wink.gif

 

 

We see clearly that beleivers are more logical when it comes to science on this subject with natural engine, but when it comes to Bible and christianity, then atheists are more logical and i am with atheists, beacuse there is much nonsense in bible that it makes ridicoulus to believe that God exists, beacuse if there was no quran i would be atheist today for sure. beacuse when you open bible and read that God fight with humans and lose the battle, God eat like humans, God poo like humans, God is humiliated and killed on the cross, and alot of other nonsense, of course we should be atheists, no doubt about it. But Quran came in and rescue religion, beacuse Islam is much more logical belief than atheism, a lot.

When you study Islam you know how weak atheism is, but when you study bible and christianity you know that atheism is more logical than bible today, and of course beacuse people have changed bible for their own purpose and made mistakes, and made it into a lie.

 

So i have all evidence in this world for existence of God both relgious and non-reliogus evidence of existence of God, but those people who dont want to believe, it does not matter what proff i post they will not believe, God himself said so in quran

 

God says in quran:

 

2:6 As for those who disbelieve, it makes no difference whether you warn them or not: they will not believe.

 

6:11 Even if We sent the angels down to them, and the dead spoke to them, and We gathered all things right in front of them, they still would not believe, unless God so willed, but most of them are ignorant [of this].

 

 

What is consequences of not believing in God, if God exists, what has this to do WITH ME?

 

God created man and gave him life, health, wealth, house, partners in marriage, children....and God expects of humans to follow His commandments wich only benefits them NOT GOD, GOD DOES NOT NEED PEOPLE PRAYING TO HIM OR ANYTHING ELSE, it is good for people if they pray to God but God has no use of it. And God expects of people that they are thankful to him beacuse of everything he gave them.

 

What happens to a person who come to foreign country, and he dont want to learn laws of that state, and he breaks them all the time, what would happen to him , he would be punished with jail or economically, same is it with God if you dont want to learn laws of God, you breake them constantly, he can punish you here or forgive you, but if you die with those sins without repenting to God, punishment is coming for sure after death when people are ressurected.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russel did you watched this documentary, it gives non-relgious evidence for existence of God and explain why evolution is false

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russel

 

i have a tricky question for you , how did wolftrap anglerfish evolved, how could primal anglerfish know that it need  THESE 4

 

1 fishing rod
2 a fishing line
3 bait
4 hooks
 

TO catch fish, so it developed 4 differet components for fishing, and even humans use these components to catch fish today.

 

Wolftrap anglerfish

 

Físh with fishing equipment biggrin.gif
wolf-trap%252Banglerfish.jpg

Wolftrap.jpg

1 fishing rod
2 a fishing line
3 bait
4 hooks

Habitat: Deep Sea, Atlantic & Pacific
Status: Not listed


Most people have heard of the common Deep Sea Anglerfish or Fanfin Seadevil, because it looks like something out of a nightmare. But did you know that there's such a thing as a Wolftrap Anglerfish?

These creatures are pretty hideous - they're known as "complete anglerfish" because they contain all the necessary ingredients for one scary fish. Its lure apparatus consists of a fishing rod (the projecting basal bone or pteropterygium), a fishing line (the illicium, a modified dorsal fin ray), bait (the bioluminescent esca), and hooks (large dermal denticles).

It's also defined by its distinctive enormous upper jaw with premaxillaries that can be folded down to enclose the much shorter lower jaw.

That might sound confusing, but all you really need to understand is that it's extremely ugly and scary looking

Catch More Creatures Here: http://www.thefeatur....#ixzz28o3Q75tb
 

 

if this is not evidence that God created these 4 components so fish can catch other animals in the sea, if not, how could fish without intelect know that it need 4 components connected to each other so it can catch the fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

Actually the specific point of one of the video’s you presented was that these things were irreducibly complex and that that proved god.  That was the whole point of Behe’s arguments still I’m glad that you have now come to understand that this is false.  The evidence clearly shows us that this claim is not true so it’s progress that you now accept that.

 

Ok the next misconception we need to deal with is the idea that evolution can’t work without god.  How do we show that evolution is actually inventive on its own?  There are a number of ways of demonstrating this the first is in electronic experiments.  They may sound a little removed from evolution but look deeper.  These experiments and real world applications are used to produce electronic circuits that meet a design criterion without human input.  Humans set the conditions much as nature sets the conditions for organisms and the rest is up to evolutionary algorithms.  In some of the most famous experiments these systems came up with designs far more economic than the best human designers and no one understands how exactly they work because they don’t use the chips as they were designed they just work out what works much as evolution does in animals.  In these experiments the best a human designer came up with was a system using over one thousand gates while the computer generated a solution which used just 32.  Some of those gates were not wired into the circuit it created but the circuit failed if they were removed so they have some necessary effect on the result.  As I said no one understands how these circuits work but they do so who invented them?

 

So the above experiments take as their inputs a requirement, in nature this is survival and reproduction and that’s it.  The rest is up to random variation just as we see in DNA in living organisms and a selection mechanism again much as we see in differential survival in organisms in nature.  And the results are amazing.

 

One paper that digs into the issues around this field and shows just how far this field has come is “Generalized Disjunction Decomposition for the Evolution of Programmable Logic Array Structures”, by Stomeo, E. ; Sch. of Eng. & Design, Brunel Univ. ; Kalganova, T. ; Lambert, C. published in “Adaptive Hardware and Systems”, 2006. AHS 2006. First NASA/ESA Conference.

 

The above is not evolution in organisms but evolutionary algorithms created by humans mimicking the ideas derived from the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory.  They show that what we understand of evolution from nature does produce novelty beyond what the designers of the system could create and in the end they show that evolution, as we currently understand it, really does work.

 

Next we can look at in vitro experiments in which evolution is observed working in living organisms.  One of the most famous, which I’ve already referred to here, took one single bacterium and bred it up to create 12 colonies of bacteria all derived from just one.  Bacteria are not diploid so they have only one DNA strand.  Humans have two strands in parallel so they have two gene’s at any locus on their genome but bacteria don’t so for any given gene there is exactly one version in the progenitor for all of those colonies.  Any change seen in the colonies over time must therefore be down to evolution unless god’s been crawling around inside their test tubes.

 

Over the next 31000 generations one and only one of those colonies evolved the ability to digest a food source that their progenitor could not. In fact that food source was a test used to determine if an unknown bacteria was of that species because if it could not consume it that was good evidence that you were dealing with this species.  Now after all those generations, evolution worked out how to do it.  Now that’s an amazing observation on its own but of course we can go much further, we can look at the DNA throughout the process and see how it was done, see which changes were created in the bacterial DNA to allow them to digest this food.  The DNA involved is probably beyond this forum but I can point you at the papers on this if you want to dig deeper.

 

So we’ve seen evolution tested in the computer lab and we’ve seen it working in living organisms.  The flagella motor we are discussing here is truly an amazing organ.  As I said bacteria don’t fossilize so we simply don’t have any direct evidence for how it evolved but we know that most of its proteins already existed in other functions and we know that it evolves because so many different forms of the motor are known.  Beyond that we can never show more than what might have happened and we can, with DNA analysis, work out the interrelationships between different forms of the motor by showing how closely they are related to on another.

 

Yes god could have directed the design of those motors but we’ve seen that evolution is capable of doing the job without him.  That doesn’t prove that he didn’t do it it only shows that he was unnecessary, he is an extra factor added in to no gain and William of Occam showed us that such factors in science, all things being equal, are virtually always wrong.

