Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Atheism'

Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 228 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Atheism'

#1

Post by neo-x » Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:34 pm

A must read in my opinion.
Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Atheism'
In a rhetorical sense, an individual who is said to have a “tin ear” is an individual who is unable to appreciate the elements of nuance and sub-text in language. In a cultural sense, it means being completely tone deaf to political and social realities.

Say hello to the non-profit organisation American Atheists.

Next month, the largest annual gathering for America’s non-believers, the American Atheists Annual Convention, takes place in Memphis, Tennessee.

There are more than 2,000 atheist groups in America today, but American Atheists, which boasts more than 2,500 members, is by far the largest.

I like American Atheists. I like what they do. They’re a highly effective political action group that proactively protects the civil liberties of atheists, and is a staunch defender of the wall separating church and state. I have also met and admire the organisation’s president, Dave Silverman, whom I can attest is a tireless campaigner for America’s non-believers.

Here’s the problem.

American Atheists, like atheism in general, has been completely hijacked by anti-theists (New Atheists). The media presents celebrity atheists Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Sam Harris and co. as reflective of atheism. They’re not atheists. They’re anti-theists. Atheism is wholly and solely non-belief. The aforementioned don’t advocate non-belief; they vigorously endorse anti-belief. New Atheists describe religion “as one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus.” Harris said if given the choice, he would rid the world of religion before he rid the world of rape. Ladies?

The New Atheists are particularly fixated on Islam. In fact, Nathan Lean, author of Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufacturers Fear of Muslims, contends that if nineteen Muslims hadn’t have flown planes into the World Trade Center, it’s likely New Atheism (version 21st century) wouldn’t have become a thing. “Rational atheism is being used as a cover for Islamophobia and US militarism,” says Glenn Greenwald.

The families of the three slain Muslim American students in Chapel Hill assert it was this anti-religious, specifically anti-Muslim animus, that drove New Atheist Craig Stephen Hicks to execute their loved ones with a single bullet to the back of their heads.

A number of liberal commentators and journalists, including myself, have long warned that today’s crop of New Atheists not only “flirt with Islamophobia” but also promote dangerous anti-religious ideas. “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?” asks prominent religious scholar and commentator Reza Aslan.

So what does this have to do with American Atheists and a “tin ear”?

American Atheists have chosen venomous anti-Muslim activist and disgraced former Dutch parliamentarian, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as the keynote speaker for this year’s convention.

In the wake of Chapel Hill, and with now increased media scrutiny focused on the New Atheist movement, coupled with exponentially escalating violence carried out against Muslim Americans, American Atheists’ decision to appoint Hirsi Ali as their headliner is an extraordinary display of tone deafness.

There have been no less than eight anti-Muslim threats and acts of violence since the Chapel Hill shootings, notes Imraan Siddiqi. Before 9/11, there were only 40 to 50 anti-Muslim hate crimes per year. In the year 2001, there were nearly 500 hate crimes against Muslims, and since then there has been anywhere from 100 to 150 anti-Muslim hate crimes per year.

While no one is blaming New Atheism’s anti-Islam rhetoric solely for the rise in anti-Muslim violence, American Atheists are helping no one by elevating Hirsi Ali - who called for a “military war” against Islam and expressed sympathy for Anders Brevik, the Norwegian mass murderer who slaughtered 78 Norwegian college students as a means of punishing liberals for their multicultural sensibilities. Breivik’s murderous case of anti-Muslim bigotry was fuelled, at least in part, by Hirsi Ali’s anti-Muslim views. In his manifesto, Breivik not only lumps gushing praise on Hirsi Ali but also stated she deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for her willingness to confront Muslim immigration.

Certainly Hirsi Ali has an amazing story to tell. Genitally mutilated in Somalia at the age of five, she found refuge in The Netherlands, worked tirelessly at a refugee centre and fought for women’s rights, before being elected as a representative to the Dutch parliament. But it’s also well known that her story contains half-truths and outright lies.

Dutch TV produced an investigative piece into Hirsi Ali’s autobiographical claims. Gus van Dongen, a renowned Dutch TV journalist, travelled to Somalia and Kenya to interview members of Hirsi Ali's family. “There was no agenda,' van Dongen told The Guardian. “She is a politician who had made much of her background, telling one story. We set out to check those facts. That is all.”

The investigation revealed she had not come to The Netherlands via war-torn Somalia, as she claimed, but rather via Kenya, “where she had lived peacefully for 10 years”. Hirsi Ali admitted she had lied for the purpose of helping her immigration application, but then added she was also fleeing a forced marriage. “Not so,” said van Dongen. “Her brother and husband allege the marriage was not made under compulsion.”

Certainly Hirsi Ali has experienced religion at its most vulgar extreme; I am somewhat sympathetic to the truthful aspects of her case. I mean what fair-minded person wouldn’t be, right? But, and here’s the but, she is also the victim of the same cycle of revenge that is at the heart of most of the still unsolvable problems in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia - and she has embellished her biography to make her anti-Muslim, anti-immigration case.

Hirsi Ali wants revenge against those who committed injustices against her. Not only punishment for her oppressors, but collective punishment of all Muslims, at least that’s what I can tell from her own words. “Violence is inherent in Islam - it’s a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder … the battle against terrorism will ultimately be lost unless we realise that it’s not just with extremist elements within Islam, but the ideology of Islam itself,” Hirsi Ali has said. In a 2007 interview with Reason magazine, Hirsi Ali declared that the West isn’t at war with Islamic extremists, but “we are at war with Islam itself.” The interviewer asked her if she meant a military war. “Military, diplomatically, and politically,” she replied.

It’s not difficult to understand where her hate comes from. It comes from the same place that motivates and radicalises terrorists of all stripes: an urge for revenge based on humiliation, oppression and victimisation. If for one minute you’re thinking I’m implying Hirsi Ali is a terrorist, you’re missing the point. Hirsi Ali’s victimisation at the hands of religious fundamentalists is no different to the victimisation of those who are terrorised by goons empowered by oppressive regimes. And like all those who are unable to find forgiveness, Hirsi Ali demands the collective punishment and humiliation of all who are representative of her perpetrators.

“Hirsi is not very different from the radical extremists she ought to be really targeting. She gives them credibility by claiming their version of Islam is the only correct one and others, like me, are ‘bad Muslims’,” writes Muslim rights activist Kashif N. Chaudhry. “Like the Taliban, Hirsi is rigid in her views and is judgmental. Like them, she speaks to curtail the civil liberties of fellow citizens and inspires intolerance and violence. We must not encourage such behavior with honorary degrees. Her bigotry must be condemned in all forms.”

Hirsi Ali has not only been feted and lauded by celebrity New Atheists, their podcasts, magazines, and books, but also by pro-Zionist, Islamophobic hate mongers Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller and the neo-conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute.

No New Atheist living in America is unfamiliar with her story. But it’s not the retelling of her story they seek. They want to be rehear again how “Islam is one of the world’s great evils”, “the mother lode of bad ideas”, the greatest threat to Western civilisation and so on. New Atheism doesn’t exist without Islam. A convention that promises non-believers a discussion of a god they don’t believe in doesn’t sell many tickets. But an external enemy, a foreign threat certainly does. It’s the oldest gimmick in town.

The external enemy has generated riches, won elections, sold books and waged wars since time immemorial for those who capitalise in fear of the “Other”. General admission tickets for next month’s American Atheists convention start at a cool $329.

“How the New Atheists’ anti-Muslim hate advances their belief that God does not exist is not exactly clear. In this climate of increased anti-Muslim sentiment, it’s a convenient digression, though. They’ve shifted their base and instead of simply trying to convince people that God is a myth, they’ve embraced the monster narrative of the day. That’s not rational or enlightening or “free thinking” or even intelligent. That’s opportunism. If atheism writ large was a tough sell to skeptics, the ‘New Atheism’, Muslim-bashing atheism, must be like selling Bibles to believers,” writes Lean.

What else does your $329 get you, I mean other than possibly a renewed declaration of war against Islam? Like the schedule of any major New Atheist convention, no one is recognisable, at least to the general public, outside of the headline act. The line-up does not include Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists, esteemed leaders of academic fields, historians, geo-political experts, counter-terrorism specialists or qualified theologians - but rather it’s a mediocre rung of modestly educated, suburbanite bloggers, podcasters, and anyone else with an impressive number of Twitter followers. Not forgetting those who wish or already have declared war on Islam.

American Atheists is a commendable organisation. They should continue to protect the civil liberties of atheists, especially as atheists continue to be the most disliked minority in America, alongside Muslims. American Atheists should seek opportunities to work together with other discriminated-against minorities, like Muslim Americans, and stay clear of those who peddle hate and revenge. The road to broader public acceptance does not travel through the persecution of another minority.

