By Manila Ryce
Published Thursday, April 10th, 2008, 2:58 pm
Filed under: Society/Culture: Religion, Videos: Political, Videos: Other, Videos: Debate, War, Society/Culture: Racism, Videos, Society/Culture, World Issues, US Politics

31 Responses to “Interview: Chris Hedges on Fundamentalist Atheism”

1. That is great. However, Hitchens is just ONE atheist. He doesn’t speak for all of us. He simply speaks for those who think “you know what? Violence is the only tongue these bastards understand”.

   On the subject of “funadamentalist atheism”… I’m not going even to bother. Not with “prostelatizing reason”. I just have one question for Hedges- does he have the back bone and courage to actually examine their arguments? And realize that the atheists are right? Otherwise, the man reminds me nothing so much as the “liberal Northerner” during the civil rights error. “Wait, don’t be offensive, don’t rock the boat”… al;though to be fair gays, not atheists get more of the violence.

   I’ve read his “American Facism” and his theology is fascinating. He doesn’t believe the bible is literally true- just things written by good people imparting deep moral lesson. Because slaughting children obviously is the work of good guys. The differance between him and atheism is… no idea actually.

   As for his “not recognizing the evil inside”… it is pretty obvious we aren’t made of white snow. On the other hand our opponents deride reason, burn people alive, plot against those who took them in and in general behave like madmen. But in the end there is only one important fact- they are our enemy and in the end there is no compromise. We use words and persusian. They use violence, social control and punishment. I’m pretty sure atheists are the good guys.

   Samuel Skinner
   04/10/08 at 7:12 pm
   
2. 

   @Samuel Skinner

   You are the “good guys” and there can be no compromise with your “enemies”? Your rhetoric sounds mighty familiar.

   The facts simply don’t support your scapegoating Samuel. The overwhelming bulk of death and repression in the past couple centuries has been the fault of enlightened Western men, not priests, rabbis, and imams.

   Eliminate religion from existence and you will have accomplished nothing but to replace the justification for violence with nationalism, capitalism, racism, classism, etc. You will not eliminate or even reduce atrocities from occurring unless you address their true source.

   Do you really believe that suicide bombers are the natural result of Islam rather than American imperialism?

   Manila Ryce
   04/10/08 at 9:13 pm
   
3. 

   This whole thing is ridiculous.

   Look, anyone who’s a regular reader of [my responses to] this blog knows my feelings regarding religion. But I like to say I’m not unreasonable and even, dare I say it, FAIR in my disdain. So what’s my response when Atheism becomes a religion, as it apparently and inexplicably has in the last 10 years?

   You guessed it; YOU’RE ALL MORONS!!!

   It’s really very simple. Atheism is supposed to mean “NO GOD” and/or “NO Faith.” (Due to the erroneous melding of religion and God, it can also mean “No Religion.” I don’t personally believe in this particular definition, but I am aware that this meaning is also, and often used.)

   OK, so now that we’ve established, as good and proper Atheists, that there is no God, I ask you, WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT OF GETTING TOGETHER, WRITING BOOKS, AND DEVOTING RIDICULOUS AND EXORBITANT AMOUNTS OF TIME PREACHING IT??!!! I thought the whole, (and really ONLY) benefit of Atheism was to Avoid anything resembling Church, which includes the endless Sermonizing and Countless retarded rituals that come with it. But apparently, I’m the one who’s full of shit, ‘cuz here we go into the next century with a wondrous plethora of Non-Religious Non-Churches, complete with doctrines, dogmas, rhetoric, and a stupid, single-minded belief in a retarded deity, (only in this case, the deity is NO DEITY!) You know, everything that makes Actual Religions so absurd.

   So good job retards. Way to make the religious wackjobs across the world actually right about something. You just gave the fanatics credibility. Maybe the next time you fuckin’ geniuses decide write another retarded book, perhaps you should check out your supposed religious competition, you know, for the sake of Avoiding Plagiarism!!

   Ugh…what the hell…

   I mean, really, what are we doing?

   I just….fuck it. Just fuck it.

   PapaFigue
   04/10/08 at 10:18 pm
   

4. By good guys, I mean the fact that atheists and “atheist fundamnetalism” is confined to… words. Yeah- my hurt alot, don’t they?

   As for compromise with our enemies… you seem to be under a rock. For the last decade “compromise” has meant appeasment. Muslims feelings upset? Ban it. Muslims riot in the street? Our fault. Muslims set Paris on fire? It isn’t their fault- it is the government for not providing jobs. Muslims live in seperate communities and abuse their women? Cultural tradition. Etc…

   Yeah, because everyone knows that Hitler and Stalin were “enlightened”. Wait- no they weren’t. They both practiced belief systems that were crazier and nuttier than a barrel of pastachios. The jib your making at seems to be that Stalin had a secular belief system. Obviously the only way to counter an irrational secular belief system is an irrational theistic belief system. Dude- have you heard of reason? It is rather useful in cases like this.

   Yep- eliminating religion won’t eliminate all evil. Neither will eliminating poverty, school bullying, torture, war, etc. I’m not saying ending religion solves all our problems just some of them. For example we wouldn’t have any more honor killing, maytardoom wouldn’t be seen as positively, creationism wouldn’t be going for a spot in class, etc.

   Do I think Islam, and not American Imperialism is responsible for suicide bombing? Are you on crack dude? You know why I ask? Number one continent the US has fucked over- Latin America. Number of Latin American suicide bombers- zero. Must be a corralation between Islam and suicide bombing.

   For the record suicide bombing started of with the Tamil Tigers (cult), spread to the secular resistance in Palestine and then took of. I mean, what would you call the actions of the Iranian Army during the Iraq-Iran war? They weren’t suicide bombing, but they used kids to clear mindfields by running through them. I’d say this “maytar” mentality is what is responsible for suicide bombings.

   Also, nice to blame imperialism for everything. Because you know the US is the only actor in the world- everyone else only responds to us. People don’t do anything of their own will- the only react to us.

   As to Papa Figure
   Hmmm… maybe it is the same thing that caused that flurry of anti-commie and anti-facist books. You know, the fear that they actually would succeed. The reason atheists are becoming more outspoken is because faith is becoming more and more dangerous. What is Al-Queda gets a nuke and decides it would be glorious to take as many Americans down with them as possible? People like this blog writter would immediately say that although they feel for the victims, the fact is it is our fault, politicians would declare religion is not to blame and intellectuals would look for alternate explanations. People would ignore the fact that the reason is pretty obvious- Al-Queda has stated it themselves. They are defending Islam from the decadent Westerners. The hate us for what we are and what we do. For those that claim that the reason the hate us is our imperialism, note the reason we prop up dictatorships in the arab world is because when given democracy they are extremely unstable and tends toward theocracy. Turkey the secular democracy is only the way it is because the tanks of the army keep the Muslims in place. Every single other arab country is controlled by enlightened despots- they may seem reactionary by our standards, but compared to the Taliban they are bleeding heart liberals.

   Or, in short the reason atheists are writting books and trying to become a movement is because we actually take religious people seriously. They are dangerous and insane. It may sound like an exageration, but the whole point of faith is that the facts are irrelevant.

   Samuel Skinner
   04/11/08 at 12:38 pm
   
5. 

   @Samuel Skinner

   “Yeah, because everyone knows that Hitler and Stalin were ‘enlightened’.”

   To them and their ilk, yes. However, I was hardly talking about just Hitler and Stalin. Nuclear bombs, indigenous massacres, and various wars in the name of democracy immediately came to mind, but we can stick with Hitler and Stalin if that’s what you’re familiar with.

   “The jib your making at seems to be that Stalin had a secular belief system. Obviously the only way to counter an irrational secular belief system is an irrational theistic belief system.”

   Wow, you completely missed the point of the article. The idea is to counter ALL irrationality with rationality. I am not championing theism by any means. You’re obviously more obsessed with my personal beliefs than I am of yours, and that only serves to prove that you are a fundamentalist. Atheist or not, you and Hitchens are highly irrational individuals.

   “Are you on crack dude? You know why I ask? Number one continent the US has fucked over- Latin America. Number of Latin American suicide bombers- zero.”

   Latin America isn’t a continent. And regardless of the means, you can not deny that violence did (and still does) take place against US imperialism in Latin America. What does the method matter? You can argue that one method is more successful than another, born of different terrain and resources, but the strategies of both groups is to achieve independence through violence.

