This is a very interesting dichotomy proposed by our friend Professor Dawkins and brings to mind the whole, lesser of two evils argument. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
This post is from the discussion section of the Richard Dawkins Foundations for Reason and Science's discussion section. The link to the site is here.
Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil, and looking at the map supplied by this Christian site, should we be supporting Christian missions in Africa? My answer is still no, but I thought it was worth raising the question. Given that atheism hasn't any chance in Africa for the foreseeable future, could our enemy's enemy be our friend?
Religions are all oppressive and immoral/anti-humanistic. I wouldn't favor one over another. There are fanatical Christians, as well as fanatical Moslems. Not all Moslems are "evil." That's bias at play. Shame on Dawkins!
I would say it's a bit more complicated than that - there are many tolerant, humanist religious people and organisations who can do a real and palpable good in the world, religious or not. Religious texts are certainly all of the above, but it's amazing the mental gymnastics people will do to make their religion fit into their own personal (and often admirable) moralities. I think that moslems have a particularly undeserved reputation as extremists, especially when there are fanatical christians killing doctors who practice abortion.
I think Dawkins is attempting to make the compromise between idealism and pragmatism, but the incredible oversight towards moderate moslems baffles me.
"Not all Moslems are "evil." That's bias at play. Shame on Dawkins!"
Show me where Dawkins said "all muslims are evil"?
Did you even read the article?
If you had, you would see that Dawkins is not saying we should support Christianity. In fact he says we shouldn't. He is simply throwing out a thought dilemma of the lesser of two evils, in order to get a debate started, that's all.
"Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil" - I see your point. There is a great difference between religious doctrine and how people practice it. What interested me was this comment - "Christianity on the otherhand, already has many more tolerant and modern branches" by jon_the_d (on the link) - it makes the mistake that thinking how mostly rural, uneducated, and relatively poor people in Africa believe in the same manner as better educated, more cosmopolitan and tolerant christians in the west. At this level of society I think it's less a question of religious doctrine and more a question of how rural communities believe in anything, from ancestors to allah to yahweh. Regardless of faith the same cruelties and injustices will be invented, and I can't say there really is a lesser evil
"Show me where Dawkins said "all muslims are evil"?
Did you even read the article?"
Do you think the above is seriously hostile and nasty? Wow.
Since when does asking honest questions equate to "hostility"?
Being blunt and honest is my style. I apologise if you took it up as nastiness, that was not the intention.
The very basis of religion is mysticism which creates false realities; makes people feel guilty where guilt is absent but useful to the religionists; where the mysticism-plagued mind waits for external guidance from external authorities. These authorities that include governments and religious movements are fully aware of this. They consequently assume an external and immoral ‘authority’ over us. Indeed they continue to generate and justify the use of force such as the Inquisition, excommunication and religious wars and terror, and through fraudulent means by making false claims such as miracles, divine sightings and –intervention. Or through plain dishonesty they communicate information and interpret incidents such as burning bushes and ‘smoking guns’ to suit particular agendas. Thus those in authority manufacture so-called ‘realities’; create false standards and strengthen your feelings of guilt in order to control and manipulate you. In the political arena, leaders mislead their citizens with misinformation; they create fear through imagined threats to people’s safety and in its extreme form, these master mystics enforce their corrupt goals through force and violence often couched in internationally accepted terms and legislation which they justify as being for ‘the common good’.
Unfortunately we were taught as youngsters not to question the Bible or our leaders. This creates a natural barrier to intelligent enquiry which was always countered by the decree that you must have faith and trust in your leaders religious or in the political arena.
That is why Dawkins' is wrong. The capacity to think is our legacy and indeed our responsibility; to deny that is to deny our morality.
Eh... Sorry. You have picked a single christian nation and decided to apply it to all muslims? The scale seems a bit out of whack :) I think Germany's behaviour in WWII was also a far more complex issue than religious fervor. That was just justification - the drive was german national pride, and complexes of superiority.