Richard Dawkins will give away The God Delusion to Muslims

[R3verse Swing]

Drum roll please . . . .

Richard Dawkins is to make a number of his books available free of charge in the Islamic world after an Arabic translation of The God Delusion was downloaded illegally millions of times.

The evolutionary biologist and noted atheist said that he had recently learnt that 30 million copies of the book questioning the existence of a supernatural creator had been illegally downloaded with three million alone in Saudi Arabia.

“I derive huge encouragement from that,” he said yesterday adding that he had heard similar stories about the number of PDFs of the book that had been downloaded in Iran.

Dawkins said he had started a project to provide free downloadable PDFs of seven of his books, including The God Delusion, “in the language of Islamic countries”.

The 2006 book remains one of the most influential and best-selling books investigating religion of the century and has sold about three million copies.

Dawkins has been criticised from across the political spectrum for some of his statements on the monotheistic religions and last year was “no platformed” by a “liberal left” radio station in the United States over his views on Islam.

The KPFA station in Berkeley, California, had sold hundreds of tickets to the event last August but cancelled it, it said, because of Dawkins’s “abusive” comments on Islam. In its email cancelling the show it did not quote Dawkins’s views that Muslims were the “prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism”.

Dawkins said yesterday in Oxford that he had felt “sadness” at the “knee jerk” response of the radio station, which had been his favourite when he lived in California. He said the illegal downloading of The God Delusion was “very encouraging” adding that he did not get any financial advantage from it.

David Olusoga, one of the presenters of the BBC’s Civilisations series, has claimed that Britain is in the midst of a “history war”. He said that statues such as those of Cecil Rhodes in Oxford and of Edward Colston in Bristol — which describes the country’s biggest slave trader as “wise and virtuous” — had crystallised the problem. “Statues have become lightning rods for a struggle we are going to have to have about our history, about inclusions in it,” he added.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...ve-away-the-god-delusion-to-muslims-bx5zzvzl7

I have read Dawkin's book, and I think it's a great idea Dawkins is giving away his book for free, because in the end, like many, my religious views, mainly trust in the Qur'an and Science, were only strengthen by the alternative flukist narrative that is on offer - it just happened.

Dawkins has defined militant-atheism as a quasi-populist movement, and like all the other populist movements of our day, its inevitable end point will not be a good place.

3...2...1...

 

[Third_Umpire]

Won't work. Those that had an open mind to his work likely already paid for the book or procured it some way to read it.

Unfortunately, the deeply religious are closed off to entertaining any ideas outside of what they already "know", so forget free, you couldn't pay them enough to read this book.

 

[James]

Hitchens was easily the better writer and as such his book on Atheism was the better overall read. Dawkins is famous for that particularly eloquent opening paragraph-long tirade in his 350-page effort, however most of the remainder of the book is vacuous. Dawkins is best when he sticks to evolutionary science e.g. in The Selfish Gene which is a genuinely gripping and challenging piece.

 

[PetroDollars]

The selfish gene was a great book, god delusion not so much, if you read both books without knowing the author you would have never guessed they were written by the same person. Looks like Dawkins has built a atheist cult and is just cashing in now.

 

[DeadBall]

Don't get the fuss. The God delusion has already been given to Jews, Christians, Hindus, Muslims and every other culture and religion in history.

 

[babajee]

Don't get the fuss. The God delusion has already been given to Jews, Christians, Hindus, Muslims and every other culture and religion in history.

Why are you so confident there is no God?

 

[DeadBall]

Why are you so confident there is no God?

Why are you so confident that there is?

 

[babajee]

Why are you so confident that there is?

Because there’s no other explanation for our existence.

 

[DeadBall]

Because there’s no other explanation for our existence.

There was no other explanation (not scientific anyway) for Day, Night, Thunder, Lightning, Earthquakes, Floods etc before either. Have patience.

 

[babajee]

There was no other explanation (not scientific anyway) for Day, Night, Thunder, Lightning, Earthquakes, Floods etc before either. Have patience.

Lol. All Atheists have done is substitute the word “God” with other things like “Natural Selection” and “Big Bang”

 

[DeadBall]

Lol. All Atheists have done is substitute the word “God” with other things like “Natural Selection” and “Big Bang”

I think you are confused. Atheists aren't the people who came up with those terms. Men of science did, the same men who are responsible for inventing electricity, computers and the internet so you can come and do your loling over here.

 

[babajee]

I think you are confused. Atheists aren't the people who came up with those terms. Men of science did, the same men who are responsible for inventing electricity, computers, the internet so you can come and do your loling over here.

Yeah but Atheists take these terms as their “God”

I have no problem with the theories themselves *lol*.

 

[Darkrai]

Of course there is a god. Science only further explains and shows us the wonderful creation of the all mighty Allah.

 

[DeadBall]

Yeah but Atheists take these terms as their “God”

I have no problem with the theories themselves *lol*.

