SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

Spoiler:

Jet wrote:
Ignorance, Sam Harris does.

Jet wrote:

Jet wrote:
Humans have been violent throughout history. They will always look for a reason to justify their atrocities, this is blatantly obvious and like Ive said before not exclusive to religion, much less to Islam. As societies evolve there is a decline in fundamentalism, societies do not evolve when they are prevented from doing so through the means ive previously discussed. Radicalization manifests itself as a response to real or perceived grievances. As such if you truly wanted to see its end youd target the greatest factor, which is the influence of superpowers in creating and sustaining these conditions, in all the ways that involves.

jec wrote:Yes societies evolve when fundamentalism declines... yet you still exhibit your inability to understand the past. What superpower pressured Europe (The only superpower) during the 1000 years of Fundamental Christianity? Who tormented or intervened in Spain, France, Italy during the middle ages to motivate radical, pious actions?

My point is people commit violent actions, with religion as a justification. It would happen regardless, under another pretext. Just as the last invasion by the US, which was responsible for over a million deaths, was commited by Bush with the justification provided by his christian god, that doesnt mean that his version of religion is the same or representative of all Christianity. Nor that that was the main reason for the iraq war. Its ridiculous to conflate the beliefs of billions with the actions of the few.

Jet wrote:
Ahhhhh yes, the one outlier lol....

Youve gotta be kidding me here wrote:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/news/2015/05/yemen-scores-of-civilians-killed-and-injured-by-anti-aircraft-fire-and-airstrikes-on-weapons-depots/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=*Mideast%20Brief&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign

Jet wrote:
Because its nonsense. Im not basing my assertions on only that piece.

Jet wrote:

That wasnt my point no. But there is evidence you can find of the US being involved in the beginning stages in some of these conflicts. In any case, the existence of responsibility is not debatable. Those who provided the actors with the weaponry they used to kill and weaken each other share responsibility for supplying them with aid.

Jet wrote:
No it isnt. Terrorism did not exist on a global scale as it does now. Nor was my claim that they reconciled or that ethnic/religious tensions didnt exist before hand. No idea where youre pulling that from. Rather, theyve been intensified and sustained through intervention for reasons pertaining to regional dominance.

Jet wrote:

In your quote

jec wrote:Historical persecutions mostly caused within themselves based on religious shism... Or are you also going to blame the west for the Iraq-Iran War, Kurdish Conflict, the Invasion of Kuwait, the Simko Shikak revolt, The Saudi-Yemeni war, the terrible legacy of the Ottomans or the entire history of Shia-Sunni schism?

Of course the west shares blame in those conflicts. Western governments played an active role in them.

Jet wrote:
You are claiming that the killing done by Western governments is somehow more moral than those done by religious extremists. This despite the fact that you had previously conceded the actions of the west ultimately create more terrorists than they stop. Your argument in this defense of the Military industrial complex is that their violence is better because weapon manufacturers profit from it, which is blatantly immoral, if refreshingly honest at least. As long as you hold this indoctrinated view that our violence is better youll remain blind to how this argument is used to excuse our actions and focus only on those of others.

Youre the one who believes there are no moral greys. You are the absolutist here with the black and white view of the world, as I have said before and as is obvious now.

jet wrote:
So everyone who agrees with you is a moderate and those who dont are extremists...what an absolute joke.
Yes it is bigoted to claim muslims must be fought and brought under the heel of the west. It is stupid to say things like this and present yourself as some sort of moderate who holds goals of reformation. To say nothing of the expectation of holding traction with the people who would lead this transformation, in the places where this would begin to take place.

Jet wrote:
There already are people protesting and seeking reforms, you just arent aware of them.

Jet wrote:
I notice this denial is becoming a trend, first by bill maher now you. Recently, Bill had Hirsi Ali on his show giving her a platform to present herself as a reformer and convince his audience that people like them, are "true liberals" and that we should stand with them. Ignoring the fact that she has openly called for war against muslims and made no distinction between moderates or extremists. Likewise you are glad to see people like her coming from muslim countries. You dont get to stand on a parapet and preach to others of morality with any legitimacy when the people you support are warmongers themselves. Sure you claim you wouldnt advocate war...yet you support those who do. Just like Maher. This lack of foresight is frightening indeed, you dont even realize what you're doing.

In it, she “proposes a fundamental five-point modification of Islamic doctrine designed to remove the various incitements embedded in the Koran to engage in intolerance, oppression and violence.” Anyone familiar with Hirsi Ali will immediately recognize a sharp change in tone and newfound optimism in her latest book. Her outlook on the future of Islam and the Muslim majority world has clearly changed, and both her diagnosis of the issues at hand and her solutions have evolved. “I watched four national governments fall—Egypt’s twice—and protests or uprisings occur in fourteen other nations, and I thought simply: I was wrong,” Hirsi Ali reflects on her reaction to the Arab Spring. “Ordinary Muslims are ready for change.”

Jet wrote:

No I don't. Its just not the existential threat that you, neocons, and other new atheists like you, present it as.

Jet wrote:
Yet you remain blind to the link between international governments and the violence inflicted upon muslims by other muslims.

Jet wrote:
Jec.....you believe western governments are more moral because they(MIC) create jobs out of killing people. Get the fuck out of here with that.

Jet wrote:Much more fitting title.

Jec wrote:
Ignorance, Sam Harris does.

jec wrote:No he doesn't... he says so in his book...

Jet wrote:

Jet wrote:
Humans have been violent throughout history. They will always look for a reason to justify their atrocities, this is blatantly obvious and like Ive said before not exclusive to religion, much less to Islam. As societies evolve there is a decline in fundamentalism, societies do not evolve when they are prevented from doing so through the means ive previously discussed. Radicalization manifests itself as a response to real or perceived grievances. As such if you truly wanted to see its end youd target the greatest factor, which is the influence of superpowers in creating and sustaining these conditions, in all the ways that involves.

jec wrote:Yes societies evolve when fundamentalism declines... yet you still exhibit your inability to understand the past. What superpower pressured Europe (The only superpower) during the 1000 years of Fundamental Christianity? Who tormented or intervened in Spain, France, Italy during the middle ages to motivate radical, pious actions?

