I don't believe in atheists (Chris Hedges's new book)

[hyphenate]

Foreign correspondent and intellectual provocateur Chris Hedges explains why New Atheists like Christopher Hitchens are as dangerous as Christian fundamentalists.

By Charly Wilder
March 13, 2008 |

Many charges have been leveled at foreign correspondent Chris Hedges over the years, but shrinking from conflict isn't one of them. Hedges spent nearly seven years as Middle East bureau chief for the New York Times, covered the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, and was part of the New York Times team that won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of global terrorism. He took on the American military-industrial complex with his books "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" and "What Every Person Should Know About War," and provoked the rage of the Christian right by likening them to Nazis in last year's "American Fascists." Hedges now cements his reputation as an intellectual provocateur with the charmingly titled "I Don't Believe in Atheists."

While speaking out against the Christian fundamentalist movement and its political agenda, Hedges noticed another group -- this one on the left -- conspicuously allied with the neocons on the subject of America's role in world politics. The New Atheists, as they have been called, include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and bestselling author and journalist Christopher Hitchens -- outspoken secularists who depict religious structures and the belief in God as backward and anti-democratic.

Though Hedges, a Harvard seminary graduate and the son of a Presbyterian minister, considers himself a religious man, his quarrel with the New Atheists goes beyond theological concerns. In "I Don't Believe in Atheists," he accuses Hitchens and the others of preaching a fundamentalism as dangerous as the religious fundamentalist belief systems they attack. Strange bedfellows indeed -- according to Hedges, the New Atheists and the Christian right pose the greatest threat facing American democratic society today.

<snip>

You say that "I Don't Believe in Atheists" is a product of confrontations you had with Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. How did those debates inspire the book?

In May of 2007 I went to L.A. to debate Sam Harris, and then two days later I went to San Francisco to debate Christopher Hitchens. Up until that point, I hadn't paid much attention to the work of the New Atheists. After reading what they had written and walking away from these debates, I was appalled at how what they had done for the secular left was to embrace the same kind of bigotry and chauvinism and intolerance that marks the radical Christian right. I found that in many ways they were little more than secular fundamentalists.

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/

[Slagathor]

1. What a piece of shit Hedges is

what a fucking idiot.

[Runcible Spoon]

5. do you mean Hitchens?

:shrug:

[Slagathor]

7. Hitchens is a freaking hero

Hedges has no clue what he's talking about. Typically deluded mindset. Incapable of actual reason.

[Runcible Spoon]

9. wow.

sure you're on the right forums? :eyes:

[Slagathor]

25. Religion and theology? No.

I mistakenly thought that it was a forum to castigate and criticize those out there who actually believed in that crap. My error.

[Crunchy Frog]

194. Are you a Republican?

Supporting the Iraq war is heroic? Or maybe just consuming copious amounts of booze? :shrug:

[Taverner]

204. Hitchens is an angry bigoted misogynist

And a Right Winger

I find more in common with many Christians than I do that particular Atheist

Having said that, I did like "God is not Great" and "The Portable Atheist"

[papau]

10. :-)

[Runcible Spoon]

2. thanks for this.

neocons like Hitchens and old skool types like Ayn Rand worshippers will say or do just about anything to justify the Godliness of the "free" market; with rampant transnational capitalism and plutocracies as embedded in the natural evolution of economic systems.

[cosmik debris]

3. secular doesn't equal atheist

I haven't read the entire article, but he doesn't seem to understand that difference.

[Runcible Spoon]

8. the argument isn't about teh existence of God

it's about his take on those liek Hitchens who champion another corrupt system of control, ie transnational capitalism.

[cosmik debris]

11. His mis-use of terms cast doubt on his understanding.

If you say one thing and mean another, it's a waste of time reading what you say.

Why should I waste my time reading this author when he hasn't even bothered to learn the difference between an atheist and a secularist? (unless he is confusing them on purpose)

[Runcible Spoon]

16. god, this reminds me of grad school so much...

get caught up in some semantic squabbling for two hours and actually miss the fruitful debate. But hey if people want to get all in a tizzy over a headline without reading a few paragraphs to find out what's really being said, they're fully entitled to their ignorance. :shrug:

[cosmik debris]

18. I agree he is entitled to his ignorance

I'm just glad I'm not required to share it or participate in it.

From what I have read so far, it seems that he is smearing atheists with a broad brush and the "secular" business is either a distraction from his general misunderstanding of atheism or his intent to misrepresent it for propaganda purposes.

In other words, he is misinformed or he is blowing smoke. Your choice. I'm not really interested in reading more now that I have seen what a bozo he is.

[Runcible Spoon]

20. i meant people who wouldn't read the article. sigh.

he's smearing the kind of atheist who would be so intolerant of religious people that they would create their own brand of fundamentalism, and this would align those "fundamentalist atheists" with neocons in terms of what they would like to see in society. I'm sure he has no problem with someone who doesn't want their kid saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

[cyborg_jim]

90. I see no evience such people exist - but the word "Fundamentalist" sure is scary ain't it?

[Realityhack]

108. I agree

it's unclear if he understands the difference. He also seems to be painting a large movement with a giant 'Hitchens' brush and I wonder to what degree thats actually accurate of the 'new atheists'(tm) in general.

[Warpy]

4. Oh, for crying out loud.

I just believe in one less god than he does.

There's nothing else to understand. There is no "there" there.

Calling us fundamentalists is especially silly. Where is our holy writ that we're supposed to be taking literally? Our liturgy? Our churches?

If believing in a god is what it takes to get him through a long and lonely night, so be it, he's welcome to it.

However, should he ever want to define ME, he needs to shut up and listen.

[Runcible Spoon]

6. I don't think anyone is "getting" this

it's a fairly sophisticated take on "atheists" who reject religion so they can champion some sort of Ayn Rand like capitalist Utopia. It's not an attack on people who don't believe in God.

[enki23]

14. er... that doesn't describe harris, dawkins, or any of them really. not even hitchens.

so that clearly isn't what hedges is talking about. that, or he's seriously confused.

[Runcible Spoon]

17. Hedges is just taking an attack on today's 18th C Evolutionists..

but instead of tea-drinking, slave-holding British Imperialists and phrenologists he's attacking those who believe our way of life is somehow a progressive evolution. and trust me, while harris and dawkins may not explicitly say it, taken as a whole they are defending teh status quo of Western Civilization:

"For example, they believe that the human species is marching forward, that there is an advancement toward some kind of collective moral progress -- that we are moving towards, if not a Utopian, certainly a better, more perfected human society. That's fundamental to the Christian right, and it's also fundamental to the New Atheists"

[enki23]

36. what a load of obvious bullshit. if you can't smell it... allow me to direct your nose.

For example, they believe that the human species is marching forward, that there is an advancement toward some kind of collective moral progress -- that we are moving towards, if not a Utopian, certainly a better, more perfected human society. That's fundamental to the Christian right, and it's also fundamental to the New Atheists

1) The Christian right believes no such fucking thing. They believe the world will continue to deteriorate until the "end times" when they will be rescued personally by Jesus. Whether by the Rapture, or by the more traditional "second coming." Many of them are obsessed with the world, and the people in it, becoming increasingly "evil." For a frighteningly large number of them, that's exactly what they *want* to see happen, and have no motive whatsoever to work to make it even a little better.

2) Most atheists don't, in fact, believe that the world is inevitably marching "forward." Most of us are plenty smart enough to realize there is not inevitable "progress," or that progress in one area is always accompanied by progress overall, or that any given type of progress is always without negative consequences.

3) Even if one *were* to believe the world is on a progressive trajectory, I fail to see how this is the same as defending "the status quo." Most of us, apparently unlike Hedges and those who agree with him on this, are quite aware that much of that progress, inevitable or not, has happened in the past only when certain people found it necessary (and possible) to challenge that status quo. So even if you were a completely naive "progressive," you would by no means be committed to believing that we can all sit back on our asses and watch the world get better.

4) Why is it that any time someone believes we might actually have a chance of building a happier, more just society, they are inevitably accused of being "Utopians?" Believing we *can* change society for the better is, according to this, equivalent to believing we have, or could find, all the solutions to make society *perfect?* That's a charge that can be leveled against anyone at all, other than pure nihilists.

5) What is Hedges's alternative proposal to those crazy Atheist Utopians he's invented? Should we, then, assume that we cannot make any improvements, to avoid being called "Utopians" and being lumped in with biblical Fundamentalists? (A word, by the way, that is almost if not completely inapplicable to Atheists in *any* form.) Or does he mean to suggest that the Atheist Bourgeoisie are somehow in the way of Glorious Revolution?

6) Believing that much of the world, and of society has been, and could continue to be made better is somehow untrue? Slavery was okay with you? Womens rights to things like, oh, owning property, are inconsequential? The almost total defeat of smallpox, and polio, and tuberculosis, and diphtheria? These things can't be called "progress?" The increase in our knowledge is inconsequential? To consider progress in our understanding to be "progress" is inherently "Utopian" and "defending the status quo?" How the FUCK do you figure that?

[Goblinmonger]

15. Then why the fuck doesn't he say that.

Instead he takes the jab at all atheists. That makes him a dick.

[heidler1]

37. I'm a Atheist and have read Ayn Rands, garbage. There are obviously several brands

of Atheists. IMO there are way more believers in a God, or claim to believe, who love capitalistic life styles with its full tilt greed than there are Atheists who follow this life style. If this guys point is that most Atheists are Republicans at heart the article is BS. Now I do believe that Republicans are advantage takers and would never pass up the advantage of wrapping themselves in a religion plus wishing that Ayn Rand is correct and her ideas are workable.

[papau]

13. supposed to be taking literally?" your need to destroy religion and mock the religious even when

there is no social or political need to do so.

[provis99]

22. why not mock them? Don't Christians mock people who believe in Bigfoot?

How is that any different. Hypocrites.

[Goblinmonger]

30. I think you missed the point.

The "taken literally" part would actually be the definition of fundamentalist. Fundamentalists take the written word of their dogma literally. So to call an atheist fundamentalist you would need to show what it is the fundamentally cling to.

But of course you know this and are most likely trying to deliberately be an obtuse ass.

[Warpy]

34. I did neither.

Perhaps you might consider what I wrote before responding to it.

[crawfish]

39. Not every atheist is a fundamentalist...

In fact, most aren't. But that doesn't change the fact that some, including Hitches and Dawkins, are.

[Goblinmonger]

42. What are they fundamental to?

Fundamentalist atheists is a RW talking point meant to direct attention away from the actual fundamentalists that are the problem.

Or it is a term used by people about something/someone they don't like. Kind of like "gay."

Either way, stop using it as it is ignorant.

[crawfish]

45. The have an absolute belief in their fundamental philosopy of atheism...

that's what.

[Goblinmonger]

47. Oh, how silly of me.

One more question. What the fuck does that mean?

Atheism = belief in no gods. That's it. Period. You are bitching about people that are "fundamental" to THAT?

[crawfish]

49. I'm not gonna answer this twice...

So I'll just point you here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=165861&mesg_id=165934

[crawfish]

38. "Fundamentalism" is a state of mind...

that manifests itself in different ways among different groups of people. It holds to an absolute view of something; that certain things are right, and certain things are wrong, and leaves no gray in terms of how those things are to be interpreted. They also have a strong view of how things need to be for the world to be right; anything that contradicts that view is bad, and the fundamentalist will feel compelled to fight against those elements. When they are frustrated or overpowered, they will tend to seek ever-increasing means to do so.

Fundamentalist Christians have an absolute belief in the truth of their interpretation of the bible, and in the belief that the world must emulate that interpretation to survive. Fundamentalist Muslims feel the same way about the Koran. This doesn't mean that every fundamentalist group has to have a tome of its own to be fundamentalist; that is just how it manifests itself among those belonging to those religion. Among other types of fundamentalists, it manifests itself in completely different ways.

Fundamentalist atheists feel that way about science and discovery - or, at least, the methods by which we seek out the answers to the universe. They also feel that the best path to a peaceful, Utopian world is to eliminate religious thought altogether. As such, their attacks on religion are fully justified to them, as they feel their success will help lead to their honorable goal. I'm not so worried that Dawkins or Hitchens or the like will purposefully create some violent sect with which to accomplish this; in fact, I'm sure they won't. However, SOMEBODY will latch onto their beliefs and take them to the next logical level. Of this I have no doubt. The Soviet Union showed that you don't have to have a basis of religion to justify massive atrocities.

I've seen fundamentalist thought in many groups that aren't necessarily religious, and that have good intentions; animal rights, peace movement, patriotism, etc. All that's required is an absolute belief in the rightness of their cause.

I should add that most people in the groups I mentioned above - Christians, Muslims, atheists, etc - are NOT fundamentalist, even if they meet with groups that are. The fundamentalists tend to be the most outspoken, however, and tend to dominate.

Hedges is right on the money - at least from the little I read from the blurb on Salon.

[cosmik debris]

40. Did you just make that up?

Or is there some source you can cite for that definition of fundamentalism?

[crawfish]

43. Look up fundamentalist at dictionary.com, definition 3 (eom)

[cosmik debris]

46. If you mean

"strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles" Then you need to tell me what fundamental principles are being strictly adhered to, and explain, please, why those principles are atheists principles.

I'll give you a hint: There are no principles of atheism.

[crawfish]

48. Not in the same way as there are for religions,

but there are just the same.

The universal principle behind all of atheism is that there is no God. This is an absolute belief that has consequences in one's outlook toward life. Since there is absolutely no way to prove there is or is not a God, to hold this as an absolute belief is fundamentalist.

