• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"The 5 Most Awful Atheists

Barber Shop said:
http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-most-awful-atheists

What do other JREFers think of this list? Do these folks deserve the title of "Worst Atheists"? I feel that the section on Ayaan Hirsi Ali was particularly unfair. I think she is actually quite admirable. It seems that this author also has a dislike for conservative/libertarian minded people, and this dislike is seen in this compilation.
Click to expand...

I agree that political views have nothing to do with religion/atheism. But well, as you specifically comment on Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, and she came to prominence in my country, I thought I'd look at that. I vaguely remembered she had joined the AEI, but she's been out of the news here since.

And yes, I agree with the author. I followed his first link to this video-plus-transcript where Ayaan presents her current political views. Frankly, I had to pick up my jaw from the ground before I even finished the piece. The way she smears the Dutch - or rather more in general, Western European - welfare state is appalling. Charity better than government welfare? Really??? This kind of insidious statements is worse than Santorum's lies which can, at least, be checked and debunked. There is one lie in it, though:
By the way, a number of other European states, in my country, Holland, the government has kind of nationalized all banks.
Click to expand...
Exactly one bank was nationalized (Fortis), the alternative was bankruptcy. The other banks got big government loans against steep interest rates, like 10%.

Good riddance.
 
Lowpro said:
Phlogiston, caloric...etc
Click to expand...

Models of the universe accepted within the realm of science have improved over time. That's a pretty narrow and specific case of the notion that bad ideas lose out to good ideas in the marketplace of ideas. I'd like to think that if bad ideas actually did lose out to good, the world would probably be a very different place than it is now...
 
Yea, we'd probably still have slaves and set witches on fire...

We'd probably still have a divine right of kings and caste systems...

I dunno man, I see a positive progression, however we live short lives and it's hard to see it sometimes.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Sam Harris belongs on with some of the other characters. I disagree with him often, but his discourse is leagues beyond Maher. And S. E. Cupp is beyond everyone else in a different way. Here is when I started a thread on her:

Tsukasa Buddha said:
S. E. Cupp has been on my radar for a while. She has appeared numerous times on Fox News promoting her new book on the media's attack on Christianity... The selling point is that she is an atheist.

Linky.

Now this could go in Social Issues or Politics, but I wondered what others made of her atheism.

She says she isn't a 'militant atheist', is envious of people of faith, wouldn't elect an atheist for President, and doesn't believe in god "for now" or "yet".

Interestingly, she shows the same behaviour towards evolution. In her book, she makes a case for intelligent design, but says she believes in evolution.

I'm not interested in psychoanalysing her, but I wonder if this is the "non-militant" or "non-angry" atheism people (believers) seem to want? Because I can't make heads or tails of it.
Click to expand...

Sad to hear the things about Hirsi Ali. Really wanted to like her.
 
Last edited:
I guess all I really have to say is that atheism is not the same as skepticism.
 
The beliefs of Sam Harris.. mean an inevitable war with Iran, and Syria if Assad is still in power at that time. I get that Chris Hedges misrepresented him as calling for an immediate war with Iran, but going by Harris there's no escape from an eventual war with Iran, or very possible war with Pakistan.

My position is "let's research some thorium reactors and get the hell out of the Middle East". As such I have to view Sam Harris as a dangerous lunatic. Hell, if certain neo-cons in Israel got their way we'd have to go to war with them too! By Sam Harris logic anyway.. Some on the fringe of the Israeli right wing openly advocate a return to theocracy. At that point Sam Harris logic would say to bomb Israel. I don't care how many things he's right about, I see him as a dangerous kook.

(edit)And besides, how strict does Sam Harris want us to be in our definition of "theocracy"? North Korea is certainly pushing a "leader worship" that has all the trappings of fundamentalist religion. They put you in a reeducation camp for not crying convincingly enough when the leader dies! If that's not a theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons, I don't know what is. Maybe Sam Harris knows better than I do, ugh.

(edit 2)Sam Harris is the atheist Dick Cheney. There, I said it. Not that Dick Cheney might not secretly be the atheist Dick Cheney also. I think his lesbian daughter was born that way, it might behoove him to think similarly.. If Mr. Cheney is reading this, private message me, I can show you some science that gets your lesbian daughter off the hook. Non-fundamentalism can be fun!
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
I don't think Sam Harris belongs on with some of the other characters. I disagree with him often, but his discourse is leagues beyond Maher. And S. E. Cupp is beyond everyone else in a different way. Here is when I started a thread on her:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Merton said:
I definitely agree with the author about religiophile SE Cupp and Maher--I like his comedy, but his stance on vaccines is appalling--but the rest aren't bad at all. I really like Penn and Sam (even though Penn has a bit too much faith in laissez-faire capitalism), and can't comment on Ayaan Hirsi Ali other than to say I'm glad that she's speaking out against the atrocities of her former religion.
Click to expand...

Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- Clearly she is where she belongs, at last.
 
Emperor_Gestahl said:
The beliefs of Sam Harris.. mean an inevitable war with Iran, and Syria if Assad is still in power at that time. I get that Chris Hedges misrepresented him as calling for an immediate war with Iran, but going by Harris there's no escape from an eventual war with Iran, or very possible war with Pakistan.

My position is "let's research some thorium reactors and get the hell out of the Middle East". As such I have to view Sam Harris as a dangerous lunatic. Hell, if certain neo-cons in Israel got their way we'd have to go to war with them too! By Sam Harris logic anyway.. Some on the fringe of the Israeli right wing openly advocate a return to theocracy. At that point Sam Harris logic would say to bomb Israel. I don't care how many things he's right about, I see him as a dangerous kook.

(edit)And besides, how strict does Sam Harris want us to be in our definition of "theocracy"? North Korea is certainly pushing a "leader worship" that has all the trappings of fundamentalist religion. They put you in a reeducation camp for not crying convincingly enough when the leader dies! If that's not a theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons, I don't know what is. Maybe Sam Harris knows better than I do, ugh.

(edit 2)Sam Harris is the atheist Dick Cheney. There, I said it. Not that Dick Cheney might not secretly be the atheist Dick Cheney also. I think his lesbian daughter was born that way, it might behoove him to think similarly.. If Mr. Cheney is reading this, private message me, I can show you some science that gets your lesbian daughter off the hook. Non-fundamentalism can be fun!
Click to expand...


You are misrepresenting his position.

He does put North Korea in that same bucket, but North Korea is a problem that the world knows about so no need to raise awareness on that issue.

He is also aware of the lunatics in Israel that want a theocracy but they are under control by other Israelis that want secularity.

The reason that he picks on Iran is that it is a dictatorship that is not controlled by seculars or moderates within the country. Further, Islamic dogma is pretty poisonous if it is not reformed. From those reasons he concludes that conflict is inevitable if they don't change. He is basically raising awareness to the problem that Islam hasn't had its reformation yet and that moderates in those cultures should push to get that. If they don't he believes that war is inevitable.
 
Daald said:
He does put North Korea in that same bucket, but North Korea is a problem that the world knows about so no need to raise awareness on that issue.
Click to expand...
Whaaaat? Do you mean the world's people or the world's governments? There's not a shred of speculation, from anyone in mass media, about an impending war with North Korea. Are you saying governments are so ignorant about Iran that they need Sam Harris to tell them the real deal? Nobody in the media is going out of their way to tell "the people" how imminent a danger North Korea is..
 
Emperor_Gestahl said:
Whaaaat? Do you mean the world's people or the world's governments? There's not a shred of speculation, from anyone in mass media, about an impending war with North Korea. Are you saying governments are so ignorant about Iran that they need Sam Harris to tell them the real deal? Nobody in the media is going out of their way to tell "the people" how imminent a danger North Korea is..
Click to expand...

I don't think there's much question that Iran gets more column inches than North Korea. Ideologically as well, the nightmare of life in North Korea isn't worried about so much because it seems to be self-contained. This may be illusory comfort.
 
It seems like the overwhelming root of most of the problems I see people having with Sam Harris comes from taking the concepts he explores to hypothetical extremes out of context.
 
Halfcentaur said:
It seems like the overwhelming root of most of the problems I see people having with Sam Harris comes from taking the concepts he explores to hypothetical extremes out of context.
Click to expand...
"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?
 
Ask yourself that question. Some braver souls may not, in fact, let that happen.
 
I'm guessing this is a "well-known bloggers" brand of atheism as I would consider The Amazing Atheist to be a worse human being than the others mentioned there. Pat Condell deserves at least honorable mention, every-time I try to watch one of his videos he seems incapable of uttering a sentence that isn't dripping with crazy. I've especially come to loath him after he endorsed the "No Ground Zero Mosque" nuttery.

I don't exactly accept the premise of the list; what does this have to do with atheism? If I did accept it Bill Maher earned his spot. His anti-science, pseudo-medical quackery is a lot to answer for. I'm on the fence about Jillette, I've read he's quite the misogynist but I don't know if it's serious enough to warrant a top-five worst atheists listing. S.E. Cupp has also earned her spot.

Nice to see that hating Rebecca Watson has become old-hat though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom