Are the self-styled leaders of New Atheism bigots or not?

[Starboard Tack]

Last edited Mon Jul 21, 2014, 12:39 PM - Edit history (1)

There is much heated discussion around here surrounding Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and their "bigoted" comments. They are seen by many as spokespeople for atheists.

"The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists." - Sam Harris

Hitchens speaking for himself: On the use of cluster bombs by the US in Afghanistan

If you’re actually certain that you’re hitting only a concentration of enemy troops…then it’s pretty good because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. And if they’re bearing a Koran over their heart, it’ll go straight through that, too. So they won’t be able to say, “Ah, I was bearing a Koran over my heart and guess what, the missile stopped halfway through.” No way, ’cause it’ll go straight through that as well. They’ll be dead, in other words.

Hitchens speaking about himself:

I should perhaps confess that on September 11 last, once I had experienced all the usual mammalian gamut of emotions, from rage to nausea, I also discovered that another sensation was contending for mastery. On examination, and to my own surprise and pleasure, it turned out be exhilaration. Here was the most frightful enemy–theocratic barbarism–in plain view….I realized that if the battle went on until the last day of my life, I would never get bored in prosecuting it to the utmost.

Hitchens had a reputation for being an internationalist. Yet someone who gets excited by mass murder—and then invokes that excitement, to a waiting audience, as an explanation of his support for mass murder—is not an internationalist. He is a narcissist, the most provincial spirit of all.

Only a writer of Hitchens’s talents could do justice to the culture that now so shamefully mourns him.
http://coreyrobin.com/2011/12/16/christopher-hitchens-the-most-provincial-spirit-of-all/

"Haven't read Koran so couldn't quote chapter & verse like I can for Bible. But often say Islam greatest force for evil today" - Richard Dawkins

Here is an excellent link from Glenn Greenwald's column in the Guardian, discussing the anti-muslim animus shown by Sam Harris and the New Atheists.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus

Owen Jones pretty much nails it in his criticism of Dawkins' bigotry towards muslims in this piece from The Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/not-in-our-name-dawkins-dresses-up-bigotry-as-nonbelief--he-cannot-be-left-to-represent-atheists-8754183.html

Both Dawkins and Harris have exposed themselves as bigots, not by "finding fault with religious beliefs and ideas", but by broad brushing in an attempt to demonize billions of people.

I agree 100% with Owen Jones. These men do not represent me in any way, nor do they represent the majority of decent people who happen to be non-believers.

[CBGLuthier]

1. Of course they are. I do not even call them atheists. For years now I have called them

antitheists. They are as obsessed with god as any of the religious and they "preach" intolerance as surely as any pulpit-pounders.

They do not speak for this atheist either.

[Brettongarcia]

71. Of course they are not. They reject all forms of "God," including - but not limited to - Islam.

And in turn, it is not "bigotry" to reject religious intolerance, religions killing nonbelievers. In fact, "freedom of" - and freedom from - religion, is a major principle of Democracy.

Is Democracy "bigot"ed?

Such contentions are so wrong-headed, it is impossible to describe it.

[intaglio]

2. Leaders - What F'n leaders?

Get it out of your thick skull that atheism is organised. There are no Bishops, Cardinals, Lamas, Priests or Imams.

There are individuals who are atheists, some of whom join into small bands to disseminate the general ideas of atheism and its benefits. Some people speak strongly in favour of atheism and their ideas on atheism are widely shared, it does not mean that any other thoughts they utter have any value or meet with wide approval.

Look at the parallel: many people trust the words of a priest or an imam or a rebbe on astronomy, women and contraception; atheists do not trust their speakers on any subject except atheism because they know that these speakers are not divinely guided and can be just as bigoted as any other person in the general population.

Now a short glossary
atheist - a person finding no necessity to think a deity exists or needs to be worshipped.
New Atheism - a self defined group of atheists who think it is time to be much more aggressive in the dissemination of atheist ideas and concepts.
Atheism plus - a self defined group who think that atheism needs to be disseminated but that other aspects of ethics cannot be ignored when discussing atheism or being an atheist.

Two blog posts by P Z Myers that might enlighten readers:
I get e-mail 35
Responsible Atheism

[Starboard Tack]

3. You really need to learn some manners.

Last edited Mon Jul 21, 2014, 12:58 PM - Edit history (2)

Did I say that atheists were organized? No. The three self-styled leaders, proponents and spokespersons of the New Atheist movement are perceived as leaders by many antitheists who share their bigoted views toward muslims and other people of the book.

So, now you have educated us on the definitions of atheist and New Atheism, are you saying that you don't trust these individuals when they speak about religion? It is really hard to imagine these characters talking about atheism without voicing their views on religion. The books they publish would be pretty slim and not very appetizing for their audience.

[intaglio]

4. You point out that the 3 people mentioned are styled (by some) as leaders

That does not mean that the leadership you assign to them has any reality. These people Shermer, Thunderf00t, Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Stephen Fry and Penn Jillette are highly visible and all, to a greater or lesser extent arseholes and as such their apparent prominence leads fools to tar all atheists with the same brush, or to decide they are a "problem"

Well you say that atheism should do something about these persons - well guess what they are doing something, it is called Atheism plus. You imply that the only prominent persons being forthright in their selling of atheism are these terribly flawed persons highlighted; but you ignore all the others - Neil Degrasse Tyson, P Z Myers, Bill Nye, Tim Minchin, Hemant Mehta, Rebecca Watson, Amy Davis Roth, Richard Carrier, Greta Christina ...