An atheist who simply believes there is no compelling evidence to indicate that there is a god is a different type of atheist and patently NOT a fundamentalist, by the way.

Problem is, atheists have never been a very cohesive group. There are no meetings, no basic texts and little organization. Dawkins, Hitchens and many of the "new atheists" realize this and are attempting to unify the movement - at least to a point. To do this, there MUST be a creation of some "guiding principles". Here are some tenets that I see they're pushing:

1) There is no god (as above).
2) Religion is a bad thing.
3) An ethical society can only be achieved in the absence of religion.
4) Humans are capable of discovering, through science, the unknown aspects of the universe around us.

That, my friend, is a philosophy. The new atheists are so sold into that philosophy that they feel that the ethical and right thing to do is to go on attack against the entities that oppose it; that is, religion. That is a product of fundamentalist thought.

I've spoken to a few atheists who feel vaguely uncomfortable with what Dawkins/Hitchens et al. are trying to accomplish. It's my opinion that this discomfort is the same discomfort I feel when reading creationist junk; while they believe the basics of what I do, they've twisted it and made it something dangerous.

[cosmik debris]

53. Sorry, but your post is riddled with falsehoods.

There is no universal principle behind atheism. Atheism is the disbelief of the assertion made by theists that there is a god. Theism = belief in god. Atheism = without belief in god.

It is true that SOME atheist contend that there is no go, but that is not UNIVERSAL by any means.

You are correct that atheists are not a cohesive group. That is because the only thing that unites us it the label assigned to us by people with whom we disagree.

You seem to have a "fundamental" misunderstanding about atheists and atheism.

And based on your post, I have to wonder how much reading you have done from the works of Dawkins and Harris.

[crawfish]

60. You're the one not understanding me...

I'm not sticking atheism itself - or all atheists - with the "fundamentalism" tag. I'm just saying there are elements within it that are becoming riddled with fundamental thought.

[cosmik debris]

70. But you are sadly mistaken about the nature of atheism

Atheism is the absence of belief in god(s). That is all.

There are no principles to the absence of belief.

There is no philosophy to the absence of belief.

There is no "fundamental thought" in that absence of belief.

There is no affirmative statement in that absence of belief.

Theists say that there is/are god(s). Atheists say "I don't believe you."

The statement "I don't believe you" has no underlying principles or philosophy.

Using the word "fundamentalist" to characterize a person or group who say "I don't believe you" is an improper use of the word. There is nothing to be "fundamentalist" about.

We have been over this many times in this forum. People use the term "fundamentalist" as a pejorative without considering whether or not it is the correct way to insult those with whom they disagree. Let me assure you that it is not the correct way to insult an atheist because atheists know that they have nothing to be "fundamentalist" about. When you use that word you only express your lack of understanding and your unpleasant intent. If you continue to use that term as a pejorative to describe atheists, it won't be long until someone tells you to go fuck yourself, asshole.

[crawfish]

82. You are still missing the point...

Sure, that's true for the majority of atheists. But not all. And especially not those from a vocal minority, who want to derive principles of atheism based on unbelief as a means of attacking belief.

I understand why you don't want that word applied. It has a nasty connotation. But, in truth, it is NOT necessarily a bad thing. The world needs people with a strength of conviction that won't waver, even in the face of being wrong. Those are the best types of people to get you through a crisis. Unfortunately, they are also the types of people who can GET you in a crisis (like our current president). The other types - like me and, I suspect, you - see the world in too many shades of gray to be effective in those situations.

Fundamentalism is a method of thought focused in a few strong personality types. It's you who fail to understand because you don't want to.

Thus, I suspect, it gets nasty now. :(

[cosmik debris]

84. OK, I'll try one more time civilly.

Let's suppose that a group of christians believes in racial segregation (i.e. KKK).

Should I conclude that racial segregation is a christian value? (hint: I know better)

Then let's suppose that a group of atheists believe that the moon is made of green cheese.

Should you conclude that "green cheese moons" are an atheist value? (hint: you should know better)

Whatever Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris say that bothers you, It is not an atheist principle any more than racial segregation is a christian principle.

And if you can't see that, it is certainly time for you to go #$%^ your self #$%hole.

[crawfish]

104. You didn't say anything I disagree with...

But none of that affects my point. Obviously, I'm not getting that point across.

[cosmik debris]

109. I thought you were rather clear in your point:

"The universal principle behind all of atheism is that there is no God."

Of course, that statement is false. But if you had some other point, you did fail to communicate it.

(edit) On review I see another point you may have been making.

You asserted at one point that fundamentalism is strict adherence to principles.

Then you dropped that and adopted another standard: "Fundamentalism is a method of thought focused in a few strong personality types."

So I guess your point is that you will change the definition of fundamentalism to suit your argument.

[trotsky]

113. BINGO!

So I guess your point is that you will change the definition of fundamentalism to suit your argument.

You got it, cd.

[cosmik debris]

116. If I had looked a little farther I would have found:

"It's the application of the philosophy, not the philosophy itself."

So we have three different arguments and three different definitions.

He's not making a point, He's making a circle!

[crawfish]

118. They're all part of the same point

Here it is in a nutshell:

1) There is a certain type of person - in personality, in emotional makeup - that is susceptible to fundamentalist-type thought. I seem to remember some correlation in Meyers-Briggs personality types and fundamentalism, I'll have to look that up (no promises, though - it's been a while).

2) Those type of people, when infected with fundamentalist thinking, will hold up absolute truths in a way that is very strict and unforgiving. They will see the other side as a threat to the truth of what they believe, and they will justify using excessive means in order to fight that threat. This is different than the way most people hold to those absolute truths; most others will have a degree of tolerance in dealing with those with differences, or at least have the ability to empathize and understand why the differences occur. Strict fundamentalists are either incapable of this or diminish its importance.

3) When such a person is an atheist, they will find "principles" of atheism that they hold to in the same strict, unforgiving manner as Christian fundamentalists hold in scripture. Those "principles" are more of a personal nature and not universally held by atheists, obviously, but I have seen a desire by some atheists to quantify such principles in order to pose a more organized threat to religious thought.

Sorry if that was unclear. Hopefully, it is now.

Here is an allegory:

In college, I had a friend who had smoked for nearly 10 years. He was what you would call an "arrogant" smoker - he bristled at anybody telling him to stop smoking, or to smoke elsewhere. He had no qualms smoking beside pregnant women, he didn't care how uncomfortable anybody around him acted.

The year I met him, he decided he wanted to run a marathon and quit smoking. He was so proud of the fact that he could quit so easily that he became quite an "arrogant" non-smoker; he had no qualms telling people smoking around him to leave, or that they were ruining their health, or wasting their money. He would say that all it takes is a little willpower and you can do it. He was no longer very friendly to smokers, in other words.

Now, if you ask him, he was TOTALLY changed. He'd say he was an asshole before who didn't care about people around him. He'd say that he was different now - he wanted people to quit and be healthy the way he did. The truth was, though, that he was STILL an asshole - just to a different set of people. Despite the fact that his intentions were more honorable, the same personality traits that made him an asshole as a smoker were making him an asshole as a nonsmoker. The asshole-ish-ness, so to speak, was just redirected.

[cosmik debris]

121. That's still not a coherent argument

It is based on variable definitions of "fundamentalism" and a belief that there are principles of atheism.

But most absurd of all your assertions is that an atheist "will find "principles" of atheism". Those principles don't exist. If an atheist finds some principles that he wants to take to some extreme, that does not make it a "principle of atheism". You even admit that they are "not universally held by atheists" so how are they atheist values? How many atheists have to believe it for it to be an atheist principle?

It is the same logic as the KKK story I mentioned above. Klan members "found" a "christian principle" of racial segregation. The Klan strictly adhered to that fundamental christian principle. And for what it's worth, they met the criteria of all your other definitions of fundamentalism. So by your own logic and argument, you can't deny that racial segregation is a christian principle. The Klan "found" it just the way you accuse your hypothetical atheist of "finding" atheist principles.

If you want to make a clear argument, you need to state a clear definition of "fundamentalism" and back it up with some reference to verify that you aren't just making shit up.

Then you need to define the atheist principle that meets your definition of fundamental.

Since you seem unable to meet the basics of a coherent argument, I have to assume that you are just trying to be insulting with your misuse of the terminology.

[crawfish]

122. You're denying and supporting my argument at the same time

The KKK argument explains it exactly.

Why does "fundamental" need to be a corporate thing? Why can it not be personal?

[cosmik debris]

123. Huh?

So you agree that racial segregation is a christian value?

I have no idea what you mean by fundamentalism. You have moved the goal posts too many times. If you can not define your terms and stick to one definition you can not present a coherent argument.

[crawfish]

125. No.

The way the KKK applies a fundamental belief is the same way an atheist "fundamentalist" applies a belief. On a personal basis, derived from some element or flaw in their psychological makeup/background. Widen the view on that camera, dude.

[crawfish]

126. Sorry, 124 was supposed to be a reply to this (eom)

(on edit)

Or, we've reached the limit of the nested comments.

First time for me. :)

[cosmik debris]

127. I'm waiting for a definition.

If you are unable to cite a definition, I have to assume that you are making this shit up as you go along. As I previously stated, the term fundamentalist has been used frequently in this forum to insult people. I must assume you are doing that same thing since you can't substantiate you opinion of the meaning of that word.

I'd also like and answer to another question I posed: How many atheists must believe something for it to be an atheist principle. If the answer is one, the racial segregation can be called a christian principle. You need to define atheist principle too.

I honestly don't believe that you know what you are talking about. Your posts tend to dodge direct questions and make excuses. Aren't you just trying to be an asshole like the person in your smoking analogy?

[crawfish]

131. You are not getting it

...and I'm not sure how many more times I can explain it. A individual's principles can be personal and not applied to a group at large. I'm not trying to invent a set of principles that all atheists live by. I'm trying to reveal an example of principles that an individual, or set of individuals who are atheist might hold for them to be considered fundamentalist.

You seem to be so stuck on semantics that you can't see the bigger picture.

[cosmik debris]

136. If you can't define your terms you can't make a coherent argument

You can't expect others to know what you mean when you change the meaning of the words to suit you current position.

Define Fundamentalism.

Define atheist principle and give an example. (and tell us how many atheists must believe something for it to be an atheist principle)

If you are not dodging the question, those two simple requests will clear up a lot of this misunderstanding.

Your recalcitrance indicates that you are either totally un knowledgeable about this subject, or you are trying to be an insulting jerk. In either case, you are not doing yourself any favors by persistently avoiding the basic questions. That just points to the latter explanation.

[crawfish]

137. It doesn't matter how good or coherent my argument is...

if you are incapable of getting it, which seems to be the case. Simple fact is, if you understood what I was saying then you'd be making different arguments. You're asking me to redefine things I've already defined in this thread. I haven't avoided a single question.

What I see is that you're hung up on some semantics, and you WILL NOT see my point until you think outside your box a little bit. I've re-read the thread and there is really nothing else for me to add.

Also, I have not once been an "insulting jerk" in this thread, until (arguably) this post. Is rationally working to explain my position without resorting to personal attacks or putdowns being a "jerk"? If so, I might need to get a definition of "jerk" from your personal viewpoint. :)







p.s. Yes, I have resorted to a sarcastic tone with this post. I do apologize for the tone, and I assure you I have no bad feelings towards any of you personally. If you still take offense, then so be it.

[cosmik debris]

139. You can't define your terms so your argument is moot

You presented several different definitions. I don't know which one to take seriously.

As I mentioned, the term "fundamentalist" is frequently used as an insult. I have to assume that you are using it that way since you can't seem to agree with yourself about what it really means. You have had ample opportunity to prove that you are not insulting me and you didn't even bother.

So as far as I'm concerned, you have been a jerk since your first post in defense of the term "atheist fundamentalist" It is an insulting term with no real meaning except the ones you recently made up.

So that means it is now time to tell you to go %$#@ your self &^% hole.

[crawfish]

141. I, on the other hand, wish you the very best.

Peace.

[Random_Australian]

147. Ooooooh, so you get to annoy someone until they respond, and then claim the moral high ground?

Awesome. I want me a piece of that action.

You suck.

God bless. I wish you nothing but happiness, fundamentalist moron. Peace.

[cosmik debris]

152. That's one of those christian values at work

being a sugar coated asshole and pretending that you are better because you are sugar coated.

[Marr]

198. Edited.

Came into the discussion a bit late and responded in the wrong place, I'm afraid. :D

[awoke_in_2003]

197. crawfish is an appropriate user name

you seem to do quite a bit of it.

[TransitJohn]

157. Theists are like Republicans....

...forever shifting the goalposts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. The universal principle behind the Church of England is that there is a God

Since there is absolutely no way to prove there is or is not a God, to hold this as an absolute belief is fundamentalist. So, by your definition, all Anglicans are fundamentalists. The universal principle behind every Christian church is that there is a God. Hence, all Christians are fundamentalists, as are all Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs etc. Basically, everyone, in your view, is either an agnostic or a fundamentalist.

[crawfish]

83. It's the application of the philosophy,

not the philosophy itself.

[muriel_volestrangler]

89. You appear to be changing your argument drastically

This is the first time you've talked about the "application of the philosophy, not the philosophy itself." Can you expand on this, please?

In your reply #48, you started by saying that just by saying 'there is no God', an atheist is being fundamentalist. Now, if you say it's the application, not the philosophy, that makes someone fundamentalist, you seem to be completely withdrawing that claim (which is good - I didn't think that claim was sustainable).

So, what in the application is fundamentalist? If someone demanded that in a school there must be daily collective worship, wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character, would that make them a fundamentalist Christian? Because that is the law for state schools in England. So is England a fundamentalist state? Would a country that says there mustn't be religious worship organised by a school be a fundamentalist atheist one? Aren't those the rules in US public schools?

