Exactly! Well stated.

Actually it’s the opposite. We wonder how people we respect and admire, and whom we know are smart, can believe such obviously childish delusions

1. I’m sick of the constant accusation that I’ve been brainwashed.

2. Your criticism of NAs is almost exactly the one I would have against the regressive left, although I don’t accuse them of being brainwashed. On the whole, their approach to religion is pretty much the same as NAs, except Islam. When it comes to Islam, any criticism tends to be shut down as either racism or Islamophobia. That is how we get the situation such as the one at Goldsmith U.

NAs aren’t some amorphous blob who all think the same thing, and you are the one who is stereotyping if you think that. We disagree with each other, and say so. Several people who comment here who are NAs disagree with each other, me, and with senior NAs like Harris, Coyne, Dawkins and Hitchens.

And, have you see the latest expose of CJ Werleman by Stephen Knight? http://www.gspellchecker.com/2016/01/cj-werleman-jokes-about-his-indonesian-servants-tries-to-smear-dawkins-for-colonialism/

Of course, NAs have been brainwashed so much that they are so irrational and cannot see the difference between speaking out against legitimate criticism of a religion and speaking out against incorrect criticism.

should read:

Of course, NAs have been brainwashed so much that they are so irrational and cannot see the difference between not speaking out against legitimate criticism of a religion and speaking out against incorrect criticism.

The problem with NAs is that they have been brainwashed to such an extent that their cognitive dissonance kicks in and they are unable to think rationally. What NAs hate more than anything else is rational arguments by liberals (and I mean true liberals, and not neocons like many NAs are), and so NAs start spreading lies that the Left doesn’t want Islam criticised and want to shut down any criticism about it.

Do you know that CJ Werleman even as recently as last year said on Twitter that Islam is sh*t? And last month he said religion is bad?

Of course, if NAs knew anything about the Left and liberalism, they they would be aware that the overwhelming of people on the Left have serious problems with religious fundamentalism and have spoken out against it for years.

So this is how it goes:
NAs: Make legitimate criticisms of religion, including Islam.
Left: Don’t say anything.
NAs: Make incorrect criticism of Islam.
Left: Speak out against it.
NAs: “REGRESSIVE LEFT!!!!!!”

Of course, NAs have been brainwashed so much that they are so irrational and cannot see the difference between speaking out against legitimate criticism of a religion and speaking out against incorrect criticism.
If someone says “The position of many schools of Sunni Islam that advocate FGM is appalling”, no one on the Left would say anything against it, in fact, they would AGREE.
If someone says “Islam is bad because it allows FGM”, people on the Left will speak out against it, because there are many schools of thought within Islam based on the Quran and Hadith that say FGM should be avoided. The Left’s response would be “actually, that isn’t actually correct, some interpretations of Islam have allowed FGM but some speak out against it.”
So the position of the Left here is very rational. However, many NAs hate this, because NAs are fundamentalists. They don’t want people to look at the complexities and nuances, no, fundamentalists have a very simple view of the world, and therefore, to the NA mind, if someone criticises a bigoted or incorrect view of Islam, they must be dismissed as trying to shut down criticism of Islam.

As far as I am aware, she has never advocated violence, and in fact has spoken against it.

Are you serious? She has said we are at war with Islam. All of Islam. And she has said we must defeat it. And she said we must use military means too to defeat it. War is violence. She is saying we need to declare war on all of Islam. This is a very inflammatory statement, and no one on the Left would actually tolerate such an inflammatory statement.

She is advocating violence – you do not need to say something explicitly to advocate it.

When it comes to Sisi, it’s more that he’s the best of two bad options, which I happen to agree with

This is amazing.
Under Morsi, a handful of people were imprisoned for insulting the President, but even these were released. Under Sisi, it is estimated that at least 10,000 people have been imprisoned.
Under Morsi, no political opposition party was banned. Under Sisi, a whole party has been banned.
Under Morsi, less than 100 people were killed. Even then, the majority of them were not the fault of Morsi – the “deep-state of Egypt (of which Sisi is a member) were still in control of security, and they were actually to blame for most of these deaths. Under Sisi, more than 1,000 civilians have been killed.
Under Morsi, people were allowed to demonstrate. Under Sisi, demonstrations have been banned.

And yet, somehow, you still think Sisi is better?!

And before you say “oh, 23 million people demonstrated against Morsi and so the coup was justified”, that is nonsense. I know these ridiculous figures were repeated ad nauseam in the West, from Tony Blair to the State Department to the media in the West and to NAs, but crowd analysts estimated the figure to be at around 2 million. Isn’t it funny how we are willing to believe figures made on the fly when it suits our agenda?

So here’s the difference between NAs and the Left.
NAs believe that even if A is committing many more abuses of human rights than B, than A is still better than B if A is secular and B believes in theocracy. The Left meanwhile believe that if B is committing much less abuses of human rights, then A is worse.
NAs will rather work with someone who commits mass violence against a theocrat. The Left meanwhile would rather work with the theocrat who isn’t committing mass violence, and will hope to bring change from within the society.

So that’s the difference – NAs want to “impose” their values onto others, whereas the Left believe that if someone’s values are intolerant, we shouldn’t impose our values on them but rather work with them to bring about change.

This is why most NAs are like neocons. I think most people do not understand what the term neocon actually means – they think neocons are Conservative Christians – actually, no, most neocons are actually quite liberal, they believe in things like gay marriage and abortion, they just think that the secular, democratic, free market system of the West is the best, and if anyone doesn’t believe in these values, then they are inferior and violence can be justified against them.

Anyway, I am done, 50 years from now I can bet that 99.9% of young people would not have heard of any of the NAs, these guys are not intellectual giants, and they will be forgotten, and NA as we know it today will be confined to the bin and the overwhelming majority of atheists would be arguing for a better society based on rationality, tolerance and pluralism, and not on lies, fear and irrationality, so I don’t really want to waste my time debating NAs. I will however pop in here from time to time because I do think you are a good person, and I am sure you will one day leave NA and move onto Atheist Left such as PZ Myers.

All the best.

I’ve never said Hirsi hasn’t done anything bad. I think I’ve even said in this thread I find some of her comments extreme. I’ve acknowledged previously in comments in a much earlier post that there are some difficulties with Hirsi Ali’s back story. I haven’t fallen for her story – I am quite aware of all the things you mention. Some of them, in the situation she was in, I understand why she lied. The 70% one – she fu*ked up completely there, and I think I remember her admitting somewhere that she got it wrong when she first talked about it, although it’s possible of course that I’m not remembering correctly – I might even be remembering someone else saying what she should have said! I’m not here to be an apologist for her, I just think she’s entitled to her opinion, and again it’s the hypocrisy I had a problem with in the issues surrounding her and Brandeis, which I explained several times at the time.

When it comes to Sisi, it’s more that he’s the best of two bad options, which I happen to agree with. He is not a good leader, and there is much about what he’s done that is appalling. I in no way condone any killing. As far as I know, Hirsi Ali hasn’t praised his killing of Islamist women, and if she did, I would definitely criticize her for that. I think my analogy stands.

As far as I am aware, she has never advocated violence, and in fact has spoken against it. She’s entitled to her opinion, and to voice it, just like anyone else. There is a double standard – when it’s Islam that’s being criticized, people try and shut the criticism down. She is not responsible if others become violent as long as she has not encouraged it. There are Muslim groups trying to make criticism of Islam illegal worldwide. They are constantly trying to get a resolution passed in the UN. It’s simply not on. No idea should be immune from criticism. People can’t go around blaming others when they can’t control themselves, or are incapable of making an argument for their own point of view, so they get violent instead. It’s on them, not Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or anyone else who hasn’t actually advocated violence.

Thanks! I will pop in from time to time, but this may be the final year before I decide to settle down, and so I think I will spend as much of my spare time from the computer as possible, I do after all spend a LOT of time on it doing work.

Ok, so you agree that people should be denied honourary degrees if they lie. Well, Ayaan is a liar – it’s a FACT!

Here is her lie: “If you look at 70 percent of the violence in the world today, Muslims are responsible”. When it was pointed out to her that it is wrong, she did not retract the statement. She did not issue a correction. She did in future change it to: “at least 70% of all the fatalities in armed conflicts around the world last year were in wars involving Muslims”.

Now people can make mistakes, and she isn’t very intelligent, so I am willing to accept she got confused and said the wrong thing. However, if you are an honest individual, when your factual error is pointed out to you, you apologise and correct. She did no such thing. Therefore, she is disingenuous.

Furthermore, she LIED that she fled war-torn Somalia, when in fact she was living in Kenya. In fact, she has NEVER lived through a war.

She LIED about the year she was born in and admitted she lied when confronted.

She LIED about her real name and admitted she lied when confronted.

Did you actually even bother to read the article I cited? Watch the documentary linked in that article, there are very serious doubts as to Ayaan’s story that she was “forced” to marry and that she would have been killed and have you what.

You however believe her story hook, line, and sinker. Any rational person would say “hey, hang on a second, this woman has a record of lying, she has been caught out lying many times, therefore, I must take the rest of what she says with caution unless she can provide evidence for her claims”. But most New Atheists aren’t rational, most NAs are fundamentalists, and fundamentalists will believe anything that fits their agenda.

Anyway, even if you pretend for the sake of argument that she isn’t a LIAR – it still doesn’t mean that people cannot have legitimate claims of not wanting her to be awarded an honourary degree.

So to answer your question:

What is it about the values and ideas that Hirsi Ali expresses here, and that I share, do New Atheist opponents have such a problem with?

The answer is really very simple and I have no idea why NAs have difficulty understanding it (well, actually, I do, it’s because NAs are fundamentalists and fundamentalism breeds irrationality). The “regressive left” don’t have a problem with her campaigning against FGM, or forced marriages, or domestic violence, or honour killings – no, we actually ALSO campaign against these things. We also don’t have a problem with some of her criticism of Islam because Islam, like every other religion, can be criticised. We have a problem because some of her views on Islam are extremely bigoted (we need to defeat Islam militarily, and not just radical Islam), and she is very closely aligned with neocons and Islamophobes like Pamela Geller. So, please, stop this nonsense that Ayaan is a great woman who hasn’t said anything bad and you have no idea why anyone could possibly not like her.

Saying she’s not speaking up for women who are Islamists is exactly the same crap …

Actually, no. Many Islamist women were murdered by Sisi – yet Ayaan hasn’t spoken out against that, and instead she PRAISES Sisi. So, I am sorry, your analogy simple doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Words are not said in a vacuum, and Ayaan’s words promote violence and war against Islamists, and that includes Islamist women.

Thanks for the New Year wishes. 🙂 Happy New Year to you too. I hope you have a good one, and keep visiting the blog.

I think there is a big difference between the cases you highlight. It’s not Dawkins’ opinion that Stein is a liar – it’s fact. Hirsi Ali is expressing her opinion.

Being a racist and acting on your racist beliefs using violence are both bad, but it’s worse to kill someone because they are black than to call them names. However, being racist is an irrational position. People with different coloured skins are in no way better or worse because of it, and it’s something they are born with and cannot change. It’s the same with gender (mostly) and sexuality.

Religion is different. Religion is a set of beliefs. Although people are usually identified with the religion of their parents, as a child you can’t really make that choice, and it should be a choice that you make freely as an adult. Islam forbids even the choice in some countries where apostasy is a death penalty offence, which you know as well as I do. To kill someone for failing to believe is indefensible imo.

Speaking out against those who practise an extreme form of Islam is no different to speaking out against those who practise extreme forms of Christianity. I have a right to express my opinion about those things. For example, I don’t have a problem with all Christians – just the anti-LGBT ones ones. Same with Muslims.

