Dawkins: Unlike Islam, Christianity a fundamentally decent Religion.

[Xavier]

Dawkins recently admitted that, even according to him, Christianity is far better than Islam. He also expressed alarm about Islamism in Britain. Quite naive of him, really, to think Britain wouldnt fall to Islam without Christianity, but at least he's beginning to see a little of the Light. Thoughts? https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240402-atheist-says-islam-not-a-fundamentally-decent-religion-like-christianity/

Christianity's main religious teaching, after Love of God, and Faith in Christ, is Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself. Christ extends this even to Enemies in the Sermon on the Mount, which as far as I'm aware no other Religious Teacher has ever done, saying, one should love those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who persecute you, to be True Children of one's Father in Heaven, for He makes His Sun shine on the righteous and unrighteous alike, and gives His Rain to the wicked and good alike. This this Early Christians did in the Roman Empire, and soon Emperor St. Constantine became Christian, and the Rest is History.

Saint John, the Apostle of Christ and the Apostle of Love, teaches: "9If anyone claims to be in the light but hates his brother, he is still in the darkness. 10Whoever loves his brother remains in the light, and there is no cause of stumbling in him. 11But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness. He does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes." (1 John 2:9-11). Mohammedanism or Islam teaches something completely different, about "infidels", about women etc.

Thoughts on the below?

Atheist says Islam not a 'fundamentally decent religion' like Christianity

British author and biologist Richard Dawkins, known as a key figure of the New Atheism movement which gained popularity in the 2000s, told LBC on Sunday he was 'slightly horrified' by Ramadan lights being hung in London rather than Easter decorations.

Dawkins said that he believes the UK is a 'Christian country' and described himself as a 'cultural Christian' who values and enjoys Christian traditions and 'likes to live in a culturally Christian country' despite not believing 'a single word' of the religion. He said it would be 'truly dreadful' if a different religion substituted Christianity.

Users on social media criticised Dawkins for his statements, with many saying that he himself had a hand in the decline of Christianity in the UK.

[Szuchow]

Christianity is as "decent" as cult worshipping genocidal deity with its biggest offshoot being international pedophile ring could be.

[jerry mcmasters]

I agree with Dawkins, but...so what? One pile of shit stinks less than the other, but in general I would like to have no piles of shit.

[Xavier]

What about Atheism? Atheism has hardly brought Atheist North Korea for e.g. to Peace and Prosperity. There are also drastic violations of Religious Freedom in the country, whereas Atheists have full freedoms and complete rights in Christian-Majority and Christian Countries: "Some NGO’s estimate that 50-70,000 Christians languish in North Korean labor camps in conditions comparable to Nazi death camps. Said one refugee, “If it is known you are a Christian, you are jailed. And you will never get out of jail unless you escape.” https://globalchristianrelief.org/christ...rth-korea/

Anyway, Christ's/Christianity's teachings are clearly superior to Mohammed's/Islam's. Atheism has no universal teachings, so it's make it up as you go along. Most western Atheists, I presume, would be peaceful and oppose Atheist North Korea's actions. But that Atheist State itself has no issue in persecuting us Christians, just like many Mohammedan/Islamic countries do. The world is waking up, though, and I hope/predict that, in next 10 years, with Citizen Journalism (as Elon Musk calls it), and Social Media, and the Global Spotlight falling on Atheist Communist and Radical Islamist Dictatorships, many of them will fall as the Evil Empire, the Godless Soviet Union, fell in the late 1980s/1990. That's my expectation, but let's see how it goes.

[Xavier]

double post.

