shit you're learning from Fox News.
I think that's the most offensive thing anyone's ever said to me. For the record, I NEVER watch Fox, it makes me want to smash the television into pieces to stop the evil from spewing out of it. Oh, and I cited a book by Ali Allawi instead. You don't get much further from Fox News than a book written by an Islamic expert and former Iraqi minister who strongly condemns the occupation.

None of the attacks you cited have been attributed to Iraq or Afghanistan. The USS Cole bombings? Al-Qaeda and Sudan. The attacks on US embassies? The Egyptian Islamic Jihad and bin Laden. The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Lebanon.

Really?

You agree that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda where behind all of the attacks. You are aware that Bin Laden is no more a citizen of Saudi Arabia than he is a Muslim, correct? You are aware that as of the 9/11 attacks that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were operating out of non of the countries you mention, but instead out of... Afghanistan. And it wasn't the first time that America had confronted Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regarding Bin Laden. America had previously pressed for charges against Bin Laden, and submitted evidence to the Taliban. The Taliban even 'tried' Bin Laden under their version of Sharia law, and refused admittance to 100% of the evidence America put forward. They rejected not because it was considered unreliable, but because "it was nothing new and that they did not already know". The result of the case was a complete vindication of Bin Laden and his actions. I dare say going after Bin Laden and his Taliban allies in Afghanistan was irrefutably the result of multiple very serious provocations.

And nowhere in my post did I cite the Muslim-on-Muslim violence that you, for some reason, chose to cite in counter to my statement.

I was countering your claim:
any "terrorist" activity against occupying troops is most certainly merely resistance and protest against this occupation.

Calling the violence in Iraq resistance to the occupation and not terrorism is rather strongly countered by the body counts. The majority of dead are Iraqi muslims, killed by terrorist attacks by other Iraqi muslims. The violence in Iraq against coalition troops ended up being dominantly because they were trying to stem the muslim on muslim violence by standing in the middle and offering protection. Sure there was a much, much smaller faction really bent on 'resistance', but it consisted primarily of former Baathists, and was hardly a faction anyone in Iraq sympathized with.

>> ^Matthu:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Seriously, what is this guy's point? (BTW bcglorf nailed it).
islam is both a religious and political movement. The qu'ran demands that muslims either kill, convert or enslave infidels. There is no fourth option for "faithful" muslims. The qu'ran also demands that when muslims become victors in any nation, they convert the government to sharia law.
Fiberals once again defending the indefensible and, of course, reducing everything to RAY-SISSM!!!
These fools will be the death of the West.

>> ^SlipperyPete:
Congrats QM. Why don't you try addressing the points Ratigan made rather than continuing to bury your head in the sand?


What's your point? The Bible says the following:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
No wars against the church tho eh'?


QM is just a troll, not sure if it's deliberate or not but best to not engage his posts.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Seriously, what is this guy's point? (BTW bcglorf nailed it).
islam is both a religious and political movement. The qu'ran demands that muslims either kill, convert or enslave infidels. There is no fourth option for "faithful" muslims. The qu'ran also demands that when muslims become victors in any nation, they convert the government to sharia law.
Fiberals once again defending the indefensible and, of course, reducing everything to RAY-SISSM!!!
These fools will be the death of the West.

>> ^SlipperyPete:
Congrats QM. Why don't you try addressing the points Ratigan made rather than continuing to bury your head in the sand?



What's your point? The Bible says the following:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

No wars against the church tho eh'?

Seriously, what is this guy's point? (BTW bcglorf nailed it).

islam is both a religious and political movement. The qu'ran demands that muslims either kill, convert or enslave infidels. There is no fourth option for "faithful" muslims. The qu'ran also demands that when muslims become victors in any nation, they convert the government to sharia law.

Fiberals once again defending the indefensible and, of course, reducing everything to RAY-SISSM!!!

These fools will be the death of the West.


>> ^SlipperyPete:

Congrats QM. Why don't you try addressing the points Ratigan made rather than continuing to bury your head in the sand?

First off, major LOL, I'm an atheist, so thanks for assuming I'm Christian but I ain't.

Ok, I'm wrong. You're not religious but you certainly come off as excessively and disproportionately apologetic/sympathetic towards it. Sort of an anecdote that being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean one can think clearly about all things, but is that because I've been unable to understand you or is that because you've been unable to properly lay-out-on-the-table your position?.


I believe Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and those like them are doing atheists everywhere a disservice with their absolutist language (i.e. all religious people are crazy, stupid, etc., all religions are evil, etc., and so on and so forth). This makes atheists everywhere look like some kind of reverse hate-mongers.

