Never Forget!


    SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Share

    Poll

    Is The Walking Dead Garbage?

    [ 1 ]
    33% [33%] 
    [ 1 ]
    33% [33%] 
    [ 1 ]
    33% [33%] 

    Total Votes: 3
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Sun Jun 14, 2015 9:50 pm

    Spoiler:
    Ive known about the death of JS for three years now and I was still muttering denial at the moment of his betrayal. What im wondering now is whether this is a plot point thats gonna diverge from the books and thus be substantially different from the source material. Also whether or not hes truly "dead" as we've seen/read with certain other people. Might turn out to be an undead vs undead battle by the end.

    From now on "FTW" will be known as 'For the watch'

    "RIP?" my favorite character, Jon Snow


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Fri Jun 19, 2015 3:46 am

    Great intro by jon stewart yesterday. A sobering addition of perspective, specially for those espousing clash of civilization narratives narrow through blinders.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:40 pm

    True detective seasonn2 is starting after a whole year. With a new cast too.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:43 pm

    Much more fitting title.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Fri Jun 26, 2015 2:00 pm

    Probably going to cancel cable soon and keep hbo. That medium is dying out, and for good reason.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:52 am

    Jet wrote:
    Ignorance, Sam Harris does.

    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.

    No, your point, as you state so yourself, the greatest factor in radicalization is "the influence of superpowers in creating and sustaining these conditions", which as I've said many times and evidenced by your lack of historical comparison a lie. Radicalization in the past has surged out of the tennents of religion itself. Through the middle ages, the Catholic church had relaxed leaders and extremely pious leaders (something GRR Martin took as inspiration for the High Sparrow in his series). To think extreme piety has no inherent influence in this is ignoring the past.

    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 dishonesty.

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

    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 your fallacious points.


    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

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

    "The plural of anecdote is not data"

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    Hell, even this person had the opportunity to go to an atheist gathering and was shocked and surprised to find out we are not neocon, evil bastards out to kill believers...

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


    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.

    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:

    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.


    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.

    No one would say violence would cease to exist once religion is out of the equation but violence would loose something that legitimizes it among people, and that is an important gain. At least to us who don't see the world as black and white.


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

    \begin{sarcasm}
    1. Yeah... the reason why Egyptians in 25 B.C. cut off their daughter's clitoris is because they the US took Syrian oil in 21st century.

    2. 25 killed in IS suicide attack on Shia mosque. Nothing to do with religion of course. Provoked by US foreign policy

    3. Of course religion had nothing to do with Sunni attack on Shia mosque: 25 killed, 202 wounded. US to blame as ever.
    \end{sarcasm}

    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.


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


    Jet wrote:Much more fitting title.

    Real mature... and misleading...


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:25 pm

    Jec wrote:
    Ignorance, Sam Harris does.

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

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

    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.

    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: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

    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:
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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:
    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.

    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:

    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.

    Im not litigating events in the distant past, times when many were violent. Not to imply that isn't the case now, we are still waging multiple wars for instance and have been for many years, we just dont bother to vote on, or acknowledge it now. Only for what accounts to modern history, namely the events I highlighted.


    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.

    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. You are quite the hypocrite, its amazing really.

    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

    No jec you are the absolutist who doesnt see moral greys.


    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

    An opinion which is very popular as best exemplified by governments who continuously wage war themselves, or contract others to do the deed for them. This opinion which is blind to its own role in creating the very extremism one claims to fight. 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:
    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....


    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 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:

    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:

    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.

    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:
    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.

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


    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.

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


    Jet wrote:Much more fitting title.

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

    The former sure, the latter no I dont think so


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:12 pm

    Jet wrote:

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

    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

    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.

    "When these Islamic terrorist groups abduct women to sell them as sex-slaves or "wives;" conduct mass crucifixions and forced conversions; behead innocent people en masse; try to extinguish religious minorities and demolish irreplaceable archeological sites, the idea that this is the fault of the West is ludicrous, offensive and wrong."

    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

    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".

    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

    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.

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


    Jet wrote:
    Im not litigating events in the distant past

    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.

