2000 years of LOATHING women ? Mr Dawkins.. you truly need therapy.

I think that's called 'transference'... projecting ones own attitudes onto another group in order to bring them down.

I see no loathing of women in Christian circles whatsoever. In fact.. by and large men love women. and vice versa. We love.. to be loved.
Even the Muslims don't 'loathe' women, they just use them as sex toys. Well sorry..lets be fair here, they only use the captive slave girls as sex toys:

[Surah 23:6 Only with their spouses, or those who are rightfully theirs, do they have sexual relations; they are not to be blamed.]

'rightfully' theirs ? hardly. Only after the Islamic caliph has 'allocated' them like a herd of sheep to the soldiers who slaughtered their families. So, I very much BLAME them and for serial rape!

But even as horrific and inhuman as this is, it isn't loathing, its enjoying, but in the same moment reducing a human being to the level of a thing, a possession.

Islamic renaissance will come, when high profile Muslims publically reject the above surah and a few others with it. Only then will they be free. The trouble is, they will no longer be 'Muslims' because Islam is about Allah having 'sent down' his express will for all time.
Even though he seems to change his mind in a way which seems to follow Mohammads own personal situation and desires, it matters not because they just say "Hey..I give you a BETTER verse" implying he could not think of the best one in the beginning.

I see a lot of loathing, but its towards those who disagree with them, -for some reason, they interpret disageement as hate. Sad.

Horus, The respect I’m talking about is the respect we owe each other here on this site. My intention was not to open up a fresh critique of all the bad things power structures do, but to start on a solution here and now.

Anti-green, No-one has suggested that they have “fairies at the bottom of their garden”, so why don’t we put the red herrings aside? Nor has anyone tried to describe God’s appearance – another red herring.

Further, while you are busy laughing, you are not saying anything. What is your point?

You betray Richard Dawkins when you say “an empirical and pragmatic approach to life works for me”. I don’t mind you betraying him – I think it’s in your interests to leave him behind – but is this what you intend? Theists everywhere will claim pragmatism on their side, by saying God and believing in God works for them.

As for empiricism, all you are saying is that it works for you. Okay, but how is it a reason to laugh at theists?

Are you recommending empiricism? Are you, like Dawkins, insisting on it? If so, why? I see no reason to be an empiricist rather than a Christian.

Pax,

Just as Moses was writing the Jewish laws in the language of his time, and Jesus expressing his views for his time and Sudharta for his, Mahomet was putting forward views in the currency of his society. All religions are subject to interpretation.

The fact is that in medieval times Islam was way ahead of Christianity. Now things have changed, but so will the interpretations, and much of Islam has moved forward once again. We don't have to like the extremists of any faith and should control them when they become dangerous.A problem occurs when religions are misinterpreted by others who seek out the bad to reinforce their faith, that leads to resentment. I prefer to attempt to understand the good in other faiths, and the bad in certain groups, but not to confuse the two.

It is not necessary to decry Islam in order to put a stop to criminal behaviour by some.

If you actually bothered to read what was written, Boaz, you would have noticed that Dawkins was quoting Gore Vidal.

>>2000 years of LOATHING women ? Mr Dawkins.. you truly need therapy<<

Unless you are aware of the context of the quote - editorially positive, negative, or simply neutral reporting - your jibe at Dawkins was uninformed and gratuitously insulting.

Let me pick one of your quotes from this thread out of context, and show you what I mean. Perhaps one of your famously biased quotes from the Qur'an, or perhaps "if your right hand sins, cut it off"

I could then write:

"Amputation as a punishment for sin? Mr Boaz, you truly need therapy"

On another thread we have been discussing your failures of logic, observation and fact. Well, here's another prime example, if one were needed.

Logic? None. Vidal (not Dawkins) is referring, in a fairly robust manner, to the fact that the church has been excluding women from its hierarchy for 2000 years. He calls it loathing, I would call it fear, but either way he has stated a view.

Observation? None. You didn't even know who was talking.

Fact? None. Pure emotion on both sides.

I know you enjoy insulting people Boaz, but it is important to find the right target.

Because I have been accused of taking cheaps at monotheism I think that I should articulate a coherent and postive argument. Admittedly this is difficult in 350 words but I'll give it a go.

Let it be clear that the claims of the Torah, Bible and Koran are EXTRAORDINARY. They are not mere trifles yet Jews, Christians and Muslims rattle them off without batting an eyelid. Apparently Moses literally parted the Red Sea, the corpse of Jesus literally rose to life on the third day, and a literal angel regularly visited Mohammed.

Therefore, because these events are so EXTRAORDINARY and UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE according to every single concept of science and rationality the evidence needs to be just as EXTRAORDINARY and OUTSTANDING.

Yet, what we have are vague written claims set in a vague historical context. The true origins of the Old Testment are shrouded in mystery, the Gospel authors are unknowns, a fifth of the Koran is completely unintelligible and is founded on Hadith literature that is a historical joke. Even Ibn Ishaq's work is written 120 years after the fact and is second hand because the original has never been found.

Don't take my word for it. Ever since Albert Schweitzer a whole host of scholars have pulled about the New Testament and revealed its inconsistencies. The work of Goldziher and Schacht have demolished the supposed reliabilty of the Hadith and modern scholars like Cook, Crone, Wanborough, and Hawting have hightlighted the inherent and endemic problems of early Islamic histriography. Like the New Testament the true origins of the Koran is all smoke, mirrors and myth.

Put simply, the history foundation of the montheistic texts is grossly inadequate and does not provide a reasonable basis for believing the extraordinary claims of those texts. And making up the deficit with "faith" is a complete intellectual cop-out and completely unnecessary. One does not have to believe in the Bible or the Koran to believe in God, which after all, is a deep philosophical matter - not a matter for dodgy ancient history books with a theological bent

You're right George. It's easy to make typos. There's a couple at least in my last post.

Anyway and finally - I feel that any Islamic Renaissance must inevitably involve the fact that the Koran/hadith should not, and cannot, be taken literally. There is no intellectual excuse for it.