Richard Dawkins Says 'Religions Are NOT Equally Violent' After Charlie Hebdo Attack

So, what's the solution? Bombing them doesn't seem to have stopped them.
It seems the solution is to admit multiculturalism doesn't work, and be very discriminating about who we allow in. Also, Dawkins is correct about religions differing in violence, however, he's right for the wrong reasons. Which are? LoisThe capacity for violence is in the population who subscribes to that religion, not the religion itself. I'm sure Dawkins (as a biologist) is aware of this, but he has to play the PC game in order to keep himself in business. What business do you suppose he's in? He would be a successful writer and speaker no matter what he says or writes. LoisNo way. Dawkins' audience is obviously secular humanists/atheists, and these are mostly leftist, progressive people. They aren't going to be supportive of views which they think are racist. Even if these views are based on fact. We'll see. Lois
But I don't get how my statement, above, only fits with my gut feelings and represents "a terrible atheist emotion" that denies science.
Because I know you are stating opinions that simply are not true based on actual field research about the causes of Islamic terrorism.
Looking at something logically, does not always require a series of rigorously designed double blind studies. The question that GdB seems to be saying requires scientific analysis, is "Does Islamic doctrine play a role in the predominance of murderous acts in the world, where the murderers are shouting "Allahu Akbar!" while they are murdering?"
If they had been members of Baader Meinhof they might have yelled 'Long live the proletariat!'. But not everybody who has left wing political ideas is a terrorist, and you won't blame people who defend that we should strive for a fairer world are the root cause of their terrorism (even if some people in Baader Meinhof-days thought so). So why do you think Islam is the root cause of Muslim terrorism? It is at most one small stone in the explanation of their behaviour. See my 'gift' for you here]. (And Thevillageatheist's reaction on it.) 1st of all, I never used the words " Islam is the root cause of Muslim terrorism". My claim is that Islamic doctrine is the worst among modern day religions, in being so easily interpreted in ways that provide inspiration, justification, and support for, not only violent murderous actions, but also for other anti-humanistic acts.
But I don't get how my statement, above, only fits with my gut feelings and represents "a terrible atheist emotion" that denies science.
Because I know you are stating opinions that simply are not true based on actual field research about the causes of Islamic terrorism.
Looking at something logically, does not always require a series of rigorously designed double blind studies. The question that GdB seems to be saying requires scientific analysis, is "Does Islamic doctrine play a role in the predominance of murderous acts in the world, where the murderers are shouting "Allahu Akbar!" while they are murdering?"
If they had been members of Baader Meinhof they might have yelled 'Long live the proletariat!'. But not everybody who has left wing political ideas is a terrorist, and you won't blame people who defend that we should strive for a fairer world are the root cause of their terrorism (even if some people in Baader Meinhof-days thought so). So why do you think Islam is the root cause of Muslim terrorism? It is at most one small stone in the explanation of their behaviour. See my 'gift' for you here]. (And Thevillageatheist's reaction on it.) 1st of all, I never used the words " Islam is the root cause of Muslim terrorism". My claim is that Islamic doctrine is the worst among modern day religions, in being so easily interpreted in ways that provide inspiration, justification, and support for, not only violent murderous actions, but also for other anti-humanistic acts. Practically speaking, what's the difference? Lois
1st of all, I never used the words " Islam is the root cause of Muslim terrorism". My claim is that Islamic doctrine is the worst among modern day religions, in being so easily interpreted in ways that provide inspiration, justification, and support for, not only violent murderous actions, but also for other anti-humanistic acts.
Practically speaking, what's the difference? Lois As GdB has been emphasizing (although I think over-emphasizing, as to virtually exclude the impact of the ideology, itself): Ideology, by itself, is not, apparently, sufficient to motivate cold-blooded murderous terroristic actions. GdB's argument is centered on terroristic actions. Unfortunately, when considering the adverse effects of certain interpretations of Islamic doctrine, terroristic actions are not the only problem areas, if one is concerned about humanistic ideals.
1st of all, I never used the words " Islam is the root cause of Muslim terrorism". My claim is that Islamic doctrine is the worst among modern day religions, in being so easily interpreted in ways that provide inspiration, justification, and support for, not only violent murderous actions, but also for other anti-humanistic acts.
Practically speaking, what's the difference? Lois As GdB has been emphasizing (although I think over-emphasizing, as to virtually exclude the impact of the ideology, itself): Ideology, by itself, is not, apparently, sufficient to motivate cold-blooded murderous terroristic actions. GdB's argument is centered on terroristic actions. Unfortunately, when considering the adverse effects of certain interpretations of Islamic doctrine, terroristic actions are not the only problem areas, if one is concerned about humanistic ideals. When a terroristic act is claimed by the perpetrators to have been inspired by something that "insults" Islam, what are those other problem areas? Lois
