Tuesday, May 14, 2019

The Donald Trump of atheism

Dawkins is kind of the Donald Trump of atheism. But he has his following, just as Trump does. 

95 comments:

StardustyPsyche said...

"Dawkins is kind of the Donald Trump of atheism. But he has his following, just as Trump does"
Huh?

Sorry Victor, this one is kinda sparse.

But, Ok, Trump, the most dishonest, criminal, incompetent, financially bankrupting, traitorous president in our history.

Dawkins is just a guy who writes books and gives video lectures variously attacking religion or describing the science of biological evolution.

So, how are these guys comparably similar?

Legion of Logic said...

I'm assuming the comparison is over them both getting in trouble over tweets, but I'm not sure.

One Brow said...

Atheism has worse characters than Dawkins, but Dawkins is narcissistic, Islamophobic, and sexist, so I don't find the comparison inapt.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
A phobia is an irrational fear. Criticizing a religion that leads people to riot over a cartoon, push gay people from rooftops, stone adulterers to death, enslave women, murder people for being apostates, and generally perpetrate violence, ignorance, and mayhem...well, it is hardly irrational to fear such a religion, and such is Islam.

A great deal of what passes for modern feminism is just misandry and idiocy. Calling out the bigotry and stupidity that saturates so much of feminism will result in the label of sexist.

Dawkins has a pathological lack of empathy? Really, for who?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

The problem with the comparison is that Trump is not the champion of Christianity Dawkins is the champion of atheism.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Did Dawkins steal the presidency of atheism?

Starhopper said...

I believe what is being referred to here is Dawkins' rather unfortunate (to put it kindly) tweets. Is that right, Victor?

Jimmy S. M. said...

lord I wish Trump was as irrelevant and Dawkins, having peaked in like, 2007

bmiller said...

Did Dawkins steal the presidency of atheism?

Who was he running against? Marx is dead right?

Legion of Logic said...

Did Marx get the electoral vote?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Legion of Logic said...
Did Marx get the electoral vote?

The comparison was Trump and Dawkins not Trump and Marx..The electoral college was to keep Trump like people out so it obviously fails.One might also consider the fact that the founding fathers really had no faith in democracy and really didn't want "the people" to have voice. But they did want to keep out people like Trump.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

If you think the comparison must be between elected officials how about Trump and Hitler? Hitler burned the Richstag, Trump received benefit from from Russian Propaganda on face book

Legion of Logic said...

My Marx statement was in response to bmiller. I'm aware the initial comparison was between Trump and Dawkins, hence why my first post in this thread addressed that very thing.

Whether a foreigner lies on Facebook or an American citizen lies on Facebook (or CNN), both result in benefits based on lies. I'm not too worried about Facebook.

bmiller said...

Nick Fish is the President of Atheism after David Silverman was ousted under disputed corruption charges.
Sounds fishy to me :-). I understand they use Super Delegates! 😱

Victor Reppert said...

I am mainly thinking that after Dawkins, and after Trump, dialogue on the relevant issues got considerably worse.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
A phobia is an irrational fear.

Why do Islamophobes always use the same, stupid rhetoric? Don't you actually know English? A phobia can be an irrational fear (agoraphobia), an extreme fear of something dangerous (acrophobia), or a dislike of something different (Francophobia). Calling Dawkins, or you, an Islamophobe is doing nothing more than idetifying your irrationally setting Islam apart.

Criticizing a religion that leads people to riot over a cartoon, push gay people from rooftops, stone adulterers to death, enslave women, murder people for being apostates, and generally perpetrate violence, ignorance, and mayhem...well, it is hardly irrational to fear such a religion, and such is Islam.

Such is also Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Marxism, and pretty much every other belief system that has gained any sort of power in the world. There's no reason to single out Islam as being uniquely bad there.

A great deal of what passes for modern feminism is just misandry and idiocy.

A great deal of what passes for criticism of feminism is just ignorance, privilege, and self-protection.

Calling out the bigotry and stupidity that saturates so much of feminism will result in the label of sexist.

I'm guessing you get call sexist a lot, and have no idea how much you have earned that appellation.

Dawkins has a pathological lack of empathy? Really, for who?

Among others, those who have been molested as children.

One Brow said...

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
Did Dawkins steal the presidency of atheism?

The great thing about skepticism is that we don't need heroes of our movement.

Blogger Jimmy S. M. said...
lord I wish Trump was as irrelevant and Dawkins, having peaked in like, 2007

That goes for both of us.

bmiller said...
Who was he running against? Marx is dead right?

Marxism is just another belief system, and probably less popular among atheists than Christians.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Legion of Logic said...
My Marx statement was in response to bmiller. I'm aware the initial comparison was between Trump and Dawkins, hence why my first post in this thread addressed that very thing.

Whether a foreigner lies on Facebook or an American citizen lies on Facebook (or CNN), both result in benefits based on lies. I'm not too worried about Facebook.

May 15, 2019 3:19 PM

and if Russia hand picked our alleged president for us you would not care as long as they chose the republican, right?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

One Brow said...
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
Did Dawkins steal the presidency of atheism?

The great thing about skepticism is that we don't need heroes of our movement.

that is BS. I;ve dealing with atheists in argument for 20 years It;s obvious Dawkins is their hero. I think their New atheism is dying, it;s contracted a lot over the last five years so they may have lost their enthusiasm for him.

Legion of Logic said...

That would be quite the feat. I had no idea half the country consisted of Russian agents.

bmiller said...

Comrade. Shhhh, please!

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger Legion of Logic said...
That would be quite the feat. I had no idea half the country consisted of Russian agents.

May 16, 2019 7:45 AM
Blogger bmiller said...
Comrade. Shhhh, please!

May 16, 2019 8:19 AM


I said "if" genius.

If I told you I believe all school children in the Us should be forced to lean Arabic numerals, and that churches should be force to allow homo sapiens to worship in them, you would be outraged.

One Brow said...

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
that is BS. I;ve dealing with atheists in argument for 20 years It;s obvious Dawkins is their hero.

