babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Dawkins, Islam in schools, Part II

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Dawkins, Islam in schools, Part II
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 12 August 2008 06:21 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have read the last part of the Dawkins Thread here, specifically the 30 or so posts that were written after I last looked and before the thread was closed. Many points were raised and some I think were interesting and necessitating a response.

martin dufresne:

quote:
Ghislaine, I agree that there are differing standards of justice and one may try to argue for one over another in a rational manner. But I disagree that the honourable statement "every human being has an inherent right to dignity, freedom and equality" is a logical assertion. It is political and ethical, and I don't think that politics, morality or ethics are deducible from logic or reason alone.
I also disagree that religious justice is necessarily worse than the application of rationality in a world where dominants control it. Some religious folks - e.g. some priests in Latin America - do tremendous good in the world.
I am not sure about "rational and reasoned morality"; it seems to me like a thought-experiment, a mental construct to justify ours against theirs.
I am not a religious person, but I object to attempts to accredit reason as some overarching system of justice, value or truth that would justify attacking - as we are - people whose religion isn't the dominant Western one - as I feel The Telegraph and Dawkins did in the original quote about "Muslim parents".

Emotions are a very real part of the world are they not? I've not seen very many people who want to derive morality purely from reason. What you chose to optimize has to come from outside reason, be it human happiness, contentment, equality or economic growth. But how you proceed once you've selected your end goal should, on the other hand, be derivable from reason.

Cueball:

quote:
The idea that "rationality" is some kind of newly-born methodology of thinking that arrives with the European enlightenment, is just more Eurocentric arrogance, for the most part. Religion is born of the same desire to learn and to understand, and explain as the desire that put human beings into space. Trying to disown religion as the ancestor of modern science, and the clear relationship that exists between the two is just the bad manners of ignorant and ungrateful children.
There are fundamental differences between starting with questions, as science does, and starting with answers, as religion does.

I went to a Jewish day school, and I remember when we started Talmud, they taught us the Talmud was written down when people's memory began to worsen. What the Rabbi said, is that people were becoming less intelligent and less wise about the time the second temple was destroyed. What that meant is that a generation could never surpass a previous generation, only match them by eventually understanding (memorizing) the arguments they wrote down.

That is a mode of epistemology that is completely and utterly different from the way science is done and taught.

Catchfire:

quote:
Don't you think, trev, that the ratio of people 'teaching the Qu'ran in the classroom' (as far as I can tell, virtually nil) to hostile writers like Dawkins and Hitchens is rather unbalanced?
If there is a single person teaching "creationist science" in any classroom, then the ratio is badly skewed away from science. Teaching creationism and other such nonesense is child abuse, and I think that's the key point a lot of people are failing to grasp.

I was reading an American Scientist article on a PhD candidate in education who tested how his high school students would respond to evidence for creationism. Does that sentence ring an alarm bell? He taught his students "evidence" for creationism... that's right, to see how they would respond. Somehow this only got criticized at his PhD defense and he was denied his degree for committing fraud.

That is how serious an issue this is.

Cueball:

quote:
I don't really give a shit about "creationism" but as far as I can tell the only thing that Darwinian science has brought to the real world of human existence is social Darwinism, eugenics and Adolph Hitler. Now that is some track record you guys got, I must say!
This may have been the post I found the most offense with.
First of all knowledge is an end in itself. There's a value to learning truth, be it truth about electromagnetism, about gravity or about history, if you don't believe otherwise then live as an animal. Secondly, science has brought a lot more to the world than just eugenics, which was around before science. Stem cell therapy is already beginning to help some people, a lot of previously infertile people can now give birth, a lot of humans feel much more solidarity with the animal kingdom and mother nature in general, something unthinkable two hundred years ago.

Religion could not have eradicated smallpox in a million years. Biology did so in a few centuries.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 12 August 2008 06:32 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If there is a single person teaching "creationist science" in any classroom, then the ratio is badly skewed away from science. Teaching creationism and other such nonesense is child abuse, and I think that's the key point a lot of people are failing to grasp.

My point was not that if only a few schools are teaching creationism we should let it slide. I have no objection to polemical and emphatic censure of schools who do so. I am only concerned with why Dawkins chose to highlight 'Islam' and the 'Qu'ran' as insidious sources that surreptitiously insert creationism into classrooms. It doesn't happen. It's a red herring, and it is, in my view, Islamophobic.

From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 August 2008 06:48 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
This may have been the post I found the most offense with.
It was also the most ignorant post of the entire two threads, so far.

Anybody who would deny that Darwinism is one of the most important and useful scientific principles ever elaborated by humankind knows nothing about science.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 12 August 2008 07:04 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Anybody who would deny that Darwinism is one of the most important and useful scientific principles ever elaborated by humankind knows nothing about science.

And I'm going to call bullshit because your terminology sucks and it concerns me to see you buying in to the wingnuts' framing which is what you do when you refer to Darwinism. Calling it Darwinism suggests that biology is actually some kind of cult in which the writings of Darwin are revered as the gospel and the science has been static for a century and a half. And that's exactly the idea that the intelligent design crowd wants to promote.

Charles Darwin put forth theories that turned out to be absolute nonsense and have long since been abandoned which is exactly how science is supposed to work. But his theory regarding the role of natural selection in the evolution of species is one that has stood up to 150 years of subsequent investigation and experimentation and that's probably what you're referring to. Don't call it Darwinism. This is even more important than spelling guitar players' names correctly.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 12 August 2008 07:07 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
as far as I can tell the only thing that Darwinian science has brought to the real world of human existence is social Darwinism, eugenics and Adolph Hitler.

When did you turn into a complete idiot?

From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 August 2008 07:13 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When I referred to Darwinism I was quite obviously referring to what cueball called "Darwinian science". Your pedantry is getting in the way of your logic.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 12 August 2008 07:17 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It was also the most ignorant post of the entire two threads, so far.

Add my vote to that assessment as well -- beyond ignorant, it's blatantly propagandist.

M. Spector, not to set up a quibble, but I read an article about the term "Darwinism" a few weeks ago that looked at it from an interesting angle. Here it is.

quote:
In short, Darwin did more in one lifetime than most of us could hope to accomplish in two. But his giantism has had an odd and problematic consequence. It’s a tendency for everyone to refer back to him. “Why Darwin was wrong about X”; “Was Darwin wrong about Y?”; “What Darwin didn’t know about Z” — these are common headlines in newspapers and magazines, in both the biological and the general literature. Then there are the words: Darwinism (sometimes used with the prefix “neo”), Darwinist (ditto), Darwinian.
Why is this a problem? Because it’s all grossly misleading. It suggests that Darwin was the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, of evolutionary biology, and that the subject hasn’t changed much in the 149 years since the publication of the “Origin.”

It's evolutionary theory in general fundies (of both Islamic and Christian varieties) have a problem with. (ETA: I see pogge beat me to it.)

Has anyone seen the trailers for Dawkins' new documentary? I suspect this is an important context for his statements revolving around Islam in this case rather than Christianity.

In the clip that I watched on the Channel 4 website, he is talking to a group of students in a classroom. It happens that the boy who speaks up and says that his religion tells him evolution is wrong happens to be Muslim. Here is a link. Click on "The unteachables."

Personally, I don't think it matters whether the kid in question is Muslim, Christian or any other religion. The fact is that the child was taught to reject fact in favour of blind faith before he ever set foot in the classroom. Is hampering his ability to learn good parenting? I have to concur with Dawkins on this one.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 12 August 2008 07:19 AM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist

Let me put it more clearly. I don't want my kids' teachers to know or care what any kid's religious beliefs are - let alone to tailor education accordingly.


I think this sums my opinion.

The state should not sponsor, advocate or promote any religion. Public schools should remain secular.

The teacher, the administration, the school board, and the government has no business identifying which students are atheist, agnostic, deist, theist, pagan etc.

At the same time, no special interest group should be imposing their perspectives on secular school boards, precisely because the schools should never be in the business of advocating or denouncing any faith based belief system.

The state has a responsibility not to interfere in peoples' beliefs, traditions, faith, etc in so much as there is no conflict with the rights of children and their personal safety.

We still have a long way to go, no doubt about it. A state funded school can be secular, and still have people of faith on it's staff, on the parent council and in the student body.

If there is a group of citizens that want a chartered faith based school, then that community can be accomadated as per Seperate School Acts and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are precedents (all across Canada, for example, there are Jewish, Islamic, Catholic, Protestant schools) .

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 August 2008 07:32 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
When I referred to Darwinism I was quite obviously referring to what cueball called "Darwinian science". Your pedantry is getting in the way of your logic.

You know what, I think pogge has a point here which is beyond pedantic, although I believe you're both in agreement with each other on the fundamentals (as am I).

Beyond the word "Darwinism", I have long been uncomfortable with terms like "theory of evolution". We no longer refer in common parlance to the "Copernican theory" of planetary revolution around the sun, nor to the "Keplerian theory" of elliptical orbits, nor to the "antiobiotic theory" of combatting bacterial infection and illness, etc. We do still say "theory" for special and general relativity, but those are more terms of art.

