51. Comment #25049 by Gordon Brown on March 9, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Funny, this guy rails against The God Delusion and Letter to a Christian Nation, but says nothing about The End of Faith, the one book of the three that really torches the doctrines of Islam to cinders. Is he not aware that Sam Harris has therein described Islam as (I paraphrase) "perhaps the closest thing we have to a thoroughgoing cult of death"? Has he bothered to look at The End of Faith? Has he read any of these books, for that matter?

Other Comments by Gordon Brown

52. Comment #25056 by Richard Dawkins on March 10, 2007 at 12:13 am

It is very clear that he has not read any books by Sam or by me. I suspect that he is confusing TGD with the documentary Root of All Evil. Most probably he has not seen ROAE itself, but read a review of it. 'Picks on the worst of religion' was the commonest criticism of ROAE, and it frequently went with something like 'How would you like it if people judged science by picking on the worst examples of science?' I don't think anybody said that ROAE picked out the best examples of science, because it wasn't, after all, about science. But it would be easy for this idiot to misread the 'How would you like it if . . .' line in the way that he apparently has, assume that the film did that very thing, and then muddle the film with the book.


He is an American (real name Mark Hanson) who converted to Islam and took a fake Islamic name. Sounds more impressive doesn't it, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, than Mark Hanson? Does any psychologist or sociologist know if it is a standard thing people do, if they are too inadequate to make a success of themselves in their own culture -- change your identity and re-invent yourself, to see if people take you more seriously? It is very believable that somebody as palpably stupid as this would not make a name for himself as an ordinary American called Mark Hanson. But as Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, The Guardian describes him as "arguably the west's most influential Islamic scholar" and he is said to advise Bush on Islamic matters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,564960,00.html


Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

53. Comment #25058 by skippip on March 10, 2007 at 12:26 am

Ah, I see - Science as the bad guy. The key is in his statement about the bloody 20th century "..they were fought about ideologies." I think he's missed the point due to his amazing wooly thinking. Science, as described in both the books he attacks is not an ideology so cannot be directly blamed for the 20th century. In their purest forms, science and religion offer a way of thinking that can, of course, be abused. However, the key difference is that religion offers only uncritical belief at its core. I don't see how this might help us stop fighting and killing each other anytime soon.

The scientific method, however, allows the potential for thinking people to understand each other and agree upon how the world works. Of course ideology will get in the way sometimes but I suspect that ideologies are often driven by a lack of critical thinking.

Other Comments by skippip

54. Comment #25061 by Dog Boots on March 10, 2007 at 1:12 am

I could have used a few more examples of animals that he had not seen behaving as something else...

Other Comments by Dog Boots

55. Comment #25067 by 601 on March 10, 2007 at 1:56 am

RE: Carl S. Richardson

* I don't say this to discredit the effect of faith on King however I think some theists go over the top when they make out how influential faith really was on certain people...

I think the real situation is inside-out. For MLK (and other agents of change) his preaching provided protection from the other side. Even some of his worst opponents were inhibited by their fear of god, and this gave him enough room to reach the tipping point.

Other Comments by 601

56. Comment #25072 by marklennox on March 10, 2007 at 2:45 am

was I the only one to hear him espousing humanism?

Didn't he say 'we have to humanise the people'

You guys heard him, he's a filthy apostate! Stone him!! ;)

Other Comments by marklennox

57. Comment #25077 by Logicel on March 10, 2007 at 3:04 am

Regarding Richard's post about any psychological/sociological works on the attraction of dogma for psychologically insecure people, the amazing Eric Hoffer summed up the basis for the behavior of people like John Walker Lindh and this dufus in the above video (excerpted from the Wikipedia article):

"Hoffer was among the first to recognize the central importance of self-esteem to psychological well-being. While most recent writers focus on the benefits of a positive self-esteem, Hoffer focused on the consequences of a lack of self-esteem. Concerned about the rise of totalitarian governments, especially those of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, he tried to find the roots of these "madhouses" in human psychology. He discovered that fanaticism and self-righteousness are rooted in self-hatred, self-doubt, and insecurity. As he describes in The True Believer, a passionate obsession with the outside world or with the private lives of other people is merely a craven attempt to compensate for a lack of meaning in one's own life."

