Why the 'new atheists' are rightwing on foreign policy.

[damntexdem]

Interesting argument:

"It must strike progressive atheists as a stroke of bad luck that Christopher Hitchens, leading atheist spokesperson, happens to have hawkish views on foreign policy. After all, with atheists an overwhelmingly left-wing group, what were the chances that the loudest infidel in the western world would happen to be on the right?

"Actually, the chances were pretty good. When it comes to foreign policy, a right-wing bias afflicts not just Hitchens's world view, but the whole ideology of "new atheism," especially as seen in the work of Hitchens allies Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.

"Atheism has little intrinsic ideological bent. (Karl Marx. Ayn Rand. I rest my case.) But things change when you add the key ingredient of the new atheism: the idea that religion is not just mistaken, but evil -- that it "poisons everything," as Hitchens has put it with characteristic nuance."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-wright/why-the-new-atheists-are_b_230448.html

Of course, this doesn't explain Marx's "religion is the opium of the people," but it is interesting regarding some current atheist fundamentalists.

[mitchum]

1. Fuck that atheist "fundamentalists" noise...

and anyone who propagates that bogus phrase

[mr blur]

7. Agreed! Well said.

There's only one way to not believe in fairy tales, and that's to not believe in fairy tales. The rest is just bullshit from the people who DO (or claim to) believe in fairy tales. Especially in the US.

[damntexdem]

19. I believe in calling fundie atheists exactly what they are.

That you and others don't like it is just tough shit.

[Starry Messenger]

23. Well, I'll just go ahead and call you a Republican then...

since they coined the phrase. If you and the others don't like it, tough shit.

[TokenQueer]

65. Thank you.

:applause:

[jgraz]

77. "bigot" works well, too.

[Starry Messenger]

88. But that's against the rules.

:sarcasm:

[MineralMan]

24. What fundamentals do 'fundie atheists' espouse?

Having been an atheist for over 40 years, I don't know any fundamental belief shared by atheists, except that we all disbelieve in deities and other such supernatural entities. Can you expand on your statement? How do you identify "fundie atheists?"

[NeedleCast]

63. I think OP is mistaking "fundie" athiests with "vocal" athiests

I'll agree with the OP that there are some athiests more hostile to religion than others. I tend to fall in the camp of athiests that doesn't really care. My girlfriend is catholic. She goes to church. I don't, and she respects that.

I do think there is a difference in how some athiests tolerate believers. There are those, like me, who don't care what religious beliefs a person has until they infringe on my right to be a non-beliver and there are those who think that religion should be eliminated.

[MineralMan]

75. No doubt. Lots of people think that atheists should

neither be seen nor heard. Screw that. I don't volunteer my opinion on religion, but if asked, I sure don't hide it. If accused of the many things the religious believe atheists represent, I will always respond.

I consider this thread as the moral equivalent of being accused.

[mitchum]

27. Yeah, well words don't mean just whatever you want them to mean

Tough shit

[SidDithers]

37. Any chance you can describe the fundamentals...

that "fundie atheists" adhere to?

Sid

[MineralMan]

46. The OP has been asked that several times.

Crickets...

[damntexdem]

59. Sure, some of them are on the thread.

Mr Blur: "There's only one way to not believe in fairy tales, and that's to not believe in fairy tales. The rest is just bullshit from the people who DO (or claim to) believe in fairy tales. Especially in the US."

You can find the rest yourself.

[Touchdown]

73. "You can find the rest yourself" Fuck that!

You made the assertion, now YOU do the legwork to defend it. If your too lazy to do that, then retract you smear. It's not anybody else's job to prove you right.

[MineralMan]

80. You make the claim. You defend it.

Either define what you mean by "fundie atheist" or withdraw from the debate. Your premise is not established, so your arguments lack merit for a faulty premise.

Don't be lazy. Put your mind to work and come up with some sort of definition of the terms you're using. This is a discussion, not a speech.

[SidDithers]

90. But Mr. Blur hadn't posted that reply when you wrote your OP...

so you must have something else to show.

So, are you lazy? Or just intellectually dishonest?

Sid

[endarkenment]

209. And how does that opinion make "Mr Blur" a "fundamentalist"?

Please explain.

[Telly Savalas]

190. That folks like Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi are clueless fucks

for having religious beliefs.

This is in contrast to the vast majority of atheists who are pleasant people with a live and let live mentality, and who aren't bothered by religion unless somebody tries to shove it in their face.

[ContinentalOp]

191. you have a link to an atheist calling gandhi and mlk "clueless fucks"?

:shrug:

[Telly Savalas]

192. One routinely sees here blanket condemnations of all forms of relgious belief.

It is a direct implication of such comments that folks like King and Gandhi are clueless fucks who's personal philosophies are fundamentally flawed. Sorry I don't bookmark these comments.

On edit: I'm actually shocked I there aren't any such comments in this thread. While a much smaller percentage of atheists are assholes about their personal philosophy than is the case for followers of religion, one has to be in denial not to see it at DU.

[beam me up scottie]

194. Sort of like the blanket condemnation you made when referring to DU atheists?

No denial there, no sir.

[ContinentalOp]

197. We don't celebrate Gandhi and MLK for their personal superstitions but for their activism.

Maybe their activism has some root in those superstitions but that hardly matters. I'm a big fan of Arthur Conan Doyle but the man believed in fairies. That doesn't mean he wasn't a good writer or a "clueless fuck". Maybe his writing wouldn't have been what it was without his belief in the supernatural. That doesn't mean he was right though and it doesn't mean his beliefs weren't totally idiotic.

[Starry Messenger]

200. Oh, so you made that up.

This guy is sure getting a workout!

[Zynx]

103. Strict ideologies are all the same whatever their label.

Those who pretend the world will instantly be some utopia if religion went away are kidding themselves.

[LooseWilly]

125. "Strict ideologies are all the same..." sounds like the tenets of a strict ideology in its own right

And the notion that atheism is a "strict ideology" is a laughable misconception. It is a stripping away of ideology... a discarding of ideology...

I'm curious though... would you be willing to give "Doing away with religion" an empirical, experimental try? Maybe it would, in fact, make the world instantly into "some utopia". I say we give it a shot, let the experiment run for ohh... say a generation or two. If it doesn't work out, at least we'll have evidence to support that conclusion.

Gods know we've tried With Religion, and found No Utopia thuswise...

:tinfoilhat:

[Zynx]

205. I wasn't necessarily calling Atheism itself that ideology, however I've never met an atheist

who didn't adhere to some other ideology very strictly. A strict adherence to "logic" and "reason" is an ideology itself and one that doesn't always lead to positive results, despite what it's proponents have said.

As a point of fact, we have seen plenty of societies that have become either largely irreligious or have discarded their religions by force. Usually religious ideology is replaced with some kind of political ideology. It's entirely possible that in the long term absence of religion you might see a force such as Ayn Rand's Objectivism, a clearly atheistic ideology at its very core and this is something no one can deny, become even more widespread than it is today.

[ProfessorGAC]

164. What Is The Fundamental Strict Ideology Of Atheism?

A fair question, i think. You refer to a strict ideology, and on your general point, i can't disagree.

But, the problem with your statement is that it fails to identify the fundamentals of the strict ideology of atheism.
GAC

[Zynx]

204. I'm not saying Atheism is necessarily by itself, but rather I was digressing that

if it were not religion as an ideology for people to become fanatics over, it would just be something else.

If I were to talk about strict Atheist ideologies, that would be as fruitless as lumping all Protestants in the same camp or all Catholics. If I was forced to highlight a single thread of ideology throughout Atheism, it would be a lockstep adherence to "logic" and "reason" very much in the spirit of the Enlightenment. I am not entirely certain that is nearly as positive a thing as many would think.

[endarkenment]

210. "a lockstep adherence to logic and reason"

As a methodology for building a rational worldview. Indeed. Most atheists are guilty as charged. I would note that if through logic and reason and all the lockstep adhered to trappings of rational discourse and evidence based reasoning one can build a convincing case for the existence of a god, then many atheists, with their lockstep adherence to logic and reason, would be compelled to accept and believe in this god. We are waiting...

