New Atheists Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris face Islamophobia backlash

[Safar55]

Here's a recent article from the independent regarding some well known atheist icons and their stance towards muslims in general and Islam on the whole.

They are often described as “The Unholy Trinity” – a trio of ferociously bright and pugilistic academics who use science to decimate what they believe to be the world’s greatest folly: religion.

But now Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are on the receiving end of stinging criticism from fellow liberal non-believers who say their particular brand of atheism has swung from being a scientifically rigorous attack on all religions to a populist and crude hatred of Islam.

In the last fortnight a series of columns have been written denouncing the so-called New Atheist movement for, in one writer’s words, lending a “veneer of scientific respectability to today's politically-useful bigotry.”

The opening broadside began earlier this month with a polemic from Nathan Lean on the Salon.com website. Lean, a Washington DC native and Middle East specialist who has recently written a book about the Islamophobia industry, was prompted to pen his attack following a series of tweets last month by Professor Dawkins attacking Islam in snappy 140 character sound bites.*

“Haven’t read Koran so couldn’t quote chapter & verse like I can for Bible. But often say Islam [is the] greatest force for evil today,” the Cambridge evolutionary biologist wrote on 1 March.

For a man who has made a career out of academic rigour the admission that the author of the God Delusion hadn’t studied Islam’s holy book surprised many and led to a flurry of responses from both fans and critics alike.* Three weeks later – in an apt illustration of Godwins’ Law (the idea that as an online discussion grows longer the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one) – Dawkins added: “Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read Qur’an. You don’t have to read Mein Kampf to have an opinion about Nazism.”

Muslims, Lean wrote of Dawkins, are “ a group that have come to occupy a special place in his line of fire — and in the minds of a growing club of no-God naysayers who have fast rebranded atheism into a popular, cerebral and more bellicose version of its former self.”

Lean argues that few atheists in the western world historically paid much attention to Islam, concentrating instead on debunking Christianity and, to a lesser extent, Judaism. But after the September 11 attacks, the New Atheists “found their calling”. Criticism of all religion on an equal footing was one thing. But the New Atheists, he argued, have begun flirting with Islamophobes, using irrational hatred, as opposed to rational critique, to attack an already deeply misunderstood and much maligned faith.

“Conversations about the practical impossibility of God’s existence and the science-based irrationality of an afterlife slid seamlessly into xenophobia over Muslim immigration or the practice of veiling,” wrote Lean. “The New Atheists became the new Islamophobes, their invectives against Muslims resembling the rowdy, uneducated ramblings of backwoods racists rather than appraisals based on intellect, rationality and reason.”

Writing on Al Jazeera’s website a few days later, Murtaza Hussain, a Toronto based Middle East analyst, penned an even more scathing critique. What the New Atheists were doing, he argued, was similar to the kind of scientific racism that was dominant within western cultures in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as they tried to use eugenics to classify – and consequently legitimise – the subjugation of certain races.

Hussain reserved particular ire for Sam Harris, a neuroscientist by trade whose atheist tracts “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation” have made him one of the leading anti-religious polemicists of his age.

Harris is an accomplished writer and public speaker with a solid background in academic rigour. But there are no shortages of statements from his over the years lumping all Muslims into one box. “The idea that Islam is a ‘peaceful religion hijacked by extremists’ is a fantasy, and is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge,” is just one he wrote in “Letter to a Christian Nation.” Wearing a palpable disdain for Islam on his sleeve he has also written in favour of torture, pre-emptive nuclear strikes and the profiling not just of Muslims but “anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be a Muslim.”

In response, Hussain wrote: “[Harris’] sweeping generalisations about a constructed civilisation encompassing over a billion people are coupled with fevered warnings - parallel with the most noxious race propaganda of the past - about the purported demographic threat posed by immigrant Muslim birthrates to Western civilisation.”

He added: “Citing “Muslims” as a solid monolith of violent evil - whilst neglecting to include the countless Muslims who have lost their lives peacefully protesting the occupation and ongoing ethnic cleansing of their homeland - Harris engages in a nuanced version of the same racism which his predecessors in scientific racism practiced in their discussion of the blanket characteristics of “Negroes”.”

Dawkins has so far remained silent on the attacks whilst Hitchens, who passed away in December 2011 after a long battle with cancer, is unable to defend himself. But Harris has not been willing to let sleeping dogs lie.

When left-wing US columnist Glenn Greenwald retweeted Hussain’s original article Harris got in touch, describing the piece as “garbage”, “defamatory” and an exercise in “quote mining”. In a lengthy email exchange that Greenwald eventually posted online, Harris insisted that there was nothing remotely racist about his criticisms of Muslims: “I criticize white, western converts in precisely the same terms,” he said. “In fact, I am even more critical of them, because they weren't brainwashed into the faith from birth.”

He added: “There is no such thing as “Islamophobia.” This is a term of propaganda designed to protect Islam from the forces of secularism by conflating all criticism of it with racism and xenophobia. And it is doing its job, because people like you have been taken in by it.”

But the email exchange did little to convince Greenwald who has since responded on the Guardian website with a lengthy piece attacking Harris. Like Chomsky, who has also been a vocal critic of New Atheism, he blames writers like Harris for using their particularly anti-Islamic brand of rational non-belief to justify American foreign policies over the last decade.

“When criticism of religion morphs into an undue focus on Islam - particularly at the same time the western world has been engaged in a decade-long splurge of violence, aggression and human rights abuses against Muslims, justified by a sustained demonization campaign - then I find these objections to the New Atheists completely warranted,” Greenwald concludes. “In sum, [New Atheism] sprinkles intellectual atheism on top of the standard neocon, right-wing worldview of Muslims.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...arris-face-islamophobia-backlash-8570580.html

 

[Safar55]

Here is also greenwalds follow up in the guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Thanks for sharing. The tactics of these athiests are clear and obvious for all to see. Under the cover of athiesm and science they vigorously attack Islam and muslims, with the odd comment about other religion thrown in to try and maintain some sort of credibility.

These are very dangerous statements that incite hatred of ALL muslims and are slowly creeping into main stream western media. This type of undercover Islamophic athiesm should be exposed and credit to these left wing writers for doing so.

On this very site we have similar people with a similar agenda. Its astonishing how many hindu athiests turn up here with the sole objective of bashing and criticising Islam. It seems to be obvious who these posters are and what they are doing yet the forum admin allows them to do so freely.

 

[James]

I don't see why atheists are held to such a high standard of behaviour. Rarely did I encounter a religious person who held noticeable respect for atheists or atheism.

Atheism and all forms of non-religion have long histories too. Legitimate criticism is often mistaken for hatred. It's known as the battle of ideas, and has been going on since time immemorial.

Instead of crying prejudice, prove why you're right and they're wrong. After all, you're very sure of your beliefs.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

If a religious person particularly a Muslim was to write articles in major newspapers about nuking athiests, torturing them and placing them under extreme scrutiny in public places then we know what the reaction would be. Sam Harris has expressed some dangerous and extremely threatening views. You can do the usual dance and say its 'legitimate criticism' and go on to use the 'freedom of speech card' as some sort of justification for bis abhorrent statements not on the religion but the people who follow it. The rest of us will condemn and abhor the unjust demonisation of Muslims or any other people as it has deeper implications than what appears on the surface. Many atheists seem to have cottoned onto this fact too and I apllaud them for standing up for whats right and not ducking for cover under cliches like 'legitimate criticism'.

 

[Safar55]

I don't see why atheists are held to such a high standard of behaviour. Rarely did I encounter a religious person who held noticeable respect for atheists or atheism.

Atheism and all forms of non-religion have long histories too. Legitimate criticism is often mistaken for hatred. It's known as the battle of ideas, and has been going on since time immemorial.

Instead of crying prejudice, prove why you're right and they're wrong. After all, you're very sure of your beliefs.

What seems to have escaped you here... Is not criticism per se... But the nature of the criticism.

Some of these atheist like Harris can't have it both ways. that is to be seen as rational balanced, civilized and scientific on the one hand but then spew out some of the stuff they do.

i've only recently started browsing the timepass section, but I too have also noticed a few occasions already where very broad generalisations are made with little or no proof whatsoever.

I am all up for a reasonable civilized discussion amd even critique on these matters, so I don't think it's matter of not being able to take any criticism. but you would also need to balance the criticism by staying clear misrepresentation or taking things without context etc. In the article above Greenwald (who I hadn't heard about prior to this) makes some really important points on some of the things Sam Harris has said in the past.