My point is people commit violent actions, with religion as a justification. It would happen regardless, under another pretext. Just as the last invasion by the US, which was responsible for over a million deaths, was commited by Bush with the justification provided by his christian god, that doesnt mean that his version of religion is the same or representative of all Christianity. Nor that that was the main reason for the iraq war. Its ridiculous to conflate the beliefs of billions with the actions of the few.

jec wrote:To think extreme piety has no inherent influence in this is ignoring the past.

jec wrote:Also, the actions might be "of a few" but the beliefs surely aren't, and that's something that shouldn't even be said anymore, I mean, there's scientific proof of this.... Ignoring this is intellectual dishonest

Jet wrote:
Ahhhhh yes, the one outlier lol....

jec wrote:Yes, the one outlier, when it becomes sistematic and an objective of the group your point will make sense. If you'd had any knowledge of statistic inference you would be able to see through this and not depend on anecdotal cases to try to prove you. Yes, war is terrible for anyone cought in the crossfire. Your point seems to indicate their objective is the Saudi coalition, not the civilians, learn the difference.

Jet wrote:

That wasnt my point no. But there is evidence you can find of the US being involved in the beginning stages in some of these conflicts. In any case, the existence of responsibility is not debatable. Those who provided the actors with the weaponry they used to kill and weaken each other share responsibility for supplying them with aid.

jec wrote:That was your point. Is the evidence convincing, accepted or just another piece of non consentual information? You can't blame providers for the actions of the buyers, no one forces them into war. It's like blaming small arm salesmen for every shooting out there.

Jet wrote:
No it isnt. Terrorism did not exist on a global scale as it does now. Nor was my claim that they reconciled or that ethnic/religious tensions didnt exist before hand. No idea where youre pulling that from. Rather, theyve been intensified and sustained through intervention for reasons pertaining to regional dominance.

jec wrote:Except they haven't... Even the Ottoman Empire was a mess inside. Global terrorism? As in attacking western countries, sure. Are they also responsible for the attacks amongst themselves (which are the majority), no. They've always attacked eachother, now they simply have new MOs. Maybe if you'd see religious extremism as something beyond bombing western embassies you'd understand this.

Jet wrote:

In your quote

jec wrote:Historical persecutions mostly caused within themselves based on religious shism... Or are you also going to blame the west for the Iraq-Iran War, Kurdish Conflict, the Invasion of Kuwait, the Simko Shikak revolt, The Saudi-Yemeni war, the terrible legacy of the Ottomans or the entire history of Shia-Sunni schism?

Of course the west shares blame in those conflicts. Western governments played an active role in them.

jec wrote:Look at the mostly in the first sentence of my quote... Mostly differs from all.

Jet wrote:
You are claiming that the killing done by Western governments is somehow more moral than those done by religious extremists. This despite the fact that you had previously conceded the actions of the west ultimately create more terrorists than they stop. Your argument in this defense of the Military industrial complex is that their violence is better because weapon manufacturers profit from it, which is blatantly immoral, if refreshingly honest at least. As long as you hold this indoctrinated view that our violence is better youll remain blind to how this argument is used to excuse our actions and focus only on those of others.

Youre the one who believes there are no moral greys. You are the absolutist here with the black and white view of the world, as I have said before and as is obvious now.

jec wrote:Because I said it is "more moral" doesn't mean I don't think it's immoral. This just shows you can't see the grey areas and jump to asumptions on my morality on your absolutionist views and your inability to cardinally order your own utility.

jec wrote:We have been seeing it the complicated way for too long, maybe it's time to look at things for what they are. We can't let out idealistic sentimentality of always searching for moral grey areas where none exist keep us from changing the course of history

jet wrote:
So everyone who agrees with you is a moderate and those who dont are extremists...what an absolute joke.
Yes it is bigoted to claim muslims must be fought and brought under the heel of the west. It is stupid to say things like this and present yourself as some sort of moderate who holds goals of reformation. To say nothing of the expectation of holding traction with the people who would lead this transformation, in the places where this would begin to take place.

jec wrote:And that's like her opinion on the matter. No group of individuals hold 100% of same views on a subject. You can't use one person to delegitimize and ideal held by thousands (openly) and millions (secretly). Most atheist simply want to instill science and reason among a society which punishes questioning of faith and the tenents of liberalism

Jet wrote:
There already are people protesting and seeking reforms, you just arent aware of them.

jec wrote:Yes, I and many others are aware of this. That's why we protest when Bangledashi Atheist bloggers are hacked to death, when saudi atheists are senteced to 1000 lashings and when muslim women protest FGM in african countries. That's the type of people we are fighting for, so they can express their ideals without having to face certain death and the way to do this is by keeping religion out of government. The iliberals like to confuse standing up for these people as being disrespectful of their culture and yadah yadah yadah....

Jet wrote:
I notice this denial is becoming a trend, first by bill maher now you. Recently, Bill had Hirsi Ali on his show giving her a platform to present herself as a reformer and convince his audience that people like them, are "true liberals" and that we should stand with them. Ignoring the fact that she has openly called for war against muslims and made no distinction between moderates or extremists. Likewise you are glad to see people like her coming from muslim countries. You dont get to stand on a parapet and preach to others of morality with any legitimacy when the people you support are warmongers themselves. Sure you claim you wouldnt advocate war...yet you support those who do. Just like Maher. This lack of foresight is frightening indeed, you dont even realize what you're doing.

jec wrote:IN 2007! Perhaps if you'd stop being so arrogant in your ability to read people you know nothing off (as you have been doing so with me all this time) you would see that her position has changed almost radically on these matters, and there's nothing wrong with this. Read Heretic, her new book, I'm going to read it soon enough (just downloaded the audiobook). A reviewer had this to say:

Jet wrote:

No I don't. Its just not the existential threat that you, neocons, and other new atheists like you, present it as.

jec wrote:Tell that to the bloggers hacked to death, the women who have been mutilated, burned, stoned, the atheists sent to jail in egypt just because of a facebook status, the children raped and murdered in the name of religion, the guys drowned in a cage and beheaded with explosive wire with a straight face.