 

No my mother could not give birth to herself, that’s what her mother was for.  She is not her mother, she is a modified version of some of her mother and some of her father.  A little bit more of her mother than her father but close to half of each plus a few random changes.  Those random changes are what we watch in real time in the lab inventing novel new ways of living.

 

You’ve stated that the motor created itself but of course that has nothing to do with what evolution theory teaches us.  In evolution there is an organism already.  That motor is an organ within an existing organism.  As we’ve seen the Type III secretory organ on other bacteria has the majority of the proteins in the same locations as the Flagellum so the changes needed to create the motor from an existing but very similar structure aren’t as great as you might think when you say something silly like “the motor invented itself”.  Of course that’s not true.

 

I think at this point we should step away from the flagella motor and look at a very complex and fine-tuned organ that we do have lots of evidence for.  Let’s consider the eye.  Eyes are very complex organs and they are very useful, just like the flagella motor so both have a strong driving force in an evolutionary sense.

 

Light sensitive cells are a simple modification of the existing machinery of existing skin cells.  The gene’s involved have been well catalogued so if you want I can find you the papers on this.

 

By themselves light sensitive skin cells would allow an organism to sense day and night so it could better choose when to seek food for example.  Organisms with only this light sensing ability exist today so we know this stage exists and that it is an advantage.

 

Light sensitive skin cells in a dimple on the surface of the skin would give a very rudimentary directional sense allowing the organism to orient itself in relation to the light source say so that it could take advantage of the warmth of the sun better.  Organisms which do this exist today so again we know this is a benefit.

 

Enclosing the light sensitive cells at the bottom of a tear drop shaped intrusion would increase the directional sense of the rudimentary eye to the point where it could resolve images in bright light.  Again this feature exists among extant organisms.

 

A rudimentary lens would allow this ability to work in lower and lower light levels and with greater and greater resolution.  Yes again organisms with this adaptation do exist so we know this stage of eye development is real and is an advantage.

 

Each step between there and the fully formed eye’s that we have is an advantage as are all the intermediate steps between no eyes and there.  Organisms exist with examples of eyes at every stage of that process and for all of them the eye’s they have are a clear advantage over no eyes or slightly less capable eyes.  Eyes have evolved multiple times in nature and they take many different forms.  Ours are not particularly well designed but they do work well enough to be a significant advantage so evolution will select for them.

 

Yes I understand what you say when you explain that believers leap to the unsupported conclusion that god must have done it while the more scientifically minded among us look for natural explanations for each of these features.  Time and again we find them, not always, some changes occurred in places or times we can’t access but often we do find the evidence and we can see how nature did it.  It’s sufficient in science to show that, where you can see enough detail to tell, evolution is true and to assume from that evidence that, where you can’t see enough detail to tell, it is almost certainly true as well.  It’s a fascinating field of study.

 

Next you delve into a platonic realm idea, that nothing can ever be invented.  Things can only exist if they are copied from a pre-existing idea.  You show this idea when you ask where was the flagella motor before the first bacteria.  This is an idea without support in evidence though it has been held by many people historically.  Today it is mostly dead though I gather it still exists in some religious schools apparently.

 

What it means is that you believe that god had the idea for that PLA program which could distinguish between fast and slow pulses of electricity in his head before we came along, that even though we don’t understand how the evolved program works and even though it was created by a simple random number generator and a fitness test that somehow god snuck inside that computer and programmed it or that the computer worked out how to access this platonic realm and dig the idea out without human input?  Is that really what you believe must be going on here?

 

You’re car engine example fails for one very simple reason unless you can supply the missing component here.  Have you ever seen a car engine that can reproduce?  Without reproduction a car engine can’t evolve, we can modify the next version based on what we learn from this one but it can’t do that on its own.  Reproduction, especially imperfect reproduction allows for evolution.  As I’ve said we’ve modelled evolution in computer systems and seen it work, we’ve setup bacterial colonies and watched them evolve before our eyes so we know that it happens and that the ideas contained in modern evolutionary theory are capable of producing the sort of novelty we see around us.  So no atheists don’t believe “this” as you say we believe in evolution which is a complex, elegant and well tested theory not in car engines self-forming from sand or in humans self-forming from sand etc.  Those things would require a miracle.

 

Yes I’ve seen before that you claim you have evidence, scientific evidence, that your beliefs are true, that god created man but how do you explain the DNA we share with the great apes especially the DNA errors and viral inclusions that we share with them.  Sure I can understand that our DNA might look like there’s if we were created to be similar but that can’t explain the common errors unless god is a blunderer and makes the same mistakes over and over.  Is that really your god?

 

In the end we are all seeking a way to explain complexity, god is one answer and evolution is another but look at the bottom line of these theories.  An all-powerful god could, by definition, have created the universe we see around us, he could even have created it last Thursday with all the appearance of age including my memories of a childhood I never experienced so that we all feel as if we’ve been here all our lives.  If he was all powerful he’d have to be capable of that.  I believe that is a fantasy.  Religious people solve the problem of the appearance of complexity in this universe by pushing it backwards beyond our reach and simply saying “it was always here”.  Evolutionary theory on the other hand actually solves the problem of complexity.  It explains how simple beginnings can give rise to the complex world we see around is by simple natural forces.  In the end my view solves this problem while yours just sweeps it under the carpet of time.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

Firstly a bit of evolutionary theory 101.  The fish’s intelligence is not a component in how it evolves, evolution is driven simply by what works so you need to get past the complaint “how could fish without intelect know…[sic]” as it has no relevance to the question we are discussing here.  It’s a straw man not of evolution.

 

Next lets look at that lure assembly.  No one has ever seen the fish use that organ so we don’t actually know what they do with them.  In other angler fish the bioluminescent lure is simply waved around in front of the mouth so that pray will approach and be sucked into the mouth by water pressure as the fish opens its jaws.  While it may look like a fishing rod it’s not but it is very clever.  Obviously the pray fish will be looking for a lure such as angler fish carry so the idea of attaching the lure on a very small strand such as this fish does will work better as it makes the connection between the lure and the angler far less visible.  That it works is all that’s needed to drive evolution, if it works better evolution will be driven to move in that direction.  A slightly longer rod or line (actually a bony structure) would increase the contrast between the lure and the angler so that would work better and therefore be selected for.  Simple angler fish with simple glowing blobs on the end of a fin have been known for ages, this fishing rod assemble is a modified fin with a very thin bone, and skin and blood vesseled fin leading to a lump of flesh containing bioluminescent material.  They don’t possess, as far as we know, the ability to regrow the organ if it’s taken by its prey so they are unlikely to let the pray actually reach the lure.  This assembly is certainly not used as a fishing rod in anything like the way a human might use such a rod rather the long whip like appendage makes sense as it would allow the fish to withdraw the lure very fast to avoid ti being taken by the prey as it approaches.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

I’m not sure who holds such a misconception, humans evolved to be better at surviving and reproducing, evolution does not care if that is through making them ‘better humans’ whatever that means or making them capable butchers so long as more successful babies are produced.  Rape is fine by nature, it is a logical mental consideration which condemns it for example.  All creatures are changed by evolution to that one single end, making more successful babies.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

You seem to be under a misconception that our bodies are not just machines.  Look at that Flagella motor and tell me you don’t see a machine?  Or bodies are hugely complex but nothing in them, nothing that has yet been discovered at least, is anything more than chemistry in action, hugely complex chemistry to be certain but just chemistry.

