Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and “New Atheists” aren’t new, aren’t even atheists

First topic message reminder :

EXCLUSIVE: Renowned scholar calls Harris, Dawkins anti-theists, and as dogmatic, fundamentalist as true believers

Not long ago, I gave an interview in which I said that my biggest problem with so-called New Atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is that they give atheism a bad name. Almost immediately, I was bombarded on social media by atheist fans of the two men who were incensed that I would pontificate about a community to which I did not belong.

That, in and of itself, wasn’t surprising. As a scholar of religions, I’m used to receiving comments like this from the communities I study. What surprised me is how many of these comments appeared to take for granted that in criticizing New Atheism I was criticizing atheism itself, as though the two are one and the same. That seems an increasingly common mistake these days, with the media and the bestseller lists dominated by New Atheist voices denouncing religion as “innately backward, obscurantist, irrational and dangerous,” and condemning those who disagree as “religious apologists.”

To be sure, there is plenty to criticize in any religion and no ideology – religious or otherwise – should be immune from criticism. But when Richard Dawkins describes religion as “one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus,” or when Sam Harris proudly declares, “If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion,” it should be perfectly obvious to all that these men do not speak for the majority of atheists. On the contrary, polls show that only a small fraction of atheists in the U.S. share such extreme opposition to religious faith.

In fact, not only is the New Atheism not representative of atheism. It isn’t even mere atheism (and it certainly is not “new”). What Harris, Dawkins and their ilk are preaching is a polemic that has been around since the 18th century – one properly termed, anti-theism.

The earliest known English record of the term “anti-theist” dates back to 1788, but the first citation of the word can be found in the 1833 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, where it is defined as “one opposed to belief in the existence of a god” (italics mine). In other words, while an atheist believes there is no god and so follows no religion, an anti-theist opposes the very idea of religious belief, often viewing religion as an insidious force that must be rooted from society – forcibly if necessary.

The late Christopher Hitchens, one of the icons of the New Atheist movement, understood this difference well. “I’m not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist,” he wrote in his “Letters to a Young Contrarian.” “I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful.”

Anti-theism is a relatively new phenomenon. But atheism is as old as theism itself. For wherever we find belief in gods we find those who reject such beliefs. The American anthropologist Clifford Geertz thought he could trace atheism all the way back to Neanderthal communities. Atheism is certainly evident in some of the earliest Vedic writings from the Indian subcontinent. The Rig Veda, composed sometime around 1500 B.C., openly questions belief in a divine creator:

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
The gods themselves are later than creation,
So who knows truly whence it has arisen?

How far back one traces the concept of atheism depends on how one defines the word. The term “atheist” is derived from the Greek a-theos, meaning “without gods,” and was originally a pejorative for those whose actions were deemed impious or immoral. To the Greeks, an atheist didn’t necessarily reject the existence of the gods. He merely acted as though the gods did not exist or were unaware of his actions. Unfortunately, this historical connection between lack of belief and lack of morals is one that still plagues atheism today, despite studies showing atheists to be, as a whole, less prejudiced, less willing to condone violence, and more tolerant of sexual, ethnic and cultural differences than many faith communities.

In the modern world, however, atheism has become more difficult to define for the simple reason that it comes in as many forms as theism does. An atheist may explicitly reject the existence of a god or gods (this is sometimes called “positive atheism”), or he may simply consider god’s existence to be irrelevant in explaining the nature of the universe (“negative atheism”). Many atheists might just as easily describe themselves as agnostic, following in the footsteps of the famed English writer Aldous Huxley who rejected the idea of a personal deity yet still sought some measure of spiritual fulfillment. Some atheists are empiricists, arguing that our sensory experience should be our sole source of knowledge; others are materialists or “physicalists,” assuming that nothing can exist beyond the material realm – both reject metaphysics as a viable tool in understanding the nature of being.

For a great many atheists, atheism does not merely signify “lack of belief” but is itself a kind of positive worldview, one that “includes numerous beliefs about the world and what is in it,” to quote the atheist philosopher Julian Baggini. Baggini cautions against viewing atheism as a “parasitic rival to theism.” Rather, he agrees with the historian of religions James Thrower, who considers modern atheism to be “a self-contained belief system” – one predicated on a series of propositions about the nature of reality, the source of human morality, the foundation of societal ethics, the question of free will, and so on.