Here is the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hoffer

Nazism and Facism triggered quite a number of psychological/sociological works in the fifties and sixties like Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality. These works covered the psychological aspects of dogma, whether it is religious or not.

I remember being assigned to read The Authoritarian Personality for a psychiatric nursing clincial course in the late sixities, and I had thought, wow, this describes perfectly the nuns and priests that taught me during my childhood!

Other Comments by Logicel

58. Comment #25079 by Stafford Gordon on March 10, 2007 at 3:10 am

As a lay person I understand science to mean that which is testable and can be disproved.

Was eugenics testable? Was the measuring of childrens' heads to determine their race and or intelligence testable? Was the pushing of a pencil through someones hair to see if it stayed there or fell out a testable means of determining racial origins? Did the sewing together of children have some scientic goal?

None of these things had anything what so ever to do with science. They were put forward as such, but were in fact pseudo-scientific pollitically motivated torture and murder.

If there is to be anything approaching a debate between religion and science both sides are obliged to compare like with like.

My only problem with that premise, is the testing of religion.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

59. Comment #25082 by Logicel on March 10, 2007 at 3:15 am

With global interconnectedness made possible by affordable travel and communications, the insecure among us can now go exotic in our choice of domatic dressing up: Lindh and the dufus in the above video can luxuriate in 'foreign' versions of dogma, and get an added frisson of false superiority.

Other Comments by Logicel

60. Comment #25083 by Duff on March 10, 2007 at 3:19 am

Well, I certainly learned something from this "person". He is decidedly not the George Foreman of religion. More like Simpson"s sweet neighbor, Ned.

Other Comments by Duff

61. Comment #25092 by blackbeauty on March 10, 2007 at 4:40 am

This chap says "God expects more from us"I would like to know when his god appeared and told him that, all these people say God said this or that....

He says Nazis said Jews are an inferior race. He says that it is a scientific truth!!!!

Poor chap he needs to know that race has nothing to do with intelligence, it has more to do with inheritance, genes, cultural habbits ...... Strangely Jewish people have more Nobel laureates than people of any other culture. If race were true Arabs should also have equal number of Nobel Laureates [Jews and Arabs are of the same race- Semitic race, by the way no race is supposed to be pure] But it is the culture of Jews, they have been pushed for centuries and were allowed only certain kinds of professions ,they have produced the best minds out of a need to survive in a difficult world.

Other Comments by blackbeauty

62. Comment #25095 by Corylus on March 10, 2007 at 5:09 am

Religion is not the root of all evil. It is however the root of many bad facial hair decisions. Discuss!

Other Comments by Corylus

63. Comment #25113 by Ole on March 10, 2007 at 7:45 am

Zappi, excellent analysis of this video!

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

64. Comment #25130 by EvolvedDNA on March 10, 2007 at 9:16 am

Did I hear this guy actually say that keeping a woman pregnant for 20 years would obviously harm her? Since when has the particualar religion to the one he subscibes too had any concerns about what women think or feel?

Other Comments by EvolvedDNA

65. Comment #25131 by Mark R on March 10, 2007 at 9:19 am

Richard Wrote: "It is very believable that somebody as palpably stupid as this would not make a name for himself as an ordinary American called Mark Hanson."

This reminds me of when Christian rock music started to surface in America and opened a wide market and all of a sudden bands that were trying to be mainstream acts but failing they switched over to Christian rock band wagon. What some people will do to get the exposure they are looking for. Hanson saw an opportunity and jumped on it. He may no be true to himself but from what we heard in 6 minutes he doesn't really know what truth is to being with. I guess you can say he has prostituted himself. Now he is getting the attention he has always seeked. The article is quite interesting also.

This is an interesting quote from Hanson(formerly known as) "Islam was hijacked on that September 11 2001, on that plane as an innocent victim."

If he wants to change his name again i have a few ideas :)

Other Comments by Mark R

66. Comment #25133 by hkphooey on March 10, 2007 at 9:44 am

I would like to see Shakyh ionn the ring with RD, then we would see a real 8lb weakling in the ring with a true heavy. Shut that nut job up once and for all.

Other Comments by hkphooey

67. Comment #25134 by ksskidude on March 10, 2007 at 9:49 am

Did this guy even read RD's book or Harris's book? Thanks for the diatribe on animals. Moron

Other Comments by ksskidude

68. Comment #25157 by padster1976 on March 10, 2007 at 1:49 pm

This bloke uses some 'bad science' examples - but then ignores the fact that the consensus has changed.

Yet religious views are stuck 1500 years ago and have not changed one bit!

This sort of diatribe deserves only derision - not any serious responses!

Other Comments by padster1976

69. Comment #25159 by padster1976 on March 10, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Science 'pounds religion to pulp' because it can.

'Not fair' - bothered.

Go back to your geocentric model oh deluded one!

What was that crap about the soil?

Is this a joke?

The 20th was 100 years long. He mentioned 2 wars and tries to say they had nothing to do with religion and in fact were anti religion. Apart from the usual crap about hitler = atheist and the same for stalin, how about the other wars - Former yugoslavia, african genocides, the middle east, the russian attack of the Chechens! If you think about, religion has been the cause of more wars.

He clearly only did school history and stopped studying.

Other Comments by padster1976

70. Comment #25164 by Veronique on March 10, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Richard,

Most people who convert to another (and usually more rabid) faith are either allocated or choose a name that signifies their rebirth into that religion. Quite a number of cults/religions do this. Pathetic if understandable on some level or another.

I have taken the liberty of emailing this group Zaytuna and suggesting that Yusuf may care to read the, so far, 69 comments on this thread. Not that I hold out much hope. Adult converts who start their own Institutes are more entrenched in their adopted cults than anyone else who was born and bred into a religion.

However, he may come to this site. All of us here let off a lot of angst but we are the choir. Your TGD got out there and lifted the game to a level not seen before, because of our global communications networks.

Someone has said 'two down, millions, billions to go'. Sigh.

Thank you and Harris and Dennett and all the rest that have and will come out with combative literature to try to redress this awful religious right cancer that is infesting the world. The more they try to hit on you, the less sense they make. That's heartening at least.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

71. Comment #25202 by Teapot_Believer on March 10, 2007 at 10:35 pm

You guys have been completely rebutted this Muslim's rhetorical masterpiece. Now I'd like to add something else.

I think it's becoming increasingly common these days those statements and associations between atheism and Communist acts of genocide as a way to undermine nowadays' arguments for disbelief in God. However, you'll notice that right-wing bigots are not exempt from this phenomenon if you have a look at the Southamerican history of the twentieth century. Two clear examples of this are the coups carried out by Videla in Argentina and Pinochet in Chile.

The main thrust of these was to "liberate" the country from the Communist clutch. However, these dictators achieved their goals by killing thousands of people. Do the means justify the end? According to right-wing people and to some part of the Catholic church, they do. For example, Catholic priest Raúl Hasbún Zaror said "May God forgive the enemies of Pinochet" when the dictator died last year. But my question is "Will God forgive Pinochet (a devout Catholic) for the crimes committed during his regime?".

What did the Catholic church do during this period? I strongly think that it closed ranks with Pinochet's regime and looked the other way. I once listened to a sociologist or anthropologist on the radio who claimed that dictatorial governments deploy religions as a tool to legitimate their acts and to improve their image.

This phenomenon took place in several Southamerican countries with the aid of the CIA. Therefore, I think that God believers are not free from error.

Other Comments by Teapot_Believer

72. Comment #25270 by LinuxIsTheTrueGod on March 11, 2007 at 2:22 pm

I never have heard of a war caused by religion or for religion. Its all about POWER! Religion has nothing to do with it, and to think if religion vanished from mankind we would progress into some kind of higher life form is nothing more than a belief.

Other Comments by LinuxIsTheTrueGod

73. Comment #25277 by fonex_86 on March 11, 2007 at 3:28 pm

I never have heard of a war caused by religion or for religion

Did you go to school?

Its all about POWER!

Maybe, but...

Religion has nothing to do with it,

is simply nonsense.

...and to think if religion vanished from mankind we would progress into some kind of higher life form is nothing more than a belief.

Maybe, but it sure as hell beats believing in a 2000-year old myth. Or perhaps you disagree?

Why are there so many comments on these boards all saying the same thing. No one disagrees because all of you ape RD. Be free thinkers!

1. Have you seen the forums?
2. Disagreement? I've seen plenty here.
3. Be civil, and respect other people's opinions.

Other Comments by fonex_86

74. Comment #25295 by Birdonawire on March 11, 2007 at 7:14 pm

He says; "I've never seen a dog that didn't behave like a dog, I've never seen a cat that didn't behave like a cat, I've never seen a pig that didn't behave like a pig, I've never seen a donkey that didn't behave like a donkey..."

Well, after just watching that video, I've just seen a human behave like an Ass. Go figure!

E.

Other Comments by Birdonawire

75. Comment #25300 by Brungardt on March 11, 2007 at 9:24 pm

"The 20th century, the bloodiest century in human history wasn't about religion but about ideologies." (edit: put in quotes)

Perhaps but only because modern death-dealing technology far outstrips that available to Crusaders, Mongol hordes and Muslim caliphates.

That being said his closing argument was music to my ears compared to a rapture-ready Bible thumper. The only problem is the Abrahamic religions are open to any of a smörgåsbord of beliefs, some good like "love thy neighbor" and others ... less pleasant.

Other Comments by Brungardt

76. Comment #25322 by aleprechaunist on March 12, 2007 at 5:04 am

Well... he's excercised his free speech. Fair enough. I would hope that he's not a particularly important or influential figure!

Other Comments by aleprechaunist

77. Comment #25323 by Corylus on March 12, 2007 at 5:07 am

Hi Linux

The question of what causes wars and what role religion has in it is a very tough question that I have struggled with and I am glad that you want to chat about. If you have got a minute I will give you my take on it.

One attribute of humans is that we like to put things into categories and sets, we start to do this at a very early age "This is a blue toy" vs. "This is a red toy" and then we go on to do this with people "This is a member of my family" vs. "This is not a member of my family". I guess we have to do this, for how else can we make sense of such a difficult world?

How we make these judgements is generally a visual thing (huge parts of our brains are devoted to seeing after all!) So we look at a person's appearance and put them into categories: black, white, Asian, male, female, etc. We then put them into sets; those that include us and those that do not include us. People can then be viewed as 'us' and them' or the 'me' and 'not me'. Some people have called how we view people not in our sets as 'The Other'. This helps me a lot.

Unfortunately, there is a point when putting people into categories stops being helpful and starts being harmful, this is when people get described not as the 'Other' but 'Only the Other' this is a terrible mistake to make. We can see this when we look at racism. People have realised this and try to overcome this tendency in them selves.

Some people say "I don't notice what race someone is: it is irrelevant to me". Well, when someone says that I know I am either listening to someone who is kidding themselves or someone who owns a guide dog! Judging people by appearances is part of being human and something that we all need to guard against. All we can do is to realise that these judgements are arbitrary and try not to let them effect our actions.

So how is religion relevant to this? You say that:

"Religion has nothing to do with it, and to think if religion vanished from mankind we would progress into some kind of higher life form is nothing more than a belief".

See, the problem with religion is that it is another way of putting people into categories, yet another way of making people the other, another way of viewing people not in our sets are different and lesser. (Ok, some people say "A person's race is irrelevant because they share my religion" well fine, but isn't that just swapping one category for another??)

The problem is that religion is an unnecessary categorisation. It is yet another way for people to be viewed as the other, as the lesser, the polluted, as the god-forsaken: when in reality, of course, we are all the same. It is this type of thinking, which allows our leaders (who yes, indeed do want power!) to send us to war. We say, "Oh, it is unfortunate, but they are only the Other, after all" instead of the correct response which is "**** Off!"

This is why Hitler was such an evil man; he was very good at putting people into categories and acting on those judgements. He killed millions of Jews, millions of Russian and thousands of homosexuals and people with disabilities, all because they were in a different 'set' than him.

Maybe you are right, maybe we will never 'progress into a higher life form', but surely getting rid of such a needless barrier between people as religion is a step in the right direction?

Other Comments by Corylus

78. Comment #25327 by BaronOchs on March 12, 2007 at 6:26 am

I'd love to see this guy in a debate with Sam Harris!

Speaking of which is Andrew Sullivan going to respond in the beliefnet debate? He's said nothing, they may have communicated in private though for all I know.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

79. Comment #25328 by eno on March 12, 2007 at 6:33 am

Ha! This is hilarious, just brilliant.