As to politeness, you seem happy enough to post uniformed nonsense about atheists but somehow you ignore the far endemic problems with real religions (as opposed to imaginary ones). Where are your posts on people like Cardinals Pell and Marcinkus or the members of Opus Dei and how they are a problem for Catholicism. Where are your posts about Patriarch Kirill and the problem he poses to Russian Orthodox Christianity because of his profiteering from cigarettes and his actions towards Pussy Riot? Surely you could have posted about the anti-female actions of the Greek Orthodox monks at Athos and Meteora. Where is your condemnation of Rebbe, Joel Teitelbaum or Rabbi Elimelech Meisels and the problems they pose for Judaeism. What of the numerous Imam who teach the subjection of women and the destruction of all non-Muslim persons? Perhaps politeness might be shown if it was not obvious that you have a particular axe to grind.

The people within religions all have or have had real authority to do harm, they are not just talking heads spouting foolishness that most atheists disown.

[Starboard Tack]

8. Good. Glad to hear that you do not subscribe to their bigotry.

Why do you care about my "other posts" that have nothing to do with the OP. We can have those conversations in other threads, so please don't try to derail this one.
I'm sure there will be plenty to discuss here when Dawkins disciples decide to chime in. Then you'll have the opportunity to deal with some really thick skulls.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. Leader and Proponent are not synonyms.

[Starboard Tack]

9. I edited slightly. Hope it meets your approval.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. At what point have they called themselves 'leaders' of 'new atheism'?

[rug]

14. The consensus is the term first appeared in Wired Magazine in 2006.

http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html

It was coined by Gray Wolf, an agnostic.

MY FRIENDS, I MUST ASK YOU AN IMPORTANT QUESTION TODAY: Where do you stand on God?

It's a question you may prefer not to be asked. But I'm afraid I have no choice. We find ourselves, this very autumn, three and a half centuries after the intellectual martyrdom of Galileo, caught up in a struggle of ultimate importance, when each one of us must make a commitment. It is time to declare our position.

This is the challenge posed by the New Atheists. We are called upon, we lax agnostics, we noncommittal nonbelievers, we vague deists who would be embarrassed to defend antique absurdities like the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying, or any other blatant myth; we are called out, we fence-sitters, and told to help exorcise this debilitating curse: the curse of faith.

The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking.

Three writers have sounded this call to arms. They are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. A few months ago, I set out to talk with them. I wanted to find out what it would mean to enlist in the war against faith.

While not called a leader, Dawkins therein was called "the leading light of the New Atheism movement", a term he might enjoy since he likes the term "Brights" for the modern, or new if you prefer, atheist movement. (And yes, they call it a movement.) http://www.the-brights.net/movement/

Now while Dawkins, in his immense humility, would never call himself a leader, he has yet to object.

[Starboard Tack]

18. What would you call them?

Leaders? Leading lights? Proponents? Superstars? Advocates? Narcissistic blowhards?
It really doesn't matter. They are quoted and doted over by many of our antitheist brethren and yet the consensus here appears to be that these three are bigots. Do you agree with that assessment?

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. 'prominent New Atheists' might be suitable; 'self-styled' means they said it themselves

so I expect you to be able to back that up.

If it doesn't matter, then delete it - you specifically edited to put it in.

No, I don't think they're bigots. They specifically set out their reasons for not liking Islam, which is a belief system that claims all its followers freely choose it. It's not bigoted to say a political belief system is evil, and it's not bigoted to say a moral belief system is evil.

But if you can't understand what 'self-styled' means, then maybe you can't understand about opinions, either.

[Starboard Tack]

20. OK, you support these bigots. Thank you

I'm not here to play word games with you Muriel. I don't give a damn who calls them leaders, but the fact is they are perceived as leaders, whether they intended it or not is irrelevent. People follow them, they coo over them, they defend their bigotry on boards like this.
You don't see them as bigots because you apparently agree with them. They don't see themselves as bigots either, yet their bigotry is well known, as can be seen by their writings and statements. It is clear to most of us, as can be seen by the responses here.

Your honesty is appreciated.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Ha! After replying to your idiocy below, I find you say "I'm not here to play word games"

That's exactly what your post below is - playing word games, by doing a Humpty Dumpty and defining a phrase to mean what you, and only you, want it to mean.

What a waste of space this thread is.

I notice you haven't tried to respond to my point about religions being something that followers choose to believe in, and thus something that it's fair to attack. Just like communism or capitalism can be attacked.

Your honesty would be appreciated. If you "don't give a damn who calls them leaders", then remove the "self". Admit that it's you calling them "leaders". Just like it's you calling them bigots. You're very good at name-calling.

[Starboard Tack]

25. I'm not the only one who calls them bigots or leaders.

Read the other posts here. Read the links I've provided from fellow atheists and antitheists who agree with me. You may think it is a waste of space. Obviously, you don't understand how "space" functions in the digital world. The only space being taken up is the space in out heads, unless you're saving stuff on your hard drive.
I stand by my claim that they are self-styled leaders of New Atheism and the "Brights".

I call them bigots because, once again, that is how they have presented themselves to the world. I find that most unfortunate, especially because I agree with much of what they say and stand for. I am disappointed in them, as are many more atheists, who share so much with them, but not their overt bigotry.

Extreme narcissism is not a trait exclusive to RW televangelists, or fascist dictators, but is also common to those who get a tad carried away with themselves and their sense of self-importance.

Now, about my honesty and my calling them "leaders", or "self-styled leaders". I am calling them that, because that is how I perceive them. This is my OP and I'll edit it as I choose. You can call them anything you like, but you are not my editor. I am very good at name-calling, you are correct, especially when I'm accurately describing someone.
Do you have any other name-calling of mine you'd care to discuss?

