Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and “New Atheists” aren’t new, aren’t even atheists

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

I'm still asking for you to explain the relationship. You don't get to just refuse to answer and then lob another misguided rhetorical question my way. Do you know how the failure of reconstruction is related to those dynamics in the South?

Sorry. Take a deep breath, step back and check the posts. The question was not to me nor did I post the post you replied to. I merely commented on it.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Sorry. Take a deep breath, step back and check the posts. The question was not to me nor did I post the post you replied to. I merely commented on it.

You're right. I apologize. I rarely look at the poster's names, I just look at the quoted text and assume I'm replying to the person to whom the quoted text was addressed. My mistake.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

Almost all ideologies have absolutist adherents and potential.

So?

The difference between other ideologies and religion is that religion by its nature MUST be absolutist. Otherwise, the god of that religion could not be the One True God that everyone should worship. You're talking about ideologies that have absolutist adherents as opposed to ideologies which are themselves absolutist. There's a big difference there.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

But that's demonstrably false. Those things are not "always" wrapped up in organized religion.

Oh okay, you can bust my chops about using the word "always" if it makes you feel better. It's the only real 'victory' you're going to get from your rebuttal.

Yet how come, for instance, so many people who were against gay marriage went running for their Bible when asked to defend their position? Why is it that the Bible Belt has a bad voting history in terms of equal rights and the welfare of the poor and disabled? Oh, but of course there's no bigotry and hatred and tyranny wrapped up in organized religion. Never mind that the Bible actually gives a listing of people that deserve to be murdered on the spot - but no, there's nothing violent about these religious ideologies at all.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

This is a facile and reductive characterization that for some reason has gained a lot of traction within New Atheism. I would think there would be more critical thinking going on in that group.

You only want us to critically think our way into exonerating religion - and until that conclusion is reached, anything we say will be "facile and reductive." Perhaps it's gained traction because there's some truth to it; religion quite often greases the rails for evil-doers and tyrants. People are so afraid of angering or displeasing their gods that they'll agree to just about anything if they think their gods want it.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

That's simply not true at all. Have you done no research whatsoever into culture, religion, and violence? Have you read Pape, Cavanaugh, Kruglanski, or Pedahzur?

For one thing, I'm here to discuss my ideas and your ideas - not write book reports on what OTHER people have said. If you're nothing more than a talking mobile library, then there's not much point in moving forward. Secondly, it's easy to dismiss someone's argument by simply saying, "nuh uh!" and then appealing to authority by dropping some names.

If you don't have a rebuttal, then don't bother posting.

You say that my opinion isn't true "at all." Oh really? Because ISIS and Christians are getting along so well, aren't they. I heard that ISIS spent all last week knitting scarves for their brothers in Christ because they are so well-liked. That's just one example. What was all of that ethnic cleansing about in Bosnia-Herzagovina? Oh yeah, lots of religious grief with that, too. And on and on.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

That's a phenomenally ignorant mischaracterization of the nature of religion.

And that's a phenomenally ignorant bare assertion you just made. "Yeah, you're wrong because I say you're wrong ... and ignorant, too!"

As I used to say - all fluff and no substance.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

An incredibly silly rhetorical mischaracterization.

All condescending fluff and no substance.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

The same can be said for organized atheism. Millions have died at the hands of those who insist atheism is superior and cannot be compromised, to borrow your juvenile description.

Wow, you certainly are a smug little git, aren't you. I know how you like to use guilt by association to mislead people into thinking atheism was behind all sorts of dastardly deeds. Just as long as the ideology, like communism, has atheism in there somewhere, then atheism is the root cause.

What a bunch of unmitigated nonsense. For one thing, I never said atheism had absolutely clean hands so you're arguing a strawman. My point is that religion is far worse and has far bloodier hands. We've never really seen what a purely secular state can do - a state that endorses atheism WITHOUT all of the add-ons like communism and WITHOUT the twisted leadership like Stalin. In that sense, you don't even have anything to point to that can make atheism just as bad as a theocracy.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

A silly myth promoted by people who know very little about history. I doubt you could name a single war that had religion as the main catalyst.