If an atheist says teaching young children that one religion is right, and others are wrong, is a bad thing, do you think they're being fundamentalist? If a theist thinks teaching children to believe in one particular religion is a good thing, are they being fundamentalist too?

When the current pope said about atheism "It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice", was that not an attack on atheism? Is he a fundamentalist too, because of the application of his philosophy as an attack on non-believers - and does that mean Catholicism is a fundamentalist religion?

[cyborg_jim]

91. "Funadmentalist" = "bad"

Don't try to make it logimatical now!

[trotsky]

96. This person obviously knows the terrible logical holes in their argument.

S/he has avoided answering me in posts 58 and 62, for that very reason. Calling ANY atheist a "fundamentalist" requires such a crazy distortion of the word that as you note in your excellent examples, it becomes applicable to just about anyone.

[crawfish]

103. Heh.

I hadn't even SEEN your two posts until you just mentioned them. They got lost while making all the other replies. If you've ever been on a message board before where you push an opinion unpopular with the majority, you'll know how quickly the stuff you have to reply to can pile up.

And, by the way, I've answered both in other posts.

The difference between us has nothing to do with logical holes. It has to do with a difference in perspective - you judge fundamentalist thought by an strict adherence to a religious tome; I judge it by the personality and emotional makeup of the person who tends to hold such an adherence. Tell me - if a Christian fundamentalist loses their faith, do the elements of their personality that made them susceptible to such thought change? Or do they simply manifest themselves in different ways?

I have seen this happen before, and the person is just as strict about their new belief, just as unbending, just as harsh.

[trotsky]

112. You've answered nothing.

Your definition has drastically changed throughout this thread, and it's laughable to see you pretend as if you've had some kind of consistency. Let me know when you want to directly answer my questions. Thanks!

[crawfish]

119. See answer #118 (nm)

[trotsky]

120. See answer #91.

Your summary was already stated perfectly for you. You've jumped around, redefined, and now attempted to draw it all into one comprehensive definition. Except all you've done is essentially say that a "fundamentalist" is anyone who's a jerk. Congrats. The word has no meaning of its own now.

[crawfish]

124. I'm applying it on an individual level,

you're applying it on a corporate level.

You miss my point if you think I'm applying it to anyone who's a jerk. They have to be a jerk for specific reasons and with specific attributes. Rest assured, there are whole other classes of assholes out there.

I think I've defined my position quite well. The reason people call SOME atheists "fundamentalists" is NOT because they adhere strictly to some universal dogma. It's because they exhibit behaviors and patterns similar to religious fundamentalists. You can quibble with the word all you want, but there is no doubt that the argument has merit.

[trotsky]

135. The argument has no merit.

Despite your vehement assertions otherwise. Your statements have been ALL OVER the place. Some day when you come up with a single, COHERENT definition and differentiate it from say, someone who won't compromise when it comes to human rights, you might have a point. 'Til then, nope.

[crawfish]

138. I have a complicated point of vew...

and you're looking at it in simplistic terms.

I don't have any more to add. Think what you will.

[trotsky]

140. Baloney.

You can't even make sense of it yourself, and now you're scrambling to somehow save face. This time, you're trying to imply I'm too stupid to get it. I wish you could have answered just ONE question this whole time.

[muriel_volestrangler]

130. OK, this list seems to be the msot specific you've got on what makes a 'fundamentalist atheist'

Elsewhere, you've backed off the start of reply #48, where you said that saying 'there is no god' made someone a fundamentalist atheist; but your 'applications of the philosophy' definition may tie in with your list here:

1) There is no god (as above).
2) Religion is a bad thing.
3) An ethical society can only be achieved in the absence of religion.
4) Humans are capable of discovering, through science, the unknown aspects of the universe around us.

How many members of a theist religion believe the following:

1) There is a god (or gods).
2) Religion is a good thing.
3) An ethical society can only be achieved in the presence of religion.
4) Humans are incapable of discovering, through science alone, the unknown aspects of the universe around us.

I'd say it's pretty much all of them. Buddhism (most variants, anyway) doesn't believe in a god, so that's why I specify theist religion.

Then we'll take your final phrase, and adapt it for theists:

"Theists are so sold into that philosophy that they feel that the ethical and right thing to do is to go on attack against the entities that oppose it; that is, atheism. That is a product of fundamentalist thought."

For a start, I think this defines Chris Hedges as a fundamentalist theist - his book is an attack on atheists, and in the interview, he comes out with things like "Not believing in sin is very dangerous", and saying that New Atheists believe in a cult of science, just like he says that fascists do. I've already quoted the pope's attack on atheism - that makes him a fundamentalist too, by your definition, and we'd then have to wonder if the whole Roman Catholic church is also fundamentalist, seeing as it is strongly controlled by a fundamentalist. Does the Catholic belief that atheists won't go to heaven make it institutionally fundamentalist? Does a similar belief among the majority of Muslims make them all fundamentalist? After all, saying a non-belief in God will get you an eternity of pain is rather an attack on the non-belief.

So, do you think that any theist who attacks atheism is a fundamentalist (eg George Bush Sr., who said that atheists don't deserve to be thought of as American citizens)?

[crawfish]

132. What you have to ask...

is how does a fundamentalist religion differ from a non-fundamentalist religion with the same principles? That's where the key lies. The answer is in the application of those principles to one's belief system.

The answer to your last question is, in the case you mention, yes. I don't believe all atheist attacks on Christianity are fundamentalist; I don't believe all Christian attacks on atheism are, either. To exempt an entire group of people from American citizenship because of a lack of belief strikes me as quite extreme.

As far as Hedges goes, maybe. I haven't read his book, only the interview, and I don't know much else about him.

[muriel_volestrangler]

134. But the normal definition of a fundamentalist religion

is one that regards absolute belief in, and obedience to, the religion's founding literature, as a must. But you've rejected that definition; and atheism has no such literature. A fundamentalist Christian, for instance, regards a Catholic as 'not a true Christian', because they take later Catholic literature, and papal pronouncements, as worthy of consideration as well as the Bible.

So I can't see how we can transfer a 'fundamentalist religion' v. 'non-fundamentalist religion' comparison to atheism. The New Atheists aren't saying "some of these people who call themselves atheists aren't really, because they're not following the principles of 'X'" - there is no 'X', whether book or person, in atheism.

[dmallind]

153. Sorry, but all are mistaken

I have been on and off involved in organized atheism for many years. Godless March on Washington, AA annual meetings, local outreach, debates with evangelists, whatever. I've talked to more atheists about atheism than anyone who isn't similarly involved and active.

1) I know TWO - count 'em one, two - atheists who even seriously posit the idea that there is no god as even a provable, let alone proven, hypothesis. No "big G" god of the Bible as believed in by mainstream Christians, with his inherent contradictions and logical impossibilities? Sure more of them, but no possible god at all, or even no god of the Bible who has been misrepresented by the writers? Just two.

2) Religion with political or societal power? Not much argument there and not much reason to argue, since religion and power have essentially always been a bad mix. Personal religious belief if it makes someone happy and harms or constrains no one else? The only atheists with problems about that are basing such issues on rather weak ideas that this retards the curiosity of the religious person or their ability to follow scientific or logical inquiry where the eveidence leads if it contradicts their religion. These folks are in the minority, and I believe are mistaken, given that there is nothing in religion that HAS to retard curiosity or intellectual freedom, and when it does it is merely a symptom of religion with societal power as above.

3) Stuff and nonsense. Moral philosophy is a mainstay of the debates I've done and I, and anybody I've ever seen, never makes this claim. An ethical society can only be achieved with a sound moral philosophy which universalizes some kind of teleological system. This is perfectly possible to reconcile with religion. It is certainly likely that we will never have an ethical society when religious concerns are given primacy over human harm and benefit, but there are plenty of religious folks who are willing to assign the priority appropriately, and of course also plenty of religious folk whose concern for human harm and benefit is, for them, rooted in that religious belief. It's actually my normal argument that anyone who believes, however mistaken I feel that belief is, that their own universalized concern for humanity is only possible because of their belief in a god, should not be discouraged from that god belief. I'm not out to win converts to atheism at even the potential expense of a loss of universalized sympathy, even if I of course see no tenable connection between the two. It's only important what the moral agent thinks, not me.

4)Well I believe this is pretty well demonstrated surely? Nobody prayed the computers we are all using into existence. Nobody first harnessed electricity by means of revelation. Electricity was once unknown completely, then borderline magic, then high science, now commonplace and taught in VoTecs. If you assume that atheists of any stripe think humans are capable of answering ALL unknown aspects of the universe then you are positing some highly speculative and optimistic atheists that are not the norm and certainly not represented by the people you name. We DO discover through science previously unknown aspects. In fact ALL previously unknown aspects have been discovered through science (think I'm wrong - quick tell me the advance in human understanding of the universe that came via gnosis). But that's not the same as ALL answers are discoverable. There are some pretty hard barriers to cross and nobody can predict new ones. All we know is that we have discovered answers via science and will continue to.

I think overall you're missing one salient point of what the "new atheists" (who are simply rich and securely employed "old atheists" who are comfortable enough being overtly public about their nonbelief - atheism itself has not changed in any way, merely the punishment in some cases for admitting it) are attacking. The POWER and influence of religion is bad when it contradicts what is beneficial to humanity. Religion is bad when it constrains and hinders personal or social understanding, knowledge or progress. It's not religion per se that is bad, it is the negative influences and effects of religion.

[immoderate]

156. How do those four points constitute a dogma?

Where does it say that you can't challenge the validity of those points. Feel free.

--IMM

[trotsky]

41. Do you believe that discrimination based on race is always wrong?

Or do you think that raping children is always wrong? Because according to your definition, if you do, you're a FUNDAMENTALIST.

What a ridiculous distortion of the word.

[crawfish]

44. The belief refers to a guiding philosophy...

not to a specific item.

[trotsky]

58. How about the guiding philosophy that all people are equal?

If you believe that, and won't allow for compromise from that position, are you a fundamentalist?

[trotsky]

62. And while you're mulling that over...

what is the "guiding philosophy" of atheism?

In other words, what exactly about not believing in a god, or even believing there is no god, then determines what you think about other things?

Take your time.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. I've read the book. It's very thoughtful.

I've read his other books, and I like him a lot. He makes some very good points -- I recommend the book.

[Captain Angry]

19. You are totally out of place here.

How can you actually voice an opinion about something you have direct information.


You're supposed to be trashing something you've never read.





(And yes, this is biting sarcasm. Thank you for the information. I enjoy Christopher Hedges' discussions, and love it when he's on Democracy Now!)

[Runcible Spoon]

21. god I thought i was the only one

apparently even at DU some grab a headline and then grab the pitchforks :scared:

[Captain Angry]

24. People are punchy.

When we finally have a candidate, a lot of anger will finally be pointed in the right direction.


If we could capture the energy running around this site, we could probably power a decent sized city.

[Realityhack]

105. Can you tell us a little more about it?

Personally I was wondering to what degree he includes Dawkins in the group he is so upset about. I think he has a point that there are 'evil' people who are atheists as well as believers and he may be right about some of the names he picks out but the interview mentions Dawkins only in passing and I was wondering what his view in the book was.

It seems to me there are some 'new' atheists who are basically just more vocal and other 'new' atheists who are just bat shit crazy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

117. The book would appear to make no difference between Dawkins, and Hitchins and Harris

This is from the book's publisher, and can be found on various bookstore sites:

From the New York Times bestselling author of American Fascists and the NBCC finalist for War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning comes this timely and compelling work about new atheists: those who attack religion to advance the worst of global capitalism, intolerance and imperial projects.

Chris Hedges, who graduated from seminary at Harvard Divinity School, has long been a courageous voice in a world where there are too few. He observes that there are two radical, polarized and dangerous sides to the debate on faith and religion in America: the fundamentalists who see religious faith as their prerogative, and the new atheists who brand all religious belief as irrational and dangerous. Both sides use faith to promote a radical agenda, while the religious majority, those with a commitment to tolerance and compassion as well as to their faith, are caught in the middle.

The new atheists, led by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, do not make moral arguments about religion. Rather, they have created a new form of fundamentalism that attempts to permeate society with ideas about our own moral superiority and the omnipotence of human reason.

I Don't Believe in Atheists critiques the radical mindset that rages against religion and faith. Hedges identifies the pillars of the new atheist belief system, revealing that the stringent rules and rigid traditions in place are as strict as those of any religious practice.

...

http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=615072&er=9781416567950

[Realityhack]

128. I was asking those who have read the book

However if he includes Dawkins I think he may be fucked in the head. I think he would find debating Dawkins a lot harder than debating Hitchens. Dawkins is quite reasonable unless you create a straw man of his arguments. And he certainly does make moral arguments about religion. You would have to be completely ignorant of his arguments or intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.

[Unvanguard]

207. I haven't read the book, but in the interview he certainly draws a distinction

between Dawkins and Harris/Hitchens, and a fair one, I think. Dawkins, to my knowledge, has kept away from defending US foreign policy and the antagonism towards Muslims (in particular).

[muriel_volestrangler]

208. Well, the distinction in the interview is "Dawkins is British"

which is one of the most pathetic cop-outs in an argument about religion and atheism I've ever seen. First of all, a person's nationality is irrelevant to religion or atheism; secondly, Hitchens is also British, basically (he took US citizenship just a year or two ago). Meanwhile, Daniel Dennett, who also produced a successful book about atheism and religion, Breaking the Spell, in 2006, and tend to get grouped with the other 3 for that reason, is American, and he is no supporter of Bush's wars.