[Ignis]

170. Agreed. (nt)

[ContinentalOp]

2. Christopher Hitchens is a "leading atheist spokesperson"?

:shrug:

[comrade snarky]

8. I don't remember voting for him

At the last Atheist Cabal meeting and box social.

[ContinentalOp]

11. I vaguely remember voting for him...

but I'm pretty sure that was for official drunk spokesperson. That meeting was a bit of a blur though.

[comrade snarky]

15. Tell me about it.

I didn't know you could get an alcohol contact high. The last thing I remember clearly is Hitchens about to exhale in my general direction.

[beam me up scottie]

196. LMAO!

:rofl:

[Blue For You]

49. LOL!

[TokenQueer]

74. Box social...

:rofl:

[Canuckistanian]

179. LOL!

I think it was voted on between the "Attack on Xmas" resolution and the circumcision brouhaha

:rofl:

[ColbertWatcher]

10. That was my question, too.

I guess the GOP-controlled media have decided one of their own is now the "leading atheist spokesperson."

[beam me up scottie]

25. Sure, just like Fred Phelps is a leading christian spokesperson.

What an idiotic statement.

And of course it's being repeated and applauded on a "democratic" internet forum.

[SidDithers]

39. +1...

Hiya bmus! :hi:

Sid

[beam me up scottie]

51. Hi Sid!

I forgot how to define my atheism again, good thing I have DU so I can catch up on the latest right wing talking points!

[ingac70]

89. +1

[jgraz]

81. Wait, so we're supposed to pray to Hitchens now? I thought Dawkins was our god.

Shit, this is why we atheist fundies never get anywhere.

[Seldona]

107. I didn't recieve that memo!

:wtf:

[MineralMan]

3. Hitchens is just one atheist.

Atheists don't have an organized system, nor do we have spokespersons. We leave that to the churches.

Atheists are individuals, and there is no central message other than disbelief.

[damntexdem]

21. This is the first reassonable response I've seen on this thread.

I know plenty of atheists who are progressive. Of course, they are a bit less likely to be fundies; but that is perhaps only correlational.

[MineralMan]

28. Again what fundamental beliefs do these

"fundies" of which you speak espouse? Since you're putting the label on them, you must have some sort of criteria you use. Can you share it?

[beam me up scottie]

32. You posted flame bait and are broad brushing atheists and you expect reassonable(sic) responses?

And spare us the "I know plenty of atheists/black/glbt people" republican style cop-out, your bigotry comes through loud and clear.

[MineralMan]

But....some of his best friends....and so forth...

[charlie]

72. Just one time

I'd like to see one of these guys invite their "best friends" into the thread, hear what they say about what their bud's up to. If they're going to use them as cover, it's only fair their friends get the chance to whack them upside the head publicly if they want.

[beam me up scottie]

79. Caution, you have just entered "I'm a life-long democrat but..." territory:

[PassingFair]

181. Is that a weasel....

or a stoat?




:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

188. It's a Sweasel!

Someone needs to put it in a circle and draw a line through it. :D

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. So, by the same argument, Christians are nazis?

Because Hitler, Christianity's leading Christian spokesperson, was a Nazi?

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Don't wave the cape TOO much

People might become too distracted to get popcorn.

--d!

[charlie]

6. That's cute

He has to pretzel himself to make Dawkins rightwing. And he does it admirably. I'll bet he reaches over his shoulder to scratch his ass, too.

[scheming daemons]

9. Pssst.... atheists span the entire political spectrum, on almost all issues....

There's no monolithic atheist political philosophy.

[damntexdem]

26. That is true. But the article and this thread speaks of the fundies.

Note some of the first responses on the thread for a taste of that closed-mindedness. Such approaches have always reminded me of Xian fundies: different content, same rigid, unthinking format.

[MineralMan]

30. The article is written by, and for, right wingers.

I guess I don't see your point.

[beam me up scottie]

35. Bigots don't care where they get their talking points.

I doubt they even read most of the shit before they post it here.

[Seldona]

115. Straight to the heart of the matter.

Nice.

[beam me up scottie]

141. Explains the hit-and-run OP too.

Of course we'll now be subjected to "Why are atheists so angry?" threads for another week or so...

We hate them for their freedom.

[realisticphish]

172. Bad Angry BMUS!

NO! BAD!

[beam me up scottie]

175. They're going to have to fit us all with shock collars soon.

It's all fun and games until someone loses an arm...

[realisticphish]

180. yeah

... then it's a sport :D

[SidDithers]

45. Perhaps that's why the OP likes it?...nt

Sid

[MineralMan]

48. Perhaps so. How boring...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

163. Yes. And damntexdem liked the article. You do the math. -nt

[Warpy]

58. Define "fundies"

Atheists lack liturgy, sacred texts, or anything else one can point to for fundamentals.

Define your term, sir, or hit oblivion.

(time to cue the crickets, again? Obviously the word "fundie" is meant as a broad brush insult because people don't like having their own faith challenged by the mere existence of people who don't agree with it. As much thought went into choosing that word as goes into "poopyhead.")

[Bill McBlueState]

66. "different content"

But the content of their beliefs is exactly what makes Christian fundamentalists what they are.

They're fundamentalists because of the specific things they believe, not the fact that they're strident or rigid about it.

This is why everyone's asking you to define the "fundamentals" that characterize atheist fundamentalism.

[Starry Messenger]

12. About the author:

Oh look Daddy, it's a senior fellow from a think tank!

"Robert Wright is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of Nonzero, The Moral Animal, and, most recently, The Evolution of God"

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_America_Foundation


And lookie who is on the Board of Directors:

* Eric Benhamou - Chairman & CEO, Benhamou Global Ventures and Chairman, 3Com Corporation
* Scott Delman - Founder, Capital Z Investment Partners
* James Fallows - Chairman, New America Foundation
* Francis Fukuyama - Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy, SAIS, Johns Hopkins University
* Ted Halstead - Founding President & CEO, New America Foundation
* Noosheen Hashemi - President, HAND Foundation
* Laurene Powell Jobs - President of the Board, College Track
* Kati Marton - Author and Journalist
* Walter Russell Mead - Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign Relations
* Lenny Mendonca - Chairman, McKinsey Global Institute
* Steven Rattner - Managing Principal, Quadrangle Group, LLC
* Diane Ravitch - Research Professor of Education, New York University
* Eric Schmidt - Chairman & CEO, Google, Inc.
* Bernard L. Schwartz - Retired Chairman and CEO, Loral Space & Communications Ltd.
* Anne-Marie Slaughter - Dean, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University
* Laura D'Andrea Tyson - Dean, London Business School
* Christine Todd Whitman - President, Whitman Strategy Group
* Daniel Yergin - Chairman, Cambridge Energy Research Associates
* Fareed Zakaria - Editor, Newsweek International


Gosh, I just love these new talking points.

[beam me up scottie]

38. Nice work!

Too bad the op didn't bother to do his homework before he posted his right wing propaganda.

[Starry Messenger]

47. Here's another gem from the same author:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-wright/the-bibles-vindication-of_b_212599.html

The Bible's Vindication of Obama's Middle East Strategy

Yikes. I guess we could call them the "new PNAC" for symmetry's sake.

[beam me up scottie]

53. And WE'RE the ones they're so scared of?

That's as brilliant as the right wing meme that homosexuals are the biggest threat to this country.

[ebdarcy]

55. What I love is that he's using both columns to peddle his new book.

[Starry Messenger]

67. I know, right?

Snake oil fail.

[Ignis]

171. "Snake oil fail." <-- Thanks, I LOL'd!

:rofl:

[Starry Messenger]

176. Thanks.

:D I think I need to make that a photoshop macro.

[Ignis]

177. I'd suggest Jimmy Swaggart, but there are so many choices!

:)

[LostInAnomie]

62. "The Moral Animal" is actually a very good book about Evolutionary Psychology.

It is definitely not a fundamentalist or neo-con screed.

