former Southern Baptist preacher claims atheists are tiptoeing around Islam (2 of 2)

[J0NA5TeVi]

from 2:30 on is the shit!

[theblueguy2]

I lol'd hard when he said "I don't care if theyre building a mosque or a BOMB-FACTORY" x)

[adobePC]

The caller is a jerk. We have religious freedom in the USA.

[sunshine25801]

2:32 the bald guy makes devil hansign, just saying and hes power trippen with the hold button

[OthelloCarmellow]

9-11 stands as a textbook example of the dangers of religious psychopathy. That any atheist could shrug at an institution being erected on the ruins of the WTC celebrating, promoting or even acknowledging faith of any kind is a goddamn tragedy. Feigned tolerance for the intolerable isn't a virtue.

[EPR89]

@OthelloCarmellow It's not on the ruins, it's on ground they legally own. They can build anything on there. The muslims behind this building have nothing to do with the ones who did 9/11. If they were, then you might have a point. Until then they can use their property in any legal way.

If the Christians in Austin thought in a similar way like you in your post,The Atheist Experience wouldn't exist.

[OthelloCarmellow]

@EPR89 You're talking about whether or not it's legal.

I'm talking about whether or not it sucks.

It sucks.

I'm really impressed with how liberal and tolerant you, Matt and Martin are though. Super, duper impressed.

Mission accomplished?

[Katalyzt]

Well said/done Matt and Martin ★★★★★

Katalyzt

[RageOfTheTiger]

the guy is a douche but they are on Tv, they shouldn't be calling their called an idiot. unprofessional.

[tuseroni]

@RageOfTheTiger i dont think they have any imperative to BE professional. nor do i think they have any DESIRE to be professional. they call them like they see them. in the end they are a bunch of volunteers doing a non-profit show.

[Tiptoetherat]

@RageOfTheTiger I say call a spade a spade...the guy IS an idiot call him one. Words have meaning, and the message is the message...not the gift wrap.

[TomVodkaCollins]

@RageOfTheTiger They aren't profession atheists. They pay for the air time, that's why the say the show is funded by the ACA. That's them.

[chainedtotheworld]

wow I've never seen Matt get angry like that, I thought he was gonna turn green and wear purple shorts

[sarainreno30]

The criticisms for the caller are fair. They should treat the situation different because the the caller wasn't abusive? The idea he is promoting is racist and unfounded. The idea deserved harsh words. So what. He knew what he would get when he called he has watched the show. Did he drive to the nearest bridge because no one liked his

idea?

Stop being such a pussy. It a show that debates ideas, it is the show's premise.

[Scanini]

I think Matt was a bit too abusive and I had more respect for Lee, he kepy his cool and didnt insult back Matt.

[n800064447]

Sorry, but you guys are being hypocritical. "It doesn't matter how I feel, its legal"? "I only care about whats illegal"? Really? It's legal for people to practice religion. Do you take the stance that it doesnt matter how you feel? Isn't this whole show premise on you guys feel? I get the callers point on this, that I feel the defense of the mosque is mostly reactionary since the opposition is primarily the religious right.

[RainCityBlues]

@n800064447 No, you are wrong. While they are critical of religion I implore you to come up with one instance where they have said people shouldn't have the right to practice religion. Go ahead, find one time. You must be kind of dense because they explained this exact point. What they feel about the mosque has nothing to do with the people's right to build it. They said that. I mean really...

[n800064447]

@RainCityBlues You misunderstood. My point was that it was hypocritical to say it was irrelevant on how they felt, since this whole show is based on exactly that. The caller's point was that he felt the mosque was being built in mockery of the 9/11 attacks and while its legal and _can_ be built, it should be scrutinized as a deliberate attempt of provocation. The hosts did not understand the callers point and thought the caller was simply saying it should be banned. He did not.

[n800064447]

@RainCityBlues (cont'd) And while the hosts may disagree it was a deliberate provocation, they fell to the 'its legal and it doesn't matter how we feel' defense, which is _not_the_point_. Also, they fell into the excuse that because one group of muslims did the terrorist attacks, it doesn't represent the whole religion, which is usually what apologists say so that was a bit puzzling.