Yet, many atheist see him as an icon to be imitated and as a western intellectual who says things as they are. See you say this is a debate or a battle of ideas, but what these New Atheists have done is abuse their status scientists or teachers, to then form a new priesthood. they use their status as scientists and knowledge in a particular field to then change the debate altogether. so instead of just doing the science, it turns into Science vs God (some religious people are also guilty of incorrectly using science in theological debate IMO). What these new atheist have done then, is again go another step further and not only move away from their field of expertise but then start delving and giving their much less informed opinions on matters of reality like Iraq war and how to treat muslims. Dawkins goes even further and starts making ridiculous moral judgements and statements like the one quoted in the article above "I havn't read the Quran.... But I have said on many occasions Islam is the Greatest Force of Evil today"

now how can a rational and truthful scientist justify such a statement. According to science how does he define Evil? Even as well known atheist Icon, how does he define Evil? Is it due to terrorism and numbers of innocents killed in the ame of an ideaology (islam, democracy, bhudda etc.)? Or is it evil due to the manner in which he has perceived some followers to blindly follow their religion as they do?

 

[Gilly]

How many groups of extremist Athiests are there that are killing people. There are lots of religious extremist groups that are killing and causing destruction (I'm not talking about a particular religion) but I've yet to hear of a athiest group that is out there killing people.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

How many groups of extremist Athiests are there that are killing people. There are lots of religious extremist groups that are killing and causing destruction (I'm not talking about a particular religion) but I've yet to hear of a athiest group that is out there killing people.

This is a fantastic example of a post having nothing to do with the topic being discussed. Well done my friend.

 

[James]

This is a fantastic example of a post having nothing to do with the topic being discussed. Well done my friend.

Of course it's relevant, because it seeks to explain why some out there will criticise organised religion before they criticise atheism. Nothing wrong with the post and nothing wrong with it appearing here.

 

[Safar55]

How many groups of extremist Athiests are there that are killing people. There are lots of religious extremist groups that are killing and causing destruction (I'm not talking about a particular religion) but I've yet to hear of a athiest group that is out there killing people.

you see, these are the types of things that happen when you have people like Sam Harris and to a lesser extent the western type media reporting to you what's happening in the world.

let's forget the word Atheist for a minute... And use words like Secular (france, turkey) or words like Democracy and Freedom (USA) or words like Nationalism (Russia, Syria). so when we see past the words the media uses, we see this debate goes into a completely different zone to where you think it is.

what you see in lots of extremist religious groups killing lots of people (tens or hundreds of people dying). what someone else might see is whole nations bombing the hell out of and supporting the murder and death of a whole lot more people (thousands / millions). In the name of freedom and democracy (of bush and blair) ...tons of depleated uranium was used in Iraq. not only did the US soldiers get effected.... But now you have thousands (no exagerration) of deformed babies, with no faces, 3 arms etc. Being born in Iraq. you had twelve innocent people (mainly women and children) blown to smithereens a few days ago in Afghanistan in the name of Freedom and Democracy. you can argue whether it was intentional or not until the cows come home, the point is, if one child was bombed in a western country would you take the risk of using such drone attacks ever again? Would you have immediate inquiries as to why a innocent was killed? My point is, the Sam Harris narrative is one where muslims are considered lesser people, their lives are worth less and this is because they are uncivilized and have backward beleifs. Try seeing the world from another perpective.

just since 9/11 using raw figures... I would be interested in knowing how many people have dies in terrorist activities due to islamic religious extremists, how many have dies due to other religious extremists and how many have died due to western millatary power. i would guess the death toll due islamic extremist to be the lowest and the death toll due to millatary action in the name of democracy to be the highest.

just using Syria as a recent example, if you look at the various groups on the ground, it is the Bathist nationalists who have committed the most atrocities, especially against women. Where the islamic based groups who are fighting for sharia are those who have not been reported to have commited any crimes like rape against women. but who are the Americans considering to drone attack any time soon? It's not the ultra nationalist Assad supporters, it the uncivilized alqaeeda lot.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Of course it's relevant, because it seeks to explain why some out there will criticise organised religion before they criticise atheism. Nothing wrong with the post and nothing wrong with it appearing here.

No its nonsense.

How many secular non-religious governments have used a nuclear bomb and have raped and looted Asia and Africa for decades?

See. Its just throwing in irrelevant statements to try and divert attention from the thread topic, which is clearly about the provocative and racist statements made by leading athiest scholars and published in major media outlets against ALL muslims, not those engaging in terrorism.

Its about the subtle demonisation of a group of people and advocating their treatment as lesser citizens.

 

[James]

For the record I don't really think the OP is about the article within it, I think it is about atheism in general. Most religious people would not be unhappy if they woke up tomorrow and atheism no longer existed - would that be fair to say?

Personally I have never spoken about Harris, have sometimes spoken about Dawkins and can see both the good and bad about him, and have often expressed agreement with and admiration of Hitchens (although I disagree with his argument in favour of the Iraq War). Just to pre-empt the ad hominems which usually come my way in these threads.

Also the article itself is dishonest by opening with an attack on the late Christopher Hitchens, and then failing to mention him again at any point. That's because he was a literary scholar who actually did do all of the required reading in forming opinions, and genuinely did ( ) offer legitimate criticism of religion through economical, powerful arguments.

 

[Safar55]

For the record I don't really think the OP is about the article within it, I think it is about atheism in general. Most religious people would not be unhappy if they woke up tomorrow and atheism no longer existed - would that be fair to say?

Personally I have never spoken about Harris, have sometimes spoken about Dawkins and can see both the good and bad about him, and have often expressed agreement with and admiration of Hitchens (although I disagree with his argument in favour of the Iraq War). Just to pre-empt the ad hominems which usually come my way in these threads.

Also the article itself is dishonest by opening with an attack on the late Christopher Hitchens, and then failing to mention him again at any point. That's because he was a literary scholar who actually did do all of the required reading in forming opinions, and genuinely did ( ) offer legitimate criticism of religion through economical, powerful arguments.

i could say something like most Atheists would be happier without any religions and without any people beleiving in a God. would that be fair to say?

i think this topic about disagreements or differences of opinion is a good thing or not is a whole different matter and could have a thread of it's own.

this thread is about Sam Harris and those Atheists like him which have used the debate about God and his existance to put forward another agenda which discriminates against muslims.

As a side note, I would say about Hitchens, that he was a great speaker and was strong in his arumentation mainly due to his oratory skills.

for the conspiracy theorists, if all of these 3 (harris, dawkins and hitchens) did promote islamophobia was the fact all 3 had jewish mothers significant - considering the tension that exists between israel and it's mainly muslim neighbours?

 

[Gilly]

you see, these are the types of things that happen when you have people like Sam Harris and to a lesser extent the western type media reporting to you what's happening in the world.

let's forget the word Atheist for a minute... And use words like Secular (france, turkey) or words like Democracy and Freedom (USA) or words like Nationalism (Russia, Syria). so when we see past the words the media uses, we see this debate goes into a completely different zone to where you think it is.

what you see in lots of extremist religious groups killing lots of people (tens or hundreds of people dying). what someone else might see is whole nations bombing the hell out of and supporting the murder and death of a whole lot more people (thousands / millions). In the name of freedom and democracy (of bush and blair) ...tons of depleated uranium was used in Iraq. not only did the US soldiers get effected.... But now you have thousands (no exagerration) of deformed babies, with no faces, 3 arms etc. Being born in Iraq. you had twelve innocent people (mainly women and children) blown to smithereens a few days ago in Afghanistan in the name of Freedom and Democracy. you can argue whether it was intentional or not until the cows come home, the point is, if one child was bombed in a western country would you take the risk of using such drone attacks ever again? Would you have immediate inquiries as to why a innocent was killed? My point is, the Sam Harris narrative is one where muslims are considered lesser people, their lives are worth less and this is because they are uncivilized and have backward beleifs. Try seeing the world from another perpective.

just since 9/11 using raw figures... I would be interested in knowing how many people have dies in terrorist activities due to islamic religious extremists, how many have dies due to other religious extremists and how many have died due to western millatary power. i would guess the death toll due islamic extremist to be the lowest and the death toll due to millatary action in the name of democracy to be the highest.

just using Syria as a recent example, if you look at the various groups on the ground, it is the Bathist nationalists who have committed the most atrocities, especially against women. Where the islamic based groups who are fighting for sharia are those who have not been reported to have commited any crimes like rape against women. but who are the Americans considering to drone attack any time soon? It's not the ultra nationalist Assad supporters, it the uncivilized alqaeeda lot.

I didnt say anything in the thread about that photo because it was not the time but did you notice that not one of those children had any visible injuries even though they had all been reported to have been killed in a bombing from a drone. It just didnt look right to me that as you say getting blown to smithereens yet not have any injuries.