   “Must be a corralation between Islam and suicide bombing.
   For the record suicide bombing started of with the Tamil Tigers…”

   Care to contradict yourself any further? The Tamil Tigers (the group you credit with inventing suicide bombings) are a secular organization, not an Islamic one. Additionally, if suicide bombings were a characteristic of Islam then surely Muslims in the West would be strapping suicide vests to themselves as well. Since the group that perfected suicide bombings was not Muslim and since most Muslims don’t blow themselves up, you might want to acknowledge that a greater correlation exists between economics and suicide bombings than with Islam.

   “I’d say this ‘maytar’ mentality is what is responsible for suicide bombings.”

   Yeah, you say a lot of things that don’t make sense. There are similar stories from WWII about allied soldiers falling on grenades to protect their friends, but go ahead and explain away heroism as a depraved side-effect of religion if it fits your agenda.

   “Also, nice to blame imperialism for everything.”

   Not everything, but damn near everything. Show me a fucked up country and I’ll show you Western imperialism. You can’t acknowledge that we are the biggest player on the world stage and simultaneously claim that our influence is minimal.

   “For those that claim that the reason the hate us is our imperialism, note the reason we prop up dictatorships in the arab world is because when given democracy they are extremely unstable and tends toward theocracy.”

   Wow, you actually believe that horse shit? Look at Saudi Arabia. We prefer theocracy and dictatorships because you can’t control democracy. Take Iran for example, which was overthrown AFTER it successfully developed into a democratic state. The Western-backed Shah was forced to flee to Europe. Then, just two years after Mossadegh nationalized Iran’s oil industry he was overthrown by the US and Britain.

   “Turkey the secular democracy is only the way it is because the tanks of the army keep the Muslims in place.”

   Turkey is a secular democracy?

   “Every single other arab country is controlled by enlightened despots- they may seem reactionary by our standards, but compared to the Taliban they are bleeding heart liberals.”

   Funny thing about the Taliban is that we helped put them in power too. I guess we supplied them with arms to guard against theocracy though right?

   “It may sound like an exageration, but the whole point of faith is that the facts are irrelevant.”

   Says the man who just revised history to justify tyranny.

   Manila Ryce
   04/11/08 at 3:55 pm
   
6. 

   @Skinner
   I have no problem with Atheists being outspoken. But what I do have a problem with is Atheists BECOMING the religious assholes they rail against. No amount of apologizing can change this glaring and disturbing fact.

   “Or, in short the reason atheists are writting books and trying to become a movement is because we actually take religious people seriously. They are dangerous and insane.”

   I agree that religious fanatics, including the Christian Right, are indeed dangerous and insane. But in my mind, this is exactly why they SHOULDN’T be taken seriously, especially by anyone who claims to be a “champion of reason.” Taking these wackjobs seriously only gives them credibility, which in turn only makes them louder and even more insane and dangerous.

   If there were to be any sort of movement which I could get behind, it would be a Secular movement. But just as God and Spirituality are not the same as religion, so too do I see no reason why the retarded notion of Atheist-ism being the same as Secularism. The way I see it, whether you want to believe in the invisible giant or not, there are real and practical things we mere fricken mortals can do to solve our problems. But then, who wants responsibility when you can fuckin’ blame something!?

   I would be inclined to agree that if there were no religion, it would solve a lot of problems, but then I remember that the human race is nothing if not divisive and self-destructive. We’d find another reason to hate and kill each other. Americans have it easy. Our groups are all different colors, so divisions are pretty fuckin’ obvious. But in places like, I don’t know, China and Tibet, or Kosovo and Serbia, or any number of war torn areas of Africa, it takes a little more work to dehumanize a given group to the point where their torture and demise become the “right thing to do.”

   But don’t worry, I’m perfectly confident in humanity’s creative ability to rise to this challenge. Just remember, on Easter Island, where everyone was culturally and genetically from the exact same pool, they STILL figured out a way to slaughter each other to extinction. And the brilliant division? Ear Size.

   Yes. Ear Size.

   So fuck it man. Religion or no, I don’t think the majority of people are open to any sort of Reason whatsoever.
   Ignorance can be undone by reason, knowledge, and understanding, but WILLFUL IGNORANCE is pretty fuckin’ Iron Clad, especially when a given group has some rhetoric to latch onto.

   And that includes the fuckin’ Atheism-ists.

   PapaFigue
   04/11/08 at 8:43 pm
   

7. Jesus fucking Christ on a stick! Manila Ryce, I hope you’ve been hitting the bong too hard lately, and that’s the only reason why I found such incredible bullshit on my favorite blog.

   My ears started bleeding after this imbecile Hedges, following his little digression of covert science bashing, accused Harris of calling to a “nucular” (Harvard grad, my ass!) first strike on the Arab world and defending torture along with Hitchens. Here’s an article where Hitchens argues against torture:

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/14/afghanistan.terrorism2

   Notice that it’s not from Vanity Fair.

   I also find it very hard to believe that he is on a “fascist quest to forcibly bring Muslims into “reason””, since he is an ardent supporter of free speech and is against the criminalization of hate speech. I can back up my assertion by providing a link to his speech in which he defends the rights of Holocaust deniers, creationists and - gasp - Muslims to present their point of view because he realizes that there is no objective standard of determining who should be silenced (doesn’t it contradict your statement that “he ends up arguing for the infallibility of his own group”?). BTW, Dawkins doesn’t seem to mind free speech either, despite the recent attempt by a creationist movie to portray him as the Grand Master of evolutionist censorship, since I found the link to the speech Hitchens made on his website:

   http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,731,Free-Speech,Christopher-Hitchens,page2#comments

   Another little accusation you made is that Hitchens “attempts to deny human nature by externalizing evil as a byproduct of religious philosophies”. Yeah, right. I’m sure that’s exactly why he wrote in the first chapter of God Is Not Great: “Past and present religious atrocities have occurred not because we are evil, but because it is a fact of nature that the human species is, biologically, only partly rational. Evolution has meant that our prefrontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by a committee; a recipe which, alone or in combination, is very certain to lead to some unhappiness and disorder” (emphasis added). I think it’s pretty clear that he’s saying here that human nature is the primary cause of atrocities, and religion is not the only cause of the world’s problems. I suppose he disagrees with you that humans are internally evil, but I am, frankly, surprised that you hold on to this Sunday school notion. Exactly who decides we are internally evil? And how is it determined? Or is it just mere semantics, and you and Hitchens actually agree about human nature and the cause of atrocities? I should probably add here that Dawkins doesn’t think religion is the root of all evil, despite having made a documentary under that title. The title was mandated by the producers, and he was against it, as he explains in the Preface to The God Delusion.

   Can you back up your assertions now, please?

   As for Harris, he just said that collateral damage is worse than torture because the victims of it are innocent civilians, as opposed to actual criminals being tortured.

   Here’s his response to Hedges: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070529_sam_harris_fights_back/

   Here’s his position on torture:

   “My argument for the limited use of coercive interrogation (”torture” by another name) is essentially this: if you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children), you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to “water-board” a man like Osama bin Laden (and risk abusing someone who just happens to look like Osama bin Laden).”

   He thinks torture should remain illegal and he is against the death penalty. He only supports the killing of terrorists when it’s impossible to capture them.

   He has never spoken in support of the war and thinks it has been a disaster for which the Bush administration is largely to blame.

   His responses to this and other controversial topics can be found on his website:

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

   I definitely don’t agree with Hitchens about the war, and don’t agree with some of the positions Harris embraces, but I have no idea how Hedges managed to make a “nucular” first strike out of them. In fact, maybe I’m not giving him enough credit: he has managed to corner both ends of the market with his two books. Oh, and the binary world view wasn’t doing it for him, so he went for a “trinary” one: there are the religious fundamentalists, the atheist fundamentalists, and then in the middle there is Hedges himself, an embodiment of objectivity who can get away with simultaneously stating that doubt is at the core of his faith and putting grotesque labels on people without any hesitation or justification whatsoever. And if it worked in your case, you being a person I perceived as very reasonable until recently, what does it say about the rest of the population? It makes me so mad that parasites like Hedges are going to get recognized and adored by the masses, while the works he used to make himself a buck by cherry-picking quotes will never be read by most Americans.

