Is New Atheism Just A Front For Getting Americans To Support Wars In The Middle East?

Yeah, I know criticizing Islam ain't racist and all that, but I can't help but think people like Sam Harris are in on some plot to sway the American public's opinion on wars in The Middle East with "muh mediaeval ideology" talking points. I mean, it's one thing if you're an atheist, but another if you've got such a hate boner for Muslims that you take Israel's side when they break international law by invading land which ain't theirs cuz it's lived on by Arabs. I'm pretty sure Noam Chomsky's an atheist, but you don't see him singling out Islam to such an extreme like that. What's worse is that a lot of Burgers (surprise, surprise) and Americans that would think of themselves as pretty left-wing have got so caught up in this militant anti-Islam mindset that they actually take Israel's side over Palestine's and would prolly even back another war in the middle of the fucking desert if Islam itself was declared the new enemy like communism was during The Cold War.

Should I take my tinfoil hat off for a bit or am I right to suspect these patron saints of New Atheism of being neoconservative shills?

Noam Chomsky on Sam Harris:

alternet.org/noam-chomsky-versus-islamophobe-sam-harris-has-new-atheist-movement-been-hijacked-bigots

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ifpIw3EK7-A

Calling it a "front" for imperialism is taking it a bit too far. It's more like since they parrot the imperialist narrative they're rewarded with all this exposure

Obviously not

I think the MENA is really shitty nowadays, but it's like everyone has forgotten the secular countries that used to exist.

Either way New Atheism is proving to be quite an effective propaganda machine. Another 9/11 and the bloodlust of the American public will once again go into overdrive like it did before the invasion of Iraq. Burgers didn't even care bout if Saddam had anything to do with what happened in 2001. He was from The Middle East and that was all the justification they needed…

And of course America don't want nobody to know that secular leaders of The Islamic World have all but been wiped out by American backed "freedom fighters".

if its aimed to americans shouldnt he be a christian? they don't like atheists


this makes more sense tbh

humans vs orcs?

...

...

Islam is a shity religion. It should be destroyed. However you shouldn’t take Isreal’s side when there fighting Muslims.

Are you implying Hitchens was an anti-imperialist? Because he was an enthusiastic cheerleader for the Iraq War

Why not just contain the Arabs and let them have their caliphate?

Yeah, but fundamentalist Christians have been sort of a lolcow since the end of the Bush years and that's even by American standards.

Like Nazism Islam regards itself in a perpetual and eternal state of war with an outside group and will not rest until this group is terminated.

Feels bad man funny jay pegging here.

Is [bourgeois ideology] a way to advance [bourgeois class interest]?

The answer is always yes.

If you contain them they'll all terminate each other over sectarian differences. Like Trotskyists. Problem solved.

this. the irony of the "new" atheists is that they simply preach the status quo. they're part of the "intellectual class" that chomsky talks about, whose job is to reinforce and justify the actions of the ruling establishment

that's true. but hitchens was an antizionist, even to his death if memory serves, and even after finding out that he had jewish ancestry. he was a mixed bag

Opposition is Israel is literally virtue signaling, there is nothing to be done there and even if the US stopped all weapon exports Palestine still wouldn't be a thing.

That's not a true and a Holla Forums meme. The Ottomans didn't expand for the last 500 years of their existene or so. Iran has never started a war with anyone since becoming muslim.
The Israeli-Arab is self-defence in their mind, as were most terrorist attacks.

Um, what are you talking about? Ottoman Empire always wanted to expand until it lost power and we had a violent revolutions against it here in Balkans.

...

This. It's pretty telling that the majority of them promote a new kind of philisophical illiteracy, asking audiences to eschew critical thinking and accept their words as the uncritical truth, since they're "scientists." No need to question the establishment, because science™ has proven neoliberal democracy to be the most effective form of government. It's hilariously hypocritical.

recently I was thinking about this
The alt right is to the 10's what new atheism was to the 00's
both are ploys to get dumb kids to defend capitalist interested offering them the chance to look smart but they just come off as douches

they're not ploys, just internet fads, as are the sjw. the sjw have been existing for at least 30 years but were confined in academia until tumblr and twitter made spouting meaningless slogans easier.

what's really peculiar about the sjws is the tendency to tar and feather people. the other two groups never did any of that.

The aut-right has brigaded tons of people for triggering them (their most recent target was Colbert ironically enough.)

gee i wonder $$$who$$$ was behind this post

Seriously? There's doxxing and browbeating always going on in the alt-right.

do they try to have people fired? because I've never ever seen that.

you're excuse is that they lost? What kind of reasoning is that? If try to shot a man and miss, I'm hardly innocent

they parrot SJW talking points to attempt to fire people, mostly for a laugh. Like the fake klan attacks

It's hard to get people fired for triggering you when most people agree with them and not you. Meanwhile firing people for tweeting about "niggers" is common sense.

I have nothing against criticising religion. But the New Atheist/ muh clash of civilisations narrative that depicts 'Islam' as an monolithic evil force that's completely independent of economics or geopolitics doesn't really hold up to evidence. Just look at the current wars in the middle east, it's not a conflict between 'muslims' and 'infidels' but many conflicts, sectarian conflicts, ethnic conflicts, all fuelled by petrodollars and the meddling of competing imperial warmachines. The idea of 'Islam' as an exceptional evil, has obvious foreign policy implications. It takes the focus away from economic exploitation, shifting it on to 'Islam', a urgent threat that demands a strong militaristic security state at home and abroad. Ironically, interventionists end up siding with the most reactionary elements in 'islam'. The Saudi/US backed Salafists, about whom you are probably thinking about when you talk about 'Islam', DO NOT consider Shia and other minority sects fellow 'muslims'. There's usually a huge overlap between ethnic and sectarian conflict, remember, the troubles in Ireland weren't about doctrinal differences, but about the struggle for sovereignty.

It's not deceit as much as they are useful idiots.

I recently talked to boomer relatives about this and their comeback was the old "He was killing his own people."

Of the "new atheists"

Dan Dennett is a mediocre philosopher with little contribution of note. He seems like a nice guy though.

Dick Dawkins is a legitimate scientist who has made worthwhile contributions to the filed, mainly his idea of the extended phenotype, deconstruction the idea that it's specifically the organism itself that's a manifestation of the genome, extending the concept of phenotype outside the organism itself, e.g. to birds building nests. He's also done a fair bit of work as an educator and propagandist for science. He orignially came off as a twat because the only people who go up against him to discuss religion are the ones who are too stupid to realize how wrong they are, and there is no way to graciously tell someone they're a moron. Since then he's adopted the persona of being an inconsiderate asshole.

Christopher Hitchens is good at saying things in ways that sound nice but was always a cynical provocateur in the same vein as Milo Yabba-dabba-do. He's a traitor to the left who instead of lending his oration skills to a cause that needed them became an apologist for neocolonialism.

Sam Harris is a legitimate psychopath with a bullshit degree who likes to make sweeping absolutist statements about psychology. He has bought into the self-determination meme 200% (by which I mean he goes out of his way to ignore systems' effects on people's behavior) despite adamantly claiming that free will doesn't exist. He's an absolute charlatan who won't go anywhere near someone with a half-developed brain who disagrees with him because he'd get obliterated. Instead he says mean things to backwards idiots like Cenk Uygur.

Yea, glad it's over and I don't have to pay jizya anymore and have my children be stolen and turned into janissaries.

People have been fired for "dongle" jokes muttered under their breath in informal contexts.

Both parties ended up getting fired in that situation.

So? One of them was actually trying to get the other fired for no reason and got fired for making the company look unbelievably stupid.

I'm not defending the nigger-jewess. The point here is that the aut-right can't get anyone fired because what triggers them the most is considered basic decency by normies (i.e. disliking Trump, respecting gender identities even if they are a little fucking weird, not hating women due to ugliness and virginity, etc.)

Also don't conflate the aut-right with chan culture/anti-SJW culture.

it's a natural inevitability of secular capitalists looking at the rise of terrorism immaterially

is he actively trying to look like he belongs in a bond movie?

Zizek on Sam Harris:
youtube.com/watch?v=ifpIw3EK7-A

Probably.

Zizek gets it.