Blah blah, silly, blah blah, juvenile, blah blah, facile, blah blah, ignorant, blah blah, knows very little about history, blah, blah ... notice a pattern yet?

Why I even bother talking to you is a mystery. I don't normally waste my time with people like you.

BUT ... just about every war fought against Israel has had religion at its core. Why do you think Israel believes it's entitled to that land, hmm? What about the Crusades which were sanctioned and ordained by popes in an effort to ... wait for it ... regain land holy to Christians! But nah, religion had nothing to do with any of that. The various popes and bishops just thought it would be a keen idea to capture land from the Muslims thousands of miles away - because that land was as good as any other land, I guess. What about the constant fighting between Catholics and Protestants? Shi'as and the Sunnis? No religion involved there that you can see, right?

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

By marginalized idiots that have been shouted down primarily by other religionists.

Except these marginalized idiots have their own television and radio shows and reach millions of viewers. Their books reach even more. Even on Fox, which is supposed to be a news station, has frequently engaged in gay and atheist bashing, not to mention thinly veiled racism. Just watch - I wonder how long it will be before Fox starts up its yearly "War on Christianity" hyperbole because it usually starts right around Christmas time.

Idiots, yes. Marginalized? Doubtful. Keep in mind that these marginalized idiots managed to get gay marriage banned in 34 states until the courts began ruling them unconstitutional. These people are hardly powerless and isolated.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

And one could easily turn around and say they can't even imagine the carnage that would have resulted if Stalin's League of Militant Atheists, that had no qualms about murdering people in any manner of different ways, were still in power.

The League was a "one-off." There has been nothing like it before or since, and it only existed under the fanatical climate Stalin provided. Sure, they killed several thousand priests and monks. My reaction is - so? I don't mean to belittle those who were killed, but you only have this one example where people were killed specifically for atheism.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

Ironic that you assert that right as you trade knowledge for ideological comfort (and will no doubt vehemently defend your naive comfort against knowledge).

More fluffy goodness from Daniel O. McClellan. Is that a rebuttal or a prediction? Perhaps you should call Madame Cleo or the Psychic Friends Hotline if you want to play that game. For as long as your post was, it came across as a giant puffball - really big but very little mass.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

Watch how vehemently you defend your false beliefs about religion and its nature.

Watch those lips a'yappin' and saying absolutely nothing. Just a lot of condescending fluff and a few truck loads of bare assertions. "Those beliefs you have about religion are false, dammit, and I don't have to explain why. Because I'm me, Daniel O. McClellan and I'm so bloody smart that anything I say has no need for substantiation!"

Next thing we know, you'll be doing Dos Equis beer commercials as "The Most Interesting Man in the World."

Heh, don't bother writing back.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by Shirina

So?

So distinguishing religious ideologies from others is artificial and rhetorically manipulative.

Originally Posted by Shirina

The difference between other ideologies and religion is that religion by its nature MUST be absolutist.

Completely and absolutely untrue. You're describing a specific kind of fundamentalist approach to religion that is in no way inherent to religion.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Otherwise, the god of that religion could not be the One True God that everyone should worship. You're talking about ideologies that have absolutist adherents as opposed to ideologies which are themselves absolutist. There's a big difference there.

But ideologies do not exist except as framed and expressed by adherents.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Oh okay, you can bust my chops about using the word "always" if it makes you feel better. It's the only real 'victory' you're going to get from your rebuttal.

Yet how come, for instance, so many people who were against gay marriage went running for their Bible when asked to defend their position?

Because that's what their subculture dictates in an effort to protect its own tradition and heritage. Many religionists also turned to the Bible to defend gay marriage, and very few religionists turn to the Bible to condemn mixing fabrics, which is condemned even more vehemently in the bible. It's not about the text or the ideology, it's about what's socially and culturally salient for the group. That changes with every generation and is always a reflection of their cultural context. No one really cared about abortion in the religious community after Roe v. Wade, but a few individuals framed it as an attack on Evangelical values and identity, and it then exploded as a huge issue.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Why is it that the Bible Belt has a bad voting history in terms of equal rights and the welfare of the poor and disabled?

