Richard Dawkins proves his scientific approach...
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Couchtripper Forum Index -> News mash
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
faceless
admin


Joined: 25 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:14 pm    Post subject: Richard Dawkins proves his scientific approach... Reply with quote

Atheists Shocked to Find Some Orthodox Muslims Voluntarily Segregate by Sex
Mooneye
March 17, 2013
loonwatch.com

It seems to me that this tempest in a teapot began with a misunderstanding, Lawrence Krauss was under the impression that attendees of the debate were being forced to sit in segregated seating when clearly the troubles began when a few atheist men demanded to sit in-between Muslim women who had voluntarily chose to sit apart from men. I’m not sure if Krauss is a fan of violin music but would he likewise make a big stink out of Orthodox Jews who were allowed their own space for segregated seating between men and women at a recent concert by Itzhak Perlman at the Barclays Center?

This whole episode had the trappings of atheists making a big ado about nothing.

Last Saturday the Islamic Education and Research Academy organised a debate at University College London between iERA’s Hamza Tzortzis and atheist scientist Lawrence Krauss on the topic “Islam or atheism. Which makes more sense?” Krauss was unhappy about the organisation of the event, claiming that the audience was separated on the basis of gender, and hetweeted the following comment, which was widely publicised: “Almost walked out of debate as it ended up segregated + saw 3 kids being ejected for sitting in wrong place. I packed up and they caved in.” Krauss’s complaint was seized on by fellow atheist Richard Dawkins, who informed his Twitter followers: “At UC London debate between a Muslim and Lawrence Krauss, males & females had to sit separately. Krauss threatened to leave.” He addedsarcastically: “I don’t think Muslims should segregate sexes at University College London events. Oh NO, how very ISLAMOPHOBIC of me. How RACIST of me.”

Well, in addition to a couple of other tweets that suggested perhaps just a hint of hostility towards Islam and its adherents (“Who the hell do these Muslims think they are?”, Dawkins demanded,followed by “How has UCL come to this: cowardly capitulation to Muslims? Tried to segregate sexes in debate between @LKrauss1 and some Muslim or other”) what is Islamophobic – and, yes, not a little racist – about Dawkins’ response is that he should publish damaging accusations against a Muslim organisation without bothering to establish the facts of the case.

He wasn’t the only one. On Monday UCL issued a statement declaring that, although they were “still investigating what actually happened at the meeting”, they nevertheless accepted the charge that “despite our clear instructions, attempts were made to enforce segregation at the meeting”, and on that basis they announced that iERA was banned from holding any further meetings at UCL.

For their part, iERA responded with a press release expressing their “surprise with the decision by University College London to not allow us to hold any further events on UCL premises” and stating that they would be meeting with UCL to clarify the situation. Interviewed by the Huffington Post, Zayd Tutton of iERA gave their version of what happened at the meeting: “There were three sections as agreed with UCL prior to the debate. This was agreed clearly with UCL representatives. Muslim women choosing to adhere to orthodox Islamic principles in sitting in their own area had their own section. As for those who wanted to sit together, male or female, they had their own section where they freely mixed and sat together from the beginning.”

Tutton added the “3 kids”, in defence of whom Krauss had threatened to withdraw from the debate, were in fact two men who forcibly tried to sit in the female section. He said: “When arguing it was about sitting in any area in the auditorium, they were offered an entirely free aisle in the aforementioned Muslim female section, but insisted that they wanted to sit in between the Muslim females, with a view to offending their religious beliefs.”

This account is confirmed by a Muslim woman who attended the debate. She has written: “As a woman, I should have the choice who I choose to mix with. The organisers were accommodating to all – for those who wanted to sit separately, and for those who wanted to sit together. During the event, 2 men demanded to sit in the women’s section in between the women, after much discussion, the organisers cleared space for them to sit – (there were so many rows), while still trying to respect the position of the women who had requested to be seated separately. A man in particular demanded to sit in between the women in order to ‘challenge their beliefs’. How is this being tolerant? The men were intimidating and the organisers spoke in length to the individuals before asking them to leave as they showed complete disrespect.”

