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

[Nakosis]

Yes the US requires oil to survive. Right now the US has enough reserves to survive 20, maybe 22 years without foreign oil.

Oil is necessary for our economy. We cannot survive without it unless science is able to come up with a viable alternative.

Yes, we exploit the resources of other countries. While there are some who believe oil is a renewable resource, if it is not, we are taking the resources of other countries to preserve our own. That means survival, not only as a nation but as in you and your future generations.

I don't know, maybe you feel the US has too many people and can stand to lose a majority of the men, women and children to starvation, disease.

The US is interested in it's own survival. Sorry, that means we, along with every other nation/people need to secure the resources to do so.

I blame science. Them scientists need to get on the ball and come up with a viable alternative for energy. If they do, then all this is moot.

I don't know if I can blame the US or any others for their desire to survive. If you are against survival, ok, I can see how all of this can seem immoral to you.

 

[Windwalker]

The US is interested in it's own survival. Sorry, that means we, along with every other nation/people need to secure the resources to do so.

And so we are morally justified in invading and interfering in the affairs of other nations, killing those who oppose us, while they are immoral in pressing forward their interests in themselves, killing those who oppose them? How is it different? Is it moral because it us doing the action, and immoral because its them doing the same thing? Isn't this rather us versus them, good versus evil thinking?

I blame science. Them scientists need to get on the ball and come up with a viable alternative for energy. If they do, then all this is moot.

Whoa, you are looking in the wrong place! It's not science not on the ball. It's the economic system that refuses to look forward to long-term investments in our own future that is to blame. You think science can do the research and develop the technologies without proper funding?

So you have a political system that is run by and supported by corporations that do not care about putting money into something that does not have immediate returns in order for them to realize profits. Since a corporation doesn't do it, you have to ask the government to make investments in our future. But since corporations are buying the politicians, it's not going to happen.

We have the ability scientifically to make this happen. We don't politically.

 

[Nakosis]

And so we are morally justified in invading and interfering in the affairs of other nations, killing those who oppose us, while they are immoral in pressing forward their interests in themselves, killing those who oppose them? How is it different? Is it moral because it us doing the action, and immoral because its them doing the same thing? Isn't this rather us versus them, good versus evil thinking?

Is it? Do you see it as good vs evil? I'll leave the moral judgements to others. I see morality as a relative thing. What is good for me may not be good for you, but I judge you for your desire to survive and prosper. Hopefully there would be common goals we could work towards together. Hopefully there would not be a conflict between us over resources. If there was and it was a matter of survival we'd have to duke it out. At least I'd hope you'd fight for the right to survive. I don't blame you for wanting to survive. However whichever of us had the most power/might would secure the resources. Might makes right, that reality.

Whoa, you are looking in the wrong place! It's not science not on the ball. It's the economic system that refuses to look forward to long-term investments in our own future that is to blame. You think science can do the research and develop the technologies without proper funding?

Which requires resources. Where do you think the resources come from? That's why we need to secure the oil to secure the resources to support the science.

So you have a political system that is run by and supported by corporations that do not care about putting money into something that does not have immediate returns in order for them to realize profits. Since a corporation doesn't do it, you have to ask the government to make investments in our future. But since corporations are buying the politicians, it's not going to happen.

Actually energy companies invest a lot into finding alternative sources of energy. However they need to remain profitable. Right now that means having access to oil. The problem is alternative sources that have been invested into so far have not been viable. A company as an entity like anything else seeks to survive. Is it immoral to survive? If they don't survive, this nation doesn't survive, you don't survive. Again if you are against survival I can see how you would see them as the enemy. To me they are just an organization trying to survive like everything else.

We have the ability scientifically to make this happen. We don't politically.

No we don't. That's a myth. If it were true, someone would take the opportunity and make is happen. The reality is, the energy companies have the best resources to make this happen yet they get portrayed as the enemy. They have the science, they have the resources. If we can be saved from an energy crisis it will be the energy companies who accomplish it.

 

[icehorse]

I suspect there are grains of truth in the article, but it makes bold claims and provides no evidence.

I for one would like to get a truly balanced accounting of the ME. What I find is almost always openly biased - so I'm apt to believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. As one counterpoint though, I'd suggest "Why the West is Best" by Ibn Warraq. Of course it's got it's own bias, but it also offers a rare perspective.

Another interesting bit of research would be to understand how idyllic (or probably not), the ME was under the Ottomans...

 

[Quagmire]

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

Sure they do. They just tend to do it for political rather than religious ideologies.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure they do. They just tend to do it for political rather than religious ideologies.

Any atheist who is a political thug is "no true atheist"!
There....now we're without sin.

 

[Bunyip]

Sure they do. They just tend to do it for political rather than religious ideologies.

There's a huge difference though. Whilst millions have died in the name of god, none have died in the name of atheism.

 

[Quagmire]

There's a huge difference though. Whilst millions have died in the name of god, none have died in the name of atheism.

The post I was responding to said this:

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

not

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

.

Atheism, according to probably most of the atheists in here, isn't a belief.

And IMO most if not all of the atrocities committed in the world are motivated primarily by personal gain and/or some kind of personal grudge, at least at the top levels.

