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

[Brian Peacock]

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

So, you're saying that we moderate atheists should be doing more to reach out to these extremists and bring them into the fold, and that we have blood on our hands by association for failing in that duty?

[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

So, you're saying that we moderate atheists should be doing more to reach out to these extremists and bring them into the fold, and that we have blood on our hands by association for failing in that duty?

Your duty is not to "reach out" to extremists. Your duty is to publicly shame extremists, to continually call them out by name, "Mr. Harris [or whoever], you are full of crap. 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." That sort of thing. Duh.

It is not the hate-monger who needs to be told he is full of crap (although that can sometimes feel good, it has no practical value). It is not the hate-monger who needs to be brought "into the fold". That is an irrelevancy here. What's really needed is that the eager readers and ass-lickers of the hate-mongers, like this Facebook killer, should have overt online challenges to all their idolized hate-mongers thrown in their faces while they surf. If Harris and his ilk didn't already have a built-in lock-step Amen corner braying their incessant hate speech and continual praise of Harris-like thought-control on sites like Facebook and elsewhere, then killings like this would be less inevitable, not more. Yes, the complacent online atheists DO have blood on their hands. But that's because they didn't have the guts to say "BULL-CRAP" to online atheist jihadists calling for things like mutual extermination of all Jews, Christians and Muslims (as this Facebook killer wrote) -- or for killing others for their beliefs only, a la Harris.

Stein

[Brian Peacock]

Well, I don't think Harris is full of crap. I think he's got some weak arguments on some matters, and his project to naturalise morals and ethics is a complete non-starter. On many other things I find myself in full agreement with him though. The thing about atheists is that you don't have to subscribe to a self-appointed authority or adhere to some authorised doctrine on the proper composition of truth, morality, ethics, fashion or diet etc? Harris has to be read in his cultural context, just like any serious observer and thinker on these matters, and his ilk, as you put it, is neither here nor there - unless one's interested in pedaling fallacious ad homs of course.

[Stein]

Well, I don't think Harris is full of crap. I think he's got some weak arguments on some matters, and his project to naturalise morals and ethics is a complete non-starter. On many other things I find myself in full agreement with him though. The thing about atheists is that you don't have to subscribe to a self-appointed authority or adhere to some authorised doctrine on the proper composition of truth, morality, ethics, fashion or diet etc?

But guys like that Facebook killer do exactly that, and you have to face that. People like that are not reasonable from the get-go. If someone becomes a "hero" of theirs, whether that "hero" wishes to be taken that way or not (and I frankly don't know Harris's preference there), then anything that's thoughtless -- like "kill people for their beliefs", no matter the context -- has to be challenged by others in that demographic immediately and often. Otherwise, it becomes a meme. Anyone today who thinks that today's online mantra of "get rid of all believers" isn't already a meme is obviously living back in 2000, not in the real world.

There will be more Chapel-Hill-type-rub-outs if this Harris-et-al meme isn't roundly challenged. You're rationalizing hate speech. This has already become a meme. You can't put this back in the bottle. It's now just as noxious and pernicious as All Jews Are Greedy or All Blacks Are Lazy. It's just as extremist.

Stein

[piscator]

It's not Harris, it's video games. Buckets of blood on the hands of the video gaming industry...So you're saying video games are also Atheist mind control?

[JimC]

Well, I don't think Harris is full of crap. I think he's got some weak arguments on some matters, and his project to naturalise morals and ethics is a complete non-starter. On many other things I find myself in full agreement with him though. The thing about atheists is that you don't have to subscribe to a self-appointed authority or adhere to some authorised doctrine on the proper composition of truth, morality, ethics, fashion or diet etc?

But guys like that Facebook killer do exactly that, and you have to face that. People like that are not reasonable from the get-go. If someone becomes a "hero" of theirs, whether that "hero" wishes to be taken that way or not (and I frankly don't know Harris's preference there), then anything that's thoughtless -- like "kill people for their beliefs", no matter the context -- has to be challenged by others in that demographic immediately and often. Otherwise, it becomes a meme. Anyone today who thinks that today's online mantra of "get rid of all believers" isn't already a meme is obviously living back in 2000, not in the real world.

There will be more Chapel-Hill-type-rub-outs if this Harris-et-al meme isn't roundly challenged. You're rationalizing hate speech. This has already become a meme. You can't put this back in the bottle. It's now just as noxious and pernicious as All Jews Are Greedy or All Blacks Are Lazy. It's just as extremist.

Stein

Where is your evidence that Harris inspired this killing?

[Stein]

Well, I don't think Harris is full of crap. I think he's got some weak arguments on some matters, and his project to naturalise morals and ethics is a complete non-starter. On many other things I find myself in full agreement with him though. The thing about atheists is that you don't have to subscribe to a self-appointed authority or adhere to some authorised doctrine on the proper composition of truth, morality, ethics, fashion or diet etc?

But guys like that Facebook killer do exactly that, and you have to face that. People like that are not reasonable from the get-go. If someone becomes a "hero" of theirs, whether that "hero" wishes to be taken that way or not (and I frankly don't know Harris's preference there), then anything that's thoughtless -- like "kill people for their beliefs", no matter the context -- has to be challenged by others in that demographic immediately and often. Otherwise, it becomes a meme. Anyone today who thinks that today's online mantra of "get rid of all believers" isn't already a meme is obviously living back in 2000, not in the real world.

There will be more Chapel-Hill-type-rub-outs if this Harris-et-al meme isn't roundly challenged. You're rationalizing hate speech. This has already become a meme. You can't put this back in the bottle. It's now just as noxious and pernicious as All Jews Are Greedy or All Blacks Are Lazy. It's just as extremist.

Stein

Where is your evidence that Harris inspired this killing?

Harris didn't inspire this killing. A parking dispute inspired the fight and mounting frustration imbibed from the Harris meme inspired this killing. There is a meme now and Harris is one of its inspirers, along with Hitchens, etc., of course. A caveat to that is that the late Hitchens' noxiousness is partly inherited from the neo-cons who "normalized" the Fascist doctrine of preemptive war.

There is an online meme now and anyone who's half-awake today is well aware of it, and I'm not repeating this point: The mantra that "all believers should go" is a perfectly familiar meme on-line today, and it has inspired hundreds of similar knee-jerk hate screeds on web sites throughout the web that in turn inspire Facebook postings like Craig what's-his-face's. Craig Stephen whats-is may have killed all three purely for parking. But considering that all three were shot in the head, that suggests a premeditated hate killing. And if it was a hate killing, then you couple that with the tone of Craig whats-is' postings, and yes, this meme did inspire the killing.

Stein

[Brian Peacock]

Well, I don't think Harris is full of crap. I think he's got some weak arguments on some matters, and his project to naturalise morals and ethics is a complete non-starter. On many other things I find myself in full agreement with him though. The thing about atheists is that you don't have to subscribe to a self-appointed authority or adhere to some authorised doctrine on the proper composition of truth, morality, ethics, fashion or diet etc?

But guys like that Facebook killer do exactly that, and you have to face that. People like that are not reasonable from the get-go. If someone becomes a "hero" of theirs, whether that "hero" wishes to be taken that way or not (and I frankly don't know Harris's preference there), then anything that's thoughtless -- like "kill people for their beliefs", no matter the context -- has to be challenged by others in that demographic immediately and often. Otherwise, it becomes a meme. Anyone today who thinks that today's online mantra of "get rid of all believers" isn't already a meme is obviously living back in 2000, not in the real world.

There will be more Chapel-Hill-type-rub-outs if this Harris-et-al meme isn't roundly challenged. You're rationalizing hate speech. This has already become a meme. You can't put this back in the bottle. It's now just as noxious and pernicious as All Jews Are Greedy or All Blacks Are Lazy. It's just as extremist.

Stein

OK. So you're blaming Harris for Hicks' action. Take it up with Harris. He tweets, he has an active blog, and he's more than happy to spend time trying to clarify what he means. Give it a go, you might just get the answer you're looking for.

In the meantime, you're obviously pinning a lot on what you call 'Harris-et-al' here, you're quick to dub Hicks 'the Facebook killer' and present him as yer typical atheist, you're happy to set up an us-&-them dichotomy by suggesting that 'you' (meaning 'we' of course - the group which you don't count yourself in) are 'rationalising hate-speech', while at the same time you're not really listening to what's being said to you. It's pretty clear who got an agenda to push here.

Now the question is; why do atheist get under your skin so Stein? Did you have a bad experience with one once? Did an atheist mistreat you or shortchange you or disrespect you once? Did one touch you Stein? Would you like show us on the doll where the atheist touched you? Was in on your body or in your mind?



Despite my flippancy t/here, this sort of blather doesn't bother me much. 'mI happy to discuss these issues and my personal views and responses in a reasonable and rational manner with anyone, even you Stein. The barrier to discussion here is the way you're choosing to intensify your objections, which seem like objections to a strawman concoction about the failing of some mythincal atheist ideology, and if not that, then the general implication of your screed seems to be that atheists, whether taking a lead from Harris or not, are morally and ethically impoverished.

Why not put that aside for now? Let's assume for the sake of good-natured argument that you might have a valid point. What the fuck is it? What is it your think atheists need to do to secure or redeem their moral and ethical credentials?