Thrower and others – most notably the historian David Berman – trace the emergence of atheism as a distinct worldview to the end of the Enlightenment era, which, not coincidentally, is also the time that anti-theism first arose. The Enlightenment’s emphasis on skepticism, reason and scientific advancement posed a direct challenge to religion in general, and Christianity in particular. That makes sense when you consider that Christianity was not only the sole religion with which many Enlightenment thinkers had any familiarity. It was an all-encompassing political presence in the lives of most Europeans, which is why the atheism of the Enlightenment was grounded less in denying the existence of God than in trying to liberate humanity from religion’s grip on earthly power.

The great Enlightenment thinkers Voltaire, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were severely critical of institutional religion, viewing it as a destructive force in society. But they did not explicitly reject God’s existence, nor were they opposed to the idea of religious belief. (There were, of course, numerous other Enlightenment figures who professed atheism, such as Jean Meslier and the French philosopher Baron d’Holbach.) On the contrary, they recognized the inherent value of religious belief in fostering social cohesion and maintaining order, and so sought a means of replacing religion as the basis for making moral judgments in European society. It was political transformation they wanted, not religious reform.

Yet in the century that followed the Enlightenment, a stridently militant form of atheism arose that merged the Enlightenment’s criticism of institutional religion with the strict empiricism of the scientific revolution to not only reject belief in God, but to actively oppose it. By the middle of the 19th century, this movement was given its own name – anti-theism – specifically to differentiate it from atheism.

It was around this time that anti-theism reached its peak in the writings of the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx famously viewed religion as the “opium of the people” and sought to eradicate it from society. “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness,” Marx wrote in his celebrated critique of Hegel.

In truth, Marx’s views on religion and atheism were far more complex than these much-abused sound bites project. Nevertheless, Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.

Atheists often respond that atheism should not be held responsible for the actions of these authoritarian regimes, and they are absolutely right. It wasn’t atheism that motivated Stalin and Mao to demolish or expropriate houses of worship, to slaughter tens of thousands of priests, nuns and monks, and to prohibit the publication and dissemination of religious material. It was anti-theism that motivated them to do so. After all, if you truly believe that religion is “one of the world’s great evils” – as bad as smallpox and worse than rape; if you believe religion is a form of child abuse; that it is “violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children” – if you honestly believed this about religion, then what lengths would you not go through to rid society of it?

The excesses of these anti-theist regimes was fueled in no small part by a century of confident predictions that religion was a fast fading phenomenon – that God was, in a word, dead. By the end of the 20th century, however, few were making that claim any longer. The horrors of the first and second world wars not only punctured the promises of secular nationalism in the West. It led to a religious revival, particularly in the United States. In the 1970s, the rise of Islamic terrorism abroad and the insertion of Christian fundamentalism into American politics disabused most thinkers of the notion that religion was about to fade away from modern society. Then 9/11 happened, followed by George W. Bush’s crusade against “evildoers,” and, suddenly, religion was once again recognized as a potent and rising force in the world.

Disenfranchised by what they viewed as an aggressively religious society, personally threatened by a spike in religious violence throughout the world, and spurred by a sense of moral outrage, a certain faction of atheists among an otherwise rational population of people who doubt or deny the existence of God reverted to an extreme and antagonistic form of anti-theism. This is the movement that came to be called New Atheism.

The appeal of New Atheism is that it offered non-believers a muscular and dogmatic form of atheism specifically designed to push back against muscular and dogmatic religious belief. Yet that is also, in my opinion, the main problem with New Atheism. In seeking to replace religion with secularism and faith with science, the New Atheists have, perhaps inadvertently, launched a movement with far too many similarities to the ones they so radically oppose. Indeed, while we typically associate fundamentalism with religiously zealotry, in so far as the term connotes an attempt to “impose a single truth on the plural world” – to use the definition of noted philosopher Jonathan Sacks – then there is little doubt that a similar fundamentalist mind-set has overcome many adherents of this latest iteration of anti-theism.

Like religious fundamentalism, New Atheism is primarily a reactionary phenomenon, one that responds to religion with the same venomous ire with which religious fundamentalists respond to atheism. What one finds in the writings of anti-theist ideologues like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens is the same sense of utter certainty, the same claim to a monopoly on truth, the same close-mindedness that views one’s own position as unequivocally good and one’s opponent’s views as not just wrong but irrational and even stupid, the same intolerance for alternative explanations, the same rabid adherents (as anyone who has dared criticize Dawkins or Harris on social media can attest), and, most shockingly, the same proselytizing fervor that one sees in any fundamentalist community.

