....
Ignore everything I said, its just that Hitchens is an "apostate" and not "nicey-nice" and nothing to do with his dishonest, anti-rational, polemic.
If Harris, et. al. are "anti-rational," then rational thinking does not exist.
If Harris, et. al. are "anti-rational," then rational thinking does not exist.
For someone paying tribute to "the rational", you seem incapable of even reading a sentence. Hint:"Hitchens"
It appears you stopped reading after that sentence of mine that you quoted. Here's what I continued to say:
You may disagree with much of the political views espoused by Hitchens, but that doesn't make him "anti-rational" (or "dishonest," for that matter).
Except, of course, when they put unity on atheism higher than other sorts of unity that are more important. Like unity against a predatory war. Like unity in support of human, or labour, or women's rights.
Then they're just wrong.
Being wrong, or failing to join your causes, or even joining parties and causes you disapprove of is hardly a crusade. Really not in the same ballpark as invading a continent and making everyone there turn from their belief to yours, and/or die. Heck, it's not even in a league with telling science teachers that they must give equal time to Darwin's book and Grimm's.
Besides, you know how hard it is to unite people who believe in the same thing. Well, imagine trying to unite people who disbelieve in the same thing. Coz that's all atheists have in common. Writers and outspoken activists may get attention, even admiration - but definitely not unquestioning obedience. That's in the Atheists' Constitution: "no gods". Well, in fact, that is the entire text of the Atheists' Constitution.
Are they saying that atheism is more important or critical than any other subject? No. But, they are clearly arguing that atheism is critical to good thinking, whatever the politics of that thinking may be.Islamophobia - to the point of supporting predatory wars against Muslim countries - is a lot more harmful than mainstream Islam. And such Ismalophobia is PRECISELY where some of these "atheists" are coming from. Dawkins even toys with the idea of supporting "the enemy of his enemy" by supporting the "Christian" west against the "Muslim" east. This is the War of Civilizations so loved by Conservative fundamentalists like Samuel Huntington and other right wing misanthropes.
I think the two most-destructive religions (of any significance) on this planet are Islam and Christianity. By making that judgment, does that make me an Islamophobe and a Christophobe?
Are they saying that atheism is more important or critical than any other subject? No. But, they are clearly arguing that atheism is critical to good thinking, whatever the politics of that thinking may be.
If you need to be spoon-fed, then fine.
Islamophobia - to the point of supporting predatory wars against Muslim countries - is a lot more harmful than mainstream Islam. And such Islamophobia is PRECISELY where some of these "atheists" are coming from. Dawkins even toys with the idea of supporting "the enemy of his enemy" by supporting the "Christian" west against the "Muslim" east. This is the War of Civilizations so loved by Conservative fundamentalists like Samuel Huntington and other right wing misanthropes.
I notice that you carefully avoided the main question that I've raised here. What is more harmful? Islam or making war?
It's a pity that even when I spell it out, W-A-R, you still don't get it.
If Harris, et. al. are "anti-rational," then rational thinking does not exist.
For someone paying tribute to "the rational", you seem incapable of even reading a sentence. Hint:"Hitchens"
It appears you stopped reading after that sentence of mine that you quoted. Here's what I continued to say:
You may disagree with much of the political views espoused by Hitchens, but that doesn't make him "anti-rational" (or "dishonest," for that matter).
You start your "argument" by a bald-faced fabrication of who I was talking about, so what you continue on to say is not pertinent in that regard.
As for your following sentence in itself: following the documented trail from my previous citations regarding the honesty of Hitchens polemic should be a good start to refute your claim. A perusal of his Slate columns would clinch it.
Should the plain evidence of his rhetorical slight of hand not be obvious to you, I could fall back on his own autobiography where he readily admits his early Trotskyist training in "chopping logic" has come in handy in later life.
contrarianna, is it fair to say that your beef with Hitchen is (1) focused on his political views, not his specific views regarding atheism and (2) only with Hitchens, and not with "new atheists" generally?
contrarianna, is it fair to say that your beef with Hitchen is (1) focused on his political views, not his specific views regarding atheism and (2) only with Hitchens, and not with "new atheists" generally?
I have absolutely no problem with atheists qua atheists, as I have stated before.
(If I did it would entail a quirky kind of self-loathing).
The designation "new atheists" in itself is a politicized term.
Firstly, in its most benign form, public advocacy/defense of atheism.
This is not a problem with me either, and given the anti-secular assaults from politicized religion, it's justifiable.
But like some politicized religion there can be, and is, a darker side.
Those who enlist personal ideology in a tribal solidarity to wage war against the "other".
An illustrative case in point is two threads of Bush-era neoconservatism.
Karl Rove (whom Hitchens claims is an atheist) was also the architect of bringing the Christian right into play in a much amplified political role for Bush's war against a demonized and threatening "other".
On the other thread, atheism has a substantial following among the educated: those who read politics, and those who make up the elite and are political decision makers.
It was natural that there would be some who would successfully exploit this pool of anti-religious sentiment (as a beleaguered clan) to demonize entire populations for the purpose of furthering empire.
A number of "new atheists" participate in this rhetoric, not all, and none so self-consciously Machiavellian as Hitchens.
I think the two most-destructive religions (of any significance) on this planet are Islam and Christianity. By making that judgment, does that make me an Islamophobe and a Christophobe?
Naw, just sensible. You left out Judaism, father to both these terrible young religions - had you included it, you'd be called far worse than a -phobe.
I really don't see that W-A-R has much to do with being an atheist, Muslim, Jew or Christian. It usually has a lot more to do with wanting somebody else's land, oil and gold. Religion is just the quickest, cheapest, easiest way to fire up the masses, because the psychological infrastructure already exists; the buttons have been installed, and the guys who know how to push those buttons are always ready to put their congregations in the service of their own aggrandizement.
And i truly don't believe that notoriety, or even celebrity, carries the same power as established authority. I don't believe "the new atheist" icons have any influence on any country's foreign policy. Can you imagine the US deciding to stop bribing the Pakistani government to pretend to cooperate, because Dawkins thinks it's a bad idea?
still, the most sensible atheist is Chomsky. I think he can still relate to and understand religious people, work with them, etc. He just admits that he doesn't believe the same things they do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewP5tNLBb2E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNDG7ErY-k4&feature=related
Another argument for atheism suggests that God is not real because people have had a "motivation to invent God". If such a motive exists, it must be considered that God is just a creation of humans.
What is the motivation to invent God? - to explain how we got here, for one.
God was invented at a time when there was little knowledge of how to explain how we got here, but now that we can do that in a biological way we should be able to rid our culture of this mis-conceived notion of God.
Also, God is a creation of insecure humans. We have, in our past at least, been so utterly exposed to deadly forces [of nature mostly] that we needed the idea of God as protector, and if we do die today then we still have the eternal life, to give us the courage to continue living. It was the big human brain and the unique-to-life-on-earth human awareness that brought on this insecurity - we were the first living thing that could understand death.
Logic: "if you have motivation to kill your neighbor, and then he is found dead, you are a suspect". Its pretty simple, like early humans and religious people!!
