According to today’s New York Times:
Protesters angered by the burning of a Koran by a fringe American pastor in Florida mobbed offices of the United Nations in northern Afghanistan on Friday, killing ten foreign staff members and beheading two of the victims, according to an Afghan police spokesman. Five Afghans were also killed.
The attack began when hundreds of demonstrators, some of them armed, poured out of mosques after Friday Prayer and headed to the headquarters of the United Nations in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif. They disarmed the guards and overran the compound, according to Lal Mohammad Ahmadzai, spokesman for Gen. Daoud Daoud, the Afghan National Police commander for northern Afghanistan. . .
. . . Mr. Ahmadzai, the police spokesman, said the crowd was angry about the burning of the Koran after a mock trial overseen by Pastor Terry Jones on Mar. 20. Mr. Jones had caused an international uproar by threatening to burn the Koran last Sept. 11, and demonstrations at the time led to deaths throughout Afghanistan, but on a small scale. Mr. Jones subsequently had publicly promised not to burn a Koran, but then went ahead last month, after holding a mock trial of the Koran at his fringe church in Gainesville, Fla. . . .
. . . Mirwais Zabi, director of the public health hospital in Mazar-i-Sharif, said 24 wounded Afghan civilians and five dead Afghan civilians were brought to the hospital, with more wounded expected. Other reports said that the Afghan dead included some of the guards.
Can anybody attribute this faith-inflamed murder to mere xenophobia—something that would have occurred anyway had there not been faith? I think not.
Think of Anne Frank—one girl who was killed because of religion. Think of how the story of one single girl so moved the world. Here are fifteen people without diaries to attest to their lives, loves, and friendships: fifteen people who will be missed by their families and friends as much as was Anne Frank. All because of a stupid faith in a stupid book.
Idiots all.
I didn’t know he had burnt it – after all the fuss last year.
According to the beeb -“Reports say five Nepalese guards and three other members of staff were among the dead.”
How sad we have to share a planet with these unstable people. They prove we’re right to fear them. I don’t care for bigotry, but I’ll gladly support islamophobes in our government.
I hope this is some April’s fools story
Sadly, no. That asshole preacher in Florida did it as a big fuck-you.
As much as the guy is an asshole this is not his fault.
I agree.
Not trying to be a dick here, but should the title be ‘fifteen people’? The Afghans who died are just as much victims of this insanity.
Also, its technically about stupid faiths in two stupid books.
Indeed! I’ve changed the title.
oops. missed one in the penultimate sentence, last clause. /proofread
I usually have mixed feelings — all bad — about these things.
Of course burning books is just free speech and has to be “allowed”.
On the other hand, this sort of thing was likely to happen as a reaction, because this sort of religion makes some people violently insane. Without the religion, it’s hard to imagine the situation becoming so violent.
If it wasn’t burning books it would be some other damn fool thing. In the Danish cartoon case, for instance, nothing happened for months until some Imams dug up the story and whipped their followers into a frenzy. Clearly they’re looking for anything which might be perceived as a threat and without an external one, I’ve little doubt they’d just turn on themselves – burning women and gays for instance.
Ah but that’s not turning on themselves – it’s still turning on others. Not foreign others, but very other others.
While I sort of agree (the mullahs who instigate and the murderers who attack these women) clearly don’t feel any kinship, these women still align themselves with Islam and still represent muslim-on-muslim violence.
Unfortunately even this apparently uncontroversial statement has grey areas since I doubt the women who are most likely to be the victims of violence have any recourse. If asserting control of their bodies may result in violence or death, can they really be free to renounce Islam entirely, even if they wished to do so?
I was trying to say that these leaders would find offence no matter what. Imports are ideal but there are plenty of local targets. Perhaps “offence” is merely a convenient excuse with dominance being the real goal, and you only get that by regularly demonstrating your power.
Pastor Terry may be an idiot, but what he did was legal and protected. The reaction, OTOH, was quite a bit overboard. As Tyro has observed, that’s the extremist reaction to even the simplest of provocations.
Legal and protected means he can’t be prosecuted in this country for it. This is not the same as saying that he is not responsible for what his words produce. There’s blood on at least one christians hands here.