[jerry mcmasters]

What about Atheism? Atheism has hardly brought Atheist North Korea for e.g. to Peace and Prosperity. There are also drastic violations of Religious Freedom in the country, whereas Atheists have full freedoms and complete rights in Christian-Majority and Christian Countries: "Some NGO’s estimate that 50-70,000 Christians languish in North Korean labor camps in conditions comparable to Nazi death camps. Said one refugee, “If it is known you are a Christian, you are jailed. And you will never get out of jail unless you escape.” https://globalchristianrelief.org/christ...rth-korea/

Anyway, Christ's/Christianity's teachings are clearly superior to Mohammed's/Islam's. Atheism has no universal teachings, so it's make it up as you go along. Most western Atheists, I presume, would be peaceful and oppose Atheist North Korea's actions. But that Atheist State itself has no issue in persecuting us Christians, just like many Mohammedan/Islamic countries do. The world is waking up, though, and I hope/predict that, in next 10 years, with Citizen Journalism (as Elon Musk calls it), and Social Media, and the Global Spotlight falling on Atheist Communist and Radical Islamist Dictatorships, many of them will fall as the Evil Empire, the Godless Soviet Union, fell in the late 1980s/1990. That's my expectation, but let's see how it goes.

History of evil regimes and which is worst and which is religious and which is atheist and which is a mix etc etc, that stuff never seemed real meaningful to me and kind of boring.  Unchecked power does terrible things, religion or not.

I only care about what is true, not what's most useful, creates best society, or whatever else.  I have plenty of bad things to say about atheism, I am no cheerleader, but the foundation will always be "What's true?"

[Xavier]

Ok. Fair enough. God Bless.

[Minimalist]

Atheism means there is no fucking god(s), idiot.  It makes no inane promises about an afterlife.

[Reltzik]

I'm going to get this out of the way first: Dawkins is not as important to atheism as Christian apologists seem to think he is.  He's someone who managed to express some important ideas in a clear and compelling way and say some things that really needed to be said... and who has since kinda jumped off the deep end into some unsavory positions.  We might respect some of the comments he made one or two decades ago and how he phrased them, but that's it, and I'm not going to say anything more about him.

On to the main point, which is this: There can be a vast, vast, vast gap between what the words in a religion's scripture says the religion is like in theory, and what the religion actually is like in practice.  The religious scripture doesn't determine whether or not a religion is dangerous.  The religious practice does.  Words in a book don't behead infidels or burn them at the stake.

With that in mind, let's look at an example of Christians loving their neighbors.  Not how scripture says they should have loved their neighbors in theory, but how reality says they ACTUALLY loved their neighbors in practice.

One side of my family is ethnically Jewish.  A relative on that side of my family (whose exact identity I will be withholding for what will soon be obvious reasons) grew up in New York City in the 1940s and '50s.  That particular neighborhood for whatever reason had shaken out to be alternating blocks of ethnic European Jews and Irish Catholics, intermingled in close quarters.

Now, according to the scripture you've quoted, the Christians in this story must have loved their neighbors, right?  We can just trust that scripture is what determines whether or not a religion is dangerous and end the story here, right?  No need to fact-check what actually happened when we know that the Christians must have loved their neighbors because that's what the religion's all about, right?  Why bother looking at reality when you've got a bullet-proof theory about what shape the religion would take based on its scripture, right?

Wrong.  I care about reality.  If reality doesn't match scripture, then fuck scripture.  It's clearly not doing its job.

In reality, the Catholics of that neighborhood persecuted their Jewish neighbors.  The local private Catholic high school had a priest who regularly preached to the students the doctrine of Jewish Deicide, the idea that all Jews bore a blood guilt for killing Jesus and must be hated and punished for it.  The high school students obeyed that command to hate their neighbors and inflicted regular gang violence upon the local Jewish children.  Which is how and why four of those high-school students ended up targeting, attacking, and gang-raping my relative, yelling at her that it was punishment for murdering Jesus.  She understandably doesn't tell this story often or go into details, so I'm a bit vague on her exact age at the time and I'm not going to bring it up to ask her, but it was somewhere in the range of 8 to 10 years old.  (Meaning she was too young to have actually killed Jesus, in case you needed help with the math.)  The (Catholic) police officers who came to investigate took a statement, immediately announced that no crime had been committed, and left.  No record was kept of the incident.  It wasn't a story like Michael Brown or George Floyd which rocked the nation and redefined how we thought about the way we treat each other.  It went unremarked, because it was unremarkable.

Yes, I know.  You haven't said it yet, but I've had this sort of conversation often enough to anticipate your responses.  You don't want to talk about this reality.  You don't want reality to have anything to do with this.  You think it's unfair of me to even mention it.  Let's make no reference to it at all!  Surely it doesn't belong in a conversation about whether or not a religion is dangerous or whether Christian love their neighbors!  While we're at it, let's also ignore the reason most of those Jews had migrated to the USA from Europe in the first place!  (Hint: it wasn't because of the generations of persecution with which Europe's predominantly Muslim population and institutions expressed their love of their Jewish neighbors.)  Let's just look at red letter quotes instead!  This is a purely abstract consideration, after all.  Surely just reading scripture is enough to tell us what the reality of what the religion is like, without actually checking it against any inconvenient and unpleasant facts!

Fuck scripture.  Here's the facts.

Christianity's track record includes a long, long tradition of bloody coercion and genocide directed at its non-Christian neighbors as well as its wrong-type-of-Christian neighbors.  The same is true of Islam and its violence against non-Muslim and wrong-type-of-Muslim neighbors.  Both religions have also had many, many examples of people who embraced their neighbors in a sense of communal love, no matter how different from them those neighbors were.  Individual representatives from both religions are a diverse crowd, running the gamut from enlightened to outright psychotic.  This is true even as you subdivide each religion into smaller groups, like Catholics or Protestants or Orthodox on the Christian side or Sunni and Shiite on the Muslim side.

The key factor in whether these religions are dangerous is not whether we're talking about about Christianity or Islam, but the degree to which society is secular or theocratic (and, in the latter case, which religion is in power).  Where a religion gets to write the laws, command the army, sweep any inconvenient crimes under the rug, and execute their neighbors on a whim, that religion is dangerous.  It's dangerous when the religion is Islam and it's dangerous when the religion is Christianity, and it's also dangerous when the religion is Judaism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or anything else.  When instead the religion exists in a secular society without any special entitlements or power for a believer to enforce the religion's rules on anyone else, it's usually peaceful... except for the extremists of that religion who hunger to overthrow that secularism and take power in the name of their religion.  This is true whether the extremists in question are Muslim or Christian or anything else.  The differences in scripture just change which book they are quoting from to justify their acts of persecution.  It does nothing to restrain those acts of persecution.

It is secularism in general, not this or that particular religion's scripture, which creates a world in which the religious reliably coexist peacefully with their neighbors.  That's the rule for Islam and Christianity alike.

You figuring out how to render your scriptural quotations in a red font doesn't change that reality.  So don't bother.

....

With all that said, Islamophobia being pushed in secular Western society raises certain red flags.

There is a political model that I won't be naming which focuses on riling the majority of a population into fearing and hating certain minority demographics of their neighbors and riding this hatred of the now-common enemy into authoritarian power.  The wannabe-rulers who employ this tactic-I-will-definitely-not-say-aloud keep experimenting to see which minorities they can get the rest of their nation to fear.  For the past couple of decades, these, erm, examples-of-people-doing-this-political-tactic... screw it.  Fascists.  I'm talking about fascists.  For the past couple of decades the fascists have mostly swung back and forth between trying to make it work against LGBT people and make it work against Muslims.  (Here in the USA they've also been targeting Hispanic immigrants and refugees.)  Not everyone who fearmongers about these groups is a fascist, but it is rare for someone to fearmonger about these groups and not quickly find themselves joined by fascists who want to help the cause and perhaps share some literature about the evils of  insert demographic here  and extend some invitations to meetings about what can be done about the  insert demographic here  threat.  Even if this or that particular person viewing Islam with alarm is not trying to do the fascism thing, you will frequently find someone standing next to them who is.

Hence the red flags.  Yes, Muslims who want to take over a secular nation and make it an Islamic one are dangerous.  But so are the people who raise fear of Muslims doing that, on their way to taking over a secular nation and making it a Christian one.  Given the power those two categories of people actually have in societies like Britain or the USA, the latter is a much more plausible threat than the former.

[AutisticWill]

Christianity is as moral and decent as HUMAN SACRIFICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also Christianity: The JEW murders GOD!!!!!!!!! Kill 'em.......

Also: Abase yourself, accept responsibility for a death you CANNOT have caused, and you MIGHT be safe -- depending on which of the 10000 denominations -- if any -- is the true religion.

Fuck. You.

And Dawkins is a Biologist and should stick with his day job.

[Reltzik]

And here comes the communism-equals-atheism cannard.

The state communism of places like the Soviet Union and North Korea was (and still is, where state communism still exists) an extremist ideology.  Part of that ideology says that religion is used to oppress and exploit the masses, and so should be rejected in favor of atheism.  It's not that atheism leads to communism.  It's that communism favors atheism in the countries it controls.  It is one of many, many paths that might lead people to atheism, and it is not in the least bit representative of the other paths or of atheism in general.  North Korea isn't an atheist state, it's a communist state that officially embraces atheism as part of that communist-state-ism.  (Unofficially, the Kim family is situating itself into a sort of divine-god-emperor-dynasty status as the center of a quasi-religion.)  What is dangerous isn't the secondary traits, like atheism in North Korea or Catholicism in Franco's Spain, that the ideological extremism favors.  What's dangerous is the ideological extremism itself.

[Deesse23]

Even if Christianity was "better" than Islam? So what? Does that make it truer? Dawkins thinks....who gives a fuck what Dawkins thinks? Atheism and Korea: Didnt you have been lectured on AF (and i bet many other forums) that Atheism is in no way linked to Korea? Why dont you listen? why are you so willfully ignorant? Why are you targting this forum for your trolling attempts? Because: you are clealy not out for a discussion, you are spamming and preaching.

You love your neighbours? How much do you love Jews? After all they killed your saviour, didnt they? Do you love Trans people enough to grant them the same rights as to any other person?

Persecution:
Please tell us more about persecuted Christians (We both know you want to!)

[Deesse23]

And here comes the communism-equals-atheism cannard.

It will get much worse with this catholic zealot, trust me, much, much worse. Persecuted Christians will be next, because he just cant help himself, you will see.

[mordant]

And Dawkins is a Biologist and should stick with his day job.

^^^ Yeah this. He says many cringeworthy things while bloviating outside his area of expertise.

[brewerb]

Dawkins recently admitted that, even according to him, Christianity is far better than Islam. He also expressed alarm about Islamism in Britain. Quite naive of him, really, to think Britain wouldnt fall to Islam without Christianity, but at least he's beginning to see a little of the Light. Thoughts? https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240402-atheist-says-islam-not-a-fundamentally-decent-religion-like-christianity/

Christianity's main religious teaching, after Love of God, and Faith in Christ, is Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself. Christ extends this even to Enemies in the Sermon on the Mount, which as far as I'm aware no other Religious Teacher has ever done, saying, one should love those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who persecute you, to be True Children of one's Father in Heaven, for He makes His Sun shine on the righteous and unrighteous alike, and gives His Rain to the wicked and good alike. This this Early Christians did in the Roman Empire, and soon Emperor St. Constantine became Christian, and the Rest is History.

Saint John, the Apostle of Christ and the Apostle of Love, teaches: "9If anyone claims to be in the light but hates his brother, he is still in the darkness. 10Whoever loves his brother remains in the light, and there is no cause of stumbling in him. 11But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness. He does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes." (1 John 2:9-11). Mohammedanism or Islam teaches something completely different, about "infidels", about women etc.

Thoughts on the below?

Atheist says Islam not a 'fundamentally decent religion' like Christianity

British author and biologist Richard Dawkins, known as a key figure of the New Atheism movement which gained popularity in the 2000s, told LBC on Sunday he was 'slightly horrified' by Ramadan lights being hung in London rather than Easter decorations.

Dawkins said that he believes the UK is a 'Christian country' and described himself as a 'cultural Christian' who values and enjoys Christian traditions and 'likes to live in a culturally Christian country' despite not believing 'a single word' of the religion. He said it would be 'truly dreadful' if a different religion substituted Christianity.

Users on social media criticised Dawkins for his statements, with many saying that he himself had a hand in the decline of Christianity in the UK.

So one fantasy story is better than another, yet it's still fantasy.

[mordant]

And here comes the communism-equals-atheism cannard.