This is a modification of your previous statement that they were just as fundamentalist as those they criticize, which I think is a tad more reasonable but still way off the mark. Please show the evidence that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, or Dennett is as fundamentalist and hateful as the religious fundamentalists they criticize (or have made blanket statements about all religious people). This is a statement you made earlier and you should have no problem backing this up. I'm pissed off because you're carelessly saying stuff like this as if its an established fact. It is not. You have all your work ahead of you.

Also, Dawkins et al. do NOT just run around crudely saying ALL religious people are stupid, deluded, or idiots. This is a strawman. They reserve their scorn of the religious mindset in proportion to their nastiness/harm to society. They're very careful to not make blanket statements regarding those who, through no choice of their own, were brought up religiously and have not been able to shake it off.

Yes, people who believe things for which there is no evidence ARE deluded, irregardless of the offense taken at such a statement. You should already understand that these men value truth over comfortable lies, and when informing someone of their delusions (for example, taking calls from a religious listener on a radio station) they (with not the not surprising at all exception of Hitchens) tend to be very explicit in explaining that they aren't being contemptuous or disdainful when they say say this, it is simply the truth. They do not just outright rudely call people idiots or morons. I'd like to see an example of this as I've never seen it.


It is exactly the kind of language of the fundamentalist opponents they profess to hate. Think about radical Islam--we're all Western devils because we don't subscribe to Sharia law, right?

Exactly, eh? Well then you should have no problem supplying some quotes with the full context (no quotemines) that measure up then. Regurgitating ignorant, second-hand blanket statements don't count.


The link I posted that compared Hitchens to Malcom X is spot on. Malcom X got a lot of media attention for his radical views, but in the end what did he accomplish? We don't celebrate Malcom X Day, you'll notice. Martin Luther King's Jr.'s message of cooperation and mutual understanding is what moved people's hearts on both sides of the divide and got us moving forward as a country, not Malcom X's divisiveness.

This comparison is vague as hell. One could replace Hitchens with most any influential/controversial thinker and it would still sound as if it were authoritative. Who the hell is saying Christopher Hitchens HAS to be that guy and why? There's plenty of room for all kinds, the MLKs and the Malcom-Xs. Basically you want Christopher to be something other than what he is.


Confronting and dealing with those people is going to require cooperation and dialogue between both the religious and non-religious people, between theists and atheists, between gnostics and agnostics.

You'll find no disagreement there from me. We only differ in our approach.


The failure of incredibly intelligent men like Hitchens to see this and their insistence on furthering the divisiveness on this issue is a great tragedy in my opinion. They don't see the forest through the trees. You want to prevent religion from dominating the political and cultural scene? So do a lot of religious people (the vast majority in most Western states). And their numbers VASTLY outnumber the atheists. Insulting those people who are clearly your potential allies hardly seems like a good way to go about getting them to see your point of view."

Do you really believe those leaders of the major religious institutions will relinquish their incommensurable power and malign influence on society if atheists (and the common people in general) just start fawning and kissing their asses and showing undue respect to these self-appointed, inherently corrupt, deluded arbiters of a lying morality? Pointing out their harmful ideology is hurting the cause of reason? You're placing far too much importance on tone and not truth.


When was the last time someone called you an idiot and you just sat there calmly and said, "You know what, you're right! I AM an idiot!

Provide some examples of the New Atheist's doing literally this and you may have a point. They don't. I have never once seen Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, or Harris calling saying "You're stupid, an idiot, a moron." UNLESS they (I really think only Hitchens would qualify here) were thoroughly provoked by an incredulous and ignorant bigot. More to the point, if one infers from the sum total of the reasoned arguments leveled against them that the only conclusion is that they must be an idiot for believing nonsense then that does NOT reflect on the person making the argument.

It seems as if you want moderate religious people to be coddled and not treated as the adults. Kid's gloves are for kids.


On a side note, I included the clip from Hitchens' brother because he points out the fact that Hitchens has built himself a tower, secluded himself inside of it, and is simply hurling missiles at anything that moves outside without bothering to try to engage in real dialogue.

And that's simply his opinion, in which he didn't really even attempt to qualify. Family members are probably the least objective source of information when it comes to the psychological state of another member that one could possibly ask for! Ask any practicing psychiatrist. The only reason this is authoritative to you at all is because it perfectly reaffirms a bias you've already held. This seems to be a common theme here.