No sorry, people are just as likely to be killed because someone posts on these blogs something offensive to them. The guy is a bigot and a dick but hes not to blame in the least here. Just like women wearing short skirts are not to blame for other peoples actions.
lol. No. I’m sorry, that’s just a ludicrous assertion. History, even in America, is full of religious riots over holy texts.
Read up about the Philadelphia bible riots. The St. Louis bible riots. The New York bible riots. The anti-Catholic pogroms waged by Protestants here in America. Bloody Monday in Louisville, KY. The burning of the Convent of the Ursuline nuns.
Then there are the Jews. Who’ve gotten it at least as bad as the Catholics. And, of course, let’s not forget about all the Mosque’s being harassed, defaced and burned here in the US.
OTOH, the only thing I’ve seen out of the Internet is one murder and a lot of butt-hurt, nerd-raging. So, really, hardly equivalent to an Internet flame war…
Crap. I posted that to the wrong post.
Sigh. Not my day…
The blame for these deaths lays at the feet of those who carried out the murders. These fanatics need to learn that, just because they consider something holy does not mean that others have to bow to their wishes and respect their holy objects. The answer to actions like these is not to appease the militants, it is to carry on with acts like the book burning until they accept that they will not force us into their way of thinking and their way of acting.
Utter garbage.
The murderers are solely responsible.
In an atheist’s worldview, no one is responsible for their actions:
http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html
No matter how offensive someone’s speech or protests, its no excuse for murder. I don’t really like the idea of book burning since it has very definite Nazi overtones, but you cannot deny what a powerful message burning a symbol sends to people. And the Koran isn’t just a holy book, its an actual magical artifact for these people, something you can bless a house with and drive away demons.
I do think some sort of anti-Islam protesting needs to be done, just so that people realize that there are people who don’t accept that their religion is true, or worthy of respect just because its a religion. And to protest that Mulisms are constantly demanding not just that their various rules are carried out by their coreligionists, but by everyone else as well, and enforcing it with these acts of mob violence.
“The Koran isn’t just a holy book, its an actual magical artifact for these people, something you can bless a house with and drive away demons.”
How do you know it’s really magical for them — are you a mind reader?
No, an observer. Why else would anyone kill people for destroying one of billions of copies of a book?
(Sorry about repeating that incredibly annoying “are you a mind reader” thing that someone else laid on me.)
Why else would they do it? There are two layers of sociology here, so the question has two separate answers. The mullahs do it because acts like this keep them in power. The mob does it because they were manipulated by lies and superstitions.
“Protesters angered by the burning of a Koran”
No. They were fired up by the local warlords, who call themselves clerics.
“The attack began when hundreds of demonstrators, some of them armed, poured out of mosques after Friday Prayer”
The mullahs are responsible. There would have been no violence but for their exhortations. They are murderers. They created this tragedy not because of any religious sentiment, but to justify their salaries.
…so are media types, for puffing up this non-story in the first place. …and media consumers, for making production of such “news” profitable.
Sorry. I just happen to reading “Idiot America”, and it’s rubbing off on me.
Excuse me Y, but how do you know they didn’t incite the violence out of genuine “holy wrath”?
Being from that part of the world, I can absolutely assure you there is no shortage of people who would start foaming at the mouth upon hearing something like this.
Sure, they need to earn their salaries, but there are plenty of other things they can preach about.
Are you a mind reader?
“Excuse me Y, but how do you know they didn’t incite the violence out of genuine ‘holy wrath’?”
There is no such thing as genuine holy wrath. If it’s “holy,” it’s not genuine.
I think there’s genuine holy wrath against Gaddafi even in a non-religious sense.
It’s genuine in a non-genuine sense? Is that what you’re saying?
Says who? And prove it.
(My comment is to Yashwata.)
Are you asking me to prove that if it’s “holy,” it’s not genuine?
Look, there is nothing that is actually holy. The idea of holiness is a superstition. So if someone tells you to do something for a holy reason, he’s misleading you. If you’re supposed to do it on behalf of the holy Bible, or the holy Koran, or the holy anything, this is misleading, because there is nothing that is actually holy.
The men who incited vengeance over the holy Koran were lying, because the Koran is not holy. It’s just a book.