So it seems that really, Hedges has a problem with Harris and Hitchens (one a 'homegrown' American, the other a Briton who went to work in the USA), and has projected their personal views onto 'new atheism', ignoring anyone who doesn't fit this invalid stereotyping.

[Unvanguard]

209. You're taking that out of its context.

The question was, "So you think that Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are just shills for a neocon agenda?"

The reply: "Well, Dawkins is a little different, because he's British." Hedges then went on to say that he was speaking particularly of the US figures, Harris and Hitchens. Nationality is not the issue; shilling for neoconservatism is. We can dispute whether or not "Britishness" is actually the reason for the difference between Dawkins and the others, but that's really immaterial.

Hedges has never said anything about making a general critique of atheism--you'll note that he says earlier in the interview quite explicitly that there are plenty of people who manage to be perfectly moral people outside of religious frameworks.

He's targeting a specific kind of atheist, and there's no reason that he shouldn't be allowed to narrow the targets of his critique if he thinks it's appropriate.

[muriel_volestrangler]

210. So why did he bring Dawkins into it in the first place?

And neocons, and their shills, can be any nationality - Tony Blair had supporters in the UK. If he'd just said "Dawkins isn't a neocon", that'd be one thing, but "because he's British"? It makes no sense. Hitchens isn't 'homegrown' in the USA - he had a long career in the UK before going to the US;
Dennett is a 'homegrown American', but he thinks it's "not accidental" that Harris and Hitchens are supportive of war. Looked at objectively, it is; but he's trying to paint 'new atheists' as warmongers.

The 'specific kind of atheist' appears to include Dawkins, because the interviewer lists him at the start of the article, and Hedges' publisher lists him too. Hedges continues to attack Dawkins as a "high priest of the cult of science", and says "the world the high priests of memetic engineering propose is as repugnant as the fundamentalist utopia advocated by the radical Christian right."

[Unvanguard]

211. Because obviously he has disagreements with Dawkins in other respects.

But in that particular one, the interviewer introduced Dawkins in connection to neo-conservatism, not Hedges. The world isn't neatly divided into absolute good and absolute bad, and I don't know why you think Hedges should lump all the "New Atheists" together always just because he criticizes all of them sometimes.

Harris and Hitchens' stances on the Iraq War cannot be so simply separated from their anti-religious stance, considering that they themselves have explicitly made the connection. Nothing about that implies that any atheist stance, or even any anti-religious stance, must come to the same conclusion... and I don't think Hedges suggests that it does.

[muriel_volestrangler]

212. I think his 'not accidental' does imply it

When we look at everyone, among the supporters of neoconservatism we seem some people who are highly religious, some who are vaguely religious, and some who are atheistic. And we see all those categories among those who opposed neoconservatism. But Hedges says it's not accidental, for Hitchens and Harris.

Hedges' makes a big thing of supporting wars being a common point among religious fundamentalists, and some of the atheists he's attacking. He ignore the people in between who were just as militaristic - Cheney, for instance.

I'll refer back to the publisher's blurb for Hedges' book. It says Dawkins is one of the 'leaders' of the new atheists, and it says they "attack religion to advance the worst of global capitalism, intolerance and imperial projects." It calls them 'dangerous', and contrasts them with people with "a commitment to tolerance and compassion as well as to their faith". So it's implying Dawkins doesn't have compassion or tolerance. That's global capitalism - not 'American'. So the "well, he's British, none of that applies" wasn't what he said in the book. The interview looks like he's thought "oh shit, I've been caught out, better back-track".

[Unvanguard]

213. Cheney's stance on the war has nothing to do with his viewpoint on religion

at least to my knowledge, so I don't think it much concerns Hedges' thesis.

As for the publisher's blurb, there's no reason to expect it to have the nuance and distinctions one might find in the actual book, or even to be a particularly accurate depiction. Blurbs for books are about selling them, not describing them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

214. So why does Harris' and Hitchens' stance on the war have something to do

with their viewpoint on religion? Hedges said it's not accidental.

I think it's reasonable to take the blurb as a summary of the book; but here's a Hedges column, "adapted from the book":

We have nothing to fear from those who do or do not believe in God. We have much to fear from those who do not believe in sin. The concept of sin is a stark acknowledgement that we can never be omnipotent, that we are bound and limited by human flaws and self-interest. The concept of sin is a check on the utopian dreams of a perfect world. It prevents us from believing in our own perfectibility or the illusion that the human species makes moral advances along with the material advances in science and technology. To turn away from God is harmless. Saints have been trying to do it for centuries. To turn away from sin is catastrophic. Religious fundamentalists, who believe they know and can carry out the will of God, disregard their severe human limitations. They act as if they are free from sin. The secular utopians from Richard Dawkins to Sam Harris to Daniel Dennett to Christopher Hitchens have also forgotten they are human. Both they and religious fundamentalists peddle absolutes. Those who do not see as they see, speak as they speak and act as they act are worthy only of conversion or eradication.

The belief that human nature can be improved and perfected, that we are moving throughout history toward a glorious culmination, is malformed theology. It permits wild, eschatological visions to be built under religious or secular banners. It is this belief that is dangerous. And it colors the thought of the new crop of atheist writers. They will tell us what is right and wrong, not in the eyes of God, but according to the purity of the rational mind. They too seek to destroy those who do not conform to their vision. They too wrap their intolerance in Enlightenment virtues.
...
Any form of knowledge that claims to be absolute ceases to be knowledge. It is a form of faith. Harris and the other atheist authors mistake a tiny subset of criminals and terrorists for 1 billion Muslims. They justify the unjustifiable in the name of civilization. The passions of these atheists, hidden under the jargon of reason and science, are as bankrupt as the passions of Christian and Islamic fundamentalists who sanctify mass slaughter in the name of their utopia. Religious fundamentalists pervert and distort religion to serve their own fears and self-aggrandizement. Atheists do the same with science and reason. These two groups peddle the myth that we can conquer human nature, overcome our imperfections and build the perfect society.

These atheists and Christian radicals have built squalid little belief systems that are in the service of themselves and their own power. They urge us forward into a nonreality-based world, one where force and violence, where self-exaltation and blind nationalism, are an unquestioned good. They seek to make us afraid of what we do not know or understand. They use this fear to justify cruelty and war. They ask us to kneel before little idols that look and act like them, telling us that one day, if we trust enough in God or reason, we will have everything we desire.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/20080407_on_secular_fundamentalism/

"forgotten they are human"? "seek to destroy those who do not conform to their vision"? "justify the unjustifiable in the name of civilization"? "have built squalid little belief systems that are in the service of themselves and their own power"? "They urge us forward into a nonreality-based world, one where force and violence, where self-exaltation and blind nationalism, are an unquestioned good. "? "They use this fear to justify cruelty and war"? "They ask us to kneel before little idols that look and act like them"?

It's complete crap. Dawkins and Dennett say nothing remotely like that. They don't seek power. They don't advocate force and violence. They don't justify cruelty and war. They don't ask anyone to kneel. Hedges is so far from reality, it's frightening.

[Unvanguard]

215. Because both Hitchens and Harris have made the connection explicit.

It's part of their ideology--their militant opposition to religion manifests itself particularly with respect to Islam, and justifies their support for war.

In any case, as far as Dawkins goes I don't think Hedges' point is that he himself has advocated violence and war. I think his point is that the intolerance at the heart of his view--the notion that his belief system is "right" and those of others is absurd, nonsensical, and unacceptable--has a logic to it that leads to violence and war.

While I don't think the extremity of Hedges' rhetoric is justified or helpful, I think there's something to that. Dawkins actually makes very good arguments, but there's very little indication to me that he has bothered to attempt to understand theists in their own terms.

It's not that difficult to come to the conclusion that religion is absurd, irrational, even amoral... but ultimately we can't consider this matter in isolation, divorced from the fact that billions of people are believers. If religion is such an absurdity, WHY does this happen? It's the height of arrogance, and fundamentally dehumanizing, to pretend that it must be because they are all just irrational, deluded... and it is reminiscent of the imperialist rhetoric that divides the world into rational and irrational, and sets forth as a duty the "enlightenment" or control of the irrational.

This is the fundamentalism, the absolutism, at the heart of Dawkins: the belief that because he thinks (rightly) that his arguments have something to them, anyone who rejects them is deluded. The praxis of this theory, whatever the intentions of its originators, can very easily turn into tyranny. Compare Marxism, which started out with some rather impressive social insights and a relevant, materially-founded theory of how to reach a genuinely free and egalitarian society... but whose insistence that all intellectual competition was mere "bourgeois ideology" played directly into the hands of the tyrants who abused it for their ends.

[cyborg_jim]

216. Why?

It's the height of arrogance, and fundamentally dehumanizing, to pretend that it must be because they are all just irrational, deluded...

Why is that dehumanizing precisely? More specifically I can't see what is fundamentally dehumanising about being irrational or deluded.

billions of people are believers. If religion is such an absurdity, WHY does this happen?

Perhaps because being irrational and deluded are fundamental human charactistics that it takes a great deal of effort to overcome?

[Unvanguard]

217. Because it legitimizes treating them as less than human.

If they aren't rational, why worry about their freedom, or their wishes and desires? They're just arbitrary, aren't they?

If they aren't rational, why bother engaging them, trying to make peace with them? If they're not rational they won't respond to the language of justice, or even of mutual benefit--you have to use force.

As for "being irrational and deluded" constituting "fundamental human charactistics", one has to wonder, if that's the case, why people like Dawkins insist on their own rightness. Are they somehow above the level of a mere human?

[cyborg_jim]

218. No it doesn't.

If they aren't rational, why worry about their freedom, or their wishes and desires? They're just arbitrary, aren't they?

All wishes and desires are arbitrary and irrational. That is axiom upon which the notion of a right to pursue happiness is based - i.e. society will not interfere in your desires as long as they are not socially destructive.

You don't have to think that homosexuality is rational to not treat homosexuals as subhumans.

If they aren't rational, why bother engaging them, trying to make peace with them? If they're not rational they won't respond to the language of justice, or even of mutual benefit--you have to use force.

Because Dawkins is a well known proponent of crackin' religious heads ain't he?

if that's the case, why people like Dawkins insist on their own rightness.

On the contrary - Dawkins has made the point numerous times that he is not - contrary to your assumption - infallable and that he could be wrong. He does not think he is wrong on the strength of his understanding of all the evidence he has seen. This is what he says. Not, "I'm right and you're stupid and irrational," he says, "the evidence leads me to this conclusion."

Where did you get this notion from exactly?

Are they somehow above the level of a mere human?

Being a "better" human means having better information - there is a reason why we educate our children. And an equally good reason why various religious groups put a similar amount of effort in instructing children - it will shape the thought processes for life.

GIGO.

[Unvanguard]

219. That's actually not true.

Freedom is explicitly connected to rationality, both in political theory and political practice: note the justifications for restraining the freedom of children, or for ruling over foreign "savages."

While it is true that homosexuality (or any other sexual orientation) is not a product of reason, if instead it were the case that gay people were not rational, just as with children their demands for justice would rightly be regarded with skepticism. Being irrational, their demands would have no reasons behind them, so others certainly would have no reason to respect them.

Your remark about Dawkins' political position on violence is irrelevant, for reasons already mentioned.

On the contrary - Dawkins has made the point numerous times that he is not - contrary to your assumption - infallable and that he could be wrong. He does not think he is wrong on the strength of his understanding of all the evidence he has seen. This is what he says. Not, "I'm right and you're stupid and irrational," he says, "the evidence leads me to this conclusion."

I never said he thought he was infallible. What I said was that he insists he is right (on this topic), which is quite a different thing. My point is that if the basis for his position is that human beings are generally deluded and irrational, he should be in serious doubt about his own capacity to rationally examine evidence, and thus about any conclusion he comes to--unless, like most people who condemn the stupidity and ignorance of human beings, he believes that such descriptions merely apply to lesser beings.

[cyborg_jim]

220. Irrationality is an all or nothing proposition for you I see.

Your remark about Dawkins' political position on violence is irrelevant, for reasons already mentioned.

Since when? You brought violence into the equivocation.

Either noting that "force must be used to subdue the irrational," was an attempt to associate this with Dawkins or it was not.

My point is that if the basis for his position is that human beings are generally deluded and irrational, he should be in serious doubt about his own capacity to rationally examine evidence, and thus about any conclusion he comes to--unless, like most people who condemn the stupidity and ignorance of human beings, he believes that such descriptions merely apply to lesser beings.

You really like setting up this high vs low thing so you can condemn those you see as placing themselves high don't you?

It neatly avoids the question of who is actually right and instead frames it in the context of morality and shifts the argument away from an examination of the facts to, "look at the cute kitten! You wouldn't want to upset it now would you!?"

So here's a simple set of questions: are some people more rational than others? Is it possible that Dawkins is one of those people? Does that therefore make him a superior being under your system? Should that mean that we can start cracking the heads now?

[Unvanguard]

221. In a sense, yes.

Since when? You brought violence into the equivocation.

Either noting that "force must be used to subdue the irrational," was an attempt to associate this with Dawkins or it was not.

It was, but the point, again, is not that Dawkins advocates or intends violence; it is that the line of reasoning he pursues is one that can easily turn violent.

Fanatic religious fundamentalism isn't intrinsically violent either.

It neatly avoids the question of who is actually right

Who is actually right about what? I find at least some of Dawkins' arguments convincing; I'm not actually sure he's very wrong at all about, say, concluding that atheism is the logical choice. Indeed, I have made similar arguments myself.