I will admit that religion is a handy recruitment tool though.

 

[steeltoes]

"Chomsky has said that Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are “religious fanatics” and that in their quest to bludgeon society with their beliefs about secularism, they have actually adopted the state religion — one that, though void of prayers and rituals, demands that its followers blindly support the whims of politicians." Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens: New Atheists flirt with Islamophobia - Salon.com


Neo-cons in sheep's clothing, perhaps?

 

[icehorse]

I fear Chomsky lost his mind several years ago. Not to say he's not still correct sometimes. but I would never take him "on faith"

 

[Bunyip]

The post I was responding to said this:



[/B]not

.

Atheism, according to probably most of the atheists in here, isn't a belief.

And IMO most if not all of the atrocities committed in the world are motivated primarily by personal gain and/or some kind of personal grudge, at least at the top levels.

I will admit that religion is a handy recruitment tool though.

Not sure what point it is you are trying to make.
Of course atheism is not a belief.
The distinction is that whilst countless millions have died in the name of religion, none have died in the name of atheism, because atheism is not an ideology - religion is.

 

[Sunstone]

I think any truly balanced account of the Middle East would take into account the role religion plays in the conflicts there, and not pretend, as the Alternet article seems to, that the conflicts can be explained entirely in secular terms. There are many aspects to what's going on in the Middle East.

 

[Sunstone]

I fear Chomsky lost his mind several years ago. Not to say he's not still correct sometimes. but I would never take him "on faith"

I agree.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

I wouldn't be surprised if you're right about all three of them.

 

[Shad]

*cough* Neither are great sources of comedy *cough*

 

[steeltoes]

I fear Chomsky lost his mind several years ago. Not to say he's not still correct sometimes. but I would never take him "on faith"

I think Chomsky is spot on. Ad hominem attacks towards him fail to convince otherwise.

 

[steeltoes]

"The gravest threat we face from terrorism, as the killings in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik underscore, comes not from the Islamic world but the radical Christian right and the secular fundamentalists who propagate the bigoted, hateful caricatures of observant Muslims and those defined as our internal enemies. The caricature and fear are spread as diligently by the Christian right as they are by atheists such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Our religious and secular fundamentalists all peddle the same racist filth and intolerance that infected Breivik. This filth has poisoned and degraded our civil discourse. The looming economic and environmental collapse will provide sparks and tinder to transform this coarse language of fundamentalist hatred into, I fear, the murderous rampages experienced by Norway. I worry more about the Anders Breiviks than the Mohammed Attas." Chris Hedges

I think Chris Hedges is spot on as well.

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect one of the problems here is that Harris is difficult for many of us to understand. In my opinion, he doesn't talk down to his readers like many authors do today, but rather seems to expect them to make a bit of an effort to understand the nuances. Unfortunately, it's obvious that many don't.

Response to Controversy : : Sam Harris

 

[Sunstone]

"The gravest threat we face from terrorism, as the killings in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik underscore, comes not from the Islamic world but the radical Christian right and the secular fundamentalists who propagate the bigoted, hateful caricatures of observant Muslims and those defined as our internal enemies. The caricature and fear are spread as diligently by the Christian right as they are by atheists such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Our religious and secular fundamentalists all peddle the same racist filth and intolerance that infected Breivik. This filth has poisoned and degraded our civil discourse. The looming economic and environmental collapse will provide sparks and tinder to transform this coarse language of fundamentalist hatred into, I fear, the murderous rampages experienced by Norway. I worry more about the Anders Breiviks than the Mohammed Attas." Chris Hedges

I think Chris Hedges is spot on as well.

I like Chris Hedges and find much of what he says on matters of wealth inequality to be insightful. But he's playing the buffoon here when he implies Harris is a racist. Once again, it's easy to misunderstand Harris because he pretty much expects his audience to make an effort in good faith to understand him -- something not everyone is willing to do.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"The gravest threat we face from terrorism, as the killings in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik underscore, comes not from the Islamic world but the radical Christian right and the secular fundamentalists who propagate the bigoted, hateful caricatures of observant Muslims and those defined as our internal enemies. The caricature and fear are spread as diligently by the Christian right as they are by atheists such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Our religious and secular fundamentalists all peddle the same racist filth and intolerance that infected Breivik. This filth has poisoned and degraded our civil discourse. The looming economic and environmental collapse will provide sparks and tinder to transform this coarse language of fundamentalist hatred into, I fear, the murderous rampages experienced by Norway. I worry more about the Anders Breiviks than the Mohammed Attas." Chris Hedges

I think Chris Hedges is spot on as well.

Really? Because I think he's so far off the mark I doubt he was even trying to get anywhere near it in the first place.

Using the single example of Anders Behring Breivik to paint a picture of people like Harris or Hitchens (or "secular fundamentalists" whatever they are) somehow causing more acts of terrorism than Islam seems not only inherently wrong, but utterly exploitative and vile. Exploiting a tragedy enacted by a lone, politically-motivated nut job and point the finger of blame for it at people like Harris and Hitchens makes me sincerely doubt Chris Hedge's honesty and moral compass. I cannot believe you'd take such a ridiculous, hyperbolic and blatantly manipulative statement seriously.