 

[waqar goraya]

How many groups of extremist Athiests are there that are killing people. There are lots of religious extremist groups that are killing and causing destruction (I'm not talking about a particular religion) but I've yet to hear of a athiest group that is out there killing people.

Well,if you say to me that Bush who destroyed Iraq was a religious man then i am not going to believe ....

The topic here is more precisely Islam....So,what destruction Islam has brought ?

 

[James]

i could say something like most Atheists would be happier without any religions and without any people beleiving in a God. would that be fair to say?

i think this topic about disagreements or differences of opinion is a good thing or not is a whole different matter and could have a thread of it's own.

this thread is about Sam Harris and those Atheists like him which have used the debate about God and his existance to put forward another agenda which discriminates against muslims.

Regarding the bold, I agree, yes. I wasn't attacking religious people for thinking ill of atheists, I was merely pointing out how they'd think, as you rightly pointed out how atheists would think.

Dawkins just despises religion I think - most of his Channel 4 documentaries have most of all criticised Christianity and religion in general, and Islam a little bit.

I reiterate that the article is dishonest in its inference of Hitchens. It fails to bring up anything said by himself or anybody else about him, it simply lumps him in with this theme.

It sounds to me as if Sam Harris - who I am yet to read or watch - is by far the most venemous and rogue element in this. Again, I can't speak for or about him. If he is being nasty, though, he should be boycotted and condemned, absolutely.

 

[Gilly]

Well,if you say to me that Bush who destroyed Iraq was a religious man then i am not going to believe ....

The topic here is more precisely Islam....So,what destruction Islam has brought ?

The destruction of Buddha statues by the Taliban.
The city of Timbuktu has suffered extensive damage at the hands of Islamic rebels.

 

[Safar55]

Regarding the bold, I agree, yes. I wasn't attacking religious people for thinking ill of atheists, I was merely pointing out how they'd think, as you rightly pointed out how atheists would think.

Dawkins just despises religion I think - most of his Channel 4 documentaries have most of all criticised Christianity and religion in general, and Islam a little bit.

I reiterate that the article is dishonest in its inference of Hitchens. It fails to bring up anything said by himself or anybody else about him, it simply lumps him in with this theme.

It sounds to me as if Sam Harris - who I am yet to read or watch - is by far the most venemous and rogue element in this. Again, I can't speak for or about him. If he is being nasty, though, he should be boycotted and condemned, absolutely.

I agree with you about Hitchens, I think he's lumped together due to association and also his justification for Iraq War. I think he was also at one point for the torture of suspect terrorists but bravely or foolishly underwent water-boarding and then subsequently changed his mind, if I remember correctly.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

One person I would like to add to the list in OP is the vile and zionist backed Douglass Murray of the centre for social cohesion.

 

[James]

I agree with you about Hitchens, I think he 'slumped together due to association and also his justification for Iraq War. I think he was also at one point for the torture of suspect terrorists but bravely or foolishly underwent water-boarding and then subsequently changed his mind, if I remember correctly.

I'm not sure what he said about torture in general, but yes, Hitchens underwent water-boarding to show the Republicans and the UN that it should be reclassified as torture. Very admirable move.

Also his opinion about the Iraq War would have changed over time IMO - part of his bizarre defence for it was surely wrapped up in his friendship with Blair, because it is a really shameful anomaly for Hitchens in a career of just polemics and intellectual debate.

 

[James]

One person I would like to add to the list in OP is the vile and zionist backed Douglass Murray of the centre for social cohesion.

Murray has his good points too. Appeared in a debate at Oxford Uni arguing against Dawkins about the need for religion, and won; also wrote a history on Bloody Sunday and Northern Ireland which was rightly very critical of British policy and the army.

 

[Safar55]

The destruction of Buddha statues by the Taliban.
The city of Timbuktu has suffered extensive damage at the hands of Islamic rebels.

Not lowering the status of the bhudda statues in the eyes of the bhuddists... In fact I would say doing that act stirred up more hate for muslims in Bhuddists countries burma which subsequently lmay have contributed towards more hate against minority muslims there... But the Americans have shot at mosques, we even had the US soldier who admitted (with video evidence) how the Americanswould shoot up a whole mosque walong with civilians when one of their own was killed by local militia.

Regarding timbuktu, i'm not really aware of what damage was done there. But there have also been reports of French backed troops from chad and other places commiting rape when they have reoccupied / retaken land from the islamists.

In Syria, you have the regime forces blowing up places of worship and having no respect for world heritige sites, but there doesn't seem to be the world outrage against them as there would seem to be against muslims who would do such actions against world heritige sites.


I think we need to go back to what the article in the OP is saying against this particular brand of Atheism. as the discussion seems to be going into what atrocities the each group have committed. Gilly, do you think islamophobia exist? Or is it just a means to stop people from criticise Islam?

 

[waqar goraya]

The destruction of Buddha statues by the Taliban.
The city of Timbuktu has suffered extensive damage at the hands of Islamic rebels.

You talked about killings....Were Buddhists used to worship or live there?

Has any atheist never committed a cime?

I believe every culprit and sinner is a human first and Muslim,Christian or Atheist later..If a bad thing done by a person who calls himself a believer is attributed to religion then good things done by believers should also be attributed to religion...?

I do not believe that a person who calls himself believer,has faith on hereafter and teachings of Prophet would kill an innocent person or destroy property,.....When his religion orders him to respect minorities and allows them to practice their rituals then how can its follower do the opposite...
When clearly Islam's teachings are to respect minorities then should a crime of a person who calls himself a Muslim be attributed to Islam?

In clear terms,if Islam teaches his believers via Quran and Hadith to kill non-Muslims and destroy their worship places,then you can attribute these things to Islam..have you read anywhere in Quran or Hadith or Sunna that minorities be crucified or killed?

 

[waqar goraya]

Murray has his good points too. Appeared in a debate at Oxford Uni arguing against Dawkins about the need for religion, and won; also wrote a history on Bloody Sunday and Northern Ireland which was rightly very critical of British policy and the army.

Why would you disagree to a person whose ideas of Atheism match your ideas and opinions....?

Well you do like many of these atheists..Now its time for you to tell us some names of the atheists that you do not approve of?

 

[James]

I think we need to go back to what the article in the OP is saying against this particular brand of Atheism. as the discussion seems to be going into what atrocities the each group have committed. Gilly, do you think islamophobia exist? Or is it just a means to stop people from criticise Islam?

I know that this question has been posed to Gilly - and I await his response with interest - but if I can also offer an answer, I'd say that it's somewhere in the middle. I've personally witnessed people (including myself) being denounced as Islamophobes as a way of not dealing with serious points that have been raised. But likewise Muslims will face genuine prejudice and discrimination at times, as any group will - such incidents and individuals need to be harshly dealt with.

 

[James]

Why would you disagree to a person whose ideas of Atheism match your ideas and opinions....?

Well you do like many of these atheists..Now its time for you to tell us some names of the atheists that you do not approve of?

I try my hardest to deal with points that are raised and cases which are argued on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes I will slip, but I see how it is dangerous to idolise or despise individuals. You never know when somebody, even somebody you think is impressive, will have something very important, very admirable or very disgusting to share. Hitchens for example inspires me when he speaks of literature and appals me when he speaks of Iraq.

 

[Gilly]

I think we need to go back to what the article in the OP is saying against this particular brand of Atheism. as the discussion seems to be going into what atrocities the each group have committed. Gilly, do you think islamophobia exist? Or is it just a means to stop people from criticise Islam?

Maybe you could enlighten me on the atrocities that are attributed to Athiests (modern).


Yes I would say islamophobia exists, but it is hardly worth worrying about. I dont ever remember a organised group of Athiests calling for the destruction of Islam.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Murray has his good points too. Appeared in a debate at Oxford Uni arguing against Dawkins about the need for religion, and won; also wrote a history on Bloody Sunday and Northern Ireland which was rightly very critical of British policy and the army.

It wouldn't be particularly difficult winning a debate against Dawkins about the need for religion. Dawkins himself sees the need for christian missionaries in Africa to stem the tide of the 'unmitigated evil' of Islam.

Murray is a raving loon when it comes to Islam. The man said reading the Quran caused him to lose his faith in Christianity ( I dont understand how that works) and has said that tolerating Islam is 'suicide'. Its quite clear that his thoughts on Islam are due to his war mongering neoconservative political outlook.

All of the men mentioned in this thread attack Islam due to their political allegiances. Its no coincidence that the men attacking Islam are also the same men who have vociferously called for the deaths of Muslims across the globe and that includes Hitchens or Douglas Murray.