    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.

    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"

    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 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.

    Well, I'll see once I read her book. Israel is a complex and divisive subject. Even among atheists. Personally, I believe both sides (Israel and Hammas) are wrong.

    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

    Let's see data adn trends, shall we?







    List of people killed and injured in islamic attacks since 9/11

    2014
    Killed:32007
    Injured: 27518

    2013
    Killed: 17800
    Injured: 2922

    2012
    Killed: 1180
    Injured: 19603

    And so on...

    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.

    If the Taliban got their hands on Pakistani nukes, would they hesitate to use them? It's a shame I don't have data on the evolution of executions based on Sharia...

    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.

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


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

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

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Here's fantastic extra info I recomend seeing.

    This video shows a takedown on the word Islamophobia (it's 13 minutes long, I sat though your terrible VICE episode, you should sit through this one). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEeauLCOeXQ



    http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/573-islam-is-a-religion-of-peace <- See the results of the debate. Apologist stand no chance against actual arguments...

    http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/599-the-world-would-be-better-off-without-religion

    Other debates on religion: http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/itemlist/tag/religion?tagcf=5

    The site host great debates on other subjects too, I strongly recomend it.

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6059/atrocities-muslim-world <- This guy's a bit of a neocon, but he still makes valid points. Also, he was born and raised a muslim... so this guy probably knows his shit.

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6044/sweden-islamization


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:15 am

    Jet wrote:

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

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

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

    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.

    Of course it does. Intervention has only empowered and/or facilitated the rise of extremism in the region, in addition to the usual consequences. The war on terror is a self fulfilling prophecy which is creating the very same people it claims to be fighting. You yourself even conceded that the actions of the US ultimately create more terrorists than they stop. This is all happening within a wider context that comes at the cost of the loss of rights, life and treasure on both sides.

    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".


    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:
    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.

    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:
    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.

    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:
    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.

    Of course not. Violence is not new to humanity.


    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.

    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:

    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...

    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:
    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.

    Unfortunately Jec the leaders who are responsible for implementing policy are either morally bankrupt(if they realize the consequences of their actions) or incompetent(if they do not). Id also wager that positions are not filled with an atheist majority. 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:
    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.

    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:
    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.

    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:

    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...

    Yes, in present conditions, that is the case.


    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.

    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." The term was coined in the context of Muslims in the UK in particular and Europe in general, and formulated based on the more common "xenophobia" framework.

    The report pointed to prevailing attitudes that incorporate the following beliefs:

    Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities
    Islam does not share common values with other major faiths
    Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.
    Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
    Islam is a violent political ideology.

    For the purposes of anchoring the current research and documentation project, we provide the following working definition:

    Islamophobia is a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure. It is directed at a perceived or real Muslim threat through the maintenance and extension of existing disparities in economic, political, social and cultural relations, while rationalizing the necessity to deploy violence as a tool to achieve "civilizational rehab" of the target communities (Muslim or otherwise). Islamophobia reintroduces and reaffirms a global racial structure through which resource distribution disparities are maintained and extended.
    http://crg.berkeley.edu/content/islamophobia/defining-islamophobia

    Personally, I prefer the classic, 'Bigotry'. I do agree on the Afleck point though, he came off really bad in that.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:57 am

    Jet wrote:

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

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

    In fact, he recently did an AMA http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/ask-me-anything-1

    One of the questions there: "I like you, but as an atheist, I find statism to be a dangerous form of religion and I won’t paint a billion people as barbarians."

    I also find this quote to align with you perfectly; "I’ve just reluctantly begun to accept it—is the fact that, when someone hates you, they take so much pleasure from hating you that it’s impossible to correct a misunderstanding. Because that would force your opponent to relinquish some of the pleasure he’s taking in hating you."

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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:

    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.

    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. They would have shredded themselves long ago with other means and othere weapons. Which is why I gave my example on demand creating supply and not the other way around. Going back on my Colombia/Cocaine example, the decrease in cocaine production has given rise to all sorts of "Designer Drugs" in advanced countries to counteract the missing supply of natural alternatives like Pot and semi natural ones like Cocaine.


