Chris Morris is missing the point in The absurd world of Martin Amis (in response to this). These concepts are more complex than Amis would have us believe, he says, but doesn't go on to point out what any of these complexities are, nor why they effect Amis' central thesis - Islamism is a problem.
To reveal my own biases: I take a dim view if any kind of systematic irrational thought of belief, and a dimmer view still of organisations based upon them. On the whole, I don't care much about the details of the irrationality. I don't care which particular flavour of invisible friend people chose to be obsequious to.
But we can't totally ignore the fact that religions do differ in the extent to which they tolerate those who do not share their delusions. You don't get Jain suicide bombers, for instance, and I don't believe that that's wholly due to economic or political circumstances.
In Tulna's case, it's probably also due to not wanting to get blood on her Jimmy Choos. But I digress...
Certainly, we shouldn't single out Islam - the Christian Zionists have more than their share of blood on their hands too.
Of course, the majority of the followers of these belief systems don't use violence. The books at their centers contradict themselves, and people can take very different messages away from them. I suspect that people take away whatever suits their temperament. But that doesn't mean that the non-fanatics aren't part of the problem - they are legitimising the belief system upon which these atrocities depend. We should just leave the whole sordid lot in the history books where it belongs.
I've just been reading Hitchens again. You might have guessed. ;-)
Posted to Atheism by Simon Brunning at November 26, 2007 01:54 PMUnsubscribed.
Ignorant, misrepresentin, hateful people -100
Posted by: Chad Myers on November 26, 2007 03:12 PMIgnorant I may be, Chad, but I'm not hateful. Correct me where I'm wrong.
Posted by: Simon on November 26, 2007 04:20 PMEmotive language Simon, bound to get an emotional reaction. I know you're not hateful, I'm not sure Tulna would back me up though ;-)
Posted by: elp on November 26, 2007 05:19 PMSimplistic, sneering and smug, which you can't afford to be when you haven't worked out when to use 'their' or 'there' correctly.
Posted by: Burrow Hill on November 27, 2007 01:37 PMOuch! How embarrassing. I'll fix that. (Fixed.)
Not sure it's really a telling argument, though. Simplistic how? As with Chad - don't tell me I'm wrong, tell me *where* I'm wrong.
Not sure I'm smug, really, either. I'll have to stand up for sneering, though.
Posted by: Simon on November 27, 2007 03:36 PMI'm with you 100% on this one Simon (not that that'll come as much of a surprise to you).
Posted by: Dave Cross on November 27, 2007 04:26 PMI'll tell you where you are wrong Simon...I don't have any Jimmy Choos!
Posted by: tulna on November 27, 2007 09:08 PMIt's good that dim view of yours to irrational thought of belief. But why you'd write irrational stuff like: "But that doesn't mean that the non-fanatics aren't part of the problem - they are legitimising the belief system upon which these atrocities depend"
Is this guilty by association or what? Won't the same conclusion be true for anything open for interpretation? Good democracies, bad ones, good communism, bad communism, good agile, bad agile.
There is no point in here.
I'm with you on the Islam issue, and the intolerance issue.
Jesus told his followers to love their enemies, and pray for those who persecuted them. True followers of Jesus do as he directed.
While we're at it, atheists have done more than their share of killing: consider Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot. Of course, in an atheistic, naturalistic world view, there is no evil: just atoms bumping together, right?
Posted by: Dave Pinn on January 11, 2008 12:00 PM