The issue for me is, when atheists are faced with the simple fact of the prevalence and persistence of religion, we should be willing to seriously consider (and reconsider) two things: first, that we are simply wrong, and second, that we may be right, but that there are other reasons for religious beliefs that have something to them but simply do not cohere well into our framework.

One of the questions I want to see Dawkins answer, and that to my knowledge neither he nor any of the others has addressed, is why it is such a common belief among the religious that atheists are incapable of morality, or that "God said so" is actually a reasonable argument for a particular moral position. Both of these beliefs are unambiguously wrong, but having concluded that we should move toward an understanding: why do people believe such a thing?

One answer is that most people don't actually think about moral issues in the abstract language and terms with which, say, professional moral philosophers are concerned... that the language of morality, for most people in the world, is the language of religion. (This itself is a prominent reason for religious belief, and not a bad one when the importance of a moral culture is recognized.) This is not a one-sided affair of arbitrary culture imposing itself upon moral reason, though there's some of that; it's also a matter of a religious moral framework being theoretically subject to the same kind of rational critique any other moral framework is, as long as it is expressed in the right terms.

But if we believe Dawkins etc., going this path--supporting the efforts of those religious people who make essentially religious arguments for freedom and equality--is self-deluding and maybe even counter-productive; it just lends legitimacy to the fanatics, by lending legitimacy to religion in general. So what do we do? Attempt to convert everyone and abolish religion? How are you going to manage that without force and repression? Either you deal with people in part on their own terms, terms they believe in and can accept, or you end up dealing with them coercively, with force. It is a kind of fanaticism to not see this, or to ignore it. And that fanaticism is potentially dangerous... not to mention implicitly imperialist, because it essentially wants to impose a predominantly Western secular mindset on the rest of the planet. (Note that many of the people the "New Atheists" claim to stand up for--like women in the Muslim world--often have themselves begun to develop movements for social change, which very often do speak in religious terms.)

So here's a simple set of questions: are some people more rational than others?

Undoubtedly.

Is it possible that Dawkins is one of those people?

Not only "possible", virtually certain, at least if we want to make a reasonable equation between "intelligent" and "rational."

Does that therefore make him a superior being under your system?

No. The criterion of "rationality" for me is not quantitative but qualitative. Whether someone else is less rational or less intelligent than you is irrelevant. The issue is whether you are entitled to regard her as non-rational: to see her belief systems as arbitrary.

Talking about "who's right" and "who's more rational" doesn't give us much of an answer to the real questions, like, say, what kind of social arrangement would help get the Haredi Jews and the more secular ones to live together in Israel without trampling on either's rights.

What do you think Dawkins would say?

[drmeow]

23. Hedges title is misleading

In the interview he specifies that it is fundamentalist Atheism he objects to. His title, then, should be "I Don't Believe in Fundamentalist Atheists" or "radical Atheists"

There are moral and immoral people across the spectrum of religious/spiritual ideology. To act as if the most vocal mouthpieces of the most extreme example are representative of the group is not fair.

I will confess that I have not read any of Hitchens, Harris, or Hedges work so I can't say whose view I support - my reactions are based solely on this interview.

[Goblinmonger]

31. His interview is based on faulty logic

Fundamentalist Atheist is impossible. He is making up right-wing talking points and as such I will dismiss him summarily as bullshit.

[cosmik debris]

33. Battling syllogisms

It is not uncommon in this forum to see the implied syllogism:

The Old Testament says some wacky things.
Christians read the Old Testament.
Therefore Christians are wacky.

Hedges offers this variation:

Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens say some wacky things.
Atheists read Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens.
Therefore atheists are wacky.

You don't have to be a genius to see the problem there. And apparently Mr. Hedges is appealing to the non-genius crowd.

[Jim__]

26. I haven't read Sam Harris's or Hitchens' books.

Is Hedges correct when he says:

I write in the book that not believing in God is not dangerous. Not believing in sin is very dangerous. I think both the Christian right and the New Atheists in essence don't believe in their own sin, because they externalize evil. Evil is always something out there that can be eradicated. For the New Atheists, it's the irrational religious hordes. I mean, Sam Harris, at the end of his first book, asks us to consider a nuclear first strike on the Arab world. Both Hitchens and Harris defend the use of torture. Of course, they're great supporters of preemptive war, and I don't think this is accidental that their political agendas coalesce completely with the Christian right.

If that statement is correct, it goes a long way toward making his point that Harris and Hitchens thinking is just another form of fundamentalism.

[PassingFair]

27. I don't get how he can lump Dawkins in with Harris and Hitchens.

That's like saying Gandhi and Ted Haggard are the same.

Harris is anti-arab, it's clear to anyone that it IS personal
to him. That doesn't make him a "fundamentalist" anything.

Hitchens is a WAR LOVER, this makes him an asshole, but NOT
a "fundamentalist".

Is Julia Sweeney a "fundamentalist atheist"?

No.

There is no such thing.

If people were not brought up to believe in supernatural
events and creatures, be they unicorns, "devils", or
people who return from the dead, they wouldn't be a PART
of the GROUPS that believe that "War is the Force that
Gives us Meaning", because their VERY LIVES WOULD HAVE
MEANING without all the angst of having to wonder why
god doesn't like them.

[Jim__]

28. He does differentiate Dawkins a little.

He does say: Well, Dawkins is a little different, because he's British. But looking at our own homegrown version of new atheism, yes. Hitchens and Harris do for the neocon agenda in a secular way what the religious right does in a so-called religious way.

I wish he would have expanded on that point a little more. He hammers on Harris and Hitchens:

Do you think the new atheists are similarly uninterested in their impact? It seems that what the New Atheists write and say is somewhat a performance.

Well, not Harris. Harris is just intellectually shallow. Harris doesn't know anything about religion or the Middle East. For Hitchens, it's about a performance, and that was true when he was on the left. He hasn't changed. It's all about him. It's all about being a contrarian. He reminds me of Ann Coulter, he's that kind of a figure. He's witty, and he's funny and insulting. You know I debated him, and in the middle of the debate he starts shouting, "Shame on you for defending suicide bombers!" Of course, unlike him, I've actually stood at the edge of a suicide bombing attack. That kind of stuff is just ... it's the epistemology of television. They make a lot of money off it, but it's gross and disgusting and anti-intellectual and not at all about real discussion.

Do you think Hitchens really believes what he writes?

I think he's completely amoral. I think he doesn't have a moral core. I think he doesn't believe anything. What's good for Christopher Hitchens is about as moral as he gets.

[PassingFair]

29. I don't disagree that Harris and Hitchens have wacky, self-serving views.

Whatever Harris does or does not believe in, he
is biased toward Jewish claims. Because he is
Jewish.

Hitchens likes to be a shit stirrer.

There is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist.

I repeat.

There is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist.

We have no BOOK,
no RITUALS,
no DOGMA or RULES to
be FUNDAMENTAL ABOUT.

We are people who form our own opinions
about religion on the basis of reason, independently
of tradition, authority, or established belief.

Three guys, writing three very different books,
are NOT "mullahs" subscribing to a "fundamentalist
orthodoxy".

Not in ANY sense.

[Goblinmonger]

32. Some people will never get that.

Sad, but true. They just think that they can toss the "fundamentalist" tag on anything they don't like.

[crawfish]

52. Does that include...

calling some Christians "fundamentalists" when they don't meet most of the criteria?

[Goblinmonger]

56. The fundamentalists are a sect

It is pretty easy to identify them because the name of their religion is fundamentalism. Don't know how that is so brain-shattering difficult.

[crawfish]

61. That casual remark...

Indicates that your answer is, "yes".

:)

[Goblinmonger]

64. So let me get this straight

If I call someone who belongs to the Christian sect that they decided to name "fundamentalist" a fundamentalist, I am in the wrong?

[crawfish]

107. Not all groups who consider themselves "fundamentalist" are equal...

...and I'm sure there are some who you would consider fundamentalist who don't call themselves such.

[crawfish]

51. Denial...denial...denial.

I've been in arguments with Christian fundamentalists before about some evangelists that really disturb me...Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton, Joel Osteen, etc. I am SHOCKED to find people who will defend these men with every ounce of their being, despite the fact that what those men stand for are contrary to what they feel a Christian should be.

In other words: a fundamentalist will defend their own despite all logical and rational reasons to do otherwise.

[Meshuga]

55. This "Harris is anti-arab" because he's Jewish is crap

Just because someone is Jewish it doesn't mean the person is anti-arab. You are making assumptions based on your own prejudices, I am afraid.

If Harris is anti-arab then he has a much serious problem since he is leaving the religious debate to bad mouth an ethnic group instead. Arabs can be either Jewish, Muslim, Christians, atheists, etc.

But what necessarily makes Harris biased in favor of Jews in what he says? What in his writings and lectures makes him pro-Judaism? And what in his writing makes him anti-arab? I haven't read everything Sam Harris has ever written so I haven't seen him being anti-arab. I have seen him criticize radical Islam and Muslims in general for not being outspoken enough about fundamentalist Muslims. Is that what you mean by anti-arab?

[PassingFair]

59. I am making "assumptions" based on listening to Harris.

His "reason" flies out the door on the subject
of the Middle East.

Here's an example of his "even-handedness"

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=15270

[Meshuga]

63. Where is Harris being anti-Arab?

As you claim?

Harris is not addressing "Arabs" in the link you provided. He is talking about "radical Islam" which is a huge problem we face. He is not even including all Muslims. He is talking about a real problem we face which is a war on a mentality that is equivalent to the Christian right and equivalent to, for example, the mentality of those Hebron Jews types and a collection of ultra Haredi Jews.

Your suggestion that "Harris is anti-arab because he is a Jew", as if Jews were anti-arab by default, is absurd.

[PassingFair]

72. OK, maybe he has nothing against the Druze.....

He is prejudiced against the MASSIVE percentage
of Arabs that identify as Muslim.

Maybe he's tickled pink with the 7% of "Arab Christians".

What is absurd is arguing the strawman semantic issue
while ignoring the point.

[Meshuga]

74. The point is stupid

Saying that Harris is anti-arab because he is Jewish is a product of your prejudice. You didn't address that in your response so I brought it up.

There is no straw-man. One topic is about the way you have been implying Jewish = anti-arab as in "Harris is anti-arab because he is Jewish".
The second issue is the link you provided as an example of his bias. Harris is talking about "radical Islam", not about all Muslims and not about a "MASSIVE percentage of Arabs". Unless the assumption is that "MASSIVE percentage of Arabs" = "Muslims" = "radical Muslims" which is not what he is saying.

[PassingFair]

75. Alright, he wants to bomb Arab muslims, but his prejudice is only

COINCIDENTAL to his being Jewish and having
been influenced by that fact.

Those 4 horsemen sat there and yakked about
"terrorists" and NONE of them mentioned
the terror of the Iraq War, and how many
muslims we've killed in OUR "crusade".

[Meshuga]

78. About 77% of Jews are against the war in Iraq

compared to 52% of the general public (http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0319-02.htm). Assumptions that Jews are in favor of killing Muslims or not caring if they live or die is nothing but ignorance. Linking Harris to your falty logic is even worse.

[HamdenRice]

73. "a real problem we face which is a war on a mentality " -- I hope not

I cannot condone a war on any type of mentality or ideology. We should only have wars against behaviors.

I don't care how fundamentalist any Muslim, Christian or Jew is, nor whether they scream about the destruction of our country, civilization, secularism or whatever.

Only when a particular person, group or state engages in an act or acts of violence or terrorism is any kind of "war" even remotely justified.

That is, I think, the point being made about Harris. According to Hedges, Harris suggested a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Arab Muslims might be necessary based on what some of them think and say. To paraphrase certain Christian warmongers, that sounds like, "kill em all and let the non existent god sort them out."

If he is advocating nuclear war based on his atheist disdain of religion (or a religion), then that surely qualifies him as being possessed by an atheist fundamentalism and extremism.

[Meshuga]

76. I disagree.

I am for "war" against racism, for example, as I am for "war" on any extreme hateful thought. A certain mentality leads to certain actions. It is better to tackle the root cause of the issue so serious problems can be avoided, in my opinion.

I don't know whether Harris advocates for nuclear war and wiping people out. I would obviously disagree with him if that was the case. But I certainly didn't get that context from the link that was presented.

[HamdenRice]

81. How do you reconcile that with free speech?

Do you mean metaphorical war -- as in the war of ideas, opposing bad ideas in the realm of debate?

That's not what Harris is talking about -- he is talking about using massive violence against religious ideas he opposes.

Are you actually going to support killing people because they have bad ideas before they engage in violent behavior? What other ideas, pray tell, do you think people deserve to be killed for, once you start down that road?

I can't think of anything more disasterous than literal, not metaphorical, war against ideas, not matter how bad those ideas are.

[Meshuga]

94. How do you reconcile...

...a "I am going to fucking kill you when I have a chance" with free speech? That's the kind of threat that should be taken seriously and I would support actual war to fight a group who won't compromise and is threatening and preparing to do us harm.

Harris criticism in the article provided was about people who would rather believe the WTC was imploded by the government, as if suicidal religious fanatics were not capable of attacking us on 9/11, rather than facing the real problem.

It is like the George Carlin bit about when a quiet guy goes on a killing rampage and people say, "You have to watch for those quiet ones!" and he replies with a "Fuck you! I am going to be watching for the loud ones. Who would you rather watch out for? The quiet guy who comes in or the loud one banging his machete?"

I would disagree with Harris if he is advocating preemptive attacks to wipe out radical muslims just because they hold a certain mentality. Is there a link to his words explicitly showing that is what he is advocating for? Or are we putting words in his mouth taking what he is saying out of context? So far I have seen him saying, "We are fighting a war against a group of religious fanatics who has done us harm and who keeps threatening to do more. And look at what religious fanaticism can lead a person to do..."