    Jet wrote:

    Of course not. Violence is not new to humanity.

    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.

    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. The only time they want to debate this, they invite Reza Aslan, a guy who is a pathological lying muslim apologist (probably because he's a muslim himself).


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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, and before you continue giving him a one dimensional treatment, as you have done with all other Atheists, I suggest you read about all his political positions and the reason he favors neocon like intervention. It has to do with the Bosnian War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Christopher_Hitchens#Bosnian_War


    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.

    Except statistics show you are wrong.... The world is becoming a more peaceful place in part thanks to economic interdepence and moral evolution of society. There are less wars, less murders and less violent crimes and a decreasing death rateas even hunger is in decline.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/12/the_world_is_not_falling_apart_the_trend_lines_reveal_an_increasingly_peaceful.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/22/world-less-violent-stats_n_1026723.html

    http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/05/27/global-hunger-report

    War should no longer be considered our existential threat... not even with nukes as the probability of ever using them keeps decreasing. 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.  

    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."

    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.

    I'm glad you agree that Ben Affleck was wrong in his Harris debacle. Unfortunately, Affleck is far from alone and there are many well intentioned liberals out there that take his very same stance.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Mon Jul 13, 2015 11:05 pm

    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.

    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:

    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.

    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. Moreover,not only do humans all over the world justify their atrocities committed under the "best" of intentions, whether religious or otherwise; the US and other countries reliant on black gold enable the perpetuation of other bad ideas through their alliance with the saudis, who in turn export their ideology outside of their kingdom. Resource/regional dominance and the things we do for it are central to the discussion because our actions in their pursuit are why these groups rise up against us in perpetuity and continue to empower their ideology, just as they have in the past. If the goal were truly to curve radicalism(in all its forms) it would begin with us addressing our largely destructive foreign policy and alliance with similar states who also add to it through their own violence/ideology, a lot of which we are complicit in.

    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...

    No. When societies are destabilized they become vulnerable to extremist groups that prey on their grievances to act on their bad beliefs. Our leaders also act on their own bad beliefs but on a greater scale. Difference is they are seldom held to account, much less bring a stop to similar policies they enacted.

    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.

    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:
    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.

    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. More so, here in reality the west currently IS acting in its narrow self interest - to the detriment of thousands of displaced peoples and all the Greater negative consequences that comes with.


    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.

    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:

    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.

    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. This cannot be overstated. Our leaders first and foremost, media, and private industries help facilitate this which leads to the same song and dance as usual. As long as we keep bombing, arming those to act on our behalf, or otherwise acting as we have been we will only continue picking at the margins, not the source, the geopolitical.

    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.

    Yes Im not saying muslims are angels. Surprise they are human being just like us capable of great violence. The difference is in the present we can commit far greater violence and often do. 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:
    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...

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

    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. The falsehood would be that muslims are inherently violent primarily because of their book. The violence can be attributed to a number of factors. Moreover it can be more effectively fought against by supporting reformers in countries where governments instinctively crush dissent, and which global superpowers just happen to keep in power for their own gain.

    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.

    You once again falsely attribute the bigger share of the blame to religion instead of the greater power structures at play. The propensity of you to do so is due to your one dimensional view enabled by a narrow idea of those with faith. What you dont realize is there are progressive interpretations of religion, just as there are conservative, reactionary ones. In fact it was just last month when pope francis declared fighting climate change a moral imperative
    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/06/pope-francis-encyclical-moral-climate-change/396200/
    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/pope-stresses-need-to-protect-poor-and-environment-1.2275541
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-says-humans-irresponsible-with-environment/

    Moreover the public is already against a host of bad policies, yet political leaders still refuse to act. This is far more due to an unequal society, and unrepresentative (at times corrupt) governments. I find it odd how you bring up climate change when its greatest contributors are the same forces Im talking about.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/10/3678684/original-sin-denial-exxon-climate-change-1981/

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/uk-and-us-main-barriers-to-addressing-climate-change-survey-finds-10303279.html