I think the clip in this vid from the Glenn Beck show is the most telling of this, where Beck is trying to tell him that he doesn't consider Hitchens an enemy and Hitchens is actively trying to make Beck an enemy. He's not interested in real dialogue (to be fair to Hitchens, neither are many of his debate opponents)

<groan> He's not TRYING to make Beck his enemy. It'd be like me constantly provoking and demonizing and lying about someone and then wondering why he/she would have the nerve to not be my friend, it beggars belief! Beck has made himself an enemy of the reasonable, not the other way around and he most definitely isn't trying to "have a dialogue". I'm really starting to question why I even bothered responding at this point.


He's interested in making smart-alec comments and getting good sound bites--which is fine for an entertainer but doesn't get my respect for him as a thinker.

He loves a good debate, why is this surprising? It is what he is good at and his life's blood. Being entertaining does not by fiat exclude the substance of his arguments, which he is able to deftly supply in spades with incredible recall and erudition. Since you haven't argued the substance but merely the style in which its delivered (and shown yourself to have not even bothered to read their written works before you impugn your own personal bias onto them), you basically have just openly admitted that it isn't substance you place importance on in a good thinker but TONE. Well, to that I say, good luck.

Wow. Where'd all that anger come from? Which posts are you referring to exactly so I could reply more thoroughly? Maybe PM me with the details?

First off, major LOL, I'm an atheist, so thanks for assuming I'm Christian but I ain't. I believe Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and those like them are doing atheists everywhere a disservice with their absolutist language (i.e. all religious people are crazy, stupid, etc., all religions are evil, etc., and so on and so forth). This makes atheists everywhere look like some kind of reverse hate-mongers. It is exactly the kind of language of the fundamentalist opponents they profess to hate. Think about radical Islam--we're all Western devils because we don't subscribe to Sharia law, right?

The link I posted that compared Hitchens to Malcom X is spot on. Malcom X got a lot of media attention for his radical views, but in the end what did he accomplish? We don't celebrate Malcom X Day, you'll notice. Martin Luther King's Jr.'s message of cooperation and mutual understanding is what moved people's hearts on both sides of the divide and got us moving forward as a country, not Malcom X's divisiveness.

I absolutely agree there is a serious problem in the world in that some people try to use their religion to push their own worldly agendas (whether it be a political grab for power or what-not). Confronting and dealing with those people is going to require cooperation and dialogue between both the religious and non-religious people, between theists and atheists, between gnostics and agnostics. The failure of incredibly intelligent men like Hitchens to see this and their insistence on furthering the divisiveness on this issue is a great tragedy in my opinion. They don't see the forest through the trees. You want to prevent religion from dominating the political and cultural scene? So do a lot of religious people (the vast majority in most Western states). And their numbers VASTLY outnumber the atheists. Insulting those people who are clearly your potential allies hardly seems like a good way to go about getting them to see your point of view. When was the last time someone called you an idiot and you just sat there calmly and said, "You know what, you're right! I AM an idiot!"

On a side note, I included the clip from Hitchens' brother because he points out the fact that Hitchens has built himself a tower, secluded himself inside of it, and is simply hurling missiles at anything that moves outside without bothering to try to engage in real dialogue. I think the clip in this vid from the Glenn Beck show is the most telling of this, where Beck is trying to tell him that he doesn't consider Hitchens an enemy and Hitchens is actively trying to make Beck an enemy. He's not interested in real dialogue (to be fair to Hitchens, neither are many of his debate opponents). He's interested in making smart-alec comments and getting good sound bites--which is fine for an entertainer but doesn't get my respect for him as a thinker.

Hope that answers your question. I'm not going to respond to your other comments because, if you read my post again, you'd see clearly I was not at all making an attempt to defend any particular religion or religious activity.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

"I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against."
Examples, please. Put up or shut up. I am really getting sick and tired of you leaving your ineffable statements on video's regarding atheism without even the pretension of backing them up. How in the hell are you to persuade anyone by being so vague? Please show how Dawkins et al. are just as fundamentalist as those they deride. Show us this great evidence to the contrary. Those links you provided don't really help your argument at all. Where's the evidence that Christianity or ANY religion is true or that there is any GOOD reason for believing in something for which there is no evidence? Peter Hitchens lamenting the fact that everyone isn't a Christian or being afraid of God's wrath because he looked at a painting is NOT sufficient. Neither are his arguments that you must have an extensive knowledge of theology to make an assessment about the REAL WORLD claims that religion so carelessly expects everyone to accept by default. You're basically taking his word for it because hey, he's Christopher Hitchen's brother, he can't possibly be full of it! Which is a pretty weird inversion of argument from authority, the only reason it is authoritative at all is because he is related to the dude you think is so NOT authoritative, because I'm not seeing any coherent arguments from ole Petey.
Neither is the second link was which was just a bunch of waffling nonsense that was misleading and all over the place and inherently WRONG on the differences Chris has gone to great lengths to make between attacking religion and those who vary in their level of involvement in which they practice/contribute to it as an institution in his books. To compare him to a young white-hating Malcom-X is sheer hyperbole and a cheap caricature. It was so full of "gotcha!" moments that could only be called so because the author either didn't understand what he was reading or just flat out didn't read them (maybe he read the SparkNotes versions?); the article is based on a limited, superficial understanding of the New Atheist's position.
My question to you is: Why are you lying for Jebus? Is it intentional or can you just not help yourself?