1st of all, I never used the words " Islam is the root cause of Muslim terrorism". My claim is that Islamic doctrine is the worst among modern day religions, in being so easily interpreted in ways that provide inspiration, justification, and support for, not only violent murderous actions, but also for other anti-humanistic acts.
Practically speaking, what's the difference? Lois As GdB has been emphasizing (although I think over-emphasizing, as to virtually exclude the impact of the ideology, itself): Ideology, by itself, is not, apparently, sufficient to motivate cold-blooded murderous terroristic actions. GdB's argument is centered on terroristic actions. Unfortunately, when considering the adverse effects of certain interpretations of Islamic doctrine, terroristic actions are not the only problem areas, if one is concerned about humanistic ideals. When a terroristic act is claimed by the perpetrators to have been inspired by something that "insults" Islam, what are those other problem areas? Lois You misunderstand. What I am saying above, is that terroristic acts are not the only problems for humans, that I think are often easily inspired, justified, implemented under the auspices of Islamic doctrine. e.g., The role of women being overly regulated (I say euphemistically) under an Islamic belief system, is not a terroristic action, but it sometimes reaches the level of being abusive of basic human rights/liberties. Putting someone to death under an Islamic court system, for deciding to no longer be a Muslim, is not a terroristic act. But it is a problem for humanity, IMO. Putting someone to death (and less extreme but still destructive discriminatory acts) for homosexual behavior is a problem, I think. I don't particularly like the practice of cutting off the hand of a convicted thief, but this also, is not a terroristic act. Genital mutilation of girls (although not initiated by Islamic ideology and not advocated, and is even repudiated, these days by most Islamic scholars) is not a terroristic act, but for some believers in some interpretations of Islam, there are some Muslims who, I think, may feel that they have a religious justification for doing it. These are all problems (and I could come up with others) that are not terroristic acts. But they can and do occur, each to a greater or lesser degree, at times, with some interpretation of Islamic doctrine supporting it in some way. Can these things occur without Islamic doctrine being an influence? Of course. Would these things be occurring less, in the world, if there was no belief in Islamic doctrines? I think so.
1st of all, I never used the words " Islam is the root cause of Muslim terrorism". My claim is that Islamic doctrine is the worst among modern day religions, in being so easily interpreted in ways that provide inspiration, justification, and support for, not only violent murderous actions, but also for other anti-humanistic acts.
Practically speaking, what's the difference? Lois As GdB has been emphasizing (although I think over-emphasizing, as to virtually exclude the impact of the ideology, itself): Ideology, by itself, is not, apparently, sufficient to motivate cold-blooded murderous terroristic actions. GdB's argument is centered on terroristic actions. Unfortunately, when considering the adverse effects of certain interpretations of Islamic doctrine, terroristic actions are not the only problem areas, if one is concerned about humanistic ideals. When a terroristic act is claimed by the perpetrators to have been inspired by something that "insults" Islam, what are those other problem areas? Lois You misunderstand. What I am saying above, is that terroristic acts are not the only problems for humans, that I think are often easily inspired, justified, implemented under the auspices of Islamic doctrine. e.g., The role of women being overly regulated (I say euphemistically) under an Islamic belief system, is not a terroristic action, but it sometimes reaches the level of being abusive of basic human rights/liberties. Putting someone to death under an Islamic court system, for deciding to no longer be a Muslim, is not a terroristic act. But it is a problem for humanity, IMO. Putting someone to death (and less extreme but still destructive discriminatory acts) for homosexual behavior is a problem, I think. I don't particularly like the practice of cutting off the hand of a convicted thief, but this also, is not a terroristic act. Genital mutilation of girls (although not initiated by Islamic ideology and not advocated, and is even repudiated, these days by most Islamic scholars) is not a terroristic act, but for some believers in some interpretations of Islam, there are some Muslims who, I think, may feel that they have a religious justification for doing it. These are all problems (and I could come up with others) that are not terroristic acts. But they can and do occur, each to a greater or lesser degree, at times, with some interpretation of Islamic doctrine supporting it in some way. Can these things occur without Islamic doctrine being an influence? Of course. Would these things be occurring less, in the world, if there was no belief in Islamic doctrines? I think so. It all depends on how you define terrorism. A governmemt terrorizing its own people can and should be seen as engaging in terrorism, IMO. At the very least it's inhumane and immoral. Lois

The problem is not with any particular religion, but with what we call today “fundamentalists” who only believe in "my way or the highway. All religions have these, as well as us non-believers do.

The problem is not with any particular religion, but with what we call today "fundamentalists" who only believe in "my way or the highway. All religions have these, as well as us non-believers do.
I disagree, Gary, with the implication that since all religions and many ideologies have aspects of this sort, that they are all equally problematic. That implication seems patently untrue, to me.