Of course you have the right not to read the article Alameda provided but all she has done is respond to your original post.  Surely you didn´t expect no response whatsoever? It seems to me you were stirring the pot and hoping someone would season your mix. 

 Catwoman, I´m not insisting you do anything....however when you make pronouncements such as:

"Basically religious moderates are a diplomatic face for radicals.."

and

"I didn´t have anybody specific in mind.. I just said what is the main argument against religious moderates. It´s that they give the nice face to religions and shield the radicals, who simply take the religious scriptures more seriously."

What am I/we to do? Should we just accept your opinion, bow down to your great wisdom, brought about by your intensive research on the matter (or is it intuitive?), or are we permitted to engage in dialogue? You have painted a whole lot of people with a very broad brush....and I really don´t think you can include Ms. Armstrong...and others...in that sweep of the brush.

You don´t have to bow down to my opinions, but you should indeed respect it. It´s my opinion and I don´t wish to fight about it..

 why is that? why armstrong cannot be included? is she a somewhat divine?

yes i listened to her. and i think shes rather boring. moreover, shes a complete ignorant on religions. she says she was sent to jerusalem having no idea on the religions of the area. pathetic government bodies send such pathetic things to such areas.

Thank you Catwoman, it´s nice to know there´s at least one person out there who understands. I´m surprised that there´s so many people who do not see the absurdity of it all - the belief systems that religions propagate that are based on myths from times where people thought Earth was flat, the willingness of people to condemn and even kill others based on those beliefs, the absurdity of having to "respect" those beliefs even if they are harmful to the societies and our species as a whole, and the total social ban on criticizing them. I think it´s time to examine those beliefs and ask oneself, why do we believe? Is it because we were told to by our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers? Where´s the evidence for any of the religion´s claims? Are the claims religions make moral? We need to be able to QUESTION and CRITICIZE those beliefs and not play nice when faced with the absurdities and not pretend that we respect other´s beliefs. And the moderates are the guilty here. They pick and choose what to believe, which beliefs are acceptable and which are just to be ignored, and then they propagate the myths that religions are "peaceful". There´s no such thing, at least not among the big 3 (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). People just choose to ignore the uncomfortable parts of the so called holy books and pick and choose whatver fits their needs - at the same time failing to talk against those who take those books literally. At least the radicals are honest in their convictions.

If you like Dawkins, I think you´ll like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyUz2XLp1E&feature=PlayList&p=A490902178E6854D&index=0&playnext=1 

Sam Harris is my favorite one, he´s so nice and respectful, and a fantastic debator.

I don´t know much about Richard Dawkins but having just googled him I now know that his official website is banned in Turkey!

Hardly a surprise as he´s a fierce advocate of atheism

 how come? isnt turkey secular?

Turkish court bans Richard Dawkins website

Dawkins (above) described the work of Muslim creationist Adnan Oktar as ´preposterous´

A Turkish court has banned internet users from viewing the official Richard Dawkins website after a Muslim creationist claimed its contents were defamatory and blasphemous.

Adnan Oktar, who writes under the pen name of Harun Yahya, complained that Dawkins, a fierce critic of creationism and intelligent design, had insulted him in comments made on forums and blogs.

According to Oktar´s office, Istanbul´s second criminal court of peace banned the site earlier this month on the grounds that it "violated" Oktar´s personality.

His press assistant, Seda Aral, said: "We are not against freedom of speech or expression but you cannot insult people.

"We found the comments hurtful. It was not a scientific discussion. There was a line and the limit has been passed.

"We have used all the legal means to stop this site. We asked them to remove the comments but they did not."

Oktar, a household name in Turkey, has used hundreds of books, pamphlets and DVDS to contest Darwin´s theory of evolution.

In 2006 his publishers sent out 10,000 copies of the Atlas of Creation, a lavish 800-page rejection of evolution.

Dawkins, one of the recipients, described the book as "preposterous". On his website the British biologist and popular science writer said he was at "a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the ´breathtaking inanity´ of the content."

It is the third time Oktar and his associates have succeeded in blocking sites in Turkey.

In August 2007 Oktar persuaded a court to block access to WordPress.com. His lawyers argued that blogs on WordPress.com contained libelous material that the company was unwilling to remove.

Last April, he made a libel complaint about Google Groups, which was subsequently blocked.

He failed to ban Dawkins´ book the God Delusion in Turkey after a court rejected his claims that it insulted religion.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/18/turkey

I guess in Turkey what Oktar thinks is more important than scientific truths.

Quoting Melek74

Turkish court bans Richard Dawkins website

• Riazat Butt, religious affairs correspondent
• guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 September 2008 13.46 BST
• Article history

Dawkins (above) described the work of Muslim creationist Adnan Oktar as ´preposterous´

A Turkish court has banned internet users from viewing the official Richard Dawkins website after a Muslim creationist claimed its contents were defamatory and blasphemous.

Adnan Oktar, who writes under the pen name of Harun Yahya, complained that Dawkins, a fierce critic of creationism and intelligent design, had insulted him in comments made on forums and blogs.

According to Oktar´s office, Istanbul´s second criminal court of peace banned the site earlier this month on the grounds that it "violated" Oktar´s personality.

His press assistant, Seda Aral, said: "We are not against freedom of speech or expression but you cannot insult people.

"We found the comments hurtful. It was not a scientific discussion. There was a line and the limit has been passed.

"We have used all the legal means to stop this site. We asked them to remove the comments but they did not."

Oktar, a household name in Turkey, has used hundreds of books, pamphlets and DVDS to contest Darwin´s theory of evolution.

In 2006 his publishers sent out 10,000 copies of the Atlas of Creation, a lavish 800-page rejection of evolution.

Dawkins, one of the recipients, described the book as "preposterous". On his website the British biologist and popular science writer said he was at "a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the ´breathtaking inanity´ of the content."

It is the third time Oktar and his associates have succeeded in blocking sites in Turkey.

In August 2007 Oktar persuaded a court to block access to WordPress.com. His lawyers argued that blogs on WordPress.com contained libelous material that the company was unwilling to remove.

Last April, he made a libel complaint about Google Groups, which was subsequently blocked.

He failed to ban Dawkins´ book the God Delusion in Turkey after a court rejected his claims that it insulted religion.

 

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/18/turkey

 

 

I guess in Turkey what Oktar thinks is more important than scientific truths.

This is crazy!!  I thought Turkey was secular?  In which case why would they block the site?   They would rather believe in fairy tales than science...no problem, but why deny access to something that dares to disagree?  Even if Turkey were NOT secular, I understood it to be the case that many modern muslims can happily integrate evolution into their religion ...

Insults?  If you are a public figure you have to accept it.  This has the familiar ring of people running to "mummy" when they cant accept criticism...

This is one of the tricks that are used by the religions:

1. The religion of (insert name of religion here) is always right.

2. If (insert name of religion here) is wrong, see No. 1 (and then we´ll ban you, kill you, excommunicate you, shun you, send our mummy to spank you).

An example from another religion:

1. The Pope is infallible (when speaking ex-cathedra, bla bla).

2. The very FIRST edict that is considered to be infallible was, yes, you got it, that the pope IS infallible.

You can´t win with that.

Interestingly enough, Oktar was sentenced to 3 years in prison for creating an illegal organization for personal gains, which he´s appealing right now. It reminds me of some of the evangelicals here in the States who preach to ignorant masses on Sundays and count their money on weekdays.