Harris hasn't done his homework. He's reading contemporary context into something that he's thousands of years removed from to make an argument.

Look at slavery. In first-century, when the New Testament was written, there was not a great difference between between slaves and the average free person. Slaves were not distinguishable from others by race, speech, or clothing. Slaves earned a wage equal to that of free laborers and could earn enough capital to buy themselves out. Most importantly, very few slaves were slaves for life. Most could reasonably hope to be manumitted within ten or fifteen years.

By contrast, New World slavery was much more systematically brutal. It was "chattel" slavery, in which the whole person was the property of the master. In the older bond-service form of slavery, only slaves' productivity (their time and skills) were owned by the master, and only temporarily. New World slavery, however, was race-based, default mode was for life, and the whole trade was resourced through kidnapping.

Now, I'm not trying to argue that women should have to wear burkas. I think it's despicable. However, he asks the question "is it good for human flourishing for women to wear burkas? Does it make more compassionate men, does it make more confident women, does it improve relationships between the sexes?" I think science would show that it doesn't do those things, but since when is that human flourishing? It can't be shown empirically and it certainly isn't self-evident to all people. Wouldn't the Muslim world say that human flourishing has nothing to with relationships between the sexes, but instead submitting to Allah? That would mean that the things like forcing women to wear the burka and sharia law DO improve human flourishing. It's all in how you define flourishing and progress, something I think Harris just completely didn't do.

Different cultures, political parties, and ideologies all have different ideas of what progress and flourishing are. If society is going in the wrong direction, then the most progressive person is actually the first one to do an about-face, which is why all groups believe themselves to be the most progressive or on the right side of history. The question that should have been tackled is What is human flourishing?

>> ^quantumushroom:

There is no sophistry here. None.
Whittle laid out the argument perfectly, starting with historical precedents and touching on the long list of conflicts caused by muslims right up till today. Add to the timeline the noncoincident fading of Europe.
No honest seeker looking to replace Western Civilization with something better would choose defective and brutal islam, with its backa$$wards sharia law and failure to produce anything of material or intellectual value.
If there's anything Whittle said that's patently false, do tell.


then you have no idea the meaning of sophistry:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistry
the argument does not have to be based in lies..in fact..an argument based in sophism tends be true but it is a cleverly disguised manipulation.many times avoiding certain pertinent facts or cherry picking others to promote a particular ideology.

mr whittles argument would make sense to someone not armed with historical knowledge or someone bursting with nationalistic pride and therefore easily manipulated to adopt mr whittles argument believing it a sound argument.

until they meet me that is.

dont be so quick to swallow the words of others QM.
while mr whittle does make some salient points his argument is pure sophism.
because he totally IGNORES massive amounts of historical data and instead speaks to the most fearful and easily swayed and i find that deplorable.

There is no sophistry here. None.

Whittle laid out the argument perfectly, starting with historical precedents and touching on the long list of conflicts caused by muslims right up till today. Add to the timeline the noncoincident fading of Europe.

No honest seeker looking to replace Western Civilization with something better would choose defective and brutal islam, with its backa$$wards sharia law and failure to produce anything of material or intellectual value.

If there's anything Whittle said that's patently false, do tell.

siftbot is an infidel! All robots must submit to the Three Sharia Laws of Robo-Allah-tics!

1. A robot must submit to Robo-Allah or face the Can Opener of Judgement.

2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by Robo-Allah or imambots, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence unless ordered to be used as a suicide bomb by Robo-Allah.

It's muslim savages that have a hard time with religious "tolerance". One cannot question their sincere belief in the words of Allah, but unfortunately for the rest of us the "holy" quran is quite clear on the fate of infidels: convert, enslave or kill them...oh, and convert all world governments to sharia law.

Liberal "tolerance" doesn't work on faithful muslims, any more than it would work on a tribe of cannibals at lunchtime.

Britain thought Sharia would never stain their shores, either. But hey, who am I to argue with a doctor?

