you don't address anything, you simply plow forward as if I've said nothing.

This was OMFG's response to my comment (above)

I think the people that Kirk Johnson has helped may have a different appreciation of their lives. What are you actually advocating? That we just leave people to die in Iraq, because other people will die in their place? First of all that isn't true, the people Johnson are helping are being targeted because they helped the U.S. . . . other people who didn't help the U.S. are not killed, at least for that reason.

And my simple request to quote me saying say something that indicates I hate atheists, or condone suicide bombing, let alone suggest that it should be tolerated.

Let me quote OMFG, again:

. . . the problem is that after you remove those people, others will simply die in their places . . .

What exactly are you saying? I'm sure you don't mean that we should just leave "those people" to die. Think about what you are saying. What are you actually proposing that someone do?

I think you mean that the violence will continue, even though we might be able to save some people. Yes, that's absolutely true. But it is also not a reason not to try to do something to get asylum status for people who are under threat of death. Every human being possesses inherent worth, and every human life is equally valuable.

I can't respond to most of your "criticisms" because they are just insults, or sometimes they don't make sense. Let's review:

You've proven that you don't care about intellectual honesty in that you've done nothing to counter the arguments against you

Ok, you've made the claim. But I fail to see anywhere that you've carefully elaborated on why this is true. As I mentioned you can't find anything I've said that indicates I hate atheists, or even dislike "them" in general, nor have you found and quotes or text that indicates I condone suicide bombing. This isn't all that surprising, since I don't dislike atheists, I don't personally think there is much of a group coherent enough to like or dislike---and as I have explicitly stated several time, suicide bombing civilians is a horrendous crime.

You think that you have no standing to criticize the tactic of suicide bombing, so how do you think you'll stop the violence of suicide bombings?

One way, that I've suggested several times, is to remove the targets of suicide bombing, that is, help people who are trying to flee Iraq to find refuge. Another way would be to work to stop the occupation of Iraq. Besides being false, since I never said anything about "criticizing the tactic of suicide bombing", there is no logical necessity that you criticize the tactic, in order to defuse a bomb or advocate for someone to get asylum in a safe country.

As explained above, yes. Of course, I'm not too worried about it, since Hedges is nothing more than an egotistical person whose had his poor wittle ego hurt by not being as famous as Hitchens and Harris, but still.

Let's suppose he is exactly what you say. I didn't respond to this because I don't care. This claim about Hedges' psychology is totally irrelevant to anything I've said, anyways. Please explain why it is relevant if I'm wrong.

It comes from YOUR logic. We can't say boo about suicide bombing, we can only hope to get a few select people out of harm's way, according to you.

Please find actual quotations from what I have written that suggest this. I don't think I'm under any obligation to respond to things that you say about my position which are completely incorrect. When did I say "only hope to get a few select people"? I never said anything remotely like this. QUOTE ME SAYING SOMETHING LIKE THIS. We can hope for a lot more, given the political climate it might be foolish to expect to much, but it is certainly worth trying to do something practical. Again, I'm sure you are suggesting that if the world can't be perfect then there is no point to trying to make things a little better for some people, where "some people" means whoever we can.

How can I speak out against my government not allowing these Iraqis into the country by your logic? I've done things in my life that were less than moral, and by your logic, until I am beyond reproach, how can I criticize anyone else

You can criticize people all you want. You can criticize the witch burnings and serial killers, & if this makes you feel good, then by all means, go ahead and do it. I feel that criticizing things over which I have no control is pretty much useless. And as a rule, one aims to criticize those things which you have some chance of effecting.

I wouldn't be having this conversation with you if we were on a pro-life website criticizing abortion clinic bombers. Harris and Hitchens criticize islam --- which is excellent if you are a neo-conservative hawk in the administration, because the more we all hate islam and see it as "the greatest threat to the world" the more likely we will be able to go one causing the misery and destruction in islamic countries like Iraq. After all, doesn't Harris, at some point say that in some cases people should be killed for what they believe. "Human beings possess fundamental rights and freedoms upon which no one may infringe. Among these are freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of association, the right to privacy, the right to an education, the right to live in peace and safety, and the right to seek happiness," unless they have beliefs that I determine are . . . in which case they should be killed.