Another great thing about skepticism is that I don't care whether other atheists engage in hero worship; I still know it is wrong.

One Brow said...

A comment by a skeptic on Dawkins bigotry I just say today:

Of course, I’m a heathen too, or, as I jokingly like to describe myself, about as lapsed a Catholic as you can be. I’m not defending religion, particularly fundamentalist religion. I’ve been refuting religion-inspired antiscience since at least 2004, including creationism and other forms of evolution denial. Dawkins’ hot take is wrong, though. It doesn’t just fail to tell the whole story. It leaves out so much that it does a disservice to so many Orthodox Jews whose prompt and enthusiastic cooperation with authorities in Michigan limited the spread of the measles outbreak. These Jews were motivated by their religion. So are the Orthodox Jewish nurses in Rockland County and Brooklyn on the ground fighting for the health of their communities. In other words, the situation is far more complicated than Dawkins’ easy anti-religion sloganeering would lead you to believe. Unless we understand this, we can’t make progress against the spread of antivax misinformation. Worse, it risks feeding the anti-Semitism that the measles outbreak among the Orthodox Jews has provoked and that several of them interviewed in various news stories complained about.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2019/05/16/dawkins-vs-measles/

bmiller said...

@Joe,

If I told you I believe all school children in the Us should be forced to lean Arabic numerals, and that churches should be force to allow homo sapiens to worship in them, you would be outraged.

Well you're a known heterosexual and there's rumors your sister is a thesbian, So there!

Legion of Logic said...

I said "if" genius.

The question you asked didn't deserve a serious response. Self-reflection. Try it sometime.


If I told you I believe all school children in the Us should be forced to lean Arabic numerals, and that churches should be force to allow homo sapiens to worship in them, you would be outraged.

An ambassador for Christ, you truly are.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

One Brow said...
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
that is BS. I;ve dealing with atheists in argument for 20 years It;s obvious Dawkins is their hero.

Another great thing about skepticism is that I don't care whether other atheists engage in hero worship; I still know it is wrong.

Fair enough, good answer, one,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger bmiller said...
@Joe,

If I told you I believe all school children in the Us should be forced to lean Arabic numerals, and that churches should be force to allow homo sapiens to worship in them, you would be outraged.

Well you're a known heterosexual and there's rumors your sister is a thesbian, So there!

yea? well I hear you masticate at the table! ;-)

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

LL The muller report never denies Russian attempts to ruin the election. There's a ton of evidence they did intervene and still are. All of our intelligence agencies have said it, it;s not controversial,it;s proven; they were effective they may well have tipped the election for bone spurs.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

LL:The question you asked didn't deserve a serious response. Self-reflection. Try it sometime.

I have no reason to assume your unqualified support of democracy since you back someone who is actively seeking to destroy it. You don't say things to dispel the idea that you support it.


If I told you I believe all school children in the Us should be forced to lean Arabic numerals, and that churches should be force to allow homo sapiens to worship in them, you would be outraged.

An ambassador for Christ, you truly are.


that was just a joke,I saw a thingon Face book that 57% of Americans say it;s alarming that school choirden are being taught Arabic numerals. Bmiller saw it was a joke

Legion of Logic said...

The muller report never denies Russian attempts to ruin the election.

Neither have I. I am simply not alarmed if a Facebook lie is from Russia rather than America, since both are designed to do the same thing - influence the election based on lies. Americans on both sides do that on a daily basis. Short of Russia hacking polls and changing votes, which to my knowledge did not happen, I've not seen anything to indicate that Russia stole the election. I know many people who voted Trump, and none of their reasons are Russia.

I have no reason to assume your unqualified support of democracy since you back someone who is actively seeking to destroy it.

How so? Not cooperating with Democrat's endless open-end investigations? I wouldn't either.

Also, I didn't vote for Trump. Like Obama, I will defend him from what I think are serious but unfounded or exaggerated charges.

that was just a joke

Telling someone who disagrees with you politically that they are dumb, ignorant, brainwashed, bigoted, or some personalized combination of the four is not precisely uncommon with you, so it is hard to tell a joke along the same lines. But I will accept what you said as a joke.

That sounds similar to the bombing of Agrabah hoax.

bmiller said...

@Joe,

yea? well I hear you masticate at the table! ;-)

Who told you that? I'm going to chew him out :-)

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Me: The muller report never denies Russian attempts to ruin the election.

LL: Neither have I. I am simply not alarmed if a Facebook lie is from Russia rather than America, since both are designed to do the same thing - influence the election based on lies.

That's the kind of short sighted, defensive, denial oriented answer I've come to expect from Trumpies.


Americans on both sides do that on a daily basis. Short of Russia hacking polls and changing votes, which to my knowledge did not happen, I've not seen anything to indicate that Russia stole the election. I know many people who voted Trump, and none of their reasons are Russia.


how ridiculous, none of them said: "hey I'ma Russian trying to subvert the democratic process will you please change your vote? again the FBI. the CIA and all the intel orgs say you are wrong.

Me:I have no reason to assume your unqualified support of democracy since you back someone who is actively seeking to destroy it.

How so? Not cooperating with Democrat's endless open-end investigations? I wouldn't either.

why is it important to get snap answers to it all? Mu;;er is not a De he was probably a Trojan horse. Trump is a crook We have him so many ways, He;s totally subverted the regulatory process. None elected him specifically to destroy enforcement of every law with social content, that's what he;'s doing,so much for faithfully extincting the laws...it's important to get all the facts

Also, I didn't vote for Trump. Like Obama, I will defend him from what I think are serious but unfounded or exaggerated charges.

there aren't any, he's not getting enough criticism, his BS has been normalized,now, WE just accept it all because he's Trump this is what he does.

that was just a joke

Telling someone who disagrees with you politically that they are dumb, ignorant, brainwashed, bigoted, or some personalized combination of the four is not precisely uncommon with you, so it is hard to tell a joke along the same lines. But I will accept what you said as a joke.