OK, I misunderstood where you were coming from.
Yes, those who think a book is holy are wrong. But they are not lying in the sense of consciously making stuff up. They “genuinely” believe what they are saying. Some may have other motives. But unless you are mind reader, it is often very hard to tell.
Which is why religion is such a dangerous delusion. Jerry isbquite right.
“They “genuinely” believe what they are saying. Some may have other motives. But unless you are mind reader, it is often very hard to tell.”
So, you can’t tell.
So on what basis are you caliming the violence-incing imams are not motivated “genuinely” by religion?
“On what basis are you caliming the violence-incing imams are not motivated ‘genuinely’ by religion?”
They are professional liars. That’s their job. And this is just one of the reasons that, when they say, “We should kill a bunch of people for the following religious reasons,” we can be reasonably certain that their true motivations are not being disclosed.
You know I find your arrogance stunning. I am from Iran. I lived with them for over 20 years. And you understand their psychology better than I do?
How many courses on the Koran did you do in school?
Y, you are just playing a game of words. Holy wrath simply means religiously inspired wrath. The Koran is holy in the minds of vandals and murderers in the story, and that is all that counts. It is simply preposterous to claim wrath cannot be holy. Just ask any muslim.
And to answer Dan the homophobic bigot-where did you get the idea that anger at libya’s distator is “holy”? High on crack again?
“Ask any Muslim,” Mr. Ape? If they really think the Koran is holy, they are deluded. If they don’t think so but only say so, they are lying. No book can make people go out and kill people. That takes deliberate persuasion by a calculating villain. The religious rhetoric is a red herring.
That is quite a bizarre reconstruction by a self procliamed psychic. So, people never act on the basis of delusions? Ask a psychiatrist if you doubt that. Speaking if which, I really think you need to see one.
I’m not following your argument. You really need to calm down.
Insightful -from Iran? A week late but – Happy New Year!
Thank you, I am as much into ritual as (I guess) Jerry is.
“The religious rhetoric is a red herring.”
That’s what I call arbitrary assertion. And stunning denial of the obvious fact that the violence described could not have happened without the perpetrators consciously holding certain explicit religious beliefs.
Self-described “religious” authorities have incited all this violence by filling their followers’ heads with sickening, murderous garbage. Why insist that it’s a *special kind* of garbage? It’s fucking garbage and they should fucking stop saying it.
Who has insisted that it is a “special kind” of garbage? I don’t really know what you’re talking about. The point is that these murders would not have been carried out if not for specific, consciously held religious beliefs. I’m certainly not claiming that only religious beliefs can make people behave like that. That would be absurd. In this case, obviously religious beliefs were operative. And when you think about what you’re saying, you seem to be insisting that religious beliefs are special beliefs in that they don’t influence peoples behavior. Unless you were to claim that no beliefs influence anyone’s behavior. But that of course, would be stupid.
No, they’re not necessarily liars. In fact, that they are liars is much less likely to be the case than that they actually believe what they say they believe. Given how many people profess belief in the god(s) of one faith or another and given the resources people devote to their religions and given how people behave, the extraordinary claim would be that they actually don’t believe any of it. Your response to Insightful Ape was merely a re-statement of what you previously said. You didn’t answer his question at all. You have engaged in circular reasoning. When asked why you say the Imams don’t believe what they say, you answered “they’re liars” (i.e. they don’t believe what they say they believe).
Yes -we feeble humanz have this great capacity for self-delusion, hence, inter alia, religion & (same pretty much) superstition.
🙁
“Given how many people profess belief in the god(s) of one faith or another and given the resources people devote to their religions and given how people behave, the extraordinary claim would be that they actually don’t believe any of it.”
Yes, I suppose that would be extraordinary.
“You have engaged in circular reasoning. When asked why you say the Imams don’t believe what they say, you answered ‘they’re liars’ (i.e. they don’t believe what they say they believe).”
I.A. asked on what basis I claim that the imams are not being *sincere* when they talk about their “religious” reasons for slaughtering innocent people. I said I don’t think they’re sincere about that because they’re not sincere about anything. To be an imam you have to lie all day, every day. That’s your job. I call them liars because they’re liars. That is not circular reasoning.