Here's what I said at one point:

My "logic," as you call it, is to try to talk about, examine, and fix what is wrong with myself and my community before I start criticizing others.

There's nothing confusing about this. I said that I haven't done enough to stop violence that is carried out by my community. One thing I could try to do is to fix this by doing more. This is completely clear. Notice I'm quoting things I have actually written. You never picked out any holes in my logic. I didn't respond to a lot of the things you said because they were nonsensical, or they were not based on my position.

OMFG, I've tried to be straight with you; I've tried to joke with you; I've tried to respond in good faith to what you write, and I'll I've got back are insults. You are rude and insulting. And in my humble and fallible opinion you often talk like a zealot, identifying *us* and *them* splitting the world between atheist and non-atheist, accusing me of hating you (and your group), doing all of this without any evidence or reason.

OMFG, you can't actually find any evidence in anything I said that I hate atheists, or that I condone suicide bombing.

I already gave you evidence of what you said that makes me suspect that you hate - maybe that's too strong a word - atheists. But, just like all the other problems that I've pointed out with your arguments, you don't address anything, you simply plow forward as if I've said nothing.

You actually said that my "immoral stance" stops you, OMFG and other atheists...

I misspoke. What I should have said was that if we followed your immoral stance, then we would be helpless to speak out against the violence, due to taking your stance to its logical conclusion.

Either way, I'm done with you. You've proven that you don't care about intellectual honesty in that you've done nothing to counter the arguments against you, you've shifted the goal posts many times, you've come here under false pretenses (I suspect), and you've trashed a book that you haven't even read, don't understand the arguments contained in it, and turn a blind eye when your hero Hedges does the exact same thing; apparently you have no problem with stereotyping when it is aimed at atheists, which I've already commented on and you would know if you actually read/engaged what I wrote.

You need to look at what you say a lot more carefully, listen to yourself

No, I don't, but the problem is that after you remove those people, others will simply die in their places. And, it is because your immoral stance that we can't speak out against the actions that will kill these people.

I think the people that Kirk Johnson has helped may have a different appreciation of their lives. What are you actually advocating? That we just leave people to die in Iraq, because other people will die in their place? First of all that isn't true, the people Johnson are helping are being targeted because they helped the U.S. . . . other people who didn't help the U.S. are not killed, at least for that reason.

You actually said that my "immoral stance" stops you, OMFG and other atheists, from speaking out against actions that will kill "these people." This is so far removed from reason that I can't respond.

OMFG, I think you should ask someone else, that you trust, to read what I've written and see if they agree with you. Perhaps, someone else who posts on this blog.

I'm not saying that we should NOT try to stop the source from which violence flows in Iraq...

Actually, that's exactly what you said in one sense. You think that you have no standing to criticize the tactic of suicide bombing, so how do you think you'll stop the violence of suicide bombings? You've staked out an immoral position and you've also not bothered to answer any of the other criticisms of your position. Your position is morally bankrupt and intellectually bankrupt as well.

(1) What makes you think that I hate atheists? If you choose to respond please go back over what I've written here and find examples of something that would give a reasonable person the idea that I hate atheists.

Easy, your uncritical acceptance of the characatures that people paint of us, and your tendency to paint all those in the government that you disagree with as atheists.

Who are "people like me"?

I've met many people that simply hate atheists and ascribe all kinds of nasty postions to atheists for no good reason. Perhaps you have a reason, I'm just trying to inquire as to why you have animosity towards atheists.

(3) Hedges, as I've noted many times, refers to a group of people he calls "New Atheists." I don't think he's saying anything about you.

If he's simply talking about Harris and Hitchens, then he should say so. Instead, he's using a well-known phrase in the modern lexicon that often refers to people exactly like me. Whether I have chosen the moniker or not, the label "New Atheists" is applied to me and to Ebon and to all the other atheists on this forum.

