Misuse of the word "religion"

Author: RoderickSpode ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 31
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    Example I used from a post I made in an earlier thread.

    After the 9/11 attack Richard Dawkins made a public statement chastening the general public for not condemning Abrahamic religion. Although he was specific in terms of what group he felt responsible, it was inappropriate to lump all Abrahamic religions into one terrorist group involving an attack made by terrorists from a specific Islamic sect. I would go as far to say that it would have been inappropriate to lump all Muslims in a terrorist category. This is obvious because most Muslims, at least certainly in the western world were appalled.

    Often times the word religion is used when identifying a negative situation involving a specific religion.


  • ludofl3x
    ludofl3x avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,359
    3
    2
    2
    ludofl3x avatar
    ludofl3x
    His point was that Christianity and Islam both have mandates in their holy texts to convert non-believers and that certain sects of both religions can take these interpretations to their extremes (I come not to bring peace but the sword is something Jesus said, and Islam prescribes death for apostasy, to use a couple of examples) to the great detriment of society. You can disagree with the interpretations those people use to undergird their violence and see it, as I do, as simply an excuse for violent reprehensible people to do violent, reprehensible things and feel like they're in the right, but cannot deny that all religions have used their religions to sanctify violence. 

    Misuse of the word religion would be like "atheism is a religion!" or "science is also a religion." Just because you don't like the way a word is being used doesn't mean it's incorrect usage. I'm not for lumping all of any group into any one category, but me saying "Some police officers are racists" is not a misuse of either the word racists or cops because you don't like what I'm saying. 
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @RoderickSpode

    Misuse of the word "religion"
    And how was pointing to a  religion in the case 9/11 a "misuse of the word religion"?


    Although he was specific in terms of what group he felt responsible,

    He was and I think you mean "which group" he felt "was"  responsible. It was Islam.  At least have the balls to say so.


     made a public statement chastening the general public for not condemning Abrahamic religion
    Did he? Did he actually use those words  "Abrahamic religion"? 


    Although he was specific in terms of what group he felt responsible,

    That's right he didn't used the words " a Abrahamic religion was responsible for this horrific attack", at all did he?  He pointed to Islam . Yes, Islam where in the Quran you will find strict instructions to "kill Christians" where ever you can find them. 


    it was inappropriate to lump all Abrahamic religions into one terrorist group involving an attack made by terrorists from a specific Islamic sect.
    He didn't "lump" anything together at all  though did he. Why are you making shite up?  You have admitted YOURSELF that he was "SPECIFIC" in who was responsible for this horrific attack. 


    I would go as far to say that it would have been inappropriate to lump all Muslims in a terrorist category.

    So would anyone with a single celled brain. What is you point? If you happen to have one?     Did Dawkins "lump all Muslims"  in a terrorist category?  Muslims themselves are the greatest victims of Islam. 


    This is obvious because most Muslims, at least certainly in the western world were appalled.

    And what was the reaction to the vile savage attack in the Middle East, where most Muslims just happen to live?


    Often times the word religion is used when identifying a negative situation involving a specific religion.

    Well religion (  Islam in this SPECIFIC CASE in question)  does that itself.  The Quran instructs is adherents do wage "holy Jihad " against the unbeliever until all "religion" is for Allah. 

    I am failing to see the point of this thread that you have created based on   lies and misrepresentations of  Dawkins  opinions and statements . 

     So let us see some evidence that Dawkins "lumped all Muslims into the category as terrorists".

    Let us see some evidence that Dawkins accused all "Abraham religions" as being responsible for the attacks on 9/11.

    If you fail to do so, then this fraudulent thread based on lies should be locked and binned.




  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 9,031
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    ive grown to hate dawkins and appreciate smart atheists like cosmicskeptic over the years
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @ludofl3x
    His point was that Christianity and Islam both have mandates in their holy texts to convert non-believers 

    With a slight difference.  Islam says submit or die. Christianity has managed to reform and drag itself into the 21 st century, whereas Islam hasn't and  cannot do that. And you won't find a single instruction from the Christ instructing his followers to convert non believers to Christianity by the sword for his names sake. Unlike the god of Quran -  8:39
     "fight them until there is no fitnah and[until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. ".