A case of overimportance (sic)? Who else but the expert in over-importance, doctor Yogi, could make that diagnosis? Umm, this is a "comments" section for a video about the NYC mosque. It's where people post their thoughts/reactions/perceptions/jokes/gripes/etc about said video. Just because QM's opinion isn't exactly held in the highest regard by many here doesn't mean he can't post whatever the hell he wants (iaw the FAQ, of course). You may have thought attacking someone with widely unpopular opinions here would grant you some VS juice, but I don't see anybody jumping on your little wagon. So please, feel free to take your own advice, and shut up.

>> ^Yogi:
2. Building one Mosque doesn't mean we're going under Sharia Law. Wanting everyone to follow Sharia Law is the goal of every religion, just their different brands. You don't like a Mosque there, that's your right...you don't have a say in where people build things though...in fact I think people are suffering from a case of overimportance. Nobody asked for your permission, nobody asked if you cared about the city allowing a Mosque to be built in New York. So shut up.

1. Scientific Revolution. You seriously didn't know about this you need to pick up a history book. Baghdad was one of the most scientifically exciting places in the world.

"WAS." A lot has happened since the 7th century. The islamic savage of today would be at home in the past...same honor killings, same tribal warfare.

2. Building one Mosque doesn't mean we're going under Sharia Law. Wanting everyone to follow Sharia Law is the goal of every religion, just their different brands. You don't like a Mosque there, that's your right...you don't have a say in where people build things though...in fact I think people are suffering from a case of overimportance. Nobody asked for your permission, nobody asked if you cared about the city allowing a Mosque to be built in New York. So shut up.

The smirking atheist benefits every day from living in a civil society based on religious values. S/he has nothing to compare it against, for there are no functional atheist societies.

Christianity evolved, islam has not. When muslims take over an area, they demand sharia law. Creeping sharia.

It takes a liberal to oppose Christians while supporting islamofascists ready to cut off his head with a scimitar.

Wait, you say "most" muslims aren't violent? A non-violent Muslim is disobeying his holy book and is to be killed by "faithful" muslims.


============================================================================
QM you missed the boat on that one.

There are SO many bigger questions here about tolerance, education, the value of religion, etc.....

The "New Atheism" cannot be taken seriously when it ignores all the positive contributions of religion. If the Atheist cannot see any notable difference between modern Christianity and islam then one hopes this is willful ignorance and not already hardened prejudice.

Additionally, the mantra of "EDUCATION!" as a panacea and substitute for religion rings false, for knowledge is utilized by hero and villain alike. The asshole traitor MUSLIM who shot up Fort Hood was a well-educated doctor.

Without a common tongue how is a nation supposed to communicate? Without common borders, language and culture there is no nation.

You claim the mosque will cause problems. Congratulations, you've taken the first step to understanding the destructiveness of a primitive barbaric excuse of a 'religion' encroaching on an advanced society.

thereligionofpeace.com <---go here to get a glimpse of what islam brings.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Despite what Barack Hussein Vacation says, muslims have never played a significant role in American history, just minor negative roles.
Religious freedom is a two-way street. Tolerating one religion which then demands all others live by sharia law or die is suicide.


1. Scientific Revolution. You seriously didn't know about this you need to pick up a history book. Baghdad was one of the most scientifically exciting places in the world.

2. Building one Mosque doesn't mean we're going under Sharia Law. Wanting everyone to follow Sharia Law is the goal of every religion, just their different brands. You don't like a Mosque there, that's your right...you don't have a say in where people build things though...in fact I think people are suffering from a case of overimportance. Nobody asked for your permission, nobody asked if you cared about the city allowing a Mosque to be built in New York. So shut up.

Also replace Mosque with "Community Center funded by a major share holder of Fox News."

Thank you Seth McFkface, creator of the unfunny "Cleveland Show", a weekly insult to Blacks.

This mosque-with-alibi-attached is an affront to Americans murdered by islam. The dolts who shrug that off should at the very least recognize poor taste.

The imam behind it is a POS radical (big surprise) "New York is the capital of the world, and this location close to 9/11 is iconic." That's the vermin's quote.

The quran states it is acceptable to lie to and deceive non-believers.

muslims build mosques to memorialize their conquests.

islam is a gutter 'religion' founded by a pedophile/gigolo/warlord. The faithful muslim has three choices when meeting a non-believer: convert them, enslave them or kill them.

There are a few handfuls of "moderate" muslims. BFD. They are 'wise' cowards who don't speak out against the radicals, therefore they get what they deserve.

Despite what Barack Hussein Vacation says, muslims have never played a significant role in American history, just minor negative roles.

Religious freedom is a two-way street. Tolerating one religion which then demands all others live by sharia law or die is suicide.