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]

The, 'so called', new brand of Atheists are incredibly cruel, refuse to debate an argument, intolerant of many, actually all but "THEM".
When I had grown weary of hearing an ongoing hatefest that is a regular thing on a newsblog elsewhere, I just observe, I posted all casualties, along with their names and ages, which seem to get left out frequently. I wanted people to see that there are actually 19 year olds murdered daily with families and that they were not number 4000, faces, ages, kids. They responded with guffaws and despicable words so unkind all I could see were these peoples Mothers and Fathers sobbing faces. I cannot comprehend that depth of apathy. Unforgivable.

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

For anyone who does not know it, Chris Hedges is a "mainstream" Christian. Like Jim Wallis, he decries the "Christian Right" AND the "Secular Left". This is a new breed of Christian activist who call others to the causes of poverty, social justice, environmental concern, etc., but under the auspices of serving their god.

Christopher Hitchens is a pompous ass, and a flaming neocon to boot. Even though it seems a contradiction in terms, since the Religious Right seems to be in control of the neocons, there are some atheist/agnostic conservatives/neocons/Republicans, etc.

There is no reason to believe in God, I suppose, but yet, I still do. While most of my views are closer to atheism than to Christianity, I still believe that there is something bigger than we are.

I am a Deist. There does seem to be some confusion about Deists here. But, like Unitarians, we are believers without dogma. Some Deists believe in a personal god, and that prayer works. There are "spiritual" Deists who believe in a rather Napoleon Hill-ish philosophy of positive thinking. There are modern Deists who believe that there is a god, but that god does not intervene in the workings of his/her creation.

Deists view the rational mind as being much more reliable than books of mythology written by bronze-age scribes. We view nature itself as our only "holy book". All we need to know about God is right there all around us.

www.deism.com is a good place for more information about Deism, and links to other sites, as well as links to Deist writings available online. There is also forum you can join if you want to.

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

Oh, my...expletives deleted.

Why don't ALL the progressive, liberal, populist, center to left leaning people her get into a BIG ol' pissin' contest over who has the "most speshul brand" of future bad-karma reduction system??

In the mean time, let's let senator McNasty and his Good Christian Army, inherited from the Bushes and eventually, from ol' Ronnie Reagan just continue to sell us off to the highest bidder??

Keep up your bickering, boys and girls, but start learning Chinese...

Me, I'm gonna TRY to keep the vote fair, get the vote out and STOP THIS SHIT!!

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

The Fundamentalist / Atheist:

I must consider myself to be an Atheist - as I have NO evidence of any God in reality.

Believers, who claim that there IS a God, also have NO evidence in reality.

Without the Bible and the supernatural myths that make it up, there would be NO Judeo-Christian God.

Without both the Judeo-Christian Bible and the Koran, and the diabolical insanity that makes them both up, there would be no Islamic Allah.

The Islamic Allah and the Judeo-Christian God is the same one insane God of Abraham.

Both mythical, tyrannical religions display their Deity’s promise of “Eternal Torment” if not completely obeyed. Both religions demand the blood of the disobedient and the not conformed. Then the Deity outright lies by claiming there are no favorites.

As the http://www.thegodmurders.com/id91.html web site displays, I am a fundamentalist "critic" as it is Bible Chapter & Verse that I take issue with.

Because of my taking issue with this heinous, mythical, multi-named Deity, I cannot disagree with being labeled a “Fundamentalist / Atheist”.

Regards,

Gary DeVaney

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

Religion is like a house built to last forever except the centre of its gravity is on one brick which pulled out causes the whole thing to collapse. And on that brick is written "There is a God". In many ways the house is an attractive one, and many of its occupants have had a beneficial influence on the world, but it won't do for the future, the new "house" must be humanist - i.e. rationally based and inclusive - not for a subset of but for the whole of the species.

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

spin than ligitimate discussion or arguement. Individual beliefs are deeply personal and should remain that way.
When one tries to convince me (and themselves) their beliefs are superior or morally correct, I say...whoa...WTMI.
I don't want to hear about it any more than I want intimate details about their sex lives or a lack thereof. Endless discussions and debates are for those who harbor endless personal and internal doubts.

