I don't think it's worthwhile to review Hitchens. On "moral equivalence," to my knowledge the concept was concocted, or at least popularized, by Jeane Kirkpatrick, as a way of slandering anyone who dared to raise some objections to the murderous terrorist wars that she was helping to implement as Reagan's Secretary of State, and as an apologist for state terror and repression. It's a term of vulgar propaganda, which should be dismissed with contempt. The same is true of the analogies of the kind you mention.

I haven't been thrilled by the atheist movement. First, who is the audience? Is it religious extremists? Say right-wing evangelical Christians like George Bush (as you rightly point out)? Or is it very prominent Rabbis in Israel who call for visiting the judgment of Amalek on all Palestinians (total destruction, down to their animals)? Or is it the radical Islamic fundamentalists who have been Washington's most valued allies in the Middle East for 75 years (note that Bush's current trip to the Middle East celebrates two events: the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, and the 75th anniversary of establishment of US-Saudi relations, each of which merits more comment)? If those are the intended audiences, the effort is plainly a waste of time. Is the audience atheists? Again a waste of time. Is it the grieving mother who consoles herself by thinking that she will see her dying child again in heaven? If so, only the most morally depraved will deliver solemn lectures to her about the falsity of her beliefs. Is it those who have religious affiliations and beliefs, but don't have to be reminded of what they knew as teenagers about the genocidal character of the Bible, the fact that biblical accounts are not literal truths, or that religion has often been the banner under which hideous crimes were carried out (the Crusades, for example)? Plainly not. The message is old hat, and irrelevant, at least for those whose religious affiliations are a way of finding some sort of community and mutual support in an atomized society lacking social bonds. Who, in fact, is the audience?

Furthermore, if it is to be even minimally serious, the "new atheism" should focus its concerns on the virulent secular religions of state worship, so well exemplified by those who laud huge atrocities like the invasion of Iraq, or cannot comprehend why they might have some concern when their own state, with their support, carries out some of its minor peccadilloes, like killing probably tens of thousands of poor Africans by destroying their main source of pharmaceutical supplies on a whim -- arguably more morally depraved than intentional killing, for reasons I've discussed elsewhere. In brief, to be minimally serious the "new atheism" should begin by looking in the mirror.

Without going on, I haven't found it thrilling, though condemnation of dangerous beliefs and great crimes is always in order.

NC

http://www.myspace.com/chomsky/blog/395413368

BY the way Chomsky is an atheist!

Vedaxcool, you are as silly as this post^^^.

Talk about strawmen!!

Wetin concern atheism and America's invasion of iraq and cut-throat capitalism?

^
Cry to your fellow atheism Noam chomsky! Abi u get sense pass am?

Logicboy03: Vedaxcool, you are as silly as this post^^^.

Talk about strawmen!!

Wetin concern atheism and America's invasion of iraq and cut-throat capitalism?

Lol, somebody calmly started his own thread. Another guy jumped in and shouted straw man! Which argument precisely is vedaxcool's post strawmanning? he doesn't know. He thinks that by merely shouting strawman, he has said something intelligent. Lolol, these village atheists no go kill person for here.

Mr anony:
Lol, somebody calmly started his own thread. Another guy jumped in and shouted straw man! Which argument precisely is vedaxcool's post strawmanning? he doesn't know. He thinks that by merely shouting strawman, he has said something intelligent. Lolol, these village atheists no go kill person for here.

Unlike you, I am very confident in my intelligence, I dont have to say things to sound intelligent. You are projecting the way you think unto me...


On topic, Chomsky gave a straw man argument to for his own original statement.

-I havent been thrilled by the new atheist movement
-Iraq War, America's wrong doing in Africa

How does America's wrongdoing relate to criticism of atheism?

Logicboy03:

Unlike you, I am very confident in my intelligence, I dont have to say things to sound intelligent. You are projecting the way you think unto me...


On topic, Chomsky gave a straw man argument to for his own original statement.

-I havent been thrilled by the new atheist movement
-Iraq War, America's wrong doing in Africa

How does America's wrongdoing relate to criticism of atheism?

You are just biting yourself for nothing. Chomsky only gave his opinion about the New Atheists and why he found the movement unnecessary. He wasn't responding to any argument or arguing against any position. You on the other hand filled with religious zeal felt the need to jump in and defend your "non-belief". Careful man, your atheism is slowly sliding into bigotry

Mr anony:
You are just biting yourself for nothing. Chomsky only gave his opinion about the New Atheists and why he found the movement unnecessary. He wasn't responding to any argument or arguing against any position. You on the other hand filled with religious zeal felt the need to jump in and defend your "non-belief". Careful man, your atheism is slowly sliding into bigotry

A guy strawmanned his own position.....simple and short.....you were the one that jumped the gun and now you need to claim that I am a bigot to prove your empty barrel of a point.

loser

Logicboy03:

A guy strawmanned his own position.....simple and short.....you were the one that jumped the gun and now you need to claim that I am a bigot to prove your empty barrel of a point.

loser

Lolol, you are one funny dude

Mr anony:
Lolol, you are one funny dude

smh

vedaxcool:
. . . .

I haven't been thrilled by the atheist movement. First, who is the audience? Is it religious extremists? Say right-wing evangelical Christians like George Bush (as you rightly point out)? Or is it very prominent Rabbis in Israel who call for visiting the judgment of Amalek on all Palestinians (total destruction, down to their animals)? Or is it the radical Islamic fundamentalists who have been Washington's most valued allies in the Middle East for 75 years (note that Bush's current trip to the Middle East celebrates two events: the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, and the 75th anniversary of establishment of US-Saudi relations, each of which merits more comment)? If those are the intended audiences, the effort is plainly a waste of time. Is the audience atheists? Again a waste of time. Is it the grieving mother who consoles herself by thinking that she will see her dying child again in heaven? If so, only the most morally depraved will deliver solemn lectures to her about the falsity of her beliefs. Is it those who have religious affiliations and beliefs, but don't have to be reminded of what they knew as teenagers about the genocidal character of the Bible, the fact that biblical accounts are not literal truths, or that religion has often been the banner under which hideous crimes were carried out (the Crusades, for example)? Plainly not. The message is old hat, and irrelevant, at least for those whose religious affiliations are a way of finding some sort of community and mutual support in an atomized society lacking social bonds. Who, in fact, is the audience?

. . . .

Without going on, I haven't found it thrilling, though condemnation of dangerous beliefs and great crimes is always in order.

NC

http://www.myspace.com/chomsky/blog/395413368

My main problem with this post is its banality.

For some reason, he gives reasons why it is a waste of time to show these ideas to believers but no reason why it is a waste of time to non-believers. Then he of course ignores the fact that most religious believers actually believe that their doctrines are true. What he of course ignores is that their message is one of avoiding magical thinking, avoiding false beliefs and presenting reasons why it is okay not to believe in Gods. Of course he already doesn't believe, has anyone asked him why he doesn't believe? And why he thinks it is fine for others to believe so strongly and waste so much resources in having false beliefs? If he doesn't want to do it, that's fine. After all, he too believes that people should avoid such poor beliefs but it doesn't mean that others shouldn't share their knowledge of the world and the fact that a God simply isn't needed.

But of course vedaxcool who posted it here won't be able to defend or critique it.

thehomer:

My main problem with this post is its banality.

For some reason, he gives reasons why it is a waste of time to show these ideas to believers but no reason why it is a waste of time to non-believers. Then he of course ignores the fact that most religious believers actually believe that their doctrines are true. What he of course ignores is that their message is one of avoiding magical thinking, avoiding false beliefs and presenting reasons why it is okay not to believe in Gods. Of course he already doesn't believe, has anyone asked him why he doesn't believe? And why he thinks it is fine for others to believe so strongly and waste so much resources in having false beliefs? If he doesn't want to do it, that's fine. After all, he too believes that people should avoid such poor beliefs but it doesn't mean that others shouldn't share their knowledge of the world and the fact that a God simply isn't needed.