Saying she’s not speaking up for women who are Islamists is exactly the same crap I hear on Fox News every other day about Democrats not speaking up for women who are conservatives because they criticize Sarah Palin. To me that’s a ridiculous argument. At the extremes, it’s like being expected to support Jeffrey Dahmer because he’s gay.

I have a set of principles. I stick to those.

But to diminish their intelligence and accomplishments is, imo, barking up the wrong tree. Each of the four horseman has made a serious contribution to the intellectual life of our time.

No they haven’t.

Anyway, first of all, there are different types of intelligence. One can be very good at one type, and poor at another type. Does this make the person intelligent or not?

I have scored in the top 1% in the past in numerical and logical reasoning tests I have had to do – yet when it comes to verbal reasoning, I score in the top 10%, and when it comes to spatial reasoning, I score in only the top 30% or so. I think it would be impossible for me to even get in the top 5% in spatial reasoning, I am just not good at it. So there is clearly a huge difference in my intelligence when it comes to different types, so talking about intelligence as a whole is actually quite meaningless.

Secondly, the kind of things we measure when we think about intelligence are heavily biased towards us Westerners. For example, working out how people are feeling by looking at their facial expressions and body language – this is a form of intelligence too. So is hearing a sound and being able to know which direction it came from. I would guess that people from African tribes are better than us at these things.

Anyway, when it comes to things like science, religion, philosophy, it is mainly logical reasoning that is of importance (and numerical reasoning for some types of sciences), so when discussing people like “The Four Horsemen” (gosh, how childish does that even sound?), it is these types of intelligence that I am concerned with, and, yes, I stand by what I have said – there is no evidence that any of these guys are really intelligent. Zilch. None. Whatsoever.

Really intelligent is 0.1%. That means, you are in the top 6 million intelligent people in the world.
Top 1% isn’t really intelligent. Top 1% means you are in the top 60 million people in the world.
Top 5% – that means you are in the top 300 million people in the world.

Now here is the thing – I have studied with people and know people who went to Oxbridge, who I wouldn’t even put in the top 5%. I would say they are in the top 10% but got to study at the best universities in the world because of their hard work and privilege. There was a guy who I studied with who has ended up with a PhD from one of the best universities in the world who was probably not even in the top 10% – he would really struggle in group exercises, and only managed to get a 1st because he had an older brother who helped him in his revision and dissertation.

Top 10% = top 600 million people in the world – nothing special at all.

So, yeah, you are wrong to suggest that Dawkins and his groupies are really intelligent people. They might be, but nothing they have achieved suggests that they are, and the way things normally work is that you do not make claims unless you have proof. Therefore, it is very possible that these guys are only in the top 10% or so, which means, they are in the top 600 million people in the world, which makes them anything but special – however, human beings like to look up to others, and just like religious people make their teachers into things they are not (prophets, saints etc), NAs make Dawkins et al into something there is no evidence they are – really intelligent.

It is 2016 in NZ, so let me start off by saying HNY!

Unfortunately, the rest of this message will be pretty harsh!

Actually that’s not my position. I would support their position on race equality but not on women.

You are not answering my question. You are evading. Why?

I did not ask will you support their position on race equality – I asked if you would support them as a person?

Would you like to see them be given an honourary degree? Would you be happy if they were made a Prime Minister of New Zealand?

The answer is – no, I doubt you would. You would not want a misogynist who says we are at war with Feminism and that Feminism must be defeated, and even violence can be used to defeat it, to be given an honourary degree at a university where you are a student. You would probably not want this person to be given a platform at your university to speak about women.

This is no different to how those on the Left feel about Ayaan. Yes, if Ayaan does some work to help Muslim women, then that is great. If Ayaan starts a charity to help Muslim women, then that is great. She will get praised for it.

So why is it that when the Left do not like someone because of their views, they are regressive, but when New Atheists don’t, it’s ok.