You guys have told me that I'm crazy I'm way out I;'m super radical I'm a communist. That I cant understand things, none of you can sustain an argument from one assertion to the next,

"That sounds similar to the bombing of Agrabah hoax."

all your arguments are just statements of prejudice and snap judgement,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

::P your caviler attitude tells me you appear totally uninformed about what's going on with Trump.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...


this was on FB. Republicans try to minimize the seriousness because it means the end of their reign.

Robert Reich
11 hrs ·
Senate Majority Leader McConnell is saying he will not allow any new election security measures to reach the Senate floor. Never mind that Russian attacks on the U.S. election system in 2016 were even more serious than reported at the time, according to new disclosures, and intelligence officials say they are bracing for more aggressive attacks from a wider array of foreign adversaries in 2020.

I worry that McConnell is practically inviting foreign governments to invade our elections because he believes they’ll help Trump’s reelection bid. I hope I’m wrong.
What do you think?


Legion of Logic said...

That's the kind of short sighted, defensive, denial oriented answer I've come to expect from Trumpies.

So because I don't display the same level of shrieking alarm over a lie found on a global internet, I'm a "short-sighted, defensive, detail-oriented Trumpie"? It's amazing what one can learn about oneself. And here I thought a prerequisite for being a "Trumpie" would be voting for Trump!

again the FBI. the CIA and all the intel orgs say you are wrong.

No they don't. I've not disagreed with anything they've said. I'm also not going to rend my garments and cast dust into the air because some Russian posted a lie on social media. Hacking our systems, yes that's a big problem that we should have been prepared for. Lies on Facebook? Yawn. It's people's responsibility to verify information regardless of its source.


Mu;;er is not a De he was probably a Trojan horse.

So there is a left-wing equivalent to Infowars.

You guys have told me that I'm crazy I'm way out I;'m super radical I'm a communist

I'm not "you guys". I answer only for myself. And I don't have a problem with you or Starhopper or Victor for being left-wing (not sure the converse is true), any more than I have a problem with Stardusty or One Brow not being Christian. I'm okay with people disagreeing with me. What I am not okay with is being called ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, bigoted, or dishonest simply for having an opinion or value hierarchy that differs from what progressives think. That will definitely lead to flippancy from me, at the very least.

When I'm called a "short-sighted Trumpie" simply because I am not freaking out over social media lies, I'm not inclined to treat that attitude with respect. It certainly deserves none.


all your arguments are just statements of prejudice and snap judgement


So much for joking, Ambassador.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

That's the kind of short sighted, defensive, denial oriented answer I've come to expect from Trumpies.

So because I don't display the same level of shrieking alarm over a lie found on a global internet, I'm a "short-sighted, defensive, detail-oriented Trumpie"?


what is it exactly you are calling a lie? I wont try to access why yo are a "short-sighted, defensive, detail-oriented Trumpie"


It's amazing what one can learn about oneself. And here I thought a prerequisite for being a "Trumpie" would be voting for Trump!

you seem to defend him

again the FBI. the CIA and all the intel orgs say you are wrong.

No they don't. I've not disagreed with anything they've said.

they sure as hell do you are probably mistaking Russian action for Trump collusion, Collusion with Trump has not been ruled on but the idea that Russia was active in our elections is a fact no one disputes.

I'm also not going to rend my garments and cast dust into the air because some Russian posted a lie on social media. Hacking our systems, yes that's a big problem that we should have been prepared for. Lies on Facebook? Yawn. It's people's responsibility to verify information regardless of its source.

what you dismiss as one little post is really thousands you don't care about that you probably don;t care. That is obviously not all they are doing,


Muller is not a Dem he was probably a Trojan horse.

So there is a left-wing equivalent to Infowars.

stay asleep little repibloican Im sure you don;'t give a damn about democracy anyway,

You guys have told me that I'm crazy I'm way out I;'m super radical I'm a communist

I'm not "you guys".

one of them


I answer only for myself. And I don't have a problem with you or Starhopper or Victor for being left-wing (not sure the converse is true),

You don;t know left wing from a hole in the ground you sure as hell don't know what I think about the left, you are one of those ultra conservatives who thinks anyone left Reagan is a "real leftist" radical.


any more than I have a problem with Stardusty or One Brow not being Christian. I'm okay with people disagreeing with me. What I am not okay with is being called ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, bigoted, or dishonest simply for having an opinion or value hierarchy that differs from what progressives think. That will definitely lead to flippancy from me, at the very least.

you were willing to label e with varicose fringe labels so I would not be taken seriously

When I'm called a "short-sighted Trumpie" simply because I am not freaking out over social media lies, I'm not inclined to treat that attitude with respect. It certainly deserves none.

Your attempt to reduce the problem to just one post on face book shows a desire to minimize rather than solve. That tells me you are not aware or hiking very deeply about the current state of western civilization or our society and the political challenges that face us. I am sorry to offend you but that is short sighted. reducing the problem to one post on face book is short sighted,


all your arguments are just statements of prejudice and snap judgement

So much for joking, Ambassador.


You didn't laugh at the joke,I;m not joking here. Maybe we shoud goon face book

May 17, 2019 5:33 AM

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking

Russians Hacked Voter Systems in 2 Florida Counties. But Which Ones?
Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was sworn to secrecy by the F.B.I. and cannot publicly reveal which Florida counties were hacked during the 2016 election.

By Patricia Mazzei


May 14, 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/20/us/politics/russia-interference-election-trump-clinton.html
For two years, Americans have tried to absorb the details of the 2016 attack — hacked emails, social media fraud, suspected spies — and President Trump’s claims that it’s all a hoax. The Times explores what we know and what it means.
By SCOTT SHANE and MARK MAZZETTI
SEPT. 20, 2018


Russian attack is to underscore what we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign.