Jet wrote:
Yet you remain blind to the link between international governments and the violence inflicted upon muslims by other muslims.

jec wrote:Seriously though, once again, you ignore the violence amongts muslims before the rise of imperialism and how, as we say down here, "rebuscado" the argument of blaming it all on foreign governments is.

Jet wrote:
Jec.....you believe western governments are more moral because they(MIC) create jobs out of killing people. Get the fuck out of here with that.

jec wrote:Once again, more moral does not imply believing it to not be immoral.

Jet wrote:Much more fitting title.

jec wrote:Real mature... and misleading...

Jet wrote:

Yes he does, as is obvious in his exchange with Chomsky

Jet wrote:
Again that is not what I believe. Ive said ideology plays a role but what you dont see is in present times, external actions are what are fueling the strength of an ideology and empowering it, thus giving these groups the means to recruit and commit other atrocities

jec wrote:

Obviously extremist groups have bad beliefs. Bad beliefs are not unique to muslims though, they exist everywhere. Including in the offices of power that destabilize the regions where other bad beliefs go on to spread

Jet wrote:
I suppose it shouldnt surprise me that you dont see what I was doing. Also, on the point of the targeting of civilians it can be compared to American droning of targets who they cannot clearly identify, yet still strike knowing there will likely be civilian casualties. Or with Israels justifications for their own violence, pinning the blame on the victims for their own deaths. To echo Chomskys point the indifference felt when killing ants: "Professed intentions carry little if any weight, and in fact are quite uninformative, since they are almost entirely predictable, even in the case of the worst monsters".

Jet wrote:

That wasnt my point no. But there is evidence you can find of the US being involved in the beginning stages in some of these conflicts. In any case, the existence of responsibility is not debatable. Those who provided the actors with the weaponry they used to kill and weaken each other share responsibility for supplying them with aid.

Jet wrote:
No. LOL if this "small arms salesman" was arming the majority of conflicts in the worldthen he can definitely be blamed for a large percentage of it. Even more so since this has been going on for years....all while giving the same excuses for it. In what world is the US a small arms merchant...
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/16/still-leading-pack-us-arms-exporters-extract-increasing-profits-foreign-conflict

Jet wrote:
Yes they have, the surge of extremist groups and the use of the term, "Terrorism" is the result of this. Once again this is not me saying people dont fight over other reasons, but that applies to us as well.

Jet wrote:
Im not litigating events in the distant past

Jet wrote:

Once again I do not dispute that you believe both actions are immoral. Rather your eagerness to believe that one sides violence is MORE moral is not only naive but dangerous to perpetuate given that that viewpoint helps fuel further conflict.

jet wrote:
Moreover, Atheism does not equate to any form of rationality or intelligence - it is only a statement of non-belief in deities. You may be an atheist but advocate for torture, Military invasions and label 2 billion people as "deranged" or any other sort of horrible position. Or worse hold the belief that they are effective when its proven the exact opposite....yet continue to do it anyway.

Jet wrote:
Standing up to them by calling for western governments, who ally themselves with the same leaders commiting these type of acts, to wage a war of liberation through military might. Ignorant of the consequences that result from making broad generalizations of the "other"

Jet wrote:
I highly doubt that. It wasnt too long ago she was praising Netanyahus actions in Gaza. To the point of awarding him a Nobel Peace Prize no less.

Jet wrote:
I can just as easily point to the numerous crimes attributable to the countries responsible for not only commiting similar atrocities, but being complicit in those of others, and enabling even more through what resulted from their responses.

I wouldn't say violence would cease to exist if global powers would stop exploiting people, but it would have a major effect not only in the decrease of casualties but in giving the native populations the means to decide their own futures. Instead of one imposed on them by Western leaders and their local authoritarian counterparts. This should be easy to see by those without the absolutism that comes from seeing religion as an existential threat

Jet wrote:

jec wrote:Seriously though, once again, you ignore the violence amongts muslims before the rise of imperialism and how, as we say down here, "rebuscado" the argument of blaming it all on foreign governments is.

Well that's just plain wrong. I have never said all violence is the fault of the west.

Jet wrote:
Once again I dont doubt you believe such actions are immoral. That was not the point.

Jet wrote:

Yes he does, as is obvious in his exchange with Chomsky

jec wrote:He was giving an example to prove his point.

Jet wrote:
Again that is not what I believe. Ive said ideology plays a role but what you dont see is in present times, external actions are what are fueling the strength of an ideology and empowering it, thus giving these groups the means to recruit and commit other atrocities

jec wrote:And that's where I don't agree. The logic of the violence does not point for foreign intervention to be the main fuel to the actions. If most actions were commited to the west then it would make sense but the disconection between your assumed cause and the consecuences we are seeing shows it is a complete non sequitor.

jec wrote:

Obviously extremist groups have bad beliefs. Bad beliefs are not unique to muslims though, they exist everywhere. Including in the offices of power that destabilize the regions where other bad beliefs go on to spread

jec wrote:You honestly believe they polled extremists? These aren't extremists groups, these are the "moderates".