[LooseWilly]

83. Nice catches.

I went after the words the author used... and called him an asshat. You looked up his resume... and called him the same.

[TokenQueer]

86. Second verse Same as the first

Nicely done...and damn fast, too. :applause:

Yes, I just love these new talking points.
:rofl:

[Starry Messenger]

93. Uh shucks.

:blush: My mundane superpower is teh googles. Speaking of which, I was sorry to see the Google CEO on that board. I guess they brought him in as "balance" or something. Christine Todd Whitman must have to avert her eyes whenever they are in the same room together.

[TokenQueer]

100. I don't understand the sudden (and pervasive) use of "fundie" atheist.

Down-thread, lurky is discussing this (#71).

On edit: had correct lurky's handle.

[beam me up scottie]

105. It seems the only way they can find to smear atheists is to liken us to theists.

:rofl:

[Starry Messenger]

112. I have some theories...

but they wouldn't be popular on this board. I suspect that the Democratic Party's lurch rightward might have something to do with it, though. I think that that left wing issues are being branded with RW labels to make those issues less attractive to moderates, especially moderate theists.

[TokenQueer]

117. I agree...

Rather than getting into a sub-thread debate on this right now, I will look forward to further analysis of this issue in the terrific OP you will be posting. ;-)

[LeftishBrit]

207. Thanks for doing this research!

Interesting stuff.

[HamdenRice]

13. There does seem to be an "invade their countries, burn their mosques and churches ...

wipe out their evil irrational religion" mentality.

Which I seem to have heard before from someone who usually touts herself as a Christian fundie. Funny how fundamentalisms of both the religious and atheistic type converge.

[ContinentalOp]

16. Can you name some other hawkish atheists besides Hitchens?

And what are these fundamental beliefs of so-called "fundamentalist atheists"? :shrug:

[jgraz]

96. No, he can't

You don't actually need to know anything to spew anti-atheist bigotry.

[LooseWilly]

106. Where is this "invade their countries, burn their mosques... {blah blah blah}" mentality?

The article was an exercise in falsely associating atheists with the right wing. Probably to sell books. If you see "an "invade their countries, burn their mosques and churches ... wipe out their evil irrational religion" mentality", I'd suggest you are either looking at the Right Wing which Wright has misdirected you towards... or that you brought that mentality with you.

If you are going to start ascribing that "mentality" to atheists equally as to Right Wingers, you'll have to refer us all to actual "atheist" sources, if you want more than eyerolling (:crazy:) reactions. This article is a half-assed literary criticism styled attempt at a "bait and switch" meant to convince the gullible that atheists and Right Wingers share some common ground which they do not share.

" Funny how fundamentalisms of both the religious and atheistic type converge."... Ooops, sounds like you were one of the gullible ones who fell for the "bait and switch".

I'll show you the gist of the trick: the atheist notion that all religions are irrational is not equatable with the Right Wing notion that Islam is irrational. Wright attempts to use that false "convergance" to convince the gullible that atheists are just as likely to dismiss political grievances of Palestinians, for example, as Right Wingers are... since Right Wingers dismiss the political grievances because Islam is irrational, hence Muslims are irrational, hence the grievances must be irrational-> and the implication is that: if atheists consider religion to be irrational, then they must consider Islam to be irrational, thus they must also consider Muslims to be irrational, and so, Like Right Wingers, they MUST dismiss political grievances of Palestinians Just Like Right WIngers Do.

This is a false analogy. It is also bullshit. If you believe this, then you are either gullible, or just as much of an opportunist as Wright.

[ContinentalOp]

14. I just read the whole thing and found so many other laughable statements.

"The initial resistance to the settlements, and to the establishment of Israel, wasn't essentially religious, and neither was the original establishment of the settlements, or even of Israel."

"The Israeli and American right join Dawkins in stressing religious motivation in the Middle East, and there's a reason for that. The people there whose political grievances are most conspicuously caught up with religion are Muslims."

"If there were no belief in paradise, there would be few suicide bombers. Then again, there might be less charity."

Hey, let's try it out. I would love to take that gamble.

[lurky]

17. What's driving this spike in anti-atheist talk?

In the last week or so, I have seen a lot of ranting about "atheist fundamentalists" and so on. Usually when so many people start pushing the same subject, it is because there has been a news event, book or movie release, or a major pundit who has taken up the subject in a big way.

Did I miss something? :shrug:

[damntexdem]

31. Many of us are sick and tired of fundamentalism of all types.

The same sickening brew has poisoned so much in this world.

But I will say that the balance of blame lies on the side of religious fundamentalists -- but it's not all there.

[MineralMan]

36. Many of us? What 'us' are you referencing.

Of which "us" are you a member?

[lurky]

71. Yes, but why now? Many people seem to have

had the same realization at the same time.

Also, this phrase, "atheist fundamentalist" smells like a focus-group tested talking point. It has emotional appeal, but doesn't actually mean anything: A religious fundamentalist is someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible, koran, etc. However, atheists, by definition, have no such text to interpret. Either you are an atheist or not -- there are no degrees of disbelief that people can fight over.

It seems like what people are really complaining about are "mean" atheists like Hitchens and arguably Dawkins, versus "nice" atheists who don't believe in god, but who keep their mouths shut about it.

[TokenQueer]

92. Agreed.

Well said. Focus group, indeed.

[jgraz]

84. How can you be sick of something you don't understand?

[nolabels]

211. First you would have to know the life experience of the person.......

you ask such a question to. Secondly you and they would both have assume they are stupid and you are not.

Atheism as a Stealth Religion III: Four Questions and Six Possible Answers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_2_b_81389.html

[MineralMan]

33. I was wondering the same thing. Are there some talking points

out there I'm not familiar with? If so, who's promulgating them. The stuff quoted in the OP comes from a right-wing fundie source. I have to wonder why it's posted here, to be frank.

[Lance_Boyle]

40. DU's Holy Shrieking Choir of the Perpetually Oppressed

has its panties in a ruffle over rational people's "disrespect" of their ever-so-devout fairytaleism.

[mitchum]

43. They have recently rolled out the term and it is DISGUSTING to see it...

propagated here on DU

[endarkenment]

212. I have a theory: C Street and The Family

The recent attention on the theocratic movement and its power center in washington and its influence over the last 50 years has got some people all itchy to strike back.

[mitchum]

214. I think you are correct

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

18. Richard Dawkins (and others) has a MUCH different view on the US's military forays.

"Spokesperson" my ass.

[baldguy]

20. Its not so much that Hitchens views are a result of his atheism, as it is his being an asshole.

[sledgehammer]

68. +1 n/t

[armyowalgreens]

156. He is an asshole that is almost always right. But I stress ALMOST.

[ebdarcy]

22. Hitchens being an outspoken atheist does not make him a "leading atheist spokesperson".

And wtf is up with calling him an infidel?

The article was crap.

[Eryemil]

29. The only thing we ahteists have in common is our lack of belief in a deity. Do you expect all...

...people that do not believe in unicorns to also share similar opinions on every other subject?

I thought so.

[SPedigrees]

34. Hmmm, I guess I must be an old atheist then...

[beam me up scottie]

44. Better check with religious DUers, they are the only ones who can correctly define atheism.

Didn't you get the memo?

[MineralMan]

50. Cool! Then do we get to define Christianity for them?

I'll get started on an opus about it.

[beam me up scottie]

57. Sure, I mean how much different from good christians like Bush can they be?

Cataloging their contributions to society will be quite a job, they've tortured and murdered their way through most of the last 2000 or so years.

[ContinentalOp]

70. You mean "leading Christian spokesman George W. Bush"?

:shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

110. And Ann Coulter.

And Rush.

O'Reilly.

Newt.

Palin.

They really have quite a wide assortment to choose from, and all we have is Hitchens. :cry:

[TexasObserver]

41. Chris Hitchens is bad. Chris Hitchens is an atheist. Ergo, atheists are bad.

Talk about a bullshit notion!

[beam me up scottie]

61. That's fundamentalist logic for you.

I blame myself for expecting better from DUers like the op.