[pErvinalia]

Well, I don't think Harris is full of crap. I think he's got some weak arguments on some matters, and his project to naturalise morals and ethics is a complete non-starter. On many other things I find myself in full agreement with him though. The thing about atheists is that you don't have to subscribe to a self-appointed authority or adhere to some authorised doctrine on the proper composition of truth, morality, ethics, fashion or diet etc?

But guys like that Facebook killer do exactly that, and you have to face that. People like that are not reasonable from the get-go. If someone becomes a "hero" of theirs, whether that "hero" wishes to be taken that way or not (and I frankly don't know Harris's preference there), then anything that's thoughtless -- like "kill people for their beliefs", no matter the context -- has to be challenged by others in that demographic immediately and often. Otherwise, it becomes a meme. Anyone today who thinks that today's online mantra of "get rid of all believers" isn't already a meme is obviously living back in 2000, not in the real world.

There will be more Chapel-Hill-type-rub-outs if this Harris-et-al meme isn't roundly challenged. You're rationalizing hate speech. This has already become a meme. You can't put this back in the bottle. It's now just as noxious and pernicious as All Jews Are Greedy or All Blacks Are Lazy. It's just as extremist.

Stein

Harris was raked over the coals on facebook for that statement. Maybe you hang in different circles.

[pErvinalia]

Well, I don't think Harris is full of crap. I think he's got some weak arguments on some matters, and his project to naturalise morals and ethics is a complete non-starter. On many other things I find myself in full agreement with him though. The thing about atheists is that you don't have to subscribe to a self-appointed authority or adhere to some authorised doctrine on the proper composition of truth, morality, ethics, fashion or diet etc?

But guys like that Facebook killer do exactly that, and you have to face that. People like that are not reasonable from the get-go. If someone becomes a "hero" of theirs, whether that "hero" wishes to be taken that way or not (and I frankly don't know Harris's preference there), then anything that's thoughtless -- like "kill people for their beliefs", no matter the context -- has to be challenged by others in that demographic immediately and often. Otherwise, it becomes a meme. Anyone today who thinks that today's online mantra of "get rid of all believers" isn't already a meme is obviously living back in 2000, not in the real world.

There will be more Chapel-Hill-type-rub-outs if this Harris-et-al meme isn't roundly challenged. You're rationalizing hate speech. This has already become a meme. You can't put this back in the bottle. It's now just as noxious and pernicious as All Jews Are Greedy or All Blacks Are Lazy. It's just as extremist.

Stein

OK. So you're blaming Harris for Hicks' action. Take it up with Harris. He tweets, he has an active blog, and he's more than happy to spend time trying to clarify what he means. Give it a go, you might just get the answer you're looking for.

In the meantime, you're obviously pinning a lot on what you call 'Harris-et-al' here, you're quick to dub Hicks 'the Facebook killer' and present him as yer typical atheist, you're happy to set up an us-&-them dichotomy by suggesting that 'you' (meaning 'we' of course - the group which you don't count yourself in) are 'rationalising hate-speech', while at the same time you're not really listening to what's being said to you. It's pretty clear who got an agenda to push here.

Now the question is; why do atheist get under your skin so Stein? Did you have a bad experience with one once? Did an atheist mistreat you or shortchange you or disrespect you once? Did one touch you Stein? Would you like show us on the doll where the atheist touched you? Was in on your body or in your mind?



Despite my flippancy t/here, this sort of blather doesn't bother me much. 'mI happy to discuss these issues and my personal views and responses in a reasonable and rational manner with anyone, even you Stein. The barrier to discussion here is the way you're choosing to intensify your objections, which seem like objections to a strawman concoction about the failing of some mythincal atheist ideology, and if not that, then the general implication of your screed seems to be that atheists, whether taking a lead from Harris or not, are morally and ethically impoverished.

Why not put that aside for now? Let's assume for the sake of good-natured argument that you might have a valid point. What the fuck is it? What is it your think atheists need to do to secure or redeem their moral and ethical credentials?

And I'm waiting for Seth to show up here and teach Stein how to capitalise Atheist...

[Brian Peacock]

Harris didn't inspire this killing. A parking dispute inspired the fight and mounting frustration imbibed from the Harris meme inspired this killing. There is a meme now and Harris is one of its inspirers, along with Hitchens, etc., of course.

So how much responsibility do you think Harris-et-al actually do have for these murders? On a scale of 0-100, with 0 being zero amount of responsibility and 100 be totally responsible, where do you think Harris-et-al would sit? 10? 20? 40? 60? What is this meme you're talking about? What are it's constituents, what's it's scope, how wide-spread is it, how 'normal for atheists' is it, and what and where is the evidence to support its prevalence (rather than it being a bit of a dodgy thing that one bloke said once)?