But of course vedaxcool who posted it here won't be able to defend or critique it.

Thanks...well said

thehomer:

My main problem with this post is its banality.

For some reason, he gives reasons why it is a waste of time to show these ideas to believers but no reason why it is a waste of time to non-believers. Then he of course ignores the fact that most religious believers actually believe that their doctrines are true. What he of course ignores is that their message is one of avoiding magical thinking, avoiding false beliefs and presenting reasons why it is okay not to believe in Gods. Of course he already doesn't believe, has anyone asked him why he doesn't believe? And why he thinks it is fine for others to believe so strongly and waste so much resources in having false beliefs? If he doesn't want to do it, that's fine. After all, he too believes that people should avoid such poor beliefs but it doesn't mean that others shouldn't share their knowledge of the world and the fact that a God simply isn't needed.

But of course vedaxcool who posted it here won't be able to defend or critique it.

Your post assumes that Chomsky's atheism (or atheism in general) is a true belief. Care to defend how you know that atheism is true?
Start with telling us the definition of truth and how to identify truth and then explain how atheism fits this definition.

Of course you are not like vedaxcool who won't defend or critique his position.

Mr anony:
Your post assumes that Chomsky's atheism (or atheism in general) is a true belief. Care to defend how you know that atheism is true?
Start with telling us the definition of truth and how to identify truth and then explain how atheism fits this definition.

Of course you are not like vedaxcool who won't defend or critique his position.

False. Straw man No where is that assumption made or implied.

Please quote and bold the part where it is implied in The Homer's comment.



Also, atheism is not a bleief.

Mr anony:
Your post assumes that Chomsky's atheism (or atheism in general) is a true belief. Care to defend how you know that atheism is true?
Start with telling us the definition of truth and how to identify truth and then explain how atheism fits this definition.

Of course you are not like vedaxcool who won't defend or critique his position.

True: Conforming to the actual state of reality or fact; factually correct.
Assessed by how well your beliefs correspond with reality.

Do you agree with these two statements?

Now, as Chomsky wonders, what is a God? Since that is what theism is based on. My explanation of course depends on what a God is.

Logicboy03:
False. Straw man No where is that assumption made or implied.

Please quote and bold the part where it is implied in The Homer's comment.

I don't think thehomer will agree with you there.

Also, atheism is not a bleief.

Yeah right

thehomer:

True: Conforming to the actual state of reality or fact; factually correct.
Assessed by how well your beliefs correspond with reality.

Do you agree with these two statements?

I agree. Step 2 how does atheism fit the above definitions. Is atheism true?

Now, as Chomsky wonders, what is a God? Since that is what theism is based on. My explanation of course depends on what a God is.

Since you already hold that a belief in God is a false belief, I'll let you define what God is.

Mr anony:
I don't think thehomer will agree with you there.

Really? I asked you to prove it by quoting the comment

Logicboy03:


Really? I asked you to prove it by quoting the comment

It is right there in bold red

Mr anony:
I agree. Step 2 how does atheism fit the above definitions. Is atheism true?


Since you already hold that a belief in God is a false belief, I'll let you define what God is.

God: The (personification of the) laws of nature.

God is only a figure of speech.

Mr anony:
I don't think thehomer will agree with you there.

Actually, I do agree with him there. The false beliefs aren't necessarily about God, but in Christianity, there are beliefs like snakes talking, Jonah living in a fish etc.

Don't mistake my decision to engage you here as agreeing with what you said.

Mr anony:
Yeah right

It is a non-belief.

Mr anony:
It is right there in bold red

God isn't the only belief that people hold.

thehomer:

God: The (personification of the) laws of nature.

God is only a figure of speech.

Well, the "God" you defined is not how theists define God. In order to say that theists have a false belief, you should first be able to properly represent what theists mean by God.

thehomer:
Actually, I do agree with him there. The false beliefs aren't necessarily about God, but in Christianity, there are beliefs like snakes talking, Jonah living in a fish etc.