   BTW, I have never read Vanity Fair, but I HAVE read The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, and have started The End of Faith, while you clearly have never opened any of those books, preferring instead to base your opinions of the authors’ positions on theism on the mumbo-jumbo spewed by some pompous pseudo-intellectual and the fact that Hitchens supports the war. I am not familiar with the works of Dennett or E.O. Wilson, but since Dennett is among the Brights (atheist and secularist movement), he is against forcing atheism on people by definition, and E.O. Wilson could hardly be considered any kind of an atheist, let alone a fundamentalist one, and thinks that science and religion should form an alliance or some such nonsense, so Hedges should lose all credibility right there. Before I even read the rebuttal Sam Harris wrote concerning Hedges, it was painfully clear to me that Hedges is one of those religious moderates described by Harris that enable the extremists by pretending that irrational brands of religion don’t exist and every act motivated by religion could be easily explained by any other non-religious reason.

   While I didn’t really like God Is Not Great (unorganized, half of the words he used were not even in the dictionary, and simply boring, although I agree with the general idea, and certainly didn’t notice any calls to force atheism on anyone), The God Delusion has changed my life and made me realize that as a theist, I was being completely inconsistent in my methods of evaluating evidence. This book is convincing
   because it lays out the evidence so clearly that you can’t help but wonder how you didn’t see it before. I think Dawkins has a gift for making things understandable, be it science or something else, which is why he is Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. And Dawkins just wants people to use reason and for society to not close their eyes indoctrination of children, which is child abuse that effectively inoculates them against ever using reason in the future. That, of course, hardly constitutes forcing atheism on the masses that many people attribute to him. He is a member of the Brights, and supports their rule that states someone who is forced to be a Bright cannot be one. The End of Faith sounds great so far, as well. BTW, Dawkins and Harris are both liberals politically, as well.

   Oh, and did you actually write that “if suicide bombings were a characteristic of Islam then surely Muslims in the West would be strapping suicide vests to themselves as well”? Surely, you are aware of the subway bombings in London in 2005 by four Muslims, three of them born in England and one in Jamaica?

   Who cares that one of the suicide bombers said “I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe.Our drive and motivation doesn’t come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger.” If he weren’t Muslim, he’d be protesting the war like most of us, by publicly expressing his opposition and being a good citizen. The strapping of bombs to himself has EVERYTHING to do with him being a Muslim, which he said himself in no uncertain terms. The other one said “we are willing to give our lives 100 times over for the cause of Islam”. To him, it is not about imperialism, it is a war on Islam, and he reacts in a way his religion has taught him to - jihad. But good luck trying to rationalize your way out of this one.

   And what’s with your condescending attitude towards people who agree with Hitchens in the same sentence you accuse him of condescension? Talk about pots and kettles.

   I did, however, notice that you allow for the possibility that you might be wrong, so there is hope, I suppose. I strongly suggest that you read Dawkins and Harris before making generalizations and throwing terms like “fundamentalist atheists” around, and agreeing with this dimwit Hedges.

   The only fundamentalist atheist I have ever encountered was my father, but that’s just because he’s full of himself and thinks his opinions on every matter, be it culinary preferences or the meaning of life, are the only correct ones. None of the people Hedges calls fundamentalist atheists think they are infallible (you can find examples of at least two of them changing their minds on Edge), and none of them advocate forcing anything on anybody, they are just concerned about where the world.

   I expect to see a correction on this post that accurately presents the positions of the people you consider “fundamentalist atheists”. I made the job easy for you by providing all these references. If you continue to persist in you current notions, I hope to at least see some valid references and elaborations on your allegations. Otherwise, I will be forced to conclude that YOU are the one with a “hypocritical wedge of superiority” up your rear end. Which would be too bad, because I have really enjoyed reading this blog until now.

   Entropy
   04/12/08 at 10:26 am
   

8. I’m going to give this another shot. First PF.

   The reason we take religious nutjobs seriously is because they have power. Bush is president of the United States, remember? We take them seriously when they say things like “well, we don’t need to take care of the environment because the Second COming is at hand”. Most people say “they don’t mean that”- by taking them seriously we accept that they do mean many of their words.

   I don’t blame religion for everything. Repeat it slowly until you get it. To be fair, what you are witnessing isn’t the atheist movement, but the antitheist movement. Antitheism is the belief religion is false AND it is hamful.

   Your an idiot. I may not think people will sit down and say kum bay ah, but you seem to think that people will try to keep the level of violence constant. If you take a look, much of the fighting is due directly to religion, sometimes tied to secular causes. Do you think people could beat up on the gays without the church or another nutty ideology? Do you think we’d have the Sunni-Shitte split? Do you think we’d have the “clash of civilizations”? The answer is no. We’d have problems, but there would be less.

   And to take the cake you relate beliefs and actions with physical appearance. I have news for you idiot- they are two differant things. Why shouldn’t I discriminate against someone who insists I am inferior? Why shouldn’t I judge a person by their beliefs?
   …
   …
   …
   So basically you are against anti-theism because you think that people are beyond help? Then shut up. If humanity is doomed to fractious infighting and insanity hide in your bloody rathole. Because people like me have something you don’t- we believe we can make the world a better place. Rail against it all you want, but for the last six milenia the optomists have been slowly, grudingly succedding. People are not born with logic- it had to be invented! But it has spread. The world is a better place than it was a mere fifty years ago. If you can’t see that you are worse than the theist who wrote this post. He has only one insane belief- you have many.

   You compare antitheism to theism
   You compare discriminating by appearence to discriminating by actions and belief
   You hold mankind is beyond help
   You declare atheist-ism is bad because they are “active”
   You hold that paying attention to fanatics only helps them (I’ll inform the KKK- they liked secrecy)

   All of these are false. If you cannot understand, I can try to peal away the falsehoods line by line. More likely though you’ll come back angry, being pissed of that I have stated you are an idiot and insulted you. The fact is, you are. Your opinions are false- they don’t reflect reality.

   Samuel Skinner
   04/12/08 at 1:30 pm
   

9. Now I deal with the theist. Ironically calming. Oh, and Entropy posted while I was writting- nothing I say has anything to do with his post.

   First off it is sort of hard to figure out what you mean by enlightened. By enlightened I mean moral- you seem to imply something else.

   Obcessed with other peoples beliefs makes you a fundamentalist? I was under the impression that when you were arguing with other peoples belief it happens to be important to know what their beliefs are. You for one stereotype all atheists as being like Hitchens- not to mention post a bunch of left wing bull. Yes, we know people who do bad stuff consider themselves good guys. I am just pointing out that the alterantive to atheism is theism. Since theism is false people should be atheists.

   You are right- Latin AMerica is a region. And why would they suicide bomb. 1) it is more effective 2) terror tactic 3) symbolism 4) rallying point… fact is there are a bunch of good reasons. So far we haven’t had a mestizo pack a car full of explosives and ram it into a US embassy. And don’t do that oil speal- we get most of our foreign oil from Latin America.

   The Tamil Tigers are secular- but they happen to be a cult. Given that they are a cult you can treat them like a religious group- cults are similarly insane.

   In case you haven’t noticed, Western control ended 30 to fifty years ago for most of the third world- 190 for Latin America. They are still screwed up. In fact the recent screw ups are entirely their fault. You know, civil wars, corruption, internal strife- all these things are not the wests fault- these are things the idiots are doing to themselves.

   So we overthrowing a communist sypathizer and set up a police state. The population procedes to overthrow it and forms… a theocracy. Doesn’t that prove my point. As for Saudi Arabia, isn’t the monarchy more liberal than the population? The liberal dictator holds true for most of the region. The exception would be Yemen… they are… interesting. But we have never proped up a dictator there either so it is irrelevant.

   Are you living in a hole in the ground? Turkey is a democracy- they have elections that are fair and free, they vote for the president and members of the judicial branch. They have been this way since 1950. The country has been in the news recently- they are trying to join the EU, they have been suppressing dissidents, they invaded Iraq (last year- chasing after the Kurds). The country hasn’t such a great human rights record, but it is a democracy with multiple political parties, free and fair elections- the works.

   The only blight is the instability and occasional military coups (3 or 4). The most recent one was to kick the religious party out of power. Turkey’s military is reconed to be all that stands between the country and Islamic rule. The Muslim parties are softening their image, but it is probably a PR attempt- when those bastards get power… Anyway, Turkey is the only democracy in the entire Arab world (Isreali doesn’t count- it is a theocratic state). All the other countries are one party or rigged elections or no elections. And the reason it is that way? If the government gets out of hand the military takes it down. They are agressively secular. And guess who supplies the military? A country right next to the Soviet Union… hmmm- I wonder who it could be.

