quasi-Stalinist P.Z. Myers

StoppedReadingThere.gif

Seriously, if you cannot tell the difference between him and an actual Stalinist, then you cannot be called anything but either ignorant or stupid.

OTOH, if one looks at Sam Harris, rabid in his Islamophobia and "informed" by neocons (tho P.Z. Myers claims Harris' isn't conservative), one could argue that Harris is also influenced by Pop Evolutionary Psychology to some degree. Long before "The IMmoral Landscape," I saw Harris as a baleful influence on the PR of atheism.

Second, not all atheists are "Gnu Atheists." Gnu Atheism does, speaking as a non-gnu who rarely uses the word atheist in part due to them, have quasi-religious aspects at times — not "beliefs," but "praxis" and organization. Actually, Gnu-ism as a movement reminds me of AA.

That said, even the most strident Gnus, like the quasi-Stalinist P.Z. Myers (what else can you say of a man who wants to form "cadres") aren't the straw man Hedges makes out.

And, certainly, non-gnus aren't.

===

At the same time, Hedges' beliefs are so mushy — even more, the real-world application of whatever he may believe religiously — that I don't know why he calls himself religious.

How does everyone feel about what they wrote?

I am an atheist who really tends to agree with a lot of what Hedges writes.

Here's an audio interview. It's great.

http://static.salon.com/mp3s/2008/mar/conversations_hedges.mp3

Enjoy.

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!