This is precisely what Albert Einstein meant when he warned about “fanatical atheists [who] are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who — in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium for the people’ — cannot bear the music of the spheres.”

There is, of course, nothing wrong with an anti-theistic worldview, though I personally find it to be rooted in a naive and, dare I say, unscientific understanding of religion – one thoroughly disconnected from the history of religious thought. Every major religion has, at one time or another, been guilty of the crimes that these anti-theists accuse religion of. But do not confuse the dogmatic, polemical, militant anti-theism of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and their ilk with atheism. The former rejects religious claims; the latter is “actively, diametrically and categorically opposed to them.”

One can certainly be both an atheist and an anti-theist. But the point is that the vast majority of atheists – 85 percent according to one poll – are not anti-theists and should not be lumped into the same category as the anti-theist ideologues that inundate the media landscape. (A diverse community being defined by its loudest voices? Imagine that). In fact, let’s stop calling New Atheism, “atheism,” and start calling it what it is: anti-theism

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/21/reza_aslan_sam_harris_and_new_atheists_arent_new_arent_even_atheists/


Well, I sure don't believe in some God up in the sky, but the rituals and ceremonies of different religions give a lot of people comfort and a way to get through their life, and I don't think anyone has the right to demand you stop something that gives you comfort. The difficulty is when people get strident, both about belief in religion and belief that others should stop believing. Questioning, great, everything should be questioned, getting fundamentally against is as bad as getting fundamentally for.

eddie wrote:Okay isn't religion a personal thing?
Why has it got to be ridiculed and pulled apart and dissected?

Religion is like a doughnut;  It's okay to have one and eat it sensibly along with other nutritious foods, but if you only live off doughnuts you're going to become filled with nothing but doughnut and be very unhealthy in both body and mind.

Because the main religions play off fear and they do not allow for people to act to be themselves, it instead makes them act out of fear of not doing something in this life their next life will be punished. These are bad ideas Eddie, they do not allow freedom of thought, what they do is make people act out of fear of what might happen to them. I speak of the 3 abrahamic faiths, as this is what they play onto.
They all follow a principle of fear, that is one idiotic stupid idea, that creates sheep, unable to think for themselves.

Brasidas wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay isn't religion a personal thing?
Why has it got to be ridiculed and pulled apart and dissected?

Religion is like a doughnut;  It's okay to have one and eat it sensibly along with other nutritious foods, but if you only live off doughnuts you're going to become filled with nothing but doughnut and be very unhealthy in both body and mind.

Because the main religions play off fear and they do not allow for people to act to be themselves, it instead makes them act out of fear of not doing something in this life their next life will be punished. These are bad ideas Eddie, they do not allow freedom of thought, what they do is make people act out of fear of what might happen to them. I speak of the 3 abrahamic faiths, as this is what they play onto.
They all follow a principle of fear, that is one idiotic stupid idea, that creates sheep, unable to think for themselves.

Hmmmm perhaps it's the people who are stupid and not the religion.
I dislike the "fear" that flows through some religions - it's a bit like bullying to a certain extent.

eddie wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Because the main religions play off fear and they do not allow for people to act to be themselves, it instead makes them act out of fear of not doing something in this life their next life will be punished. These are bad ideas Eddie, they do not allow freedom of thought, what they do is make people act out of fear of what might happen to them. I speak of the 3 abrahamic faiths, as this is what they play onto.
They all follow a principle of fear, that is one idiotic stupid idea, that creates sheep, unable to think for themselves.

Hmmmm perhaps it's the people who are stupid and not the religion.
I dislike the "fear" that flows through some religions - it's a bit like bullying to a certain extent.

It is playing on fear of what would happen to people if they do not believe.
It means they are not acting out of really wanting to, but out of a selfish view to save them from any pain.
They fear pain and understand pain and nobody would knowingly wish to have pain eternally, so make a threat of this pain and people will do your bidding, they become sheep and do not question what you ask, they are obediant to your will, they cannot think for themselves.
Is that really worse, or being so in fear you believe?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The fact you are also imposing the ideas of fundamental Athiesm makes you a hypocrite.

What a crock of shit.
Please share exactly what I am trying to impose on anyone?
Seriously this is what is wrong with some religious people, any criticism of their faiths and they come out with even more absurd claims.

You want to impose Atheism at the expense of any religion.

The likes of Sam Harris (your prophet) is currently focussing on Islam.