[TexasObserver]

78. Atheists tend to be individuals who don't run in packs.

Groupthink is not their deal. They don't have "leaders."

[beam me up scottie]

82. People who can't make a move without shadowing someone else don't understand that.

They're terrified of what might happen to them if they left the herd.

[TexasObserver]

109. That's right. If one's paradigm is following, they project it to others.

Many, if not most, atheists have been in an environment that immersed them in religion at some point. Our culture naturally does that. One has to be strong to resist the constant pressure to conform to the group will. Weak people need group affirmation, and that's why so many of them clamor around religion. If one has to go to a church once a week to remind himself or herself to be a moral person, it's not a positive attribute.

Atheists realize everything they do is on THEM, not on some God, not on some Devil, not on some angel, not on some demon, not on some curse, not on some spell, not on the stars.

[boppers]

42. A pro-religion person doesn't understand atheism, and looks for prophets within atheism.

Color me shocked.

Or not.

[BolivarianHero]

52. I'm an atheist...

And I agree with them that political Islam is evil, but I think that only the left is capable of possess a just and logically consistent alternative to theocracy.

[BurtWorm]

54. Wright is wrong. End of story.

Unbelievable that well-paid journalists waste their time and ours constructing elaborate strawman arguments like this drivel. Thanks for wasting our time with it on DU as well.

[LostInAnomie]

56. I respect Robert Wright, but I think he gets quite a few things wrong in this article.

For starters, his rebuffing of Dawkin's assertion that without religion there would be no Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To prove his point, he states that the original source of conflict was over who deserves the land. But, without religion as the source of the either sides claim there would not have been the means for escalation of the conflict.

Wright also seems to downplay religion as being the source for the "larger cause" that drives people to violence. Sure, nationalism and racialism have been a driving force in the past, but in many cases that nationalism and racialism has been fueled by religious drives. But, as Sam Harris argues in "the End of Faith", religion, nationalism, and racialism are all driven by the same thing: irrationality. They all have irrational and irresponsible leaps in logic at their roots.

As far as his saying that "new atheists" have a RW view on foreign policy, I disagree. While it might appear that their interests coincide occasionally, the same could be said of the ACLU and the KKK. The "new atheists" that Wright is speaking of have a decidedly anti-moral relativist view when it comes to human rights. They are opposed to governments that use religion as a basis for treating women as second class citizens, curbing free speech, harming people based on sexual orientation, etc. It just happens that the governments that are most famously guilty of these actions are in the Middle East. Speaking out against them is no more RW than being pro-choice, pro-first amendment, and pro-gay rights here in the US.

[PurityOfEssence]

60. Would Pat Tillman have enlisted if 9-11 had been a secular attack?

Hitchens is a difficult one, to be sure, but let's put him aside for a second.

It's not the least bit surprising for atheists and other versions of non-religious and anti-religious people to be rather aggressive in the face of creeping theocracy. Religion, to many of us, is not just a benign group of political organizations, it is downright dangerous and on the upsurge. At a time when we face environmental extinction and economic downfall, having aristocratic voices in the public forum who demand their assumptions be deemed UNDENIABLE FACT with no obligation of proof is NOT to be tolerated. Tis is a pivotal time in human history.

Those who don't believe in an afterlife tend to have a great respect for life, and oddly enough, that can often manifest itself in a willingness to go to war against theocracy and aggressive proselytizing religions. These people play for keeps, and feel entitled to kill for their guess.

Pat Tillman was upset that we attacked Iraq; he considered it the wrong war. I fully agreed then and still do.

As for Hitchens, he's a loudmouth, blowhard contrarian with a need to be deferred to as the smartest guy in the room. Why he felt Iraq was the right thing to do is beyond me, and he's the kind of arrogant atheist who fuels the inferiority complex of many believers. They've got a point: many non-religious people belittle believers, and idiotic organizations like the "Brights" pour more gas onto the bonfire.

On the other hand, Hitchens is dead-on with his assault on religion: it is an extreme danger, and his book is a beautiful and orderly dissection and refutation of the major snake-oil operations.

[stopbush]

64. The article is based on a number of false premises.

First off, Hitchens is the only "new atheist" who has exhibited RW stances, and those stances revolve almost entirely around bush's Iraq war. In everything else he does - his writings, his lectures, his debate appearances - there is nothing neo-connish about Hitchens. Perhaps the author can list other prominent neoc-ns who voiced their support and voted for Obama last election as did Hitch.

The other prominent new atheists - Dawkins, Dennett and Harris - are in no way neo-cons.

Another false premise: the writer ignores that fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict over land exists only because of religion: both sides claim that they have a god-given right to the land.

As always, it's easy to come up with an argument like this if you conveniently ignore facts and make up your own facts to support your argument.

[LooseWilly]

69. Why the author of this article is a completely disingenuous asshat.

Firstly, the arbitrary decision to name Christopher Hitchens as a "leading atheist spokesperson" is bullshit. There is no "atheist community" for him to speak for.

Secondly, the Dawkins assertion:

Consider Dawkins' assertion, in his book The God Delusion, that if there were no religion then there would be "no Israeli-Palestinian wars."

is taken completely out of context, and handled only with the utmost convenience. The notion that Dawkins' statement is so superficial as to only mean that if the Israelis and Palestinians were to suddenly all become Hindus, or atheists, then the Israeli-Palestinian problem wouldn't exist is to assume that Dawkins is as superficial of a thinker as the author of this article... and it is an exercise of gravely superficial thinking to neglect the fact that, without the religious traditions of Judaism there wouldn't have been any link for the Semites of Europe to bring them to Palestine in an effort to build a homeland (and there might never have been the persecution necessary to create the impetus to create a homeland in the first place)... or any of a number of other possible consequences of "no religion" that Dawkins could draw from the assertion, if Wright had any intention of actually putting the assertion in context.

Instead, Wright tries to devaluate the struggle, and by extension the validity of Dawkins' (out of context) assertion, by setting up the strawman religious issue, only to knock it down again thusly:

For starters, this is just wrong. The initial resistance to the settlements, and to the establishment of Israel, wasn't essentially religious, and neither was the original establishment of the settlements, or even of Israel.

The problem here is that two ethnic groups disagree about who deserves what land. That there was so much killing before the dispute acquired a deeply religious cast suggests that taking religion out of the equation wouldn't be the magic recipe for peace that Dawkins imagines. (As I show in my new book The Evolution of God, zero-sum disputes over land and other things have long been the root cause of the ugliest manifestations of religion, ranging from Christian anti-semitism in ancient Rome to bloodthirsty xenophobia in the Hebrew Bible to the Koran's gleeful anticipation of infidel suffering in the afterlife.)

This whole argument is height of disingenuousness. The author of the article has taken a simplistic sentence from The God Delusion, without so much as a page reference to allow one to find the actual context of the quote, and thrown it into his article as if there were no context to be concerned with. The author then uses this out-of-context sentence to link Dawkins, and by extension all atheists, with the right wing.

The Israeli and American right join Dawkins in stressing religious motivation in the Middle East, and there's a reason for that. The people there whose political grievances are most conspicuously caught up with religion are Muslims. If the problem is that Muslims are possessed by this irrational, quasi-autonomous force known as religion, then there's no point in trying to reason with them, or to look at any facts on the ground that might drive their discontent.

And voila... the author has, based on one out of context sentence, tried to link Dawkins' rejection of the irrationality of all religions with the attempts of the Right Wing to specifically reject Islam as irrational... and, if one doesn't look closely at the rhetorical prestidigitation that has just been perpetrated in one's presence... one might be fooled into believing that Robert Wright is not an asshat.

This whole article is etymological flim-flammery. His points are horseshit, though self serving... The only thing worth noting in this article is that there is some network of thinking that believes that there is some expedience to be gained by linking atheists with Right Wingers...

I suspect that it is an attempt to separate the atheists from the theists in the new democratic party coalition... so that the theists won't be held back by atheists when the narcotic familiarities of their theism are twisted in order to manipulate them into betraying the "new path" of Not-Right-Wingery that so many theists have "fallen for".