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

Fundamentalist Atheism? Give me a break. Alternet, seriously, what is going on in your heads over there by posting gibberish like this? I find it hilarious that religious dolts can only find ways to criticize atheists nowadays by comparing atheists to themselves. It used to be that they'd never want to find common grounds with atheists. And now that religious idiocy is losing ground, they will do anything, even make up things like "fundamentalist atheism", to keep their fingers in society.

There is no such thing has organized atheism. You cannot take one atheist and even pretend that he or she represents a "sect" of atheists, because there is no such thing.

Next thing you know, they will start calling coffee shops as atheist chapels.

Alternet, ugh. Why are you wasting our time and your space with this gibberish? Seriously?

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

I have long argued that fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, etc.) are atheists; that their fanatical belief systems mask a fundamental doubt; that their rabid xenophobia is an external objectification of that doubt. The new atheists, represented more nobly by Richard Dawkins and less nobly by Christopher Hitchens, suffer from a similar fanaticism. They talk about reason and science and evolution in absolute terms, but their fervor masks the suspicion that they like many of us hold; that the age of reason and science has run its course and is ultimately incapable of securing the future of earth or humanity. Framed another way: Visit a Wal-Mart Supercenter on a Saturday and tell me you still believe in evolution or the moral effectiveness of religious dogma. There is a third way with hope for a future, but xenophobia needs to exit the forum.

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

"Then again, I could be wrong."

Yes, you could.

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

Alter Net screwed up when it thought that most of its readers, those who comment anyway, would carry a rational thought past the phrase "fundamentalist atheism." It just goes to show a variant of Hedges point about the lack of critical thought by people so invested in an identity. Truth doesn't bruise easily, because hell it's truth. It's people's egos and the worldview that sustains them that wail out in most of these comments.

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

I don't believe in the existence of any god. A god or god's may exist, I just don't believe any do.

But, given the natural inclinations of humankind, I am glad most of the world population believes in some sort of "god." For I believe without the majority belief in some supernatural power of "god," our existence would minor a Mad Max movie. We all would be living in a mean, horrorible, brutal world, if this is possible to imagine.

[« 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."

Please explain how investing in a faith that an invisible omnipotent patriarch who lives somewhere in the sky, one who has the power to create everything we know and snuff it our like a candle, but who nonetheless has the time, interest, and inclination to monitor each individuals' behavior from birth to death in order to decide whether to subject them to infinite torture for eternity after their demise is anything but a suspension of rational thought?

How can inculcating an impressionable youngster with such nonsense be anything except child abuse?

How is it supportive of a quest for truth, in any way, shape, or form?

You may not like reality that much, and that's your prerogative. But there can be no doubt that more people have died in the name of what you defend than over any other single issue in the history of mankind. And they continue to die over whose fairy tale is more correct.

I find that to be evil to its very core, and if that makes me worthy of being called a fundamentalist, so be it. But that assertion is only a salve blocking your emotional wounds from contact with the healing air. The fact remains that atheism is not a belief, any more than a desert is also a flood. Deal with it.

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

The rise of "fundamentalist atheism" does appear to mirror the fundamentalism that exists in Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other religions.

When I see with my own eyes Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Humanists, Agnostics, Sikhs, Buddhists and many others working together for peace, to end poverty to reclaim the planet, then I know each is serious about what s/he believes. In the scriptures of each of these traditions and ways of living is contained a message calling followers to do such productive and useful works. This strengthens my faith in human beings who covenant with one another to build community and live sustainably.

I have seen it with my own eyes and know it exists. How can I persuade you that I have seen this? Will you believe me?

In a climate of fear and uncertainty it becomes easier to understand why people cling to religious traditions. In the same way, people gather in families and enjoy looking at objects and photos from previous generations and share memories of ancestors. These are precious things that remain constant in our lives regardless of what tomorrow brings.

This "fundamentalism" of both religious and atheists that Christoper Hedges presents threatens the erasure of history, tradition, lifestyle and useful knowledge. This happens throughout history when one group of people conquers another. Through a remnant of conquered people preserving writings and traditions, the present generation has a gift of insight into the lives of ancient people.

So, rather than expunge religion, thought and tradition from the pages of society, a more careful understanding of the role of faith, thought and tradition should be preserved. The story of people coming together in common cause regardless of religious or non-religious background will be the greatest gift we could give to future generations.