Because the South has been poverty-stricken ever since the Civil War, which isn't conducive to advanced education and the proliferation of progressive values. Racism doesn't get fixed that way, it just festers. The failures of reconstruction have reverberated throughout the southern culture and economy down to the present day.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Oh, but of course there's no bigotry and hatred and tyranny wrapped up in organized religion.

Oh, there's plenty. There's also plenty wrapped up in secular culture. Religion does not spawn bigotry and hatred, humans do. Religion just gives it shape, just like any other ideology can.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Never mind that the Bible actually gives a listing of people that deserve to be murdered on the spot - but no, there's nothing violent about these religious ideologies at all.

Secular and other ideologies have also justified violence against innocent people.

Originally Posted by Shirina

You only want us to critically think our way into exonerating religion - and until that conclusion is reached, anything we say will be "facile and reductive."

No, I'm not exonerating religion. There's plenty to criticize, but you should be informed about it.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Perhaps it's gained traction because there's some truth to it; religion quite often greases the rails for evil-doers and tyrants.

So does nationalism, ethnocentrism, secularism, socialism, capitalism, etc.

Originally Posted by Shirina

People are so afraid of angering or displeasing their gods that they'll agree to just about anything if they think their gods want it.

That's a laughable misrepresentation of what motivates religionists.

Originally Posted by Shirina

For one thing, I'm here to discuss my ideas and your ideas - not write book reports on what OTHER people have said.

Great. Your ideas are naive and antagonistic assumptions, and mine are unbiased conclusions backed up by empirical data and decades of sociological research. Are we done now?

Originally Posted by Shirina

If you're nothing more than a talking mobile library, then there's not much point in moving forward.

So you've done no research. You're just assuming your way into these factoids and assertions.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Secondly, it's easy to dismiss someone's argument by simply saying, "nuh uh!" and then appealing to authority by dropping some names.

I'm happy to provide any arguments you want. So far you're the only one just flippantly dismissing stuff.

Originally Posted by Shirina

If you don't have a rebuttal, then don't bother posting.

You say that my opinion isn't true "at all."

Correct.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Oh really? Because ISIS and Christians are getting along so well, aren't they.

You mean the imperialist capitalists and the Arab communalists fighting against occupation and imperialism? No, they're not getting along. Are you really so naive and uninformed as to think religion is the core of that? What reason have so many recent converts to ISIS given for their conversion?

Originally Posted by Shirina

I heard that ISIS spent all last week knitting scarves for their brothers in Christ because they are so well-liked. That's just one example. What was all of that ethnic cleansing about in Bosnia-Herzagovina? Oh yeah, lots of religious grief with that, too. And on and on.

I cannot fathom a more asinine strawman. You cannot possibly think that I am suggesting there's no violence.

Originally Posted by Shirina

And that's a phenomenally ignorant bare assertion you just made. "Yeah, you're wrong because I say you're wrong ... and ignorant, too!"

Then show some actual facts that directly support your claim.

Originally Posted by Shirina

As I used to say - all fluff and no substance.

All condescending fluff and no substance.

There's that "Nu-uh!" you were so concerned about earlier.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Wow, you certainly are a smug little git, aren't you.

I can't hold a candle to you New Atheists.

Originally Posted by Shirina

I know how you like to use guilt by association to mislead people into thinking atheism was behind all sorts of dastardly deeds.

No, if you've been paying any attention, I've been using those examples to show the absurdity of your using guilt by association to blame religion for all the evils done by religionists. Obviously you missed the boat on that whole argument.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Just as long as the ideology, like communism, has atheism in there somewhere, then atheism is the root cause.

Pay better attention.

Originally Posted by Shirina

What a bunch of unmitigated nonsense. For one thing, I never said atheism had absolutely clean hands so you're arguing a strawman. My point is that religion is far worse and has far bloodier hands.

And my whole point is that that's a laughable misrepresentation. If we were just to count up bodies, the secular regimes of the 20th century would far outnumber anything you could uncover in the history of religion.

Originally Posted by Shirina

We've never really seen what a purely secular state can do - a state that endorses atheism WITHOUT all of the add-ons like communism and WITHOUT the twisted leadership like Stalin. In that sense, you don't even have anything to point to that can make atheism just as bad as a theocracy.