Darwin's explanation of evolution has long been accepted - by everyone except religious fanatics - as reality. It's time to drop the "theory", because ordinary mortals understand "theory" as one unsubstantiated competing view among many, rather than in its scholarly sense.

As for Cueball crediting Darwin with social Darwinism and Hitler, he just gets upset whenever he thinks Islam is under attack and he overreacts. He doesn't really mean it. Although he'll murder me for this paragraph...


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 12 August 2008 07:56 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If there is a group of citizens that want a chartered faith based school, then that community can be accomadated as per Seperate School Acts and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are precedents (all across Canada, for example, there are Jewish, Islamic, Catholic, Protestant schools) .

I know there are precedents, but I still have a problem with public funding of faith-based schools. Seriously, run classes from your church, synagogue or mosque after school or on the weekend. I don't think the public purse should be funding superstition of any kind.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 12 August 2008 08:11 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From the previous thread...

quote:
In regards to Muslims, possibly. But where is the quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most devout Monotheists are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of religious parents who trot out what they have been taught,"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not there. It is about the problem of Muslims. Muslims are the problem not "religious fundamentalists". You put that phrase in there. Dawkins is talking about Muslims, and Islam.


Yes, you are right Cueball, they should have at least added to the article "for anyone who is awakening from a 40 year coma - yes Dawkins still says and believes the same things about Christians, Christian parents and Christian creationism."

Let's get serious. This is an article in an UK newspaper being written for a UK audience. Most people in the UK have heard Dawkins criticize Christianity more often than they have heard "God Save the Queen." It is a given, he doesn't have to end each sentence with it. Would you prefer the media to ask Dawkins every hour if still opposes and criticizes christian fundamentalism and creationism? Maybe he could have some kind of yes or no button that he presses every hour or day.

Plus how do you know that Dawkins didn't criticize Christianity in the interview? In fact he did. The telegrah "interview" has a couple quotes, more is found in the Times and that additional information is centered at Christianity and religion in general. Even what is available in the Times is most certainly only a small part of what Dawkins actually said in the interview.

It is easy to claim that Dawkins is picking on and singling out Islam and Muslims when you ignore 98% of what he has said on religion.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 12 August 2008 09:01 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Cueball: I would expect nothing else from the primary think-tank that has been the source of the ideological justification of British Imperialism for the last 400 years: Oxford.

By the same ridiculous logic I can accuse most people on babble (including myself as a former member of the NDP) as supporters of eugenics because Tommy Douglas supported it at one time, writing a thesis on “The Problems of the Subnormal Family.” At least Dawkins only judges people based on their current beliefs, you are judging someone based on the beliefs of those he is not associated with.

You have also accused Darwin of being responsible for Eugenics, Social Darwinisn and Hitler. Hitler as I have already pointed out supported a theory which was similar to creationism and in opposition to Darwin’s theory. Eugenics and Social Darwinism drew their ideas from many people, but no one ever claims that Thomas Multhus is responsible for either although he easily was far more influential in regards to both and in fact much of his work was specifically about the overbreeding of undesirables, whereas in the case of Darwin it is necessary to comb over thousands of pages of original work to find some quotes. Darwin didn't found eugenics or social darwinism. He wasn't involved in either (something that can't be said about many prominent progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century).

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 12 August 2008 09:13 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One also needs to look at Darwin's personal beliefs and biases in their historical context. Many great thinkers held views common in their historical context that we would find repugnant if expressed today.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 12 August 2008 09:22 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is the elephant in the room?
I submit that it is the West's war of agression against any country deemed to be of strategic interest to the West. And since Islam is so far the main ideological resistance to this (floundering) war, this calls for intellectuals to be pressed into service for whatever pretext: whether to bash "irrational" attitudes, religious belief in a pseudo-secularist world, "insufficient" integration in societies that discriminate actively against racialized groups, selectively-featured human rights abuses in targetted countries, etc.
As for the conceit that we are being "rational," Cueball is right, it has yet to substantively account for the pillage of the world and mass slaughters by European colonizers and, more recently, Auschwitz, the carpet-bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Guantanamo and mass pollution by the First World, so please give us a break and deal with your damn elephant... some of us are getting tired of shoveling s**t out of the room.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 12 August 2008 09:30 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
What is the elephant in the room?
I submit that it is the West's war of agression against any country deemed to be of stretgeic interest to the West. And since Islam is so far the main ideological resistance to this (floundering) war, this calls for intellectuals to be pressed into service for whatever pretext: irrational attitudes, religious belief in a pseudo-secularist world, "insufficient" integration in societies that discriminate actively against them, selectively-featured human rights abuses, etc.
As for our rationality conceit, Cueball is right, it has yet to substantively account for the opillage of the world by European colonizers and, more recntly, Auschwitz, the carpet-bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Guantanamo, so lease give us a break and deal with your damn elephant... some of us are getting tired of shoveling s**t out of the room.

I think what's racist is saying that supporting rationality is a western supremacist belief - that implies rationality was born in Europe.

There was a lot of excellent mathematics and astronomy taking place in Egypt, among the Mayans, in Mesopotamia and in ancient India. In fact the oldest known case of someone figuring out the heliocentric model of the solar system, with a spherical Earth, was in India, not the West.

The only thing "western" about science and rationality is that at this current stage in history, for a few hundred years, most of the most advanced science has been done in western countries. However, that is specific to this period in history, which is no way more special than any other period, past, or future for that matter.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 12 August 2008 09:31 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

By the same ridiculous logic I can accuse most people on babble (including myself as a former member of the NDP) as supporters of eugenics because Tommy Douglas supported it at one time, writing a thesis on “The Problems of the Subnormal Family.” At least Dawkins only judges people based on their current beliefs, you are judging someone based on the beliefs of those he is not associated with.

You have also accused Darwin of being responsible for Eugenics, Social Darwinisn and Hitler. Hitler as I have already pointed out supported a theory which was similar to creationism and in opposition to Darwin’s theory. Eugenics and Social Darwinism drew their ideas from many people, but no one ever claims that Thomas Multhus is responsible for either although he easily was far more influential in regards to both and in fact much of his work was specifically about the overbreeding of undesirables, whereas in the case of Darwin it is necessary to comb over thousands of pages of original work to find some quotes. Darwin didn't found eugenics or social darwinism. He wasn't involved in either (something that can't be said about many prominent progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century).

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]



Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) was also a huge proponent of eugenics.


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 12 August 2008 09:37 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
What is the elephant in the room?
I submit that it is the West's war of agression against any country deemed to be of strategic interest to the West. And since Islam is so far the main ideological resistance to this (floundering) war, this calls for intellectuals to be pressed into service for whatever pretext: whether to bash "irrational" attitudes, religious belief in a pseudo-secularist world, "insufficient" integration in societies that discriminate actively against racialized groups, selectively-featured human rights abuses in targetted countries, etc.
As for the conceit that we are being "rational," Cueball is right, it has yet to substantively account for the pillage of the world and mass slaughters by European colonizers and, more recently, Auschwitz, the carpet-bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Guantanamo and mass pollution by the First World, so please give us a break and deal with your damn elephant... some of us are getting tired of shoveling s**t out of the room.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


It has already been pointed out that Tony Blair supports both war on Iraq, Afghanistan, possibly Iran (?) and has not acted while religious creationism has been increasingly taught in British schools on his watch due to him not wanting to offend religious groups.

Dawkins on the other hand, opposes any and all creationist theories being taught in schools (or even considered valid) and opposed the Iraq war.

Martin, you mention pollution of the first world. What gives us the tools to discover pollution, determine how it causes illnesses and form standards that are acceptable in terms of health? Science and rationality. You cannot blame rationality and science for the decisions of the fascists and dictators of the world. You also cannot blame science if our governments are bought out and lobbied by corporations into allowing our environment to be polluted. Principled scientists use science and reason to speak out and convince us that we need to base public policy on reason.


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 August 2008 09:39 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Darwinism is a term commonly used among those who believe in evolution by natural selection (including Dawkins and others) as the antithesis of "Creationism".

Many who have no respect for Charles Darwin's contributions to science ascribe other, unsavoury meanings to "Darwinism". I refuse to cede the term to them, as they dishonour Darwin's genius.

Anybody who has the slightest doubt about Darwin's contribution to science should watch the new three-part series by Dawkins: Part 1 is on the web, and I'm still looking for a bootleg of Part 2.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 12 August 2008 09:40 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
What is the elephant in the room?
I submit that it is the West's war of agression against any country deemed to be of strategic interest to the West. And since Islam is so far the main ideological resistance to this (floundering) war, this calls for intellectuals to be pressed into service for whatever pretext: whether to bash "irrational" attitudes, religious belief in a pseudo-secularist world, "insufficient" integration in societies that discriminate actively against racialized groups, selectively-featured human rights abuses in targetted countries, etc.
As for the conceit that we are being "rational," Cueball is right, it has yet to substantively account for the pillage of the world and mass slaughters by European colonizers and, more recently, Auschwitz, the carpet-bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Guantanamo and mass pollution by the First World, so please give us a break and deal with your damn elephant... some of us are getting tired of shoveling s**t out of the room.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


It's not my elephant, dude... Didn't see it come in. Did you bring it with you?