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/07/oil-lobby-workshop/

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/12/us-taxpayers-subsidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies?CMP=share_btn_tw

    http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/05/12/exclusive-major-climate-science-denial-funders-donors-trust-and-donors-capital-fund-handled-479-million-untraceable

    http://www.desmog.uk/2015/05/25/mysterious-tory-donor-linked-energy-minister-andrea-leadsom-s-rise-power

    Elites actively fighting against activist progress

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/08/keystone-protesters-fbi-watchlisted-terrorism?CMP=share_btn_tw

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/19/fbi-invokes-national-security-justify-surveillance-tar-sands-protestors/

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/26/kinder-morgan-maybe-change-huge-oil-pipeline-company-something-hired-duty-cops-deter-protests-pennsylvania-pipeline/

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/13/uk-defence-fight-poor-activists-minorities-marxists-commies

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/07/baltimore-firm-supplying-united-arab-emirates-surveillance-software-won-special-export-license-state-department/

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/08/hacking-team-emails-exposed-death-squad-uk-spying/

    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:
    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.

    Spare me the hypocrisy you were just accusing me(wrongly) of "moral equivalence", im just paying you back with your own coin. Plus, I already told you I dont adhere to it. Equivalence would be akin to the poisoned viewpoint, biases I already discussed on your part.

    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.

    Yeah the term would have been better served as "muslimophobia". The original definition was more nuanced than what the video you posted portrayed it as though. Like I said anti muslim bigotry is what I tend to use.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Wed Jul 15, 2015 1:17 pm

    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.

    Right, false and dangerous because, despite your denial, you, just like Chomsky, adhere to the false notion of moral equivalence. There's a reason people constantly criticize this aspect of Chomsky.

    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.

    You're still ignoring the fundamental truth that Islamic doctrine has been violent long before tyrannical despots funded by the US. Is this disonance of time that really impedes you from seeing this. You cannot analyze this problem without historical context. You can't establish causality of islamic fundamentalism on a modern phenomena when this has been occuring long before the suppossed cause.


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

    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.

    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.

    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 shows that, despite his denial, he still adheres and fully accepts moral equivalence. Just like Richard Posner noted, “a successful academic may be able to use his success to reach the general public on matters about which he is an idiot.” Chomsky loves passing judgement without proper empirical evidence.

    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.

    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:

    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

    Accpetable criticism... The statistical report also show that all of those are going down too...

    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.

    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.

    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.

    I think this is the difference between you and I when analyzing this subjects. My criteria actually follows an established philosophical and empirical strain called utilitarism (it's not free of fair criticism of course, Charles Dickens's books are a good read, and Daniel Dennet (a "new atheist") is also a critic) while you seem (at least to my eyes) to use completely emotional criteria.

    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.

    Humans, be it atheistic or theists, need to feel they are part of a community. The reason why statistics show that atheists tend to be depressed, live less than their theistic counterparts, suffer from lonliness and have an overall lower health is because social support (ie, when a family memeber dies, your church community might come together to offer you emotional support) is an important factor in both mental and physical health. Most of these atheistic organizations rise and have the objective of making atheists feel like they belong in a community where they offer themselves emotional support, it's not all about debating and trying to bring religion down as if we were some sort of army.

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

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

    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.

    I don't even know where to begin...

    1. Unity in non-belief of something quickly becomes denigration and persecution of those whom you are trying to refute. <- Care to elaborate your reasoning behind this? Evidence? Past occurences? I'm simply at a loss with this statement.

    2. 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. <- First of all, there are many different atheistic organizations, each with its different goals, MOs and views on matters. The simple idea that atheistic organizations are a bunch of bobble heads nodding to "Religion is dumb" shows you have no knowledge of atheism, not in the slightest way...

    American Atheists simply advocates for the protection of civil rights of atheists and its activism is mostly targeted at ensuring the separation of the church and state. The FFRF works on the same grounds http://ffrf.org/about

    Richard Dawkins Foundation's objective is to spread the use of rational and the importance of science and education and secularism: https://richarddawkins.net/aboutus/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations#International, the list is endless.