[Starboard Tack]

21. BTW, "self-styled" does not mean they said it themselves.

It means they presented themselves to the public, in such a way, that they were perceived as leaders, or "horsemen of the apocalypse" along with Daniel Dennett.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Bollocks. That's complete rubbish. I am a native speaker of English

and you can't get away with crap like that. It's laughable. I know what 'self-styled' means, and so do the vast majority of people reading this. You are destroying your own OP with nonsense.

[Starboard Tack]

26. Rhubarb to your bollocks sir! You are not the only native speaker of English

You seem to have locked onto a rather narrow definition of "self-styled", not to mention "leader".
It doesn't mean they have to announce their supposed leadership from the rooftops. They are presented as such by their acolytes and admirers, and thus perceived as such by most others. Sorry if that doesn't suit you, but that's the reality of it.
I didn't invent this description of them. I got it from their supporters, people like you.
I was just a happy atheist doing my thing until I came here and fellow DUers began encouraging me to read Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens.

The New Atheism
Taking a Stand for Science and Reason
Victor J. Stenger
From Prometheus Books.

In 2004, Sam Harris published The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason which became a major bestseller. This marked the first of a series of series of bestsellers that took a harder line against religion than has been the custom among secularists: Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris (2006), The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (2006), Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett (2006), God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Goes Not Exist by Victor J. Stenger (2007), and God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007) by Christoper Hitchens.

These authors have been recognized as the leaders of a movement called New Atheism. The unexpected interest in New Atheism, as measured by book sales and much increased media attention, has driven Christian apologists to distraction. A whole raft of books has been published in response, largely from Christian publishing houses. Most are marked by shoddy scholarship (almost all of those I have sampled lack an index), misrepresentations of atheist views, and inaccurate quotations. None have sold anywhere near as well as the atheist books.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/battle.html

I am not destroying my own OP with this nonsense and neither are you derailing it. Thanks for you concern, but the thread is going fine.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. You don't know what 'self' means

Maybe you have forgotten?

[PassingFair]

107. Writers? nt

[Starboard Tack]

108. Writers indeed. And very good writers too, I might add.

Unfortunately, they have also made some pretty nasty bigoted remarks, as mentioned in the OP. Do you have any comment in that regard?

[PassingFair]

109. They are good writers. They are not infallible.

Unlike the Pope.

[Starboard Tack]

110. Oh, do you think the Pope is infallible?

I don't. He's just a guy trying to do the right thing in a tough situation, not too different to Obama in that sense. Far from perfect, but with good intentions.
So, do you think it is OK to call people out when they make bigoted remarks, or when we disagree with them? Or should they get a pass because we happen to like them otherwise?

[Warren Stupidity]

15. *snort*

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Hitchens was a sexist and a warmonger.

Dawkins seems to revel in some level of sexism as well, possibly.
Harris seems to fit the template of an islamophobe.


So fucking what. These people are NOT MY MOTHERFUCKING LEADERS. Not my monkey, not my circus. Anything they say is either true or false, sentence by sentence, and no reflection on me or any other atheist that does not subscribe to XYZ specific comment.

They are no more or less than any other mammal with the power of speech.

[Starboard Tack]

7. I agree wholeheartedly.

They are not spokespeople for me either.

[Starboard Tack]

22. That's how I feel about the Pope

Not my leader. Anything he says is either true or false, good or bad and no reflection on any other catholic or atheist.

[cpwm17]

42. I agree with you completely

As I say: Hitchens or Harris are not my popes. I use that when atheists condemn me for criticizing either of them, questioning whether I am really an atheist. They are all the types of atheists that don't understand the difference between criticizing religion and dehumanizing an entire people.

Of course the religious are also guilty of turning them into some kind of religious, atheist leaders.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Hitchens specifically would have been saddened and angered to be surrounded by nothing but

bobble-heading yes-men.

I agree, for some reason, there's some veneration going on there, in the broader atheist populace. It is not exactly healthy either.

[rug]

10. Yes, and they are influential bigots.

[Starboard Tack]

11. From what I'm seeing so far, they may be losing their influence

We appear to have a consensus at this point that they are neither leaders, nor very palatable. Quite refreshing.

[Htom Sirveaux]

12. I haven't heard a single bad thing about Daniel Dennett.

And there are many outspoken atheists that I can't comment on one way or the other. But yeah, the other three "horsemen" have or had issues.

[Humanist_Activist]

16. Both Hitchens and Harris went off the deep end, Dawkins just pointed out some historical facts...

also rightfully pointing out that the Islamic world WAS the leader of discovery for a significant portion of time, until religious restrictions help restrict such discovery and scientific advancement until we get to where we are today in many parts of the world.

[Starboard Tack]

17. So,are you agreeing that Harris and Hitchens turned out to be bigots?

And are you saying that Dawkins is not a bigot?

Here are some more links for your perusal.
This one is from an anti-theist, who points out Dawkins' bigotry towards Islam
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/05/1198774/-An-Anti-Theist-s-Defense-of-Islam-and-Why-Richard-Dawkins-is-a-Bigot#

This is from 2009 and points out Dawkins' bigotry towards Catholicism
http://www.isabigot.com/2009/11/richard-dawkins-is-a-bigot/

[Humanist_Activist]

36. Yes, because Hitchens supported the Iraq war, and initially supported torture, Harris supports...

racial profiling of Arabs. Dawkins criticizes the Catholic Church and Islam as a whole, and people scream bigot while quote mining him. Frankly I find both posts you linked to do be classic examples of this, hell look at the debate on the thread that follows both, these are opinions of biased people, particularly the one from isabigot.com, where the poster of that post purposely confuses Dawkins criticism of the Church with Catholics in general, when it was obvious he was talking about priests and those in leadership roles.