Denial of this would be ridiculous.

the level of hypocrisy from Brasadis is astounding
as you are right this is as plain as day to anyone looking at thing objectivity

the real problem is humans are tribal animals and men like brasadis has decided their tribe is now Atheism and they must crush all others (no different to similar men's attitudes when they imposed every other institution of belief)

eddie wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay isn't religion a personal thing?
Why has it got to be ridiculed and pulled apart and dissected?

Religion is like a doughnut;  It's okay to have one and eat it sensibly along with other nutritious foods, but if you only live off doughnuts you're going to become filled with nothing but doughnut and be very unhealthy in both body and mind.

Because the main religions play off fear and they do not allow for people to act to be themselves, it instead makes them act out of fear of not doing something in this life their next life will be punished. These are bad ideas Eddie, they do not allow freedom of thought, what they do is make people act out of fear of what might happen to them. I speak of the 3 abrahamic faiths, as this is what they play onto.
They all follow a principle of fear, that is one idiotic stupid idea, that creates sheep, unable to think for themselves.

Hmmmm perhaps it's the people who are stupid and not the religion.
I dislike the "fear" that flows through some religions - it's a bit like bullying to a certain extent.

never put down to malice what can be explained by stupidity and laziness

Pretty much How various Institutions have risen to power and committed atrocities through out history

Again it come down tot he fact we are animals and tribal animals at that it is in our genes to value acceptance over logic.. it si only a few individuals that are willing to rock the boat

veya_victaous wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You want to impose Atheism at the expense of any religion.

The likes of Sam Harris (your prophet) is currently focussing on Islam.

Denial of this would be ridiculous.

the level of hypocrisy from Brasadis is astounding
as you are right this is as plain as day to anyone looking at thing objectivity

the real problem is humans are tribal animals and men like brasadis has decided their tribe is now Atheism and they must crush all others (no different to similar men's attitudes when they imposed every other institution of belief)

Oh do shupt up you Aussie twat you have as about as much intelligence as any opther sheep unable to think for yourself.
The problem is based on fear and fear of death and eternal punishment for many.
I have no tribe, I just do not believe and have no wish to believe and only want people to think for themselves.
If they disagree with me, so be it, that is there choice so stop talking utter shite you idiot.
You of all people on here deserve little respect or credability for the bullshit you come out with and why I do not even bother to debate you anymore.
Now if you do not  like me, good, that is your own issue not mine, learn to grow the fuck up you idiot

THEN THINK FOR YOURSELF
Have hardly seen you do it the whole time you have been posting here

I don't not like you. I don't give a shit enough to do that.

But you are a bit like debating a toddler (do something then deny doing it immediately or even while doing it ) or some one that has a low level or really out dated education but thinks it is great.

And if you want people Think for themselves why do you get so upset when people suggest anything other than your really limited linear view of things? You don't you are no different than a theocratic if anyone disagrees you are at war with them you want them destroyed more than you want to end rape (by your own words) sorry Anyone that thinks that is a dickhead with no moral high ground the only thing different between you and ISIS is you haven't acted on your delusions.

You have had a go at other atheist for not fighting theist hard enough, if you cant see the hypocrisy in that, that you actively tried to inflame conflict because you so strongly believe in atheism.. that is a fundamentalist, one that puts a theoretical argument over peace harmony and kindness.

Religion causes many problems in the world, and is based on nonesense- it should be ridiculed. (We're talking religion here NOT belief in god).

And of course religion was made by man, with selfish mortal purposes in mind- so yes the religion is the problem.

If religious books commanding people to murder non believers, treat women as property, cut boys genitals, punish gays, slaughter animals certain ways etc didn't exist, then neither would the problems they cause.

Eilzel wrote:Religion causes many problems in the world, and is based on nonesense- it should be ridiculed. (We're talking religion here NOT belief in god).

And of course religion was made by man, with selfish mortal purposes in mind- so yes the religion is the problem.

If religious books commanding people to murder non believers, treat women as property, cut boys genitals, punish gays, slaughter animals certain ways etc didn't exist, then neither would the problems they cause.

You think it is religion that causes that doubt it.... Humanity is Brutality. we have been cruel since the beginning of our time. The idea that mankind was peaceful and then got brutal is fanciful, look at nature watch the infanticide, see the unbridled brutality of nature. Religion is used to justify it but it would occur either way since the lion needs no justification to kill the children of the male he overthrow even taking from their mothers, who he will sire children with in a short time. It could equally be argued that religion also promotes kindness and charity.

