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

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, that baby eating meme is a good example. I expect we'll see lots of naive atheists eating babies soon.

I think Hitchens himself freely described his politics as neo-con. He was a traitor to the left, and I as a staunch lefty keyboard warrior never forgave him. :hrmph:

[Brian Peacock]

I'm not quite ready to get the ice pick out for Hitch just yet. But in the meantime, while Stein's gettin' his shit together...

If Hitchens refused the label of conservative, it was largely because of his peculiar understanding of historical progress. It was important for him to be on the "right side" of history, on the side of those forces which had the greatest dynamism and potential power. During his time as a leftist, there were moments when this sympathy for the powerful in history showed. He always felt, for example, that the British Empire had a progressive role in India. He wrote of Columbus Day that the extermination of the Native Americans should be celebrated as a fact of historical progress. By the end of his life, Hitchens was convinced that American capitalism was "the only revolution in town", and that it would be "a step up" for the countries exposed to it by armed occupation.

The worst of all this, perhaps, is that Hitchens might have seen what was coming. He spent much of his life as a writer skewering apostate leftists who ended up as red-faced rotarians or belligerent bombers – from Paul Johnson to Conor Cruise O'Brien. His tragedy, which his careful revisions and rationalisations cannot conceal, is that he became what he had despised – as Hazlitt put it, "a living and ignominious satire upon himself".

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/j ... ist-neocon

[pErvinalia]

I think his ideas of Western "exceptionalism" fit very well into the neo-con narrative. He was definitely a conservative.

[Stein]

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.

He's right. There is such a meme. It's also become clearer and clearer to me that all sorts of outlandish remarks on the web are sooner or later taken totally seriously by someone, sometime, in today's culture, even if meant -- by some -- as a joke. I don't think Harris is joking, though! Even those who are joking are -- sometimes -- yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. They have a perfect right to make total assholes of themselves, of course, and the rest of us have a perfect right to call them the total pieces of diarrheic pieces of shit they really are. That's how it works, you see.

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.

rEvolutionist is dead right that I'm referencing Hitchens' sellout to the neo-con right on preemptive war and the whole miserable fascist foreign-policy package coming out of W.'s regime. Furthermore, Harris, in addition, subscribes totally to our dumping on the Geneva Conventions and BREAKING OUR OWN LAWs, by the way, in so doing. Duh. Even in the U.S., people like Harris are still viewed as right of center (even though they should really be viewed as downright Fascist).

As to whether or not it is a trait of atheism, it is as much a trait of atheism as the gulags were a trait of socialism. It was not a trait of socialism in Scandinavia, but it was in the Soviet Union. Again, duh.

BTW, I have a feeling that most of rEvolutionist's replies here to Brian Peacock are perfectly self-evident to Brian Peacock already, and B.P.'s just throwing up dust in an effort to underscore just how macho-ly unseriously -- YUK -- he takes these concerns about this growing meme from Harris, Hicks and company. So while rEvolutionist most likely wasted his time re Br. Pea., he has not re this board. What he's saying needs to be said, even though he's not altogether alert to just how much "jokes" can turn totally deadly on a dime in today's culture.

Lest anyone think that I'm somehow alone in being alarmed at the disgusting mow-them-down psyche coming from huge pockets of the atheist community, here's an atheist blogger pointing to the same problem more cogently than I can.

http://overland.org.au/2011/06/the-left ... -pj-myers/

(I wonder what makes me assume that B.P. will studiously avoid this blog link altogether and pretend it hasn't even been introduced; maybe it's time he get HIS shit together.)

Stein

[pErvinalia]

I don't really buy the logic that jokes can cause people to take them seriously and act. There's certainly an element of normalisation that occurs when a subject is joked about enough. That's probably definitely the case with some of our half-hearted jokes about letting the religious fundies kill each other and leave us out of it. It's become so normal to say that that we kind of probably minimalise (if not outright forget) the collateral damage that would occur in such a situation. But in my circles I just don't hear anyone taking Harris seriously. I guess the Apelusters and the FTB-ers and some of the Dawkin's accolytes might. And I guess that's probably a chunk of the active atheist community. But I just don't know if his extreme view about righteous killing is held or even barely respected by many people at all. But I will read that blog post in a little while.

Regarding political exceptionalism being a part of atheism, I have to really disagree. Not all atheists are political, and there are both left and right atheists. There's certainly probably a case of moral and intellectual exceptionalism, but that is born out of reason and evidence, not patriotism and conservative morals like is the case with political exceptionalism.

