4 thoughts on ““Both of these belief systems are self-delusional.”

  1. Chris Hedges is a moron. He is the one who invented the term “Fundamentalist Atheist” because he is incapable of identifying with anything unless it can be described as a system of faith. That’s the only thing he understands and I resent my position in this world being represented as faith for the sake of brainwashed clods who can’t think for themselves.

    What? Not adamant enough?


  2. Oh, gee, mattt with three tees. Look at that. You have managed to attract bi-partisanship. ;-)

    What I took from Hedges’ talk was his resistance to the ole white man’s burden, frankly. I’m not sure I would use the same language he does, but he is not wrong to detect in privileged North Americans a smug insensitivity to radically different cultures, and he is not wrong to fear that smug rationalists may become murderous. They may; they have.


  3. skdadl: Nor is he wrong to call out Harris and Hedges; both have proven to be unabashed apologists for Islamophobia and torture (insert Bell Waring ticking time bomb smack down here). I haven’t read Hitch’s tome (nor do I have any desire to do so–his turgid prose is enough to make me hate the English language), but I have read The End of Faith and found there were way too many passages that would make even Ann Coulter blush (plus, that shit at the end about how Buddhism isn’t really a religion, and therefore A-ok kinda undercut his entire point re: shark-jumping belief systems).

    Sorry, but this (small-‘A’) atheist refuses to count those who use secular war paint to camouflage bigotry and imperialism as teammates.

    Also, what lenin (the bloggy one who isn’t dead) said:

    The trouble with the professional atheists or anti-theists these days is, apart from everything else that is bad and reductionist and ridiculous in what they write, that their apparently passionate commitment comes too cheap. It doesn’t require that they give anything up, change anything about themselves, or challenge anything fundamental about the society. They don’t have to engage in any analysis deeper than that which finds religious doctrine to be literally false, philosophically shallow, socially repressive and politically dangerous. Big deal. It never seems to have occurred to them that there might be more radical consequences of the absence centre of ontology than that you should support the teaching of evolution, not kill people for God, and support the right of knocked up teenagers to have abortions. Actually, there is nothing there but the regurgitation of bourgeois wisdom and morality, both of which are pretty contemptible.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s