Was the New Atheism Movement a Failed Crisis Cult

[Desert Snake]

/neo-con and atheist aren't interchangeable terms, and how this relates to 'crisis cult, no idea. and, clearly it's reactionary from the atheist viewpoint.. okay later/

 

[CynthiaCypher]

DS's explanation made sense too. I'm not a fan of "pre-emptive strikes" when they refer to a whole country, but there is some merit to them in regards to known, dangerous leaders. Still a political can of worms though.

So what do you think of the use of torture and the suspension of habeas corpus in regards to suspected terrorist?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

You may need to, because so far I haven't seen "propaganda" or "hatred" anywhere near the level you seem to be implying there is.

So are we at war with 1.6 billion people? Are we truly engaged in a "clash of civilizations"

 

[IHaveTheGift]

I think you are mistaking "new atheism" with "Anti-theism". There was a massive anti-Islamic problem in America after 9/11 but overall anti-theism seems to have grown far more in other countries in Europe than it has here in America. Those obviously were not caused by 9/11.

The "new atheism" which is a form of "anti theism" is a result in people like Dawkins that set the stage for it.

I am glad I live in the USA, where every man is considered equal and can pretty much do what ever he wants with his life
Anti theism has as much power here as anti gay, or anything discriminatory...None, nodda, zilch. :yes:

 

[Penumbra]

So what do you think of the use of torture and the suspension of habeas corpus in regards to suspected terrorist?

Are you saying Harris supports suspension of habeaus corpus for suspected terrorists?

Nor have I ever seen the wisdom or necessity of denying proper legal counsel (and access to evidence) to prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay. Indeed, I consider much of what occurred under Bush and Cheney—the routine abuse of ordinary prisoners, the practice of “extraordinary rendition,” etc.—to be a terrible stain upon our nation.

Source.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

The "new atheism" which is a form of "anti theism" is a result in people like Dawkins that set the stage for it.

I am glad I live in the USA, where every man is considered equal and can pretty much do what ever he wants with his life
Anti theism has as much power here as anti gay, or anything discriminatory...None, nodda, zilch. :yes:

Both the New Atheism and Religious Right seem to think that there is no room at the inn for pluralism.

 

[Penumbra]

Both the New Atheism and Religious Right seem to think that there is no room at the inn for pluralism.

Can you quote a few public atheists on the topic of there being no room for pluralism?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Are you saying Harris supports suspension of habeaus corpus for suspected terrorists?


Source.

That from the same guy who said we should break out the strappado when dealing with suspected terrorist. That was back pedalling to say the least.

 

[Falvlun]

So what do you think of the use of torture and the suspension of habeas corpus in regards to suspected terrorist?

Against. It's just created a mess, and there has been no evidence offered that it has done any good.

 

[Penumbra]

That from the same guy who said we should break out the strappado when dealing with suspected terrorist. That was back pedalling to say the least.

Harris' position is that torture should probably be illegal but used if absolutely necessary under certain circumstances. Which is not exactly a position I agree with. That source I linked to for his quote, which judging from the haste of your reply you did not read, talks about his view on the ethics of torture. His position on torture has evolved a bit over time, but I'm not aware of him ever being in favor of suspending habeas corpus.

Your posts are being very dishonest, here.
-You implied Harris supports suspension of habeas corpus.
-I directly quoted him on talking about how suspected terrorists should have access to proper legal counsel.
-You counter that he's back-pedaling rather than acknowledging that he doesn't hold the position you implied he did.

Seems like you need these people to be an enemy, and if it turns out they're not, you have to alter them so that they are.

 

[Debater Slayer]

So are we at war with 1.6 billion people?

No, and that's not the meaning I understood from Harris's statement (which I disagree with anyway). The way I understand it, he's talking about the values of the belief system itself and how they fuel war with the U.S. (especially because of terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda that frequently cite Islam as their primary influence).

I think the statement is exaggerated and too dramatic, but I just don't see how it means that the U.S. is at war with all Muslims or even most of them.

Are we truly engaged in a "clash of civilizations"

That depends on who you ask. There are many Muslims and non-Muslims alike who would say that there's definitely a clash--at least on an intellectual level--between many of the cultural traditions inspired by Islam and values that are considered "Western." I'm one of those who would largely agree; when several countries in a given region object to a human rights pact on primarily religious grounds, for example, it becomes clear that not all cultures are ethically equal in terms of their traditions. No amount of feigned political correctness could hide that, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Can you quote a few public atheists on the topic of there being no room for pluralism?

Remind me to share with you a link to the great "Would the World be Better Off Without Religion" debate.

 

[Sunstone]

I have an idea! Let's all just make up bad things about the New Atheists, because, after all, there's never enough lying in this world!

I'll go first: Harris advocates the abolition of the sewer system!!!!!!! He really stinks!!!!! Get it? Huh? Get it? He really stinks!!!!!

