Coel, I have never denied the role of religion in Islamic terrorism (that would be a simple contradiction in terms for a start) but have always argued for mulit-causal factors.

I continue to disagree sharply with Harris, Dawkins and Coyne on the causes of Islamic terrorism and consider their arguments simplistic, contrary to research and counterproductive.

We have sharply different views on where Islam (note “Islam”, not “Islamism”) as a religion sits in relation to the motivations of people who join ISIS and the place of Islam (not “Islamism”) in relation to their public displays of barbarity.

Unless and until there is some move to try to understand another point of view as distinct from reacting to any perceived attack on Coyne/Harris or perceived misrepresentation of their views then we are wasting our time.

The quotes of mine that you take as a change of view all of a sudden are actually paraphrases of what Scott Atran himself — the researcher Harris and Coyne dismiss as an apologist for terrorists — has written way back in “Talking With the Enemy”.

Religion can make a fine architechture to hang ideologies and turn them where ever you want. And acting from a defensive position also helps in the psychology of recruitment. When you “know” you have an after life it can motivate the true believers to do anything including self sacrifice for good or ill. For them it is a way of winning against the colossi that is the USA and Europe.

Under dogs. And whatever atrocities they commit real or imagined is not taken as true or as part of the deal. The big powers certainly do.

Free Speech doesn’t include private areas. The owners decide who can and cannot comment and how far such comments can go. A reality best learned early.

AU,

Yes, there have been a couple of things Neil has said that haven’t been worded rightly, but these are in contradiction with other things he has said.

Ah good, there you acknowledge my two main points: (1) that, in the very act of accusing NAs of logical fallacies, Neil Godfrey committed logical fallacies himself, and (2) that his writings on this are inconsistent.

That always has been my main point. And it’s not merely about Coyne, it was also about Dawkins and Harris.

Now, if Godfrey wants to retract and restate those sentences, then fine, I, for one, will accept that. I’ve discussed this with him on his blog, and he’s had ample opportunities to restate those sentences, and has not chosen to do so.

He is still (erronously as I see it) attributing fallacious thinking to NAs such as Coyne, Dawkins and Harris, while refusing to accept anything such in his writings (which even you now seem to accept is present).

You are just extremely intellectually dishonest, and you cherry-pick something someone has written in haste where they haven’t expressed themselves exactly as they want to and attack that.

I quoted a blog post by Godfrey. If he wrote that post “in haste” and now wants to restate it then fine, let him do so.

… yet you deliberately chose the comment where I was typing in haste and wrote something wrong that contradiced what I had said earlier, and attacked that.

I really love the way that you falsely accusing me (as you now accept) of telling a “lie” (your word) now becomes my fault and an example of *my* “intellectual dishonesty”!

Sorry for taking it OT, I am actually way behind my schedule of things to do for this week, so just as well you stepped in 🙂

I’m happy to provide a space for open debate, and carry on if you feel you need to, but I think it’s got to the stage where this one’s going ’round in circles.

I’d like to think there’ll be more opportunities for us to solve the world’s problems here in the future. 🙂

First of all, at least we have now gone past your “show me a QUOTE where I said that”, and accusing me all sorts of things. Either you had difficulty reading what I wrote, or you were trying to deliberately obfuscate – that isn’t relevant, what is relevant is that I did not attribute something to you by claiming you said that, I attributed it to you based on evidence – much stronger evidence than the evidence you use to further your points.

Secondly, it is VERY relevant. The evidence from this incidence
strongly suggests you formed your conclusion which tried to put Coyne in a good light and tried to fit “evidence” around it. This is unscientific, the normal process is you look at the evidence and then form a conclusion.
Therefore, there is strong evidence suggesting that you are more interested in defending Coyne than coming to the table with an open mind – this sort of tribalism is rampant in New Atheism.

I did not follow the whole debate Neil had, but from everything I have seen, Neil hasn’t said that religion cannot play a part. You are just extremely intellectually dishonest, and you cherry-pick something someone has written in haste where they haven’t expressed themselves exactly as they want to and attack that.

As an example, I first wrote that you were defending Coyne because you did not think he unfairly censors comments.
I then wrote later that you were defending Coyne because you did not think he censors comments.
Now considering you and I debated before on Coyne’s censorship, and considering you had made justifications on why Coyne censors comments, it is obvious to that I do not think that you think Coyne censors comments. It is obvious I know you know Coyne censors comments.
However, you chose that second statement of mine and attacked it. This is intellectual dishonesty. You knew that I know that you know that Coyne censors comments, we had debated that at length, yet you deliberately chose the comment where I was typing in haste and wrote something wrong that contradiced what I had said earlier, and attacked that.

And you do the exact same to Neil. Yes, there have been a couple of things Neil has said that haven’t been worded rightly, but these are in contradiction with other things he has said. You however choose to cherry-pick these misworded comments and then pretend that that is Neil’s position, even though those comments contradict other things Neil says. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Whether Coyne censors comments (he does) and whether that is fair or unfair (really, it’s his blog, it’s up to him) is entirely beside the point!

