is Fundamentalist Atheism? Do these people even know what they're talking about? I doubt it. More hatred and vitriol spewing from the mouths of the religious ignorant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'll be glad when apologetic Christians stop trying to compare their silly belief in mythology to Atheism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After that, you lost me.

I am an atheist. There is no proof.

I am, however, a highly moral human.

We need to pay attention to not what I say, but, what I do.

Other than that, it's all gravy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with Hedges on many points, like the fact that a lot of what Hitchens says is idiotic and borderline hateful, and that we blame specific religious beliefs for evils rather than blaming the license that people claim to commit horrible acts in their name.

These beliefs can be religious, atheistic, whatever. The belief itself is the problem; the idea that you have the truth and I do not can be quite dangerous.

Where Hedges loses the plot is trying to tie in Hitchens' beliefs, or Harris', with some kind of imagined organized atheism.

If he called his book "Why I don't like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens," I would be fine with it, but to denounce atheism and atheists because of these men is as ridiculous as Harris' attribution of the actions and beliefs of hammas and al qaeda to the entire muslim world. These men aren't the pastors of the non-religious. They are just guys who write books and get on TV.

At the same time, I see some value in what Hitchens does for the non-religious, because he argues against the entitlements the religious so often claim, and it is people like him who staunchly defend our right to say whatever we want.

I don't consider myself an atheist, because that is an absolute, a claim to the truth, which is where my problem with religion lies in the first place. I am merely a free-thinker, and frankly I don't care if Chris Hedges believes in me or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One thing that bothers me in these jeremiads against the "New Atheists" is the persistent inclusion of Daniel Dennett. Presumably this is because he publicly identifies himself as having a materialist outlook and defends it in books. However, this is where similarities with Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins end.

Richard Dawkins is an excellent publicist of science per se (see, for instance, his recent book on evolution, "The Ancestor's Tale"), he does not make good arguments for atheism, essentially because he lacks familiarity with the contents and history of religious belief. Hitchens is, so far as I can tell, an ex-Trotskyist contrarian who likes arguing for its own sake (witness his infamous debate with George Galloway). Sam Harris, though I haven't read him, seems politically motivated.

Dennett, on the other hand, is a philosopher who's written on the philosophy of mind and of science - particularly on the subject of free will (one of the best arguments I've seen for the compatibilist position that free will and physical determinism are not in conflict can be found in "Freedom Evolves"), consciousness (his "Consciousness Explained" is a canonical discussion for anyone interested in how minds can be made out of matter), evolution ("Darwin's Dangerous Idea" addresses all kinds of controversies around evolution, both genuine and bogus), and the interplay between all these. This tends to run up against religious critiques, and his positions on most issues mark him as materialist and naturalistic in outlook - and thus atheist, if "God" is understood to be supernatural. Thus his identification as "atheist".

Since religion is an interesting social phenomenon in its own right, he then turned to look at it from the point of view of evolution - why would human beings be wired for religious belief IF they evolved naturally? This was the book "Breaking the Spell", which apparently got his the label New Atheist (whatever that means) along with the above three polemicists. I can understand why those who find them offensive would want to lump him in the same group: to admit that there are only three would be a bit of an anticlimax, for one thing. But as a scholar he's much more humble than all of them - always tentative, always trying to give the most favourable possible reading to contrary positions, etc.

In fact, while I'd recommend anything Dawkins writes, as long as it's not about religion, Dennett is really the only one among the names usually linked with "New Atheism" I'd recommend on that subject.

Also, Hedges' comments that "all these guys" are avid supporters of the war in Iraq after listing names including Dennett's is disingenuous and misleading. Dennett wrote a strong statement against the war in the Washington Post last year arguing that it is precisely faith and the aversion to facts that led to the war in the first place.

This tells me, if nothing else, that Hedges is as ignorant of his target as he claims they are of religion (and as he says they claim the faithful are of everything else).