To many Americans, the intervention seemed to be a surprise attack, a stealth cyberage Pearl Harbor, carried out by an inexplicably sinister Russia. For Mr. Putin, however, it was long-overdue payback,...And there is a plausible case that Mr. Putin succeeded in delivering the presidency to his admirer, Mr. Trump, though it cannot be proved or disproved. In an election with an extraordinarily close margin, the repeated disruption of the Clinton campaign by emails published on WikiLeaks and the anti-Clinton, pro-Trump messages shared with millions of voters by Russia could have made the difference, a possibility Mr. Trump flatly rejects.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

from that dangerous commie rag USA today

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/22/mueller-report-what-know-russian-election-interference/3538877002/

WASHINGTON – Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign spelled out in elaborate detail a sophisticated, Kremlin-led operation to sow division in the U.S. and upend the election by using cyberattacks and social media as weapons.

The Russian operation was so successful, experts warn, they’ll almost certainly try again.

“We’ve been focused on what has happened. We’ve focused almost nothing on how to prevent it in the future,” said Michael McFaul, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Russia under President Barack Obama.

“I think those are things we need to look at hard,” McFaul said. “Because time is short.”

Here are five things to know about Russian election interference and its impact:

‘A significant escalation’
Mueller’s 448-page report, released to Congress and the public on April 18 after a nearly two-year investigation, provided the most comprehensive description to date of Russia’s efforts to boost Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 presidential election.

bmiller said...

@Joe,

I don't think you'll convince many conservatives by linking to left-leaning publications when they can easily get the unbiased facts from HERE

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

B you actually just write off the NYT as "left leaning" it;s the nation most prestigious newspaper. Have you seen a list of the awards they've won for the quality of the misreporting?

Name one conservative daily that matches it in terms of award wining journalism?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I also used USA today

bmiller said...

Yep, I wrote it.

NYT
USA Today

Also, biased journalists giving other biased journalists awards does not make them unbiased. Just means they are biased in the same direction.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

anyone who counts against your view is biased USA today is very conservative,

you claim you wrote the USA today? you agree with me

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

bmiller are you Tom Vaden or Michael Collins?

bmiller said...

@Joe,

Should have been:
Yep, I wrote it off.

anyone who counts against your view is biased USA today is very conservative

USA Today is rated as left-leaning according to the links I provided.

There are publications that are biased toward the right and there are others (the majority) biased toward the left. I read both. That way I get to see the stories that the right doesn't want you to see as well as the stories that the left doesn't want you to see.

You should try it sometime.

Legion of Logic said...

A lot of people have trouble admitting that something they agree with is biased, or at least they have trouble agreeing that said bias is problematic when it comes to judging truth.

StardustyPsyche said...

@Joe
"stay asleep little repibloican Im sure you don;'t give a damn about democracy anyway,"
You don't get taken seriously as a rational debater, nor do you attract much traffic to your web site with your diversionary links posted here, because, in part, you post so many hysterical shrieking internet psychobabble raving lunatic statements.

As soon as somebody disagrees with you then you start yelling about their lack of belief in democracy, or how they are just spouting the party line, or other similar crackpot bullshit.

GTFU

StardustyPsyche said...

Victor Reppert May 15, 2019 10:31 PM said...

"I am mainly thinking that after Dawkins, and after Trump, dialogue on the relevant issues got considerably worse."
Hmmm...Well, maybe, in some senses, but my first questions would regard correlation as opposed to causation.

And what do you mean by "worse"? Worse how and for who and why?

StardustyPsyche said...

@One May 16, 2019 5:12 AM
“Anti-French sentiment (Francophobia) is an extreme or irrational fear or contempt of France,”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francophobia
You don’t know what you are talking about. Francophobia is an irrational fear. Islamophobia would be an irrational fear, if fearing Islam were irrational, which it isn’t.

“Such is also Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Marxism, and pretty much every other belief system that has gained any sort of power in the world. There's no reason to single out Islam as being uniquely bad there.”
More PC liberal stupidity.
Christ as portrayed in scripture was the original hippy, peace, love, and pacifism. The more you read Christ the more you love your enemy.
Buddha in no way advocated violence.
Hindus are not going around killing in the name of Vishnu.
Marxism isn’t even a religion, but combating communism was also quite rational.

Muhammad was, by the accepted texts of Islam itself, a violent warlord, conquering lands, murdering, stealing, raping, enslaving, and subjugating. The more you follow his example, as a good Muslim is supposed to do, the more violent and dangerous you become. Hence Isis, Boko Haram, and other Islamist organizations that understand the texts clearly and accurately and therefore act upon them true to the instructions of Muhammad.

You don’t have even the slightest clue about what you are talking about. Your ignorance is appalling.

StardustyPsyche said...

Victor Reppert May 15, 2019 10:31 PM said...

"I am mainly thinking that after Dawkins, and after Trump, dialogue on the relevant issues got considerably worse."
I think Dawkins has added greatly to improving dialogue on issues relevant to religion in particular...

...especially on the subject of Islam. When so many liberal minded people were equating all religions and engaging in all sorts of rationalizations on the subject Dawkins was out front calling out the hypocrisy of the left on Islam.

But, the liberals just would not budge from their fantasy worldview, which left an opening for Trump who absolutely thumped Hillary with her silly refusal to even call it Islamic terrorism. That was such an easy target even Trump could not get it wrong.

That is about the only thing Trump has done right, to at least call Islamic terrorism for what it is, so at least in that one instance, Trump managed to improve the dialog. Just goes to show, even the most sick, diabolical, and destructive leaders occasionally get something right.

Trump, of course, has debased the national dialog terribly, for the most part, with his race baiting, undermining our criminal justice system, lies about who really pays for tariffs, and on and on and on.

Dawkins, however, has been pretty much right on just about everything he takes public positions on.

So, Victor, no, I cannot agree with the way you, in part, equate the two men.

Starhopper said...

I am the furthest thing from an apologist for Islam. I believe it to be fundamentally a perversion, not of Christianity, but of the worst of Christian heresies. I believe it to be a literal fulfilment of the prophecies of St. Paul in Galatians that there would be "another gospel" preached by someone who will have claimed to have heard it from an angel. It's worth noting that Paul concluded by saying "Let [the purveyor of such a gospel] be accursed!" The world would be a far better place today had Muhammad never lived.