 

[James]

It wouldn't be particularly difficult winning a debate against Dawkins about the need for religion. Dawkins himself sees the need for christian missionaries in Africa to stem the tide of the 'unmitigated evil' of Islam.

Murray is a raving loon when it comes to Islam. The man said reading the Quran caused him to lose his faith in Christianity ( I dont understand how that works) and has said that tolerating Islam is 'suicide'. Its quite clear that his thoughts on Islam are due to his war mongering neoconservative political outlook.

All of the men mentioned in this thread attack Islam due to their political allegiances. Its no coincidence that the men attacking Islam are also the same men who have vociferously called for the deaths of Muslims across the globe and that includes Hitchens or Douglas Murray.

Okay, but I guess the wider issue is, do you feel that these men represent atheism and atheists?

 

[GentleMan]

why is the term islamophobe hurled as an accusation. You can point fingers at an Islam hater, but not an islamophobe, because he doesnt hate, but fears Islam. Islamophobes need help to get over their fear. when this term is used as an accusation, it doesnt help their fears.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Okay, but I guess the wider issue is, do you feel that these men represent atheism and atheists?

They are the public face of atheism and atheists and their views have gone unchecked for too long. They are the ones writing books and articles on the benefits of atheism and the dangers of religion so in a sense they are representing it.

Its good that they are being challenged by fellow atheists. Too much damage has been done by these men because of the following they have.

 

[James]

They are the public face of atheism and atheists and their views have gone unchecked for too long. They are the ones writing books and articles on the benefits of atheism and the dangers of religion so in a sense they are representing it.

Its good that they are being challenged by fellow atheists. Too much damage has been done by these men because of the following they have.

I agree that views should be checked, it is one of the advantages of democracy that this can happen freely. However in the same way that we say the occasional nuthead priest, cleric or imam doesn't represent their whole religion, we should extend the same standard to atheism.

 

[A Clockwork Orange]

There's nothing wrong with criticizing Islam, the flaw I see in most arguments, however, is in treating Islam as if it's somehow unique in the sort of behavior it produces. It isn't. Islam is no more violent or corrupt than its cousins, Judaism and Christianity. All rest on a body of hateful, violent dogma. All have deities that explicitly advocate the death, enslavement, or pillaging of those who are outside their communities. All have rich histories of exactly that behavior. All three of these religions are corrupt, and corrupting, at their cores.

The only thing that distinguishes Islam from the others is how that religious culture intersects governmental systems. The extreme violence of Judaism and Christianity disappeared when states ceased to be Jewish or Christian. In the case of Judaism, that came about by the Jewish state being conquered; in the case of Christianity, by societies maturing to secular states (modern Israel, of course, following the Western examples). But most countries with substantially Islamic populations remain theocracies, meaning that what constitutes legal behavior is defined by religion. So like the Jewish state of 2500 years ago, or the Christian states of 1000 years ago, they are brutal and savage.

It is certainly appropriate that we point out the nastiness of Islam, just as we should point out the nastiness of Judaism and Christianity. But we can't realistically fix any of these. They are fundamentally corrupt. All we can do is neuter their worst aspects by making it legally and culturally unacceptable to exercise many of their tenets. This has largely been accomplished with Judaism and Christianity (although we have only to look at the words coming from Christians in the Bible Belt, or Jews in Hasidic communities, to know just how close to the surface violence against outsiders remains), but there's a long way to go with Islam. The only practical solution is to turn Islamic theocracies into secular states. Easier said than done, of course, but at least that's possible. You can never reverse the dogma of Islam; you can never re-write the Koran.

The especially promising thing is that it appears secular governments end up creating societies where people slowly move away from religion completely, so if we can secularize the Islamic states, we can ultimately marginalize Islam in the same way that Judaism and Christianity are slowly being marginalized in the more developed nations.

 

[GentleMan]

^ that is a well written post, but you should have posted the source too from where you copied it verbatim.

 

[GentleMan]

here is the source for the clockwork post, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-islam-is-not-islamophobia/#comment-851913901

intellectual dishonesty by an atheist to use the ideas of a fellow atheist without attribution. god save use from these atheists who dont even spare their brethren.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I agree that views should be checked, it is one of the advantages of democracy that this can happen freely. However in the same way that we say the occasional nuthead priest, cleric or imam doesn't represent their whole religion, we should extend the same standard to atheism.

The occasional nut head priest, cleric or imam isnt writing articles in major media outlets that can manipulate millions of readers.

Of course you are correct that we can't tar all atheists with the same brush. On the most part atheists are a non provocative bunch who have just felt that the concept of religion doesn't work for them. Thats fair enough.

However this 'new atheism' that men like Haris and Dawkins champion is a nasty dangerous cult. I'm glad that the left is standing up to them.

 

[cricketworm]

No religion has been made fun or been trolled as much as Catholic Christians. More one react to criticism, more it will be criticized.

When religion is criticized, a small window of open mindedness opens. Some totally shuts hard singing 'lalalalala' some will still hear and become open minded. This kind of thing wouldn't have been allowed and you would have been crucified in past, but now many have freedom and voice. Criticism is actually forcing rigid mind to at least accept other religions openly, if not totally god-less mindset.

 

[Safar55]

I know that this question has been posed to Gilly - and I await his response with interest - but if I can also offer an answer, I'd say that it's somewhere in the middle. I've personally witnessed people (including myself) being denounced as Islamophobes as a way of not dealing with serious points that have been raised. But likewise Muslims will face genuine prejudice and discrimination at times, as any group will - such incidents and individuals need to be harshly dealt with.

I can agree with that. The article in the OP suggests there is some denial in all of this from the side of the Atheists. How can some of these quotes which have been mentioned by others here from some Atheists be justified. Are these quote following the scientific evidence they claim to follow or are these quotes blurred with political reasons for the hate.

Maybe you could enlighten me on the atrocities that are attributed to Athiests (modern).


Yes I would say islamophobia exists, but it is hardly worth worrying about. I dont ever remember a organised group of Athiests calling for the destruction of Islam.

When people are justifying wars which result in the death of hundreds of thousands and destroy/cripple people for generations using arguments like some of those atheists have used against BOTH Islam and the general muslims - I would say it is something worth worrying about - as a human at least, does it not worry you the justification to drop bombs on other people is made by demonising them and makingthem seem less human.

As for your first point, I would like to just ask you to leave the label of Atheism forva second, and just ask why do humans kill each other, especially in modern times where the killings have significantly increased in number? I accept there are various schools of thought within the fold of Atheism and then there are individual Atheists, my point is you need to look beyond just the "religion causes all the hate" narrative.

Okay, but I guess the wider issue is, do you feel that these men represent atheism and atheists?

I think there is a distinction. But these so called New Atheists have a dangerous ideology which is made worse as they masquerade under the guise ofvscience and rationalism to push political and moral judgements.

I agree that views should be checked, it is one of the advantages of democracy that this can happen freely. However in the same way that we say the occasional nuthead priest, cleric or imam doesn't represent their whole religion, we should extend the same standard to atheism.

this is sensible as long as there is a real free and open discussion. Not one where people are just allowed to hide behind oft-repeated lines,"like they are terrorists, therefore they are evil" because the problem clearly is one of just definition. What is a terrorist and can it extend beyond the definition of an individual and extend to nation states. what would the implications be if we did that?

There's nothing wrong with criticizing Islam, the flaw I see in most arguments, however, is in treating Islam as if it's somehow unique in the sort of behavior it produces. It isn't. Islam is no more violent or corrupt than its cousins, Judaism and Christianity. All rest on a body of hateful, violent dogma. All have deities that explicitly advocate the death, enslavement, or pillaging of those who are outside their communities. All have rich histories of exactly that behavior. All three of these religions are corrupt, and corrupting, at their cores.

The only thing that distinguishes Islam from the others is how that religious culture intersects governmental systems. The extreme violence of Judaism and Christianity disappeared when states ceased to be Jewish or Christian. In the case of Judaism, that came about by the Jewish state being conquered; in the case of Christianity, by societies maturing to secular states (modern Israel, of course, following the Western examples). But most countries with substantially Islamic populations remain theocracies, meaning that what constitutes legal behavior is defined by religion. So like the Jewish state of 2500 years ago, or the Christian states of 1000 years ago, they are brutal and savage.