Whole lot of ignorance going around these days.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just as Fundamentalist Christianity uses religion to achieve the most un-Christian ends, so too does Fundamentalist Atheism use the spirit of agnosticism to foster intolerance and justify dominance over non-converts.

Once again we have some idiot trying to turn rational thought, logical argument, and preference for evidence over superstition into another form of religion. Sorry we don't wallow in your pre-rational mud pit.


Hitchens’ followers worship the personality of their jingoist god

You are over-stating your tortured case once again. I doubt that Hitchens has "followers", and doubt that he would WANT them. If someone wanted to be Hitchen's FOLLOWER, it's fairly likely that Hitchens would kick his ass for being a mindless fool.


just as much as he worships himself.

Of course Hitchens is an asshole...this is the one thing in your article that there is evidence for.


The role of philosophy, religious or otherwise, is to provide assistance in a person’s ongoing quest for truth

Philosophy and religion are two different things...the goals are different and the actors are different. You are probably attempting to legitimize religion by equating it with philosophy.


Then again, I could be wrong.

You are certainly right about that.

dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

“I Don’t Believe in Atheists” says Chris Hedges.

What doesn't he believe?: that there "aren't any atheists in foxholes" or some other classic belief espoused by religious people of folks that don't believe as they do? Those who claim to be, or are called, atheists are not spirits, we are right here in the flesh to study. So what's not to believe?

The countless atheists I've known during my long life don't have beliefs in any absolutes and therefore have nothing to proselytize as Hedges is doing in his condemnation of Hitchens for his proselytizing. Those comparative few who do proselytize rational thought are few and most, like Richard Dawkins, are preaching to the choir. An intelligent, rational choir. But, as noted, rational thought is not a religion.

The hundreds of atheists I've know examine information and what can't be proven is set aside so the mind can be put to more productive use.

One reader here says Richard Dawkins does not make good arguments for atheism. I respect that opinion, but think Dawkins has made many good arguments for rational thought.

Dawkins has helped those of us who do not choose to people our universe with invisible, unprovable spirits to explain why we don't believe in other peoples gods in the following statement:

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
–Richard Dawkins.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm so tired of people dismissing atheism because they claim it's an absolute. Look more closely.

Being an atheist can mean that while you haven't found any evidence of a god, you may still be looking for that evidence. In fact, such atheists are looking harder for a god than most believers ever did or ever will.

There are also atheists who actively say there is no god and have stopped looking for one because it is reasonable to conclude that without any previous evidence for a god, that there isn't one. How many time do you have to stick your hands in your pockets to know your keys aren't there?

There is no aspect of belief anywhere about atheism. Atheism is a refutation of belief as being in any way reasonable, logical, advisable, reliable and sound in any manner.

To frame atheism as an absolute or an equivalent belief to actually believing in god, merely the other end of a continuous extreme, is preposterous. Atheism is not the north pole to a magnet's south pole of Christian fundamentalism.

Creating the notion of fundamentalist atheism is a pathetic shelter for those somehow offended by the solid logic of denial in atheism. It sounds personal and it's as though they had their lunch money stolen by an atheist when a child and have been upset ever since.

They must be bothered by the certainty of gravity and the speed of light too, I bet. Scientists' insistence upon those two truths obviously must be fundamentalist too. How dare they walk around in their lab coats so arrogantly and spouting their bizarre "math" and "physics" and what not!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am an atheist. I absolutely think the existence of a God, particularly in the Judeo-Islamic-Christian tradition, is not just highly unlikely, but contradictory to any sense of inherent morality.

The same can be said about a particular lineage of atheists, who parallel the mindset of these monotheists. The inability to countenance complexity and multiple perspectives is a real problem leading to intolerance and even hate.

Interestingly, both groups agree on far more than they disagree. Mechanistic and reductionist, both fail to perceive the wonder and sense of meaning that can derive from one's biological being, and rather abstract out God as some awful judge in the heavens. Scientists do likewise by failing to consider any morality in their work (becoming increasingly difficult as most research funding is going into weapons development these days).

