Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Absolute truth

Atheists Are Hypocrites

Recommended Posts

P.S. QED ,   Russel stated up  front or atleast implied it in no uncertain terms that he was an atheist . YOU on the other hand have just now announced your revelation and claim that you are NOW a convinced atheist . So in that respect alone , yes I would compare [ not confuse ] you with Russel .  No big deal , as I said I have nothing against atheists .  I believe it to be a subjective and highly personal position .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Interesting facts Absolute , however we are assuming that the brains can store data digitally , when in reality it is unknown what signaling or method the brain uses . Nonetheless that does not take away the amazing capacity  when compared to computers , considering only part of the brain is actually used for stoage of  information . It also performs a myriad o central nervous system , muscle and chemical tasks .  It is truly a wonder . Your figure is based on the high end , however even the low end of estimates is still yet amazing . What I find even more amazing is the simple [not really ] strands of DNA which command such a machine into existence from chemical instructions in that same strand of DNA .

 

But going back to your original premise  Atheists are Hypocrites , looking at it from a narrow sense that could be true , however as I'm sure you have concluded from my posts , I believe them to really be agnostics , lol...and for all the back  and forth banter between QED , Russel and myself . No man is born to be an Atheist or Deist . Each man investigates his surroundings and reaches his conclusions . The Agnostic has not yet reached his conclusion . Usually by experiencing contradictions in the world around him .

All three views are the result of a combination of things , one of which is free will . Surprisingly Science [but not really considering it's nature ] has postulated that FREE WILL may not exist and puts forth a theory of  retro-causality based on behavior of quantum  particles and a universe which reflects as such , where the future  can effect the past . That of course is not without dispute . Partial revisions have been made allowing for periods of Free Will ....all of this of course is the stuff of theory. This is just another example of course of how little we understand about TIME which is key in understanding the true nature of the Universe .The way we perceive time is indeed strange , when anxious it seems to pass slowly ,  when occupied it passes more quickly . So strange that a great sage and thinker of his time  Maimonides stated  "Time is a defect of creation ". He may have stumbled on something so long ago .

  

     All that aside , needless to say I am a Deist ,but by no means a religionist , and that by objective observation and subjective intuition . For just as I can not grab hold of any physical evidence of the existence of God , so too the Scientist can not explain the Origin of the Universe  and conclude there is no Deity based on any evidence he can grab onto . We both use intuition , but  on differing  basis' . We are all curious and we have science to satisfy as best it can , our curiosity , in addition to doing great good and sometimes inadvertently or intentionally great harm .

 

 I digress ,and become subjective :

 

The fact that men do horrendously evil things ,and yet there are men who do unimaginably courageous and good things at tremendous sacrifice and cost , indicates a bit more to our existence than random chemicals and elements forming an order leading to a life in which the resultant being can be cognizant of  [ indeed attempt to encompass ] the utter magnitude of the Universe . In addition have a choice that not even the galaxies have , and that is the choice to do good or evil . Another  sage has stated -

 " the simple man can see the Hand of God in Creation , and the wise man can see the Face of God in the eyes of his brother "

 

Of course this would be considered rubbish in the eyes of QED and Russel , but hey we are individuals with free will , and have the freedom to express it . I do not consider them lesser than myself .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligarr

 

Yes we do indeed need to work out what Dark Matter is and how to detect it.  We have some strong evidence that it does exist, we can see its gravitational effects on the shapes of galaxies for example but that’s as close as we get to it.  There are a number of camps on what it maybe but no one has yet come up with a way of detecting it directly still I’m not sure you need to understand Dark Matter to understand the Big Bang thought it would certainly help us build a more complete picture of this universe which must help.

 

De Sitter space does not require Dark Matter and probably neither does the inflationary view of this universe’s history, like all other matter it probably didn’t exist at that time, but chances are it played a significant role in the evolution of our universe at least since then so overall we will need to work it out to really understand what’s going on.  For me its great progress that we have discovered that it exists and detected its effects even if only indirectly.

 

Yes great minds are certainly banging their heads against the problem of finding Dark Matter and, hopefully, soon they will make that leap and work out how to find it.  Of course it’s going to help if they can work out what it is they are looking for but, as I said, there’s plenty of work going on in that quarter.

 

I think the laws of Quantum Mechanics are better understood than you seem to believe.  Sure we don’t understand exactly how they applied during the inflationary epoch and before though we have ideas but today, here and now, we understand to a very large degree how it works though I’m sure there are still surprizes out there to be discovered.  You mentioned entanglement for instance which is understood mathematically and even tested to some extent but we certainly don’t have the complete picture.

 

It’s been suggested that ideas in physics are replaced by attrition more than by revolution.  For a new idea to really take hold the old guard have to die off taking their outdated view with them.  I hope that is not really true though to some extent I’m sure that it is but new up and comers do make their mark, look at Einstein for example, and the old guard will grudgingly take on their ideas if the evidence stacks up.

