New Atheism, Old Empire

[unrepentant progress]

At face value, and by its own understanding, New Atheism is a reinvigorated incarnation of the Enlightenment scientism found in the work of thinkers like Bacon and Descartes: a critical discourse that subjects religious texts and traditions to rational scrutiny by way of empirical inquiry and defends universal reason against the forces of provincialism.

In practice, it is a crude, reductive, and highly selective critique that owes its popular and commercial success almost entirely to the “war on terror” and its utility as an intellectual instrument of imperialist geopolitics.

Whereas some earlier atheist traditions have rejected violence and championed the causes of the Left — Bertrand Russell, to take an obvious example, was both a socialist and a unilateralist — the current streak represented by Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris has variously embraced, advocated, or favorably contemplated: aggressive war, state violence, the curtailing of civil liberties, torture, and even, in the case of the latter, genocidal preemptive nuclear strikes against Arab nations.

Its leading exponents wear a variety of ideological garbs, but their espoused politics range from those of right-leaning liberals to proto-fascist demagogues of the European far-right.

Full essay: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/new-atheism-old-empire

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Harris and Hitchens were warmongers.

I've yet to see anything like that from Dawkins, but I could have just missed it..

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Harris? How so?

Please be explicit, as he thinks he is not one at all.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. That may be an error. I don't see the source I thought showed it.

I may have to take that back, but can't research at the moment.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. 'sok Sam is so tired of this shit he has done the research for you.

My position on the war in Iraq (link to here)

I have never written or spoken in support of the war in Iraq. This has not stopped a “journalist” like Glenn Greenwald from castigating me as a warmonger (Which is especially rich, given that he supported the war. In fact, in 2005 he appeared less critical of U.S. foreign policy than I am.) The truth is, I have never known what to think about this war, apart from the obvious: 1) prospectively, it seemed like a very dangerous distraction from the ongoing war in Afghanistan; 2) retrospectively, it was a disaster. Much of the responsibility for this disaster falls on the Bush administration, and one of the administration’s great failings was to underestimate the religious sectarianism of the Iraqi people. Whatever one may think about the rationale for invading Iraq and the prosecution of the war, there is nothing about the conflict that makes Islam look benign—not the reflexive solidarity expressed throughout the Muslim world for Saddam Hussein (merely because an army of “infidels” attacked him), not the endless supply of suicide bombers willing to kill Iraqi noncombatants, not the insurgency’s use of women and children as human shields, not the ritual slaughter of journalists and aid workers, not the steady influx of jihadis from neighboring countries, and not the current state of public opinion among European and American Muslims. It seems to me that no reasonable person can conclude that these phenomena are purely the result of U.S. foreign policy.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2

[trotsky]

29. It is sad that the people who push these hateful, false memes...

are now causing atheists themselves to believe them.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. It appears I was successfully snookered.

My bad. I will do better.

[trotsky]

73. Not your fault.

The hate and the lies keep getting repeated, even right here on DU by people who should know (and act) better.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. I looked, didn't find anything egregious. Rug's taken a stab, fell short of the mark too.

So I withdraw it. I must have been recalling how it was reported, rather than what Harris said.

[rug]

32. Is this explicit enough?

The Washington Times - Wednesday, December 1, 2004

Perhaps it is time we thought the unthinkable about Iraq. Perhaps it is time we considered the possibility that we will break everything we touch in that country — or everything we touch will break itself. However mixed or misguided our intentions were in launching this war, we are attempting, at considerable cost to ourselves, to improve life for the Iraqi people.

- snip -

It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is, after all, little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the September 11 hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry.

It is not at all clear how we should proceed in our dialogue with the Muslim world. But deluding ourselves with euphemisms is not the answer. Our press should report on the terrifying state of discourse in the Arab press, exposing the degree to which it is a tissue of lies, conspiracy theories and exhortations to recapture the glories of the 7th century. All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the Earth. Muslim moderates, wherever they are, must be given every tool necessary to win a war of ideas with their coreligionists.

Otherwise, we will have to win some very terrible wars in the future.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/1/20041201-090801-2582r/

Published by such a lovely source.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. That's actually pretty reasonable of a concern.

I personally take the optimist angle, and would simply adapt an old song to a new reality.

[rug]

43. Hiow many of these are you willing to support?

Otherwise, we will have to win some very terrible wars in the future.

You were right the first time, AC. He's a warmonger.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. He's cautioning against a possibility, not cheerleading for it. Reading Comprehension; The More You

Know(TM)

Hitchens on the other hand, absolutely joined the lead for the charge into Iraq.

[rug]

45. Bullshit. He's rationalizing them.

Something your compadres above ignore so long as he trashes religion in tghe process

[AtheistCrusader]

47. No he isn't.

In your own excerpt he acknowledges and observes that the action as it was progressing in Iraq, was BREAKING rather than fixing things.

[rug]

50. He was rationaling Iraq in 2004.

However mixed or misguided our intentions were in launching this war, we are attempting, at considerable cost to ourselves, to improve life for the Iraqi people.

Despite the numbers of Iraqi dead and the travesty of Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi insurgents know that we did not come to their country to rape their women or to kill innocent civilians.

That's the opinion The Washington Times was, is, and wil be happy to publish. And he'll be happy to provide.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. You're not making any sense.

He is acknowledging the damage, and the stated intent. This is not a rationalization nor exhortation to more of the same.

Quite the opposite.

[rug]

54. "we are attempting, at considerable cost to ourselves, to improve life for the Iraqi people."

Written at the height of the horror in 2004.

If you see that as anything but a rationalizatiobn, there's only one thing to do,.

Go back and complete your apologies to them for straying.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. 'The height of horror' didn't come about till around 2006.

'What we were trying to do' does not imply or assure the actual effect of what we were trying to do.

Harris is not infallible, nor is he omniscient. Some people, even those that did NOT buy into the justification for the war, that were STILL CONFUSED when the 'greeting us with flowers in the streets' thing didn't happen.

That what we called 'nation building' would be welcomed.

(A perception belied by what Bush and Co were actually up to.)

[rug]

63. Okay. How about "escalating horror"?

I take back everything I said about the poor misunderstood man.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. "Muslim moderates, wherever they are, must be given every tool necessary to win a war of ideas with

their coreligionists."


That's not advocating military action. That is his primary point. The 'terrible wars' bit is the likely consequence if 'we' fail in that war of ideas.

Come on, surely you can do better than this.

[rug]

52. That's not his primary point at all.

That's weasely ass-covering..

This is hie primary point:

It is time we admitted that we are not at war with “terrorism.” We are at war with Islam. This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims, but we are absolutely at war with the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran. The only reason Muslim fundamentalism is a threat to us is because the fundamentals of Islam are a threat to us. Every American should read the Koran and discover the relentlessness with which non-Muslims are vilified in its pages. The idea that Islam is a “peaceful religion hijacked by extremists” is a dangerous fantasy — and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge.

Surely you can do better than carry water for this war-mongering Islamophobic asshole. Those two, no. You, yes.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. The best I can determine is

You have difficulty separating the 'what' 'why' and 'go do' phases of a statement like that.

The 'Go do' is to bolster the Islamic moderates in a WAR OF IDEAS by any and all means.