   Actually we didn’t put the Taliban in power. We supplied arms to the various groups in Afghanistan. After the war against the Soviets was over the country decended into a civil war. America stopped the weapons flow and the Taliban eventually managed to control most of the contry with the Northern Alliance holding another part. The US never supported the Taliban or attempt to aid them in the conquest of the country.

   I didn’t revise evidence you did. As for propping up dictators… someone needs to look at the facts. We got them in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan… that is about it. The rest of the region swung towards it on their own accord.

   The reason some liberals seem in favor of dictatorships is… great, I’m going to invoke the founding fathers. We live in a republic, not a democracy. One of the foundations of a republic is the will of the people is BS. For example gay rights. There is a large portion of the US which is against it- heck against treating gays as human. The South wanted to re enslave blacks, the sufferage movement wasn’t popular. Heck, ending segregation probably wouldn’t have passed the popular vote. How did it happen? Blacks managed to get the judicial branch to make changes, caused scenes in places that fought back and cooperate with those who didn’t want things to get out of hand (you don’t think everytime involved dogs and firehoses? The threat of complications was enough to cause changes in many areas where people were more reasonable- maybe 90% of the time). The important thing to note is the process wasn’t democratic. Blacks were of course denied voting rights through terror and the system, but the population approved. Heck, interracial marriage was illegal until 1970 in Virginia.

   The simple fact of the matter is that in the US we have managed to use the judicial branch to sub in for dictatorship. Heck, abolition and reconstruction were established at the barrel of a musket. However, we can’t use this polite fiction of Mythical founders handing down a god given document so that if you disagree, why you must hate the country. That is why some people are infavor of dictatorships- because we are going to force people to adopt liberal ideals. You might object to liberalism or what is so great about it, but in this case it means: sexual equality, freedom to dress however you like, lack of totalitarianism, secular rule, protection of minorities… you think I’m kidding? Look at Iran before and after. Look at Iraq before and after. The Iraq military had gays in their ranks- now they are lucky if they don’t get killed by the fundamentalists. We have a democracy in Iraq and it turns out to be as good a plan as one in Yugoslavia. You are right- we don’t have the “perfect conditions for democracy”. It doesn’t matter. This is the world we have to live with.

   So what am I saying? Am I pro-democracy? Yes- but only if you are rational and sane. And I don’t consider theists, communists, pseudoscience believers and their ilk sane. You can disagree, but history supports me. As to deal with the fact they are a majority… well, that is what our system is for- wrap people up in as much committee meetings, corruption and red tape as possible. Keep them from passing rules like prohibition. Hey- the system isn’t perfect, but as long as you have people who relish irrationality it is the best you can make.

   Samuel Skinner
   04/12/08 at 2:23 pm
   
10. 

    @Skinner
    Nothing you have said disproves my original argument; that Atheist Fundamentalism is just as bad as any other Fundamentalism, only it’s more retarded because they claim they are against the very stupid faith-based system of thought that they rail against. It’s like watching a hick from the hill wearing a flannel bicker with the hick from the valley wearing a wife beater. It’s like comparing a turd with frosting to a turd with chocolate sprinkles. Atheism vs Antitheism, jesus christ! Get into the semantics if you want, but the fact is it’s a waste of time.

    So you’re going to spend all your resources disproving religion. An 8 year old can see when religion makes no sense. How about we focus on facts instead, cuz you know, the funny thing about facts is as they pile up, they become a little hard to deny. In the end, they end up doing the work for you. This is why there are many Republicans who are starting to shift their views on Climate Change, for example. 10 years ago, politicians like the moron Jim Inholfe insisted it was a hoax propagated by the Scientific, Liberal Elite. Idiots like these guys look on Science as an opposing “philosophy” or “religion,” which, like their beliefs, operated on Faith and Fear instead of facts. But the research continued nonetheless, and as the facts added up, the truth became glaringly clear, at least for most of them, (Jim Inholfe, the epitome of WILLFUL IGNORANCE, still maintains his position.) The point is, what would have happened if instead of going about the business of scientific research into the problem, all the scientists devoted their time and energy to disprove the religion and the beliefs that so impeded their message. Well, it’s pretty much a pissing contest at that point, isn’t it? And while a good number of scientific minds, like Hitchins and Dawkins, were unwittingly drawn into the retard fray, most of them merely compiled the facts, and now, even in America, the issue of Climate Change is a reality on at least some level in the majority of peoples’ minds.

    This is just one example, of course, of what happens when intellect and energy are devoted to what truly matters. I concede it could happen more smoothly without religious dogma, but the process in which the backward notions of tradition and belief give way to more progressive paradigm has indeed been constant. You call yourself an optimist, but you’re all for miring yourself in an “intellectual Iraq” (or Vietnam for that matter) by entering a dialogue with people who want none, in order to “save” people who very clearly don’t want to be “saved.” How could such an endless and un-winnable conflict possibly benefit the greater good, that thing you “optimists” tend to love so much? Hmm… you mentioned the Sunni-Shiite row. That’s a great example! There are many more, but I want to address your bullet-points real quickly before I go enjoy life for a while:

    “Do you think people could beat up on the gays without the church or another nutty ideology?”

    Yes. As I stated before, Fear and Hatred are very much a part of the humanity’s paradigm and historical pattern. It’s true that religion is a major factor in this, but I believe to be a very convenient scapegoat. Why take responsibility for your intolerance when you can blame something? “It’s not I who hates the gays, it’s God!” Blah blah. The point is, as I’ve stated before, human beings have a dark side, no matter how you choose to justify or deny it. If they don’t have religion, they have skin color. If they don’t have either of these, they have cultural or family background. If they don’t have this, they have EAR SIZE. There will always be something. My guess is that if religion were to disappear tomorrow, we really would have no less problems, only the “reasoning” behind them would be just about as absurd.

    “[Same question regarding] Clash of Civilizations?”

    The Clash of Civilizations has to do with Socio-Economics, not religion. It’s about two groups fighting over limited resources. There will always be limited resources and groups to fight over them. It’s true that religion is usually used to justify this kind of division, but make no mistake, it’s about “MINE MINE MINE!!” and nothing else.

    “Why shouldn’t I discriminate against someone who insists I am inferior? Why shouldn’t I judge a person by their beliefs?”

    Again you prove my point. To answer your question though, Because it proves you’re no better than they are!!
    Y’know, it’s my central thesis and real reason I’m pissed off about this. (Sorry, it’s not because you think I’m an idiot!)

    “You compare antitheism to theism”

    Um…YEAH!! I think we’ve established this already, but if you missed it, just refer to my elegant Turd Analogy.

    “You compare discriminating by appearence to discriminating by actions and belief”

    It’s all discrimination, though I think we SHOULD descriminate according to Actions. Of course this applies only to individuals and groups. Concepts are another matter. As far as Appearance, this discrimination is wrong for obvious reasons. And beliefs? Well, look, you can have any moronic belief you want, as long as you don’t hurt anybody, it really doesn’t matter, (see “Actions” above.)

    “You hold mankind is beyond help”

    This sort of condescending question is identical to the kind of soul-peddling plea of your standard Christian Missionary. But to answer your question, no, I think people are not beyond reason, unless they CHOOSE to be. That’s what WILLFUL IGNORANCE means. So in general, people are capable of enlightenment, unless they decide to go Fanatical, JUST AS THE ATHEISM-ISTS APPARENTLY HAVE.

    You declare atheist-ism is bad because they are “active”

    No, I declared it was bad because they are NO BETTER THAN THAT WHICH THEY OPPOSE. Say it slowly till you get it. You can’t out-fanaticize Fanatics. To even try is an exercise in futility.

    “You hold that paying attention to fanatics only helps them (I’ll inform the KKK- they liked secrecy)”

    I said it helps them in that it gives them CREDIBILITY. Of course you can’t help but notice when the village idiot is spewing off at the mouth, but it’s Credibility that is the real issue here, not attention span. Your eyes are probably glazed over by now, so I’ll try to wrap it up.