 

Most believers will now point to emotions to our inner experience and say, how can that be chemistry, how can that be of a machine but fMRI scanners now show us emotions in action in the living brain.  We can image quite a range of them and we can even induce them with magnets or drugs.  You see it really is all physics and chemistry right to the bottom.

 

A blunder has been made by several posters here when they ask ‘how did X creature know that it needed Y’ or ‘where did Y exist before X organism evolved it’.  Even evolution does not know how to make these things, it is blind to everything except what works.  Humans may design motors for cars by understanding how each piece works but that is not how evolution works and it is not how those programmable logic arrays controlled by evolutionary algorithms work.  Humans don’t know how that 32 gate program works but then neither does the program which evolved it.  We may be able to work out how it works but nature/evolution never will and it doesn’t need to.

 

You’ll have to show me some specific bible prophecies that were actually made before fulfilment and have been fulfilled using evidence outside the bible.  That would be interesting.  And I’m not talking about trivialities here but something specific, testable and indisputable.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

I’m not sure who holds such a misconception, humans evolved to be better at surviving and reproducing, evolution does not care if that is through making them ‘better humans’ whatever that means or making them capable butchers so long as more successful babies are produced.  Rape is fine by nature, it is a logical mental consideration which condemns it for example.  All creatures are changed by evolution to that one single end, making more successful babies.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

You seem to be under a misconception that our bodies are not just machines.  Look at that Flagella motor and tell me you don’t see a machine?  Or bodies are hugely complex but nothing in them, nothing that has yet been discovered at least, is anything more than chemistry in action, hugely complex chemistry to be certain but just chemistry.

 

Most believers will now point to emotions to our inner experience and say, how can that be chemistry, how can that be of a machine but fMRI scanners now show us emotions in action in the living brain.  We can image quite a range of them and we can even induce them with magnets or drugs.  You see it really is all physics and chemistry right to the bottom.

 

A blunder has been made by several posters here when they ask ‘how did X creature know that it needed Y’ or ‘where did Y exist before X organism evolved it’.  Even evolution does not know how to make these things, it is blind to everything except what works.  Humans may design motors for cars by understanding how each piece works but that is not how evolution works and it is not how those programmable logic arrays controlled by evolutionary algorithms work.  Humans don’t know how that 32 gate program works but then neither does the program which evolved it.  We may be able to work out how it works but nature/evolution never will and it doesn’t need to.

 

You’ll have to show me some specific bible prophecies that were actually made before fulfilment and have been fulfilled using evidence outside the bible.  That would be interesting.  And I’m not talking about trivialities here but something specific, testable and indisputable.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

I may not have mentioned this here but I was a christain once and I’ve read the bible from cover to cover, that is actually a really quick way to become an unbeliever.  The bible makes more sense if you take the little bits and pieces that priests feed to you out of context rather than actually reading the whole thing.

 

So yes I’ve read Mathew and I’m well aware of the stories of the end times in there.  It’s always fascinated me that anyone can read that especially when it tells you that these things will come to pass before this generation passes away yet still believe there is any truth to it.  Either Jesus was wrong or there are some seriously old dudes hanging around somewhere out there.  I believe that this clearly shows that Jesus, as portrayed in the bible, is, by the definitions contained in the same book, a false prophet.  What does the bible say we should do with false prophets?

 

As for the rest we are seeing more and more stories of war on TV yet the statistics show us that this world has been more peaceful since the second world war than it has for many thousands of years it’s just that we hear more and more detail about the fewer and fewer conflicts because of our modern media.  The rates of death through war are actually dropping all the time.  Obviously that fact too counts against Mathew or at least it counts against the idea that Mathew 24 is about to come true.

 

What else, oh the idea of the stars falling, now that might have made sense to an ignorant peoples who really thought that the stars were just a little way up there hanging from the roof of the sky but surely we’ve learned a little about them since and we know that falling isn’t something that could ever happen.  Stars move, sure and in fact they are always in freefall but that’s not the idea portrayed in the piece.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

 

Yes I understand the apologetic footwork that people go to to claim that this was referring to some generation other than jesus’ contemporaries but the clear text of it makes it obvious in my humble opinion.  Jesus meant that his audience’s generation would not pass till all of these things had come to pass.  Obviously, unless there are some seriously old dudes out there, he was wrong.

 

If you wish to claim that the start of that generation was the formation of Jerusalem then the 40 years of that generation has passed and even the lifetimes of those alive at that moment are running out.  I think we’ll see, in the not too distant future, that the last of them will die of and nothing will happen, just as it has happened so often in the past when someone has claimed that such and such a time will be the end of the earth.  Time will tell.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

Desitter space is a very specific and yes curved space time, it is one way of describing the universe we live in in mathematical terms.  The desitter approach, when applied to relativity, allows the unification of some of the underlying factors simplifying them and a desitter space would behave as we observe at the very first moments of the universe if this universe were triggered by a virtual quantum particle burrowing into it as I explained earlier.

 

I don’t think we can know for sure if the closure of this universe would look as you have described, that any trip far enough in one direction will lead back to its starting point.  I suspect that this may well be true but we’ve seen no evidence for it at this stage.  The problem is that light travels at a finite speed and the universe has not existed long enough for us to see more than a certain distance into it, not far enough for us to detect such a folding.

 

The universe is expanding, we don’t actually know how big it is because we can’t see its end.  Beyond a certain size, which is not much bigger than the distance we can see, the edges of the universe would indeed be expanding faster than light relative to us.  Given that traveling at light speed is impossible that means that we could never reach its end.  God is not required to expand the universe of course though he’d have to be able to if he existed and was all powerful.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

I guess I’m not as forgiving as you, when I see a text which has logical problems I tend to treat it as suspect from then on.  The bible has many such problems as does the quran.  In science the problems I find are that it is very hard to really understand what’s being said but that’s not a flaw in the science rather that is a flaw in me and one that I can work on, also the information is incomplete but that is to be expected and humans are working all the time to improve this last.  One of the most amazing powers that science has which religion does not is that it is self-correcting, we learn more all the time so our science gets better step by step, it gets closer to the truth all the time.  Religions are specifically created to resist change; a ‘recent’ example was that the infallible office of the pope of the catholic church officially announced that they had erred in the case of Galileo.  How many years did it take for them to realize and admit that really fundamental, even obvious, error?  Scientists admit their own errors, they work really hard to track down and expose errors in the body of scientific knowledge all the time but not so ‘infallible’ and unchanging religions.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

Science changes because we learn more, Newton was fundamentally wrong but he was not as wrong as those who came before him.  Einstein showed that Newton was wrong but you can derive Newton’s formulas from Einstein’s for flat geometry and slow speeds.  Newton was wrong because his theory only explained what was known when he formulated them, they did not take into account curved space time and time dilation because such ideas were not even hinted at in his day, we just didn’t have the evidence to support such ideas.  To say that science changes because it was wrong is to profoundly misunderstand science.  Science moves from the best anyone has ever managed to come up with to a newer theory which is even better at each step.  Religion can’t match this, it is stuck in the past, a past of ignorance and limited ideas.