[jgraz]

91. It's too bad. I had the author's book on my reading backlog

If all of his writing is as poorly-reasoned and bigoted as this article, I'll pass.

[LooseWilly]

152. I assume you mean Robert Wright... not Richard Dawkins.

Yeah, if Wright's other writings are as completely misrepresentative and intellectually dishonest as that article... best not to even bother reading it. Unless you like the sport of reading awful writing so that you have more details by which to trash the writing itself (David Eggers' book A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius comes to mind... an unmitigated pile of rancid tripe...).

[jgraz]

168. Exactly.

[burning rain]

76. Dawkins is an Iraq war opponent, not a hawk, period, so far as I've seen.

Hitchens has been an Iraq war hawk, but does strongly stand up for the legitimate interests of Palestinians.

[Rob H.]

121. Yep, Dawkins has been an outspoken Iraq War opponent

from the beginning, whereas Hitchens was supporting (and still supports) Bush's actions long before anyone knew he was an atheist.

From On the Eve of War by Richard Dawkins, May 15, 2006:

Whatever anyone may say about weapons of mass destruction, or about Saddam's savage brutality to his own people, the reason Bush can now get away with his war is that a sufficient number of Americans see it as revenge for 9/11. This is not only bizarre. It is pure racism and/or religious prejudice, given that nobody has made even a faintly plausible case that Iraq had anything to do with the atrocity. It was Arabs that hit the World Trade Center, right? So let's go and kick Arab ass. Those 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, right? Right. And Iraqis are Muslims, right? Right. That does it.

The official reasons for this war were equally applicable before 9/11, and before the last election. Yet, though it has certainly lurked, ever since the first Gulf War, in the dark minds of some of the men behind Bush, it never got a mention in his election manifesto, nor in that of his stooge Blair. Indeed, of all major world leaders, only Gerhard Schroeder has put the war to an electorate-- he was against it--and consequently he could claim to be the only one with a democratic mandate for what he is now doing.

...

Those of us who marched through London, a million strong, to oppose Tony Blair's craven support for the Iraq war, are sometimes accused of anti-Americanism. I vigorously repudiate the charge. I am strongly pro-American, which is one reason I am passionately anti-Bush. You didn't elect him. You deserve better, and so do the rest of us. Even if the Florida vote wasn't deliberately rigged, Al Gore's majority in the country, reinforcing his majority in the Electoral College but for dead-heated Florida, should have led a just and unpartisan Supreme Court to award the tie-breaker to him. Bush came to power by what I can only, if oxymoronically, call a constitutional coup d'état.

[MineralMan]

85. He's fleein' the interview! The OP is fleein' the interview!

Thanks for that line Ms. McDormand!

[jgraz]

94. Weird. I just watched that scene this morning

Baader-Meinhof syndrome strikes again...

[MineralMan]

98. Always glad to hear about a nice BM.

:bounce:

[beam me up scottie]

102. "Where is my worthy opponent?"

:rofl:

[ingac70]

87. Christopher Hitchens is an alcoholic asshole.

I suppose that makes him the leading alcoholic asshole spokesperson.

[PassingFair]

185. He speaks for all gin-soaked popinjays around the world!

[ingac70]

193. lol

:thumbsup:

[MellowDem]

95. I do think there should be a term...

for atheists who believe all religion is evil, that religion is the cause of much of the grievances of mankind, and that without religion, the world would be much better off. They don't represent all atheists, but they certainly are a type of atheist that draws comparison to fundamentalist religious types, often because fundementalists religous types believe all other religion or nonreligion is evil, that secularism is the cause of much of the grievances of mankind, and that if everyone just followed their religion, the world would be much better off. That's about as far as the comparison goes. To me, that is what I would see as a fundie atheist.

[ContinentalOp]

97. Well, the article linked in the O.P. seems to be using the term "new atheism"

so... try that.

[MellowDem]

104. New atheism...

is just a form of atheism that some fundie athiests subscribe to.

I guess I could call all fundamentalist Christians Baptists, but I doubt that would be true.

[ContinentalOp]

108. So what is the defining characteristic of this "fundie atheism" that you believe exists? -nt-

[MellowDem]

118. Three things to me...

1. Belief all religion is evil
2. Belief that religion is the cause of the most of the world's troubles in history and today
3. Belief that without religion, the world would be much better off

Why are these views extreme to me?

1. Anyone who labels anything 'evil' is dealing in dichotomies that usually don't see the gray area.
2. Represents a demonization of the other based off of false assumptions of history, anyone who tries to blame the suffering of the world on any one thing, much less something as complex as religion, must be ignorant and is looking for a way to simplify their worldview.
3. The idea of a sort of utopian society if only said threat is eliminated is a pretty commmon idea among extremists everywhere.

Several symptoms you will see of fundamentalists, whenever any world event happens, they will try to apply the "threat" they believe in to that world event and how it negatively impacted it. In other words, the threat is seen in everything and everywhere. If something bad happened, they believe if you go back far enough, you will find the threat was behind it. I've seen this done by anti-semites, end timers, etc., really, extremists of any stripe.

It is interesting that there never really has been a word of extremist or fundamentalist atheists, but it's most likely because they have only recently been tolerated enough to start voicing their opinions more openly.

[ContinentalOp]

126. Thanks for the clarification.

#1 is a strawman because I would think most atheists don't necessarily believe in the concept of "evil" and would try to avoid using that word. The only connection to "evil" that I can see is the Dawkins show which evidently "Dawkins has said that the title 'The Root of All Evil?' was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy"

#2 & #3 are essentially the same thing. If you believe that religion is the cause of most of the world's troubles throughout history, then by extension you would have to think the world would be a better place without religion.

So I think you can boil this down to the belief that religion is at the root of all of the world's problems. But this opinion is not an inherent part of atheism and therefore the term "fundamentalist atheist" makes absolutely no sense. "Extremism" isn't really a valid description either unless you can point to any examples of violence or terrorism caused by these types of atheists.

So in the end, perhaps the term anti-theist is best, as "beam me up scotty" suggests.

[MellowDem]

130. I agree...

including atheism in the word really doesn't make any sense. To be anti-theistic, you almost certainly are going to be an atheist, but that doesn't work the other way around.

[ContinentalOp]

133. Also, I disagree on your comparison between atheists and religious fundamentalists.

When religious fundamentalists say that 9/11 or Katrina was god's punishment for homosexuality or secularism, that's clearly insane and untrue. Same thing when anti-semites blamed Germany's problems on a secret Jewish conspiracy. Or when freepers blame all of their problems on "the liberal media."

But is it extremist to say that religious beliefs took us into the Iraq war? Bush explicitly said "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did." http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

Are atheists being fundamentalist extremists when they complain about the intrusion of religion into our government? Atheists usually point to pretty solid evidence. You can't get much more concrete than a giant 10 commandments monument on a courthouse lawn for example.

[jgraz]

99. Why, is your name-calling arsenal somehow lacking?

But if you really must have a word for people who think that "religion is the cause of much of the grievances of mankind, and that without religion, the world would be much better off," I'll give you one: CORRECT.

[MellowDem]

111. Haha..

I don't think it has anything to do with name calling. It just a needed descriptive word. The idea that atheists cannot to be extremist in their views is dead.

And just to let you know, you sound just as ignorant as those Christians telling you how secularism is destroying the world. You guys should get together actually. You have a lot in common.

[ContinentalOp]

114. So how about "extremist atheists"?

I've never personally seen any evidence of one but at least the term would make a little more sense than "fundamentalist atheist."

[beam me up scottie]

119. Anti-theism is another option.

And most anti-theists I know have no problem with that term.

[MellowDem]

124. I guess that would be the best term...

I have actually never even heard of it until now.