It is certainly appropriate that we point out the nastiness of Islam, just as we should point out the nastiness of Judaism and Christianity. But we can't realistically fix any of these. They are fundamentally corrupt. All we can do is neuter their worst aspects by making it legally and culturally unacceptable to exercise many of their tenets. This has largely been accomplished with Judaism and Christianity (although we have only to look at the words coming from Christians in the Bible Belt, or Jews in Hasidic communities, to know just how close to the surface violence against outsiders remains), but there's a long way to go with Islam. The only practical solution is to turn Islamic theocracies into secular states. Easier said than done, of course, but at least that's possible. You can never reverse the dogma of Islam; you can never re-write the Koran.

The especially promising thing is that it appears secular governments end up creating societies where people slowly move away from religion completely, so if we can secularize the Islamic states, we can ultimately marginalize Islam in the same way that Judaism and Christianity are slowly being marginalized in the more developed nations.

i would like to reply to this post, but I'm not sure if it's a serious post or just trolling for a reaction. I mean, do this poster really beleive that people can not rape, pillage and kill in other than the name of religion? And if we do try look and observe for some incidents where this has occured in both ancient and modern history i'm sure you will find, a lot more deaths-harm have occured through incidents where the driving force is other than religion. this IMO refutes the argu,ent that religion causes the most conflict, because based on just raw numbers from conflicts, the a driving force such as "freedom, democracy and capitalism" has killed far more number by millions. Would you go and blame all the evil in the world on these ideals then?

 

[shan]

These western white atheists are racists, but but islam isnt race excuse is given many times. They lump toghether every muslims, not just those blowing up. They see it as threat to western civilization lol. They will give exemple of 3rd world country village and say look how evil muslims are. By the way im talking about likes of Dawkin and other mentioned in OP, majority of white atheists are not like that but these are the one who get must publicity.

I mean this is what Dawkins thinks about muslims.

"Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil, and looking at the map supplied by this Christian site, should we be supporting Christian missions in Africa? My answer is still no, but I thought it was worth raising the question. Given that atheism hasn't any chance in Africa for the foreseeable future, could our enemy's enemy be our friend?"

We already have seen what this kind of hatered does in Norway.

 

[shan]

Islam have many things which you can critize and many do, but there is difference between criticizing islam and hating all muslims doesnt matter from where they are and what they do. This is down right hatered.

 

[speed]

Atheist have pretty much destroyed Christianity in the west.

 

[RexRex]

Aww has Daniel Dennett been demoted ? I thought it was the four horsemen of darkness or something like that.

 

[Safar55]

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/20134210413618256.html

Here's a link to the article that led to some of the discussion quoted in the OP

While one could cite Richard Dawkins' descriptions of "Islamic barbarians" and Christopher Hitchens' outright bloodlust towards Muslims - including lamentations of the ostensibly too-low death toll in the Battle of Fallujah and his satisfied account of cluster bombs tearing through the flesh of Iraqis - these have been widely discussed and are in any case not the most representative of this modern phenomena.

 

[Crazy_K]

Insecurity much?
These Atheists have hardly discussed Islam, compare the load of attacks on Christianity by them to any attacks on Islam.
Whether you like it or not, these discussions need to be had.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Insecurity much?
These Atheists have hardly discussed Islam, compare the load of attacks on Christianity by them to any attacks on Islam.
Whether you like it or not, these discussions need to be had.

Yes we are very insecure about topics like religious profiling and nuclear bombs. We should just man up eh.

 

[Safar55]

Here is the other article that sparked the debate mentioned in the OP. again i think it goes into few more of the quotes of Dawkins in particular.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/

Until 9/11, Islam didn’t figure in the New Atheists’ attacks in a prominent way. As a phenomenon with its roots in Europe, atheism has traditionally been the archenemy of Christianity, though Jews and Judaism have also slipped into the mix. But emboldened by their newfound fervor in the wake of the terrorist attacks, the New Atheists joined a growing chorus of Muslim-haters, mixing their abhorrence of religion in general with a specific distaste for Islam (In 2009, Hitchens published a book called “God Is Not Great,” a direct smack at Muslims who commonly recite the Arabic refrain Allah Akbar, meaning “God is great”). Conversations about the practical impossibility of God’s existence and the science-based irrationality of an afterlife slid seamlessly into xenophobia over Muslim immigration or the practice of veiling. The New Atheists became the new Islamophobes, their invectives against Muslims resembling the rowdy, uneducated ramblings of backwoods racists rather than appraisals based on intellect, rationality and reason. “Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death,” writes Harris, whose nonprofit foundation Project Reason ironically aims to “erode the influence of bigotry in our world.”

For Harris, the ankle-biter version of the Rottweiler Dawkins, suicide bombers and terrorists are not aberrations. They are the norm. They have not distorted their faith by interpreting it wrongly. They have lived out their faith by understanding it rightly. “The idea that Islam is a ‘peaceful religion hijacked by extremists’ is a fantasy, and is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge,” he writes in “Letter to a Christian Nation.”

That may sound like the psychobabble of Pamela Geller. But Harris’s crude departure from scholarly decorum is at least peppered with references to the Quran, a book he cites time and again, before suggesting it be “flushed down the toilet without fear of violent reprisal.”

Dawkins, in a recent rant on Twitter, admitted that he had not ever read the Quran, but was sufficiently expert in the topic to denounce Islam as the main culprit of all the world’s evil: “Haven’t read Koran so couldn’t quote chapter and verse like I can for Bible. But often say Islam [is the] greatest force for evil today.” How’s that for a scientific dose of proof that God does not exist?

A few days later, on March 25, there was this: “Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read the Qur’an. You don’t have to read “Mein Kampf” to have an opinion about Nazism.”

It’s an extraordinary feat for an Oxford scholar to admit that he hasn’t done the research to substantiate his belief, but what’s more extraordinary is that he continues to believe the unsupported claim. That backwards equation — insisting on a conclusion before even launching an initial investigation — defines the New Atheists’ approach to Islam. It’s a pompousness that only someone who believes they have proven, scientifically, the nonexistence of God can possess.

Some of Dawkins’ detractors say that he’s a fundamentalist. Noam Chomsky is one such critic. Chomsky has said that Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are “religious fanatics” and that in their quest to bludgeon society with their beliefs about secularism, they have actually adopted the state religion — one that, though void of prayers and rituals, demands that its followers blindly support the whims of politicians. Dawkins rejects such characterizations. “The true scientist,” he writes, “however passionately he may ‘believe’, in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will.”

That’s topsy-turvy logic for a man who says he’s never read the Quran but seconds later hocks up gems like this from his Twitter account:

“Islam is comforting? Tell that to a woman, dressed in a bin bag [trash bag], her testimony worth half a man’s and needing 4 male witnesses to prove rape.”

Then there was this: “Next gem from BBC Idiot Zoo: ‘Some women feel protected by the niqab.’”

Dawkins’ quest to “liberate” Muslim women and smack them with a big ol’ heaping dose of George W. Bush freedom caused him to go berzerk over news that a University College of London debate, hosted by an Islamic group, offered a separate seating option for conservative, practicing Muslims. Without researching the facts, Dawkins assumed that gendered seating was compulsory, not voluntary, and quickly fired off this about the “gender apartheid” of the supposedly suppressed Muslims: “At UC London debate between a Muslim and Lawrence Krauss, males and females had to sit separately. Krauss threatened to leave.” And then this: “Sexual apartheid. Maybe these odious religious thugs will get their come-uppance?”

Of course, the fact that the Barclays Center in New York recently offered gender-separate seating options for Orthodox Jews during a recent concert by Israeli violinist Itzhak Perlman didn’t compute in Dawkins’ reasoning. Neither did the case of El Al Airlines, the flag carrier of Israel, when, in August of 2012, a stewardess forced a Florida woman to swap seats to accommodate the religious practice of a haredi Orthodox man. Even if Dawkins were aware of these episodes, he likely wouldn’t have made a fuss about them. They undermine the conclusion he has already reached, that is, that only Muslims are freedom-haters, gender-separating “thugs.”

Where exactly Dawkins gets his information about Islam is unclear (perhaps Fox News?). What is clear, though, is that his unique brand of secular fundamentalism cozies up next to that screeched out by bloggers on the pages of some of the Web’s most vicious anti-Muslim hate sites. In a recent comment he posted on his own Web site, Dawkins references a site called Islam Watch, placing him in eerily close proximity to the likes of one of the page’s founders, Ali Sina, an activist who describes himself as “probably the biggest anti-Islam person alive.” Sina is a board member for the hate group, Stop the Islamization of Nations, which was founded by anti-Muslim activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and which has designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Dawkins is also on record praising the far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders, a man who says that he “hates Islam” and that Muslims who desire to remain in the Netherlands should “rip out half of the Koran” (Later, he blabbed that the Muslim holy book should be banned entirely). The peroxide-blonde leader of the Party of Freedom, who faced trial in 2009 for hate speech, produced an amateurish flick called “Fitna” the year before. The 17-minute film was chockablock with racist images such as Muhammad’s head attached to a ticking time bomb and juxtapositions of Muslims and Nazis. For Dawkins, it was pure bliss. “On the strength of ‘Fitna’ alone, I salute you as a man of courage who has the balls to stand up to a monstrous enemy,” he wrote.