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

...with vapid bloviators who are not equipped to discuss sdpecific topics. As Hartman and Hedges here are. At least, Hartman admits he is not equipped. But once he does that, he should be quiet and educate himself. Hedges is just making noisenoisenoise, flogging his books. Neither of these gentlemen is trained in how to tease out the various strands that make up the fabric of such a discussion on religion or atheism. Hartman doesn't even know what "agnosticism" means - a problem readily solved by a quick glance into a dictionary...a course I would strongly recommend for anyone wishing to wade into this swamp of ignorance.

Sorry, Tom, but you're usually much more meticulous!

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

Could someone please explain to me this sentence:

"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."

To take this sentence on face value, it means that Fundamentalist Atheism corrupts Agnosticism. But given the first half of the sentence--Fundie Christians doing un-Christian things--shouldn't it the sentence read that Fundamentalist Atheism does un-Atheist things?

I hate to nit-pick here, but this sentence basically bashes all of atheism, because it skips past the idea of fundie atheists corrupting, uh, regular atheists and goes straight to agnostics, implying that there is no such thing as a non-fundie atheist. In other words, liberal and moderate atheists are in fact agnostics (?), thus making all atheists appear to be extremists. Some clarification here would be great.

A few other questions:

* Can there be such a thing as a fundamentalist agnostic? Namely, a school of thought that looks down upon any group that makes definitive statements about faith and divinity?

* In light of the fact that humanity has worshiped many, many different gods across many, many different cultures, isn't monotheism essentially an extremist position?

* What exactly constitutes a fundamentalist position, anyway? Does this mean that when, say, a Christian sings a Christmas carol that says "let earth receive her king" (with the king in question being the Christian savior Jesus and thus the ruler of all things on earth), I am NOT to interpret that as a fundamentalist statement? Just wondering...

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

I very much agree with this article. Believe me, I have encountered many atheist intolerance and insulting name-calling of ALL religious people. The problem is that some (notice I say "some"-big emphasis, not all) atheists lump all Christians together. There IS a difference: progressive and conservative strands of religions-whether it is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. To lump all religious people in the same boat is just as insulting as lumping all athesists into the same category. Just because one is a spiritual progressive doesn't mean that one rejects science or that one is anti-gay or anti-choice (in fact, it is the total opposite). Anyway, for more information on spiritual progressives, visit:
www.spiritualprogressives.org or www.myspace.com/spiritualprogressives

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

Why is Mr. Hitchens our leader? He's arrogant, but he's correct, religion does more harm than good. His book is clear, you don't have to be religious to be moral. Why do religious figure fear that? Is it because they aren't needed by us? Don't confuse the message with the messenger.

Tex Shelters

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

Why is Mr. Hitchens our leader? He's arrogant, but he's correct, religion does more harm than good. His book is clear, you don't have to be religious to be moral. Why do religious figure fear that? Is it because they aren't needed by us? Don't confuse the message with the messenger.

Tex Shelters

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

You'll note that the author goes to pains to talk about how 'un-christian' Christianity has become, and how 'intolerant' Hitchens is for wanting to bring the Muslims to reason. The big offense that Hitchens commits, to a diversity cop, is possibly saying something true about an ethnicity or faith that isn't on the official 'bogeyman list', like white men or Christians.

Let's face it, Arab leaders are using Islam as an 'Opiate of the peoples', indoctrinating citizens from a young age into a religion that teaches violent hatred of the other (west, infidel, etc.). In this way, they keep the negative energy of their kingdoms directed away from what they truly hope to preserve - class privilege and a feudal power structure.

I go with Hitchens.

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

Isn't it strange that few modern believers would say that a lack of belief in Zeus or Pan or Athena or Thor or an entire host of other "immortals" is a "fundamentalist belief"? Not believing in gods whose lack of existence is generally accepted is almost never disparaged, but not believing in the god of Abraham (Jewish, Christian, or Islam) is somehow different for so many people.

If there is little or no evidence that a specific god with specific powers has performed specific acts thousands of years ago as reported in texts written by people who believed the earth was flat and never heard of bacteria, why is it "fundamentalist" to not believe in this religion?

Atheism, as opposed to many individuals' concept, is not an absolute belief that no higher power exists. It consists of a very strong scepticism concerning religious dogma or an omnipotent, omniscient, and also loving god.