 

You say you favour purpose and in a previous reply to QED you said you’d never believe that a particle burrowing event triggered inflation but that is the fallacy of personal incredulity at work not a rational position.  You can’t judge these things by common sense because common sense is out of its depth here.  Gut feelings are almost always wrong in these situations.  What does your gut tell you about the behaviour of electrons in the duel slit experiment?  As a wave it has to have knowledge of all possible paths through the apparatus but a particle can’t do that while a wave can’t hit a particle detector in just one path through the apparatus but the experiment proves that both views are true.  It’s a paradox caused mostly by our ‘common sense’ view of the world, a macro would in which such things can’t happen but we know from experiment and theory that they do indeed happen.  That’s why those greats suggested that you can’t just understand Quantum theory, it doesn’t make sense in the normal everyday logical sense only by the maths of quantum theory can we ‘understand’ it.  You have to throw out common sense and understand it purely by the maths and theory of quantum physics as science explains it.  No philosopher, no religious great can get you there, it’s totally beyond their abilities.  Yes some people are both but it is the scientist in them that gains them an understanding of the quantum not the philosopher or theologian.  The trigger for inflation was a quantum event.  Regardless of whether there was a god in there or not it was a quantum event given the scale of it and the energies involved.  Only scientists and those trained in quantum physics are qualified to tell you what’s possible in such a scenario, it is completely beyond any human, common sense, view of this world.

 

It’s my view that, from all the evidence we have so far, a purpose is not only not necessary but actually impossible in this.  Sure a god could have triggered inflation but no information and so no purpose can pass through that ‘event horizon’. There was no structure at all to the universe at that moment so no matter how a god tried to influence things he couldn’t.  If on the other hand you wish to claim that he hung around and imprinted this universe after inflation with his purpose then that is not ruled out by the evidence though there’s no evidence at all that it happened.

 

But I agree that we will have to wait and see because there is always more information coming along as new discoveries are made.

 

Do I see it as lesser to wish to believe that a god did it?  I guess I have to plead guilty there but I would never hold that against someone any more that I would hold it against a child to have imaginary friends.  If that makes them feel good then that’s fine by me because feeling good, being happy, is probably the most important thing we can do in this life.  LOL yes I’m a humanist too.  Don’t try to force your view onto other people and I have no problems with you.  I will explain my position to anyone who seems interested but I’d never try to nor wish to force my view onto anyone.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1005436_586995138063219_2069843246_n.jpg

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove.

Does it mean that when science has developed a data storage device that can store more data than the human brain (which, on the evidence of the last couple of decades, it almost certainly will) that you will consider it evidence against the existence of god? If not, why not?

BTW, the figure you quote is from just one study. Others put it as low as 2500 terrabytes. It is impossible to accurately determine the true figure. However, whatever it is, if science surpasses it, your proof for an intelligent creator has gone. Also, when the support system is switched off, digital storage does not lose all the data stored on it, unlike the human brain. We cannot retrieve the data from the brain of a dead person (another validation of the Argument from Poor Design?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one more small comment on atheism.  A theist is someone who can point at a god and say "I believe in him/her/it/them", an atheist is simply the opposite, it's someone who can't, someone for who there is no god who makes the grade.  Yes there is a subset of atheists who will say "I know there is no god" but you don't have to go that far to be an atheist you just have to hold no belief in a god.  Agnosticism is about knowledge rather than belief which is obviously a different question.  An agnostic is someone who says "We can't know for certain that there is a god or is not a god".  I accept both positions.  There are no gods which make the grade, I don't believe in any of them but I also don't believe we have enough knowledge to rule out all possible gods especially given how much variation there is within that domain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Russel , but I have read the explanation  of abandoning common sense in order to understand Quantum Physics  , and that one must rely soley on mathematical and quantum theory , I get that . The light through the slit experiment , which I mentioned earlier and happen to ascribe to , and that is , it is still a paradox , light behaves as both particle and wave , that experiment refined even gave an indication that particles can move back and forth through time , although what was detected was on an extremely small scale  but nonetheless detected , and I buy that, I understand , not the math but the results and the means by which the conclusion was arrived . I also understand the implication , which defy all that we know in the sensorial world .

 I can also grasp multiple Universes due to [but limited by my understanding of the math ] the way quantum particles behave .That theory espoused by a scientist who called in Retro-causality  , which I mentioned before , is based in quantum physics . And he explained that by the behavior of quantum particles . He then extrapolated that behavior to the possibility of the future affecting the past , which is a totally alien concept to all logic and common sense , but you know what , I get it , because if Entanglement is true and I believe it to be , two photons no matter how far apart they are placed ,even at opposite ends of the Universe , can share the same information at the same time . And guess what Russel I get that too , in fact that whole theory is based upon multiple Universes or several dimensions . So to have a particle "burrow into De Sitter Space time and trigger inflation " , is indeed plausible .

 But that particle that burrowed , DID NOT COME FROM NOTHING . It came from another Universe or Dimension , so it in fact came from something that already existed . You and Science would call that location from which it came " nothing " and I call it  "from somewhere " . If indeed that turns out to be the case , then I would pose the same question , from whence did that universe  from which that particle came , come from ?  Another burrowing particle ? Fine . Repeat the question .  I'm not trying to sound profound here Russel , but nothing comes from nothing . And your own explanation indicates that that particle came from somewhere , you just [ for lack of information ] choose to call it "nothing " .