A caveat to that is that the late Hitchens' noxiousness is partly inherited from the neo-cons who "normalized" the Fascist doctrine of preemptive war.

Are you blaming aggressive military action on atheist now? How novel.

There is an online meme now and anyone who's half-awake today is well aware of it, and I'm not repeating this point: The mantra that "all believers should go" is a perfectly familiar meme on-line today, and it has inspired hundreds of similar knee-jerk hate screeds on web sites throughout the web that in turn inspire Facebook postings like Craig what's-his-face's. Craig Stephen whats-is may have killed all three purely for parking. But considering that all three were shot in the head, that suggests a premeditated hate killing. And if it was a hate killing, then you couple that with the tone of Craig whats-is' postings, and yes, this meme did inspire the killing.

Stein

And regardless of whether or IF it was a hate-killing the murder should be subject to the fullest extent of the law. Somehow I don't think that's quite what your getting at. SO, come on man, out with it. You're quite safe here - nobody gets banded for not towing the atheist party line here.

[pErvinalia]

Harris didn't inspire this killing. A parking dispute inspired the fight and mounting frustration imbibed from the Harris meme inspired this killing. There is a meme now and Harris is one of its inspirers, along with Hitchens, etc., of course.

So how much responsibility do you think Harris-et-al actually do have for these murders? On a scale of 0-100, with 0 being zero amount of responsibility and 100 be totally responsible, where do you think Harris-et-al would sit? 10? 20? 40? 60? What is this meme you're talking about? What are it's constituents, what's it's scope, how wide-spread is it, how 'normal for atheists' is it, and what and where is the evidence to support its prevalence (rather than it being a bit of a dodgy thing that one bloke said once)?

He's right there is a meme, and we use it here. The real question is whether it has any influence over anything. Here is it mostly used as clearly a joke, and I suspect in a lot of places on facebook it is similarly used as a joke. I doubt very much there are many atheists who actually hold that we should kill large swathes of religious people. But there's certainly a meme that many of us here advocate in sometimes only a half joking way: Let them all kill themselves.

A caveat to that is that the late Hitchens' noxiousness is partly inherited from the neo-cons who "normalized" the Fascist doctrine of preemptive war.

Are you blaming aggressive military action on atheist now? How novel.

He's not saying that. He's saying Hitchen's got the idea from the neo-con right. And that is certainly true as Hitchens actively migrated from the political left to the political right. I'm guessing Harris is on the political right as well. But the important thing to remember is that this isn't a trait of atheism, it's a trait of political authoritarianism.

SO, come on man, out with it. You're quite safe here - nobody gets banded for not towing the atheist party line here.

They don't?!!

[JimC]

Stein wrote:

The mantra that "all believers should go" is a perfectly familiar meme on-line today, and it has inspired hundreds of similar knee-jerk hate screeds on web sites throughout the web that in turn inspire Facebook postings like Craig what's-his-face's.

If there is such a meme, specifically based on atheism and directed to any or all religious believers, then it is an extremely weak one, not at all common in any atheist circles I am familiar with.

Specifically anti-muslim rants are much more common, but they are often conflated with racism or anti-immigrant feeling, whether stated consciously or not. However, opposing the mindless version of criticism of islam should not lead to the opposite, where people bury there heads in the sand and deny the many unpleasant and dangerous aspects of this particular religion (when held by fundamentalists in particular), a religion that has not been modified towards relative harmlessness like christianity in the west over the past several centuries. Of course, anyone who uses anti-islamic sentiment to harm of discriminate against those muslims who are quietly getting on with normal lives ad harming no-one deserve whatever sanctions they get...

[pErvinalia]

You know what annoys me? When I criticise Islam, and freakin' Christians stand up for them. Can't they be like the Catholics and hate other religions??!

[Brian Peacock]

Personally I think Hitchens' politics was too nuanced to be easily categorised as left or right. I think he was wrong to support the post 9/11 war with Saddam, by which he was aligned with the right, but on the other hand I think he was right to suggest that when somebody declares war on you you have to stand your ground, which is classic 'defender of liberty and freedom' territory. I think Harris would probably be classed as a liberal in his homeland, but of course that still puts him to the right of the rest of the civilised world. I know there's a meme about killing believers but I don't know anyone who actually, really believes or advocates it - perhaps there's more among those who have been used and abused by religion than among the rest? I don't know? There's also a meme about atheists eating babies - I read the some sort of ridiculousness into that as I do into the 'kill all christians/muslims/jews' sketch. It's just a way to ridicule those who are quick to assert the superiority of their own ghod-endorsed ideals.