"A" means "without," not "against." It is not true that atheists "hate" god or "hate" Jesus." What is true is that they don't BELIEVE in god or Jesus as depicted in the Bible or in churches. Some atheists and agnostics "hate" the violence and destruction religion has perpetrated, but this is not the same thing as hating god per se.

A general lack of belief is not the same thing as a fundamentalist belief in a certain religion. To equate atheism or agnosticism with fundamentalist religious dogma is really stretching the point. Christians don't believe that Apollo gets in his chariot and drives the sun around the world, that Thor creates thunder with a giant hammer, or that Poseidon protects or condemns sailors while they are at sea. This does not make them "fundamentalist non-believers."

I dislike Christopher Hitchens' warmongering, hatred of Islam, and jingoistic rhetoric about Muslims as much as anyone. I was glad when he no longer wrote for The Nation. However, it is ridiculous to equate lack of belief with any hardcore belief in a religious doctrine.

Agnosticism and atheism are not beliefs; they represent lack of belief. That lack of belief encompasses Native American creators, ancient Celtic gods, Nordic gods, and those that were supposed to reside on Mount Olympus as well as the god of Abraham and all his manifestations. Agnosticism and atheism do not consiste of absolutes; their adherents most often search for or at least accept knowledge and increased understanding. Anyone who wants to call this "fundamentalism" is welcome to do so, but it's pretty far off the mark.

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

Hello! -- Given that the only people who can even hope to READ all those ancient books, much less understand what the writers intended, are multi-lingual scholars of ancient languages, why does anyone assume ANY knowledge of the Bible or Koran? -- They are ALL just shooting in the dark, and all their words are spewed for purely manipulative purposes. -- Each only wants to influence others to his own purpose, not to any higher purpose. -- The scholars might know what the books say, but they are studying, not preaching. -- Those preaching have no clue, on the other hand. -- Just an observation. mz

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

No matter how wrong Hitchens may be about some things - or a lot of things - if he theorizes that evil is the product of human ideology and practice, and not a reflection of human nature, then he has the vast body of anthropological and sociological investigation in back of him. There is no human nature. With no instincts, human beings are unique in the animal world. Whereas other animals rely on their physical assets and instinct-based behavior, Homo sapiens must rely on socialization and enculturation to survive. We teach each other to hate and be violent.

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

"It is important to recognize that history’s worst persons were just as human as you and I."

It is important to recognize that evil people are those who are so far removed from humanity, they are effectively another species - which is why they do not engage with, nor relate to their supposedly fellow human beings, but instead regard them as objects to do as they please with them. GWB & Co., come to mind...

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

Its funny how America is held up (by so many westerners) as the epitome of western democracy - when its anything but!

When I look at America - and its Foreign Policy - I see the Christian Missionaries at work, i.e., the INSANE notion that they know what's best for the rest of the world. But that's always the way with people who don't even know what's right for themselves. In other words, Control Freaks are people who have no self control, but who are absolutely driven to control everyone else - with bombs, if necessary!

Yep, America is the place to be, if you are an out-of-control Christian!

The '9/11' attacks on America were nothing to what America has done and continues to do to the rest of the world.

Humanity is sick and tired of all this colonization of the Earth - on which all of life depends for its well-being and survival.

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

As a devout agnostic I found this particular comment a little bit mystifying: "Fundamentalist Atheism use[s] the spirit of agnosticism to foster intolerance and justify dominance over non-converts". So states the writer of this article.

Maybe there are intolerant agnostics around, though it would seem to be a difficult attitude to maintain, considering that agnosticism necessarily rests upon a firm foundation of doubt. But then, I suppose intolerant types can always manage that conundrum.

Neither atheists nor believers have a monopoly on intolerance or murderous criminality. But I have known may people on both sides of this question who are very fine human beings - intelligent, thoughtful and considerate of others who have different convictions.

I basically believe in "live and let live," as long as I am not directly and personally oppressed by behaviors springing from these beliefs. In that regard, I have to say that I currently feel more threatened by religious fanatics than I do by atheists simply because religion is immensely more powerful than atheism is in this country at this time.

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

The Ethical Society neither affirms nor denies a belief in God. Members are not committed to any theology or set metaphysics. The Ethical Society is nontheistic, neutral and humanist in emphasis. The affirmation or denial of theistic definition and faith is for each individual to make for himself or herself.