Same thing with the article calling him a bigot against Islam, you know what, I largely agree with him, in many instances Islam is worse than even Catholicism. Historically they are both equally as bad, but contemporarily they are not, mostly because Catholicism is largely waning in much of the world. There are exceptions, such as what that post points out, by the way, do you think the poster on DailyKos is bigoted against Catholicism? I find the fact that you posted to both of these amusing, they compliment and demolish each other's arguments.

I'm sorry, I can't take a person who won't even call Pope Francis a bigot for attacking the existence of same sex households as families seriously.

[Starboard Tack]

37. So you support Dawkins and don't consider him bigoted toward muslims.

This quote from the antitheist sums it up.
"Religious extremism is the problem. Not necessarily Islam. Islam is no more evil than any other religion. And when people like Dawkins try to assert that it is it not only makes him look ignorant but bigoted."

I don't know what you mean by your last paragraph about Pope Francis. It doesn't make any sense. Maybe I'm getting old. Do you have a link to something I might comprehend?

[Humanist_Activist]

39. Again, the dishonest conflation of Islam with Muslims, or the Catholic Church with Catholics...

Again, he isn't bigoted towards Muslims, but is a fierce critic of Islam, learn the difference, damn, is it really this hard to comprehend?

As for my last paragraph, sorry, forgot some pronunciation.

Here, let me reword it into a question. Do you think Pope Francis is a homophobic bigot?

[Starboard Tack]

40. Read the links on Dawkins and Islam

Islam is muslims. He attacks them, in general. It's late here,gotta sleep and don't have the time to go through it all right now.
No,I don't think Francis is a homophobic bigot. But feel free to convince me otherwise. I have an open mind.

[Humanist_Activist]

45. For fuck's sake, the man who calls same sex marriage something straight from the "father of lies"...

calls same sex parenting child abuse is NOT a bigot, but Dawkins is?

Are you fucking serious?

ON EDIT: Honestly, I'm not too surprised that you don't think he's a homophobe, you have compared same sex marriage with marrying a hamster after all.

[Starboard Tack]

59. You have some serious problems.

Your personal attacks are only matched by your incoherence.

[Humanist_Activist]

61. This coming from a poster who labels Dawkins an Islamophobe for saying things not even...

in the same ballpark as offensive to Muslims as what Pope Francis has said against LGBT people.

Just admit you are an apologist for a homophobe and move on, preferably to a different board than this one, one more acceptable to your leanings.

[Starboard Tack]

64. Hey buddy, you move on if you don't like the OP

This thread is not about the Pope,or homophobes, or LGBT. You want to talk about those things, start your own thread and quit trying to derail this one.
I didn't label him an islamophobe, he did it all by himself. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Humanist_Activist]

67. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, if you have a problem with that, too bad...

you know, in the other thread, my post to you got hidden, the amusing parts was even the people who voted to hide it said that you should be put under MIRT scrutiny.

[Starboard Tack]

74. Your smears never cease, do they?

If I were to make up shit about you being a homophobe and throw it into post after post, some idiot would probably think it might be true and suggest MIRT scrutiny. Obviously, you don't care about your posts being hidden, as long as you can get away with your false accusations.
Is this the new mantra in nurse Betty's knitting group "Throw enough shit at them and some is bound to stick!"?

I don't mind you pointing out my hypocrisy, btw. I acknowledge it and strive to eliminate it. We are all hypocrites at times,to one degree or another. Also,we are all bigots,to one degree or another. It is one of the unfortunate aspects of being human. As fellow liberals and progressives, it is healthy that we acknowledge this, so that we may work to overcome our prejudices and fears of those who are different. Self awareness is essential to personal growth, which in turn, is essential to advancing our common cause.

I don't belong to any groups, or teams, or religions. They don't agree with me and I don't agree with them. I operate as an individual and either respect, or disrespect others as individuals, without prejudice in terms of any group, team or religious affiliation they may subscribe to. The fact that I identify as a liberal atheist does not mean I respect all others who identify as "liberal atheists", nor does it mean I disrespect all those who identify as "conservatives", "Republicans", "Zionists", "theists", "libertarians", "2nd amendment absolutists".

[Humanist_Activist]

77. In order for them to be smears they have to first be false.

So you are admitting that you hold atheists to a different standard than religious people?

[Starboard Tack]

81. No! I hold leaders and representatives to a higher standard.

Be they atheists or religious or political or just public figures, they should be held to a higher standard, because they are role models.

Regarding smears, of course they have to be false, or imaginary, or distortions of the truth to suit the smearer's agenda.
They are very common around here.

What do you think of people who sling shit at other DUers, who can't respond, from a "Safe Haven", with vitual impunity and then retreat to Nurse Betty's Knitting Group on Facebook to plan strategy on how to get the "religionistas" banned from DU?

[Starboard Tack]

95. How have I smeared Dawkins? How and from what am I defending Pope Francis?

This OP was not about the Pope, but atheist leaders. I respect Dawkins as a scientist and as a writer. I even like him as a human being, but I object to his bigoted comments toward Islam and I question his attitude toward women. He is a public figure, and as such, is subject to scrutiny and criticism. If you choose not to defend his remarks, then so be it. But attacking me personally does little to support your cause, whatever your cause may be.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. No, he doesn't seem to be.