Why do you want to believe that people who spew disgusting hateful rhetoric are sincere? Why is it so implausible and so outrageous to question their sincerity? Most of us on this thread are atheists. We know that religion is bunk. Yet, when I suggest that those who most vehemently promote religious ideas don’t even believe them, I catch hell for it. Why?
Because…you have not presented any evidence? And blanket statements such as “they lie all day long”, while by and large may be true, do not count.
Jesus Christ you’re stupid. First of all, you are making an extraordinary claim that you haven’t presented any evidence for. You haven’t merely suggested, you’ve maintained. You want to know why you are “catching hell”? It’s because you are being a troll who just repeats the same things over and over without actually responding to the criticisms of what you’re saying.
And on the circular reasoning point, you did not say that they are not sincere about anything (a claim you’ve pulled out of your ass). You said they are “professional liars” (another claim you’ve pulled out of your ass). Implying that they do not believe the religious propositions that they promulgate to make their living. Insincere = do not actually believe. That cannot be given as a reason for why you say they do not actually believe (i.e. are not sincere).
And I don’t “want to believe” the these imams are “sincere”. It’s that there is no reason to believe that they are not sincere. (We’re all still waiting for your reason). It’s that the “rhetoric” and the actions actually make sense if you consider what they likely believe. Secondly, we shouldn’t be overly focused on the what the imams actually think. Even if the imams were cynically manipulating the mob for political or other reasons, religious beliefs would still be the primary problem here. The “rhetoric” is only effective if it has a pull on people. In order for the buttons to be pushed there must be a button to begin with.
And one more thing. Are you Sablosky?
Nick B., it’s really astonishing to me that you think it’s OK to tell me, “Jesus Christ you’re stupid.” Did I attack you in any fashion, to any degree? Are we on different sides in some holy war? What the fuck is wrong with you?
To I. Ape, who tells me I “have not presented any evidence” — come on. Not every argument hinges on the question of evidence. Sometimes you have plenty of evidence and you just need to think things through.
If you are an atheist, then you believe that most of what any professional cleric talks about is bullshit. That’s what I mean by “they lie all day long.” There is no God. There was no Jesus. Muhammad was most certainly not any kind of prophet, he was a bloodthirsty tyrant. These are uncontroversial facts. And these facts entail that when a Christian or Jewish or Mohammedan preacher tells us about what he “believes,” he is speaking nonsense. Most of the commenters on this thread would agree with this. (Wouldn’t you?) Yet, no one seems willing to consider the possibility that *the belief itself* is a myth. That’s all I’m suggesting. When a professional liar tells you about what he “believes,” you have the right to be skeptical. He might be lying to you — or to himself. He might not have the beliefs he says (or thinks) he has. He might have very good reasons to mislead you (or himself) about the content of his beliefs.
Yes, it’s counter-intuitive. That’s why I had to write an entire book to think it through. Have you made that kind of effort?
Yashwata, you are sadly mistaken. The facts you have presented won’t be challenged in a forum like this. But here is the thing-you simply have no understanding of the believer psychology. It is called “faith” precisely because it goes against the evidence-a cruel tyrant or pure myth is glorified beyond recognition. You may have difficulty comprehending this-but they actually believe this, strange as it may sound. And the clerics who incite violence are not a separate social caste (in Islam particularly)-they are son, brothers, husbands, and fathers. of those who physically commit acts of violence. You are kidding yourself if you think they are a completely isolated class cynically manipulating the masses while they believe none of it themselves. Again, you are repeating an assertion without presenting evdince.
(Getting sick of this kind of behavior is precisely why I ultimately left the faith, by the way.)
Nick B.: Yes.
You’re dismissed. I’ve wasted enough time on you.
I’ m sorry.
Without having followed this spat in detail, I find it hard to believe anyone is surprised at the suggestion that religious athorities might be disingenuous. Power corrupts, follow the money, etc. Look at how comfy (& hypocritical) the rulers of many a theocracy are. I’d expect there are both true zealots & crafty power-mongers amongst the imams. A shame that two atheists have come to verbal blows like this–anyone read Mistakes were made (but not by me)?
Someone understands! Thank you, Diane!
Can I suggest Dan Dennet as a resource regarding why people who do not actually believe might pretend to? His book on religion, or any one of a number of lectures on You Tube are very enlightening.
And can I suggest a careful reading of Pascal Boyer’s latest, very good though very ill-proof-read book, ‘The Fracture of an Illusion: Science and the Dissolution of Religion’ (Vandenhoek & Ruprecht), which explains clearly and succinctly why there are religious thoughts and behaviours. I think it is highly unlikely that mullahs in Afghanistan are much like Dennett’s non-believing Christian pastors. Yoshiwata’s claims derive, I suspect, from a very superficial acquaintance with Boyer’s ideas and a reluctance to think about what Boyer is actually saying.
I’ve seen Dennett’s talk on this topic and I fully accept that it happens sometimes. That is not what this guy is claiming. He is claiming it in this case for no reason whatsoever, suggesting that he may believe it is universally true for self-professing religious believers. Nonsense.
“When indeed Religion is kindled into enthusiasm, its force like that of other passions is increased by the sympathy of the multitude.” — Barack Obama
April Fools… that was James Madison. And he wasn’t talking about nicey happy enthusiasms, either.
Wow Dr. Coyne…your words are touching. You’re right!
Am I right in thinking Dr. is a higher honorific in the US than the UK? Here a Professor would trump a Phd, indeed older Prfessors probably did not take Phds (in the 60s/70s) as it was comparatively rare until the last 20 years or so… that’s why I always say Professor Coyne. Interesting… (well, sort of!).
Dominic
In some universities in Canada Dr. is the most sought after honorific. Some professors want to be addressed as “Doctor” because they want to stress the fact that they have a Phd and these particular profs will ask even mature graduate students not to use their first name but to address them as “Doctor.”
Insightful Ape says
“I can absolutely assure you there is no shortage of people who would start foaming at the mouth upon hearing something like this.”
I wish these people would stick to “foaming at the mouth” and stop killing and burning books.
“Think of Anne Frank—one girl who was killed because of religion.”
I doubt that converting to catholicism would have saved her. Her murder should be attributed to racism rather than to religion.
Jews are a religion, not a “race”.
Well in the Nazis’ minds being Jewish was to be part of a specific race. In the minds of many Jews, too, being Jewish is to be part of a race (a special one, at that) that is descended from Abraham.
Can you please explain your comment further, Jerry. You call yourself a Jew yet you are clearly not religious. At the very least I assume you would acknowledge that being Jewish is an ethnic identity (even if you don’t like the word ‘racial’)?
The good thing about Judaism is, it is “passed on” by blood, not creed. Which means, even the most extreme Hasidic Jews will never try to convert
you-now if only Christians and Muslims would take a page from them.
They (the god-people) want to go to heaven so why don’t they either kill each other & leave the world to the ungodly reamainder, or blooming well kiss each other & spread some lurve?!
That’s a good thing? “Blood” is a myth (and a very dangerous one, as Youknowwhotler taught us). It is also “passed on” by blood more literally, in an irrevocable way. I would say that, and indoctrination, is more harmful than honest attempts to change your beliefs through persuasaion, which we also do.
And atheists too.
On the other hand, the Lubavitchers do think some of their “divine command” ethics apply to everyone. (The so-called “7 Noahide laws”.) They will (and do) semiprosletyze *this* viewpoint.
I suppose many people take it to be a cultural identity. I suspect that many ‘Jewish’ groups were not above intermixing with populations they lived amongst (it was before genetic testing, a wise man who knew his own father) in the past, human nature being what it is regarding mate selection. I had a ‘Jewish’ girlfriend who was not religious but but liked all the cultural associations. What is ethnicity anyway? Isn’t it always ‘us’ & ‘them’?
Why can’t people just be Nice & Polite eh, rather than rioting over an invisible unliklihood (god/ess)?
Does anyone have a clue what yashwata the troll is saying? That religion is a delusion, but not a dangerous one, because the rioters were not really motivated by it?
I did not say that religion is not dangerous. I said that it is not special.
I think all you are doing is trying to cause a stir.
Typical troll.
YASHWATA says
“I did not say that religion is not dangerous. I said that it is not special.”