I hope they can hear this.
- See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/wh ... taPH3.dpuf
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
Storyteller
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3053
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:54 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: UK
Has liked: 188 times
Been liked: 340 times

Re: Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Athei

#2

Post by Storyteller » Thu Mar 12, 2015 4:19 am

Rid the world of religion before rape?

That just about says it all really.

I think there has been an awful lot of evil committed in the name of religion but generally that is down to extremists and individuals not the religion. I don`t know enough about Islam to judge but I don`t see how blaming an entire religion and condemning anyone that follows it can achieve anything.

Things like this scare the life out of me.
Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof - Kahlil Gibran

User avatar
Rob
Valued Member
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:26 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Athei

#3

Post by Rob » Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:13 am

neo-x wrote: The New Atheists are particularly fixated on Islam. In fact, Nathan Lean, author of Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufacturers Fear of Muslims, contends that if nineteen Muslims hadn’t have flown planes into the World Trade Center, it’s likely New Atheism (version 21st century) wouldn’t have become a thing. “Rational atheism is being used as a cover for Islamophobia and US militarism,” says Glenn Greenwald.
Interesting. I never thought about that, but it seems true. It wasn't until after 9/11 I noticed more an more people blame religion as a whole for everything bad in the world (Islam especially). It was after this we started seeing bus signs that said things like "Science got us to the moon, religion got us 9/11."

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10034
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 648 times
Been liked: 665 times

Re: Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Athei

#4

Post by Kurieuo » Sun Mar 15, 2015 6:58 am

New Atheism is a religion. Their god is their self.
Ideologies are ideologies at the end of the day.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Athei

#5

Post by Audie » Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:35 am

Kurieuo wrote:New Atheism is a religion. Their god is their self.
Ideologies are ideologies at the end of the day.
And evolution. It hijacked all scientists' thinking. Their god is natural selection.
Dont forget evolution. Its so totally a religion. And what could be worse than that?

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Athei

#6

Post by Audie » Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:36 am

Rob wrote:
neo-x wrote: The New Atheists are particularly fixated on Islam. In fact, Nathan Lean, author of Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufacturers Fear of Muslims, contends that if nineteen Muslims hadn’t have flown planes into the World Trade Center, it’s likely New Atheism (version 21st century) wouldn’t have become a thing. “Rational atheism is being used as a cover for Islamophobia and US militarism,” says Glenn Greenwald.
Interesting. I never thought about that, but it seems true. It wasn't until after 9/11 I noticed more an more people blame religion as a whole for everything bad in the world (Islam especially). It was after this we started seeing bus signs that said things like "Science got us to the moon, religion got us 9/11."
Truth hurts?

User avatar
Rob
Valued Member
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:26 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Athei

#7

Post by Rob » Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:56 am

Rob wrote: Truth hurts?
It hurts, but not because it's truth. Actually, "hurt" is probably an overstatement. More like annoyance from, frankly, terrible logic.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Athei

#8

Post by Audie » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:33 am

Rob wrote:
Rob wrote: Truth hurts?
It hurts, but not because it's truth. Actually, "hurt" is probably an overstatement. More like annoyance from, frankly, terrible logic.

Science did win the moon, religion did give us 911. What sort of logic does it require to get around that?

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 349 times

Re: Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Athei

#9

Post by PaulSacramento » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:38 am

Audie wrote:
Rob wrote:
Rob wrote: Truth hurts?
It hurts, but not because it's truth. Actually, "hurt" is probably an overstatement. More like annoyance from, frankly, terrible logic.

Science did win the moon, religion did give us 911. What sort of logic does it require to get around that?
No, American foreign policy gave us 9/11.

Lets deal with the real reasons why things happened and not the excuses used.

Science didn't win anyone the moon, American desire to beat the russians to the moon got the american's their first.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Athei

#10

Post by Audie » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:40 am

neo-x wrote:A must read in my opinion.
Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Atheism'
In a rhetorical sense, an individual who is said to have a “tin ear” is an individual who is unable to appreciate the elements of nuance and sub-text in language. In a cultural sense, it means being completely tone deaf to political and social realities.

Say hello to the non-profit organisation American Atheists.

Next month, the largest annual gathering for America’s non-believers, the American Atheists Annual Convention, takes place in Memphis, Tennessee.

There are more than 2,000 atheist groups in America today, but American Atheists, which boasts more than 2,500 members, is by far the largest.

I like American Atheists. I like what they do. They’re a highly effective political action group that proactively protects the civil liberties of atheists, and is a staunch defender of the wall separating church and state. I have also met and admire the organisation’s president, Dave Silverman, whom I can attest is a tireless campaigner for America’s non-believers.

Here’s the problem.

American Atheists, like atheism in general, has been completely hijacked by anti-theists (New Atheists). The media presents celebrity atheists Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Sam Harris and co. as reflective of atheism. They’re not atheists. They’re anti-theists. Atheism is wholly and solely non-belief. The aforementioned don’t advocate non-belief; they vigorously endorse anti-belief. New Atheists describe religion “as one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus.” Harris said if given the choice, he would rid the world of religion before he rid the world of rape. Ladies?

The New Atheists are particularly fixated on Islam. In fact, Nathan Lean, author of Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufacturers Fear of Muslims, contends that if nineteen Muslims hadn’t have flown planes into the World Trade Center, it’s likely New Atheism (version 21st century) wouldn’t have become a thing. “Rational atheism is being used as a cover for Islamophobia and US militarism,” says Glenn Greenwald.

The families of the three slain Muslim American students in Chapel Hill assert it was this anti-religious, specifically anti-Muslim animus, that drove New Atheist Craig Stephen Hicks to execute their loved ones with a single bullet to the back of their heads.

A number of liberal commentators and journalists, including myself, have long warned that today’s crop of New Atheists not only “flirt with Islamophobia” but also promote dangerous anti-religious ideas. “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?” asks prominent religious scholar and commentator Reza Aslan.

So what does this have to do with American Atheists and a “tin ear”?

American Atheists have chosen venomous anti-Muslim activist and disgraced former Dutch parliamentarian, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as the keynote speaker for this year’s convention.

In the wake of Chapel Hill, and with now increased media scrutiny focused on the New Atheist movement, coupled with exponentially escalating violence carried out against Muslim Americans, American Atheists’ decision to appoint Hirsi Ali as their headliner is an extraordinary display of tone deafness.

There have been no less than eight anti-Muslim threats and acts of violence since the Chapel Hill shootings, notes Imraan Siddiqi. Before 9/11, there were only 40 to 50 anti-Muslim hate crimes per year. In the year 2001, there were nearly 500 hate crimes against Muslims, and since then there has been anywhere from 100 to 150 anti-Muslim hate crimes per year.

While no one is blaming New Atheism’s anti-Islam rhetoric solely for the rise in anti-Muslim violence, American Atheists are helping no one by elevating Hirsi Ali - who called for a “military war” against Islam and expressed sympathy for Anders Brevik, the Norwegian mass murderer who slaughtered 78 Norwegian college students as a means of punishing liberals for their multicultural sensibilities. Breivik’s murderous case of anti-Muslim bigotry was fuelled, at least in part, by Hirsi Ali’s anti-Muslim views. In his manifesto, Breivik not only lumps gushing praise on Hirsi Ali but also stated she deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for her willingness to confront Muslim immigration.

Certainly Hirsi Ali has an amazing story to tell. Genitally mutilated in Somalia at the age of five, she found refuge in The Netherlands, worked tirelessly at a refugee centre and fought for women’s rights, before being elected as a representative to the Dutch parliament. But it’s also well known that her story contains half-truths and outright lies.

Dutch TV produced an investigative piece into Hirsi Ali’s autobiographical claims. Gus van Dongen, a renowned Dutch TV journalist, travelled to Somalia and Kenya to interview members of Hirsi Ali's family. “There was no agenda,' van Dongen told The Guardian. “She is a politician who had made much of her background, telling one story. We set out to check those facts. That is all.”

The investigation revealed she had not come to The Netherlands via war-torn Somalia, as she claimed, but rather via Kenya, “where she had lived peacefully for 10 years”. Hirsi Ali admitted she had lied for the purpose of helping her immigration application, but then added she was also fleeing a forced marriage. “Not so,” said van Dongen. “Her brother and husband allege the marriage was not made under compulsion.”

Certainly Hirsi Ali has experienced religion at its most vulgar extreme; I am somewhat sympathetic to the truthful aspects of her case. I mean what fair-minded person wouldn’t be, right? But, and here’s the but, she is also the victim of the same cycle of revenge that is at the heart of most of the still unsolvable problems in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia - and she has embellished her biography to make her anti-Muslim, anti-immigration case.