That said... I can only speak of individual Muslims that I personally know - neighbors, people I meet in grocery stores and other shops, the man I've bought all my carpets from, and the woman who accompanied my younger daughter on a trip to West Africa - rather than the umma. And of those persons, I have only good to say. I know no Islamic terrorists, and no Muslim who wishes to kill me. They are Good People and make a valuable contribution to my community.

So, as little as I cared for George W. Bush (I still think he stole the 2000 election from Gore), he did the right thing after 9/11 by publically and ostentatiously attending services at a mosque and declaring that the terrorists were the antithesis of Islam. I wish our current president would do the same.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

There are publications that are biased toward the right and there are others (the majority) biased toward the left. I read both. That way I get to see the stories that the right doesn't want you to see as well as the stories that the left doesn't want you to see.

You should try it sometime.


that is the mark of a true ideologue; everything is against you there are no valid sources that disagree with you.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

As soon as somebody disagrees with you then you start yelling about their lack of belief in democracy, or how they are just spouting the party line, or other similar crackpot bullshit.

we are talking about how our election was subverted a foreign power, one that you right wingers sue to be really upset about, but now not bothered in the lest. Wy? Because you like the guy they put in charge. which says it all.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

USA Today is rated as left-leaning according to the links I provided.

Barry Goldwater would be left leaning according to those sources

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Stardust Psyche

But, the liberals just would not budge from their fantasy worldview, which left an opening for Trump who absolutely thumped Hillary with her silly refusal to even call it Islamic terrorism. That was such an easy target even Trump could not get it wrong.

Hillary won the popular vote you know, how easily we forget,

That is about the only thing Trump has done right, to at least call Islamic terrorism for what it is, so at least in that one instance, Trump managed to improve the dialog. Just goes to show, even the most sick, diabolical, and destructive leaders occasionally get something right.

Improved the dialogue? Not that I would disagree but we just got through shootng the hell out of Isis, kis the improvement you mean?

Trump, of course, has debased the national dialog terribly, for the most part, with his race baiting, undermining our criminal justice system, lies about who really pays for tariffs, and on and on and on.

at least you see he;s done some things wrong,i bet you vote for him

Legion of Logic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Starhopper said...

I believe that Peace in our Times is a reliable "left leaning" (whatever that means) publication.

Yes, it is unabashedly antiwar. That does not mean it can't still be reliable. Unless you're of the opinion that jingoistic pro-war publications have a monopoly on the truth.

And I believe that as a US Army veteran with decades of civilian service in the Dept. of Defense (the last 5 years at the highest civilian rank, and the manager of a billion dollar program), I have the expertise to judge such material as to its reliability.

Starhopper said...

By the way, Joe. I actually voted for Barry Goldwater. I am the only person I know who can (proudly) say that he voted for both Goldwater and McGovern.

Top that for non-partisanship!

StardustyPsyche said...

@Starho[[er
"declaring that the terrorists were the antithesis of Islam."
Only an ignorant fool, or liar, would make such a declaration.

Anybody who knows anything about the texts of Islam knows that Bin Laden, Isis, and Boko Haram are acting out the explicit instructions of Muhammad and emulating Muhammad.


" I wish our current president would do the same."
Calling Islamic terrorism just exactly that is about the only thing Trump has gotten right.

StardustyPsyche said...

Starhopper said...

" I am the furthest thing from an apologist for Islam."
You are an ignorant fool for Islam, I am not sure which is more contemptible, a criminal's accomplice or a criminal's bitch.

You are the Eva Braun of Islam.

StardustyPsyche said...

@Joe megacrock
"Hillary won the popular vote you know, how easily we forget,"
So did Gore, but with the concentration of superstitious ignoramuses in the small states that have disproportionate voting power winning a majority or a plurality isn't good enough for reason to win the day, Hillary also had to not speak of stupid things like Black Lives Matter and Islamophobia, but she did, so she lost, because she was stupid in a politically correct liberal sort of way.

"Improved the dialogue? Not that I would disagree but we just got through shootng the hell out of Isis, kis the improvement you mean?"
Trump did not improve our victory over Isis, Obama handed that to him on a silver platter. Trump called Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism, about the only correct thing he has done in the past few years.

bmiller said...

Joe,

that is the mark of a true ideologue; everything is against you there are no valid sources that disagree with you.

Huh? Reading both sides makes me "a true ideologue"? Sheesh!

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

The limits of Science in the Search for God, part 1

I. A Global approach to knowledge enables us to understand the inadequacy of the scientifically based view that writes God out of the picture.
II. Understanding the need for the global approach to knowledge gives us the understanding of the link between ground of being and the divine.
III. Understanding these two points gives us the basic realization of the reality of God that frees us from the need to prove.



Since Laplace uttered those fateful words, “I have no need of that [God] hypothesis” God has been disassociated from science. Just why he uttered them is another matter but the upshot seems to be that those who find their hobby if not their profession in doubting the reality of the divine do so on the grounds that its not “officially backed” by science. The constant refrain of atheists heard around the net every single day “there’s no proof for YOUR God” echoes the call for scientific evidence as the only form of knowledge. The success of the “Back to God movement” in philosophy, stunning though it has been, nevertheless is tainted with the dismissal on the part of atheists, skeptics, and some agnostics that God arguments are not “scientific.” The God argument as a species is broadly criticized for not being science and for being philosophy. The point of this work is to demonstrate the notion that belief in God is rationally warranted, but that it need not be demonstrated with scientific rational. The purpose here is to forge a new apologetics.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

@Joe megacrock
"Hillary won the popular vote you know, how easily we forget,"
So did Gore, but with the concentration of superstitious ignoramuses in the small states that have disproportionate voting power winning a majority or a plurality isn't good enough for reason to win the day, Hillary also had to not speak of stupid things like Black Lives Matter and Islamophobia, but she did, so she lost, because she was stupid in a politically correct liberal sort of way.

circular reasoning. You want a system that represents the arbitrarily fictional entities called "States" while ignoring the choice of the people

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Starhopper said...
By the way, Joe. I actually voted for Barry Goldwater. I am the only person I know who can (proudly) say that he voted for both Goldwater and McGovern.