    The Christ of the NT teaches "love they neighbour"  and "turn the other cheek" and tolerance,  while the god of the  Quran says  51- You, who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact]allies of one another.  You can just see and feel the tolerance dripping from that verse , can't you?


  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,677
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @RoderickSpode


    .
    RoderickSpode,

    I am a TRUE Christian, where I have to follow ALL of Jesus’ inspired and literal words within the Bible. In the same vein, a TRUE Muslim has to follow ALL of the inspired and literal words of Allah within the Qu’ran. Both contradicting faiths have no choice in the matter if we are going to follow our specific religions, period!


    YOUR PASSIVE IGNORANT QUOTE: “After the 9/11 attack Richard Dawkins made a public statement chastening the general public for not condemning Abrahamic religion.”

    Pertaining to 911, and if you remember, “W” was told by God, which in this case would be the Christian version of God, aka,“Jesus,” to attack Afghanistan and Iraq to eliminate the terrorists, where in essence, they are worshipping another God and not Jesus.  Therefore, “W” was attacking the Mid East fraudulently in the name of Jesus at the expense of many US service mens lives, and the maiming of same upon their return, and innocent Muslim lives as well.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

    Here is the irony, when “W” attacked the Muslims and their God Allah, whereas Allah is the same God as Jesus in being from the Abrahamic linage, he attacked Jesus as well!  See the ramifications of these Biblical axioms? Laughter is the only way to ease this painful outcome! RS, are you laughing at this anomaly or not? LOL.  BUT, the biggest irony of all, is the fact that both Allah and Jesus contradict themselves in their Holy writings, therefore logically speaking,  how can they be the SAME GOD?!  Whoops. 

    The content herein is what questions my faith, and if it doesn't question yours as well, then Satan has truly entered your soul!

    All this deduces to the fact that you wonder why Dawkins condemned the Abrahamic religions? Surely you jest!   


    YOUR CONTINUED IGNORANT QUOTE: “I would go as far to say that it would have been inappropriate to lump all Muslims in a terrorist category.”

    You are wrong once again because the Qu’ran warns, "Those who make war against God and his apostle shall be put to death or crucified" (Koran 5.33). “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an." (Qu’ran 8:12).  Now, is it any wonder why TRUE Islamic followers attacked us on 9/11?  Remember my statement at the beginning, where to be a TRUE Christian, you have to follow ALL of the Bible’s direct inspired and literal words of Jesus? Huh?  In the same manner, the TRUE Muslim has to follow ALL of the direct inspired and literal words of Allah within the Qu’ran!  Do you have the authority to tell the Muslim otherwise? NO, you do not, in the same vein as you do not have the authority to tell Christians that they are NOT to follow all of the Bibles inspired word in killing others that do not follow Christianity!  GET IT?

    Deduced down to its irreducible primary, the only difference between the Jihadist Muslim terrorist and the regular Muslim, is that the terrorist Muslim actually follows what their Allah's Qur’an tells them to do in the killing of all non-believers of their faith, especially if their country was attacked by the infidels of the United States! UNDERSTOOD?

    NEXT?
    .

  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,677
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Dr.Franklin



    .
    Doc,

    YOUR UNGODLY QUOTE WHERE YOU ARE POSSIBLY HELL BOUND UPON YOUR DEMISE!: "ive grown to hate dawkins and appreciate smart atheists like cosmicskeptic over the years"

    There are times within this forum where I just can't believe in what a pseudo-christians says, and this being one of them!  How dare you slap Jesus in the face in appreciating smart Atheists, especially "Cosmicskeptic" in this case?!  

    Concerning you associating with Hell Bound Atheists, once again, you pee upon the Bible as if what it says has no meaning to you!

