Time for atheists to take a hard look at ourselves

[phantom power]

... Yes, yes, I know we don’t know if it was over religion or a parking space, but it’s clear as hell that many in the atheist world are hoping—dare I say praying—that there’s some kind of exonerating evidence to show that he barely even noticed the headscarfs on the heads of two of his victims. To which I say, why? If we are, as we purport to be, rational people who are above the knee-jerk tribalism of our religious brethren, then we should be open, without any defensiveness, to an open and honest discussion about how the rhetoric of some of the big names in atheism—Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Bill Maher—treads past the ordinary criticisms of faith and turns into ugly and demonstrably silly arguments about how Islam is somehow uniquely poisonous as a religion. While claiming to oppose Christianity, these men have allowed themselves to be useful idiots for the cause of the Christian right, giving them an “even the atheists agree!” cover for their desire to stoke religious animosity and drumming up support for even more unnecessary wars in the Middle East.

...

We don’t know, yet, why Craig Hicks did this. (Though it’s not looking good for those who want to eliminate “hate crime” from the list of possibilities as quickly as possible.) But the fact that it’s even a possibility that the killer of Deah Shaddy Barakat, Yusor Mohammad, and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha was inspired by atheist antagonism against Muslims should give us pause. If it’s just as easy to imagine a big Bill Maher fan going after Muslims as it is to imagine a Fox News fan, then we have a serious discussion on our hands about whether or not we really are rising above the cheap tribal politics we abhor in the believers.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/time-for-atheists-to-take-a-hard-look-at-ourselves/

[trotsky]

1. Oh it's entirely possible he did it because he hates Muslims.

And I've seen no one deny that he was an atheist, either. Unlike the crowd of defenders who jumped to declare the Charlie Hebdo attackers NOT Muslims despite their very vocal and insistent pronouncements that they were.

But I am still waiting for someone to point me to the Big Book of Atheism that we all follow (or at least in which atheism the position is defined and derived), and then to the passages therein that could possibly be taken to mean believers should be killed.

I even posted that request in the Religion group - and no one has answered the challenge: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218181098

FWIW, if a Bill Maher fan goes after Muslims, it's because he thinks he's found a reason to do that from listening to Bill Maher. No other atheist has to explain away any verses in our Big Book of Atheism because it doesn't fucking exist.

[skepticscott]

2. Sorry, already sick of cowardly atheists

kissing other people's asses to cover their own. "Please look at me...I'm denouncing! Right here...see? I'm denouncing this...Pretty please don't criticize me!!" Makes me want to vomit.

NO other atheist needs to apologize, explain, or beg forgiveness in even the most roundabout way for the actions of this person. Period.

[amuse bouche]

30. Yes...yes and yeeessssss

[hollysmom]

3. nope, won't do it,

I don't see this murder as a big atheist thing, but of just another angry man with a gun and bigotry. I don't harass religious people and would dearly love religious people to not harass me. PS I lived near a new Moonie settlement for a year - if you really want to know annoying go from being a park walker to having to stay in your house because every time you would go outside they would swarm you - that should be illegal.

[AlbertCat]

4. Are atheists JUST atheists?

I mean is that the only descriptive noun one can use for a 3-D living person who happens to not believe in gods or even not like religion?

Could this jerk be also a gun nut? Or also a bigot. Plenty of religious people are religious AND gun nut bigots.

Is it his atheist self that thought it was OK to shoot people over a parking spot, or was it, oh I dunno, some white privilege, gotta "stand your ground" and the gun is the solution part of this moron?


Religion is still ridiculous....and dangerous.

[trotsky]

14. The spin I am seeing from others now is...

'Sure, maybe atheism doesn't have any doctrines that might command one to murder. But it also doesn't have any doctrines NOT to murder therefore it's responsible that way!'

I dunno anymore. Seems that some folks are gonna find a way to hate atheists no matter what.

[AlbertCat]

107. But it also doesn't have any doctrines NOT to murder therefore it's responsible that way!'

Uh.... isn't there a secular LAW about killing people?

Do religionists just follow religious laws?! YIKES!

[LiberalAndProud]

6. Again with the admonitions that we should just shush.

Charlie Hebdo
Craig Hicks

It doesn't seem to matter who kills or for what reason. The fault is ours because we didn't keep it mum.

Always remember and never forget ... shhhh.

[mr blur]

7. Sorry, there are enough anti-atheist people round here,

without us blaming ourselves for things like this.

What's with rec-ing your own OP?

[Lordquinton]

27. there are two more recs

From people that have been banned (with hood reason) from this group. Interesting mix, I wonder if the op is foi g to head over to the Catholic group and say the same sort of "look at ourselves" over the knowledge that thwir church harbors a global pedophile ring... didn't think so (And we all know the answer anyways)

[Exultant Democracy]

8. I've seen some real anti-muslim full on ignorant racism here

I am totally against every religion and I find them all to be insulting to the dignity of man. That being said there is a singling out of Muslims that is both absurd and disturbingly racist when you actually consider the history of the region and the forces at play.



Personally I don't think there is real justification to call Judaism Christianity and Islam different religions rather then different sects of Abarhamism.

[Exultant Democracy]

10. Only if your being myopic and reductionist to an absurd degree.

[cleanhippie]

112. If you want to see what absurd looks like...

consult your nearest mirror and read your posts back to yourself.

[PeaceNikki]

18. Muslim is not a race.

[Exultant Democracy]

29. They used the coded language of racism to talk about brown people, shoe fits they are racist.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. Please provide links for statements on DU that you consider examples

of this behavior.

[Exultant Democracy]

58. That would be a call out and aginst TOS. But the racist stupidity is strong here nuf said?

[Warren Stupidity]

63. call outs are not against the TOS.

So now what is your excuse?

[RussBLib]

68. "racist stupidity is strong here" ?

Really? And which "here" do you refer to, exactly?

Here at A&A? Or here at DU? Or here in the USA? Planet Earth?

Because in my experience with A&A, these people are NOT racist, nor are they stupid.

You are the one calling Muslims a "race," which is not exactly right. Or bright.

[Exultant Democracy]

69. As I said they used the coded language of racism to talk about brown people.

Are you bright enough to understand that? And yes I have found it here in AA, but it is a lot better in AA then general DU. There are plenty of stupid racist everywhere, hence the world in it's current state. A lot of the racist bigots on the left don't even know how racist and bigoted they are.

[RussBLib]

70. still seeking evidence

so I guess for the nth time, can you provide any examples of this "coded language" of which you speak?

If you cannot, I suggest you drop it. You are beginning to sound like those other folks that can't provide any evidence for their beliefs either.

[Exultant Democracy]

75. Asking for evidence of something that is omnipresent is disturbing and problematic in itself.

Like people that force women to prove society is sexist, proving westerners are racist gets old quick. But look to post #73, for a few examples of stupid racism right here in DU.

I would say the fact that you need racism proven to you means you should read this. http://www.salon.com/2015/01/16/white_people_are_more_racist_than_they_realize_partner/

I would be very interesting in the results of your test if you take the one mentioned in the article.

[RussBLib]

86. this is why I asked you what "here" meant

...and your links show that you are referring to DU as a whole, and not to this A&A group.

I won't argue there are some neanderthal "Democrats" on DU, indeed they are legion, and it's disappointing.

But I find no evidence of them in the A&A group.

If you had answered that simple question awhile back, a lot of this could have been avoided.

[Exultant Democracy]

87. One of the links was to an AA thread.But yes it isn't even close to as bad here as the rest of DU

you are correct about that.

[trotsky]

71. Those are some pretty serious accusations.

Got any evidence to support them?