How do you know religion is not special to religious people — are you a mind reader?
I suspect that Yashiwata’s ‘position’ derives from a very superficial understanding of Pacal Boyer’s theories about religion, coupled, as Insightful Ape and I have said, with a desire to be ‘provocative’.
I can see what Yashiwata is saying, but it seems to me to be – shall we say? – deluded, or a silly attempt at being provocative.
Never have I more badly wanted a news report to be an (in very, very poor taste) April Fools joke…
Did the pastor learn of this, and if he did, what did he say? This is so horrible!
He’d probably say,
“See I told you that book was evil and should be burned.”
The Florida “reverend” surely had heard enough about the delicate, easily-offended religious sensibilities of these most rarefied of humans – had heard from the highest echelons of the U.S. Government regarding the very likely consequences of such an action – that he knew it was quite likely that they would get their caftans in a wad and would up and kill someone. So, as a prudent, practical matter, ’twere better to refrain.
At the same time, how long, and how much, shall abody be beholden to such nutbags? Does one unreflectively presume that this mob surely was composed only of “fundamentalists”? Or could it be that there were not a few “moderates” in the crowd?
What if a woman in Afghanistan decided to sever ties with her culture, with Islam? Should anyone presume to advise her not to do so due to the likely consequence, death, since that is the penalty for apostasy? Is that not what “moderate” Muslims believe?
What if I announced that I was thinking of dog-earing a page of the Koran or the Haddith? Or that I might possibly write the word “Bible” or “Torah” (or that women are the equal of men) in the margin of a page? Or that I heard someone else say that? Should I keep my mouth shut?
Just FYI, Mazar-e-Sharif (where this happend) is considered to be among the most “enlightened” parts of Afghanistan. It is not like the fundamentalist hotbed of Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban. God forbid!
Filippo says
“The Florida “reverend” surely had heard enough about the delicate, easily-offended religious sensibilities of these most rarefied of humans”
To whom are you referring when you say “most rarefied of humans”? Are you referring to Christians whose “religious sensibilities” make them want to threaten and kill abortion providers?
I’ll see your 15 and raise you 100 million. I can think of at least that many in the last century alone who would still be alive if it weren’t for atheism.
Name 10, please.
But they weren’t killed in the NAME of atheism.
You got it wrong Randy. They died because of a-Hinduism. Because Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot never, ever worshipped cows.
Atheists don’t kill because of what they don’t believe in. They kill because of what they do believe it. When you remove one belief, another always rushes in to fill the void.
Bullshit.
All over Europe, Canada, Australia etc people have been abandoning churches in droves. Nothing “rushed in to fill the void”; communism, islam, even the new age stuff. There was never a void to fill; there was just a clutch they gave up when they no longer needed it.
Yes, it possible for people to finally grow up.
Fill the void? How much of a void could there possibly be in your tiny little mind?
Huh weird, how come less than one percent of prisoners are atheist? http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm
Maybe the thing that ‘rushes in to fill the void’ is epic murdering skills so we don’t ever get caught. Yep that’s bound to be it.
Lol.
Fuc*in’ religion, man! Haven’t enough people died yet because of it?
I saw a report on this on the telly (BBC) last night in which they showed the end of the koran trial and then cut away before the actual burning stating that they wouldn’t show that.
I’ve had a think about this and my position is that they are actually adding to the problem by not showing the burning rather than calming things down.
By not showing the burning they are saying to the muslim fanatics that
1/Rioting and murdering is the correct response because it works.
2/The rest of the world will abide by your rules and beliefs which will take precedence over non muslim attitudes.
I think this is wrong and that the only way to get the message across that the rest of the world will not be dictated to by muslim fanatics is to show items like this.
It also happened on the main Channel Four news in the UK, which preens itself as being heavyweight than BBC or ITV news.
A particularly fatuous and self-righteous news presenter said they would not show the bookburning because it was “incendiary” (sic).
@Diane G
Spare me. We should all get along because we are all “atheists”? I suppose all of us who think stories of alien abduction are BS should be a merry group too. I am not part of any “atheist” club.