[n800064447]

@RainCityBlues (contd 2) To be clear, I do think they are critical of islam, but in this case it seems like their defense was simply to oppose the religious right who wanted an outright ban. The fact that they got so upset and had no patience for the caller, again, shows a reactionary response to what they perceived as a right-winged religious nut being discriminatory. It was disappointing that their response was bias towards their perception of the caller, rather than a reasonable response.

[Stairc]

@n800064447 No... The caller was being racist and ridiculous, and refusing to acknowledge the clear flaw in his analogy. If there's bias at work here, I sure can't see it.

[n800064447]

@Stairc islam is not a race

[Stairc]

@n800064447 Would you prefer hateful bigotry then?

[BigLundi]

@Stairc No, I would prefe criticism of Islam, the religion, and a discouragement of peple following it.

[Stairc]

@BigLundi that's nice. Completely agree. But that's not what's happening in this video by this caller.

[BigLundi]

@Stairc I agree, I just glanced over your conversation with n8000 and it's quite asinine.

the fact is, a seperate islamist group came around and said "We wanna build a mosque in thie free space." and a whole hullaballoo was thrown because people obfuscated one islamist group with extremist islam. Sam Harris, when he criticizes islam, always makes the clarificiation that not all muslims are the same.

We need to be objective when we judge each thing case by case.

[Stairc]

@BigLundi Precisely. Islam is illogical but the right to build a mosque is not denied.

[romans52345]

@Stairc Matt Got Owned and he knows it that is why he got angry but i still Love em..

[Stairc]

@romans52345 I'm not at all sure how you get that idea. The man kept repeating his same logical fallacy over and over and over and over and over again. I'd get frustrated too. The man's argument was ridiculous and Matt pointed it out. Where exactly did Matt get 'owned'?

[n800064447]

@Stairc Wow. Once again, my point was that they were not responding to his points. It was not about them being terorists. Again, he _thought_ it was a deliberate provocation, for whatever reason. What they should have done was _calmly_ and _rationally_ explained why his beliefs that it was provocative was false, not jump down his throat about legality and generalization of terrorists which_was_not_his_point! Show me what logical fallacy the caller made? Words, not what you think he implied.

[akaMouse]

What kind of libertarian doesn't understand the basic constitutional issue behind them building the mosque? Caller was dumb as hell

[in3x]

Perhaps he should have asked whether America should be allowed to build a recreation centre 3 blocks away from Ground Zero Nagasaki and call it Okinawa house. It's probably legal so no problem right? Secondly, a lot of atheist criticse islam, myself included, but there are large numbers of non-prominent atheists who feel you are being racist if you criticse islam or like to constantly point out things like it's scientific golden age. Strangely enough, they never mention the renaissance.

[in3x]

@in3x Also, saying there would be an outburst of violence across the muslim world is actually a threat, just a veiled one.

[CallMeRiverton]

@in3x No, that's stating a fact. When the Muslims erupted in violence over a damn CARTOON, it's even more likely that there would be violence if a community center was not allowed to be built.

[in3x]

@CallMeRiverton It is both. Threats are not effective unless the person threatened believes the threat will become fact. If a mugger holds a gun to your head and says, "Give me your wallet or I will shoot you." You only consider it a threat if you believe he will actually shoot you in the head.

[ButtaNToast]

1:50

yessssssss

[tommyXBOX360]

Even if the buildingplans of the mosque were not intented to insult or to be provocative, then they still should just stop building it. It's not like people are going to suffer terribly if this mosque will not be contructed, then why, even unintentionally, continue building this if it provokes so many people. Can't matt and his companion just understand the painfull irony? (Still I am a big fan of Matt and all the atheistexperience associates)

[hanspeterpitsch]

@tommyXBOX360 Becase it's their right, after all. It's like draw muhammed day; many muslims may get upset by people drawing muhammed, but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't do it. It's about rights.

" It's not like people are going to suffer terribly if this mosque will not be contructed"

aswel as it's not like people are going to suffer terribly if this mosque will be contructed. If they own the land, they have the right to build a mosque there, doesn't matter how many people dislike it.

[tommyXBOX360]

@hanspeterpitsch Well if it is their right to build a mosque there, then thats the way it is. I'm not saying that it is not legal, all I am saying that it is unneccesary to build a mosque there if it's perceived as provocative or associated by many people in a wrong way. Why not build a mosque somewhere elso to prevent all this. I don't see why they would want a mosque on the PARTICULAR place so badly. And its name, "cordoba" (means victory mosque), makes me question the true intentions of this.

[Stairc]

@tommyXBOX360 Good idea. If it provokes so many people, they shouldn't go there. Now let's apply the same thinking to segregation and keep all the blacks away from the whites. It'll be fine, separate but equal. Why provoke so many people?

Oh right... Because that's what civil rights are all about. That's why.

[tommyXBOX360]

@Stairc What a change comparison. Being provoked because of somebodies skin colour is not something we should take into account. If you feel offended by the skin colour of other people, then that is your problem. This is something different. People who had relatives or close friends killed because of nine-eleven would have painfull memories and associations everyday when they walk by the mosque. And understand that seperation of races would be an extremely difficult thing to achieve while...

[saintpine]

It takes time for a preacher to take full advantage of the nothing that atheism offers.

It takes time to get rid of the "us and them" indoctrination.

[strangestdude]

@saintpine Exactly! Collective guilt is part of the irrational religious mindset.

[tky011]

@SciBishop

That's already the case, from a legal perspective, isn't it? I don't think that's in dispute.

But when you say that their religious views "should" have no bearing on it, i.e. making a claim about what the law ought to be rather than what it is, there has to be some argument in support of that position other than the circular reference to the current state of the law.

[tky011]

Hrm, I'm not sure I buy their argument.

Things can be immoral without being illegal and vice versa. If you blindly but fervently defend what's currently legal, laws will never be changed; the US would still have slavery, for example.

Perhaps what they really mean, and what they should be saying, is that it's more important to uphold the general principles involved, e.g. freedom of religion, than to prevent the construction of a single mosque.

[Stairc]

@tky011 That's not their argument. They're talking about rights, not just legal ones. They don't want to outlaw all other religions. The argument is that it's their right to build it there and it just happens to be a GOOD law they can. Also, mostly they were talking about the flaw in the man's analogy. Attacking THIS mosque for what some utterly unrelated Islamic group did is bigoted. The caller seems to be deluding himself into thinking all Muslims are the same. That's not good.

[tommyXBOX360]

@Stairc ... just building a mosque somewhere else is not such a big deal. I think those muslims trying to build a mosque there should understand, although it is maby not meant like that, it is a nasty gesture towards the victims of 9/11. A little bit of solidarity towards the victims would be appropriate. What's the big issue, just build the mosque somewhere else.

[Stairc]

@tommyXBOX360 Right. And just drinking from another water fountain or going to another school isn't a big deal. What's the big issue? Just make blacks go somewhere else.

Separate but equal. Bigotry at its best.

[tommyXBOX360]

@Stairc I think you don't really understand what I mean, do you? You are claiming my statement is based on bigotry. It's not, my argument is based on an emotional argument that it is offensive towards (although maby not meant like that) the 9/11 victims to build a mosque so close to the place were actually muslims (although not representive for all muslims!) flew a plane into the twin towers. My argument has nothing to do with my opinion on other cultures and does not show any intolerence ...

[tommyXBOX360]

...towards muslims. And like I said before, your comparison is flawed. Because that example is based on a totally unjustifiable hate/intolerance towards black people and that is totally something different.

[Stairc]

@tommyXBOX360 1) Your arguments sound exactly like segregation. Probably because it is segregation.

2) While I'm sure that all the white racists NEVER thought they had a justifiable reason to keep blacks away from them (can you sense the sarcasm) - your argument is even more laughable. The group wanting to build the mosque had NOTHING to do with the group that planned the attack. Shall we make a rule to keep all Christian churches away from any site a crazy christian from an ocean away attacks?