[Exultant Democracy]

73. Here are a few gems from DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026162086

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026163653

Savage and barbarian are both examples of the coded language of racism. White people have been using these terms for a long time to justify killing brown people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123034824

And here we have a post from AA dripping with racist drivel.

[trotsky]

74. "ISIS scumbags"

scumbag: a mean, detestable person

I don't think you know what "racist" means.

[Exultant Democracy]

76. There are also posts saying savages and barabrians, don't cherry pick.

savages and barbarians are the key words here and there are plenty of them being tossed around on those threads. To be specific I was not calling out those OP's, but the contents of the treads in question.

[trotsky]

78. OK then you need to link to specific posts.

The links you posted went to just the OP.

That being said, I don't care what color someone's skin is, if they are chopping off heads and gleefully displaying the results in a video, they are barbarians.

[Exultant Democracy]

90. I'll then use you as my example. Using the term barbarian to describe brown people is racist.

Thanks for proving my point right here in AA. You can pretend it isn't racist but the term barbarian isn't really up for debate, the genesis of the term is steeped in the proto-rasicm of the Greeks and it's history in association with western imperialism and rise of the modern institution of racism is as well established as the word nigger.

The fact that you don't think using the term barbarian is problematic is an example of the very problem I am talking about. For over 2000 year every time white people have been calling brown people barbarians, it is just as sad to see these primitive modes of though today as watching people worship their ancient sky gods.

Let me add that on the measure I think pretty highly of you. That doesn't change that you seem to have serious blinders on this issue.

[muriel_volestrangler]

172. For over 2000 years, white people have also been calling white people barbarians

The Greeks used it for any non-Greek speakers (and then used it for other Greeks they wanted to look down on). It was frequently used for any Europeans living north of Greece, and the Romans used it in the same way. It has, for 2000 years, been an epithet used to describe an 'uncivilised' culture. It is not about race.

[Warren Stupidity]

81. Wow. That is some weak sauce.

ISIS scumbags behead Japanese journalist

What level of respect do you think we should use when discussing the people who are part of ISIS and who are publicly beheading civilians? What level of respect does ISIS deserve?

That would be your first link.

Everyone hates ISIS....So what do you want to do about it ?

Your second link was actually objecting to the wording used in your first link and asking how we should respond to the dilemma posed by ISIS. Perhaps you ought to read your evidence first?

Iraqi libraries ransacked by Islam
Your third link posted information about another act of religiously inspired idiocy. Perhaps you do not understand that "Islam" is a religion, and "muslims" are people who practice that religion?

0/3.

You're out.

[Exultant Democracy]

91. Link 1: Post 1 try looking with your eyes next time.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

94. I think Clarence Thomas is a scumbag

Does that make me a racist? Cuz if so, you've gone completely off your fucking rocker.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Point me to the racist people.

I'm spoiling for a fight today.

[Exultant Democracy]

93. Post 78 right here, using the term barbarian to describe people of color is always racist.

Post one link one on the threads full of racism I shared. Although a few smart people deleted their posts referring to savages (on the first two threads) after the point was made on the threads by more poster then myself how racist it sounds.

[AtheistCrusader]

96. I've only seen one person use the term 'savage' around here, and that person is not an atheist.

Post 78 and the thread that lead to it EXPLICITLY describes behavior WITHOUT regard to race. So I object to your claim.

Would you object to me describing Cortez or Columbus as barbarians? I would based on how they treated people of comparably little power. Race doesn't have much to do with it.

[skepticscott]

98. Always? Why? Because YOU say so?

Forgive me if I'm not impressed. Most people who use the word are ignorant of its real provenance, and it's original connotation is long gone, so you're really doing nothing but mouthing your own unsupported opinion. But we love intellectual pinatas here, so keep coming.

[skepticscott]

105. The word "barbarian" has far older roots than that

It was applied by the Greeks to non-Greeks and then by the Romans (ironically, since the Greeks had applied it them) to white Anglo-Saxon types and other people who they thought talked funny and didn't bathe often enough.

Take your PC word policing and your bogus accusations of bigotry somewhere else.

[AlbertCat]

108. You can pretend the last 500 years didn't happen

And you can pretend that "barbarian" is a racial pejorative just like the word "nigger".....


but it isn't.




Still.... the GOP managed in a couple of years to make "Liberal" a dirty word, so keep working at it and maybe in a few years "Barbarian" will be banned from polite conversation. Maybe you can get some pointers on how to make perfectly good words redefined from Newt Gingrich.

[Warren Stupidity]

99. you do know that some members of isis are just plain old white, right?

but I digress, what level of respect do you think we should show towards ISIS?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

101. If it's "racist" to call ISIS terrorists barbarians, what would you prefer we call them?

I'm going to damn well call them barbarians if they're performing acts of barbarity against innocent human beings. Has it gotten so bad that we have to worry about offending ISIS by labeling them what they are? Fuck that.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

104. You know what I think?

I think you've fallen into the trap that so many do - you've become so worried about a meaningless intellectual argument that you forget how reality actually works. It's a classic first-world trap - you have things so easy that you have to manufacture something to be outraged about because it makes you feel like a "real" liberal - like you're really doing something.

And while you're arguing about some nonexistent, imaginary "racism", real people are getting kidnapped, raped, abused, tortured, and killed. And you, with your faux outrage, decide, in your wisdom, that some random internet poster's "racism" is the problem, and not the aforementioned kidnappings, assaults, murders, genocide and ethnic cleansing carried out by barbarians against innocent men, women, and children. These people ARE barbarians - the literal definition of barbarians. They're monsters. Deviants. Savages. Inhuman. Depraved.

The real victims here are the Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the areas where ISIS holds sway, but they're not victims because of some alleged "racism" on the internet. They're victims because of the treatment at the hands of the barbarians. So don't tell me that I'm "reveling in depravity" by calling the perpetrators of these vicious acts what they actually are, when every week they show themselves as barbarians through their violent, barbaric actions.

[AlbertCat]

109. This was interesting....

I was gonna make a quip about the use of the word "niggardly"... and wondered about its use and controversy.

From Wiki:

On January 15, 1999, David Howard, an aide to Anthony A. Williams, the mayor of Washington, D.C., used "niggardly" in reference to a budget.[2] This apparently upset one of his black colleagues (Howard is white), identified by Howard as Marshall Brown, who misinterpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint.

*****

Public response
The Howard incident led to a national debate in the U.S., in the context of racial sensitivity and political correctness, on whether use of niggardly should be avoided. As James Poniewozik wrote in Salon, the controversy was "an issue that opinion-makers right, left and center could universally agree on." He wrote that "the defenders of the dictionary" were "legion, and still queued up six abreast."[6] Julian Bond, then chairman of the NAACP, deplored the offense that had been taken at Howard's use of the word. "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding", he said. "David Howard should not have quit. Mayor Williams should bring him back — and order dictionaries issued to all staff who need them."[7]

Bond also said, "Seems to me the mayor has been niggardly in his judgment on the issue" and that as a nation the US has a "hair-trigger sensibility" on race that can be tripped by both real and false grievances.[8]

Let's repeat what the NAACP said about "niggardly", shall we?

chairman of the NAACP, deplored the offense that had been taken at Howard's use of the word. "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding", he said. "David Howard should not have quit. Mayor Williams should bring him back — and order dictionaries issued to all staff who need them."

Maybe E D should get the NAACP on denouncing "barbarian".... if he can.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

110. Don't know if you remember the kerfuffle here at DU about the word niggardly

A couple of innocent posts in GD were killed by juries simply for using the word and describing its actual meaning, while the Cult of the Perpetually Outraged threw their usual fit about the injustice of using such a hateful word. It would have been hilarious had it not made liberals look like a pile of morons.