When it comes to ripping pages out of books, Dawkins is a pro. His rhetoric on Muslims comes nearly verbatim from the playbook of the British Nationalist Party and other far right groups in the UK. BNP leader Nick Griffin once told a group in West Yorkshire that Islam was a “wicked and vicious faith” and that Asian Muslims were turning Old Blighty into a multiracial purgatory.

For his part, Dawkins spins wild conspiracy theories claiming that ordinary terms like “communities” and “multiculturalism” are actually ominous code words for “Muslims” and “Islam,” respectively. The English Defence League, a soccer hooligan street gang that has a history of threatening Muslims with violence and assaulting police officers, has made identical claims, as have leaders of Stop the Islamization of Europe (SIOE), a ragtag coterie of neo-Nazis whose hate franchise spans two continents: Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), its American counterpart, is led by bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. In July of 2011, Dawkins re-published a lengthy diatribe by former SIOE leader Stephen Gash on his website. Gash, too, has an aversion for scholarly decorum. He once unleashed a public temper tantrum during a debate on Islam at the esteemed Cambridge University Union Society, shouting and storming out of the auditorium when the invited speaker, a Muslim, rebutted his ideas before the audience.

Dawkins has no monopoly on intellectual flimsiness, though. As does the teacher so does the student. And Harris is every bit the Dawkins student. In “The End of Faith,” Harris maintains that Israel — the untouchable, can-do-no-evil love of so many Islamophobes — upholds the human rights of Palestinians to a high standard.

The Israelis have shown a degree of restraint in their use of violence that the Nazis never contemplated and that, more to the point, no Muslim society would contemplate today. Ask yourself, what are the chances that the Palestinians would show the same restraint in killing Jews if the Jews were a powerless minority living under their occupation and disposed to acts of suicidal terrorism? It would be no more likely than Muhammad’s flying to heaven on a winged horse.

It’s obviously impossible to prove such a farcical statement, but Harris, to his everlasting discredit, tries. His evidence? A statement made by attorney, Alan Dershowitz, one of America’s strongest (and loudest) supporters of the Israeli right wing.

How the New Atheists’ anti-Muslim hate advances their belief that God does not exist is not exactly clear. In this climate of increased anti-Muslim sentiment, it’s a convenient digression, though. They’ve shifted their base and instead of simply trying to convince people that God is a myth, they’ve embraced the monster narrative of the day. That’s not rational or enlightening or “free thinking” or even intelligent. That’s opportunism. If atheism writ large was a tough sell to skeptics, the “New Atheism,” Muslim-bashing atheism, must be like selling Bibles to believers. After all, those who are convinced that God exists, and would otherwise dismiss the Dawkins’ and Harris’s of the world as hell-bound kooks, are often some of the biggest Islamophobes. It’s symbiosis — and as a biologist, Dawkins should know a thing or two about that. Proving that a religion — any religion — is evil, though, is just as pointless and impossible an endeavor as trying to prove that God does or doesn’t exist. Neither has been accomplished yet. And neither will.

 

[Looney]

Atheists dont believe in God , I dont believe in them

 

[Easa]

The articles in Salon and AlJazeera are little more than bad polemics, hasty hatchet-jobs littered with bad paraphrasing, journalistic cliches, and disingenuous "conclusions." I think Harris and Dennett (though fine critics) are the intellectual lightweights (look, I'm using journalistic cliches, too!) of the four horsemen, but Harris' views have been badly and I think purposely misrepresented these last few weeks. If one would actually read the usually intelligent and informed essays and articles and books of Harris - instead of reading sentences badly decontextualized in fill-some-space columns - a more stimulating discussion on Harris and his sometimes strange views could be conducted. If anyone is sufficiently interested in the bad paraphrasing I allude to, I'll oblige with a longer response.

On Hitchens, though, James is correct when he writes that Hitchens has been stupidly inserted into these articles, probably to garner some mainstream attention for these second-rate columnists. Anyone who has read Hitchens works of the last 30 years would quickly realize that he was a 'proper' journalist, brave enough to visit the countries and people he criticized in print and on television. Did I "agree" with all his opinions? Obviously not. He was iffy on abortion, sometimes cultist on Lenin and Trotsky, and, well, he supported Bush's candidacy in 2004. But even his articles on the Iraq War - pieces that earned the ire of both the left and parts of the right - are nuanced and can be read over and over again. To stick him with the neoconservatives is lazy thinking.

 

[Robert]

Atheist have pretty much destroyed Christianity in the west.

No, it was more the advance of science and a rise in the standard of living that did that.

Only the USA really holds out as a Christian nation.

 

[Crazy_K]

Yes we are very insecure about topics like religious profiling and nuclear bombs. We should just man up eh.

The fact is, Atheists don't have any core beliefs, except a disbelief in god.
Just because one individual (who may have influence) says something, doesn't mean others will subscribe to the view. Richard Dawkins has been regularly criticised by other atheists.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

The fact is, Atheists don't have any core beliefs, except a disbelief in god.
Just because one individual (who may have influence) says something, doesn't mean others will subscribe to the view. Richard Dawkins has been regularly criticised by other atheists.

Of course. Thats why the majority of the discussion has focused solely on the people mentioned in the OP and not atheists in general.

 

[Space Cat]

I don't agree with the way they go about things but its no worse than the offensive crap religious people spew regularly.

I don't like the idea of organized atheism though. Dawkins has a brilliant mind and he should use it more appropriately like he has in the past.

Hopefully one day people all over the world can keep their personal beliefs to themselves.

 

[Safar55]

The articles in Salon and AlJazeera are little more than bad polemics, hasty hatchet-jobs littered with bad paraphrasing, journalistic cliches, and disingenuous "conclusions." I think Harris and Dennett (though fine critics) are the intellectual lightweights (look, I'm using journalistic cliches, too!) of the four horsemen, but Harris' views have been badly and I think purposely misrepresented these last few weeks. If one would actually read the usually intelligent and informed essays and articles and books of Harris - instead of reading sentences badly decontextualized in fill-some-space columns - a more stimulating discussion on Harris and his sometimes strange views could be conducted. If anyone is sufficiently interested in the bad paraphrasing I allude to, I'll oblige with a longer response.

On Hitchens, though, James is correct when he writes that Hitchens has been stupidly inserted into these articles, probably to garner some mainstream attention for these second-rate columnists. Anyone who has read Hitchens works of the last 30 years would quickly realize that he was a 'proper' journalist, brave enough to visit the countries and people he criticized in print and on television. Did I "agree" with all his opinions? Obviously not. He was iffy on abortion, sometimes cultist on Lenin and Trotsky, and, well, he supported Bush's candidacy in 2004. But even his articles on the Iraq War - pieces that earned the ire of both the left and parts of the right - are nuanced and can be read over and over again. To stick him with the neoconservatives is lazy thinking.

I would be interested in seeing how Sam Harris could have been misrepresented, please show. from the little I have seen from Harris, I don't really understand all the fuss about him or his style. a friend of mine recommended i listen to some of his lectures and my friend was particularly interested in how the human mind works and dreams and stuff, he also happened to be an atheist. from what I've seen of Harris his method of putting forward an argument is quite weak. Things like showing a picture from his macbook of niqab women on one side and swimming suit women on the other side and then presenting what we would like our society to be like ideally. To be frank he just seems to follow intentionally or not the same repeated things you can hear on fox news channel, when I listened to him I thought a lot of his stuff was not well thought out at all.

hitchens on the other hand is a strong debater. I could understand how people would jump up to his defence for misquoting or misrepresenting him, as his method of argumentation has more thought behind it. So people would naturally attach themselves to his personality, hence why you have all the hitchisgod stuff and famous quotes from hitch.

when all is said and done, I think it's more important to find out what these academics are saying and judge them on that, rather looking at them as personalities and judging them on how they deliver their message or teachings.

 

[Pak-Legend]

I don't really have a problem with atheists and their criticism of religion. They are free to criticize as they wish, as long as they respect the rights and freedom of each and every individual. The problem arises with militant atheists, who actively promote their hatred for religion and try to hold themselves to a higher standard, while showing a complete lack of respect for religious people. It has come to the point where religious people are seen as inferior and holding a backwards ideology. Basically, anywhere you go, the internet or even in the public domain, you will see the majority of atheists criticizing religion in a demeaning manner. If you want people to join hands with you in the promotion of atheism, disrespecting them as individuals and throwing insults at their beliefs, isn't going to work in your favor.