Jet wrote:
I suppose it shouldnt surprise me that you dont see what I was doing. Also, on the point of the targeting of civilians it can be compared to American droning of targets who they cannot clearly identify, yet still strike knowing there will likely be civilian casualties. Or with Israels justifications for their own violence, pinning the blame on the victims for their own deaths. To echo Chomskys point the indifference felt when killing ants: "Professed intentions carry little if any weight, and in fact are quite uninformative, since they are almost entirely predictable, even in the case of the worst monsters".

jec wrote:So you think it wouldn't be any worse if the Houthi systematically detonated all their munions on the population? While we can agree all loss of human life is bad, it seems to me you are indiferent to the difference between a 100 deaths to 10 000 deaths. You and Chomsky alike.

Jet wrote:

That wasnt my point no. But there is evidence you can find of the US being involved in the beginning stages in some of these conflicts. In any case, the existence of responsibility is not debatable. Those who provided the actors with the weaponry they used to kill and weaken each other share responsibility for supplying them with aid.

Jet wrote:
No. LOL if this "small arms salesman" was arming the majority of conflicts in the worldthen he can definitely be blamed for a large percentage of it. Even more so since this has been going on for years....all while giving the same excuses for it. In what world is the US a small arms merchant...
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/16/still-leading-pack-us-arms-exporters-extract-increasing-profits-foreign-conflict

jec wrote:It is a generally accepted fact that supply does not create demand, but demand certainly creates supply.

Let me make an analogy through the drug trade. Colombia is the world's largest manufacturer and exporter of cocaine in the world and the US the world's greatest consumer. Is Colombia the one to blame for all the overdoses in the States, or are the consumers themselves and their substance abuse disorders the ones to blame? Would Colombia export so much cocaine to the US if American's were off the substance? The same reasoning can be made to the ME, yes the US sells war, but if wouldn't be profitable if they were not buying.

Jet wrote:
Yes they have, the surge of extremist groups and the use of the term, "Terrorism" is the result of this. Once again this is not me saying people dont fight over other reasons, but that applies to us as well.

jec wrote:Brutal attacks to unarmed population are not new to the XX Century.

Jet wrote:
Im not litigating events in the distant past

jec wrote:And that is precisely your problem. Ignoring the pasts allows you to assume an apologetic role on the subject.

Jet wrote:

Once again I do not dispute that you believe both actions are immoral. Rather your eagerness to believe that one sides violence is MORE moral is not only naive but dangerous to perpetuate given that that viewpoint helps fuel further conflict.

jec wrote:Once again... you lack the ability to order wrongs and rights. One side sees something positive out of all of this, the other does not. This does not mean I want both wrongs to go on...

jet wrote:
Moreover, Atheism does not equate to any form of rationality or intelligence - it is only a statement of non-belief in deities. You may be an atheist but advocate for torture, Military invasions and label 2 billion people as "deranged" or any other sort of horrible position. Or worse hold the belief that they are effective when its proven the exact opposite....yet continue to do it anyway.

jec wrote:Well it's a good thing most of us oppose torture. Source.

On war, well, it's hard to say, we are diverse and the majority of the people I know and have read about do not support it. You see, when you don't believe in the afterlife, you tend to be more apreciative of the current life and the fact that we don't condone atrocious acts in the name of an almighty escape goat. Sadly I don't have any statistical data on the subject because Atheists are seldom interviewd and polled.

Jet wrote:
Standing up to them by calling for western governments, who ally themselves with the same leaders commiting these type of acts, to wage a war of liberation through military might. Ignorant of the consequences that result from making broad generalizations of the "other"

jec wrote:Except only one barely heard lady is the only one calling for that. I don't see Richard Dawkins foundation calling the UN telling them to wage war on the middle east, I have no freaking clue were you get your info from.

Jet wrote:
I can just as easily point to the numerous crimes attributable to the countries responsible for not only commiting similar atrocities, but being complicit in those of others, and enabling even more through what resulted from their responses.

I wouldn't say violence would cease to exist if global powers would stop exploiting people, but it would have a major effect not only in the decrease of casualties but in giving the native populations the means to decide their own futures. Instead of one imposed on them by Western leaders and their local authoritarian counterparts. This should be easy to see by those without the absolutism that comes from seeing religion as an existential threat

jec wrote:The point is, the trend increases... Source for data: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2014.htm

While the absolute numbers show that war might still kill more people, it is in a downward spiral, which is a good thing. The number of attrocities commited in the name of religion is on an upward spiral (bad thing) so yeah, excuse me if I see religious extremism as a bigger existential threat to war at the moment.

Jet wrote:

jec wrote:Seriously though, once again, you ignore the violence amongts muslims before the rise of imperialism and how, as we say down here, "rebuscado" the argument of blaming it all on foreign governments is.

Well that's just plain wrong. I have never said all violence is the fault of the west.

jec wrote:I misspoke (wrote), you believe most...

Jet wrote:
Once again I dont doubt you believe such actions are immoral. That was not the point.

jec wrote:Yeah, your point is that all immoral actions are equal... Which is clearly wrong.

Jet wrote:

Sorry but our foreign policy does not make us the well intentioned giant Harris thinks we are.

Jet wrote:

Of course it does. Intervention has only empowered and/or facilitated the rise of extremism in the region, in addition to the usual consequences.

Jet wrote:

No im aware of the polls cited, im also referring to the muslims with bad beliefs, along with the establishment within global governments. The latter acting on their bad beliefs reinforces, and helps in the spread of the formers beliefs.

Jet wrote:
If I were indifferent to the loss of life, I would be the one seeking to downplay the role of those who initiated multiple wars in creating the conditions necessary for extremism to grow. If I were the one who is indifferent to the loss of life I would be the one holding the hypocritical double standard of seeing muslim irrationality at the sight of civilian violent reactions to the loss of loved ones, while simultaneously holding no expectation of sanity from a soldier of the invading army. If I were the one indifferent to human life I would be the one assigning one dimensional reasoning to government leaders to explain their inaction. If I were the one indifferent to human life I would be the one advocating the narrow reductionist worldview that comes from an absolutist black and white of the world, ignoring the consequences of such narrowminded thinking which leads to narrowminded policies, like you are.

Jet wrote:

That wasnt my point no. But there is evidence you can find of the US being involved in the beginning stages in some of these conflicts. In any case, the existence of responsibility is not debatable. Those who provided the actors with the weaponry they used to kill and weaken each other share responsibility for supplying them with aid.

Jet wrote:
Again, you are not seeing how war creates a vacuum which is quickly filled by the supply and proliferation of arms. You also seem to rule out the use of proxies and other indirect tactics in metting out violence. Along with the ignoring of interests at play when it comes to war. Who benefits? Arms, Energy and political sectors all have something to gain thereby the waging of war becomes incentivized and followed through at a politically opportune moment. But then again I doubt you'd be interested in pursuing such realities as you believe this is infact an example of our superior morality. The fact that you take everything at face value allows you to believe in this false paradigm and really does you no favors.

Jet wrote:

Of course not. Violence is not new to humanity.

Jet wrote:

Im not apologizing for anything. If anything, I'm the one critical of both sides here. The difference is I'm not falling for lazy answers by assuming that the actions of regional actors amount to little more than the faults of religion. That as opposed to the geopolitical realities which those who dominate mainstream media as well as others who benefit from continued conflict drastically diminish, or more often flatout ignore.

Jet wrote:
No, see thats you. You honestly think because politicians, the arms and energy industries etc, profit from war that makes them more moral than religious extremists which is deluded. Also you dont even bother to make the connection between the acts of the former(for reasons of greed) and how they influence and empower the latter. Oftentimes providing it with the materials necessary to act on their bad beliefs, through their own. I take you at your word when you say you want neither to continue, but your judgment is plain wrong - and dangerous.

jet wrote:
Though even if that were the case it wouldn't necessarily equate to rationality, as atheists are human and thus fallible, and atheism is merely the statement of non belief.

Jet wrote:
The new atheist movement has had its strain of neoconservative thought since Hitchens advocated on behalf of the Iraq war. Are you going to try to diminish his status as well? More to the heart of the issue you still arent seeing the main point, which is to say that perpetuating the narrative that muslims are uniquely threatening only helps propel dangerous falsehoods, like the belief in moral superiority over the latest "other". Whether intentional or not, this only empowers right wing elements in the countries with the most resoures to act on their own bad beliefs. The results of which weve already seen.

Jet wrote:
Just because the US (and other, not just western countries) is not directly invading(under the same scale) as it has done previously it does not mean they are not contributing to casualties in the present or wont in the future. Furthermore the destabilization caused by war exasperates the situation by creating the environment for the decline of quality of life, and ultimately more death. It also has the added effect of reinforcing grievances, thus enabling the rise of extremist groups. Were you truly concerned about religious extremism you'd be focused on cutting it off at the source (Our foreign policy in collusion with regional despots) so the ideological transformation can begin to take place, as opposed to the margins, ignoring the full picture.

Jet wrote:
No, that wasnt it at all actually. My point was that you have warped(and wrong) assessment of morality. The idea that our actions are morally superior because our organizations profit from the misery of others(for reasons of greed, one of the main problems you had previously cited) is deranged. That along with your other biased viewpoints ive already discussed make you no credible source to judge on morality. Altogether it is that which informs, and thus poisons your other thoughts on this subject.  

The term "Islamophobia" was first introduced as a concept in a 1991 Runnymede Trust Report and defined as "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims."

Jet wrote:

Sorry but our foreign policy does not make us the well intentioned giant Harris thinks we are.

jec wrote:Harris has written many times that the US has a lot to answer for in regards to its foreign policy.

Jet wrote:

Of course it does. Intervention has only empowered and/or facilitated the rise of extremism in the region, in addition to the usual consequences.

jec wrote:That's where you're wrong and I think it's my fault for not stating the following: My criticism of religion and the criticism of most atheists to the faith as a violent one goes beyond acts of terrorrism (ie suicide bombings to western targets). Out criticism also goes into the intrinsique barbarity the religion commits to its own followers, for example, honor killings, stonings and other forms of executions to those that violate Sharia, the suppression of women, not allowing any forms of criticism, etc (This type of things is what Sam Harris refers to as the Motherlode of Bad Ideas). It is a ridiculous notion to blame this form of extremism on western foreign policy since they have been commited since the 7th century. Religious extremism in Islam, defined as taking their holy book literraly (like christians once did) has been in the faith long before the rise of imperialism.

Jet wrote:

No im aware of the polls cited, im also referring to the muslims with bad beliefs, along with the establishment within global governments. The latter acting on their bad beliefs reinforces, and helps in the spread of the formers beliefs.

jec wrote:That would only make sense if the former's bad beliefs were new...

Jet wrote:
If I were indifferent to the loss of life, I would be the one seeking to downplay the role of those who initiated multiple wars in creating the conditions necessary for extremism to grow. If I were the one who is indifferent to the loss of life I would be the one holding the hypocritical double standard of seeing muslim irrationality at the sight of civilian violent reactions to the loss of loved ones, while simultaneously holding no expectation of sanity from a soldier of the invading army. If I were the one indifferent to human life I would be the one assigning one dimensional reasoning to government leaders to explain their inaction. If I were the one indifferent to human life I would be the one advocating the narrow reductionist worldview that comes from an absolutist black and white of the world, ignoring the consequences of such narrowminded thinking which leads to narrowminded policies, like you are.

jec wrote:I never held you indiferent to loss of life, I held you indifferent to the difference, to those of us who don't claim to have morality and ethics "figured out" or act like holders of absolute truth, as you have been doing, the differences matter a lot.