Is that an elephant chip on your shoulder?

I don't think you can easily make that connection when the same person who criticizes Islam tars Christianity, the religion of the white, European colonizers, with the same brush.

And as a religion -- ie: a system of thought and supernatural belief -- why shouldn't Islam be as much up for criticism as Christianity? Both have much to answer for in the blood of others.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 12 August 2008 09:44 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
500_Apples: "saying that supporting rationality is a western supremacist belief - that implies rationality was born in Europe"
I didn't say the former and it doesn't imply the latter.

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 August 2008 09:45 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
... some of us are getting tired of shoveling s**t out of the room.
Yet you never seem to tire of shovelling st**w into it.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 12 August 2008 09:48 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, let's say that it serves the interests of the western imperialists to criticize Islam on any number of counts. (I think it does.) It also serves the interests of western imperialists if those who oppose imperialism refuse to criticize Islam on any count, if they defend it against any criticism whatsoever and, indeed, insist on its superiority to other forms of thought or practice. This ultimately undermines the anti-imperialist cause, not least because it has abandoned any claim to honesty or integrity.

I'm sure you can think of any number of historical parallels.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 12 August 2008 09:49 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
Well, let's say that it serves the interests of the western imperialists to criticize Islam on any number of counts. (I think it does.) It also serves the interests of western imperialists if those who oppose imperialism refuse to criticize Islam on any count, if they defend it against any criticism whatsoever and, indeed, insist on its superiority to other forms of thought or practice. This ultimately undermines the anti-imperialist cause, not least because it has abandoned any claim to honesty or integrity.

I'm sure you can think of any number of historical parallels.


Well put.


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 12 August 2008 10:09 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:

There was a lot of excellent mathematics and astronomy taking place in Egypt, among the Mayans, in Mesopotamia and in ancient India. In fact the oldest known case of someone figuring out the heliocentric model of the solar system, with a spherical Earth, was in India, not the West.

The only thing "western" about science and rationality is that at this current stage in history, for a few hundred years, most of the most advanced science has been done in western countries. However, that is specific to this period in history, which is no way more special than any other period, past, or future for that matter.


Indeed there is a great video clip somewhere in which Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about how when you discover something you get to name it and most scientific names are arabic in origin, such as algebra.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 August 2008 10:15 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Indeed there is a great video clip somewhere in which Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about how when you discover something you get to name it and most scientific names are arabic in origin, such as algebra.


Well, "most" is a bit of an exaggeration. Greek and Latin probably hold that honour. There are indeed several Arabic terms in mathematics, in the names of stars, etc.

It is important to remember that the great mathematicians and scientists in the respective "golden ages" of those societies never attributed their achievements to God, Allah, or any of that crowd.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 12 August 2008 10:15 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Anybody who has the slightest doubt about Darwin's contribution to science should watch the new three-part series by Dawkins: Part 1 is on the web, and I'm still looking for a bootleg of Part 2.

The second part is available as a torrent at places like mininova.

If you go to Dawkin's own site. he generally always posts links to where his shows can be downloaded.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 12 August 2008 10:17 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Well, "most" is a bit of an exaggeration.


Yes, you are right.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 12 August 2008 10:21 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Do not honour straw man arguments
Do not honour straw man arguments
Do not honour straw man arguments..."

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 12 August 2008 10:22 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't really give a shit about "creationism" but as far as I can tell the only thing that Darwinian science has brought to the real world of human existence is social Darwinism, eugenics and Adolph Hitler. Now that is some track record you guys got, I must say!

Unionist, Frustrated Mess et al say the same thing about religion. I don't believe it's Darwinism that's at fault, I believe that some people have used ideas about evolution to justify evil acts. Haven't some anti racist activists used evolutionary science and genetics to challenge white supremicists?

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 August 2008 10:42 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
Well, let's say that it serves the interests of the western imperialists to criticize Islam on any number of counts. (I think it does.) It also serves the interests of western imperialists if those who oppose imperialism refuse to criticize Islam on any count, if they defend it against any criticism whatsoever and, indeed, insist on its superiority to other forms of thought or practice. This ultimately undermines the anti-imperialist cause, not least because it has abandoned any claim to honesty or integrity.
This is true, although I wouldn't want to read your first sentence as meaning that all criticism of Islam serves the interests of imperialism.

Martin has fallen into the trap set by the authors of the War on Terra, by accepting their lie that Islam is the "main ideological resistance" to imperialism. Islam thus becomes accepted as the great countervailing ideology to capitalist imperialism. Islam's ludicrous religious dogma makes it easy for the imperialists to discredit and denounce their enemies as fanatical, irrational terrorists, and to use that as a justification to attack Islamic nations and abuse Muslim individuals.

Then misguided opponents of imperialism leap to the defence of the indefensible nonsense that underpins Islam, thinking that doing so somehow strengthens the anti-imperialist cause - whereas in fact, it weakens it.

The view of the world as a bi-polar dynamic of "Islam versus Imperialism" is bullshit. You don't have to be a Muslim to be anti-imperialist and you don't have to be a Muslim nation to be targetted for regime change and conversion to a client state of the Empire. You can also be a Muslim nation and at the same time happily do the bidding of the IMF and its political masters in Washington.

As an ideological foil to capitalist imperialism, the religion of Islam offers nothing. It's no coincidence that the countries that today have gone the farthest to break with imperialism and combat its influence are inspired not by Islam but by socialism: Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador. Islam is a false pole of attraction to those who are oppressed by imperialism. Only socialism can offer both a coherent critique of imperialism and a perspective to bring about its demise.

Those who would jealously guard the Islamic religion against all criticism only help to postpone the day when all anti-imperialist Muslims reject the false leadership of their religion and turn to socialism as the tool for understanding of the world as it is and action towards making the world as it could be.

The choice is not capitalism or Islam, but socialism or barbarism.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 12 August 2008 10:44 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Darwinism is a term commonly used among those who believe in evolution by natural selection (including Dawkins and others) as the antithesis of "Creationism".

Are they winning?


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 August 2008 11:00 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good, M. Spector. Very good.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 11:31 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Prof Dawkins, a well-known atheist, also blamed the Government for accommodating religious views and allowing creationism to be taught in schools.

"Most devout Muslims are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught," Prof Dawkins said in a Sunday newspaper interview.

"Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with. The Government could do more, but it doesn't want to because it is fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come."

Prof Dawkins, professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford University, is author of books including the Selfish Gene, the Blind Watchmaker and the God Delusion.

"It seems as though teachers are terribly frightened of being thought racist. It's almost impossible to say anything against Islam in this country, because [if you do] you are accused of being racist or Islamophobic."

Prof Dawkins had recently finished a TV programme in which he went into a classroom of 15-year-olds at a secondary school in London.


I can't think of a serious scholar who would make broad sweeping statements about an ethnic minority based on a sample of students interviewed on a TV show. What Dawkins poses as a basis for his social "science", is indeed nothing but an anecdote.

Doug, earliers began an interesting thread on the Power of the Anecdote, based on an article "How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results" here, where it says:

quote:
Our brains are belief engines that employ association learning to seek and find patterns. Superstition and belief in magic are millions of years old, whereas science, with its methods of controlling for intervening variables to circumvent false positives, is only a few hundred years old. So it is that any medical huckster promising that A will cure B has only to advertise a handful of successful anecdotes in the form of testimonials.

Surely Dawkins, the "professor", is not some puffed grandstanding bigot playing into popular racist superstition and beliefs about Muslims common among the the UK's white Christian majority, baesd on an "anecdote" he derived from an interview he did for a TV show?

I'd be interested in seeing some of the so called rationalists here outline the "scientific" basis of "Professor" Dawkins conclusions specifically targeting the UK's Muslim minority and its Multicultural policies.

Any takers?

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 12 August 2008 11:41 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
This is true, although I wouldn't want to read your first sentence as meaning that all criticism of Islam serves the interests of imperialism.

No I didn't mean that - I probably wrote in too much haste - and I appreciate your giving me the benefit of the doubt.

quote:

As an ideological foil to capitalist imperialism, the religion of Islam offers nothing. It's no coincidence that the countries that today have gone the farthest to break with imperialism and combat its influence are inspired not by Islam but by socialism: Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador. Islam is a false pole of attraction to those who are oppressed by imperialism. Only socialism can offer both a coherent critique of imperialism and a perspective to bring about its demise.


I'm not sure the alternatives are quite so stark. A certain form of Christianity ("liberationist Christianity") plays a role in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Peru (along with what might be called "traditional Indian communism", at least in Peru). It's possible that some form of "liberationist Islam" could play a similar role in other areas of the world.