We come together in congregations called societies. There are various societies throughout the United States. I invite you to find out more about Ethical Culture.

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

FREEDOM OF RELIGION means that free people have the right to CHOOSE whatever religion they want or to choose no religion at all.

People who hate non-believers and people who hate believers (and I've met both) are bigoted and undemocratic, and should be called out for it.

Remember that repression of the religious by non religious states is part of our history and contemporary reality too. Think of the way that the secular Chinese government crushes Tibetan buddhism - are these crimes any better than the crimes committed in the name of religion? Religion cannot be blamed for all the world's atrocities.

Hedges is not criticisizing atheism, he is criticisizing fundamentalist or hateful atheism, just as he doesn't criticize Christianity on whole, but fundamentalist or hateful Christianity, and the same should be said for Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all the rest.

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

I'm an atheist and really do respect the opinions of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris on the subject of philosophy and logic.

However, when it comes to Hitchens, he just loses me. He can seem so logically with regard to religion and then turn around and claim that Obama was throwing his grandma under the bus and that there was a Saddam al Qaeda link prior to the Iraq war.

Until he can accept that he was wrong about the Iraq war I don't think his opinion about anything should garner any media attention.

Besides that he is extremely obnoxious. I'd take a Christian like Hedges over an atheist like Hitchens any day.

Hitchens is nothing more than an embarrassment to atheists everywhere.

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

It it to say "you do not."

You do not.

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

There are no "gods", there is no single, omnipotent being who (that) created heavens, Earth, creatures large, small, etc. in seven days, six days any days. Religion is power and control crap.Derivative, superstitious, can't-accept-mortality hogwash believed in by people of little philosophical intellect and basically a sheep's (herd) mentality. Get over yourselves you're not made in the image of a supernatural yahoo. Your supernatural yahoo has been made by you in your image.

Jesus Christ - get a fucking life!

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

There have been some well articulated comments here by Athiests and Agnostics. Still, as much as I tend to share in the critiques of religion's many associations with many terrible things, I have to play the devils advocate here.

Our choice may not be between rational human beings and irrational Christians, Muslims etc.. People are at all levels of functioning. Not all, but many people are in religion because it helps them get out of bed in the morning and have enough energy - from their beliefs and community support - to do their part for society to keep every body fed etc.. This group, I suspect, is large enough that we would not want to see them non-functional. We might all be starving.

Belief may be a necessary evil. A 'catch 22'. A necessary drug for many. [Even while being a drug of choice for many others, that can be, and is often, abused.]

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

Mr. Hedges uses the terms morality and belief again and again.
Belief has nothing to do with reality and morality has nothing to do with religion.
I don't care what a person believes, but when public policy about health issues , the environment are made based on ideologies instead of on empirical facts the problems do not get solved.
I like much of Hedges stuff but he is addressing only a few people who profess not to be religious.
Hedges is as unschooled in the world of empiricists as he proclaims the atheists of being.
Sam Harris is representitive of empiricists like John Hagee and Creflo Dollar is of christians.
Most empiricits don't care if people have a private and personal belief, it is the injection of their belief into science education and public policy that bothers us.
To accuse Dawkins of being ignorant of theology is strange. he has explored the actual writings of christians more than most American fundamentalists.

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

I think it was Nathanial Hawthorne who is credited with the quote, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Surly the next to the last refuge for a scoundrel is religion. Working our way backward to brute force and other forms of bullying, we also encounter the 'sales job'.

Having said all that; we all tend to condone these tactics when we think they are producing the outcomes we want. Consider, side be side, Rush Limbaugh and Nome Chompsky - or Chistopher Hitchens for that matter.

There is at base a competition of interests between individuals and groups. I think what confuses us most is that those interests are such a tangled mix of physical, social, and psychological needs.

I try to maintain my sanity with 'mind mapping'. It is the only thing that seems to immunize me from the need for selectively reinforced theories about how the world works. Just like a math problem with too many variable to do in your head; you have got to use pencil and paper.

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

I've met plenty of fundamentalist atheists and most of them are Progressives. The Left is, unfortunately, very anti-religion, though I find they make assumptions about religion that only apply to Abrahamic sects. You can't tell them that, though, and they are ANGRY people.

I just hope you don't take the beating you're about to take in these comments. Atheists are no more tolerant or forgiving than Christian extremists.

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