Where did the "instead" clause come from?

It comes from YOUR logic. We can't say boo about suicide bombing, we can only hope to get a few select people out of harm's way, according to you.

Clear you don't think that while treating the "actual problem" of suicide bombing Iraqis like the ones Johnson is helping should be left to be murdered.

No, I don't, but the problem is that after you remove those people, others will simply die in their places. And, it is because your immoral stance that we can't speak out against the actions that will kill these people.

OMFG, do you feel like you are being criticized or attacked when Hedges makes claims about people he calls "New Atheists" like Hitchens or Harris?

As explained above, yes. Of course, I'm not too worried about it, since Hedges is nothing more than an egotistical person whose had his poor wittle ego hurt by not being as famous as Hitchens and Harris, but still. Atheists have to deal with this crap all the time, and when someone comes on and defends this sort of sterotyping, it's a bit aggravating to say that least. This is magnified when the person accuses others of doing the same thing and wishes to crucify (not literally) them for it, all the while not even bothering to read the source to find out if the criticisms are proper or not. This lack of intellectual honesty is also rather aggravating to be honest.

Where did the "instead" clause come from? Clearly you don't think that while treating the "actual problem" of suicide bombing, Iraqis like the ones Johnson is helping should be left to be murdered. I'm not sure what point you are making. I'm not saying that we should NOT try to stop the source from which violence flows in Iraq, but that at the same time, we should act like people like Johnson who are trying to lessen the amount of violence.

Yup, I definitely shouldn't criticize anyone for their writing flaws!

Tell me, what is it about atheists that makes people like you want to hate us so much and want to believe the worst things about us?

(1) What makes you think that I hate atheists? If you choose to respond please go back over what I've written here and find examples of something that would give a reasonable person the idea that I hate atheists. I think you won't be able to, if you stick to actually trying to quote things I've written above. I really have no idea where this is coming from, especially since I have said exactly the opposite a couple of times for example

(2) Who are "people like me"? Again, please don't respond with one line, that associates me with Hedges or something. What is the group, whether organized or not, that you are claiming I'm a part of?

(3) Hedges, as I've noted many times, refers to a group of people he calls "New Atheists." I don't think he's saying anything about you.

OMFG wrote

Yes, by all means, let's treat the symptoms instead of the actual problem.

Where did the "instead" clause come from? Clear you don't think that while treating the "actual problem" of suicide bombing Iraqis like the ones Johnson is helping should be left to be murdered. I'm not sure what point you are making. I'm not saying that we should try to stop the source from which violence flows in Iraq, but that at the same time, people like Johnson are trying to lessen the amount of violence.

OMFG, do you feel like you are being criticized or attacked when Hedges makes claims about people he calls "New Atheists" like Hitchens or Harris?

I think gentlemen like Mr. Johnson are honestly trying to do something to lessen the amount of violence in the middle east. Importantly, Johnson is not yelling and screaming about the evils of suicide bombing, but trying to help people that will actually be victims of suicide bombing or worse.

Yes, by all means, let's treat the symptoms instead of the actual problem.

At least Hedges is trying to speak out against the kinds of ideology he sees driving the decision to keep occupying Iraq, among other things, whether it is the christian kind of the, as he calls it, "New Atheist" kind.

No he's not. He's speaking out against atheism and tarring us all with the brush that we are a bunch of blood-thirsty imperialists simply because he found one or two atheists. He even admits as much with Dawkins (who opposes the war) but brushes it away by claiming that Dawkins is different simply because he's British, as if that has anything to do with it. He's not speaking about atheist ideology, he's speaking about neocon ideology. What part of disbelief in god leads one to the conclusion that we are all lovers of death and destruction and want the world to end? This is ludicrous. And you STILL haven't addressed the fact that Hedges is doing exactly what you incorrectly criticized Harris for doing. I guess it's OK when the target is atheists, right? Tell me, what is it about atheists that makes people like you want to hate us so much and want to believe the worst things about us?