In further tweets Krauss reported that he had held a subsequent meeting with iERA, as a result of which he appears to have accepted their assurance that they had no intention of forcing men and women to sit separately at the debate. But that still wasn’t good enough for Krauss. “I was told there would be no gender segregation,” he complained, “whereas their intent was voluntary gender segregation.” In other words, what he is objecting to now is not that gender separation was imposed on those attending the debate; rather, his argument is that Muslim women who wanted to sit in their own section apart from male members of the audience should have been prevented from doing so.

Atheists like Krauss and Dawkins like to portray themselves as promoters of Enlightenment values and women’s rights. But when it comes to Islam, they ignore empirical evidence and abandon rational thought in favour of blind adherence to dogmatic anti-Muslim prejudice. As for supporting feminist principles, this evidently doesn’t extend to respecting the right of Muslim women to follow their faith – or indeed to defending them against harassment by fellow male atheists.

read comments on the article here

-------------

I'm (was) surprised to see that Dawkins would post such shite, based on rumour as it was, but I can just imagine those two guys trying to sit amongst the women - pair o' bawbags.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Brown Sauce



Joined: 07 Jan 2007

PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The guy's a dickhead. Always has been.

Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MegaChairmanMao



Joined: 09 Jan 2012

PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Atheists annoy me more than religious people now. I've suddenly become supportive of sharia courts and tax-exempt status for churches.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
faceless
admin


Joined: 25 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Richard Dawkins And The Brave New Science Of Evilogy
2nd April 2013
karlremarks.com

Richard Dawkins is undoubtedly the greatest scientist of his generation, despite the Nobel Prize committee ignoring his work because of its notoriously old-fashioned view of science. Traditional institutions don’t understand Dawkins’ brand of daring and ambitious scientific speculation that is inherently true because it is conducted by a famous scientist. This hasn’t diminished the value of Professor Dawkins to his millions of fans around the world, who hang onto his every word like it was gospel. Well, maybe not gospel, but a gospel-ish atheist book.

The professor recently caused a massive controversy by saying that Islam is the ‘greatest force for evil today’ while admitting that he hasn’t read the Koran. Curious to get to the bottom of this affair, we dispatched our science editor to interview the famous atheist. Professor Dawkins kindly agreed to do the interview because he’s keen to spread his message in the Middle East. Which is ironically how a few religions got started, but we refrained from pointing that out to him.


We met the professor at his house which doubles up as his laboratory, and turned out to be a buzzing hive of scientific experiments. Dawkins, it transpired, is a firm believer in the empirical method, and he backs up all his public statements with rigorous testing and experiments. The place was filled with cages and glass boxes filled with various types of laboratory animals, but there were no signs of cruelty. The animals looked quite content if slightly bored.

When we entered, his assistant Igor, a slightly hunchbacked balding man, was feeding kebabs to a clowder of cats. We inquired whether this was their usual diet, but the professor explained that it’s part of an experiment to understand the link between diet and religious beliefs. Dawkins is going to leave no stone unturned in his effort to understand what causes religious beliefs. This experiment was designed to find out if there’s a link between Middle Eastern food and religion. The results were inconclusive, although the cats had shown a tendency to become aggressive and rowdy on Saturday nights.

We began the interview by asking the professor about his statements about Islam and evil. Wasn’t that quite an assertion to make without any evidence? And how do you quantify evil?

“I am glad you asked me that question. Unlike George Bush, the Christian wingnut, I am taking a scientific approach to evil. It so happens that we came up with same conclusion, that Islam is evil, but this is merely a coincidence. I have created a new branch of science called Evilogy, which will transform how we understand this phenomenon. It’s based on scientific principles, and we are now carrying out extensive experiments to understand it fully.”

This was quite a revelation. Evilogy sounded like a serious scientific field, with numbers and charts. We wanted to find out more and we asked the professor to show us some of the Evilogy experiments. He took us to a corner where there were three separate boxes with rabbits inside. The professor explained that each group of rabbits was exposed to only one of the three monotheistic religions and their behaviour was monitored to find which group would become more aggressive in behaviour and show ill-will towards the other rabbits.

The experiment was quite detailed, the ‘Christian’ rabbits were given a day off on Sundays for example and they were given a large family dinner for Christmas. The rabbits normally became quite agitated after a few hours, especially after they had a few thimbles of carrot juice. They were also disappointed with the ‘presents’ they received, which Dawkins and his assistant bought from a nearby petrol a station. To Dawkins this was clear evidence of a link between Christianity and aggression.

“We are now in the process of quantifying those levels of aggression to see which rabbits are more evil. This is a major scientific step.”

There were some other interesting results. The ‘Jewish’ rabbits displayed typical symptoms of hypochondriac behaviour and both they and ‘Muslim’ rabbits were particularly fussy about how their was food was prepared. To anyone on the outside, those experiments might look deranged and detached from reality, but in fact they were entirely consistent with Dawkins’ way of reasoning and argument.

The professor has been recently riling against what he calls ‘sexual apartheid’, the religious practice of separating genders in public. He devised an experiment to challenge this practice and was able to prove that non-gender separated rabbits were able to procreate at a much higher rate than male and female rabbits that were separated. In fact, the gender-separated rabbits didn’t procreate at all which he sees as a proof of how unnatural gender segregation is. It’s this kind of science that has been missing from the debates about religion, but Dawkins is on a mission to rectify that.

Some of the critique of Dawkins has focused on how bland and entirely uncharismatic he is, but that’s like complaining that your German-made sewing machine isn’t sexy enough. Underneath that carefully-cultivated bland façade, his mind is working like a machine to challenge religious beliefs. The professor is aware of those critiques, and has countered that by tweeting incessantly about how much fun he is. Watching him cracking jokes with the rabbits and rats in the lab really shows that fun side the public doesn’t get to see.

We move to a more serious topic and ask the professor if it’s right for him to make generalisations about Islam having not read the Koran. But Dawkins proves to be too intelligent for us and replies with the line he’s been repeating frequently: ‘You don't have to read Mein Kampf to have an opinion about Nazism.’ This smart variation on the old university rule ‘if you can’t defeat your opponent’s argument, call him a Fascist’, proves what a genius Dawkins is. Few people would dare wield an old cliché against criticism, but this is what distinguishes the professor from the rest of us.

As we are about to leave, we see Dawkins and Igor busy trying to put tiny yarmulkes and veils on the rabbits, but the rabbits seem unhappy and continue to evade them. We watch in silent admiration. It is a mark of the genius and dedication of Richard Dawkins that he would apply himself so whole-heartedly to this task, despite the protests of the ungrateful rabbits. Evilogy is cutting edge science at its best.


-------------
Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
faceless
admin


Joined: 25 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
faceless
admin


Joined: 25 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
faceless
admin


Joined: 25 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An interesting article called "The Weaponization of Atheism"

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/09/the-weaponization-of-atheism
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
faceless
admin


Joined: 25 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2013 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
SquareEyes



Joined: 10 May 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:27 pm    Post subject: Religion, and why we just shouldn't bother Reply with quote

By the way, I'm with Richard Dawkins on how anyone can be "born" anything religious :p

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/ebay-heaven-auction-ari-mandel_n_3365547.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
faceless
admin


Joined: 25 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really can't stand typical online atheists. Seriously, I've never met such a bunch of arrogant, evangelical, wankers in my life. And Dawkins is just a cheap bigoted arsehole when it comes down to it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
SpursFan1902
Pitch Queen


Joined: 24 May 2007
Location: Sunshine State

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, for those who believe in such things, I guess the whole "good works" theory of getting into heaven has been kicked to the curb, having lost favor to the much simpler, "If you believe that one, I have a corner of heaven I can let you have for cheap. Just see my offer on EBay."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
faceless
admin


Joined: 25 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But if a person doesn't have the faith then it's meaningless.

In true atheist fashion, the seller should sue for defamation or something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
faceless
admin


Joined: 25 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

*this was a link to 'heresyclub.com' but they've folded.

Anyone who recommends Pat Condell as a reasonable voice has crossed the border into Loonieland.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
faceless
admin


Joined: 25 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



"Anything you can convert to, or convert from, is NOT a race." Apparently he doesn't know about the process of becoming a naturalised citizen of another country. Is that not a conversion to another race, considering that it is racism to judge a person by their nationality?

Dawkins can piss right off.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MegaChairmanMao



Joined: 09 Jan 2012

PostPosted: Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You may already know about this but I've just came across it:

Quote:
A self-described militant Atheist with a criminal past faces multiple charges after an attack on a pastor who, after his sermon, had asked the man's girlfriend if she felt safe.

James Maxie, 28, of Springfield, is charged with second-degree felonious assault and misdemeanor resisting arrest after an incident Sunday at The Bridge Community Church, 105 N. Main St., in North Hampton.

Police Chief Jarrod Campbell said in his 11 years with the department, he's rarely dealt with "an incident this brutal."

The Rev. Norman Hayes, 57, said he feared for his life and begged for the attack to stop. Hayes suffered a broken nose, bruises and three long cuts that required stitches across his face.

(...)

Hayes said Maxie was argumentative and confrontational during the service.

"It looked like he was looking for an argument," Hayes said.


(...)

"He came from nowhere and hit me ... and knocked me down, and then he got on top of me and just kept hitting me over and over," Hayes said. He pleaded for the beating to stop, stating he thought Maxie would kill him.

"It was fortunate he did stop," Hayes said. "I really believe my life was in danger if he hadn't stopped hitting me in the face over and over."

Maxie and his girlfriend left the church on foot, and Maxie ran into a cornfield after he was spotted by two North Hampton officers who were responding to the scene. The Clark County Sheriff's Office assisted in the search for Maxie, and a deputy located him hiding behind a home in the 100 block of South Main Street. He was booked into the Clark County Jail.

It's not believed Maxie used any sort of object or weapon in the attack, just his fists, Campbell said. Injuries on Maxie's right hand were consistent with repeated punching. The brutality of the beating in addition to the location are why police charged Maxie with a felony, Campbell said.

"Churches are somewhere where people go to worship their particular religion, and violence is usually the last thing you see," he said.

Campbell is working with the Clark County Prosecutor's Office to see if additional charges should be filed.

Maxie served two years in prison after being convicted of felonious assault. He's also a convicted sex offender, charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a minor in Clark County, and was sentenced to five years of probation, beginning in October 2008, according to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. In 2004, Maxie was charged with four counts of cruelty to animals in Springfield.

A self-described militant Atheist, according to his Facebook page, a day before the assault Maxie shared a photo from another page titled, "I'm proud to be Atheist." Hayes said Maxie made comments about Hitler and religion prior to the church service.

(...)

The assault left Hayes with 3-inch to 6-inch cuts over his left and right eyes, and his right eye was bruised and swollen shut, the report said. He had an inch-long cut behind his left ear, and his nose was bruised, bloody and swollen. Hayes said he broke his nose in two places. At Maxie's arraignment Monday, Hayes' right eye was still swollen shut. Hayes said he will need to revisit doctors to check for brain bleeding.

Hayes believes "the best thing" for Maxie is to be in a place where "he is not going to hurt anyone else."

"We believe there is hope for everyone," Hayes said, "but we also believe that regardless of that, people need to pay for what they have done, and I hope he has to pay for what he has done. Get put away for a while and not hurt anyone else. In my opinion, the next person won't be as lucky as I was.

Hayes requested a protection order against Maxie, which was granted by Judge Denise Moody. Maxie is being detained in jail in lieu of a $51,000 bond.

"I think he probably was sorry for the situation he was in. I think it is very easy to be sorry in that environment in front of a judge. Hopefully, he will be able to find forgiveness and new hope and some answers for his life."


http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/pastor-attacked-church-police-say/nbTNt/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Couchtripper Forum Index -> News mash All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Couchtripper - 2005-2015