But I agree that the socialist element is essential.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 11:45 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry Rosa, that is thread drift, we are vilifying Muslims on the basis of an interview that Professor Dawkins did on a popular TV program. Christians are not mentioned in the opening article. This is about "Islam" in schools.

People are reading in a lot to Dawkins statements about religion in schools. Dawkins is not talking about religion in a general sense, but the religion of preference of a good majority of the UK's Asian minority, and the problem of multiculturalism, not white Christians.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 12 August 2008 11:51 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:


I'd be interested in seeing some of the so called rationalists here outline what is "scientific" about "Professor" Dawkins conclusions, specifically targeting the UK's Muslim minority and Multicultural policies.

Any takers?


I don't think I'd call myself a rationalist. But I'm not sure Dawkins has claimed that his statements about British Muslims and creationists was scientific. He may only have presented it as a general observation.

It seems plausible, though. There's a strong tendency for adherents of traditional religions of all kinds to take a creationist stance. I don't think creationism is implied by those religions - I think that's a misunderstanding, but it's a common one.

I don't think Dawkins really understands religion of any kind.
( Here is an article by Terry Eagleton that makes that point in an amusing way). I also think he's wrong on many counts. But the fact that one of the religions he lashes out at is Islam doesn't make him a racist.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 August 2008 11:51 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Liberationist Christianity" and "Liberationist Islam" are hardly developed political ideologies, nor are they in any position to assume the leadership of the struggles of the world's oppressed. To the extent that Venezuela, Ecuador, and Peru succeed in opposing imperialism, religious movements and traditions will play a minor role.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 12 August 2008 11:52 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Sorry Rosa, that is thread drift, we are vilifying Muslims on the basis of an interview that Professor Dawkins did on a popular TV program. Christians are not mentioned in the opening article. This is about "Islam" in schools.

People are reading in a lot to Dawkins statements about religion in schools. Dawkins is not talking about religion in a general sense, but the religion of preference of a good majority of the UK's Asian minority, and the problem of multiculturalism, not white Christians.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


I wasn't talking about white Christians. And my point was this:

quote:
It's possible that some form of "liberationist Islam" could play a similar role in other areas of the world.
- meaning an anti-imperialist role, amongst other things.

From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 August 2008 11:56 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apparently cueball is under the impression that Richard Dawkins wrote the article in the Telegraph that started this thread. He certainly seems to want to blame Dawkins for any perceived lack of balance in that article.

And of course, never having read any of Dawkins's books, cueball seeks to portray Dawkins as a shill for imperialist war against Islam, while giving Christianity a free pass.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 12:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Prejudice abounds, as well as unfounded assertion based on no evidence whatsoever. I did in fact read the "Selfish Gene". I also liked Carl Sagan, but I would hardly turn to a popularizer of Astronomy and Physics for my insights into social science.

Back to Professor Dawkins (the biologist) anecdotes and pop-sociology, about the problem of Multiculturalism, and ignorant Asian Muslim children in schools.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 12 August 2008 12:06 PM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

What Dawkins poses as a basis for his social "science", is indeed nothing but an anecdote.


Sadly, human professors and human scientists are as prone as anyone else when it comes to advancing opinions based on anecdotal evidence.

quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:


I don't think Dawkins really understands religion of any kind.
.


Does anyone? Virtually everything about a supernatural based approach to explaining our universe has to be taken on faith. Supernatural explanations are so fantastical, and can't ever be verified or percieved by our senses, that I wonder if anyone can really understand any religion.

If Dawkins can't understand religion of any kind, I can certainly relate.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 August 2008 12:06 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
I don't think Dawkins really understands religion of any kind.
( Here is an article by Terry Eagleton that makes that point in an amusing way).

Yeah, and here is an article that shows that the criticisms by Eagleton and others along these lines is horse manure - "in an amusing way":
quote:
I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics. - Source



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 12:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TemporalHominid:

Sadly, human professors and human scientists are as prone as anyone else when it comes to advancing opinions based on anecdotal evidence.


Yes, and they are worth sweet fuck all, as science, or social science, or sociology. But if you want truck driver flying the airplane you are riding in that is fine by me.

I would think that a reputable scholar would contain himself to his field of specialization, instead throwing the weight of his prestigious position behind yet another attack upon the UK's Asian Muslim community in the press, based on a single interview he did with some teenagers on a TV show.

Hey! But that is the state of "rationalism" today!

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 August 2008 12:11 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good stuff, M. Spector. Very funny.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 12:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Look, you guys have a new friend.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 12 August 2008 12:14 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[QB][/QB]

Well, there's a reason I described it as "amusing" rather than "incisive"!

However, I don't think Dawkins understands religion any better than religious fundamentalists do. Both he and they are profoundly unhistorical in their approach. But this really is thread drift.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 August 2008 12:16 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I can't think of a serious scholar who would make broad sweeping statements about an ethnic minority based on a sample of students interviewed on a TV show.

Muslims - "an ethnic minority"????????

No kidding????

What, is Islam hereditary now?

Talk to me about the Lebanese. Or Filipinos. Or Punjabis. Or Bengalis. Or Kashmiris. Are the "Muslim" flavour of each of those a different "ethnic minority"????

This discussion is rapidly degenerating. Islam is a legitimate target for scorn, laughter, condemnation, refutation, and ridicule. Its pernicious influence has no place in any modern public school system, let alone anywhere that science and reason and logic are being discussed.

But people who happen to be of Muslim faith are not "ethnic". That, with the greatest of respect, is crap.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 12:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, lets get back to the problems of multiculturalism and the Asian communities appearance in schools in the UK.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 12 August 2008 12:17 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Back to Professor Dawkins (the biologist) anecdotes and pop-sociology, about the problem of Multiculturalism, and ignorant Asian Muslim children in schools.


Yet you have no problem spreading your ignorance about biology on this thread about the teaching of non-science in science classrooms. Then you furthermore continue to spread your lie that Dawkins picks on Muslims based on one newspaper article about a snippet of an interview conducted with a different newspaper while ignoring his abundant writings on other religions.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 August 2008 12:19 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
About a hundred academics, science and RE teachers, students and educationalists, plus a few creationists, gathered for a stimulating if rather worrying day. Humanist philosopher David Papineau and humanist scientist Steve Jones were among the speakers robustly defending scientific method, scientific theories and evidence. Some science teachers also spoke, and Professor Russell Stannard gave an excellent talk on the relative recency and general absurdity of biblical literalism from his perspective as a scientist and a Christian. The Islamic version of creationism – which accepts evolution within species but not from one species into another – was described by Dr Khalid Anees and endorsed by a group of Muslim sixth formers; this was clearly a source of difficulty for the science teachers at the conference who wanted to defend science without alienating their Muslim pupils. It was also clear from some teachers present that relativistic teaching that ‘it’s all just a theory’ is alive and well in some RE lessons. It seems that pervasive forms of anti-scientific thinking and creationism are common in schools, and not just in overtly creationist ones.
British Humanist Association, 2003

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 12:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Muslims - "an ethnic minority"????????

No kidding????

What, is Islam hereditary now?

Talk to me about the Lebanese. Or Filipinos. Or Punjabis. Or Bengalis. Or Kashmiris. Are the "Muslim" flavour of each of those a different "ethnic minority"????

This discussion is rapidly degenerating. Islam is a legitimate target for scorn, laughter, condemnation, refutation, and ridicule. Its pernicious influence has no place in any modern public school system, let alone anywhere that science and reason and logic are being discussed.

But people who happen to be of Muslim faith are not "ethnic". That, with the greatest of respect, is crap.


Beleif in Islam is a defining charateristic of several visible minorities in th UK. Dawkins choice of targets is very revealing, as is the insertion of an attack on multiculturalism, which is the policy that defends all ethnic minorities regardless of religious belief.

Dawkins views are nothing but a racist attack upon progressive policies. Such is blatantly evident, both by the choice of target and his conclusion.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 August 2008 12:27 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Quote from article originally posted by M. Spector:
The Islamic version of creationism – which accepts evolution within species but not from one species into another – was described by Dr Khalid Anees and endorsed by a group of Muslim sixth formers; this was clearly a source of difficulty for the science teachers at the conference who wanted to defend science without alienating their Muslim pupils.

Yes, we must avoid discussing (in a classroom, no less!!) the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting evolution in order to avoid offending or “alienating” people who have a religious belief that is contrary to that evidence.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 12 August 2008 12:28 PM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

But if you want truck driver flying the airplane you are riding in that is fine by me.

I would think that a reputable scholar would contain himself to his field of specialization,


That's never going to happen.

Actors comment on global warming and nuclear waste, yet they are rarely climatologists or Nuclear Physicists.

I don't have a political science degree, or an economic science degree but I still vote and have opinions on government policies.