    My point is, you have no idea what you are talking about. Most atheists do not believe all religious people to be stupid, in fact, many like debating and questioning why do seemingly rational people believe in nonsense. Mocking the belief does not equate to mocking the person.

    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:
    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.

    Hitchens died when the wikileaks happened, he tried criticizing assange for his megalomaniacal personality but who knows if he would eventually retract his support for the war. Hitchens's  past calls to intervention were under his genioune belief that it would spare people from suffering and genocide. We'll simply never know what Hitchens current views would be like, considering the nature of the conflict has changed with the increased use of drones under the Obama Administration.

    And I can't state this enough, Hitchens was harshly criticized by atheists themselves, for his views on war. In fact, many joked saying he had "temporal neocon allies".

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

    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?

    Sigh.... The Anatomy of an Apologist


    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.

    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.

    "What exactly is the theology of climate science denial? The Cornwall Alliance – a coalition whose list of signatories could double as a directory of major players in the religious right – has a produced adeclaration asserting, as a matter of theology, that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming."

    It also tells us – on the firm foundation of Holy Scriptures – that policies intended to slow the pace of climate change represent a "dangerous expansion of government control over private life". It also alerts us that the environmental movement is "un-Biblical" – indeed, a new and false religion. If the Cornwall Declaration seems like a tough read, you can get what you need from the organization's DVD series: "Resisting the Green Dragon: A Biblical Response to one of the Greatest Deceptions of our Day."

    Now, this isn't the theology of every religion in America, or of every strain of Christianity; not by a long stretch. Most Christians accept climate science and believe in protecting the environment, and many of them do so for religious as well as scientific reasons. But theirs is not the theology that holds sway in the upper reaches of the Republican party, or moves your average climate science denier Chuck. As Rick Santorum explained at an energy summit in Colorado:

       "We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth … for our benefit not for the Earth's benefit."

    Why does this theology of science denial have such power? For one thing, it gives its adherents something to throw back in the face of all those obnoxious "elites", which they think are telling them what to do with their lives. There's no need to master the facts if all you need is to learn a few words of scripture.

    But, perhaps, more to the point is that this kind of religion works for Chuck because it allows him to disguise the extraordinary selfishness of his position in a cloak of sanctimony. Translated into the kind of language that you can take to the shopping mall, it says that God wants you to squeeze whatever you can out of the earth – and to hell with the grandkids."






    Yes, Greed is involved, we agree on that, however, Religion is an important crutch that allows the greedy to get away with their shit. White evangelical chirstians are more nuimerous than the unaffiliated or the progressive religious people who accept climate change. The big fish might be greedy fucks but it's the religious sheep that lets them get away with everything.

    Let's not forget that religious wackos not in power can cause a lot of harm as well.
    http://www.advocate.com/religion/2015/07/16/pastor-encourages-christians-fight-same-sex-marriage-ruling-guns

    I find it appaling that you would equate rational, discussion seeking atheists with wackos such as Feuerstein.

    But the US is not alone when it comes to religious whackos in power. Down here, in Colombia, we have a figure called Procurador General, his charge is to root out and punish all corrupt politicians and ensure the constitution is upheld. What does this raving catholic fanatic do in his position? Ignores most of the corrupt to go after abortion activists, lgtb leaders, same sex marriage, same sex adoption and almost anything he considers amoral, while the people that should be under his watchful eye usually go free, he let a governor make a huge Jesus Statue with public funds ffs when many towns in his state don't even have basic public services...
    ____________________________________________________________________________

    I recomend reading the preview of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's newest book. Especially her disctinction of muslims and how and to whom we should be directing our efforts to peaceful reformation.

    https://books.google.com.co/books?id=dGoOBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Ayaan+Hirsi+Ali%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEAQ6wEwBmoVChMIqIOeuMbdxgIVBsk-Ch0O1w1x#v=onepage&q&f=false


    Last edited by Jec on Fri Jul 24, 2015 7:59 pm; edited 1 time in total


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:50 pm

    British PM Cameron made an excellent speech on how to combat islamic extremism. His most important point is that we have to acknowledge islamic terrorism actually exists, Maajid Nawas, a former radical has been advising Cameron on these subjects.



