we choose. And you might as well get used to it, because if you don’t you’re going to have a miserable time here, because you’re always going to be in conflict. And maybe that is what you want, but I don’t think it’s what most Muslims want.
To my mind, if religion has a legitimate purpose, it’s not as a vehicle for conquering and subduing people as you seem to believe, but as a personal means – and I do mean personal – as a personal means to achieving a peaceful heart, which is, I think, its only legitimate purpose.
And a religious person who is in constant conflict is clearly not even looking for a peaceful heart, and is therefore abusing their religion, and by extension abusing the people who follow that religion, the very people you claim to speak for, you liars, you hypocrites, you duplicitous, mealy-mouthed, unprincipled terrorist-sympathising scum.
Thank you for your time. I’d wish you peace but you wouldn’t know what to do with it.
29.
Why Debate Dogma?
November 27, 2007
I’ve had quite a large response to my video about the IslamoNazis who are attempting to drive a fundamentalist wedge into British sciety with the connivance of our corrupt dhimmi politicians, and some of the most positive messages I got were actually from Muslims who are themselves embarrassed by the activities of these people, so that was very gratifying, and thank you very much indeed for all those.
Inevitably there was plenty of negative feedback as well, from the usual religious nutjobs, but also from some atheists who have told me that they think I’m giving atheism a bad name. Yeah, right. Like it ever had a good name.
I’ve been told things like my arguments are too crude, I’m damaging the atheist cause, I’m not contributing to the debate, and my personal favourite: “You won’t convert anyone to atheism by insulting people.”
Well, OK. First of all, as regards being crude. We are talking here about religion, in case you hadn’t noticed, and it doesn’t come any cruder than monotheistic dogma. I can only aspire to that level of crudity. But just for your sake I promise to do my very best.
Obviously I’d like to show more respect for people’s sincerely held beliefs, of course I would, but unfortunately that would violate my own sincerely held belief that religion is a filthy lie and a threat to civilisation. So you can see the problem I’ve got with that.
Besides, I don’t think I’m insulting anyone who doesn’t deserve it a thousand times over. I also think if we did a bit more insulting and a bit less pointless debating, then religion might not have such a falsely inflated idea of its own importance, and there might not be so many people on this planet who want us all to live our lives according to ideas and stories that would embarrass a second rate fantasy novelist.
I think to engage dogma in debate is to legitimise it and to confer on it a status that it simply doesn’t deserve.
With its arrogant intrusiveness I think it long ago forfeited any claim it may have had to be treated with respect. Too many liberties have already been taken.
Religious dogma has been allowed to encroach on ground it has no right to occupy, and to claim authority where it has no authority to claim anything. And I don’t think this is a matter for polite debate, especially when all you’re going to get is the usual raft of glibly held but unexamined certainties hammered home like coffin nails at every opportunity, because dogma is blind and deaf to anything reason has to offer. Faith is non-negotiable. So where exactly is the debate?
You obey the rules of reason. Religion ignores them, and neutralises your argument before you’ve even opened your mouth. It’s not interested in anything you’ve got to say. It’s just waiting for you to draw breath so it can say: “Yes, that’s all very well, but you’ve still got to submit, because it’s written in this book.”
Right now in the UK some Christian
To my mind, if religion has a legitimate purpose, it’s not as a vehicle for conquering and subduing people as you seem to believe, but as a personal means – and I do mean personal – as a personal means to achieving a peaceful heart, which is, I think, its only legitimate purpose.
And a religious person who is in constant conflict is clearly not even looking for a peaceful heart, and is therefore abusing their religion, and by extension abusing the people who follow that religion, the very people you claim to speak for, you liars, you hypocrites, you duplicitous, mealy-mouthed, unprincipled terrorist-sympathising scum.
Thank you for your time. I’d wish you peace but you wouldn’t know what to do with it.
29.
Why Debate Dogma?
November 27, 2007
I’ve had quite a large response to my video about the IslamoNazis who are attempting to drive a fundamentalist wedge into British sciety with the connivance of our corrupt dhimmi politicians, and some of the most positive messages I got were actually from Muslims who are themselves embarrassed by the activities of these people, so that was very gratifying, and thank you very much indeed for all those.
Inevitably there was plenty of negative feedback as well, from the usual religious nutjobs, but also from some atheists who have told me that they think I’m giving atheism a bad name. Yeah, right. Like it ever had a good name.
I’ve been told things like my arguments are too crude, I’m damaging the atheist cause, I’m not contributing to the debate, and my personal favourite: “You won’t convert anyone to atheism by insulting people.”
Well, OK. First of all, as regards being crude. We are talking here about religion, in case you hadn’t noticed, and it doesn’t come any cruder than monotheistic dogma. I can only aspire to that level of crudity. But just for your sake I promise to do my very best.
Obviously I’d like to show more respect for people’s sincerely held beliefs, of course I would, but unfortunately that would violate my own sincerely held belief that religion is a filthy lie and a threat to civilisation. So you can see the problem I’ve got with that.
Besides, I don’t think I’m insulting anyone who doesn’t deserve it a thousand times over. I also think if we did a bit more insulting and a bit less pointless debating, then religion might not have such a falsely inflated idea of its own importance, and there might not be so many people on this planet who want us all to live our lives according to ideas and stories that would embarrass a second rate fantasy novelist.
I think to engage dogma in debate is to legitimise it and to confer on it a status that it simply doesn’t deserve.
With its arrogant intrusiveness I think it long ago forfeited any claim it may have had to be treated with respect. Too many liberties have already been taken.
Religious dogma has been allowed to encroach on ground it has no right to occupy, and to claim authority where it has no authority to claim anything. And I don’t think this is a matter for polite debate, especially when all you’re going to get is the usual raft of glibly held but unexamined certainties hammered home like coffin nails at every opportunity, because dogma is blind and deaf to anything reason has to offer. Faith is non-negotiable. So where exactly is the debate?
You obey the rules of reason. Religion ignores them, and neutralises your argument before you’ve even opened your mouth. It’s not interested in anything you’ve got to say. It’s just waiting for you to draw breath so it can say: “Yes, that’s all very well, but you’ve still got to submit, because it’s written in this book.”
Right now in the UK some Christian
Similar Books