Besides, I know truck drivers that are also licensed pilots, and I would be just fine travelling in a plane they piloted.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 August 2008 12:28 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Dawkins views are nothing but a racist attack upon progressive policies.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 12:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Yet you have no problem spreading your ignorance about biology on this thread about the teaching of non-science in science classrooms. Then you furthermore continue to spread your lie that Dawkins picks on Muslims based on one newspaper article about a snippet of an interview conducted with a different newspaper while ignoring his abundant writings on other religions.


What are you talking about? Where did I say that creationism should be taught in schools? I never said such thing. I am merely attacking the racist anti-Muslim spin.

quote:
He said science was being threatened in classrooms because the Government accepts that theories including "intelligent design" can be discussed "in the context of being one of a range of views on evolution."

Are you seriously suggesting that students should not be able to discuss creationism in class? That is what Dawkins is saying. I should have thought that an effective pedagodgy would include discussion of numerous ideas. What happened to free and open discussion as a basis of teaching?

Discussing something, is not "teaching" it. Is the theory if evolution so scientifically weak, that it can not stand up to a few queries from a few teenagers? Dawkins goes into a tirade when a few students don't accept on face value his assertions, so much for the "Chair for the Public Understanding of Science."

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 August 2008 12:32 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Beleif in Islam is a defining charateristic of several visible minorities in th UK.

In your dictionary. Many "visible minorities" (disgusting term) are smart enough to cast off superstition of all kinds and start thinking of themselves. I even know some Catholics who practice birth control, divorce, abortion, intermarriage, homosexuality, and who don't freak out about extramarital sex.

I'll give you their email addresses so that you can berate them for betraying their religious "defining characteristic".

quote:
Dawkins views are nothing but a racist attack upon progressive policies.

You can't get much mileage by condemning his anti-religious views - so you condemn him for attacking "progressive politics"? God, Allah, and all their partners-in-crime, please preserve me from your definition of "progressive politics".

Anyway, answer my question: Is Islam a "defining characteristic" of Filipinos, Bengalis, Punjabis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Sudanese...?? Answer, please.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 12 August 2008 12:32 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
unionist: "...Islam is a legitimate target for scorn, laughter, condemnation, refutation, and ridicule..." Would you claim the same about Muslim children and parents in a racist society, that is waging war against countries with a majority Muslim population?

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 August 2008 12:35 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
unionist: "...Islam is a legitimate target for scorn, laughter, condemnation, refutation, and ridicule..." Would you claim the same about Muslim children and parents in a racist society, that is waging war against countries with a majority Muslim population?

No, martin, I would not "claim the same about Muslim children parents" even in a non-racist society, and even if there were no war against such countries.

I think you have heard my views before ad infinitum, and I am rather disappointed that I have to keep repeating them. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean you have to misconstrue.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 August 2008 12:36 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Are you seriously suggesting that students should not be able to discuss creationism or in class? That is what Dawkins is saying. I should have thought that an effective pedagodgy would include discussion of numerous ideas. What happened to free and open discussion as a basis of teaching?

Discussing something, is not "teaching" it. Is the theory if evolution so scientifucaly weak, that it can not stand up to a few queries from a few teenagers?


Tell that to Christopher DiCarlo, award-winning teacher and 2008 Humanist of the Year.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 12:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
In your dictionary. Many "visible minorities" (disgusting term) are smart enough to cast off superstition of all kinds and start thinking of themselves. I even know some Catholics who practice birth control, divorce, abortion, intermarriage, homosexuality, and who don't freak out about extramarital sex.

You and Dawkins are the ones who are asserting that "visible minorities" start of from a position of having superstitions. Your assumption is that they start out ignorant.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 12 August 2008 12:40 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Are you seriously suggesting that students should not be able to discuss creationism in class? That is what Dawkins is saying. I should have thought that an effective pedagodgy would include discussion of numerous ideas. What happened to free and open discussion as a basis of teaching?


Frankly, and speaking as a religious believer with (I suspect) more in common with Muslims than anyone else currently posting in this thread, no, I don't want the biology teacher discussing - or attempting to discuss - the relationship between science and religion with my children.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 12 August 2008 12:40 PM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Are you seriously suggesting that students should not be able to discuss creationism or in class?


In my view students can discuss whatever they like, and can have any conversatiosn they like without restiction from a teacher, parent council, administration, the custodial or cafeteria staff or the school board.

Dawkins is not saying individuals should be restricted. Dawkins is concerned that government and its secular institutions should be restricted from advocating, sponsoring, and promoting a faith based viewpoint.

I have similar concerns. I am a teacher. I can't restict individuals from sharing their convictions. It's illegal and immoral to do so.

As a teacher, however, and as an agent of the state I can not promote a faith based perspective. It is illegal and immoral to advocate a religion or creed.

quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:

I don't want the biology teacher discussing - or attempting to discuss - the relationship between science and religion with my children.

You and I, and virtually all biology teachers I know, are in agreement.

Yet many people propose teaching Intelligent Design along side Evolution in the Biology Classroom

quote:
Harry has a strong interest in Creation Science and a drive to see this view shared with the public and taught alongside evolution in the science classroom.

If it is not science, biology teachers don't wnat to include it in their lesson plans.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 12 August 2008 12:45 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TemporalHominid:

You and I, and virtually all biology teachers I know, are in agreement.
]

ETA: I agree with you on Creation Science, too.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 12:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The opeartive word is "discuss," not "teach". But the Chair for "Understanding" flips out at the first objection, and goes on a tirade in the British press attacking Muslims.

Where for example, is the scientific statistical evidence that Muslims are more prone to having "creationist" convictions than Christians. Has Dawkins done any research whatsoever about attitudes about Muslims in general? For all we know Muslims are less likely to support "intelligent design" or whatever.

But here we are! Dawkins single experience, when facing a group of Asian students is enough for him to go off on a tangent about Muslim people in UK schools.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 12 August 2008 12:51 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Where for example, is the scientific statistical evidence that Muslims are more prone to having "creationist" convictions than Christians.


Who - in the name of all that is holy - has said that they are?!!!

ETA: I don't want the biology teacher discussing religion with my kids. At all. And I don't believe many biology teachers would want to.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 August 2008 12:51 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
If it is not science, biology teachers don't wnat to include it in their lesson plans.

Scientists actually teaching science!?!? What a novel concept!!!


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 12 August 2008 12:57 PM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
The opeartive word is "discuss," not "teach".

Hey, I don't care what term you use; call it dialogue, or tiddly winks if you wish. As long as it is not state sponsored, and the state is not restricting individual right as per the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you can call it whatever you like

quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Scientists actually teaching science!?!? What a novel concept!!!


If you have a chip on your shoulder or concerns about the curriculum and how it is delivered, take it up with your schools' Science Dept Head. Failing that, approach your schools admin team, the school board, or your ombudsperson. Or better yet volunteer your time, e.g. organise a science fair at a school and demonstrate scientific inquiry.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 12 August 2008 01:05 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
What are you talking about? Where did I say that creationism should be taught in schools?

I didn't say that you were promoting creationism in schools, although I didn't word it well. I was referring to this thread being about the teaching of non-science in science classrooms and you spreading ignorance about biology refering to this:

quote:
the only thing that Darwinian science has brought to the real world of human existence is social Darwinism, eugenics and Adolph Hitler.

quote:
Are you seriously suggesting that students should not be able to discuss creationism in class? That is what Dawkins is saying. I should have thought that an effective pedagodgy would include discussion of numerous ideas. What happened to free and open discussion as a basis of teaching?

Creationism is being taught in some science classes in the UK as a competing theory. It is not. There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of completely unequal theories (even worse considering ID is not even a theory). I suppose you would support the teaching that women are inferior, and non-europeans are inferior, and homosexuals are inferior, because that would have the same amount of supporting evidence as ID and creationism (none). But in the interests of free and open discussion and seeing as actual evidence and science doesn't matter to you as a requirement for what is taught in science classrooms they should go for it. There is not enough time to teach science in highschool as it is, we don't need to waste students time by teaching them supernatural non-sense instead. And it would be a waste of time, as anyone knows who has been in a science classroom when creationism is brought up - there is no free and open discussion, there is only heated arguments between some students who know nothing about evolution, but don't care because it goes against their religion and therefore must be wrong. All of the students lose because those who want to learn are stopped from being taught, by those who don't want to learn.

They can discuss it all they want elsewhere. In a science class they should stick to science.


quote:
Discussing something, is not "teaching" it. Is the theory if evolution so scientifically weak, that it can not stand up to a few queries from a few teenagers? Dawkins goes into a tirade when a few students don't accept on face value his assertions, so much for the "Chair for the Public Understanding of Science."

Perhaps you should watch the show instead of just continuning to spout this B.S. There was no tirade. They questioned evolution, he showed them evidence, in fact every student was interviewed and seemed to have learned much and been more than happy to have been taught by him that day.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 12 August 2008 01:08 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Where for example, is the scientific statistical evidence that Muslims are more prone to having "creationist" convictions than Christians.