[skepticscott]

115. Didn't see that, but it doesn't surprise me

I've heard of other blathering PCers going apeshit about that word, and even after it's explained to them, they still foam at the mouth in a fit of "I don't care about facts..I'm going to be outraged!". Do they get all hot and bothered when someone uses the word "Klondike" because it contains a word fragment that sounds like a slur against lesbians? Do they shit their pants if a woman is referred to as a "country" singer, because part of that word sounds like "cunt"?

And our friend here is (well, was) utterly oblivious to the fact that "barbarian" as used by people today has essentially NO racist intent, as compared to its use in the distant past. The vast majority of people who employ it today don't even know its roots.

[skepticscott]

114. +1000

Nail on the head. Some people are so determined to be "liberal activists" that they go completely overboard on PC and find offense and outrage where they don't exist.

[LiberalAndProud]

122. Just wanted to mention that atheists don't fare well in those areas either.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/14/afghan-atheist-uk-asylum

An Afghan man is believed to have become the first atheist to be granted asylum in the UK on the basis of his views on religion.

The 23-year-old, who has not been identified, feared that if forcibly returned to his homeland he would face persecution for having renounced his faith.

The Home Office's decision to accept denial of the existence of God as grounds for protection could set a significant precedent in asylum and immigration cases. The application was granted before the hearing stage at an immigration tribunal.

[Curmudgeoness]

113. Post 78 is not racist in the least.

You may want to re-read that post. There was no offense in that post to any race, color, or creed.

[AlbertCat]

106. As I said they used the coded language of racism to talk about brown people.

I don't

I call Muslims Muslims because they are Muslims....period.


Stop with the reading between the lines and attaching YOUR fears to everyone else statements.


And out of the 3 Abrahamic religions, these days Islam is the most trouble. But the interaction of all three has been a thorn in the side of all civilizations for centuries! Still...at this point in time...Islam is the biggest problem. That's just all there is to it.

It's also up to Islam to fix it. No one else can.

[Robert Prewitt]

123. Check back to the Bill Maher/Ben Affleck discussions

I don't have access to the links, as it's been awhile, but there were many making decidedly islamophobic statements in their defenses of Bill Maher. Islamophobia is bad in itself. But people need to remember that while Islamophobia isn't in itself racist, most American Muslims are Arab or Asian, so Islamophobic rhetoric does have racist effect, if not intentions.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

129. Hey Bobby, could you provide a link and cite some specific examples?

Not gonna take your word for it.

[Robert Prewitt]

132. No, problem, Betty...I got an example right here.

Here's a lovely post from some poster named PeaceNikki from the "What Ben Affleck Missed in the Islamophobic debate" thread of this forum. The post is dated: Sat, Oct 11, 2014, 11:41 AM: http://www.democraticunderground.com/123029392#post3

" "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a ridiculous simplistic notion. And wrong.

As a strong supporter of women and a secular society, Republicans are my adversaries. Organized religion is as well. Islam is generally an extreme example of misogyny, hate and violence - and injecting these horrible beliefs into governments and law. And I, for one, won't hold back on criticizing it just because the RW does.

We think it's hypocritical when the Christian RW wants to exclude Islam while pushing their agendas (and it is!), but I ALSO think it's hypocritical to defend Islam or pretend their harmful beliefs do not exist and I won't. I am well known on DU for my criticism of Pope Francis and the RCC and any other religious person or belief that is discriminatory or otherwise harmful to a secular society. I don't like any of it."

That's some lovely, open-minded bile/islamophobia aimed towards every Muslims' religion. It's the exact kind of inimical discourse that inflames violent Muslim-haters and other xenophobes looking for "others" to hate. Do you need another example?

[cpwm17]

137. It depends how one criticizes Islam

There is nothing wrong with criticizing particular religious beliefs, as long as you are consistent and criticize all people for the same thing. I also think religion is objectively wrong and many religious beliefs are harmful.

Islamophobes believe Muslims are particularly evil and they condemn all Muslims for the sins of the individual. Under those standards nobody in this world looks good.

Also, Islamophobes aren't consistent and they often lack self-awareness. They often promote war against Muslims while complaining about the alleged Muslim propensity towards violence. This is Western imperial privilege. We can start unprovoked wars against them, killing tens of thousands of innocent Muslims with public support. But when some Muslims commit some violence, it is they that are collectively guilty.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

138. Robby, that person is referring to beliefs and not to people

If she had written "every Muslim is a violent terrorist", I'd consider your point valid. But she didn't - she pointed out the inherent problems with patriarchal and exclusionary religious beliefs that promote misogyny, hate, and violence. If you'd like to shut down criticism of Islam, you're probably in the wrong place.

By the way, welcome back. Hope you enjoy your stay.

[Robert Prewitt]

141. Betty, she condemns everybody who subscribes to Islam.

She wrote this horrible quote:

"Islam is generally an extreme example of misogyny, hate and violence - and injecting these horrible beliefs into governments and law. And I, for one, won't hold back on criticizing it just because the RW does."

This directly implies that every Muslim generally subscribes to "an extreme example of misogyny, hate, and violence." That is exactly the type of hateful discourse that makes people look askew at Muslims, including the three who were shot last week. If you're fine with that, I know exactly where you stand on such discourses towards Muslims.

And don't be dramatic. I'm not trying to shut down criticism of Islam; every religion and ideology merits criticism. I just rightly abhor ignorant, hateful blanket condemnations of religions that cast inherent aspersions on all of its believers. Apparently you don't.

I'm new here by the way, but I appreciate your welcome...

[skepticscott]

142. For a newcomer, your knowledge of things here is

extensive...to say the least. Congratulations. Nice to see someone willing to carry on for others who have been temporarily banned.

[Robert Prewitt]

145. Think harder, skeptic

Try to think harder, skeptic. I said I'm a new poster; I never said I haven't been reading the threads.

By the way, Sigmund Freud was a very poor scientist. Just ask the thousands of women who suffered under his "science."

[EvolveOrConvolve]

148. Oh look, it's free-association hour in the Prewitt household

Either that, or your Freud comment was a personal attack. You seem to know quite a bit of history here at the DU - what was your original username?

[Robert Prewitt]

150. Personal attack?

He has a quote from Freud on his "site." So, unless he's related to Freud, or is Freud himself, my comment was no personal attack. Your concern for him is admirable.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

151. You do understand that's a signature, right?

Do you know the difference between a post and a signature?

[skepticscott]

163. Your desire to do your homework before posting

Must make you and your friends proud.

But do you agree with Freud's statement or not? Or was that just an attempt to provoke?

[Robert Prewitt]

164. I agree to a point.

I was not trying to provoke. I honestly find Freud's theories of women and hysteria offensive, as I do the fact many women have suffered under those theories. Freud lecturing on the legitimacy of science is like Bush jr. lecturing on the legitimacy of presidencies.

As to the content, science does require vision outside the present scientifically confirmed theories to grow. However, I completely agree with Carroll--a brilliant theoretical physicist and atheist--that scientific "proof" or confirmation of superior ethical behavior needs actual scientific confirmation to be considered science. Otherwise the difference between science and speculation becomes negligible.

[skepticscott]

165. Ah yes...and you probably find the use of the word

"Hysteria" or "hysterical" in any context to be horribly sexist, just as some people consider the use of "barbarian" or "barbaric" to be inherently racist.

But Freud wasn't lecturing on the legitimacy of science in that statement, only commenting on its nature. Freud's word is not needed to render science legitimate.