  You do realize we are in a conundrum .

 

Now as to the subjective part of your post , you need not plead  guilty , that is indeed what you're doing, but there is no need to feel guilty about it . As to your remark about " children having imaginary friends " ?   LOL...that reinforces your guilty plea and your predisposed bias , but that is ok too . You feel you must talk down to the philosophical , hey I'm no moral or ethical paradigm .If that "makes you feel good " I'm fine with that , just don't try to slip it in so subtly because then you insult my intelligence to think it would go undetected .

  I have not attempted to " force my views on anyone ", nor do I get upset with others who do , I can defend myself in debate , yet I can also go ad hom for ad hom if that is the course you choose  .

 And finally as to "what makes me happy " ? Since you don't know me , you have no idea of what that may be . I can tell you this though , the subject we are discussing has absolutely nothing to do with my happiness . Nor does any conclusion science or philosophy can arrive at . We are individual creatures, each with his own world view and his own mind , which in effect is our individual universe .It's like the mathematical term of  pi , anything beyond the 3rd decimal is basically meaningless , the rest is mental exercise . It has no bearing in structures we build or formulas we come up with . And I'm sure someone will calculate it further on and we will call that person genius , buy at the end of the day it's as meaningless as the term Infinite .

  I agree with your statement of not forcing views on anyone , and maybe you can agree with mine , do not belittle those who understand the present limits of science and choose a philosophical explanation until science comes up with the answers I live in the here and now not what may be , IF, a discovery is made to challenge the core of my view .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw your next post Russel , I said Deist not Theist , and God not many or any gods . Your second sentence is merely a play of words . And Agnostic , coming from its Greek root simply means  I don't know , and does not necessarily require accepting  "both positions " .  Your last sentence in view of what you've said so far .....is a non-sequitur .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligarr

 

Yes the particle (photon or otherwise) through the two slit experiments are indeed a paradox but everything we know from quantum physics tells us that what we are seeing is really what the quantum world is like.  It’s not some trick.  We aren’t seeing conventional things and just misunderstanding them or misreading them.  The quantum realm really is weird by our everyday standards.  As I said you have to throw out common sense here.  Consider our inability to tie down the exact location and velocity of a quantum object at the same time.  Sure it appears that measuring one aspect of the object blurs our ability to measure the other but a more profound understanding of the quantum realm, that is virtually universally accepted today, is simply that that is how the quantum world is.  Those objects don’t have both well-defined speeds and locations rather they exist in a blurry superposition of probabilities until we look and our experiments are forcing them to adopt one, are collapsing their probabilities in specific ways, and in so doing are blurring their other characteristics.  The reason we can’t measure both simultaneously is that they don’t have both and exact position and velocity simultaneously.

 

Yes one solution to the paradox of the two slit experiment is that the object travelled backwards and forwards in time as many times as required to ‘experience’ the entire experimental setup and so to work out how to behave as if it were a wave but how many times does that mean it would have to travel backwards in time to complete one apparent pass through the experiment?  If that were true how could the particle only ever trigger the particle detector once or not at all when it must have travelled repeatedly through that space?  That’s the real paradox, even if travelling backwards and forwards in time were true the objects still behave as if they were just one object travelling in one direction through time when we look.  To me this idea appears to be a dodge, the actions of someone trying to avoid the apparent paradox seen in this experiment.  I suspect that the paradox is really how the quantum world works, it doesn’t have a classical dodge to avoid this, to make the objects turn into particles behaving strangely rather than a confusing wave/particle like object.

 

One interesting finding from quantum physics is that an electron traveling forwards in time is identical to a positron traveling backwards in time leaving open the possibility that there is only one electron in the universe just bouncing backwards and forwards between the start and end of the universe.  I very much doubt this is true but it’s not ruled out by what we know of quantum physics.

 

You state that the particle that burrowed into De Sitter space did not come from nothing and that’s certainly plausible.  One of the current theories is that that object came from the multiverse but the theory that describes vacuum fluctuations and burrowing events does not require that, in fact the consistency of the behaviour of these objects seems hard to reconcile with the idea that the extra energy is coming from somewhere else rather than just being part of quantum uncertainty.  Surely the multiverse would have some structure, its energy and particle density would not be uniform so the uniform behaviour of these things in our universe seems unlikely to be tied to a multiverse but it’s certainly to absolutely ruled out.

 

Still you are premature to state that that particle must have come from somewhere else.  The evidence certainly does not support that view and there is at least some evidence against it as I said.  Still only time will tell on that one.

 

No ‘nothing’ (the vacuum true and false) is well described in quantum physics as are other dimensions.  No I’ve never seen a quantum treatment of parallel universes etc but the maths is very clear on this point, quantum uncertainty is sufficient without an external source to produce such objects.  It may have come from somewhere but it certainly didn’t have to and there are reasons to suspect that it did not and could not.