    As I said, the central fallacy behind the Religious War against Reason is that Reason, meaning scientific and logical thought, is a Belief System, like theirs, based on Faith and Rhetoric instead of actual Fact and Observation. They were always wrong on this point until a bunch of Atheism-ist fanatical wannabes decided to lower themselves to their level. Now, the wackjobs may actually have a point, because there is now a group that opposes them according to Rhetoric instead of Example! That’s Credibility. Very dangerous in the wrong hands.

    But hey man, like I said, you can have any moronic belief you want. If you want to make the choice to reason the wackjobs out of their fanaticism, then knock yourself the fuck out! I don’t own a Rathole, but I will take your advice anyway and sit this retarded war out. I don’t know, maybe I’ll go out there and, when all else is said and done, actually accomplish something!

    Happy Hunting!

    “You think that people are beyond help?”

    PapaFigue
    04/12/08 at 4:46 pm
    
11. 

    Entropy, for every post I write I’m sure I gain one new reader and lose two. I am outspoken and I hardly expect loyal readers or even my guest bloggers to agree with me on every issue. I know for a fact that most of them don’t. My goal is simply to put things out in the open. I welcome your opposition on this matter.

    “Here’s an article where Hitchens argues against torture”

    I’m aware of that Guardian article, but also aware of the one he wrote for Slate in which he displaces the blame for torture in Abu Ghraib on Saddam. He only minimally blames two US soldiers involved and defends the higher ups which started the war, had no desire for stabilization, and made torture a standard military procedure. Hitchens makes arguments based in relativism that our actions aren’t so bad when compared to the Nazis, and derides anyone upset about Abu Ghraib as being your typical overreacting leftist.

    Hitchens even made the strawman argument years ago that Saddam was as “nasty as Stalin” and as “crazy as Hitler,” as if Hitchens’ personal diagnosis of Saddam’s mental health is relevant at all to whether he actually posed a threat. Rational minds assess the actions of a person while Hitchens instead uses the ideology of an individual to justify his crusade. That is what all fundamentalists do. They use a person’s personal beliefs to justify intolerance against them, even escalating into violence or war. Saddam thinks a certain way so he must be killed, nevermind the fact that he’s as harmless as the bum on the corner who also says crazy shit.

    “I also find it very hard to believe that he is on a ‘fascist quest to forcibly bring Muslims into “reason”’, since he is an ardent supporter of free speech”

    Of course he is. I never claimed he wasn’t. Turning Baghdad into metropolitan New York, free speech and all, has been part of the quest since the beginning. It’s not that imperialists don’t care about the locals they conquer. Indeed, the British Empire thought it was doing a terrific job of bringing civilization and democracy to all the savage brown people of the world. It’s the white man’s reluctant “burden” to force their ideals upon people for their own betterment. I never said Hitchens wants to silence people. He agrees that Muslims have the right to speak out against our occupation until they’re blue in the face. They just don’t have the right to actually do anything about it.

    “I think it’s pretty clear that he’s saying here that human nature is the primary cause of atrocities, and religion is not the only cause of the world’s problems.”

    Actually, I believe he was arguing that religion itself is not evil, but stupid, and that this stupidity is the reason “religious atrocities” occur and must be overcome by an evolution in rationality. However, I have a hard time taking anyone arguing about the merits of rationality seriously when they themselves are blind apologists for this incredibly stupid war.

    “I suppose he disagrees with you that humans are internally evil, but I am, frankly, surprised that you hold on to this Sunday school notion.”

    Do I? I don’t believe I’ve ever made that argument.

    “As for Harris, he just said that collateral damage is worse than torture because the victims of it are innocent civilians, as opposed to actual criminals being tortured.”

    And we know they are criminals how? Because of the confession we obtained while torturing them?

    “if you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children)”

    No, I don’t. Suspects should be brought to trial and have evidence brought against them. I’m old-fashioned like that. Killing innocent men, women, and children in an effort to extrajudicially kill one man also has the nasty habit of creating more terrorists. We’ve killed more innocents than al-Qaeda ever has, so applying Harris’ logic to an Iraqi perspective, it must be acceptable to kill US troops responsible for the deaths of over 1.3 million people.

    “you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to ‘water-board’ a man like Osama bin Laden (and risk abusing someone who just happens to look like Osama bin Laden).”

    And by the same justification of racial profiling, it must also be excusable to beat hundreds of black men who look like someone you saw on Cops, right?

    ”Surely, you are aware of the subway bombings in London in 2005 by four Muslims, three of them born in England and one in Jamaica?

    Yes I am. And? Was their reason for the bombings “Hey, we’re Muslims and we have no real reason for blowing people up other than the fact that Allah said to,” or was it more along the lines of “England and the West are committing great atrocities and we’re getting you back for them”? Surely, I’m not excusing violence, but you should look for the real cause of it rather than scapegoating it on a philosophy you don’t like. With all the Muslims in the UK, pointing to one bombing proves next to nothing. When the suicide bombings committed by Muslims in the UK equals that of Baghdad, then you may have a case. Until then it’s worth entertaining the thought that factors more important than religion may be responsible.

    ”And what’s with your condescending attitude towards people who agree with Hitchens in the same sentence you accuse him of condescension?”

    Probably frustration with the stupidity of YouTube commenters to be honest. As for your book reviews, I have read The God Delusion and at least as much as I could get through with God Is Not Great. I’m not sure as to why you constantly brought Dawkins up, as I didn’t refer to him and consider him in a class far above Hitchens and Harris, but I have no beef with him. Atheism isn’t an absolute, and that’s where my problem lies with Hitchens. He makes agnosticism into an absolute, just as every other fundamentalist does with other beliefs. Brilliant minds from Socrates to Einstein have said that what we don’t know is far greater than what we do know. Fundamentalists refuse to admit such weaknesses and claim to know it all. This is precisely why I ended the article with “I could be wrong”, something you’ll never hear Hitchens or any other fundamentalist say. As PapaFigue stated previously, we should discriminate by action rather than belief. You may disagree with me, but I won’t call you stupid for doing so, and I certainly won’t insist that you ought to be bombed.

    Manila Ryce
    04/12/08 at 10:46 pm
    

12. Since, according to Hedges, there are only two Atheists (Hitchens and Harris) then why is he making such a fuss writing a book about them being such a scourge upon the Earth?

    Doug
    04/13/08 at 9:29 am
    

13. The traditional media always seems to grab Hitchens when they need a token atheist. Why? Because he reinforces the stereotype of a smarmy, condescending, know-it-all that so many of the the religious have about atheists.
    I stopped believing in god(s) years ago but I personally can’t stand Hitchens.

    AAH
    04/13/08 at 10:01 am
    

14. “The traditional media always seems to grab Hitchens when they need a token atheist. Why? Because he reinforces the stereotype of a smarmy, condescending, know-it-all that so many of the the religious have about atheists.
    I stopped believing in god(s) years ago but I personally can’t stand Hitchens.”

    AAH, my sentiments exactly! Hitchens would be a crass, egotistical PITA regardless of his religious beliefs. How I wish they would find an atheist whose obnoxious personality doesn’t taint everything they say. There are certainly many of us to choose from!!!

    gremlin
    04/13/08 at 11:12 am
    

15. I’m going to mock Papa fugue. He really is an idiot. I apologize to the people who had worthwhile comments.

    I’m going to ignore his introduction and take apart his attempt to take apart him.

    First off, gays is thoughts and actions, while ear size is physical appearance. In fact to discriminate on thought and actions requires an ideology. You can’t divide people up into groups if you can’t immediately identify what group they belong to! Not to mention homosexuality appears in all societies. It would be similar to people killing nerds or jocks because they are immoral. It doesn’t happen- you are willful confusing two seperate factors; physical and behavioral.

    Clash of civilizations… well this is where you vere into wrong. What resource conflict? The middle east has oil. We pay for the oil. We get the oil. They get our money. There is no limited resources in this case. I don’t know what the heck you are refering to- I can only conclude you have been so brainwashed you’ve stopped thinging about things like this. As for the social factor… hmm, isn’t religion a social facor?

    And then you make the dumbest statement ever. Not the dumbest in history, not the dumbest I have ever heard, but so profoundly dumb it belongs in the category of transendant stupidity. “It is wrong to discriminate against people who consider you inferior.” Excuse me? Do you have any idea what you are saying? Should we treat people who want us dead or believe we are Satan Spawn the same as everyone else? I.. don’t know what to say. I mean… how can anyone be that stupid? Am I missing something here? Seriously, am I? Because this take the cake for left stupidity “well be nice to everyone and show them all respect”. Apparently you seem to be unable to see the differance between what anti theists want (secular society) vs what many theists want (theocracy).