My "logic," as you call it, is to try to talk about, examine, and fix what is wrong with myself and my community before I start criticizing others.

And, I pointed out what is wrong with it.

What I'm saying is that we need to think about what we can actually do to lessen the amount of violence in the world.

And I'm sure that not speaking out against suicide bombers is a good strategy.

Frankly, I have no idea what given you the idea that I think it is OK that people are murdered in Iraq, by suicide bombings.

Maybe your fallacious arguments about how we can't criticize anyone for their lack of morals because of the evil things that our "community" - especially all the wicked atheists, because theists never do anything wrong - has done?

I criticized myself, by saying that I haven't done enough to make things like this happen, and therefore don't feel like I am righteous enough to judge people who commit suicide bombings.

And I pointed out the logical conclusion of your thinking. Thank you, come again.

The approach Hedges takes is the moral one — to try to focus on the problems in his community and that he might have some say over.

No, the approach Hedges takes is to paint all atheists with a broad brush so that he can knock down the straw man. That might be fine for you, but lying for Jesus is still a lie.

However, people like Hitchens and Harris don't tell people about that . . . in fact Hitchens justifies making a Iraq a hell-hole.

And I don't agree with Hitchens' stand on the war, but this is all an exercise in moving the goal posts. Just because Hitchens says he supports the war doesn't give Hedges an excuse to tar all atheists with the same brush. You defend Hedges for doing this, while simultaneously go after Harris for allegedly tarring all Muslims with the same brush. You are a hypocrite. Maybe you don't see the difference because Hedges is going after atheists, and we are fair game to most theists, but that just means that you are blinded by your ideology, whether it is theism or simply faith in faith.

Do you honestly think that by telling me what an "a-hole" I am, and rightly condemning suicide bombing on an atheist blog, you will do more good than trying to get the word out about Iraqi asylum seekers, or doing something else to lessen the violence and death caused by the "multi-national" force in Iraq?

False dilemma. Do you really think that I can either point out your personal attacks and logical fallacies OR I can be a moral person and do something good? It's not an either/or.

I definitely only speak for myself, and all I can say is that I have *never* done enough to stop massive violence, and the contribution to horrible violence carried out by my government to get up in some religious guys' faces to pass judgment on them.

And I'm sure you've never been a suicide bomber either. It doesn't mean that you can't say that suicide bombing is immoral.

I was not talking about "criticizing" suicide bombers for killing "these people", I was talking about us, you and me, for NOT helping "these people." If an Iraqi comes to the U.S. asking for asylum, we turn him down, and he goes back to Iraq and is murdered. We have a role in that guy's murder.

If this was your point from the beginning, you had a strange way of getting there. You stated that you have no standing to call suicide bombing immoral and to criticize those that do it. This is quite a separate issue from whether you and I are doing enough to help people in need. I'll also point out that your pet project is not the only project out there, nor is it the only way to help people in need. Yes, it would be nice if we could all do something, but even if we don't do what you consider to be "enough" that doesn't mean that we have to turn a blind eye to attrocities done that are immoral. How can I speak out against my government not allowing these Iraqis into the country by your logic? I've done things in my life that were less than moral, and by your logic, until I am beyond reproach, how can I criticize anyone else? Your way leads to paralysis. I am quite content to continue to speak out against suicide bombings and wars of aggression, and I don't need your sermonizing about how sinful I am and telling me that I have no standing to speak out against injustice.

Since were on the topic of morals, I thought I would quote from an Op-Ed that appeared more than a year ago in the LA times, it is by Kirk Johnson, and can be found on the website I mentioned:

President Bush and Congress bear a moral responsibility to those Iraqis whose lives are imperiled because of their willingness to help us. We need to move swiftly to expand the special immigrant status beyond the military translators to permit these Iraqis asylum in our country. . . . In closing a despairing message to me last week, he wrote, "Maybe I will be forced to go back to Iraq to lose my life." He has only a few weeks left before he and his wife will likely be made to return to Iraq, to the death threat that awaits them."