To transcend this, would also mean transcending Western Civilization, which may have brought material progress, but also exacted a heavy price from past and future generations, if not also the entire biosphere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What we believe in is not a problem; (organized) religion is the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The enemy is neither theism nor atheism, but fanaticism in whatever guise. There have always been significant numbers of both theists and atheists who are perfectly moral and upstanding individuals, but I have never heard of or known a fanatic who gives a fig for anything or anyone but his own ideology, and that makes him sociopathic and dangerous, just like the band of not-so- crypto-Nazis who have seized power in this land of ours over the course of the last eight years.

Hitch is simply oafish and egotistical and obnoxious, but he can't be faulted in his defense of rational thought. Rational thought needs no defense from anyone, not even him. Harris and Dawkins are eminently clear and reasonable in their arguments, although sometimes those arguments are, as with Harris and his defense of torture, unacceptable to me personally.

The only time rational thought needs defense is when denigrated or undercut by fanaticism, which is blind to all but itself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The words atheism and science both trigger similar reactions these days: it's associated with arrogant people who think they're above the crowd but they're really fundamentalists much like the worst religious zealots. Oh yeah - and they're not all like that.

But there is something seriously wrong with this kind of relativism. Both atheism and science are concerned with truth ,with what it means, and with how close you can get, and with how to get close to it. Both have good reason to claim the upper ground when truth is concerned. All this knowhow is ignored and it's too important to throw out.

The weaknesses of atheist attitudes lie in what to do with those truths. Radical rejection of any form of God concept as 'untruth' is common, confrontational, and not exactly wise.

The concept of God, with some abstractions and tweaking can be like the concept of honesty or the concept of the mechanics of the universe. Honesty exists and is valuable.

So what if people anthropomorphize a bit too much here and there? In principle I don't mind, people shouldn't get hung up about it. But there are a few dangers to watch out for. A personal and authoritarian God who tells you(or a qualified translator) to go and beat the snot out of that guy over there can mobilize a crowd to do 'bad things'. This is both a matter of organisation and the 'style' of the God.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Watch the first part of Zeitgeist to get some insight of how much of a crock of shit that christianity is.

Religion retards human thought. Before you vocalise your inner monologue, I do believe that there is a higher force than human existence, but I am not so feeble minded to think that organised religion has any bearing on what that force is. I am more inclined to believe that pure energy is the higher power in the universe, not some masochist sitting in a cloud judging all your actions. To believe in such things is so profoundly ludicrous that it boggles the mind.

The bible is the greatest marketing scam every perpetuated on the human race.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fundamental atheism is a problem like any other fundaementalism in any religion. Many are against the fundamentalism in Islam and Christianity, why is fundamental atheism any better?
And it is evident that many atheist believe that religious people are complete nuts. If y'all don't believe me, look at the posts above. Atheists complain of the oppression of religion, but they are close minded, too. Many people believe in God or a Supreme Being for a reason. I'm a Muslim and I believe in God, but I'm not irrational. I sincerely believe in God. I don't care what others say about me. I'm a Muslim, but I'm liberal too.

So, fellow liberals, can we stop fussing about differences in personal ideology and focus on expelling the Republican swine from Washington D.C.?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The role of philosophy, religious or otherwise, is to provide assistance in a person’s ongoing quest for truth, not to allow a suspension of rational thought by providing you with a final and absolute answer."

There it is.

But it is not the "role" of Philosophy, Science, Ethics to "provide assistance" in this quest. These Words are but Names, Labels or "Signifiers" (for those 'post-moderns amongst us) which serve and help us to organize and order all our activities, including reasoning, singly or in collaboration with other human beings, in questing for such truth. And even these Labels have no fixed and absolute Fences, Moats, Walls or Castles around them as we go forward in this Questing.

Subtle but crucial difference, and one which launches us into historically vast and deep journeys into "rabbit holes" and traps.