The state communism of places like the Soviet Union and North Korea was (and still is, where state communism still exists) an extremist ideology.  Part of that ideology says that religion is used to oppress and exploit the masses, and so should be rejected in favor of atheism.  It's not that atheism leads to communism.  It's that communism favors atheism in the countries it controls.  It is one of many, many paths that might lead people to atheism, and it is not in the least bit representative of the other paths or of atheism in general.  North Korea isn't an atheist state, it's a communist state that officially embraces atheism as part of that communist-state-ism.  (Unofficially, the Kim family is situating itself into a sort of divine-god-emperor-dynasty status as the center of a quasi-religion.)  What is dangerous isn't the secondary traits, like atheism in North Korea or Catholicism in Franco's Spain, that the ideological extremism favors.  What's dangerous is the ideological extremism itself.

On another site the point is made that these leaders like Un and Stalin and Pol Pot were not just atheists. They were men. They were men who wore pants. They were a lot of things. Why not decry pants-wearing men because a handful of them were ruthless dictators, and promoted other men wearing pants?

In addition, the inconvenient fact is that if such a leader even suspects you of being disloyal, you will be hanged. Stalin for example purged atheists, artists, AND religions persons. There is no imaginary ceremony where a citizen renounces Jesus and then is immune to any restrictions or outrages and has total freedom.

[Thumpalumpacus]

1) Saying one religion is better than the other like saying a broken arm is better than a broken leg. They both suck.

2) I don't give a shit what Dawkins says.

[pattylt]

You may have guessed by now that we don’t hold Dawkins as some atheist prophet. Hes a biologist and when he gets philosophical, he’s not respected for it. He grew up in a gentle Anglian church. Ask him what he thinks of American Evangelical Christian’s and his tune may change.

As previously pointed out, atheism is useful to communism. The current atheism of Europe and America isn’t based on some personality cult like every communist system does. There’s no comparison and we generally aren’t communists but reasonable capitalists.

If your point in coming here is to polish up your apologetics, go away. If it’s to preach, you’ll be banned.

Oh, and why oh why do these kinds of people seem to need a wall of text to proclaim their position rather than just asking us, “what do think of the Kalam argument “ or, “how do you, as am atheist, define yourself”? Be short and concise. Or, be gone.

[Minimalist]

Dawkins said that he believes the UK is a 'Christian country' and described himself as a 'cultural Christian' who values and enjoys Christian traditions and 'likes to live in a culturally Christian country' despite not believing 'a single word' of the religion.

Dawkins wouldn't be so thrilled with it if the fucks were still burning heretics at the stake.  Funny how people always seem to forget that, at roughly the same point in their respective histories, xhristards were every bit as big a bunch of scumbags as the muslims are today.  Maybe worse.

[brewerb]

Dawkins said that he believes the UK is a 'Christian country' and described himself as a 'cultural Christian' who values and enjoys Christian traditions and 'likes to live in a culturally Christian country' despite not believing 'a single word' of the religion.

Dawkins wouldn't be so thrilled with it if the fucks were still burning heretics at the stake.  Funny how people always seem to forget that, at roughly the same point in their respective histories, xhristards were every bit as big a bunch of scumbags as the muslims are today.  Maybe worse.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

[jerry mcmasters]

Ok. Fair enough. God Bless.

  Peace to you, bro!

[TheGentlemanBastard]

The OP must have tired of creating socks at AF. It's truly sad that it's turned up here.

[Minimalist]

We should start a pool on how long he lasts.

[no one]

Be honest (is the even possible?) pissant, you're real name is Charlie Brown.

Fe-fe, fi-fi, fo-fo, fum
That clown sure is dumb.

[Paleophyte]

Dawkins recently admitted that, even according to him, Christianity is far better than Islam.

The preferences of one individual are hardly important.

Atheism has hardly brought Atheist North Korea for e.g. to Peace and Prosperity.

A bit dishonest to label North Korea atheist when it's widely regarded as the textbook case for a Cult of Personality. The Kims have all but been declared gods.

Anyway, Christ's/Christianity's teachings are clearly superior to Mohammed's/Islam's.

Crusades, Inquisitions, 30 Years War, Witch Burnings, and at least two successful Wars on Christmas (Cromwell, 1647-1660 and the Plymouth Pilgrims 1620-1681)

But I'm sure that your atrocities are superior to Islam's.