So... the First Great Atheist Holy War, who's up for it?

[JimC]

Stein wrote:

You think this is all so funny.

Remember, old chap, this is Rationalia, not some sort of weird serious atheist website...

[pErvinalia]

It sounds like wibble to me. A lot like his attempt to prove an objective morality.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Now, any thoughts on what Harris is saying there?

I find his constant attempt to shoehorn objective morality and "spirituality" into atheism tiresome. He reminds me too much of the A-plussers in that respect.

[Sean Hayden]

-Harris just annoys me

[Stein]

Candidly, he does more than just annoy me. When I first read that stuff a couple of years back where he strongly intimates it's O.K. to kill people just for their beliefs (right in that extensive quote I supplied in my previous), I thought back then, "I wonder if he has any notion of the kind of fuse he's lighting". Maybe this guy who killed these three Muslims was killing them only because of a parking space after all. But one still can't help thinking -- what with this guy's Facebook postings, one of which expresses the hope that Jews, Christians and Muslims will all exterminate each other -- if the rage about parking reached a boiling point with these three Muslims particularly because of the extra feelings revved up by flame throwers like Harris.

While I'm glad that American Atheists took care to condemn this killing, I've yet to see one public New Atheist take Harris to task for the incendiary thought-control crap we see in his book.

Candidly,

Stein

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Where Harris gets it spectacularly wrong, IMO, is that he seems to forget that beliefs are subject to change - sometimes gradual, sometimes incredibly sudden - to call for the death of fundamentalists based on the notion that "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" ignores this (if you'll forgive the pun) fundamental fact about belief.

It is always worthwhile attempting non-violent, dialogue-based methods to counter dangerous beliefs. It is only dangerous acts which need to be met with whatever means are proportionate and necessary.

[Hermit]

any thoughts on what Harris is saying there?

Beliefs can act as catalysts for action. They can guide behaviour. It may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.

True enough, but Harris totally misses the core of the problem, which is how beliefs come into existence, why they persist and therefore what needs to be done about it.

It is also supremely ironic that Sam's own beliefs lead him to the same conviction that "it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." It goes even beyond that. Sammy believes that it may even be ethical to kill innocent people. See his opinion that a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a Muslim nation can be justified. The callousness is not much different to that of Arnaud-Amaury circa 1209 AD. When he ordered that all inhabitants of Béziers be massacred, someone objected that there are many good Catholics among the Cathar heretics, he replied "Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own."

[pErvinalia]

He reminds me of one particularly annoying poster here who tries to argue for "natural" rights. As far as I'm concerned both attempts at objective morals/rights are just a naive attempt to substitute something for God. Some people are just inherently uneasy about the concept of philosophical nihilism/existentialism and/or moral relativity. As we've probably all discussed and read before, there does seem to be a human need to hang onto something bigger than us that might explain everything and might give us some sort of purpose. Most atheists break through that conditioning/evo-psych(if you like) notion and are content with the concepts of existentialism and philosophical nihilism.

[pErvinalia]

Where Harris gets it spectacularly wrong, IMO, is that he seems to forget that beliefs are subject to change - sometimes gradual, sometimes incredibly sudden - to call for the death of fundamentalists based on the notion that "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" ignores this (if you'll forgive the pun) fundamental fact about belief.

The first thing that struck me about that passage was that it's entirely possible for someone (say a fundamentalist Muslim) to hang that charge on him too. His belief that there is something inherently right about western culture and inherently wrong about Islamic culture smacks of fundamentalism too. Indeed, he's a fundamentalist within the atheist community. Behead the fucker!!

[Brian Peacock]

Now, any thoughts on what Harris is saying there?

I find his constant attempt to shoehorn objective morality and "spirituality" into atheism tiresome. He reminds me too much of the A-plussers in that respect.

I'll start paying attention to Harris when he finally gets round to publishong his Morality Equation.

[pErvinalia]

E=MC2

Ethics = Morality x Christianty. Squared. Something something...

[Brian Peacock]

You should send that to Bill Craig. In fact I double-dare you!

[Stein]

Where Harris gets it spectacularly wrong, IMO, is that he seems to forget that beliefs are subject to change - sometimes gradual, sometimes incredibly sudden - to call for the death of fundamentalists based on the notion that "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" ignores this (if you'll forgive the pun) fundamental fact about belief.

It is always worthwhile attempting non-violent, dialogue-based methods to counter dangerous beliefs. It is only dangerous acts which need to be met with whatever means are proportionate and necessary.

And what is also thoughtless is just how few -- if any -- online denizens from within the online atheist community ever bother to challenge, and challenge sharply, blatantly thought-control crap like Harris's. I can't prove that this killer would have actually refrained from allowing himself to reach the boiling point of murder in confronting three Muslims over parking, had he also viewed online postings from atheists sharply challenging the Harrises and their fundy-esque ilk. But unchallenged spewing from Harris and from online creeps in Harris's fundy corner certainly doesn't help here, especially when never ever challenged by any online atheists.

Stein

[Ian]

Stein, having a sense of humor is a requirement for this forum. It helps to have a dark and/or silly one, but any sense of humor at all really is necessary.

This is not the world-famous Great Scholastic Society for Atheistic Thinking and Debate. It's more like the back end of a half-empty pub on a side street somewhere in Heathen Town. And we're all drunk with no bouncer on duty.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Stein, having a sense of humor is a requirement for this forum. It helps to have a dark and/or silly one, but any sense of humor at all really is necessary.

This is not the world-famous Great Scholastic Society for Atheistic Thinking and Debate. It's more like the back end of a half-empty pub on a side street somewhere in Heathen Town. And we're all drunk with no bouncer on duty.

Oy!