Atheists aren't a group defined by set a specific beliefs like religious people. Heck, Atheists are even't a group per se and the only thing they have in common is their lack of belief in a God due to the absence of evidence and common sense. I myself am more of an anti theist than atheist (which actually means that I have to deny the existence of a God which may or not be there).

You can claim that you have no problem with the theories itself but that was the first thing you attacked. Anyway I'm used to religious hypocrisy so never mind.

 

[www787]

Atheists aren't a group defined by set a specific beliefs like religious people. Heck, Atheists are even't a group per se and the only thing they have in common is their lack of belief in a God due to the absence of evidence and common sense. I myself am more of an anti theist than atheist (which actually means that I have to deny the existence of a God which may or not be there).

You can claim that you have no problem with the theories itself but that was the first thing you attacked. Anyway I'm used to religious hypocrisy so never mind.

By definition giving a name to collective set of people it becomes a group and atheism is a group that doesn’t believe in higher being different than other religious group who believe in higher being.

 

[babajee]

Atheists aren't a group defined by set a specific beliefs like religious people. Heck, Atheists are even't a group per se and the only thing they have in common is their lack of belief in a God due to the absence of evidence and common sense. I myself am more of an anti theist than atheist (which actually means that I have to deny the existence of a God which may or not be there).

You can claim that you have no problem with the theories itself but that was the first thing you attacked. Anyway I'm used to religious hypocrisy so never mind.

Yeah I have a problem with the way these theories are used to “do away” with God. They are taken like gospel by some people.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Atheists aren't a group defined by set a specific beliefs like religious people. Heck, Atheists are even't a group per se and the only thing they have in common is their lack of belief in a God due to the absence of evidence and common sense. I myself am more of an anti theist than atheist (which actually means that I have to deny the existence of a God which may or not be there).

You can claim that you have no problem with the theories itself but that was the first thing you attacked. Anyway I'm used to religious hypocrisy so never mind.

So you're against religion and have no view on the existance of a Creator?

 

[DeadBall]

By definition giving a name to collective set of people it becomes a group and atheism is a group that doesn’t believe in higher being different than other religious group who believe in higher being.

Atheists are not a group. They do not believe in a specific set of beliefs, they just don't believe in a God as per the current ideas of a creator in all religions which any person with common sense would do. There are no Atheist congregations or Atheist holidays or clubs, in fact there might be a bigger club for The ******* of the Dallas show.

 

[www787]

Atheists are not a group. They do not believe in a specific set of beliefs, they just don't believe in a God as per the current ideas of a creator in all religions which any person with common sense would do. There are no Atheist congregations or Atheist holidays or clubs, in fact there might be a bigger club for The ******* of the Dallas show.

It is. Group of people who believe in nothing. Just because you don’t attend their group meeting it doesn’t me it doesn’t happen. Google it and you’ll find plenty of them.

 

[DeadBall]

Yeah I have a problem with the way these theories are used to “do away” with God. They are taken like gospel by some people.

Pretty ironic that a person with religious tendencies is associating the word Gospel to non religious people.

 

[DeadBall]

So you're against religion and have no view on the existance of a Creator?

My view is not that of any of the existing views. In time when we evolve and understand better I will form my opinions accordingly.

 

[KingKhanWC]

My view is not that of any of the existing views. In time when we evolve and understand better I will form my opinions accordingly.

You could die tommorow and we may never know. So you're an agnostic, fine.

 

[DeadBall]

You could die tommorow and we may never know. So you're an agnostic, fine.

Everybody dies, does not mean I have to believe in fairytales. I am happy enough to do good and live a decent existence without expecting some rewards in the afterlife.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Everybody dies, does not mean I have to believe in fairytales. I am happy enough to do good and live a decent existence without expecting some rewards in the afterlife.

What is 'GOOD'?

I.e If im stronger than you, why would it be wrong if I came and took all your possessions, because I can.

 

[babajee]

My view is not that of any of the existing views. In time when we evolve and understand better I will form my opinions accordingly.

So you just don’t want to believe or are hoping some “evidence” is going to pop out of nowhere suggesting God doesn’t exist.

Nothing will happen.

 

[DeadBall]

So you just don’t want to believe or are hoping some “evidence” is going to pop out of nowhere suggesting God doesn’t exist.

Don't really think or care about it that much. Have much more important things to do in my life.

 

[DeadBall]

What is 'GOOD'?

I.e If im stronger than you, why would it be wrong if I came and took all your possessions, because I can.

Because it is against the innate empathy that [most] human beings are born with and feel toward other humans. In it’s simplest form, it’s the realization that other human beings are the same as you at a fundamental level and as a result you feel bad to see the suffering of others and feel glad when others are having positive experiences. I don't need no "divine" book to tell me that.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Because it is against the innate empathy that [most] human beings are born with and feel toward other humans. In it’s simplest form, it’s the realization that other human beings are the same as you at a fundamental level and as a result you feel bad to see the suffering of others and feel glad when others are having positive experiences. I don't need no "divine" book to tell me that.

This is not true. Here's some examples.

1. If MOST people find a large amount of cash, they will keep it for themselves knowing it belongs to someone else. This is why stories of taxi drivers(often because of their faith) hand in money left in the cabs make the news, as it's rare.

2. Over 2 billion people dont have access to proper saniation and fresh clean water. Half the world population live on less than £2.00 a day with nearly and nearly 2 billion in extreme poverty. Tens of thousands of children die each day due to poverty.

3. Families are breaking up with the divorce rate in the UK being around 50%. Not that it always a bad thing but there are millions of children with no family strucutre and living in single parent households.

4. Wars,humans kill each other mainly for greed.

I could go on and on but my point is if what you're claiming is true, MOST people have innnate emaphty the world would be a much better place.

Now even if I was to agree with you. Again why is it wrong for me to take anything and live how I want to if I have the capablity to do so. If others are hurt, so what. We are merely chemicals who are here for a short time. Animals kill others for their benefit, why cant we humans?





2.

 

[DeadBall]

This is not true. Here's some examples.

1. If MOST people find a large amount of cash, they will keep it for themselves knowing it belongs to someone else. This is why stories of taxi drivers(often because of their faith) hand in money left in the cabs make the news, as it's rare.

Try Uber then.

2. Over 2 billion people dont have access to proper saniation and fresh clean water. Half the world population live on less than £2.00 a day with nearly and nearly 2 billion in extreme poverty. Tens of thousands of children die each day due to poverty.

Nothing to do with personal empathy but the current system of greed and capitalism.

3. Families are breaking up with the divorce rate in the UK being around 50%. Not that it always a bad thing but there are millions of children with no family strucutre and living in single parent households.

Don't know what this has to do with anything, if two people are incompatible they are incompatible, forcing them together could have even worse consequences.


4. Wars,humans kill each other mainly for greed.

Yeah, Muslims also waged many wars in the name of Islam and took the Mall e Ghanimat, basically the spoils of war which included material things and humans. Don't know what you're to prove with that point.

I could go on and on but my point is if what you're claiming is true, MOST people have innnate emaphty the world would be a much better place.

Now even if I was to agree with you. Again why is it wrong for me to take anything and live how I want to if I have the capablity to do so. If others are hurt, so what. We are merely chemicals who are here for a short time. Animals kill others for their benefit, why cant we humans?

In summary, one can take whatever one wants to/hurt/steal/kill/rape etc if that is ones nature, as they have since time immemorial and are to this day, (I can even go in the nature vs nurture debate but I see I would be wasting my time here) in short no book or God can convince them otherwise if they are hellbent on doing it.

 

[KingKhanWC]

In summary, one can take whatever one wants to/hurt/steal/kill/rape etc if that is ones nature, as they have since time immemorial and are to this day, (I can even go in the nature vs nurture debate but I see I would be wasting my time here) in short no book or God can convince them otherwise if they are hellbent on doing it.

Please quote me properly if you want to carry on the discussion.

Of course it can and it does . People who believe in judgement will think twice if those actions are deemed wrong in their belief.

If I was an athiest and I can get away with anything , what do I have to fear and why is it even wrong for me to do those actions?

 

[s28]

Guess it's cheaper than buying logs for the fire

 

[Third_Umpire]

Please quote me properly if you want to carry on the discussion.

Of course it can and it does . People who believe in judgement will think twice if those actions are deemed wrong in their belief.

If I was an athiest and I can get away with anything , what do I have to fear and why is it even wrong for me to do those actions?

Not everyone needs to be bullied by religion into being a decent human being. Common sense and a decent upbringing with solid values does the job. Some may need to scared by eternal hellfire and whatever else religions use to survive and thrive; it's more a statement about what kind of people these are, that in the absence of a deterrent like hellfire, they would kill/loot/plunder.

I'm surprised this is even an argument you are pursuing, I am certain you are smarter than this.

 

[DeadBall]

Not everyone needs to be bullied by religion into being a decent human being. Common sense and a decent upbringing with solid values does the job. Some may need to scared by eternal hellfire and whatever else religions use to survive and thrive; it's more a statement about what kind of people these are, that in the absence of a deterrent like hellfire, they would kill/loot/plunder.

I'm surprised this is even an argument you are pursuing, I am certain you are smarter than this.

Very well put. Wish I had your prowess and patience for prose.

 

[Slog]

If I was an athiest and I can get away with anything , what do I have to fear and why is it even wrong for me to do those actions?

I'm proud Muslim but still this is weird for me. So you have no moral compass and need to be forced by religion to do decent acts?

Some of us know difference between right and wrong due to common sense and do not need threat of hellfire to avoid becoming code-less animals.

Poor argument tbh.

 

[Robert]

Drum roll please . . . .



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...ve-away-the-god-delusion-to-muslims-bx5zzvzl7

I have read Dawkin's book, and I think it's a great idea Dawkins is giving away his book for free, because in the end, like many, my religious views, mainly trust in the Qur'an and Science, were only strengthen by the alternative flukist narrative that is on offer - it just happened.

Dawkins has defined militant-atheism as a quasi-populist movement, and like all the other populist movements of our day, its inevitable end point will not be a good place.

3...2...1...

I read it when it came out.

His logic is unassailable.

If you want to attack him try philosophy, where he is less sure-footed.

 

[Mamoon]

If you are only doing good because you want reward in afterlife, or because you do not want to get fried in a frying pan or grilled on a skewer after death, then I have to say that your morals are very questionable.

There is no doubt that religion provides you with extra incentive to help others and be a good personal in general, but if religion is the only person that stops you from killing, stealing and raping, then I am afraid even religion is not going to be a deterrent for long, and that is why we have so many practicing Muslims committing hideous crimes.

 

[Robert]

If I was an athiest and I can get away with anything , what do I have to fear and why is it even wrong for me to do those actions?

You describe nihilism not atheism. The nihilist says nothing you do matters.

Atheists can fear the retribution of society.

Or you realise that being kind usually means that kindness is returned to you. Even Bonobo Apes have figured this out.

To paraphrase the great Hawking, we are merely smart monkeys on a mediocre planet orbiting a very ordinary star - but we can understand the universe. We are the universe locally organised into self-awareness, seeking to understand itself. I take comfort and wonderment from that.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I'm proud Muslim but still this is weird for me. So you have no moral compass and need to be forced by religion to do decent acts?

Some of us know difference between right and wrong due to common sense and do not need threat of hellfire to avoid becoming code-less animals.

Poor argument tbh.

We should appreciate common sense and having a moral compass then. You don't need to be a proud Muslim to be able to do that.

 

[barah_admi]

I'm glad he is giving this book out for free, it will get more people laughing at his absurdity. Has anyone here read it? I have and almost every paragraph is contradictory to the last. It is one of the most laughable pieces of literature I have ever come across.

 

[yasir]

There is documentary based on God Delusion by Dawkins himself, available freely on youtube, that can give you an idea about what book is about, it has been there for years. There are others as well based on Dawkins book...

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

This is not true. Here's some examples.

1. If MOST people find a large amount of cash, they will keep it for themselves knowing it belongs to someone else. This is why stories of taxi drivers(often because of their faith) hand in money left in the cabs make the news, as it's rare.

2. Over 2 billion people dont have access to proper saniation and fresh clean water. Half the world population live on less than £2.00 a day with nearly and nearly 2 billion in extreme poverty. Tens of thousands of children die each day due to poverty.

3. Families are breaking up with the divorce rate in the UK being around 50%. Not that it always a bad thing but there are millions of children with no family strucutre and living in single parent households.

4. Wars,humans kill each other mainly for greed.

I could go on and on but my point is if what you're claiming is true, MOST people have innnate emaphty the world would be a much better place.

Now even if I was to agree with you. Again why is it wrong for me to take anything and live how I want to if I have the capablity to do so. If others are hurt, so what. We are merely chemicals who are here for a short time. Animals kill others for their benefit, why cant we humans?





2.

Flip your logic around and tell us why atheists don't kill, rape and plunder considering they should have no conscience or moral compass with no religion guiding them?

 

[Adijazz1706]

Flip your logic around and tell us why atheists don't kill, rape and plunder considering they should have no conscience or moral compass with no religion guiding them?

For the same reason they don't indulge in incest and necrophilia, it's barred by the law and by society both of which have been shaped and influenced far more than religion than atheism.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

For the same reason they don't indulge in incest and necrophilia, it's barred by the law and by society both of which have been shaped and influenced far more than religion than atheism.

So you saying if not for law, atheists would indulge in necrophilia and incest? Regular normal folks who don't believe in God.

 

[Madplayer]

Didnt Richard dawkin say he was mistreated in hospital by religious nurses and doctors?

 

[ManFan]

One of my favorites is a Professor, Peter Singer, who teaches ethics at Ivy League schools like NYU and Princeton and is a hardline atheist. He states that beastiality is fine as long as you have consent from the animal itself.

 

[Third_Umpire]

I'm proud Muslim but still this is weird for me. So you have no moral compass and need to be forced by religion to do decent acts?

Some of us know difference between right and wrong due to common sense and do not need threat of hellfire to avoid becoming code-less animals.

Poor argument tbh.

Waiting for you to be branded a munafiq or closet atheist by the mullah brigade.

 

[ManFan]

Waiting for you to be branded a munafiq or closet atheist by the mullah brigade.

It's common sense. If you are in a jungle and see a baby and decide to harm it, you don't lack iman but IQ.

 

[yasir]

For the same reason they don't indulge in incest and necrophilia, it's barred by the law and by society both of which have been shaped and influenced far more than religion than atheism.

Why we end up making better laws when secular values are on the rise? - Most modern ethical and moral values including detail laws and constitutions around the world are based on secular values, separation of church and state is almost considered civilized principle and indicator of success. More Science and secular philosophies are rooted in the culture, because chance of both moral and economic development. Let me highlight some of the prominent moral, ethical and equality values that came from secular sources such as reason, debate, and evidence rather than revelation or Holy books of any sort...

1. Abolishment of Slavery by culture and law. This did not happen under any religion, they dance around the issue, rather had been benefited from it.

2. Equality of Women, minorities(gays, other religions, races etc): Thanks to democracy and rise in intellect (slowly but steady) by evidence base learning rather than faith. We don't tax minorities (although it will take time for them to be truly equal to majority), but by law things have moved in right direction. Religion has always being focused on gaining power, building army of faithful, if you are God's party you are good, otherwise bad/evil. Minority has always been after thought, most of the time not protected by law...

3. Educating the masses, Democratization of education has created better opportunity for every one, this is side effect of democracy, again a secular institution, where issues are resolved by debate/ rational and evidence rather than keeping society hostage to some old book.

4. Civil rights and freedom of speech and thought, As society slowing broke shackles with the faith, reason, rationality, evidence driven knowledge took over, this has been upgrade on Faith. This also requires more freedom, imagination and less obedience and traditions, you need scholars not soldiers to rule the world, in past more soldiers were needed, hence faith was dominating.

Modern ethics are based on equality and neutrality of ideas, in free market, secular and evidence driven ideas are more successful. Religion still needs lot of protection from state to survive, cultures who are still sticking to it, are doing so by emotional investment and not reason driven and they are on the loosing end

 

[Adijazz1706]

Why we end up making better laws when secular values are on the rise? - Most modern ethical and moral values including detail laws and constitutions around the world are based on secular values, separation of church and state is almost considered civilized principle and indicator of success. More Science and secular philosophies are rooted in the culture, because chance of both moral and economic development. Let me highlight some of the prominent moral, ethical and equality values that came from secular sources such as reason, debate, and evidence rather than revelation or Holy books of any sort...

1. Abolishment of Slavery by culture and law. This did not happen under any religion, they dance around the issue, rather had been benefited from it.

2. Equality of Women, minorities(gays, other religions, races etc): Thanks to democracy and rise in intellect (slowly but steady) by evidence base learning rather than faith. We don't tax minorities (although it will take time for them to be truly equal to majority), but by law things have moved in right direction. Religion has always being focused on gaining power, building army of faithful, if you are God's party you are good, otherwise bad/evil. Minority has always been after thought, most of the time not protected by law...

3. Educating the masses, Democratization of education has created better opportunity for every one, this is side effect of democracy, again a secular institution, where issues are resolved by debate/ rational and evidence rather than keeping society hostage to some old book.

4. Civil rights and freedom of speech and thought, As society slowing broke shackles with the faith, reason, rationality, evidence driven knowledge took over, this has been upgrade on Faith. This also requires more freedom, imagination and less obedience and traditions, you need scholars not soldiers to rule the world, in past more soldiers were needed, hence faith was dominating.

Modern ethics are based on equality and neutrality of ideas, in free market, secular and evidence driven ideas are more successful. Religion still needs lot of protection from state to survive, cultures who are still sticking to it, are doing so by emotional investment and not reason driven and they are on the loosing end

William Wilberforce who was the major force behind abolition of alavery in the British empire which held the majority of slaves worldwide was deeply religious and driven by his belief in God, even Lincoln used Biblical references extensively while campaigning against slavery.

The jizya tax is a substitute of the zakat which non Muslims do not have to give.

Education is widespread all over the UK and Western Europe, still rightwing parties are becoming stronger by the minute so can't see the relationship between atheism and education. Atheist 'scholars' like Harris and Hitchens have 'fans' who defend their every move even if it is support for illegal wars or occupation even though said fans are all well educated.

Stalin killed religious people in the millions, still Russia is primarily religious today, LOL at religion needing state protection or soldiers to survive. Military might still rules the World and always has, an overabundance of scholars leads to destruction as in the case of the Muslim world and the Mongols.

 

[Robert]

William Wilberforce who was the major force behind abolition of alavery in the British empire which held the majority of slaves worldwide was deeply religious and driven by his belief in God, even Lincoln used Biblical references extensively while campaigning against slavery.

Ah.... he was more of a Wilberfake to be honest. Sadly I have learned that one of my heroes had feet of clay.

He was a patriarchal figure who was socially conservative and suppressed the nascent English labour movement. He and his Clapham Sect mates bought a country in Africa. Yes, the Royal Navy’s West African squadron stopped the Atlantic Passage but slavery continued for decades in the West Indies, and freed slaves became “apprentices” on Wilberforce’s and his mates’ African plantations - slaves by any other name.

I would not uphold him as a man who did good because of religion. He sought control, I think.

 

[Adijazz1706]

Ah.... he was more of a Wilberfake to be honest. Sadly I have learned that one of my heroes had feet of clay.

He was a patriarchal figure who was socially conservative and suppressed the nascent English labour movement. He and his Clapham Sect mates bought a country in Africa. Yes, the Royal Navy’s West African squadron stopped the Atlantic Passage but slavery continued for decades in the West Indies, and freed slaves became “apprentices” on Wilberforce’s and his mates’ African plantations - slaves by any other name.

I would not uphold him as a man who did good because of religion. He sought control, I think.

That was part of the slave trade act, more info here
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/aug/05/william-wilberforce-apprenticeship-sierra-leone

 

[miandadrules]

William Wilberforce who was the major force behind abolition of alavery in the British empire which held the majority of slaves worldwide was deeply religious and driven by his belief in Go Qd, even Lincoln used Biblical references extensively while campaigning against slavery.

The jizya tax is a substitute of the zakat which non Muslims do not have to give.

Education is widespread all over the UK and Western Europe, still rightwing parties are becoming stronger by the minute so can't see the relationship between atheism and education. Atheist 'scholars' like Harris and Hitchens have 'fans' who defend their every move even if it is support for illegal wars or occupation even though said fans are all well educated.

Stalin killed religious people in the millions, still Russia is primarily religious today, LOL at religion needing state protection or soldiers to survive. Military might still rules the World and always has, an overabundance of scholars leads to destruction as in the case of the Muslim world and the Mongols.

No need for such a polemic.

Simply reference where Islam or be it any of the other Abrahamic belief systems EXPLICITLY outlawed this vile practice.

 

[Adijazz1706]

No need for such a polemic.

Simply reference where Islam or be it any of the other Abrahamic belief systems EXPLICITLY outlawed this vile practice.

Yasir said slavery was outlawed by law, I responded saying religious belief was a major force behind said law. That's all there is to it, slavery isn't the topic at hand

 

[miandadrules]

Yasir said slavery was outlawed by law, I responded saying religious belief was a major force behind said law. That's all there is to it, slavery isn't the topic at hand

So you can’t provide any supporting evidence?

That’s certainly all there is to it.

 

[yasir]

Yasir said slavery was outlawed by law, I responded saying religious belief was a major force behind said law. That's all there is to it, slavery isn't the topic at hand

That is not true, None of the Abrahamic religions banned slavery. Islam categorically banned Alcohol, gave women half the legal rights to that of men. Prophet and Quran could have said about slavery in more binary manner. Even no Fiqa and Sharia in next few centuries went out of there way to ban slavery. Slave trade was common in Muslim world aka Saudi Arab, till 1960(they were the last one to ban). They had one of the worse practices, enslaving women and kids, just read some history on Muslim slave trade...

Also look at how during the time of prophet and afterwards, they treated women gained in wars, high ranked officers got the younger and beautiful ones(they were treated like Gold and land like they were before, Islam did not change a thing), there is a reason, Prophet never married a single women when Khataja was alive and Islam was recessive religion, flood gates open as soon as they went on war spear and gain power. Slave as commodity was big incentive for war, much like Gold. Don't tell me they were in business of freeing of slaves. Just look at there marriages and sex slaves, even when they were in 50s/60s.

Sex slaves and treating women as beauty to satisfy your sexual lust was going on centuries and religion gave them comfort and legal path way of achieving those goals. Even in religion, one reason Islam gave of having more than one marriage is that once, your wife is having period, you can have an something in the reserve to entertain your self. Lot of Ulmas have spend quite a few time in outlining those reasons. Women are not considered adults, that's why they need to be under the protection of men, SA was following that model right into 21 century as well. Don't tell me Islam was actually after equality of women and abolishment of slavery


Thanks to Hinduism Cast system still have a vibrant life in Hindu Culture, again religion was main force behind supporting Cast system. Secular forces and awareness about modern moral values driven by reason and evidence are forcing them to change there tradition, religion was backing those for thousands of year. They should be ashamed rather than trying to claim victory :

Also, please provide references of Slavery got banned by any religion.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Dawkins is spreading his message to the home of Islam, it's not that different to how the Prophet PBUH spread his message there himself. If Allah wills he will be successful, if not it is also as Allah wishes. Peace to all.

 

[miandadrules]

That is not true, None of the Abrahamic religions banned slavery. Islam categorically banned Alcohol, gave women half the legal rights to that of men. Prophet and Quran could have said about slavery in more binary manner. Even no Fiqa and Sharia in next few centuries went out of there way to ban slavery. Slave trade was common in Muslim world aka Saudi Arab, till 1960(they were the last one to ban). They had one of the worse practices, enslaving women and kids, just read some history on Muslim slave trade...

Also look at how during the time of prophet and afterwards, they treated women gained in wars, high ranked officers got the younger and beautiful ones(they were treated like Gold and land like they were before, Islam did not change a thing), there is a reason, Prophet never married a single women when Khataja was alive and Islam was recessive religion, flood gates open as soon as they went on war spear and gain power. Slave as commodity was big incentive for war, much like Gold. Don't tell me they were in business of freeing of slaves. Just look at there marriages and sex slaves, even when they were in 50s/60s.

Sex slaves and treating women as beauty to satisfy your sexual lust was going on centuries and religion gave them comfort and legal path way of achieving those goals. Even in religion, one reason Islam gave of having more than one marriage is that once, your wife is having period, you can have an something in the reserve to entertain your self. Lot of Ulmas have spend quite a few time in outlining those reasons. Women are not considered adults, that's why they need to be under the protection of men, SA was following that model right into 21 century as well. Don't tell me Islam was actually after equality of women and abolishment of slavery


Thanks to Hinduism Cast system still have a vibrant life in Hindu Culture, again religion was main force behind supporting Cast system. Secular forces and awareness about modern moral values driven by reason and evidence are forcing them to change there tradition, religion was backing those for thousands of year. They should be ashamed rather than trying to claim victory :

Also, please provide references of Slavery got banned by any religion.

Apparently, Wilberforce had greater morality than God himself according to the above poster.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Downloaded the book from a torrenting site and read for about 5 minutes before erasing it from my SSD. As cliché as it gets.

Saw the whole documentary posted above tho : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGOl9IDA3zk

The guy Dawkins is an emotional fella, I felt him regularly getting triggered during the Documentary.

His 'arguments' were gaslighting attempts from my personal POV. I am a proud life-long Muslim and I had a feeling he was asking the wrong questions to Internet-meme-Mullahs/Pastors/wanna-be-Jihadi and didn't have the idea about what he was talking about (at least as far as Islam is concerned).

My 2 cents on the whole matter:

1. The eternal reward is on offer (aka the Jannah aka paradise) so y'all can bet that there's gonna be a tough examination to choose who enters and who doesn't.

2. Scientifically speaking, you can't prove or disprove God's existence. Hence it all boils down to faith.

A message to the faithless:
https://quran.com/109/6
"... For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."

 

[miandadrules]

Lots of sweeping dismissive statements but tellingly no one has brought up any concrete refutation of Dawkins’ work.

That should tell you all you need to know.

 

[ManFan]

So you can’t provide any supporting evidence?

That’s certainly all there is to it.

Read Bernard Lewis on slavery during the Caliphate.

 

[ManFan]

Lots of sweeping dismissive statements but tellingly no one has brought up any concrete refutation of Dawkins’ work.

That should tell you all you need to know.

There’s been books, NY Time articles, forums that have challenged some of his arguments. For starters, read God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins.

 

[miandadrules]

Read Bernard Lewis on slavery during the Caliphate.

Once again, there is no need for mental gymnastics.

Simply provide evidence of Islam outlawing this vile practice.

Shouldn’t be difficult.

 

[miandadrules]

There’s been books, NY Time articles, forums that have challenged some of his arguments. For starters, read God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins.

Unfortunately for you, I’ve read a fair amount on these “refutations”.

So why don’t you present the salient points for all to see.

 

[ManFan]

Unfortunately for you, I’ve read a fair amount on these “refutations”.

So why don’t you present the salient points for all to see.

I simply gave sources that have refuted his work. I did not say they successfully or unsuccessfully refute his points. I do not have any interest if they do or don’t.

 

[ManFan]

Once again, there is no need for mental gymnastics.

Simply provide evidence of Islam outlawing this vile practice.

Shouldn’t be difficult.

It never banished slavery. It reduced it and allowed slaves to be freed on a greater scale than before and even gave them government jobs on merit.

 

[miandadrules]

I simply gave sources that have refuted his work. I did not say they successfully or unsuccessfully refute his points. I do not have any interest if they do or don’t.

So what was the point of your post?

 

[miandadrules]

It never banished slavery. It reduced it and allowed slaves to be freed on a greater scale than before and even gave them government jobs on merit.

That’s a categorical NO then?

The fact that you are trying to rationalise such a vile practice speaks volumes.

And you have done it unashamedly.

 

[ManFan]

That’s a categorical NO then?

The fact that you are trying to rationalise such a vile practice speaks volumes.

And you have done it unashamedly.

Yes because criticizing a regime who 1400 years ago made reforms to slavery that were much better is considered "shameful". Get off your high horse and go work in the U.N if you believe in human rights so much. What would a slave rather have in 7th century Arabia?

 

[ManFan]

So what was the point of your post?

To show that there have been refutations for "The God Delusion". It's not a miracle book. It's been critiqued by Dawkin's fellow scientific atheists.

 

[miandadrules]

Yes because criticizing a regime who 1400 years ago made reforms to slavery that were much better is considered "shameful". Get off your high horse and go work in the U.N if you believe in human rights so much. What would a slave rather have in 7th century Arabia?

I work for Amnesty actually.

And I believe in fighting for human rights to my core. The fact that you feel one has to be on a high horse is to do so sums up your belief system.

What would a slave rather have? FREEDOM.

Conveniently, now it’s a 1400 year old regime and not an eternal message for all man kind.

Pathetic.

 

[miandadrules]

To show that there have been refutations for "The God Delusion". It's not a miracle book. It's been critiqued by Dawkin's fellow scientific atheists.

Who said it’s a miracle book? This isn’t like some holy text which must be defended at all costs. If you can refute it, you shall be lauded not persecuted.


I specifically said no one on here has made any valid refutations despite dismissing it.

 

[ManFan]

Who said it’s a miracle book? This isn’t like some holy text which must be defended at all costs. If you can refute it, you shall be lauded not persecuted.


I specifically said no one on here has made any valid refutations despite dismissing it.

Try David Sloan Wilson.

 

[ManFan]

I work for Amnesty actually.

And I believe in fighting for human rights to my core. The fact that you feel one has to be on a high horse is to do so sums up your belief system.

What would a slave rather have? FREEDOM.

Conveniently, now it’s a 1400 year old regime and not an eternal message for all man kind.

Pathetic.

I love how you take the directive from me to my “belief system”. Instead of recognizing the historical context and what it did, you judge it based on 21st century outlooks. Slaves in 7th century Arabia were freed by their owners who wanted to rid themselves of sin. Granted not all of them but they were not hunted down like dogs, which was the way of the world until the mid-to-late 19th century.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

To sum up the debate so far: Dawkins contends that God is a delusion. Opponents contend that he is not. Both arguments have their proponents, read up on them for a more informed opinion. Also check out stuff about slavery and why it wasn't banned in the Quran.

 

[yasir]

I love how you take the directive from me to my “belief system”. Instead of recognizing the historical context and what it did, you judge it based on 21st century outlooks. Slaves in 7th century Arabia were freed by their owners who wanted to rid themselves of sin. Granted not all of them but they were not hunted down like dogs, which was the way of the world until the mid-to-late 19th century.

Are you admitting that Quran and Prophet's life should be taken in context of 7th Century Trible Arab Culture, it is not applicable to modern world? - Its not an eternal message, just like every lesson from history, should be read in historical context only?

 

[JaDed]

Have to admit based on this forum, the Pakistani atheists have much more clarity in their thought process than the other ones of SC.

 

[Mracer]

According to this guy not eating human flesh is an irrational taboo that needs to be overcome. I wonder if he'll donate himself for a bite ?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Tissue culture “clean meat” already in 2018? I’ve long been looking forward to this.<a href="https://t.co/p41NR3NEZn">https://t.co/p41NR3NEZn</a><br>What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism? An interesting test case for consequentialist morality versus “yuck reaction” absolutism.</p>— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) <a href="https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/969939225180364805?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 3, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Napa]

4. Wars,humans kill each other mainly for greed.

If you believe that Islam can stop/reduce wars, can you provide an example of one Islamic country in the past 1,300 years of Islam that has not been at war (internally or externally) for even a short period of time (say ten years)?

 

[ManFan]

Are you admitting that Quran and Prophet's life should be taken in context of 7th Century Trible Arab Culture, it is not applicable to modern world? - Its not an eternal message, just like every lesson from history, should be read in historical context only?

Aisha R.A. stated that if the Prophet outlawed alcohol from the beginning than they would have never converted in the first place. It was towards the end of his life that alcohol was completely abolished. Same as slavery, which underwent radical transformation during the Prophet's reign. In fact, in just 23 years, he single-handingly changed millennia of Arab tradition. No other revolution in human history has done the same in such a short span. As for whether it is an eternal message or historical context, that is up to you to decide. The purpose of that post was to show how the slave reforms were radical, same as the women's rights reforms. Slavery has been disbanded in all of the modernized world today yet even reducing it came into question a few centuries ago, in 1803, after a successful slave revolt in Haiti.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Have to admit based on this forum, the Pakistani atheists have much more clarity in their thought process than the other ones of SC.

Thank you for agreeing with the same assertion I made a couple of days back, I think the reason for that is because Abrahamic faiths have more clarity about the notion/delusion of God, whereas other religions of SC embrace faith and atheism and basically everything as their own. So you as a Hindu can claim to be a faithful Hindu and an atheist at the same time. Pakistani atheists aren't given that option, and thus they are forced to be much less wishy washy about their atheism, and thus the clarity of their arguments.