Top that for non-partisanship!

Did you know taht Godlwater and McGovern were real good friends? In the end i wound up admiring Goldwater. Still reject his political views.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

StardustyPsyche said...
Starhopper said...

" I am the furthest thing from an apologist for Islam."
You are an ignorant fool for Islam, I am not sure which is more contemptible, a criminal's accomplice or a criminal's bitch.

You are the Eva Braun of Islam.

funny you should mention Eva Braun...

Starhopper said...

Oh, and by the way, here and here are two examples of "right wing" publications that, although I do not always (or even often) agree with them, I consider to be quite reliable in their news coverage.

So yes, "reliability" is not the exclusive province of either political leaning.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
@One May 16, 2019 5:12 AM
“Anti-French sentiment (Francophobia) is an extreme or irrational fear or contempt of France,”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francophobia
You don’t know what you are talking about. Francophobia is an irrational fear.


I wonder what goes through the mind of the Islamophobe when, quoting a definition that they themselves provide, which says "fear or contempt", they entirely miss the part about "or contempt" and only see the part about fear.

Islamophobia would be an irrational fear, if fearing Islam were irrational, which it isn’t.

It's quite rational to be afraid of Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists, Hindus, etc. depending on the circumstances. It's irrational to take all followers of a religious organization and say they are all dangerous.

Here's a quick one for you: in the US, over the past 10 years, have we had more terror killings by Christians or by Muslims?

More PC liberal stupidity.

When you have to resort to meaningless terms as a position in an argument, you have already lost.

Christ as portrayed in scripture was the original hippy, peace, love, and pacifism. The more you read Christ the more you love your enemy.'

You need to read your Bible better. Also, Jesus is not alive anymore.I was referring to Christians, not Jesus of Nazareth.

Buddha in no way advocated violence.

Buddha is long dead.

Hindus are not going around killing in the name of Vishnu.

Except, they are. It just doesn't cross your parochial threshold.

Marxism isn’t even a religion, but combating communism was also quite rational.

Since the term I used was "belief system", not being a religion is not really significant. Feel free to let me know when you come across some communism to battle in the real world.

Muhammad was, by the accepted texts ... true to the instructions of Muhammad.

I accept your position on how a good Muslim should behave with the same lack of authority that I accept the positions of Christians on what it means to be an atheist. Instead, I will accept the position of the Muslims I have worked with, pst and present, on what Islam means.

You don’t have even the slightest clue about what you are talking about. Your ignorance is appalling.

If I were you, I'd also hate being called out on my prejudice.

One Brow said...

Blogger bmiller said...
USA Today

You source is wrong. The only expaples they give of supposed left-bias are anti-Trump statements, and as I'm sure Legion of Logic can tell you, you can be right-leaning and anti-Trump.

By contrast, https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ puts USA Today squarely in the middle. As opposed to merely counting statements or looking at positions against Trump specifically, this source uses people with with a variety of opinions on the political spectrum to evaluate a variety of stories in context.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

So yes, "reliability" is not the exclusive province of either political leaning.

that is the mark of a true ideologue; everything is against you there are no valid sources that disagree with you.! How dare you read both sides!

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
Only an ignorant fool, or liar, would make such a declaration.

Only a self-righteous know-nothing would think he has the monopoly on a proper perspective.

Anybody who knows anything about the texts of Islam knows that Bin Laden, Isis, and Boko Haram are acting out the explicit instructions of Muhammad and emulating Muhammad.

Anybody who knows anything about humans and their belief systems know that humans take what they want from authoritative texts and reinterpret them to fit the world as they see it, not the other way around.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
... Hillary also had to not speak of stupid things like Black Lives Matter...

That you think the killing of so many black people by the police is something to be swept under the rug tells us so very, very much about your character.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
" It's irrational to take all followers of a religious organization and say they are all dangerous."
Strawman. Who said that?

"have we had more terror killings by Christians or by Muslims?"
None that could be traced back to the teachings of Christ.
Thousands that are directly attributable to the teachings of Muhammad.

" Instead, I will accept the position of the Muslims I have worked with, pst and present, on what Islam means."
Then you are not much of a reader or thinker. Instead of studying the texts that Islamists cite when they commit acts of murder, rape, and enslavement you listen to a few anecdotes from your friends.

"If I were you, I'd also hate being called out on my prejudice"
Here are a few resources for you
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/\

Islam in their own words
https://clarionproject.org/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq-50/

Here are just a couple places you can verify that Isis always gets it right on the tests of Islam
http://hadithcollection.com/
https://quran.com/

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"Anybody who knows anything about humans and their belief systems know that humans take what they want from authoritative texts and reinterpret them to fit the world as they see it, not the other way around."
The violence is in the words and actions of Muhammad, but not in the words and actions of Christ.

The more you emulate Christ the more peaceful you are. The more you emulate Muhammad the more violent you are.

Texts matter, hence Ramadan Bombathon, and all the ongoing violence of Islamists.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"That you think the killing of so many black people by the police is something to be swept under the rug tells us so very, very much about your character"
The majority of the cases BLM yells about are police doing their job correctly to arrest violent and non-compliant criminals.

Michael Brown was a criminal who robbed a store, attacked a police officer through the window of the police car, tried to steal the officer's gun, ran from the police, and turned to attack the officer, and got shot down before he could carry out his attack.

Fortunately, a good officer was then able to go home to his family while a violent criminal lay dead in the streets, and justified riddance.