 

You are correct, no one has ever proven that god does not exist but then no one has ever proven that the teapot orbiting pluto does not exist.  For that matter I’m yet to see anyone prove that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.  Until you can prove that any of these ideas are more than bed time stories then they don’t merit any significant attention.  Remember it always falls to the person making the positive claim to provide the evidence, that’s a logical truth not an opinion.  You are welcome to present your evidence that god is real any time.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Absolute Truth

 

As with all such claims there are people who support both sides of this discussion.  That being said Paul Davies is opposed by the vast majority of physicists; he is very much in the minority with his views here.  Recent surveys put the rate of atheism among physicists at around 95% which means that at least 95% of physicists don’t support the view he is presenting.  Here’s a summary of the sorts of arguments raised against him.  What follows is from a well-credentialed physicist and philosopher and shows the majority view on this point.

 

1.         Hypothesize a God who is the highly intelligent and powerful supernatural creator of the physical universe.

2.         We can reasonably expect that empirical evidence should exist for a purposeful and supernatural creation of this cosmos, such as the observed violation of one or more laws of physics.

3. No empirical evidence for a purposeful creation of the cosmos can be found. No universal laws of physics were violated at the origin of the universe in which we reside.

4.         Modern cosmology indicates that the initial state of our universe was one of maximum chaos so that it contains no memory of a creator.

5. Scientists can provide plausible, purely natural scenarios based in well-established cosmological theories that show how our universe may have arisen out of an initial state of nothingness.

6.         We can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God who is the highly intelligent and powerful supernatural creator of the physical universe does not exist.

That from Victor J. Stenger, Professor emeritus of Physics and Cosmology at the University of Hawaii and an adjunct professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado.

 

As with most such discussions, if you dig hard enough you’ll find someone to support almost any fringe view but fringe views are usually not where the truth lies and to present them as if they carry weight is to misrepresent them.  Maybe in future evidence will come to hand that supports Paul Davies view but so far it has not.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting that many literal religionists will deny scientific evidence and will not trust scientists or their views...except for that tiny percentage of scientists who contradict the vast majority. Then the views of that 5 percent are treated as valid and undeniable and are trumpeted as "scientific proof" that the other 95% are wrong. "A scientist said it so it must be right". You couldn't make it up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally love that other tactic in which a single quote, taken out of context, from a scientist who clearly states that religion is bunk is trumpeted as if it proves the opposite but yes quoting the one maverick as if he's got the truth and the rest of the scientific community is wrong is also an interesting tactic.  Critical thinking 101 for these guys maybe.

Edited by russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

    • By russell
      Hi All
       
      One thing I’ve come across on this forum a number of times is the idea that I can’t question certain ideas, that you will be offended if I do so, and we should just steer away from those topics.  Is that really how you believe rational dialog should be conducted?
       
      I hold none of my ideas to that standard.  If you want to run down or rationally complain about anything I say please go ahead.  Question anything I say, question my lifestyle choices, my family values and my ideas on evidence, none of it is off limits and nothing you ask will offend me.  Not so it seems with Muslims.
       
      I’ve suggested a couple of times here that Muhammad was, at most, just a man and people took great offence that I could even think that.  “I love him so you shouldn’t suggest such a thing” was basically one answer to me on that comment.  Another argument was that you would not even discuss anything with me if I didn’t accept up front that Muhammad was more than a man.  The idea that he was more than just a man is incompatible with atheism of course but that was ignored at the time.
       
      Another idea I’ve expressed here a number of times that seems to cause problems is the church of Mickey Mouse.  I use that one to try to explain what an atheist sees when they walk down the street and look at all these buildings with symbols on them, crosses, moons and stars etc.  But think about it, given my view on god (I’ve already said I’m an atheist so this is no secret) how else should I see such symbols and the people who revere and worship them if atheism is the truth?
       
      Now don’t get me wrong here, it’s the ideas I’m discussing, it’s the ideas I’m complaining about.  I understand that people come to these ideas for many reasons and that many of the people who hold them are intelligent rational people, that’s not at question here, but I do think we need to rationally consider the ideas themselves.  That Muhammad was just a man or that he may even be an invention are ideas which we should be able to discuss. Now this is the crucial point here if these ideas hold water you should be able to defend them and not have to pull the “you can’t question that idea” card.  Rationally that statement is an admission of the weakness of your position.  If you are incapable of defending a position maybe you should not hold it as true.
       
      So what do you think, should rational enquiry be open to discuss any idea or are you really unwilling to truly examine the belief system that you hold to and if so why?  Does insecurity pay a part in that reluctance?
       
      Russell
    • By Aysha27
      Dear all,
      Hello and As-salamu-alaikum-wa-rahmatullah.

      I am afraid of an issue called “Atheism”. I think everybody is surrounded with a different religion. And every religion purifies human’s nature. Though human nature is really so mysterious! If so why some of the people say there is no god? It’s a matter of sorrow that many of them are famous to their work in the world! In my country (sorry to say it is Bangladesh) recently an American atheist blogger, named Avijit Roy who spoke out against religious extremism and intolerance has been hacked to death. So my question is- what about the punishment of an atheist and is it halal to hack him cruelly…? What is the declaration of Qur’an regarding the issue…? :cry:
    • By Absolute truth
      This topic is for miscellaneous darwinism-related information in sha Allah..
       
      Don't you understand how microbes turned to humans ???!!!!
      You need to educate yourself on biology...



      Wait !


      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7446/full/496419a.html

      Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biological world.
       
      But it’s a Fact Anyway ?!
    • By Saracen21stC
      Gitmo Prison Guard Converts From Atheism To Islam After Seeing Detainees ‘Wake Each Day And Smile’




       
      CNN has an amazing story out of Guantanamo Bay about an American atheist prison camp guard that converted to Islam after spending extensive time talking to with some of the English speaking prisoners there.

      Army Specialist Terry Holdbrooks arrived at Gitmo 2003 as “an angry, nearly atheistic 19-year-old MP and by the time he left a year later he was a practicing Muslim. Holdbrooks was amazed at how the detainees “could wake up each day and smile” even though they were locked away in a prison camp with little hope of freedom.

      So all of this got him thinking: “Obviously there’s something more to Islam than I had been told.”

      Like anybody curious about faith he started to inquire about it. Holdbrooks, a bit disenfranchised with his superiors and fellow soldiers, started speaking for hours with detainees about Islam. One even gave him a copy of the Islamic holy book, the Quran, to study and it led him to change his way of life.

      When he approached one of the prisoners about converting he was met with a warning that it would forever change his life. “You understand that if you become a Muslim your unit is going to look at you differently, your family, your country…you understand…your country is going to look at you in a way that isn’t going to be good. It’s going to make things difficult for you,” he was told.

      Since he converted Holdbrooks has left military service and become an outspoken opponent of the camp at Guantanamo Bay.

      Listen to the clip below via CNN.

      http://www.mediaite.com/online/gitmo-prison-guard-converts-from-atheism-to-Islam-after-seeing-detainees-wake-each-day-and-smile/
    • By Saracen21stC
      Richard Dawkins’ anti-Islam/anti-Muslim propaganda exposed: The facts


      Original Guest Post

      by Jai Singh

      There is currently increasing journalistic scrutiny of the atheist
      British scientist Richard Dawkins and his ally Sam Harris’ statements
      about Islam and Muslims. In December 2012, the Guardian published an excellent article
      highlighting the acclaimed physicist Professor Peter Higgs’ accurate
      observations about Dawkins’ pattern of behaviour when it comes to
      religion in general; Professor Higgs (of “Higgs Boson particle” fame)
      has forcefully criticised Dawkins. More recently, superb articles by Nathan Lean in Salon (focusing on Dawkins), Murtaza Hussain for Al Jazeera (focusing on Dawkins, Harris etc) and Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian (mentions Dawkins but focuses predominantly on Harris; also see here)
      have received considerable publicity. Readers are strongly advised to
      familiarise themselves with the information in all of these articles.

