Sam Harris on "Islamophobia"

Cleon said:
Fortunately, even most of the die-hard atheists stopped promoting Condell once he threw his support behind the racist/fascist UKIP. Dawkins and his acolytes are the only ones still pretending that Condell is a paragon of reason.
Click to expand...
Speaking for myself as an atheist I don't in the least mind attacks on Dawkins on this issue, although he's long been one of my intellectual inspirers in the matter of evolution and like subjects. But if he is maintaining faith in the credentials of a supporter of UKIP, he deserves very severe criticism. To be honest, I can't really understand what Dawkins and Harris are up to. But of course I don't bash atheists for being atheists.
 
tsig said:
Some do it therefore all do it, painting with that broad brush again I see. Why is it OK for you to bash all New Atheists for what Dawkins says yet it's Islamophobia to bash all Muslims for what some Imams say?
Click to expand...

Because New Atheists are a small subset of all atheists, a subset who seem to hang on Hazrat Richard Dawkins' (peace be upon him) every utterance, while bashing "all Muslims" for what those certain imams say is bashing all Muslims, broad-brushing every single one of them for what those certain imams say.

It's the same reason I said "evangelical Christians" in that post, rather than "all Christians".
 
Last edited:
A'isha said:
Because New Atheists are a small subset of all atheists, a subset who seem to hang on Hazrat Richard Dawkins' (peace be upon him) every utterance, while bashing "all Muslims" for what those certain imams say is bashing all Muslims, broad-brushing every single one of them for what those certain imams say.

It's the same reason I said "evangelical Christians" in that post, rather than "all Christians".
Click to expand...

I'd say people who regard Dawkins as nearly infallible are a small subset of 'new atheists'. I like him on biology, but the man should never have been given a Twitter account. I quite like Dennett. I'd have thought I fall into the category of new atheist.
 
Mister Agenda said:
I'd say people who regard Dawkins as nearly infallible are a small subset of 'new atheists'. I like him on biology, but the man should never have been given a Twitter account. I quite like Dennett. I'd have thought I fall into the category of new atheist.
Click to expand...

Hmm? I confess I never thought of you as a New Atheist.

But nevertheless, I take your point, and will be more careful to be clear about who I'm referring to in the future, that specific subset of a subset.
 
A'isha said:
Because New Atheists are a small subset of all atheists, a subset who seem to hang on Hazrat Richard Dawkins' (peace be upon him) every utterance, while bashing "all Muslims" for what those certain imams say is bashing all Muslims, broad-brushing every single one of them for what those certain imams say.

It's the same reason I said "evangelical Christians" in that post, rather than "all Christians".
Click to expand...

The hilited doesn't help your argument, in fact, it makes it look like you suffer from Dawkinsophobia.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Innocent?

In 2003 the UK Labour government gave full military support to the US's illegal 'Shock and Awe' invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of up to 1 million civilians (mostly Muslims). In 2005 the British Labour Party was reelected with 35% of the popular vote.

Using present figures, 35% of British voters means around 14,000,000 people at least. So, under the best of circumstances, we have 14,000,000 people walking around in the UK, who support terrorist attacks on innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping that this comment was a parody.

The numbers that Dawkins is referring to seem to come from an NOP study done on behalf of Dispatches, though I can't find the original numbers anywhere.
Various newspaper reports mention it in their archives, but it's the likes of the Mail and the Telegraph, so I'd take it all with a pinch of salt.

The most recent piece of comedy that was clearly a dig at Islam that I can think of was Innocence of Muslims, via Youtube.
That was comedy, right?
 
tsig said:
The hilited doesn't help your argument, in fact, it makes it look like you suffer from Dawkinsophobia.
Click to expand...

I borrowed it from the ex-Muslim Pakistani atheist I linked to above:

I think Hazrat Richard Dawkins (peace be upon him) should read out his Tweets to his staff before pressing the 'send' button on his phone.

https://twitter.com/SecularlyYours/status/377763162470100992
Click to expand...

It seems to be quite fitting, considering the religious reverence that the aforementioned subset of New Atheists seems to have for him.
 
A'isha said:
Because New Atheists are a small subset of all atheists, a subset who seem to hang on Hazrat Richard Dawkins' (peace be upon him) every utterance
Click to expand...

I have never met any of these "New Atheists". Can you define them for me? Dawkins is a very smart speaker and has written some excellent books, but some of his stuff is crap. (cough memes cough)

Since you can't control what others say or do, I've found that the less I care about what other people are doing, the happier I tend to be. Do with that what you will.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
I have never met any of these "New Atheists". Can you define them for me? Dawkins is a very smart speaker and has written some excellent books, but some of his stuff is crap. (cough memes cough)

Since you can't control what others say or do, I've found that the less I care about what other people are doing, the happier I tend to be. Do with that what you will.
Click to expand...

It's always amusing to see atheists deny the existence of New Atheism.
 
Dissolution said:
What's the difference between New Atheism and atheism?
Click to expand...

Refusing to give religion "respect" apparently makes you a New Atheist which seems to be some sort of devil to some folks.

