What Atheists Like Bill Maher Have in Common with Medieval Christian Crusaders

[steeltoes]

I have often found myself not supportive of some fellow atheists that have been in the limelight for the past several years.



What Atheists Like Bill Maher Have in Common with Medieval Christian Crusaders | Alternet




"If you want to understand the roots of ISIS, Middle Eastern conflict and Islamic terrorism, stay away from anything that atheist bigshots Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher write on these topics."



"If atheists like Harris, Dawkins, Maher and company were truly rationally minded, they’d dispense with the knee-jerk infantile emotionalism and anti-Islam rhetoric that serves only the interests of our military industrial complex and our addiction to cheap Middle Eastern oil."






In my opinion, Bill Maher is funny until he crosses that 'don't mess with Israel' line.

Dawkins is just full of himself,

Harris is downright scary.

Anyways, the article is a must read, it attempts to put some of the latest terrorist acts into perspective, among other things.

 

[Thana]

That was a very interesting, thought-provoking and informative read, Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Great article. Thanks for posting. Those guys are buffoons who drive wedges between people and spread misinformation (or disinformation?).

 

[steeltoes]

You are both welcome, I am glad you found it as informative as I did.

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect the Alternet article is unreliable in its characterization of Harris' thought. I don't know about Maher or Dawkins, but it's probably a fair bet the Alternet author is jacking them off too. Basically, the author is basing his argument that those three are dealing superficially with the situation in the Middle East on the basis of their twitter comments and jokes. That strikes me as intellectually shoddy.

 

[Bunyip]

To be honest I thought it pretty unfair. Sure, these men are provocative - but there is a place in society for provocative people and ideas.

It is important that comediens like Maher can speak freely, and as important for scientists.

Be thankful to live in a society where people can mock, question and provoke - it is a characteristic of a free society. Sometimes we do not agree, but that is how public discourse should be.

 

[Windwalker]

I appreciate the sentiments expressed in this article, and have long ago seen this similar naive know-nothing'ism of the Sam Harrises and Richard Dawkinses style rants against religion as the source of all evil in the world. The naive sentiment is echoed in the faith of their followers without any true rational consideration, or often time a willingness to examine the assumptions.

This article does in fact touch directly on the source of the issues in the Middle East beginning with what happened following WW1. I would suggest anyone watch the movie Lawrence of Arabia to get a feel for what happened to them once the British Empire carved up their lands for themselves and the disarray that ensued. Of course their religious beliefs appear quaint and primitive in light of modern science, but that by no means give the likes of the neo-atheists to claim superiority when the underlying behaviors on both sides are the same. It amounts to each side using their beliefs as "superior" to justify their hatreds of others outside their own little groups.

Anyway, particular quotes from the article I liked:

When atheists echo the know-nothing ramblings of the aforementioned heroes of movement atheism, they do so at the expense of the terrorists themselves. The Suicide Terrorism Database at Flinders University in Australia accounts for all suicide bombings committed in the Middle East between 1981 and 2006. The results of this study are conclusive: it is politics, not religious fanaticism that leads to terrorists blowing themselves up.

.....

In other words, almost everything Harris, Dawkins and Maher have written on the topic of Islamic terrorism ignores both politics and history and studies of global terrorism. At the same time they echo the utopian goals of religious crusaders who wish to cleanse the earth of opposing religious beliefs and those who extol our own barbarism.

​

That last sentence, "who wish to cleanse the earth of opposing religious beliefs," sums it up. Anti-religion is itself in fact a new religion. Same crusader robes with a new symbol on the shield.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some hotheads run their mouth in anger at a journalist's beheading.
This hardly rises to the level of "The Crusades", since they don't
speak for others. To be atheists & prominent often leads people to
believe they're spokesmen for other atheists. It ain't so.

I have a fantasy....Maher will publicly admit that he's a fundamentalist
__________ (insert religion here) who set out to Poe atheists, & that
he apologizes for his fraud.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I have often found myself not supportive of some fellow atheists that have been in the limelight for the past several years.



What Atheists Like Bill Maher Have in Common with Medieval Christian Crusaders | Alternet




"If you want to understand the roots of ISIS, Middle Eastern conflict and Islamic terrorism, stay away from anything that atheist bigshots Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher write on these topics."



"If atheists like Harris, Dawkins, Maher and company were truly rationally minded, they’d dispense with the knee-jerk infantile emotionalism and anti-Islam rhetoric that serves only the interests of our military industrial complex and our addiction to cheap Middle Eastern oil."

I will still take militant atheists over militant theists any day. Though I don't know of anyone who is proposing continued efforts in the middle east and certainly not for oil. The only prominant atheist that would fit that description would have been Christopher Hitchens. He was a war hawk and all round anti-theist.

In my opinion, Bill Maher is funny until he crosses that 'don't mess with Israel' line.

Some what agree.