    Then you compare antitheism to theism. Antitheism is the belief that 1) atheism is true (there is no reason to believe in gods) and 2) religion is false. Antitheism is a fact based and logical ideology. Theism isn’t. There is no grounds for compare. If you can’t see that say Why you think they are the same. Your analogy doesn’t give reasons specific enough not to corral politics, literary criticism and other ideologies.

    Uh… beliefs are related to actions. If you believe black people are inferior to white people I’m going to treat you like an idiot. If you believe that only people who submit to god can have rewarding lives I’m going to try to keep you from representing me. And if you believe I will burn in hell for sin…
    Basically you adopt the classic stupid leftist responce “you can believe anything you want as long as you don’t actually believe it” For example you can believe you neighbors will burn in hell, but if you try to rescue them from such a fate.. well, that is a no-no.

    Er… you didn’t answer the question. People can be reasonable- unless they don’t want to- just like you! Isn’t an answer.

    No better than which they oppose? How? You keep on saying that, but it doesn’t make it any more true. What have the new atheists done that gives you the impression that, if given power, atheists would impose a theocracy, curtail womens rights, shut down science, curtail criticism and… you know, the whole package? You are doing the classic “well, they are both the same”. No they aren’t. The sooner you realize it the sooner you will stop making a fool of yourself.

    People didn’t pay attention to the fundamentalists… until they siezed control of the government. Fortunately the Republicans are also allies of the business sector, which prevented complete nuttiness. Still, they didn’t need credibility. They needed power. The KKK didn’t need credibility either- its power came from the ability to lynch people. Power is what is important, not credibility. ID is completely noncredible- but it has power behind it and comes back again and again. You underestimate the importance of power.

    Err… Reason isn’t a belief system. Reason is a combo science/math. It is a process… that has certain rules. Egalitarianism is a belief system.

    I’m going to be a complete ass now. You are a leftist. You are judging the controvery, not by the plans, not by the beliefs, not by true or false, but by how much sound is made. You value tolerance and quiet. You view yourself as… I’d say close to moderate. You don’t like the new atheists.

    What your failing is, is that you fail to see that people actuallybelieve things. Things they would die for- or kill for. Many Muslims really believe that if they die for the faith they will go to heaven. Many Christians believe that homosexuality is an affont to god and is unholy. They BELIEVE. You can say what you want about atheism and theism being the same (well, this particular strand of loud atheism), but the fact is that atheism is founded on logic, reason and evidence. Religion at its root is founded on faith. For your usage I’ve decided to show you the differant forms of knowledge.

    1) Evidence- direct observation
    2) Logic- derived from observation. Theories, models and the like are here.
    3) Personal- it is true because “you think it is true”. This is faith. When people aren’t insane about it it is also given its normal name- opinion.

    Samuel Skinner
    04/13/08 at 5:05 pm
    

16. @ Entropy

    “I have no idea how Hedges managed to make a “nucular” first strike out of them.”

    Try page 129 of Harris’ book.

    Sam
    04/13/08 at 5:58 pm
    
17. 

    For the record, when something is referred to as a Fallacy, it means it is a falsehood passed off as truth. Sadly, I feel I must point this out because apparently there was a line in my last response that wasn’t clear enough to certain people:

    “As I said, the central fallacy behind the Religious War against Reason is that Reason, meaning scientific and logical thought, is a Belief System…”

    If you or someone you know was confounded and confused by this point, I apologize. It was rather tricky writing, wasn’t it? No offense to your collective gentle natures was intended.

    That being said, the good news is that, now that we’ve cleared that up, you, the casual curious reader, will be spared the bother of having to process a long winded explanation of the nature of Reason, as well as its different forms of knowledge. I realize that it was my mirky writing that inspired such a thorough response, and therefore I am at least partly responsible for its condescending, and somewhat arrogant nature. I apologize again.

    And lastly, as far as the issue at hand, my ire has subsided. I was angry when I first heard of this notion of an Atheist Religion, but I have come to terms with the fact that in this country we have the First Amendment. If bashing your head against a brick wall until your brains run out your nose will make you happy, then have at it. Who am I to judge? Who are any of us really?

    And so, I bid thee good day and adieu. Have a happy bicker!

    PapaFigue
    04/13/08 at 6:04 pm
    
18. 

    @Entropy

    Sam is correct. Here’s a quote from Harris which backs up Hedges’ criticism.

    “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.”

    If I were to create a quiz by mixing various crazy quotes from Hitchens, Robertson, Harris, and Falwell and asked readers to place the quote with the fundamentalist, I doubt anyone would get even half the matches correct.

    Manila Ryce
    04/13/08 at 6:29 pm
    

19. Does anyone find reading the comments on this article just a little ironic considering what the article is about? PF and Skinner prove Hedges point exactly!!! Hate on both sides, both sides are sure they’re right, both sides have buffoons who love the sounds of their own voices (or the amounts of their typed words on a website). What if neither one of you is right? You’re both so damned pigheaded!

    Just an observation…I’ll go back to ruining the world by believing in God (or not).

    Katie
    04/13/08 at 6:37 pm
    
20. 

    @Katie

    I couldn’t agree more!

    Though now I’m confused, Which side was I on again, exactly?

    Eh fuck it, nevermind…

    PapaFigue
    04/13/08 at 9:05 pm
    

21. I get annoyed when Hitchens gets lumped in with Dawkins, Dennett and Harris, the man is a brute and a monster. The others publish books that although derided as “screaming atheism” are actually quite calm and measured in their approach if you actually try and read them. Hitchens is as Hedges pointed out, a self obsessed egoist who glorifies only himself. Indeed the first thought that entered my mind when he published “God is not great” was “band wagon”.

    Hitchens loves to be controversial. The other three authors i mentioned actually have real problems with theism in that it isn’t real.

    To those railing against atheism, especially the new breed. Atheists have been keeping quiet for centuries while theists sputed the most ridiculous rubbish, its only really now that as a group many of us have decided to turn around and say “You know what, there is no good reason to believe your deites exist, your philosophies have no more moral sense in them than any other and certainly less than humanism and your politics are actively holding back the world. Stop it, keep your religion private and stop bothering us”.

    As to those like Papafigue who can’t understand why we are making such a racket now when we don’t believe in god, we are making a racket because religious people are using their religion to disrupt our lives. Our politicians pander to religious demagogues, here in the UK we even give some of our bishops seats in the house of lords. We want a world where your belief doesn’t impinge on my life. Until we have this, we are going to speak out.

    Oliver Kenton
    04/14/08 at 7:52 am
    

22. I don’t think that most of the atheists in the world are strident. I do think that those that are strident are so because the Religious RIght is trying to stuff religion into the public commons, at least in the United States. We, as atheists are also alarmed at the strident Religious Right becoming powerful in political discussion by virtue of their belief and not their numbers.

    brantl
    04/14/08 at 10:35 am
    

23. “we are making a racket because religious people are using their religion to disrupt our lives. ”

    And quite right to do so, I must say. I saw Hedges debate Hitchens on youtube, and I thought Hitchens ate his lunch.

    Other than his support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I don’t find much to disagree with Hitchens about. And his book on Henry Kissinger’s war crimes was masterful.

    What no one here has acknowledged is that mainstream Islam is fundamentalism, whereas mainstream Christians are merely annoying - you must be a fundamentalist to kill in the name of Jesus. Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins have all noted this, and if you listen to them each respects the work of the others.

    All this crap about Hitchens’ “ego” is beside the point - is he correct or not? That’s what Ryce should be writing about - it does not matter whether or not you like him. Not too many people liked Thomas Paine, either.

    “And regardless of the means, you can not deny that violence did (and still does) take place against US imperialism in Latin America. What does the method matter? You can argue that one method is more successful than another, born of different terrain and resources, but the strategies of both groups is to achieve independence through violence.”

    Nonsense! Of course there is a difference. For one thing, mothers in Latin America do not send their children out to clear mine fields by setting off the mines. The strategy of the Muslim mothers is not to “achieve independence” - it is to achieve martyrdom for their children.

    Harris makes the point, and acknowledges that Hitchens does too, that the suicide bombers come from the ranks of the educated and the well to-do; it is not a poverty-based phenomenon.