The religious can tell others they're dammed, are evil, loveless, crass and have no morals and that's OK but any criticism of religion is totally unfair and makes you a militant.
 
mijopaalmc said:
It's always amusing to see atheists deny the existence of New Atheism.
Click to expand...

This sounds an awful lot like:

"It's always amusing to see gays deny the existence of the gay agenda."

"It's always amusing to see muslims deny the existence of Islam-fascism."

Yes, of course there's going to be a backlash to atheists who speak out and aren't ashamed of who they are. That's how bigotry works. It's okay to be an atheist as long as you don't talk about it with anybody. Once you start talking about your atheism and criticizing religion, then you become one of those horrible "New Atheists".

There's nothing new about "New Atheism". Read some of the writings and quotes from people like Mark Twain and HL Mencken. They were talking the talk and walking the walk long before Dawkins or Hitchens.

A'isha said:
New Atheism
Click to expand...

Bless my socks! There's a Wikipedia article on it; it must be real! So, that means that homeopathy, astrology, and the Jersey Devil are all real, too.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
This sounds an awful lot like:

"It's always amusing to see gays deny the existence of the gay agenda."

"It's always amusing to see muslims deny the existence of Islam-fascism."

Yes, of course there's going to be a backlash to atheists who speak out and aren't ashamed of who they are. That's how bigotry works. It's okay to be an atheist as long as you don't talk about it with anybody. Once you start talking about your atheism and criticizing religion, then you become one of those horrible "New Atheists".

There's nothing new about "New Atheism". Read some of the writings and quotes from people like Mark Twain and HL Mencken. They were talking the talk and walking the walk long before Dawkins or Hitchens.
Click to expand...

So which is are New Atheists these brave individuals who have dared to speak out about the folly of religion or has "atheism" always been full of pugnacious individuals who have had no trouble asserting falsehoods to promote their "lack" of belief in the supernatural?

Axiom_Blade said:
Bless my socks! There's a Wikipedia article on it; it must be real! So, that means that homeopathy, astrology, and the Jersey Devil are all real, too.
Click to expand...

Wow! That's just a terrible analogy. Of course, homeopathy is "real" in the sense that it is an identifiable set of beliefs distinct enough to describe in a coherent manner. What you seem to be unable (or unwilling for the sake of you own argument) to understand that the existence of such beliefs–or the corresponding beliefs comprising astrology; the existence of cryptids or other paranormal or supernatural phenomena–and the truth of such beliefs. Wikipedia articles generally acknowledge the former but not the latter.

Your conflation of the two, nonetheless, allows you to dismiss Wikipedia articles as evidence of the existence of a belief because you deny the truth of the belief. In other words, you establish a false implication between existence and truth and the deny the antecedent to round out you argument.
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
So which is are New Atheists these brave individuals who have dared to speak out about the folly of religion or has "atheism" always been full of pugnacious individuals who have had no trouble asserting falsehoods to promote their "lack" of belief in the supernatural?
Click to expand...

What's with the quotes around "lack"?
What falsehoods have been asserted?
More aggressive pro-theist agnosticism, Mijo? New Agnosticism, perhaps?

mijopaalmc said:
Wow! That's just a terrible analogy. Of course, homeopathy is "real" in the sense that it is an identifiable set of beliefs distinct enough to describe in a coherent manner. What you seem to be unable (or unwilling for the sake of you own argument) to understand that the existence of such beliefs–or the corresponding beliefs comprising astrology; the existence of cryptids or other paranormal or supernatural phenomena–and the truth of such beliefs. Wikipedia articles generally acknowledge the former but not the latter.

Your conflation of the two, nonetheless, allows you to dismiss Wikipedia articles as evidence of the existence of a belief because you deny the truth of the belief. In other words, you establish a false implication between existence and truth and the deny the antecedent to round out you argument.
Click to expand...

It's a perfect analogy. Just because something's claimed to exist and has a name, it doesn't mean that such a thing is real.
You believe that there's such a thing as New Atheism, yet there appears to be very little to distinguish it from plain old atheism.
You're seeing a bear and calling it a sasquatch.
 
Dissolution said:
What's with the quotes around "lack"?
What falsehoods have been asserted?
More aggressive pro-theist agnosticism, Mijo? New Agnosticism, perhaps?



It's a perfect analogy. Just because something's claimed to exist and has a name, it doesn't mean that such a thing is real.
You believe that there's such a thing as New Atheism, yet there appears to be very little to distinguish it from plain old atheism.
You're seeing a bear and calling it a sasquatch.
Click to expand...


Pro-theist strategy:
First you create a division then you complain about sectarianism.
 
A'isha said:
Hmm? I confess I never thought of you as a New Atheist.

But nevertheless, I take your point, and will be more careful to be clear about who I'm referring to in the future, that specific subset of a subset.
Click to expand...

Meh, I'm not sure I believe 'new atheist' is even a legitimate label, let alone whether I qualify. I'm not new in the sense of having been minted by reading The God Delusion, I've been an atheist since the mid nineties. But I'm out, I founded a Meetup Group ten years ago, and I like to argue with theists on line. To some people, at least, that makes me a new atheist. Those people could be wrong, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom