Atheists & The War On Terror

Brown Bomber

[-0-] wrote: »

Fantastic. So much for me getting an early night (11.25pm EST while I post this). Enjoy, comrades and friends.

I'm quite sure that Orwell would have despised Hitchens and his Neocon warmongering.

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm quite sure that Orwell would have despised Hitchens and his Neocon warmongering.

Maybe you've forgotten about your first warning?

Dades wrote: »

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... to a warmonger.

Okay you've had your say. We know where you stand. You're not going to wreck this thread with a tangent about the US war (one of which has already been stopped).

There is a "New Thread" button if you want to make a stand there.

Thanking you.

Or in other words, PFO.

Brown Bomber

MagicMarker wrote: »

Maybe you've forgotten about your first warning?

Or in other words, PFO.

Okay, I'll rephrase it to say I am quite sure that Orwell would have despised Hitchens for reasons that are censored here.

Dades

Civility, please, people.

And less of the back seat modding.

Brown Bomber

I wanted to ask if someone more in the know could suggest a current militant atheist author that is an opponent of the so-called "war on terror".

I only use the term "militant atheist" to differentiate an author who happens to be an atheist with an author who views religion as a cancer.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

most of them i'd imagine. your average media-whoring new-atheist tends to lean pretty far to the left.

harris is the only one I can think of who might not be opposed to it, that or the ghost of christopher hitchens.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I wanted to ask if someone more in the know could suggest a current militant atheist author that is an opponent of the so-called "war on terror".

I only use the term "militant atheist" to differentiate an author who happens to be an atheist with an author who views religion as a cancer.

After two seconds of googling I found one of the Four Horsemen, Dan Dennett saying this:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/daniel_c_dennett/2007/01/the_role_of_faith_in_the_iraq.html

Nothing has done more to discredit religious faith in recent years than the self-righteous overconfidence with which our leaders have “listened to God” instead of listening to the knowledgeable secular advisors who have warned them, repeatedly, of the follies they were embarking on.

Defenders of religion are eager to point out that the motivation for this war was not religious, in spite of President Bush’s blunder in calling it a “crusade,” but they must admit that the administration’s faith in faith over faith in facts has probably been the principle cause of the moral calamity that now confronts us.

However I think because your terms are so vague, he's not going to count as a "real" "Militant" Atheist.
Or if that doesn't work, I think that anyone who doesn't agree totally with your narrow conspiratorial opinion would be "supporting" the so-called war on terror.

Brown Bomber

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

most of them i'd imagine. your average media-whoring new-atheist tends to lean pretty far to the left.

harris is the only one I can think of who might not be opposed to it, that or the ghost of christopher hitchens.

Okay, thanks. The two you mention are the two I am most familiar with and Harris in particular seems to consider it the white man's burden to spread "reason" and end the superstitions of backward foriegners through violence force.

So are Harris/Hitchens exceptions to the rule?Have they been challenged by other vocal atheists?

(and again I don't mean someone who happens to not believe in a God)

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

After two seconds of googling I found one of the Four Horsemen, Dan Dennett saying this:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/daniel_c_dennett/2007/01/the_role_of_faith_in_the_iraq.html



However I think because your terms are so vague, he's not going to count as a "real" "Militant" Atheist.
Or if that doesn't work, I think that anyone who doesn't agree totally with your narrow conspiratorial opinion would be "supporting" the so-called war on terror.

???

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

???

I posted an article by Daniel Dennett who along with other vocal atheists; Dawkins Harris and Hitchens is one of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism.
In the article he decries the war in Iraq and Bush's hawkish policies.

However, from experience, I know this would not be acceptable to you and you will shift the goalposts at some point, either changing what you mean by "vocal atheists" or "atheists who think religion is a cancer" etc or simply accusing anyone who doesn't believe what you believe as supporting the war on terror.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I posted an article by Daniel Dennett who along with other vocal atheists; Dawkins Harris and Hitchens is one of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism.
In the article he decries the war in Iraq and Bush's hawkish policies.

However, from experience, I know this would not be acceptable to you and you will shift the goalposts at some point, either changing what you mean by "vocal atheists" or "atheists who think religion is a cancer" etc or simply accusing anyone who doesn't believe what you believe as supporting the war on terror.

Thanks for trying but I am specifically am interested in the war on terror, as I've stated, not the Iraq war.

And please, for everyones sake can you cut out the needless personal remarks. Thanks.

EDIT: I've actually found a good example of my own.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/18/usa.politics1

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And please, for everyones sake can you cut out the needless personal remarks. Thanks.

Nearly spat my cabernet reading that -- go easy there, bb!

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thanks for trying but I am specifically am interested in the war on terror, as I've stated, not the Iraq war.

And please, for everyones sake can you cut out the needless personal remarks. Thanks.

As I said, you'd find a reason to explain why that wouldn't count.

Here's a article by Dawkins on the war as well as the war on terror:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/22/iraq.usa

Wonder how you'll say this one doesn't count.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

Nearly spat my cabernet reading that -- go easy there, bb!

huh?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

As I said, you'd find a reason to explain why that wouldn't count.

Here's a article by Dawkins on the war as well as the war on terror:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/22/iraq.usa

Wonder how you'll say this one doesn't count.

That makes no mention of the War on Terror beyond the Iraq invasion. It is however an excellent piece that showed tremendous foresight to be fair.

What it does have in common with your earlier Dennet article is framing the invasion as a consequence of Bush's religious fundamentalism. I am genuinely curious if their voices have dimmed since there has been a neo-liberal President?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That makes no mention of the War on Terror beyond the Iraq invasion.

So again we run into your insistence that the Iraq war has nothing to do with the war on terror even before we run into the fact the article directly and clearly refers not just to the Iraq war, but a lot of Bush's policies.

So what precisely would you consider comments on the war on terror? Or would you prefer to keep your definitions nice and loose in case you'd need to move them in a hurry?
And how about which atheists you'd like to hear from? Just ones in the media at large? Or how about particularly vocal and (in)famous bloggers?

It's probably easier to clear that up now to save me scrounging around the internet for articles for you to dismiss as not counting.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/21/penn-jillette-on-bush-obama-th

decimatio

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm quite sure that Orwell would have despised Hitchens and his Neocon warmongering.

Orwell's writings show just the opposite would have been the case.

Orwell despised such regimes and would have despised the regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and especially North Korea. He volunteered to fight in Spain to try and stop such a regime gaining power and he endlessly supported opposition to any such regimes in deeds and in writing throughout his lifetime.

pH

Brown Bomber's keen logic has defeated the Challengers Dennet and Dawkins ... now let's roll out Chomsky for him.

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/200202--02.htm

http://usureason.com/2010/noam-chomsky-vs-god/

Peregrinus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That makes no mention of the War on Terror beyond the Iraq invasion. It is however an excellent piece that showed tremendous foresight to be fair.

What it does have in common with your earlier Dennet article is framing the invasion as a consequence of Bush's religious fundamentalism. I am genuinely curious if their voices have dimmed since there has been a neo-liberal President?

I think your problem here is that the "neo-liberal president" doesn't use the term "war on terror"; they've abandoned that particular brand because it's, well, a bit tarnished. So any atheist (or, for that matter, any theist) attacking the present president's warmaking is not going to frame his comments as a criticism of the "war on terror".

(I think your distinction between the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq is completely specious, by the way. The proponents of that invasion saw it as the central campaign in the war on terror.)

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What it does have in common with your earlier Dennet article is framing the invasion as a consequence of Bush's religious fundamentalism. I am genuinely curious if their voices have dimmed since there has been a neo-liberal President?

Obama is a neo-liberal? :pac:

Brown Bomber

decimatio wrote: »

Orwell's writings show just the opposite would have been the case.

No they don't.

decimatio wrote: »

Orwell despised such regimes and would have despised the regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and especially North Korea.

And equally the torturing, surveilling, illegally wiretapping, propagandising, murdering, bloodthirtsty, imperialist, US regime.

Which is the point.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No they don't.


And equally the torturing, surveilling, illegally wiretapping, propagandising, murdering, bloodthirtsty, imperialist, US regime.

Which is the point.

Expect that Hitchens in fact spoke out against those things (read the ones that aren't overly dramatic accusations.)

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17nsa.html?_r=0
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/statement-christopher-hitchens-nsa-lawsuit-client

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Expect that Hitchens in fact spoke out against those things (read the ones that aren't overly dramatic accusations.)

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17nsa.html?_r=0
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/statement-christopher-hitchens-nsa-lawsuit-client

Good for him, but he also tirelessly plead the case for an illegal war, and then defended the same war that led to many of these things.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No they don't.


And equally the torturing, surveilling, illegally wiretapping, propagandising, murdering, bloodthirtsty, imperialist, US regime.

Which is the point.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Good for him, but he also tirelessly plead the case for an illegal war, and then defended the same war that led to many of these things.

Oh it must be a lovely black and white world you live in....

So what if he supported the war? He clearly does not support the other stuff you are accusing him of supporting. There's nothing preventing him from doing both of these things.

It's the same reason that your accusations and objections about America do not imply that you in fact support the evil stuff done by the Tabilban, Saddam or various terrorist groups.
Claiming you did would be silly, just as it is silly for you to make the false claim against Hitchens.

Brown Bomber

[QUOTE=King Mob;81351931
So what if he supported the war?.[/QUOTE]
Are you serious?

1. It was an imperialist war of aggression.
2. Orwell was passionately anti-imperialist.
3. Hitchens was one of the chief cheerleaders for this illegal war.
4. Therefore Orwell would have despised his position if not the man himself.

Which of the above points is incorrect?

Brown Bomber

pH wrote: »

Brown Bomber's keen logic has defeated the Challengers Dennet and Dawkins ... now let's roll out Chomsky for him.

I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

By using the term "militant atheist" i was trying to distinguish between people who don't believe in a God (atheist) such as Chomsky and people like Sam Harris.

Incidentally, Chomsky considers both Harris and Hitchens "religious fanatics".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt9QCAUPPeY

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you serious?

1. It was an imperialist war of aggression.
2. Orwell was passionately anti-imperialist.
3. Hitchens was one of the chief cheerleaders for this illegal war.
4. Therefore Orwell would have despised his position if not the man himself.

Which of the above points is incorrect?

Your first premise. That's your opinion based on your very biased view of reality. From there all your other points fail.

Orwell was in favour of directly and aggressively dealing with evil regimes.
So was Hitchens.
Orwell was opposed to torture and spying on your own people.
So was Hitchens.

Which of the above points is incorrect?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

By using the term "militant atheist" i was trying to distinguish between people who don't believe in a God (atheist) such as Chomsky and people like Sam Harris.

See, he doesn't count cause he's the wrong kind of atheist...

Could you please specify which atheists you are referring to?

The Mad Hatter

It should also be pointed out that, "imperialist war of aggression" or not, the grounds on which Hitchens supported the war - the removal of an autocratic dictator - is something that Orwell almost certainly would have supported, whether he supported the war itself or not.

Brown Bomber

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think your problem here is that the "neo-liberal president" doesn't use the term "war on terror"; they've abandoned that particular brand because it's, well, a bit tarnished. So any atheist (or, for that matter, any theist) attacking the present president's warmaking is not going to frame his comments as a criticism of the "war on terror"

I don't see how Obama's Orwellian rebranding of the war on terror would explain Dawkin's/Dennett's reduced supposed opposition to it given that many of the policies were continued or accelerated.

I don't know if it is the case but I would be curious to know a) If their opposition was muted when Obama came to office as he is a) a liberal and b) much harder to to attribute his actions to his religion

Peregrinus wrote: »

(I think your distinction between the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq is completely specious, by the way. The proponents of that invasion saw it as the central campaign in the war on terror.)

I disagree. A social commentator/historian may reasonably consider WWII just and at the same time consider the internment of US based Japanese or the bombing of Dresden reprehensible.

Likewise, you can be against individual aspects of the war on terror (Iraq) while not being against it as a whole which is what I was interested in.