[tommyXBOX360]

White racist think they have good reason for seperation of black people... they THINK, they don't have good reasons. It's just based on biases and racism, that is not a good reason for their arguments no matter who thinks it is. And I just told you that the muslims that did the 9/11-attack are not representive for the whole muslim community so I DO understand that these muslims who want to build a mosque there have nothing to do with 9/11. The point is, this whole thing is not a big issue...

[Stairc]

@tommyXBOX360 1) Good. And I don't think you have any good reasons here either. Your only reason is that it's making people uncomfortable. So did integration. Deal with it.

2) If it's not a big issue, then there's no need to abridge peoples' personal freedom's to make a few bigot's more comfortable.

[tommyXBOX360]

@Stairc With 'not a big issue', I meant not a big issue for the muslims to just build it somewhere else. You know, if it was such a big issue for both the 9/11-victims AND the muslims it would be another case. They can just build it somewhere else: problem solved. Integration is a whole different thing.

[Stairc]

@tommyXBOX360 Please explain the difference between, "It's not a big deal for the muslims to build their entire mosque someplace else" and, "It's not a big deal for black people to use a separate rest room".

Hint: There isn't one.

How big a deal you think it is doesn't matter. You simply cannot bar people from doing these things based on how a few biggots think of them. You can politely suggest they may wish to reconsider but they should NEVER have to or feel pressured to.

[tommyXBOX360]

@Stairc The difference is the reason behind both examples. There is no valid reason for people to be offended by merely skin colour and therefore seperation between blacks and whites is wrong. But there IS a valid reason for victims of 9/11 to feel offended by a mosque build so closely to ground zero. Besides, using seperate rest rooms is offending to black people because it is a racist policy. The muslims can just build the mosque whereever they want, EXCEPT at ground zero.

[Stairc]

@tommyXBOX360 The muslims in question did NOTHING to the victims of 9/11. They are assigning qualities to people based on their religion that has no bearing on who they really are. This is pure bigotry and not a valid reason. Just... Like... Racism.

What, you want Christian churches to be prohibited from being located anywhere near a site that a nutty Christian who lives across an ocean from them attacks?

[tommyXBOX360]

@Stairc I agree with your first paragraph. Don't understand why you bring that up though, since I already said that there is no link between the muslims that want to build the church and those muslims that were involved in the 9/11-attack. Maby you should read my comments more carefully as I already said it's only about the association and the fact that it is perceived as offensive to the victims. Has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with bigotry.

[Stairc]

@tommyXBOX360 I know you've said you understand there's no link between the muslim groups. Which, by definition, means there is no reason to base any judgment on THIS group by anything the other group has done.

And so now you're willing to engage in bigotry on any religion - paint each of them with the crimes of all their members. Okay, how about banning any whites from living in a location where some nutjob committed a hate crime in the name of white supremacy? It's the exact same thing.

[tommyXBOX360]

@Stairc Where do you see me pass judgments on any group? The argument I gave didn't judge anything. Therefore I do not engage in bigotry and I do not judge every religious person based on the crimes a small part of their religious group commited. And you are a little loose with your comparisons. You understand that there is a big difference between prohibiting people to live somewhere and to prohibit the building of a mosque, right?

[Stairc]

@tommyXBOX360 The moment you blame one sub-group for the actions of another group that's completely unrelated to them based on the coincidence of a shared trait (whether skin color or religion) you're engaging in bigotry. Congratulations.

Next you'll say a positive environmental group that is dedicated to peacefully spreading information about nature should be banned from having a center anywhere near some crazy nutjob tried to blow up a construction site in the name of nature.

[tommyXBOX360]

@Stairc It's very late know in Holland, I will reply to your comments tomorrow ;)

[Stairc]

@tommyXBOX360 Don't bother. You clearly don't seem to understand that different groups share no responsibility and owe no apology for what utterly different groups do that just happen to claim the same religion. The group building the mosque has nothing to apologize for and no reason for their presence to be disrespectful of the victims. They didn't do anything wrong. Anyone who paints them at all similarly is a bigot and bigotry should not be respected.

Live with it.

[tommyXBOX360]

@Stairc What is exactly wrong with you ?! I told you a million times before it is not about blaming muslims or judging them because of 9-11. It's all about the fact that this is perceived as a nasty gesture towards the victims, while I understand that that is not the intention of the muslims who want to build the mosque there. I DO understand those muslims do not owe any responsibility for what those terrorist did.