As far as war on a mentality, yes, I mean a metaphorical war rejecting and doing what is possible to repudiate and educate to "combat" such mentality. But the situation should be handled appropriately when there is threat of action.

[HamdenRice]

98. Sorry, wrong again

I've travelled extensively around the third world and I've heard too many speeches to count "threatening" great violence against America or the west.

99.99% of the people who do so, never engage in any action whatsoever.

Going to war against such people is moronic, a violation of the principle that all speech, no matter how unpleasant, is not a justification for war, and ultimately more murderous, fundamentalist and extremist than the speech it hopes to "stamp out" with violence.

You put yourself in the company of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and Harris, if you want people to be killed for what they think and say, rather than for what they do.

Congratulations. You're in the company you deserve.

[Meshuga]

101. I've heard my share of anti-americanism

I've heard my share of anti-americanism when I lived in a third world country and throughout my own travels. I am not talking about these people. That is nothing. I'm not concern about the 99.99% who will do nothing. I am talking about a group who has attacked us and is preparing for more. I don't understand you, are you saying you are against going after al-qaeda to protect their freedom of speech?

If you read my message carefully you will see that I am not advocating going to war with people just because of their mentality. The issue is more complex than that for you to try to dumb it down for your own purpose. But if saying that makes it easier for your ridiculous attempt to group me with Pol Pot and Stalin go right ahead.

Comparing Harris or anybody in this forum to Stalin is not only ridiculous but making light of all the victims of massacres and people who have been oppressed under such regime. It is a tremendous disrespect to these victims in my opinion. But you can continue to try to lower yourself more (if possible). It is your choice and you are free to do it.

[HamdenRice]

114. To quote you exactly: ----->

"He is talking about "radical Islam" which is a huge problem we face. He is not even including all Muslims. He is talking about a real problem we face which is a war on a mentality that is equivalent to the Christian right and equivalent to, for example, the mentality of those Hebron Jews types and a collection of ultra Haredi Jews."

This sub thread began because you talked about a war on a "mentality." I asked whether you meant that metaphorically or not, and you side stepped the issue. All your posts suggest you are indeed talking about a physical, violent war on an idea, not on behavior.

Only in this last post do you talk about people who "attacked us," which is an infintesimal group compared to those who believe in "radical Islam" or who have talked about or thought about hurting us.

Harris floats the idea of nuclear war against an entire region because an infintesimal number of them have anti-American views and have actually taken concrete steps to hurt us.

You either agree with that view or you don't.

I don't. I think it's heinous -- a form of radical, extremist, fundamentalist atheism that is as bad as the ideas it would obliterate with nuclear weapons.

[Meshuga]

115. I have said in my posts in this subthread

That I disagree with Harris if he is advocating preemptive attacks to wipe out radical muslims just because of their mentality. And I have said that I obviously disagree with Harris if he advocates for nuclear war and for wiping these people out just because of their mentality. I don't know whether you are ignoring this on purpose to demonize me as a dangerous Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin "evil person" or not reading my posts with attention.

As far as "war on a mentality" meaning metaphorically I have said, "As far as war on a mentality, yes, I mean a metaphorical war rejecting and doing what is possible to repudiate and educate to 'combat' such mentality". If you see that as bombing and nuking people then I don't know what else to say to you without wasting my time.

[Realityhack]

102. It also presents a serious problem for Harris

because he seems to have thrown Dawkins in the same bag and thats completely backwards.

[onager]

35. Dawkins is a neo-con?

...Hedges noticed another group -- this one on the left -- conspicuously allied with the neocons on the subject of America's role in world politics. The New Atheists, as they have been called, include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins...

:rofl:

Well, that's certainly news.

Dawkins came up with one of the best descriptions ever for the neocon G.W. Bu$h--"deeply stupid little oil-spiv."

Sounds like Hedges just wanted to come up with a quick money-making book, and it's hard to lose money by attacking atheists in One Nation Under Jesus.

I personally object to that trendy little tag "New Atheists." There's absolutely nothing new about atheism. Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are just carrying on an argument that has existed for virtually all of recorded human history.

[crawfish]

50. Read the Dawkins disclaimer...

You'll see he addresses your point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. It's not much of a disclaimer - "Dawkins is a little different, because he's British"

Hitchens has been an American citizen for less than a year, so he's not a 'homegrown' version of 'New Atheism'. So this 'disclaimer' is meaningless.

Dawkins has been, in fact, vocal in opposition to the invasion of Iraq - eg http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/22/iraq.usa or http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jan/19/foreignpolicy.iraq

Dawkins is different because he's not a neocon, not because of his nationality. It's a completely separate sphere from whether someone's an atheist. But Hedges tried to link them when he said "Of course, they're great supporters of preemptive war, and I don't think this is accidental that their political agendas coalesce completely with the Christian right". And then when pulled up on it, he mutters something about nationality, although he's just been proven wrong - it is accidental. Here's another 'New Atheist' - Daniel Dennett, author of Breaking the Spell, and an American:

It is this, more than anything else, that utterly disqualifies the fiasco in Iraq as a candidate for just war. Saddam Hussein was an extraordinarily evil dictator, and the world is well rid of him, but the steps taken by the USA to accomplish this – unilateral, arrogant, and shockingly ignorant about local conditions – have brought shame on the nation.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/daniel_c_dennett/2007/01/the_role_of_faith_in_the_iraq.html

Hedges just disagrees with Hitchens and Harris, and thinks he can extend that to any atheist who's written a book recently about it. Maybe he should be railing against "New Atheists whose surname begins with an 'H'" - it'd show he's paid a little more attention than he has.

[skepticscott]

54. Every time I hear this kind of crap

claiming that so-called "fundamentalist" atheists are every bit as bad as Christian fundies, I throw this at them...

I mention that if Christian fundamentalists had their way in this country…I mean REALLY had their way, with no Constitution, no secular courts, no organizations championing freedom of religion and separation of church and state to get in their way, these are just a few examples of the way things would be:

-Daily religious instruction, prayer and Bible study would be required in all schools.
-Church attendance would be mandatory.
-Only Christians would be allowed to serve in elected office or as judges.
-All laws and all science education would have to conform with the Bible and meet the approval of religious leaders.
-Artificial contraception would be illegal.
-Divorce would be illegal.
-Blasphemy would be illegal.
-Working on the Sabbath would be illegal (except for football players and NASCAR drivers).
-Abortion would be illegal and punishable by death.
-Known homosexuals and atheists would be imprisoned or killed. Homosexual activity would be illegal and punishable by death.
-Extramarital sex would be illegal and punishable by death.

Then I ask them to tell me what the worst-case scenario would be if “fundamentalist" atheists had their way about everything, and then to tell me which world they’d rather live in... haven't had a worthy response yet.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

158. I am SO copying this post and putting it on my journal.

:yourock:

[varkam]

57. Wow. He's completely full of shit.

He speaks of the "New Atheists" like we're some kind of religious organization with a shared dogma when, really, we're like a herd of cats. Seems to me like he got a bit of a bruised ego from tangling with Harris and Hitchens.

[chicagomd]

65. Why is it

that theists always seem to associate atheist perspectives with some type of pseudo-worship of science and Darwin?

Science is a process, not a belief. And I don't know anyone who puts "Origins" in their nightstand drawer for easy access when they wake up from a scary secular dream.

[cosmik debris]

71. I call it the "straw herring"

Part straw man, part red herring.

[HamdenRice]

68. Astonishingly good article! Can't wait to read the book.

It seems that debate of this topic goes in cycles on this forum, but in the outside world, Hedge's view is gaining greater recognition.

It's interesting that some of the characteristics he talks about are often on display right here.

[Goblinmonger]

69. color me shocked n/t

[varkam]

77. Hey! Welcome back!

We missed you! :hi:

[Evoman]

86. Hedge's view is gaining greater recognition because the world is full of idiots and assholes.

[HamdenRice]

87. The following is not a coherent argument ------>

But thanks, because your response is a proof positive example of why Hedges is correct.

[Goblinmonger]

106. First of all

Evoman is not a blonde whitey.

Secondly, you think THAT was whining? Perhaps assholeish, but not tantrumy.

[Evoman]

110. Look below, I did say he was correct.

And Goblinmonger was right...I'm not whining, I'm being an asshole. Believe me, I don't ever fucking whine. It isn't how I deal with my problems. That's probably why I'm so fucking scary to assholes like Hedges.

[TZ]

129. and apparantly

scary to certain people on this board who think anyone who disagrees with them is the moral equivalent of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
Including even one believer.....
I know the author of this thread meant well, but if someone wants to claim that atheists *don't* get bashed, insulted and stereotyped in this forum, this thread is the perfect comeback on that point.

[Meshuga]

133. I have reason to believe

that he comes in here determined to throw the "Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot" insult and since he cannot find a legitimate reason to do so he will read only the parts of the posts that are convenient for him to create his desired context and ignores the rest of the post that explains the real point of view of the poster. I wonder who he thinks he is fooling. :crazy:

[TZ]

79. Somebody let me know

when athiests start blowing up people in the name of atheism. Or starts suppressing science in the name of atheism or starts telling women what to do with their bodies in the name of atheism.
Yeah. Us atheists are a real danger. RUN there's ONE in Congress. He's gonna suppress us all.
Give me a break. Fundies actually have their slimy hands on the power in this country. Atheists still have to worry about being fired because of their lack of beliefs. Yeah. We are dangerous.:crazy:

[HamdenRice]

88. OK, look here --------------->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x150141

You can also google "pol pot" and "buddhist temples". Or "league of belligerant atheists" and "Soviet Union."

Your welcome in advance!

[TZ]

92. Where is the Soviet Union today?

Where is Pol Pot today? The biggest slaughter in history is STILL the Holocaust which was perpetuated by CATHOLICS!
Did atheists blow up the WTC? Are atheists blowing up innocent civilians in Israel.
Don't give me those tired old Stalin memes. They did not go around purposely killing ONLY religous people by the way..They killed anybody who disagreed with them.
If you want to go back farther we can dig up Jim Jones, David Koresh etc. There are FAR more zealots who do evil things in the name of God. Crusades anyone?

[HamdenRice]

93. All this in a thread about ...

an interview with Chris Hedges, in which Hedges points out that Harris advocates pre-emptively attacking Muslim Arab nations with nuclear weapons because of their beliefs and how they might act on those beliefs in the future.

Fortunately, Stalin and Pol Pot have gone out of business, but the idea of genocidal, fundamentalist atheist extremism marches on, waiting for its next avatar to turn words into action.

Your inability to see this -- to reconcile with demonstrable fact -- proves the point Hedges is making.

[TZ]

99. would you like to find any post of mine

Where *I* advocate nuking anyone? Hedges is proving his IGNORANCE. Harris or Hitchens (whom I think is a fucking scumbag btw) ideas aren't indicative of most people. Most of the people I hear making the stupid lets nuke the Arabs comments are FUNDIES.
Really..I would like you to point to ANY atheist on this board who EVER believes that nuking all the muslims or advocating violence agaisnt any believers is acceptable
This guy Hedges is bad news because he is broad brushing people into the worst type of stereotypes. Now who else do we know who does this? Maybe some idiot in the WH?

[bananas]

192. "Most of the people I hear making the stupid lets nuke the Arabs comments are FUNDIES."

And Harris advocates that.
QED.

[TZ]

193. Religious fundamentalists

Like Pat Robertson. Once again, you are making the stupid atheist fundamentalist argument. Really considering its illegal to hold office in many states and you CAN BE FIRED FOR BEING AN ATHEIST makes me wonder why people think they are dangerous.
THe ones who scream about Harris et al usually are the ones least secure in their beliefs.

[and-justice-for-all]

80. Chris Hedges is a smuck...

"Chris Hedges explains why New Atheists like Christopher Hitchens are as dangerous as Christian fundamentalists."

I highly disagree with this bullshit statement. We, Non theist, are not going to kill anyone nor advocate that anyone does in the name of Atheism. There is no such thing as Fundamentalist Atheism either, the term Fundamentalist came from Protestant nuts in Ireland to represent their literal belief in imaginary friends and the bible.

This ridiculous tag that Atheist or 'New Atheist' are some how just as dangerous as religious nuts is absurd. All Hedges is saying to me with this drivel is that since Non theist are speaking out, they are now just as dangerous as religious fundamentalist, utter bullshit.

"the New Atheists and the Christian right pose the greatest threat facing American democratic society today.'

Hedges and people like him are reaching hard for anything that may detour people from the fact that 'belief' in imaginary friends and all it entails is not a requirement, as well as the reality of religious belief.

If Hedges rides that fence post any harder, he is going to get splinters.

[Evoman]

85. He's damn fucking right we're dangerous.

There is nothing more dangerious to religious assholes than a free mind. That's why they keep trying to kill us. Fuck Hedges, fuck christianity, and fuck religion.

Religion is the lamest thing on the freakin planet. I've said it once, I'll say it again. I would be embarrased if I believed in a religion.

[charlie]

95. Heh. I can't help but wonder

how much of this is projection from his encounter with Hitchens. Hedges is quite brilliant and can hold his own. But there's no bottom to how low Hitch will go to win an argument. After getting flayed by the imperturbable and self-satisfied Hitchens, anyone can come away feeling they've met the world's locus of evil.

[cosmik debris]

97. Nice analysis. I agree, Hitchens is almost all evil.

The fact that he happens to be an atheist is not much credit to him or to atheists.