Other Comments by eno

80. Comment #25330 by Philip1978 on March 12, 2007 at 6:52 am

As much as I disagree with the unbelieveable tripe this man wiffles with passionately, I cant help but feel more vomitus because he is saying it all with that mullet haircut!
My advice, get a haircut, read more history books, read Richard and Sam's books properly instead of looking at the nice shiny covers and if he is feeling daring perhaps a science book or two!
If he could do mankind a favour and discover where his towel is, i would be very happy!

Other Comments by Philip1978

81. Comment #25331 by LinuxIsTheTrueGod on March 12, 2007 at 7:06 am

@ Comment 77 by Corylus - Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I agree that putting people in any category that makes them "different and lesser" is wrong. But I fail to see how religion is any worse than categorizing people based on clothing, money, looks, hair color, education, etc. "The problem with religion is that it is another way of putting people into categories" sounds like people aren't able to overcome differences and for this reason we should all think/act/look the same. Following this logic, I guess the problem with communism and capitalism or any other ideology or thought is that they are "putting people into categories." I agree with everything else that you said.

@ 73 by fonex_86 -
You're right, I guess I was having a bad day. But what I meant about religion having nothing to do with war is that it seems to me that the people with power (politicians, priests, mullahs, kings, businessmen, etc.) could care less about religion, ideology, etc. and manipulate the people based on things that they believed in. Most of the "religious wars" happened during times when mankind was blind to many things and of course these people which mostly lacked education would believe such things. The priests/kings/etc. were smart enough to know that the one way they could mobilize the people was through their faith in God which since birth they were brainwashed to believe.

Other Comments by LinuxIsTheTrueGod

82. Comment #25333 by Ole on March 12, 2007 at 7:24 am

Richard said: It is very clear that he has not read any books by Sam or by me.

Absolutely!

If he own the books, he could have showed them instead of using images of them in the video. Also he could have cited from them.

As some pointed out here. This "lecture" was only for his own people.

Hopefully someone will let him know that we are people from all over the world seeing that he is dishonest.

Ask him: Why do you attack books without reading them first?

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

83. Comment #25487 by Corylus on March 13, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Linux

Sorry for the slight delay in responding, I have been away from my PC a bit. You say:

"But I fail to see how religion is any worse than categorizing people based on clothing, money, looks, hair color, education, etc."

Well, that's a good question. How is judging people by their appearance different from judging them by their religion? I'd say it is different in two important ways.

1) It is so unnecessary.

We notice people's appearance because we are seeing animals. I am sure to an extent that it is vital for us to do this. How else can we recognise people we know from people we don't know? We notice people's skin and hair colour because that is an easy way to tell people apart. Noticing appearances is necessary for functioning in this world. I do not think that this human characteristic will ever go away.

However, we do not notice people's religion when we first see them. (Unless their clothing makes it really obvious). We only find out people's true religion when we talk to them. Do I need to know a person's religion before I recognise their face? Do I need to know a someone's religion before I decide whether or not I want them to be my friend? Of course not!

If I say that I do need to know that, I am adding another needless barrier between myself and others and missing out on worthwhile relationships.

Here you make the point that this:

"sounds like people aren't able to overcome differences and for this reason we should all think/act/look the same".

Am I then saying that it is impossible to overcome racism, and generally judging people by appearances?? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

We can still recognise people's physical differences, whilst working to abolish any negative connotations we may have been conditioned by society to associate with them. For example, we can work hard to be fair when employing people, we can make sure that our media shows positive examples of all races, we can make sure that everyone has a right to education and opportunities. In short we can fight it, and it is important that we fight it.

This brings me to the second reason that religious intolerance is different from racial intolerance:

2) It is so very, very hard to fight.

The reason that religious intolerance is so hard to fight is because it is a thread that runs through so many 'holy' books. Also, these are holy books that we are told we can never, ever, question.

When I first read a holy book (in my case the bible), I became really upset. This is because the only conclusion I could possibly draw from what I was reading was that God was a dreadful bigot. There was all this talk of killing people of different religions. Now God is supposed to have created everything and God is supposed to be perfect: how then could some of his creations be so imperfect as to deserve their dreadful fates? Didn't seem fair. I decided that this was simply not good enough and I stopped believing in God. (I have also have other found several other good reasons for not believing in the fields of philosophy, psychology and politics, but this was my very first reason).