Jet wrote:
Again, you are not seeing how war creates a vacuum which is quickly filled by the supply and proliferation of arms. You also seem to rule out the use of proxies and other indirect tactics in metting out violence. Along with the ignoring of interests at play when it comes to war. Who benefits? Arms, Energy and political sectors all have something to gain thereby the waging of war becomes incentivized and followed through at a politically opportune moment. But then again I doubt you'd be interested in pursuing such realities as you believe this is infact an example of our superior morality. The fact that you take everything at face value allows you to believe in this false paradigm and really does you no favors.

jec wrote:Again, I never said the west does not sieze an opportunity to expand its zone of influence advancing their own self interest, what I'm arguing is naive to assume the violence would not exist if the west were not there.

jec wrote:
Of course not. Violence is not new to humanity.

jec wrote:Never said it was. Fortunately, most of hummanity is starting to let go of intrasocial violence.

Jet wrote:

Im not apologizing for anything. If anything, I'm the one critical of both sides here. The difference is I'm not falling for lazy answers by assuming that the actions of regional actors amount to little more than the faults of religion. That as opposed to the geopolitical realities which those who dominate mainstream media as well as others who benefit from continued conflict drastically diminish, or more often flatout ignore.

jec wrote:Well good thing I'm not ignoring the geopolitical realities. I'm just one of the few who actually give the religion part the importance it requires. Mainstream media won't even discuss Islam, the subject is completely taboo unless you're some blithering idiot on Fox News who does it in the wrong way.

Jet wrote:
No, see thats you. You honestly think because politicians, the arms and energy industries etc, profit from war that makes them more moral than religious extremists which is deluded. Also you dont even bother to make the connection between the acts of the former(for reasons of greed) and how they influence and empower the latter. Oftentimes providing it with the materials necessary to act on their bad beliefs, through their own. I take you at your word when you say you want neither to continue, but your judgment is plain wrong - and dangerous.

jec wrote:Except there is no connection since they have been doing it for centuries without the aid of the modern MIC, as I stated before and with the experience of history has shown. It's not deluded to rank evils and it certainly is not deluded to acknowledge that one of them at least leaves a profit for someone while the other does not. It is naive and just plain dangerous however to think you already have morality and what constitutes proper judgement all figured out.

jet wrote:
Though even if that were the case it wouldn't necessarily equate to rationality, as atheists are human and thus fallible, and atheism is merely the statement of non belief.

jec wrote:Exactly, Atheism is just stating non belief... Which is my criticism of the apologist's new word "New Atheism" that try to group us all together assuming we are all neocons (which is laugable considering we are the pinnacle expresion of liberalism through our rejection of faith and all the anti liberal institutions organized religion comes with). Perhaps if you would go to some convention in your area you might be surprised... like the catholic journalist...

Jet wrote:
The new atheist movement has had its strain of neoconservative thought since Hitchens advocated on behalf of the Iraq war. Are you going to try to diminish his status as well? More to the heart of the issue you still arent seeing the main point, which is to say that perpetuating the narrative that muslims are uniquely threatening only helps propel dangerous falsehoods, like the belief in moral superiority over the latest "other". Whether intentional or not, this only empowers right wing elements in the countries with the most resoures to act on their own bad beliefs. The results of which weve already seen.

jec wrote:Do you think Hitchens is some sort of authority or icon within Atheism? He's probably spinning in his grave you think of him this way. Also, 4 people don't count as a strain. Hitchen's was roughly criticized for his stance by fellow atheists as well.

What falsehood Jet? Is there a modern religion as violent as Islam at the moment or is there any other religion out there who commits as many violations to human rights as Islam? No, it is a falsehood to ignore these fact and create some sort of moral equivalence between them all, I feel like you're trying to cover the sun with a finger here... And don't worry, most atheists believe all religions to be a harmful social anchor

Jet wrote:
Just because the US (and other, not just western countries) is not directly invading(under the same scale) as it has done previously it does not mean they are not contributing to casualties in the present or wont in the future. Furthermore the destabilization caused by war exasperates the situation by creating the environment for the decline of quality of life, and ultimately more death. It also has the added effect of reinforcing grievances, thus enabling the rise of extremist groups. Were you truly concerned about religious extremism you'd be focused on cutting it off at the source (Our foreign policy in collusion with regional despots) so the ideological transformation can begin to take place, as opposed to the margins, ignoring the full picture.

jec wrote:I won't say religion is the biggest threat however they are an important factor in our loosing battle against this factor and that is climate change. While the oil barons are plain greedy, it is thanks to organized religion the world refuses to act the way it should on the matter and that is by truly preassuring those in power and with the ability to counteract it.

Religion is a death cult. Christians relish in the idea of the world ending because to them, it's a sign of Jesus's second coming. All you need to do is go to a sermon and you'll see this to be true. They grin with exitement at the news of a worsening world (climate wise) and swear that in their lifetime they will listen to the trumpets in the sky signalling armageddon.

Link to the study so you won't assuming I'm pulling this out of my ass:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/29/this-fascinating-chart-on-faith-and-climate-change-denial-has-been-reinforced-by-new-research/

And don't even get me started on islamic science denial.

Jet wrote:
No, that wasnt it at all actually. My point was that you have warped(and wrong) assessment of morality. The idea that our actions are morally superior because our organizations profit from the misery of others(for reasons of greed, one of the main problems you had previously cited) is deranged. That along with your other biased viewpoints ive already discussed make you no credible source to judge on morality. Altogether it is that which informs, and thus poisons your other thoughts on this subject.  

jec wrote:Wrong according to whom? You? There are no rights or wrongs on morality, only disagreements. If anything is poisoning the reasoning here is your clearly emotional stance on moral equivalence.

The term "Islamophobia" was first introduced as a concept in a 1991 Runnymede Trust Report and defined as "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims."

jec wrote:Which is why the term is absurd, wrong and strongly criticized among intelligent people. Islam =/= Muslim. Dislike and rejection of muslims's just because of their faith should simply be called biggotry or xenophobia. As the video explained, the term is used to pool rational critics of the tenets of islam together with the outright racists out there, something apologists love to exploit on self righteous liberals.