“I built a pillar over his city gate and I flayed all the chiefs who had revolted, and I covered the pillar with their skin. Some I walled up within the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes, and others I bound to stakes round about the pillar…And I cut the limbs of the officers, of the royal officers who had rebelled…Many captives from among them I burned with fire, and many I took as living captives. From some I cut off their noses, their ears, their fingers, of many I put out the eyes. I made one pillar of the living and another of heads, and I bound their heads to tree trunks round the city. Their young men and maidens I burned in the fire.”

That is the boasting of an Assyrian king who lived almost 3,000 years ago, named Ashurnasirpal II. He was one of many Assyrian monarchs in the so-called “Biblical” era of history that enforced their rule with almost unbelievable brutality.

MANKIND causes many problems by expecting himself to act in contradiction to his nature and what he is. A beast, a brutal violent hairless bipedal ape.
I believe in trying but no one should be surprised when we fail

You see Veya this is why you are an idiot.
I have a go at other Liberals at their views being at odds with Liberal values when they refuse to condemn a bad idea.
This is why you are utterly clueless.
It is not even about atheism, but the political values of a poster who claims to hold them, when they seek to defend bad ideas, they forfeit their Liberal values.
That is why you have not the first clue what you are talking about and why this is my last post to what I again I really have to say I fear for your sanity, because you really are one whackadoodle. The hypocrisy comes from those claiming to be Liberal.
Now its not my fault as seen you are ignorant of the facts here.
Now you are back on ignore.

I said the problems religion causes would go away. I didn't say religion causes all problems- the fact I said man made religion actually should inform you of the contrary. So your post addresses a different point to the one I made.

@Les
Other commentators that say it well

Not only Assyrians in ancient times , but also Ethiopians in the years ( 1987-83 ) of Mengistu’s Red Terror , when mutilated bodies of people including school kids as young as 11 years old were dumped on street corners , might have understood ISIS’s methods ( or I could add Rwandans and Bosnians in the 1990s ; or if one wanted to go a bit futher back think of Japanese and Chinese atrocities during the Japanese takeover of China and the later communist takeover of China ; so the statement that in the past century became less cruel may apply more to Western countries than elsewhere . Technology and mass media may have helped de-sensitize the public to cruelty or helped create the illusion the veneer of civilization is thick and this might be a factor in the development of ISIS .
Posted by JohnOfOnt |

And of course their is Vietnam and Japan's invasion of China in ww2, neither are backed by religion both are some of the worst atrocities.

Here’s the greatest Atrocity PR in history: The Japanese killed THIRTY MILLION CHINESE during WWII and yet everyone sees them as the victim- The media cried today about the firebombing of Tokyo yet NOTHING about the 30 million murdered Chinese.

How about the far more numerous atrocities committed by the US government? How many foreign countries that posed no threat to us has “our” government invaded since WWII? How many human beings outside the US have been killed, blinded, paralyzed, or crippled by the US government’s Imperial Forces? How many have been horribly burned with demonic weapons like napalm and white phosphorus? How many people have been imprisoned and tortured physically and psychologically in hellish dungeons by American “good guys”?

In the minds of the flag-waving, neo-fascist Americans, the victims of the US government’s foreign aggression always deserved what they got. According to their thinking, if a foreign military force were to invade and occupy the US, we would have the right to resist them with guerilla warfare; but when “our” troops invade a country, the citizens of that country have no right to resist us. Even when foreign noncombatants fall victim to our bombs, bullets, and torture, that’s their fault for being born in the “wrong” country. They need to stay out of the way of our ordnance!

Eilzel wrote:I said the problems religion causes would go away. I didn't say religion causes all problems- the fact I said man made religion actually should inform you of the contrary. So your post addresses a different point to the one I made.

but they wont go away since they predate religion
they predate Homo Sapien

SO my Point is you got it the wrong way round
Religion exists BECAUSE man want to do those things, it is man made so why did we make it to do it? because we did or were going to do those things anyway and wanted some justification

We didn't make religion then find the loop hole to exploit, we made the religions to justify our actions

So now the Japanese of WW2 were athiest.
This is why I do not even bother to debate him Eilzel when he comes out with such absurdity not even understand the the concepts around a nationalistic nation that was formed from racism.
Good luck, I have no time for such stupidity.