    "Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” (1 Corinthians 15:33)

    Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?”  (2 Corinthirnas 6:14)


    In the name of Jesus, I will pray for you tonight to hopefully let you pass on your insolence towards Him once again.  Unbelievable.  :( 



    .
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 9,031
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    I appreciate good arguments
  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,677
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Dr.Franklin



    .
    Doc,

    What part of the inspired by Jesus passages below didn't you understand, and at your expense of smelling sulfur just before your demise?

    "Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” (1 Corinthians 15:33)

    Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?”  (2 Corinthirnas 6:14)


    .
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 9,031
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    I am not for him or agree with him, but he is smart
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    ive grown to hate dawkins and appreciate smart atheists like cosmicskeptic over the years

    I'd like to find a youtube video where an atheist basically blitch saps an atheist talk show host. I'm not sure who the atheist is. I'll have to google search this cosmicskeptic person. Sounds familiar.
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    I think BrotherDThomas may have been reprimanded by his Landowner Association cohorts for getting too soft on us.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 9,031
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @RoderickSpode
    he is a younger fellow but studies philospipy in university

    BrotherD is an atheist with some issues...
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @ludofl3x
    His point was that Christianity and Islam both have mandates in their holy texts to convert non-believers and that certain sects of both religions can take these interpretations to their extremes (I come not to bring peace but the sword is something Jesus said, and Islam prescribes death for apostasy, to use a couple of examples) to the great detriment of society. You can disagree with the interpretations those people use to undergird their violence and see it, as I do, as simply an excuse for violent reprehensible people to do violent, reprehensible things and feel like they're in the right, but cannot deny that all religions have used their religions to sanctify violence. 

    Misuse of the word religion would be like "atheism is a religion!" or "science is also a religion." Just because you don't like the way a word is being used doesn't mean it's incorrect usage. I'm not for lumping all of any group into any one category, but me saying "Some police officers are racists" is not a misuse of either the word racists or cops because you don't like what I'm saying.

    The problem is that if you take the definition of religion in it's broadest description

    a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

    This could include any group theme including atheism. And we can't overlook atheist/humanist chaplains in the military, and various religious rights laws protecting atheists as avenues of association with religion. Another would be Cosmic Humanism.

    Dawkins was merely speculating a potential danger regarding other Abrahamic faiths conducting the same acts of terrorism. While it's possible (in that anything is possible), it's just as possible for communist style atheist terrorism to jump on the scene.

  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Stephen

  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    he is a younger fellow but studies philospipy in university
    That figures!
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 9,031
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @RoderickSpode
    yep..
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    Deduced down to its irreducible primary, the only difference between the Jihadist Muslim terrorist and the regular Muslim, is that the terrorist Muslim actually follows what their Allah's Qur’an tells them to do in the killing of all non-believers of their faith, especially if their country was attacked by the infidels of the United States!

    Spot on Brother!   "There is no such thing as  a moderate Islam "  Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

    "“Islam cannot be either ‘moderate’ or ‘not moderate.’ Islam can only be one thing,” Erdoğan said in a speech at a program hosted in Ankara by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on women’s entrepreneurship on Nov. 9.
    “Recently the concept of ‘moderate Islam’ has received attention. But the patent of this concept originated in the West,” Erdoğan said.
    “Perhaps the person voicing this concept thinks it belongs to him. No, it does not belong to you,” he added, noting that he was “asked about ‘moderate Islam’ at meetings in the European Parliament many years ago.”  Turkish President   Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

    The Muslim president of Turkey should know what he is talking about, I'm sure. He is the proud descendant of at least 5!!!!! Islamic Empires. These Islamic Empires just didn't come about by the Muslims strolling into a country and asking politely if they could take it over and would it all of its citizens mind very much submitting to Allah and  converting  to the Islamic faith, of that I am also sure.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @RoderickSpode
    What in particular are you trying to point out in that ( your link) link, above? 
    What specifically is it in that link that you are claiming supports your OP?  