If Coyne is unfairly censoring comments, then that is a HUGE problem, because then the evidence suggests he is afraid of his audience hearing alternative viewpoints. In other words, he is interested in creating an echo-chamber, much like Stormfront do, where they have a comments section for opposing views but then start to censor comments and ban you once you start exposing them.

We all here know that censoring comments unfairly is a HUGE issue, some of us just don’t want to address the possibility that Coyne might be unfairly censoring comments because then that shatters the myth that New Atheists have been brainwashed with that New Atheism is all about debating openly and rationally.

AU,

This is strong evidence … that you either think Coyne could not have been unfairly censoring comments … or either that you do know that Coyne could be unfairly censoring comments, …

So you’re starting this again? Look, my original discussion with Neil Godfrey wasn’t about Coyne censoring comments! Really it wasn’t! I made no comment about it or about whether it was fair or unfair. All of this is a complete diversion on your part!

My discussion with Godfrey wasn’t about censoring of comments on Coyne’s blog, it was about Godfrey’s criticism of New Atheists (Coyne, Dawkins, Harris) and who was or wasn’t committing logical fallacies.

All of this is a diversion on your part to avoid admitting that Godfrey made criticisms of the NAs that clearly reveal fallacious thinking on his (Godfrey’s) part.

Whether Coyne censors comments (he does) and whether that is fair or unfair (really, it’s his blog, it’s up to him) is entirely beside the point!

All of this attributing to me attitudes about Coyne’s censorship is just you fantasizing!

I know the difference between the two. I am simply applying your own standard: I never said you said that you think Coyne cannot be unfairly censoring people. Yet you keep asking me to show you a quote of something you said when I didn’t even claim you said that – see the difference?

I said:

Your starting point that he is a good guy and therefore cannot be unfairly censoring people, instead of trying to establish the facts first, show that you are not intellectually honest, that you are biased, and therefore, you cannot be taken seriously when it comes to debating the works of Coyne.

And this is based on evidence. The evidence is, if someone makes a claim against someone, you do not immediately start making excuses fot that person. You first investigate the claim. If I am a police officer, and someone says Alan kicked him, I will not immediately start giving possible excuses as to why Alan might have kicked him, I will immediately ask for more information.
If someone comes to me and says Glenn Greenwald is censoring their comments, I will not immediately giving possible excuses as to why Glenn Greenwald is censoring comments – I will ask them for more information.

You immediately started making excuses for Coyne without asking for any information. This is strong evidence, much stronger than your “Ayaan was being inflammatory as a wake up call” nonsense, that you either think Coyne could not have been unfairly censoring comments (and therefore you did not want to ask for further information as your conclusion was already formed), or either that you do know that Coyne could be unfairly censoring comments, but you cannot come to admit it because of your tribalism, and so you must make excuses. Either way, it shows that you cannot be taken seriously when debating the works of Coyne.

AU,

BTW, can you please provide a QUOTE where Ayaan said that her statement was meant to be inflammatory?

I did not say that Ayaan had said her statement was meant to be inflammatory, I said that it was meant to be inflammatory. (Note the difference between the two.)

My words were: “Indeed it was intended to be [inflammatory]; it was a deliberate wake-up call.”

Now, “inflammatory” means “provocative”, “incendiary”, a call to action, a wake-up call.

The fact that is was intended as such is obvious from the interview itself. E.g. (quoting Ayaan from it):

“The Western mind-set … is delusional. The problem is not going to go away. Confront it, or it’s only going to get bigger.”

“We have to get serious about this.”

And about defeating Islam:

“[we should defeat Islam] In all forms, and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.”

And:

“… the West has been in denial for a long time. … Now we have some choices to make.”

Can you seriously deny that she was being deliberately provocative and inflammatory?

Whenever someone tries to shut someone else up by saying their speech might cause “certain people to have hatred towards” others, then — unless that person actually had explicitly called for hatred against others, and that means hatred against **people**, not merely a repudiation of an *ideology* — then I usually discount their complaint.

The petition wasn’t about shutting her up – I have no idea where you get that from. The petition was about her making statements such as there is no difference between Islam and radical Islam, saying we are at war with Islam, and that it must be defeated militarily.

http://forward.com/opinion/196399/no-brandeis-isnt-silencing-ayaan-hirsi-ali/

Your Chmosky analogy is weird – apples and oranges. A much more appropriate examples would be that if we were a Socialist country and we were at war with countries that were Capitalists, and some Capitalists were very radical and their Capitalism was very much based on greed and justifying violence to further their goals, and Chomsky said that there is no difference between Capitalism and this radical Capitalism, that we are at war with Capitalism, and we must defeat it militarily, then Chomsky would be talking rubbish, he would be putting the lives of Capitalists who are not radical in danger because some people would now consider there to be no difference between these Capitalists and the radical Capoitalists, and therefore, I would not want Chomsky to receive an Honourary degree.

BTW, can you please provide a QUOTE where Ayaan said that her statement was meant to be inflammatory? I would like to see QUOTEs.