Dawkins might rate a particular faith more or less destructive than another, but that's something quite apart from what Harris does.

Dawkins alleged bigotry is around gender, not religion, actually.

[Starboard Tack]

50. He said "Islam is the unmitigated evil in the world"

That is a broad brush insult to every muslim.
I heard about the gender thing too. I think he's just sexist, which could be interpreted as bigotry, depending how extreme it is.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. No it isn't.

You mistake attacking an idea, with attacking a group of people that hold an idea to be true. And this is a very serious issue, because the decline of scientific discovery in the middle east is directly linked to this question and what he was trying to get at.

That's also not an exact quote, nor does it convey context.


"“We are terrified of being called ‘Islamophobic’. It is a disgrace a religion prescribes death for leaving it. The vast majority of Muslims would not dream of doing that, but they are taught it in their madrassas… and it only takes a minority to put that into practice. And, as we have seen, terrible things happen.”"

Tyson is more articulate about the problem, Dawkins is a bit more of a dead-blunt asshole about it. They convey the same message though.

Edit, this is the tone of debate for the English on this issue.

I think it's important to keep the fact that he is British in context.

[hrmjustin]

27. What is the difference between a new atheist and the older school or thought of atheists?

[longship]

32. Nothing other than they are speaking out and writing books.

So I would suspect. If one had done that a very few centuries ago, one would be killed. That is also the reason why people are more or less demonizing these guys. (Interestingly, nobody seems to be demonizing Dennett. I suspect that's because he has much less exposure.)

Regards.

[hrmjustin]

33. Hitchens views on God never bothered me really. It was his views on foreign policy I could not

stand.

[longship]

34. Uhhhh! Yup!

He was definitely wrong about Iraq.

He was always a gracious person, though. People who knew him, liked him. (I imagine, except Jerry Falwell, of whom Hitch said "if he had an enema he could have been buried in a matchbox", certainly one of the best quips ever. He did not suffer people who abused their belief.)

[AtheistCrusader]

48. He at least put his money where his mouth was on the torture piece.

I give him credit there.

But his middle east foreign policy was utterly deplorable.

[hrmjustin]

49. He was always honest. He must be given that.

[Trajan]

29. I have no problem with anti-religious commentaries

One cannot be against religion?

One cannot be against Islam?

One cannot be against Christianity?

BS ...

[Starboard Tack]

30. Neither do I, nor anyone else here, I imagine.

The OP is not about anti-religious commentaries. It is about bigotry. I suggest you read the links in the OP and others throughout the thread.

[AlbertCat]

96. It is about bigotry.

No it isn't.


It's about atheist bashing.... like you accuse them of religious bashing.

Got a mirror?

[Starboard Tack]

98. Nonsense. I am not a masochist and it is not about bashing anyone.

I don't accuse them of anything. I happen to like all three, but they are all on record as having made bigoted remarks, and unless they address those remarks to my satisfaction, I will call them on it. I have no interest in defending religion, as I hold no religious beliefs. But I do have an interest in scrutinizing the remarks of those who presume to speak on my behalf.

Maybe you don't care what they say, or maybe you agree with everything they say, even if it is rife with prejudice. Personally, I don't want to be part of the atheist version of the Westboro Baptist congregation, blindly following the leader, even when the leader has left the reservation.

[longship]

31. This is a very difficult judgement.

I like Dawkins and Hitchens... a lot. Both of their four horsemen books are well written and well reasoned. Dawkins focuses on science and Hitchens' is a straight polemic, as one would expect. I've read Sam Harris' The End of Faith twice, and I've not yet grasped what he is about. Certainly, there is nothing there with which to agree, or not. But I can agree with both Dawkins and Hitchens in many respects.

Note that this does not mean that I agree with them in all aspects. When Dawkins strays away from biology, he often turns people off -- me, too. And Hitchens was entirely wrong about the Iraq war. However, Hitchens may have been one of the most gracious and pleasant of the horsemen. Certainly, when he was on his book tour through the Bible Belt to promote god is not Great, he debated theists at every stop. All of them attested to his politeness and often asked him to stay for a rematch. Hitchens, although a bit of a curmudgeon, was a very nice guy.

I rather prefer Daniel Dennett and Victor Stenger. Both argue about theism from a more pragmatic sense, Dennett as a philosopher, Stenger as a physicist. I like Dennett's argument that we need to study religion in a scientific sense in order to understand it. Like him, I do not object to people who believe in gods. Rather I would hold those in the pulpit accountable for their pronouncements and actions. They are supposedly educated in their trade and should answer for what they say. His book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon is a landmark and is IMHO the best of the best of the new atheist books.

Stenger has argued that a personal god has been disproved by science. I agree, however I also understand that many would disagree. Regardless, I find that discussion a very interesting one. His book, God, The Failed Hypothesis is a thought provoking read, whether one believes, or not.

Regardless, I find all five of these atheists to be interesting and often provocative -- a good thing, I think. I agree with all of them in part, and at least a couple of them in whole. I do not demonize a person for my disagreeing about a single issue, or a public pronouncement. I certainly do not judge people that way.

[Starboard Tack]

41. Ah, if only it were about liking people, what a wonderful world we would live in.

I also liked Hitchens, for the most part. He was charming, intelligent, witty, and as you say, possibly the most gracious and pleasant of the "horsemen". I'm sure I would have enjoyed his company. I feel pretty much the same way about Dawkins. I feel a natural affinity to them both, having grown up in the same society at the same time, with similar education and privilege and the same metamorphosis in terms of religion. Only difference was I didn't become famous by publishing books about the evils of religion. Nevertheless, I did spend close to a year working on a manuscript, in collaboration with a friend and former priest, that was a strong denunciation of the Catholic hierarchy, and an expose of corruption, pedophilia and other crimes within the walls of the church in Italy.