Michael Brown is the prototype BLM "victim", a thug, a criminal, a violent attacker who got stopped by the police.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger StardustyPsyche said...
@One
"That you think the killing of so many black people by the police is something to be swept under the rug tells us so very, very much about your character"
The majority of the cases BLM yells about are police doing their job correctly to arrest violent and non-compliant criminals.

bull shit! You have no basis for such a stupid statement. We have to go case by case there are plenty of cases to justify a movement. None of the people the cops kill will get a second chance

Michael Brown was a criminal who robbed a store, attacked a police officer through the window of the police car, tried to steal the officer's gun, ran from the police, and turned to attack the officer, and got shot down before he could carry out his attack.

asserting he deserves death because he's a criminal,so where I come come from that is called prejudice.

Fortunately, a good officer was then able to go home to his family while a violent criminal lay dead in the streets, and justified riddance.

Michael Brown is the prototype BLM "victim", a thug, a criminal, a violent attacker who got stopped by the police.

extrapolating from one case to all of the, what coincidence they all happen to be black.

May 20, 2019 6:38 AM

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

The more you emulate Christ the more peaceful you are. The more you emulate Muhammad the more violent you are.

Like all those times Jesus told us to Judge people by the color of their skin, you don;t know Christ,. Jesus does not foster racism nor tough talking condoning violence,none of that is impressive its not Christ-like.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger bmiller said...
Starhopper,

So yes, "reliability" is not the exclusive province of either political leaning.

that is the mark of a true ideologue; everything is against you there are no valid sources that disagree with you.! How dare you read both sides!


LOL,,, I like your humor

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

One Brow said...
StardustyPsyche said...
Only an ignorant fool, or liar, would make such a declaration.

hey One he knows it all,man, he has all the proper bigotry,

bmiller said...

@Joe,

LOL,,, I like your humor

I couldn't have done it without you ;-)

Starhopper said...

"Then you are not much of a reader or thinker. Instead of studying the texts that Islamists cite when they commit acts of murder, rape, and enslavement you listen to a few anecdotes from your friends." (emphasis added)

Stardusty,

You need to brush up on your Lewis (this is, after all, a blog about C.S. Lewis).

From That Hideous Strength, Chapter 4, "The Liquidation of Anachronisms" - page 85 in my paperback copy)):

"[H]is education had the curious effect of making things that he read or wrote more real to him than things he saw. Statistics about agricultural laborers were the substance; any real ditcher, ploughman, or farmer's boy, was the shadow."

Describes your attitude toward Muslims to a Tee. I'll take my "anecdotes" over your "studying the texts" any day.

Legion of Logic said...

in the US, over the past 10 years, have we had more terror killings by Christians or by Muslims?

Even assuming every attack by a Christian was primarily motivated by their religion, I doubt the ratio corresponds to the population ratio. Otherwise we would expect to see around seventy Christian attacks for every one Muslim attack.

I don't believe we see that.

StardustyPsyche said...

@Joe
"asserting he deserves death because he's a criminal,so where I come come from that is called prejudice."
He deserved death because he attacked an officer with deadly force and the officer acted in self defense.

Self defense of an honest citizen justifies deadly force against the attacking criminal.

Learn How To Think.

"extrapolating from one case to all of the, what coincidence they all happen to be black."
Case after case after case it is the same story. Black criminal is stopped by police using appropriate force, BLM screams racist police brutality. BLM is a distopian anti father, anti law enforcement radical hate group.

Just read their web site, study the cases they yell about, and listen to the black law enforcement officers who agree with me.

I respect law enforcement. You have a problem with that? TS.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"I'll take my "anecdotes" over your "studying the texts" any day."
I am sure you prefer your fantasies to reality, that is no surprise.

Use the links I sent you and you can begin a journey out of your little neighborhood and into the reality of the vast world of violence and destructive superstition that is Islam today, as it always has been since Muhammad first rampaged across Arabia raping and murdering and stealing and enslaving, as his emulators do to this day.

Starhopper said...

"a journey out of your little neighborhood and into the reality ... that is Islam today"

Um, I've traveled extensively (for work) in the Middle East, to Turkey, Kuwait, and Iraq. I've spent considerable time with Muslims from Pakistan, Iran, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, West Africa, and other places.

Have you, or do you just visit websites? Re-read that passage I cited from C.S. Lewis, and think about what it means.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
Strawman. Who said that?

It's the implication of your attacks on Islam as a religion.

None that could be traced back to the teachings of Christ.
Thousands that are directly attributable to the teachings of Muhammad.


I thank you for revealing your ignorance of the Bible.

Last I checked, teachinga don't make bombs. People make bombs.

Then you are not much of a reader or thinker.

If you are the standard, then I exceed it by quite a bit.

Instead of studying the texts that Islamists cite when they commit acts of murder, rape, and enslavement you listen to a few anecdotes from your friends.

You mean, like how you study the Bible texts quoted by Christian terrorists?

Here are a few resources for you

Been there, seen that. However, I don't need to feed my inner demon. You can have your confirmation bias to yourself.

The violence is in the words and actions of Muhammad, but not in the words and actions of Christ.

Again, your ignorance of the Bible is remarkable.

The more you emulate Christ the more peaceful you are. The more you emulate Muhammad the more violent you are.

The more you try to emphasize a small difference, the stupider you look.

Texts matter, hence Ramadan Bombathon, and all the ongoing violence of Islamists.

Religious texts only matter in that they are what people read into.

The majority of the cases BLM yells about are police doing their job correctly to arrest violent and non-compliant criminals.

You mean, like John Crawford, Tamar Rice, and Philando Castile?

Michael Brown was a criminal who robbed a store, attacked a police officer through the window of the police car, tried to steal the officer's gun, ran from the police, and turned to attack the officer, and got shot down before he could carry out his attack.

AS could be expected, you've got the timeline wrong. Brown was first shot after he turned but before he supposedly tried to attack the officer, by the officer's own testimony. We're supposed to believe a teen who was just shot decided to run at the cop shooting him.

Fortunately, a good officer was then able to go home to his family while a violent criminal lay dead in the streets, and justified riddance.

I don't have to wonder why you regularly get called a racist.