    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Fri Jul 24, 2015 7:57 pm

    Here's a podcast by Sam Harris and Dan Carlin

    "Shouldering the Burden of History With Dan Carlin"

    https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/shouldering-the-burden-of-history-with-dan-carlin

    I think you would enjoy listening to this podcast, it's pretty much this discussion we are having except both of them are far better qualified to discuss this subject. Sam defends the importance of religion while Dan insists on US foreign policy. Very insightful, both make good points and I think actually listening to Sam, even if it's just the first 30 minutes will dispell any wrong assumptions you have on the fellow.
    _________________________________________________________

    Ahhh... even former radicals agree with me.







    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:54 pm

    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.

    Youre wrong about Chomsky and my position on moral equivalence, but I suspect that wont keep you from espousing that propaganda term. You are right on one thing though. Its wrong to say all US foreign policy is built on malicious intent. Nowhere did I say it was. 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:

    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.

    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:
    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.

    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:

    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

    I see his sudan example completely flew by you if you actually think he thought they were "morally equivalent". He doesnt think they are, in fact he found it to be the worst of the acts.

    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.

    The violence perpetuates for a number of reasons actually, intervention is just the most important in the present, the "age of terror" as we have come to know it. To say that violence would happen irrespective of our actions is to say nothing of substance. It would however be considerably lessened. More importantly you act as if the companies who profit from war, the people who run them have no influence in the same institutions that craft and ultimately employ policy. When in fact they have considerable influence over politicians and other systems of power, and thus the corresponding actions that lead to more business. On the point of tyrannical despots you clearly don't understand how that relationship works as evidenced by how obvlivious you were to the symbiotic role the Saudi government has played both internally and overseas.


    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*

    *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:
    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.

    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 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.

    Yes go on again pretending like you arent judging evils yourself when you're the one who began this, hypocrite. 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. Because the CEOs of raytheon get a bigger bonus at the end of the year this somehow makes their actions more moral? To hold the view that the greater evil does not come from the elites of certain countries benefitting from the destruction of others - and thus creating the very same grievances in people extremists seek to exploit is deluded. Not only because the benefits are not only not intended to be altruistic nor are they felt that way, but it completely ignores the effect this has in the political sphere, from those that benefit from continued conflict. The motive to influence policy in a way that results in more votes, money, and power comes from these very same "morally superior" forces you incorrectly analyze.

    Im actually surprised you arent able to see that. It seems like everything you see is still in black and white terms.


    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.

    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

    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: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?

    Getting tired of repeating myself. Ideology plays a role, those that focus on counter terrorism research clearly operate with that in mind themselves, far from the narrative you are trying to spin. However its not the most important role. You certainly can liken it as a factor, I never said you could not.


    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.

    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.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:54 pm

    Oh boy... I don't even remember this anymore.

    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.

    Dude, you've been pretty much saying, "You're either with me or your're a right wing nut". You're the person thinking in moral absolutes by linking "new atheism" to neoconservatism. In fact, "New" Atheists are hated both by the far right and far left.

    And if you're gonna try to argue yourself out of that one or deny it, just look at the thread title.

    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

    "There are (or were) Christians living in all these beleaguered countries. How many Christian suicide bombers have there been? Where are the Pakistani, Iraqi, Syrian, Egyptian, and Palestinian Christians who are blowing themselves up in crowds of noncombatants? Have there been any? I’m guessing there must have been a few, but the Muslim supply of such people is apparently inexhaustible. In every case, we’re talking about the same people, speaking same language, living in the same places, enduring the same material deprivation. In fact, the Christians of the Middle East have it worse." - Sam Harris

    Aside from that great quote from Harris, let's not forget the lack of religious extermists in other areas of the world under similar circumstances as well.

    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.

    Oh god you're starting to sound like Reza Aslan...




    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

    You know quite well how I feel about anecdotal evidence and why it's irrelevant in overarching discussions and topics.


    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.