Brasidas wrote:You see Veya this is why you are an idiot.
I have a go at other Liberals at their views being at odds with Liberal values when they refuse to condemn a bad idea.
This is why you are utterly clueless.
It is not even about atheism, but the political values of a poster who claims to hold them, when they seek to defend bad ideas, they forfeit their Liberal values.
That is why you have not the first clue what you are talking about and why this is my last post to what I again I really have to say I fear for your sanity, because you really are one whackadoodle. The hypocrisy comes from those claiming to be Liberal.
Now its not my fault as seen you are ignorant of the facts here.
Now you are back on ignore.

and this is why you are and stupid tribe mind monkey

LIBERALS what is that supposed to be a team or some shit.. your tribe your side???
I am HAVE MY OWN VIEWS
I THINK FOR MYSELF
I Don't give a shit what the rest of my TEAM thinks
if it is wrong I say so.
I am LW only because the LW happen to have the same values as I choose to have. but happy to split from them where that is not my opinion.
I am Progressive because that is what I am by nature not because hey that's my team .

Brasidas wrote:So now the Japanese of WW2 were athiest.
This is why I do not even bother to debate him Eilzel when he comes out with such absurdity not even understand the the concepts around a nationalistic nation that was formed from racism.
Good luck, I have no time for such stupidity.

where did I say that ?
straw-man much ?

It had nothing to do with religion it was for MONEY RESOURCES POWER.

It really pains me the bullshit he comes out with.
As I say Eizel good luck, you would have more luck getting sense out of a brick wall.

Also Brasidas JUST PROVED MY POINT Nationalism and racism Transcend religion

if religions didn't exist we'd still do the same thing in the name of nations As we have in the past

Yes veya, man made religion partly in order to justify his actions. No disagreement there.

But that was millennia ago. Of course with or without religion people will do bad things- no disagreement there either.

But we have progressed far since 'thousands of years ago', and religions (particularly the Abrahamic ones) now serve to create more problems where there need not be any. Of course bad things still happen, but not with nearly the frequency and barbarity and in ancient Assyria or bronze age Persia.

We don't need religion today to be compounding or creating more problems when is blatantly BS.

dammit les i just closed the other window i had open trough links from the Assyrian one

It was basically showing that Actually the USA is still the biggest killer of innocents just minding their own business by far. And also predator drones are still the most advanced piece of terrorist equipment ever developed, it is made by secularists...

Have we truly gotten better of have we just got better at convincing ourselves we have? by hiding the atrocities we commit with modern media and pretty words for justification. I personally don't think so.

we don't need religion ,we never did, but we have it because it is part of us. Even atheism is just another tribe for so many people. and as such i will support freedom for everyone even if I disagree just because it is better than letting institutions justify another war (and Sam Harris has already tried to get atheists to escalate war with Islam )

I believe we have got better.

Modern technology has the nasty effect of being able to cause death on a big scale, and the fact there are millions of times more people in the world only compounds the effect of drone strikes (to take one example).

We have got better. Imagine drones, napalm, death camps and nukes had they been accessible to Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell or the Spanish conquistadors... Would they have been as 'restrained' as the US, or much worse?

Modern technology and the massive population of the modern world skews the figures. I think today we are lot less brutal (in most parts of world) than previously.

And still the point remains that though evil and bad things would still be done, religion adds to it and totally without good reason considering what should be the obvious inanity of it all.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You want to impose Atheism at the expense of any religion.

The likes of Sam Harris (your prophet) is currently focussing on Islam.

Denial of this would be ridiculous.

Impose Atheism, are you that fucking stupid?
Seriously, you have as much belief in the crap you just posted as you do in your belief in your own deity. It came from being unable to take criticism from your faith you invent claims that are just untrue.
I only wish people to look at what they believe with the same critical view they would of anything that is taken on faith.
I only wish them to want to see for themselves something is a bad idea.
That is not enforcing anything, it allows people to decide for themsxelves and only those who fear the true invent bullshit like you do to try and make out those seeking the truth are in some way bad.
Seriously you are an embaressment at the infantile tactics you use in debate and even worse to make unfounded claims you cannot back up.
Do not even consider yourself intelligent when you make such an idiot of yourself to make accusations you cannot back up

Losing your temper speaks volumes.

Christian missionaries and Mulim Dawah also 'wish' people would look at their beliefs and come to the realisation that others should follow their faith.

Which, at best, makes you an Atheist missionary. The evidence comes from your posts and your devotion to Sam Harris.