Why don’t you read a good deal of what Yashwata has written in this thread. It’s frustratingly stupid and incoherent. He calls all clerics “liars” repeatedly. That would strike a rational person as wrong because while some preachers may be consciously telling falsehoods for a living, surely most actually believe the doctrines they promulgate. Unknowingly spreading a false belief is not lying. It’s embarrassing that I have to explain this. But you see, Yashwata doesn’t see it this way because he has a dogma that no one actually believes religious propositions and he has promoted the book he wrote on the subject on this thread. And yet, he contradicts himself because in one comment he says that the mob was manipulated by “lies and superstition”. Well, that would seem to mean that they accepted as true some religious propositions. He dogmatically insists then acts all hurt and says he is merely suggesting. Well that is not what he was doing. He doesn’t provide any logical story for why he says what he says. He places the moral fault with the Muslim preachers and implicitly excuses the mob from wrong-doing. He claims that it is an “uncontroversial fact” that Jesus never existed. Do you get the idea?
“We should all get along?” What’s wrong with that? Doesn’t imply any “atheist club” to me. And if we don’t “get along,” so be it. What we should be able to do, I’d hope, is entertain different POV’s without getting exercised, cussing each other out, and otherwise demonstrating SIWOTI syndrome. And in this case the vituperation came from just one side…
On what evidence do you conclude that? And even if you’re right that “most” are actually believers, just how many devious preachers would it take to foment a riot? And I don’t see how your example of the “mob” motivation contradicts Y because he was talking about the mob-inciters, not the mob itself…
I’m not siding with either POV here, though constitutionally I’m alway highly skeptical of the sincerity of so-called holy leaders. But the way I read the discussion on this thread, one person was stating his view assertively but non-emotionally, and two were starting to fly off the handle.
Whatever the belief-purity of the mob-motivaters, the resultant violence may still be laid firmly at the feet of religion. You act as if Y’s contention changes that fact.
Diane, you were explicit that you thought it was a shame that we were making unfriendly exchanges because we were both atheists. I don’t go for that stupid in-group lets get along talk. I don’t necessarily have anything of value in common with another person who doesn’t believe in the existence of supernatural beings. Your comments absolutely convey an atheist club mentality.
And again, spare me the fucking civility talk. If someone is trolling and making incoherent and factually incorrect comments, all with an air of arrogance, some people may just just call him/her out and we may not be nice about it. I’m not inclined to apologize. And what is SIWOTI syndrome?
On what evidence do I conclude that? Are you that stupid? You think I need to adduce evidence that the people who apparently take their religion most seriously actually believe in the truth of their religion?
Your question about how many devious preachers I think it would take to foment a riot makes no sense in this context. I conceded that it was possible that the Muslim preacher(s) in this instance had political motives.
“And I don’t see how your example of the “mob” motivation contradicts Y because he was talking about the mob-inciters, not the mob itself…”
My example of the mob motivation? What are you talking about? Don’t understand you. Can’t respond.
“Whatever the belief-purity of the mob-motivaters, the resultant violence may still be laid firmly at the feet of religion. You act as if Y’s contention changes that fact.
Y’s contention absolutely does change that. How could you have missed that? He is explicit that the fault lies squarely with the preachers who, according to Y, incited the violence for money and power. Further, he is explicit that he believes that no one actually believes in god. But then he contradicts himself by implying that some do (as I’ve already mentioned). So in what sense, according to Y, could the fault be laid at the feet of “religion”? He thinks it is a mistake to blame religion. It was manipulation by a demagogue with non-religious motives that caused it and he doesn’t think religion is “special” (whatever that means); He seems disinclined to even differentiate between what happened in this case and what happens where the ideology is apparently racial, ethnic or political. So Diane, please read and think.
No wonder you are scolding me for jumping on this guy. You don’t see the nonsense yourself.
You get an awful lot out of “A shame that two atheists have come to verbal blows like this…”
What I was actually thinking was how much these spats remind me of religious sectarian bouts. The smaller the disagreement, the louder the fireworks.
I was not calling for an apology from anyone–how is that my place? (I point out, though that only one person in this discussion is calling his targets “stupid,” and it’s not Y or me…)
I was talking about this:
How does the fact that the mob “accepted…religious propositions” contradict the idea that the mullahs and imams might not?