[beam me up scottie]

129. Hitchens used it to describe himself.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism">Wikipedia

Antitheism:

Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who take the view that theism is dangerous or destructive. One example of this view is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which Christopher Hitchens writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."<1>

[MellowDem]

131. Thanks for the info. nt

[MellowDem]

122. Really?

Well, extremist atheist is fine as well, I really don't care. But usually a fundamentalist is thought of as "extreme". Since atheism is a belief in no God, not a belief system, it's not like there are any fundamentals to follow beyond that there is no God. Being an athiest doesn't automatically make a person anti-religion in the sense that it religion is considered evil. So far there is no real good word for it I guess. Even extremist atheists doesn't make a lot of sense. Personally, I don't think atheism should even be part of the word. Anti-religious zealots? Secular extremists? Maybe that one is better. It's still a pretty new field, considering it was dangerous to be anti-religion (and still is in many places) back in the day.

[jgraz]

120. And you sound as ignorant as those who say homosexuality is a "choice"

Try picking up a book on history. When you can point to the atheist inquisition and crusades, maybe I'll start caring.

[MellowDem]

127. The inquistition and the Crusades...

Speaking of, what caused the inquisition and the Crusades? I've read a lot of history books, you see, that have told me about a lot of different factors that lead to these events, with religion only being a part of it, but these obviously must be wrong.

But I guess I could call Red China's Communist Revolution a sort of anti-theist purge, or Crusade really. And don't forget the Soviets, with their gulags and the forcible liberation of Eastern Europe from "the opiate of the masses". Who cares about all the other factors in history and what the REAL motivations were behind these things. These regimes were actively anti-theistic, so therefore everything they did can obviously be traced back to the evils of atheism. At least according to your logic.

[jgraz]

132. keep digging

The Stalinist purges were not based on any "atheist doctrine". Neither was the Cultural Revolution.

However, the motivation for the crusades and the inquisition can be found right in that little book of bronze-age superstition that the christian fundies still worship today.

[Starry Messenger]

134. Here jgraz. This will save loads of time:

[jgraz]

142. Noice

:thumbsup:

[beam me up scottie]

144. Haha!

Pascal's Wager in the center-that's great! Got it saved. :D

[MellowDem]

136. Really?

Then tell me, how were the Crusades based off of the Bible? The vast majority of Crusaders were illiterate, you see, having never read the Bible, but they were told things such as their sins being forgiven if they went on the Holy Crusade. Now, who told them this? Why, the Pope of course, even though it had nothing to do with the Bible. And neither did the Inquisition either.

Considering this, it seems any motivation came from the Pope and local lords of fiefdoms, which in turn all had their own very secular and political reasons for the Crusade, which, if those did not exist, the Crusades would never have even happened in the first place. But that doesn't jive with your black and white view of the world, does it?

[jgraz]

143. Yes, really.

I'm not going to bother to school you on this since I think you understand the issue perfectly and are being deliberately obtuse. But I have to hand it to you. Most people don't have the stones to flat-out deny the religious underpinnings of The Crusades.

Couldn't help but notice that you not-so-deftly avoided using the same technique on The Inquisition. Probably a good choice, there.

[MellowDem]

146. Erm...

so far, you have provided zero evidence of anything at all. Your blustering shows that you have nothing. I'm guessing you are too incompetent to "school" anyone but yourself into thinking you know anything about history.

And I never said there were no religous underpinnings at all, I just shot your incredibly simplistic understanding of historical events to pieces. So far, your reaction proves my point.

[jgraz]

147. I apologize for accusing you of being deliberately obtuse

It's clear now that it wasn't deliberate. My bad.

[MellowDem]

149. Haha,

you've lost this argument through never responding to any of my points but just attacking me personally. You can stop responding now.

[jgraz]

150. Wrong again. You're really making a habit of this.

Tell me, how exactly did the Church recruit soldiers for the Crusades? What justifications did they provide? What promises did they make? Did they have anything to do with the religion of their followers?

Your statement that crusaders could not be motivated by religious fervor because they were illiterate borders on a bad joke. Remediating that level of ignorance is not really how I want to spend my afternoon.

[MellowDem]

161. For example:

You said, "However, the motivation for the crusades and the inquisition can be found right in that little book of bronze-age superstition that the christian fundies still worship today." That is why I said that since they were illiterate, it isn't likely they got their motivation from the Bible itself as much as from what they were told they would get by the Pope. Nothing in the Bible says they would have been forgiven of sins by going on a Crusade, it was a completely made up notion by the Pope, who just wanted to get as many soldiers as possible and flex his political muscle as well. The Bible also doesn't advocate torture and death in order to convert others.

Indeed, the whole idea of the Crusade was Pope-mandated, not Bible-mandated. And considering the Pope was a religious and political figure, it's not to hard to see the secular motivations that he had as well.

I never said that the Crusaders could not be motivated by religious fervor. It's quite possible and no doubt true that many were. But many were also compelled to go because of debts at home, or promises from opportunistic lords that their debts would be forgiven, a rather secular reason, or the promise of treasure and adventure, etc. etc.

The Crusades are a classic example of the manipulation of religion to serve secular purposes. And it wasn't only religious promises that were made to soldiers; there were secular ones as well. So to say that the Crusades were only caused by religion is just not true. Politics, greed, ambition, you name it, these all contributed greatly to the cause of the Crusades as well. Religion was one of the tools of motivation used, but it wasn't the only factor. Just because religion was what the purported purpose was for the Crusades doesn't mean it was the only or the main one even. Just look at the Iraq War.

The Inquisition was also motivated by multiple factors. In Spain, the reconquest of the Iberian peninsula left the Muslims and Jews that were remaining to be regarded with suspicion, because once again, Spain was both a political and religious force. The conversion to Catholicism not only made you right in the eyes of God, but it also made you Spanish. To be Spanish was to be Catholic. So to remain in Spain, you had to be Catholic, which has a lot of political implications as well as religious. It was a loyalty test in a way. And it was also a convenient way to take away land and property from the conquered. This same Spanish Inquisition also dealt with political cases. The way that Church and State were one and the same makes it pretty hard to seperate the secular motivations from the religious ones. One justified the other.

Religion has been used to justify many bad things, but so has everything else. If not religion, then something else would be used. And the fact that religion had to be manipulated by those in power to fit these justifications kinds of muddies the water that religion is automatically bad. If it was, then why was it constantly having to be contorted and manipulated?

All I'm saying is that religion is not all good or all bad and it certainly was not the cause of all the bad things that has happened in history. It is a rather complex and ever evolving entity.

[jgraz]

167. Religion ALWAYS serves secular purposes -- because the "religious" purposes do not exist.

Divine forgiveness? Eternal life? 72 virgins? Sorry, those things aren't real. The only thing you're left with are the secular applications. And that's exactly the problem.

Religion is a great secular tool because it's very effective in getting people to work against their own best interests. I suspect most religious leaders have no illusions about what awaits them after death, but they know that before death they can con the rubes into doing anything just by threatening them with divine retribution or promising them unlimited rewards in heaven.

However, having secular goals does not let religion off the hook. The reason religion -- especially salvationist religion -- is so dangerous is that it accesses some very deep, very primitive neural pathways: blind allegiance to authority, hatred of the "other", reward/punishment responses and the need for ritual and tribal cohesiveness. That makes it very effective at getting large numbers of people to do things that are exceptionally stupid.

Oh, and "the Bible doesn't advocate torture and death in order to convert others"? No, it just advocates torture and death for those who don't share your religion. And rape. Lots and lots of rape. You want to convert them? More power to ya! But make sure you get in the torture, rape and death beforehand.

[MellowDem]

169. So you find that religion...

is such a powerful tool for evil that it must always be bad and must have been behind many of the bad things in history. But in all reality, the purpose of religion in the secular sense has had many meanings since it inception by humans. Religion was primarily used at first to explain the unexplainable. Of course, being as complex as it is, religion has evolved with the rest of civiliaztion over time. Rome decided to adapt Christianity for very secular purposes. And you could say that they used religion in a very bad way for centuries thereafter. But it has nothing to do with what is inherent about religion and everything to do with what is inherent about humanity.

After all, look at Rome now, look at Catholicism now. If religion was the horribly dangerous and great secular tool that was awesome at getting people to work against their best interests, then what happened? How did it come to be that religion came to be a great tool for liberation and enlightenment in the Protestent Reformation? In fact, how many wars were based primarily on religion, or motivated primarily by religion? I can think of very few throughout history compared to the vast majority that were simply for land and power etc. etc.