Jet wrote:

He'll lay a marker down in the discussion sure, but fundamentally assigns to us the best of intentions. During his exchange with chomsky he said the US is a "well intentioned giant". He has made similar remarks about Israeli violence, and their moral superiority. These notions are false and dangerous.

Jet wrote:

I can agree with you on the point of fundamentalism and the barbarity it is capable of inspiring. However that too, goes back to something I said previously, our role in backing tyrannical despots fuels fundamentalist leanings.

Jet wrote:
No. When societies are destabilized they become vulnerable to extremist groups that prey on their grievances to act on their bad beliefs.

Jet wrote:

I already told you I have similar thoughts to Chomsky in this area. You shouldnt listen to Harris' lies on his position. He rejects the label, as do I.

Jet wrote:

It is naive to assume that, so maybe you should stop projecting those false thoughts unto me. Again, I never said that western states are the only ones capable of violence. On the contrary Ive said violence is not new to humanity, or unique to only westerners or muslims.

jec wrote:

Im not so sure about that. Battle-related deaths, which concern direct deaths, are not the same as war-related deaths, which includes both direct as well as indirect deaths due to disease and starvation or attacks deliberately directed against civilians only

Jet wrote:
You might not ignore war as a factor, but many in power(largely responsible for the instability/power to dramatically reduce it) do. The NA narrative you are propelling is in agreement with the establishment where it seeks to diminish our governments roles in contributing to the instability and distracting from the larger forces who are benefitting from it.

Jet wrote:
The act of ranking atrocities is not deluded but the idea that ours is better is. Specially given the fact that our institutions are incentivized to do so since they benefit from violence through the misery of others. They know what their actions lead to and ignore them for reasons of greed. The counterterrorism industry, media, authors, etc....all benefit from the fallout. That is the sign of the greater evil, not lesser. It is naive and dangerous to perpetuate the myth of the "other" knowing these arguments will and have been used in the past to persecute the latest enemy, through similar broad generalizations.

jet wrote:
I think the distinction entirely appropriate, given atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief. New atheism on the other hand seems to be becoming ideological and an active movement when you see how these "new atheists" form allegiances, hold "gatherings", etc.

Jet wrote:Ideology, morals, etc cannot be born of a non-belief of something.

Jet wrote: Unity in non-belief of something quickly becomes denigration and persecution of those whom you are trying to refute. Uniting under "atheism" is not gathering to discuss scientific theory it is a group of people nodding their heads in a agreement that another group of people are stupid. I find this counter productive, dangerous and vulnerable to the same tribalism we suffer from and should reject.

Jet wrote:
He was someone highly regarded in this nonsense yes. The influence he wielded were he alive would be even more effective in this climate now because where Bush was open with his wars, Obama is secretive while causing similar harm.

Jet wrote:The falsehood would be that muslims are inherently violent primarily because of their book.

Jet wrote:
Once again displaying your anti religious animus you miss the bigger picture. That is in fact one of the most important reasons for our global hegemony, and the resource wars conflicts it inspires. Not surprised you seek to diminish our actions even here, in our most blatant. The climate change point, the greatest threat to the world and thus to mankind actually falls mostly against those whose crimes you downplay.

Jet wrote:

He'll lay a marker down in the discussion sure, but fundamentally assigns to us the best of intentions. During his exchange with chomsky he said the US is a "well intentioned giant". He has made similar remarks about Israeli violence, and their moral superiority. These notions are false and dangerous.

jec wrote:To asume the state is some malicious entity while ignoring the fact that it's made up of people both good and evil is a falsehood. It's inmature and simply wrong to assume all of the US's foreign policy is built up on malicious intent.

Jet wrote:

I can agree with you on the point of fundamentalism and the barbarity it is capable of inspiring. However that too, goes back to something I said previously, our role in backing tyrannical despots fuels fundamentalist leanings.

jec wrote:You're still ignoring the fundamental truth that Islamic doctrine has been violent long before tyrannical despots funded by the US.

Jet wrote:
No. When societies are destabilized they become vulnerable to extremist groups that prey on their grievances to act on their bad beliefs.

jec wrote:You're still ignoring the past. While this might apply in some cases, it doesn't apply here and it would be easier to see the false notion that "All religions are the same" would stop beeing taken seriously. I mean how can you believe a religion who's prophet nicknamed himself "The Obliterator" be "just another religion" who gets hijacked by "few" extremeists.

jec wrote:The prophet himself spread his faith by the sword and stablishing severe rules and punishments for his "unchanging" word of God.

Muhammad commands in his Quran that adulterers and adulteresses should receive a hundred lashes.
Muhammad in his Quran permits husbands to beat their wives.
Muhammad in his Quran commands that the hands of male or female thieves should be cut off.
Muhammad assassinates poets and poetesses.
Muhammad in his Quran commands death or the cutting off of hands and feet for fighting and corrupting the land.
Muhammad aggressively attacks Meccan caravans.
Muhammad in his Quran promises sensuous Gardens for martyrs dying in a military holy war.
Muhammad unjustly executes around 600 male Jews and enslaves the women and children.
Muhammad launches his own Crusades.

Now I know you are gonna say the bible has violent passages as well, which we would agree, but at least the bible takes context between the old and new testatment seriously which led to an easier process of reformation.