What this article points out is that this is not so much a question of Philosophy as it is a question of IDEOLOGIES, each one positing itself as Absolute Truth and carried out not by reason-ing but by Assertions, a great many of which cannot be tested and verified but must be accepted on FAITH. It is sign of a high degree of success that the Radical Conservative Right has accomplished shifting so many of our discussions and questions onto these terrains. But of course! They believe in Absolute Power.

Begin with unprovable, untestable and unverifiable assumptions and premises, end with unprovable, untestable and unverifiable conclusions. It always seeks other ends or goals, not truth. And such ceremonies and 'battles', here and in 'The West' as in other regions of the world have lasted a surprisingly long time -- even 2008 years and longer! That we should BELIEVE that we are a privileged epoch with certain privileged human-beings who can bring this to an Absolute Answer is but the sign of a Hubris of the greatest magnitude. And it is a danger of the greatest magnitude as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Read Plato on the "Prime Mover." Then, use your rational thought to refute Plato.

Use rational thought to logically disprove that the universe (or universes) is/are infinite.

Scientists examined the Turin Shroud and came to an impasse. It stumps the sciences of today, yet it is relegated to an "obvious" manufacture at the hands of someone contemporary with the "mythical" person known as the Christ.

At best, when science approaches the essence of religion, its mysticism, Science, Logicians, "Free Thinkers" and Rationalists lump together all that is beyond their grasp as "superstition." The same is true, but not identified as such, of "scientific theory."

One difference between theology and scientific theory is that one admits the limitations of humankind to explain the infinite and the unknowable while acknowledging that there is, logically, a Prime Mover beyond comprehension. The logician, on the other hand, is paradoxically not a "free thinker" in that one is not free to accept the limits of rational thought as the means to explain everything, as if it is but a matter of time before all mysteries of the infinite universe will be explained "scientifically."

Some scientific theory is superstition; attempts to prove its viability will never be successful.

Logic is useful and necessary in the world, but it can never demystify Mysticism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and i totally agree with the use of the term "fundamentalist atheist" for exactly that reason. Atheists state, with often grindingly excessive certainty, that there is no god, period. Agnostics say that anyone who claims certain knowledge about the true nature of the universe is full of shit (or at least i do). People like Dawkins and Hitchens would have so much more credibility if they didn't go so very way too far.

and the silly analogies that people come up with to defend the certainty of atheists (if you look for your keys five times and they aren't there, then they aren't there) are just as lazy and smug as the credulous loops that other fundies love to nurse on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When AlterNet passes on such nonsense as this from Hedges and Hartmann it identifies itself as the far left wing counterpart to Fox News. There's already more sophistry, misrepresentation, and ignorant opinion on Fox than we can stand. We don't need any more from AlterNet. Please stick to real issues that matter, like news that the mainistream media won't touch and leave the garbage to Fox.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These subjective assertions as to what atheists "believe" and the certainty of these "beliefs" are growing tiresome. "a-" is a prefix which means "not" or "without", therefore an atheist is "not a theist" or "without theism." This, as waitinforwaits succinctly put it, is an absence of belief, , not a belief that God certainly does not exist. Furthermore, agnosticism simply means either that the existence of a god is ultimately unknowable and/ or unprovable, or that it is unknowable/unprovable at this time, pending direct, empirical evidence. There are also agnostic theists who believe that the existence of god is unknowable and believe in god anyway. A lot more people than one would think are agnostic theists, Christians who say they don't know for sure but still believe.

To view these terms on a scale of belief from theism to atheism with agnosticism somewhere in the middle is to misunderstand the terms entirely.

As an atheist, I reject the notion of theism for lack of evidence. I do not live my life with the mindset that there is a god or creator or that this god watches or influences my life or the world in any way. However, as an agnostic, should evidence for a god or creator emerge, I would be compelled to adjust my beliefs.

These terms are not contradictory or mutually exclusive.