Blind allegiance to authority, hatred of the "other", reward/punishment responses and the need for ritual and tribal cohesiveness have been observed everywhere, with or without "salvationist" religion, and is a human condition, not something unique to religious followers. Indeed, religions, even salvation religions as you call it, can challenge all those things.

I think you would be sadly disappointed with the world you would see without religion. It wouldn't look much different.

Religion's role in society anymore and its use as a tool has changed dramatically, and in many ways it has been helpful to the progressive movement.

As for your last comment about the Bible, I don't know where you get that idea, maybe you can quote it? After all, the New Testament is what makes the Bible the Bible. But I guess you should tell the Christians and the Jews that they believe in torture, death, and rape to convert others because of the Old Testament. I'm sure they'll agree with you.

Seriously though, a list of all the bad things due primarily to religion would be very helpful to back up your claim that it is the horrible threat that it is and has been throughout history.

[jgraz]

173. I don't believe in evil, so I'd never say that religion is a tool for evil

What I can say is that humanity will be far, far better off once we finally grow out of our "magical thinking" phase.

And yes, religion IS responsible for many bad things in history. I think we've clearly established that. Not ALL bad things, but many of them.

For example, I'm pretty sure it's in the clear on swine flu. And Coldplay.

[MellowDem]

174. Well, the future can only tell how much of a role it will play

in fighting the good fight. I'm glad you don't believe in "evil".

And I fully agree with you on Coldplay ;-)

[LeftishBrit]

213. No; though Stalin and Mao were atheists, their atrocities were not perpetrated in the name of

atheism, but in the name of (distorted) communism/ socialism.

All ideologies can be perverted, when they are pressed into the service of maintaining the power of rulers. I use the term 'quasi-theocracy' to refer to governnments that use a single secular ideology to maintain power in the way that a real theocracy uses religion. Stalinism was to socialism what the Inquisition was to Christianity, or the Taliban to Islam.

But atheism is not an ideology in the same sense; it is the absence of a particular type of belief.

[muriel_volestrangler]

217. Thet would depend on which crusade and inquisition - the ones against the Cathars were about heresy

The Albigensian Crusade killed up to a million people: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Albigensian

And was followed by inquisitions: http://www.cathar.info/1209_inquisition.htm (one chief inquisitor, Jacques Fournier, went on to become Pope Benedict XII!) They kept the inquisitions going until no Cathars remained, of course. Those who converted to Catholicism had to wear a yellow cross on their clothes, to let everyone know what they had been before. A similar idea would turn up later, of course.

[beam me up scottie]

101. Why not keep using the one the right wing made up?: fundamentalist atheist

The op obviously has no trouble using their talking points.


btw, I think the term you're looking for is 'anti-theist'.

[Sigh Sister]

123. Hmmm

I guess I'm a "fundie atheist". I don't proselytize like religious fundies though. I just know there isn't a magical man in the sky and religion is the root of A LOT of evil in the world. I'm a good person and do good deeds because it's the right thing not because I fear spending an eternity in hell.

[BlooInBloo]

148. There is. It's called "historian".

[jgraz]

151. Win.

If you want a laugh, read Mellow's dissertation on how the Crusades and the Inquisition were not motivated by religious beliefs.

[endarkenment]

208. "fundementalists" believe that the (bible/koran/whatever)

is the literal word of god and as such must be followed to the letter, said letters being interpreted by whichever asshat is their appointed leader of the day. If GOD (as interpreted by dear leader) says kill all the unbelievers, that is what must be done.

Atheists don't have an equivalent irrational belief system. They have no 'original text' providing a framework to be fundamentalist about. The whole construct 'fundamentalist atheist' is bullshit. The closest one can come is to point at political movements that happen to also advocate atheism, and that propose or perform such advocacy in an authoritarian fashion, for example most of the classic marxist leninist communist states.

The starting point for most atheists is that quaint enlightenment idea of rational thought and scientific inquiry as the basis for understanding our world, a process oriented framework that allows for, encourages, and in fact demands challenges to all assumptions, proof for all assertions, and progress in our understanding of the universe we inhabit.

That is a viewpoint quite at odds with a fundamentalist world view that starts from a huge set of irrational assumptions that basically provide an entire world view complete in and of itself and allows little if any inquiry or even discussion of that world view, and rarely allows for any further development other than a filling out of the details of the structure itself. A fundamentalist world view is fixed and devoid of any possibility for substantial change.

[bemildred]

113. This sort of ignorant babble is what happens when you believe unrelated things are totally dependent

on each other in some way. Being "progressive", essentially a political view, has nothing in particular to do with ones religious views; though they are sometimes related; and religion can be good or bad, useful or destructive, it all depends on what you believe.

[RadicalTexan]

116. I'm a "New Athiest" of the Dawkins variety

and I'm an anarchist.

Fuck this article.

[RagAss]

128. Look at your rec count....going over like a lead balloon !

[JackRiddler]

139. And this proves what?

[RagAss]

140. It would be a hit in Freeperville !

[Sentath]

135. Of course, this doesn't explain... Maybe this does

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

[LooseWilly]

137. By the way, I tried to look up the Dawkins assertion in the glossary of The God Delusion. Not there.

There are only 2 references to Israel: Palestinian conflict... namely pages 23 and 341 of the soft cover edition. Neither one contains the " if there were no religion then there would be "no Israeli-Palestinian wars." " assertion that is attributed to Dawkins.

Interestingly, on page 24 I come across this line from Dawkins: "Perhaps you feel that agnosticism is a reasonable position, but that atheism is just as dogmatic as religious belief? If so, I hope Chapter 2 will change your mind, by persuading you that 'the God Hypothesis' is a scientific hypothesis about the universe, which should be analyzed as skeptically as any other".

Again, interestingly on page 341 I find this line, "... I could have cited those American 'rapture' Christians whose powerful influence on American Middle East policy is governed by their biblical belief that Israel has a God-given right to all the lands of Palestine. Some rapture Christians go further and actually yearn for nuclear war because they interpret it as the 'Armageddon' which, according to their bizarre but disturbingly popular interpretation of the book of Revelation, will hasten the Second Coming."

Hmm... the "assertion" asserted by Wright seems to be rather difficult to find. All the other references that I find to the Israel: Palestinian conflict seem to paint Dawkins as being in definite opposition to the Right Wing.

So much for the asshattery of "Why the 'new atheists' are rightwing on foreign policy. "

:nopity:

[charlie]

153. He did make the assertion about the I/P conflict

It's in the preface:

Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers', no Northern Ireland 'troubles', no 'honour killings', no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money ('God wants you to give till it hurts'). Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it. Incidentally, my colleague Desmond Morris informs me that John Lennon's magnificent song is sometimes performed in America with the phrase 'and no religion too' expurgated. One version even has the effrontery to change it to 'and one religion too'.

In any case, to take Dawkin's insistence that religion is the primary component as concordant with the right's "it wuz Muslims whut dunnit" is laughably dishonest. The author uses a hamfisted feint to make Dawkins an anti-Muslim bigot no less, which is despicable.

[LooseWilly]

157. Ahh, thank you... I must've looked right through it, because of the context.

In the context of adding more lines to the song "Imagine"... the "assertion" is nothing more than a new "imagining" based on an issue that has changed drastically since Lennon wrote the song in '72.

Laughably dishonest only begins to scratch the surface of using a cut portion from a potential extrapolation of possibilities in the context of a "dreamy utopian" song as a basis for asserting a similarity between atheist notions of the irrationality of religion and the Right Wing notion of "Islamic irrationality" as a justification for dismissing political, social, and economic grievances of a population that happens to be Muslim and have not much left to them but their religion.

This effort by Wright was even more hamfisted than I'd first thought. Thank you for spotting that... I admit I only cursorily glanced over the paragraph that expounded on the Lennon song... silly me, I didn't think that "dreamy utiopian musings" would be the sort of thing that anyone could try to take from that book and label as an assertion with a straight face.

