Well, well, well. So it seems the world's most famous militant atheist is finally recognizing some positive aspects of Christianity after all. Dawkins says, unlike Islam, Christianity is a fundamentally decent religion, and further, that for e.g. in Africa (where there are now roughly 720 MN Christians, up from about 10 MN a century ago), where there are both Christian Missionaries and Islamic groups, he is on Team Christian etc. Thoughts on this? Why did a militant atheist fairly critical of Christianity earlier on now slightly modify his position to recognize Christianity clearly has many advantages to the West etc over Islam?
From: https://www.newarab.com/news/richard-dawkins-says-islam-not-decent-religion
"In so far as Christianity can be seen as a bulwark against Islam, I think it's a very good thing," Dawkins said.
He added that in Africa, where there are both Christian and Muslim missionaries, he is "on team Christian side".
Who cares? I also plainly advertise that I'm an ordained minister right above my forum avatar. One of my favorite paleontologists moonlights as a Baptist preacher.
I'm on team science. I could give a damn what you believe beyond that.
Critics are raving!
"They're not as bad as the Muslims, I guess."
"They won't murder you for painting their main prophet. Probably."
"If their kid turns out to be gay, they'll kick them out of the house instead of stoning them to death."
Pedophilia.
Congratulation on being the lesser of two evils
...sometimes.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 25, 2024, 11:21:58 PMCritics are raving!
"They're not as bad as the Muslims, I guess."
"They won't murder you for painting their main prophet. Probably."
"If their kid turns out to be gay, they'll kick them out of the house instead of stoning them to death."
Yeah, this argument isn't as stellar as OP presents.
(https://i.imgflip.com/3pg654.jpg)
My view is that Islam upgraded civilization over what came before it. As an example, while Muslims are allowed to marry 4 wives, there was no limit on the number of wives one could marry prior to that, so in the cultural context of its day and age, it was an improvement in regard to women's rights.
As far as Muhammed taking a 9-year old wife, my understanding is that there was no formal age of consent in that day and age, and taking wives who would be underage today was a standard practice of the day and age (though one could point out that doing so would make claiming to be a "man of God" skeptical). So while people can raise objections, if the objections are solely pointed at Islam or Muhammed and ignore the fact that such behaviors existed in ancient cultures in general (such as how child brides existed in the Old Testament in general, regardless of the specific Abrahamic faith), I would be questionable of one's motives.