[Stairc]

@tommyXBOX360 What you can't grasp is that if a group, as you claim to understand, has no responsibility for someone else's actions there is NO reason they should act as though they do. The only people feeling uncomfortable about the mosque being built are people who think they do share responsibility in some twisted way. Otherwise they wouldn't care. They wouldn't care about a church going up or a synagogue or a budhist temple. Why a mosque? Because of bigotry.

[tommyXBOX360]

It's only about that the victims find this offensive and since it's not a big deal to build it somewhere else those muslims should understand, while there intentions might be good, to just build it somewhere else. I don't see how it could be a problem for them to do so. Anyway I don't understand why you exaggerate my opinion so much and claim I'm a bigot, while I am not. Why make such a big principle issue about it?

[tommyXBOX360]

Most of all, I'm not saying we should forbid those muslims to build a mosque there, all I'm saying is that those muslims should (not MUST), out of solidarity towards the 9/11-victims, refrain from building a mosque. But don't you thinks is kinda strange to build a mosque so close near a place that has been bommed by muslims, I mean is sounds very peculiar to me.

[Stairc]

@tommyXBOX360 No. I completely disagree. Should Christians refrain from building a church there? There is no link between the Muslims building that mosque and the people that made the attack. None. You claim to know this, but you clearly don't get it. This group is not responsible for what another group across the world does. And anyone painting them with the same brush is a bigot. They should not change their building plans out of 'respect' for bigots. That's segregation.

[tommyXBOX360]

@Stairc And to answer your question: Yes, I would want the BUILDING OF A NEW church to be prohibited anywhere near a site where a christian in the name of Christianity (or his interpretation of it) commited a terrible crime. I do not make any difference between religions since I am not a bigot.

[n800064447]

@Stairc And to clarify my point, before you respond to something I did not say, he was trying to say (if the hosts did not cut him off so much) was that he thought they were being provocative because he believed the owner was somehow tied to some organization, not because they were simply muslim. Once again, he had reasons to believe it and it was not bigotry. It may be wrong factually, he may have bought into some propaganda, but it was not outright bigotry as you claim.

[n800064447]

@Stairc And if you guys stopped being so reactionary and emotional for a second, you guys would have realized it and had a calm rational discussion, disproving him or explaining to him that the stories were only christian propaganda. NO reason to get as upset as he did. It was simply reactionary to a perceived bigot. And that was evident on all the legality talk which was not at all the point. These kinds of reactionary and emotional responses have no place in rational discourse.

[Stairc]

@n800064447 *sighs* I can't help but feel you need to watch the conversation again. The caller's analogy was false and that's all there was to it. The caller continually drew a false comparison between saying, "If some specific Christian does something evil and then that same, specific individual does something again" and, "If some specific muslims do something evil and then some completely unrelated individuals who also happen to be musilms do something else". This is false analogy

[Stairc]

@n800064447 (cont) The only reason that one would have to try attacking the group attempting to build this mosque in the manner of the caller would be if the caller is of the perception that because they share a religion with the perpetrators, they are therefore related or responsible in some way. Since this is judgment of an individual based on the perceived group that individual belongs to in a negative light, that is what we call bigotry.

Doesn't that make sense?

[n800064447]

@Stairc This is all implications...I did say, use his words, not what you implied. The analogy was not false. His analogy was the westborough church. He believed that the building owner was directly funded by some terrorist organization (as he was trying to explain), so the analogy would be accurate. If it was true that it was an unrelated organization, then make the darn point!! Stop talking about other issues like legality! Once again, he was perhaps wrong, but not a bigot.

[Stairc]

@n800064447 I can understand where you're coming from, but you're just wrong. I wouldn't disapprove of an unrelated baptist group being near a site that the westborough baptist church had attacked. The only reason to blame the unrelated baptist group for the westborough's actions or, in any way, think they're connected is if you're using bigotry. The caller only moved to falsehoods about terrorist funding much later, they couldn't get him past his original flawed analogy.