Asshat overestimation- my bad. :tinfoilhat:

[charlie]

160. I own a pdf copy

:) I have it in hardcopy, so when someone floated a pdf in a forum, I didn't have any qualms about snagging it. It makes searching a snap, which is the reason I wanted it.

You got the asshat part right. Look at what he does in two lines:

The Israeli and American right join Dawkins in stressing religious motivation in the Middle East, and there's a reason for that. The people there whose political grievances are most conspicuously caught up with religion are Muslims.

From that second line, where he gratuitously imputes a low regard for Muslims by Dawkins, the rest of his "indictment" flows. He knew what he was doing, he's a dishonest shitbag.

[LooseWilly]

162. Yeah, a casual read of the article made the bait and switch apparent.

In post #69 I went through and pinned down exactly where he'd made the false equivalency.

He's obviously a dishonest shitbag... what surprises me is that anyone could fail to notice such hamfisted shitbaggery. I guess no critique of atheism is too idiotic?...

[charlie]

165. Lol. And there it already was

Guess I should've searched. Great job, LooseWilly, well done :thumbsup:

[JackRiddler]

138. Um, because they're the ones recognized by a corporate media biased to the right?

Imperialist policy and the reaction to it have both taken on a religious tinge. So fanaticism becomes a near-synonym for Islamism in the reception, even if the "neo-atheists'" criticisms extend to other religions.

I dug up an earlier, somewhat related post:

The Hedges-Hitchens debate is fatally mixed up...

Edited on Thu Mar-27-08 05:08 PM by JackRiddler

It astonishes me that both (each for their own reasons) accept the baseless association of neocon politics and specifically Muslim-bashing and support for the Iraq war with... atheism per se. Please. So Hedges postures as a Christian against war and Hitchens as an atheist for it, as though a position on the war logically follows from either theism or atheism.

I found it very frustrating to listen to their direct debate, in which the quick and vicious Hitchens made a complete clown of the slow-witted, preachy Hedges with regard to the God question, and then used this to piggyback his (logically unrelated) war support.

As for Sam Harris, pretty much the same. Starts from a rigorous and logical expostulation of atheism, but soon devolves into "Clash of Civilizations" ideology counterposing a "secular" "scientific" West (which, to borrow from Gandhi, would be an excellent idea!) in a righteous, blinders-on defense against the barbaric, God-deluded, terrorist Muslims. And occasionally he lets his inner Buddhist peak through, just to add to the ironies. Please.

Meanwhile, wasn't it God who ordered Bush to invade Iraq? Don't fundamentalists have growing power within the military? Didn't Bush called the war on terror a "crusade"? Hedges didn't hit back with any of that. (Not that these were the real reasons for the invasion, of course.)

[LanternWaste]

145. The martydom...

The oppressed martyrdom routine... not just for the religious anymore by the looks of this thread.

[Starry Messenger]

186. I don't know about that...

There's a lot of people goofing off and having fun while refuting talking points, too. Did you have no comment on the fact that the article in the OP is basically a fabrication? :shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

189. I know, it's great, isn't it?

All in all this has been one of the most productive atheist bashing threads this week.

[Starry Messenger]

201. I'm sure there's more coming.

The selection of Dr. Collins seems to have brought them all out.

[beam me up scottie]

203. That and all of the brouhaha about Teh Family.

It's like Whack-A-Mole out here.

[LanternWaste]

215. I consistently forget...

I consistently forget-- when one faction does it, it's "goofing off and having fun"; when another side does it, it's "playing the victim".



If nothing else, it's always interesting to observe...

[Bluenorthwest]

154. Well leading Christian spokesperson Bernard Law

said 'let's move the rapists to the pre school'. And he is a spokesman for Christians, because I said he is. Other spokespeople they have include the guy who shot Tiller, and of course their number one American Spokesperson, Sarah Palin. Palin speaks for Christians. Because I say she does.
This OP is hack work.

[armyowalgreens]

155. Christopher Hitchens is not right wing...

Not even close. He is fundamentally in support of many conflicts. However, that does not make him right wing.

[LostInAnomie]

158. Indeed.

I'm pretty sure he's a Trotskyist, or at least he once was. Hardly, RW by any standard.

[armyowalgreens]

159. He is most definitely a very odd fellow.

He comes off as being a total prick. But I really like watching him at work.


Most people don't understand that supporting violent actions/revolution has a long history on the far-left. At least outside of the United States.

[Crunchy Frog]

182. Many of the neocons started out asTrotskyists.

Basically, if you go far enough to the left, you come out on the right.

[armyowalgreens]

184. Well I think it now depends on your definition of "left" and "right".

[ContinentalOp]

178. He's certainly no liberal.

He's pro war, apparently pro life, pro globalization, and says he no longer calls himself a socialist because Capitalism is more revolutionary (but still identifies as a Marxist). He basically seems like some kind of libertarian asshole who gets a lot of mileage out of pretending to be hard to pin down.

[armyowalgreens]

183. You are distorting his beliefs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8HhTKzmvas

He has never come out in opposition to all abortion. He simply takes a very safe ethical stance on it. I don't necesarily agree with his stance, but I respect it for its thoroughness.

He is not a capitalist by any means. He is a self-described socialist. However, he carries a certain amount of anarchistic beliefs in his ideologies that can easily be confused with libertarianism.

He's hard to pin down because he is an extremely complicated intellectual. I've been called a neo-nazi for my utilitarian beliefs, but that is nothing more than a bunch of reactionary bullshit. Same goes for people who chose to "pin down" Hitchens into a single political or social ideology.

[ContinentalOp]

195. LOL, he can't be pinned down because he doesn't seem to take a clear stance on anything.

"I no longer would have positively replied, "I am a socialist.""
"...I forget whether I said I was an ex-socialist, or recovering Marxist...I’ve often tried to point out to people from the early days of the Thatcher revolution in Britain was that the political consensus had been broken, and from the right. The revolutionary, radical forces in British life were being led by the conservatives....though I was a member of the Labour Party, I wasn’t going to vote for it...I did realize that by subtracting my vote from the Labour Party, I was effectively voting for Thatcher to win. That’s how I discovered that that’s what I secretly hoped would happen. And I’m very glad I did."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28208.html

From the video you linked he says that he believes that a fetus is a child and that "I've long said that the presumption is that the unborn entity has a right on it's side and that every effort should be made to see that it's preserved and I think that's an ethical imperative."

[Odin2005]

202. He's a Left-Libertarian

[Marr]

166. I'll just skip over the "Atheist Fundamentalist" line and say

that I agree with Hitchens' basic point that Islamic fundamentalism is a very real threat to secular societies like our own. So is Christian Fundamentalism. They are irrational, primitive movements that are hostile to science and logic, and very easy vehicles for the power hungry to co-opt. And once they take control of a system they do not let go easily. We *should* be working to protect our societies from these kinds of threats.

Where we differ is that I don't think the use of military force is reasonable or productive-- at least not in the ways that Hitchens endorses.

[armyowalgreens]

187. I'm very confused how being anti-religion makes one right-wing.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

[Odin2005]

198. Hitchens does not = All "New Atheists"

:eyes:

[Kurska]

199. I fall right on that Israeli-Atheist axis that the author is talking about and have pretty hawkish

foreign policy views, so I find this article very interesting even if it's just to see what people like the author think of me.

I do find it pretty funny that he believes the Taliban is pouring acid in the face of young girls because of "Historical grievances with America and israel".

[LeftishBrit]

206. Hitchens' brother Peter is much MORE right-wing than he is, and is a strong Anglican...

and strong believer in 'religious values'. So the RW streak in Christopher may be more a family issue than a religious/nonreligious one.

In the UK, country of origin of both Hitchens brothers, close to 50% of people are atheists or agnostics, so it's not surprising that some would be right-wing. As it is not surprising that some religious people would be right-wing. It's not like the USA, where being an atheist puts you into a small minority group.

[omega minimo]

216. Authoritarianism poisons everything.

Sometimes hard for SOME males and authoritarian types in a male dominated authoritarian system to see that.

Easier to target spirituality...