Dawkins never said that. You are trying to warp his words to fit your bias.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 August 2008 01:13 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
If you have a chip on your shoulder or concerns about the curriculum and how it is covered, take it up with your schools' Science Dept Head. Failing that, approach your schools admin team, the school board, or your ombudsperson. Or better yet volunteer your time, e.g. organise a science fair at a school and demonstrate scientific inquiry.

The only “chip on my shoulder” is when something other than science is taught in science class. “Intelligent design”, creationism, or whatever else one might wish to call anti-science creationist mythology has no place in education, even if that is “offensive” to some.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 12 August 2008 01:31 PM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

The only “chip on my shoulder” is when something other than science is taught in science class. “Intelligent design”, creationism, or whatever else one might wish to call anti-science creationist mythology has no place in education, even if that is “offensive” to some.


This is why you, and RosaL, and others like you must stay engaged and voice your concerns when very vocal minorities lobby governments and school boards to give creation science and intelligent design equal coverage and weight in the curriculum. The Christians for example have been getting very devious, and are not above using deception to get Intelligent Design publications like
Of Pandas and People into the biology classroom.

They are now using Ben Stein's DVD to advance their cause and popularise their faith based perspective.

Christians are not above claiming they are being persecuted, or that teachers, scientists, school boards and governments are anti-Christian and are bigots.

That's a very powerful denouncement. No government administration or school board wants bad publicity or the perception that they are bigots.

It doesn't even have to be true. Calling a government or a school board bigoted is a powerful political tool. Very few people's political careers could survive a denouncement like that.

Also the ID and Creation science crowds are not above demonising local Christians (that support keeping their schools secular) and scientists that have faith, like

Kenneth R. Miller .

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 August 2008 01:41 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
They are now using Ben Stein's DVD to advance their cause and popularise their faith based perspective.

I think Ben Stein is a funny guy, in a peculiar sort of way. But, although I've not seen it, I've heard his recent DVD is absolutely terrible--anti-intellectual.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 12 August 2008 01:56 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More info on Expelled: Link

It's a blatant propaganda piece, dishonest on a number of levels. And yet some people eat it up.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 12 August 2008 01:57 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
unionist: "...Islam is a legitimate target for scorn, laughter, condemnation, refutation, and ridicule..." Would you claim the same about Muslim children and parents in a racist society, that is waging war against countries with a majority Muslim population?
---------------------------------

No, martin, I would not "claim the same about Muslim children parents"



Good, because that is what Dawkins did and what we are discussing.
I think it's part of the "rationalist" ideology that he - and most of Western forces - can attack people and be seen to be attacking a mere belief.

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 12 August 2008 02:01 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

I think Ben Stein is a funny guy, in a peculiar sort of way. But, although I've not seen it, I've heard his recent DVD is absolutely terrible--anti-intellectual.


I have been trying to find it, without any luck - I will never pay to see it. It appears to be a train-wreck of dishonesty. For instance Stein quotes Darwin:

quote:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

as proof that Darwin felt his own theory was absurd, without quoting the rest:

quote:
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

Or mentioning that over the last 150 years science has shown 1) the steps of eye evolution and 2) science has since realized and shown that the eye could be in no way considered an intelligent design, in fact it is on the whole a pretty poor design which would be expected from a long series of small alterations from a more primative eye.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 August 2008 02:15 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:

Good, because that is what Dawkins did and what we are discussing.
I think it's part of the "rationalist" ideology that he - and most of Western forces - can attack people and be seen to be attacking a mere belief.

Dawkins hates brown people, and covers it up by promoting science and atheism.

Thanks for the brilliant analysis.

Ever try stock market predictions?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 12 August 2008 02:17 PM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
for your viewing pleasure

Ben Stein is Angus Young


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 02:17 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Dawkins never said that.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


Exactly Dawkins views are based on no evidence whatsoever in regards to Muslim views on Creationism or the theory of evolution. He did not research at all. All we have is this one anecdote, which he then extends into a sweeping statement about Muslims in schools, and an attack on Multiculturalism, with what amounts to zero scientific evidence to support his statement. It is entirely conjectural.

Yet, this single anecdote, this so called scholar feels he is qualified to make affirmative statements about Muslims as a group, and what they think and believe. And, contrary to various statements made by people here defending this pseudo-science, he is not making a general statement about Religion in general, but one specific religious movement, which is exposed daily to racial and ethnic attacks based on their association with this religious denomination.

He then goes on to attack multicultralism. Why multiculturalism? Multiculturalism is a specific form of policy intended to protect the rights of minority groups in a society, such an attack on mulitculturalism would not make any sense whatsoever if he were attacking religions in general or the Christian majority of the UK, for the simple fact of the matter that the policy has nothing to do with protecting the rights of white Christians, and everything to do with defending the right non-white, non-Christians, in a majority white-Christian society.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 August 2008 02:31 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Exactly Dawkins views are based on no evidence whatsoever in regards to Muslim views on Creationism or the theory of evolution.

Yeah, he just hates brownish people, and he hides behind a cloak of science. How very profound.

quote:
... he is not making a general statement about Religion in general, but one specific religious movement, which is exposed daily to racial and ethnic attacks based on their association with this religious denomination.

He just loves Jews and Catholics and Buddhists and hates brownish people - at least, the Muslim ones. Go figure, all those books, all that science. He could have just joined some Islamophobic cult and got his rocks off that way. These Brits, they go to so much trouble.

quote:
He then goes on to attack multicultralism. Why multiculturalism?

Ummm, I also oppose "multiculturalism", at least as applied in Canada. It was developed by the Liberal Party to: (a) dilute Québec demands for recognition of their right to self-determination; and (b) pay off some puppets in various immigrant communities, sponsorship-style. The Liberals are past masters at this.

There is no "multiculturalism" in Canada and none is needed. There is Canada, there is Québec, and there are Aboriginal nations and people. We don't need ghettoes run by Liberal (or other) hacks.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 12 August 2008 02:35 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How do you know, Cueball, that Dawkins hasn't looked at any evidence for his opinion in the forms of surveys, etc? Why do you think he's looking at this one experience and generalizing from it?

Do you know if your assertion is correct? I mean, have you checked? Or are you going on this one piece of evidence and generalizing it to Dawkins' entire worldview?

Dawkins, from other work of his that I have read, seems to be fairly progressive in his views. He doesn't agree with religious superstition, but I don't think he relates it specifically to race. He has supported Ayaan Hirsi Ali (hope I haven't mispelled) on his website, for example.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 12 August 2008 02:43 PM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

...All we have is this one anecdote, which he then extends into a sweeping statement about Muslims in schools, .....

He then goes on to attack multiculturalism. Why multiculturalism? Multiculturalism is a specific form of policy intended to protect the rights of minority groups in a society, such an attack on multiculturalism would not make any sense whatsoever if he were attacking religions in general or the Christian majority of the UK,


You are correct and many people agree, and have stated over 2 threads now, that they agree that anecdotal evidence is always weak. We get it, everyone gets it Cueball. Dawkins made a mistake, and a generalisation and we recognise it.

Your interpretation of his "attack" on multiculturalism is interesting though, but I suspect it is not accurate and might even be a straw-man.

I don't exactly know what kind of views on multiculturalism Dawkins subscribes to, but I doubt that you can represent his views. Also I am familiar enough with Dawkin's writings and public appearances and his DVDs that I know Christianity is not spared his criticism and examination. Christianity has never gotten a free pass from Dawkins. He is relentless and dogged.

I can only speak for myself:
I think keeping state sponsored faith based perspectives out of public schools is right on the money. In fact I believe that no state sponsored religion in the schools strengthens multiculturalism.

How so?

Well lets say it 1859, and the Canadian government advocates the Church of England's (Anglican?) perspective. All students must be taught the Anglican doctrine, the Anglican perspective on faith and creation and salvation, and their views on women and homosexuals. How much individual freedom is there? Students can not express views contrary to the state sponsored religion which is taught in the schools. Ultimately, no room for multiculturalism as everyone is expected to conform or just shut up. White Christian heterosexual males have all the power.


Now lets jump forward to 2008. Canada is essentially a secularised country with no state sponsored religion, and does not advocate a particular faith based perspective.
There is now a lot of individual freedom. Students can have any views they like, and express their convictions freely if they choose to. We have Anglicans, Catholics, Wiccans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, First Nations, atheists, and Jedi Knights learning a secular curriculum together. The state prefers no one perspective over another, and advocates no faith based perspective. The kids are sharing their convictions and philosophies without fear of reprisal, like corporal punishment.
Not everything is hunky dory of course because white Christian culture still dominates our society, but at least our schools are a safe haven from religious indoctrination, dogma, and threat of physical harm from government agents for expressing something other than the state sponsored faith perspective. White Christian heterosexual Males have most of the power, but things are progressing to a society with more equality. This is a better environment to foster multiculturalism, if the citizens want it.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 August 2008 02:50 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Dawkins hates brown people, and covers it up by promoting science and atheism.