Dawkins is just full of himself,

I think he is now a bit but originally he isn't. He was the most polite and reasonable of them all until recent.

Harris is downright scary.

How so?

 

[LuisDantas]

I had a very difficult time attempting to follow the article. Then I gave up.

 

[Revoltingest]

I had a very difficult time attempting to follow the article. Then I gave up.

It wasn't well written.
The title seemed designed solely to get attention,
while the text was just a bunch'o complaining.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually, I can think of one, very big difference between modern atheists and medieval Christian crusaders:

Modern atheists never cut a swathe of destruction through the world, enacting genocide and destroying entire cultures in the name of their own beliefs.

I'm beginning to lose patience with the ridiculous amount of hyperbole used by a lot of people in a wrong-headed attempt to dismiss modern atheism. Making any attempt to compare individuals like Maher, Harris or Dawkins to people who enacting mass murder strikes me as bafflingly absurd, dishonest and an obvious attempt to demonize without attempting to address the actual intellectual content of their arguments. Statements like "For them, Islam is the root of all Muslim rage against the West, the root of all barbarism, and the root of all conflict in the Middle East" are completely ridiculous when you have read and understood the content of these men's actual position on Islam, and to refer to their opinions on the subject using only Twitter of all things strikes me a intellectually lazy, dishonest and ignorant. And further statements such as "it is politics, not religious fanaticism that leads to terrorists blowing themselves up" almost sound as if they're attempting to paint religious terrorism and fanaticism as imaginary. From my experience, none of those three men believe religion is responsible for ALL conflict, or ALL terrorism, but that it is a dominant driving force that lacks sufficient rational justification - not just in war or acts of terror, but in the suppression of human rights, freedoms and a variety of other societal ills that not only affect the deeply religious, but supposedly secular nations as well. Religion is not THE cause of the evil or suffering, but it's utterly ridiculous to claim that religion is not ONE of the causes of evil or suffering in the world. No simple rhetoric or hyperbole used against those who point it is out is going to change that simple fact, and directly comparing those people to mass murderers - in any capacity - strikes me not as an intelligent or thoughtful response to what they're saying, but a knee-jerk reaction designed to demonize and dismiss others who hold a contrary point of view.

Which is ironic, considering that's exactly what he accuses them of.

 

[Maldini]

Dawkins and Harris are way too smart for masses.

Bill Maher has the guts to say stuff that others won't out of political correctness.

 

[steeltoes]

Actually, I can think of one, very big difference between modern atheists and medieval Christian crusaders:

Modern atheists never cut a swathe of destruction through the world, enacting genocide and destroying entire cultures in the name of their own beliefs.

I'm beginning to lose patience with the ridiculous amount of hyperbole used by a lot of people in a wrong-headed attempt to dismiss modern atheism. Making any attempt to compare individuals like Maher, Harris or Dawkins to people who enacting mass murder strikes me as bafflingly absurd, dishonest and an obvious attempt to demonize without attempting to address the actual intellectual content of their arguments. Statements like "For them, Islam is the root of all Muslim rage against the West, the root of all barbarism, and the root of all conflict in the Middle East" are completely ridiculous when you have read and understood the content of these men's actual position on Islam, and to refer to their opinions on the subject using only Twitter of all things strikes me a intellectually lazy, dishonest and ignorant. And further statements such as "it is politics, not religious fanaticism that leads to terrorists blowing themselves up" almost sound as if they're attempting to paint religious terrorism and fanaticism as imaginary. From my experience, none of those three men believe religion is responsible for ALL conflict, or ALL terrorism, but that it is a dominant driving force that lacks sufficient rational justification - not just in war or acts of terror, but in the suppression of human rights, freedoms and a variety of other societal ills that not only affect the deeply religious, but supposedly secular nations as well. Religion is not THE cause of the evil or suffering, but it's utterly ridiculous to claim that religion is not ONE of the causes of evil or suffering in the world. No simple rhetoric or hyperbole used against those who point it is out is going to change that simple fact, and directly comparing those people to mass murderers - in any capacity - strikes me not as an intelligent or thoughtful response to what they're saying, but a knee-jerk reaction designed to demonize and dismiss others who hold a contrary point of view.

Which is ironic, considering that's exactly what he accuses them of.

No one is making any attempt to dismiss modern atheism, whatever that is. The point is that Sam Harris and company do not represent atheists, they represent themselves and themselves only. The second point is that they single out Islam to be of a unique evil, worse than any other form of religion, and that it has to be dealt with. If you are an advocate of torture and racial profiling, and consider that a pre-emptive nuclear strike killing tens of millions of Muslims could be justified under certain circumstances, such as should Muslims obtain a nuclear weapon, then by all means stand behind this clown and advocate that we cut a swathe of destruction through the world, it would suit Harris just fine.

Sam Harris in 2005: "I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror."

Sam Harris in 2012: "We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it."