Didge, you have been exposed.

Brasidas wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay isn't religion a personal thing?
Why has it got to be ridiculed and pulled apart and dissected?

Religion is like a doughnut;  It's okay to have one and eat it sensibly along with other nutritious foods, but if you only live off doughnuts you're going to become filled with nothing but doughnut and be very unhealthy in both body and mind.

Because the main religions play off fear and they do not allow for people to act to be themselves, it instead makes them act out of fear of not doing something in this life their next life will be punished. These are bad ideas Eddie, they do not allow freedom of thought, what they do is make people act out of fear of what might happen to them. I speak of the 3 abrahamic faiths, as this is what they play onto.
They all follow a principle of fear, that is one idiotic stupid idea, that creates sheep, unable to think for themselves.

Lol! Your post is fear mongering. The irony is off the scale.

Brasidas wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

the level of hypocrisy from Brasadis is astounding
as you are right this is as plain as day to anyone looking at thing objectivity

the real problem is humans are tribal animals and men like brasadis has decided their tribe is now Atheism and they must crush all others (no different to similar men's attitudes when they imposed every other institution of belief)

Oh do shupt up you Aussie twat you have as about as much intelligence as any opther sheep unable to think for yourself.
The problem is based on fear and fear of death and eternal punishment for many.
I have no tribe, I just do not believe and have no wish to believe and only want people to think for themselves.
If they disagree with me, so be it, that is there choice so stop talking utter shite you idiot.
You of all people on here deserve little respect or credability for the bullshit you come out with and why I do not even bother to debate you anymore.
Now if you do not  like me, good, that is your own issue not mine, learn to grow the fuck up you idiot

Wind your neck in and chill out dude. You sound like an Atheist Abu Hamza. Seriously.

veya_victaous wrote:THEN THINK FOR YOURSELF
Have hardly seen you do it the whole time you have been posting here

I don't not like you. I don't give a shit enough to do that.    

But you are a bit like debating a toddler (do something then deny doing it immediately or even while doing it      ) or some one that has a low level or really out dated education but thinks it is great.

And if you want people Think for themselves why do you get so upset when people suggest anything other than your really limited linear view of things? You don't you are no different than a theocratic if anyone disagrees you are at war with them you want them destroyed more than you want to end rape (by your own words) sorry Anyone that thinks that is a dickhead with no moral high ground the only thing different between you and ISIS is you haven't acted on your delusions.

You have had a go at other atheist for not fighting theist hard enough, if you cant see the hypocrisy in that, that you actively tried to inflame conflict because you so strongly believe in atheism.. that is a fundamentalist, one that puts a theoretical argument over peace harmony and kindness.

Didge used to be a rational critical thinker. He seems to have become more extreme right wing over the last year - extreme Atheism and Zionism being just 2 manifestations

We have got better. Imagine drones, napalm, death camps and nukes had they been accessible to Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell or the Spanish conquistadors... Would they have been as 'restrained' as the US, or much worse?

fair point.
But not so sure as I am in the camp of Nukes actually cause/maintain peace (through fear of mutual destruction).
This is why is said it is "part of us". humans as a group are inseparable from our institutions and our technology.

@zach
I blame sam harris
flooding the internet with shitty quotes and simplistic logic trying to inflame conflict between atheists and theists.


and proudly number one Infidel I will get atheists to want to kill me too

Atheists don't want to kill anyone- Sam Harris is actually one of the most MISquoted people in the world.

And a good point Harris makes is that the deterrent factor of nukes is solid only as long as the people controlling them do not glorify death by martyrdom- as soonas people happy to die in the name of their religion get hold of nukes we have a problem- do we wait for them to fire first?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Impose Atheism, are you that fucking stupid?
Seriously, you have as much belief in the crap you just posted as you do in your belief in your own deity. It came from being unable to take criticism from your faith you invent claims that are just untrue.
I only wish people to look at what they believe with the same critical view they would of anything that is taken on faith.
I only wish them to want to see for themselves something is a bad idea.
That is not enforcing anything, it allows people to decide for themsxelves and only those who fear the true invent bullshit like you do to try and make out those seeking the truth are in some way bad.
Seriously you are an embaressment at the infantile tactics you use in debate and even worse to make unfounded claims you cannot back up.
Do not even consider yourself intelligent when you make such an idiot of yourself to make accusations you cannot back up

Losing your temper speaks volumes.