Jet wrote:

I already told you I have similar thoughts to Chomsky in this area. You shouldnt listen to Harris' lies on his position. He rejects the label, as do I.

jec wrote:Right... he rejects it but still acts and speaks like a person who truly accepts and agrees with the label. To say there are multiple Bin Laddens in the world is to completely ignore the rationale that takes a person to commit the action they did. The simple equivalence he made between 9/11 and the bombing of Sudan

Jet wrote:

It is naive to assume that, so maybe you should stop projecting those false thoughts unto me. Again, I never said that western states are the only ones capable of violence. On the contrary Ive said violence is not new to humanity, or unique to only westerners or muslims.

jec wrote:You are arguing that the Violence is incited by the west (mostly) and only perpetuates because of western (or any foreign) intervention despite your admission that the violence is not new. One form of intervention is selling guns or whatever, I argue that supply does not create demand.
Just like the point I made earlier with the tyrannical despots, you cannot pin the cause to an event that happened before the supposed cause came into play.

jec wrote:

Unrelated(ish) graph


I'm sure I shared a link explaining the decline in hunger statistics and well, we both know who really does all the deliberate, targeted attacks on civilians... *wink wink*

Jet wrote:
You might not ignore war as a factor, but many in power(largely responsible for the instability/power to dramatically reduce it) do. The NA narrative you are propelling is in agreement with the establishment where it seeks to diminish our governments roles in contributing to the instability and distracting from the larger forces who are benefitting from it.

jec wrote:Atheism (I refuse to use that dumb apologetic invented term of New Atheists) does not diminish the role of the government, it gives religion the credit it deserves in all this. In fact, saying atheists have an established view on this is quite possibly a falsehood since we are very heterogeneus and there are many disputes amongst ourselves.

Jet wrote:
The act of ranking atrocities is not deluded but the idea that ours is better is. Specially given the fact that our institutions are incentivized to do so since they benefit from violence through the misery of others. They know what their actions lead to and ignore them for reasons of greed. The counterterrorism industry, media, authors, etc....all benefit from the fallout. That is the sign of the greater evil, not lesser. It is naive and dangerous to perpetuate the myth of the "other" knowing these arguments will and have been used in the past to persecute the latest enemy, through similar broad generalizations.

jec wrote:Ah, once again you take the mantle of the judge of all things good and evil, showing clearly your sentimentallity when analyzing these subjects. Even if I did go down to your primal level of good and evil the west's action would still be the lesser evil. It is lesser evil to have at least one side benefited from an act of destruction than having all sides loosing in a senseless act of destruction.

Jet wrote:Ideology, morals, etc cannot be born of a non-belief of something.

jec wrote:Are you seriously trying to pull the "Atheists have no morals" bullshit on me?

jec wrote:
More and more people are abandoning organized religion and in part is due to incresed demands of secularization and the spark of knowledge and curiosity many people, including progressive theists have been advocating for. I'm not gonna imply the credit is all due to these atheistic organizations but one thing for certain is that they are not hindering the process or rationalization.

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/news/pew-survey-reveals-american-youth-are-becoming-more-nonreligious

Jet wrote:The falsehood would be that muslims are inherently violent primarily because of their book.

jec wrote:Jet... Muhammed, when he arrived to Medina, killed those who would not convert to Islam and left orders to his followers to do the same. Orders, extremists muslims follow today...
How can we not linken the violence of muslims to their holy book when their violence resembles that clearly stated, as orders, from the damn holy book?

Jet wrote:
Once again displaying your anti religious animus you miss the bigger picture. That is in fact one of the most important reasons for our global hegemony, and the resource wars conflicts it inspires. Not surprised you seek to diminish our actions even here, in our most blatant. The climate change point, the greatest threat to the world and thus to mankind actually falls mostly against those whose crimes you downplay.

jec wrote:I never denied the role of greed in climate change. My point still stands, religion is a huge obstacle at combating climate change. For all their corruption and money, if the whole populace is against you, you will get taken down. Many of the lobbying groups you yourself linkened use far right religious organizations to opperate and sway the minds of the religious, the Discovery Institute, Allience Defending Freedom, etc.

Jet wrote:
To think in absolutes to the point of not believing moral greys exist - as you clearly have done, is something both very immature and naive, yes.

Jet wrote:

You are still prone to forgetting what ive actually said. Ideology plays a part in violence, but not the primary one. The widespread upsurge in violence and its perpetuation on the scale we see now falls primarily by those who have created the conditions for extremists to thrive. That falls mostly on our governments and their regional counterparts

Jet wrote:

You're still too blinded by your anti religious animus. Religion isn't meant to be treated as a scientific journal. People pick and choose the values they identify with and thus interpretation plays a major role across the major faiths.

Jet wrote:

*wink wink*
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicasimeone/doctors-without-borders-staffers-were-shot-while-fleeing-hos?utm_term=.qmrNLBPkRz#.gsjLXbAXg

http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/protective-edge

Jet wrote:

Atheism does not. New atheism does however diminish it by incorrectly stating it as the primary problem, distracting us from the greater role(and thus possibility to change) of those creating the chaos, and it has allies in the highest levels of government- themselves responsible for it. Look no further than david camerons speech last month for that. As I said before normal run of the mill atheism I dont have a problem with, I myself am an atheist. Its new atheism which I do because it shields the true root of the problem the very structures that incentivize violence, ensuring it remains perpetual.

Jet wrote:
The wests actions are still the greater evil in this- like I said before...not just because they commit more of it internationally, but also because they create the conditions for further violence.

Jet wrote:

Jet wrote:Ideology, morals, etc cannot be born of a non-belief of something.

jec wrote:Are you seriously trying to pull the "Atheists have no morals" bullshit on me?

what the actual fuck? I would be calling myself immoral right along with you if that were the case.

Jet wrote:

My mistake there, got caught in your trap. "New Atheism", that which ends up furthering right wing/nativist elements   by emboldening them. Regular, run of the mill atheism which holds no other agenda, is fine.

Jet wrote:
I never claimed you denied it, you're still having trouble seeing the forest from the trees. You downplay what is actually the greater role by not correctly identifying the systems that perpetuate it. Yes the infrastructures that political and financial elites have crafted use religion as a tool to further achieve their ends. Ive already said that and it is a definite problem. But it is a lesser component derived from the root of the cause which is the systems, and those who benefit from them- at the expense of all others, themselves.