 

Yes finding out that that initial bit came from another universe or from the postulated multiverse just moves the problem back probably forever out of our reach but doesn’t solve the problem of how this all began.  Of course saying “god did it” suffers from the same issue, whence comes god?  Yes I know the “he’s always existed” dodge but that is unsatisfactory, if anything can exist uncaused why not a simple universe rather than a complex god?  Lets face it Occam’s Razor suggests that we should favour the theory with the least assumptions which suggests a simple universe is more likely that a complex god to have existed forever.

 

One finding, again from the maths of quantum physics, is that quantum uncertainty applied to nothing at all is unstable.  It must explode with energy or uncertainty has been breached which means that a multiverse is not required though again it’s not ruled out.

 

You state that ‘nothing comes from nothing’ but that is, according to all the best evidence and theory of quantum physics, simply wrong.  That is you using your ‘common sense’ to work out what is true about the quantum world and you’ve already agreed that that is a foolish position to take.

 

Look to history if you want to understand the position of philosophy and theology.  Historically, time and again, philosophy has followed on from the discoveries of science.  That’s a rational position to take as most philosophies give science the lead in telling us how the world we live in actually works.  The philosophers look at the deeper implications of those findings because science is good at telling us how the world works but it’s bad at telling us how we should act because of that knowledge.  Look at evolution, it is driven by the deaths of the least fit ruthlessly and in huge numbers.  That’s what science shows us very clearly but should we take from that that we must live that way?  Philosophy can guide us on how we should react to the knowledge of how evolution works, it informs our moral codes and choices.  Theology on the other hand appears to need more persuading.  In the end it feels as if theology needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the present.  Few theologians are willing to just take science’s word for almost anything if it impinges on their deeply held preconceptions.  That’s not a good position to take in my opinion.

 

On my atheist explanations post you commented above, in post 103, that atheists were really agnostics but I disagree.  As I explained above each category is different and it’s possible to be both but not necessary.  My second sentence is not word play but an explanation of how these terms work. You may disagree with it but please try to understand what I’ve said first.  I’ve met atheists who claim certainty that there is no god, they are not agnostic about it as they claim knowledge of his/her/it/their nonexistence.  I am personally an atheist, there is no god I believe in and atheist is just the opposite of theist.  I don’t claim to know for certain that there is no god so I’m agnostic on that question.  I’m also an a-fairyist and an a-teapotist etc.  That’s the teapot orbiting pluto that you may have heard of.

 

Yes I agree with the greek, that agnostic basically is about knowledge, an agnostic says “I don’t know” and I don’t know if there is a god or not but I do know that I don’t believe in any of the god ideas I’ve been exposed to so far.  Who knows what the future may hold.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one's questioning the theories Russel you seem to be stuck on that . The statement something [ a particle ] coming from nothing , is not provable , you may think it is , but a  particle doing anything , having any effect does not appear from nowhere and from nothing .  Yes , I would accept quantum theory that a particle coming from a location that is not observable nor logical , and that idea emanating from a purely mathematical equation , is plausible , but I'm sure that equation is making an assumption , and that assumption according to preceeding equations used to describe observable and inferred behavior of quantum particles . And I believe it plausible that theoretical physicists can one day provide an equation to describe actually how the Big Bang came about . You talk about  the burrowing particle  triggering inflation in  De Sitter Space Time as an accurate description of the Universe as if it was the accepted paragon of the solution . It is not , you know it and I know it . Although  I am by no means a theoretical Physicist or any thing close to it , I know what the leading edge of Cosmology is postulating or what they are attempting to postulate . Unless of course you are willing to say THAT is the accepted view held by most Cosmologists . There are several views by the worlds leading cosmologists regarding this . It is by no means a settled issue , ESPECIALLY if you've read any of Hawking's work . In fact you are in no position to state categorically, that a particle has certainly NOT burrowed in to De Sitter Space Time from somewhere else  ie: another Dimension that we can not at this time [or possibly anytime ] detect , but instead from nothing . Theories on the Universe's origin are many , and there are arranged groups of the brightest new minds cloistered in think tanks for this very reason .

  As to your rebut on my statement regarding atheists , in the sense of the word itself agnostic , and it's literal meaning and generally accepted meaning -I don't know  , in my opinion you don't know either , so in essence you are an agnostic .

 

 As to your repeated confusion or mixing  of the two words  Theology and Philosophy OR Theologian and Philosopher ,OR theological and Philosophical  , I would suggest a visit to your Webster's .

 

LOL...and as for your  not being an a-fairyist and an a-teapotist   .....I'll just let that go . At this point in our discussion , that is just too rhetorical .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Russel , btw , the DeSitter model is only one of many . There's a variation of String Theories ,each requiring a different number of Dimensions ranging from 11 to 26 ,  a new one The Big Freeze [ check that one out ]

 

   There is Hawking' s collapsing and expanding bubbles , Black Holes as an origin , etc.

 

    Each of them in no way generally accepted nor satisfactorily proved , and none stating anything about particles appearing from NOTHING , as in the De Sitter model which, if I may assume , you favor.
  

    Hawking , in a lecture given sometime ago , stated that the detection of gravitational waves may lead to a theory of everything .