      Before I address the issue of Richard Dawkins, it is worthwhile
      highlighting some key information about his ally Sam Harris. As
      mentioned in Glenn Greenwald’s extensively-researched Guardian
      article, Harris is on record as a) claiming that fascists are “the
      people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to
      Europe”, and b) stating “We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks
      like he or she could conceivably be Muslim”. Furthermore, bear in mind
      the following paragraph from a previous Guardian article
      about Harris: “…..But it tips over into something much more sinister in
      Harris’ latest book. He suggests that Islamic states may be politically
      unreformable because so many Muslims are “utterly deranged by their
      religious faith”. In another passage Harris goes even further, and
      reaches a disturbing conclusion that “some propositions are so dangerous
      that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them”.”

      Richard Dawkins’ “atheist anti-religion” agenda has noticeably become
      increasingly focused on Islam & Muslims; his online statements
      (recently including his Twitter account )
      have now become so extreme that a great deal of them are essentially
      indistinguishable from the bigoted, ignorant nonsense pushed by the
      English Defence League leadership and the main US-based anti-Muslim
      propagandists such as Robert Spencer etc.

      In fact, as Nathan Lean’s Salon article mentioned, the following very revealing information recently surfaced: It turns out that Dawkins has publicly admitted
      that he hasn’t even read the Quran even though (in his own words) he
      “often says Islam is the greatest force for evil today”. Mainstream
      Islamic theology (including the associated impact on Muslim history) is
      not based solely on the Quran, of course, but Dawkins’ admission is
      indicative of a number of major problems on his part. So much for the
      credibility of Richard Dawkins’ “scientific method” in this particular
      subject. It goes without saying that this also raised questions about
      exactly which dubious second-hand sources Dawkins has been getting his
      information on Islam and Muslims from, if he hasn’t even taken the
      normal professional academic steps of reading the primary sacred text of
      the religion he has also described as “an unmitigated evil”. Not to mention the question of Dawkins’ real motivations for his current fixation with Islam and Muslims.

      Well, it appears that some answers are available. It certainly
      explains a great deal about Richard Dawkins’ behaviour. In the main part
      of this article beneath the “Summary” section below, I have listed 54
      anti-Islam/anti-Muslim statements posted by Richard Dawkins on the
      discussion forum of one of his own websites. (The list of quotes also
      includes embedded URL links directly to the original statements on
      Dawkins’ website).

      Summary of Richard Dawkins’ actions

      1. There is a direct connection to Robert Spencer’s inner circle. As
      confirmed by the URL link supplied by Richard Dawkins in quote #11,
      Dawkins has definitely been using that cabal’s anti-Muslim propaganda as
      a source of “information” for his own statements; Dawkins specifically
      links to the “Islam-Watch” website, which is a viciously anti-Muslim
      site in the same vein as JihadWatch and Gates of Vienna
      (both of which were the most heavily cited sources in the terrorist
      Anders Breivik’s manifesto). More pertinently, as confirmed by this affiliated webpage,
      the core founders & members of that website include the
      currently-unidentified individual who uses the online alias “Ali Sina”.
      This is the same fake “atheist Iranian ex-Muslim” who is a senior board
      member of “SIOA”/“SION”,
      an extremely anti-Muslim organisation whose leadership is formally
      allied with racist white supremacists & European neo-Nazis and has
      even organised joint public demonstrations with them. “Ali Sina” himself
      was also cited by Breivik in his manifesto.

      Note that the SIOA/SION leadership inner circle includes: a) AFDI and JihadWatch’s Robert Spencer, an ordained Catholic deacon
      who has been proven to have repeatedly made false statements about
      Islam & Muslims and has publicly admitted that his actions are
      heavily motivated by his (unilateral) agenda for the dominance of the
      Catholic Church; b) AFDI and Atlas Shrugs’ Pamela Geller,
      who is now on record as advocating what is effectively a “Final
      Solution” targeting British Muslims, including mass-murder; c) the
      English Defence League leadership; and d) David Yerushalmi,
      the head of an organisation whose mission statement explicitly declares
      that its members are “dedicated to the rejection of democracy” in the
      United States. Furthermore, Yerushalmi believes that American women
      shouldn’t even have the right to vote.

      Extensive details on “Ali Sina” are available here.
      Quite a few of the quotes in that article are horrifying. Bear in mind
      that this is the person whose website Richard Dawkins has publicly cited
      and promoted. “Ali Sina” is on record as making statements such as the
      following:


      “Muhammad was not a prophet of God. He was an instrument
      of Satan to divide mankind so we destroy each other. It is a demonic
      plot to end humanity.”

      “I don’t see Muslims as innocent people. They are all guilty as sin.
      It is not necessary to be part of al Qaida to be guilty. If you are a
      Muslim you agree with Muhammad and that is enough evidence against you.”

      “Muslims, under the influence of Islam lose their humanity. They
      become beasts. Once a person’s mind is overtaken by Islam, every trace
      of humanity disappears from him. Islam reduces good humans into beasts.”

      [Addressing all Muslims] “We will do everything to save you, to make
      you see your folly, and to make you understand that you are victims of a
      gigantic lie, so you leave this lie, stop hating mankind and plotting
      for its destruction and it [sic] domination. But if all efforts fail and
      you become a threat to our lives and the lives of our children, we must
      amputate you. This will happen, not because I say so, but I say so
      because this is human response. We humans are dictated by our survival
      instinct. If you threaten me and my survival depends on killing you, I
      must kill you.”

      “Muslims are part of humanity, but they are the diseased limb of
      mankind. We must strive to rescue them. We must do everything possible
      to restore their health. That is the mission of FFI [“Faith Freedom
      International”, “Ali Sina’s” primary website]. However, if a limb
      becomes gangrenous; if it is infected by necrotizing fasciitis
      (flesh-eating disease), that limb must be amputated.”

      [Addressing all Muslims] “But you are diseased. You are infected by a
      deadly cult that threatens our lives. Your humanity is destroyed. Like a
      limb infected by flesh eating disease, you are now a threat to the rest
      of mankind…..Islam is disease. What does moderate Muslim mean anyway?
      Does it mean you are moderately diseased?”

      “But there was another element in shaping his [Muhammad’s] character:
      The influence of Rabbis. Islam and Judaism have a lot in common. They
      have basically the same eschatology and very similar teachings…..These
      are all secondary influences of Judaism on Islam. The main common
      feature between these two faiths is their intolerance. This intolerance
      in Judaic texts gave the narcissist Muhammad the power to do as he
      pleased…..How could he get away with that? Why would people believed
      [sic] in his unproven and often irrational claims? The answer to this
      question is in Judaism. The Rabbis in Arabia had laid the psychological
      foundations for Islam among the tolerant pagans…..The reasons Arabs fell
      into his [Muhammad’s] trap was because of the groundwork laid by the
      Rabbis in Arabia.”

      “Muhammad copied his religion from what he learned from the Jews. The
      similarity between Islamic thinking and Judaic thinking is not a
      coincidence.”