That's a pretty charitable position, more charitable in fact, than mine, when I suggest members of a faith that includes moral doctrine they do not agree with, leave and find a different faith, or different expression of the same faith more in keeping with their values.

Your objection seems fairly... immaterial here.

[rug]

64. The bodies enabled by these war apologists are not yet immaterial.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Except he's not doing that, AND even if I accepted 'apologist' he still

is in a totally different class from Hitchens on this, as he did not advocate the war, so far as I have ever seen.

[rug]

69. Hitchens never couched his positions. I give him that.

[phil89]

110. His stances on anything other

tan atheism have nothing to with atheism. I completely disagreed with his stances on the war. Atheism does not have anything to do with anything other than the rejection of a claim.

[rug]

124. I agree with that.

The problem is when he intimates his positions logically flow from atheism.

[stone space]

59. He was a little more explicit in his book.

What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.

http://pangrammaticon.blogspot.com/2011/07/chris-hedges-and-sam-harris-on-nuclear.html

The guy at the link has a longer excerpt, and some very interesting comments on the whole thing. (My bold in this little snippet.)

Harris appears to be scared enough of Muslims to seriously consider the possibility killing them all in order to ensure his own survival. (He wouldn't like to have to do it, you understand; but it may one day become necessary because, you know, that's the way "they" are.) His fear is built, not on a lack of faith, but on a lack of understanding of people of faith. It is, quite explicitly, based on atheism.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. "Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime"

He is building a (hyperbolic and pessimistic) case for supporting the Islamic moderates.

"The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."

He is NOT making a case to eradicate them, and calls out why it would be unthinkable and criminal to do so.

[stone space]

76. "...but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe." (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

90. Yes, if you slice and dice and chop it out all context of the 'what'/'go-do' you can make the 'why'

sound a little ominous, while being massively disingenuous. Good job. Have a cookie.

[stone space]

91. Slice it and dice it however you want. Nuclear genocide is still genocide. (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

93. And being disingenuous is still being disingenuous.

"The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen."


He's warning of a possibility (in hyperbolic, 'the soviets are gonna git us' cold war terms that I do not agree with) and pointing out a solution. A suggestion you are blithely ignoring to maintain your bullshit narrative.

"Muslim moderates, wherever they are, must be given every tool necessary to win a war of ideas with their coreligionists."


When you intentionally alter the context of his statement to cast a warning, however hyperbolic and unlikely the warning may be, as an exhortation to war when the main thrust of the article encourages a non-violent path forward, you are lying. Good day to you.

[stone space]

96. No, he was discussing them being annihilated on account of genocide.

I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas

Not because of any religious ideas, but because of genocidal maniacs in this country who would launch a first strike nuclear attack.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. And you still seem confused that it's a WARNING and not an exhortation.

[stone space]

99. Warning of a first strike genocidal nuclear attack? (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

100. Say it again without the question mark.

Because if the moderates he is SUPPORTING lose, some shitbag like dubya in the future, might well do that to 'protect us'.

W's brother is clearly grooming himself for a white house run. One cannot rule out the possibility.


Where I feel Harris has a blind spot here, is extremist Christians on our side.
http://www.thestar.com/news/2009/05/29/was_bush_on_a_mission_from_god.html

That, and I think his rhetoric is over-blown. As destabilized as the minds of the Islamic extremists Harris is talking about may be, so too was Khrushchev, and we seem to have come through that ok without a war. Had we attacked cuba, however, Harris's warning about spiraling military involvement could have come true.

[stone space]

102. Describing genocide as "the only option available to us"...

...is not as innocuous as you are trying to make out.

Even if he does go on to discuss the PR aspects of committing genocide.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. Except that's the only option after YOU distill his entire message down to that.

You've left out all the opportunities he's outlined to avoid such an eventuality. Opportunities that lead to peaceful co-existence.

He is exhorting THAT, not war, because as he pointed out, most of humanity dies if anyone goes nuclear in this conflict. (Possible ALL of humanity will die.)

[stone space]

108. You mean like not doing a first strike nuclear attack in the first place?

You've left out all the opportunities he's outlined to avoid such an eventuality. Opportunities that lead to peaceful co-existence.

Beating swords into plowshares, instead?

[AtheistCrusader]

109. If you actually read the whole thing, yes.

I wish he'd been more specific, that the first strike warning isn't about the targets. It's about the Bush Doctrine and his fellow travelers. He should have specified that for clarity.

It's obvious to me, but it's apparently not to you, for whatever reason.

[cpwm17]

94. Liberals made no excuses for William Bennett when he said something similar

http://mediamatters.org/video/2005/09/28/media-matters-exposes-bennett-you-could-abort-e/133904

Here's William Bennett speaking to a radio caller:

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

"That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do." Does that statement make what Bennitt said any less bad? Liberals didn't think so.

Both William Bennett and Sam Harris fantasize about mass murder (and are both phony moral crusaders). Liberals made no excuses for William Bennett; but, if anything, what Sam Harris said is even worse:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2

What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Not equal in the slightest.

Bennett is fully assuming that the crime rate would go down if there were no black people. That's stupendously racist.

The extremist elements of the Islamic faith that Harris has explicitly specified, do actually want war with other folks, including, at the moment, moderates of their own faith.

The moderates in the 'Islamic world' (however you define the Islamic world) are indeed a society we can co-exist with, without war. That's his assumption. Bennett's assumption is that black people drive up the crime rate.


Not equal things.

[cpwm17]

103. No, they are completely the same.

Sam Harris fantasized about genocide against the entire Muslim World (or parts of it) to eliminate the alleged dangers from Muslims. Bennitt fantasized about a genocidal abortion programs to eliminate the alleged dangers from black crime - no difference.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. Well, you are clearly determined to misconstrue his statement to craft that narrative, sure.

I grow weary of you re-stating your error.

Harris's point is we should bolster the moderates. That the alternative leads to war. A war most of humanity, in his estimate, won't survive.

If he made the case that such a war was winnable, or acceptable losses, you'd have a point, but he didn't, and you don't.

[cpwm17]

111. They both expressed very similar extremely racist fantasies

Nether of them necessarily support such atrocities in real life.

I take it that you support Harris' Islamophobia then?

From my post #92:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=167165

[AtheistCrusader]

113. Religion isn't a race. One of your examples assumes race as a modifier to crime rates.

The other WARNS that ONE SECT of a PARTICULAR RELIGION seeks war, and if we don't do something about it, war is likely inevitable.

Quit torturing this analogy. Somewhere, Dick Cheney just got an erection and doesn't know why.

[cpwm17]

119. You are wrong

A nuclear weapon doesn't discriminate between religious sects and abortion can't determine whether the aborted fetus would have committed a crime in the future. Supporting an unprovoked nuclear strike (or fantasizing about one) is racist. It's an attack against an entire people.

Harris fantasized about mass-murdering every single Muslim, at least in a particular region. Harris singles out Muslims for being particularly evil and he fantasizes about committing genocide against Muslims.

Harris hates Muslims and he supports the aggressors in wars against Muslim using lies and B/S propaganda. I'll post this again:
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/18/opinion/oe-harris18

This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world -- for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise...

Given the mendacity and shocking incompetence of the Bush administration -- especially its mishandling of the war in Iraq -- liberals can find much to lament in the conservative approach to fighting the war on terror. Unfortunately, liberals hate the current administration with such fury that they regularly fail to acknowledge just how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are....

In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.

Given these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise.

[AtheistCrusader]

122. Harris warned against, not fantasized about, nuclear war.

You continue to misconstrue.

I am politically and historically opposed to Harris's position on the Israel/Palestine conflict. I am also politically opposed to Harris's position on 'liberals'. I think he is in error, and I am willing to debate it with him, as I am with ANYONE who holds those positions.

"Supporting an unprovoked nuclear strike (or fantasizing about one) is racist. It's an attack against an entire people."

Super good then, that he didn't do either of those things.

[cpwm17]

139. Here's what a war cheerleader posted in GD during Israel's recent aggressions against the Gaza Strip

racist, ignorant, pro-war crap from Sam Harris (it got appropriately hidden): http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-Israel

The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them. The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” This is a political document. We are talking about a government that was voted into power by a majority of Palestinians...

What do groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and even Hamas want? They want to impose their religious views on the rest of humanity. They want to stifle every freedom that decent, educated, secular people care about. This is not a trivial difference. And yet judging from the level of condemnation that Israel now receives, you would think the difference ran the other way.

This kind of confusion puts all of us in danger. This is the great story of our time. For the rest of our lives, and the lives of our children, we are going to be confronted by people who don’t want to live peacefully in a secular, pluralistic world, because they are desperate to get to Paradise, and they are willing to destroy the very possibility of human happiness along the way. The truth is, we are all living in Israel. It’s just that some of us haven’t realized it yet.

Hidden post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025304843

[AtheistCrusader]

142. And as I just said...

"I am politically and historically opposed to Harris's position on the Israel/Palestine conflict. I am also politically opposed to Harris's position on 'liberals'. I think he is in error, and I am willing to debate it with him, as I am with ANYONE who holds those positions."

[cpwm17]

144. So now you should go back to your previous belief and acknowledge that he is a warmonger

and a racist one, just like most warmongers.

[AtheistCrusader]

145. You have yet to demonstrate he is either.

Your tortured extension of

"A nuclear weapon doesn't discriminate between religious sects and abortion can't determine whether the aborted fetus would have committed a crime in the future. Supporting an unprovoked nuclear strike (or fantasizing about one) is racist. It's an attack against an entire people."

in response to my pointing out that religion isn't a race, doesn't work either. In case you haven't noticed, there's no Islamic nation, however defined, with a population that is 100% any one particular racial origin.

Quite apart from the fact that Harris NEITHER supported nor fantasized about a nuclear war, in which he cautioned us, most of humanity COULD DIE.

Reading. It's FUNdamental.

"The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen."


That is a WARNING, not cheerleading or fantasizing. I realize you're desperate to cast it in that light, but all your wild threshing's in this thread don't make it so.

[cpwm17]

156. Reading, it's fundamental.

right back at you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=167304

The pro-war poster that posted Harris' pro-war piece had no difficulty deciding that he supported war, and neither did the jurors. What does someone have to do to be considered a warmonger by you? That was 100% pro-war racist bullshit.

I can read this also:

What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade.

Whatever mealy mouthed B/S that follows this doesn't erase what he wrote, and his history of supporting unprovoked war against Muslims makes him look much worse. He supports the empire using the typical racist excuses.

[AtheistCrusader]

159. That is his justification for support/aid to moderate muslims, because they MUST

win the war of ideas (his words, indicating non-violence) with the extremists.

You are ALTERING THE CONTEXT of what he is saying. It is deceptive, and immoral to do so. Anyone who read that paragraph without the rest of the piece he authored would also come to that conclusion, because you have scrubbed the actual intent.

Harris is NOT advocating military action/first strike. He is laying out a worst case consequence IF we/Islamic moderates fail.

It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side.

Emphasis by Harris himself, in his own words.


This is the only thing Harris is exhorting ANYONE to DO in those articles:

"Muslim moderates, wherever they are, must be given every tool necessary to win a war of ideas with their coreligionists."

Bombing them with atomic weapons, as you seem fixated on attributing to him, would be counter-productive to that aim. One, it would inflame moderates, and two, it would kill a shitload of moderates. Bombing people isn't something any rational person could equate with 'giving them every tool necessary'.

[cpwm17]

92. Harris is a war monger

Sam Harris defends ours and Israel's war mongering:

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/18/opinion/oe-harris18

This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world -- for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise...

Given the mendacity and shocking incompetence of the Bush administration -- especially its mishandling of the war in Iraq -- liberals can find much to lament in the conservative approach to fighting the war on terror. Unfortunately, liberals hate the current administration with such fury that they regularly fail to acknowledge just how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are....

In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.

Given these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise.

[immoderate]

2. Balls!

--imm

[cbayer]

4. Yes, I would say that to mount this kind of unemotional and heavily researched attack

against this holy group would require balls… or ovaries.

[cbayer]

3. This is one of the harshest critiques that i have read of this particular group.

Being sacred cows to some, I predict a firestorm.

What I would rather see is a discussion about the possible legitimacy of the author's analysis of their role in promoting western imperialism and how they have used anti-theism to promote that cause.

BTW, the image he posts with his article speaks volumes about he diversity that is so absent among those that sell themselves as leaders.

[TygrBright]

8. How is it not diverse? That one guy has a beard! n/t

[cbayer]

11. Lol, hi there TB!

I am embarrassed to say that he is the only one I don't recognize. Perhaps the beard is throwing me off.

[unrepentant progress]

14. Philosopher Daniel Dennett

He's one of the original Four Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse. He's also the least New Atheist-y of the New Atheists.

[cbayer]

16. Ah, thank you very much. He is longship's favorite and I have only

heard a little from him.

[cbayer]

17. Hmm….. he is not mentioned in the entire article. Why is that?

[MellowDem]

18. Doesn't fit the convoluted demonization

Of the author.

[okasha]

71. And two of them wear glasses.

[trotsky]

21. You have a peculiar definition of "sacred cow," cbayer.

Why, every atheist I've seen on DU has said something to the effect of "I don't necessarily agree with (Dawkins/Harris/other atheist boogeyman) on such-and-such topic." In other words, they are criticized by fellow atheists too. Which hardly makes them "sacred cows."

But I suppose it serves your agenda to lump a whole bunch of DUers into a tidy little box for you to condemn and demonize.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Oh please, the image is a photoshop collage. It reveals nothing except the biases of the author that

either created or selected it.

[skepticscott]

57. Bullshit. Sacred cows? Who is this "some"?

I defy you to point to ANYONE who considers any of these guys "sacred cows". Or to even a single instance where anyone calls or looks to any of these guys as one of their "leaders". You just grab shit out of thin air and fling it against the wall, hoping something sticks, don't you? Well, now's the time to put your evidence out there, if you can (which I seriously doubt).

And if you really want the discussion you claim to (which I also doubt very much), then have the courage to start it yourself, instead of just letting other people do the lifting so that you can sit on the fence until you see how the wind is blowing and THEN take whichever side the people you hate don't.

[rug]

65. Devotees do not look at holy cows as leaders. They simply revere them.

[trotsky]

74. Crazy lack of diversity, huh?

I mean, compare these "atheist popes" to the incredible diversity of the RCC's popes over the last how many years, who vary from old white men all the way to, uh, old white men. Some of them were Italian, does that count as racial diversity?

But oh that's right, religious leaders who actually DO lead congregations of a billion people are irrelevant. A couple of guys who write books and say negative things about religion, who lead no congregations, are the REAL threat. Got it.

[Goblinmonger]

85. Hey, there was a Polish guy.

And this current guy is from Argentina (I mean, yeah, his dad was born in Italy and his mom comes from an Italian family, but he's totally Hispanic-esque).

And the guy between those two guys was from Germany.

Stop spreading your lies about no diversity.

[Jim Lane]

123. I don't understand your "diversity" point.

Atheists and agnostics are found in all demographic groups. You look at a photo montage of the ones who get the most media attention, all of whom are white men, and you imply that this is some sort of valid criticism of them or their point of view.

It seems to me more like a criticism of the media.

You refer to "those that sell themselves as leaders." Is someone like Dawkins supposed to refrain from giving a speech promulgating his views, just because he's a white male and other white males have said similar things?

[cbayer]

125. The demographics of atheists are striking, although they are changing slowly.

The demographics show a predominantly white, male, straight, educated, employed and, shall we say, not impoverished group.

Those that some would consider leaders shows even less diversity and this montage speaks loudly to that.

As there has been some clear evidence of what some might consider a lack of tolerance for those that may be different, I do voice this as a criticism.

Dawkins can and will do whatever he wants. He never hesitates to promulgate his views, including some which are grossly insensitive towards woman and some other groups.

It's not about that. Lack of diversity within a group can mean something and in this case I think that it does.

Some people's privilege reaches far beyond what religious privilege might confer, so far, in fact, that they may not even be able to see the rest of us.

[Jim Lane]

130. And the point is what, exactly?

You write, "The demographics show a predominantly white, male, straight, educated, employed and, shall we say, not impoverished group."

I'm a volunteer in the Sierra Club. Our membership, as compared with the entire American population, is markedly more white, educated, employed, and not impoverished. Does that fact constitute a refutation of the environmental movement's positions on climate change and habitat preservation and numerous other issues?

Obviously it's in the Sierra Club's own interest to expand its support in the underrepresented segments of the population, and it's made efforts to do that. I'm sure that wider support would also be welcomed by atheists or agnostics or New Atheists or organized nonreligious or whatever label you care to use, but I don't see that the demographics affects the merits.

There's some demographic overlap between New Atheism and environmentalism, for some of the same reasons. People who are comparatively free of day-to-day economic worries are more likely to be able to devote themselves to other questions, like environmental protection or religious debates.

As for race, there certainly are atheists and agnostics of color. In the United States, however, we have the particular history of slavery, a long time during which the church was just about the only institution that the African-American population could maintain and draw some succor from. The historical consequence is that, today, American blacks (who are overwhelmingly the descendants of slaves) are more likely to be churchgoers than are whites. Again, so what?

You assert that "there has been some clear evidence of what some might consider a lack of tolerance for those that may be different...." Would you be more specific? I know that individual atheists or agnostics (like individual Christians or Moslems or other religious people) can be racist, sexist, homophobic, or bigoted in other ways, and that we can point to such words and actions among people of widely differing beliefs on religious subjects. Nevertheless, I don't know of any atheist or agnostic institutions that bar women from positions of leadership (as does the Catholic Church), that until modern times barred blacks from such positions (as did the Latter-Day Saints), or that have as official doctrine the sinfulness and condemnation to eternal hellfire of LGBT people (as do several contemporary Christian denominations, and maybe Islam too, though I'm not sufficiently familiar with that particular religion to know exactly which irrational prejudices it shares with Christianity).

You assert that atheists are predominantly straight. That I hadn't heard (except in the obvious sense that just about any group is predominantly straight, given our preponderance in the overall population). Do you have any data showing that atheists or agnostics are more likely to be straight than are religious people?

Gender raises some interesting questions. In the United States today, whether because of genetics or environment or some combination, men tend to be more aggressive than women, while women are more inclined toward cooperation. In a society in which monotheistic religion is so strongly presented as the norm, it may well be that men's combative nature plays a role in their prominence among atheists. The gender that's more likely to commit violent crimes is also the one more likely to buck the dominant religion. On this hypothesis, an officially atheistic society would find that men were more likely to be religious leaders than were women -- but that's pure speculation on my part.

[cbayer]

131. This is an article about the political views of certain prominent atheists.

So their demographic group does have significant. If they are championing causes that have been connected with white, entitled imperialistic people and nations, then their demographic is a factor.

The reason there is an overlap with atheists in general and the sierra club is that atheists in general tend to lean left demographically.

But this particular group does not lean so left when it comes to some issues and that is the point.

If atheist groups want to expand their demographic, they have an interesting way of showing that. The issues with women and other minority groups have been posted about here in the past. Some of the individuals highlighted in this article have contributed to the problems.

I appreciate your long response, but I am not going to do your homework right now. There is lots of information available. You could search this group for specific keywords and get a pretty good run down.

You are most likely correct about the sexual orientation issue. As for the others, the demographics are decidedly different than for religious populations.

Men's combative nature plays a role in their rise within atheist organizations? Yes, I'll agree with that. In some areas their aggressive nature towards women has played a role. I won't even go into the issue of violence within those organizations, but the information is there is you want it.

I generally support atheist organizations, but there are significant problems in some areas and significant problems connected with some of these individuals discussed in this article. Until these groups recognize and deal with those issues, they are doomed to be marginalized or even demonized.

You can either look into that yourself or just dismiss it. Just take the time to read some articles written by female atheists and atheists of color…. or not.

[Warren Stupidity]

137. "I am not going to do your homework right now" - priceless!

You've got nothing. You know it.

"I generally support atheist organizations" - which is why your copious posts here supporting atheist organizations are readily available. Or not.

[trotsky]

138. Truly classic.

It's not his "homework" to do, cbayer. It's yours. They are your claims. You need to back them up. No wonder you struggle to be taken seriously.

[skepticscott]

132. You're probably not aware that

the religious apologists and atheist bashers here (yes, some of whom are atheists themselves) consider it irrelevant and beneath them to discuss the evidence for the existence of gods and the justification for being an atheist on the "merits". By their thinking, reason and evidence are tired and old-fashoned ways of looking at things, and they try desperately to move the argument beyond such mundane considerations. Mainly, of course, because they know how foolish they'd look trying to argue convincingly for the existence of "god" on merit. So they fall back to either trying to show that the existence of "faith" is all that really matters, and that the actual existence (or not) of real, actual gods is utterly irrelevant, or that because the existence of every possible "god" can't be disproven to a 100% certainty that the odds of gods are 50-50.

[stone space]

134. Why do we need "justification" for being atheists?

I don't know about you, but I am who I am.

And I don't feel the need to justify my existence to anybody.

[skepticscott]

135. Some of us

call "justifications" reasons. And some of us skeptics like to have reasons before taking an intellectual position.

But since you am who you am, I suppose you don't. And please, please…keep your word and do not try to justify your existence to us…I think everyone here would be grateful for your forbearance.

[stone space]

143. We don't have access to the "reasons" for our beliefs.

We only have access to rationalizations.

I'm not a neurobiologist nor a sociologist.

Trying to give actual "reasons" for my being a militant atheist, for example, would be a fool's task.

I can only assert my right to exist, and refuse to be pushed into the closet by those whose insecurities make them feel threatened by my mere existence.

I don't need any so-called "justifications" to do that.

Demands that we somehow "justify" our existence are misplaced.

[AtheistCrusader]

146. Add 'English Major' to the list.

Because you are wildly misreading/misinterpreting the use of 'justification' in that post.

You've turned this thread fork into something that's actually difficult to attempt to reply to.

[skepticscott]

148. So you have no "reasons" for doing anything?

You have no "reasons" for picking the college you did, for studying mathematics, for marrying who you did, for posting here? All you can give for any of those things are lame rationalizations? And you tell people who ask you why you did any of those things that it's a "fools task" to try to explain them?

You have a very sad outlook on life..I pity you.

[stone space]

149. At the time, it seemed the logical thing to do.

for marrying who you did

Amanda: And you, Sarek, would you also say thank you to your son?

Sarek: I don't understand.

Amanda: For saving your life.

Sarek: Spock acted in the only logical manner open to him. One does not thank logic, Amanda.

Amanda: Logic! Logic! I'm sick to death of logic! Do you want to know how I feel about your logic?

Spock: Emotional, isn't she?

Sarek: She has always been that way.

Spock: Indeed. Why did you marry her?

Sarek: At the time it seemed the logical thing to do.

[skepticscott]

150. You fit right in

with the religionistas. Dragging out a pop culture reference to deflect from having a failed and disingenuous argument exposed.

Keep at it! They all must love you!

[AtheistCrusader]

151. "He'll be collecting his brownie points and getting his promotion soon."

That's how I think these sorts of things are usually phrased.

At least, in some venues around here.

[bvf]

168. I've been meaning to ask about that. n/t.

[stone space]

173. It's a pop cuture reference that I've found useful.

I wish somebody would put up a video of the entire scene from the old series. The one I posted only has the last line of dialogue.

Dragging out a pop culture reference to deflect from having a failed and disingenuous argument exposed.

It has come in useful many, many times in discussions regarding gay marriage.

Of course, folks have different approaches to marriage.

One guy claims that he took a sheet of paper, drew a line down the middle, and proceeded to write down the pros on one side and the cons on the other.

He then counted the number of entries on both sides.

The pros won, so he got married.

You might find his approach more useful than mine.

So far as I now, he's still married.

Whereas my method (like Sarek's), which relies on the use of pure logic alone, has resulted 50% divorce rate, which is probably not much better nor much worse than national average.

[stone space]

157. What kind of reason would you have me give?

for studying mathematics

I've been a mathematician for as long as I can remember.

I've always liked math.

Do I really need a "reason"?

Or a "justification"?

You have a very sad outlook on life..I pity you.

What is so sad about my outlook on life?

Why do you pity me?

Just for liking math without sufficient justification in your mind?

What sort of "justification" could I give for liking math that lead to a decrease in your level of pity for me?

[skepticscott]

160. The fact that you even need to ask such questions

shows that you're either very confused, or that you've been so disingenuous with so many people here that you can't keep your stories straight any more.

In either case, I feel sorry for you. But there are people on this board who are well known for reaching out to those who have problems (perhaps you've even noticed them doing it a lot recently...they're hard to miss), and I'm sure one of them will be offering you some help, as they have to so many other atheists.

[stone space]

161. Thank you for your kind sympathy.

In either case, I feel sorry for you.

I'm deeply touched.

[skepticscott]

165. No problem...it's nothing you don't deserve

For all of your thoughtful contributions here.

[stone space]

164. Oh, that one is easy.

You have no "reasons" for picking the college you did

There's only one graduate math program in the country that I know of that would accept somebody into their PhD program without an undergraduate degree.

It was a very difficult decision to narrow it down from there, but I chose that one.

Supposedly, the explanation is that Hopkins has the oldest PhD math program in the country, and the department has a good degree of autonomy from the administration as a result, so that their admissions decisions are made by the department and cannot be vetoed by the administration.

There, my fate was in the hands of mathematicians, whereas in other universities my fate would have been in the hands administrators.

That's a much preferable situation.

[PassingFair]

186. Most of the world's atheists live in China.

Last edited Sat Dec 6, 2014, 04:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Lots of diversity amongst atheists.

[Warren Stupidity]

189. When that uncomfortable fact is brought up

our friends magically eliminate east asia from consideration while pronouncing atheism to be restricted to white wealthy Europeans and americans. If the demographics don't fit we must evict.

[cbayer]

190. Yeah, that tends to happen when the government has an extensive history

of feeling threatened by religion and actively opposing it.

Any other examples of diversity?

Check out the demographics.

[PassingFair]

192. These demographics?

[cbayer]

193. No, these demographics.

But, if you want to restrict it to just nationality, you graph does show some diversity. It doesn't show anything about sex, educational status, income or race, but it does show some differences in nationality. Of course if you remove China and Japan who's relationship with religion is very complex and people's lack of affiliation not necessarily voluntary, it's looking pretty first world.

This is not surprising and I think that there is a serious need for outreach and inclusion.

[trotsky]

128. Well it's like this:

The current crop of the most prominent vocal atheists, who really hold no political power or significant influence all happen to be white men? ZOMG, atheism has a diversity problem. Oh, and a sexism problem too. And probably dandruff.

The entire hierarchy of the largest church in the world, that actively works to control the lives of everyone (not just its members) being 100% male? No problem. And don't you dare criticize them. The new pope is a really really nice guy who wants to change everything despite not actually changing anything.

[Lordquinton]

162. Time to update your post

even the author realized his mistake.

[cbayer]

163. You mean he changed the image?

I suspect it had more to do with copyright violation than any kind of mistake.

The image was an original which he altered and did not cite.

What kind of mistake do you think he made?

[rug]

5. Good article, good source.

Jacobin is a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture. The print magazine is released quarterly and reaches over 6,000 subscribers, in addition to a web audience of 500,000 a month.

His comments on "Empire’s Handmaidens" are particularly well-taken.

The criticisms of Islam, no matter how well-grounded initially, can easily be harnessed to support a neo-liberal military agenda in the Middle East. Harnessed as easily as religion often is.

It is simply impossible to imagine the commercial and intellectual success of the New Atheist project in a pre-9/11 world without both rising anti-Muslim sentiments across Western societies or neoconservative geopolitics. It is against the backdrop of the war on terror, with its violent and destructive adventurism, that the notion of a monolithic evil called “Islam” has found a sizable constituency in the circles of liberal respectability.

[cbayer]

13. They have done this by promoting a popular cause within a community that would otherwise

reject their political cause.

It seems almost traitorous.

[unrepentant progress]

83. To my mind the NAs are more in the mold of the original neocons than neo-liberals.

Theirs is a reactionary ideology which well fits the pattern so well described by Corey Robin, and much like the neocons they come from generally the anti-authoritarian left, but after bloody turmoil embraced interventionist military policy in the name of promoting democracy. And they come uncomfortably close to displaying Lipsett and Raab's five factors of right wing extremism -- preservationistic, monistic, simplistic, and they seek to rally a coalition of elites and plebians. The one factor of right wing extremists that the NAs don't express is conspiracism. At least I don't think I've heard any of the prominent NAs espousing any conspiracy theories.

[rug]

126. You may be right about that.

[MellowDem]

6. It's strange how new atheism...

Has been defined as a vague boogie man with no real consistent definition by critics of vocal atheists. In fact, it's seems to be confined almost solely to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, who did not have some sort of consistent atheist ideology between them. It's like new atheism is just a way of saying conservatives who also happen to be atheists, or conservative ideas, which makes me laugh at the stupidity of the term.

The term makes no sense. What is new atheism? What are it's positions? Fascism and imperialism? According to who? Who is a new atheist?

From what I can tell, the term is being used as a way to pigeonhole and demonize a group that has only one common charCteristic, a lack of belief in God, and therefore is harder to demonize than in the past as they become more outspoken and out of the closet.

The author's critique near the end of how "new atheism" critiques religion is especially hilarious, as it makes one wonder what new atheism demands in its critiques as opposed to regular atheism. The term has become a clear sign to me of the perpetuation of the demonization of atheists and atheism.

[unrepentant progress]

9. It's funny how the only people who have trouble knowing the meaning of 'New Atheism'...

...are themselves New Atheists.

New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

Works for me.

[MellowDem]

10. Not according to the author....

He didn't use the wiki definition.

Atheists have been despised and discriminated against for millennia and are a distinct minority, and this author thinks some atheist authors are only popular due to the War on Terror and not changing societal perceptions of religion. He dismisses a lot of history by doing so, and it's insulting.

If that is the definition of new atheism, then the author's rant is attacking a straw man and demonizing them, as I just said.

[unrepentant progress]

12. OK, let me reword that...

It's funny how New Atheists lack reading comprehension and manage to see persecution in even the most innocuous of words. Now if you excuse me, I have to go burn Dawkins in effigy.

-- signed, a self-hating atheist

[MellowDem]

15. The author essentially tries to make...

Three authors into a "movement" that has no ideological similarity, by his own admission, in order to support his convoluted theory. And it makes absolutely no sense.

It's simplistic, and it definitely is similar to the type of demonization the religious right subjects atheists to all the time. Find an atheist you dislike, attribute what you dont like about them to atheism, and then wax poetic about all the good atheists who knew their place and weren't so mean when they criticized an idea.

Your snarky asshole reply shows that this is exactly what the term is for, any outspoken anti-theist atheist can then be lumped in with three atheist authors, and fascism and imperialism while they're at it. It's fucking stupid.

[trotsky]

20. Nailed it. n/t

[immoderate]

30. Bravo!

--imm

[Warren Stupidity]

31. IBTIAAH

In before the inevitable alert and hide.

Well said.

[Iggo]

34. yES!!!!

[bvf]

169. Very well said. n/t.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. So, for example, Voltaire was a New Atheist?

Or do we have to define "modern"?

[skepticscott]

58. It's strange that none of the people who are called "New Atheists"

actually apply the term to themselves. It's only atheist loathers among the religious and self-loathing atheists trying to appear "nice" who have this incessant need to create "leaders" and a "movement" so that they can attack and smear as many people as possible by association. Of course, most of those people are too brain-dead to even realize that what they're attacking so lamely isn't even atheism in the first place. Most of them I dismiss in the first paragraph or so of their internet hackfests when I see they haven't even cleared that easy intellectual hurdle.

[rug]

66. Lol!

Your lecturing grows ever more hilarious.

"self-loathing atheists"



"Most of them I dismiss in the first paragraph or so of their internet hackfests when I see they haven't even cleared that easy intellectual hurdle."

[stone space]

75. What's a "self-loathing atheist"?

self-loathing atheists

[Goblinmonger]

86. For a prototype

see: S. E. Cupp

[stone space]

87. Please do not post to me.

You know why.

[Goblinmonger]

88. Use ignore

I told you the parameters for the apology you demanded and you haven't come through with that.

So, if you don't want to see what I have to say, there's a feature that makes that possible.

[stone space]

89. Will you promise never to use the N-Word with me ever again?

Without such a promise, you have no reason to ever post to me.

I don't think that it is too much to ask of ones fellow posters here at DU.

It just matter of respecting boundaries.

[AtheistCrusader]

114. Fallacy; category: Loaded Question. Example: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Bifurcating answers: Yes/No. Either position implicitly accepts the accusation.

[stone space]

115. Respecting boundries is not a fallacy. (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

116. And you know full well that isn't what I was referring to.

[stone space]

117. You replied to a post addressed to another user...

...about respecting boundaries.

[AtheistCrusader]

118. Yes I did. Because when I see behavior like that, I call it out.

[stone space]

120. Behaviour like what?

People getting upset when others insist on their right to use the N-word with them over and over again, even after they say "no" multiple times?

What's wrong with saying "no"?

[AtheistCrusader]

121. I took issue with the wording of Post 89, because of the implicit characterization of the exchange

you are referring to.

[trotsky]

129. If I ask you to stop replying to me, will you? n/t

[Heddi]

166. Interesting spelling of "behavior."

for someone who lives in Iowa. Or wherever your pepper farm is. How long did you study abroad?

[stone space]

172. In a Ramsey Theory article a while back, ...

Last edited Sat Dec 6, 2014, 10:18 AM - Edit history (1)

...my two co-authors and I used the word "color" (or "colour&quot dozens of times in the article, about half the time with one spelling and the other half of the time the with the other spelling.

Before submitting it for publication we decided that we should make a definitive choice and stick to it for the entire article.

We chose "colour".

Interesting spelling of "behavior."

for someone who lives in Iowa. Or wherever your pepper farm is. How long did you study abroad?

I don't have a "pepper farm", but I did grow quite a few chilli peppers last summer in the garden in the back yard.

Some very hot ones, too.

As well as some of the milder varieties such as habaneros.

[Heddi]

180. Nice non-answer

Psst...your mask is slipping. I bet you won't make THAT mistake again. Say hello to the kids at the pepper farm for us (or are they deck-hands at the marina?) Nevermind. Doesn't matter.

[stone space]

181. Are you a stalker?

Thanks for narrowing down who it is.

[Heddi]

182. are you?

[stone space]

191. Nice goats. Small ark. We have goats. (nt)

[stone space]

183. I don't have any kids at any pepper farm

Nice non-answer

Psst...your mask is slipping. I bet you won't make THAT mistake again. Say hello to the kids at the pepper farm for us (or are they deck-hands at the marina?) Nevermind. Doesn't matter.

Nor do I have any "deck-hands at the marina", whatever that may mean.

Why are some atheists so prone to make weird assumptions without evidence?

I really don't understand your belief system.

[TygrBright]

7. Extra Butter, Please

interestedly,
Bright

[trotsky]

19. LMFAO!

Nice to see it's still a couple of vocal atheists who are to blame for everything, and not the practicing Christians, Jews, and Muslims who actually, ya know, are elected and appointed leaders directly responsible for it.

Keep heaping the scorn and hatred on "New Atheists" - yup, it's their fault. LOLOL

[MellowDem]

22. I know!

Sure, new atheism is just a term for outspoken anti-theists, but did you know that, in practice, this leads to supporting fascism and imperialism?

That's why good atheists find religion benign at worst and keep their mouths shut!