Grant, for a moment, the existence of a Machiavellian mullah. In order to incite a mob, he craftily fans the flames of the mob’s (his trusting followers’) unquestioning faith. That could not happen without said faith.
How could you have missed that?
Does he? That’s not the way I read him, and I’m not interested in reviewing that previous conversation yet again.
Perhaps he thinks, as I do, that religion is possibly just a subset (albeit an overarchingly irritating and extremely large one) of a tendency of many people to subscribe to authority figures more or less unquestioningly. It follows that such a tendency leads to power and prestige for the perceived authorities. Power and prestige can corrupt, and humans have shown they’re eminently corruptible.
The idea of innately credulous masses, BTW, is what I saw as one of Dennett’s reasons for expressing the need to worry about what would replace religion, should efforts to eradicate it ever succeed.
“What I was actually thinking was how much these spats remind me of religious sectarian bouts. The smaller the disagreement, the louder the fireworks.”
What? Just as I was saying, you think of “atheists” as a kind of denomination. Well, we were not arguing over doctrinal issues, Diane. Your likening is completely ridiculous.
“How does the fact that the mob “accepted…religious propositions” contradict the idea that the mullahs and imams might not?”
I never claimed that. I really wish you would read what I write, Diane, so I wouldn’t have to waste my time correcting you. I said his implication that the mob held some religious beliefs contradicted his claim that “no one believes in god”. You did follow the link to his book promotion, didn’t you?
“That could not happen without said faith.”
That’s exactly what I said to him: “Even if the imams were cynically manipulating the mob for political or other reasons, religious beliefs would still be the primary problem here. The “rhetoric” is only effective if it has a pull on people. In order for the buttons to be pushed there must be a button to begin with.” He didn’t respond to that point in his response to my comment containing that.
That’s not the way I read him
You should try reading him more carefully. Consider the following:
1. He insists that the Koran had absolutely nothing to do with it.
2.He insists that there is no such thing “holy wrath”.
3.He claims the religious rhetoric is a “red herring”.
4.He claims no one really believes in god.
5.He seems to not see religion as distinct in any way from other human activities: “Self-described “religious” authorities have incited all this violence by filling their followers’ heads with sickening, murderous garbage. Why insist that it’s a *special kind* of garbage? It’s fucking garbage and they should fucking stop saying it.”
I think your view of religion is mistaken. And it would seem that, according to that view, religion would not be to blame in this situation. Insofar as religion is defined largely with reference to specific beliefs and ways of thinking, that is. What is to blame then? Our innate tendency toward dominance hierarchies that comes out of our evolutionary history? Why call that religion?
In response to your last sentence, I agree with Dennett. We will not have to worry so much only if people reject religion for the right reasons. I’m not cheered by the data that seem to suggest that religion may only significantly decline in very unusually healthy societies (historically speaking).
Nick, to be clear: I do not think of atheism as a denomination. Gawd forbid.
I am not concerned with defending Y, and I think I’ve heard enough to understand your opinions. Thank you.
Messed up the italics.
No didn’t. The website did.
http://xkcd.com/386/
http://tinyurl.com/3o29bzv
And yes, you did something wrong with your italics closing. On this website you can’t correct that by adding the tag in a new post. JAC will come alone and close it eventually…
Splitting up post to get out of moderation…(so sorry if it appears twice eventually).
http://xkcd.com/386/
And yes, you did something wrong with your italics closing. On this website you can’t correct that by adding the tag in a new post. JAC will come along and close it eventually…
Second link FYI:
http://tinyurl.com/3o29bzv
Don’t get it. I just made a new comment and the italics didn’t work. WTF? And what is JAC?
Jerry Allen Coyne. Sorry. And your most recent comment came thru IN italics, for me. As will this post, no doubt…
It’s happened before–you’re not the first.
You need to learn how to use the italics commands: your HTML language wasn’t correct.
–JAC 🙂
Yes, I suppose I do get that syndrome sometimes.
😀
There’s a reason that meme, if you will, caught on and spread so rapidly.
Who says nerds (sorry, JAC 🙂 ) can’t poke fun at themselves?
Can I put words in italics?