[Stein]

I don't really buy the logic that jokes can cause people to take them seriously and act. There's certainly an element of normalisation that occurs when a subject is joked about enough. That's probably definitely the case with some of our half-hearted jokes about letting the religious fundies kill each other and leave us out of it. It's become so normal to say that that we kind of probably minimalise (if not outright forget) the collateral damage that would occur in such a situation. But in my circles I just don't hear anyone taking Harris seriously. I guess the Apelusters and the FTB-ers and some of the Dawkin's accolytes might. And I guess that's probably a chunk of the active atheist community. But I just don't know if his extreme view about righteous killing is held or even barely respected by many people at all. But I will read that blog post in a little while.

Regarding political exceptionalism being a part of atheism, I have to really disagree. Not all atheists are political, and there are both left and right atheists. There's certainly probably a case of moral and intellectual exceptionalism,

Why "moral" exceptionalism? I totally don't get that. "ntellectual"? Sure: A concentration on what's empirically verifiable is very much a concern of most in the atheist community. But I'd be rich if I had a dollar for every time an atheist has stated that no special philosophy or morality can be attached to atheism. An atheist is someone who has an absence of any interest or adherence to any religious creed, period. That is a definition that involves non-belief. That's all. Where is there anything pro-active morally or philosophically in something like that at all? It would be like saying there is something morally exceptional in someone who does NOT collect stamps. Huh?

but that is born out of reason and evidence,

Now this really strikes me as a slippery slope. There is nothing intrinsically superior morally in either a theist or an atheist in a vacuum, let alone through "reason"! One either believes in something through faith; or one doesn't. Again, one can claim intellectual exceptionalism for one who doesn't, perhaps, but to claim that reason backs up any claim for moral exceptionalism too gives me the creeps, candidly.

not patriotism and conservative morals like is the case with political exceptionalism.

Actually, I agree with most of what you've said here, other than that one point about morality that does make me profoundly uneasy. And since you strike me as reasonably attentive and honest, I look forward to your response to the blog as well.

Cheers,

Stein

[laklak]

Holding a particular belief isn't the reason people get killed, it's acting on them. Ted Bundy and Gary Ridgeway believed that raping, torturing and murdering women was a really fun thing. Their problem (other than getting caught) was acting on that belief. So we, as a society, killed them. Well, Ted rode the lightning. Ridgeway got 48 consecutive life sentences, which accomplishes the same thing, gets him out of society and prevents him from continuing to act on those beliefs.

ISIS' belief system includes beheading and burning unbelievers. If they stuck to carrying "Behead Infidels!" signs we'd leave them pretty much alone, but they act on those beliefs. So we kill them. If we could lock them up forever I imagine we'd do so, but that's not a realistic goal so we send in the Warthogs and napalm. If they keep it up we'll send the Marines. One way or another we'll remove them from polite society, Insha'Allah.

Harris is right - when a person or group embraces an ideology inimical enough to the rest of us, killing them is justified. That's the truth of it. It's all about drawing somewhat arbitrary lines.

[piscator]

Brown Salafists keep attacking the US, the US will continue to grind them into red sausage. The US did the same to millions of yellow Japanese and white Germans.

At this point, the Salafis have foregone most of their reciprocal rights to be treated with dignity and honor by their enemies. I personally want as many as possible gone. That usually means dead. I don't care.
Is this based in some sort of false cultural superiority? No. It's based on the fact that we are at war with Salafism and Qutbism, as well as culturally superior.

[JimC]

Holding a particular belief isn't the reason people get killed, it's acting on them. Ted Bundy and Gary Ridgeway believed that raping, torturing and murdering women was a really fun thing. Their problem (other than getting caught) was acting on that belief. So we, as a society, killed them. Well, Ted rode the lightning. Ridgeway got 48 consecutive life sentences, which accomplishes the same thing, gets him out of society and prevents him from continuing to act on those beliefs.

ISIS' belief system includes beheading and burning unbelievers. If they stuck to carrying "Behead Infidels!" signs we'd leave them pretty much alone, but they act on those beliefs. So we kill them. If we could lock them up forever I imagine we'd do so, but that's not a realistic goal so we send in the Warthogs and napalm. If they keep it up we'll send the Marines. One way or another we'll remove them from polite society, Insha'Allah.

Harris is right - when a person or group embraces an ideology inimical enough to the rest of us, killing them is justified. That's the truth of it. It's all about drawing somewhat arbitrary lines.

The problem is in defining the group. If we mean active ISIS soldiers in the territory they control, or their leaders, fine. Whatever military options (including more arms to the Kurds, etc.) achieve that, fine. Same goes for home grown terrorists plotting acts of murder.