My point is,that one can discuss the evils of the church or a particular religion,or religion in general,without insulting millions, or billions of people. Just as we can discuss the evils of US foreign policy and global intervention without insulting the American people, especially those who feel a sense of patriotism. Personally, I loathe patriotism, but I respect patriots. Pretty much the same with religion.
I don't care who I'm talking to, but when bigotry enters the conversation I either call 'em on it, or I walk out. And that's how I feel about Hitchens and Dawkins. The danger with being famous is, many people hang onto every word these guys utter. Well, if Dawkins said it, it must be true. A slip of the tongue can get a lot of mileage. With fame comes responsibility. I'm sure, like many public figures, they wished they hadn't voiced certain thoughts. But, as deep thinkers, they should have thought a little longer, at times, before opening their mouths.

I'm with you on Dennett, a very interesting guy and from what I see, keeps it respectful. I like his religion is part of evolution idea. Stenger, I'm not familiar with.

Thanks for the input. Must sleep now. It's late here

[rexcat]

35. On the other hand...

Are those who are suggesting these "leaders" of the atheist movement are bigots is probably a better question.

[Starboard Tack]

43. Not sure I understand. Is that a statement, a question, or what?

Doesn't make sense. Sorry.

[rexcat]

51. I am suggesting...

that those who are calling the self styled leaders of the atheist movement bigots are the true bigots. In other words those who are calling Dawkins, et al, bigots are the true bigots. I would also say there are some here on DU who would fit the definition of bigot.

My apologies for being too subtle. In my first post.

[Starboard Tack]

53. How are they being the bigots?

That's a lot of people you are calling bigots.
Do you consider Dawkins et al a race, or some group of people who are being sunjected to harassment, or prejudice because of their religious beliefs, their sexuality, or their ethnicity or skin color?
Do you understand the meaning of the word "bigot"?

[rexcat]

65. Please don't bother to lecture me...

on bigotry. I have been on the receiving end of that one for a long time. Why would you even bring up this issue other than it fits your view of Dawkins, et al. Petty and disingenuous on your part. It's similar to one who seems to always bring up the white male privileged bullshit. A total lack of genuine interest in the topic but more of an exercise in flinging cow manure.

You may or may not be correct that I may or may not be calling some in this forum bigots. All I can say is if the shoe fits...

[rug]

69. I notice he never did answer you.

[Starboard Tack]

100. Now he answered me twice, with both gloves.

I'm thinking someone slipped something into his Whiskers. Please, tell me I'm wrong. Nobody could be so lacking in imagination.

[rug]

101. Never get between a dog and a bone.

Unless, of course, you're holding a shovel.

[AlbertCat]

97. Do you understand the meaning of the word "bigot"?

I thought resorting to definitions was the last resort of bigots.

Anyway, that's what I read right here on DU.

[Starboard Tack]

99. You must be kidding, right?

And now you are responding to Rexcat's posts. Unbelievable!
Did you cats get confused there for a moment? Couldn't remember which one was which?
I know the feeling. I have several email addresses and sometimes I get confused. It can be quite embarassing at times.

Anyway, Albert/Rex/whatever, defining words is kinda important, especially when some people don't understand the meaning of certain words. Membership on DU only requires a basic understanding of the English language.

Now, I suggest you go check the dryer.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. Compared to most religious leaders, no.

[okasha]

44. Please define your scale for "comparison."

Then give us some data on how you determine how many religious leaders constitute "most."

[rexcat]

56. Warren Stupidity's comment...

seems more of an opinion therefore to ask for "data" seems absurd.

Maybe one day you will provide posts of substance instead of pure shark but I don't think I will hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

[okasha]

60. My posts are pure tilapia, I assure you.

Are you saying that this particular poster should be exempt from any burden of proof or substantiatiation? Or does that exemption apply to all DU posters?

[rexcat]

68. I did not say that....

But I have not seen any of your posts on this forum that has not been anything other than was not snark in some time. I also agree with Warren Stupidity's comment that is in play here. He did get in right, in my opinion.

[okasha]

70. So do you have anything to substantiate

your opinion about his statement?

If someone says "Jesus was miraculously conceived by a virgin and returned to life on the third day following his death, in my opinion, " then do you think "in my opinion, " obviates any burden of proof or need for substantiation? How about an "opinion" that pink unicorns live and breed in Palo Duro Canyon?

[rexcat]

90. If someone would tell me...

about "Jesus was miraculously conceived by a virgin..." I would not need to have that person substantiate their opinion. There would be no need because once they say something that silly I am no longer interested in their opinions, much like I am not really interested in your opinion about any matter noted in this forum since the only thing you seem to be capable of is snark and sarcasm. On the other hand I am sure we agree for the most part on social and political matters except for your "old white privileged men" meme. That does get old after awhile and does not move the conversation forward.

By the way pink unicorns don't breed in Palo Duro Canyon, everyone knows they breed along the River Styx.

[okasha]

94. If my posts bother you, don't read them. Simple.

Sorry, but the unicorns are in Palo Duro. Freaked out my Panhandle Baptist cousins on their last trip there.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Oh now we need evidence?

Did you make the same complaint regarding the OP?

Do I really have to present evidence of the rampant bigotry in religion?