[charlie]

100. Yeah, Hitchens is a near worthless shit anymore

A stirring polemicist with the conscience of a hyena.

Hedges' plaintive objection that Hitchens is amoral is a pretty good indication that he had no idea who Hitch was. Getting sandbagged as an apologist for suicide-murderers when he proposed no one can be certain how they'd react if a state power killed their family clearly stung him. Apparently, he didn't know about Hitchen's past as a rationalizer for Trotsky's endorsement of state terror. Nor was he aware of Hitch's recent appearance before Dobson's dominionist youth brigade, lauding them for their uprightness in the War on Whatever.

[PassingFair]

111. But he's SO HOT!!

:puke:

[varkam]

142. He is a good writer, though.

That's worth something, at least. :D

[muriel_volestrangler]

143. An essay on this, by Hedges: Moral progress is impossible

The New Atheist authors, from Richard Dawkins to Sam Harris to Daniel Dennett to Christopher Hitchens, embrace a belief system as intolerant, chauvinistic, and bigoted as that of religious fundamentalists. They too propose a route to collective salvation. They too believe in the moral advancement of the human species, this time through science and reason. The utopian dream of a perfect society and a perfect human being, the idea that we are moving toward collective salvation, is one of the most dangerous legacies of the Christian faith and of the Enlightenment. Those who believe in the possibility of this perfection often call for the silencing or eradication of human beings who are defined by them as impediments to human progress. They turn their particular good into a universal good. They are blind to their own corruption and capacity for evil. They soon commit evil not for evil's sake but to make a better world. And they do this in the name of religion or science or reason.
...
These atheists share a naïve belief with these fundamentalists in our innate goodness and decency. They, like all religious fundamentalists, fail to grasp the dark reality of human nature, our own capacity for evil, and the morally neutral universe we inhabit. There is nothing in human nature or human history to support the idea that we are morally advancing as a species or that we will overcome the flaws of human nature. We progress technologically and scientifically, but not morally. We use the newest instruments of technological and scientific progress to create more efficient forms of killing, repression, and economic exploitation and to accelerate environmental degradation as well as to nurture and sustain life. There is a good and a bad side to human progress. We are not moving toward a glorious utopia. We are not moving anywhere.

Most of these atheists, like the Christian fundamentalists, support the imperialist projects and preemptive wars of the United States as a necessity. They see the war in Iraq and the greater conflict in the Middle East as an attack on irrational religion and a fight for the civilizing values of western culture. They too divide the world into superior and inferior races, those who are enlightened by reason and knowledge and those who are governed by irrational and dangerous religious beliefs. Hitchens and Harris — who asks us to consider a nuclear first strike on the Arab world — describe the Muslim world, where I spent seven years, most of them as the Middle East Bureau Chief for the New York Times, in language that is as racist, crude, and intolerant as that used by Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell. These authors are as culturally, historically, and linguistically illiterate as Christian fundamentalists, reducing one-fifth of the world's population to their cartoonish visions of what it means to be a Muslim. They are a secular version of the religious right.
...
These authors, for all their airs of sophistication and learning, are deeply anti-intellectual. They engage in the same chauvinism and call for the same violent utopianism of the radical Christian Right. They sell this under secular banners, but this does not excuse it. They believe, like the Christian Right, that we are moving forward to a paradise, a state of human perfection made possible this time by science and reason. They argue, like these Christian radicals, that some human beings, maybe many human beings, have to be eradicated to achieve this better world. They see only one truth — their truth. Human beings must become like them, think like them, and adopt their values, which they insist are universal, or be banished from civilized society. All other values, which they never investigate or examine, are dismissed as inferior.

http://www.powells.com/essays/chrishedges.html?utm_source=powellsbooks.news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pbnews_20080312&utm_content=CHRIS%20HEDGES%3A%20ORIGINAL%20ESSAY

Wow. I think Hedges has a deeply pessimistic view - that we all contain evil, and will never lessen the amount of it, or how it affects society. Anyone who suggests otherwise is apparently anti-intellectual, and is 'anti-Darwinian', and will soon turn to violent means to achieve their (impossible) end. Suggesting progress from our current state would be a Good Thing is a "squalid little belief system" that the New Atheists build in the service of themselves and their own power, he says. You'd think these New Atheists were in charge of a government or something, instead of being writers.

I think he's deeply, and obviously, wrong, and an anti-social git, when it comes down to it.

[Jim__]

144. Do you think humanity is making moral progress?

There is an awful lot of his essay that I disagree with. I haven't seen the tendencies that he ascribes to "new atheists" in Dawkins, and from the little bit I've read of Dennett, I don't see these tendencies in him. However, if he is correct that Harris wants to consider a nuclear attack on Arab states then I definitely consider Harris's ideas dangerous. Hitchens supports the neocon agenda, and so I also consider him dangerous.

But, I think the question about whether or not we're making moral progress is important. Certainly, looking at the state of the world, and particularly at the state of the US today, I don't see that we've made much moral progress in the last few hundred years. The US, at its founding, represented a great hope for humanity, the hope of self-governance. But, to me, that hope appears to be fading. The use of torture, the stock-piling of nuclear weapons, the attacks on civilian populations; all these things argue strongly that we are not making any moral progress.

Can we progress? I have more hope than Hedges. But, rationality and intellect do seem a very weak part of human nature. We seem to be dominated by drives that were probably once necessary for survival; but, with the possession of these massively destructive weapons, those drives may now be suicidal. I don't see much evidence that we can overcome them.

I believe what Hedges is hammering on is that we need to recognize our own limitations. We need to recognize the danger that we're in. Historically, many good leaders, with the best of intentions, have led us to castastrophe. The first thing we have to do is get rid of these weapons. Anyone who is urging us to use them is an extreme danger to humanity. Anyone who doesn't recognize the danger and advocates violence is an extreme danger to humanity. Anyone who is advocating intolerance is an extreme danger to humanity. I think that's the issue that Hedges is raising. I think it's an important issue.

[muriel_volestrangler]

146. Some progress, yes

The warnings of Hedges that the 'New Atheists' consider force and violence good seem better aimed at Bush and Blair - religious believers both, though not normally called 'fundamentalist'. Harris may have a dangerous hatred of Islam, and Hitchens may be an enthusiastic neocon; but those are problems with those individuals - and who are still writers, rather than politicians with real power. Of course Dawkins recognises the limitations of humans - he's been writing about evolution for over 30 years, and things like the advantages of cooperation between individuals in the long run, but how some individuals try to take personal advantage of the trust of others. But by lumping Dawkins and Dennett in with Hitchens and Harris, Hedges is creating a straw man of a 'movement', and ascribing views to it that aren't a part of it.

Things that were acceptable hundreds of years ago are either now unacceptable, or less widely acceptable. Slavery, for instance; the death penalty, which was once given for stealing, is now gone from many countries, and other countries are on the way to abolishing it. Women's rights have improved in most countries; the idea of democracy, in which each adult gets to have a say in the basic rules of their society, is a moral improvement on a hereditary system, a colonial one, a theocratic one, or a dictatorial one. There's more democracy than there was one hundred years ago, or fifty. Many countries have a form of state pension, and maybe health care, that people get as a right - I think that's moral progress too, as opposed to people saying "it's up to people to provide for themselves, even if they die if they fail", or leaving it to the chance of charity.

I'm not saying that progress is inevitable, or steady (and Hedges seems to accuse 'the New Atheists' of believing this, and that humans can become 'perfect', though it's not a message I remember reading in 'The End of Faith' or 'The God Delusion', the 2 recent books by Hedges' targets that I've read); a few things might even look worse, particularly in a specific country or region, on some timescales. The US may have seemed 'a great hope' at the start, but it had slavery, and great sexual inequality, and it was quick to attack civilian American Indians to get hold of land. I think the US is better than it was 200 years ago.

Weapons are more destructive now, and I can't forsee the future, so I can't say for sure the worst of them won't be used; but countries have held back from using the worst, by and large, in the last few years. We have a chance. And one thing the 'New Atheists' say is that this life is all we've got - leaders can't rely on an afterlife in which they hope they'll be justified in sending anyone there earlier.

[Jim__]

149. I agree with most of what you say.

I have 2 main concerns:

1. Moral progress is tentative at best, and a lack of moral progress may imply that we are constrained by our nature.
2. In light of the current weapons systems, dangerous ideas need to be exposed.

I'm not defending Hedges claims about "new atheists". In general, I don't consider these claims valid. I do agree about the danger he sees in bigoted, chauvinistic and intolerant ideas. It’s unfortunate that Hedges blunts his attack by not focusing it where it belongs, namely on Harris (assuming he is correct in what he says about Harris) and Hitchens.

As to our progress, I agree we eliminated slavery from the US. However, based on my understanding of the Chinese labor market, at least parts of it amounts to slave labor. The Chinese labor market is an integral part of our economy. So, I fear that we may be re-implementing slavery as a part of our economy.

I agree that the elimination of the death penalty is progress. This progress may be offset by the increased use of military power, with no consideration for civilian populations, and the increased threat from earth shattering weapons systems.

I also agree that the US made a lot of progress over 200 years. But, I seriously question whether we are still on the right path. Big money, corporate money saturates and corrupts our political system. The people can still take this back, and I hope we do. But, the current political scene doesn't really offer much hope. My fear is that we are regressing politically.

Scientific progress has led to great strides in health care, agricultural systems, energy utilization, etc. However, scientific progress, in and of itself, is neutral. The beneficial effects of science must be weighed against the threats that arise. Nuclear weapons and the potential weaponization of space threaten the survival of mankind. The question is, can we overcome the human instinct to act against perceived threats.

I also agree that atheists may better understand our predicament than people who believe there is another life. But, anyone who is intolerant of other opinions, anyone who thinks we can improve our condition through preemptive war or preemptive nuclear strikes, is a danger and should be exposed as such. It’s true that Hitchens and Harris don’t have any political power. However, as relatively popular authors, they have the power to spread their ideas. If some of their ideas are dangerous, they need to be exposed as such. Hedges does this. It’s too bad that Hedges didn’t focus his attack.

[HamdenRice]

154. I don't think he's saying there cannot be moral progress

He is questioning the idea of moral progress toward perfection -- an idea embraced by religious fundamentalists, neo-conservatives, American "exceptionalists," communists (as opposed to socialists) and, yes, new atheists.

You might take a look at a great book by the economic anthropologist, James Scott, "Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed."

Scott shows how a certain kind of belief in the ability of experts to improve and even perfect human life underly various schools of thought that might seem very different on the surface.

Scott calls the underlying idea "high modernism." He sees it in 19th century German forestry (which ended up killing forests), the modernist architecture of Corbusier and his followers (which created sterile, dysfuctional "modernist" cities like Brasilia), communism (with its planned economies that collapsed due to inefficiency), and villagization in 1960s-70s Tanzania (the benevolent plan of a beloved, non-violent African political leader, Julius Nyerere, to bring services to the rural poor that ended up being implemented by burning down villages and forcing people to move at gun point). It's the idea that experts with "scientific" knowledge in political centers are in the best position to make decisions for very large groups of people and landscapes "out there" in the periphery. According to Scott, most of the human institutions and landscapes that high modernism seeks to manage are better managed through decentralized decision-making by people who have local knowledge and expertise.

Hedges is saying that new atheists have the same naive faith that centrally imposed (pseudo) scientific knowledge can automatically perfect humanity by stamping out "ignorance" in the form of religion and other non-conforming ideologies.

Most people who take this position are not saying moral progress is impossible. They are saying centrally imposed plans of moral progress according to centrally dictated plans with the goal of perfecting society are doomed to fail, while also being unable to see their own catastrophic results.

Iraq is a perfect example. We may have eliminated slavery, but our government just killed over a million people in order to "rid the world of evil," and even one of our Democratic nominees, Hillary, thinks that we have given the Iraqis the precious gift of "freedom."

[muriel_volestrangler]

155. Here are the quotes from that essay where Hedges talks about moral progress

and says there is no such thing.

"There is nothing in human nature or human history to support the idea that we are morally advancing as a species or that we will overcome the flaws of human nature. We progress technologically and scientifically, but not morally."

"We are not moving toward a glorious utopia. We are not moving anywhere."

"The illusion of human progress, in the name of evolutionary biology, is actually anti-Darwinian. And in this the New Atheists are honest neither about science nor Darwin. Science is used by them to supplant religion, to provide meaning and hope. It is used to assuage these innate religious yearnings. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative, albeit morally neutral, it gives the illusion that human history and human progress is also cumulative."

And there are more that are qualified by attacking the idea of 'progress to perfection' - which isn't something I can remember reading in either Dawkins or Harris (though I did get sufficiently irritated reading Harris that I might have missed a claim of achievable perfection while concentrating on what I saw as other flaws in the book). It's a shame this essay, and the interview in the OP, never specify where he's picked up the idea that 'New Atheists' claim the perfectibility of humans. I'd like to read the passages concerned, because I wonder if Hedges hasn't just grossly misinterpreted them.

[cynatnite]

145. I'm still trying to figure out what a 'new atheist' is

:wtf:

This is some pretty fucked up crap this guy is spewing.

[trotsky]

148. It's prettty simple.

"New atheist" = same old atheist who's been here since the first god was postulated, except they're expressing an opinion instead of shutting up and allowing religion to carry on uncontested.

[TZ]

150. I'm going to disagree a bit

"new atheist"= whatever the hell fundies want to label atheists out of fear. Oh and to justify their persecution complex.
"Help me! teh evul new atheists want to destroy all religion and ban all christians..":D

[trotsky]

151. Well that's just your atheist fundamentalist dogma.

Don't you have some big pharma kickback checks to cash?