      “By seeing these self-proclaimed moderate Muslims, I can understand
      the anger that Jesus felt against those hypocrites whom he called
      addressed, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will
      spit you out of my mouth.”

      “In Christianity, it wasn’t the religion that needed to be reformed but the church. What Jesus preached was good.”

      “The image portrays the words of Jesus, “the truth will set you
      free.” That is my motto…..After listening to this rabbi, I somehow felt
      sympathy for Jesus. I can now see what kind of people he had to deal
      with.”

      2. After Nathan Lean and Glenn Greenwald published the aforementioned Salon and Guardian
      articles, both “Ali Sina” and Robert Spencer rapidly wrote lengthy
      articles on their respective websites defending Richard Dawkins and Sam
      Harris. It would therefore be constructive for Richard Dawkins and Sam
      Harris to publicly clarify if they welcome or reject “Ali Sina” &
      Robert Spencer’s support. It would also be constructive for Dawkins and
      Harris to publicly clarify the nature and extent of their involvement
      with “Ali Sina” & Robert Spencer.

      3. Richard Dawkins’ anti-Islam/anti-Muslim narrative (including the
      stereotyped caricature and his own convoluted strawman arguments) is
      essentially identical to the hatred-inciting, theologically-,
      historically- & factually-distorted/falsified propaganda promoted by
      Far-Right groups such as the English Defence League and especially the
      owners of JihadWatch and Gates of Vienna. This is clearly not just a coincidence, considering Dawkins’ online sources of [mis]information.

      4. Richard Dawkins is now on record as making a series of extremely
      derogatory statements in which he bizarrely refers to Islam (a religious
      belief system) as though it were a conscious, sentient entity (see #5,
      #32, #36, #49). The nature of those statements suggests that Dawkins is
      actually referring to Muslims. (Also see #7).

      5. Richard Dawkins is now on record as repeatedly defending Sam
      Harris, including Harris’ claims about Muslims and Islam (see #42, #43).

      6. Richard Dawkins is now on record as enthusiastically praising the Dutch Far-Right politician Geert Wilders (see #50).

      7. Richard Dawkins is now on record as publicly claiming that
      “communities” has become code for “Muslims” (see #18) and that
      “multiculturalism” in Europe is code for “Islam” (see #19).

      8. Richard Dawkins is now on record as repeatedly praising &
      defending Ayaan Hirsi Ali (see #20, #26, #50). Hirsi Ali has been proven
      to have fabricated aspects of her background/experiences (as confirmed by the BBC). Hirsi Ali is also on record as
      revealing the full scale of her horrific beliefs, including the fact
      that she sympathises with Anders Breivik and blames so-called “advocates
      of silence” for Breivik’s mass-murdering terrorist attack.

      9. Richard Dawkins is now on record as repeatedly promoting the
      Far-Right conspiracy theory that British police avoid prosecuting
      Muslims due to fears of being labelled “racist” or “Islamophobic” (see
      #1, #24, #28, #45). Robert Spencer & Pamela Geller’s closest
      European allies, the English Defence League leadership, are amongst the
      most vocal advocates of this ridiculous conspiracy theory.

      10. Richard Dawkins is now on record as explicitly describing himself as “a cultural Christian” (see #54).

      11. Richard Dawkins is now on record as proposing what is basically
      an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy, specifically in terms of
      Christians vs. Muslims (see here and here.
      Also see #16). This raises questions about exactly how much support
      Dawkins has secretly been giving to certain extremist anti-Muslim
      individuals/groups, or at least how much he is personally aware that
      these groups are explicitly recycling Dawkins’ own rhetoric when
      demonising Islam & Muslims.

      12. Richard Dawkins is now on record as exhibiting very disturbing attitudes towards the British Muslim Member of Parliament Baroness Sayeeda Warsi and the British Muslim Independent journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown,
      including repeatedly making highly offensive claims that they are
      “tokens” with zero qualifications for their respective jobs and are in
      positions of seniority/influence solely because they are “female, Muslim
      and brown/non-white” (See #25, #29, #30, #31, #35, #53). Dawkins
      clearly shares the EDL leadership’s noticeable hostility towards
      Baroness Warsi in particular; furthermore, note Dawkins’ sneering “open
      letter” to Baroness Warsi (see #29), and also note the fact that the EDL
      leadership recently published a similar “open letter” to Baroness Warsi on their main website, written by an unidentified anonymous author.

      13. Richard Dawkins has published a lengthy diatribe by Robert Spencer/Pamela Geller/EDL ally/SIOE co-founder Stephen Gash.

      14. Richard Dawkins has enthusiastically republished a large number of viciously anti-Muslim comments originally posted on the discussion thread of a Telegraph
      article written by Baroness Warsi. Dawkins claimed that the only reason
      he was reproducing these comments on his own website was “because the Telegraph is apparently censoring them”.

      15. Despite the claims of Richard Dawkins’ defenders that he is an
      “equal opportunity offender” in terms of his criticisms of various
      organised religions, the aforementioned 54 quotes speak for themselves
      and Dawkins’ real pattern of behaviour is self-evident. Amongst other
      things, it raises the question of whether Dawkins was already perfectly
      aware that the anti-Islam/anti-Muslim propaganda he is basing his
      statements on originates in members of Robert Spencer’s extremist inner
      circle and their respective hate websites (which would have very nasty
      implications about Dawkins himself), or whether Dawkins has been
      astonishingly incompetent about researching his sources of
      “information”.

      16. Further information on Richard Dawkins’ other activities targeting Islam & Muslims is available here, here, here, here, here, and here.

      Examples of statements by Richard Dawkins:

      #1: [Quoting: “No
      I don’t think it was racist to feel that way. If you saw a European
      mistreating his wife in public wouldn’t you feel the same? “] “Of
      course. In that case I might have called a policeman. If you see a
      Muslim beating his wife, there would be little point in calling a
      policeman because so many of the British police are terrified of being
      accused of racism or ‘Islamophobia’.”

      #2: “Religion poisons everything. But Islam has its own unmatched level of toxicity.”

      #3: “Religion poisons everything, but Islam is in a toxic league of its own.”

      #4:
      “…..But let’s keep things in proportion. Christianity may be pretty
      bad, but isn’t Islam in a league of its own when it comes to sheer
      vicious nastiness?”

      #5: [Quoting: “He blamed ‘radical stupid people who don't know what Islam is,’”]
      “They are certainly stupid, but they know exactly what Islam is. Islam
      is the religion that wins arguments by killing its opponents and crying
      ‘Islamophobia’ at anyone who objects.”

      #6:
      “This horrible film deserves to go viral. What a pathetic religion: how
      ignominious to need such aggressively crazed defenders.”

      #7:
      “Muslims seem to suffer from an active HUNGER to be offended. If
      there’s nothing obvious to be offended by, or ‘hurt’ by, they’ll go out
      looking for something. Are there any other similar examples we could
      think of, I wonder, not necessarily among religious groups?”

      #8:
      “Paula’s letter in today’s Independent (see above) will doubtless
      provoke lots of fatuous bleats of “Oh but Islam is a peaceful
      religion.””

      #9: [Quoting: “But it has nothing to do with Islam.”]
      “Oh no? Then why do the perpetrators, and the mullahs and imams and
      ayatollahs and ‘scholars’, continually SAY it has everything to do with
      Islam? You may not think it has anything to do with Islam, but I prefer
      to listen to what the people responsible actually say. I would also love
      it if decent, ‘moderate’ Muslims would stand up and condemn the
      barbarisms that are carried out, or threatened, in their name.”