[Iggo]

33. They're still mad we don't have leaders. (Hint: It's because we're not followers.)

[edhopper]

23. Wow

an attack on our country which used religion as a motivating factor, and people start questioning. Some authors write interesting books on the subject and it appeals to a large public.
Authors, who BTW, have been writing books on the subject for years before.
But it must be that what they wrote is garbage because it's just read by a dumb public blinded by a tragedy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. At face value, Daniel Dennett is one of the 3 New Atheists, and Hitchens is not

The article that originated the term: http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html?pg=1&topic=atheism&topic_set=

It doesn't mention Hitchens at all. Of course, we can say that the definition of 'New Atheist' has developed since then - indeed, anyone who wants to include Hitchens has to say that - but why has Dennett become an unperson for Luke Savage? Is is because he doesn't fit his stereotype? Why is Hitchens added, but no-one else - eg Victor Stenger, Lawrence Krauss, PZ Myers or Jerry Coyne?

New Article, Old Bullshit.

[unrepentant progress]

36. Hitchens later added himself

Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris produced a video where they referred to themselves as the "Four Horsemen." They later reprised that titled in a second video.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Exactly. So why did you link to an article which ignores Dennett

and not mention him yourself? You obviously approve of the article - you recommended your own thread.

[unrepentant progress]

38. Because I quite agree with the author

Dennett is superfluous to the article, and I'm sure it was Jacobin's editors' decision to put him in the image, but Maher, Lawrence Krauss, Dawkins, Harris, and many others who fit the New Atheist mold of advancing populist scientistic atheism with a side of fascism, are aptly addressed within even if they are not specifically named. I'm sorry if you think criticism of New Atheism's thought leaders is somehow a smear against all atheists, but I'm not responsible for your delusions of persecution.

Each espouses a binary worldview that pits a civilized, cosmopolitan, and progressive West against a barbaric, monistic, and reactionary East. Though varied in their political positions, Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins have all had very public dalliances with the Right, expressing either overt sympathy for, or enthusiastic endorsement of, some of its most vile and disreputable elements.

Each is outwardly a cultural liberal who primarily addresses liberal audiences — “respectable” to blue-state metropolitans and their equivalents elsewhere in ways Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh never could be — while embracing positions and causes that are manifestly illiberal in the commonly understood sense of the term.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. It's not 'persecution', it's bullshit. Don't flatter yourself.

Dennett is a problem for the claims of the author, so he ignores him. So do you. Because you enjoyed the bullshit, and can't be bothered to make a proper argument (name-calling, such as 'fascist' is not an argument, in case you were under the impression it is). Ricky Gervais is a problem for the author too, and he was in the picture they nicked (from http://www.devontracey.com/atheism-2.jpg, over a year ago: http://www.reddit.com/r/Pro_Quote_Makers/comments/1c4l2y/theyre_right_youre_wrong_devon_tracey/ ), but he's a problem too, so they've cut him out.

[Lordquinton]

41. There are a lot of people who are afraid of this small group

that have very little pull in the world. Yes, they are privileged white men, they use that privilege to overcome the religious privilege that is rampant in the world.

[cbayer]

46. Thank goodness they have very little pull in the world.

There are plenty of warmongers and imperialists to go around.

They are indeed privileged white men and are representative of the privilege of white men that is rampant in this world.

Afraid of them? Hardly. Their audience is small and they repel more people than they attract.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. Yes indeed. Theists are doing a fine job in making this world a shithole.

No need to worry about horrible atheists getting in the way.

[rug]

70. So, Warren, do you prefer an atheist capitalist or a theist socialist?

Because you're seriously confused about who is making the world a shithole.

[skepticscott]

60. Apparently they have enough pull and scare people enough

that you and your cohorts here seem to need to post articles attacking them on a very regular basis.

And frankly, you have no fucking idea how many people they attract or repel, cbayer. I suspect you're making that rather inane judgement based solely on your own limited personal experience. Because if YOU don't know anyone who's attracted by them, then obviously there can't be very many, right?

But prove me wrong. Show us real evidence to back up that claim. We'll wait.

[rug]

68. There are a lot of people afraid of the Kardashians.

Unnecessarily annoying people tend to have that effect.

Although, if I was forced to choose, I suppose I'd prefer to be in an elevator with Harris instead of Khloe. Provided it was not a tall building.

[Goblinmonger]

62. And there's no talk of PZ Meyers in this article. Wonder why?

Actually, I don't. This author and you are just flat out ignoring those atheists that don't fit their strawman.

Hitchens was an ass and liked war. Yep. Though everyone forgets he took back his waterboarding statement very clearly after he was waterboarded.

Harris has some issues with Islam that are not cool. Don't see him as a huge warmonger though.

Dawkins needs to re-examine his attitudes toward women. But a warmonger? Please.

And, as is noted above quite a bit, no talk of the current atheists that don't fit the bullshit argument.

This gets old quick.

[Act_of_Reparation]

72. The Four Horsemen of New Atheism, according to people who hate New Atheism:

1. DAWKINS!!1!

2. Sam Harris

3. Christopher Hitchens

4. Wait... there's four?

[cbayer]

98. I think the problem here is in the definition of New Atheists.

He is clearly talking about a subgroup and I think he makes a very good case about those individuals.

But he doesn't include everyone that is a vocal atheist at this time - including Myers and Dennet. He never mentions them. Either he doesn't include them under his definition of New Atheist or he doesn't make it clear that he is talking about a sub-group and not everyone.

I don't think he is ignoring them, he is just not talking about them.

There are, of course, many prominent atheists that don't fit this narrative. That doesn't make this a bullshit argument about the ones he is talking about, imo.

Frankly, I think it behooves those who really want to advance atheist rights and are also liberals/progressives to distance themselves from some people. Instead, what I see more often is a knee jerk defense of them and an amazing inability to tolerate any kind of criticism whatsoever. You do present as an exception to this, but it is clearly an exception.

What do you imagine this meme means? !!!1111DAWKINS!!!1!1 I will tell you what I think it means if you are interested.

[trotsky]

105. If it's just a subgroup of "New Atheists" then it isn't about "New Atheism," and the title is false

Sweet Jeebus. At least TRY to be the tiniest bit consistent.

[AtheistCrusader]

112. I note you manage to 'expand' the list without managing to include any women.

Susan Blackmore.
Rebecca Goldstein.
Rebecca Watson.
for starters.

[Warren Stupidity]

154. Or the many non european atheists who are women of color

and who are risking life and limb to challenge and confront religious extremism. I'll keep documenting them as the ignorance on display is either wilful or astounding or both.

[AtheistCrusader]

155. Even the lists on Wikipedia are shockingly male-centric.

To say nothing of ethnocentric.

[stone space]

77. Followers of the twin religions of Militarism and Nuclearism have no business...

...calling themselves "atheists", whether new or old.

[trotsky]

78. Actually, they have every right.

Because the only thing that qualifies someone as an atheist is not having a belief in god(s).

[stone space]

79. Then they need to get up off their knees, ...

..and stop praying to their Gods of Metal.

They can't have it both ways.

Idolatry is not atheism.

[trotsky]

81. Colorful language, but not necessarily true.

As has been shown, it's a bit of an exaggeration (at best) to call Sam Harris a "warmonger." To characterize a group of individuals as worshiping "gods of metal" is not helpful to discussion.

[stone space]

82. Harris is a war monger. (nt)

[trotsky]

84. Saying something doesn't make it true. n/t

[rug]

127. Denying something doesn't make it go away.

It just makes the denier look foolish.

[unrepentant progress]

80. Meh. I have no problem with that

Atheism is simply a conclusion about the existence of deities. That's all. The problems come in when we expect high profile atheists to reflect any particular moral or ethical code. Now people who call themselves liberals yet try to rationalize away police abuses and structural racism, or tell people suffering from poverty that their problem is they're just not frugal enough, should be rightly despised.

[Warren Stupidity]

101. atheism says absolutely nothing about "militarism" or "?nuclearism?" <--wtf?

but you know that so this is just you being you.

[stone space]

104. Keep the faith, man.

nuclear·ism noun

Full Definition of NUCLEARISM:

dependence on or faith in nuclear weapons as the means for maintaining national security

First Known Use of NUCLEARISM

1960

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuclearism

[mr blur]

133. More bullshit-

[stone space]

136. Actually, there's been very little said about Dawkins, and...

...I'm not really familiar with the guy, but I did manage to find a link to this in the OP article.

Unbelievable!

Can a religious believer be a serious journalist? Richard Dawkins and the unbearable smugness of tweeting

By Scott Stephens ABC Religion and Ethics Updated 30 Apr 2013 (First posted 23 Apr 2013)

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/04/23/3743221.htm

[Jim__]

140. Another article that connects Islamophobia with imperialism.

S4P's thread More than opium: Marxism and religion (John Molyneux | International Socialism #119) links to an essay that connects Islamophobia to imperialism. An excerpt:

However, the fact that it has happened—the fact that Islamophobia has been developed, nationally and internationally, as the principal ideological cover and justification for imperialism and war (as straightforward racism was in the 18th and 19th centuries)—has enormously increased the importance of a correct theoretical understanding of, and political orientation towards, religion in its many different forms. Indeed it can be said that a deficient, mechanical or one-sided understanding of the Marxist analysis of religion has been a substantial contributing factor to a number of left individuals and groups completely losing their former political bearings and ending up as left apologists for imperialism.

The most notorious example of this is, of course, Christopher Hitchens, who has written a book on religion, God is Not Great (of which more later), and whose trajectory from leftist intellectual and radical critic of the system to “critical” supporter of George Bush has been precipitous and extreme (though in Hitchens’ case one cannot help suspecting that material inducements have played a larger role in his race to the right than any mere theoretical error). Other examples include members of the Euston Group, such as Norman Geras, and, among left groups, the French organisation Lutte Ouvrière, whose hostility to the hijab turned them into temporary allies of the French imperialist state against its most oppressed women citizens,1 and the sorry case of the semi-Zionist and Islamophobic Alliance for Workers’ Liberty.

That essay also talks about the writing of both Dawkins and Hitchens.

[unrepentant progress]

141. Excellent essay!

On the one hand, for the thoroughgoing and consistent Marxist, as for the thoroughgoing and consistent materialist, religious faith, in all its many forms, is excluded. Religious ideas, like all other ideas, are social and historical products. They are produced by human beings, and this necessarily precludes religious belief, since religious ideas claim to transcend and take priority over nature, human beings and history. ... On the other hand the same Marxism clearly demands a materialist explanation of religion. It is not enough to view either religion as a whole or any particular religion as simply a delusion or folly that happens to have gripped the minds of millions for centuries.

[MisterP]

167. that's Gramsci--"materialism" means you start with the material--then work up in layers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci#Critique_of_materialism

oo, and I found the book with the 19th c.'s New Atheists--and their view of Muslims (back then they were mostly worried about Chinese and Irish, so the real question is who's the next target?)

[unrepentant progress]

176. Oh wow. Thanks for the link to the collection of Watson Heston comics.

Man, those are some offensive shit even for the late 19th century.

[MisterP]

184. their arguments haven't changed, either

in fact, I've been told here on DU that any history of science or religion after say 1910 isn't worth reading, for the reason that it disagrees with the party line laid down by 1913 (also because some of them were written by Frenchies, dont'cha know!)

that's like saying that with quantum theory from 1900 and general relativity from 1916, we don't need to fund physics or give out PhDs for it because the rest has just been confirmation, elaboration, or PoMo remixes like the Copenhagen Interpretation: clap out the lights, grandma, 'cause science is over (heck, Hawking overndorsed M-theory as doing just that)

[unrepentant progress]

185. Yeah.

You'd think these people quake in their boots whenever they see a book by Foucault.

That the arguments haven't changed is the most striking thing about reading 19th century atheists and freethinkers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

195. As a matter of interest, what is the message you take from that page of that book?

Your other comments seems to show you get a completely different message from it than I do.

I read that as saying the Christian crusaders were uneducated attackers of educated Muslims.

[Warren Stupidity]

147. How do you feel about ISIS?

[Jim__]

152. I "feel" that, if not for the 2003 US Invasion of Iraq, ISIS wouldn't exist.

[Warren Stupidity]

153. Kind of a massive avoidance.

I guess that would be because when tossing around accusations of islamophobia, having to discuss fucked up islamists is quite uncomfortable.

[Jim__]

170. Avoidance? Please. I directly answered the non-specific question that you asked.

It is, of course, quite possible that I did not answer the question that you meant to ask. But, in that case, you are free to actually ask the question that you previously only meant to.

[Warren Stupidity]

171. So the sum total of your thoughts regarding ISIS are : Bush's fault.

OK. Indeed not an avoidance at all. My bad.

[Jim__]

174. You did not ask me about the sum total of my thoughts about ISIS.

[Warren Stupidity]

187. Yes I do understand that the question is uncomfortable and responding with a non answer

just avoids the whole complicated problem of "islamophobia" in the age of Isis.

[Jim__]

194. You understand that "the question is uncomfortable"?

[rug]

196. More likely your answer made him uncomfortable.

[Prophet 451]

158. Interesting article, thanks for it

[Odin2005]

175. The New Atheists think religion is an intellectual problem...

...when in reality religious belief comes from the socioeconomic grounding of society. As the dude in my avatar famously said, religion comes out of the suffering of human beings, you can't get people to stop being religious unless you change the material conditions that cause their suffering.

[cbayer]

177. One of the major problems that some of these more vocal people has is

that their points of privilege are so far above pretty much everyone else in the world, they have n clue of those material conditions that cause suffering to which you refer.

If everyone could just be like them, the world would be, well, perfect.

[Odin2005]

178. One only has to look at Buddhism to see the importance of suffering in...

...the origins of religions. The truth that life is full of suffering is THE central tenet of Buddhism. Siddhartha Gautama was a spoiled young aristocrat who had the reality of the world hidden from him by his parents. He had an existential crisis after he snuck out into town and saw sick, dying, and dead homeless people.

[cbayer]

179. The very first thing I read about Buddhism was this:

Life if hard.

I understood this and what followed changed my life.

While I approach it as a philosophy and not a religion, I do understand some of it's origins.

[unrepentant progress]

188. I agree with you and can't really add much so I haven't said anything

So let me just take this opportunity to thank you, cbayer, and the others who have provided an interesting and thoughtful discussion.