[Lithos]

159. Kick for combining

n/t

[kanrok]

160. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Foreign correspondent and intellectual provocateur Chris Hedges explains why New Atheists like Christopher Hitchens are as dangerous as Christian fundamentalists.

By Charly Wilder
March 13, 2008

...While speaking out against the Christian fundamentalist movement and its political agenda, Hedges noticed another group -- this one on the left --conspicuously allied with the neocons on the subject of America's role in world politics. The New Atheists, as they have been called, include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and bestselling author and journalist Christopher Hitchens -- outspoken secularists who depict religious structures and the belief in God as backward and anti-democratic.

Though Hedges, a Harvard seminary graduate and the son of a Presbyterian minister, considers himself a religious man, his quarrel with the New Atheists goes beyond theological concerns. In "I Don't Believe in Atheists," he accuses Hitchens and the others of preaching a fundamentalism as dangerous as the religious fundamentalist belief systems they attack. Strange bedfellows indeed -- according to Hedges, the New Atheists and the Christian right pose the greatest threat facing American democratic society today...

...In May of 2007 I went to L.A. to debate Sam Harris, and then two days later I went to San Francisco to debate Christopher Hitchens. Up until that point, I hadn't paid much attention to the work of the New Atheists. After reading what they had written and walking away from these debates, I was appalled at how what they had done for the secular left was to embrace the same kind of bigotry and chauvinism and intolerance that marks the radical Christian right. I found that in many ways they were little more than secular fundamentalists.


http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/\

He makes some good points.

[phantom power]

161. remind me, why are we atheists "fundamentalists?"

and what were the the good points that he made?

[beam me up scottie]

178. This should explain it:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

162. Sigh...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x166555

[Hydra]

163. He does, to a point

But I disagree with two of his points- an atheist who supports war and torture is not a lefty, he's a neocon. Second, "sin" as a concept is irrelevant. These people believe with all their hearts that they have the moral high ground for any number of reasons, and they don't see the need to question that erroneous belief since it works so well for them.

Prison is really a better answer than talking to people like that.

[no_hypocrisy]

164. What is the "sin" of religious neutrality in public affairs and government?

It's what the Founding Fathers intended and neutrality keeps this country from becoming the Balkans with sectarian groups suspicous of one another.

[maxsolomon]

165. no he doesn't

the "new atheists" do not seek to impose their views on believers. they seek to free our culture from the requirement of DEFERING to monotheistic faith. the freedom NOT to believe, and to have that option be acceptable in our society.

Witness the opinion of the 41st POTUS:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

[moggie]

166. This again?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=165861&mesg_id=165861

[Hydra]

172. Thanks for the pointer

Too bad a few people on that discussion were so ridiculously making stuff up, but it's sometimes useful to have a bunch of fools point to something in reverence so we can see how absurd it really is.

[RaleighNCDUer]

167. Gee, maybe you could point me to the inspired text which reveals

the fundamentals of my non-belief.

:rofl:

Just another nut job trying to convince the world that atheism is a secular religion -whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.

[sinkingfeeling]

168. I think Hedges has a strange interpretation of the terms. I do try to avoid his writings in general.

[damntexdem]

169. I'm not sure about agnostics.

Actually, there ARE fundamentalist atheists -- who can be just as true-believing and bigoted as many religious believers. But there are many tolerant atheists who just don't happen to believe. Some are even so tolerant that they tolerate agnostics like me!

[Warpy]

170. I don't believe in the sanity of theists who can only define

atheists in their own terms of belief.

I certainly don't believe in the sanity of a theist who casually tosses the word "fundamentalist" at people who have nothing to be fundamental about. Does Hedges not possess a dictionary?

Most of us would prefer it if theists like Hedges would just bugger off and stick to what they know and debate the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin and leave the definition of atheist to atheists.

His attempt to put any of us into a nice little theistic box with a ribbon on it has failed miserably.

[cosmik debris]

171. You said "He makes some good points."

Perhaps you would be so kind as to indicate which points are good and tell us why.

My opinion is that the whole business is nonsense. I didn't see any good points there.

[Ron Green]

173. Here's a point I think is good, and important:

"I think both the Christian right and the New Atheists in essence don't believe in their own sin, because they externalize evil."

To the extent that an individual (or a government) projects its dark side onto someone else, and does not accept both the good and evil of the self, madness, strife and death result. I suggest that spiritual practices, applied in love and tolerance, with the humility of one's own status as a sinner, connect us across cultures. Obviously, the converse is true that intolerant and fear-based religion, in its projection of evil onto another, is destructive.

I believe Hedges' point that militant "New Atheists" leave no room for spiritual communion with those unlike ourselves and therefore take a warlike stance against certain groups of people is a good point.

[phantom power]

174. show me an atheist who externalizes their evil.

[Ron Green]

175. The actions of Christopher Hitchens seem to bear this out.

He demonizes people in Gaza and the West Bank, calling for violence upon them based upon their violence. The acts of understanding or forgiveness aren't possible in this sort of thinking.

[muriel_volestrangler]

179. Christopher Hitchens is a subset of "New Atheists"

and taking his views as belonging to all of the 'New Atheists' is no way to argue something. You can look at Richard Dawkins, who opposed the invasion of Iraq, for a very different political view from Hitchens.

[Jim__]

176. For example ...

The knowledge exist by which universal happiness can be secured; the chief obstacle to its utilization for that purpose is the teaching of religion. Religion prevents our children from having a rational education; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental causes of war; Religion prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific co-operation in the place of old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment. It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and that dragon is religion.

from Bertrand Russell - Why I am not a Christian, pg 47. 1957

This was quoted approvingly on DU in the Atheists and Agnostics Group.

I disagreed with that quote in the thread. War is not an artifact of religion. There is a lot of evidence that it is an evolutionary trait inherited by humans. The Yanomamo, a primitive tribe in South America have wars that have a strong resemblance to the wars that chimpanzees engage in, as documented in Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. The resemblance of the Yanomamo's violence to that of other primates is also briefly discussed (warning: graphic descriptions of violence) here.

I think Russell's statement is a definite confirmation of one of Hedges claims:

Unfortunately, what they've (the new atheists - Jim) done is offer a Utopian belief system that is as self-delusional as that offered by Christian fundamentalists. They adopt many of the foundational belief systems of fundamentalists. For example, they believe that the human species is marching forward, that there is an advancement toward some kind of collective moral progress -- that we are moving towards, if not a Utopian, certainly a better, more perfected human society. That's fundamental to the Christian right, and it's also fundamental to the New Atheists.

Russell's claims about universal happiness and ending war definitely seem both utopian and delusional.

[phantom power]

180. Using a chemistry analogy, I would say religion is a "catalyst" for war.

I actually agree with you that the evolutionary roots of warfare are older than the invention of religion.

What I do think, is that religion lowers the psychological barriers to warfare, like a catalyst lowers the energy barrier for a chemical reaction:

1) religion amplifies our innate tribalism, by implying that some potential enemy is "ok" to hate and fear.

2) belief in an afterlife counteracts people's natural fear of death. that goes double, if some demagogue is telling the flock that fighting their war will get them into heaven, and not fighting their war will land them in hell.

3) religion sanctions "received" knowledge as a good way to understand the world. It suppresses critical thinking, and generally makes it easy for demagogues to tell a whole lot of people what to do. those who question authority are easy to threaten, by expulsion, or demonization, or making them into a scapegoat.


I think that in a hypothetical world of atheists, there would still be all these things, but it would be a great deal harder for the Bushes and bin Ladens of the world to sucker the rest of us into their sociopathic power games.

At the very least, when we fought each other, we would have to do so without the illusion that some god said it was the right thing to do, and that if we died fighting, we'd get into heaven for it.

[Jim__]

181. I agree that religion has a lot of bad effects.

Its difficult to tease apart the bad effects of religion from its good effects. I assume it has good effects because it is so common; it likely had some survival advantage. Even the things that you list as disadvantages of religion, and I agree that these things (tribalism, willingness to die for the cause, and willingness to follow leaders) can be bad; they can also lead to strong groups and that can confer a survival advantage on the group.

It may be that, today, we have to recognize everyone as part of our group rather than some selected tribe. And, religion may work against that. However, I think we still have to be careful about breaking down groups and becoming extremely individualistic, say along the lines proposed by Ayn Rand. That can lead to the breakdown of society.

We're in a hell of a predicament today because all the survival mechanisms that brought us to this point may now be working against us. But, part of our predicament is that we don't want to divide into 2 bitterly opposed camps, e.g. atheists versus the religious. People may not think these bitter arguments are dangerous. But, in 1517, when Martin Luther, the Catholic monk, nailed his theses to the door, he wanted to reform the Catholic church. No one in Europe would have believed that this act would lead to 200 years of brutal war. We can't afford to be that wrong today. We, atheists and the religious, need to talk to each other civilly. That's the point I think we need to be conscious of.

[Ron Green]

182. Indeed. We don't need to get rid of religion (not that we ever could), we need BETTER religion.

People are obviously hard-wired to join together in facing the Great Mysteries, and to embrace belief systems. If love rather than fear can be the currency of these beliefs, we have a chance.

[pegleg]

184. I don't know, in the "hypothetical world of atheists" such as

say Stalin's world or the one in which the communist Chinese live - oppression and suppression seem to have no trouble surviving unhindered.

[beam me up scottie]

177. Richard Dawkins is "allied with the neocons on the subject of America's role in world politics" ?

Yeah, right.

[pegleg]

183. Brilliant and true comparison.

Both groups are inherently dangerous to democracy and free thought.

[cosmik debris]

187. The problem is that one group has millions of members

The other group has three or four members.

The author created the group "new atheists". It is the author's artificial grouping of people that he doesn't like--for the purpose of insulting them. It is hardly a real group comparable to fundamentalists Christians.

[muriel_volestrangler]

188. "inherently dangerous to democracy and free thought"? Bollocks

In what way are atheists of any kind "inherently dangerous to democracy and free thought"?

[cyborg_jim]

189. No, you're inherently dangerous to democracy and freethought!

And must be banned immediately!

[beam me up scottie]

185. No one should believe in Chris Hedges' atheists.

Ancient humans made up gods for power and profit, Hedges makes up "New" atheists for the same reasons.

Plus he's still pissed because Harris and Hitchens wiped the floor with him.

[varkam]

186. Of course *you* would say that, BMUS

You're just a fundamentalist atheist :D

[beam me up scottie]

190. But but but...it's not my fault!

[New Dawn]

191. The problem with sHitchens is that he is a Neocon.

[pegleg]

195. deleted

[pegleg]

196. The problem with Hitchens and Dawkins is that they are bigots

who use their special powers of truncated reasoning to discredit and degrade another group and its beliefs. Not all atheists are bigots. But Dawkins and Hitchens have influenced many others, which reflect tactics used by some right wing groups.

[muriel_volestrangler]

199. What, bigoted like sayign a group is "inherently dangerous to democracy and free thought"?

Do you think language like that would count as discrediting and degrading a group?

[trotsky]

200. Ka-POW!

Nice one, m_v.

[pegleg]

202. I certainly put them in the same class as any right wing religious demagogue

who attempts to force their opinion on others. The freedom of thought that radical atheists and hunanists speak of is the same freedom of thought espoused by the Chinese in Tibet, in the old Soviet Union, in Saudi Arabia, and by the RW religious extremists in the US. Their freedom of thought amounts to nothing more than doctrine and that is a threat to democracy.
Personally, I don't give a flying fidittle what anyone thinks, says, believes, or worships, BUT when they begin to hinder the freedom of others to do the same or try to force their way as the only way - then that is a major threat to the freedom to reason, thought, and democracy. What humanists call reason is reason according to certain standards. Right Wing Christian reasoning is reasoning according to their standards,and so it goes for all other groups who would proclaim their superior skills of thought and reason.

[muriel_volestrangler]

203. What doctrine?

[Goblinmonger]

201. "special powers of truncated reasoning"

sounds like the powers of some second-rate comic book villain. I think that phrase is going in my sig line it is so damn hilarious.

1. what are they bigoted against?
2. how is their reasoning truncated? (hint: be specific here because there are many of us on this forum that are well versed in logic)
3. "influencing many others" is a "tactic(s) used by some right wing groups"? How dare they influence people.

The problem with Hitchens and Dawkins is that they say things that you and that asshole Hedges don't want to hear.

[GreenEyedLefty]

205. I read this whole damn thread. LOL

I have a few thoughts:

There aren't enough atheists to be "dangerous" or a "threat." It's flattering but atheists don't make up the huge voting bloc that Christian fundamentalists do. Their only "weapon" is the written and spoken word, which I suppose can be viewed as dangerous but the reality is, affecting change is a numbers game. If things change because of atheism, it's because there are enough fed-up people, religious and otherwise, to get off their butts to do it.

Fundamentalism isn't so much about strict adherence to any specific doctrine (how many hypocrites do we know personally??) as converting people to the doctrine, by persuasion or even perhaps by force. I'm sure there are fundamentalist atheists, but there are probably some fundamentalists Buddhists out there, too.

It's one thing to criticize Christianity or Islam as systems vs. criticizing or attacking people who subscribe to them. I think Harris does much more of the former than the latter.

[Unvanguard]

206. Speaking as a rather ardent atheist

I found that interview quite interesting, and honestly I think Hedges has a point: "secular fundamentalism" in a sense is laden with imperialism. It's bound up with a failure to understand other human beings as rational beings, to see where they are coming from, rather than lambasting them with accusations and attacks... and in that sense it parallels the denial of human dignity at the heart of imperialism, the one that suggests that others need to be "enlightened."