      #10: “What is there left to say about Sharia Law? Who will defend it? Who can find something, anything, good to say about Islam?”

      #11: [Quoting: “needed to respect other religions”]
      “That word ‘other’ worries me and so does ‘respect’. ‘Other’ than what?
      What is the default religion which makes the word ‘other’ appropriate?
      What is this ‘other’ religion, which is being invoked in this
      high-handed, peremptory way. It isn’t hard to guess the answer. Islam.
      Yet again, Islam, the religion of peace, the religion that imposes the
      death penalty for apostasy, the religion whose legal arm treats women
      officially as second class citizens, the religion that sentences women
      to multiple lashes for the crime of being raped, the religion whose
      ‘scholars’ have been known to encourage women to suckle male colleagues
      so that they can be deemed ‘family’ and hence allowed to work in the
      same room; the religion that the rest of us are called upon to ‘respect’
      for fear of being thought racist or ‘Islamophobic’. Respect? RESPECT?”

      #12: “All three of the Abrahamic religions are deeply evil if they take their teachings seriously. Islam is the only one that does.”

      #13: “Yes, Christians are much much better. Their sacred texts may be just as bad, but they don’t act on them.”

      #14:
      “Quite the contrary. I think the problem [with Islam] is with the
      MAJORITY of Muslims, who either condone violence or fail to speak out
      against it. I am now praising the MINORITY who have finally decided to
      stand up for peace and nonviolence.”

      #15: [Quoting: “Actually
      I think linking to every video this bigot releases does look like an
      endorsement, even if it's unintentional. Why not link to some news items
      by some other right wing bigots the BNP or the EDL, they're always
      banging on about Islam so it should qualify.”] “I support Pat
      [Condell]’s stance on Islam. It is NOT based on racism like that of the
      BNP, and he is properly scathing about so-called ‘Islamophobia’.”

      #16:
      “After the last census, Christianity in Britain benefited, in terms of
      political influence, from the approximately 70% who ticked the Christian
      box, whether or not they were really believers. With the menacing rise
      of Islam, some might even be tempted to tick the Christian box, for fear
      of doing anything to boost the influence of the religion of “peace””.

      #17: [Quoting: “What
      sort of justice is this? My daughter has been beaten to death in the
      name of justice,” Mosammet's father, Dorbesh Khan, 60, told the BBC.] “What sort of justice? Islamic justice of course.”

      #18:
      “Just as ‘communities’ has become code for ‘Muslims’,
      ‘multiculturalism’ is code for a systematic policy of sucking up to
      their often loathsome ‘community leaders’: imams, mullahs, ‘clerics’,
      and the ill-named ‘scholars’.”

      #19:
      “Forgive me for not welcoming this judgment with unalloyed joy. If I
      thought the motive was secularist I would indeed welcome it. But are we
      sure it is not pandering to ‘multiculturalism’, which in Europe is code
      for Islam? And if you think Catholicism is evil . . .”

      #20:
      “I don’t think this is a matter for levity. Think of it as a foretaste
      of more serious things to come. They’ve already hounded Ayaan Hirsi Ali
      out of Holland and their confidence is growing with their population
      numbers, encouraged by the craven accommodationist mentality of nice,
      decent Europeans. This particular move to outlaw dogs will fail, but
      Muslim numbers will continue to grow unless we can somehow break the
      memetic link between generations: break the assumption that children
      automatically adopt the religion of their parents.”

      #21:
      “I said that Islam is evil. I did NOT say Muslims are evil. Indeed,
      most of the victims of Islam are Muslims. Especially female ones.”

      #22:
      “Whenever I read an article like this, I end up shaking my head in
      bafflement. Why would anyone want to CONVERT to Islam? I can see why,
      having been born into it, you might be reluctant to leave, perhaps when
      you reflect on the penalty for doing to. But for a woman (especially a
      woman) voluntarily to JOIN such a revolting and misogynistic institution
      when she doesn’t have to always suggests to me massive stupidity. And
      then I remember our own very intelligent Layla Nasreddin / Lisa Bauer
      and retreat again to sheer, head-shaking bafflement.”

      #23:
      “Apologists for Islam would carry more conviction if so-called
      ‘community’ leaders would ever go to the police and report the culprits.
      That would solve, at a stroke, the problem that has been exercising
      posters here. ‘Community’ leaders are best placed to know what is going
      on on their ‘communities’. Why don’t they report the perpetrators to the
      police and have them jailed?”

      #24:
      “Presumably we shall hear all the usual accommodationist bleats about
      “Nothing to do with Islam”, and “It’s cultural, not religious” and
      “Islam doesn’t approve the practice”. Whether or not Islam approves the
      practice depends – as with the death penalty for apostasy – on which
      ‘scholar’ you talk to. Islamic ‘scholar’? What a joke. What a sick,
      oxymoronic joke. Islamic ‘scholar’!

      It is of course true that not all Muslims mutilate their daughters, or
      approve it. But I conjecture that it is true that virtually all, if not
      literally all, the 24,000 girls referred to come from Muslim families.
      And all, or virtually all those who wield the razor blade (or the broken
      glass or whatever it is) are devout Muslims. And above all, the reason
      the police turn a blind eye to this disgusting practice is that they
      THINK it is sanctioned by Islam, or they think it is no business of
      anybody outside the ‘community’, and they are TERRIFIED of being called
      ‘Islamophobic’ or racist.”

      #25:
      “Apologies if this has already been said here, but “Baroness” Warsi has
      no sensible qualifications for high office whatever. She has never won
      an election and never distinguished herself in any of the ways that
      normally lead to a peerage. All she has achieved in life is to FAIL to
      be elected a Member of Parliament, twice (on one occasion ignominiously
      bucking the swing towards her party). She was, nevertheless, elevated to
      the peerage and rather promptly put in the Cabinet and the Privy
      Council. The only reasonable explanation for her rapid elevation is
      tokenism. She is female, Muslim, and non-white – a bundle of three
      tokens in one, and therefore a precious rarity in her party. You might
      have suspected her lack of proper qualifications from the fatuous things
      she says, of which her speech in Rome is a prime example.”

      #26: [Quoting: “Muslim
      extremists have called for Aan to be beheaded but fellow atheists have
      rallied round, and urged him to stand by his convictions despite the
      pressure.”] “For one sadly short moment I thought the ‘but’ was
      going to be followed by ‘moderate Muslims have rallied round . . .’ Once
      again, where are the decent, moderate Muslims? Why do they not stand up
      in outrage against their co-religionists? Maybe Ayaan Hirsi Ali is
      right and “moderate Muslim” is something close to an oxymoron. How can
      they not see that, if you need to kill to protect your faith, that is a
      powerful indication that you have lost the argument? It is impossible to
      exaggerate how deeply I despise them.”

      #27:
      “There are moves afoot to introduce sharia law into Britain, Canada and
      various other countries. I hope it is not too “islamophobic” of me to
      hope that the “interpretation” of sharia favoured by our local Muslim
      “scholars” will be different from the “interpretation” favoured by
      Iranian “scholars”. Oh but of course: “That’s not my kind of Islam.””