[Robert Prewitt]

169. Are you always so dramatic?

"Hysteria" or "hysterical" in any context to be horribly sexist, just as some people consider the use of "barbarian" or "barbaric" to be inherently racist.

I never said any such thing. Freud's use of the word "hysteria" in his diagnoses was horribly sexist. If you don't know that, you know nothing of Freud's writings or his theory's applications.

And in your signature, Freud explicitly says, " Only the real, rare, true scientific minds can endure doubt." That clearly states that legitimate science is the science that endures doubt and illegitimate science doesn't.

So, try to read responses--and your own signature--before responding emotionally and incorrectly.

[skepticscott]

173. Do you always misrepresent what other people say?

I never said that you said that, I speculated that you probably think that, as many here do. And my comment concerned to connotation of those words as they are used today (which rarely has any association with Freud in the minds of the users).

And try reading again yourself. I said that Freud was not commenting on whether science as a discipline was legitimate or not. He wasn't. In your haste to be contradictory, you neglected to comprehend that. It's a difficult point, so your confusion is understandable, though.

[Act_of_Reparation]

174. Welcome to DU...

When arguments fail, divert, divert, divert.

Oh shit, this isn't going well... so instead, let's talk about how Freud was a sexist and how you, by implication, are a sexist too for quoting Freud. I'm a much better liberal than you. I'm going to stand here and clap myself on the back for how progressive I am. Don't mind me. Sexist.

[skepticscott]

197. Yes, and some folk have their self-righteous campaign

against "intolerance" to conduct.

Well, not so much any more, I guess…back into dry dock.

[cleanhippie]

177. Laundry day in Mexico, ST?

[PeaceNikki]

180. Yes, you did. You 'misrepresented' my words.

You stated that criticism of Islam and its misogynistic and barbaric beliefs "inflames violent Muslim-haters and other xenophobes". You know what? I do not, never have and never will condone violence. Not now, not ever. If some asshole thinks my words of criticism are fodder for that, it's because they are fucking nuts. Are you fucking nuts? Because you seem to be twisting my words to mean something they don't. Now I know how Jesus might feel if he were real.

Also, I think you're a lying liar. "Robert Prewitt" is either the 'sockpuppet' of someone who has been banned from this site, locked out of this thread or banned from this group.

[PeaceNikki]

182. lol, profanity isn't vulgar or 'frenzied' to me.

[PeaceNikki]

184. So serious!

[skepticscott]

196. Funny that our little friend

nit-picked and argued about anything in sight, but didn't dare deny this. Guess we know why now.

[PeaceNikki]

198. I knew it wouldn't last.

[skepticscott]

199. I'm sure he's out there right now

plotting his revenge, just like one of those comic-book bad guys that you never really get rid of, no matter how many times they get the beat-down.

Have fun out there, Bobby! We'll keep a weather eye for your return!

[PeaceNikki]

200. There are so many quotes from "What About Bob?" that are running through my head now.

"You think he's gone? He's not gone. That's the whole point! He's never gone!"

"Death Therapy, Bob. It's a guaranteed cure."

At least THAT Bob was funny, though!

[EvolveOrConvolve]

144. I'm not sure, Bob, if you're being serious

This directly implies that every Muslim generally subscribes to "an extreme example of misogyny, hate, and violence." That is exactly the type of hateful discourse that makes people look askew at Muslims, including the three who were shot last week.

So anyone who points out the inherent misogyny, sexism, and bigotry in Islam is now responsible for those murders? You seem to be making a blanket statement about those that criticize religion, and I'm not sure you see the internal inconsistencies in your statement.

I'll say it again: if she'd made a statement about Muslims, I'd agree with you. Instead, she made a statement about beliefs; a statement for which there is ample evidence.

[Robert Prewitt]

147. Im not sure, Betty, if you're being serious

So anyone who points out the inherent misogyny, sexism, and bigotry in Islam is now responsible for those murders?

I never suggested anything like this. Your suggesting I did is ridiculous.

I responded to PeacNikki's loathsome quote here:

"Islam is generally an extreme example of misogyny, hate and violence - and injecting these horrible beliefs into governments and law. And I, for one, won't hold back on criticizing it just because the RW does."

I'll repeat my response to that quote:

"This directly implies that every Muslim generally subscribes to "an extreme example of misogyny, hate, and violence." That is exactly the type of hateful discourse that makes people look askew at Muslims, including the three who were shot last week. If you're fine with that, I know exactly where you stand on such discourses towards Muslims."

As I said above, she didn't directly condemn Muslims, but she indirectly condemned all Muslims as people subscribing to an "extreme example of misogyny, hate, and violence." That is exactly the type of talk that spurs suspicion of and violence against people. If you don't think so, we have nothing to talk about.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

149. We haven't had anything to talk about since you first jumped into the conversation

And since you seem to be a retread, we probably have even less to talk about.

[PeaceNikki]

146. No, n00b, I criticized "it", the ideology.

Just like I criticize all organized religion.

[Robert Prewitt]

152. Don't hurt my feelings...:)

Do grownups actually say "Noob"? I thought only Gamergaters said stuff like that...

I pointed out clearly what you said and implied, and I'll let that post stand on the matter.

[PeaceNikki]

161. You pointed out what I said and you were wrong on "implied".

You don't know me.

Also, it's n00b.

[Robert Prewitt]

162. I was asolutely right about what you said and implied.

I don't want to know you.

However, "n00b" is spelled, I'm just surprised a grown-up actually used it. You see a new thing every day.

[PeaceNikki]

168. What is/was your other/previous name here? You've obviously been banned or locked out of this thread

[Robert Prewitt]

170. Good night.

I've already said on this thread that I've read the threads before but never posted on them. If you want to think otherwise, knock yourself out.

[mr blur]

175. Enjoy your short stay.

The seas can get rough round here, mind you don't fall overboard.

[cleanhippie]

179. Every sailor knows you don't take a starboard tack in rough seas.

[Beearewhyain]

186. FYI...

On Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:11 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Every sailor knows you don't take a starboard tack in rough seas.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=35988

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This poster, with no evidence but snark, is calling one poster a sock of Starboard Tack, a poster cleanhippe routinely attacks. In one post he's accusing two members of being a sock of the other.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:19 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I see nothing in this post that is hideworthy. Even if the alerter's accusations are true, being snarky is not against community standards.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A low count poster comes into an obscure safe haven group and *ahem* challenges members on positions they have in that group. Speculation seems to be fair game.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Disruptive personal attack.

[skepticscott]

195. Yes, it seems he's gone

to Davy Jones' locker...

[Lordquinton]

171. Did he come here on a boat?

Did he come here with a goat?

Did he read any of the stickies and therefore know he is breaking the rules of this group and is so completely transparent and using very specific terms and references that would require more than a brief reading of threads here and there, and if he did literally create his account today and has been tracking things on this forum for so long that he knows such small details then he's a pro web searcher to have all that bookmarked and on hand for just such an occasion.

[cleanhippie]

178. Look at the blocked memebers list for this group...

Then change course to a starboard tack.

[valerief]

11. All religions are poisonous. nt

[Curmudgeoness]

13. So what if it was all about religion

or more precisely, this killer's hatred of religion.

I don't see one atheist standing up for this killer, or making excuses for him. It isn't like some of the Catholics who are defending their church even when gross charges of child abuse and officials hiding that abuse were made public. It is not like some Muslims who thought that the Charlie Hebdo killing were justified. And these are just current affairs. Many excuse the Crusades as somehow needed to defend themselves.

But no atheist is coming forward and saying that this is justified. We don't have to be ashamed just because one very unstable individual, who happens to be an atheist, committed a crime.

[trotsky]

17. This.

Yes, precisely this.