Since the OP gets to anoint the leadership of atheism, I'll pick the Westboro Baptist Church and its now in heaven former head as the top leaders of theism, in addition I'll put up Louis Farrakhan, Ali Khamenei, and Henry Luke Orombi, Cyprian Kizito Lwanga and Metropolitan Jonah Lwanga of the Uganda Joint Christian Council. I'll throw the pope and the entire college of cardinals in for shits and giggles as they all officially support both misogyny and homophobia.

For comparison I'll weigh them. If the leaders of theism outweigh the leaders of atheism, I'll consider the case closed.

[okasha]

62. So you don't feel you need to substantiate your statements with facts.

So noted.

[Starboard Tack]

78. I didn't anoint them. Their flock anointed them and they didn't seem to complain

As,you rightly point out, the flock of nasties at the Westboro Baptist Church anointed Phelps as their theist leader. All out Christian brethren here have made it clear that Phelps did not represent them. I and other atheists here, are making it clear that Dawkins and company do not speak for us. That is all. Just as as you and some other antitheists do not speak for us. Most of us are just plain old atheists. We don't believe in deities, period. We have no agenda to convert the religious, or demonize believers, or to stir up anti-religious fervor, for "shits and giggles".

It is not a balance sheet. It is not about who is the biggest asshole. It's about those who claim to represent a widely held philosophical point of view, making bigoted comments which reflect on all of us.
Same as when you guys huddle in your "Safe Haven" to lament the attacks made here against "atheists", when you know full well that we are not attacked here for our atheism. The so-called "attacks" are directed at antitheists who display intolerance toward believers and toward fellow atheists who dare to espouse tolerance of religious beliefs.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. You don't understand the term "self-styled".

But I've weighed all the tonnage of bigoted leaders of theism and compared their weight to the tonnage of bigoted leaders of atheism, and basically it is a wipeout. There are zero tons of atheist leader-bigots, quite a few tons of theist leader-bigots. Bigotry in rampant among your theists, not so much among my atheists.

[Starboard Tack]

83. Well Warren, I oppose bigotry, regardless of its origin.

I don't own any atheists or theists, or subscribe to any relevant teams or groups. I am an atheist by definition, not by subscription. You. apparently, find the need to defend bigotry when it is displayed by those you otherwise respect. I have a lot of respect for the individuals mentioned in the OP, but I do not defend their bigoted remarks.
Why do you have such a problem with that? It's like a religious fundie defending the literalism of the Bible. That's what we call "extremism".

[Warren Stupidity]

84. Do you? Or do you think gay marriage is equivalent to bestiality?

You seem to confuse marriage and sexuality. The first is about a ceremonial binding of two entities. The second is about sex.
Who are you to tell me I cannot marry my dog, or my brother, or my mother, or my fucking bicycle, if I so wish. You don't get to decide these things. Sorry to disappoint you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124676

[Starboard Tack]

85. No Warren, I don't think marriage, gay or otherwise is about bestiality or sexuality

I think marriage is a very personal thing and is not something others have a right to define. It does not have to involve sex. It is a binding of two or more entities, period.
I do not judge anyone concerning their views on marriage, provided they do not interfere with anyone's freedom to choose their own partner.
My use of those extreme examples was to reinforce my belief that marriage should be an entirely personal choice and nobody else's business. It was, in no way, meant as a criticism of gay marriage, something that I have actively supported since the 1960's. I attended my first gay wedding in Denmark in 1969 and first fought for gay rights in the UK in the early 70's. I continue to support gay rights and many, not some, but many of my dearest friends are gay couples, some married, some awaiting state laws to change in their favor and some happy to be just partnered.

If you bothered to read the quote you posted, you would not ask the question about bestiality, which is about sexuality, and has nothing to do with marriage. Believe it or not, there are people who are married to their pets. That does not mean they have sex with them. http://www.marryyourpet.com/

You got my post hidden. Congratulations! But as we are on the same side it accomplished nothing in terms of our common cause. You are not the first to try to paint me as a homophobe, but nothing could be further from the truth.
I know I ruffle feathers, but I refuse to support intolerance and bigotry. That's just the way I am.

[Warren Stupidity]

88. I didn't alert. A jury found you homophobic nonsense

offensive. I'll take their opinion over yours.

[Starboard Tack]

89. Why would you take their opinion over my explanation?

And why do you insist that I am homophobic? There is nothing homophobic in any of my posts and you know it. I understand that some antitheists feel animosity toward me, because I call them on their intolerance and rudeness, but is that really a justification for making shit up and creating smear campaigns? Why would you do that?

Here's another link concerning marriage. Tell me honestly, do you think these folk are homophobic? Heck, some of them married themselves. How the fuck can that be homophobic?
http://thefw.com/weirdest-marriages-of-the-world-photos-videos/

If you didn't alert on my post, then I apologize. I can only assume it was someone from Nurse Betty's sad little group.

[Warren Stupidity]

91. Because in my opinion comparing gay marriage to marrying a bicycle is offensive

homophobic nonsense.

[Starboard Tack]

93. Except I didn't do that, as I explained.

So,why do you insist that I did when you know that my post had nothing to do with homophobia, and that I support gay marriage.
Do you think I'm lying when I say I support gay marriage? Do you think I'm lying when I say I've attended and celebrated gay weddings? If so, please tell us what my motive might be for making false claims.

Or are you left with the bicycle thing? Is that what is troubling you? Let me help you,if that is the case. I made an absurd post. That I admit. But I did so to make a point, which I have explained many times. The bicycle was thrown in because I happen to be very fond of bicycles. I have ridden them, pretty consistently, for about 65 years. I love bicycles. No, I haven't considered marrying one, but if people can marry the eiffel tower, their cats and dogs, and even themselves, then why not their beloved bicycles. In my world, anything goes. Does that mean I am, in any way, demeaning the love shared by two human beings? No!