      #28: [Quoting: “Richard,
      I really dislike disagreeing with you. However, female genital
      mutilation is not really based on Islam. My wife is from Indonesia and I
      have asked around and none of them know of anyone who does that in
      their country. From all that I have read and seen, it seems like it
      predates Islam and is mostly found in Africa and to a lesser extent the
      Middle East.”] “Even if you are right (and I am not necessarily
      conceding the point) that FGM itself is not based on Islam, I strongly
      suspect that the British police turning a blind eye to it is very
      strongly based on Islamophobophobia – the abject terror of being thought
      islamophobic.”

      #29: “Dear Lady Warsi

      Is it true that the Islamic penalty for apostasy is death? Please answer
      the question, yes or no. I have asked many leading Muslims, often in
      public, and have yet to receive a straight answer. The best answer I
      heard was from “Sir” Iqbal Sacranie, who said “Oh well, it is seldom
      enforced.”

      Will you please stand up in the House of Lords and publicly denounce the
      very idea that, however seldom enforced, a religion has the right to
      kill those who leave it? And will you stand up and agree that, since a
      phobia is an irrational fear, “Islamophobic” is not an appropriate
      description of anybody who objects to it. And will you stand up and
      issue a public apology, on behalf of your gentle, peaceful religion, to
      Salman Rushdie? And to Theo van Gogh? And to all the women and girls who
      have been genitally mutilated? And to . . . I’m sure you know the list
      better than I do.

      Richard Dawkins”

      #30: [Quoting: “Blimey
      Richard! This really has got up your nose, hasn't it? Your comments are
      usually a great deal more measured. It's not exactly uncommon for a
      Minister to “rise without trace”. I think we can all agree that our
      political system is “sub-optimal” to put it politely. Tokensim is one
      possibility (though if the Tories were really just after the muslim vote
      its interesting that they opted for a female muslim token).”] “I
      didn’t mean to suggest that the Tories were after the Muslim vote. I
      think they know that is a lost cause. I suspect that they were trying to
      live down their reputation as the nasty party, the party of racists,
      the party of sexists, the Church of England at prayer. More
      particularly, the ceaseless propaganda campaign against “Islamophobia”
      corrupts them just as it corrupts so many others. I suspect that the
      Tory leadership saw an opportunity to kill two, or possibly three, birds
      with one stone, by elevating this woman to the House of Lords and
      putting her in the Cabinet.

      I repeat, her [baroness Sayeeda Warsi’s] qualifications for such a
      meteoric rise, as the youngest member of the House of Lords, are
      tantamount to zero. As far as I can see, her only distinction is to have
      stood for election to the House of Commons and lost. That’s it.

      Apart, of course, from being female, Muslim, and brown. Like I said, killing three birds with one stone.”

      #31:
      “Baroness Warsi has never been elected to Parliament. What are her
      qualifications to be in the Cabinet? Does anyone seriously think she
      would be in the Cabinet, or in the House of Lords, if she was not a
      Muslim woman? Is her elevation to high office (a meteoric rise, for she
      is the youngest member of the House of Lords) any more than a deplorable
      example of tokenism?”

      #32:
      “I too heard Paul Foot speak at the Oxford Union, and he was a
      mesmerising orator, even as an undergraduate. Once again, Christopher
      Hitchens nails it. It is the nauseating presumption of Islam that
      marks it out for special contempt. I remain baffled at the number of
      otherwise decent people who can be seduced by such an unappealing
      religion. I suppose it must be childhood indoctrination, but it is still
      hard to credit. If you imagine setting up an experiment to see how far
      you could go with childhood indoctrination – a challenge to see just how
      nasty a belief system you could instil into a human mind if you catch
      it early enough – it is hard to imagine succeeding with a belief system
      half as nasty as Islam. And yet succeed they do.”

      #33:
      “Orthodox political opinion would have it that the great majority of
      Muslims are good people, and there is just a small minority of
      extremists who give the religion a bad name. Poll evidence has long made
      me sceptical. Now – it is perhaps a minor point, but could it be
      telling? – Salman Taseer is murdered by one of his own bodyguard. If
      ‘moderate’ Muslims are the great majority that we are asked to credit,
      wouldn’t you think it should have been easy enough to find enough
      ‘moderate’ Muslims, in the entire state of Pakistan, to form the
      bodyguard of a prominent politician? Are ‘moderate’ Muslims so thin on
      the ground?”

      #34:
      “It is almost a cliché that people of student age often experiment with
      a variety of belief systems, which they subsequently, and usually quite
      rapidly, give up. These young people have voluntarily adopted a belief
      system which has the unique distinction of prescribing execution as the
      official penalty for leaving it. I have enormous sympathy for those
      people unfortunate enough to be born into Islam. It is hard to muster
      much sympathy for those idiotic enough to convert to it.”

      #35:
      [Quoting: “Why do any media outlets keep repeatedly inviting her
      [Yasmin Alibhai-Brown] (excluding more capable, intelligent, qualified
      guests) as if she is some kind of authority or expert on anything at
      all?”] “Do you really need to ask that question? Media people are
      petrified of being thought racist, Islamophobic or sexist. The
      temptation to kill three birds with one stone must be irresistible.”

      #36: [Quoting: “I'm
      surprised nobody has acknowledged the elephant in the room -- namely,
      multicultural appeasement of Islam. The fact that (a) the paper was
      accepted, and (b) it took only five days to get accepted, suggests that
      there's something funny going on here. Could it be that the referee of
      the paper was a subscriber to the popular opinion in Britain that
      anything associated with Muslims short of murder in broad daylight is
      somehow praiseworthy and something to be encouraged?”] “Yes, I’m sorry to say that is all too plausible. Perhaps the Editor decided it would be “Islamophobic” to reject it.”

      #37: [Quoting: “I seem to remember a very bright young muslim lad”] You mean a bright young child of muslim parents.

      #38:
      “Oh, small as it is, this is the most heartening news I have heard for a
      long time. What can we do to help these excellent young Pakistanis,
      without endangering them? If, by any chance, any of them reads this web
      site, please get in touch to let us know how we might help. If anybody
      here has friends in Pakistan, or elsewhere afflicted by the ‘religion of
      peace’ (it isn’t even funny any more, is it?), or facebook friends,
      please encourage them to join and support these brave young people.”

      #39: [Quoting: “The obvious question is: who cares, are we saying when it was a catholic school it was ok and a Muslim school is worse.”] “Yes. It is worse. MUCH worse”

      #40: [Quoting:
      “I was even accused of having converted and married into another
      religion. But I wasn't worried as I'm a true Muslim," says the feisty
      young woman.”] If only she were a bit more feisty she would cease to
      be a Muslim altogether – except that would make her an apostate, for
      which the Religion of Peace demands stoning. Indeed, you’ll probably
      find she’d be sentenced to 99 lashes just for the crime of being
      feisty.”

      #41: [Quoting: “Disgusting
      and hideous as this practice is, I think the article makes it quite
      clear that it's not limited to any one religion or community. It's
      common to Christians, Muslims, Hindus, yezidis and many others.”] I just did a rough count (I may have missed one or two) of the named victims Robert Fisk mentioned. As follows:

      Muslim 52

      Hindu 3

      Sikh 1

      Christian 0

      But of course, Islam is the religion of peace. To suggest otherwise would be racist Islamophobia.”

      #42:

      “Whatever else you may say about Sam Harris’s article quoted above, and
      whether or not he is right about the NY Masjid, the following two
      paragraphs, about Islam more generally, seem to me well worth repeating.

      Richard”


×