> But it also includes the New Atheist movement, which eventually spiraled into Islamophobia;
Like any movement that was created or survived into the social media era, you cannot say that a whole movement 'spiraled' into anything.
You cannot shit Feminism because some Feminists think that freebleeding is righteous, or all men are rapists. You cannot say that "Feminism spiraled into misandry".
Just like that, even if some of the "New Athists" have legitimate Islamophobia, that doesn't invalidate the whole movement.
Any and all criticism of Islam and Muslims tend to labeled as Islamophobia. That shouldn’t be the case.
And if you are an actual athiest, you should see fault, although in various degree, in all religions- bar nore.
If you limit your criticism to only some religions, you are painting yourself as a hypocrite.
Agreed. This take is really shallow. Calling Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris Islamophobes is an attempt to shut down the conversation about the shortcomings of Islam, or any other religion in general.
So-called New Atheists are well-known for publicly debating representatives of all major religions, yet for some reason they are not branded as Christianity-phobes.
> Listening to the lovely bells of Winchester, one of our great mediaeval cathedrals. So much nicer than the aggressive-sounding “Allahu Akhbar.” Or is that just my cultural upbringing?
Atheists are generally far more intelligent than the religious. Something to do with not get caught up in millennial old fairy tales is one, and use of science, reason and logic over lore, superstition and guilt.
you are no different; he was a schizophrenic and you are just as paranoid--but only in another direction. There is a difference between healthy skepticism and paranoia. And keep your language clean, not every culture likes using that word yours every five seconds.
you need to get a better education in order to sharpen your reading comprehension skills. your comment doesn't add any value to the discussion and seems to reflect your frustration with your life.
you are proving my assertion that people like you are not intelligent--you are functionally normal at best.
So to answer you, i will ask you (in Socratic manner): is time absolute? your question falls apart when there's no time. And time is a function of physical mass. Hence, there is a "time" before time. Got it?
19 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 31.4 ms ] threadLike any movement that was created or survived into the social media era, you cannot say that a whole movement 'spiraled' into anything.
You cannot shit Feminism because some Feminists think that freebleeding is righteous, or all men are rapists. You cannot say that "Feminism spiraled into misandry".
Just like that, even if some of the "New Athists" have legitimate Islamophobia, that doesn't invalidate the whole movement.
Any and all criticism of Islam and Muslims tend to labeled as Islamophobia. That shouldn’t be the case.
And if you are an actual athiest, you should see fault, although in various degree, in all religions- bar nore.
If you limit your criticism to only some religions, you are painting yourself as a hypocrite.
So-called New Atheists are well-known for publicly debating representatives of all major religions, yet for some reason they are not branded as Christianity-phobes.
- Dawkins
- Dawkins
That is just his uncultural upbringing. First lesson in culture: learn to respect other cultures.
Atheists are generally far more intelligent than the religious. Something to do with not get caught up in millennial old fairy tales is one, and use of science, reason and logic over lore, superstition and guilt.
both are suffering, and it shows.
All right. So if god made A, who made god?
So to answer you, i will ask you (in Socratic manner): is time absolute? your question falls apart when there's no time. And time is a function of physical mass. Hence, there is a "time" before time. Got it?