    The loss of innocent life is certainly deplorable in any circumstance, but the recognition of that should not dissuade anyone from examining the circumstances in individual cases and making some judgments about them.

    larryo
    04/14/08 at 11:04 am
    

24. I’d continue arguing with PF, but thanks to Entropy and the counter responce he has no idea what the argument is on. I’ll let it die- if only because I am unable to back down when I believe I am right.

    As for Hitchens and Harris… Harris is a bit of a nut. He is into pseudoscience- never a good sign. Hitchens is… the loyal opposition. He won’t always be right, but he WILL make you think. And he happens to be rather honest- more so than our current crop of presidential canidates.

    Samuel Skinner
    04/14/08 at 3:38 pm
    

25. Fundamentalism’s fundamental flaw.

    Proud2bHumble
    04/15/08 at 11:18 am
    

26. @Manila Ryce & Sam

    “In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own.”

    Ahh, more quote mining. I haven’t got that far in the book yet, so I concede that the phrase “nuclear first strike” actually is in the book. But do you really not see the difference between a hypothetical and “call.. asking us to consider a “nucular” first strike on the Arab world (and he tries to make it about ethnicity, which you seem to have bought)”?

    All Harris is saying is that it’s a plausible outcome in a situation where Islamist regimes acquire long-ranged nuclear weapons and intend to use them. You may disagree that it’s a plausible outcome, but it doesn’t mean he actually wants to nuke anyone.

    Now, about torture.

    “And we know they are criminals how? Because of the confession we obtained while torturing them?”

    Umm.. did you actually read his response to accusations of supporting torture I pointed you to? It is nothing of the sort. You have to understand that with his background as a philosopher, he thinks like one, in terms of hypotheticals, abstractions and principles.

    Osama bin Laden wasn’t tortured into confessions. He claimed responsibility for his crimes on his own volition. That’s how we know he’s a criminal. That alone, of course, still doesn’t give anyone a reason to torture him. But if there was a “ticking bomb” sure to kill a significant number of people, and assuming that human lives are all equally valuable, it would be permissible to even KILL a completely innocent person who had nothing to do with placing the bomb in the first place, if we were 100% sure it would prevent a thousand deaths.

    Killing one person to save thousands would actually be a rational position. But our morality doesn’t work that way. And thank goodness for that because there are plenty of pragmatic arguments against ever torturing or killing someone as a preventative measure. If you think Harris is unaware of those or rejects them, go to his website and look at the article he posted by David Luban.

    Secondly, does the phrase “certain, beyond all reasonable doubt” mean anything to you? This is not about racial profiling, and Harris is not a racist. He even has a response to the “racism’ accusation on his website. The only way there could be such certainty is if bin Laden had a twin brother no one knew about, or someone looked exactly like him and was claiming to be him. In real life, such certainty could rarely, if ever, be achieved.

    You have to draw the distinction between ethical principles and pragmatism, and make an allowance for the type of morality we have evolved to have. Abstraction and reality are often completely different things. It is not about “they did it, so we can, too”. It’s about the fact that so many people get riled up about torturing criminals while not giving a second thought to numerous civilian casualties (and I’m not saying you don’t care about civilian casualties).

    That said, I am a lot more reserved about having a legal provision for torture than he is.

    Now, the reason I brought up Dawkins so much is because the whole point of my response was to draw attention to Chris Hedges and his dishonest (or merely idiotic; or maybe a little bit of both both) rhetoric. You seem to be annoyed by the fact that Hitchens is supporting the stupid war while trying to promote rationality. Well, if consistency is such a high horse of yours, you should either accept the reasoning that allows him to put liberal Dawkins in the same group as Hitchens who supports the war, or admit that his reasoning is flawed, instead of cheerleading for him when he attacks the personalities you don’t like using the same arguments as when he attacks the personalities that you do like. To him, Dawkins, Hitchens, and E.O. Wilson, of all people, are the same - they are the “new atheists”. Do I really need to explain this to you?

    And the reason he doesn’t like them is because they are outspoken - the same quality you are so proud of. That’s really the bottom line here, and I’m amazed that you fail to see it.

    Now, back to Hitchens. I can’t believe I have to defend him; I don’t even like him, but I, for one, actually care about accurately representing people’s positions. Just because he displaces the blame, it doesn’t mean his opposition to torture is any less obvious (but Hedges managed to miss it anyway). You are willing to go after Hitchens because you disagree with him politically, yet you disregard the fraudulent claims of Hedges about him. Your bias is showing.

    Hitchens admits that all humans are only partly rational, and I don’t know what makes you think he excludes himself from the rest of humanity. He has demonstrated the ability to change his mind when he stopped being a socialist. We may disagree with his current position, but, contrary to your claims, he is capable of admitting he could be wrong, and has in the past.

    “He agrees that Muslims have the right to speak out against our occupation until they’re blue in the face.”

    Oh yeah, he’s EXACTLY the same as Muslim fundamentalists. Muslim fundamentalists don’t mind at all when people talk about Muhammad being a child molester until they are blue in the face. They welcome opposing viewpoints. Uh-huh.

    They just don’t have the right to actually do anything about it.

    If by “anything” you mean killing people, then I agree they don’t have the right to do it. Otherwise, can you point me to a source that made you believe he wants to subjugate any individual to his will?

    The whole argument about thought crimes is ridiculous. Do we really have to suspend judgment about people until they actually kill someone? Should we really disregard the causes of their actions? I must be really stupid, otherwise I would probably realize that there is no connection between a person’s ideology and their actions. And does a crazy bum on the corner have the same means as Saddam? Is it really the same when a person who is told by voices in his head to chop up his whole family is locked up in a padded cell and when he is living with the very family he is being told to chop up? Whether or not he is an immediate threat depends on a lot of factors, but the fact is, he would still chop up his family if he had access to an ax.

    And let me just get this straight: is it absolutism or relativism that bothers you so much about Hitchens? Because you accused him of both. Is there another option?

    There are times when holding an irrational belief is harmless. A Cristian Scientist may believe in the evils of medicine, and it doesn’t hurt anyone until they (or better yet, their child who was indoctrinated into the same belief) need it to save their life. Then it can be pretty harmful. I’m not afraid to say I think such parents should have their parental rights terminated based on this belief even before their kids get sick. It’s the
    irrational beliefs that lead to harmful actions (or harmful lack of action) that I find rather bothersome. And let’s face it, a major chunk of religious beliefs falls into that category. Hedges and his beliefs do not pose a threat to anyone per se; they only become dangerous when he enables the more extreme brands of religion under the guise of tolerance.

    I think you are too angry at Hitchens to think rationally yourserl. Does he really advocate killing people for their thoughts indiscriminately? Do you think he would advocate killing that bum on the corner just because he believes crazy shit, but doesn’t have the means to harm anyone?

    And if you don’t think that people are internally evil, then what does this mean:

    “[h]e attempts to deny human nature by externalizing evil as a byproduct of religious philosophies”? He externalizes something that’s already external? Not to mention the fact that he believes, like most rational people, that religious philosophies themselves are a byproduct of human nature, as I previously demonstrated, thus rendering your statement false. Not that you care about correcting it.

    “When the suicide bombings committed by Muslims in the UK equals that of Baghdad, then you may have a case.”

    You have [b]got[/b] to be kidding me. First of all, the number of Muslims in the UK is not comparable to that in Baghdad. Second, adherents of any religion are, on average, going to be less zealous when they are living in a more diverse community and away from the center of their religion. But it doesn’t always work, as evidence demonstrates.

    Third, the Muslims in the UK are either going to be immigrants, descendants of immigrants, or converts. If they are immigrants, they must have liked the UK better than living under the Sharia law or its close relatives. And converts would have been exposed to opposing viewpoints and are less likely to be fundamentalists (although it’s not always the case, either, as one of the suicide bombers in 2005 was a convert).

    “Was their reason for the bombings “Hey, we’re Muslims and we have no real reason for blowing people up other than the fact that Allah said to,” or was it more along the lines of “England and the West are committing great atrocities and we’re getting you back for them”? Surely, I’m not excusing violence, but you should look for the real cause of it rather than scapegoating it on a philosophy you don’t like.”

    Really? These guys are telling the world their actions had everything to do with their religion, but what do they know? They should have asked Manila Ryce what their real reasons were. And you accuse Hitchens of superiority complex?