[onager]

19. Anybody else checked Hicks' "likes" on Facebook?

--Huffington Post
--Rachel Maddow
--Southern Poverty Law Center
--Freedom from Religion Foundation
--Bill Nye The Science Guy
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

He also claimed to support marriage equality, women's rights and was pro-choice.

So when do we hear the demands for all liberals to apologize?

Because obviously - "OMNEG*!1! LIBERALISM CAUSED THESE KILLINGS!" (Which is already being promoted on some of the crazier right-wing sites. The ones still calling Obama a closet Muslim.)

*Oh my non-existent god.

[trotsky]

20. I didn't notice until just now that the piece in the OP came from Raw Story.

I.e., the "we stand by the piece we published calling to purge atheists from the Democratic party" website.

[Goblinmonger]

21. Yeah, fuck them.

I won't get over that article because all they did every time was just double down on the bullshit.

[progressoid]

22. Bill and Neil need to denounce him immediately!

It's obvious their shows led him to do this.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

23. there is something weird about neo-atheism that particularly targets Muslims

and yes, Bill Maher, is def one of them. that being said unless this becomes a trend, and is not literally the action of one person, i doubt that this is tribal politics quite the same way.

[RussBLib]

24. gee, do you think it might have something to do with....

self-proclaimed Muslims publishing videos of beheadings and burning people alive? while insisting that women's clits be removed forcibly?

I don't see many Christians behaving like this at this time. Not for a few hundred years, actually.

Maybe that's why Islam is receiving the bulk of the ire from atheists these days?

Ya think?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. no, i think its bigotry. FGM has existed long before Islam

and have you heard of the anti-balaca?

then let's look at George W. Bush, a proudly Christian man, elected by proud Christian, invades a Muslim country and kills how many people?

[cpwm17]

28. Oh really! We have Christian preachers across the country preaching a pro-war message

along with some very popular atheists.

The thing is, war is so much a way of life in the US that many people hardly notice. But when some Muslims, out of over 1.5 billion, engage in some bad behavior, then Muslims are uniquly evil. Bigots are not good at math.

I don't mean to pick on Christians here. They are a deverse group and much of this violence isn't religious, but there is more violence from the part of the world that is dominated by Christians than by Muslims:

http://www.alternet.org/belief/despite-wingnut-freakout-obama-right-christian-violence-just-bad-muslim-violence

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[onager]

32. What a load of crap.

The thing is, war is so much a way of life in the US that many people hardly notice.

Why don't you go talk to somebody whose spouse, parent or child came home in a flag-draped coffin and ask if they "hardly noticed" the war?

I'm sure they'd love to have a perfectly civil, academic, ivory-tower debate with you on that subject. Bonus points if you call them racist, imperialist shitlords even if they were dirt-poor people who joined the military to try and better themselves. As I myself did, so, yes, I'm taking your crap very personally.

But when some Muslims, out of over 1.5 billion, engage in some bad behavior, then Muslims are uniquly evil. Bigots are not good at math.

And drum-banging shit-stirrers apparently aren't very good at spelling. Or basic logic.

You're the third person, I believe, who's barged in here today claiming this group is "racist" against Muslims.

What I'd like to see is some proof of that. As in, links to actual posts attacking Muslims as people, and not the Islamic religion.

Put up or shut up. This applies to all of you making that claim. On which I am calling total bullshit, BTW. The Pope gets insulted more in here than Muslims.

And as I've said too many times in my TL/DR posts in this group - I lived among Muslims for about 6 years, in 2 different Muslim countries. I literally put my life in the hands of Muslims too many times to count. Some knew I was an atheist, most didn't. I have attended Muslim weddings, too many Eid festivals to count, I've celebrated the birth of their kids and mourned their dead.

Which doesn't make me an expert on Islam, but it does mean I have always regarded Muslims as people pretty much like myself.

So to finally shut up - you can take your ridiculous Muslim-splaining and shove it. And if you Alert on this post, I'll consider it a fucking honor.

[cpwm17]

33. My point stands

Last edited Fri Feb 13, 2015, 03:46 PM - Edit history (2)

I was responding to a poster that made a claim that Muslims were more violent than Christians. Actual evidence contradicts that claim. I wasn't attacking you or claim that everybody thought less of Muslims.

I am opposing the bigotry which is often directed unfairly at Muslims. The bigotry works well for the war mongers who have their own agenda.

In the face of US constant war mongering, many in the US still claim that it is the Muslims that are the ones that are particularly violent, and many of these same people promote even more war. It's a pretty good scam.

[onager]

34. The poster made no such claim.

The poster commented on some atrocious acts committed by some Muslims, and noted that the Xians aren't doing that anymore.

The Xians aren't doing that anymore because their societies no longer allow them to control the government. Which is a central feature of sharia law, it being based solely on the Koran and the Hadiths.

BTW, have you and your buddies found any of those racist posts in here yet?

[cpwm17]

35. I didn't mention anything about any racists posts here.

Last edited Fri Feb 13, 2015, 07:59 AM - Edit history (1)

I responded to this comment:

Maybe that's why Islam is receiving the bulk of the ire from atheists these days?

That is selective memory, especially in the light of all of the violence the US is directing against Muslims "these days."

[RussBLib]

41. my only point is that today's radical Muslims....

...seem to feel the need to publicize their beheadings and immolations. Graphic, gruesome videos tend to provoke a response, and that, I believe, is what Bill Maher and others are responding to. Show me some Christians videotaping brutality and pushing it out to the world in the name of Christ and you will see a strong reaction.

Yes, I have heard of anti-balaka. Ask a survey and maybe 1% of Americans are aware of it. Which came first? You insulted my faith! You overthrew the Christian president! Well, he was insulting and persecuting our faith! Well, you did it first!! Chicken or the egg? How far back do you go?

I make no such claim that Muslims are "more violent" than Christians. I think they are all full of shit and wrong-headed. If you want to look at religious violence historically, why stop at the 19th century? Why not go all the way back? The exercise is pointless.

And I do not think that Maher and most atheists are bigots either. I think you would find that, on the whole, atheists tend to be less racist and bigoted than others who are still under the sway of imaginary gods and bombastic, demagogic preachers. I have seen no studies of such, however, so it's just an impression.

I do think some have come into this room simply to try to stir up the atheists. I guess they have nothing better to do with their time.

[Gelliebeans]

53. I think you

would have to have a tribal mentality that follows a dogma in order to have widespread bigotry. Like the old "us or them" mentality so I agree with you....Atheism does not have that.

It has been pointed out here by people far more eloquently than I could myself, we don't have a big book of stories or rules.

I think the only thing we all have in common is lack of belief...

In my opinion I do believe in the golden rule and think many of us do. I think this is because of the way we have been treated either individually or as some group identity someone has arbitrarily labelled for us.
Aside from that, in my experience we will fight tooth and nail to keep ourselves away from any group type think on any sort of institutionalized level.

[trotsky]

37. It has reached meme status.

"New Atheists" are racist bigots who hate Muslims. Don't have to prove it, it's an established fact. Weren't you already aware? I don't need to provide links or evidence because everyone knows it.

[Gelliebeans]

56. You are totally right

In the same way in bizzaro world (2004) a guy ran for president was given a Purple Heart and had the credentials to speak about that...but because of a well organized group his entire military history was questioned so much and so loud that people wrongly believed the opposite of the the truth and we ended up with the cowboy from ToyStory another four years.

[trotsky]

72. Honestly, Gelliebeans, that is way over the line.

The cowboy from Toy Story would have made a MUCH better president than the guy we got at that time!

[AtheistCrusader]

118. I think its because the old meme,

'Atheists hate Christians, but wont say anything bad about Muslims' was starting to get a little threadbare

[skepticscott]

120. If the religionistas had to actually provide evidence

to back up the things they spout, their little heads would explode. Evidence is SO 20th century. Only garbage men actually bother to go out there and amass evidence. The intellectually and theologically sophisticated just KNOW things are true. By those other ways of knowing.

[Robert Prewitt]

124. Do you think we could stop condemning groups for their horrid members?

Atheists, Christians, Jews, and others rape and murder everyday. That doesn't even mention all the jobs they eliminate, pension funds they steal, and weak people they abuse. To hold the actions of ISIS as justification to condemn a whole group of people producing wonderful, productive members of our society like those poor three lovely young adults in NC is reprehensible. Maher, Harris, and other Atheists need to scale back their Islamophobic rhetoric or they become just like the ideological Christians and other religious zealots who damned millions to death in their "righteousness."

Ya think?

[cpwm17]

125. +1000

We are all responsible for our own behavior, and only for our own behavior.

If someone promotes hatred again 1.5 billion citizens of this world, they are responsible for spreading this hate:

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Lordquinton]

127. Is your a picture an example of people promoting hatred against an individual?

Cause you're taking a quote out of context and blaming someone for something he did not do. We've covered this several times on the site, yet anti-atheists keep using it to smear atheists when they think people have forgotten about it. This sort of thing is also why some people defend cherry picking so fervently.

Here, a whole blog post explaining why you are wrong:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation

[cpwm17]

131. I'm an atheist

and since atheism is only the lack of a belief in any god I feel no tribal necessity to defend the indefensible. I have little in common with Sam Harris.

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

What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade.

He plays these same games to create scenarios where torture is justified. He supported the Iraq War and he supports an aggressive foreign policy against Muslims. It is clear who is a danger to this world.

Here's what a war cheerleader posted in GD during Israel's recent aggressions against the Gaza Strip:
racist, ignorant, pro-war crap from Sam Harris (it got appropriately hidden):
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-Israel

The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them. The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” This is a political document. We are talking about a government that was voted into power by a majority of Palestinians...

What do groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and even Hamas want? They want to impose their religious views on the rest of humanity. They want to stifle every freedom that decent, educated, secular people care about. This is not a trivial difference. And yet judging from the level of condemnation that Israel now receives, you would think the difference ran the other way.

This kind of confusion puts all of us in danger. This is the great story of our time. For the rest of our lives, and the lives of our children, we are going to be confronted by people who don’t want to live peacefully in a secular, pluralistic world, because they are desperate to get to Paradise, and they are willing to destroy the very possibility of human happiness along the way. The truth is, we are all living in Israel. It’s just that some of us haven’t realized it yet.

Hidden post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025304843

[Lordquinton]

135. So you double down on mischaractizing

You forgot some more context:

The power that belief has over our emotional lives appears to be total. For every emotion that you are capable of feeling, there is surely a belief that could invoke it in a matter of moments. Consider the following proposition:
Your daughter is being slowly tortured in an English jail.
What is it that stands between you and the absolute panic that such a proposition would loose in the mind and body of a person who believed it? Perhaps you do not have a daughter, or you know her to be safely at home, or you believe that English jailors are renowned for their congeniality. Whatever the reason, the door to belief has not yet swung upon its hinges.
The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

He's saying that it's a trap, and we've fallen into it and are causing massive harm to ourselves, as well as abroad.

In addition the person who popularized the picture you used, Reza Aslan, said in the context of islam:

They don’t want anything concrete. And if you want nothing that’s measurable or concrete, there is nothing to talk about. You must be destroyed.

I'm assuming that post got hidden for again mis-characterizing Harris, cause if you read that link you'd find his thoughts on Isreal:

I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible.

Woah! That doesn't sound like the same Sam Harris! But it is, he's saying things that aren't simple, and he is talking about the extremists in religion, it's his critics that claim he's labeling an entire religion, and completely missing what he's saying, and the annotations he adds in the blog entry show the semantic trap that atheists are put in, "Oh, in this long essay about a specific militant group of Muslims you didn't clarify in this one sentence that you meant this specific group of Muslims, therefore I'm gonna take it and plaster it all over the internet and claim you want to kill every Muslim everywhere"

I don't agree with Harris on everything, but I will defend him when he is baselessly attacked by anti-atheists who keep mis-representing him.

[cpwm17]

140. In things that really matter the most, Sam Harris supports the wars against Muslims

which shows me, and many other people, what he really believes and what he is really about.

He supported the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Gaza Strip. Muslims are a major target of Sam Harris.

He has some similarities to William Bennett who has also written on morality, and who is also morally retarded. Here's William Bennett speaking to a radio caller:

But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.

One fantasizes about racist abortions and the other fantasizes about genocide - two birds of a feather.

Last time I looked, atheism has nothing to do with supporting unprovoked wars. I don't feel the need to defend Harris to defend my atheism.

[Robert Prewitt]

153. I couldn't have said it better.

I'm a Sean Carroll atheist myself...

[EvolveOrConvolve]

154. Have you read the pinned post about faitheists?

It seems evident you haven't...

[Robert Prewitt]

159. Faitheist, huh?

That's a fascinating term. I'll check out that article someday.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

192. It's not an "article"

It's the rules for this group.

[Goblinmonger]

155. Really? Color me shocked.

You do know that is no in line with SOP of this group, right?

[Robert Prewitt]

160. Sean Carroll isn't allowed?

Liking Sean Carroll, a brilliant atheist, is not in line with the group's SOP?

Please explain.

[cpwm17]

188. Thank you

I don't know too much about Sean Carroll's atheism, though, by chance, I did watch this yesterday:

[Lordquinton]

166. But you feel the need to baselessly attack him to do so

Actually reading the links you posted will discredit what you claim, and now you're making claims (that have been disproven already) without links. You have nothing, and you keep repeating it hoping people won't double check what you're claiming.

[cpwm17]

185. If you think that you have defended Sam Harris, I can't help you.

I'll post this again:

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

What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-Israel

The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them. The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” This is a political document. We are talking about a government that was voted into power by a majority of Palestinians...

What do groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and even Hamas want? They want to impose their religious views on the rest of humanity. They want to stifle every freedom that decent, educated, secular people care about. This is not a trivial difference. And yet judging from the level of condemnation that Israel now receives, you would think the difference ran the other way.

This kind of confusion puts all of us in danger. This is the great story of our time. For the rest of our lives, and the lives of our children, we are going to be confronted by people who don’t want to live peacefully in a secular, pluralistic world, because they are desperate to get to Paradise, and they are willing to destroy the very possibility of human happiness along the way. The truth is, we are all living in Israel. It’s just that some of us haven’t realized it yet.

Hidden post by Sam Harris from DU war cheerleader that DU members had the common sense to hide. That jury disagrees with you: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025304843

War is the worst crime known to man, and aggressive wars are manifestations of the worst kind of bigotry known to man. Harris supports aggressive wars against Muslims. Harris singles out Muslims for particular condemnation.

Bombs don't fall on religions. Bombs fall on people:

Gaza destruction and massacre supported by Harris:






Iraq War that Harris supported. Only the ignorant, bigoted, and greedy supported the Iraq War:

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Warren Stupidity]

189. What does the phrase "unconscionable act of self-defense" mean to you?

Here is a hint:

not right or reasonable.
"the unconscionable conduct of his son"
synonyms: unethical, amoral, immoral, unprincipled, indefensible, unforgivable, wrong;

[cpwm17]

187. More deranged racist B/S from Sam Harris.

He is racist since he supports mass murder against people using negative racist stereotypes.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/

This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that “liberals are soft on terrorism.” It is, and they are.
A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a “war on terror.” We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise....