That's because there's no such thing and there never will be.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Blah blah, silly, blah blah, juvenile, blah blah, facile, blah blah, ignorant, blah blah, knows very little about history, blah, blah ... notice a pattern yet?

Yes, you keep responding to my case with different brands of "Nu-uh!"

Originally Posted by Shirina

Why I even bother talking to you is a mystery. I don't normally waste my time with people like you.

Or with research––er, sorry, "book reports."

Originally Posted by Shirina

BUT ... just about every war fought against Israel has had religion at its core.

Oh, is that a fact? It has nothing to do with occupation and the UN taking land away from them? It has nothing to do with violence against Palestinians? It has nothing to do with western support for Israel? Do you have the foggiest idea what these issues are really about?

Originally Posted by Shirina

Why do you think Israel believes it's entitled to that land, hmm?

Because it was there first. Israel is about ethnicity, not religion.

Originally Posted by Shirina

What about the Crusades which were sanctioned and ordained by popes in an effort to ... wait for it ... regain land holy to Christians!

I suggest you actually do some research on the origins and motivations of the Crusades.

Originally Posted by Shirina

But nah, religion had nothing to do with any of that.

It was an ornament and a lens through which those issues were projected, but no, it had little to do with the core motivations.

Originally Posted by Shirina

The various popes and bishops just thought it would be a keen idea to capture land from the Muslims thousands of miles away - because that land was as good as any other land, I guess. What about the constant fighting between Catholics and Protestants? Shi'as and the Sunnis? No religion involved there that you can see, right?

Catholic and Protestant violence is mostly about ethnicity and rule. Actual purely religious violence is tiny in scale and pretty localized. Shi'a and Sunni violence originated in dynastic fights, and these days it flairs up during power struggles between nations and ethnic groups.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Except these marginalized idiots have their own television and radio shows and reach millions of viewers. Their books reach even more. Even on Fox, which is supposed to be a news station, has frequently engaged in gay and atheist bashing, not to mention thinly veiled racism. Just watch - I wonder how long it will be before Fox starts up its yearly "War on Christianity" hyperbole because it usually starts right around Christmas time.

Idiots, yes. Marginalized? Doubtful.

The people who've done what you said are indeed marginalized.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Keep in mind that these marginalized idiots managed to get gay marriage banned in 34 states until the courts began ruling them unconstitutional. These people are hardly powerless and isolated.

The gay marriage fight is one they cannot win. It's an inevitability, no matter how powerful you think they are.

Originally Posted by Shirina

The League was a "one-off."

Oh, I guess it doesn't count then. Pot and Mao didn't have "atheist" in the names of their atheist regimes, so I guess they don't count either.

Originally Posted by Shirina

There has been nothing like it before or since, and it only existed under the fanatical climate Stalin provided.

Ah, so context matters when it's atheists doing the murdering, but not when it's religionists. I see.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Sure, they killed several thousand priests and monks. My reaction is - so? I don't mean to belittle those who were killed, but you only have this one example where people were killed specifically for atheism.

And one is enough to show that it's an ideology not immune to violence. It's the other factors that catalyze it, though, which is the same with religious violence. The distinction between religious and non-religious ideologies is arbitrary and manipulative when it comes to accounting for violence. I suggest you read Cavanaugh's book on the myth of religious violence for more info on that fallacy.

Originally Posted by Shirina

More fluffy goodness from Daniel O. McClellan. Is that a rebuttal or a prediction? Perhaps you should call Madame Cleo or the Psychic Friends Hotline if you want to play that game. For as long as your post was, it came across as a giant puffball - really big but very little mass.

So "Nu-uh!" again.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Watch those lips a'yappin' and saying absolutely nothing. Just a lot of condescending fluff and a few truck loads of bare assertions. "Those beliefs you have about religion are false, dammit, and I don't have to explain why. Because I'm me, Daniel O. McClellan and I'm so bloody smart that anything I say has no need for substantiation!"

Next thing we know, you'll be doing Dos Equis beer commercials as "The Most Interesting Man in the World."

Heh, don't bother writing back.

So "Nu-uh!" again.