And he likes whites who have converted to Islam and he advocates the teaching of non-science to those white Muslims (if that makes them more comfy)...and, of course, to white Christians.

His whole purpose in life is to promote racism. "Science" is just a little game he plays as a cover for his true intentions.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 02:51 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Dawkins never said that. You are trying to warp his words to fit your bias.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


Wait a second I am wrong. CMOT caught it right away Dawkins, the "scientist" does in fact state that "Most devout Muslims are creationists", base on one single anecdote derived from his TV show experience. He presents absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this conjecture, such as survey of Muslim opinion, nor does he offer an estimation of what he considers a "devout" Muslim, or in anyway try an establish how many of these "devout" muslim Creationists there actually are in the British school system. Pure prejudice and conjecture. Nothing scientific about it.

This spurious guestimation is then leveraged into an attack on mulitculturalism.

Yet, the so called "rationalists" are all over this hot potato, ready to defend this pompous ass in the name of "science."

Ridiculous.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 12 August 2008 02:54 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Exactly Dawkins views are based on no evidence whatsoever in regards to Muslim views on Creationism or the theory of evolution.

You know this how? For someone who has read almost nothing by the man, very impressive.

quote:
He did not research at all.

You know this how?

quote:
All we have is this one anecdote, which he then extends into a sweeping statement about Muslims in schools,

You know this how?

quote:
Yet, this single anecdote, this so called scholar feels he is qualified to make affirmative statements about Muslims as a group, and what they think and believe.

He makes statements not about Muslims in general but about devout Muslims in most cases believing in creationism. Is he right? I don't know. Sanizadeh in the previous thread said that most Muslim scholars oppose evolution. Is Sanizadeh right? I don't know. Is evolution being taught in Pakistan? In Saudi Arabia? In Turkey? I don't know. You have provided no evidence that his quote is wrong. I have provided no evidence that his quote is right. The difference is I don't give a crap whether it is 10%, 55% or 90%, my concern is the teaching of creationism in publicly funded schools. You say he is wrong based not on providing opposing evidence, or evidence that he made it up, but because that is what you believe, show us.

quote:
And, contrary to various statements made by people here defending this pseudo-science, he is not making a general statement about Religion in general, but one specific religious movement, which is exposed daily to racial and ethnic attacks based on their association with this religious denomination.

Listen, if you don't want to look at what Dawkins says and instead concentrate on a couple of lines and pretend that those lines represent his views on his religion, despite the pile of evidence which shows that Dawkins levels the same criticism against other relgions, then fine. But you are completely full of it.

And just because Muslims are exposed to attacks doesn't mean that Dawkins should not treat everyone equally. I realize you can't understand that.

quote:
He then goes on to attack multicultralism. Why multiculturalism?

Why? For the very obvious reason that religious schools teaching creationism began getting funded under Tony Blair. That decision has was made and has been defended under the promotion of multiculturalism.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 August 2008 03:02 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
And just because Muslims are exposed to attacks doesn't mean that Dawkins should not treat everyone equally.

That is a good point and it highlights a fact that some people cannot seem to get their heads around: Attacking an idea is not the same thing as attacking a person.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 03:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Where is the research? Lets see it? The survey of Muslim opinion. I have never seen it refered to here or anywhere.

Dawkins certainly does not offer it in support of his conjecture, so what value is it then? It is up to Dawkins to express and articulate his case. You won't find any either, because Dawkins social theories, as far as I have seen are all polemics based on hermenutic deconstructions of religious texts mixed in with cherry picked anecdotes, such as the TV show incident above. There is no evidence here, yet you are advocating a scientific process founded in facts, such as those used in support of the case for evolution.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 12 August 2008 03:11 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

EAnd, contrary to various statements made by people here defending this pseudo-science, he is not making a general statement about Religion in general, but one specific religious movement, which is exposed daily to racial and ethnic attacks based on their association with this religious denomination.


huh? He wrote a book attacking "Religion in general"! I read it. He goes all over the world attacking "religion in general". He is no more anti-muslim than anti-any-other-religion. As far as I can recall, it was mostly Christianity and Judaism he discussed in The God Delusion. This is just too ridiculous.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 August 2008 03:14 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Evidence has been mounting for years that the teaching of evolutionary theory (yes, Darwinism) in publicly-funded schools in the UK has been seriously hindered by religious nutbars insisting that their religious view of creation should take precedence over scientific fact. I quoted above but one example among many, provided by the British Humanist Association. The issue has been covered in scores of newspaper and magazine articles, television programs, and professional education publications.

Those who are ignorant of this notorious fact come over all surprised and indignant when they see Richard Dawkins referring to but one concrete example of the clash of science and religion in school. They conclude that this is an isolated case that is being blown out of proportion and offered as "proof" of a widespread phenomenon. They are blissfully unaware that this is a real phenomenon, proven many times to exist, and that illustrating it with a single concrete example is entirely legitimate in a documentary film about Darwin.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 August 2008 03:16 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
huh? He wrote a book attacking "Religion in general"! I read it. He goes all over the world attacking "religion in general". He is no more anti-muslim than anti-any-other-religion. As far as I can recall, it was mostly Christianity and Judaism he discussed in The God Delusion. This is just too ridiculous.

Of course, you are correct, RosaL. To argue otherwise would be to expose one's complete ignorance of Dawkins's writing and views.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 August 2008 03:22 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Evidence has been mounting for years that the teaching of evolutionary theory (yes, Darwinism) in publicly-funded schools in the UK has been seriously hindered by religious nutbars insisting that their religious view of creation should take precedence over scientific fact.

Although I would imagine that the worst offender is the USofA...at least among Western countries.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 03:22 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:

huh? He wrote a book attacking "Religion in general"! I read it. He goes all over the world attacking "religion in general". He is no more anti-muslim than anti-any-other-religion. As far as I can recall, it was mostly Christianity and Judaism he discussed in The God Delusion. This is just too ridiculous.


That is besides the point. This is about Dawkins attack upon Muslims and Multiculturalism. See the thread title. It is clear as day.

Why multiculturalism? Who does the policy serve? What are its aims? Certainly not to protect the rights of the Christian majority. The policy comes into existence precisely to help support minorities, not the white Christian majority.

If he were generally making a statment about religions, the multiculturalism angle would make no sense whatsoever. Can you imagine talking about how "fanatical mulitculturalism" is being exploited to defend English Protestants creationist?

That is an absurd idea, that would only make sense in India or Pakistan, where English Protestants are not the majority.

If you are saying that Dawkins words are being twisted by the British press to make a prejudiced attack against Muslims, then he is twice the fool he appears to be, since of course these statements can be seen to express precisely what they appear to be expressing, since he would then have had to be so stupid as to walk into a minefield of racist stygmatization, without carefully measuring his words and there impact, and possible uses.

It would have been very simple to make these statements in a general sense about religious people in general, but he did not. Nor do I think he is so stupid. He is biased, that is all. Typical European racist arrogance projected into the realm of scientific discourse.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 12 August 2008 03:27 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Britain is a deeply secular country. It has very few Christian fundamentalists or Christians of any kind, come to that. For that reason, most creationists in the UK are likely to be Muslim. In the US, Dawkins would be all over the Christians - and he has been.
From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 12 August 2008 03:29 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
See the thread title. It is clear as day.

Ah, well if it is in the thread title then it must be an absolute reflection of Dawkins views on religion. Good catch. Thread titles are inerrant.

I agree with Rosa this is just too ridiculous. (and pointless)


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 03:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Evidence has been mounting for years that the teaching of evolutionary theory (yes, Darwinism) in publicly-funded schools in the UK has been seriously hindered by religious nutbars insisting that their religious view of creation should take precedence over scientific fact. I quoted above but one example among many, provided by the British Humanist Association. The issue has been covered in scores of newspaper and magazine articles, television programs, and professional education publications.

Those who are ignorant of this notorious fact come over all surprised and indignant when they see Richard Dawkins referring to but one concrete example of the clash of science and religion in school. They conclude that this is an isolated case that is being blown out of proportion and offered as "proof" of a widespread phenomenon. They are blissfully unaware that this is a real phenomenon, proven many times to exist, and that illustrating it with a single concrete example is entirely legitimate in a documentary film about Darwin.


Bullshit polemics. Having more "anecdotes" does not amount to evidence. Dawkins has made a breathtakingly wide assertion about what "Most devout Muslims" believe, and supported this notion with an anecdote, without even so much as a reference to the wider research you and other are hypothesizing he has done.

You would think that a scholar truly concernted with the accuracy of his conclusion, in such a case, would have bountiful statistical evidence on hand to support his statements, right on the tip of his tongue, something like: "My research shows that 65% of all Muslims who consider themselves devout, believe in "intelligent design."

Nothing such as this is offered. Quite the opposite, it is more like: "I met these teenagers once on a TV show I was on and from this I have deduced the opinions of most Muslim people."