Given the mendacity and shocking incompetence of the Bush administration — especially its mishandling of the war in Iraq — liberals can find much to lament in the conservative approach to fighting the war on terror. Unfortunately, liberals hate the current administration with such fury that they regularly fail to acknowledge just how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are....

In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal. Given these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise.

We are entering an age of unchecked nuclear proliferation and, it seems likely, nuclear terrorism. There is, therefore, no future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors for us. Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies.

30 Worst Atrocities of the 20th Century
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Muslims are way behind the Western World. Sam Harris supported the worst atrocity this century: the Iraq War.

[Warren Stupidity]

190. Would you consider the organization that just beheaded 20+ migrant workers in Libya

dangerous and depraved?

[Gore1FL]

201. Can you defend your indefensible mischaracterization of the out-of-context Harris quote?

That's not a tribal necessity, but a personal one.

[skepticscott]

128. And will you also be advocating

that the members of this site stop condemning the Republican Party for their horrid members? Will we be seeing the standards applied to the politics of DU as you would insist be applied to religion, or is religion entitled to special privilege and immunity from criticism?

[Robert Prewitt]

130. The Republican Party is not the same thing as "Muslims"

That's not an apt comparison. The legitimate comparison would be would I stop condemning all Republicans for the actions of other horrid members of their group, and I would. Like many, if not most, of the Democrats on this site, I have Republican friends and family members. They are all wonderful people, if terribly ideologically misguided. Although I will rightfully criticize the Republican party and politicians, I would never engage in discourse suggesting individual republicans are inherently flawed or dangerous.

That's exactly what Maher did when he suggested "200 million muslims" would cheer on the Hebdo murders. That's the kind of talk that makes the less mentally discerning--and often dangerous--look at Muslims (and American Muslims) as dangerous. Sam Harris did the same with his "Mother Lode of bad ideas" comment. It implied all people subscribing to that "Mother Lode" were infected with such bad ideas and should be observed and treated with scrutiny.

So, keep criticizing the Republican Party and other reprehensible groups, but engaging in condemnation of all individual members of those and less heinous groups is reprehensible itself.

[skepticscott]

133. They are both "groups" and "groups" were the subject of your demand

It's perfectly apt, also since Republicans in general are condemned on this site all the time. Will you be going onto the Front Page and insisting that this stop?

And yes..many Muslims would do what Maher said…whether you like it or not. Maybe not 200 million..but not just 200 or 2000 either. And more than would dare to say so openly.

[Robert Prewitt]

134. I said "groups" as in "groups of individuals."

I said groups as in groups of individuals, and pointed to christians and atheists as examples, not as in a particular church or atheist organization. Semantics is obviously not your strong point.

And so what if many Muslims would do what Maher said? Maher didn't say "many muslims;" he said 200 million muslims, which was dangerously inflammatory hyperbole. Nutjobs like Hicks pick up on that just like other nutjobs pick up on misogynist and racist hyperbole.

By the way, many atheists and Christians have raped, murdered, and done other horrible things, too. Using your logic, we should engage in inflammatory hyperbole against them as well.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

156. Ah, so it's our fault that Hicks killed three people?

You seem to be digging a hole from which an escape is less and less likely.

Guess what? Pointing out dangerous, violent, misogynistic, sexist, hateful, and antiquated beliefs wasn't the reason Hicks killed three people. Keep telling yourself that, though, if it makes you feel better about yourself.

[Robert Prewitt]

158. Nice delusion.

I said no such thing. If I did, and "dug that hole," you'd be able to show a quote where I did say it.

Of course, we both know you can't.

[Curmudgeoness]

25. I think there is something about American culture

that particularly targets Muslims. I see and hear so much hatred or mistrust of Muslims from every corner of this country. I don't think that atheists or "neo-atheists" are any different from all other people.

[uriel1972]

36. neo-atheists?

Never heard that one before. Is it trying to stir up images of "Neo-Nazi"?

[Curmudgeoness]

39. That is the new way to condemn atheists

who have the freaking nerve to speak out. The "old" atheists were ok, since they just hid in closets.

Please forgive me for posting this source, but it is the best example I found of what is meant when someone uses the term:

Neo-atheism is the acerbic, shrill polemics of writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens who disparage and refute the truth of the Bible. Unlike their predecessors, they exhibit both a ferocity and antagonism to religion which borders on the manic and seeks to demonize the traditionalist and fundamentalist strains of Christianity and creationism. It also promulgates an excessive zeal for evolution or Darwinism. This is exemplifed by Dawkins being known as Darwin‘s rottweiller.

The contrast between “traditional” atheists and neo-atheists is that the former merely studied philosophy and rarely pushed their views on anyone, whereas the modern neo-atheists are essentially anti-religious activists.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Neo-Atheism

[JDDavis]

42. Adorable cats! And they are atheists, too!

Bring pictures of them anytime.

[arcane1]

157. Cats aren't atheists; they know they're the true Gods

[Curmudgeoness]

43. OMG, you are the worst kind of atheist!

Bringing shame on those innocent animals!

BTW, some of us love cat pictures. We don't mind, and the ones who do can kiss my .... oops, I am getting too judgmental. Love you kitties. I have an orange one as well.

[Rob H.]

89. Aw, only time? But they're such handsome kitties!

[trotsky]

47. Yup, that "definition" is dead on.

How unsurprising it would come from that site. What strange bedfellows the hatred of atheists makes. Although in some cases perhaps it's not that strange at all.

[Robert Prewitt]

136. There is middle ground.

I think atheists can be strongly outspoken without taking the strident, if not antagonistic, approaches of the Big Three. Many atheists, like myself, have family and dear friends who are religious. And we no more want to "cure" them of their mistaken ways than we want them to do the same to us. Atheists and religious people can co-exist without ideological conflict. Also, I certainly don't want to take on the preachy self-righteous "I'm absolutely right, you're absolutely wrong" stance that turned me off of religion in the first place.

[Curmudgeoness]

139. I don't disagree that we can respect each other's belief

without being antagonistic. I also know many people who are very religious, and it is not problem. They can believe as they wish and it is not my business. I would not be rude to them about their religion. The subject rarely comes up.

But I have become outspoken when it comes to religion being imposed on me. When I go to a public meeting and they have a prayer before they start, someone has to point out that this is unconstitutional. When they are talking about bringing prayer back into schools, I think it is our obligation to be outspoken.

The middle ground goes both ways. The religious have to realize that just because they have a strong faith in their brand of religion, that does not mean that they have the right to push that belief on others. That middle ground will be found when both sides come to the understanding that all of us should be free to believe as we choose.

[Robert Prewitt]

143. Complete agreement

I completely agree, man. I actually have a Buddhist uncle who can't have a philosophical discussion without bringing up his religious foundation and even tried to convince me his Buddhist approach would work for me, too. When he started insisting the Buddhist belief that happiness comes from the minimilization of suffering, I has to tell him to stop prosletyzing.

That being said, I know his Buddhism makes him happy, so I would never try to "cure" him of it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

49. 1. i am an atheist. 2. just because you have not heard something

doesn't mean i made a nazi reference. neo just means new. hence the words neoliberal and neoconservatives.

[uriel1972]

85. I was not criticising you...

I thought it was a new term from the religious side of the divide, that's all. I know neo "just" means new in it's native vocabulary, but words can have associations too.

I did not think you had coined the term at all. Please forgive me for making it sound like I did.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

92. Before your post, the only time I've heard the term "neo-atheist" used

was by hard-core bible thumpers when referring to outspoken atheists that they think should STFU and sit down. It's a term that's been used to marginalize and dismiss, and I've never heard an atheist actually use it in a serious conversation.