And another thing, atheists are not fundamentalists. I'm sure many if not most or even all atheists would like to see more and more people remove belief from their understanding of the world and rely on critical thought, but no atheists are building churches or organizing missions to 3rd world countries to convert anyone. As in the world of science, all ideas can be on the table, but the purveyors must not shrink from criticism or public scrutiny.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

anyone caught between fundamentalists.. right or left, is trapped by an ideology driven know nothingness on every side.... they are invariably "correct' where they could have been prescient

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let me state at the outset, unequivocally, that I am an AlterNet enthusiast. I read the articles daily, email many to family, friends, and colleagues, and, like many other consumers in this society, look forward to the occasional video-link to interesting but largely ignored newsworthy stories. However...

The reappearance of this story leaves me scratching my head. Is AlterNet trying to push this author's book? Is AlterNet a site governed by those who subscribed to the new spiritualism? Why does such a seemingly inconsequential story--when compared to Iraq, black sites, civil liberties infringement, torture, poverty, global warming, the 2008 presidential election, misogyny, etc., etc.--get resurrected?

Although it may seem that I am implying an answer, I don't intend to. I am genuinely befuddled by the reappearance of this story. I am sure there are those smarter than I, more insightful than I who understand the apparent significance of keeping "fundamentalist atheists" in the spotlight. If you are such a person and find yourself reading my post, please enlighten me.

I love to read. I love to stay informed, especially on those topics the MSM would rather not discuss. However, I like to consider myself a media gourmet, not gourmand. How did this piece of tripe get placed on the AlterNet buffet again? There aren't enough seasonings or sauces available to make it remotely palatable.

FYI: My title was meant to be provocative, not serious. :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Then again, I could be wrong."

Yes, you are.... WRONG. Christopher Hitchens' success is based on his courage to tell the truth in common sense terms the American people understand in their hearts, which mirrors what they/we have felt about religion for a very long time: that religion is a centuries old, power induced trance on human beings, based on sexist, homophobic, racial lies, that has been imposed on humans in order to control them and to justify violence, to gain power, in the name of their frenetic and cruel god.

Anyone with half a mind can understand this when they hear religIous leaders pick and choose unrelated 'facts' or 'quotes' from their bible in order to cobble together 'rules' for others to follow.

Religion is a cruel hoax on humanity.

The 'Golden Rule' could be appropriately translated to: JUST STOP IT.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All I would like is for someone who "believes in God and all he created" (like this whole planet & everything on it?) to explain where, exactly, "Heaven" would be. Ummm, out in such extreme cold outer space no-one could survive in it? The dark side of Mars, perhaps?
.
And why are my friends and relatives so shocked because I don't believe there is such an entity as *God*, much less believe that a little gaggle of people--who didn't wear any clothes and ate a lot of apples in that garden---started this whole over-population thing?
Adam/Eve/Cain and Abel? Oy, such a family!

The ultimate ignorance of too many humans? The parents of the 11-yr. old girl who died (a few days ago) because her parents believed "God will heal her" so they prayed at her bed-side instead of calling a physician to help her and who would easily have saved the little girl?

And BTW, who are these self-righteous people who turn up their noses at anyone who openly declares they are agnostic or atheist? Hey! I'm 77 years old, retired and having a great time volunteering more hours now to help animal welfare organizations. And keeping up with my political weblog and! seven yrs. of writing my own blogpage. [meandthecat.com]

Believing in "God" isn't going to make me any better a human being than I have tried to be for (most)of those 77 years! LOL

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My response when the issue of "atheism" or "belief in God" arises is curiosity about the words.

So if somebody asks me, "Are you an atheist?" or "Do you believe in God?" I give the same answer. "What do you mean by the word atheism?" or "What do you mean by the word God?"

The conversation that follows is usually more interesting to me than a direct answer to the question, and I might say "yes" or "no" to either question, depending on how that conversation goes. Maybe I'd gain the benefit of learning something about the person I was talking to.

Dan Nissenbaum

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

T