[n800064447]

@Stairc I have to disagree because I think they never gave him a chance to really explain himself. Matt seems to have a habit of interrupting people and not letting them talk. I'm not much of a fan of his as some of the other hosts. He's too hot tempered.

[Stairc]

@n800064447 If you think Matt interrupted too much, that's something else. From my viewing what I got was this (truncated).

1) Caller makes accusation that atheists are soft on Islam

2) Hosts disagree and bring up examples

3) Caller cites the mosque controversy

4) Hosts refute this by saying they have nothing to critique int he first place

5) Caller makes a flawed analogy to other cases

6) Hosts demonstrate the flaw

7) 5-6 are repeated a LONG time. Caller's refusal to acknowledge flaw ends it.

[BTCforlife]

@n800064447 The guy explained himself just fine. He for some reason thought that the people building the community center were "being jerks" and the building was an "in your face" and should not be allowed.

The problem came when he refused to admit that his argument was flawed.

His comparison to the Phelps' was a failure. And he was too much of a baby to admit it.

The hosts then spent 4 minutes explaining it to him while he dances in circles ignoring every point they make.

[n800064447]

@Stairc AND once again, you guys completely miss the point because you think he is lumping all muslims together when he wasn't. AGAIN, he may be wrong in his FACTS, but he WAS not implying all muslims were the same. He was MISTAKEN that the building owner was directly tied to some organization. EXPLAIN that to him RATIONALLY, do NOT yell at him about some unrelated POINT! (caps are for emphasis)

[n800064447]

@Stairc And you at *least* have to admit now that his point wasn't about legality, but about expressing disapproval, just like I might disapprove of coke companies going into schools. If you at *least* admit to this, then you have to admit that the hosts, who spent the larger portion of the video discussing legal issues, missed the point and completely judged the caller before listening to him fully. If you do not admit it, then please let me know how legality ties into his point..

[tommyXBOX360]

@Stairc Could you please elaborate your comment from "How big a deal..."

[hunkallgood73]

@tommyXBOX360 Do you know that there is already a Mosque closer to ground zero then where the one that everyone's gettin their panties in a wad over being built???? Im sorry to interject into your arguement but what I've read tells me that you are not in favor of civil rights.

[gleehmee]

@hunkallgood73 holy crap people are still going on about that? I would have thought the damn thing would be finished building and in regular use by now.

[tommyXBOX360]

... I am not claiming we should have any ruling on this or that we should forbid those muslims to build a mosque there, I'm just saying that those muslim should understand that this is perceived as a nasty gesture towards them, while I understand IT IS NOT MEANT LIKE THAT. Why can't they build it somewhere else? I am not trying to endorse seperation and I am not a bigot, the only thing I say that they SHOULD (not MUST) build the mosque somewhere else out of solidarity towards the victims.

[biohazardcel]

fucking need it

[JamesCizuz]

The sad thing is, this guy doesn't understand, even if the "mosque" was just a giant slideshow of jokes about 9/11 it would still be constitutional. Might not like it; deal with it.

[MrShoeguy]

These two shitwits should get a YouTube account & subscribe to TheAtheistExperience. Then they could see THEIRSELVES constantly harping on Christianity & only mentioning islam when they think they have to.

EVERYBODY who has a problem with religious extremism is too busy talking about islam to have time to talk about the absurdly benign & charitable (by comparison) Christian religion.

[SOAS007]

@MrShoeguy " absurdly benign & charitable (by comparison) Christian religion." where it can christianity, still denies free thought, and enforces its creeds and ideologies. It is far from benign unfortunately.

[ciaochowbella]

Nothing says "Sunday" like a Matt Dilihunty Rant!

[Zurround100]

He misuses the word "threat" . If a doctor tells you that you will get lung cancer if you do not quit smoking or have a heart attack if you do not eat less fattening foods would that be a "threat"? he is confusing "warning" with "threat"

[ainefairygoddess]

The atheists who support full constitutional rights for Americans who happen to be Muslim cannot be construed as being soft on Islam when they (we) do not buy into attacks on the constitutional rights of Americans who happen to be Muslim that are based on lies, misinformation, conspiracy theories and the like.