So, I've been thinking about it-and I'm probably going to get called names, but are these guys really necessary? Ex-Muslims (atheists/agnostics in general) seem to automatically ally with these hyped up assholes simply because they happen to call themselves atheists and denounce religion-in the case of Dawkins, he is also a scientist so I can understand the following there (although he is a biologist so his authority on science should be limited to biology). Hitchens is a classic example, I can think of three people who still support the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, three people and 2 corporations, Cheney, Bush, Hitchens. The former two are complicit and venal, what's Hitchens' excuse? He is basically a neo-con, I don't know about you but anyone who considers themselves left of centre already knows that neo-cons are scum of the earth. Harris is basically a soft spoken Robert Spencer/if he weren't famous he'd be on FFI writing articles. Dawkins....less of a problem, but he has a one track mind, he's obsessed with religion. Don't get me wrong, religion can be an issue, but there are far greater issues at play, faith/superstition problems need to be remedied, but not at the expense of the glaring issues...economy, politics, environnment, war, overpopulation, resources, geopolitics etc etc...it seems all three men (and many other aggressive atheists) are only concerned with religion as some sort of fetish of theirs.
I personally would much rather ally with a religious/semi-religious person like Chris Hedges (with whom I share political positions) than a neo-cunt like Hitchens (he may call himself a socialist-but we all know it's crap). I don't get why people insist on being part of an atheist/nontheist community, I can understand if you live in America, but in the UK and Europe there is no need, most people are non-religious, and it becomes as banal and trivial as whether you have a red car or whether your name is bob.
Sorry if there is already a topic on this.
And sorry for the rant.
Let the name calling and mud slinging begin (and I apologise in advance to any right wingers I'm going to offend)
They are necessary - someone has to say 'There's an elephant in the room'. Those of a religious persuasion have been trying to poo-poo atheism for as long as I can remember and sweep it under the carpet. Try sweeping an elephant under the carpet.
Most people need, nay must, be led by the nose to see what's on the end of it, I'm afraid. So the more people who are well qualified in some rational field or by dint having the power of persuasion, and common sense, and who tell it like it is, the better.
Since the religious insanes of this world would rather have a clean sweep of the popular megaphone and can't anymore, it grips them off no end and so they go in for character assassination and come up with stupid things like 'irreducible complexity' and 'intelligent design'. When some one well qualified to do so points out their threadbare back biting, it's great as far as I'm concerned because the criticisms of littler beings are sneered at by them now that they don't have the power to actually burn any one to death any more or torture them or threaten them into recanting obvious truths, except in the Islamic world of course.
What we need is a Perfect Storm of Dawkinses with a lot of hobnails from the Hitchenses. Long may they bitch about religion, or else how are the ordinary Joes like us going to know it's OK to disbelieve or criticise.