    Well as you know, just recently ,  gravitational waves have indeed been detected  .So I will wait on the next theory .And thus we will both have a more clear picture of reality . LOL...At least  until that view is challenged .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No big deal , as I said I have nothing against atheists .  I believe it to be a subjective and highly personal position .

Just spotted this post, and have to disagree with you on one important, some would say crucial, point.

Atheism (in the true sense of the word) is a product of objectivity. As soon as you stop projecting your own assumptions, incredulities and desires onto the problem and look only at the evidence in an objective way, it is the only logical position. The fact that some do not see it this way is because they are still taking the subjective and personal approach. It's a bit like addiction. The first step to solving the problem is admitting that there is a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all express our assumptions , that is called OPINION . In your opinion , there is no God , in mine there is . You have no objective proof nor does Russel , Science , nor do I regarding my assumptions .

 If you look at all the Theories on the Origin of the Universe , and actually read them ,  you will see that ALL are based on several assumptions . And those assumptions built upon previous assumptions , some mathematical in basis some intuitive . If you are going to use Theoretical physics as applied to Quantum Theory and Cosmology , then you have no valid argument supporting a superior assumption . Astronomy  is based almost totally in direct observation . All cosmological models make no statement of what is or was before the Big Bang .  Science may well do a better job at describing the Observable  Universe that we are living in , but NOTHING as to its origins .

 "True Objectivity " comes from direct observation " , in the absence of such, atheists base their view on assumption , opinion and subjectivity .

 Therefore the statement , "there is no god " ....is a matter of opinion . Just as " there is purpose " [ indicating an intelligent design or superior force . ] is a matter of opinion .

 

YOU inturn are here to "debate "  the  muslim  view , which you know to be absolutely rigid and dogmatic . I have made no attempt to "  project my incredulities or desires " , I accept the objective evidence , and go from there , as no doubt does Russel .But we both suffer that same lack of information at the point of the Big Bang or The Big Freeze , or The Bubbles ,  String Theories , and yes even Russel favorite , the De Sitter model , each wildly hypothetical , intuitive and subjective . At THAT point the scientific is no better than the Philosophical .

 In this I express my opinion , which is no less valuable than yours . If you think that "projecting " , well that is your problem , not mine . And indeed , if you wish to think your view is superior ? As I stated before , you are free to do so

 

LOL.... just don't project your problem [or your opinion]  onto me .  

 

 

 And unlike you , my view does not change due to the arguments of dogmatic , religionist Monotheism .  After all you did give thanks to Andalusi ,claiming you were "now convinced " , however sarcastic that may or may have not been .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, my comment was not about the origin of the universe. I have nothing to say about it. It was about reasons for taking a particular position regarding belief. Also, the "you" wasn't addressed to you in person, perhaps I should have used "one".

 

"There is no god" is not my (nor the atheist) position. It is rather that there is no good reason to believe that there are any. This position is arrived at when one finally lets go of the personal and subjective, and looks at the problem from a purely objective and logical viewpoint. That is why, unlike choosing any particular belief system, it is not just another subjective and whimsical choice but one based on what we actually know. How far does your belief in Intelligent Design go, for example? You may favour that the universe was created by the supernatural, but do you subscribe to evolution as the best explanation for life that we see today?

 

I have already stated this quite clearly but you must have missed it. My views did not change due to Andalusi's arguments. It was their very irrationality and naivety that prompted me to scrutinise my own beliefs more closely. It was not meant sarcastically at all. (Where's he gone BTW? I miss him.)

Edited by QED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution can be the product of I.D.   The mystery of DNA is in no way solved , it is described and behavior predicted .  And if the Origin of the Universe is indeed borne from a purpose , so too DNA part of that purpose .

  Science and the Philosophical encounter the same lack of information .  "Purely objective and logical " ? LOL....based on what OBSERVATION ?  

 

 Occam's Razor .

 

 There is no observational evidence which would then qualify as OBJECTIVE and thus LOGICAL .  You should also consult your Webster's as to the definitions of Philosophy  as opposed to Theology . You may take note that the philosophical takes into account RATIONAL as well as logic .

 In the absence of tangible ,observable, objective facts , your logic is no better than mine .  The statement, there is no god , is not based in logic , it is based in opinion .   The proposal of 26 dimensions is whimsical and subjective , what science can not admit is that the best of their mathematical equations ,be they quantum based or not , break down atleast several Planck after the explosion /bang expansion or iinflation , however one chooses to describe it . What gives science the exclusive right to shoot in the dark  ?   And to assume that is superior to the philosophical ? That is SUBJECTIVE .

 

 If you want to continue in this circular argument , feel free .

 

Irrationality and naivety run amuck on this planet . I do not let it affect my views in any way , other than confirming the existence of free will , and the existence of good and evil . Men engage in activities that in no way can be the result of any evolutionary process or behavior . No where in the animal kingdom are creatures motivated by hatred .  But that is a "whole nother subject " .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if you are deliberately attacking straw men or just rambling, but it's a bit like talking to Andalusi.