Michael Brown is the prototype BLM "victim", a thug, a criminal, a violent attacker who got stopped by the police.

Yes, I'm sure focusing on Brown allows you to forget the Crawfords, Rices, and Castiles of the world.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger StardustyPsyche said...
@Joe
"asserting he deserves death because he's a criminal,so where I come come from that is called prejudice."

He deserved death because he attacked an officer with deadly force and the officer acted in self defense.

let's see you document that dumb ass. Asserting an accusation is not prof. just because that one guy did it doesn't mean all cussed people are guilty. you pull out a guilty one then assert they are all guilty this is not clever.

Self defense of an honest citizen justifies deadly force against the attacking criminal.

Learn How To Think.

grow a brain racist idiot,

"extrapolating from one case to all of the, what coincidence they all happen to be black."

Case after case after case it is the same story. Black criminal is stopped by police using appropriate force, BLM screams racist police brutality. BLM is a distopian anti father, anti law enforcement radical hate group.

more empty headed gum flapping your narrow minded assertions are not proof stupid

Just read their web site, study the cases they yell about, and listen to the black law enforcement officers who agree with me.

I have read them jackass that;show I know you are full of shit

I respect law enforcement. You have a problem with that? TS.

shouldn't you be starching your hood? Racists are always such sloppy thinkers, they can't understand the distinction between protecting the helpless and disrespecting. Obviously you don't respect law because the civil rights act is law .

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger StardustyPsyche said...
@One
"I'll take my "anecdotes" over your "studying the texts" any day."
I am sure you prefer your fantasies to reality, that is no surprise.

Use the links I sent you and you can begin a journey out of your little neighborhood and into the reality of the vast world of violence and destructive superstition that is Islam today, as it always has been since Muhammad first rampaged across Arabia raping and murdering and stealing and enslaving, as his emulators do to this day.

well Stardust Psycho racist idiots always think they know all about the world mostly they are origination as you are you don't know shit from shinola,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

About the Islamic issue. Do you know that hospitals and nursing homes are full of Africans? No American wants to wipe asses for a living so people flock over from Africa to do that while they train in nursing. I've met some pretty good people in that regard.

One girl I met is a Christian but she lived in a place in Africa where she was forced to learn the Koran, she knows the Bible and Koran equally well and she knows them well.She speaks highly of the average Muslim and says the idea that they are all terrorists is stupid. They areas slack in execution of those passages in the Koran as Christians are about stoning people.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"Um, I've traveled extensively (for work) in the Middle East, to Turkey, Kuwait, and Iraq. I've spent considerable time with Muslims from Pakistan, Iran, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, West Africa, and other places"
So, on business, Muslims do not lecture you on killing apostates, stoning adulterers, and throwing homosexuals from the roof.

From that you conclude, what, Muhammad did not practice and instruct these things?

Do you have any capacity for rational analysis or are you purely driven by anecdotes in your own little world of rose colored personal experiences?

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"Last I checked, teachinga don't make bombs. People make bombs."
Then you checked stupidly. People follow teachings. Teachings matter because people act on teachings, and when Muhammad is the teacher actions are debauchery on a global scale.

"The violence is in the words and actions of Muhammad, but not in the words and actions of Christ.

Again, your ignorance of the Bible is remarkable."
Really, by all means, please do cite the violence of Christ.

Did Christ lead an army? Did Christ stone the adulterer?

Did Christ rape, murder, or steal at all?

Did Muhammad?

"Fortunately, a good officer was then able to go home to his family while a violent criminal lay dead in the streets, and justified riddance.

I don't have to wonder why you regularly get called a racist."
Indeed, support of an honest white police officer who protected society from a vicious black criminal is considered as racist by people who are stupid to the point of a kind of mental retardation, no wonder indeed.

StardustyPsyche said...

@Joe
"
He deserved death because he attacked an officer with deadly force and the officer acted in self defense.

let's see you document that dumb ass"
An enormous and detailed investigation documents that, dumb ass, look it up.

Starhopper said...

"Really, by all means, please do cite the violence of Christ."

As others have pointed out, what matters in these issues is often not what Christ said or did, but rather how He is interpreted by Christians.

My favorite example of this is how the knights of the late Middle Ages interpreted the line "all who take the sword will perish by the sword", not as a warning, but as a promise. They saw it as a Good Thing, telling them they would not die in bed (and thus in dishonor), but rather gloriously on the field of battle.

Colonialists have justified the forcible conversion of native populations with "And the master said to the servant, `Go out to the highways and hedges, and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled'" (Luke 14:23, emphasis added)

And don't get me started on how countless Christians have used the very Gospels to justify violent anti-Semitism.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
@One
...
Do you have any capacity for rational analysis or are you purely driven by anecdotes in your own little world of rose colored personal experiences?


I have sufficient capacity for rational analysis that I can tell the difference between the handles "Starhopper" and "One Brow", a capacity you apparently lack, since you have twine in a row addressed me while responding to him.

Don't worry, no one expects you to apologize.

Then you checked stupidly. People follow teachings. Teachings matter because people act on teachings, and when Muhammad is the teacher actions are debauchery on a global scale.

Again, you show a vast ignorance of human behavior. People follow teachers that appeal to them, and aspects of the teachings of an individual that appeal to them.

Did Christ lead an army?

He was arrested before he could form one.

Did Christ stone the adulterer?

Do you know the difference between a historical event and a tale so spurious that different early texts place it in different gospels?

Did Christ rape, murder, or steal at all?

He only had a few months before he was arrested. Never got the chance.

Did Muhammad?

Probably. Most soldiers did back then (and do today, in less professional armies).

Indeed, support of an honest white police officer who protected society from a vicious black criminal is considered as racist by people who are stupid to the point of a kind of mental retardation, no wonder indeed.

Were you referring to the man who shot Crawford, the man who shot Rice, or the man who shot Castile? Or, are you clinging to one example and drowning out all others, so as to preserve your fragile beliefs and hide inside your bubble?