    Because it is the primary problem. Cameron's speech was brilliant because it confronted the problem of islamism and how the regressive left, under the umbrella of "multiculturalism" and political correcteness are willing to tolerate anti liberal values in liberal societies. His later decision of bombing Syria instead of focusing on domestic radicalism I can't agree with obviously. I can understand the west's intervention in the creation of ISIS as a structure but in no way can the west be blamed for "moderate" muslims mutilating women's clitoris on British soil, the stoning of apostates, killing of gays and many other atrocities islamic societies did long before colonialism. I think you have a shallow view of the problem by believing violence is just armed and only comes in the form of suicide bombs, but you willfully ignore the intrinsic violence of islamism (wanting to make Sharia state law) and how this easily jumps to radicalism.

    No where do New Atheist reject the idea that western policy has helped created extremism. What new atheists are trying to do is not letting the public forget about the religious part as well which so often gets pushed to the sideline or outright is refused to be discussed. Just look at the cases where muslim students don't even allow speakers at their universities and heckle them.

    Maryam Namazie was invited to speak at Warwick University, she was banned, un banned and muslim activists tried to heckle and disrupt and even intimidated the people who assisted to her lecture: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/12/04/activist-maryam-namazie-heckled-at-talk-by-muslim-students-who-say-she-invaded-their-safe-space/ . Why is this ok? Why did the university had to apologize to the hecklers and not to Maryam?  It's ironic that the president of that very union later has to resign for his blatant homophobia on twitter. showing how regressive leftist under the guise of political correctness end up defending the oppressor and not the oppressed.

    I storngly recommend reading anything by Maajid Nawaz, a former radical who dedicates his life to fighting islamic extremism. He is one of the handful of visible former muslims who are willing to discuss what the fake regressive left are unwilling to discuss, only to receive insults from both the far right and the far "left" like Greenwald and Aslan. Since he utterly destroys their bullshit, they got no other choice than to insult him.

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/we-need-to-talk-about-islam-says-former-radical-maajid-nawaz-20151217-glqkhj.html <- THIS is what new atheism is about.

    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.

    Supply. Does. Not. Create. Demand....

    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.
    Well it looks like you are by affiriming that morals can't be born out of non-belief. But whatever, non important point.

    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.

    See... this is why I say in the begining of this response that you're the one lacking moral gray area, "you're either with me or you're a right wing dude".

    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.

    Right, because Religion is in no way a system that benefits a few... *rolls eyes*
    _________________________________________________________________________________

    You call "new atheists" bigots for their strong criticism of religions yet the regressive left tolerates bogotry present inside religions affecting people who would choose to not be subjected to such humiliation yet you don't see a problem with this.

    Regressive left - "to describe a section of the left that has "an inherent hesitation to challenge some of the bigotry that can occur within minority communities [...] for the sake of political correctness, for the sake of tolerating what they believe is other cultures and respecting different lifestyles.""



    Ali A. Rizvi gloriously bitchslaps CJ Wellerman, anti "new atheism" author.

    The rest of it:
    http://www.gspellchecker.com/2015/12/ali-a-rizvis-response-to-a-question-is-a-thing-of-beauty/

    The left loves to ignore the ACTUAL FORMER AND MODERATE MUSLIMS that wish to reform the faith. Their only allies are those evil mean new atheists like Sam Harris and Bill Maher.

    It's the moronic conflation of criticism of islam and right wing biggotry/criticism of muslims that's harming muslims all over the world and what has created the necesary conditions for scary dictators in potential like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz to poll so well in the republican primaries. Our refusal to have honest conversations about faith for the posibility of reforming it that has created such a strong, repressed reaction from right wing bigots.
    ___________________________________________

    It's official... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/religion-has-been-causing-conflict-for-over-2000-years-say-scientists-a6782631.html


    Last edited by Jec on Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:50 am; edited 2 times in total


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Eri
    Genin Ninja: Rookie
    Genin Ninja: Rookie

    Posts : 5237
    Join date : 2012-01-24
    Location : Lend me the power to let it burn like Usher

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Eri on Tue Dec 22, 2015 5:44 pm

    LOL home sweet home


    _______________________________

    Sponsored content

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:36 pm