I'll leave you to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL...."attacking straw men "   , that's a  good one . But typical . I'm attacking no one , though that seems to be your perception when your view is challenged . You bear a greater resemblance to andalusi ,, than you think .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligarr

 

You say no one is questioning the theories but then go on to say that ‘something from nothing’ is not provable which questions the theories.  In a scientific sense nothing at all is ever provable but that was not what you meant I assume as that hardly needs stating.  There are a series of theories and experiments, started by John Bell in the 60’s designed to prove or disprove the idea that quantum descriptions of a systems state were complete and so there were no hidden variables.  In other word every aspect of the system was modelled by the quantum equations.  The idea at the time was that some hidden variables might explain non locality though the work is now far more general than that.  He worked on a number of quantum problems which are all now lumped under “Bell’s Theorems” and completeness was one of them, the critical one in this instance.  You are suggesting that the something from nothing aspect of quantum theory, which applies to quite a few aspects of quantum theory, from vacuum fluctuations to entanglement and even radioactive decay, are false and there are in fact a hidden variables at work, in the current case that would be a universe or multiverse which is the source of that initial object that triggered inflation.  The outcome from all of those experiments was that quantum descriptions of these systems are complete, there are no hidden variables not accounted for by quantum mechanics.  That means that non locality is real and that these objects appear from nothing by borrowing energy from the vacuum exactly as described by the quantum state formulas.  It shows that the ‘multiverse’ behind your idea of the source of these particles is not real under this formulation.  Of course there will be a quantum formulation that describes a particle burrowing from another universe to trigger inflation but this one is consistent with everything we know of quantum mechanics and it doesn’t include an extra universe or multiverse.  I’m not aware of anyone coming up with such a formula though I’m sure they could.

 

I never said that this burrowing idea was the accepted theory or that it was proven, all I have said of it is that it is a valid solution to quantum mechanical equations and that it fits with the evidence.  It is accepted by quite a few and it is rejected by quite a few, probably more, but it has considerable support so it is at least worth considering.  Maybe the answer lies elsewhere but I don’t think we’ll make any progress by disputing well tested bits of quantum mechanics as if that makes the theory acceptable.  Slipping a multiverse or a god behind it defies the findings of quantum completeness so that’s unlikely to help.

 

No this is certainly not a settled issue, I don’t remember ever suggesting that it was, in fact I seem to remember clearly spelling out that this was just one idea and that at this stage it could not even be tested.

 

Yes I’ve read quite a bit of Hawkings work and I can’t say I find the idea of a time circular universe satisfying but who knows, that too is one of the theories that may turn out to be true though I personally doubt that one.

 

You are correct that I can’t say for sure that a particle didn’t burrow from somewhere else triggering inflation but that’s not this theory, the maths which describes this situation is incompatible with that idea but I’m sure someone else could find a solution that would work that way.

 

I’m not mixing up philosophy and theology, I’ve consistently used each word correctly, they are different though in some ways similar things but they are distinct enough that each has characteristics that we can talk about.

 

LOL maybe being an a-fairyist etc is rhetorical but it is also true.  We’ve invented thousands of gods to date and even more implausible creature ideas from fairy’s to big foot, I’m an a-ist to each of them or to all of them collectively.  I would have to suggest that, in the absence of evidence, that is the only rational position to take here.

 

You suggested that I favour the De Sitter tunnelling model but that’s not actually true.  As you state there are quite a few competing models any of which may turn out to be true but we’ll have to wait on more evidence to see.  No my point in raising and defending that one is that it is complete and consistent with well tested quantum mechanical principals.  You can’t just write it off because there’s no god in it and you can’t just slip in another source dimension because it feels better to you, the theory is consistent with observation, consistent with well tested quantum mechanical principals and it is internally consistent without such added universes/dimensions.  It may well be wrong, most such ideas are in the end, but so long as it exists you can’t just write it all off and say god must have done it because there are no alternatives because here is an alternative, one of many.  I’d have to suggest that this idea has fewer holes in it that the “God did it” idea you seem to favour.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Russel

 No hidden variables ? Except the biggest one in the room , burrowing from where ?  A place you accept to be called NOTHING . The Casimir effect proved that what we think was a vacuum actually had varying wavelengths of photons , some even as much as a meter . Oddly enough you are repeating " Ex Nihilo " . If it is a valid solution , why then are there competing theories which go off in totally different directions bearing no resemblance to such a quantum equation. I'm sure all in the cosmological loop are well aware of quantum mechanics . It is an hypothesis Russel . And it is not an accepted valid solution , because it fails to explain how anything  comes from nothing , and Casimir did not settle that problem nor is Casimir  fully understood .

 

   Sorry Russel you get no buy on this . There is nothing in quantum theory that would indicate , that now famous burrowing particle came from "nothing " .  The trick here for the layman is to understand the science-theoretical physics , atleast to the point of what is known and what is unknown , what it assumes and where the math breaks down and supposition and assumption come into play . When theoretical quantum physicists can not determine the origin of the Universe or that particle or are just scratching the surface in understanding or trying to  understand the paradoxes presented to them , they will make guesses not based on anything rational , or known , so they will make a statement such as " it came from "nothing " , then defend that statement with a clever axiom , "if you say you understand quantum dynamics then you don't understand quantum dynamics  " . LOL.,.that may be true , I'm no Theoretical Physicist , but I do see a bit of a problem . They are saying that they do not understand what they are observing , and they have no mathematical equation that would satisfy what they've observed .So they devise an equation to describe what they cannot observe or have not observed, but what they assume will satisfy the paradox that they have observed . Really ?

 There is no prediction of something coming from nothing only a guess as to know something appeared from a location that is yet totally unknown . Hawking's explanation that perhaps a series of expanding and collapsing bubbles ,with the Universe being one of those  oscillations  which successfully became the Universe we observe . Or is it the latticed structure found in the various String Theories ? All however require something coming from something pre-existing or a dimension  we are unable to perceive . None in fact really say something from nothing .

  Look Russel , I respect your opinion , and I really appreciate the time , and no doubt patience you have displayed discussing this with me .  And if you say you have no rational reason to think there could be intelligent design or God , hey I'm ok with that . I have in now way attempted to force or proselytize my view .We both live in the same reality , and neither of  us knows it's true nature . I find it no more irrational to say Purpose than you saying No purpose .  And yes , you have mixed the two words , for Theist or Deist is not how the word Philosophical is defined , and that comes up in use of the example of Occam's Razor where the philosophical is described as the simplest rational and logical explanation . The Science ? the same . In the absence of information they have equal weight . You say no ? I  say yes . I do favor God did   it  . That's my stab in the dark and after all there is only two choices .And I do not base my choice on any "book " or tradition or ritualistic thinking . Simply rational and logical . If you have facts that contradict that view , I'm open minded . We are both relying on intuition at this point You can not say science will have an answer in a year or a millennia , I can not say it won't . Present  day mathematics can not fully explain the behavior of our own star . So go to the roulette table and play red or black , your odds are 50/50 .

 

Respectfully / Aligarr   [ short for Alligator Gar ]

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligarr

 

Yes no hidden variables.  The point of all that work stared by Bell was to try to determine if the entire quantum system was modelled by the maths or if there were unaccounted for factors involved.  The findings were very strongly that the mathematical description of these quantum systems was complete.  The description used to generate the theory of quantum tunnelling from nothing into De Sitter space did not include anything that could be described as ‘another universe’ to be the source of that particle.  As I said I’m sure there are solutions to those equations that do include such a realm, be it another universe or something else but not this one.  Don’t get confused by trying to stuff ideas into it that the maths doesn’t support.  If the idea is false it’s false but not because you won’t accept that it say what it says.

 

The maths of the Casimir effect shows that quantum uncertainty is a real property of quantum systems, no object can ever be described in perfect detail with absolute certainty even a vacuum which is a perfectly describable quantum system.  Such systems produce, spontaneously, bursts of energy, photons if they are small and particle groups if they are larger.  The point of Bell’s research was to show that the quantum descriptions were complete and real.  If you describe a vacuum in quantum terms all of this activity appears spontaneously.  If it’s not spontaneous then something is seriously wrong with the maths of quantum mechanics but I have to say that I doubt that given how amazingly accurate some of its predictions generated by it have been to date.

 

Tunnelling into De Sitter space is a valid solution to these equations but there are other valid solutions too that may well have produced a universe or maybe a god did it.  The point is that there is a valid solution to those equations so god is not necessary here.  If some other theory proves to be correct, some other solution to those quantum equations, then that’s what science is about working out but this solution remains valid even if some doubt that it was the method, even if it’s shown that it was not the method of creation it’s still valid.  That’s why we are having this discussion.  To be accepted as a plausible solution to the question “the beginning of the universe” it must first be a valid solution to the problem theoretically/mathematically.  This idea is.  Next it has to be shown to be valid versus the evidence and at this stage this, and the competing theories, have not passed this test.  If it was not a valid solution to the quantum equations then it would have been rejected already.

 

You are free to disagree that the energy seen in the Casimir effect experiments came from the vacuum but that is what the maths says.  Bell showed that the maths of quantum theory was complete, the explanations shown in the maths were total and valid descriptions of what happens and they describe the vacuum as nothing plus quantum uncertainty.  You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to agree but that is what the maths and theory shows.

 

I think those famous statements touched on something very deep about quantum physics, something you seem to be missing.  Feynman et al were not saying that they don’t understand quantum physics, they were pointing out that you can’t ‘understand it’ with common sense.  If you think you can you will be shocked, if you think you can you are mistaken and you have not understood it.  Feynman spelled out in detail that the only way to really understand quantum systems was to understand the maths that so amazingly accurately describes them and which Bell showed were complete, valid and accurate descriptions of them no matter how bizarre the behaviour you were witnessing. That means that when the maths describes a particle seeing the entire experimental setup even though it only went through it once that is how it behaves, when the maths describes objects climbing over potential barriers which they don’t have the energy to climb to trigger a radioactive decay that was what happened, when it described energy coming from a vacuum because of quantum uncertainty that was what happened.  You don’t have to understand it and accept it based on common sense in fact if you try you will fail because it is not amenable to common sense but it is real, quantum events don’t behave like any other things you are ever going to come across.

 

You are wrong when you say that none of these ideas say something from nothing, I’ve pointed out at least one idea that says exactly that.  Yes many of the other schemes don’t say that, in fact often they appear to be trying specifically to avoid saying that and who knows, maybe they’ll be proven correct in the long run but we’ll have to wait and see.

 

No we don’t know the true nature of this reality, maybe the Matrix was right and it’s all down to the code, who knows.  I chose to deal with the world as if what I see is real even though I know that that’s a very skewed view but the world works better for me if I do so.  I think you are wrong about the god idea, there are thousands of contradictory god ideas, and hundreds of thousands of ways to worship them, some create worlds and universes and some don’t, some are singular and male, some are groups, pantheons etc.  It’s not a single clear picture and the deciding factor between those ideas is rarely evidence and reason.  Science isn’t like that, it has many ideas, competing ideas, but the evidence is what decides between these ideas, that’s how all knowledge should be.

 

The science clearly shows us that a purpose could not have been applied to the universe before inflation, it could never have survived that event to reach the present.  A purpose applied after that event means a god who interacts with the universe which opens him/her/it/them up to detection but they don’t show up, we can’t detect them and to me that speaks volumes against that idea.

 

You’ll have to look back and find anywhere where I’ve mixed up the words philosophy and deist/theist.  As far as I’m aware I’ve always treated them correctly and as separate objects though they do share many commonalities.  If you can find one please post it in your reply so we can talk about it.

 

I think what you need to do if you want to find the truth in this is to start from the base assumption, the null hypotheses and see where the evidence takes you from there.  Assume all positions are wrong until the evidence, not gut feelings, emotions etc but evidence leads you.  Give it a go, I doubt you’ll find a god showing up in your thinking.

 

Roulette does not give you 50/50 odds.  How could the house make a profit?  There are 37 or 38 numbers on the roulette wheel but the main coloured numbers account for only 36.  That extra one or two gives the house it’s edge so it will take, on average 1/37th or 1/38th of the money played.  That’s how they turn a profit.

 

But god/no god isn’t like that, there’s science or there’s one of thousands of gods and hundreds of thousands of worship systems which you have to choose amongst without using real evidence.  You’re odds are far lower than roulette.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assume all positions are wrong , until what Russel ? A proven theory ? Indeed . I don't see one . I see many theories . They come and go . I do not search through "thousands of god" nor do I worship any , that is irrelevant to what we are discussing  . You still attempt to merge theology with philosophy . A philosopher is just as likely to be an atheist as he is a Theist .

 Science is superior only in that it can better describe what we observe , and make predictions and calculations  which are extremely accurate . Quantum theory no matter how impervious to common sense it may be or seem , has no definitive answer as to the origin of the Universe . It's not as if the Math is there as the guide , the math is devised to describe what science encounters . And when a paradox arises , the math simply breaks down , quantum or otherwise .  

  Quantum theory has yet to explain the Big Bang , it may at some future date , but presently  it hasn't . Hawkings is scratching his head as well as the leading theoretical physicist of the world . Quantum theory can not venture beyond those few Planck seconds after the Big bang , physical laws as we know then breakdown as does the math . At that point any assumptions are based in in unknowns , quantum or otherwise .And as I stated earlier , quantum theory has yet to explain the behavior of our own star .

   We are back to Occam's Razor at present .

 As for roulette , I qualified my example with simply playing no number , but black or read , if the number of black slots is equal to red , your odd are 50/50 , however if the numbers of slots are an odd number then that becomes 51/49 in favor of the higher number of slots of  color . Actually the  00  puts those odds at 52/48  still an almost even gamble . Over time in the rotation of the game and given players that also play the numbers the house gains a much greater advantage .  However that's about  the best you'll get in reckoning odds  for purpose or random chaos .   Call it what you will, at this stage of the game , it's intuition , either based in science or philosophy . There may be a breakthrough tomorrow , but not as of yet .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they devise an equation to describe what they cannot observe or have not observed, but what they assume will satisfy the paradox that they have observed . Really ?

Isn't that what Peter Higgs did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"if you say you understand quantum dynamics then you don't understand quantum dynamics  "

This was never meant as a serious critique of quantum physics, to be taken literally. It is like the old saying "If you can remember the sixties, you weren't there". It was meant to illustrate how counter-intuitive it is. I have never heard of it being used by physicists instead of an explanation.

 

From the Royal Society website:

 

A quote that is sometimes attributed to Richard Feynman is "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics".

This might be slightly disheartening if you need to learn about quantum physics for your up-coming exams! It is important to remember that although quantum physics is weird it has been tested with reproducible results many times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’ll have to look back and find anywhere where I’ve mixed up the words philosophy and deist/theist.  l

He may be referring to me. I think I have lumped philosophers/theologians together at one point when compating with scientists in respect of their track records of testable predictions and technological advances. (The reason why they don't carry the same weight when making "guesses" about the way things work, IMHO).

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”


×