 

[Easa]

when all is said and done, I think it's more important to find out what these academics are saying and judge them on that, rather looking at them as personalities and judging them on how they deliver their message or teachings.

Yay! Common ground!

The hard work has already been done by a careful reader at Indiana University, so I'll link you to his essay:

http://saiu.org/2013/04/03/greenwald-and-hussain-on-sam-harris-and-racism/

 

[Easa]

I don't really have a problem with atheists and their criticism of religion. They are free to criticize as they wish, as long as they respect the rights and freedom of each and every individual. The problem arises with militant atheists, who actively promote their hatred for religion and try to hold themselves to a higher standard, while showing a complete lack of respect for religious people. It has come to the point where religious people are seen as inferior and holding a backwards ideology. Basically, anywhere you go, the internet or even in the public domain, you will see the majority of atheists criticizing religion in a demeaning manner. If you want people to join hands with you in the promotion of atheism, disrespecting them as individuals and throwing insults at their beliefs, isn't going to work in your favor.

Then you really don't understand the basic concept of free expression. You state that there is nothing wrong with 'criticism' and then you talk about respect, insult, "hatred" (I "hate" fascists, there are no two ways about it), and that bizarre, commonplace term "militant atheists." We get it, you're easily offended, your feelings are routinely hurt, you wear your heart on your sleeve, etc. Feel free to. Just don't pretend you have no problem with criticism.

 

[coca-cola]

Then you really don't understand the basic concept of free expression. You state that there is nothing wrong with 'criticism' and then you talk about respect, insult, "hatred" (I "hate" fascists, there are no two ways about it), and that bizarre, commonplace term "militant atheists." We get it, you're easily offended, your feelings are routinely hurt, you wear your heart on your sleeve, etc. Feel free to. Just don't pretend you have no problem with criticism.

And then it's a matter of what people find "offensive" which is really a subjective criteria for speech.

In Pakistan, simply being an apostate is so offensive that it merits the death penalty.

It is not atheists, or any other demographic of people who need to tone it down. It's religious people who need to learn to be less sensitive or insecure, and if that isn't possible, simply plug your ears.

 

[Pak-Legend]

Then you really don't understand the basic concept of free expression. You state that there is nothing wrong with 'criticism' and then you talk about respect, insult, "hatred" (I "hate" fascists, there are no two ways about it), and that bizarre, commonplace term "militant atheists." We get it, you're easily offended, your feelings are routinely hurt, you wear your heart on your sleeve, etc. Feel free to. Just don't pretend you have no problem with criticism.

I have no problem with criticism that doesn't offend myself as an individual. There was a thread on here where the views of homosexuality expressed by religion were criticized. I mentioned that I understand the viewpoint atheists have toward religion's stance on homosexuality, and nowhere did I state that those views were disrespectful or demeaning.

However, I will speak up against criticism that directly offends me, as a person, as an individual, as a human being. When religious people are described as barbaric, backwards, and more the point experiencing a mental disorder, and where personal insults are being thrown, that is where the line is crossed. Go on any forum where there are atheists, and you will see atheists engaging in this behavior. Not all atheists act like this, and quite frankly, the ones who do not act like this try to disassociate themselves from the ones who do. Just like there are religious people who hold respectful views, there are also atheists who do the same. I am talking about the extremes from both group of people who actively try to incite hatred amongst each other. This includes religious extremists and militant atheists.

 

[AbdulrazzaqFan]

Yay! Common ground!

The hard work has already been done by a careful reader at Indiana University, so I'll link you to his essay:

http://saiu.org/2013/04/03/greenwald-and-hussain-on-sam-harris-and-racism/

This supposed *hard work* by this "careful" reader has been refuted by Murtaza, himself - the author of the Al-Jazeera article right here: http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2...04/murtaza-hussain-replies-to-harris-and.html

But, obviously this is just a sensationalist columnist since his column doesn't suit your agenda.

 

[Safar55]

Yay! Common ground!

The hard work has already been done by a careful reader at Indiana University, so I'll link you to his essay:

http://saiu.org/2013/04/03/greenwald-and-hussain-on-sam-harris-and-racism/

I was going to comment on that piece by the indiana university but then i saw the link to the article below. I think these is something to be said about quoting in context and with accuracy. but there is also a need to realise or admit practice and theory are different and have real life implications which may differ strongly with the theory.

This supposed *hard work* by this "careful" reader has been refuted by Murtaza, himself - the author of the Al-Jazeera article right here: http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2...04/murtaza-hussain-replies-to-harris-and.html

But, obviously this is just a sensationalist columnist since his column doesn't suit your agenda.

He makes the point that there are practical implications of Sam Harris words in the real world, which I was going to point out with some examples which i thought would be relevant. Sam Harris did make an excellent point in one of those linked articles from 2011, about the issue of Collateral Damage, even if he didn't quite follow through all the conclusions regarding it.

Overall I think it was a good reply to those defending Harris

the point about him bringing political points especially considering current world tensions is very true and a valid point of criticism IMO.

 

[Safar55]

Just read sam harris blog on all this, and to be honest his sweeping statements or his wish to not distinguish when making his statements is alarming. His clarification just seals the deal for me.

Really, I'm surprised this man is scientist and pumped as a rational speaker, and atheist icon but falls into huge blunders some of which a scientist of the brain would have more consideration over. if he wasn't so highly regarded by many, I would have guessed this man is just out there to get some attention and troll. rational civilized debate can not be had, he's just a mouthpiece for American imperialism and Israeli oppression. He's a mirror of those extremist fanatics he talks about, he just happens to sit on the other side.

On killing people due to their beleifs:

The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.

He goes on to try and justify this, but only digs himself deeper. the man is an extremist, and people could use his own beleif system, ideals, philosophy against him. his views are as dangerous as those he is trying to How he can treat muslims billion of which exist as one entity on many occasions is just shocking

Dawkins I think is slightly more tactful but only just.

 

[Zarrar]

The articles in Salon and AlJazeera are little more than bad polemics, hasty hatchet-jobs littered with bad paraphrasing, journalistic cliches, and disingenuous "conclusions." I think Harris and Dennett (though fine critics) are the intellectual lightweights (look, I'm using journalistic cliches, too!) of the four horsemen, but Harris' views have been badly and I think purposely misrepresented these last few weeks. If one would actually read the usually intelligent and informed essays and articles and books of Harris - instead of reading sentences badly decontextualized in fill-some-space columns - a more stimulating discussion on Harris and his sometimes strange views could be conducted. If anyone is sufficiently interested in the bad paraphrasing I allude to, I'll oblige with a longer response.

On Hitchens, though, James is correct when he writes that Hitchens has been stupidly inserted into these articles, probably to garner some mainstream attention for these second-rate columnists. Anyone who has read Hitchens works of the last 30 years would quickly realize that he was a 'proper' journalist, brave enough to visit the countries and people he criticized in print and on television. Did I "agree" with all his opinions? Obviously not. He was iffy on abortion, sometimes cultist on Lenin and Trotsky, and, well, he supported Bush's candidacy in 2004. But even his articles on the Iraq War - pieces that earned the ire of both the left and parts of the right - are nuanced and can be read over and over again. To stick him with the neoconservatives is lazy thinking.

As opposed to the heavyweight hoodbhoy, the blithering idiot masquerading as an intellectual...

 

[coca-cola]

As opposed to the heavyweight hoodbhoy, the blithering idiot masquerading as an intellectual...

Your definition of idiot includes a distinguished physicist? ............... I'm actually speechless. You're constricted world view means that anyone who disagrees with you and even remotely questions your religion - which you are so insecurely affiliated with - is an "idiot". must be fun living in such a simple world.

 

[Bhaijaan]

The destruction of Buddha statues by the Taliban.
The city of Timbuktu has suffered extensive damage at the hands of Islamic rebels.

Not lowering the status of the bhudda statues in the eyes of the bhuddists... In fact I would say doing that act stirred up more hate for muslims in Bhuddists countries.

You talked about killings....Were Buddhists used to worship or live there?

Budhists would have lived in SC in millions if they weren't forcefully driven out by Mughals and Brahmins. Just that they live far away doesn't mean anyone can demolish centuries old historical structures of their faith. If America takes over Saudi Arabia tomorrow and all muslims are driven out by force, will it be ok for them to demolish the grand mosque as well? Muslims will only earn a lot of respect and faith if they can themselves be the first in condemning such barbaric and unreasonable offenses.