Sam Harris in 2005: "In our dealings with the Muslim world, we must acknowledge that Muslims have not found anything of substance to say against the actions of the September 11 hijackers, apart from the ubiquitous canard that they were really Jews." (Harris' own ugly canard would come as news to CAIR, the leading Muslim advocacy group, as well as most of the world's Muslims).

>>>>>>>Sam Harris: 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.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No one is making any attempt to dismiss modern atheism, whatever that is. The point is that Sam Harris and company do not represent atheists, they represent themselves and themselves only. The second point is that they single out Islam to be of a unique evil, worse than any other form of religion, and that it has to be dealt with. If you are an advocate of torture and racial profiling, and consider that a pre-emptive nuclear strike killing tens of millions of Muslims could be justified under certain circumstances, such as should Muslims obtain a nuclear weapon, then by all means stand behind this clown and advocate that we cut a swathe of destruction through the world, it would suit Harris just fine.

Sam Harris in 2005: "I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror."

Sam Harris in 2012: "We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it."

Sam Harris in 2005: "In our dealings with the Muslim world, we must acknowledge that Muslims have not found anything of substance to say against the actions of the September 11 hijackers, apart from the ubiquitous canard that they were really Jews." (Harris' own ugly canard would come as news to CAIR, the leading Muslim advocacy group, as well as most of the world's Muslims).

>>>>>>>Sam Harris: 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.

Sam Harris seems a very extreme case, and a person I disagree with on a great many things, but my post was never intended as a defense of these three speakers or their opinions. It's a criticism of the kind of rhetoric and hyperbole used so often against popular atheist speakers, and that I felt the article was absolutely filled with. As crazy as Harris may be, comparing him to a crusader is neither accurate nor an intelligent or meaningful way to engage with his opinion - and certainly using Twitter as the primary source for their opinions isn't the best way to present them, either. It's completely pointless to say "They don't represent atheists". Well, of course of they don't! There are no "official atheist spokespeople", and the only people who are convinced that any one, two or three men can act as the mouthpiece for such a huge and varied group obviously needs their head examined. If Harris thinks Islam is the worst religion, that's his opinion, and it bares no more impact on reality than the many thousands of people who think the greatest threat to humanity is secularism and atheism. I really don't see how that's in any way comparable to medieval barbarism.

As for that last quote, here is Harris' response:

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

 

[metis]

Doesn't seem rather hypocritical that some theists don't like criticism back and yet many of them are willing to tell the atheists and agnostics and sometimes members of other religions that they're going to hell and/or are undermining morality? I've been told I'm going to hell so many times that I'm sorta looking forward to the trip.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Made no sense. I listened to Harris's words on the Middle East and I fully understand them and I have paid little attention to Bill Maher' lately but he has never said anything I find off.

I support all of them, Dawkins is not even remotely full of himself. I always hear complaints by people about this yet it just sounds like butt-hurtery.

 

[outhouse]

Sam Harris seems a very extreme case, and a person I disagree with on a great many things, but my post was never intended as a defense of these three speakers or their opinions. It's a criticism of the kind of rhetoric and hyperbole used so often against popular atheist speakers, and that I felt the article was absolutely filled with. As crazy as Harris may be, comparing him to a crusader is neither accurate nor an intelligent or meaningful way to engage with his opinion - and certainly using Twitter as the primary source for their opinions isn't the best way to present them, either. It's completely pointless to say "They don't represent atheists". Well, of course of they don't! There are no "official atheist spokespeople", and the only people who are convinced that any one, two or three men can act as the mouthpiece for such a huge and varied group obviously needs their head examined. If Harris thinks Islam is the worst religion, that's his opinion, and it bares no more impact on reality than the many thousands of people who think the greatest threat to humanity is secularism and atheism. I really don't see how that's in any way comparable to medieval barbarism.

As for that last quote, here is Harris' response:

Response to Controversy : : Sam Harris

Very good reply.


I love how OP rips the quotes out of context then paints wildly with his imaginative brush like he has some shred of credibility to make these claims.

Tin foil hat conspiracy mentality has never done it for me, maybe next he will bring up 9/11 and how bombs brought the buildings down

 

[outhouse]

I support all of them, Dawkins is not even remotely full of himself. I always hear complaints by people about this yet it just sounds like butt-hurtery.

Agreed.


I have no knowledge of Sam so I have no input

 

[Sha'irullah]

Agreed.


I have no knowledge of Sam so I have no input

Sam Harris is rather cool spoken and is my personal favorite. He is not a philosopher but is credited as one still because he likes to philosophize on neuroscience and religion.
He is not like Dawkins in the fact that he is not ignorant of the 2 major religions(Christianity and Islam). So he often goes into great detail about the two religions to give proper criticism.
He is like Hitchens in that he is thorough in his criticism.

Don't see that kinda stuff often by Atheists these days