    And the link above simply states the  obvious:  One can be duped &  brainwashed &  indoctrinated into doing almost anything especially killing in the name of  R_E_L_I_G_I_O_N.  In this case young uneducated Muslim men  were duped into "flying these planes into buildings" by ISLAM. This is not "lumping" all religions together, Abrahamic or otherwise. 

    "Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this - it's a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn't we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don't be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn't appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there's a special martyr's reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive." <<<<<< <<<<<this is not "lumping" all religions together.   It is more than clear that  Dawkins has singled out Islam of the "Abrahamic religions" .

    Dawkins is an open atheist and believes that all religions are a detriment to the human race. He makes no secret of it.   Now if you want to take that as "lumping ALL religions" together then you may have a point. But I am sure that Dawkins is pretty sure  of which of these "Abrahamic" religions are the most detrimental to the human race and it cannot reform either. And I am just as sure that Dawkins knows exactly which religion IS responsible for 9/11. 

    I have said many times on this forum -  to use your on term of phrase -  that this "lumping together" as you put it,   has come about because Christians decided to adopt an ancient  god that they knew nothing or understood anything about,  and  from a time and culture over hundreds of thousands of years ago that they knew absolutely nothing  about .      You have made a rod for your own back and are left in a place where you have to continually defend the indefensible; which in turn causes you to lie, back-peddle, rewrite the scriptures and even contradict your own scriptures and  often use double standard when your back is against the wall. You just cannot let go of the CLEAR FACT, that Jesus was  Jew and  not a Christian.  

    You missed this>>

     
    Misuse of the word "religion"
    And how was pointing to a  religion in the case 9/11 a "misuse of the word religion"?


    I would go as far to say that it would have been inappropriate to lump all Muslims in a terrorist category.

    Dawkins hasn't done that. He is not that stupid or brain dead to do so.


    it was inappropriate to lump all Abrahamic religions into one terrorist group

    It would. But did he say followers of all these religions are terrorists? 


  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Stephen
    If you're genuinely interested in the topic, I would suggest just follow along the conversation with Ludo and I. He made valid points, and you actually did as well. However, I have other points to make, and if Ludo and I continue the conversation, I may be able to bring them up.

    Ludo seems to have made similar points you have made. The difference is he can make them in a civilized fashion. It's a shame that you don't seem to be able to that. It really makes a huge difference.

    The problem with the constant accusations, and the whole "You Christians this, and you Christians that" really doesn't do you any good. It's just a defense mechanism. It distracts from the topic at hand, and simply moves into the arena of drama.


    I'm not going to block you, but since I'm not much into drama, I'm just not going to respond to your posts. At least not at this point.

    But you might want to ask yourself why people at times have blocked you.


  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @RoderickSpode
    If you're genuinely interested in the topic, I would suggest just follow along the conversation with Ludo and I.

    Why? Why should I just follow along with someone else's conversation  and not scrutinize & question what you have  alleged? Why won't you address the points raised by YOUR OWN  comments &  statements made on YOUR OWN thread? 



     I have other points to make,
    It would be nice for you to clear up and address a few of those points that you have already made. That is the done thing as a rule. You cannot just pretend you haven't been asked something and them move quickly onto another point. 





    The difference is he can make them in a civilized fashion.
    What is uncivilized about my responses to your op? I have addressed what you have claimed and then asked questions on what you have claimed. CAN YOU actually point to where I have been uncivilized?


    [A]
    The problem with the constant accusations,

    This is usually the result of what comes of unsubstantiated claims.



    and the whole "You Christians this, and you Christians that" really doesn't do you any good. It's just a defense mechanism.

    What have I to defend here. 



    It distracts from the topic at hand, and simply moves into the arena of drama.

    I have addressed the whole of your OP. I can promise you that nothing you have claimed has  been a distraction to me.

    But you seem reluctant to address anything I have said. It is you that is making all the unsubstantiated "accusations" that you have mentioned at [A] above. This is what is distracting,  YOU  not addressing my responses and questions raised by your own allegations. 