Now there are religious people who try to build bridges between faiths (I am sure generally with the best of intentions – I try not to be overly cynical). They try to concentrate on similarities rather than differences. Trouble is when they do this they start thinking again in terms of categories and sets. It is the same old out-group hostility all over again. For example, many people in America say that they would refuse to vote for an atheist because different types of believers have more in common with each other than non-believers. This puts me in a minority and this scares me.

Also when religious people generally agree it is only when they decide upon a category that they can all deem 'the other'. A good recent example of this is when several religious groups got together to say that gay people should not be allowed to get married; that they should not be able to commit to each other and profess love in public. They said that this was 'offensive'. Now when people talk about love in public I sometimes find it moving, more often than not I just find it embarrassing (I'm English) What I have never found it to be is 'offensive'. I loathe this word. These people seem only to agree upon whom they should hate.

This is because there is a hideous conclusion at the heart of most religions. That is, those who follow all other religions are going to hell; even the children. Religious people who are kind try to ignore this conclusion and pretend that this is not the case. Religious people who are not so kind don't care; in fact some of them even glory in this thought.

This then is the difference between judging people by their appearance and judging them by their religion. Racism we can fight, because we can see that it is daft. Religious intolerance we can see is daft, but we are not allowed to fight it. This is because it comes from God, and God, by definition, is never, ever, wrong.

Other Comments by Corylus

84. Comment #25624 by Richard H on March 14, 2007 at 10:51 am

I just wanted to give a little more background on Shaykh Hamza since I used to be a convert to Islam myself, have met Shaykh Hamza, and was an avid student of his.

It is no exaggeration, as Richard said earlier, that this man is THE intellectual icon for modern American Muslims. He has rock-star status among Muslims around the world, but especially in the West, since he is an American convert to Islam and studied in traditional madrassas (religious schools) for several years in the Middle East. He has mastered Arabic and many traditional religious texts. He also throws around references to Shakespeare, Nietzsche, and Augustine in his speeches and lectures to "wow" the audiences with his wide-reading and give the impression that he is immersed in both the Western and Islamic traditions. I'm not joking when I relate that people burst into tears, fight each other, and get ecstatic when they see this man at a public lecture. I've been around him many times, and have seen people fall in front of him, grabbing his hand and kissing it as they weep to be in his presence.

Part of why I left Islam was due to the celebrity of these "scholars" like Shaykh Hamza. He and his Zaytuna Institute have gone to great lengths since 9/11 to promote him as the voice of REAL Islam, tolerant, Jew-loving, and intellectual. He sells millions of CD lectures, draws the largest crowds at any Islamic gathering, and is quite aggressive towards dissenting views.

But before 9/11, Shaykh Hamza had a very different persona. You can still find lecture tapes of his from this time, in which you'll find a very angry and arrogant man regurgitating anti-Semitic language you hear all over the Muslim world. Now he supposedly loves Jews and uses their suffering to make an argument against "the worst of science" via Nazi Germany and the Eugenics movement. I have a strong feeling that it is through political expediency that this change has been made. Let me explain.

Another well-known Muslim "scholar" that I was having lunch with one day told me the story of Hamza Yusuf's transformation after 9/11 from the anti-Semite cleric to intellectual, tolerant rock-star that he is now. The man relating the story is one of Yusuf's own teachers and personal friend, and was with him when Yusuf was giving a speech in Washington D.C. to a large crowd after the 9/11 attacks. His teacher and friend, noticing several people in the crowd crying because of the power of Yusuf's words, pulled Yusuf backstage and told him, "Shaykh Hamza, look at these people. They are in tears because of your words. They really listen to you!"

It was after this experience that Hamza Yusuf radically changed his message and image, and garnered immense popularity in a very short amount of time.

What is so ironic about seeing this video is that when I was a Muslim, I used to think this man was an intellectual powerhouse. Now I listen to his vacuous arguments, his evasive repetition of "dogs, pigs, cats, lions, donkeys, etc" as if he's talking to children, and, the worst of all habits I encountered when I was Muslim, MAKING JUDGEMENTS ABOUT PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW AND BOOKS YOU HAVEN'T READ!

I'm so grateful I have left the idea of God behind me. The world is so much more beautiful now, and even though persevering through the apparant meaninglessness of life is more difficult (at least at the beginning), it gives me a little pride to know I have a mite of courage to try.