However, people conflate these relatively narrow groups with Islam, or even certain branches of Islam, and can be drawn into "the only good muslim is a dead muslim" idiocy, often supported unconsciously by racist attitudes. If Harris is straying, even slightly, into this territory, then he needs to be criticised. But I cannot see an atheist pogrom against religion in any general sense springing from this; we are too varied, and too ornery to be corralled into such a false position...

[pErvinalia]

I don't really buy the logic that jokes can cause people to take them seriously and act. There's certainly an element of normalisation that occurs when a subject is joked about enough. That's probably definitely the case with some of our half-hearted jokes about letting the religious fundies kill each other and leave us out of it. It's become so normal to say that that we kind of probably minimalise (if not outright forget) the collateral damage that would occur in such a situation. But in my circles I just don't hear anyone taking Harris seriously. I guess the Apelusters and the FTB-ers and some of the Dawkin's accolytes might. And I guess that's probably a chunk of the active atheist community. But I just don't know if his extreme view about righteous killing is held or even barely respected by many people at all. But I will read that blog post in a little while.

Regarding political exceptionalism being a part of atheism, I have to really disagree. Not all atheists are political, and there are both left and right atheists. There's certainly probably a case of moral and intellectual exceptionalism,

Why "moral" exceptionalism? I totally don't get that. "ntellectual"? Sure: A concentration on what's empirically verifiable is very much a concern of most in the atheist community. But I'd be rich if I had a dollar for every time an atheist has stated that no special philosophy or morality can be attached to atheism. An atheist is someone who has an absence of any interest or adherence to any religious creed, period. That is a definition that involves non-belief. That's all. Where is there anything pro-active morally or philosophically in something like that at all? It would be like saying there is something morally exceptional in someone who does NOT collect stamps. Huh?

I guess I was just trying to make the point that an atheist doesn't need an external agent to tell them how to behave more or less properly. Most of us understand that morals are subjective and as a consequence we tend to think deeper about what it means to be 'good' or 'bad' as compared to a theist who only has to think "will this please my God?".

but that is born out of reason and evidence,

Now this really strikes me as a slippery slope. There is nothing intrinsically superior morally in either a theist or an atheist in a vacuum, let alone through "reason"! One either believes in something through faith; or one doesn't. Again, one can claim intellectual exceptionalism for one who doesn't, perhaps, but to claim that reason backs up any claim for moral exceptionalism too gives me the creeps, candidly.

Reason shows that there is no objective morality (despite Harris' lame attempts to prove otherwise). Therefore, as I talked about above, we atheists are more attentive to what it means to be potentially "good" or "bad".

[pErvinalia]

Holding a particular belief isn't the reason people get killed, it's acting on them. Ted Bundy and Gary Ridgeway believed that raping, torturing and murdering women was a really fun thing. Their problem (other than getting caught) was acting on that belief. So we, as a society, killed them. Well, Ted rode the lightning. Ridgeway got 48 consecutive life sentences, which accomplishes the same thing, gets him out of society and prevents him from continuing to act on those beliefs.

ISIS' belief system includes beheading and burning unbelievers. If they stuck to carrying "Behead Infidels!" signs we'd leave them pretty much alone, but they act on those beliefs. So we kill them. If we could lock them up forever I imagine we'd do so, but that's not a realistic goal so we send in the Warthogs and napalm. If they keep it up we'll send the Marines. One way or another we'll remove them from polite society, Insha'Allah.

Harris is right - when a person or group embraces an ideology inimical enough to the rest of us, killing them is justified. That's the truth of it. It's all about drawing somewhat arbitrary lines.

The winners in any battle/conflict decide what is "just". There's no objective right or wrong.

But it's important to distinguish between the people who actually do the beheading and those who just show their support for it. Behead someone and you are likely to wind up dead. That's warfare, no biggie. But killing someone just for associating with someone who beheads someone isn't likely to be a very defensible moral stance.

[piscator]

74% of all Muslims polled think death is the proper punishment for renouncing Islam.


http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/w ... report.pdf

[pErvinalia]

So we should sink to their level?

edit: Not that I believe that stat for a second.

[Hermit]

So we should sink to their level?

edit: Not that I believe that stat for a second.

That claim is not even made in the linked report.

Q92b (page 219) asks: Do you favor or oppose the following: the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion?

To begin with, the question was not addressed to all Muslims. Only Muslims who favoured the idea of making Sharia government law were asked. Secondly, no overall result was given. The results are listed by country (of which there were 38) in which the question was put. The two countries most in favour were Egypt (86%) and Jordan (83%). On the other end of the spectrum were Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan with 1% each.

Perhaps Piscator got the figure of 74% from the mention that that is the percentage of all Muslims in Egypt who favour the idea of making Sharia official law. At least I hope it was just an honest mistake borne of confusion or faulty memory.

[pErvinalia]

It's as I suspected.