    I'm just not going to respond to your posts. At least not at this point.
    So now  that I have corrected you on the allegations that YOU have made and on YOUR OWN  thread , you want to take your ball back and go home.


    This is why many threads die a death so, so quickly.


    But you might want to ask yourself why people at times have blocked you.

     I don't care that people "block me". I know people block me as an excuse not to answer my questions , because they can't!  It is the same as simply not responding. But they do respond don't they, they just cannot keep away.  And it is a cowards way of arguing. 

     I notice AGAIN you have failed to answer my questions or even address my points or opinions.  But you post links containing the opinions of others that you suggest I should read and take note of in defense of your own arguments and claims.   This will be  the  DOUBLE STANDARDS I spoke of in the last two lines of this post here>> #19

    Why can you not just admit that you may have been a little hasty in your judgment or opinion or accusations.? Or are those words not in your tool box of real honest-to - god excuses?


    You missed this, AGAIN!>>

     
    Misuse of the word "religion"
    And how was pointing to a  religion in the case 9/11 a "misuse of the word religion"?


    I would go as far to say that it would have been inappropriate to lump all Muslims in a terrorist category.

    Dawkins hasn't done that. He is not that stupid or brain dead to do so.


    it was inappropriate to lump all Abrahamic religions into one terrorist group

    It would. But did he say followers of all these religions are terrorists? 








  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,677
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @RoderickSpode


    RoderickSpode,

    YOUR QUOTE TO STEPHEN IN YOUR POST #20 THAT ARE RELATIVE TO MY POINTS TO YOU IN POST #5: "Ludo seems to have made similar points you have made. The difference is he can make them in a civilized fashion. It's a shame that you don't seem to be able to that. It really makes a huge difference."

    Granted, therefore when are YOU going to address my factual points in my post #5 to you, other than to RUN AWAY from them by making an insipid comment about some  Landover association?  As if the membership can't see this blatant RUNAWAY action of yours.  When you mentioned the statement to Stephen: "It's just a defense mechanism," therefore, this statement of yours turned towards YOU seemingly is a defense mechanism  to RUNAWAY from my post #5!

    Furthermore, there are times when the pseudo-christian like YOU cannot address specific questions, and RUNS AWAY from them as if they didn't exist in the first place. Therefore, at times I have to take the position like Jesus did in the Temple where with great zeal, He got so mad at the money changers, He made a whip and beat them, overturned their tables, and drove them from the Temple (John 2:14-18). Now, when I act in this same manner, surely you cannot say that I am wrong if I followed Jesus' example of enough is enough!  Jesus sets an example for TRUE Christians to follow. Get it? Huh?  Yeah, you do.


    I will be waiting for you and I to discuss my post #5 in a timely fashion. Subsequent to the post in question, you have opened a can of worms that you and I will have to discuss as well.



    .
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Stephen
    I'm not going to go back to other threads to collect examples of what I consider uncivilized comments. I can tell you though that it started out with your very first comment to me on someone else's thread. This was our very first interaction. I would be willing to track that one down if you like. I even asked you before if you'd like me to do that. I'm not claiming you're distracted by your comments by the way. It's probably more the other party that gets distracted. I didn't start this thread with the intention of posting and then backing out. But if the responses are out of line, I'm not going to respond to them. I feel no obligation whatsoever to allow myself to be a sounding board for someone's anger.

    I'm willing to attempt a fresh start, and just see where it goes from there.

    When I say misuse of the word religion, I don't necessarily mean misinterpretation (although it can be that). An example of what I mean would be where someone might address a specific negative  belief or action of a specific religion, denomination, faction, group, or individual; and then refer to religion as a whole being the problem. In other words, claiming that  religion itself is responsible for Muslim terrorist attacks, Westboro Baptist Church bigotry, etc.