Don't mistake my decision to engage you here as agreeing with what you said.

Interesting. So your post doesn't imply that belief in God is false?

It is a non-belief.

Lol, yeah right. I also subscribe to the non-belief in the absence of God.

thehomer: God isn't the only belief that people hold.

The important question is whether you think the belief in God is false

I can always rely on the-homer to put Anony in his place

Mr anony:
Well, the "God" you defined is not how theists define God. In order to say that theists have a false belief, you should first be able to properly represent what theists mean by God.

Since I'm not a theist, why don't you tell me?

Mr anony:
Interesting. So your post doesn't imply that belief in God is false?

That's one among many other beliefs.

Mr anony:
Lol, yeah right. I also subscribe to the non-belief in the absence of God.

You'll be better off presenting it as a belief in the presence of God.

Mr anony:
The important question is whether you think the belief in God is false

I just answered this.

Logicboy03: I can always rely on the-homer to put Anony in his place

You know me too well.

thehomer: Since I'm not a theist, why don't you tell me?

Of course I will. Theists don't believe God to be a personification of nature's laws rather as one who created the physical universe and also defines the laws of nature themselves.

That's one among many other beliefs.

This does not answer my question. Do you hold that the belief in God is false? Yes or No

You'll be better off presenting it as a belief in the presence of God.

As you would be better of presenting atheism as the belief in the absence of God

I just answered this.

You didn't

Logicboy03: I can always rely on the-homer to put Anony in his place

thehomer: You know me too well.

It is always amusing to watch you two pat yourselves on the back especially after really doing nothing

Mr anony:

It is always amusing to watch you two pat yourselves on the back especially after really doing nothing

Promise me one thing Anony-

You must stay on nairaland as long as possible.....I seriously enjoy your anonyism....my day isnt complete without laughter from your sophistry

Mr anony:
Of course I will. Theists don't believe God to be a personification of nature's laws rather as one who created the physical universe and also defines the laws of nature themselves.

How do they know that it was a person and not just a natural processes?

Mr anony:
This does not answer my question. Do you hold that the belief in God is false? Yes or No

Asked and answered.

thehomer:
God is only a figure of speech.

In other words, it is as true as the Grim Reaper. If the belief in the Grim Reaper is true, then belief in God is true. If the belief in the Grim Reaper is false, then the belief in God is false. So, is belief in the Grim reaper true or false?

Mr anony:
As you would be better of presenting atheism as the belief in the absence of God

That of course depends on what God is. Since it is a figure of speech, I see no reason to believe in it as an active person and not in the Grim Reaper.

Mr anony:
You didn't

thehomer:
God is only a figure of speech.

thehomer: How do they know that it was a person and not just a natural processes?

Because it is self contradictory to say that natural processes brought natural laws into being. Secondly because the laws of nature do not exist out of necessity, They can be said to be brought into existence by the creator's choice.

Asked and answered.



In other words, it is as true as the Grim Reaper. If the belief in the Grim Reaper is true, then belief in God is true. If the belief in the Grim Reaper is false, then the belief in God is false. So, is belief in the Grim reaper true or false?



That of course depends on what God is. Since it is a figure of speech, I see no reason to believe in it as an active person and not in the Grim Reaper.

God is only a figure of speech.

In that case, you have presented and argued against a straw man of what theists believe.

Mr anony:
Because it is self contradictory to say that natural processes brought natural laws into being. Secondly because the laws of nature do not exist out of necessity, They can be said to be brought into existence by the creator's choice.

You have things backwards. Natural laws are our representation of the processes. How do you know the laws of nature can physically be different?

Mr anony:
In that case, you have presented and argued against a straw man of what theists believe.

Still haven't learned how to demonstrate logical fallacies have you?

You'll have to show that what theists refer to as a person isn't really just these natural processes. Since as we know, theists have often and still confuse the natural process of dying as coming from someone, lightning as coming from someone, diseases as coming from someone what makes you think they're not making the same mistake?