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Both the New Atheism and Religious Right seem to think that there is no room at the inn for pluralism.

I have no idea what that means, can you dumb it down for me

are you saying that neither care about other peoples rights?
such as gay rights?

 

[IHaveTheGift]

I have an idea! Let's all just make up bad things about the New Atheists, because, after all, there's never enough lying in this world!

I'll go first: Harris advocates the abolition of the sewer system!!!!!!! He really stinks!!!!! Get it? Huh? Get it? He really stinks!!!!!

To be frank, all one has to do is go on any atheist run board and nothing but lies and twisting of truth is done towards Theists.
Watch just one video from the (not so)amazing atheist and all he does is create strawman attacks, generalize religious people to all be evil etc...

I don't agree with it, but what comes around, goes around, you cant just push on a class of people and not expect them to push back.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

No, and that's not the meaning I understood from Harris's statement (which I disagree with anyway). The way I understand it, he's talking about the values of the belief system itself and how they fuel war with the U.S. (especially because of terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda that frequently cite Islam as their primary influence).

I think the statement is exaggerated and too dramatic, but I just don't see how it means that the U.S. is at war with all Muslims or even most of them.



That depends on who you ask. There are many Muslims and non-Muslims alike who would say that there's definitely a clash--at least on an intellectual level--between many of the cultural traditions inspired by Islam and values that are considered "Western." I'm one of those who would largely agree; when several countries in a given region object to a human rights pact on primarily religious grounds, for example, it becomes clear that not all cultures are ethically equal in terms of their traditions. No amount of feigned political correctness could hide that, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't just think Harris was referring to the issue of human rights. I believe he was referring to Samuel Huntington's definition of what "The Clash of Civilizations" is

"It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future."

I have read Huntington. He is wrong. Very wrong. Unless you consider the Corporate Fascist Oligarchy as a civilization, then he is right.

 

[Sunstone]

To be frank, all one has to do is go on any atheist run board and nothing but lies and twisting of truth is done towards Theists.

Well, it may surprise you, but there are boards that I either almost never go on, or almost never read the comments because I think the attacks on theists are juvenile and stupid. But I don't see their behavior as a justification for doing the same thing in reverse. That sort of philosophy doesn't strike me as intelligent, let alone decent.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Well, it may surprise you, but there are boards that I either almost never go on, or almost never read the comments because I think the attacks on theists are juvenile and stupid. But I don't see their behavior as a justification for doing the same thing in reverse. That sort of philosophy doesn't strike me as intelligent, let alone decent.

I agree, but never the less, call it an excuse or a reason, it happens and it fuels more hate back.

People like Dawkins that pretty much demands his followers to mock us, and such, only add to the problems.
Its hard to understand, how a man in his position and his many degrees and such, and him knowing full well what he is doing.
It is why I feel, he isn't trying to better the world, he is on a power trip and could care less of all who gets hurt in the process of him lining his pockets and having the position he created for himself.

However, you can watch any video of Theists such as Dr Craig, Lennox etc, and you never see them trying to create hate and destruction, nor do they attack on others "person" as people like Dawkins and Krauss does.
They try to promote love and forgiveness.
Yet, Theists are the "evil" ones.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

People like Dawkins that pretty much demands his followers to mock us, and such, only add to the problems.
Its hard to understand, how a man in his position and his many degrees and such, and him knowing full well what he is doing.
It is why I feel, he isn't trying to better the world, he is on a power trip and could care less of all who gets hurt in the process of him lining his pockets and having the position he created for himself.

This is a ridiculous hyperbole, and an obvious demonization. Do you have to be so disparaging to the man - and attack his character on such a personal level - just because you don't agree with him?

However, you can watch any video of Theists such as Dr Craig, Lennox etc, and you never see them trying to create hate and destruction, nor do they attack on others "person" as people like Dawkins and Krauss does.

Or like you just did?

Dawkins has conducted debates, interviews and discussions with religious leaders of every stripe, and remains polite, courteous and respectful in every single video or transcript I have seen him in. He is not "trying to create hate or destruction", and for you to accuse him of doing so while appearing to stand for "not making attacks on others persons" is nothing but flat-out hypocrisy.

Instead of simply jerking your knees at one or two sentences, how about presenting a thought-out and thorough critique of Dawkins' actual opinions and enlighten us as to just where his position is flawed. You might actually achieve something, rather than just coming off as desperately defensive.

 

[Falvlun]

However, you can watch any video of Theists such as Dr Craig, Lennox etc, and you never see them trying to create hate and destruction, nor do they attack on others "person" as people like Dawkins and Krauss does.
They try to promote love and forgiveness.
Yet, Theists are the "evil" ones.

That's some pretty intense cherry picking. In one breath, you act as if theists have never promoted hatred against various groups of people based upon their religious beliefs, and as if Dawkins et al are representative of the entire group of atheists or as if attacking is all that they do.