    Someone gives accurate detail on what happened on 9/11, but then adds something like this is what religion does to people. This would be an example of what I mean. Very similar to giving a report about a crime committed by members of a specific racial group, and then adding to the report that the actions were due to a common trait possessed by that racial group. If someone did that in the media, they'd be fired immediately.

    I used the example of Dawkins' reference to Abrahamic religion in conjunction with the 9/11 attack. Again, not at all an issue of interpretation.
    Dawkins knows exactly what Abrahamic religion means. The misuse is really the idea of relating it to the attacks at all. The promises made to Islamic soldiers committing suicide is not a religious issue. It's an Islamic issue, or an issue promoted by specific Muslims. It's got nothing to do with Judaism or Christianity.

    Is Richard Dawkins brain dead? No. Obviously he's an intelligent individual. Is everyone who listens to Richard Dawkins intelligent? Or to take it a step further, is every atheist (including those who listen to Richard Dawkins) intelligent? No. And that's a big problem. People do stupid
    things when they're not able to analyze what's being projected properly.

    An example. If we analyze properly the messages extended by Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks,  Sojourner Truth, etc., we can get a proper perspective on dealing with racism. If we don't, we could experience destructive forms of protest. Instead of peaceful protests, we get chaos where innocent people suffer (businesses burning down, bystanders getting injured or killed). And in recent protests, the threat of the spread
    of Covid-19 has increased. Now we're literally seeing a self-imposed form of pandemic spread when we're supposed to be uniting against it.

    We don't have control of the thought of others, including the newer generations. Not everyone is going to properly scrutinize/analyze what RD or any atheist or humanist activist has to say.






  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @RoderickSpode

    I'm just not going to respond to your posts. 
    Well that lasted all of  how long?



    I'm not going to go back to other threads to collect examples of what I consider uncivilized comments.
    Would persisting in accusing someone you don't even know of "stealing" and of being a plagiarizing thief, be considered "uncivilized" by you? Stop playing victim just because your OP has been shown to be at fault from the start. 
     





    When I say misuse of the word religion, I don't necessarily mean misinterpretation (although it can be that). An example of what I mean would be where someone might address a specific negative  belief or action of a specific religion, denomination, faction, group, or individual; and then refer to religion as a whole being the problem. In other words, claiming that  religion itself is responsible for Muslim terrorist attacks, Westboro Baptist Church bigotry, etc.

    And here is my point, AGAIN.  You were "specific" in what you claimed.  You claimed Dawkins had "lumped all Abraham religions together" when it came to  those horrific acts of terrorism of 9/11.    And then claimed that Dawkins was "specific" about which religion  was responsible for 9/11. But then insisted further still that he was limping all "Abrahamic religions together"   he did no such thing.  I have said at #19

    "Dawkins is an open atheist and believes that all religions are a detriment to the human race. He makes no secret of it.   Now if you want to take that as "lumping ALL religions" together then you may have a point. But I am sure that Dawkins is pretty sure  of which of these "Abrahamic" religions are the most detrimental to the human race and it cannot reform either. And I am just as sure that Dawkins knows exactly which religion IS responsible for 9/11. "



    Someone gives accurate detail on what happened on 9/11, but then adds something like this is what religion does to people.


    Are you saying that Islam did not cause the actions of these Islamic fanatics. Because  Dawkins claimed it did and I agree with him.. Are you making yet another unsubstantiated claim. Are you saying that Islam was not the cause of this horrific attack by people of the Islamic faith?  Because  this IS what religion can  and does and do to people.

    Did not god/s cause people to got to war?  Islam teaches war against the unbeliever. The Old Testament is a book of war it starts after the creation epic and it doesn't stop. It is death and destruction all the way. And all on the instruction of a god a "Abrahamic god"  . The god that you have adopted as your own god, the same god as Jews and Muslims. You did it to yourselves. You did all the "lumping together". Not Dawkins.
     