Other Comments by Richard H

85. Comment #25655 by Corylus on March 14, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Richard H.

A brave and informative post. Thank you.

Other Comments by Corylus

86. Comment #25664 by sane1 on March 14, 2007 at 3:32 pm

There is something to the idea that the God Delusion does compare the best of science with the worst of religion, as does Sam Harris' writings. So what? What it more accuratly does is highlight the worst of religion. That is no argument for the truth of religion. If we are to get closer to a place where we can work together to make our long-term survival more likely, this religious nonsense has got to go. Should we not fertilize fields to make them produce more food? Is that what this guy is about? BTW, I have never seen a red car that wasn't red. I am going away now to become more human by thinking about what is real, not what the tooth fairy wants me to do.

Other Comments by sane1

87. Comment #26337 by blods on March 18, 2007 at 6:18 pm

He says "I've never seen a dog not behave like a dog, never seen a pig not behave like a pig, but we do see humans that don't behave like humans".

That's not possible. Humans whether they're nuns, disctaors or despots are behaving exactly like humans. He should think a bit further about the evolutionary source for some of the behaviour that he's actually defining as non-human. I'm sure if he put his mind to it he could come up for an evolutionary survival of the fittest reason for each of the deadly sins. These negative or selfish behaviours are some of the easiest to explain in terms of natural selection. I would find it much easier to explain to someone where greed, lust, selfishness, envy and so on come from than to explain human characteristics such as love of music, laughter and pity.

Other Comments by blods

88. Comment #33964 by cmacblue42 on April 22, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Maybe he should give a reason science is bad that doesnt date back to the 1920's. Science allows rooms for change, if something can be proved, religion does not, and if it does, only within its own texts

Other Comments by cmacblue42

89. Comment #85689 by JonLynnHarvey on November 6, 2007 at 8:44 pm

As somene not too impressed with this Yusuf's arguments but nonetheless moderately acquaintd with him personally, I will at least defend his character if not his positions.
Dawkins engages in a gratuitous and misleading cheapshot when he writes

"He is an American (real name Mark Hanson) who converted to Islam and took a fake Islamic name. Sounds more impressive doesn't it, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, than Mark Hanson? Does any psychologist or sociologist know if it is a standard thing people do, if they are too inadequate to make a success of themselves in their own culture -- change your identity and re-invent yourself, to see if people take you more seriously?"

Actually, Yusuf converted to Islam at age 17 after near-death experience in a car accident. Granted, this does not !*prove*! the validity of his beliefs or reasoning but it seems more respectable than the assumption that he just couldn't "make it" in Western culture. Lots of people when changing cultures change their names. The compose George Gershwin was born Jacob Gershowitz. The ballet dancer Margot Fonteyn was born Peggy Hookham. Do we presume they are pathological or inadequate for doing so?
I think Yusuf did not read Dawkins carefully enough, but I think a deeper look into his biography on Dawkins part might have been a good idea.

Other Comments by JonLynnHarvey

90. Comment #139687 by Hektor on March 6, 2008 at 11:57 am

His examples of bad science are actually examples of bad politics. Because a politician tries to justify as asinine policy-steralizing the poor-using science does not make it a scientific policy.

At any rate, he misses the point entirely. Science improves upon itself constantly - if a theory is incorrect it will be discovered eventual. Religion revels in its inability to learn and grow.

Other Comments by Hektor

91. Comment #158487 by Clive on April 10, 2008 at 3:34 pm

This guy doesn't know Dick!

Just skirting around the issues..

What about "Where did our complexity from"
A: Something really complicated crated us?

Does he have any substance?

Other Comments by Clive

92. Comment #174206 by Fillyfresh on May 1, 2008 at 9:48 pm

But he must be right. Look at all of those books in the background! lol :)

He is a decent debater though and his point about the best and the worst hasn't really been addressed. It would take a cleverer man than I to beat him in debate. Even I can see his use of bad science is a lame argument but he has a point about the reasons for the last major conflicts. Response anyone?

One more thing. How can you not behave like a human? Thats rhetorical. The answer is in the question.

Maybe Richard should 'offer him out' as we used to say in school. That I would love to see.

Other Comments by Fillyfresh