Dear atheists, we ex muslims are waiting for you

[FrankDK]

It was George W. Bush who said, "Islam is peace."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ZoroJdVnA

He's neither an atheist nor a liberal.  Well, he may be an atheist, but he claims to be a Christian.

Frank

[VladK]

Your experience could be different from mine.  It's possible that some atheists are inclined to give Islam a pass, but the most vocal don't.  Look at Bill Maher's take on Islam, or Christopher Hitchens', or Richard Dawkins.

Now that you mention it, I do recall an article written by a liberal (don't know if atheist or not) that condemned Dawkins for "flirting with Islamophobia" whatever that means.

Yes, I'm aware Bush said that, the right isn't completely immune from this foolishness either. However I've also seen that a lot of critics of Islam (whether they are accurate or not) tend to come from right-wing circles. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the pattern I have seen so far.

[frosty]

This partisan talk when it comes to criticizing dangerous mythological beliefs is saddening. Like I've said before, and I'll say again, EVERY religion can and must be criticized and if anyone has a problem with that then they can just go fuck off somewhere else.

And yes, I am also qualified to, from time to time, criticize and maybe even bash the followers of certain religions for the actions they commit. You don't give your child proper cancer treatment and rely on "faith"? I'm going to get angry and call you a shitface. You blow yourself up on a train full of people in the name of Islam? Yep, I'm going to call you a piece of shit and get angry too. You don't like it, click whatever 'exit' button your browser uses.

I've seen it said here that we should not criticize the followers of a religion, but the religion itself. That would only be true if religion was not a human creation and therefore animated by it's followers, and henceforth the followers of religion are the ones who feel inclined to act as foot soldiers for their designated beliefs. Why should we give people a free pass and not criticize them? They should be able to think for themselves, no?

[Atheon]

I haven't seen a single instance of liberals defending the violence and oppression committed by Islamic fundamentalists.

The main objections I've seen among liberals are aimed at Islamophobia: the portrayal of all Muslims as an evil, dehumanized "other", and the spread of misinformation that often accompanies such bigotry. I, for one, have met, interacted with and befriended many non-violent, decent, peaceful Muslims, and I do not deserve to be tarred with the "all Muslims are evil" brush.

I have also seen liberals mention that they understand the concept of "blowback": if A hits B, then expect B to hit A. It's not surprising that, say, a group of Palestinians might strike back at Israel in response to the violence and oppression that Israel has directed toward the Palestinians. This is in no way a defense of such violence: liberals condemn the violence on both sides, but we recognize that violence breeds violence, and the way to stop it is to break the cycle of attack and counterattack.

[VladK]

I haven't seen a single instance of liberals defending the violence and oppression committed by Islamic fundamentalists.

The main objections I've seen among liberals are aimed at Islamophobia: the portrayal of all Muslims as an evil, dehumanized "other", and the spread of misinformation that often accompanies such bigotry. I, for one, have met, interacted with and befriended many non-violent, decent, peaceful Muslims, and I do not deserve to be tarred with the "all Muslims are evil" brush.

The problem is that while not all Muslims are violent or want to subjugate others, the Islamic doctrine is violent and calls for the subjugation of others in various ways. It's also true that you don't need to say that "all Muslims are X" to be accused of "Islamophobia", you don't need need to say that percentage A of Muslims are violent/supremacist. There's a much broader definition that includes things like:

1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2. It is seen as separate and "other." It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
3. It is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
4. It is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a clash of civilizations.
5. It is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
6. Criticisms made of "the West" by Muslims are rejected out of hand.
7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.

1-5 say absolutely nothing about Muslims, just Islam. (This list is from Runnymede Trust, which by the way is left-wing.)

Number 1 is meaningless. Of course it's not a monolith, neither was communism a monolith for that matter but we can criticize it. It is a deceptive point designed to create the illusion that Islam is basically anything people want it to be regardless of what the theology says so it's irrational to fear it: it can be both a religion of peace and war, it can be both pro and anti-democracy, it can be both sexist and pro-gender equality, it can be both progressive and regressive, and that's just a load of nonsense designed to shield it from criticism.

I have also seen liberals mention that they understand the concept of "blowback": if A hits B, then expect B to hit A. It's not surprising that, say, a group of Palestinians might strike back at Israel in response to the violence and oppression that Israel has directed toward the Palestinians. This is in no way a defense of such violence: liberals condemn the violence on both sides, but we recognize that violence breeds violence, and the way to stop it is to break the cycle of attack and counterattack.

It's easy to say that, unfortunately you're going to have a very very hard time convincing the Palestinian leaders to make any genuine compromise. You're underestimating the deep ideological barrier to peace.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Hamas- ... ada-327202

A new intifada should erupt against the Zionist enemy and we believe that our people have the will and ability to liberate Palestine from the river to the sea,

Palestinian leaders also routinely claim that a Palestinian state would just be a stepping stone to the "complete liberation of Palestine". So even if Israel left them alone, they still wouldn't be happy until its complete abolition. Its very existence is regarded as an act of aggression.

This view by the way isn't limited to Palestinian Muslims. You will find devout Muslims all over the world who hate Israel and the reason is that it was once territory under Islamic rule. Don't underestimate the solidarity of the "Ummah". Bin Laden and Anjem Choudary are both non-Palestinian for example yet they supported attacks on the US (in part) due to its support for Israel which the think should be abolished. Iranian leaders aren't even Sunni, Iran has never been under Israeli occupation, yet they support the abolition of Israel. All of Israel's Muslim neighbors declared war on Israel the moment it was established as a state in 1948. The more extreme a Muslim is the more likely he is to also hate Spain or the Balkans which are in a similar situation of being territories formerly under Islamic hegemony. You should check out that interview with Omar Bakri.

[Mister Agenda]

There is definitely a noticeable bias among Atheists and self proclaimed "Liberals" that seem to ignore any Islam affiliated atrocities. I have noticed this tremendously over the years. I am always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt but I have seen it many times over the years.

Yes, I noticed too.

I think the problem a lot of atheists have (and let's be honest, it's mostly left-wing atheists) is that they're just far too biased against religion in general to see any nuances at all, so they think that anyone who singles out Islam as the most intolerant religion (which it is) has some secret racist agenda masked as criticism of Islam.

I think it's has to be said, no, all religions are not equal. They have different doctrines with different consequences.

Christianity does not have a doctrine of perpetual warfare against all unbelievers, there is nothing like verse 9:29 that mainstream Christians consider binding. The Old Convenant seems a bit like Sharia law but it's largely irrelevant even in mainstream Judaism. Christianity does not have a comprehensive set of laws used to govern society. Islam does, hence why it's more theocratic and why Muslim majority countries struggle with secular democracy more than Christian ones (though it's not entirely impossible if you consider secular Turkey). Manuals of Islamic law from all the major schools regulate business, family life, domestic and foreign policy in enough detail to constitute a political theocratic ideology and not merely a religion. It's certainly a tougher beast to tame.

And atheists who don't understand this and insist that "GRR RELIGION BAD ATHEIST SMASH RELIGION!" will be laughed at by Christians, Muslims and even other atheists who see through the false equivalence.

I dare you to be more wrong.

[Mister Agenda]

My experience with other atheists comes from encounters on other forums or YouTube channels. I haven't kept records, but I'll try to find an example soon.

Regarding dominionists, they don't appear to be significant in number at all and seem to be even rarer outside the US. Plus I've never actually seen a society governed in that way or similar way in recent times. (Even in the Middle Ages they never completely followed everything in the Old Testament.) Sharia regimes are plenty however.

This forum is full of atheists. If your thesis is true, you should be able to find your examples here rather than have to search the internet for them.

[VladK]

You just said "I dare you to be more wrong..." so do you disagree with the statement that:

Christianity does not have a doctrine of perpetual warfare against all unbelievers, there is nothing like verse 9:29 that mainstream Christians consider binding. The Old Convenant seems a bit like Sharia law but it's largely irrelevant even in mainstream Judaism. Christianity does not have a comprehensive set of laws used to govern society. Islam does, hence why it's more theocratic and why Muslim majority countries struggle with secular democracy more than Christian ones (though it's not entirely impossible if you consider secular Turkey). Manuals of Islamic law from all the major schools regulate business, family life, domestic and foreign policy in enough detail to constitute a political theocratic ideology and not merely a religion. It's certainly a tougher beast to tame.

If so, to what extent?

This forum is full of atheists. If your thesis is true, you should be able to find your examples here rather than have to search the internet for them.

Do you believe that Christianity and Islam are roughly the same in their capacity to inspire violence, theocracy or subjugation? If your answer is yes, then you're certainly one of them.

If you need off-site examples, the Atheism+ forum is a good place to start. I'm not going to give names, but there was even one guy there (moderator in fact) who said that all Abrahamic faiths are basically the same and it's unfair to single out one. I also seem to recall BionicDance, a YouTuber, making similar points.

[frosty]

I still don't understand why there seems to be some type of mental blockage here. One loose group of Atheists are trying to tell the other loose group of Atheists that Islam should be criticized like any other religion, and Muslims should not be exempt from criticism, and the second loose group of Atheists seem to be for the most part unbend-able to that idea.

I've learned to accept over the years even if someone is an Atheist, they can still be a nuisance on the Internet. I learned to rise above the stupidity I saw from years of Internet squabbling, but now I see the same "omg don't insult Islam guyz" concept pushing through here and it's frustrating. It's frustrating, it's stagnant, it's pathetic, and for some reason there is a false equation that just because someone insults Islam they are a right winger. I am the farthest away from the right wing in my own right as I can be, and I just don't fucking understand why people defend Islam and Muslims so much.

I ain't nobody's sympathizer. I criticize ALL RELIGIONS, and if someone has a problem with me calling out Muslims and Islam then they are not true freethinkers.

[StupidWiz]

I still don't understand why there seems to be some type of mental blockage here. One loose group of Atheists are trying to tell the other loose group of Atheists that Islam should be criticized like any other religion, and Muslims should not be exempt from criticism, and the second loose group of Atheists seem to be for the most part unbend-able to that idea.

I've learned to accept over the years even if someone is an Atheist, they can still be a nuisance on the Internet. I learned to rise above the stupidity I saw from years of Internet squabbling, but now I see the same "omg don't insult Islam guyz" concept pushing through here and it's frustrating. It's frustrating, it's stagnant, it's pathetic, and for some reason there is a false equation that just because someone insults Islam they are a right winger. I am the farthest away from the right wing in my own right as I can be, and I just don't fucking understand why people defend Islam and Muslims so much.

I ain't nobody's sympathizer. I criticize ALL RELIGIONS, and if someone has a problem with me calling out Muslims and Islam then they are not true freethinkers.

Oh, trust me I know how that feels.  ](*,)

[VladK]

Here's an example of liberal being Islamophilic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-con ... 25981.html

Muhammad's beliefs on how to treat religious minorities make him a universal champion of human rights

My research has also highlighted how Muhammad had similar beliefs to that of George Washington, a key founding father of America.

Dawkins and others attacked for "Islamophobia":

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins ... amophobia/

I still can't quite tell if these people are naive useful idiots or malicious liars. In any case this faulty view of Islam being pro-human rights or being similar to American values can have immense consequences culturally, politically, especially in foreign policy, including in the "War on Terror".

I wonder what would have been the outcome of the Cold War if the US had pursued a policy based on the belief that Marxism was pro-religious freedom and shared the same values as George Washington's or that it was being "hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists" who "twist" its peaceful and moderate teachings of equality and brotherhood.

How do you fix a problem that you won't admit exists?

Oh and I love how these people insist that "Islam is not a monolith" but then go on to present it as a monolith, just in a positive light.

[FrankDK]

In this case, I would go with the idiot theory.

The Salon article attacks atheists for not believing in gods, as well as Islamophobia.  And one of the "most read" articles listed in the sidebar is titled, "A Ghost Ship Filled with Cannibal Rats may be Headed Straight towards Britain."

Yes, I'd go with "idiots."

Frank

[baronvonrort]

Here's an example of liberal being Islamophilic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-con ... 25981.html

Muhammad's beliefs on how to treat religious minorities make him a universal champion of human rights

My research has also highlighted how Muhammad had similar beliefs to that of George Washington, a key founding father of America.

Dawkins and others attacked for "Islamophobia":

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins ... amophobia/

I still can't quite tell if these people are naive useful idiots or malicious liars. In any case this faulty view of Islam being pro-human rights or being similar to American values can have immense consequences culturally, politically, especially in foreign policy, including in the "War on Terror".

How do you fix a problem that you won't admit exists?

Oh and I love how these people insist that "Islam is not a monolith" but then go on to present it as a monolith, just in a positive light.

The first article is written by a catholic who believes in fairy tales, as for that pedophile bastard unworthy human being a champion of human rights-

The messenger of allah said-
I will expel the jews and christians from the Arabian peninsula and will not leave any but muslim.
//http://www.sunnah.com/muslim/32/75

The salon article is written by a muslim is the editor in chief of aslan media, which promotes that bullshit by the muslim Reza Aslan.

As for Islamophobia, there are 13 muslim countries that execute people for atheism, are the people who defend Islam delusional?
//http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/10/us-religion-atheists-idUSBRE9B900G20131210

[VladK]

Okay, but I said the first article was by a liberal, I didn't claim to know his religion or atheism. Anyway, both Salon and Huffington Post are liberal outlets, if Salon wants to promote Muslim apologists working for pseudo-moderate bosses, that's even worse. They might as well promote Fred Phelps and Rushdoony followers.

By the way, this Reza guy seems to have become a darling media. Saw him on Majority Report too and he wasn't invited to be criticized, more liberals (don't know if atheists, don't really care).

[frosty]

The problem is though is that you will hear the same old classic responses eventually - you are racist, you are trolling, you are a bigot, you are a right winger, you are a <insert typical Internet ad-hominem attack here> - and so forth. It seems like people just don't want to confront Islam or Muslims. Perhaps out of liberal bleeding heart syndrome, perhaps out of fear, but there will ALWAYS be self-righteous people on the Internet who attack people criticizing Holy Islam and Innocent Muslims and I don't think it's ever going to change.

I guess people need to exercise their White Knight syndrome sometime.