 

[Gilly]

Athiests dont form a single belief like religious groups. Not believing in a god can be something you have in common with someone else but its not a binding belief.

I may not believe in a god but I will be called a kafir and told that I will go to hell but I dont take offense because I know that hell is imaginary and its not going to happen.

I just wish that religious people could adopt the same thinking, your religion is your own business and it has nothing to do with you what any other persons belief is. I know this will be taken out of context here but some will understand what I am saying.

 

[waqar goraya]

Budhists would have lived in SC in millions if they weren't forcefully driven out by Mughals and Brahmins. Just that they live far away doesn't mean anyone can demolish centuries old historical structures of their faith. If America takes over Saudi Arabia tomorrow and all muslims are driven out by force, will it be ok for them to demolish the grand mosque as well? Muslims will only earn a lot of respect and faith if they can themselves be the first in condemning such barbaric and unreasonable offenses.

I did not say they did a right thing........

If they were forcibly told to migrate or convet then it is condemnable...but if all the population in the vicinity no longer believes in that particular faith then it is a different case...
I am taling generally that i do not consider a buliding a worship place i.e a majid,mandir,church or temple if there are no people worshipping in there...Without people performing their religious rituals, it is only a buliding just as another buliding in the world...

If all the Muslims in the Madina convert to any other religion (not forcibly) then there is no point of having a Masjid in Madina too...

 

[Safar55]

Athiests dont form a single belief like religious groups. Not believing in a god can be something you have in common with someone else but its not a binding belief.

I may not believe in a god but I will be called a kafir and told that I will go to hell but I dont take offense because I know that hell is imaginary and its not going to happen.

I just wish that religious people could adopt the same thinking, your religion is your own business and it has nothing to do with you what any other persons belief is. I know this will be taken out of context here but some will understand what I am saying.

That's why your first question in your earlier post, could not be answered simply.

with regards to people just making their religion their own personal business, it works both ways. this whole thread is about a few atheists, in particular Sam Harris types, who have taken a certain political ideology to not leave muslims alone. This is both at the international level and individual level. It's like when people say, "those muslims are so nasty aren't they, they just hate us" but don't look beyond Sam Harris narrative which is they hate you because they have to, it's what muslims do. it has nothing to do with the fact that perhaps a drone strike killed his entire family, or that he was tortured, mocked and humiliated while being arrested because he "looked muslim" (like Sam Harris said) because that's not important is it?

 

[Abdullah719]

According to Sam Harris, there is nothing such as Islamophobia that exists.

<blockquote class="twitter-video" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">An absolutely horrific demonstration of Islamophobia in the U.S.
<a href="https://t.co/wMFZD6n7Ci">https://t.co/wMFZD6n7Ci</a></p>— INSIDER (@thisisinsider) <a href="https://twitter.com/thisisinsider/status/670292961666580482">November 27, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Muhammad10]

Richard Dawkins' Berkeley event cancelled for 'Islamophobia'

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has denied Islamophobia after a US radio station cancelled his forthcoming speech.

The best-selling author had been due to address an event hosted by KPFA Radio in Berkeley, California, in August.

Organisers accused him of "abusive speech against Islam" when scrapping his appearance, but he argues his criticism was not directed at Islam.

He called on the station to review his past remarks and apologise.

In a letter to ticket-holders, the publicly funded radio station wrote: "We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn't know he had offended and hurt - in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people."

The station, which is not affiliated with the University of California, said in a letter - which Mr Dawkins published online - that it does not support "hurtful" or "abusive speech".

It also apologised "for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins views much earlier".

Local media report that Bay Area residents had brought attention to statements made by the author of the anti-religion book The God Delusion, including a 2013 tweet saying "Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today".

In an open letter to organisers, Professor Dawkins wrote that he "never used abusive speech against Islam".

He said harsh statements he has made in the past have been directed at "IslamISM" - apparently referring to those who use the religion for political objectives - and not adherents of the faith.

"I have criticised the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticised the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief," Professor Dawkins writes.

He also pointed out that he has been a "frequent critic of Christianity but have never been de-platformed for that".

He describes listening to KPFA "almost every day" during the two years he lived in Berkeley, adding that "I especially admired your habit of always quoting sources".

"You conspicuously did not quote a source when accusing me of 'abusive speech'.

"Why didn't you check your facts - or at least have the common courtesy to alert me - before summarily cancelling my event?"

Professor Dawkins' book about the study of evolution, The Selfish Gene, was named last week by the Royal Society as the most inspiring science book of all time.

Known as the home of the Free Speech moment in the 1960s, Berkeley has recently left that reputation in doubt as far-left protesters have sought to silence speakers and academics with whom they disagree.

Conservative authors Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos have each clashed with the University of California after events where they were due to speak were cancelled by the college administration out of fear for public safety.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40710165

 

[Black Zero]

Well done radio station.
These people made a career out of Islamophobia.

 

[Pakistanian]

Props to Berkeley, they're a great school for a reason.

 

[pakistanigoneaussie]

I don't agree with anything these people say, but doing this makes them matyrs, let them speak and don't care unless they are out right calling for violence. Dawkins isn't even the worst, I find Sam Harris to take that prize, his double standards in regards to Zionism are amazing and he really minimising recent world history and forgein policy

The one good thing I can say about Dawkins is that his by in large appears to hate all religion

 

[Robert]

Props to Berkeley, they're a great school for a reason.

Not this reason. This is a symptom of the closing of the American mind. Dawkins is not Islamophobic - he is withering in his intellectual criticism of all religions, of everything not evidence-based.

He can't come because someone's feelings might get hurt. Waaaaaaaaah. What a bunch of snowflakes. Man up!

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

If saying "Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today" isn't Islamophobic I don't know what is. Whether that means he should be barred from saying it is another matter, but I don't know why he's trying to play with words now by claiming he is against Islamism. He should stick to his guns, no one is going to be fooled by weasel words.

 

[ShadabFakhar]

Hitchens sold out to Blair/Bush. His integrity and credibility began wavering before that amongst the intellectual circles but his open admission of being close to those guys meant he was contradicting his own arguments most of the time.

 

[Black Zero]

Not this reason. This is a symptom of the closing of the American mind. Dawkins is not Islamophobic - he is withering in his intellectual criticism of all religions, of everything not evidence-based.

He can't come because someone's feelings might get hurt. Waaaaaaaaah. What a bunch of snowflakes. Man up!

He is a bigot.!

 

[Adil_94]

pretty pathetic by the radio station all this does is give Dawkins tons of extra P.R and makes him a free speech martyr and plays into right wing propaganda about a Muslim takeover.

Hitch was the best when talkin about religion and Islam because he had studied source material. but supporting the iraq war was something i really disagree with him on.


Sam Harris is the most amateurish when it comes to the topic of Islam and the modern day middle east doesnt know anything about the regions history n always makes excuaes for u.s foreign policy n denies its links to creating extremism. Also he always moves into the sphere of right wing over exaggeration.

Dawkins isnt a racist though and the fact he hurts peoples feelings is neither here nor there. university campuses should allow a discussion of opposing points of view.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

pretty pathetic by the radio station all this does is give Dawkins tons of extra P.R and makes him a free speech martyr and plays into right wing propaganda about a Muslim takeover.

Hitch was the best when talkin about religion and Islam because he had studied source material. but supporting the iraq war was something i really disagree with him on.


Sam Harris is the most amateurish when it comes to the topic of Islam and the modern day middle east doesnt know anything about the regions history n always makes excuaes for u.s foreign policy n denies its links to creating extremism. Also he always moves into the sphere of right wing over exaggeration.

Dawkins isnt a racist though and the fact he hurts peoples feelings is neither here nor there. university campuses should allow a discussion of opposing points of view.

No one called Dawkins a racist. Other than that though, I have no problem with him presenting his Islamophobe viewpoints if the university is comfortable with it.

 

[Adil_94]

I dont even think he was there to give a talk on Islam in particular his main expertise is in Evolutionary Biology and he does dabble in general anti theistic criticism of religion as a concept and the concept of God especially the Abrahamic one mainly focusing on Christianity. He has criticised Islam a few times but mostly he focuses on Christianity and religion overall.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I dont even think he was there to give a talk on Islam in particular his main expertise is in Evolutionary Biology and he does dabble in general anti theistic criticism of religion as a concept and the concept of God especially the Abrahamic one mainly focusing on Christianity. He has criticised Islam a few times but mostly he focuses on Christianity and religion overall.

I don't think it's reasoned criticism of religion that has been objected to, you can do that with any religion and there won't generally be much opposition. It's more controversial statements like "Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today" which are obviously more difficult to justify and create problems for any faculty which offers him a platform.