Why are we still surprised that ? Also, will people now stop saying about the good professor that "he wouldn't dare say that about Islam",
Mulberry sale? Please?I should explain. The latest furore comes after Islamist extremists burned down a sacred library in Timbuktu, Mali, during the ongoing conflict there,
lunettes oakley. "Like Alexandria, like Bamiyan, Timbuktu's priceless manuscript heritage destroyed by Islamic barbarians,
louis vuitton handbags."Cue much clutching of pearls and fainting. "He's been mean about a religion!"A few things worth noting. One, Dawkins is on record describing Islam as ,
ghd straighteners. Not, it's worth noting, "Muslims", but "Islam", the set of beliefs and practices. He feels similarly about the Catholic Church (he's gently fond of the milquetoasts of the C of E), following the Steve Weinberg quote that "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion". Whether or not you agree with Dawkins (or Weinberg), it's frankly silly to get all upset about it now.Further, as Dawkins pointed out when people started hyperventilating, if you burn down a library, "barbarian" is probably the right term (although it should be noted that the damage to the library now appears to have been less than originally feared). The barbarians in question were Islamic,
oakley pas cher, and, significantly, their actions were driven by their interpretation of their faith: it is reasonable to describe them as "Islamic barbarians".? Dawkins said: "Christian barbarians murder abortion doctors. Most Christians are not barbarians. Stalin was an atheist barbarian. Most atheists are not barbarians."Essentially, the point is this: if you believe, as Dawkins does, that religion has a net negative effect on the world, it's hypocritical to pretend otherwise in a bid to remain politically correct. Dawkins has also pointed out that the God of the Old Testament was capricious and violent and by any reasonable understanding evil –,
Mulberry handbags; demanding and ,
Louis Vuitton Sydney, and any number of horrific slaughters and collective punishments and tortures and cruelties. by the chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks. But it's ludicrous to say that criticism of the content of the Jewish holy book (or the Islamic or Christian ones which are based on it, for that matter) equates to dislike of Jewish people.Finally, I hope this finally shuts up the boring,
Mulberry outlet, boring Christians (note that I am not saying that all Christians are boring, only that the boring ones should shut up) who say of Dawkins and other atheists "You only say these things about Christianity! Don't have the nerve to say it about Islam, do you?" He does. So did Christopher Hitchens, so does Sam Harris. (The fourth "horseman", Daniel Dennett, is gentler,
ghd hair straighteners, as befits a man who looks like the love-child of Father Christmas and Charles Darwin.)I don't know where I stand on the "religion is a net force for good/evil" debate. I think it's too complex to have a simple answer, although I do think that the fact that religions' central claims are false* is a major strike against them: I'd rather teach people dangerous facts than useful fictions. But Dawkins does know where he stands. So do you. Why on earth do we get surprised when he says what we already know he thinks?* yes, yes, I can't "prove" that God doesn't exist or that we won't live forever,
sac gucci. I can't prove anything, down to and including my name or the existence of Leamington Spa. Eventually you just have to admit that if it looks like the absence of a duck, walks like the absence of a duck, and quacks like the absence of a duck, the duck is probably absent.Related articles:
and indirectly more rules. meddlesome