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 03:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Ah, well if it is in the thread title then it must be an absolute reflection of Dawkins views on religion. Good catch. Thread titles are inerrant.

I agree with Rosa this is just too ridiculous. (and pointless)


If you are saying that Dawkins words are being twisted by the British press to make a prejudiced attack against Muslims, then he is twice the fool he appears to be, since of course these statements can be seen to express precisely what they appear to be expressing, since he would then have had to be so stupid as to walk into a minefield of racist stygmatization, without carefully measuring his words and there impact, and possible uses.

And yes, as a group Babblers are making precisely the same political error by feeding anti-Muslim prejudice and stygmatization, based on this pompous idiots anecdote.

It would have been very simple to make these statements in a general sense about religious people in general, but he did not. Nor do I think he is so stupid. He is biased, that is all. Typical European racist arrogance projected into the realm of scientific discourse.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 12 August 2008 03:43 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

If you are saying that Dawkins words are being twisted by the British press to make a prejudiced attack against Muslims, then he is twice the fool he appears to be, blah blah blah.


I understand exactly what Dawkins said. I also understand that you have purposely ignored 98% of what Dawkins has said about religion, implied that the other 2% represents 100% and then claimed that he is a racist. I understand your position and point:

Dawkins believes that people of all religious beliefs should be treated and criticized equally whether Christian, Muslim, Jew etc and is therefore a racist.

Cueball believes that Muslim beliefs should be above criticism as they are subject to attack within western society. Only the beliefs of the majority may be criticized.

I just don't agree with your position.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 03:52 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Where did I say I think that Muslim beliefs should be above criticism? What I am saying is that no one should be open to spurious, supersticious and prejudiced attacks from people in positions of authority. I feel this is important when dealing marginalized minority groups about which there is already substantial stereotyping and prejudice.

Dawkins had a discussion with some children about the theory of evolution. He then extrapolates this incident into a general "theory" about what "most devout Muslims" believe complete with lessons to be learned about the policy of multiculturalism. No where are these theories supported by substantive evidence beyond this single interview, nor are they even within the purview of the field for which he was trained, as is evident by his lack of sociological acumen.

Spurious and apparently biased bullshit based in his authority as the "chair" of a basket weaving position at a prestigious university.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 12 August 2008 04:04 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know why people can't see Cueball's objection to how this has been presented and allowed to carry over to babble. Do progressives not see Islam as the massive dartboard in the news these days?
From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 12 August 2008 04:09 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball, are you arguing that most Muslims do not believe in creationism, or are you arguing that Dawkins should have no right to say what he did because it was specific to Muslims?

IMV, there should be NO creationism taught/discussed/alluded to, in any publically finded school in any supposed democratic country.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 August 2008 04:13 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Although I would imagine that the worst offender is the USofA...at least among Western countries.
Ah, yes, I almost forgot! The "Unified Theory of Babble."

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 04:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Cueball, are you arguing that most Muslims do not believe in creationism, or are you arguing that Dawkins should have no right to say what he did because it was specific to Muslims?

IMV, there should be NO creationism taught/discussed/alluded to, in any publically finded school in any supposed democratic country.


I have no idea. I have never had a discussion with any Muslim people about creationism. I just spent the better part of last week drinking in Halifax with a medical resident who is a Muslim from Kashmir, and the topic never came up once. But as a "resident" Doctor in western medicine, I highly doubt that he found his religious beliefs in conflict with the biological science he has been taught.

I see no evidence to suggest that Dawkins knows the answer to your question either.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 August 2008 04:14 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
IMV, there should be NO creationism taught/discussed/alluded to, in any publically finded school in any supposed democratic country.
Unless, of course, it's First Nations creation myths...


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 August 2008 04:18 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
But as a "resident" in modern medicine, I highly doubt that he found his religious beliefs in conflict with the biological science he has been taught.
Shows how much you know.

There are tens of thousands of Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists practising medicine in the USA today. They believe religious nonsense with one part of their brain, and scientific medicine with another part of their brain. They may know there's a conflict, but they never bother to resolve it.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 12 August 2008 04:18 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Unless, of course, it's First Nations creation myths...


Two-step non-sequitir.


From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 04:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Shows how much you know.

There are tens of thousands of Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists practising medicine in the USA today. They believe religious nonsense with one part of their brain, and scientific medicine with another part of their brain. They may know there's a conflict, but they never bother to resolve it.


I said the subject never came up. I still hold out hope that one of these days the part of the brain that you are using to read, will connect up to the part of the brain that formulates your "ideas".

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 12 August 2008 04:22 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Shows how much you know.

There are tens of thousands of Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists practising medicine in the USA today. They believe religious nonsense with one part of their brain, and scientific medicine with another part of their brain. They may know there's a conflict, but they never bother to resolve it.


Exactly.

But apparently this guy was drinking alcohol, which Islam prohibits, so I'm not sure he's much of an indication anyway, even if we were inclined to accept "anecdotal evidence".


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 12 August 2008 04:23 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't know why people can't see Cueball's objection to how this has been presented and allowed to carry over to babble. Do progressives not see Islam as the massive dartboard in the news these days?
But RP [sarcasm alert], don't you understand? Re-read our resident moralist... it's just an idea that is being attacked, invaded, machine-gunned, bombed... surely, you wouldn't object to the free critique of ideas (especially those trotted out by brown kids). If Dawkins' unprovoked attack on British Muslim kids and parents can be passed off as honourable resistance to creationism being taught in public schools - as some here have tried very hard to do - then Western civilization can proceed with the massacre unimpeded.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 August 2008 04:24 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Cueball, are you arguing that most Muslims do not believe in creationism, or are you arguing that Dawkins should have no right to say what he did because it was specific to Muslims?

Cueball, as far as I can fathom, is now arguing:

1. Dawkins has no clue what Islam says about creation.

2. Cueball has never talked to any Muslims about this issue.

3. Therefore, Dawkins is a racist, and the rest of his work is all a sham.

Just synthesizing and trying to make sense of it. I failed.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 12 August 2008 04:25 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:

Exactly.

But apparently this guy was drinking alcohol, which Islam prohibits, so I'm not sure he's much of an indication anyway, even if we were inclined to accept "anecdotal evidence".


'bout time for some other objection to Dawkins anecdotal evidence.

Nice one with the alcohol.


From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 04:27 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:

Exactly.

But apparently this guy was drinking alcohol, which Islam prohibits, so I'm not sure he's much of an indication anyway, even if we were inclined to accept "anecdotal evidence".


Exactly my point Rosa. My anecdote is an anecdote. However I am not using my anecdote as a basis of making sweeping generalizations about marginalized people, and broad stroke arguements about public policy. Dawkins can unlock the key to a thousand years of Islamic thought, simply by talking to some Muslim teenagers.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 04:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Cueball, as far as I can fathom, is now arguing:

1. Dawkins has no clue what Islam says about creation.

2. Cueball has never talked to any Muslims about this issue.

3. Therefore, Dawkins is a racist, and the rest of his work is all a sham.

Just synthesizing and trying to make sense of it. I failed.


Yup. You failed to find what it is that you wanted to find, and such has caused a cognitive disconnect. Try resetting to zero, or rebooting the machine with a more up-to-date operating system... say something post 1848.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 August 2008 04:29 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I said the subject never came up.
...and then proceeded to make an unwarranted assumption that because this person had studied medicine it was highly doubtful that he believes in creationism. An assumption which I then demonstrated to be bullshit.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 12 August 2008 04:31 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Exactly my point Rosa. My anecdote is an anecdote. However I am not using my anecdote as a basis of making sweeping generalizations about marginalized people, and broad stroke arguements about public policy. Dawkins can unlock the key to a thousand years of Islamic thought, simply by talking to some Muslim teenagers.


I have said that I don't think Dawkins has a good grasp of religion. But he doesn't attack Islam any more than he does any other religion - if anything, he attacks it less. And none of this makes him a racist.

And was his anecdote cited as compelling evidence for what he had to say or as illustrative of it?


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2008 04:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't say that he did not believe in creationism. Try harder. I know that somewhere in the murky half of the brain that spawns these red herrings and straw men there is a synapse that can connect to the other side which reads what is written, I said:

quote:
But as a "resident" in modern medicine, I highly doubt that he found his religious beliefs in conflict with the biological science he has been taught.

From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 12 August 2008 04:39 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Cueball, as far as I can fathom, is now arguing:

1. Dawkins has no clue what Islam says about creation.

2. Cueball has never talked to any Muslims about this issue.

3. Therefore, Dawkins is a racist, and the rest of his work is all a sham.

Just synthesizing and trying to make sense of it. I failed.


I thought he was objecting to this even being worthy of discussion. There's no story here.

[newsalert] : if you don't keep an eye on right-wing rags, Islam-bashing(and the recently added Olympic event of China-bashing) is on the rise.


From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 12 August 2008 04:40 PM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread, please start a new one folks!
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca