It's odd that for atheists vocally expressing criticism of religion is equatable to "forcing beliefs" upon everyone. That is literally all Dawkins has ever done.
No: One type of murderers (Islamists) clearly state their motive - the leftists still deny that that is the motive. The other type of murderer (this guy) hasn't stated any motive yet - the leftists quickly assume that he must be "Islamophobe" or racist. I am saying it is unclear what this guy's motive is. That's not the opposite. I am just also pointing out the hypocrisy of the leftists.
Agreed. What I hate about Dawkins is that he is brilliant in some areas, but the smug attitude and the obvious enjoyment of rallying a crowd to him indicates how ****ing insecure he really is. In some of those circus debates he participates, I think he's smart enough to understand the theologian's points about humanistic paradoxes (or maybe he's deluded himself into being blind to it), but he retreats by dismissing it outright with sarcasm and banks on his partisans' lack of sophistication to "win" the debate. It's an incredible disservice and defeats the purpose of those debates. Because there are some points from the atheists side that are wounding, like how religion justifies some unspeakable acts of horror, but relying on that to dismiss any merit of religion is dismissing a component of human behavior that science really can't quantify or answer.
Dawkins has repeatedly agreed that there is some merit in religion but he would usually follow it up with none of the merits of religion are unique and exclusive to religion which is true. And what about the more egregious statement in this tweet: "who wants to force his beliefs on everyone"? Why are you not commenting on that? When is being outspoken considered "forcing beliefs"? It seems like there is a double standard with atheists. I have repeatedly heard the term "militant-atheist" used to describe someone who just blogs on youtube or is just plain vocal about his or her beliefs. Yet in order for a Christian or Muslim to be labeled "militant" they literally have to be militant. Can you explain this phenomenon?
In the God Delusion, Dawkins acknowledges how there are good Believers who have done no harm, but he considers that more reason to dismiss religion outright because that is the gateway for the more harmful aspects, such as cultural/familial acceptance of religious killings. His entire framing comes from Abrahamic religion and culture, and he feels the heart of the problem is that culture which is holding society back. He even encourages outright ridicule against believers for the greater good of them or others around them to see how stupid they are. So he's taking a stand against religion, but because he's so outspoken about it, it is equivalent to forcing his beliefs. It's semantic wrangling. There are active vocal atheists who I assume are what you call "militant-atheists". For the "militant" aspect, maybe it's a word coined by the insecure Christian variety who feel like they've been persecuted despite not realizing or recognizing their undisputed privilege and status? Me, I think atheism is just a philosophical realization. Those who are fervently evangelizing it reminds me of a different side of the same American Evangelical variety of religion: "Do what the authority has provided onto you rather than understanding the spirit or thinking for yourself."
Something happenin' here, what it is ain't exactly clear. HFD: Accelerant used in SE Houston Islamic community fire HOUSTON (KTRK) -- Fire officials now say an accelerant was used in a fire that broke out at an Islamic community and education center in southeast Houston early Friday morning, and now a group is calling for an investigation into whether the fire was the result of a possible hate crime.
This should probably be the OP since "hate crime" is in the title and this one seems a lot more cut and dry. Good eye finding a better example.
I said "a lot more" right before "cut and dry" and that modifies the meaning. It's a lot more likely that arson against a religious building is "hate" related than just pointing out that 2 of the 3 victims in a triple murder were wearing clothing indicating they were of a certain religion.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>JUST IN: President Obama statement on the murders of 3 young Muslims in Chapel Hill, North Carolina <a href="http://t.co/wSfmfjWQQc">pic.twitter.com/wSfmfjWQQc</a></p>— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/566316909424304128">February 13, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
There has been a pattern in Britain of staging these kinds of fires to pretend there were hate crimes, for political gain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/30/national/30arson.html Hate-Crime Accuser Charged With Arson McALLEN, Tex., Sept. 29 - The owner of a Middle Eastern meat market who had said he was the victim of a hate crime in this border town was arrested and arraigned Tuesday on a felony arson charge that he set fire to his own business. The man, Amjad Abunar, had complained that "Go Home" was twice spray-painted on a door of his Al Madinah Market before a fire on Aug. 6 that gutted the small delicatessen. Only last week, the graffiti and fire were cited as evidence by a Washington advocacy group that hate crimes against Muslims were on the rise in Texas. Bond for Mr. Abunar was set at $150,000, and he remained in jail on Wednesday. Representatives of the advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which had complained that McAllen officials were not investigating the fire as a possible hate crime, said they were stunned Wednesday to learn of Mr. Abunar's arrest. Ibrahim Hooper, a council official in Washington, said Mr. Abunar had assured him he had nothing to do with setting the fire. A spokesman for the McAllen Fire Department, Lt. Rene Alaniz, said initial reports mentioned no evidence of graffiti or a hate crime. "That has not changed," he added Wednesday.