    You are creating a false dichotomy here. Yes, the war was necessary for those attacks to happen, but so was religion. In fact, judging by these people’s statements, the “tangible commodities that this world has to offer” were not enough to motivate them to take action, so I’m reasonably certain that if they weren’t fundamentalist Muslim, their protests would not take such a violent form, if they actually bothered to protest in the first place, like I said before.

    You’d think the people in question would at least be allowed a say in determining what their motivations are, but no. Everything is always about imperialism with you, and you… sorry, nothing but “claim to know it all” comes to mind.

    And your last paragraph is so full of contradictions I think I’m losing my mind. First, you accuse Hitchens of “mak[ing] agnosticism into an absolute”. Then you respectfully refer to Socrates who said “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance”, which unequivocally demonstrates his acceptance of agnosticism as an absolute. Then you accuse Hitchens of “claiming to know it all”. Make up your mind already.

    You call Youtube commenters stupid, but go out of your way to tell me you’re not calling me stupid. I guess I should take it as a special compliment, although it’s a little hard to figure out your system of who can and cannot be called stupid. It must be the Youtube commenters’ [b]actions[/b] that earned them a frowny face from you.

    I don’t even know why I’m wasting my time on this anymore. I guess I’m a walking demonstration of how humans are only partly rational.

    I don’t blame you for only being partly rational, but I thought you’d at least try to be accurate and consistent. But then again, I could be wrong.

    Entropy
    04/17/08 at 12:39 pm
    

27. @ Samuel Skinner

    Harris is not “into pseudoscience”. I guess posting a link that deals with accusations like that was not enough, so I’ll repost from his website:

    My views on the paranormal: ESP, reincarnation, etc.:
    My position on the paranormal is this: While there have been many frauds in the history of parapsychology, I believe that this field of study has been unfairly stigmatized. If some experimental psychologists want to spend their days studying telepathy, or the effects of prayer, I will be interested to know what they find out. And if it is true that toddlers occasionally start speaking in ancient languages (as Ian Stevenson alleges), I would like to know about it. However, I have not spent any time attempting to authenticate the data put forward in books like Dean Radin’s The Conscious Universe or Ian Stevenson’s 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. The fact that I have not spent any time on this should suggest how worthy of my time I think such a project would be. Still, I found these books interesting, and I cannot categorically dismiss their contents in the way that I can dismiss the claims of religious dogmatists. (Here, I am making a point about gradations of certainty: can I say for certain that a century of experimentation proves that telepathy doesn’t exist? No. It seems to me that reasonable people can disagree about the data. Can I say for certain that the Bible and the Koran show every sign of having been written by ignorant mortals? Yes. And this is the only certainty one needs to dismiss the God of Abraham as a creature of fiction.

    Entropy
    04/17/08 at 12:50 pm
    
28. 

    Entropy, I wrote a rather lengthy response to your comment earlier today, but deleted it because this pissing contest has gone on long enough. I’m not sure if you had a chance to read it, but we’ve strayed far from the original topic of fundamentalism itself. It’s rather obvious that much like Hitchens, you’re masking your ignorance of a people and a region of the world you know nothing about with defensive condescension. I’d encourage you to learn just as much about the various cultures and religions you deride as you’ve learned about the positions of the pop stars who deride them. The more we converse, the snider things become. As one commenter above stated, you’re only proving me right by acting exactly like a theist fundamentalist. This conversation has become just as unproductive as with Samuel Skinner so I have no intention of continuing it further either. You may have the last word if you’d like.

    Manila Ryce
    04/17/08 at 6:37 pm
    

29. Manila remember this- the culture we live in isn’t Western culture. Western Culture was whosale eliminated to make way for alot of what we consider normal.

    For example most of the things we consider normal didn’t occur until the late 19th century. The current religion we have has been dramatically shaped by science and it’s constant pushing back God.

    The fact is that not all cultures are equal. Some out compete and absorb their neighbors. That is what we see currently happening. In the end people will still have their holidays, the ethnic foods, their traditional retuals, but the basic structure will be more the same.
    Nuclear families, capitalism, focus on the value of education and wealth, egalitarianism democracy, etc- these spread because they work.

    Dealing with religion is even easier. Religions are false. They make claims about the universe that aren’t true. Surprisingly, saying so is apparently the mark of a fundamentalist. Why don’t “fundamentalist atheists” take religion seriously, belittle and and hope to make people deconvert? For the same reasons we do similar actions with racism.

    Oh, thanks for declaring arguing with me was “unproductive”. In case you haven’t noticed, theists have had 2000 years to prove their case. They failed. I think it is reasonable to treat religion with contempt. It has flaws a five year old can find!

    Samuel Skinner
    04/18/08 at 1:01 am
    

30. I haven’t seen the earlier comment, just the arrogant dismissal. How do you know what my cultural and religious background is? I’m living in a foreign culture right now, with different dominant religions, and have to fork over money and give up my privacy to USCIS to stay in it (with no guarantees) while you are bitching about how your freedoms are being violated from California. You have more freedom than I ever will in this country, and Russia is voluntarily turning into a dictatorship, as you very well know, so going back there would hardly be a better option. But go on thinking you wrote a book on cultural awareness and the hardships of non-Americans.

    I suppose it’s only my lack of cultural sensitivity that makes me glad I don’t come from a culture that would have me look at the world through a piece of mesh, or mutilate my genitalia a few years after I was born, as happened to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and many others.

    Maybe you have a lot of Muslim friends in California who come from a long line of liberal thinkers. I’ve only ever had one good friend who was Muslim, and his parents were very nice people who brought him up well, not suicide bombers or anything. All they did is arrange for him to marry a girl when they were both teenagers. He was allowed to back out of it, and did eventually, but she was not allowed any choice. Somehow I was glad I didn’t grow up in his culture, either. That’s probably because I’m such a bigot.

    So yeah, condescension is the only reason why I don’t think Islam in all its varieties is just peachy. Fear for my life and freedom has nothing to do with it. Guess we should blame the ongoing treatment of women by this religion on American imperialism, as well. Or should we celebrate their resistance to the condescending Western world trying to impose their arbitrary cultural standards of gender equality?

    Not that I think other religions are less culpable, but right now it seems that most of them have at least got out of the Middle Ages. But it doesn’t prevent them from making up excuses for those still stuck in them.

    You have erected a straw man to knock down, along with Hedges. Very few people believe they are infallible, and none of the victims of Hedges believe that. There has been no compelling evidence of a personal god to date - that’s all there is to it. It’s not a doctrine, just an observation. How can one be fundamentalist about that? Is there some reliable evidence for god that we all keep ignoring? How am I acting like a theist fundamentalist? By caring about accuracy and trying to be objective? Like I said, I don’t even like Hitchens. But you know, objectivity is what theist fundamentalism is all about. It’s all about letting people speak for themselves instead of drawing blanket assumptions and demonizing the opposition. The reason I became so disaffected with my religion is not because of what others were saying about it, but because of what the members were saying. If you want to criticize atheists as a group (and we are not even a group, we are the outgroup of the religious) or individually, at least criticize their atheism on its own merits instead of relying on some divinity school graduate’s ad hominems and carefully picked quotes.

    The reason I became an atheist is largely because I spent so much time studying religion (and teaching Sunday School classes). You just feel better assuming I have no idea what I’m talking about.

    And anyways, I only commented in the first place to bring your attention to the inaccuracies in your and Hedges’ statements. Instead of correcting yourself, you are trying to throw it back at me. What do I need to learn about cultures and religions? Can you point to something specifically instead of making broad generalizations? I told you exactly what I found to be inaccurate in your statements, and if you tell me something I don’t know or misunderstand, I’ll adjust my position. That’s really all this is about.

    By the way, in case I didn’t clarify it enough before, I have no intention of converting you to anything. I’m just trying to determine whether or not I can rely on your posts for accurate information. You don’t have to care whether or not I continue to read your blog and, therefore, don’t have to respond to me at all. I was only doing it for my own sake, and I enjoyed reading your blog up to this point. I suppose this whole exchange means I’ll have to get political commentary elsewhere from now on. Oh well.

    Good luck in your artistic endeavors.

    Entropy
    04/19/08 at 7:21 am
    

31. How bad has it gotten? I heard that Putin has kicked out the NGOs, and canceled governer elections as well as clamped down on the opposition press. Any news that doesn’t leak out?

    Samuel Skinner
    04/19/08 at 11:28 pm
    

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>