"The 5 Most Awful Atheists

[Daald]

"What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own." - Sam Harris, "The End of Faith", page 129.

Translation: "If Iran ever gets the bomb they will use it (because they have no fear of death and actually want to die), so we should nuke them immediately!"

Sorry, but I am not giving him a pass on the basis that it's a 'hypothetical extreme'. There is a good chance that Iran will get the bomb. What then, Sam?

He has already responded to those:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/



To show your clear bias....

"What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own." - Sam Harris, "The End of Faith", page 129.

Guess what the next line says. Just guess.

Here it is for your pleasure.

Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—

He does not need a pass from you. He needs reading comprehension.

 

[Cayvmann]

Reading that description makes me wonder whether she's genuinely an atheist or if she's a Christian who's come up with an angle to make money.

She could also be an atheist who is using that angle to make money. This line of thought could get convoluted quickly.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I find all the people on the list interesting, with the exception of Cupps. I like Myers, too, but he tries to make atheism more than atheism, which is counterproductive for all of us trying to explain to religious people that atheism is only atheism.

 

[westprog]

I find all the people on the list interesting, with the exception of Cupps. I like Myers, too, but he tries to make atheism more than atheism, which is counterproductive for all of us trying to explain to religious people that atheism is only atheism.

It's reasonable to criticise people who promote atheism for the way they promote atheism. When Sam Harris tries to construct a wholly unsound system of atheist ethics, (based on "well, we all know this is wrong") then it's reasonable to call him on his ethical credentials. However, attacking Penn Jillette for his political opinions as an atheist is only valid if Jillette himself is claiming that his atheism and his political stance are interlinked.

 

[Stone]

These are pikers, both in terms of nastiness and in terms of moral grandeur, compared to atheists of the past. Bertrand Russell, Matthias Knutzen, Democritus, Holbach -- these were all dedicated humanitarians. At the same time, figures whose thoughts can curdle the blood include the Indian thinker Brhaspati who opposed feeding the indigent(!), the Greek tyrant Critias who instituted the first (known) peace-time extermination policy and Meslier, whose advocacy of collective genocide inspired the Reign of Terror ([paraphrase] "the last noble should be strangled with the guts of the last priest").

Not sure what these profoundly opposite types tell us. But I guess they show that the worst and the best are found in all demographics. (BTW, I do find Sam Harris quite objectionable in his tacit support of W's infamous pre-emptive war doctrine, but [so far] his tasty outbursts have not resulted in the kind of misery found during Critias or the Reign of Terror.)

Stone

 

[Foster Zygote]

Reading that description makes me wonder whether she's genuinely an atheist or if she's a Christian who's come up with an angle to make money.

Here's my observation made in response to a YouTube video:

The give away for me is that she claims to be an atheist, yet her view of atheism seems to come straight from The Big Book of Religious Misconceptions About Atheism. The whole "higher power" argument is clearly calculated to appeal to an all too common strawman regarding atheists. She's found a way to profitably peddle herself in the lucrative conservative media market, first as the appealing "enemy who says that we're right", then later, most likely, as "the enemy who defected to our cause".