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

[YmirGF]

I cannot believe you'd take such a ridiculous, hyperbolic and blatantly manipulative statement seriously.

My guess is that Hedges is simply playing to the nut-bucket brigade. I'm still trying to work out why someone would be living in fear of another attack by an Anders Breivik. In my view, comments like this show that the writer isn't really serious or if they are serious, they are attempting to destroy their own credibility.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My guess is that Hedges is simply playing to the nut-bucket brigade. I'm still trying to work out why someone would be living in fear of another attack by an Anders Breivik. In my view, comments like this show that the writer isn't really serious or if they are serious, they are attempting to destroy their own credibility.

I suppose we don't really have the context, so you could very well be right. At least, I hope you are.

 

[Quagmire]

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.

Not sure what point you're trying to make either, sounds like your just rephrasing what I already said.

 

[outhouse]

No one said atheist cant be conspiracy nutters too! following the same methodology as a YEC

 

[icehorse]

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

You used the Chomsky quote as if the name Chomsky made it a credible source. These days I'm afraid it's roughly the equivalent of saying "My uncle Bill said...". Now if uncle Bill happens to turn a nice, pithy phrase, cool. Otherwise, it's tangential.

 

[icehorse]

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.

:clap:clap:clap:clap

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

This ^^^ :clap:yes:

 

[steeltoes]

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.

The article takes into account the scientific study, you don't have to, you are free to believe whatever you like and call it truly balanced.

The point is that these so called "new atheists" suffer from Islamophobia, so they are not ones to comment on the situation, they are simply uninformed.

 

[icehorse]

The article takes into account the scientific study, you don't have to, you are free to believe whatever you like and call it truly balanced.

The point is that these so called "new atheists" suffer from Islamophobia, so they are not ones to comment on the situation, they are simply uninformed.

I've heard this term before... what exactly do you mean when you say "islamophobia" ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

In regards to the first quotation, Harris goes on to say:

"I will now present an argument for the use of torture in rare circumstances. While many people have objected, on emotional grounds, to my defense of torture, no one has pointed out a flaw in my argument. I hope my case for torture is wrong, as I would be much happier standing side by side with all the good people who oppose torture categorically. I invite any reader who discovers a problem with my argument to point it out to me in the comment section of this blog. I would be sincerely grateful to have my mind changed on this subject."

I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound to me like someone who’s foaming at the mouth to “cut a swathe of destruction through the world.” Disagree with his views all you like (and I do disagree with some of his views on certain things) but address them as they are, rather than distorting them into something they aren’t. Just a suggestion.

 

[Sunstone]

The article takes into account the scientific study...

So far as I know, it is very seldom that actual scientists consider the results of a signal scientific study to be either conclusive or exceptionally compelling. That Werkeman tries to fob off the study as conclusive and compelling says very little in favor of his intellectual integrity, and that you would follow him in that perhaps speaks to your naivete.

 

[steeltoes]

I've heard this term before... what exactly do you mean when you say "islamophobia" ?

These "new atheists" go beyond merely criticizing religion by singling out Islam as some kind of evil that goes beyond the evils of any other religion. They fear Islam more than they fear religion itself. They are overly obsessive when it comes to Islam. We have all heard Christians criticize Muslims, well these "new atheists" are just as fanatical as the most fanatical of Christians.

 

[icehorse]

These "new atheists" go beyond merely criticizing religion by singling out Islam as some kind of evil that goes beyond the evils of any other religion. They fear Islam more than they fear religion itself. They are overly obsessive when it comes to Islam. We have all heard Christians criticize Muslims, well these "new atheists" are just as fanatical as the most fanatical of Christians.

So is it your position that we should fear all religions equally? (This is a serious question, it seems to me that that's what you're saying above...)

 

[Sunstone]

These "new atheists" go beyond merely criticizing religion by singling out Islam as some kind of evil that goes beyond the evils of any other religion. They fear Islam more than they fear religion itself. They are overly obsessive when it comes to Islam. We have all heard Christians criticize Muslims, well these "new atheists" are just as fanatical as the most fanatical of Christians.

If there is anything you wish to breathlessly exaggerate about the New Atheists, feel perfectly free to do so.

 

[outhouse]

"new atheists" suffer from Islamophobia, .

Is that what you call it when people recognize obvious fanaticism and fundamentalism??


Do you think YEC = fanaticism ?

 

[steeltoes]

So is it your position that we should fear all religions equally? (This is a serious question, it seems to me that that's what you're saying above...)

Put it this way, as despicable as their behavior is, how did you expect a group like ISIS to form and to respond after such a brutal occupation? Do you think they are responding to their religion or to the brutal occupation that they endured?

 

[icehorse]

Put it this way, as despicable as their behavior is, how did you expect a group like ISIS to form and to respond after such a brutal occupation? Do you think they are responding to their religion or to the brutal occupation that they endured?

I must confess, I'm struggling to follow, but I'm still game... which occupation? Syria? Muslims oppressing Muslims?...

 

[steeltoes]

I must confess, I'm struggling to follow, but I'm still game... which occupation? Syria? Muslims oppressing Muslims?...

from the article, "Our overthrow of Saddam and the de-Baathification of the Iraqi government put more than 1 million Sunni Iraqis on the streets, and pushed another several million into the refugee camps of neighboring Sunni states. Thus the genesis of ISIS."

 

[icehorse]

from the article, "Our overthrow of Saddam and the de-Baathification of the Iraqi government put more than 1 million Sunni Iraqis on the streets, and pushed another several million into the refugee camps of neighboring Sunni states. Thus the genesis of ISIS."

Two things:

- Man oh man, it sure is hard to find unbiased reporting in the ME.

- Back to "islamophobia". I'd say that "islamophobia" is a word made up by islamists to use as a bludgeon to silence any criticism of islam. I'm instantly suspicious of anyone who uses the term seriously.

 

[s2a]

These "new atheists" go beyond merely criticizing religion by singling out Islam as some kind of evil that goes beyond the evils of any other religion. They fear Islam more than they fear religion itself. They are overly obsessive when it comes to Islam. We have all heard Christians criticize Muslims, well these "new atheists" are just as fanatical as the most fanatical of Christians.

Nope.

You confuse skepticism and factual accountings with blatantly obvious witticism and sarcasm.

Not everyone takes your concerns all that seriously, which is most often the point.

I have no idea if I'm "old", "ancient", "contemporary" or "new(neo)" atheist...or just a boring and plain everyday atheist.

I have ample reason to question ANY religious fundamentalism, regardless of source, belief, or faith...especially any that retain no sense of humor about themselves or their religion. Most especially when the most vocal credo is..."convert or die". I really dislike those sort...

...anyway...

Frankly, I tire of any religious fundamentalist ever moreso the louder they shriek in some protest or claimed offense. Still just a guess, but I suspect the largest wails originate from "true believers" that still fail to grasp any sustained group of people that pay no attention to faith-based insistence's that "something" can/must be "TRUE".

I don't care. Get real, or go squabble in secluded silence amongst yourselves.

*yawn*