Christian missionaries and Mulim Dawah also 'wish' people would look at their beliefs and come to the realisation that others should follow their faith.

Which, at best, makes you an Atheist missionary. The evidence comes from your posts and your devotion to Sam Harris.

Didge, you have been exposed.

OMG hilarious babble by the Muslim.
The main aims of both Christianity and Islam is for people to convert to their faith anbd they do this based off a view of fear to eternal punishment in an after life. The purpose of both faiths is to convert all.
There is no doctrine or manual that says I am trying to convert anyone where all I am doing is asking for people to look at trheir own faith as they would any other. Is that unreasonable?
No, so you have not exposed anything other than proving how religious people get over sensitive when theire religion receives rightful criticism.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Because the main religions play off fear and they do not allow for people to act to be themselves, it instead makes them act out of fear of not doing something in this life their next life will be punished. These are bad ideas Eddie, they do not allow freedom of thought, what they do is make people act out of fear of what might happen to them. I speak of the 3 abrahamic faiths, as this is what they play onto.
They all follow a principle of fear, that is one idiotic stupid idea, that creates sheep, unable to think for themselves.

Lol! Your post is fear mongering. The irony is off the scale.

Pointing out facts is fear now lol you really are quite the ignorant relgious drone are you not?
Facts seem to scare the religious lol

So you are saying we should never warn about bad ideas?

Take yout time drone?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Oh do shupt up you Aussie twat you have as about as much intelligence as any opther sheep unable to think for yourself.
The problem is based on fear and fear of death and eternal punishment for many.
I have no tribe, I just do not believe and have no wish to believe and only want people to think for themselves.
If they disagree with me, so be it, that is there choice so stop talking utter shite you idiot.
You of all people on here deserve little respect or credability for the bullshit you come out with and why I do not even bother to debate you anymore.
Now if you do not  like me, good, that is your own issue not mine, learn to grow the fuck up you idiot

Wind your neck in and chill out dude. You sound like an Atheist Abu Hamza. Seriously.

Wind my neck in?
How old are you?
3
This is what I mean about religious people being incapable of critical thinking they use the most lame claims.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:THEN THINK FOR YOURSELF
Have hardly seen you do it the whole time you have been posting here

I don't not like you. I don't give a shit enough to do that.    

But you are a bit like debating a toddler (do something then deny doing it immediately or even while doing it      ) or some one that has a low level or really out dated education but thinks it is great.

And if you want people Think for themselves why do you get so upset when people suggest anything other than your really limited linear view of things? You don't you are no different than a theocratic if anyone disagrees you are at war with them you want them destroyed more than you want to end rape (by your own words) sorry Anyone that thinks that is a dickhead with no moral high ground the only thing different between you and ISIS is you haven't acted on your delusions.

You have had a go at other atheist for not fighting theist hard enough, if you cant see the hypocrisy in that, that you actively tried to inflame conflict because you so strongly believe in atheism.. that is a fundamentalist, one that puts a theoretical argument over peace harmony and kindness.

Didge used to be a rational critical thinker. He seems to have become more extreme right wing over the last year - extreme Atheism and Zionism being just 2 manifestatio

PMSL so now being critical of bad ideas is now extreme right wing?
You cannot make it up how very daft that really is.
I mean I am against discrminations in many forms including those in religion and that makes me extreme right wing.
Stop being an ignorant twat, you sound like Nick Griffin.
I asked you a simple question over the Israel problem you ran from aswering because we know you want it controlled by Muslims.
I want a two state solution and I recognise wrongs done by Israel and you though again refuse to show any criticism of Hamas.
So run along drone, I do not have time for the ignorant Muslim who's goals is that we would live under a theocracy.
This is the lamest attempt by the religious today where their faiths are rightly criticized for the bad ideas they have, what do the religious do?
They attack the people standing up to them.
It is not only pathetic but underhanded, because they fear what we are saying is true and that people will listen to us.
That shows you have doubt in your own faith, as why fear and attack people for questioning bad ideas?

I mean to claim extreme atheism, shows how emotinally hysterical you have become.
So many times you have been shown by myself and Eilzel on points that conflict in your own faith, one being the claim to a perfect book which you never had an answer to. If we both looked at racism we would agree it is a bad idea, because it discrminates and where violence can lead to racism. You would not argue against that, but if a religious bad idea is shown up you become hysterical and lack any clear thinking and why?
You fear most of all being wrong and that your beliefs are wrong.
What do I have to fear?
Nothing