Hirsi Ali wants revenge against those who committed injustices against her. Not only punishment for her oppressors, but collective punishment of all Muslims, at least that’s what I can tell from her own words. “Violence is inherent in Islam - it’s a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder … the battle against terrorism will ultimately be lost unless we realise that it’s not just with extremist elements within Islam, but the ideology of Islam itself,” Hirsi Ali has said. In a 2007 interview with Reason magazine, Hirsi Ali declared that the West isn’t at war with Islamic extremists, but “we are at war with Islam itself.” The interviewer asked her if she meant a military war. “Military, diplomatically, and politically,” she replied.

It’s not difficult to understand where her hate comes from. It comes from the same place that motivates and radicalises terrorists of all stripes: an urge for revenge based on humiliation, oppression and victimisation. If for one minute you’re thinking I’m implying Hirsi Ali is a terrorist, you’re missing the point. Hirsi Ali’s victimisation at the hands of religious fundamentalists is no different to the victimisation of those who are terrorised by goons empowered by oppressive regimes. And like all those who are unable to find forgiveness, Hirsi Ali demands the collective punishment and humiliation of all who are representative of her perpetrators.

“Hirsi is not very different from the radical extremists she ought to be really targeting. She gives them credibility by claiming their version of Islam is the only correct one and others, like me, are ‘bad Muslims’,” writes Muslim rights activist Kashif N. Chaudhry. “Like the Taliban, Hirsi is rigid in her views and is judgmental. Like them, she speaks to curtail the civil liberties of fellow citizens and inspires intolerance and violence. We must not encourage such behavior with honorary degrees. Her bigotry must be condemned in all forms.”

Hirsi Ali has not only been feted and lauded by celebrity New Atheists, their podcasts, magazines, and books, but also by pro-Zionist, Islamophobic hate mongers Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller and the neo-conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute.

No New Atheist living in America is unfamiliar with her story. But it’s not the retelling of her story they seek. They want to be rehear again how “Islam is one of the world’s great evils”, “the mother lode of bad ideas”, the greatest threat to Western civilisation and so on. New Atheism doesn’t exist without Islam. A convention that promises non-believers a discussion of a god they don’t believe in doesn’t sell many tickets. But an external enemy, a foreign threat certainly does. It’s the oldest gimmick in town.

The external enemy has generated riches, won elections, sold books and waged wars since time immemorial for those who capitalise in fear of the “Other”. General admission tickets for next month’s American Atheists convention start at a cool $329.

“How the New Atheists’ anti-Muslim hate advances their belief that God does not exist is not exactly clear. In this climate of increased anti-Muslim sentiment, it’s a convenient digression, though. They’ve shifted their base and instead of simply trying to convince people that God is a myth, they’ve embraced the monster narrative of the day. That’s not rational or enlightening or “free thinking” or even intelligent. That’s opportunism. If atheism writ large was a tough sell to skeptics, the ‘New Atheism’, Muslim-bashing atheism, must be like selling Bibles to believers,” writes Lean.

What else does your $329 get you, I mean other than possibly a renewed declaration of war against Islam? Like the schedule of any major New Atheist convention, no one is recognisable, at least to the general public, outside of the headline act. The line-up does not include Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists, esteemed leaders of academic fields, historians, geo-political experts, counter-terrorism specialists or qualified theologians - but rather it’s a mediocre rung of modestly educated, suburbanite bloggers, podcasters, and anyone else with an impressive number of Twitter followers. Not forgetting those who wish or already have declared war on Islam.

American Atheists is a commendable organisation. They should continue to protect the civil liberties of atheists, especially as atheists continue to be the most disliked minority in America, alongside Muslims. American Atheists should seek opportunities to work together with other discriminated-against minorities, like Muslim Americans, and stay clear of those who peddle hate and revenge. The road to broader public acceptance does not travel through the persecution of another minority.

I hope they can hear this.
- See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/wh ... taPH3.dpuf
No visible problem in this screed being based on the utterly false and ridiculous claim that these men somehow
have "hijacked" and represent atheist thinking? "Nuance" indeed.

Thanks but no thanks for all the "helpful" advice.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Athei

#11

Post by Audie » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:47 am

PaulSacramento wrote:
Audie wrote:
Rob wrote:
Rob wrote: Truth hurts?
It hurts, but not because it's truth. Actually, "hurt" is probably an overstatement. More like annoyance from, frankly, terrible logic.

Science did win the moon, religion did give us 911. What sort of logic does it require to get around that?
No, American foreign policy gave us 9/11.