I truly hope you get what I'm trying to say, because I mean no offense to anyone, including you.

[Starboard Tack]

75. I'll take that "No" as a conditional "Yes"

How about compared to the Dalai Lama?

[Warren Stupidity]

80. Well I take your "atheism" as "theism" so that makes us even.

[Starboard Tack]

82. OK, if you say so

You are priceless, Warren!

[Warpy]

52. It seems you are proposing electing a POPE to arbitrate doctrinal purity

for people who have rejected doctrine.

Good luck to you and the Cubs.

[Starboard Tack]

54. Where do you get that idea?

Just the opposite in fact. Do you have any thoughts on the OP besides that?

[Warpy]

55. Your post signals a desperation to find some atheist who speaks or writes books

and who will speak for you and all other atheists on matters of consequence.

That's a POPE.

Good luck to you and the Cubbies.

[Starboard Tack]

63. Nothing could interest me less than some atheist writing books

The OP is about some who write books a nd pretend to represent all atheists.
Most atheists, imo,don't want or need representation or spokespeople.
Thanks for dropping by.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Dawkins writes some very high quality books on genetics and biology.

I wouldn't rule him out on those grounds. He also doesn't seem to be pretending to represent all atheists either...

[skepticscott]

72. He isn't, and never has

But some desperate people need to pretend that he pretends to do that.

[Starboard Tack]

76. I agree. I have much respect for him as a scientist and as a writer.

Of course he doesn't speak for all atheists, but he does speak from the atheist point of view, which behooves those of us who have issues with certain things he says, to challenge him, especially when he makes statements that are widely interpreted as being bigoted.

I think these guys are important, but their fame puts them under extreme scrutiny. As such, they are held to a higher standard, as are politicians and religious leaders. Maintaining the intellectual high ground is pointless if you lose the moral high ground. That's when you become your own worst enemy.

[okasha]

73. Yes.

[cleanhippie]

86. No.

[Starboard Tack]

87. Does your "No" mean you agree with the quotes in the OP, but don't think they're bigoted?

Last edited Wed Jul 23, 2014, 05:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Or do you excuse them for making such bigoted remarks?
Or do you believe they didn't actually say those things?

[randys1]

102. Ah, I am not a member of an organized political party, I am a Democrat

this thread proves that Democrats are obnoxious and loud and opinionated and very unlike any rightwinger or conservative do NOT march in lockstep but instead think for themselves.

Thank God

[rexcat]

103. Anyone who criticizes religion of any type…

criticize someone's religious beliefs and that person is going to feel attacked. There seems to be a persecution complex going on, especially with the Christian sect. Dawkins and some of the others have been taken out of context more times than not, which does not help and other times they make awkward statements (shit happens). Hitchens did have some issues but he was honest about it. The label "bigot" for Hitchens was appropriate at times. His critic of religion was spot on more times than not (my personal opinion and for some I am not going to supply any data to back it up so don't ask).

Your point concerning extreme scrutiny is a sad but valid point. There will always be someone who will nitpick something just to bring up a negative about the person or the comment they made. I don't think there is anyone on this planet, dead or alive, who is or was so perfect they don't make verbal mistakes. There are a lot of mountains made from mole hills concerning this issue.

I can say I don't agree with Owen Jones. For Jones to "quote" multiple tweets by Dawkins to make his poinbt takes away any creditability with me. He also seems to jump to some really "interesting" conclusions in his screed you linked. If you go down to the end of his screed there are more dislikes than likes concerning his "article." I wonder why. Jones has done nothing more than a hack job which you appear to agree with. That is a class act on your part ST. I am not going to put the sarcasm thingy up since it should be obvious to everyone, including you.

If you want to get down to brass tacks everyone is a bigot in some way. At this time in the history of mankind fundamentalist Muslims are a concern. On the other hand there are fundamentalist Christians in this country and other countries who are a concern. You can probably say that about any religious group and some non-religious groups. When violence is a means to an end that should be a concern for everyone.

Religious people tend to be very sensitive about their belief systems. It is hard to pin religious people down on how they can determine what is allegory and what is real in their holy book, except for the fundamentalist. The fundamentalist seem to be the most honest concerning their belief system since they see their version of the holy book as "all literally true" (simple minded but honest). I can go with pure allegory with any religious belief but I don't think I know anyone who is religious that can quite go there. There is always some literal truth for the faithful or the whole thing falls apart and becomes irrelevant.

[Starboard Tack]

104. Thank you for a thoughtful post.

I agree with most of what you say here. Though I'm not so sure about the last sentence. I think for some it is all allegory, except perhaps for the creation part, but even that can be interpreted metaphorically. At least that's how I saw it when I thought I was a believer.
My last attempt at finding a belief system that might work for me was a look at Taoism, which I embrace on an individual, philosophical level, but reject on a religious institutional level.

[rexcat]

105. I discovered the Council for Secular Humanism...

And self identify as a secular humanist. Paul Kurtz founded the organization but died in 2012. The organization is not the same.

[Starboard Tack]

106. I am pretty much on board with secular humanism too.

I am wary of organized religion, though, even when it doesn't necessarily identify as a religion. Organizations tend to set rules, which usually leads to some kind of dogma, no matter how limited. Also, I have not closed the door completely on the metaphysical. I am highly skeptical, even of my own experiences, but remain open, to a degree, to concepts such as the "soul". Though I do agree that these things should not control important decision making, Nancy Reagan.