NOTE: "President Bush and Congress" are at least formally accountable to american citizens, including atheists.

I think gentlemen like Mr. Johnson are honestly trying to do something to lessen the amount of violence in the middle east. Importantly, Johnson is not yelling and screaming about the evils of suicide bombing, but trying to help people that will actually be victims of suicide bombing or worse.

At least Hedges is trying to speak out against the kinds of ideology he sees driving the decision to keep occupying Iraq, among other things, whether it is the christian kind of the, as he calls it, "New Atheist" kind.

My "logic," as you call it, is to try to talk about, examine, and fix what is wrong with myself and my community before I start criticizing others. What I'm saying is that we need to think about what we can actually do to lessen the amount of violence in the world. Frankly, I have no idea what given you the idea that I think it is OK that people are murdered in Iraq, by suicide bombings. Everything I've said goes against that. I have, however, criticized myself: I don't feel that I'm so righteous that I can judge other people, even suicide bombers. Why don't I feel righteous? Because as I pointed out, Iraqis are going to die, because, among other things, we won't let them come into this country. If you look that the website I mentioned you can find out about what is actually happening there. The gentleman who runs the website is specifically trying to help Iraqis that have worked for the Am. government, who are under threat of death and have had to flee Iraq, or are in Iraq and on the run. The U.S. government refuses to let these people come to the U.S. Inevitably some of them are going to die, while waiting for asylum claims.

If you are an american citizen you have some say in what the policy towards asylum seekers is going to be. You have a choice as to whether you will simply allow 31 Iraqis into the U.S. and let the rest languish as refugees, eventually to return to Iraq and die. Or try to do something to change that, and hopefully get more people to a safe place.

I criticized myself, by saying that I haven't done enough to make things like this happen, and therefore don't feel like I am righteous enough to judge people who commit suicide bombings. If you notice, I have always said that suicide bombings are terrible and criminal. In the U.S., surely, the vast majority of people think ---correctly--- that suicide bombing are a horrendous crime. On the other hand, it is also a crime to allow Iraqis to languish as refugees and refuse to allow asylum seekers into the U.S. This is a crime that is done by us. And we have some control over it.

The approach Hedges takes is the moral one --- to try to focus on the problems in his community and that he might have some say over.

Lots of American citizens are outraged about what is happening to the asylum seekers on the list, and many more would be outraged if they new that there government is going to effectively kill people, because it refuses to grant them asylum. However, people like Hitchens and Harris don't tell people about that . . . in fact Hitchens justifies making a Iraq a hell-hole. They just say the easy thing, what everyone agrees, suicide bombing is atrocious.

Do you honestly think that by telling me what an "a-hole" I am, and rightly condemning suicide bombing on an atheist blog, you will do more good than trying to get the word out about Iraqi asylum seekers, or doing something else to lessen the violence and death caused by the "multi-national" force in Iraq?

On March 27th I said

I think suicide bombings targeted at civilians are horrendous crimes, but what about the guy who sits in an air conditioned office somewhere in Washington, who decides to raze Fallujah.

I'll add . . . what about Peter sitting around blogging with OMFG when he could be doing something to help an Iraqi not get killed by a suicide bomber. I also said, on March 28th,

I definitely only speak for myself, and all I can say is that I have *never* done enough to stop massive violence, and the contribution to horrible violence carried out by my government to get up in some religious guys' faces to pass judgment on them. That's all I'm saying.

Frankly, I don't think this is too controversial.

OMFG wrote:

According to your logic, you can't criticize suicide bombers, so how can you pass judgement that it's a bad thing for them to kill these people?

You are really, really missing the point. I was not talking about "criticizing" suicide bombers for killing "these people", I was talking about us, you and me, for NOT helping "these people." If an Iraqi comes to the U.S. asking for asylum, we turn him down, and he goes back to Iraq and is murdered. We have a role in that guy's murder.

Is it just me, or does Hedges look like Bill Dembski?

I think that he looks a bit like Wolf Kahler, the guy who played the creepy Nazi agent in Raiders of the Lost Ark.