Lets deal with the real reasons why things happened and not the excuses used.

Science didn't when anyone the moon, American desire to beat the russians to the moon got the american's their first.
From your words it's made most clear, where is the source of logic. :D

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Athei

#12

Post by Jac3510 » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:52 am

Audie wrote:
Rob wrote:
Rob wrote: Truth hurts?
It hurts, but not because it's truth. Actually, "hurt" is probably an overstatement. More like annoyance from, frankly, terrible logic.

Science did win the moon, religion did give us 911. What sort of logic does it require to get around that?
There's no need to "get around" it. Science gave us the atomic bomb and religion gave us the scientific method (OH NO I WENT THERE!!1!11!). Science gave us cures for cancer and religion gives us a "reason" not to take those cures and die unnecessarily. Science gave us toxic waste and religion gives the dying a sense of peace. Science givesus a better self-understanding and religion gives us self-delusion. Science gave us the gulag and religion gave us the inquisition.

The point should be clear. There's no problem with science as such and no problem with religion as such. There is a problem with what people do with it and use it for. The real problem is never science or religion or economics or history or race or anything else. The problem is people and what they want to do. That they use any particular area of reality to do what they want and harm others isn't the issue of that particular area of reality.

And in your post, the problem is with the implicit leap you are making and/or suggesting others make--that science=good and religion=bad. That's poor thinking and seems far more motiviated by something personal to you than anything else. And given your other posts today, that seems doubly likely. I hope and pray you're doing okay. You seem frustrated and taking it out on something.

Praying that if something difficult is going on that you'll find some peace today. y[-o<
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 349 times

Re: Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Athei

#13

Post by PaulSacramento » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:52 am

Audie wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
Audie wrote:
Rob wrote:
Rob wrote: Truth hurts?
It hurts, but not because it's truth. Actually, "hurt" is probably an overstatement. More like annoyance from, frankly, terrible logic.

Science did win the moon, religion did give us 911. What sort of logic does it require to get around that?
No, American foreign policy gave us 9/11.

Lets deal with the real reasons why things happened and not the excuses used.

Science didn't when anyone the moon, American desire to beat the russians to the moon got the american's their first.
From your words it's made most clear, where is the source of logic. :D
Common sense and historical understanding is the source of logic.

Religion doesn't DO anything, people do.
Sure religion can be used as an excuse ( even at times the reason) to do many bad things ( and good things of course) but religion, like science, doesn't DO anything.

To blame religion for 9/11 is like blaming science for Hiroshima.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Athei

#14

Post by Audie » Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:04 am

Jac3510 wrote:
Audie wrote:
Rob wrote:
Rob wrote: Truth hurts?
It hurts, but not because it's truth. Actually, "hurt" is probably an overstatement. More like annoyance from, frankly, terrible logic.

Science did win the moon, religion did give us 911. What sort of logic does it require to get around that?
There's no need to "get around" it. Science gave us the atomic bomb and religion gave us the scientific method (OH NO I WENT THERE!!1!11!). Science gave us cures for cancer and religion gives us a "reason" not to take those cures and die unnecessarily. Science gave us toxic waste and religion gives the dying a sense of peace. Science givesus a better self-understanding and religion gives us self-delusion. Science gave us the gulag and religion gave us the inquisition.

The point should be clear. There's no problem with science as such and no problem with religion as such. There is a problem with what people do with it and use it for. The real problem is never science or religion or economics or history or race or anything else. The problem is people and what they want to do. That they use any particular area of reality to do what they want and harm others isn't the issue of that particular area of reality.

And in your post, the problem is with the implicit leap you are making and/or suggesting others make--that science=good and religion=bad. That's poor thinking and seems far more motiviated by something personal to you than anything else. And given your other posts today, that seems doubly likely. I hope and pray you're doing okay. You seem frustrated and taking it out on something.

Praying that if something difficult is going on that you'll find some peace today. y[-o<
There is no leap from me.
The leap you speak of is but a baby-step, one taken in your own mind. You already have built the bigot-bridge of false
assumption about me, for you to step across, and then attribute it to me.

The more you do this pomp-and-condescension thing, the less regard I have for you.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Why US non-believers must reject Islamophobic 'New Athei

#15

Post by Jac3510 » Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:22 am

The babystep is still an unjustified logical leap, and it is one in you, and in any case, your present aggression is coming from somewhere. Still praying for you, Audie. I hope your day improves.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Post Reply