[trotsky]

38. There definitely is.

Goes back a long way. But not THAT long, the Founders made many positive references to "Musselmen" or whatever the term was they used back then.

Think Ayotollah. Iran. And of course leading then into 9/11 and ISIL. Muslim terrorists have been presented to us as the new enemy, especially since the Cold War ended. Gotta have something to justify destroying our budget for the world's largest military times 10.

It's not a particularly "neo-atheist" thing, though Muslims are tending to present us with some of the more disturbing images of religious fanaticism at the moment, so I think many vocal atheists want to comment on those to help drive home the point that religion ain't all it's cracked up to be.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. Please post all the links for "new" atheist leaders calling for the killing of religious people.

I'll wait.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

46. did i say that? i said i found their islam focused atheism troubling.

Last edited Fri Feb 13, 2015, 02:58 PM - Edit history (1)

[Warren Stupidity]

50. The focus is on religious people acting on their religious beliefs and doing really shitty things

based on those beliefs and being supported by leaders of their religions. Islam right now has a plethora of people doing those things. Christianity is a distant second, unless you count our military activities in which case it could easily be in first place.

Now back to your "neo" atheists. Who exactly is calling for the murder, the imprisonment, the beating, or the discrimination against any people for their religious beliefs? Please provide links. I'll wait.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

51. again please dont deliberately misconstrue what i said to suit your argument.

its intellectual dishonesty. i find atheists like bill maher and their focus on Islam troubling. its one thing to say all religions are bunk, its another to focus on a particular religion especially when we routinely invade their countries and routinely instabilize the region.

And yes, military invasions by primarily Christian countries do count. Especially when these leaders are voted into power by people touting their Christian faith.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. So what is it exactly that "neo" atheist leaders are saying that you think motivated this person?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

57. either in your great desire to attack me, you didn't read the article or my response to it

either way its not my job to spoon feed it to you.

although since you clearly want spoon feeding. I agreed to one part of this article that points out that neoatheist are often Islamophobic. I disagreed with another part, that indicated that we should all take a hard look at atheism, because one guy killing his neighbors does not a trend make.

[Exultant Democracy]

59. Or option 3. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

[La Lioness Priyanka]

60. and what exactly would that option be?

except for an inane cliche?

is this some sort of dumb way of implying i am not an atheist? or what?

aside from a cliche what do you mean?

[Exultant Democracy]

61. Your not the lady I was refering too. I think you should have added a third option to you post.

You are 100% on point in everything you said. I just think the static you are getting is not because of option A or B, but because the shoe fits.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

62. sorry to snap at you. i was really not intending to 'attack atheists'

per se. however, i do think attacking Islam solely is definitely an issue of bigotry.

again really sorry for snapping.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. ok. so I'm 'the lady".

And you just accused me of anti-muslim bigotry. So surely you can provide some links where I have uttered anti-muslim bigotry.

[Exultant Democracy]

66. I'm not a garbage man, I don't need to go though the trash you post, see too much as is.

I'm just pointing you you are the one getting all twisted up by this thread and I think the reason why is obvious based on the interactions I have had with you on this issue. You may not be a racist bigot but you do a good job supporting their world view.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. So you've accused me of being a racist bigot, you have nothing to back that up

and you do not even have the decency to admit that you don't. Well done.

[Exultant Democracy]

77. I'm not a garbage man, but I'll call out your racism as it appears from now on fair?

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/16/white_people_are_more_racist_than_they_realize_partner/ or you can take the test in this article and find out exactly how racist you are. I would be very interested in your results, but I probably wouldn't believe anything you posted anyway so it might not be worth your time.

If it make you feel better I place you next to Rudyard Kipling and not next to David Duke, but I'm not going to go bring you a bunch of their quotes either.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. You've called me a racist bigot. Put up or apologize. Do the honorable thing.

[Exultant Democracy]

80. How did you do on the test, are you?

[Warren Stupidity]

82. you're babbling. Good show.

[Exultant Democracy]

88. Did you take the test, or are you afraid about what you may find out about yourself?

[skepticscott]

100. So in other words, you call someone a "racist bigot"

and THEN ask them how they did on your magic test. You have nothing but the need to insult and provoke. Or maybe you're like one of the gay-bashing Congressmen who's a closet gay themselves…you certainly fit the mold.

[mr blur]

97. Have you ever actually read Hamlet?

If you had and had actually understood what was being said in that speech, then you'd realise that it's better not to quote something at all than to miss the point that was being made by the character in question. It can just just make you look, well... rather pompous and silly.

[Nevernose]

191. The question to ask is why? Is it bigotry?

Or is it just pragmatism? For instance, here's a list of all the world's current major conflicts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts

With the exception of Ukraine, Mexico, Burma, and Papua New Guinea, all of the world's major conflicts involve Muslims in some way, and usually Islam is one of the motivating factors in the conflict. That's about 95% of the current wars in the world.

If some other religion was causing -- or at least greatly contributing to -- atheists would be speaking out against it.

Another question to ask might be: is it purely out of ignorance? For instance, if you asked most Americans about terrorism and Islam, most people (probably even including American Muslims) would say that it was primarily Muslims doing the terrorism. But that's not even close. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

Ironically, I find this a difficult conversation to have -- the one in which we try and bridge the gaps between Islam and atheism -- because at least in America, both groups are discriminated against by the majority and are thus distrusting of any sort or criticism.

[amuse bouche]

31. I'm anti-theist to the bone

Will never kowtow to religie morons. They are clueless and destroying the world

[JNelson6563]

45. This writer is no atheist.

This comes from the mindset of a believer. Atheists are not bound to each other with shared beliefs and creeds, we are more like free agents. Many atheists have nothing in common but a lack of belief in any gods. Does the lack of belief in anything bind people together? No.

I do agree with one thing in this stinky pantload of an article, indeed it is silly to claim one religion to be worse than others, they all do more harm than good.

Flattered to see the fan base participating via the rec system! Here's a little video a few of the guys here in AA put together, a small tribute for your unwavering dedication to...well...hanging on our every word! Ciao!

[trotsky]

48. Even being banned from the group - or DU itself! - for their horrible behavior...

doesn't dampen their enthusiasm.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Excuse me!

I prefer 'Free Radical'.

[Trajan]

52. It is my understanding that Adolph Hitler loved to drink milk ...

And, he also directed the mass murder of millions of innocent human beings ...

It should be obvious that milk drinkers are predisposed to committing mass murder ...

Beware the milk drinkers !

[EvolveOrConvolve]

95. Fuck Rawstory

They've made their bigotry towards atheists abundantly clear, so I give little credence to any story from them that deals with atheism.

[JNelson6563]

111. Yes, this is very true.

[Bradical79]

116. Is this a problem?

It's not something I've come across, atheists hoping and praying Islam was a non issue in why this murderer killed these people.

[AtheistCrusader]

117. how did we get a thread in here with more posts than the entire interfaith front page?

[mr blur]

119. Because there are more than two us here. I mean, wow, just wow!

And people can express an opinion without being banned instantly.

We get more religionistas watching here than they get over there.

[skepticscott]

121. And self-examination actually goes on in here.

In Interfaith, just Kumbaya and self-congratulation.

[JDDavis]

126. I took a hard look at myself in the mirror today;

I'm getting more grey hair.

[Rainforestgoddess]

194. Me too!

And those sucking suckers are as twisty and coarse as a corkscrew, while my "normal hair" remains fine and stick straight.

So I have a white fuzzy halo around the brown unless I use a straightening iron.