Here is Richard Dawkins and his letter to Ben Fogle about the decision to invite Ben Stein to give the commencement speech and an honourary degree.

http://chimprefuge.com/2009/01/31/richard_dawkins_letter_the_uvm/

So Dawkins believes that if someone is an “odious liar” then they should not be given an honourary degree. Well, we on the Left think someone who is a neo-con who is advocating war against a whole religion shouldn’t be given an honourary degree either – especially as they have a record of lying too.
So if you’re going to call the Left “regressive” for disliking Ayaan, then be consistent, and call Pope Dawkins (as Glenn Greenwald like to say) regressive too.

You are doing exactly what you accuse me of. You damn all sorts of people because of one position.

Your argument makes no sense. So say I am the Prime Minister of New Zealand. I bring equal rights for gays. I get rid of poverty. I provide free health care for everyone. I set up foundations to help women who are victims of domestic violence. And then I say “black people are bad for this country, we need to deport them all, and if I am re-elected as Prime Minister, I will take whatever measures necessary, including militarily, to achieve this”.
Now would you vote for me or would you not? Of course you wouldn’t – because that one position is so evil, that it is simply unacceptable.

Of course, fascism isn’t acceptable to NAs and to say it is, is to misrepresent their views.

Wait – you keep telling me that NAs are not all the same (and I actually agree with you), and yet here you are telling me that fascism isn’t acceptable to NAs! But I thought they were not all the same! Therefore, just because it isn’t acceptable to some, it doesn’t mean it isn’t acceptable to all! Make your mind up.

Of course, the reality is, NAs aren’t all the same, but there exist, judging from what one reads on social media, significant numbers of NAs who are happy to resort to violence against religious people and whose view is very fascist-like.

Hirsi Ali is very anti-Islamic, and with her life experiences I’m not surprised.

You mean life experiences which she made up?

http://www.alternet.org/media/anti-islam-author-ayaan-hirsi-alis-latest-deception

However, she is not anti-Muslim, which is what you’re implying.

I have implied nothing of the sort.

You are the one who constantly conflates NAs with neocons. NAs themselves do not have anti-Muslim views you accuse us of.

Oh – and again!

This is why New Atheism is like a cult – only in a cult could someone make statements like the above where the whole group is presented in a “good”, homogeneous-like manner.

Personally I find it offensive that the feminist and LGBTQ+ groups at Goldsmith U sided with the Muslim brothers against Maryam Namazie. They don’t like her because she’s an atheist former Muslim who speaks up for Muslim women, LGBT Muslims and former Muslims (among other people and things). The Muslim brothers at Goldsmith U do not support equal rights for those same groups.

LOL@Speaks up for Muslim women – apart from the Muslim women who are Islamists.

You probably got all your information on that Goldsmith incident from GDSpellchecker – who seems to be crying that his comment got deleted from a Facebook page, yet this is the same guy who wouldn’t allow my comments on his blog! Got to love New Atheists, so many of them seem to love freedom of expression – but only when it comes to expressing their views! They’re more than happy to stifle freedom of expression when you expose their incorrect logic and outright lies 😀

BTW, I find the whole episode disgraceful, and Namazie should be allowed to speak on campus. But let’s be clear, those groups were not against her because of all that nonsense you claim, it is because she is inflammatory and has used language such as Islam is a cult of death.

Personally I have a deep respect for Nawaz, but even if you haven’t, you can at least admit he’s honest.

I don’t know him, so how can I admit he is honest. I actually think he isn’t a Muslim, that he is now an atheist, so that makes him dishonest, and not honest. However, I am willing to accept that he might be pretending to be Muslim because of fear of his own safety.
I don’t know the guy, to me he seems to be an opportunist who knows there is a huge market for the role he is playing, but then again, he might well be a genuine individual who genuinely wants Muslims to take on less fundamentalist opinions.

Anyway, one of my resolutions for 2016 is to make the most of my time, as time is precious, and I think there are much more enjoyable and meaningful things in life to do than debate with NAs (even though there are some nice ones like you), so I will probably only visit your blog once a month or so, so I would like to take this opportunity to wish you a great 2016.