    I used the example of Dawkins' reference to Abrahamic religion in conjunction with the 9/11 attack. Again, not at all an issue of interpretation.
    You put up link believing they somehow supported your case. They didn't and you know it. That is why you couldn't point to something specific in one of those links . You probably didn't realize that for most of one of those links Dawkins was quoting others. The war criminal British PM Tony Blair,  for one.



    Dawkins knows exactly what Abrahamic religion means.

    He does. And he used it appropriately.


    The misuse is really the idea of relating it to the attacks at all.

    Why not? It was not misuse if it was true. which it was.  It was a terrorist attack in the name of Islam as commanded by the Muslim god.  World leaders  tried to say this "has nothing to do with Islam" when everyone with the slightest bit  common sense knows it was. and the west hasn't seen the last of Islamic terrorism either,IMO.

    You really should stop treating the Brother as some kind of lunatic and read what he wrote.  Dawkins made sure he didn't include and "lump all Abraham religions together when it came to terrorism of 9/11, but he should have, because as the Brother clearly pointed out:

    BrotherDThomas wrote: "TRUE Muslim has to follow ALL of the inspired and literal words of Allah within the Qu’ran. Both contradicting faiths have no choice in the matter if we are going to follow our specific religions, period!  [................] when “W” attacked the Muslims and their God Allah, whereas Allah is the same God as Jesus in being from the Abrahamic linage, he attacked Jesus as well!  See the ramifications of these Biblical axioms? ".  #6


    You should take that^^^ above, on board and into consideration.

    [A] As I have have already mentioned ;  this is the rod that Christians made for their own back and  has come about because Christians decided to adopt an ancient  god that they knew nothing or understood anything about,  and  from a time and culture over hundreds of thousands of years ago that they knew absolutely nothing  about . 

    If you don't like all Abrahamic religions being  "lumped together" then you should have chosen another god.  As Christians Muslims and Jews all appear to share the same god as the Brother made perfectly clear to you.



    The promises made to Islamic soldiers committing suicide is not a religious issue.
    Then you don't know a thing about the Islamic faith. Holy jihad is not a request it is a religious command. 

    an Islamic issue, or an issue promoted by specific Muslims. It's got nothing to do with Judaism or Christianity.

    See [A] above. This is the dilemma you have found yourself in now ,isn't it. You share the same god.  Your god , like it or not has you in checkmate. Just as the Brother (in his own fashion) tried to explain to you.



    Is Richard Dawkins brain dead? No.

    That's correct,  And did he lump all Abraham religions together concerning those horrific attack as you claim.? No.

    I would go as far to say that it would have been inappropriate to lump all Muslims in a terrorist category#1

    Did he say all Muslims were terrorist as you appeared to claim? No



    Not everyone is going to properly scrutinize/analyze what RD or any atheist or humanist activist has to say.
    Well we know you didn't, don't we. Because if anything, those links that you posted support my case far more than they do yours.








  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,677
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @RoderickSpode



    .

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    RODERICKSPODE,

    Uh, ....... Jesus and I could not help but notice that you have not, I repeat, have not addressed my post #6, and #22 relative to your topic at hand. What is the reasoning for this? Do these posts show you that what you thought you knew, you really didn’t, and therefore you’re embarrassed to respond in kind?  Is it because if you “tried” to respond to them, you knew that I would have to Bible Slap you Silly®️ again? Huh?

    This is YOUR thread, and you expect fellow members to discuss your main topic, therefore, when I did this in your behalf, you do not show respect to Jesus when you remain silent to me as a spokesperson for Him in this forum, where I show ALL of His inspired words relative to any topic!  I have just started with you upon this topic, and when I am done, you will have learned important lessons that you can thank me for later, understood? 

    Therefore, address my posts in question above, and please, for the sake of your Christianity and your assumed credibility within this forum, DO NOT RUN AWAY THIS TIME, OKAY?  You have already RUN AWAY from me in my revealing, no pun intended, thread about going naked for Jesus!  Therefore, please, don’t add to it with another runaway! 

    Thanks.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


    .